In November of 1923, Germany was facing the aftermath of World War 1, such as military defeat, collapse of the German empire, revolution, and the development of the Weimar republic. During this post war era, Hitler attempted to overthrow the Bavarian government, which became known as Beer Hall Putsch. This failed and resulted in him being convicted for high treason. He used his trial as a platform to speak publicly about his political beliefs, and this gained him a bigger audience. After being sentenced to five years in prison he began to write with the intention to gain money and explain himself and his beliefs. While he was writing his intentions evolved, according to the holocaust encyclopedia the original title for Mein Kampf was “4 ½ years of struggle against lies, stupidity, and cowardice: A Reckoning”. To me the original title indicates that Hitler wrote this as a form of vengeance against what he saw as his enemies. However, the change in title follows the fact that he slowly changed the book from a political attack to an ideological autobiography, explaining how his life story led him to his beliefs.

In 1925 the book was printed with ten thousand copies. Originally the book was not a best seller, sales eventually dwindled down by the end of 1932. As Hitler began to climb the ranks in the nazi party the book became more popular. At first, I was of the belief Hitler wrote this during his time in leadership, which resulted in a shared acceptance of his ideology. However, that is not the case and the reception of the book slowly changed as the Nazism grew. As the party grew so did the popularity of the book, and they became the largest party in Reichstag growing from 12 seats in 1928 to 230 seats in 1932.

The most distinct change in the purpose of the book came when Hitler became Chancellor in 1933. Before this time, the book was propaganda to explain Hitler’s world view. After 1933 the book became officially apart of the Nazi Regime’s propaganda. During this time, the Nazi propaganda depicted Hitler as dependable and an almost perfect leader, which increased the symbolic importance of his book. Going from 230,000 sold copies in 1932, to 12 million copies in 1944.

I find it interesting that the purpose and intention of the book changed over time without him even having to edit the original volume. Like I said before, I figure this book was written during his time in leadership. I’m curious if he ever thought of editing or taking the book back.

My Sources!

Holocaust Encyclopedia

Lebendiges Museum Online

Holocaust Memorial Museum

            Reading the translator’s note in the Manheim edition of Mein Kampf, I agreed with practically every word as the author laid out Hitler’s personality. Desperate to appear cultured, incoherent and rambling in his rants, using the words of others to authenticate his beliefs, Hitler is a messy writer. However, as the introduction to the book taught me, Hitler didn’t write Mein Kampf, he dictated it to a friend. While it may seem gauche to judge a fascist dictator from beyond the grave, I cannot help but find him pathetic. He grew up wealthy, wasted his money after inheritance, enlisted in the military in a fit of nationalism, raged when the war was lost, joined a political party that he could manipulate, and tried to take over the world. I look at his life story and think, “How did he gain so much power,” despite knowing the answer.

            The very last quote to catch my attention in the introduction was on page 55 for my copy, which discusses how Mein Kampf was written at a very basic level, certainly not a scholarly level. Specifically, it states that Hitler’s political layout for Nazism never presented any original ideas within the text, he consistently mentioned the ideas, plans, beliefs of others, sometimes famous philosophers, sometimes anonymous. This struck me as interesting, because it reveals a key detail about Hitler; he relies on being slightly better educated than most, making it easy for those with an inferior education to respect him, while making it clear to those with a superior education just how plagiarized his work is. Again, this is reflected in the people he surrounds himself with, thugs, addicts, and paranoiacs. From what I understand, Hitler’s book shouldn’t be as popular as it is/was; the popularity comes entirely from who he became.

            Another section of the introduction that caught my attention was on page 48, which examines Hitler’s false regard for the German economy. Throughout Mein Kampf, Hitler blames the failed economy for the failing German state. However, this sentiment is not reflected in his later political speeches on foreign policy, most of which focus on anti-communism, Lebensraum, and racism. As explained in the text, this points to Hitler using the failed economy as a talking point to gain interest but then disregarding the matter once he held power. Again, this reveals an important part of Hitler’s character, it shows that Hitler focused entirely on increasing public attention on him as well as his political influence.

