11

Imagine I live in 1933-1934 and read Hitler's "Mein Kampf". Is there anything in this book that would make me think the Nazis seriously intend to kill between 6 and 17 million Jews?

I haven't read the book. On Wikipedia I read that

  • this book contains the idea of forcing the Jews to emigrate to Madagascar,
  • extermination of "international poisoners" (however, it's not clear whether he meant all Jews or only influential ones),
  • he claims that killing of 12000-15000 Jews at the start of World War I would be beneficial for Germany (however, 12000-15000 people is very different from 6-17 million people),
  • he dislikes Soviet Bolshevism (however, only a tiny proporition of Soviet Jews were actually members of Bolshevik government; if he wanted to eradicate Bolshevism, he needed to kill only that tiny fraction).

None of this suggests that at the time of writing Hitler intended to kill millions of people.

  • 4
    Nope. But it would make it clear that he hated Jews, and that he was murderous. – Display name Aug 26 '18 at 9:11
  • 2
    Alright, let's rephrase it: Is there anything in "Mein Kampf" that could suggest that Nazi genocide is going to be worse than similar events in the past (incl. the 30-year war, plague, destruction of Rome, genocides, World War I and its consequences etc)? – Franz Drollig Aug 26 '18 at 18:23
  • 3
    @Franz Drollig - that comment implies that you think that nazi genoicde turned out to be worse than similar events before Mein Kampf was published suchas "the 30-year war, plague, destruction of Rome, genocides, World war I and its consequences, etc.". It is perfectly possible that according to some standards some of the listed and unlisted (like the Tai Ping Rebellion) previous events could be considered even worse in evilness or in scope than Nazi genocide. In human history there is a lot of competition for the title "worst". – MAGolding Aug 26 '18 at 20:48
  • 4
    I would speak to the contrary. The Holocaust might not have been the most costly atrocity in human history, the black death comes to mind; but it was unique. Comparing it to wars or plagues, is comparing apples to oranges. The holocaust wasn't a war, it was the mass systematic slaughter of a defenseless civilian population by a modern mechanized civilization. That's certainly unique and unprecedented on a similar scale. Alternatively, WWII was the most costly war in human history, both in capital(relative dollars) and human lives; that also makes the Nazi's unique. – JMS Aug 27 '18 at 14:43
  • 4
    I don't think anyone would seriously claim 17 milions jews were murdered, 6 milions is already a upper estimate. – Bregalad Aug 27 '18 at 15:27
17

Question:
Imagine I live in 1933-1934 and read Hitler's "Mein Kampf". Is there anything in this book that would make me think the Nazis seriously intend to kill between 6 and 17 million Jews?

.

Short Answer:

The way the question is worded the answer is yes. In the original German publication there were ideas expressed in Mein Kampf which would make anyone believe Hitler was going to commit genocide. Hitler expresses hatred for the Jews, discusses racial war in Europe, the necessity for a war against the Jews specifically, discusses the "elimination of the Jews" on the European continent by use of force and bloodshed, identifies the jews as an existential threat, and even discusses his role against the Jews as doing God's work on Earth, "defending the handiwork of the Lord".

Asked another way however, did most people who read Mein Kampf come away with the belief Hitler meant to kill 6 million jews, 17-18 million defenseless people, and start a global war responsible for the death of 60-80 million people or 3% of the worlds population in 1939; then the answer was no. Mein Kampf is nearly 700 pages of disorganized ramblings and disjointed ideas which reads as a prolonged rant which phases between lucidity and fanaticism.

Taken in it's entirety it was nearly universally dismissed especially by the communities who should have been most concerned.

Why Jews didn’t blink an eye when ‘Mein Kampf’ first came out
... when “Mein Kampf” came out for the first time, 91 years ago, German Jews hardly noticed it. They certainly did not view it as a threat to their existence, or even as a harbinger of a changing political climate in the Fatherland.

