Has anyone read the "Mein Kampf"?

[flyermay]

No, I'm not being funny. :) Has anyone read Hitler's "Mein Kampf"?

I just discovered the most curious thing when I started reading this book recently. Not that I have any particular interest in Naziism or Fascism; except that I'm an anti-fascist. Anyway, the case is that I started reading it, and when I reached the middle of it I realised I could use some of it for a new chapter of my Judeo-Masonic conspiracy. So, I decided to stop reading the Spanish version, and downloaded the English version. I started reading it again from the beginning, and just after a couple of chapter, I realised that this was not the same guy; it was a completely different Hitler! I mean, in the Spanish version, you see how Hitler starts by not caring at all about the Jews, then he realises that the Jews are manipulating all aspects of German life, promoting Marxism, and ends disliking them all. However, on the English version, Hitler’s is just a fucking racist and an intolerant who can't stand seeing Jews everywhere, and he comes to the conclusion that someone needs to solve the Jewish question because Jews are not equal to Germans... What the hell is going on???

Does anyone know which one is the genuine version?... The answer might seem obvious, but I can think of another possibility: either the anti-Nazis changed the original to make Hitler look bad, or the Neo-Nazis changed the original to make Hitler look good.

What do you think of all this?

[flyermay]

What I just found has confused things even further. This is the synopsis from the Barnes & Noble website, advertising the "Mein Kampf Official Nazi Translation" by James Murphy:

Synopsis:

This is the Official Nazi English Translation of Mein Kampf. It was recently rediscovered after all copies were thought to have been destroyed. This is one of the rarest Mein Kampf editions ever made and it passed from hand to hand without the owners knowing what it truly was or the value for 65 years. Finally, in 2009, the full story has not only been revealed but the text is available for the world to read.

The Nazi Propaganda Ministry wanted to produce an English language version of Mein Kampf. However, they were also leery about revealing too much. In spite of this, they decided to go ahead and hired a British man to create a translation for the Nazi government which would later become the Official Nazi Translation written in 1936-37. The man was James Murphy and he had some sympathies for Nazi politics which made them trust him enough to begin a translation.

This edition was translated while he was living in Germany. Over time, Murphy's opinions about the Nazi government changed. The Nazi government decided they no longer cared for him after he made some critical remarks and told him he had to leave. He left quickly without his translation into English. The Nazi government completed the translation and it was printed within Germany from the presses of the Nazi printing office. It is unknown exactly when the book was published but it was found in a prison camp which opened in 1938 and was liberated in 1945 so the book must have been published sometime during those dates.

This is a very rare historical version which has previously been unknown. If you have already read Mein Kampf then you will find the differences fascinating. If you have not yet read it, then this versioncan quickly spark your curiosity.

Find out what the official Nazi version contains today.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Mein-Kampf-Official-Nazi-Translation/Adolf-Hitler/e/9780977476091

But it just happens that this is the English version I have, and is actually the one that portrays Hitler as acting out of pure racism, anti-semitism and intolerance. So, it seems that the unfavourable edition is actually the Nazi official edition... It doesn’t really make sense to me. :confused:

And much less the fact that this unique copy of this rare edition was recently found in a prison camp... Who was supposed to be reading it in the prison camp? Perhaps a Jewish prisoner? Or maybe a Nazi German guard that happened to prefered the English to the original German version?

[pdd500]

Does anyone know which one is the genuine version?...

What do you think of all this?

genuine version? :confused:
Didn't the Vatican write mien the Kampf?how do you expect to find the truth in any of the versions?

[catfood]

When i read it (English one) he come to his conclusions about the Jews over time, and did not appear to be against them until latter in his life. After his investigation into the media and politics of preWW2 Austria.
Maybe you have a different translation? Mine is from JAICO BOOKS.

[dontbeafraid]

"Force without spiritualism is doomed to failure" AH

[catfood]

"Force without spiritualism is doomed to failure" AH

The Nazi movement was awash with spiritualism. Have a look into it, its interesting.

[dontbeafraid]

The Nazi movement was awash with spiritualism. Have a look into it, its interesting.

I know, thats why Adolf Hitler said that. The quote was from him, AH

[freedom1st]

No, I'm not being funny. :) Has anyone read Hitler's "Mein Kampf"?

I just discovered the most curious thing when I started reading this book recently. Not that I have any particular interest in Naziism or Fascism; except that I'm an anti-fascist. Anyway, the case is that I started reading it, and when I reached the middle of it I realised I could use some of it for a new chapter of my Judeo-Masonic conspiracy. So, I decided to stop reading the Spanish version, and downloaded the English version. I started reading it again from the beginning, and just after a couple of chapter, I realise that this was not the same guy; it was a completely different Hitler! I mean, in the Spanish version, you see how Hitler starts by not caring at all about the Jews, then he realises that the Jews are manipulating all aspects of German life, promoting Marxism, and ends disliking them all. However, on the English version, Hitler’s is just a fucking racist and an intolerant who can't stand seeing Jews everywhere, and he comes to the conclusion that someone need to solve the Jewish question because Jews are not equal to Germans... What the hell is going on???

Does anyone know which one is the genuine version?... The answer might seem obvious, but I can think of another possibility: either the anti-Nazis changed the original to make Hitler look bad, or the Neo-Nazis changed the original to make Hitler look good.

What do you think of all this?

The Spanish version is correct. This should be obvious when you think about the Israel lobby in the UK and the control they have had over this country.
So a logical way to look at this would be to decide which country (out of UK and Spain) is most aligned with the jews/Israel - that should give you your answer.
Good find btw.

I did have a copy of the English version which I found in my cellar many years after moving here. I assume it either belonged to the previous owners or my brother or ex stored it in the cellar. Anyway, I didn't bother to read the book itself, just the 25 points at the back. These points make up a sort of manifesto and tbh I couldn't find anything wrong with what was being proposed. From memory I think it stated that all should receive free education and have access to land. There were many other good things in there. I too am not a fascist but I can't deny there were many good policies in there.

[flyermay]

When i read it (English one) he come to his conclusions about the Jews over time, and did not appear to be against them until latter in his life. After his investigation into the media and politics of preWW2 Austria.
Maybe you have a different translation? Mine is from JAICO BOOKS.

I downloaded both from the internet, so I don't know who's translation is the Spanish version, but the English version is from James Murphy.

I've been trying to download more edition, and I've already downloaded another different English edition, by Edgar Dugdale (published by Hurst & Blackett). But listen to what I found about this particular version:

Dugdale abridgment version

The first English translation was an abridgment by Edgar Dugdale who started work on it in 1931, at the prompting of his wife, Blanche [read further down who Blanche was, and why she promted him to do it]. When he learned that the London publishing firm of Hurst & Blackett had secured the rights to publish an abridgment in the United Kingdom, he offered it for free in April 1933. However, a local Nazi representative insisted that the translation be further abridged before publication, so it was held back from the public until October 13, 1933, although excerpts were allowed to run in The Times in late July.

... Both Dugdale and his wife were active in the Zionist movement; Blanche was the niece of Lord Balfour, and they wished to avoid publicity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf#Dugdale_abridgment

Now I understand it all... :)

[flyermay]

The Spanish version is correct. This should be obvious when you think about the Israel lobby in the UK and the control they have had over this country.
So a logical way to look at this would be to decide which country (out of UK and Spain) is most aligned with the jews/Israel - that should give you your answer.
Good find btw.

I'm afraid you are absolutely right, look at my previous post...

[ronisron]

Yes I did. I the early 90's I was into reading up about Crowley, the Occult and it's connections to Nazism. Order of The Golden Dawn, etc. I read Hitler's biography, a translated Mein Kampf, and a few alternate versions of the official story of Hitler and WWII provided to me by the owner of the Bookshop I frequented. He supposedly wrote Mein Kampf during incarceration. I believe many aspects of the book have been discredited somewhat.

[flyermay]

Yes I did. I the early 90's I was into reading up about Crowley, the Occult and it's connections to Nazism. Order of The Golden Dawn, etc. I read Hitler's biography, a translated Mein Kampf, and a few alternate versions of the official story of Hitler and WWII provided to me by the owner of the Bookshop I frequented. He supposedly wrote Mein Kampf during incarceration. I believe many aspects of the book have been discredited somewhat.

I just found that there are actually all this different version:

Dugdale abridgment
Murphy translation
Reynal and Hitchcock translation
Stackpole translation
Cranston translation
Manheim translation
Official Nazi Translation


And all of them go back and forth, cutting and adding, on anti-semitism and militarisation.

The reason I'm reading it is to find out Hitler's thoughts about the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy; which I'm writing about. But the fact that all the editions portray him in a different way regarding the Jewish issue completely changes my final conclusions on this matter.

IMO, and I agree with freedom1st, the edition were he explains his anti-semitism as the result of Jewish involvement in socio-political matters makes more sense to me. But now I'm puzzled by the fact that this edition is not the one approved by the Third Reich. At the contrary, the one approved by the Third Reich is the one that portrays him in a negative way.

[freedom1st]

I just found that there are actually all this different version:

Dugdale abridgment
Murphy translation
Reynal and Hitchcock translation
Stackpole translation
Cranston translation
Manheim translation
Official Nazi Translation


And all of them go back and forth, cutting and adding, on anti-semitism and militarisation.

The reason I'm reading it is to find out Hitler's thoughts about the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy; which I'm writing about. But the fact that all the editions portray him in a different way regarding the Jewish issue completely changes my final conclusions on this matter.

IMO, and I agree with freedom1st, the edition were he explains his anti-semitism as the result of Jewish involvement in socio-political matters makes more sense to me. But now I'm puzzled by the fact that this edition is not the one approved by the Third Reich. At the contrary, the one approved by the Third Reich is the one that portrays him in a negative way.

Of course it does. Just as the German gov are now Israel's patsies and hand over extortion money, so they will, and do, obey on the propoganda side.

[flyermay]

Of course it does. Just as the German gov are now Israel's patsies and hand over extortion money, so they will, and do, obey on the propoganda side.

Yep, the story about a single copy of Murphy's translation (the one approved by the Third Reich) being found in a prison camp sounds quite suspicious to me.

So far I was only able to find online Murphy's and Dugdale's editions in English. But as I said, those are the exactly two that I most distrust. I'm wordering to which of the English translations does the Spanish one corresponds; if it does correspond to any of them.

[forrest22]

yes, and i also read my camps:D

[freedom1st]

Yep, the story about a single copy of Murphy's translation (the one approved by the Third Reich) being found in a prison camp sounds quite suspicious to me.
So far I was only able to find online Murphy's and Dugdale's editions in English. But as I said, those are the exactly two that I most distrust. I'm wordering to which of the English translations does the Spanish one corresponds; if it does correspond to any of them.

Bit like them finding an intact passport at WTC on 9/11

[catfood]

yes, and i also read my camps:D

HA HA. your avatar had me a little confused for a second there. :D

[catfood]

I know, thats why Adolf Hitler said that. The quote was from him, AH

LOL, :o:o

[jp13]

I tried to read the 'English' version many years ago, but gave up it was too tedious, maybe it was my age, but none of it seemed remotely connected to Nazi Germany.

[flyermay]

I tried to read the 'English' version many years ago, but gave up it was too tedious, maybe it was my age, but none of it seemed remotely connected to Nazi Germany.

It's quite heavy on politics, and that's the reason I'm finding it interesting. It's also interesting being able to see Hitler as any other normal human being (for a change), with his own problems and hopes. But the most interesting part is hearing him describe the same problems that we complain about every day on this forum about our government and our politicians, and also to hear from him the same arguments that some people on this forum use against the Jews, Zionism and communism.

But if you were looking for a book about Naziism, I'm afraid he wrote it years before the Nazis got into power.

HA HA. your avatar had me a little confused for a second there. :D

I thought you ware replying to yourself. :D

[piskavac]

No, I didn't.

[freedom1st]

It's quite heavy on politics, and that's the reason I'm finding it interesting. It's also interesting being able to see Hitler as any other normal human being (for a change), with his own problems and hopes. But the most interesting part is hearing him describe the same problems that we complain about every day on this forum about our government and our politicians, and also to hear from him the same arguments that some people on this forum use against the Jews, Zionism and communism.

But if you were looking for a book about Naziism, I'm afraid he wrote it years before the Nazis got into power.


So could it be that he saw the same problems as we do and instead of posting about them on the internet he decided to try and do something about it?

[flyermay]

So could it be that he saw the same problems as we do and instead of posting about them on the internet he decided to try and do something about it?

Well, yes, the reason I'm reading his book is to find out to what extent did his actions we based on the problem of the internatinal bankers and Zionism.

So far, I found quite a few evidences that suggest he did act because he saw Germany being taken over by both; plus by Marxism. But as I said, I only read half of it, since this is now the third time I'm going to start it from the beginig (to take notes), though I also want to wait and see if I can download all the different translations and compare them, to prove the delibarate attempts to demonise Hitler by Zionists and the international bankers; which IMO have been corrupting the whole world (and even history itself) for their own benefit, and in this case in favour of Zionism.

Said that, to me it makes no difference what Hitler says or what excuses he makes to justify his actions: nothing will ever change my mind about fascism, though I'm getting a pretty accurate picture of how fascists really think, and why they reach such extremes.

[freedom1st]

Well, yes, the reason I'm reading his book is to find out to what extent did his actions we based on the problem of the internatinal bankers and Zionism.

So far, I found quite a few evidences that suggest he did act because he saw Germany being taken over by both; plus by Marxism. But as I said, I only read half of it, since this is now the third time I'm going to start it from the beginig (to take notes), though I also want to wait and see if I can download all the different translations and compare them, to prove the delibarate attempts to demonise Hitler by Zionists and the international bankers; which IMO have been corrupting the whole world (and even history itself) for their own benefit, and in this case in favour of Zionism.

Said that, to me it makes no difference what Hitler says or what excuses he makes to justify his actions: nothing will ever change my mind about fascism, though I'm getting a pretty accurate picture of how fascists really think, and why they reach such extremes.

That's a good idea. If you reach some irrefutable conclusions you may want to consider writing a book?
You may have to go to Spain to get it published though..lol

I think what you are doing is a good thing. I think there is so much disinfo on the internet and elsewhere
that it ofen becomes very difficult to find the truth.

For me I tend to look at who benefits (follow the money). In most cases it is clear who benefits and
therefore it is relatively easy to see who the guilty are. I would imagine there are very few exceptions
to that rule.