Before I read the introduction, I did not know that Mein Kampf was written in two volumes. The introduction tells us that the first volume, A Reckoning, was published in 1925. The second volume, The National Socialist Movement followed in 1926. The book grew very popular in Germany especially after Hitler rose to power. The introduction states that millions of copies were eventually sold, showing how widely the book spread during that time (pp. Xxvi–xxvii). 

I noticed that many ideas in Mein Kampf were not brand new. D. Cameron Watt shows that Hitler was influenced by ideas that already existed in Germany—nationalism, antisemitism, racial theories and the desire for German territory. The introduction also describes how Hitler used ideas about race and German identity throughout the book. This was interesting to me because it shows that Mein Kampf was tied to ideas present in German society not invented out of nowhere (pp. Xxx–xxxiii). 

The introduction also discusses how Hitler grew as a speaker and how propaganda became vital to his movement. It explains that Hitler learned to use speeches and political messages to reach audiences. Later, the introduction shows how his ideas were presented with repeated political messages. This helped me see why the book matters not for what Hitler believed but also for how those ideas were communicated to the public (pp. Xxxix–xli). 

I also found the history of the book interesting after publication. The introduction explains that Mein Kampf was translated into English and that debates arose about how the book should be understood. It also tells us that British officials had access to the book, before World War II and that some of its statements were taken seriously because they revealed Hitler’s goals. The introduction makes it clear that reading the book in its context is important as some ideas later linked to the actions of the Nazi government (pp. Xlvii–li). 

It is important to note that several of the political ideologies that Hitler presents in Mein Kampf are not completely original. In fact, he got a lot of inspiration for Mein Kampf from those that came before him and popularized things like political antisemitism, the idea of “lebensraum,” and the role of a Kulturkampf in purging all non-German liberal, and modern influences from public life, which will be the focus of today’s contextual blog post.

Karl Leuger, the founder and leader of the Christian Socialist Party in the 1890s, popularized the use of political antisemitism to rally the masses, at least for Hitler’s purposes in Mein Kampf. In fact, Hitler got to directly observe Lueger at the peak of his party’s power in the early 1900s. At this time, Hitler, as a destitute and self-taught young man, focused much of his efforts into following municipal politics through newspapers like Deutsches Volkblatt. In many of these newspapers, he was able to see how Lueger was able to use antisemitic rhetoric and German nationalism to win over the working class. His praise for Lueger and their shared political ideologies show up frequently in Mein Kampf as well as during Hitler’s reign over the Nazi Party two or so decades later.

Also, the preexisting ideas of the “Aryan race” and social Darwinism, relate to one another and inspired much of Hitler’s political philosophy in Mein Kampf. Specifically, while there is no hard proof evidence that suggests that Hitler read the works of German zoologist Ernst Haeckel, the social Darwinist and racial ideas that his interpretations of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution promoted (particularly in terms of racial hierarchies and antisemitism) are more than likely linked to Nazi ideology due to the fact that they helped justify racial nationalism in Germany. Because of how Hitler and the Nazi movement as a whole situated the “German/Aryan race” at the top of the racial hierarchy as the master race, it gave them the ability, coupled with the social Darwinist perspective of Haeckel, to justify their maltreatment of “less superior” racial groups. Hitler even read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which likely confirmed and strengthened his belief in Judeo-Bolshevism, thus propagating the use of political antisemitism even more as a tool to assert the supremacy of the German race and grounds for the elimination of other races.

As for the idea of “lebensraum” or “living space,” German geographer Friedrich Ratzel coined the term. This term Ratzel developed is what gave Hitler the blueprint for expanding into other parts of Europe at whatever cost (e.g., displacing Slavik populations) to alleviate German overpopulation. “Lebensraum” relates to Westward Expansion and the American belief in Manifest Destiny that led to the displacement of many indigenous populations. In Mein Kampf and during the Nazi regime, Hitler used Manifest Destiny and Westward Expansion as a proof of concept for his plans to conquer Eastern Europe.

The last thing I wanted to talk about was the role of Otto von Bismarck’s 1870’s Kulturkampf in developing Hitler’s political ideologies in Mein Kampf. While Hitler did not plan to carry out his own Kulturkampf against the Catholic Church like von Bismarck did, he saw the 1870s Kulturkampf as a clear demonstration that the German state could hold absolute control over society, which would allow him and his Nazi Party to purge all non-German influences.