There were several Jewish papers in prewar Germany — Israelitisches Familienblatt, Jüdische Rundschau, Der Israelit, Das Jüdische Echo, Jüdisch-liberale Zeitung, and right-wing publications like Der Schild and Der nationaldeutsche Jude — but only one of them ran a short piece about “Mein Kampf,” which was essentially an excerpt from another paper’s review. On October 9, 1925, C.V.-Zeitung of the “Central Association of German Citizens of the Jewish Faith” ran a short piece on page nine entitled “Rather than spirit, arrogance,” which did not offer its own critique of “Mein Kampf” but sufficed with quoting a negative review in the conservative Kreuk-Zeitung.

“The Jewish newspapers mostly ignored Hitler’s book. Now and then there were hints to the book, but no deeper discussion or analysis,” said Othmar Plöckinger, who recently published a 700-page book with many historical sources dealing with “Mein Kampf,” including 51 contemporary reviews. Only one of them was in a Jewish paper.

.

Lastly, one property of the publication which makes this question hard to answer yes/no without caveats is that the international translations of Mein Kampf intentionally toned down the rhetoric from that which was written in native German. People who were fluent and could read the book in it's native German would make note of this. American President Franklin Delano Roosevelt for example.

FDR Library: Dictatorship: The Road Not Taken
In one of the great coincidences of twentieth century history, Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler assumed power at nearly the same moment in 1933. This is FDR’s personal copy of the 1933 English translation of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf. This edition was edited and published in America at the time when Hitler was coming to power. The edition failed to include the sweeping anti-Semitism of the original. Unlike many others in America and Europe, Roosevelt had few illusions about the new German Chancellor. Fluent in German, FDR was familiar with the original German language version of Mein Kampf. He wrote in longhand on the book’s flyleaf: “This translation is so expurgated as to give a wholly false view of what Hitler really is or says—The German original would make a different story.”

.

Detailed Answer:

Documenting Numbers of Victims of the Holocaust & Nazi Persecution
Up to 6 million Jews died in the holocaust, and an additional 11 million others made up of:

  • Soviet civilians
  • Soviet prisoners of war
  • Non-Jewish Polish civilians
  • Slavic civilians
  • People with disabilities
  • Roma(gypsies)
  • Jehovah's Witnesses
  • Repeat criminal offenders
  • German political opponents and resistance activists
  • Homosexuals

All told 60-80 million died in WWII.

Encyclopedia Britannica: Mein Kampf
Mein Kampf, (German: “My Struggle”) was Adolf Hitler's political manifesto. It was his only book published during Hitler's lifetime. It was published in two volumes in 1925 and 1927, and an abridged edition appeared in 1930. By 1939 it had sold 5,200,000 copies and had been translated into 11 languages.

The 1925 volume, entitled Die Abrechnung (“The Settlement [of Accounts],” or “Revenge”), was written in 1924 in the Bavarian fortress of Landsberg prison, where Hitler was sequestered after the Beer Hall Putsch of 1923. It deals generally with the world of Hitler’s youth, the First World War, and the “betrayal” of Germany’s collapse in 1918. It also discusses the necessity for Germans to:

“occupy themselves not merely with the breeding of dogs, horses, and cats but also with care for the purity of their own blood.” Hitler ascribed international significance to the elimination of Jews, which “must necessarily be a bloody process”.

The second volume, entitled Die Nationalsozialistische Bewegung (“The National Socialist Movement”), written after Hitler’s release from prison in December 1924, outlines the political program, including the terrorist methods, that National Socialism must pursue both in gaining power and in exercising it thereafter in the new Germany.

Quotes from Mein Kampf:

  • Moreover, times have changed since the Congress of Vienna: princes and the mistresses of princes do not barter and haggle about frontiers, but the implacable world Jew is struggling for dominion over the nations. No nation can dislodge this fist from its throat except by the sword. Only the united, concentrated force of a mighty insurgent nationalist passion can defy the international enslavement of the nations. But such a development is and remains a bloody one.

