Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Book Review:

Expand Messages
  • thekoba@aztecfreenet.org
    I had previously posted an excerpt from
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 6, 2004
      I had previously posted an excerpt from <Hitler's
      Second Book: The Unpublished Sequel to Mein
      Kampf> by Adolf Hitler. I would like to review this
      book at greater length, as it is far less known to
      the public than his earlier published work <Mein
      Kampf>. The manuscript, unpublished in Hitler's
      lifetime, is in the archives of captured German
      records in Alexandria, Virginia, and this work was
      not "discovered" until 1958. It is believed to have
      been written in or about 1928. It was obviously not
      intended to be the final work, as there are some
      statistics that were left out, presumedly so that
      Hitler or some assistant could look them up later
      to back up the points he was trying to make. These
      include such minutiae as the German population of
      the South Tyrol, how many Germans were expelled from
      Alsace-Lorraine, how many square kilometres of
      territory the post-Versailles Austria had, etc.
      The editor of the published edition, Gerhard L.
      Weinberg, a German Jew who experienced Germany in
      the 1930s as a child, and therefore has obvious
      biases, has added numerous footnotes and bracketed
      implied text and many times the bracketed [sic] to
      indicate actual or perceived errors (so often that
      it is distracting to the reader). With an editor of
      this kind, there is always the nagging question of
      whether the text has, in fact, been translated and
      transcribed accurately and faithfully, but David
      Irving, whose personal biases run the other way and
      who is fluent in German, has examined the work and
      the archived version and is so satisfied with it that
      he is selling copies (he sold one to me when he was
      in Phoenix on 6 December). Irving is also an expert
      at detecting forged documents, as he revealed that
      alleged Hitler diaries were fakes in 1983. Weinberg's
      lengthy introduction need not concern us, as it is the
      usual bleating of those kind of people. Suffice it
      to say his motivation was to expose Hitler's
      expansionist policies that eventually were to include
      Germany taking on the USA.

      Although I would like to make an objective and
      scholarly analysis of this work, I would first like
      to share how it affected me emotionally so as to
      reveal my own biases. From my perspective as a
      Marxist and internationalist, I was truly depressed
      by the clear implication of this book that there
      could never been any real solidarity among peoples,
      only alliances of mutual convenience and the overall
      thesis that history has been and must continue to be
      a struggle among nations in which the strong
      overcome the weak. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
      had as their central thesis that the history of all
      hitherto existing societies has been a history of
      class struggles, but their thesis also offered hope
      that with the triumph of the proletariat a classless
      society would emerge and humanity would have a
      peaceful existence at last. Adolf Hitler's thesis
      of national struggle offers only the hope of a world
      in which one nation has triumphed over all others and
      dominates them--a bleak prospect indeed.

      Much of Hitler's writing seems very strongly
      influenced by the works of Thomas Malthus and
      Charles Darwin. It must be rememberd that Hitler's
      formal education was limited. He graduated high
      school but never attended university. Still, his
      second work seems far more erudite and dispassionate
      than his earlier work <Mein Kampf>. In the second
      book, Hitler's positions on most questions are
      essentially the same, but he is less emotional in
      the second book. There is less bombastic nationalism
      and more discussion of Germany's fate in the cold
      light of reason than in <Mein Kampf>.

      While there is a tendency of Hitler's detractors to
      depict him as a maniacal warmonger who delighted in
      sending millions to their deaths, this was clearly
      not his personality or motivation. While Hitler
      believed that war was occasionally necessary for
      the goal of "lebensraum", or national living space,
      he was opposed to needless wars, and he believed
      the First World War started as a result of criminal
      stupidity by bourgeois nationalists. Once the war
      started, he believed Germany had to win it, which is
      why he was a willing participant in it, but he
      believed it could have been avoided and should have
      been avoided. It should be remembered that Hitler
      knew the horrors of war and the meaning of bravery
      and sacrifice on a personal level, not just as an
      abstraction. He fought on the western front for 4-1/2
      years as a corporal, was wounded twice and twice
      decorated with the Iron Cross for bravery. He hated
      the bourgeois nationalists whom he believed started
      wars for useless or trivial reasons as much as any
      pacifist did. Objectively, however, he ended up
      triggering the useless war that was against Germany's
      interests to fight and which caused even more death
      and suffering for the German people than the First
      World War.