My understanding of WW2/Hilter is that following WW1, and the subsequent Versaille Treaty, the
German people were literally starving - this is what gave Hitler the opportunity to come into power.
Then there was the situation in Poland whereby 10's of thousands of Germans were slaughtered leading
Hilter to invade.
I do not think he began with the intention of hunting down the jews, but it soon became clear that
they did not have Germany's interests at heart.
There are many books written about the actions of jews during WW2 and to say they were provocative
is an understatement imo.

So anyway, using the 'who benefits' question I can only conclude that organised jewry benefitted
from WW2 - and in a big way (it doesn't get much bigger than having your own state!).
The holocaust itself is now an industry and again we can see who has the ongoing benefit of this
industry based on massive exaggeration.

I think I already know what you will conclude but I look forward to seeing it.

[flyermay]

That's a good idea. If you reach some irrefutable conclusions you may want to consider writing a book?
You may have to go to Spain to get it published though..lol

I almost finished the internet version (you can find it here: http://judeo-masonic.blogspot.com). I already thought about writing it well, filling it up a bit with useless sophistry, and try to find a publisher. :) IMO people should know all this, and realise how they are being manipulated.

I already moved to Spain recently, but all my research is written in English; though I already had a few petitions for a Spanish translation. lol

Either way, this research is just for an added chapter (maybe a couple more). The initial plan was to write 3 chapters, but once I started digging into all this I found out that there is practically no end to it and that every major event for the last 200 years is connected to it.

I think what you are doing is a good thing. I think there is so much disinfo on the internet and elsewhere
that it ofen becomes very difficult to find the truth.

For me I tend to look at who benefits (follow the money). In most cases it is clear who benefits and
therefore it is relatively easy to see who the guilty are. I would imagine there are very few exceptions
to that rule.

I agree, but if you follow the few lose ends left by the PTB you can get to the bottom of it all. That's why I took the time to reference every single statement in my research -avoiding conspiracy theorists or dubious sources- and even then, all points towards one conclusion: the international bankers (the usurers) have taken over the world.

My understanding of WW2/Hilter is that following WW1, and the subsequent Versaille Treaty, the
German people were literally starving - this is what gave Hitler the opportunity to come into power.
Then there was the situation in Poland whereby 10's of thousands of Germans were slaughtered leading
Hilter to invade.
I do not think he began with the intention of hunting down the jews, but it soon became clear that
they did not have Germany's interests at heart.
There are many books written about the actions of jews during WW2 and to say they were provocative
is an understatement imo.

So anyway, using the 'who benefits' question I can only conclude that organised jewry benefitted
from WW2 - and in a big way (it doesn't get much bigger than having your own state!).
The holocaust itself is now an industry and again we can see who has the ongoing benefit of this
industry based on massive exaggeration.

I think I already know what you will conclude but I look forward to seeing it.

Yes, for what I read, I also got that impression. But IMO Hitler, as well as every other leader from the early 20th century that discovered the plot, made a huge mistake with their anti-semitism. And this mistake is one of the main reasons for the international banker's success.

[dogsmilk]

The Spanish version is correct. This should be obvious when you think about the Israel lobby in the UK and the control they have had over this country.
So a logical way to look at this would be to decide which country (out of UK and Spain) is most aligned with the jews/Israel - that should give you your answer.
Good find btw.

I did have a copy of the English version which I found in my cellar many years after moving here. I assume it either belonged to the previous owners or my brother or ex stored it in the cellar. Anyway, I didn't bother to read the book itself, just the 25 points at the back. These points make up a sort of manifesto and tbh I couldn't find anything wrong with what was being proposed. From memory I think it stated that all should receive free education and have access to land. There were many other good things in there. I too am not a fascist but I can't deny there were many good policies in there.

This will be the 25 points of the Nazi program, their manifesto - it isn't in my copy but assume it's in other editions which makes sense as Hitler does refer to it in the text.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program#The_25-point_Program_of_the_NSDAP
Muchh of it does sound ok, though it obviously had scant relation to the eventual reality when they got into power.

Even so, It's very striking how you show your true colours here - without going into the implications of some of the others, some are stark enough in and of themselves -

I couldn't find anything wrong with what was being proposed.

Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race.

We demand land and territory (colonies) for the sustenance of our people, and colonization for our surplus population.

We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language: c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.

That's right! Freedom1st endorses full state control of the media!

The good of the state before the good of the individual.

For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general.

Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since 2 August 1914, be forced immediately to leave the Reich.

(this is overtly racist as the Nazis happily embraced foreigners of 'German blood')

[freedom1st]

This will be the 25 points of the Nazi program, their manifesto - it isn't in my copy but assume it's in other editions which makes sense as Hitler does refer to it in the text.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program#The_25-point_Program_of_the_NSDAP
Muchh of it does sound ok, though it obviously had scant relation to the eventual reality when they got into power.

Even so, It's very striking how you show your true colours here - without going into the implications of some of the others, some are stark enough in and of themselves -

That's right! Freedom1st endorses full state control of the media!

(this is overtly racist as the Nazis happily embraced foreigners of 'German blood')

This is the 1st post aimed at me, from yourself, that is civil and reasonable. Therefore I'll respond:-

I took the view that given the history of Germany at that point and given the enemy they were confronted with they had little choice but to remove the influences that had thus far brought them to their knees.
Imagine your country was being destroyed from within. You would want a solution to the problem and that would mean removing those from within who were destroying your country. If you found out that the enemy owned the printing presses you would ensure they were removed and that no other enemy could use propoganda in the future as a means to destroy your country.
At that time the enemy was well entrenched and very powerful in all positions including the press and banking. The only way to remove them was what was being proposed in that manifesto.
Germany at that time had been taken over and as a result the country was being brought to its knees and the people were starving. In that situation you would expect your leader to provide solutions to the problems. Those solutions had to involve removing the enemy from the printing press and banking. That had to involve draconian measures - there was no other way of doing it.
You do realise why Germany was in the mess it was in?
I believe if someone presented themselves today with a vision of making the world a better place by destroying zionism and the removing the parasites currently running the banking system many of us would be supportive. I think that was goal as far as Germany was concerned back then. Had they achieved their goal would the world be a better place? I don't know, but I do know that the world has been screwed with the alternative, ie. the zionists were allowed to continue, and just look at what they've done!!

[rodin]

What I just found has confused things even further. This is the synopsis from the Barnes & Noble website, advertising the "Mein Kampf Official Nazi Translation" by James Murphy:



But it just happens that this is the English version I have, and is actually the one that portrays Hitler as acting out of pure racism, anti-semitism and intolerance. So, it seems that the unfavourable edition is actually the Nazi official edition... It doesn’t really make sense to me. :confused:

And much less the fact that this unique copy of this rare edition was recently found in a prison camp... Who was supposed to be reading it in the prison camp? Perhaps a Jewish prisoner? Or maybe a Nazi German guard that happened to prefered the English to the original German version?

Sounds like fake evidence. Points to which the correct version is

[flyermay]

Sounds like fake evidence. Points to which the correct version is

Yes, it looks to me like the 2 main English translations have been tampered with. The first was done by a Zionist, who offered himself for free to do it, and who was the husband of Lord Belfour's nice. And just one copy of the other translations conviniently appeared in a prison camp 45 years after it was supposedly published.

Doesn't sound right to me, and definitely explains why Hitler is a completely different person in the English and the Spanish translations.

[rodin]

Yes, it looks to me like the 2 main English translations have been tampered with. The first was done by a Zionist, who offered himself for free to do it, and who was the husband of Lord Belfour's nice. And just one copy of the other translations conviniently appeared in a prison camp 45 years after it was supposedly published.

Doesn't sound right to me, and definitely explains why Hitler is a completely different person in the English and the Spanish translations.

Good thread. In never heard about different versions of Mein Kampf before. I have only read selected quotes on websites. If the original can be reliably sourced I think essential reading

[flyermay]

Good thread. In never heard about different versions of Mein Kampf before. I have only read selected quotes on websites. If the original can be reliably sourced I think essential reading

It seems that there are 7 different English translations. I'm trying to get a copy of each, to find out which one corresponds to the Spanish translation. I'll post the results as soon as I get all the copies and compare them.

It's definitely one of the most interesting books I ever read.

[tinyint]

Sounds like fake evidence. Points to which the correct version is

There are even different versions in german.

The supposed original, which I read from my grandpa, and the newer "commented" version, I didn't read.

[freedom1st]

There are even different versions in german.

The supposed original, which I read from my grandpa, and the newer "commented" version, I didn't read.

Can you give us a brief overview of the original?

[tinyint]

Can you give us a brief overview of the original?

Well, most of the book is about the organisation and structure of the NSDAP in great length, pages of babble. Its more comparable to a party's program as it is done today as well.
Really, very boring and it takes some effort and patience to read through it.

However, I cant remember a passage where it states some final solution or any other such claims which today accompany the book.
Keep also in mind, that the book is still forbidden in Germany, hence you only get the commented version officially, if at all.

For a more detailed summary, I'd have to read some passages again.
Its been a good while since I read it.

As for the 2 different german versions, the most obvious are the comments in the newer one.
They serve as a readers influencing tool, to "form" the opinion while reading. ^^
I don't know if the newer version is exactly the same as the original.

There are some german sources who point out, that even the original was already altered.
I also think, Hitler didn't write it for himself, he was just executing what the puppetmasters behind him wanted him to publish.

[freedom1st]

Well, most of the book is about the organisation and structure of the NSDAP in great length, pages of babble. Its more comparable to a party's program as it is done today as well.
Really, very boring and it takes some effort and patience to read through it.

However, I cant remember a passage where it states some final solution or any other such claims which today accompany the book.
Keep also in mind, that the book is still forbidden in Germany, hence you only get the commented version officially, if at all.

For a more detailed summary, I'd have to read some passages again.
Its been a good while since I read it.

As for the 2 different german versions, the most obvious are the comments in the newer one.
They serve as a readers influencing tool, to "form" the opinion while reading. ^^
I don't know if the newer version is exactly the same as the original.

There are some german sources who point out, that even the original was already altered.
I also think, Hitler didn't write it for himself, he was just executing what the puppetmasters behind him wanted him to publish.

Thanks tiny.:)

[dogsmilk]

This is the 1st post aimed at me, from yourself, that is civil and reasonable. Therefore I'll respond:-

I took the view that given the history of Germany at that point and given the enemy they were confronted with they had little choice but to remove the influences that had thus far brought them to their knees.
Imagine your country was being destroyed from within. You would want a solution to the problem and that would mean removing those from within who were destroying your country. If you found out that the enemy owned the printing presses you would ensure they were removed and that no other enemy could use propoganda in the future as a means to destroy your country.
At that time the enemy was well entrenched and very powerful in all positions including the press and banking. The only way to remove them was what was being proposed in that manifesto.
Germany at that time had been taken over and as a result the country was being brought to its knees and the people were starving. In that situation you would expect your leader to provide solutions to the problems. Those solutions had to involve removing the enemy from the printing press and banking. That had to involve draconian measures - there was no other way of doing it.
You do realise why Germany was in the mess it was in?
I believe if someone presented themselves today with a vision of making the world a better place by destroying zionism and the removing the parasites currently running the banking system many of us would be supportive. I think that was goal as far as Germany was concerned back then. Had they achieved their goal would the world be a better place? I don't know, but I do know that the world has been screwed with the alternative, ie. the zionists were allowed to continue, and just look at what they've done!!

Right, so it's just a big rant about Jews - let's be very clear here, you can't twist this into I've-got-nothing-against-Jews-it's-just-Zionists-i-claim-are-behind-everything - the Nazis were explicitly against Jews and from a 'racial' perspective - it is that you are endorsing. The Nazis were 100% clear about this. The Zionists they could deal with as during the expulsion phase Jews buggering off to Palestine - despite the British quotas the world controlling Zionists somehow weren't able to control - was fine by them.
The Jewish population of Germany was highly assimilated and for the most part saw themselves as Germans. Zionism was tiny.
What you mean by being 'destroyed from within' and 'taken over' is anyone's guess - I presume you object to Germany being a democracy at this point. Certainly the Nazis didn't like the way Germany was going in the period of prosperity before the big crash - modern art, jazz based on the jungle rhythms of the negro, even - horror! - homosexuality getting a bit more overground.
What do you mean by "parasites running the banking system"? - Sure there were plenty of Jewish bankers (though I seem to recall Jewish banking was actually in decline) but it's utterly ludicrous to claim they 'ran the banking system' (or the printing presses) and not even the Nazis claimed Zionists were controlling banking - this whole 'Zionist conspiracy' business is modern and simply does not reflect what the Jew haters you support were saying at the time. AFAIK (and I'd be grateful for anyone with further info if there's anything earlier) replacing 'Jew' with 'Zionist' dates back to Willis Carto in the 1960s. This was quite a clever move as plenty of people who aren't bigots are critical of Israel, so it's kinda nifty to re-hash standard Jewish conspiracy theories but just re-name them Zionist conspiracies. In essence they're basically identical - just arbitrarily claim Nazi racial ideology was somehow about Zionism and away you go.

The Nazis sought to erase Jews from all aspects of German life. So you support "draconian measures" like taking away their livelihoods (of course they started with the small businesses because it was easier), forbidding Jews and Aryans from having sex, forbidding Jews from keeping pets, forbidding Jews from driving cars, forbidding Jews from practicing medicine on Aryans, forbidding Jews from owning a radio, forbidding Jews from sitting on park benches. Any of course ultimately exterminating them, though you deny that happened. But of course the Jews were powerless to stop this. Just as they were unable to stop their exclusion from just about every facet of German life. So of course you sometimes get the deranged, utterly baseless claims the 'Zionists' somehow engineered this for their own ends because the immensely ugly situation Jews found themselves in just can't be allowed to stand because you can't claim Jews rule the world while Germany (and her allies, though not all) subjected Jews to intense persecution.

Well I could say a lot more about this, but I can't be arsed. Though it's worth pointing out you have completely ignored stuff you 'can't find anything wrong with' that isn't about Jews:

We demand land and territory (colonies) for the sustenance of our people, and colonization for our surplus population.

This is about colonialism. Of course other Western European countries were running colonies at this time and of course the British Empire was fucking massive so the Nazis desire for empire has to be seen in this context. As I suppose does Zionism in terms of turning up in another country and living there. Hitler wanted an empire in the East and was pretty explicit about this.
But the issue is you apparently can't see anything wrong with this. You say "Had they achieved their goal would the world be a better place? I don't know" - into this you have to factor in the subjugation of the slavs - not as bad as Jews, but still 'inferior'. It's frankly staggering anyone can sit there and wonder if "the world would be a better place" with an overtly racist, eugenicist totalitarian empire. Is this what you're into then? We need to mention the eugenics part, because your 'better world' is one where mentally ill and disabled people are routinely sterilised and murdered.