  • in “Mein Kampf,” Hitler praises America as the one state that has made progress toward a primarily racial conception of citizenship, by “excluding certain races from naturalization.” New Yorker

  • There is only one task: Germanization through the introduction of Germans [to the area] and to treat the original inhabitants like Indians.
  • I intend to stay this course with ice-cold determination. I feel myself to be the executor of the will of History. What people think of me at present is all of no consequence. Never have I heard a German who has bread to eat express concern that the ground where the grain was grown had to be conquered by the sword. We eat Canadian wheat and never think of the Indians.
  • Is it conceivable that the representatives of the real interests of the nations which might enter an alliance could realize their plans against the will of the Jewish mortal enemy of free folk States and national States?
  • And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord.
  • Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work.
  • Was there any shady undertaking, any form of foulness, especially in cultural life, in which at least one Jew did not participate? On putting the probing knife carefully to that kind of abscess one immediately discovered, like a maggot in a putrescent body, a little Jew who was often blinded by the sudden light.
  • And the Founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of His estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God; because then, as always, they used religion as a means of advancing their commercial interests. But at that time Christ was nailed to the Cross for his attitude towards the Jews; whereas our modern Christians enter into party politics and when elections are being held they debase themselves to beg for Jewish votes. They even enter into political intrigues with the atheistic Jewish parties against the interests of their own Christian nation.
  • If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.

** Hitler was a big fan of Karl May. A German who was a prolific writer of pulp westerns. May wrote 70 different books on the American West detailing cowboys confrontations with Indians. Hitler read all of them in his youth, and re-read them as an adult. He sometimes gave copies of them to his generals who carried them into battle. Hitler's references to Indians in his quotes are American Indians and are references to genocide as detailed by Karl May – a fictional writer who never visited the West, and visited the United States for six weeks exclusively in Eastern states; and after writing all his books.

Sources:


Other Hitler Quotes: (in German, Translation by @LangLangC)

  • January 1939 address to the Reichstag. "I want to be a prophet again today: If the international financial Jewry in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the peoples into another world war, the result will not be the Bolshevisation of the earth and thus the victory of Judaism, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe."
  • 1
    Very good answer. – Felix Goldberg Aug 26 '18 at 19:46
  • @LangLangC, So I have a question just for you. As someone who speaks German, what English orator would you say parallel's Hitler, if any? Maybe not with regards to ideology, but oration style. When I watch Hitler at the podium giving a speech, he goes from screaming, shouting, to silent posturing; I've always wondered how that would translate If I heard and understand the words with the dramatic posturing and orations. What's your opinion? I know he had a reputation as a magnetic speaker, who would you compare him too? – JMS Aug 26 '18 at 23:05
  • 2
    That is quite difficult. The yelling is mostly voice projection, the content often quite positive (in certain ways). But this mix of a lot of aggression, hate, dynamic range, drama, pathos and wild gesturing (body language as a whole) makes this fairly unique. Mix Dr King, Churchill, Kennedy, imagine the Johnson-Treatment on top and Chaplin's Great Dictator (doesn't count: imitation/parody) and there are only partial parallels. In terms of effectiveness however, we do not need lookvery far, as most orators, preacherlike, gather their flock. Old but gold tandfonline.com/loi/rqjs20 – LаngLаngС Aug 27 '18 at 0:22
  • Why do you re-state the question in your answer ? – Bregalad Aug 27 '18 at 12:58
  • 3
    @Bregalad, sometimes people change their questions hours, days, weeks after answers are posted. Posting the question shows which version of the question I answered. – JMS Aug 27 '18 at 13:07
8

This resonates with this: German Jew Victor Klemperer had the following assessment: "It will always remain to me the greatest mystery of the Third Reich how this book could and had to be distributed in full public, and how it could nevertheless come to Hitler's reign and to twelve years of this reign, although the Bible of National Socialism was already circulating years before the assumption of power".

