Argument: It was not the powerful arguments that are made in Mein Kampf that led to the atrocities of Nazi Germany, mostly because there are none.

The content of the book is not grounds for supressing its publication or use and so, all other things being equal, there should be a presumption in favour of publication. There is an entirely understandable interest in the publication of the book in a country where it is so notorious. It’s important to bear in mind that this is not a bomb making manual and most experts feel that the arguments are weak to the point of absurdity [i] – and the commentary will serve to enforce that point. The content of the book, in and of itself, were not therefore grounds for continued suppression of the text.

Generally speaking, it seems a relatively sensible rule of thumb that if there is no direct harm that can be shown as a result of publication and there is sufficient interest to merit doing so then it would normally be published [ii] . By doing so ahead of the end of the copyright, the state will prevent commercial publishers making a profit and this should dampen down the impact of its arrival.

It is standard to take such a presumption in favour of publication in many other circumstances, even where some groups may find doing so offensive – the Satanic Verses being a case in point. [iii]

There is no doubt that the book also has an iconic significance but that might also be said of Das Kapital and, more explicitly, the works of Lenin and Mao but they remain in print for both scholarly and popular consumption.

It seems sensible to treat Mein Kampf as just another book. If this were a recently discovered autobiography by another significant historical figure, it would almost certainly be published - even if it wasn’t very good.

[i] Mein Kampf: Bavaria plans first German edition since WWII. BBC Website. 25 April 2012.

[ii] Viewpoint: Let Germans read Mein Kampf. Stephen J Kramer. BBC News. 10 May 2012.

[iii] Devji, Faisal, ‘Does Salman Rushdie exist?’, Free Speech Debate, 13 March 2012, http://freespeechdebate.com/en/discuss/rushdie-redux/

Candidate 1: "Money for blood.

If Mein Kampf were presented by a contemporary writer to a contemporary publisher, nobody would go near it; simply because nobody would buy it. There is virtually no market for books of its kind, of which it is a poor example, and even those who might be interested in what it has to say tend not to be known for their book buying enthusiasm.

The overwhelming reason why this would be bought is either out of morbid curiosity or the desire, on the part of neo-Nazis to own an icon. Even one of the editors of the version to be published, Edith Raim, has said "Our book won't find any buyers in the Neo-Nazi scene. It's going to be a solid scientific work". [i] No doubt both will happen. Selling the book will result in profits from both groups – particularly the latter for whom possession of the physical thing itself is likely to be more important. Those sales will result in profits and it seems distasteful that any profit should be made – either by the state of Bavaria or subsequent publishers of other versions. This wouldn’t be published on the basis of the book itself, the only thing that is driving those profits is the historical role of Hitler, his notoriety and his atrocities.

[i] Evans, Stephen, ‘Mein Kampf: Bavaria plans first German publication since WWII’, BBC News, 25 April 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17837325"
Candidate 2: "Without appropriate legislation, neo-Nazi groups will publish their own version as a propaganda tool.

One of the principle reasons for the production of this text was that “Once anyone is free to publish Hitler’s work, now-Nazis will inevitably churn out editions favourable to the Nazi leader.” [i]

This decision to publish does absolutely nothing to change that “inevitable” fact. The state of Bavaria has done nothing to restrict other publications but have simply produced an ‘authorized version’ which does nothing more but give credibility to others. This will still leave the possibility of “charlatans and neo-Nazis appropriating this infamous book for themselves”. [ii] It will allow a narrative to emerge on which is the better publication – should it be interpreted as we see it today or should it be understood within the setting of Hitler’s own time; is it possible to approach the text itself without sharing the perspective of those original readers in the twenties, and so on.

Presumably the Bavarian state has taken this approach because it does not want to be accused of stifling debate on this subject. Which is odd because it’s been doing so for nearly seventy years. The compromise of having the official versions and allowing alternatives is, perhaps, the worst possible outcome, allowing the neo-fascist versions the veneer of respectability of being ‘alternatives’ rather than simply being flat-out wrong.

[i] Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” to be published in Germany for the first time since WWII. Alexander Nazaryan. New York Daily News. April 24 2012.

[ii] AP, ‘Historians hope to publish Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’, USA Today, 5th February 2010, http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-02-05-publish-german_N.htm"
Candidate 3: "It seems unlikely that it will become any less iconic after publication. Indeed the very fact that it has been published is likely to be hailed as a great victory. Neo-Nazis in Germany and elsewhere will not present this as the result of the elapse of copyright and a measured response by the state. As in any comparable situation, it will be presented as a victory. To take one example, when fascist leaders are interviewed on television or invited to speak in university debates, those actions are presented to their followers as proof of how seriously they are now being taken by the mainstream. None of those followers will be aware that their leader was roundly thrashed, because they didn’t watch the interview and didn’t attend the debate. Similarly the book will be waved, unopened at rallies to demonstrate to the faithful that progress is being made."
Candidate 4: "There is no such thing as a ‘presumption in favour of publication’. Publishers don’t publish books all the time – and absolutely nobody cries free speech. Proposition have said it themselves, the arguments aren’t persuasive. However, having it published at all would have given the work a degree of credibility it doesn’t deserve, having it published with the authority of the state will redouble that. Many of the neo-Nazis who see it as iconic would, in all probability, never have got as far as actually reading the book – let alone any commentary – but they will see a book written by Hitler from the print of the state of Bavaria."
Candidate 5: "Publication is inconsistent with other legislation.

Publication of the book provides another symbol for European neo-Nazis who present a very real threat. The Swastika and Nazi salute remain banned in Germany and other jurisdictions; this should be added to that list. [i]

If Mein Kampf were one of a kind, there might be an argument in favour of treating it in the manner suggested by Proposition. However, the reality is that it isn’t. All sorts of Nazi imagery remain banned and not just in Germany and not just because others find them offensive. They are banned because they serve as rallying points for some of the most dangerous elements in society who, in turn, pose a very real and immediate threat to the physical well-being of groups ranging from immigrant to Jews to homosexuals.

The real issue of consistency, if the Swastika is banned, then why not add Mein Kampf to the list? At the time of the prohibition of these other images, there was no need to do so as it was unavailable as a result of copyright. It is not unreasonable to suppose that, had that not been the case, it would have been banned at the time. All additional legislation would do now is to rectify an historical oversight.

[i] Evans, Stephen, ‘Mein Kampf: Bavaria plans first German publication since WWII’, BBC News, 25 April 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17837325"
Candidate 6: "Presenting Mein Kampf as a text for critical discussion gives the impression, at least, that those who supported its arguments and those who decried them were somehow on an equal footing. Having the massed ranks of German academia comment on it is likely to add to its credibility rather than detracting from it as it will suggest that the ideas are worthy of analysis. Treating the text in such a way would be akin to teaching theories of a flat earth in Geography. No child is likely to get through their school career without some discussion of WWII, proposition has failed to demonstrate what, exactly, this would add to that situation."

There is no such thing as a ‘presumption in favour of publication’. Publishers don’t publish books all the time – and absolutely nobody cries free speech. Proposition have said it themselves, the arguments aren’t persuasive. However, having it published at all would have given the work a degree of credibility it doesn’t deserve, having it published with the authority of the state will redouble that. Many of the neo-Nazis who see it as iconic would, in all probability, never have got as far as actually reading the book – let alone any commentary – but they will see a book written by Hitler from the print of the state of Bavaria.