The good of the state before the good of the individual.

!

We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. [b]All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language: c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.

This isn't just about Jews. This is about state media control. As we subsequently saw, this was about banning jazz and the like.

Etc.

You call yourself "freedom1st", yet you are an apologist for totalitarian racial nationalism - how does that work? It's interesting how one particular dictatorship comes in for routine apologism on this forum - the one most famous for fucking hating Jews. Why doesn't anyone shill for Mussolini or Stalin? Stalin wasn't fond of Jews and didn't like Zionism (except for a brief period when he thought he could get Israel on his side), so you'd think he'd get a look in, surely?

[freedom1st]

Right, so it's just a big rant about Jews - let's be very clear here, you can't twist this into I've-got-nothing-against-Jews-it's-just-Zionists-i-claim-are-behind-everything - the Nazis were explicitly against Jews and from a 'racial' perspective - it is that you are endorsing. The Nazis were 100% clear about this. The Zionists they could deal with as during the expulsion phase Jews buggering off to Palestine - despite the British quotas the world controlling Zionists somehow weren't able to control - was fine by them.
The Jewish population of Germany was highly assimilated and for the most part saw themselves as Germans. Zionism was tiny.
What you mean by being 'destroyed from within' and 'taken over' is anyone's guess - I presume you object to Germany being a democracy at this point. Certainly the Nazis didn't like the way Germany was going in the period of prosperity before the big crash - modern art, jazz based on the jungle rhythms of the negro, even - horror! - homosexuality getting a bit more overground.
What do you mean by "parasites running the banking system"? - Sure there were plenty of Jewish bankers (though I seem to recall Jewish banking was actually in decline) but it's utterly ludicrous to claim they 'ran the banking system' (or the printing presses) and not even the Nazis claimed Zionists were controlling banking - this whole 'Zionist conspiracy' business is modern and simply does not reflect what the Jew haters you support were saying at the time. AFAIK (and I'd be grateful for anyone with further info if there's anything earlier) replacing 'Jew' with 'Zionist' dates back to Willis Carto in the 1960s. This was quite a clever move as plenty of people who aren't bigots are critical of Israel, so it's kinda nifty to re-hash standard Jewish conspiracy theories but just re-name them Zionist conspiracies. In essence they're basically identical - just arbitrarily claim Nazi racial ideology was somehow about Zionism and away you go.

The Nazis sought to erase Jews from all aspects of German life. So you support "draconian measures" like taking away their livelihoods (of course they started with the small businesses because it was easier), forbidding Jews and Aryans from having sex, forbidding Jews from keeping pets, forbidding Jews from driving cars, forbidding Jews from practicing medicine on Aryans, forbidding Jews from owning a radio, forbidding Jews from sitting on park benches. Any of course ultimately exterminating them, though you deny that happened. But of course the Jews were powerless to stop this. Just as they were unable to stop their exclusion from just about every facet of German life. So of course you sometimes get the deranged, utterly baseless claims the 'Zionists' somehow engineered this for their own ends because the immensely ugly situation Jews found themselves in just can't be allowed to stand because you can't claim Jews rule the world while Germany (and her allies, though not all) subjected Jews to intense persecution.

Well I could say a lot more about this, but I can't be arsed. Though it's worth pointing out you have completely ignored stuff you 'can't find anything wrong with' that isn't about Jews:



This is about colonialism. Of course other Western European countries were running colonies at this time and of course the British Empire was fucking massive so the Nazis desire for empire has to be seen in this context. As I suppose does Zionism in terms of turning up in another country and living there. Hitler wanted an empire in the East and was pretty explicit about this.
But the issue is you apparently can't see anything wrong with this. You say "Had they achieved their goal would the world be a better place? I don't know" - into this you have to factor in the subjugation of the slavs - not as bad as Jews, but still 'inferior'. It's frankly staggering anyone can sit there and wonder if "the world would be a better place" with an overtly racist, eugenicist totalitarian empire. Is this what you're into then? We need to mention the eugenics part, because your 'better world' is one where mentally ill and disabled people are routinely sterilised and murdered.




!



This isn't just about Jews. This is about state media control. As we subsequently saw, this was about banning jazz and the like.

Etc.

You call yourself "freedom1st", yet you are an apologist for totalitarian racial nationalism - how does that work? It's interesting how one particular dictatorship comes in for routine apologism on this forum - the one most famous for fucking hating Jews. Why doesn't anyone shill for Mussolini or Stalin? Stalin wasn't fond of Jews and didn't like Zionism (except for a brief period when he thought he could get Israel on his side), so you'd think he'd get a look in, surely?

I don't have time to answer the whole post (gotta feed the kids). All I would say is that I see the Israelis and I'm convinced they are the Nazis - same mo.
This is what I think Hitler was fighting against, clearly he lost and now we have Israel and all it stands for. This world will not survive the Nazis who occupy Israel unless enough wake up to the fact that official history is bs.

[flyermay]

Well, most of the book is about the organisation and structure of the NSDAP in great length, pages of babble. Its more comparable to a party's program as it is done today as well.
Really, very boring and it takes some effort and patience to read through it.

However, I cant remember a passage where it states some final solution or any other such claims which today accompany the book.
Keep also in mind, that the book is still forbidden in Germany, hence you only get the commented version officially, if at all.

For a more detailed summary, I'd have to read some passages again.
Its been a good while since I read it.

As for the 2 different german versions, the most obvious are the comments in the newer one.
They serve as a readers influencing tool, to "form" the opinion while reading. ^^
I don't know if the newer version is exactly the same as the original.

There are some german sources who point out, that even the original was already altered.
I also think, Hitler didn't write it for himself, he was just executing what the puppetmasters behind him wanted him to publish.

I just downloaded 2 German versions (including the origianal Eher Verlag edition from 1927). Send me a PM if you are interested in them.

[dogsmilk]

I don't have time to answer the whole post (gotta feed the kids).

It's ok - there's no rush.


All I would say is that I see the Israelis and I'm convinced they are the Nazis - same mo.

In what way? I mean how is Israel National Socialist? You can draw some kind of irony in Israel's treatment of Palestinians, but I'd say the similarity ends there and it's not like Israel has the monopoly on treating people badly.


This is what I think Hitler was fighting against, clearly he lost and now we have Israel and all it stands for. This world will not survive the Nazis who occupy Israel unless enough wake up to the fact that official history is bs.

Please elaborate as this is nonsensical to me.

[flyermay]

Ok, I was just able to get 2 different English editions (don't think I'll be able to get the other 5), and I started comparing them.

I compared the James Murphy translation (the one found in the prison camp) with another English translation by Reynal & Hitchcock, and found that they are completely different; not only in content, but also on the way they express Hitler's thoughts.

These are just a couple of examples of what I'm talking about:

On the Murphy edition:
"And with that I came up against the Jewish problem."

On the Reynal & Hitchcock edition:
"and then I also came upon the Jewish problem."

Notice the word in bold, and how the first phrase gives the reader a completely different impression on Hitler's intent about the Jewish problem.

On the Murphy edition:
"I will not say that the manner in which I first became acquainted with it was particularly unpleasant for me."

On the Reynal & Hitchcock edition:
"I cannot say that I particularly liked the way in which I was to become acquainted with them."

Notice that in the first phrase Hitler did not find unpleasant the way he first came acquainted with the Jewish problem, while in the second he says he didn't like it. This changes completely the whole meaning of the phrase, and in the long run ends up giving the reader the impression that his fears were unjustified and that he acted purely out of racism and anti-semitism.

These 2 examples are from the same page (there are more), and they might not seem much of a difference to you. But once you read this particular chapter in both books, you end up with a completely different opinion of who was Hitler, and how he saw the Jews and the Jewish problem. It's like 2 different Hitlers writting 2 different books, but describing the same events!!!

[jp13]

Interesting to say the least, and as for reading 5 or 8 different copies, I admire your researching skills.

[dogsmilk]

Ok, I was just able to get 2 different English editions (don't think I'll be able to get the other 5), and I started comparing them.

I compared the James Murphy translation (the one found in the prison camp) with another English translation by Reynal & Hitchcock, and found that they are completely different; not only in content, but also on the way they express Hitler's thoughts.

These are just a couple of examples of what I'm talking about:





These 2 examples are from the same page (there are more), and they might not seem much of a difference to you. But once you read this particular chapter in both books, you end up with a completely different opinion of who was Hitler, and how he saw the Jews and the Jewish problem. It's like 2 different Hitlers writting 2 different books, but describing the same events!!!

You might find this page to be of interest.

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Mien_Kampf

Particularly since it says the Reynal and Hitchcock translation came from the new school of social research which makes it ripe for sweeping conspiracy claims.

You may also wish to consider the possibility some translations may be better than others. I don't myself think your first example presents any kind of radically different meaning, though the second does seem to present a bit of a different slant. I do appreciate thinking that despite the fact great care should be taken in translations, there are inevitably differences and sometimes inaccuracies in changing entire books in one language to another is far less exciting than assuming such differences are due to the machinations of Judeo-Masonic conspirators.

[flyermay]

You might find this page to be of interest.

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Mien_Kampf

Thanks DM, the content of that page in regards to the translations seems to be the same as what I read on the wikipedia.

Particularly since it says the Reynal and Hitchcock translation came from the new school of social research which makes it ripe for sweeping conspiracy claims.

You may also wish to consider the possibility some translations may be better than others. I don't myself think your first example presents any kind of radically different meaning, though the second does seem to present a bit of a different slant. I do appreciate thinking that despite the fact great care should be taken in translations, there are inevitably differences and sometimes inaccuracies in changing entire books in one language to another is far less exciting than assuming such differences are due to the machinations of Judeo-Masonic conspirators.

The truth is that I'm still trying to figure out if it could be a conspiracy or not; I don't like to jump to quick conclusions until I research the arguments of both sides. So in that respect I appreciate your participation in this debate.

But you have to agree with me that Dugdale rushing to offer himself for free to do the first translation and the fact that he and his wife (who was the nice of Lord Belfour) were deep into Zionism sounds a bit suspicious.

On the other hand we have the only supposed Third Reich approved version being lost, and suddenly appearing after 45 years in a German prison camp. And then we have that this version, even though was supposedly approved by the Nazis, is the one that portrays Hitler in a bad way.

But let's talk about that: about how you end forming a completely different opinion of Hitler in both versions. I know that the examples I posted don't add up to much of a difference, but you have to consider that after reading small differences like those in both editions, you end up with a completely different image of Hitler: in one, he is a reasonable and fair guy that ends up coming to the conclusion that the Jews are a danger to Germany; while on the other, his anti-Semitism and his racism inevitable predispose him to turn against the Jews. I'm telling you, and I don't have any interest either way -I'm not an anti-Semite, I don't blame the Jews for anything, and I'm an anti-fascist since I can remember- but those are 2 different Hitlers. And believe me when I say that even though I have no appreciation for fascism, at least I could get to understand the reasoning behind the first Hitler, while the second Hitler's reason was just based on racism and incompressible to me.

[flyermay]

Just compared the Spanish translation and it does not correspond to any of the English translations I downloaded. The Spanish translation is even lighter on Hitler's anti-semitism than Reynal & Hitchcock's translation.

For example, this text, which comes on both English translations, but with a different emphasis, is not even included in the Spanish:

"Not until I gradually settled down to my surroundings, and the confused picture began to grow clearer, did I acquire a more discriminating view of my new world. And with that I came up against the Jewish problem." (Murphy's)

"Only after settling down, when the confused pictures began to grow clearer, did I look at my new world more attentively, and then I also came upon the Jewish problem." (Reynal & Hitchcock)

[dogsmilk]

Thanks DM, the content of that page in regards to the translations seems to be the same as what I read on the wikipedia.

The truth is that I'm still trying to figure out if it could be a conspiracy or not; I don't like to jump to quick conclusions until I research the arguments of both sides. So in that respect I appreciate your participation in this debate.

Well that's quite refreshing. To my mind, proving a conspiracy means proving a conspiracy - IMO all too frequently people rely on making these big leaps based on minimal information (how many people actually properly review the existing published literature - journals, books - on whatever period of history they're making claims about? That's generally a very big job, but that's just part of what actual research is about) and a raft of assumptions. The kind of gigantic conspiracies people are fond of claiming round here would be enormously complex and would require tangible organisation on a grand scale. People never seem to be able to explain how they actually function.
To give an extreme example (just to make the point), consider these 'symbolism in pop videos' claims: People see something they perceive as a 'symbol'. They then just assume it was put there intentionally. For whatever weird reason (that makes no sense anyway). They never seem to feel the need to explain how they know it was put there intentionally (in the manner they believe), who decides what symbol to put where, how this is communicated between directors, set designers, costume designers etc, who exactly is 'in on it' (and how we know this in some kind of reasonable way), how this is orchestrated in practical terms - how this is supposed to actually fucking work. They just don't seem to care about such obvious considerations.


But you have to agree with me that Dugdale rushing to offer himself for free to do the first translation and the fact that he and his wife (who was the nice of Lord Belfour) were deep into Zionism sounds a bit suspicious.

I haven't read all the thread so I don't know where this 'rushed to do it for free' comes from. And I don't know anything about the guy. Maybe he was keen for English speakers to see what an asshole Hitler was. Maybe he thought it was a potentially high profile job that would advance his career. I don't know. I don't see why him being a Zionist is in and of itself necessarily significant. Even less so who his wife was the niece of.


On the other hand we have the only supposed Third Reich approved version being lost, and suddenly appearing after 45 years in a German prison camp. And then we have that this version, even though was supposedly approved by the Nazis, is the one that portrays Hitler in a bad way.

What you believe "portrays Hitler in a bad way" isn't necessarily what the Nazis thought was bad - it's not like Hitler and the Nazis were ashamed of despising Jews.


But let's talk about that: about how you end forming a completely different opinion of Hitler in both versions. I know that the examples I posted don't add up to much of a difference, but you have to consider that after reading small differences like those in both editions, you end up with a completely different image of Hitler: in one, he is a reasonable and fair guy that ends up coming to the conclusion that the Jews are a danger to Germany; while on the other, his anti-Semitism and his racism inevitable predispose him to turn against the Jews. I'm telling you, and I don't have any interest either way -I'm not an anti-Semite, I don't blame the Jews for anything, and I'm an anti-fascist since I can remember- but those are 2 different Hitlers. And believe me when I say that even though I have no appreciation for fascism, at least I could get to understand the reasoning behind the first Hitler, while the second Hitler's reason was just based on racism and incompressible to me.