Imagine I live in 1933–1934 and read Hitler's "Mein Kampf". Is there anything in this book that would make me think the Nazis seriously intend to kill between 6 and 17 million Jews?

Of course!
There is a certain counterfactual aspect in how this is phrased. When you would read the book 'living' "in 1933 you will see "hints" everywhere. And that applies of course to you trying to analyse that book today as well. A text changes with its readers, if you stare into a book the book stares back into you. This is reader-text-interaction, and you cannot shed it, only try to control for it.

It is certainly possible to scrutinise this text of Mein Kampf for hints like that. But such an analysis suffers from hindsight and would result in painting an anachronistic picture of contemporary readers and their interaction with the text.

Therefore this answer will not quote extensively from the original book. Instead we try to look at the book's history: who read it, how many read it, what did they write about it? What was talked around about the book. Many people believe to know what's in the bible, koran, or shakepeare, but when asked about specifics…

However, just one example, to illustrate the issue. When talking about ideologies in the chapter "The World War" under the heading of "The use of brute force" we read:

Die Anwendung von Gewalt allein, ohne die Triebkraft einer geistigen Grundvorstellung als Voraussetzung, kann niemals zur Vernichtung einer Idee und deren Verbreitung führen, außer in Form einer restlosen Ausrottung aber auch des letzten Trägers und der Zerstörung der letzten Überlieferung.

__The use of force alone, without the driving force of a basic spiritual (intellectual) concept as a prerequisite, can never lead to the destruction of an idea and its dissemination, except in the form of complete extermination of all and even the very last bearer and the destruction of the last tradition.

That short passage rings a lot of bells in today's readers. It's a perfect quote for a news-bite size proof that it was all there in plain sight. Yet it was really a theoretical diatribe in which the author explains how in his analysis "things work". This specific passage can furthermore be read as concluding: "and that 'what if' does not work".

Later research concludes in hindsight:

None of the reflections offered here is meant to discount the fact that Hitler’s Mein Kampf stands as an ideological pamphlet of the most extreme kind. Not only does the chapter “Nation and Race” contain the entire arsenal of rabble-rousing against Jews, it also lays out the program for their elimination. Because Hitler ties his hatred for Jews closely to the battlefront against Marxism and situates these core fields of his program in a panorama of world-historical dimensions, one is left with the impression that he is presenting a closed structure of thought with full conviction. However, this is not the sole message of the book—nor, for readers of a cooler constitution, was it necessarily the most important. In addition to the propagandistic asseverations, a second signal is being broadcasted—one that would have appealed to the “innermost stratum of the totalitarian hierarchy” that, in Arendt’s words, is distinguished by “freedom from the content of its own ideology.”

The young jurists, social engineers, and large-scale planners who came to operate the levers of power in the National Socialist system did not number among the enthusiastic readers of Mein Kampf, just as they had no time for the ham-fisted anti-Semitism of run-of-the-mill Nazis. All the same, the framework of the program that Hitler designed afforded them latitude for radical visions of their own—with the consequence that the National Socialist system facilitated rapid professional advancement. For this group, National Socialism was a tool, not a religion.
Mein Kampf presents such a perspective insofar as it offers its readership a broad array of potential gratifications. To a nation traumatized by war and defeat, it promises to restore lost honor and the means to achieve new greatness; it gives wayward individuals a sense of direction; it turns ambivalence into clear-cut meaning to be worked out with unbridled hatred. All of this amounts to satisfying the wish for a coherent, “fictitious world”—as reflected by Hitler’s vision of a state order founded on racial biology. All the while (on a harmonic register, as it were), Mein Kampf communicates another desire (and pleasure) too, one that savors the power of empty words that make an impact—the fascination of power deriving strictly from its own ascent, which fashions itself out of nothing. This proximity to the void has been interpreted as nihilism and attributed to philosophical influences. Ultimately, however, it derives from a way of using language rather than from a system of ideas— a use of language that does not articulate and lend form to anything preexisting but takes joy, simply in the pure power of its manifestation, by commanding being and nothingness, life and death.
Albrecht Koschorke: "On Hitler’s Mein kampf: the poetics of National Socialism", MIT Press: Cambridge, London, 2017.

