The CODOH Revisionist Forum

In this video one finds the Orthodox Narrative around Mein Kampf. Perhaps we should discuss it. Many people are under the impression that this book, is worth burning (ironically) and that it is a 'blueprint for genocide'.

Was it? I think this is debatable and I would like to hear the perspective of the forum on this topic. I'd also like to highlight this as a proof that 'Social Democracy' is full of empty words and lip service where it actually supports what it purports to oppose, 'for your safety'.

I'm very sorry but I cannot stomach watching 1 hour of mainstream slop about WW2, i'm sure this video is absolutely terrible and want nothing to do with it

However, this seems basically like the intentionalist vs functionalist argument all over again. It was Archie who introduced me to this concept so hopefully he can add more but in a nutshell:

Archie wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2025 5:11 am I agree to a large extent. But I regard the intentionalist theory as already debunked. I don't see much point in bothering with a position that the best mainstream scholars don't believe anymore.

The intentionalist theory is simpler and more intuitive, and it was the original story for a good three decades. But the problem is that there are too many documents that contradict it (Madagascar plan etc), so it has fallen out of favor. There is mainstream scholarship by Browning and others that debunks it pretty convincingly. Hence I think any attempt to salvage the Holocaust thesis will have to be functionalist by necessity.

Were the intentionalist view to hold (it doesn't) then yes, MK would be expected to be the blueprint for evil masterminding the final solution and world domination. Of course, this is garbage and there is nothing in there about genocide at all. Since the higher IQ operators have discarded it out of necessity and certainly not charity, arguments like this are usually left to be dealt with by mindless drones with no concept of history.

Consider: MK was a bestseller and was translated multiple times before the end of the war, and at least twice before the war. It would be very strange for a world leader to either accidentally or purposely write a memoir and stating that they will genocide entire races of people, 8 years prior to coming to power. This would be like finding out 6 years into Justin Trudeau's administration that he wrote a best selling book talking about genociding all Americans. Its just so stupid and can safely be discarded as slop.

I only have a handful of chapters left to read but I've gotten through most of the book. What primed me to read it was wanting to hear what his actual ideals/motives were. There is a lot of talk about him in light of current events and that causes a lot of mixed messaging, so I wanted to be able to form my own coherent thoughts on the man. The best way to do this was obviously to read what he had to say.

Growing up, the only thing that I had heard about the book was as you put, a "blueprint to genocide". More importantly, to me at least, people who had actually read it called the book boring. They said that it was a lot of talk about the political situation of Germany/Europe at the time and how it just dragged on with this theme. I actually thought that his writings about this period were very interesting, and I thoroughly enjoyed reading what he had to say on the manner. In a way it is the most important part of the book because you are able to understand how he formed his world view/concept.

Going into the book, I didn't really know what to expect. In the first chapter he wrote some things that I could immediately relate to:

When I look back now, so many years later, I see two facts that are especially significant. First, I became a nationalist. Second, I learned to understand the meaning of history.

It is true that the quality of World-History education in intermediate schools is in a sad state ... It is not important for a boy to know exactly when some battle was fought, some general born, or when some insignificant monarch was crowned. No, God knows, that is certainly not what is important. To truly “learn” history means to open your eyes and discover the forces that cause historical events to happen. The art of reading and of learning means remembering the important parts and forgetting the unimportant.

From here, I started reading from a perspective of trying to understand history and what caused it to happen. While reading with this mindset, I couldn't help but compare the situation he described to the one that is occurring in the west, particularly in America since that's where I reside. The similarities were quite shocking. One thing I admire about his writing is that he is able to put what we are thinking deep down into a clear, cohesive message.

Of course, I found his writings on the Jews to be quite accurate when comparing it to how the world is today. There are so many relevant quotes throughout the book on this topic that it would be too much to list them all here, but I'll show two that I think are most relevant to the current political situation that we are in:

Only some of the Jews approved of this movement [Zionism], and while the great majority condemned and even rejected the very idea, the appearance of the movement melted away in an evil fog of excuses, I could even say lies. So-called liberal Jewry rejected the Zionists as Jews who were impractical and, perhaps dangerous in their public adherence to Judaism. It made no difference; they were all still Jews.