I haven't read all these (fair play to you for that since it's such a turgid book - I don't think that's just about the translation), so I do not feel in a position to comment on whether he sounds "reasonable and fair" in any version. This, of course, may also be contingent on the perception of the reader.
I have the Manheim translation and in that Hitler comes across as a complete prick.
The question is is has anybody studied translations comparatively or is there a general awareness of the differences? If you are genuinely concerned to resolve this, I'd recommend considering seeing about e-mailing historians who've focused on Hitler and seeing (if they can arsed to reply) if they can shed any light.
I would guess you're not the first to see an issue. Though I find myself wondering how many people ever read it.
And there is always the original German.

[theqleaner]

Here's The Version I Have..

https://p12.secure.hostingprod.com/@www.theqleaner.com/ssl/images/icons/icon_pdf.gif Adolf Hitler - Mein Kampf (https://p12.secure.hostingprod.com/@www.theqleaner.com/ssl/files/eBooks/Miscellaneous/Adolf_Hitler_-_Mein_Kampf.pdf)

[tinyint]

I just downloaded 2 German versions (including the origianal Eher Verlag edition from 1927). Send me a PM if you are interested in them.

Which print version is it?

I am currently starting to compare 173(1936 fractal writing) vs 855(1943) both Eher Verlag.

I will ask my grandpa to lend me his version again for cross checking with the ebooks.

Is your version in fractal writing? should be the case.

PS: Also interesting in this context is Theodor Herzl - Der Judenstaat (1920) ("The jewish state")

[flyermay]

Well that's quite refreshing. To my mind, proving a conspiracy means proving a conspiracy - IMO all too frequently people rely on making these big leaps based on minimal information (how many people actually properly review the existing published literature - journals, books - on whatever period of history they're making claims about? That's generally a very big job, but that's just part of what actual research is about) and a raft of assumptions. The kind of gigantic conspiracies people are fond of claiming round here would be enormously complex and would require tangible organisation on a grand scale. People never seem to be able to explain how they actually function.

To give an extreme example (just to make the point), consider these 'symbolism in pop videos' claims: People see something they perceive as a 'symbol'. They then just assume it was put there intentionally. For whatever weird reason (that makes no sense anyway). They never seem to feel the need to explain how they know it was put there intentionally (in the manner they believe), who decides what symbol to put where, how this is communicated between directors, set designers, costume designers etc, who exactly is 'in on it' (and how we know this in some kind of reasonable way), how this is orchestrated in practical terms - how this is supposed to actually fucking work. They just don't seem to care about such obvious considerations.

I have to admit that when I got into the conspiracy theory world I took all researchers’ work as fact; I was probably predisposed to believe any documentary/lecture "packaged" in a professional manner (i.e. Icke, Jones, Maxwell, Everard, etc.) But in time I realised that a lot of what they say is exaggerated, badly researched, biased, or even simple bullshit. And it's funny that you use the example of symbolism, because I'm totally with you on this one, and it was actually the first subject to fall for me; just a couple of months after I started doing my own research and coming up with my own conclusion.

I haven't read all the thread so I don't know where this 'rushed to do it for free' comes from. And I don't know anything about the guy. Maybe he was keen for English speakers to see what an asshole Hitler was. Maybe he thought it was a potentially high profile job that would advance his career. I don't know. I don't see why him being a Zionist is in and of itself necessarily significant. Even less so who his wife was the niece of.

This comes from the background of the Dugdale translation, and it's also included on the link you posted:
"The first English translation was an abridgment by Edgar Dugdale who started work on it in 1931, at the prompting of his wife, Blanche. When he learned that the London publishing firm of Hurst & Blackett had secured the rights to publish an abridgment in the United Kingdom, he offered it for free in April 1933. However, a local Nazi representative insisted that the translation be further abridged before publication, so it was held back from the public until October 13, 1933, although excerpts were allowed to run in The Times in late July.

... Both Dugdale and his wife were active in the Zionist movement; Blanche was the niece of Lord Balfour*, and they wished to avoid publicity."

* Balfour is the guy who signed the Balfour declaration in 1917, which granted Baron Rothschild the right to establish a national home for the Zionists in 78% of British controlled Palestine and to kick the Palestinian people out of their own land.

What you believe "portrays Hitler in a bad way" isn't necessarily what the Nazis thought was bad - it's not like Hitler and the Nazis were ashamed of despising Jews.

Yes, you're right, I thought about that. I'm sure that what seems reasonable for the Nazis doesn't exactly match what’s reasonable to me, and vice-versa. Either way, first I need to end the book before I can make an informed opinion.

I haven't read all these (fair play to you for that since it's such a turgid book - I don't think that's just about the translation), so I do not feel in a position to comment on whether he sounds "reasonable and fair" in any version. This, of course, may also be contingent on the perception of the reader.
I have the Manheim translation and in that Hitler comes across as a complete prick.
The question is is has anybody studied translations comparatively or is there a general awareness of the differences? If you are genuinely concerned to resolve this, I'd recommend considering seeing about e-mailing historians who've focused on Hitler and seeing (if they can arsed to reply) if they can shed any light.
I would guess you're not the first to see an issue. Though I find myself wondering how many people ever read it.
And there is always the original German.

When I said "reasonable" and "fair", I meant that he justifies all his conclusion, explains in detail how and why he thinks like he does, and he makes an effort to avoid judging on the basis of religion or ethnic background (at least in the Spanish translation). But I repeat, in my judgment, he made a huge mistake, he reached the wrong conclusions, and I'm not in any way justifying Hitler or the Nazis. There is never justification for laws based on race and/or ethnicity; and this, by the way, also goes for Israel (whose leaders seem to have learned nothing from their own history).

But the truth is: I've just started looking into this subject, and it's too early to jump to any conclusion. For starters, I haven't even finished the book. But, do I think there is a possibility of a conspiracy? Yes, it's not the first time the British and American governments tampered with history to spread their own capitalist and imperialist propaganda, and especially if we take into account that in this case Israel is a close friend and an all time ally to both.

On the other hand, I'm also considering other possibilities? Also yes. The explanation could be as simple as a matter of translation and interpretation (as you say), or that some editions are abridgments and contain less material on anti-semitism (and this is a proved fact). Then we also have to consider the fact that Spain had a fascist government until 1975, that Nazis were their allies, and that they were not anti-semitic; which could perfectly explain why the Spanish version portrays Hitler in a favourable way in regards to anti-semitism than the English translations (I still to find out where this Spanish translation comes from).

So, for the moment I'm not going to back up any of the possibilities, but I'm also not going to discard any of them, and much less based on what history and historians say.

[flyermay]

Here's The Version I Have..

https://p12.secure.hostingprod.com/@www.theqleaner.com/ssl/images/icons/icon_pdf.gif Adolf Hitler - Mein Kampf (https://p12.secure.hostingprod.com/@www.theqleaner.com/ssl/files/eBooks/Miscellaneous/Adolf_Hitler_-_Mein_Kampf.pdf)

That's the translation by James Murphy.

[flyermay]

Which print version is it?

I am currently starting to compare 173(1936 fractal writing) vs 855(1943) both Eher Verlag.

I will ask my grandpa to lend me his version again for cross checking with the ebooks.

Is your version in fractal writing? should be the case.

PS: Also interesting in this context is Theodor Herzl - Der Judenstaat (1920) ("The jewish state")

This is what it says on the publisher's info:

851.–855. Auflage 1943
Alle Rechte vorbehalten
Copyright Band I 1925, Band II 1927 by Verlag Franz Eher Nachf.,
G.m.b.H., München
Printed in Germany

I think you have this one already

[tinyint]

This is what it says on the publisher's info:

851.–855. Auflage 1943
Alle Rechte vorbehalten
Copyright Band I 1925, Band II 1927 by Verlag Franz Eher Nachf.,
G.m.b.H., München
Printed in Germany

I think you have this one already

Are you interested in the 173 then? :D

[flyermay]

Are you interested in the 173 then? :D

I was going to try to compare the one I have with the English and Spanish translations; it's really important for my research in the other thread to get Hitler's thought right.

But, are they different? Did you see any difference between them?

[flyermay]

You see, it's things like this that make me be suspicious. This is an extract from a German website Tinyint sent me:

"Hitler's Second Book, which particularly complements the foreign policy debate in Mein Kampf, was built in summer 1928th The manuscript remained unpublished during the Nazi dictatorship. It came after the war ended in the national archives of the United States and appeared in 1961 as an edition commented."

How can I ever trust that's what Hitler really said?

I might not trust Hitler, but surely I also don't trust the US government!!!

[tinyint]

You see, it's things like this that make me be suspicious. This is an extract from a German website Tinyint sent me:

"Hitler's Second Book, which particularly complements the foreign policy debate in Mein Kampf, was built in summer 1928th The manuscript remained unpublished during the Nazi dictatorship. It came after the war ended in the national archives of the United States and appeared in 1961 as an edition commented."

How can I ever trust that's what Hitler really said?

I might not trust Hitler, but surely I also don't trust the US government!!!

I thinks its a good idea I should post the link for all...

http://translate.google.de/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.historisches-lexikon-bayerns.de%2Fartikel%2Fartikel_44547&sl=de&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8

or in german http://www.historisches-lexikon-bayerns.de/artikel/artikel_44547

The Historical Encyclopedia of Bavaria is a scientific online encyclopedia of Bavarian history.It is continuously expanded.

The work on the Weimar Republic era focus is largely complete. Articles are in preparation for the late medieval and contemporary history since 1945.

The lexicon expands the person and the location databases Bayerische Landesbibliothek Online (BLO) with a reference to subject headings.
What does the Historical Dictionary of Bavaria?

The Historical Encyclopedia of Bavaria is scientifically sound information on the history of Bavaria on the Internet.

It appeals to the scientific community, but also to journalists, local historians, history workshops, teachers and students.





But, are they different? Did you see any difference between them?

From first look I haven't found differences so far...

[dogsmilk]

You see, it's things like this that make me be suspicious. This is an extract from a German website Tinyint sent me:

"Hitler's Second Book, which particularly complements the foreign policy debate in Mein Kampf, was built in summer 1928th The manuscript remained unpublished during the Nazi dictatorship. It came after the war ended in the national archives of the United States and appeared in 1961 as an edition commented."

How can I ever trust that's what Hitler really said?

I might not trust Hitler, but surely I also don't trust the US government!!!

The book was just sitting undiscovered in an archive - there was and is a stupendous amount of captured material, much of it totally trivial. I mean, the paperwork of a pre-computers modern industrial society got seized.

But it was discovered by Gerhard Weinberg...a Jew! dun dun duhhhh!

That makes it a hoax for definite

[flyermay]

The book was just sitting undiscovered in an archive - there was and is a stupendous amount of captured material, much of it totally trivial. I mean, the paperwork of a pre-computers modern industrial society got seized.

But it was discovered by Gerhard Weinberg...a Jew! dun dun duhhhh!

That makes it a hoax for definite

:D

Not to worry, I know the difference between "the posibility" of a conspiracy, and an actual conspiracy (or at least I believe a I do ;)).

Either way, nothing that comes out of any US governmental institution is trustworthy [this is no conspiracy, it's a fact]. :cool: Or as they say in the US: "never believe anything until it has been officially denied".

[dogsmilk]

:D

Not to worry, I know the difference between "the posibility" of a conspiracy, and an actual conspiracy (or at least I believe a I do ;)).

Either way, nothing that comes out of any US governmental institution is trustworthy [this is no conspiracy, it's a fact]. :cool: Or as they say in the US: "never believe anything until it has been officially denied".

Well the problem you have with that is you'd basically have to doubt millions upon millions of pages of captured Nazi documents. And the US authorities wouldn't have any reason whatsoever to officially deny any genuine Hitler book, so they kinda can't win.

If we were to suppose the US authorities decided to fake the book, this would raise some issues to consider -
1/Faking an entire book convincingly enough it's authenticity isn't doubted is a big job. What about Hitler's second book makes that task worthwhile? Indeed -
2/Why would they give a shit about faking another Hitler book? It's not like anyone needed to be faking Hitler material. Unless it's for money like the Hitler diaries, which isn't applicable. It was found in the middle of the cold war when people weren't exactly preoccupied with Hitler.
3/Why go to all that trouble just to shove it in an archive where you have no idea when or even if it will ever be found?
4/AFAIK there is no evidence it is not genuine. Not even (that I know of) claims from the pro-Nazi Holocaust denial crowd who claim pretty much everything is a fraud as standard.

[flyermay]

Well the problem you have with that is you'd basically have to doubt millions upon millions of pages of captured Nazi documents. And the US authorities wouldn't have any reason whatsoever to officially deny any genuine Hitler book, so they kinda can't win.

If we were to suppose the US authorities decided to fake the book, this would raise some issues to consider -

Ok, I'll answer these points with possibilities as to why/how (I'm not saying it's necessarily the case, since I haven't even looked at it, so I'll just speculate about the possible answers from the point of view of a possible conspiracy).

1/Faking an entire book convincingly enough it's authenticity isn't doubted is a big job. What about Hitler's second book makes that task worthwhile? Indeed -

It is a big job, and a job that would involve top German academics and a huge amount of resources... who better than the US government after WWII to do the job?

2/Why would they give a shit about faking another Hitler book? It's not like anyone needed to be faking Hitler material. Unless it's for money like the Hitler diaries, which isn't applicable. It was found in the middle of the cold war when people weren't exactly preoccupied with Hitler.

Because the "second book" deals exclusively on foreign policy. What better propaganda to convince the world of Hitler's dangerous NWO could you think of?

3/Why go to all that trouble just to shove it in an archive where you have no idea when or even if it will ever be found?

How do you know it was shove in an archive? How do you know it was not sent to the printing house just after the editor finished his job? Because the US government said it... ok! :rolleyes:

4/AFAIK there is no evidence it is not genuine. Not even (that I know of) claims from the pro-Nazi Holocaust denial crowd who claim pretty much everything is a fraud as standard.