      Hitler's work contains seven theses about national
      struggle, which I shall outline below:

      1. The population of a country naturally
      tends to increase over time and eventually
      strains the capacity of the land to provide
      adequate food and sustenance for the needs
      of the population.

      2. Allowing this to take its natural course
      degrades the population into poverty and
      squallor and destroys the health of the
      nation by selecting in favour of those who
      will bear suffering without struggle.

      This is essentially straight out of the 1798 <Essay
      on the Population> by Thomas Malthus. Overpopulation
      that leads to poverty and famine has been a recurring
      theme in the history of the world and is still a
      serious problem today. Europe had reached the
      crisis point by the late 19th Century. Both England
      and Germany were dependent upon imported food from
      the Americas, and during both world wars, both of
      these nations tried to use blockades (England from
      her surface fleet, Germany from her submarines) to
      starve the enemy into submission.

      3. Attempting to remove the surplus population
      by emigration removes the boldest and most
      gifted elements from the national population,
      and this selects in favour of weaker and more
      timid elements, weakening the racial character-
      istics of the nation.

      I suppose it suits Americans to believe this as a
      salve to the ego, thinking we are the best and the
      brightest Europe had to offer. Australians, who are
      more familiar with the real reason their ancestors
      had to leave England, are less likely to believe
      this. The truth of the matter is, however, that
      there is little evidence to indicate that emigrants
      were in any way genetically superior to those who
      remained in Europe. In many cases it was circumstance
      beyond the control of the emigrant (like penal
      deportation) that caused the emigration. I would,
      however, agree with Hitler that emigration is not a
      good solution to overpopulation for another reason.
      The world has only so much room to accept emigrants,
      and the mass emigration of Europeans came at a
      terrible cost, sometimes nearly complete genocide,
      to the native peoples of the Americas and Australia.

      4. Attempting to deal with overpopulation
      by industrialising and exporting manufactured
      goods in exchange for foodstuffs and raw
      materials makes the nation dependent upon
      foreign markets and will either result in the
      exploitation of that country or result in
      conflict with other nations with whom the
      country competes for markets.

      Apart from mass emigration, this is indeed how most
      of Europe has dealt with overpopulation. Germany was
      an extreme case of an overindustrialised nation that
      suffered poverty in the 1920s from exploitation of
      its industrial output to pay the Versailles Treaty
      reparations, usually resulting in large profits to
      industries dominated by Jews while the German workers
      who were creating this wealth had barely enough to
      eat. Again I agree that this is not the solution but
      for different reasons. Obviously some country has
      to produce the surplus food and raw materials for
      a country to be able to import it, so not every
      country can solve its population problem that way.

      5. Attempts to solve the problem of overpopulation
      by "the war against the child" (Hitler's term for
      schemes of reduced birth rate, contraception and
      abortion) causes society to value children more,
      even inferior children, and keeps inferior children
      from being selected against, thus weakening the
      race. Hitler also believed that many great
      achievements were not made by first and second
      children but by later children and that only
      having a few children also weakened the gene pool
      in that way.

      I am not aware of any real evidence that low birth
      rates select in favour of the unfit, and I discard
      this thesis as unreasonable. Where population
      control is needed, this is the most humane method of
      achieving it. It should be noted that many countries
      now have little or no population growth through these
      methods, including Japan, China, Russia, and many
      European countries.

      6. Attempting to solve overpopulation by
      frequent or continuous warfare leads to the
      needless deaths of the braver and more patriotic
      members of society and selects in favour of
      cowards and shirkers who find excuses to avoid
      combat. This causes damage to the racial health
      of the nation. For this reason needless war
      must be avoided.

      It is primarily for this reason that Hitler regarded
      the bourgeois-nationalist incompetence that caused
      German participation in the First World War to be
      criminal stupidity. His record in the Second World
      War was of even worse criminal stupidity.

      7. The solution is that wars must be fought for
      the purposes of gaining "lebensraum", living
      space, for the nation. One nation must fight
      another to capture arable land from it so that
      its surplus population can be fed and supplied.
      In this way a superior nation will expand at
      the expense of inferior nations. Once lebensraum
      has been obtained, the nation must have a period
      of peace to expand into it, and only when more
      land is needed should another war be fought.

