Mein Kampf...authenticity...David Irving

[bonafide]

I heard David Irving remark that he has never bothered to read Mein Kampf because its authenticity was in question. In your opinion, are Irving's concerns justified? I was thinking I wanted to read it, but now, I don't know. Thanks.

[Otium]

The authenticity of Mein Kampf has never been in question. Irving also thought it was dictated to Rudolf Hess, which is untrue and that others helped with the manuscript. This is also untrue, hence why he thinks it wasn't an "authentic" book written by Hitler, when in fact, it was solely written by Hitler as even letters by Rudolf Hess have proven.

[fireofice]

Mein Kampf is probably one of the most securely authentic books of the Third Reich. Hitler approved of its publication. Doesn't get much more authentic than that.

Other sources; like Goebbels Diaries, Hitler's second book, Hitler's Table Talks, ect. are way less secure in their authenticity. Although I think those other sources are probably authentic for the most part, their authenticity can't be argued for with anywhere near the amount of certainty as Mein Kampf.

[bonafide]

Is there a particular English translation of Mein Kampf that is recommended?

[fireofice]

Thomas Dalton's version.

https://www.thomasdaltonphd.com/mein-ka ... -1-english

https://www.thomasdaltonphd.com/mein-ka ... -2-english

[bonafide]

Fantastic! Thanks.

[Hektor]

Mein Kampf is probably one of the most securely authentic books of the Third Reich. Hitler approved of its publication. Doesn't get much more authentic than that.

Other sources; like Goebbels Diaries, Hitler's second book, Hitler's Table Talks, ect. are way less secure in their authenticity. Although I think those other sources are probably authentic for the most part, their authenticity can't be argued for with anywhere near the amount of certainty as Mein Kampf.

I'd agree. There were copies of Mein Kampf available long before the end of World War Two.

Hence if it was a forgery, this would be challenged by Hitler and the NSDAP. This doesn't cover the first book though.


I'm amazed by the argument from Irving. I'd expect that if you doubt the authenticity of a major text, you'd want to challenge it yourself and point out the discrepancies.

[HelloKitty]

As there exist many copies of Mein Kampf, and its contents are well documented, I can't think of a way in which it would be inauthentic. This being said, I think Mein Kampf contains a lot of discrepancies with speeches Hitler made, both before and after the writing of Mein Kampf, especially with regards to Russia and the concept of living space.

1. While Hitler often complained about Germany's lack of living space in comparison with other nations, this is almost always in combination with a demand of the return of the colonies which had been taken from Germany after WW1. See for example the 25 points of the party program, or his speech on January 30th 1939. I'm not aware of him ever demanding the annexation of a specific part of the Soviet Union for living space. Regaining the colonies seems politically a lot more feasible, because they were previously rightfully owned by the German state, they were already under occupation by colonial powers, and the local population was sparse and weak.

2. In the actual justifications Hitler gives for the invasion of the Soviet Union, no mention is made of living space. He basically claims the Soviet Union had made an alliance with the British Empire, is actively sabotaging the Germans, has aggressively conquered much of Eastern Europe, and is waiting its turn to invade Germany. His justifications for the annexations and invasions of other countries also never contain allusions to living space.

3. Hitler was a strong opponent of the war with Russia in WW1. He thought there were no fundamental conflicts between the German and Russian peoples, and that the war had been artificially instigated by Jews to destroy first the Russian and later the German state, so they could take power in revolutions. If Germany was in need of Russian living space, he should have been a proponent of this war.

4. A German annexation of areas of the Soviet Union would inevitably lead to large non-German minorities within the German empire. Hitler did not want this, and this was his main complaint about Austria-Hungary, which he wanted to be broken up, with the German part joining the German Empire. If he was so opposed to Austria-Hungary, why would he want to create a second version?

5. While Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, Germany was collapsing. The Ruhr area had been occupied by French troops, there were independence movements for the Rhineland and Bavaria, the country was in economic collapse, had only a weak professional army, and was under threat of communist revolution. To advocate for a war with the Soviet-Union because of “living space” with so many pressing issues at hand would be complete lunacy, even if presented as a long term plan.