And that's the exact reason why I never claimed it was not genuine (don't remember doing so). Am I suspicious, because all this story smells fishy?... yes. :)

[tinyint]

However, there appears to be this article...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuropa

Sometimes, it is the claimed the second Book of Hitler(or his puppet masters)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zweites_Buch

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=102619


Just a quick overview, maybe this is findable in the US online-archives as so many other important german related things?

wiki only has an english sources:
http://web.archive.org/web/20030608063603/http://www.adolfhitler.ws/lib/books/zweites/zweites.htm
http://www.nazi.org.uk/political%20pdfs/HitlerSecondBook.pdf

I read not only once about claims the second book was supposed to be named "Neuropa".

Edit:


<...>
Among all potential opponents Hitler saw the U.S. as the most dangerous. However, he regarded the British as an " Aryan race brother "in exchange for Germany's renunciation of naval and colonial policies - an alliance with Germany - would be. France would weaken themselves by mixing with foreign nations. As far as the Soviet Union, Hitler wrote off the Russian people as a Slavic "subhumans", incapable of any spiritual power. Combine with Hitler's view, the Soviet government would consist of bloodthirsty, incompetent but Jewish revolutionaries. The majority of Americans are "Aryans", though, according to Hitler ruled by a Jewish plutocracy . However, it was precisely this combination of "Aryan Power" with "Jewish government" that made the U.S. appear so dangerous to Hitler .
http://translate.google.de/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2 FHitlers_Zweites_Buch&sl=de&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8(german wiki translated)

[dogsmilk]

Ok, I'll answer these points with possibilities as to why/how (I'm not saying it's necessarily the case, since I haven't even looked at it, so I'll just speculate about the possible answers from the point of view of a possible conspiracy).

It is a big job, and a job that would involve top German academics and a huge amount of resources... who better than the US government after WWII to do the job?

Well they certainly have the resources, but straight away you have an assumption of "top German academics" (who would hypothetically need to be recruited, stay quiet and need a fair amount of time). But the big question remains what's the point?


Because the "second book" deals exclusively on foreign policy. What better propaganda to convince the world of Hitler's dangerous NWO could you think of?

Are you suggesting there was doubt at the end of the war about how dangerous Hitler was? Whatever Hitler might have said before the war, this is eclipsed by what he actually did; the actual behaviour towards e.g. the Poles and Russians (let alone the Jews) gave ample propaganda. There's considerable material regarding actual planning - what Hitler thought before the war is of great interest, but it 's hardly necessary to demonstrate the Nazis were bad eggs.
Furthermore, this book emerged when the US had no reason to be pointing out what everybody knew already, that Hitler wasn't a lovely chap. The US pretty rapidly lost interest in Nazis when the cold war got going and the Federal Republic was part of the stand against the commies. Why do you suppose they would be arsed to produce a highly complicated forgery about somebody who wasn't relevant to their current concerns and who everybody thought was a bad guy already? It just doesn't make any sense to me.


How do you know it was shove in an archive? How do you know it was not sent to the printing house just after the editor finished his job? Because the US government said it... ok! :rolleyes:

Well here you'd have to accuse Gerhard because he found it - and presumably the archive staff. It wasn't the US government who made it public.


And that's the exact reason why I never claimed it was not genuine (don't remember doing so). Am I suspicious, because all this story smells fishy?... yes. :)

Myself I'm not sure what's particularly fishy.

[flyermay]

Well they certainly have the resources, but straight away you have an assumption of "top German academics" (who would hypothetically need to be recruited, stay quiet and need a fair amount of time). But the big question remains what's the point?

Are you suggesting there was doubt at the end of the war about how dangerous Hitler was? Whatever Hitler might have said before the war, this is eclipsed by what he actually did; the actual behaviour towards e.g. the Poles and Russians (let alone the Jews) gave ample propaganda. There's considerable material regarding actual planning - what Hitler thought before the war is of great interest, but it 's hardly necessary to demonstrate the Nazis were bad eggs.
Furthermore, this book emerged when the US had no reason to be pointing out what everybody knew already, that Hitler wasn't a lovely chap. The US pretty rapidly lost interest in Nazis when the cold war got going and the Federal Republic was part of the stand against the commies. Why do you suppose they would be arsed to produce a highly complicated forgery about somebody who wasn't relevant to their current concerns and who everybody thought was a bad guy already? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

Well here you'd have to accuse Gerhard because he found it - and presumably the archive staff. It wasn't the US government who made it public.

Myself I'm not sure what's particularly fishy.

The point is that I've already found 3 versions of Hitler's first book that don't match; and it's not that they don't match, they say different things and its content is different in regards to (at least) anti-Semitism. Then we have that when Hitler got into power he found a Germany completely indebted to the international bankers after been forced to pay reparations for WWI. Then we have Belfour giving Palestine to the Rothschilds after WWII because of what happened between the Nazis and the Jews. And, as you well know, we even have people who claim (and they are not conspiracy theorists) that what happened between the Nazis and the Jews is not exactly what history has told us. And finally we have a book coming out from the US archives that proves beyond a doubt that Hitler had planned it all from the beginning. And on top, we have that in Germany (and other countries) you are not even allowed to talk about many of this things, without risking going into jail...

... Does that doesn't smell fishy to you?... Does that doesn't smell fishy to anyone here; or is it that I've completely lost my mind? :confused:

You say that everyone already thought Hitler was a bad guy: yes, that's what we've been told; and it might even be true, but only after WWII and after the propaganda campaigns (remember: "the victors write history"). During WWII and before WWII Hitler had many allies (casually all of those who talked about an international Judeo-Masonic conspiracy); many took the invasions towards the East as an attempt to recover the German territories lost during WWI, and even then, they would see no difference between Hitlers' and Britain/America's imperialist foreign policy; many considered that Hitler liberated the German people trapped in Eastern countries; and the Russian campaigns as an attempt to stop the menace of Bolshevism. Hitler was even received with cheers in many Eastern countries!

You know, I happen to come from one of those countries where Hitler was considered an ally and one of the good guys waaaaay after WWII (not that it's my opinion, I have no interest in defending or justifying Hitler; just finding the truth). Of course, this all changed as soon as globalisation came in.

[freedom1st]

The point is that I've already found 3 versions of Hitler's first book that don't match; and it's not that they don't match, they say different things and its content is different in regards to (at least) anti-Semitism. Then we have that when Hitler got into power he found a Germany completely indebted to the international bankers after been forced to pay reparations for WWI. Then we have Belfour giving Palestine to the Rothschilds after WWII because of what happened between the Nazis and the Jews. And, as you well know, we even have people who claim (and they are not conspiracy theorists) that what happened between the Nazis and the Jews is not exactly what history has told us. And finally we have a book coming out from the US archives that proves beyond a doubt that Hitler had planned it all from the beginning. And on top, we have that in Germany (and other countries) you are not even allowed to talk about many of this things, without risking going into jail...

... Does that doesn't smell fishy to you?... Does that doesn't smell fishy to anyone here; or is it that I've completely lost my mind? :confused:

You say that everyone already though Hitler was a bad guy: yes that's what we've been told; and it might even be true, but only after WWII and after the propaganda campaigns (remember: "the victors write history"). During WWII and before WWII Hitler had many allies (casually all of those who talked about an international Judeo-Masonic conspiracy); many took the invasions towards the East as an attempt to recover the German territory lost during WWI, and even then, they would see no difference between Hitlers' and Britain/America's imperialist foreign policy; many considered that Hitler liberated the German people trapped in Eastern countries; and the Russian campaigns as an attempt to stop the menace of Bolshevism. Hitler was even received with cheers in many Eastern countries!

You know, I happen to come from one of those countries where Hitler was considered an ally and one of the good guys waaaaay after WWII (not that it's my opinion, I have no interest in defending or justifying Hitler; just in finding the truth). Of course, this all changed as soon as globalisation came in.

I see you're beginning to understand how this may have gone down. Dogsmilk never will unfortunately. Why? I don't know, especially when the inconsistencies are staring us all in the face.
Good point about this being illegal in Germany and other countries. This alone should make one question the whole thing. I mean, this is one of the biggest events in history and we're not allowed to talk about it! WHY?!!
There can only be one reason imo.
Anyway, look at who is running the west today. Look at all those powerful countries bending over for Israel despite their actions. Again..why?
Connecting dots is all it takes to lead you to wonder what the hell is going on. Coz it sure as hell ain't what we've been led to believe!

I like the way you've approached this btw. One can hardly accuse you of jumping on any bandwagon.

[flyermay]

I see you're beginning to understand how this may have gone down. Dogsmilk never will unfortunately. Why? I don't know, especially when the inconsistencies are staring us all in the face.
Good point about this being illegal in Germany and other countries. This alone should make one question the whole thing. I mean, this is one of the biggest events in history and we're not allowed to talk about it! WHY?!!
There can only be one reason imo.
Anyway, look at who is running the west today. Look at all those powerful countries bending over for Israel despite their actions. Again..why?
Connecting dots is all it takes to lead you to wonder what the hell is going on. Coz it sure as hell ain't what we've been led to believe!

I like the way you've approached this btw. One can hardly accuse you of jumping on any bandwagon.

Well thanks; I was starting to think I lost my mind.

I always make an effort to try not to jump to any conclusions, and I always look at these things from an impartial, unbiased and fair manner. There is no bigger barrier for truth than our own feelings towards any subject; and you have to leave them behind if you are ever to find what's really going on (and doing it in this case is particularly difficult).

It is true that I haven't proved anything yet (either way), all I'm doing is especulating, but what you can't deny is that this whole issue smells fishy...

[dogsmilk]

The point is that I've already found 3 versions of Hitler's first book that don't match; and it's not that they don't match, they say different things and its content is different in regards to (at least) anti-Semitism. Then we have that when Hitler got into power he found a Germany completely indebted to the international bankers after been forced to pay reparations for WWI. Then we have Belfour giving Palestine to the Rothschilds after WWII because of what happened between the Nazis and the Jews. And, as you well know, we even have people who claim (and they are not conspiracy theorists) that what happened between the Nazis and the Jews is not exactly what history has told us. And finally we have a book coming out from the US archives that proves beyond a doubt that Hitler had planned it all from the beginning. And on top, we have that in Germany (and other countries) you are not even allowed to talk about many of this things, without risking going into jail...

... Does that doesn't smell fishy to you?... Does that doesn't smell fishy to anyone here; or is it that I've completely lost my mind? :confused:

You say that everyone already thought Hitler was a bad guy: yes, that's what we've been told; and it might even be true, but only after WWII and after the propaganda campaigns (remember: "the victors write history"). During WWII and before WWII Hitler had many allies (casually all of those who talked about an international Judeo-Masonic conspiracy); many took the invasions towards the East as an attempt to recover the German territories lost during WWI, and even then, they would see no difference between Hitlers' and Britain/America's imperialist foreign policy; many considered that Hitler liberated the German people trapped in Eastern countries; and the Russian campaigns as an attempt to stop the menace of Bolshevism. Hitler was even received with cheers in many Eastern countries!

You know, I happen to come from one of those countries where Hitler was considered an ally and one of the good guys waaaaay after WWII (not that it's my opinion, I have no interest in defending or justifying Hitler; just finding the truth). Of course, this all changed as soon as globalisation came in.

No it doesn't smell fishy to me. And the reason for that is you're presenting a range of disparate factoids of varying accuracy that cover a huge and complex range of events.

Which centres on your 3 books - I really don't know anything about that, but like I said before it strikes me that varying quality of translation (coupled with abridgement) seems far more likely than some big scheme. You could also factor in the possibility of individual bias - that seems far more likely to me than some hypothetical plot there appears to be no evidence for.

Then we have that when Hitler got into power he found a Germany completely indebted to the international bankers after been forced to pay reparations for WWI.

Well they ended up in debt to American bankers. They borrowed money to pay reparations so then the British and French paid back the money they owed from their expensive war in a big merry-go-round. It kinda worked until the big crash. Germany did have a period of things going pretty well in the 1920s.
But Germany got shafted at Versaille and ended up in a financial pickle. And bankers made money out of it. And? Aren't such things the way of the world?
I d

I don't know what this is supposed to mean:

then we have Belfour giving Palestine to the Rothschilds after WWII because of what happened between the Nazis and the Jews

This makes no sense to me. It sounds like you're referring to the Balfour declaration, but that's 1917.

And, as you well know, we even have people who claim (and they are not conspiracy theorists) that what happened between the Nazis and the Jews is not exactly what history has told us.

If you're referring to Holocaust deniers, I'd say they are very much conspiracy theorists. What is the notion of the 'holohoax' if not a conspiracy theory?

And a book is found in an archive.

During WWII and before WWII Hitler had many allies (casually all of those who talked about an international Judeo-Masonic conspiracy)

You mean like the Italians with their rather ambiguous, confused and contradictory approach to anti-Jewish policies, under pressure from Germany to hate Jews that bit more?
And weren't the Nazis rather more concerned with a supposed Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy (that also included capitalists)?

many considered that Hitler liberated the German people trapped in Eastern countries; and the Russian campaigns as an attempt to stop the menace of Bolshevism. Hitler was even received with cheers in many Eastern countries!

I know that from reading mainstream history books. But it also depends on who you're talking about. For example, Ukranian nationalists envisaged a degree of self rule. Except they didn't get it.
Plenty of people were happy when the Soviets came storming back from the opposite direction. It depends who you were, what you'd experienced, your ideology and who you thought was best for your interests. And you might not have been too chuffed in the long run.

"the victors write history"

Like all those German historians?

many took the invasions towards the East as an attempt to recover the German territories lost during WWI, and even then, they would see no difference between Hitlers' and Britain/America's imperialist foreign policy;

Well you can certainly draw similarities. Except treating Europeans as 'racial inferiors' as opposed to those darkies in bongo bongo land certainly brings it home a bit. Massacring the Polish intelligentsia wasn't cricket. Hitler was fairly clear he wanted Eastern expansion beyond reclamation and was pretty explicitly gearing up for war.

You know, I happen to come from one of those countries where Hitler was considered an ally and one of the good guys waaaaay after WWII

Which one, if you don't mind me asking?
I see no reason why people shouldn't consider Hitler a good guy; it depends on your politics and experience. I understand many Germans had a lovely time in the Third Reich, particularly if they were in an area that didn't get hit hard during the war. People are obviously drawn to fascist ideologies or else they would never have been successful. And beyond that, if your personal experience of the regime wasn't grim and you believed what the papers said, why shouldn't you have fond memories of that era?
For myself, fascism/Nazism stands for everything I don't. For that matter, I don't much like capitalism even though I'm not currently doing badly and could easily just go with the flow. Britain today has more civil liberties and general freedoms than Nazi Germany. So why get pissed off? Maybe that's about thinking about what's happening to people less fortunate and not believing the hype.

