No matter how much people reel and gag when you say you haven't read any of the classics, just keep in mind, classics are books everyone appreciates, but no one reads. I realised that when I tried reading what the most celebrated mass murderer of all time called his autobiography. Let me be frank, it was a tad more interesting than trying to see wallpaper dry. He goes on and on about things he hates like the communists, Jews, the Austrians, Jews, the Poles, Jews, the French, Jews, etc. Much as I admire his strong will of character in hating entire communities to the point of saying we'd be better off with millions dead, there must be a rational reason behind such animosity. His chapters about the commies, as they're affectionately called in the West, are slightly short of shockingly abusive. Not that I'm particularly fond of communism, in fact, I'm as hard lined against that system as any next door chap, I have my reasons for hating communism, them being, to the best of my knowledge, pretty rational. But what Hitler does here is that he completely demonises communism, calls it a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world, and glorifies them as manipulative megalomaniacs when they're just deluded simpletons who believe what they're doing is good for the society. He provides no concrete reason as to why communism wouldn't work, he never tackled the problem scientifically, pointing out the flaws in that form of society, but merely used the strongest words in the German vocabulary to mention how base communism is, and so elaborately does he punch in negative adjectives, that it pans out at least a dozen chapters in his, well, let's call it a book. His fractiously dogmatic views over anything even remotely non-German is quite tiresome, his irrationality over idealising things into pure good and quintessentially evil is even more trying. He's even more prejudiced when it comes to the Jews. Much as they, as I would understand, would provoke jealousy in the poorer masses owing to their success in finance and banking, it is no reason to kill them off. It sounds ridiculous when he says, kill the Jews, and create employment. By that logic, anyone could shoot all poor people to eliminate poverty. Slum clearances in the third world would be a breeze. All one has to do is set fire to one. It clearly is not a practical solution to handle the great depression. Not that the other countries handled it well either, Russia was immune to everything external due to its closed doors policy, USA was the worst affected, Britain and France, together, had half the world under their direct control to offload their debts onto. The colonies were the worst affected, but who'd know the difference if there's a drought in the Sahara? All I'm saying is that electing a hard-right mentally disturbed radical with an out-rightly professed controversial racial policy was the stupidest thing the Germans ever did, after signing the treaty of Versailles. His policy of employment for men alone is even more laughable. His reason for the Great Depression was that women are given lower salaries than men for equal work, which made large companies prefer women over men for employment thereby reducing the average income of the economy. This, he says, can be avoided by denying the woman's right to work. The concept of equal wages for equal work didn't enter the darkest corners of his scary mind. One couldn't blame his time for his views; the concept of gender equality was very much in vogue in the other western nations in the twenties. His foreign policy was the only acceptable idea of his, something that Germany should have done in 1900. Challenging the then superpower was something that Hitler believed as foolish and he sounds most earnest and sensible when he says one shouldn't overtly oppose the hegemony of a country that rules the world, but ally oneself with it. It was a good idea, Germany would have played the role Japan and near the thirties USA played. Such a Germany would never have irked the British and the French Empire, it would never have united the two most powerful countries in the world in an alliance against a country that is barely a century old. If only Bismarck thought the same way, we'd never have the world wars and well, who knows, we'd be living in a completely different world. His policy of British appeasement, we do know it was mutual, in the early thirties and at the same time driving a wedge between Britain and France was a masterstroke when it comes to stragteic diplomacy. He managed to stall a war, though with a lot of effort and foolish patience from other world leaders, that was unavoidable for nearly ten years. As much as these achievements may be, he was not and will never be regarded in the future as an able and diplomatic ruler and statesman. However efficient he may be at the art of war, peacetime government is played by different rules, and he would be clearly inept at handling a peaceful Germany that is split asunder and defenceless against heavyweights like Britain and France and at the same time battling the biggest economic crisis known to man that originated from the other side of the pond without a single colony to push deficits onto. I firmly believe, to this day, he'd be better off in the German army as a mere General or a Lieutenant than in a podium spreading dangerous ideas onto the impressionable. That way, Germany would have gained a valuable soldier and the world would have done without the horrors of holocaust. People with such extreme views are very dangerous and should never be given power. Throughout history, extremism and chauvinism of any kind has lead to nothing but bloodshed, one could quote numerous examples right from the christian crusades to the modern jihad. The funnier part is, I read the English translation, written by an Englishman, and therefore, you can expect France to take the flak for Germany's errant militaristic expansionism. According to that gentleman, France was the reason Germany felt so insulted and threatened after the First World War; France sought the independence of Catholic Rhineland and Bavaria to form a Catholic block from France to Austria dismembering Germany to counter British influence in Europe, as if European politics of the twentieth century was dictated by religion. As absurd as that notion sounds, it also reflects on the British view of events before the war.
I know I don't have to prove that his methods were flawed, it's just that it really astounds me as to just around half a century ago, people didn't know it was wrong to kill six million Jews just because they were all over the place. Trust me, as an Indian, I know how it is when people are all over the place. Anyway,the book was rather long and the narrative anaesthetic, but it is the most illuminating book from that period. It is one of the most informative books I've read. He provides a glimpse of the inter-war period like no one else; the first person view of a man-made international calamity is the best window one can look into for unadulterated information. It is not a book you read to while away time. Bottom-line, it's as descriptive as a history textbook but quite sadly, only just as interesting.
