This week I finished:

Mein Kampf, volume 1, by Adolph Hitler: I’m partly nervous about posting about finishing it or even reading it. The First Amendment may make it legal, but just associating with it can blemish, but I oppose that thinking. I finished other works this week but put them in a separate post since who wants to be on a page with Mein Kampf?

When I teach the skill of empathy in my leadership classes, I talk about the importance of empathizing with people you disagree with most. My extreme example is that if you were a general during WWII, it would be supremely important to empathize with Hitler. It could make the difference between winning and losing. To understand doesn’t mean to agree or support.

I’ve finished several books and hosted podcast guests on the Holocaust and WWII, most recently The Choice and movies on Corrie Ten Boom. Going farther back: Benjamin Hett and Victor Frankl. I read that translators said that Hitler’s writing in German was atrocious, so that translations that made it easier didn’t convey his poor writing. I found the translation I listened to compelling and well read, so I figure the translator fixed that poor writing.

Mein Kampf tells his story learning how the world worked, coming into his own as an orator, and starting a political movement. I understand why people avoid reading it and try to suppress it being read, since we know it motivated many people to kill and destroy. Still, it seems historically important.

He lays it all out there. I’m not sure anyone in the 1920s could have foreseen the Holocaust or taking over Europe, but he didn’t hide his hatreds, views of how race drove people, and passions to do what it took to restore Germany. A lot of what happened later makes more sense after reading only volume 1. I think it’s important to learn the origins of the Holocaust and WWII to be prepared when similar forces rise.

Main themes and topics:

I’ll share what topics he focused on and kept returning to. The list is probably obvious to anyone who knows about the Holocaust and WWII, but I hadn’t come across them in his voice.

Marxism: Hitler hated Marxists. He seemed to enjoy coming up with terms to insult them with. He learned some of the ideology. He saw them as destroying German culture and the German “race.” He doesn’t seem to have a coherent motivation for them. They just want to destroy things. He didn’t seem to want to understand them, as he implied in studying them, but just to use them as a foil and enemy.

Jews: He sees them like Marxists except as a “race” governed by inherent traits. He doesn’t explain how they or the Marxists get so powerful, except through deception. He doesn’t explain where he thinks their motivation comes from. He sees them as just destroying culture, taking advantage of German culture. He says one of their biggest tricks was to call themselves a religion when they’re really a “race.”

The masses: He considers the masses stupid and calls them so over and over. I wonder what it was like for them to hear him call them stupid and unthinking, then to support him. It’s almost funny to hear how much he insults and dismisses them.

“Race”: He doesn’t explain what “race” means. It sounds like a subset of species, but even then the concept as he uses it doesn’t make sense. He acknowledges people from different “races” can produce fertile offspring, so he doesn’t seem to follow a scientific definition. He just divides people by a system he doesn’t realize contradicts itself all over the place.

Democracy: He hates it. He sees it as a terrible system of government. He prefers a great leader. He believes some people are great political theorists, others great implementers. Rarely do they overlap.

Centralization of power: He says over and over how power should be centralized under a great leader.

Passion and causes: He sounds deeply passionate. However internally inconsistent his world view, he loves it and wants to implement it. He is passionate about his enemies too.

Propaganda: He values effective propaganda and can’t stand ineffective propaganda. He sees it as a big part of winning or losing a war. Effective propaganda helped England win the World War, and to make it seem like a nice country spreading benign culture when it was really as cruel as an. Poor propaganda helped Germany lose. Propaganda isn’t information. It should target the lowest common denominator and should not be about information. Rightness or wrongness matters less than effectiveness.

Insulting and name calling: Hitler goes to town calling his enemies names, insulting them, dehumanizing them, and deindividualizing them. He seems to enjoy these parts.

International finance: He sees international finance corrupting the world. He treats it like a force, almost like a conspiracy. It’s tied to the Jews.

---

Do I recommend the book? His theories are too self-serving and nonsensical to learn from. I’m nervous sharing I read it because people may misunderstand, but I see it having huge historical value.

• ← 828: Richard Reeves: For Boys and Men: More support and love, less misunderstanding
• This week’s selected media, July 20, 2025: Manufactured Landscapes, Benjamin Franklin (of the city of brotherly love, where I was born) →