Adolf Hitler on 'The World War' part 3

Published by carolyn on Thu, 2018-06-07 00:58

Continuing with passages from Mein Kampf, 2017 Thomas Dalton translation. See here.

Hitler ends this chapter on the World War by describing why Marxism could not be defeated by Social Democracy, which he also did not like. His dismay at the outcome for Germany forced him to look for solutions and to consider going into politics after the war.


Naturally I was distressed at the half-measures that were adopted at that time; but I never thought it possible that the final consequences could have been so disastrous.

But what should have been done? Throw the ringleaders into jail, prosecute them, and rid the nation of them. Uncompromising military measures should have been adopted to root out [Ausrottung] this pestilence. Parties should have been abolished, and the Reichstag brought to its senses at the point of the bayonet, if necessary—or better still, immediately dissolved. […]

Of course, this suggestion would give rise to the question: Is it possible to eradicate [ausrotten] ideas with the sword? Can a worldview be attacked by means of force?

[…] I came to the following fundamental conclusion: Ideas and philosophical systems, as well as movements grounded on a definite spiritual foundation, whether true or not, can never be broken by the use of force after a certain stage, except on one condition: namely, that this use of force is in the service of a new creative idea or worldview.

The application of force alone, without moral support based on a spiritual concept, can never bring about the destruction of an idea [Vernichtung einer Idee] or halt its propagation—unless one is willing to ruthlessly root out (Ausrottung) its last remaining defenders, and also to destroy any remaining tradition. […]

But experience has shown that […] every persecution that is unsupported by spiritual motives is morally unjust; it raises opposition among the best elements of the population—to the point that they are driven to champion the very ideas that are unjustly persecuted. This is something we would do well to take heed of in our own political work today. Currently,  someone like Trump is using the 'spiritual' idea of America (the USA) as it was founded, with its distinct freedoms and promise, as a counter to the idea of international cooperation with a Europe that is sold out to the Globalist idea and dictate. The battle over this going on within the USA is fierce, if you hadn't noticed.


[…] Every worldview, whether religious or political—and it's sometimes hard to differentiate the two—fights not so much for the negative destruction of the opposing world of ideas as for the positive realization of its own ideas.

Inversely, it's difficult to say when the negative aim of the destruction of a hostile doctrine is achieved. For this reason alone, an aggressive worldview is more powerful and decisive in action than one that takes up a merely defensive attitude. If force is used to combat a spiritual power, that force remains a defensive measure, as long as its advocates aren't the standard-bearers and apostles of a new spiritual doctrine.

To sum up, we can establish the following: That every attempt to combat a worldview by means of force will turn out futile in the end, if the struggle fails to take the form of an offensive for the establishment of an entirely new spiritual attitude.

This is why the fight against Marxism failed.


The more I examined the need for a change in the government's attitude towards Social Democracy as the embodiment of contemporary Marxism, the more I realized the lack of a practical substitute for this doctrine. Supposing Social Democracy were overthrown, what would be offered to the masses instead? There wasn't one movement in existence that promised any success in attracting large numbers of workers who are presently leaderless. It is nonsensical to imagine that the international fanatic who has just severed his connection with a class party would henceforth join a bourgeois party—or in other words, another class organization.

Generally speaking, one should guard against considering the masses as stupider than they really are. In political matters, it often happens that feeling is a better judge than intellect. But the idea that this stupid international attitude of the masses is sufficient proof of their unsoundness is refuted by the simple fact that pacifist democracy is no less insane, even though it draws its supporters almost exclusively from bourgeois circles. As long as millions of citizens daily swallow what the Jewish democratic press tells them, they are in no position to joke about the stupidity of the 'comrades'—who, in the end swallow the same garbage, though in a different form. In both cases, the maker is one and the same Jew.


In 1914, a fight against Social Democracy was indeed quite conceivable. But the lack of any practical substitute made it doubtful how long the fight could be kept up.

In this respect, there was a gaping void.

Long before the war, I was of the same opinion. This was why I couldn't decide to join any of the existing parties. During the course of the World War, my conviction was still further confirmed by the obvious impossibility of fighting Social Democracy in anything like a thorough way. This would have required a movement that was something more than a mere 'parliamentary' party.

I frequently discussed this with my intimate comrades. And it was then that I first thought of taking up political work later on. I often assured my friends that, after the war, I intended to become a speaker, in addition to my professional work.

And I know that I was very serious about this.


Mein Kampf, MKVolI