      After stating and defending these theses, Hitler spent
      the remainder of the book discussing the specific
      alliances to be made for the fulfillment of the
      welfare of the German nation and the reasons for
      them and why other alliances were not suitable.
      Hitler envisioned an alliance with Italy and England
      against France and Russia for dominance in Europe.
      Once dominance in Europe was attained, Germany must
      prepare to confront America. He was of a view that
      the alliances must be based on mutual interest and
      that the mistakes of the First World War must not be

      The main flaw in German strategy prior to the First
      World War, in Hitler's view, was the alliance with
      Austria-Hungary. He regarded Austria-Hungary has
      having a perpetual quarrel with the Slavic nations
      and therefore Russia in which Germany had no stake
      and that backing Austria-Hungary in its quarrel with
      Serbia in 1914 had no benefit for Germany and only
      needlessly brought her into conflict with Russia,
      France and England. He also didn't think Austria-
      Hungary was a viable state, as it was multinational,
      consisting of incompatible German, Hungarian, Slavic
      and Italian peoples. He had no quarrel with the
      post-Versailles dismemberment of that empire, only
      that German Austria was not allowed to join the Reich.

      Hitler believed an alliance could be made with
      England, as England was primarilly a maritime
      power, and Germany's interest was to become a
      continental power. What England feared was a rival
      maritime power, which meant that it would have an
      interest in an alliance against France and eventually
      the USA. It was rather insightful that Hitler
      predicted the USA would eclipse Britain as the
      dominant maritime power in the world. Churchill
      and his government, however, would not go along with
      such an alliance, as, contrary to Hitler's
      expectations, Churchill was working more for Jewish
      interests than England's interests. In David
      Irving's work <Churchill's War>, he shows how Jews
      paid off Churchill's debts and owned him from the
      1930s on. As Irving wrote of Churchill, "Churchill
      destroyed two empires, one of them the enemy's."

      Hitler proposed an alliance with Italy on the basis
      that Italy had an interest in expansion in the
      Mediterranean Basin, which was not in conflict with
      Germany's territorial goals, but which would make
      it an enemy of France. An obstacle that the
      bourgeois nationalist elements placed in the path
      of this was the post-Versailles annexation of the
      South Tyrol by Italy. Hitler said that this was a
      false conflict, as every country that participated
      in the Entente at Versailles and bordered Germany
      had taken some German land, and that an alliance
      had to be made with someone. He also indicated that
      there were far more Germans in Alsace-Lorraine and
      in Polish-occupied west Prussia than in the South
      Tyrol, yet the phony nationalists were concentrating
      on that one area. Where Hitler was not very
      insightful was in dismissing the allegations that
      Italy was a faithless ally. The rapid change of
      sides in 1943 showed that this was true, and the
      times Hitler had to get Mussolini out of trouble in
      Greece and northern Africa showed that Italy was more
      of a liability than an asset as an ally.

      One alliance that Hitler rejected outright was an
      alliance with Russia. One reason for this was that
      it was under the grip of "Jewish Bolshevism" in which
      he contended that international capitalism was
      controlling Russia and would spread this virus to
      Germany and other countries. He did say that he
      could envision a time in the near future when national
      elements in Russia would overpower the Jews and
      establish national socialism there. In that way
      he was in a way insightful, as Comrade Stalin did
      indeed remove many Jews from the Communist Party
      of the Soviet Union and altered economic policy
      from NEP to collectivisation. Even so, Hitler said,
      such an alliance with Russia against the western
      capitalist powers (France, Britain, USA), would leave
      Germany exposed to direct attack while it was in a
      disarmed state (by the Versailles Treaty provisions)
      while acting as a geographic shield to Russia.
      Thus Russia had everything to gain by such an
      alliance and Germany had everything to lose, becoming
      both the target and the battleground. Also, Russia
      had the arable land that the German population needed
      for expansion (lebensraum) and was thus the natural
      target for a war of expansion. That was the impetus
      behind the massive attack of 1941 that was the major
      front of the Second World War, and we all know how
      disasterous that was for both the Russian and German
      peoples. If an alliance was not posible between
      Germany and Russia, at least peaceful coexistence
      would have been preferable to that which occurred.

      All in all, this book and the results of the
      application of its policy, show the intellectual
      bankruptcy of fascism but also show why we can make
      strategic alliances with those of this ideology for
      a common interest, in this case the strategic alliance
      of Arabs and Aryans against the common Jewish
      imperialist enemy.

      --Kevin Walsh

      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

      "One also cannot exterminate a people in twenty or thirty years, regardless
      of the methods one employs and whether one wishes to do this or not."

      --Adolf Hitler, <Hitler's Second Book>, p. 210
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.