Overall, because it is so clear that Hitler was not the only one thinking all of these harmful ideologies, and that it was people who came much before his reign that initially popularized them, it has become that much more concerning to me that people during his era did not see the Nazi movement and its success coming sooner. I say this because it was all there in Mein Kampf and I wonder if more people out of the tens of thousands that purchased a copy when it was published would have taken the opportunity to actually read it, could the world have avoided some of the very problematic actions taken by Hitler and the Nazi party.

Chapter 6: War Propaganda

In this chapter, Hitler explains the usefulness of war propaganda and how it should be used effectively. He also thoroughly criticizes the German propaganda during WWI and praises the enemies propaganda. He believes that the failure of old German propaganda lead to its defeat.

Hitler gives advice on how to create effective propaganda and acts as a somewhat of a marketing strategist. Some of his tips include catching attention, keeping it simple, keeping the messaging consistent, biased it towards yourself, use slogans, and play on emotions not reasoning. The footnotes mention how Hitler himself utilized repetition and brand recognition to bolster his political standing. “His was always the same pose, the same gestures, the same theme”(239-240).

I found this chapter to be quite boring and the advice on how to make effective propaganda to be basic and nothing I haven’t heard before from less reprehensible sources. But perhaps it was more revolutionary at the time. In any case Hitler and the Nazi’s propaganda did end up being effective in swaying the German populous.

Chapter 7: The Revolution

This chapter focuses on the effect that propaganda had on the german people and how it lead to Germany’s defeat. Hitler believes that this was not the result of incompetence but instead a deliberate attempt to make Germany lose “Was this failure stupidity or criminal?”(243).

He accuses the Jews of being the ones who lead Germany to defeat by making the public believe in enemy propaganda and wanting an end to the war. While the previous chapter only mentioned Jews once, this chapter focuses much more on them and mentions them directly at least ten times.

The part of this chapter that stuck out the most to me was the very end. Hitler concludes the chapter by claiming that the German Empire collapsed because the Emperor was too trusting of Jews. But he would like to go into politics to remedy this issue, “With the Jews there is no bargaining, but only the hard either or. I, however, resolved now to become a politician”(269). With the knowledge of what he did while in politics, this line is quite ominous.

Being completely honest, I didn’t understand all of Hitler’s mad ramblings. I can see how his fascist beliefs can grow into the basis of governmental law in Nazi Germany, but it seems like he is making some wild leaps in analysis. In chapter 10, Hitler discusses everything that went wrong in Germany before, during, and after World War I. In chapter 11, Hitler proclaims the greatness of the Aryan race and the inherent worthiness of the German fatherland. Neither chapters’ subject were appealing to me, though I was able to find sections that provoked some thought. Specifically in Chapter 10, when Hitler is discussing the Fatherland’s decay, he mentions that the Reichstag, a building meant to represent the greatness of Germany, was given half the funding of a military warship and walls coated in plaster. Knowing what the building looks like even the modern day, I find it hard to see why Hitler would be upset about such a grand building. To him it was a physical manifestation of the failures the German state was dealing with, to me it looks like a palace fit for a king.

Throughout the text are the founding beliefs of Nazism and many aspects of antisemitism, as Hitler lays down his philosophy and political plans. However, not only is Hitler the literal leader of fascists, he also is incorrect in his understanding of genetics and history. Hitler claims that cities are losing their culture and slowing down in favor of adding room for simple residence areas; in my opinion, this shows the slow change of access and class as the twentieth century began. As explained in the footnotes in chapter 10 when discussing German cities, Hitler’s declarations were wrong, as the cities continued to grow in culture and art until the war and well after. Similarly, Hitler states “mixing” blood between races only leads to mental and physical decline in offspring as well as lower standards in culture. Yet this is simple racism and is easily disproven by countless scientific studies and education on anthropology.

In conclusion, Hitler was an angry man whose erroneous writings might have been forgotten if the world were different. I can see why the text is controversial, it certainly brings up uncomfortable subjects like antisemitism, racism, nationalism, and bigotry, but I also understand why we must study it. The book allows an insight into the mind of a fascist, something that deserves to be studied as a way to better human understanding and abilities.