So, what did his early readers think?
It is often said that Mein Kampf might be the most unread bestseller of all time. As the following source concludes, that is not true. It was pushed to be bought, yes, but at the latest after Hitler got the power transferred to him, it was also the subject of intense discussion in schools, universities. Often the numerous copies in libraries were completely loaned out and unavailable to the demand. One library in Essen alone bought 120 copies. The book's popularity then waned after 1937.

For reasons of answer length let's stick with just the native German readers publishing in newspapers. These were people paid to read it, able to do some exegesis of meaning from these convoluted phrases. Yet in the papers of the time only the first of the two parts of the book was sometimes in discussion, the second part largely ignored. This situation changed only after 1929:

It almost seems that Mein Kampf fell into oblivion between 1926 and 1929 outside the NSDAP and various ethnic groups, since the book itself was not mentioned in publications that dealt more intensively with fascism in Germany at that time. Thus, in the anthology International Fascism, published in 1928 by Carl Landauer and Hans Honegger, Helmut Franke discussed German fascism over more than twenty pages, without even mentioning Hitler once. […]
Mein Kampf was also frequently the subject of interest in the Weltbühne. According to Hellmuth von Gerlach, reading Mein Kampf seemed to be indispensable for those interested in politics. He began his article on the "duel between Hitler and Schleicher" in the summer of 1932 with the words: "Anyone who has read Hitler's self-biography Mein Kampf will be shocked to wonder why such a sadistic supreme confusion council could become the leader of a strong third of the German people. In a longer article about a possible National Socialist education policy, Fritz Ausländer dealt with National Socialist texts on this topic. References to Mein Kampf also took up a wide space in this article. Hitler's remarks were described as "programmatic" and trend-setting for all "Nazi educators" who, according to his instructions, put the "race principle" at the top. A month later, Hitler's interpretations of the "Basic Law of Nature", racism, were at the centre of attention in the Weltbühne. Werner Hegemann quoted several times from Mein Kampf and ironically reflected on the consequences of implementing Hitler's ideas. […]

In the editorial offices of the Frankfurter Zeitung, the Weltbühne and the Vossische Zeitung, Mein Kampf was a much-read book. It is more difficult to judge whether the Berliner Tagebuch used Hitler's work equally. Hitler's comments on propaganda were, after all, referred to in connection with the increasing bans on newspapers: "His views on the noble activity of propaganda are certainly the most rotten in world history; no mortal before him would have known principles like this, and confess to liking and applying them with such naivité which can be read on page 202 of his eternity compendium Mein Kampf […]". The following quote from Mein Kampf stands out because of a wrong page number and above all because of the imprecise and partly wrong reproduction.
Othmar Plöckinger: "Geschichte eines Buches: Adolf Hitlers „Mein Kampf“ 1922–1945", München: Oldenbourg, 22011.

But still, until 1933 in Germany, it becomes clear that Hitler's book has by no means gone unnoticed. The political and social elites were largely aware of the book. Nevertheless, the perception of the book was very selective. Mostly only those parts were discussed and criticised, by which the own group of society was concerned. Other aspects were often left untouched, especially if one thought they had something positive to gain from them. Moreover, the uncertainty in dealing with Mein Kampf becomes clear again and again: To what extent should and had Hitler's book be taken seriously? In addition to a serious examination of the contents of the work, conscious trivialisations can also be found time and again.

