Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler

How much is retained from all that was stuffed into his brain? He will certainly answer:
"Well, if a mass of stuff was then taught, it was not for the sole purpose of supplying the
student with a great stock of knowledge from which he could draw in later years, but it
served to develop the understanding, the memory, and above all it helped to strengthen the
thinking powers of the brain." That is partly true. And yet it is somewhat dangerous to
submerge a young brain in a flood of impressions which it can hardly master and the single
elements of which it cannot discern or appreciate at their just value. It is mostly the essential
part of this knowledge, and not the accidental, that is forgotten and sacrificed. Thus the
principal purpose of this copious instruction is frustrated, for that purpose cannot be to
make the brain capable of learning by simply offering it an enormous and varied amount of
subjects for acquisition, but rather to furnish the individual with that stock of knowledge
which he will need in later life and which he can use for the good of the community. This
aim, however, is rendered illusory if, because of the superabundance of subjects that have
been crammed into his head in childhood, a person is able to remember nothing, or at least
not the essential portion, of all this in later life. There is no reason why millions of people
should learn two or three languages during the school years, when only a very small fraction
will have the opportunity to use these languages in later life and when most of them will
therefore forget those languages completely. To take an instance: Out of 100,000 students
who learn French there are probably not 2,000 who will be in a position to make use of this
accomplishment in later life, while 98,000 will never have a chance to utilize in practice what
they have learned in youth. They have spent thousands of hours on a subject which will
afterwards be without any value or importance to them. The argument that these matters
form part of the general process of educating the mind is invalid. It would be sound if all
these people were able to use this learning in after life. But, as the situation stands, 98,000
are tortured to no purpose and waste their valuable time, only for the sake of the 2,000 to
whom the language will be of any use.
In the case of that language which I have chosen as an example it cannot be said that the
learning of it educates the student in logical thinking or sharpens his mental acumen, as the
learning of Latin, for instance, might be said to do. It would therefore be much better to teach
young students only the general outline, or, better, the inner structure of such a language:
that is to say, to allow them to discern the characteristic features of the language, or perhaps
to make them acquainted with the rudiments of its grammar, its pronunciation, its syntax,
style, etc. That would be sufficient for average students, because it would provide a clearer
view of the whole and could be more easily remembered. And it would be more practical than
the present-day attempt to cram into their heads a detailed knowledge of the whole language,
which they can never master and which they will readily forget. If this method were adopted,
then we should avoid the danger that, out of the superabundance of matter taught, only
some fragments will remain in the memory; for the youth would then have to learn what is
worth while, and the selection between the useful and the useless would thus have been
made beforehand.
As regards the majority of students the knowledge and understanding of the rudiments of a
language would be quite sufficient for the rest of their lives. And those who really do need
this language subsequently would thus have a foundation on which to start, should they
choose to make a more thorough study of it.
By adopting such a curriculum the necessary amount of time would be gained for physical
exercises as well as for a more intense training in the various educational fields that have
already been mentioned.
A reform of particular importance is that which ought to take place in the present methods of
teaching history. Scarcely any other people are made to study as much of history as the
Germans, and scarcely any other people make such a bad use of their historical knowledge.
If politics means history in the making, then our way of teaching history stands condemned
by the way we have conducted our politics. But there would be no point in bewailing the