But really I needed have bothered with these mini replies, and I have to say I don't know a terrific amount about this shit.
But I just don't see what I'm supposed to be suspicious about - it all just seems so disjointed and absurdly simplistic to me:

And just say I was suspicious - then what? Say it's a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy - well how does that work? If you assume there's a conspiracy encompassing mein kamf translation, Germany being in debt to international bankers and all the rest - you're already looking at a conspiracy involving thousands of people in all kinds of jobs on both sides of the Atlantic. It strikes me people never stop to think of the sheer scale of things they suggest. With the Holocaust deniers, I constantly fascinated how they'll pour scorn on anything and everything we know about it, yet expect everybody to believe the Jews invented and perpetuated this massive fraud and they don't have to say one word about how they actually did it.

I think if you posit a conspiracy, it only makes sense to be thinking about how it was done and how can you evidence this from the outset.

Sorry Flyermay - too hot to be writing big posts and I'm not entirely happy with it - I don't think I've put my points across as well as I'd have liked. Hey ho.

[flyermay]

No it doesn't smell fishy to me. And the reason for that is you're presenting a range of disparate factoids of varying accuracy that cover a huge and complex range of events.

But isn’t it true that it can’t ever “smell fishy” to you for the simple reason that you have set yourself upon the task to shill against this kind of stuff? I mean, it’s on your signature, how can you ever admit that something smells fishy on a public forum that you openly admit to visit just to shill…

… But hey, there’s nothing wrong with that; actually it’s the reason why I’m glad you found this thread, because I was hopping for someone to try and debunk my little conspiracy theory; and I know you will do the job perfectly well. :)

So let’s start to see which of my claims are “disparate factoids of varying accuracy”…

Which centres on your 3 books - I really don't know anything about that, but like I said before it strikes me that varying quality of translation (coupled with abridgement) seems far more likely than some big scheme. You could also factor in the possibility of individual bias - that seems far more likely to me than some hypothetical plot there appears to be no evidence for.

The fact is: there are discrepancies, and there are 2 different Hitlers depending on which translation you read. You can’t deny this.

But either way, it’s not really about those 3 books. Hitler’s book just adds up to the research I’ve been doing about the international bankers. If it was for this book alone I would just dismiss it as a simple anecdote.

And again, I repeat, and I agree with you on this one, this is just a hypothesis; nothing more, nothing less. I never claimed otherwise, and I’ll never do until I get to the bottom of all this.

Well they ended up in debt to American bankers. They borrowed money to pay reparations so then the British and French paid back the money they owed from their expensive war in a big merry-go-round. It kinda worked until the big crash. Germany did have a period of things going pretty well in the 1920s.

But Germany got shafted at Versaille and ended up in a financial pickle. And bankers made money out of it. And? Aren't such things the way of the world?

I don't know what this is supposed to mean:

It’s not as simple as saying “bankers made money”, Germany ended up in debt to Warburg, Morgan and Loeb to be exact; 3 of the main agents for the international bankers’ cartel.

That’s another fact; it’s not my opinion, I can reference this claim (as I will do once I finish the next chapter of the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy, where I’ll explain exactly what it means; if it means anything).

This makes no sense to me. It sounds like you're referring to the Balfour declaration, but that's 1917.

Yes, my mistake, Palestine was given to the Rothschilds after WWI, and it was massively occupied by the Jews after WWII. My point: this would have never happened if the Nazis didn’t target the Jews.

That’s another fact, even though I’ve mistaken WWI for WWII.

If you're referring to Holocaust deniers, I'd say they are very much conspiracy theorists. What is the notion of the 'holohoax' if not a conspiracy theory?

I guess you could call them “conspiracy theorists”, I can’t deny that. But it is also definitely a fact that there are people (some of them even Jews) claiming the Holocaust did happened exactly as historians tell us.

And a book is found in an archive.

I would say, a very important book describing in detail Hitler’s foreign policy.

Also a fact!

You mean like the Italians with their rather ambiguous, confused and contradictory approach to anti-Jewish policies, under pressure from Germany to hate Jews that bit more?
And weren't the Nazis rather more concerned with a supposed Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy (that also included capitalists)?

I mean: the Italians, the Spanish, the Japanese, the Hungarians, the Rumanians, and probably a handful more around the world. All these countries though of Hitler as an ally and as the “good guy”.

This is another irrefutable fact, and it’s not true that everyone already knew Hitler was a bad guy; that didn’t happen until the massive propaganda campaign after WWII.

I know that from reading mainstream history books. But it also depends on who you're talking about. For example, Ukranian nationalists envisaged a degree of self rule. Except they didn't get it.
Plenty of people were happy when the Soviets came storming back from the opposite direction. It depends who you were, what you'd experienced, your ideology and who you thought was best for your interests. And you might not have been too chuffed in the long run.

And that’s another one: on top of Hitler’s allies, we also have half of the populations of various European countries (and probably other worldwide) which also supported Hitler and also thought of him as the “good guy”. Of course, it all depends on which side of the political spectrum they identified themselves with.

Like all those German historians?

I don’t think German historians are allowed to deviate from the “official version”. I mean, we have many Germans on this forum, they can tell you what the law says in Germany about this issue.

Well you can certainly draw similarities. Except treating Europeans as 'racial inferiors' as opposed to those darkies in bongo bongo land certainly brings it home a bit. Massacring the Polish intelligentsia wasn't cricket. Hitler was fairly clear he wanted Eastern expansion beyond reclamation and was pretty explicitly gearing up for war.

Exactly my point, Hitler’s desire to colonise is no different from what the British and the American empires have been doing for the last centuries. Would I personally agree with it? No, but I also don’t agree with British and American imperialism; many people do though.

Which one, if you don't mind me asking?
I see no reason why people shouldn't consider Hitler a good guy; it depends on your politics and experience. I understand many Germans had a lovely time in the Third Reich, particularly if they were in an area that didn't get hit hard during the war. People are obviously drawn to fascist ideologies or else they would never have been successful. And beyond that, if your personal experience of the regime wasn't grim and you believed what the papers said, why shouldn't you have fond memories of that era?
For myself, fascism/Nazism stands for everything I don't. For that matter, I don't much like capitalism even though I'm not currently doing badly and could easily just go with the flow. Britain today has more civil liberties and general freedoms than Nazi Germany. So why get pissed off? Maybe that's about thinking about what's happening to people less fortunate and not believing the hype.

Since the civil war, Spain was undoubtedly predominantly fascist. Almost every leftist was killed during and after the war. But this didn’t guarantee that the sons and the grandsons of those fascists would also turn out to follow their heritage. In fact, it’s quite rare to find a fascist in Spain younger than 60; except in the military and the police forces (unfortunately, still many there), and various groups of football hooligans.

I can talk all you want against fascism, and agree with you on our anti-fascists views in any other thread, but here I’m neither judging fascism nor making an apology or an excuse for it. I’m simply trying to get to the bottom of this issue, wherever it takes me and whether I like the result or not.

But really I needed have bothered with these mini replies, and I have to say I don't know a terrific amount about this shit.
But I just don't see what I'm supposed to be suspicious about - it all just seems so disjointed and absurdly simplistic to me:

And just say I was suspicious - then what? Say it's a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy - well how does that work? If you assume there's a conspiracy encompassing mein kamf translation, Germany being in debt to international bankers and all the rest - you're already looking at a conspiracy involving thousands of people in all kinds of jobs on both sides of the Atlantic. It strikes me people never stop to think of the sheer scale of things they suggest. With the Holocaust deniers, I constantly fascinated how they'll pour scorn on anything and everything we know about it, yet expect everybody to believe the Jews invented and perpetuated this massive fraud and they don't have to say one word about how they actually did it.

I think if you posit a conspiracy, it only makes sense to be thinking about how it was done and how can you evidence this from the outset.

Sorry Flyermay - too hot to be writing big posts and I'm not entirely happy with it - I don't think I've put my points across as well as I'd have liked. Hey ho.

Of course it's simple; that’s the point. Why would it have to be complicated when asking forum members their opinion on these issues?

Once I make up my opinion on this issue I’ll explain what it means, how it fits and how it happened; and of course, I will also reference all claims that need to be referenced. But still a long way to go, and a lot of work to do, and as you say, the weather is too good to be all day researching this or any other issue.

But hey, you don’t see anything suspicious, that’s fine. For a moment I also thought it was just the product of my imagination; reason why I asked other forum members for their opinion. But it seems that I’m not the only one who finds all these issues suspicious; actually, so far it’s only you who don’t find them suspicious. I know, you are going to say that they are biased and predisposed to believe what they believe… well, so are you! I’m the only one that has no interest either way. I assure you I'm not making a single penny out of this; neither I have any personal interest in cleaning Hitler or the Nazi’s memory.

[1977]

Let's back up here.

Flyer, can you actually post the passages that have discrepancies between the translations? Surely there are people here who can check it against the original German text.

[flyermay]

Let's back up here.

Flyer, can you actually post the passages that have discrepancies between the translations? Surely there are people here who can check it against the original German text.

And here is the other person I was really hopping would find this thread. :)

Tinyint sent me a German copy of the original "Mein Kampf" from 1936, but unfortunately it's writen in, I think it's called fractal, and it's also not OCRed, so I couldn't check it myself. All other German copies I could find were post WWII.

Here are 3 examples (just from the same page on the book), as posted a couple of posts back:

On the Murphy edition:

"And with that I came up against the Jewish problem."

On the Reynal & Hitchcock edition:

"and then I also came upon the Jewish problem."

Notice the word in bold, and how the first phrase gives the reader a completely different impression on Hitler's intent about the Jewish problem. This phrase is not has not been printed in the Spanish translation.

And this one:

On the Murphy edition:

"I will not say that the manner in which I first became acquainted with it was particularly unpleasant for me."

On the Reynal & Hitchcock edition:

"I cannot say that I particularly liked the way in which I was to become acquainted with them."

Notice that in the first phrase Hitler did not find unpleasant the way he first came acquainted with the Jewish problem, while in the second he says he didn't like it. This changes completely the whole meaning of the phrase, and in the long run ends up giving the reader the impression that his fears were unjustified and that he acted purely out of racism and anti-semitism. The Spanish translation agrees with Reynal & Hitchcock's translation.

And also this text, which is not in the Spanish translation:

On the Murphy edition:

"Not until I gradually settled down to my surroundings, and the confused picture began to grow clearer, did I acquire a more discriminating view of my new world."

On the Reynal & Hitchcock edition:

"Only after settling down, when the confused pictures began to grow clearer, did I look at my new world more attentively,"

Notice how the Murphy edition giver a different impression than Reynal and Hitchcock's, and the fact that this text is not even printed in the Spanish translation.

[dogsmilk]

But isn’t it true that it can’t ever “smell fishy” to you for the simple reason that you have set yourself upon the task to shill against this kind of stuff? I mean, it’s on your signature, how can you ever admit that something smells fishy on a public forum that you openly admit to visit just to shill…

… But hey, there’s nothing wrong with that; actually it’s the reason why I’m glad you found this thread, because I was hopping for someone to try and debunk my little conspiracy theory; and I know you will do the job perfectly well. :)

So let’s start to see which of my claims are “disparate factoids of varying accuracy”…



The fact is: there are discrepancies, and there are 2 different Hitlers depending on which translation you read. You can’t deny this.

But either way, it’s not really about those 3 books. Hitler’s book just adds up to the research I’ve been doing about the international bankers. If it was for this book alone I would just dismiss it as a simple anecdote.

And again, I repeat, and I agree with you on this one, this is just a hypothesis; nothing more, nothing less. I never claimed otherwise, and I’ll never do until I get to the bottom of all this.



It’s not as simple as saying “bankers made money”, Germany ended up in debt to Warburg, Morgan and Loeb to be exact; 3 of the main agents for the international bankers’ cartel.

That’s another fact; it’s not my opinion, I can reference this claim (as I will do once I finish the next chapter of the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy, where I’ll explain exactly what it means; if it means anything).



Yes, my mistake, Palestine was given to the Rothschilds after WWI, and it was massively occupied by the Jews after WWII. My point: this would have never happened if the Nazis didn’t target the Jews.

That’s another fact, even though I’ve mistaken WWI for WWII.



I guess you could call them “conspiracy theorists”, I can’t deny that. But it is also definitely a fact that there are people (some of them even Jews) claiming the Holocaust did happened exactly as historians tell us.



I would say, a very important book describing in detail Hitler’s foreign policy.

Also a fact!



I mean: the Italians, the Spanish, the Japanese, the Hungarians, the Rumanians, and probably a handful more around the world. All these countries though of Hitler as an ally and as the “good guy”.

This is another irrefutable fact, and it’s not true that everyone already knew Hitler was a bad guy; that didn’t happen until the massive propaganda campaign after WWII.



And that’s another one: on top of Hitler’s allies, we also have half of the populations of various European countries (and probably other worldwide) which also supported Hitler and also thought of him as the “good guy”. Of course, it all depends on which side of the political spectrum they identified themselves with.



I don’t think German historians are allowed to deviate from the “official version”. I mean, we have many Germans on this forum, they can tell you what the law says in Germany about this issue.



Exactly my point, Hitler’s desire to colonise is no different from what the British and the American empires have been doing for the last centuries. Would I personally agree with it? No, but I also don’t agree with British and American imperialism; many people do though.



Since the civil war, Spain was undoubtedly predominantly fascist. Almost every leftist was killed during and after the war. But this didn’t guarantee that the sons and the grandsons of those fascists would also turn out to follow their heritage. In fact, it’s quite rare to find a fascist in Spain younger than 60; except in the military and the police forces (unfortunately, still many there), and various groups of football hooligans.

I can talk all you want against fascism, and agree with you on our anti-fascists views in any other thread, but here I’m neither judging fascism nor making an apology or an excuse for it. I’m simply trying to get to the bottom of this issue, wherever it takes me and whether I like the result or not.



Of course it's simple; that’s the point. Why would it have to be complicated when asking forum members their opinion on these issues?

Once I make up my opinion on this issue I’ll explain what it means, how it fits and how it happened; and of course, I will also reference all claims that need to be referenced. But still a long way to go, and a lot of work to do, and as you say, the weather is too good to be all day researching this or any other issue.