Two contemporary quotes:

"Everything together was written in the style of a sixth grader, from whom clear essays are to be expected only later. Father Stempfle worked for months to order and contextualise the thoughts expressed in My struggle." –– Otto Strasser in "Hitler und ich" (Note that he was a Nazi as well. Only at the time these words were written he was fallen completely from grace completely. That the Catholic Priest Stempfle was the ghostwriter or at least editor was intended to publicly discredit Hitler as capable of straight writing and thinking.)

Princess Mechthilde Lichnowsky, a late friend of the language and ideology critic Karl Kraus, worked through the first volume of "Mein Kampf" page by page, filled two diary books with critical comments and came to the conclusion in an (unpublished) summing essay that Hitler's language was "the German of a megalomaniac commie. German for advertising. The German, for which only one term hits the nail on the head to some extent: Jewish cuddle!"

The most obvious single word to look for in Mein Kampf that directly corresponds to the "extermination of the Jews" is the "Ausrottung der Juden". The word Ausrottung does feature in the book, as shown above. But it is not only a frequent word in the German language. It is also not unheard of that it used referring to the removal, or outright killing of people. To the last man. This has shifted now, when not referring to the holocaust, mainly to "a species going extinct", either willfully by hunting or pesticde use, or haplessly, like for pandas and whales.

Looking at a text corpus for how this word was used we get this early example

Der gröste Verdienst / den er jhm vor Augen stellet das Paradeiß zu erwerben / ist die Außrottung der Ketzer.
__The greatest merit / which he presents to him to acquire Paradise / is the extermination of the heretics.
Abelin, Johann Philipp: "Theatrum Europaeum, Oder Außführliche/ und Wahrhaftige Beschreibung aller und jeder denckwürdiger Geschichten." Frankfurt (Main), 1635.

Even the Jewish German historian Heinrich Graetz uses Ausrottung der Juden a few times in his "History of the Jewish People".

Curiously, even the most fervent and fanatic Nazis and antisemites, in the SS, no less, were in some parts surprised by the effects on their souls and psyche that mass killings would cause. Heinrich Himmler himself addresses this in one of his Posen speeches, in 1943:

Ich meine jetzt die Judenevakuierung, die Ausrottung des jüdischen Volkes. Es gehört zu den Dingen, die man leicht ausspricht. – "Das jüdische Volk wird ausgerottet", sagt ein jeder Parteigenosse, "ganz klar, steht in unserem Programm, Ausschaltung der Juden, Ausrottung, machen wir." Und dann kommen sie alle an, die braven 80 Millionen Deutschen, und jeder hat seinen anständigen Juden. Es ist ja klar, die andered sind Schweine, aber dieser eine ist ein prima Jude. Von allen, die so reden, hat keiner zugesehen, keiner hat es durchgestanden. Von Euch werden die meisten wissen, was es heisst, wenn 100 Leichen beisammen liegen, wenn 500 daliegen oder wenn 1000 daliegen. Dies durchgehalten zu haben, und dabei – abgesehen von Ausnahmen menschlicher Schwächen – anständig geblieben zu sein, das hat uns hart gemacht. Dies ist ein niemals geschriebenes und niemals zu schreibendes Ruhmesblatt unserer Geschichte, denn wir wissen, wie schwer wir uns täten, wenn wir heute noch in jeder Stadt – bei den Bombenangriffen, bei den Lasten und bei den Entbehrungen des Krieges – noch die Juden als Geheimsaboteure, Agitatoren und Hetzer hätten. Wir würden wahrscheinlich jetzt in das Stadium des Jahres 1916/17 gekommen sein, wenn die Juden noch im deutschen Volkskörper sässen.

