Hitler's second book that was unpublished after the war, was written in 1928. In it Hitler outlines what he considered the rules should be for German international diplomacy and war. The copy I have is called: 'Hitler's Second Book' The Unpublished Sequel to Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler - Gerhard L. Weinberg Ed. The original manuscript was found in the repository of captured German records in Alexandria, Virginia, in 1958

Hitler in 1928 stated that: war with Britain should be avoided at all costs – if possible Britain should be made an ally (consider Hitler’s 1938 agreement made with Neville Chamberlain). France, he stated, should be neutralized. Russia was to be invaded and used for German space. Italy should be made an Ally. He considered all the lost German lands of the old Reich to be a mere side note. He stated that returning these lands was not an important focus or end in itself. Interestingly he stated that prior to WWI the German Imperial government should have avoided making Austria an ally, but instead have made a treaty with Russia. In this 1928 book he had some harsh words for any man who would lead Germany into a two front war, or to Germany being destroyed in war. He said Britain should be left to be master of the seas. In his words, he stated that America was the leader in industry, Britain was leader of the seas, but he stated that what Germany had was the Superior Army - (and by this he meant the Prussian officer tradition and system, though of course not as it was in 1928). He believed Germany's hope rested only in the Army. And the only purpose of the Army – other than neutralizing France - should be to gain living space in Russia.

I can’t stress enough the need to get Hitler’s second book. I have read about WWII since I was a young teen in the 1960s. But it was not until I read Hitler’s second book that I finally realized that all the myriad theories about why Hitler did anything were all mainly a bunch of bunk. Right there in 1928 Hitler outlined everything he would ever do from 1933 until about 1944 - except of course for his deviation from his plan when he built battleships. The theory that he invaded Russia because he was fearful Stalin was about to go to war is simply not true. Hitler stated in 1928 that the only goal of the Reich armies was to take living space from Russia by force of arms. He stated that if this was not done in a timely fashion that Germany would not survive in the survival of the fittest. In that book you will see that his whole political philosophy for Germany’s purpose was always a doctrine of warfare. He saw all international dealings only in terms of warfare. Treaties were only to be used to buy time. He states that his concept of the world was basically survival of the fittest people – in every way like the animal food-chain. His foreign policy doctrines outlined in the book were little different than those of Ghengis Khan – war, war and more war.

Remember the prophetic words of Herr Hoffer in the account of Siegfried Knappe’s book, ‘Soldat’, where Hoffer states: “…Hitler is a gambler, and gamblers will not quit until they lose.” - recall that? Well in Hitler’s second book (which Herr Hoffer never saw since it was not published in his time) Hitler states in chapter 10 (No Neutrality) that he was a gambler. Hitler: “But do people really believe, then, that freedom can be attained without incurring any risk?” He then goes on for two paragraphs describing how leaders must take risks for ‘possible success’. Then he ends with, “Since the beginning of time, it has always been part of the essence of great men to carry out with the utmost energy even questionable deeds with uncertain results, if the necessity was clear and after careful examination of all the circumstances these supported only this one certain action.”
Thus this one time hobo of Austria claimed to have the right to gamble with Germany’s treasure and children. After all, he was one of the “great men” - for as he had already stated in chapter 4, “The greatness of a man is all the more significant the greater his courage to use his superior insight – in opposition to the generally prevailing but ruinous view – to lead to overall victory.” Then he says, and I capitalize in spots for emphasis, “His (my note: obviously Hitler’s) victory will appear all the greater the stronger the opposition that had to be overcome and the MORE HOPELESS THE FIGHT SEEMED INITIALLY.” (!!!!!) Think about that! How’d you like to have that for a leader – Willi E. Coyote, Genius, and gambler of the hopeless odds.

Then his next words, how that the National Socialists could not consider themselves great unless they summoned the courage to “…impose on the German people the laws of life that it (Nazism) represents, despite all opposition.” How sad, men like Knappe, or Von Luck, who tried to figure out what was happening to their country, and why, as if there must have been some good reason behind it all, did not know the real truth. That they were simply being led by a grand delusional plan setup in or before 1928! Cause just about everything Hitler did from 1933 until late 1944 was outlined in his unpublished book of 1928.