There was no real separation and they maintained their internal solidarity. This fictitious conflict between the Zionists and the Liberal Jews soon disgusted me. It was false through and through and contradicted to the moral dignity and pure character their race had always prided itself upon.

When Zionism tries to convince the world that the racial self-determination of the Jew would be satisfied with the creation of their own State in Palestine, the Jews are once again craftily pulling the wool over the eyes of the stupid goyim. They never intended to build a Jewish State in Palestine, not for the purpose of living in it anyway. They just want an organization headquarters for their international swindling and cheating with its own political power that is beyond the reach and interference from other states. It would be a refuge for crooks who were exposed and a college for future swindlers.

I mean, it is quite incredible that this was written over 100 years ago, and are currently dealing with this exact problem. I don't know how else to describe this level of analysis other than brilliant. People can say what they want to about Hitler and some of the things he (allegedly) did, but he was truly a genius when it came to political analysis. Nobody can convince me otherwise.

Stubble wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 1:47 pm I'd also like to highlight this as a proof that 'Social Democracy' is full of empty words and lip service where it actually supports what it purports to oppose, 'for your safety'.

On a related note, I found his talk on politicians to be outstanding.

In reality, the government cannot take any step without first getting permission from the general assembly. Consequently, it is not responsible for anything since the final decision does not rest with anyone in the government, but with the majority of Parliament. In any case, the government simply carries out the will of the majority. Its political capacity can really only be judged by its skill in either conforming to the will of the majority or convincing the majority to switch to its side. This reduces it from being a real government to being a beggar at the feet of the majority. Its most urgent job is to gain the favor of the existing majority or to try to set up a more agreeable new majority ... Whether its intentions are right or wrong are not even considered. This eliminates all responsibility for anyone’s actions or decisions.

...A close relative of stupidity is vanity, and vanity is the reason the great majority of politicians will distance themselves from any difficult plans for the future. They want to avoid losing the momentary favor of the crowd. The success and importance of such a politician then lies entirely in the present and their actions have no meaning for the future. This doesn’t bother the small minded; they are satisfied with immediate results.”

Overall, I think the book is a very good read if it is read with intent. It definitely changed the way that I think about politics. People who think that it is a "blueprint for genocide" are either uninformed on the topic or deliberately spreading false propaganda.

Cowboy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 4:04 pm …What primed me to read it was wanting to hear what his actual ideals/motives were. There is a lot of talk about him in light of current events and that causes a lot of mixed messaging, so I wanted to be able to form my own coherent thoughts on the man. The best way to do this was obviously to read what he had to say.

…More importantly, to me at least, people who had actually read it called the book boring.

…Overall, I think the book is a very good read if it is read with intent. It definitely changed the way that I think about politics. People who think that it is a "blueprint for genocide" are either uninformed on the topic or deliberately spreading false propaganda.

Thanks for this.
I enjoyed reading your chosen excerpts.
Fascinating!
Regarding it supposedly being a “boring” book to read, I’ve read that the Mannerheim and Murphy translations into English were deliberately translated into difficult, sluggish, obtuse English to discourage it having a wide readership.

I’ve wanted to read it for the same reasons that you gave but was waiting for a modern and better translation.
I was hoping Dalton’s translation would be better.
I do have a rather basic understanding of German as I have lived and worked there a few times in the 70s and 90s. So when Dalton’s translation came out I was disappointed with the few passages that I checked.

Here’s something I wrote that touches on all that (i.e. unrepresentative translations) some years ago. It was in response to a jewish person choosing to share a particular quote from it without any commentary, on a discussion forum.

* ^ * * ^ * * ^ * * ^ * * ^ * * ^ * * ^ * * ^ *

AH’s book, AH himself, Schopeneur and mistranslations

For anyone who no longer wants to be a gullible, brainwashed believer in the war-time based demonisation of Adolf Hitler, they will have to unlearn what they have learnt and will have to try and look at the facts anew, without presumption, prejudice or bias.