But hey, you don’t see anything suspicious, that’s fine. For a moment I also thought it was just the product of my imagination; reason why I asked other forum members for their opinion. But it seems that I’m not the only one who finds all these issues suspicious; actually, so far it’s only you who don’t find them suspicious. I know, you are going to say that they are biased and predisposed to believe what they believe… well, so are you! I’m the only one that has no interest either way. I assure you I'm not making a single penny out of this; neither I have any personal interest in cleaning Hitler or the Nazi’s memory.

I think we're in danger of going in circles here, so I'll only pick up on some points:

I mean: the Italians, the Spanish, the Japanese, the Hungarians, the Rumanians, and probably a handful more around the world. All these countries though of Hitler as an ally and as the “good guy”.

This is another irrefutable fact, and it’s not true that everyone already knew Hitler was a bad guy; that didn’t happen until the massive propaganda campaign after WWII.


But you were saying they all believed in a "Judeo-Masonic conspiracy" which I don't think reflects even the Nazi position accurately - so I gave the example of the Italians who had a far more ambiguous position about Jews.
The Nazi obsession with Jews also tapped into existing prejudices and encouraged, pushed them. As they did with the Roma, who unfortunately continue to experience prejudice.
Of course not everybody regarded Hitler as a bad guy and some people still don't.

I don’t think German historians are allowed to deviate from the “official version”. I mean, we have many Germans on this forum, they can tell you what the law says in Germany about this issue.


Nazism was suppressed right after the war and whether you like that or not, it's pretty understandable. Holocaust denial - or rather 'denial of Nazi' atrocities' - it just happens that the genocide of the Jews is the atrocity people invariably like to deny - was only suppressed at the start of the nineties. If it wasn't so heavily linked with neo-Nazism this might not have happened. German historians weren't all lining up with problems with the 'official version' (whatever that actually means) before that.
If they all thought different, the law would be unworkable. If a range of people came up with academically rigorous refutations of the 'official version', then there's really not much that could be done.
As I've pointed out on here before, there have been drives to ban denial of Stalin's crimes and Ukraine has done so - in terms of the history of what Stalin did I think that's neither here nor there and you'll notice on this forum it is only Holocaust denial laws anyone seems to care about.

Yes, my mistake, Palestine was given to the Rothschilds after WWI, and it was massively occupied by the Jews after WWII. My point: this would have never happened if the Nazis didn’t target the Jews.

Given to the Rothchilds?
Otherwise this is kinda interesting. What would have happened? This is a counterfactual and I don't pretend to know enough to give a good speculation. Zionism would still have existed and Jews would still have gone to Palestine. There's even the possibility, I guess, a slower immigration would have allowed a more gradual and peaceful emergence of a Jewish state. I guess we'll never know. But yes, Israel was a product of the aftermath. This then leads people to assume it was all planned. If people believe that, they believe that. Me, I think actions have consequences, often unforeseen ones, hindsight is a wonderful thing and shit happens. If anyone ever produces some actual evidence of some big plan, then I might be convinced.

I guess you could call them “conspiracy theorists”, I can’t deny that. But it is also definitely a fact that there are people (some of them even Jews) claiming the Holocaust did happened exactly as historians tell us.


Sure there are. The only Jew I can think off offhand is David Cole, but I don't think whether they're Jewish or not is remotely relevant. It's not like they're more likely to be right if they are.
My personal experience of their stuff is they employ just about every devious trick in the book. Over the last couple of years I've checked out multiple denial claims and come across wave after wave of bullshit. And I think it's a fact if the kind of 'methodology' they employ were implemented universally, there would be no more history - it would all have to be regarded as a hoax. That's my experience.

I might comment more tomorrow. I kinda think we're going to be a loggerheads a bit and kinda feel I'm going to get into re-hashing stuff. I'm also thinking the Holocaust denial crew will turn up and I just can't be arsed getting drawn into another one of those mammoth threads. At least until the weather cools a bit.

But I think what I'm most curious about is how come these disparate points are supposed to add up to anything that is supposed to be some kind of cohesive narrative.

Oh -

I assure you I'm not making a single penny out of this;

Whereas I am earning a fucking fortune from my masters in Tel Aviv! Paid by the word, motherfucker - by the word!!!!!!!

[flyermay]

But you were saying they all believed in a "Judeo-Masonic conspiracy" which I don't think reflects even the Nazi position accurately - so I gave the example of the Italians who had a far more ambiguous position about Jews.
The Nazi obsession with Jews also tapped into existing prejudices and encouraged, pushed them. As they did with the Roma, who unfortunately continue to experience prejudice.
Of course not everybody regarded Hitler as a bad guy and some people still don't.

I don’t know about the Romanians and the Hungarians, I would have to research them too, but the big four (Germany, Italy, Japan and Spain) all believed in the Judeo-Masonic Conspiracy, as well as the last 3 Tsars of Russia. Even Churchill believed in the Judeo-Masonic Conspiracy, and openly talked about it until the 1920s.

Casually, all the axis powers believed and openly spoke about the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy. And casually, all the allied power had already a central bank controlled by the international bankers. Also casually, the whole world suddenly stopped talking about the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy just after WWII.

This is not a hypothesis or speculation, it is a fact that I took the time to research and reference (avoiding as much as possible conspiracy theorists and dubious sources).

Nazism was suppressed right after the war and whether you like that or not, it's pretty understandable. Holocaust denial - or rather 'denial of Nazi' atrocities' - it just happens that the genocide of the Jews is the atrocity people invariably like to deny - was only suppressed at the start of the nineties. If it wasn't so heavily linked with neo-Nazism this might not have happened. German historians weren't all lining up with problems with the 'official version' (whatever that actually means) before that.

That’s right, Nazism was suppressed and history was written by the victors. It doesn’t matter much if these people are Neo-Nazis or not, as far as I know being a Neo-Nazi is not synonymous with being inaccurate or incompetent. By that rule, all the current historians should be disqualified on the basis that they are anti-Nazi, which in the same way as the pro-Nazis are obviously biased. What’s your point?

If they all thought different, the law would be unworkable. If a range of people came up with academically rigorous refutations of the 'official version', then there's really not much that could be done.

As I've pointed out on here before, there have been drives to ban denial of Stalin's crimes and Ukraine has done so - in terms of the history of what Stalin did I think that's neither here nor there and you'll notice on this forum it is only Holocaust denial laws anyone seems to care about.

Do you know many places in post-WWII allied occupied Germany that any of these people would be given a proper platform, or even granted freedom, to deviate from the conclusions fed by the US government to their “official” journalists and historians? You don’t need the law to shut down an idea; it’s simpler than that in our “democracy”.

But I see where you’re going, and I’m not interest in getting into the holocaust “revision” debate; there are enough threads about that already. The point is that there are people, and people with academic and even Jewish backgrounds, who doubt the “official” version of events; that’s undeniable.

Given to the Rothchilds?

Well, it was not really given; the Rothschilds actually got it for the Jewish people in exchange for helping the British buy the Sued Canal. The main purpose, apart from advancing the Zionist agenda, which the Rothschilds pretty much lead, was to set a foot on the most oil rich region in the world and to control the Sued Canal for the British empire, which was also the cheapest and fastest route to transport Russia’s oil towards Europe (this is not especulation, and it's a fact that Israel invaded Egypt by order of Britain when the Egyptians tried to nationalise it and build the Aswan Dam in 1956).

Otherwise this is kinda interesting. What would have happened? This is a counterfactual and I don't pretend to know enough to give a good speculation. Zionism would still have existed and Jews would still have gone to Palestine. There's even the possibility, I guess, a slower immigration would have allowed a more gradual and peaceful emergence of a Jewish state. I guess we'll never know. But yes, Israel was a product of the aftermath. This then leads people to assume it was all planned. If people believe that, they believe that. Me, I think actions have consequences, often unforeseen ones, hindsight is a wonderful thing and shit happens. If anyone ever produces some actual evidence of some big plan, then I might be convinced.

Yes, you’re right; the Jews “could” have gone to Palestine anyway from 1917. But you are forgetting something; why would they want to leave voluntarily rich Europe and move to the poor Middle East because the Rothschilds or the British asked them? Not all Jews were Zionists. Actually just a small fraction of the Jews were Zionists; even Hitler admitted this fact in “Mein Kampf”. What’s undeniable is the huge difference between the number of Jews that moved pre and post WWII; so we can categorically affirm that WWII was the cause for the sudden migration.

But careful, I didn’t say that either the Nazi’s policy nor the holocaust were planned in this respect; but it’s definitely an interesting idea though.

Sure there are. The only Jew I can think off offhand is David Cole, but I don't think whether they're Jewish or not is remotely relevant. It's not like they're more likely to be right if they are.

You’re right, except that it contradicts your statement about the link between holocaust revisionists and Nazism.

My personal experience of their stuff is they employ just about every devious trick in the book. Over the last couple of years I've checked out multiple denial claims and come across wave after wave of bullshit. And I think it's a fact if the kind of 'methodology' they employ were implemented universally, there would be no more history - it would all have to be regarded as a hoax. That's my experience.

Yes, I know what you mean, I saw many of those videos, and some are obviously bullshit and no more than Neo-Nazi propaganda. But we also have some of them with some interesting point; which as I said, I’m not even interested in discussing.

I might comment more tomorrow. I kinda think we're going to be a loggerheads a bit and kinda feel I'm going to get into re-hashing stuff. I'm also thinking the Holocaust denial crew will turn up and I just can't be arsed getting drawn into another one of those mammoth threads. At least until the weather cools a bit.

But I think what I'm most curious about is how come these disparate points are supposed to add up to anything that is supposed to be some kind of cohesive narrative.

We're getting there... though we should discuss most of these points in other threads. This thread is not pro-Nazi, anti-Nazi, or about the holocaust. It’s about why there are 2 books titled “Mein Kampf” with 2 different Hitlers.

If anyone is interested in a quick review of the book, here is the American propagandistic version in video. Of course, this is not the Hitler of any of the books, not even the bad Hitler of the books. :)

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Whereas I am earning a fucking fortune from my masters in Tel Aviv! Paid by the word, motherfucker - by the word!!!!!!!

Yeah, I want to shill for cash too!!! :D

Mr. Rothschild,

If I can clean Hitler’s name, I can surely do marbles with yours; since you are just a misunderstood honest business man. Bear in mind that it would just cost you a fraction of the businesses these crazy conspiracy theorists are making you lose.

Yours faithfully,

A Shill :D

[flyermay]

Ok, I went to investigate the Spanish translation and found some interesting things.

First, I found out that this book is quite difficult to find. None of the big book stores sale it. When I asked why, they told me that, even though they sale other fascist literature, they don't want to get involved with this particular product [you'll see why in point four].

Second, I found that as soon as you ask for "Mein Kampf", their faces suddenly change; as if you were a Nazi or something. :D

Third, there's only one Spanish translation; though I found at least three very old re-editions in a public library and a recent one in a small book shop; all with the exact same content. It seems to be a translation from the original German edition from 1934, and it's approved by the Nazi party. This is the translation I have.

Fourth, I found a very interesting note on the back cover of the latest re-edition of this book. Unfortunately, I didn't read it all, since I managed to take a picture of it with my phone. The problem is, when I got home, the picture was simply not there (I probably forgot to save it -I'm definitely not a good Nazi spy :p-). Well, the note says that this book was "kidnapped" twice in Spain by the estate, first in 1956 and again in 2006, and all copies forced to be returned to the editors; Unfortunately, I didn't read any more... I'll try to take another picture of the note I mentioned at the end of the week.

So, on one hand we have the Zionists and the US/British governments eager to show the world what Hitler wrote; of course, their English version of what he wrote. And on the other hand we have that the original is banned in Germany; and also that the Spanish translation, which is supposedly a translation of the original and portrays Hitler in a more favourable way, has been under various suppression attempts.

That's all I found...

[flyermay]

I've just started to translate the original German version from 1936, and to compare it with the English and Spanish translations.

I think I figured out what's going on... :eek:

[rodin]

I've just started to translate the original German version from 1936, and to compare it with the English and Spanish translations.

I think I figured out what's going on... :eek:

we wait with baited breath ...

[freedom1st]

I've just started to translate the original German version from 1936, and to compare it with the English and Spanish translations.

I think I figured out what's going on... :eek:

Looking forward to hearing it.

Btw, your comment re: The Balfour Agreement was not out of context because the point you were making was with regard to the Balfour connection, ie. one of the translators/editions being done by a relative I think you said. In which case what does it matter that the agreement was made after WW1 and not after WW2 - your point stands. It's just Dogsmilk trying to throw in confusion, ie trying to pick at things that have relevance.

[dogsmilk]

I don’t know about the Romanians and the Hungarians, I would have to research them too, but the big four (Germany, Italy, Japan and Spain) all believed in the Judeo-Masonic Conspiracy, as well as the last 3 Tsars of Russia. Even Churchill believed in the Judeo-Masonic Conspiracy, and openly talked about it until the 1920s.

Casually, all the axis powers believed and openly spoke about the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy. And casually, all the allied power had already a central bank controlled by the international bankers. Also casually, the whole world suddenly stopped talking about the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy just after WWII.

This is not a hypothesis or speculation, it is a fact that I took the time to research and reference (avoiding as much as possible conspiracy theorists and dubious sources).

Well the Nazis were predominently preoccupied with a supposed Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy. I'm curious as to why you keep wanting to (as far as I'm concerned) exaggerate the Masonic aspect. The Italians, like I said, were far more ambiguous - I seem to recall something about them protecting 'their' Jews. And there were certainly Jewish fascists in government in the 1930s, even when anti-semitic measures were being introduced. Dunno much about the Japs. I know the stuff like teh protocolz gained ground there, but I don't think they were that arsed. Dunno about Spain.
People in American intelligence entertained ideas about Jewish conspiracies, certainly around the time of the Russian revolution (never heard anything about Masons being in there).
I guess my answer is and, so, what? These ideas have had considerable popularity.


That’s right, Nazism was suppressed and history was written by the victors. It doesn’t matter much if these people are Neo-Nazis or not, as far as I know being a Neo-Nazi is not synonymous with being inaccurate or incompetent. By that rule, all the current historians should be disqualified on the basis that they are anti-Nazi, which in the same way as the pro-Nazis are obviously biased. What’s your point?

The point is that after fighting a war against Nazism, it's understandable that ideology was suppressed. It makes even more sense when you consider how many former Nazis ended up being quite prominent. The point was also that Holocaust denial was not suppressed until decades later, years after it emerged and German scholars (and former participants) weren't all running around claiming it never happened.