In my opinion Mein Kampf is poorly structured and makes poor arguments, while I think Hitlers speeches are excellent and make a lot of sense. I have no idea how to reconcile this.

[Otium]

In my opinion Mein Kampf is poorly structured and makes poor arguments, while I think Hitlers speeches are excellent and make a lot of sense. I have no idea how to reconcile this.

Mein Kampf has plenty of perceptive insights (about pretty much everything, which can also be applied allegorically particularly those parts in volume 2 when he discusses political strategies) that superficial readers don't notice, understand nor pay any real attention to. Much of the appeal of Mein Kampf is in its breadth and subtlty. I've never found its arguments to be "poor" or to be poorly structured. It's not a narrative, and it's not intended to be. The parts I've always found the least interesting are those unphilosophical matters concerning the world powers.

There's nothing to reconcile.

[HelloKitty]

In my opinion Mein Kampf is poorly structured and makes poor arguments, while I think Hitlers speeches are excellent and make a lot of sense. I have no idea how to reconcile this.

Mein Kampf has plenty of perceptive insights (about pretty much everything, which can also be applied allegorically particularly those parts in volume 2 when he discusses political strategies) that superficial readers don't notice, understand nor pay any real attention to. Much of the appeal of Mein Kampf is in its breadth and subtlty. I've never found its arguments to be "poor" or to be poorly structured. It's not a narrative, and it's not intended to be. The parts I've always found the least interesting are those unphilosophical matters concerning the world powers.

There's nothing to reconcile.

At least the issue of conquering living space in Russia would need reconciliation, correct? Did Hitler lie about his reasons for invading the Soviet-Union? Did he want to rule a multi-ethnic empire after conquering Russia, against all of his principles? Did he want to deport all of the inhabitants and replace them with Germans? If he wanted to carry out such a diabolical plan, why didn't he simply do that in the area's of Europe that were already under his control?

[Otium]

At least the issue of conquering living space in Russia would need reconciliation, correct? Did Hitler lie about his reasons for invading the Soviet-Union? Did he want to rule a multi-ethnic empire after conquering Russia, against all of his principles? Did he want to deport all of the inhabitants and replace them with Germans? If he wanted to carry out such a diabolical plan, why didn't he simply do that in the area's of Europe that were already under his control?

There's no reason to think he lied. You're assuming it needs reconciliation because there must be some necessary link between comments made in the 1920s and those actions pursued years later. Hitler is the only historical figure whom we assume was always speaking about his 'true' intentions (except when historians dislike what he says), and that these 'intentions' remained completely unchanged for all time despite the lack of evidence for this.

It's not a matter of reconciliation between "truth" and "lie", it's not black and white, there's nuance and change over time.

There is not a shred of evidence Hitler pursued any policy against Russia in the 1930s or early 1940s (except in anticipation of a Russian attack against Europe; Hitler emphasises this multiple times; for example in the four year plan documents and in the famous meeting with Halifax in November 1937) before the German invasion. Hitler, at times, spoke vaguly a few times about lviing-space in "the east" but never specified what this entailed. Comments which provide more context actually refer to territories formerly German or in the immediate German sphere of influence (eg. the Baltic states, like in the Goebbels diary or the extremely dubious Schmundt document) not Russia. We can actually deduce based on the evidence that "the east" refers to nothing more than West Prussia, if not a few more strategic territories connected with it (such as those annexed in October 1939, not decided before). Likewise, the evidence before Barbarossa all points to an indecision, the conquest of Russia was not intended to lead to a German empire (as is known, Hitler never spoke of lebensraum in connection with Barbarossa), but to a variety of de-Bolshevized satellite states - i.e. not an ethnic German settlement zone which is what one would expect from claims of a long held plan to colonize the Russian east. This cannot be reconciled with the baseless claims made by historians who offer very scant and vague pieces of evidence, which even then is based on supposition not solid facts.

I've shown on this forum before that Hitler, in reality, was satisfied with his gains at the end of 1939. The German breadbasket, in his own words, was to be in the formerly West Prussian territories then known as the 'Reichsgau Wartheland'.