Chapter V: The World War 

In Chapter V, Hitler talks about the beginning of World War I and how he personally reacted to it. He describes the period before the war and then talks about the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and the conflict between Austria and Serbia. He presents the war as something that was going to happen and describes Germany’s involvement as a fight for the future of the German nation. He also talks about joining a Bavarian regiment and his experience going to the front. 

One thing that stood out to me was how strongly he describes his feelings about the beginning of the war. He says that he was “overwhelmed by impassioned enthusiasm” when the war started (p. 210). I found this interesting because he does not describe the war only as something dangerous, but also as something meaningful to him personally. Later, he describes his experience as a soldier and how important the war became in his life. I think this part helps show how much his personal experience influenced the way he thought about politics and Germany. 

Chapter VI: War Propaganda 

Chapter VI is mainly about propaganda and how Hitler believed it should be used during a war. He argues that propaganda is a means to reach a larger goal and that it should be directed toward the masses instead of educated people. He also says that propaganda should focus on simple ideas, emotions, and repetition. He criticizes German propaganda during World War I and explains why he believed the enemy’s propaganda was more effective. 

The part that I found most interesting was how directly he explains that propaganda should be made for ordinary people and repeated many times. He says, “It has to appeal forever and only to the masses!” (p. 230). Later, he says that propaganda needs to repeat simple ideas again (p. 239). I found this interesting because he is basically explaining how he thinks people can be influenced through simple messages and repetition. It also made me notice that Chapter VI is less about the war itself and more about how people can be persuaded to think about the war in a certain way. 

Mein Kampf, the 1925 autobiographical and political manifesto of Nazi Party leader, Adolph Hitler, describes several facets of Hitler’s life and political ideologies. Due to the sheer volume of the text, I will only be discussing the textual components of the second and third chapters of volume 1 in this blog post.

Hitler begins chapter two by discussing his younger years of suffering as an impoverished student in Vienna, Austria. He expresses his talent for architecture and his interest in pursuing a career in it. He repeatedly mentions how he was grateful for having such a difficult life (after going from middle class to poor after his mother died and did not leave him anything) because it taught him about the nature of people. As he discusses his experience of living in poverty, he begins to detail how bad the social condition (people being uncertain about their daily income, unemployment, alcoholism, etc.) was in Vienna at the time. His experience with poverty led him to study literature on social conditions/problems which fostered his interest in politics. He is also adamant that reading is only useful when it strengthens already existing viewpoints that the reader has or will sharpen skills useful to their profession versus them reading to learn a lot of different information. This reminded me of the psychological principles behind confirmation bias that I learned about in my AP Psychology course last year and how they can prevent people from gathering information objectively, which is likely why Hitler’s political ideologies about Social Democracy and Jews became more extreme the more he “studied” about the relationship between the two which I will discuss below.

He also details his initial feelings regarding Social Democracy and Jews in Austria. He discusses how at first he felt a level of sympathy towards the Social Democratic movement because of its demands for better working conditions, higher wages, and social welfare for the working class that were suffering under the bad social conditions in Vienna at the time. He then segues into his transition from feeling sympathy for the movement to holding a strong hatred towards it after his personal encounters with members of the movement. He despised their rejection of German nationalism, culture, heritage, the state, and religion. He concludes his rejection of Social Democracy by discussing how the movement purely relied on propaganda, intimidation, and terror to strip workers of their German national identity. He also discusses his initial impression of Jews and claims how in his youth, he never really had much exposure to them, but also was tolerant towards them and viewed anti-Semitism as uncivilized. However, his hatred for Jews grew in correlation with his growing hatred for Social Democracy as he learned that Jews headed the Social Democratic Party and the liberal press drawing the conclusion that “the Jew was no German” (pg. 122). 