Seatco,

thanx for the interesting posting. Definitely Hitler had said before what he was really after, but he was not that stupid to say the same things to the German business men like the Krupps etc late 1920´s to mid 1930´s once he had the power in his hands altogether.

__________________

Is that book authentic? Why wasn't it published at its time?

__________________

Why it was not published earlier is a good question. Here´s "one" answer:

http://www.adolfhitler.ws/lib/books/zweites/zweites.htm

"Only two copies of the 200 page manuscript were originally made, and only one of these has ever been made public. Kept strictly secret under Hitler's orders, the document was placed in an air raid shelter in 1935 where it remained until it's discovery by an American officer in 1945.

Written in 1928, the authenticity of the book has been verified by Josef Berg (former employee of the Nazi publishing house Eher Verlag), and Telford Taylor (former Brigadier General U.S.A.R., and Chief Counsel at the Nuremburg war-crimes trials) who, after an analysis made in 1961,comments:
"If Hitler's book of 1928 is read against thebackground of the intervening years , it should interest not scholars only, but the general reader. "

----------

Anyway, I read a while ago that Hitler once mentioned during a tea party with the secretaries " If I had known I was to become the chancellor I would have never published Mein Kampf!". Hmmm....??

__________________

His plan was sound only if Great Britain complied. What he did not count on was Churchill. But I would also question his declaration of war on the US. This goes beyond all sound reasoning. Had events gone Hitler's way, I am sure the outcome in the East would have been different. The only thing the prevented the Brits from alligning with Germany against bolshevism was the declaration of the superior Aryan race bull c**p. Facism in the 30's was not resisted because it was nationalistic. The commuist threat was what on everyone's minds so Hitler could have feasibily succeeded had he marketed differently.

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

The Aryan race "program" definitely , especially looking at the likes of Hitler and Himmler, was "hilarious". However the eugenics was rather "dangerous" and used all over the globe incl the US....

http://www.healthmatters.org.uk/issue31/eugenicshame

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

__________________

True. How public was this program? Taking out all of the criminal acts, How would the world view Nazism?

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

I remember the saying: "A good Aryan must be blonde like the Führer, athletic like Reichspropagandaminister Goebbels, and svelte like the Reichsfeldmarschall Goering".

__________________

Ha ha. Now the gentleman who said that is a genius.

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

Ah yes, Race. Hitler acted like his Germans were a separate race from the rest of Europe. A new definition of race. I suppose in time – had it lasted – it would have become a new specie. When I see most Germans I am always shocked that they don’t appear like those heroic statues or paintings of the barbarians who ran naked down hillsides to hack up the Roman Legions. To me most Germans look like a cross between a Frenchman and a Pole. The truly funny thing about Hitler’s ideas, and those of a similar bent, is that they seem to totally fail to grasp the full nature of sexual desire. I collect, repair and used to sell antique books from the 19th century and I recall very well the warning given to parents in the 1800s: ‘If your daughter shows even a slight interest in a gentleman whom you do not approve of, do not under any circumstances confront her straight forward to forbid her to see this man.’ The reason? If a parent did attempt to forbid such an interest with a daughter it would cause the daughter to exponentially increase her interest in the man in question. My child has several degrees in Scientific writing and Biology, and informs me that the reason for this is because women are genetically programmed to seek out foreign DNA - that if a man smells totally unlike her own family that this attracts her because what females are subconsciously searching for are new antibodies and defenses against disease. When you forbid a gal to even consider a man – this sets off inside her a primitive logic that this ‘man’ must be indeed a foreigner with new DNA.

But at another level anyone who is sexually active quickly learns that the thing that kills sexual desire is a constant fare of unchanging stimuli. For this reason most people tend to avoid having sex the same way and in the same place. This is as ancient as the Kama Sutra. We all realize why a sultan would seek to have a large harem filled with all kinds of women with differing looks and racial types. The true connoisseur of sexual desire quickly learns that variety is the spice that maintains sexual desire. Words such as: naughty, nasty, wicked, and forbidden, just to name a few, are almost inseparable from the sexual desire. This has been shown to be true for thousands of years – porn is nothing new and goes back into ancient Rome and beyond. Even though the forbidden fruit mentioned in Genesis had nothing to do with sex, it was not long before Bible believers were sure it had to do with only sex.