Regretably it seems, the vast majority of people older than 30 will not be able to do this, as — after decades of conditioning — they have become incapable of reasoning themselves out of a position that they didn’t reason themselves in to.

For example, here is a quote from ‘Mein kampf’ that is often presented as representing AH’s attitude to life and war:

Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live.

I’ve often seen these words in English falsely attributed to Adolf Hitler, and as representing his views on “fighting”, and by implication ‘war’.

But the Reichschancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945 Adolf did NOT write those words.
He neither spoke nor wrote in English (he spoke and wrote in German only), so this therefore is, in reality, a popular and commonly-repeated mistranslation designed to make Adolf and his thoughts look bad. As any fair-minded reader will discover, if they read the vernacular version of the words in Adolf’s biography ’Mein kampf’ that this misquote is based upon.

For anyone not so familiar with German, here below are his actual words, followed by a translation that I regard as a fairer and more accurate representation in english.

ORIGINAL GERMAN:

”Wer leben will, der kämpfe also, und wer nicht streiten will in dieser Welt des ewigen Ringens, verdient das Leben nicht.
Selbst wenn dies hart wäre - es ist nun einmal so! Sicher jedoch ist das weitaus härteste Schicksal jenes, das den Menschen trifft, der die Natur glaubt überwinden zu können und sie im Grunde genommen doch nur verhöhnt. Not, Unglück und Krankheiten sind dann ihre Antwort!”
~ Adolf Hitler, ‘My struggle’ — Kapitel 11. Volk und Rasse

archive.org/details/Mein-Kampf2/page/n349/mode/1up?view=theater&q=boden

LITERAL WORD-FOR-WORD TRANSLATION:
“Who life wants, the violent struggle also, and who no contention wants in this world of eternal grappling, earns the life not.”
~ Adolf Hitler, ‘My struggle’ — Chapter 11, ‘Nation and race’.

A MORE COLLOQUIAL AND COMPLETE ENGLISH TRANSLATION:
“Who wants life, [must accept] the violent struggle also, and who wants no contention in this world of eternal grappling, does not earn life. Even if this seems harsh — that's just the way it is! Certainly, however, by far a harder destiny is that which befalls the human being who thinks he can triumph over nature when in reality he mocks her. Hardship, misfortune and illhealth will then be their resulting consequence!”
~ Adolf Hitler, ‘My struggle’ — Chapter 11, ‘Nation and race’.

Of all the ideas to choose from in Mein Kampf (a book I haven’t read, by the way), why do so many journalists, authors, etc., pick just this particular quote to share?
I suspect the ONLY reason why someone would share the unfair and inaccurate English translation, would be to to falsely imply that Adolf Hitler loved fighting and war and regarded it as the ’natural’ pursuit of all beings.

Whereas, in REALITY he didn’t like war. He hated it and after personally experiencing its horrors during 1914-1918, sought hard to avoid it.

So this promotion of just this one quote from Hitler’s autobiography I regard as a DELIBERATE DECEPTION. One I suggest is chosen as a self-justification for British, American and Jewish-instigated war-mongering racism, imperialism and war-crimes.
I suggest this false idea of Adolf’s supposed applauding of ”fighting” is mostly believed, repeated and advertised by gullible and impressionable people who feel an immature need to portray Adolf as a wicked person and icon of ’evil’ in order to feel good about themselves and to justify their erroneous WW2 beliefs-from-ignorance.

These particular quoted thoughts, dictated by Adolf while in Landsberg prison, seem to me to be a reflection of his familiarity and belief in the philosophy of Arthur Schopenauer.

And we know he was familiar with Schopenhauer’s aphorisms as Christa Schroeder in her posthumously* printed memoir recalled taking him to task and embarrassing him for attempting to pass off an aphorism of Schopenhauer’s philosophy as his own thought.