Chapter three of Mein Kampf mostly focuses on the political landscape of Austria at the time Hitler was residing there. He describes two movements that happened one after the other: the Pan-German movement and the Christian Socialist movement, respectively. He describes how both movements had potential for success in terms of saving the quickly deteriorating Austrian state and the German nationality but failed due to a series of faults in the designs of the movements themselves. Specifically, for the Pan-German movement, Hitler describes how it had the correct ideological goals (strong anti-Semitic, anti-Habsburg sentiments, and reuniting all ethnic Germans under a single Reich). However, he presents three principal failures for why the movement ended up not gaining as much traction as it could have. For starters, it lacked social policy to win over the working class because it paid so little attention to addressing social issues. It also got too sucked into participating in parliamentary debates that the movement’s message ended up getting lost. Hitler also mentions how the press manipulated the goals of the movement to the point where the masses did not understand the cause of the movement. In line with the parliamentary debates, Hitler says on page 176 how the Pan-German movement “gained parliamentarians instead of leaders and fighters.” This suggests that the Pan-German movement failed because it stopped working for the people and failed to mobilize them to fight for the movement’s goals. The third failure of the movement was its anti-Catholic campaign that resulted in the alienation of millions of devout German Catholics. Hitler claims that this was a bad call mainly because successful political leaders must never give the public more than one enemy to fight at a time because splitting the masses attention like that weakens the momentum of a movement. In the case of the Pan-German movement, it divided its energy among attacking the Catholic Church, the Habsburg dynasty, and the parliamentary establishment. Because this movement did not focus its political wrath on only a single primary target, it split the German population instead of uniting it, leading to its failure. 

Finally, he discusses the failures of the Christian Socialist movement which came shortly after the Pan-German movement had run its course. He claims that at first the Christian Socialist movement appeared as though it would become successful because it corrected several of the errors present in the Pan-German movement. For example, it understood the importance of the masses in gaining political momentum and it avoided fighting religious institutions. However, the Christian Socialist movement was still flawed in two ways: it understood anti-Semitism purely as a religious and economic issue, rather than a racial one, and instead of scrapping the deteriorating Austrian state and uniting all Germans under a single, united Reich, the movement sought to preserve and stabilize the Habsburg dynasty, which Hitler believed would accelerate the dilution of German power in Central Europe. Because the Christian Socialist movement’s anti-Semitism was rooted in Catholic doctrine, it believed that a Jewish person who converted to Christianity or adopted German culture was no longer an issue which simply allowed Jews to assimilate or convert while retaining their “influence” which made the movement’s campaign superficial and ineffective (pages 197 & 198).

To sum up this exceedingly long blog post, it is likely that Hitler, after studying and analyzing the faults of these two movements, was able to see what would make his own political party (the Nazi party) as successful as it was. In other words, the failed Pan-German and Christian Socialist movements served as the initial blueprints in a sense for Hitler’s own government. Overall, Mein Kampf serves as an understanding for why Hitler adopted the certain political ideologies that he incorporated into his dictatorship role in the Nazi regime. 

When the Mannheim introduction spoke about how poorly written Mein Kampf was, I was expecting it to be in relation to excessive grammatical mistakes, spelling errors, etc. And maybe those were present, and were simply cleared up by the translators, but one thing they couldn’t fix is the brevity, or lack thereof. My God, Hitler rambles. I barely found myself able to get through the fourth chapter, with the whole thing seeming repetitive and overly wordy, and the fifth wasn’t much better. Any actually interesting details were buried between long passages that didn’t seem to say much at all.

The two chapters I read, four and five, both deal with Hitler’s views on European politics, and the future of the German State. Hitler speaks in chapter four about how alliances are politically necessary to protect the German people, and how important it is for Germany to expend and acquire “living space” for the German people, after which he goes on to list several groups he believes are influencing the German state, and his thoughts on each (notably, the Hapsburgs, Austria, Marxists, and Jews. He is not a fan of any of these). Most notably, he talks at length about Austria, and how it is a decaying state, showing contempt for how he believes it’s dragging down German people, most likely pointing to bitterness as to how Germany got pulled into the war.

I think one of the most interesting aspects of chapter four is Hitler’s views on war, and how Germany would go about seeking allies. Hitler views war as inevitable, due to the fact that in his eyes, the only solution to Germany’s expanding population is to conquer surrounding land, especially by pushing into Russian territory. For this purpose, interestingly enough, Hitler actually thinks of England as the strongest possible ally, while viewing Italy as untrustworthy based on the First World War and its abandonment of the triple alliance. Hitler writes about how the English have a strong population willing to defend themselves and their nation, something that would eventually be proven, though in the opposite way that Hitler intended. He also writes about his admiration for England’s idealism, something that he thinks Germany has lost (for which he blames Jews and Marxists, though this is par for the course for him). I think that this amount of respect given to the English is possibly a way for him to win the favor of any English readers, since he states that an invasion of Russia would need English support to succeed.

