I still don't understand how people actually bought or read this book. This book repeats many disturbing ideas. Of course people in 1920s did not think as we do now, but while people were reading Mein Kampf in Germany, Woodrow Wilson was in power in the United States. Also, German literature or mentality wasn't isolated from rest of the world. Germany had 2 Nobel Prize winners in Literature before and after Mein Kampf was published. This shows that Germany was one of the prominent European countries that shared its culture with rest of the world.
Considering that, I don't understand how the world did not recognize how erroneous his logic and reasoning is. His two big ideas are conflicting. He wants people to develop themselves "within the framework of his cultural community which must always rest on the fundament of a state" (434). However, he condemns the state by repeating that it "always worked systematically against the real interests of the German nation" (608).
It is not just his ideas that are contradictory. Hitler himself has a contradicting history. He is not of German race. This means that he himself is one of "people of alien race expressing its alien ideas in the German language, compromising the lofty dignity of our own nationality by their own inferiority" (390) I don't understand how the readers did not notice and criticize his absurdity. He also says, "Our admiration of every great deed must be bathed in pride that its fortunate performer is a member of our own people" (426). Then, why did he try to overthrow his 'own people' by leading a coup?
This is not really related to any of the things that I said above, but this phrase stood out to me.
"positively dog-like veneration" (387). This reminded me of Kershaw's account on Hitler's relationship with the dog that he had in the army. This phrase makes it obvious that Hitler grieved over his dog mostly because he lost something that served him like a complete master. This implies that when he is in power, he expects the people to obey him as if they are his dogs. To me, this is not only seems offensive but impossible.
However, I guess Hitler's method of using people's anger and resentment about Germany's humiliating defeat at WWI was so effective that blatant flaws of his book went unnoticed.
Hitler was a charismatic man, who didn't rely on ideological soundness but on the manipulation of emotions and the power of propaganda. He made promises. It's important to remember that people who supported him may not have actually believed in what he was saying, but believed in what he could give them, whether this was increased political power or simply better living conditions. However, many certainly agreed with Hitler's stances which can in part be attributed to the political and economic atmospheres that existed in Germany and that was in many ways unique to Germany. The United States was not facing the exact same challenges, and so it is hard to make direct comparisons.
ReplyDeleteThere is a quote attributed to Mark Twain that is something like "classics are the books nobody reads." Imagining this in the context of Hitler and "Mein Kamp" is instructive.
ReplyDeleteI would like to point out that a work of literature very easily becomes a symbol to be bandied about in contrast to a book to be read and studied. Books naturally lends themselves to symbolization and representations. The holy texts of every major religion have been used as symbols positively and negatively by people who've never read their words. A book can become a status marker, a badge of identification, and become a tool in a political battle. Many books are purchased so that they may sit on shelves. There is a great difference between owning a book and reading it. Someone might easily have owned a copy of "Mein Kampf" simply because they were frustrated with the terms reached in Versailles, and thought purchasing the book was an act of defiance.