(* Christa Schroeder instructed that her memoir be only published AFTER death. As a self-confessed ”fanatic for truth” she presumably knew that her honest portrayal of Hitler — with all his foibles and mood-swings —showing he was also as a warm, friendly, courteous, generous and humorous person and boss, would get her into trouble and could even land her in prison).

Here are a few thoughts from Arthur Schopenahauer expressing a similar idea:
ON THE SUFFERINGS OF THE WORLD.

Unless suffering is the direct and immediate object of life, our existence must entirely fail of its aim. It is absurd to look upon the enormous amount of pain that abounds everywhere in the world, and originates in needs and necessities inseparable from life itself, as serving no purpose at all and the result of mere chance. Each separate misfortune, as it comes, seems, no doubt, to be something exceptional; but misfortune in general is the rule.
 
…The pleasure in this world, it has been said, outweighs the pain; or, at any rate, there is an even balance between the two. If the reader wishes to see shortly whether this statement is true, let him compare the respective feelings of two animals, one of which is engaged in eating the other.

The best consolation in misfortune or affliction of any kind will be the thought of other people who are in a still worse plight than yourself; and this is a form of consolation open to every one. But what an awful fate this means for mankind as a whole!

We are like lambs in a field, disporting themselves under the eye of the butcher, who chooses out first one and then another for his prey. So it is that in our good days we are all unconscious of the evil Fate may have presently in store for us — sickness, poverty, mutilation, loss of sight or reason.

No little part of the torment of existence lies in this, that Time is continually pressing upon us, never letting us take breath, but always coming after us, like a taskmaster with a whip. If at any moment Time stays his hand, it is only when we are delivered over to the misery of boredom.

But misfortune has its uses; for, as our bodily frame would burst asunder if the pressure of the atmosphere was removed, so, if the lives of men were relieved of all need, hardship and adversity; if everything they took in hand were successful, they would be so swollen with arrogance that, though they might not burst, they would present the spectacle of unbridled folly—nay, they would go mad. And I may say, further, that a certain amount of care or pain or trouble is necessary for every man at all times. A ship without ballast is unstable and will not go straight.

Certain it is that work, worry, labor and trouble, form the lot of almost all men their whole life long. But if all wishes were fulfilled as soon as they arose, how would men occupy their lives? what would they do with their time? If the world were a paradise of luxury and ease, a land flowing with milk and honey, where every Jack obtained his Jill at once and without any difficulty, men would either die of boredom or hang themselves; or there would be wars, massacres, and murders; so that in the end mankind would inflict more suffering on itself than it has now to accept at the hands of Nature.

…The brute [animal] flies from death instinctively without really knowing what it is, and therefore without ever contemplating it in the way natural to a man, who has this prospect always before his eyes. So that even if only a few brutes die a natural death, and most of them live only just long enough to transmit their species, and then, if not earlier, become the prey of some other animal,…

~~ Arthur Schopenhauer
Translated By T. Bailey Saunders 

QUORA is an online 'discussion group' type of thing and I used to discuss the hoax on it till banned .... occasionally the topic of HItler would come up .... here are some clips from MK i posted ..

This was my favorite: in fact I came across it before the read the book, and I found this to be so incredibly accurate i did read the book -

Before coming to Vienna his view of the Jews is benign, "As I thought that they were persecuted on account of their Faith my aversion to hearing remarks against them grew almost into a feeling of abhorrence." However as he engages in political discussions with the Jews his opinion changes:

The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn't help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The Jew had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.

Sometimes I stood there thunderstruck.

I didn't know what to be more amazed at: the agility of their tongues or their virtuosity at lying.

Gradually I began to hate them.

In Vienna Hitler is employed as a common worker, and he encounters trade unions, Social Democrats, Jews, and Marxism:

At midday some of my fellow workers used to adjourn to the nearest tavern, while the others remained on the building premises and there ate their midday meal, which in most cases was a very scanty one. These were married men. Their wives brought them the midday soup in dilapidated vessels. Towards the end of the week there was a gradual increase in the number of those who remained to eat their midday meal on the building premises. I understood the reason for this afterwards. They now talked politics.