The second chapter I had to read, focusing on the First World War, was much more interesting. The chapter mainly focuses on the perceived value of war, with Hitler stating on the first page that he believed he was born in the wrong century, at least before the outbreak of the Great War, because of how peaceful it was. Hitler writes about how without war, Germany was slipping into political and social corruption, becoming a pawn for the Marxists, which in turn are pawns of the Jews. The War, as stated by Hitler, was a time for Germany to cast off the shackles of Marxism and Austrian-Hungarian influence, and restore its own nationalist spirit. The most interesting aspect of the chapter comes from Hitler’s personal narrative, and his own admission that his jingoistic pro-war attitude was gradually worn down as the war progressed and he witnessed the horrors of the trenches. I drew a pretty strong parallel between this and All Quiet on the Western Front, which presents an incredibly similar narrative, though with a much different, anti-Nationalist message. This leaves me to wonder, what is it that separates the conclusions drawn by Hitler and Remarque, when both men had such similar experiences? This look into Hitler as a person, instead of a political thinker, is one of the rare glimpses into where his ideas sprang from and how they went on to shape his policies.

Overall, while the book does include a large amount of historical context and an immensely interesting insight into the mind of one of the most villainous figures of the 20th century, the way that it’s presented is so drawn out that I had a hard time getting through it. Even Mussolini, one of Hitler’s allies, stated that the book was “an incredibly boring tome that I have never been able to finish” (Mussolini: A Biography. New York: Vintage Books. p. 172), and, frankly, I cannot help but agree. I feel as if the only reason the book is so widely banned is because of the author. If Hitler held no position of power, I doubt that the book would ever face censure, since it reads more as a political think piece compared to outright anti-Semitic propaganda like Protocols. If it were not for the influence that Hitler held, and the resulting atrocities committed under him, I suspect that the book would have slipped into obscurity, just one of many nationalist perspectives held in postwar Germany.

I feel as through the Boy in the Striped Pajamas allows children to understand the horror of Nazi Germany and its actions without going into too much detail or bigotry. As I was around 8 years old when I first read the book, I was able to relate to the main characters and see their world through a similar, childish lens. I could understand how Bruno acted as well as how Schmuel may have felt. Watching the movie as an adult now, I can see its shortcomings; in its treatment of women, in its treatment of dissenters, and in its representation of those in concentration camps. However, I can still relate to the understanding I felt as a child, as the movie makes the story simple and clear enough for a younger audience to follow. Therefore, I think the Boy in the Striped Pajamas movie is good way for children to be introduced to the Holocaust, a story that they can empathize with and remember.  

However, I also want to explore the perspective of Lieutenant Kotler, as he both disgusted and enthralled me. His character was repellant, with his vicious treatment of those “lower” than him and hypocritical backstory, but I could see how his actions had understandable reasons behind them. Kotler’s father did not approve of the Nazi party and left for Switerland, the “safe” land of Europe. As such, Kotler felt the need to make his support blatant, and so powerful that nobody would doubt his devotion to the cause. But in doing this, Kotler is a morally corrupt person; he kills Pavel, a prisoner working as servant for the family, because he needs an outlet for his rage and embarrassment at being discovered. In the end, his commitment to Nazi beliefs, to fascist ideology, was not enough, and he was sent to the front lines to die for his country. To me, this shows how one can act as perfect as society demands and still fail to meet its expectations, it is better instead to be your own person.

Before gaining the global notoriety that it has today, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was originally intended as pro-tsarist propaganda targeted towards the Christian public of Russia. In the introduction to the text, the author makes this view clear, “The world’s last rampart and last refuge from the coming storm is Russia. Her true faith is still alive, and
the anointed Emperor still stands as her sure protector” (VI). To achieve this goal of defending and promoting the tsar, the author utilized pre-existing Russian discontent towards its jewish population.

