Mein Kampf

[Hate Is Art]

I was just wondering, if Chamberlain had ever read Mein Kampf surely he would have realised Hitlers wasn't going to be content until wiping out the jewish race and owning eastern europe and thus wouldn't have followed a policy of appeasment?

[Soviet power supreme]

Do you think that he didnt read that?
Im sure that he read that.

And what could he do?He certainly didnt want to start another world war against Germany.

[DeadMan]

Originally posted by Soviet power [email protected] 9 2003, 08:57 PM
And what could he do?He certainly didnt want to start another world war against Germany.
It happened anyways. But yah, what do you do when a country is pissed off? Give it more rules, rape it's land just a little more (to get this, read the Treaty of Versaille). I don't think so. They let Hitler have a little slack in hopes that the pressure on Germany would relax and that they would not attack Eastern Europe. But in not giving the rules, Hitler pressed on. But with the rules, Hitler would of still pressed on. What do you do when you have a dream? Press on until you have acheived it.

DeadMan.

[Morpheus]

Why would Britain care if Hitler wiped out the Jews, etc.? The British have committed their own share of genocide. Empires don't care if other empires go committ atrocities. The Western Empires did nothing against the Nazis ("appeasement") until they started encroaching on the territory of the Western empires. In fact many western capitalists were sympathetic to the Fascists because they were crushing the workers' movements. Empires are not altruistic, they want territory, wealth and power.

[Hate Is Art]

i meant if they (the british or the french) has Mein Kampf surely the would have realised Hitler was raving mad looney and couldn't be trusted!

[Misodoctakleidist]

I think Chamberlain probably agreed with Hitlers policies and wished he he could do the same, he only cared when germany started to threaten the british empire.

[monkeydust]

meant if they (the british or the french) has Mein Kampf surely the would have realised Hitler was raving mad looney and couldn't be trusted!

Personally I don't think Hitler was a 'raving mad looney' but assuming Chamberlain had read Mein Kampf he probably would think he was.

I'm quite sure that Chamberlain didn't trust Hitler, but you have to look at the situation in context; there were reasons why the allies chose to appease Hitlers actions which still stand even if they considered him to be dangerous. Heres a few to consider:

-It was the view of most at the time that Germany had been treated too hasrshly at Versailles consequently people thought it fair when Hitler did such things as remilitarizing the Rhineland.
-Hitler had helped Germany prosper, he was popular up til just before the war in many countries. This view may have influenced Chamberlains opinion of him.
-Hilter was persuasive, he may have well made Chamberlain feel each concession was the last. He also found ways to justify all of his actions up until Poland.
-After the depression most powers were isolationist, consequently nobody wanted to get involved in a war. Chamberlain wouldn't have been backed by the public.
-Finally, Chamberlain needed time to arm before any war, even if he felt it inevitable he would take any oppurtunity to re-arm.

[Invader Zim]

The Western Empires did nothing against the Nazis ("appeasement") until they started encroaching on the territory of the Western empires.

Hmm... you could argue that, but then again you could argue that you should try reading a history book as well. (j/k) :D

Poland not being a western empire kind of makes a slight hole in your argument... as well as the fact that all the other nations Hitler attacked were eastern European countries as well, who were neither empires, nor were they western.

It is also interesting to note that in the Locarno agreements Germany was given free reign in the east, and not forced to make any promises like she was had to in the west.

To everyone else:

As its happens if you care to read a little on Chamberlain, you can actually find quotes to show that he thought that Hitler was: - "narrow-minded" and "violently prejudice" but was also the democratically elected leader of Germany, which would suggest he was well aware of Hitler's ideology.

I suggest reading a book called "Hitler, Chamberlain and Appeasement" by Frank McDonough.

As Lenin24 pointed out in a rather more in depth way that all appeasement was, was the policy of reconciliation by addressing just grievances.

personally I think that Chamberlain had it all wrong, was a complete fool, however I believe that he takes a lot of undue flack, especially when people blame him for the war. In his position without the aid of hindsight his decisions do seem quite logical.

Empires are not altruistic, they want territory, wealth and power.

Very true, however in this case, foreign policy took a back seat to more pressing issue's, like world depression, staggering unemployment, the failure of the League of nations, the massive nationwide support for pacifism which the UK population held, etc etc etc.

-Hilter was persuasive, he may have well made Chamberlain feel each concession was the last. He also found ways to justify all of his actions up until Poland.