I drank my bottle of milk and ate my morsel of bread somewhere on the outskirts, while I circumspectly studied my environment or else fell to meditating on my own harsh lot. Yet I heard more than enough. And I often thought that some of what they said was meant for my ears, in the hope of bringing me to a decision. But all that I heard had the effect of arousing the strongest antagonism in me. Everything was disparaged - the nation, because it was held to be an invention of the ‘capitalist’ class (how often I had to listen to that phrase!); the Fatherland, because it was held to be an instrument in the hands of the bourgeoisie for the exploitation of’ the working masses; the authority of the law, because that was a means of holding down the proletariat; religion, as a means of doping the people, so as to exploit them afterwards; morality, as a badge of stupid and sheepish docility. There was nothing that they did not drag in the mud.

……

Hitherto my acquaintance with the Social Democratic Party was only that of a mere spectator at some of their mass meetings. I had not the slightest idea of the social-democratic teaching or the mentality of its partisans. All of a sudden I was brought face to face with the products of their teaching and what they called their Weltanschhauung. In this way a few months sufficed for me to learn something which under other circumstances might have necessitated decades of study - namely, that under the cloak of social virtue and love of one’s neighbour a veritable pestilence was spreading abroad and that if this pestilence be not stamped out of the world without delay it may eventually succeed in exterminating the human race.

Hitler identified the Jews with Marxism and communism (Churchill shared this view see -Zionism versus Bolshevism). The above passages refer to a period before WW I, but were written after WW I and the Bolshevik revolution in Russia.

Regarding the Bolshevik revolution in Russia

Now begins the great last revolution. In gaining political power the Jew casts off the few cloaks that he still wears. The democratic people's Jew becomes the blood-Jew and tyrant over peoples. In a few years he tries to exterminate the national intelligentsia and by robbing the peoples of their natural intellectual leadership makes them ripe for the slave's lot of permanent subjugation.

The most frightful example of this kind is offered by Russia, where he killed or starved about thirty million people with positively fanatical savagery, in part amid inhuman tortures, in order to give a gang of Jewish journalists and stock exchange bandits domination

Hitler also identified Jews with the international financiers, and wrote:

As I listened to Gottfried Feder's first lecture about the 'breaking of interest slavery,' I knew at once that this was a theoretical truth which would inevitably be of immense importance for the future of the German people. The sharp separation of stock exchange capital from the national economy offered the possibility of opposing the internationalization of the German economy without at the same time menacing the foundations of an independent national self-maintenance by a struggle against all capital. The development of Germany was much too clear in my eyes for me not to know that the hardest battle would have to be fought, not against hostile nations, but against international capital. In Feder's lecture I sensed a powerful slogan for this coming struggle.

And here again later developments proved how correct our sentiment of those days was. Today the know-it-alls among our bourgeois politicians no longer laugh at us: today even they, in so far as they are not conscious liars, see that international stock exchange capital was not only the greatest agitator for the War, but that especially, now that the fight is over, it spares no effort to turn the peace into a hell.

The fight against international finance and loan capital became the most important point in the program of the German nation's struggle for its economic independence and freedom.

Hitler believed that the Jews and leftist elements in Germany sabotaged the war effort. Probably the most well known quote from MK is on the big lie:

But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity for falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute responsibility for the downfall precisely to the man who alone had shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the catastrophe which he had foreseen and to save the nation from that hour of complete overthrow and shame. By placing responsibility for the loss of the world war on the shoulders of Ludendorffthey took away the weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous enough to be likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of the Fatherland to Justice.

All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.

It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying

Hitler also believed that the Jews and Marxism would destroy Germanic and ‘western’ culture

The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture.