__I am now referring to the evacuation of the Jews, to the extermination of the Jewish people. This is something that is easily said: "The Jewish people will be exterminated," says every Party member, "this is very obvious, it is in our program -- elimination of the Jews, extermination, will do." And then they turn up, the brave 80 million Germans, and each one has his decent Jew. It is of course obvious that the others are pigs, but this particular one is a splendid Jew. But of all those who talk this way, none had observed it, none had endured it. Most of you here know what it means when 100 corpses lie next to each other, when 500 lie there or when 1,000 are lined up. To have endured this and at the same time to have remained a decent person -- with exceptions due to human weaknesses -- had made us tough. This is an honor roll in our history which has never been and never will be put in writing, because we know how difficult it would be for us if we will had Jews as secret saboteurs, agitators and rabble rousers in every city, what with the bombings, with the burden and with the hardships of the war. If the Jews were still part of the German nation, we would most likely arrive now at the state we were at in 1916/17.
(Translation from offical IMT, via Nizkor project)

Therefore it was by no means obvious, what exactly was meant when people read just this one word: Ausrottung.

Those who were ideologically particularly remote from the NSDAP represented a another case. Especially those on the political left denied National Socialism even the status of an ideology, or more precise: a worthy adversary in terms of intellectual prowess, which ultimately made it 'unnecessary' for a long time to deal with Hitler's book beyond day-to-day political polemics. With all due caution, the closer anyone was to National Socialism as a whole or in parts, the more intense the discussion of the book – criticism as well as agreement or relativisation – seems to have taken place.
The majority of Germans were already antisemitic long before Hitler was given power. The most notorious among them formulated quite openly:

On the future significance of the "Jewish question", the Hamburg program of the United Anti-Semite Parties in 1899 declared that the "Jewish question" would develop into a "world question" in the 20th century; it could only develop "through complete separation and… the eventual annihilation of the Jewish people."

What could go wrong with that?

To be clear: this just shows that a single book can be read in multiple ways. The German Nazis behaved, and did things, before they were given power over the state. 'Things' in the sense of concrete actions in a consistent pattern, that enabled many to predict a good deal of the barbarism that followed.

What did Hitler answer to "the Jewish question"? For comparison, in 1922 it was this:

"Once I really am in power, my first and foremost task will be the annihilation of the Jews. As soon as I have the power to do so, I will have gallows built in rows – at the Marienplatz in Munich, for example – as many as traffic allows.

"Then the Jews will be hanged indiscriminately, and they will remain hanging until they stink; they will hang there as long as the principles of hygiene permit. As soon as they have been untied, the next batch will be strung up, and so on down the line, until the last Jew in Munich has been exterminated. Other cities will follow suit, precisely in this fashion, until all Germany has been completely cleansed of Jews."
Josef Hell, "Aufzeichnung," 1922, ZS 640, p. 5, Institute fuer Zeitgeschichte. The retired Major Josef Hell was a journalist in the twenties and in the beginning of the thirties, during which time he also collaborated with Dr. Fritz Gerlich, the editor of the weekly newspaper Der Gerade Weg, as cited in Fleming, Gerald. Hitler and the Final Solution. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. p. 17, quoted here from the translation at Nizkor project, (German original, PDF)

To close with Klemperer:

Mein Kampf, the bible of national Socialism, began to appear in 1925, and its publication literally fixed the essential features of its language. Following the Party’s ‘takeover {Machtübernahme}’ in 1933 the language of a clique became the language of the people, i.e. it seized hold of all realms of public and private life: politics, the administration of justice, the economy, the arts, the sciences, schools, sport, the family, playschools and nurseries.
The Third Reich coined only a very small number of the words in its language, perhaps – indeed probably – none at all… But it changes the value of words and the frequency of their occurrence, it makes common property out of what was previously the preserve of an individual or a tiny group, it commandeers for the party that which was previously common property and in the process steeps words and groups of words and sentence structures with its poison.
From Viktor Klemperer: "The Language of the Third Reich – LTI – Lingua Tertii Imperii a Philologist’s notebook", Bloomsbury Academic: London, New York, 2013.

  • 2
    +1 Nice answer. – JMS Aug 26 '18 at 23:10

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.