Yeah like it contained loads of German's and split Germany in two. I'm sorry but how could the peace makers of Versailles been so stupid as to split Germany in two, that’s just asking for war.

I think Chamberlain probably agreed with Hitler’s policies and wished he he could do the same, he only cared when germany started to threaten the british empire.

Actually I believe that they wished for Germany's economic recovery, hence the reason for the dawes plan and the Young plan, both of which cut reparations. They wanted German recovery so that she could help re-establish European trade.

i meant if they (the british or the french) has Mein Kampf surely the would have realised Hitler was raving mad looney and couldn't be trusted!

You would have thought so... however rabid anti-Semitism wasn't so uncommon in those days, an example Henry Ford of Ford Motors wrote a book called "The International Jew", you have to remember that this was during or just after a depression, people were looking for someone to blame. So I would imagine that it was not considered to be as fucked up as it is now.

[The Children of the Revolution]

Good posts, Lenin24 and Enigma - I agree. Chamberlain was never a Nazi sympathiser. As concerns appeasement, I think his actions were justified. The British public was very anti-war; it's only with hindsight that we can criticise his policies. He returned from Czechoslovakia a hero. (after 'guaranteeing' "peace in our times")

As regards "Mein Kampf", has anyone actually read it? Most of it is awful, and made worse due to it being translated from German. However, Hitler actually constucts some wonderful arguments against Bourgeois democracy. And some of his 'rants' are good too.

It's worth reading, if only as a historical reference...

Disclaimer: I am not a Nazi! Hitler was a bad man! Up the Revolution!

[Hooverfox]

The British and French ignored Hitlers actions because they couldnt face the Idea of another war but after he kept on invading more countries by the time it came to Poland it was too much and they gave him a final warning.

Hitler was an awful man and had awful ideas but he was a brilliant politician - and yes there is a huge difference.

[buy! consume! obey!]

Originally posted by The Children of the [email protected] 12 2003, 03:47 AM


As regards "Mein Kampf", has anyone actually read it? Most of it is awful, and made worse due to it being translated from German. However, Hitler actually constucts some wonderful arguments against Bourgeois democracy. And some of his 'rants' are good too.

It's worth reading, if only as a historical reference...

Disclaimer: I am not a Nazi! Hitler was a bad man! Up the Revolution!
some years ago i worked in a university library. i tried to read "mein kampf", cos i like a challenge. and what a challenge! it's a very badly written and boring book - i never got too far with it. i've since read that few top nazis had read it cos it is so dull. i expect that chamberlain had better things to do with his time than read a poor book by hitler.

[Anarchist Freedom]

i have never read mein kampf its never been my interest,but i might read the pink fuhrer (its a theory accusing hitler of being gay).


:che:

[Hate Is Art]

I think you have all misinterpretated my post.

If Chamberlain had read Mein Kampf and realised Hitlers politcal ambitions surely he shoudln't have followed appeasement for these reasons:

1: Hitler was a much stronger anti-semite than any one at the time, so by stamping him out at the earliest possible time it would have saved LIVES! Don't say that he had no regard for this

2: Hitler said so himself if he had been challenged upon entering the rhineland he would have had to back down, IF Chamberlain had read Mein Kampf he would have realised Hitler wasn't going to stop at the Rhineland and would have thus disabled him there and then.

[LSD]

Neville Chamberlain was Prime Minister of the Britain. He was trying to negotiate for peace in the best way he though of, it is unimaginable that no one in his staff had read Hitler's, by that point, best-selling book. But.....

....you can't base your entire foreign policy, a policy that will decide war and peace, based on a book that a younger Hitler had written while in prison. Many such writtings are political propaganda, rabble rousing. Chamberlain could'nt know how much of it Hitler would actually enforce.

And as far as the Jews were concerned, he really didn't give a damn about Germans, regardless of their relgion.

[monkeydust]

Sorry to ressurect a dead post..........

Though I thought it worth mentioning that there was in fact a second Mein Kampf, though it was never published.

Hitler wrote it in the late twenties.

[Solace]

1928.

The book was not published for two reasons. No one was buying Mein Kampf before Hitler took the Chancellery, it was highly doubtful that people will pay attention to the 2nd book.

The book contains many details for "plans" on foreign policy. Publishing it could not have been a good idea.

[elijahcraig]

I am not at all convinced that Great Britain made any kind of "moral" action against Hitler. They judged it based on the same factors they always do: profit and the possibility of gaining profit or dominance to secure profit.