Do you know many places in post-WWII allied occupied Germany that any of these people would be given a proper platform, or even granted freedom, to deviate from the conclusions fed by the US government to their “official” journalists and historians? You don’t need the law to shut down an idea; it’s simpler than that in our “democracy”.

So you're now suggesting the US government have "fed" their "conclusions" to German scholars? How do you work that out?

I don't think you can shut down an idea. Can you name one that ever has been? Properly?
Banning ideas only sends them underground and often serves to romaticise them among people drawn to them. You also get the bullshit 'logic' of if they've banned it, there must be something in it!

You say -

as far as I know being a Neo-Nazi is not synonymous with being inaccurate or incompetent

Of course not. Being a neo-Nazi is an ideological position (though I do have to say neo-Nazi stuff I've encountered I would say is frequently inaccurate if not generally incompetent - some of it is quite clever). But if you ban it it also doesn't mean there's anything 'they're trying to hide' or whatever - it just means 'they' don't like Nazis. You could say exactly the same thing about commies.


But I see where you’re going, and I’m not interest in getting into the holocaust “revision” debate; there are enough threads about that already. The point is that there are people, and people with academic and even Jewish backgrounds, who doubt the “official” version of events; that’s undeniable.

Me neither.

Of course it's undeniable - it's undeniable people (who are sometimes from academic backgrounds) claim the moon landings were faked, extra-terrestrials abduct people from their bedrooms or God created the world in 6 days - you can apply that to just about anything can't you? In all cases it doesn't mean anything beyond the observation some people think these things.


Well, it was not really given; the Rothschilds actually got it for the Jewish people in exchange for helping the British buy the Sued Canal. The main purpose, apart from advancing the Zionist agenda, which the Rothschilds pretty much lead, was to set a foot on the most oil rich region in the world and to control the Sued Canal for the British empire, which was also the cheapest and fastest route to transport Russia’s oil towards Europe (this is not especulation, and it's a fact that Israel invaded Egypt by order of Britain when the Egyptians tried to nationalise it and build the Aswan Dam in 1956).

What I'm intrigued by here is the way you lump together Lionel Rothchild helping the British get a stake in the canal in the 1880s with the Balfour declaration in 1917 with Suez in 1956. And how the Rochchilds "lead" Zionism. And how Britain 'ordered' Israel to attack a country that was already basically an enemy.
Still, this is a massive tangent.



Yes, you’re right; the Jews “could” have gone to Palestine anyway from 1917. But you are forgetting something; why would they want to leave voluntarily rich Europe and move to the poor Middle East because the Rothschilds or the British asked them? Not all Jews were Zionists. Actually just a small fraction of the Jews were Zionists; even Hitler admitted this fact in “Mein Kampf”. What’s undeniable is the huge difference between the number of Jews that moved pre and post WWII; so we can categorically affirm that WWII was the cause for the sudden migration.

But careful, I didn’t say that either the Nazi’s policy nor the holocaust were planned in this respect; but it’s definitely an interesting idea though.

Why would the British ask them?
Why specifically the Rothchilds?
I didn't say WWII didn't cause mass migration, I said Zionism would still have existed and a Jewish state may still have emerged, but we cannot know.
And people have a tendency to look back at things and postulate that because them doing this caused that it must have been planned that way,



You’re right, except that it contradicts your statement about the link between holocaust revisionists and Nazism.


I don't see any contradiction - just because denial is heavily linked to neo-Nazism, it does not follow that all deniers are therefore neo-Nazis. They aren't. They're just heavily linked.
And you could be a Jewish neo-Nazi if you wanted. Frank Collin was a neo-Nazi whose father was a Jew who was incarcerated in Dachau. If you're a Jew who decide you like Nazism and hates Jews, there's no physical law of the universe that says you can't hold that belief no matter how weird and fucked up it is. There's nowt so queer as folk.

I think I figured out what's going on...

Cool.

[flyermay]

Well the Nazis were predominently preoccupied with a supposed Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy. I'm curious as to why you keep wanting to (as far as I'm concerned) exaggerate the Masonic aspect. The Italians, like I said, were far more ambiguous - I seem to recall something about them protecting 'their' Jews. And there were certainly Jewish fascists in government in the 1930s, even when anti-semitic measures were being introduced. Dunno much about the Japs. I know the stuff like teh protocolz gained ground there, but I don't think they were that arsed. Dunno about Spain.
People in American intelligence entertained ideas about Jewish conspiracies, certainly around the time of the Russian revolution (never heard anything about Masons being in there).
I guess my answer is and, so, what? These ideas have had considerable popularity.

As you may know, the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy had many names, including, but not limited to:

the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy
the International-Communist-Judaeo-Masonic conspiracy
the Judeo-Masonic-Bolshevik conspiracy
the International-Marxist-Judeo-Masonic conspiracy
and probably other variants... but you get the point


Then, I'm really puzzled about how you reached the conclusion that I have any interest in exaggerating anything about any freemason (don't even know what this has to do with anything).

But now that you mention it, and since you believe that this conspiracy has nothing to do with Freemasonry, you might like to know that even though not all 3 European Axis powers targeted the Jews, all 3 targeted the Freemasons. This is an irrefutable fact that any mason on this forum can confirm to you; they were killed by the thousands in German, Italy and Spain.

But yet again, nothing of this is even relevant to what I'm talking about.

I'll answer the rest later...

[dogsmilk]

As you may know, the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy had many names, including, but not limited to:

the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy
the International-Communist-Judaeo-Masonic conspiracy
the Judeo-Masonic-Bolshevik conspiracy
the International-Marxist-Judeo-Masonic conspiracy
and probably other variants... but you get the point


Then, I'm really puzzled about how you reached the conclusion that I have any interest in exaggerating anything about any freemason (don't even know what this has to do with anything).

But now that you mention it, and since you believe that this conspiracy has nothing to do with Freemasonry, you might like to know that even though not all 3 European Axis powers targeted the Jews, all 3 targeted the Freemasons. This is an irrefutable fact that any mason on this forum can confirm to you; they were killed by the thousands in German, Italy and Spain.

But yet again, nothing of this is even relevant to what I'm talking about.

I'll answer the rest later...

I didn't say the Nazis weren't against Masons, I was pointing out they were far more preoccupied with Judeo-Bolshevik narratives. So I was pointing out you seemed to be over-egging the Masonic bit.

The list you provide to me just drives it home how daft all this stuff is too me - "the International-Communist-Judaeo-Masonic conspiracy" - I just can't get my head round how anybody could take it seriously.

[1977]

And here is the other person I was really hopping would find this thread. :)

Tinyint sent me a German copy of the original "Mein Kampf" from 1936, but unfortunately it's writen in, I think it's called fractal, and it's also not OCRed, so I couldn't check it myself. All other German copies I could find were post WWII.

Here are 3 examples (just from the same page on the book), as posted a couple of posts back:
Thanks. It looks like the discrepancies lie around subtle nuances of the German and how they are interpreted. A German-speaker will have to say which is more accurate.

[flyermay]

Thanks. It looks like the discrepancies lie around subtle nuances of the German and how they are interpreted. A German-speaker will have to say which is more accurate.

That could be the case, the problem is that if you read both the English and the Spanish version, you realise that those subtle variations end up describing a completely different guy.

I'm telling you, I was really susprised when I read the Spanish version for the first time; it had nothing to do with what I expected of Hitler. On the other hand, the Murphy translations totally matched the idea of Hitler fed by the media.

[flyermay]

I didn't say the Nazis weren't against Masons, I was pointing out they were far more preoccupied with Judeo-Bolshevik narratives. So I was pointing out you seemed to be over-egging the Masonic bit.

But that's simply not true, as I said, not all 3 European Axis powers targeted the Jews, but all of them target the Freemasons, and killed them by the thousands.

And by the way, would you mind pointing out exactly where I seemed to be over-egging about the Masonic bit before you brought it up, I'm really curious.

The list you provide to me just drives it home how daft all this stuff is too me - "the International-Communist-Judaeo-Masonic conspiracy" - I just can't get my head round how anybody could take it seriously.

Yes, why would Churchill, Hitler, Franco, the last three Tsars, Mussolini and the Japanese emperor take it seriously? Did you try to find an answer to that question?

[flyermay]

OK, here it is:

First, say that translating this "fractal" German is a complete nightmare. I had to interpret what each character means, then write them down one by one and then translate the text. I managed to translate a full page, though I'm definitely not doing it again.

But yes, the Spanish translation is good, it translates exactly what the original German edition says, and not only that, it keeps the original layout, the separations and the emphasis on Hitler’s selected phrases. None of the English versions do this.

However, I found that there are missing phrases from the Spanish translation (as with the third example I posted a couple of posts back). Therefore, the Spanish translation, even though accurate, is an abridgment.

Murphy’s translation is the worst, he goes as far as changing the meaning of whole phrases and he keeps on giving Hitler’s statements a negative tone all along the book. Casually, Murphy's translation is the most common and actually 97% of the 30 different "mein kampf" I downloaded were Murphy's translation.

So far Reynal & Hitchcock seems to be fine, though I would need to read it to confirm this; which I will do, now that I know the Spanish one is an abridgment. I can’t comment on it until I read it, but so far I can see that it’s heavily commented; and I say "heavily commented" because the comments occupy more space on each page than the original text. Of course, I'm not planning on reading the comments.

And that's all for now...

[flyermay]

Found a new translation. This seems to be Manheim's translation; but without the anti-Hitler introduction and derogatory footnotes. This seems to be the most popular amongst Neo-Nazis, and is the one offered online by Stormfront and other Neo-Nazi websites.

I'm going to check it against the others, but it seems to me that this is the good one.

[flyermay]

Yes, the Manheim is an exact translation of the orginal German from 1936. It also keeps the original layout, but it doesn't emphasize the selected pharagraphs; as the Spanish version does.

On the other hand I just noticed that the Spanish version, on top of being an abridgment (probably light on anti-Semitic content), it also changes the meaning of some anti-Semitic statments that end up giving Hitler a favourable look.

Sorry guys, there's no conspiracy here. :o

Just an example of how Hitler seemed reasonable to me in the Spanish version, and how on all other versions (including the original German version) his reasoning was based on racism and anti-semitism:

On the Manheim translation (and also on all other versions, including the German):
"There were few Jews in Linz. In the course of the centuries their outward appearance had become Europeanized and had taken on a human look; in fact, I even took them for Germans."

On the Spanish translation:
"Very few Jews lived in the city of Linz, whose exterior look in the course of the centuries had become Europeanised, and I even took them for Germans."

As you can see, the remark in bold about Jews taking a human look is not included in the Spanish version. Now, if instead of saying "took a human look", you just say "took them for Germans", and you erase all other comments of this type, the reader (me) ends up forming a completely different idea of what Hitler stand for.

Saying that the Jews "took a human look" is an obvious racist and anti-Semitic statement, and this line of thought has nothing to do with the idea of fair judgment that the Spanish version is trying to show.

End of mistery... either way, don't read Murphy's or Dugdale's versions. ;)

(Mr. Rothschild, I expect my cheque in British Pounds) :D

[tarant8l]

All the points have been achieved. The fascist states have in fact spread out of Europe. The goal is right where they wanted it: Frankfurt. Hitler has united not only Europe but the world. On inspection of your own national insignia, you will surely discover fascist symbols everywhere.

[eshalis]

You should read his second book New World Order is something like that.

[flyermay]

You should read his second book New World Order is something like that.

The truth is that I didn't even finish the first. The Spanish version was quite entertaining and straight to the point, but it missed a lot of the original content. And the Manheim version is quite accurate, but with all the added stuff is quite dense and boring; and for what I heard the second book is even worse in that sense.

I also realised that what I was looking for is not in either of those book; so other books got priority. I'm planning on reading them though, one of these days.

[eshalis]

You should read Hitler's second book called My Order in which he unveils the plans for a New World Order echoing the Masons desire for a New Babylon across the Globe.

[flyermay]

You should read Hitler's second book called My Order in which he unveils the plans for a New World Order echoing the Masons desire for a New Babylon across the Globe.

Do you think Hitler'a and the Masons' NWO was the same NWO? Could you expalion how they are the same?

[haukipesukone]

Very interesting (with a fake Freudian accent)...

Really you're doing great stuff Flyermay. Keep it up. If you write a book about the various Mein Kampfs, I wanna read it.

Just out of curiousity, I checked online what sort of versions my local library has on the book. There seems to be a Finnish translation done in 1941. We were allied with Germany at the time. I'd like to read it and some English version to compare it, but it's a thick and probably a tedious book, and I've got a lot of other stuff on my plate right now.

[flyermay]

Very interesting (with a fake Freudian accent)...

Really you're doing great stuff Flyermay. Keep it up. If you write a book about the various Mein Kampfs, I wanna read it.

Just out of curiousity, I checked online what sort of versions my local library has on the book. There seems to be a Finnish translation done in 1941. We were allied with Germany at the time. I'd like to read it and some English version to compare it, but it's a thick and probably a tedious book, and I've got a lot of other stuff on my plate right now.

Thanks, but there's really nothing else to add. What seemed to be a conspiracy was nothing more than a few unrelated coincidences which looked suspicious to me (or was it not... :eek: ?)

My guess is that the Spanish version simply tried to portray Hitler in a favourable way to the Spanish public. The only Spanish translation was first published in the 40s; at a time when Franco's censorship had total control over all publications and the media. It was also a time when Franco was seeking the approval and support from the Nazis; and taking into account that Franco was not an anti-semite, the most probable explanation is that the translator was asked to avoid portraying Hitler in a negative way or as an anti-semite.

[rodin]

You should read his second book New World Order is something like that.

Elijah Jacob Shalis - Descendant of Prince Louis de Bourbon, The Count of Soissons, Clermont, and Dreux. Whos grandfather Sir Georges de Montafie Knight of Malta was the family that originally owned the Shroud of Turin.

Care to tell us more about your signature? On another thread perhaps?

[curtaincat]

my post will probably be very boring. I read it from a library book a few years ago. The book had 'at the front of it' a big long passage about a warning about reading the book'. ( i decided for myself that it was propaganda, so left that part to last, to read after). Anyway, I read the book from the library, and it was interesting for a while, I did take an interest in his views of himself as a young artist, for instance, and some of it seemed to make sense. Then it got really boring, after about half-way thru... and i gave up on it.

Then i read the "WARNING" about reading this book. that was the part that pissed me off the most. Telling people ... just how they should read a book.
That is all i have got to say about that.

carry on, folks.