By the time of its publishing in 1905, Russia already had a history of anti-Jewish sentiment. Jews faced discrimination, restrictions of movement, and pogroms (anti-jewish riots). In order to defend the Russian monarch, the author used this disdain to pin Jews as a scapegoat for all of the Tsar’s, and the system’s, failings. They sought to paint social change, such as liberalism, as a dangerous Jewish scheme and not necessary reform to a flawed system. The book only further incited antiemetic sentiment and lead to further pogroms.

One of the most important pieces of context of this text is that it is a fabricated text made to fuel anti semitism. While original authorship is unknown, it is believed that it was written by members of the Russian secret police. But instead of coming up with their own fake jewish scheme, the author decided to plagiarize a large portion of the book. One of the most heavily plagiarized works was “Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu” which was a political satire and did not mention Jewish people.

Although originally intended for a Russian audience, the text did not stay confined to Russia for long. It was translated into many languages, such as the copy we read, and distributed around the world. The most notable english distribution came from Henry Ford. He used his newspaper, the Dearborn Independent, to spread the text and legitimize its message. The book also made its way to Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party, who used it as fuel to justify the holocaust.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a text that was published in Russia in 1905. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was presented to the public by Sergei Nilus, who claimed that the Protocols were a document. The introduction also says that a copy of the original could be seen at the British Museum Library. Soon after the Protocols were published many copies were reportedly bought at the time. 

The Protocols are written as if the Protocols contain the plans of a group that wants to control governments and society. Throughout the Protocols it talks about money, politics, the press, education and government. For example one section of the Protocols talks about controlling newspapers and information so that people only receive the information that this group wants them to see . 

It is important to know that the Protocols are not considered records of secret meetings. The Protocols are widely documented as a forgery and as a conspiracy text. Because of this the claims in the Protocols should be understood as part of the Protocols’ propaganda not as facts. The Protocols use the idea of a group controlling society to create fear and suspicion. 

One thing I noticed was how much the Protocols talks about money and power. One part says that “the power of capital is greater than the prestige of the Crown” . I found this interesting because it shows how the text connects money with political power. It also made me notice how often money and control come up throughout the Protocols

I feel like the Boy in the Striped Pajamas somewhat fails in it’s messaging, and as someone who’s studied the holocaust in high school and read about the realities of life during it, it does a poor job of conveying the horrible circumstances and inconceivably cruel treatment of millions of real people in lieu of telling the shockingly sympathetic story of one Nazi family.

Throughout the movie, the family, with the exception of the father, who is in charge of helping run the camp, are depicted as initially unaware of the reality of the holocaust, which is not at all how it was in reality. I think this kind of hopeful optimism about the German public’s apparent lack of knowledge about the Holocaust is damaging, as it leads to people believing that the German people were simply deceived by Hitler, when in reality a vast majority of them supported and Anti-semetic and Ultranationalist thoughts and actions. Even at Bruno’s age, he would have known about Nazi ideals – the Hitler Youth existed for that reason, to try and indoctrinate children and get them to follow along with the party.

The tragedy presented at the end of the movie isn’t the systematic murder of six million Jewish people, but the death of a single fictional German boy. Of course, this never happened, nothing like it did. This movie makes the claim that concentration camps were horrible, not because of the mass murder of Jewish children, but because of the possible death of a single German one. I remember when I first saw this movie, back in middle school, a boy in my class stated that the ending was “so unfair, he was innocent and wasn’t even supposed to be there”, as if all the other children weren’t as well. In reality, Shmuel wouldn’t have even been able to meet Bruno, as in almost every Nazi camp children too young to work were killed as soon as they entered.

While it’s obviously a sanitation of the events for a younger audience, that doesn’t change the flawed messaging, and though I do think that the movie offers a somewhat poignant look at the horrors of the holocaust, I think that anyone viewing it should go into it with at least a basic understanding of the events portrayed, and not base their historical knowledge off of a somewhat mediocre movie. No, the German public were not completely blind to the Holocaust, despite what many may want to believe. No, Jewish children did not run around making friends in Nazi death camps. I feel as if The Boy in the Striped Pajamas simply misses the point when it comes to teaching about the Holocaust. Besides, Maus and JoJo Rabbit are much, much better books/movies about similar subject matter.