Compounding all the above is the effect of the Versailles treaty on Germany, that is, it nearly wrecked the country. A critical assessment is given here …The Treaty of Versailles - the Peace to end all Peace -

This is the origin of the black legend of the “stab-in-the-back”. Right wing nationalists and ex-military leaders began to blame the Weimar politicians, socialists, communists, and Jews for a supposed national betrayal of Germany. The November Criminals and the newly formed Weimar Republic were held to be responsible for the defeat. This was a theme that the Nazis and other right wing nationalists harped on continually in the next period, blaming foreigners, Jews and “traitors” for the miseries and sufferings of the German people.

Relevant vids - Why Hitler Hated the Jews


The Spartacist Uprising following WW I -

I hate to be a 'thread nazi' here, but, I'd like for us to stick to the topic of the thread, which is the mainstream assertion that Mein Kampf is a 'blueprint for genocide'.

Stubble wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 7:35 pm I hate to be a 'thread nazi' here, but, I'd like for us to stick to the topic of the thread, which is the mainstream assertion that Mein Kampf is a 'blueprint for genocide'.

In that case I will expand upon my point that the people who spread this notion are being intentionally dishonest or uninformed. For our purposes I will focus on the dishonest folk and demonstrate why they are wrong.

The elephant in the room is that Hitler did have a disdain/hatred for Jews as a race. He also talked about how he felt the Aryan race was superior, and how the Jews was the antithesis to everything the Aryan is.

The most extreme contrast to the Aryan is the Jew.

I would consider Hitler to be a white supremacist based on what he writes in the start of Chapter 11: People and Race. However, this does not intrinsically mean that he wants to commit a genocide against people who would therefore be "inferior."

For example, I actually don't think that he hated Africans, or negros as he put it, as much as he is made out to have. From what I understand, he believes them to be an inferior people and should stay in Africa away from Europe. He blames the Jews for bringing them into Europe to mix with and "bastardize" the Aryan race. He sometimes refers to cultural disintegration as becoming "negroid" since he believes that the "negro tribes" in Africa are dysfunctional, to which it is hard to disagree. Now, does this mean that he wants to kill all of the Africans inside of Europe? I don't see how that conclusion can be drawn. What I believe that he wanted based on his writing is for them to disassociate from Europe and return to Africa. Ultimately, I believe an organized deportation effort would have been the means to achieve this (similar to what he wanted to do with the Jews).

For Jews however, he referred to them as parasites, kikes, bastards, etc. I don't want to get too deep into this because a lot of what he thought about them is very easily accessible and I don't want to beat a dead horse. Similar to the Africans, Hitler seemed to want the Jews to be uprooted from society and go somewhere else. From what I've read in the book so far (2/3rds through Vol. 2), I'm unsure if he had formulated a plan of where to send the Jews to. He just wanted them out of Germany, and by extension Europe.

Where I believe people conflate his attitude towards groups like the Jews and Africans with genocide is his very powerful use of language in the book. Throughout it, he is very intent on the will to fight and triumph over the enemy by any means necessary. I can provide some of what he says:

...Only when there comes an age not haunted by the shadow of its own guilt will there be both the inward calm and the outer strength, which can brutally and ruthlessly prune the dead limbs and uproot the weeds in our society’s garden.

If, through his Marxist faith, the Jew conquers the peoples of this world, his crown will be the death and destruction of all mankind. Earth would again move uninhabited through space as it did millions of years ago. Eternal Nature takes revenge for violation of her commandments. I believe I am acting today in the spirit of the Almighty Creator. By standing guard against the Jew, I am defending the work of the Lord.

There is no doubt that the world will someday be the scene of huge battles for the existence of mankind. In the end, the craving for self-preservation alone will triumph. That stupid and cowardly group of humanity that thinks they know more than everyone else will find their humanitarianism melts like snow in the March sun when they face destruction. In eternal battle, mankind can find greatness; in eternal peace, it will find destruction.

Poison is driven out only by counter-poison and only the shallowness of the privileged leader-class spirit could ever think the middle road is the path to Heaven; the Kingdom of Heaven is not obtained by compromise.

These are just some of the ones that I had saved from my reading so far, but you get the idea that he wasn't willing to compromise and would do anything to fight the Jew. The context of the quotes themselves doesn't always have to do with Jews, but the powerful and determined language he uses can make people believe that he was willing to genocide the groups of people he hated in order to restore glory to Germany and his people/race.