[Essential Insignificance]

They judged it based on the same factors they always do: profit and the possibility of gaining profit or dominance to secure profit.

A extremely to the apex placement of an option, I concur in totality, like all imperialist nations their sole agenda is to secure land, profit and capital, which is in array to generate more.

[AC-Socialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 06:39 AM
I am not at all convinced that Great Britain made any kind of "moral" action against Hitler. They judged it based on the same factors they always do: profit and the possibility of gaining profit or dominance to secure profit.
But arnet you glad they did challenge Hitler? I mean, it would be doughtful we'd be having this conversation wouldnt it.

[Hate Is Art]

A extremely to the apex placement of an option, I concur in totality, like all imperialist nations their sole agenda is to secure land, profit and capital, which is in array to generate more.


EI, what on earth are you talking about "a extremely to the apex placement of an option" are you having some kind of joke? or this a contest of who can write the strangest most incoherent post's and sound intelligent?

[LSD]

The book contains many details for "plans" on foreign policy. Publishing it could not have been a good idea.

In fact it was basically a foreign policy book, and while never published it does offer some interesting insights into Hitler's mindset. For one thing it is clear that he both admired and respected Britain and that he never had any desire for "world dominataion." It also underscored his obsession with both Liebensraum and "Jewish Bolshevism." Obessions which cost Germany the war.


But arnet you glad they did challenge Hitler? I mean, it would be doughtful we'd be having this conversation wouldnt it.

Not particularly....

In all honesty Britain's contribution to the war was negligable at best. By all indications , The Soviets would have crushed Germany from the east, and even if Britain has signed a peace treaty, the US could still of used them to land in Normandy.

The RAF bombings hurt, but only relatively late in the war when Germany already had enough problems in Russia.

In all honesty, we would still be having this conversation regardless.

[Purple]

mein kampfh is illegal in norway... wish i could get a hold of it for the study of his ideology...

[monkeydust]

lost prophet

Is it possible to order it from elsewhere somehow?

In any case, I really wouldn't recommend reading it. Admittedly you can learn something about the mans ideology, but you have to read through so much rambling and bollocks that it's really not worth it.

Bear in mind that Hitler dictated this to his colleagues (Hess and Maurice), just after being imprisoned. Much of it literally is a long rant, about little in particular.

[Inter arma, enim silent leges]

Originally posted by lost [email protected] 14 2004, 08:57 AM
mein kampfh is illegal in norway... wish i could get a hold of it for the study of his ideology...
I find that highly ironic and funny.

From what I recall, the reason it was so hard to get through was that AH actually dictated it, so it's actually him talking.

As for the actual point of this thread, had I been in Chamberlain's shoes at the time, I would have assumed he was trying to appeal to the German traditionalists, garner support and the such.

Also, what other choice could Chamberlain have made while trying to preserve peace?

[Hate Is Art]

If he had removed Hitler before he became too powerful he could have prevented the second world war.

Mein Kampf clearly states Hitler political views, now when he starts spreading eastwards and "promising" to stop at checkoslovakia would you believe him?

[LSD]

If he had removed Hitler before he became too powerful he could have prevented the second world war.

um... and how would one go about doing that?

Are you suggesting that Britiain should of invaded Germany in 1933???

Other than the fact that that would mean getting France involved and starting another world war, it would have definitely meant that Chamberlain would have lost the next election (starting wars for seemingly no reason wasn't that popular at the time)

[monkeydust]

LSD is correct.

The allied leaders may well have known that Hitler had 'bad' intentions, that he intended to pursue an expansionist foreign policy. The may well have wanted him out of power.

Realistically however, this was unachievable, for several reasons:

-Nobody wanted another war.

-The effects of the depression were still lingering, countried, by and large adopted isolationist, 'inward looking' policies. Foreign matters seemed unimportant.

-Leaders such as Chamberlain would not have been able to muster the sufficient support for a war. Populations certainly did not want war, moreover many people actually liked Hitler, and what he had done with Germany. Churchill is an example.

-The allies were unaware of the rapidity of German military development. They were not aware of Germany's potential to fight a war until it was too late.

-No one was actually sure how far Hitler intended to go. It probably seemed to many that he merely wanted to take back land which was 'rightfully' German, he maintained this facade until 1939.