Of course no one ever accused the Fürher of being a sexual genius. A monk, possibly. An ascetic, most assuredly. I always wondered whether he had actually taken a hit in the groin during his stint in WWI. Of course he had been a Catholic altar boy….

In any event just as the Law given by Moses at Mount Sinai produced several millennia of perverted sexual material (since such lusts thrive on ‘Thou shalt nots’), Hitler was setting the stage for a new round of sexual titillations with his own barked commands issued forth from the heights at Berchtesgaden. Had the Reich continued, I have no doubt even the SS would have increasingly found so-called Slaves, Jews, and other peoples to be very alluring. There is only so much missionaried-positioned sex you can have with a blond gal. Since the Fürher’s other command to the SS was essentially, “Thou shalt mate with a blond Nordic chick”, it would have been only a matter of time before all this legally compressed sexual desire would have jumped across the Nazi limits, just like a bar of wet soap that is tightly squeezed in your hand.

As regards sexual desire and racial purity, Hitler has one thing correct – he realized that women could not be trusted. Hence his efforts to return German women to the role of kitchen drudge and house cleaner. Like all such racist movements, it was mainly a movement for the men and by the men. Yes, there were some women in leading roles here and there – just as there are some tattooed neo-nazi chicks. But the one thing you notice in all these movements is that they are chiefly led and composed by males. Being myself part Injun and having a desire for Caucasian chicks as a young man I quickly learned that in dating girls it was rarely her mother I had to worry about – it was always her father or brothers. Truly, racism is a function of males. In primitive societies males use their virgin females as instruments of barter and making alliances. In most primitive societies it was not uncommon for the warriors to make periodic panty raids – but with the girls still in them – as they would swoop down on another village to mainly steal the women. Obviously the women who survived all this: ‘being used for barter or being kidnapped’ were those who were genetically ready to adapt to a new tribe and customs. Those who kept kicking and screaming likely died as slaves carrying heavy loads of firewood.

What ever the reason – as one who had to dodge around racism to get the young ladies he desired (and I am speaking about the older days when racism in America was still living and vibrant – the 60s) I quickly learned that women didn’t have much in the way of racial savvy. Also one of my later friends was a dyed in the wool neo-nazi named Lee – and he would go on for hours (we worked with one another along with a tall Black dude who was more or less a Black Panther type) about how such peoples as the Mexicans or other ‘darkies’ were mud-people and so forth. Of course we just ridiculed him, but one day a Mexican chick walked in the building and both I and the black guy about dropped our jaws to the floor, seeing Lee going nuts over this gal. With in a day Lee was going full bore for this gal and suddenly he dropped his racist dogma, not to be heard again. In like manner my Irish brother in law, who came from the south and a racist background – finally found true happiness in a marriage to a Japanese girl – even though his father would almost go into ‘tommy gun mode’ seeing an Asian because of his WWII experiences in the Pacific.

What can I say? We are really just tall primates – you can’t expect a lot of logic out of a situation like that.

There were several catholic protests in Nazi Germany against the euthanasia program. It was widespread enough that Himmler had to halt its use in Germany for awhile. I'd say that if you watch World at War or other documentaries it becomes fairly obvious at how a lot of occupied countries thought of Nazi Germany. In many of the scandinavian countries they detested German influence and many privately showed allegiance to their exiled King. I would say the same goes for Netherlands and France if you look at the total population only a small percentage actively supported the Nazis. The Dutch had their own Nazi party and it still consisted of a very minor 3-5% of the total population.

The biggest thing about the Nazis was that their basic restriction of human rights, propaganda, and militarism alienated a lot of people. I feel it's a very unnatural type of society to live in and many people (even ones classified as aryans) felt uncomfortable living under Nazi rule. The whole conflict was really an extension of Germany's imperial ambitions prior to WW2 and people didn't feel any better about it then either.