It's always important to remember that the "blueprint for genocide" narrative was cooked up after the Holocaust narrative was put into place. There is a reason that the NSDAP won in landslide elections, and it was because Hitler had a profound way of speaking and writing that resonated with the people of Germany. If the masses in Europe at the time did not believe that this book was a "blueprint for genocide", then I think it's an unfair label to put on it today.

So, to wrap it up, the "blueprint for genocide" narrative is used because of his disdain for Jews and other groups along with the powerful, fiery language he uses to describe his mindset and world concept. These two things put together, in the shadow of the Holocaust narrative, can make people believe in such things.

A few months ago I dipped in and out of Mein Kampf;an English language version online.

What I found interesting was how little there is about the jew and how accurate and articulate he was in his comments and points about them. MK is most certainly not a blue print for genocide.

Cowboy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 10:17 pm

Stubble wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 7:35 pm I hate to be a 'thread nazi' here, but, I'd like for us to stick to the topic of the thread, which is the mainstream assertion that Mein Kampf is a 'blueprint for genocide'.

In that case I will expand upon my point that the people who spread this notion are being intentionally dishonest or uninformed. For our purposes I will focus on the dishonest folk and demonstrate why they are wrong.

…I would consider Hitler to be a white supremacist based on what he writes in the start of Chapter 11: People and Race. However, this does not intrinsically mean that he wants to commit a genocide against people who would therefore be "inferior."

…Where I believe people conflate his attitude towards groups like the Jews and Africans with genocide is his very powerful use of language in the book. Throughout it, he is very intent on the will to fight and triumph over the enemy by any means necessary. I can provide some of what he says:

There is no doubt that the world will someday be the scene of huge battles for the existence of mankind. In the end, the craving for self-preservation alone will triumph. That stupid and cowardly group of humanity that thinks they know more than everyone else will find their humanitarianism melts like snow in the March sun when they face destruction. In eternal battle, mankind can find greatness; in eternal peace, it will find destruction.

These are just some of the ones that I had saved from my reading so far, but you get the idea that he wasn't willing to compromise and would do anything to fight the Jew. The context of the quotes themselves doesn't always have to do with Jews, but the powerful and determined language he uses can make people believe that he was willing to genocide the groups of people he hated in order to restore glory to Germany and his people/race.

It's always important to remember that the "blueprint for genocide" narrative was cooked up after the Holocaust narrative was put into place. There is a reason that the NSDAP won in landslide elections, and it was because Hitler had a profound way of speaking and writing that resonated with the people of Germany. If the masses in Europe at the time did not believe that this book was a "blueprint for genocide", then I think it's an unfair label to put on it today.

So, to wrap it up, the "blueprint for genocide" narrative is used because of his disdain for Jews and other groups along with the powerful, fiery language he uses to describe his mindset and world concept. These two things put together, in the shadow of the Holocaust narrative, can make people believe in such things.

*. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *.

The reason why I previously posted what I did about mistranslations is that we can’t discuss or conclude very much about the “use of language” in ‘Mein kampf’ IF we are relying totally on deliberately unfavourable translations.

In which case, neither can we fairly discuss whether it is a ‘blueprint’ for anything.

For example, you quoted an english translation of this:

„Niemand kann bezweifeln, daß diese Welt einst der Schauplatz furchtbarer Kämpfe um das Dasein der Menschheit sein wird. Am Ende aber wird allein der Instinkt der Selbsterhaltung siegen. Vor seinem verzehrenden Feuer wird diese so‑genannte Humanität, die nur Ausdruck eines Gemischs von Dummheit, Feigheit und Besserwisserei ist, wie Schnee in der Märzensonne dahinschmelzen. Der Menschheit ist Größe durch ewigen Kampf zuteilgeworden. In ewigem Frieden versiegt sie.“

A ‘battle’ refers specifically to armed combat or fighting.