[fernando]

I dont even think most ofthe Germans ever even read the book, or maybe only a part of it, they all had the book but never really read it, and later on they just followed Hitler (some willingly, others under force)

I tried to read it once, but I got so bored of it in the first 10 pages already :lol:

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by DeadMan+Dec 9 2003, 09:14 PM--> (DeadMan @ Dec 9 2003, 09:14 PM)
Soviet power [email protected] 9 2003, 08:57 PM
And what could he do?He certainly didnt want to start another world war against Germany.
It happened anyways. But yah, what do you do when a country is pissed off? Give it more rules, rape it's land just a little more (to get this, read the Treaty of Versaille). I don't think so. They let Hitler have a little slack in hopes that the pressure on Germany would relax and that they would not attack Eastern Europe. But in not giving the rules, Hitler pressed on. But with the rules, Hitler would of still pressed on. What do you do when you have a dream? Press on until you have acheived it.

DeadMan. [/b]
The treaty of Versilles was a walk in the park compaired to all the other ones for the other powers allied to germany.

Not to mention that the Treaty of Breast Lievoski (I have no idea how you spell that) was much harsher, and that was a Treaty the Germans set up when Russia surrendered.


If he had removed Hitler before he became too powerful he could have prevented the second world war.

You have to be kidding, by the time it was obvious what was coming (IE Munich), it was too late Britian was not powerful enough to tackle Germany, and neither was france. Infact we weren't poweful enough at 1939, hense the reason we got absolutly trounced, we didn't even begin to make a truly major impact until 1944.

The Radar system (which saved britain in the battle of britain) was not completed until 1939, so what hope did we have prior to that point?

Revisionist history is bullshit, anything which was written by Churchill or in favour of churchill is bullshit. Chamerlain was a sensible guy persuing the only logical stratagy, stall the buggers until we are poweful enough to defend our selves. To prove my point, all you have to do is look at Chamberlains re-arming policy, which was massivly stepped up by him in 1937.

I actually think Chamberlain saved Britian, because without his preperations we would have lost, almost no doubt.

[Purple]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 01:10 PM
lost prophet

Is it possible to order it from elsewhere somehow?

In any case, I really wouldn't recommend reading it. Admittedly you can learn something about the mans ideology, but you have to read through so much rambling and bollocks that it's really not worth it.

Bear in mind that Hitler dictated this to his colleagues (Hess and Maurice), just after being imprisoned. Much of it literally is a long rant, about little in particular.
I suppose it is possible to buy off the internet, but i refuse to spend my money it...

[Red Skyscraper]

Well, if you really have an urge and you want to read Mein Kampf and see what kind of bastard Adolf Hitler was, then go to this link at the racist website ***************:

http://www.***************/books/mein_kampf/

I read the first 50 pages of Mein Kampf, and there was nothing but his bullshit about German and Austrian politics, and sticking the Jews together with the Communists, so that he could have an easier time labeling them off as evil. <_< :rolleyes: The book was plain boring and there is little to gain from Hitler&#39;s words unless the reader was a right wing moron.

[DaCuBaN]

I actually think Chamberlain saved Britian, because without his preperations we would have lost, almost no doubt

and I was appalled when Churchill one the greatest britain of all time contest on BBC. I never watched the debates, but I can&#39;t believe that we get suckered in by the vision of a drunk with a cigar spouting right wing propoganda.

Neville Chamberlain is one of the most maligned britains ever, yet in my eyes he is the greates person to walk this earth that was born on the island of blighty :)

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 11:07 PM

I actually think Chamberlain saved Britian, because without his preperations we would have lost, almost no doubt

and I was appalled when Churchill one the greatest britain of all time contest on BBC. I never watched the debates, but I can&#39;t believe that we get suckered in by the vision of a drunk with a cigar spouting right wing propoganda.

Neville Chamberlain is one of the most maligned britains ever, yet in my eyes he is the greates person to walk this earth that was born on the island of blighty :)
and I was appalled when Churchill one the greatest britain of all time contest on BBC.


as was I. he certainly has a good set of revisionist historians working in his favour.

yet in my eyes he is the greates person to walk this earth that was born on the island of blighty

Depends on how you define great, I dont particularly like him, or his ideals, but I respect him for the decisions he made under very difficult circumstances.

[DaCuBaN]

My ideals no way line up with the man - but yes he simply did the best he could in a difficult time. I do exagerate his &#39;greatness&#39; but that&#39;s simply because he is regarded in history as a bit of a buffoon - something he certianly does not deserve. The man drove himself to an early grave by making hard decisions - I have a great respect for that.