‘Kämpfe’ and ‘Kampf’ refers to any kind of ‘struggle’.

The book’s very title refers to Adolf’s ‘struggle’; not to his participation in war and armed combat.

It’s original title was this:

"Viereinhalb Jahre (des Kampfes) gegen Lüge, Dummheit und Feigheit"

in English: "Four and a half years (of struggle) against lies, stupidity and cowardice"

Consequently to translate kampf as ‘battle’ is a deliberate MISTRANSLATION.
One calculated to portray Adolf as a blood-thirsty, deranged, evil, war-mongering psychopath who didn’t want there ever to be ‘peace’ on Earth amongst mankind, but instead wanted eternal conflict and war.

Which deceitfully is 1.) the complete opposite of what Adolf wanted and ironically is 2.) the precisely accurate summarisation of the wish of generations of elite jewish bankers who have profited (and continue to profit) from endless warring.

"No one can doubt that this world will one day be the scene of terrible struggles for the survival of humanity. In the end, however, only the instinct of self-preservation will prevail. Before its consuming fire, this so-called humanity, which is merely an expression of a mixture of stupidity, cowardice, and know-it-all attitude, will melt like snow in the March sun. Humanity has achieved greatness through eternal struggle. In eternal peace, it will run dry."

“In eternal peace, she [humanity] dries up."
or
"In eternal peace, humanity runs dry."

The verb versiegen is used metaphorically for the cessation of something vital, like a spring, energy, or — in this case — human greatness or vitality.

Adolf appears to be arguing that in the absence of some form of struggle, humanity would automatically decline in terms of vitality, innovation and endeavour.
He does NOT appear to me to be arguing that humanity would decline if it wasn’t eternally warring and killing each other with armies on battlefields.

Here is what an Ai engine wrote after some coaxing and rejection of its initial misrepresentations. I had asked this:

“which ‘so‑genannte Humanität’ (so-called humanity) is being referred to? Please provide the previous text which this sentence refers to.”

“At least in the beginning, the formation of a State can result only from a manifestation of the heroic qualities I have spoken of. And the people who fail in the struggle for existence, that is to say those who become vassals and are thereby condemned to disappear entirely sooner or later, are those who do not display the heroic virtues in the struggle, or those who fall victims to the perfidy of the parasites. And even in this latter case, the failure is not so much due to lack of intellectual powers, but rather to a lack of courage and determination. An attempt is made to conceal the real nature of this failing by saying that it is the humane feeling.”

“Before its consuming fire, this so‑called humanity, which is only the expression of a mixture of stupidity, cowardice, and know‑it‑all conceit, will melt like snow in the March sun.”

Key Context & Meaning
“State formation requires heroic virtues”, according to Hitler — self-sacrifice, courage, and solidarity, not mere economic or intellectual factors.
Failure in these virtues leads to subjugation or extinction.
Where a people lack these virtues, they may cloak their weakness under a guise of “humaneness” or “humane feeling”.
In his exposition, Hitler argues that this is a false pretension: a mix of Dummheit (stupidity), Feigheit (cowardice), and Besserwisserei (know‑it‑all arrogance).
He further asserts that such “so-called humanity” will not stand the test of existential struggle: it will “melt like snow in the March sun”...
This sets the stage for the subsequent concluding sentences about eternal struggle, greatness, and the drying up of the greatness of humanity in times of ease and comfort.

CONTEXT: it is useful to remember who he was writing this to.
I.e. he was writing it to his subjugated people who were undergoing phenomenally great hardship and general despair due to the ramifications of years living with the unjustly punitive treaty of Versailles. A treaty devised by jewish advisors to the victors assembled at Versaille, plus an ending to WW1 which had only come about due to what he and other Germans regarded as economic and political betrayal by German-Jewish industrialists, economists and bankers (the Dolchstoßlegende).

I think Dalton is agreed on as the most correct English translation (ie least manipulated), for what it's worth.

Stubble wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 2:26 pm I think Dalton is agreed on as the most correct English translation (ie least manipulated), for what it's worth.

Yes, agreed.