All The Tropes

Mein Kampf/Source/Part 1: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

Mein Kampf/Source/Part 1 (view source)

Revision as of 22:18, 1 January 2015

720,731 bytes removed ,  9 years ago
splitting into smaller sections
VisualWikitext
(from http://greatwar.nl/books/meinkampf/meinkampf.txt)
 
(splitting into smaller sections)
Line 1:
{{work}}
 
* [[Mein Kampf/Source Part 2]]
 
{| class="wikitable"
Line 14,789 ⟶ 14,791:
Vengeance was now getting ready to redress the treason of the 9th of
November, 1918. The hall was emptied. The movement was on the march.
 
 
 
 
 
VOLUME II: THE NATIONAL SOCIALIST MOVEMENT
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER I
 
 
 
WELTANSCHAUUNG AND PARTY
 
 
On February 24th, 1920, the first great mass meeting under the auspices
of the new movement took place. In the Banquet Hall of the Hofbräuhaus
in Munich the twenty-five theses which constituted the programme of our
new party were expounded to an audience of nearly two thousand people
and each thesis was enthusiastically received.
 
Thus we brought to the knowledge of the public those first principles
and lines of action along which the new struggle was to be conducted for
the abolition of a confused mass of obsolete ideas and opinions which
had obscure and often pernicious tendencies. A new force was to make its
appearance among the timid and feckless bourgeoisie. This force was
destined to impede the triumphant advance of the Marxists and bring the
Chariot of Fate to a standstill just as it seemed about to reach its
goal.
 
It was evident that this new movement could gain the public significance
and support which are necessary pre-requisites in such a gigantic
struggle only if it succeeded from the very outset in awakening a
sacrosanct conviction in the hearts of its followers, that here it was
not a case of introducing a new electoral slogan into the political
field but that an entirely new WELTANSCHAUUNG, which was of a radical
significance, had to be promoted.
 
One must try to recall the miserable jumble of opinions that used to be
arrayed side by side to form the usual Party Programme, as it was
called, and one must remember how these opinions used to be brushed up
or dressed in a new form from time to time. If we would properly
understand these programmatic monstrosities we must carefully
investigate the motives which inspired the average bourgeois 'programme
committee'.
 
Those people are always influenced by one and the same preoccupation
when they introduce something new into their programme or modify
something already contained in it. That preoccupation is directed
towards the results of the next election. The moment these artists in
parliamentary government have the first glimmering of a suspicion that
their darling public may be ready to kick up its heels and escape from
the harness of the old party wagon they begin to paint the shafts with
new colours. On such occasions the party astrologists and horoscope
readers, the so-called 'experienced men' and 'experts', come forward.
For the most part they are old parliamentary hands whose political
schooling has furnished them with ample experience. They can remember
former occasions when the masses showed signs of losing patience and
they now diagnose the menace of a similar situation arising. Resorting
to their old prescription, they form a 'committee'. They go around among
the darling public and listen to what is being said. They dip their
noses into the newspapers and gradually begin to scent what it is that
their darlings, the broad masses, are wishing for, what they reject and
what they are hoping for. The groups that belong to each trade or
business, and even office employees, are carefully studied and their
innermost desires are investigated. The 'malicious slogans' of the
opposition from which danger is threatened are now suddenly looked upon
as worthy of reconsideration, and it often happens that these slogans,
to the great astonishment of those who originally coined and circulated
them, now appear to be quite harmless and indeed are to be found among
the dogmas of the old parties.
 
So the committees meet to revise the old programme and draw up a new
one.
 
For these people change their convictions just as the soldier changes
his shirt in war--when the old one is bug-eaten. In the new programme
everyone gets everything he wants. The farmer is assured that the
interests of agriculture will be safeguarded. The industrialist is
assured of protection for his products. The consumer is assured that his
interests will be protected in the market prices. Teachers are given
higher salaries and civil servants will have better pensions. Widows and
orphans will receive generous assistance from the State. Trade will be
promoted. The tariff will be lowered and even the taxes, though they
cannot be entirely abolished, will be almost abolished. It sometimes
happens that one section of the public is forgotten or that one of the
demands mooted among the public has not reached the ears of the party.
This is also hurriedly patched on to the whole, should there be any
space available for it: until finally it is felt that there are good
grounds for hoping that the whole normal host of philistines, including
their wives, will have their anxieties laid to rest and will beam with
satisfaction once again. And so, internally armed with faith in the
goodness of God and the impenetrable stupidity of the electorate, the
struggle for what is called 'the reconstruction of the REICH' can now
begin.
 
When the election day is over and the parliamentarians have held their
last public meeting for the next five years, when they can leave their
job of getting the populace to toe the line and can now devote
themselves to higher and more pleasing tasks--then the programme
committee is dissolved and the struggle for the progressive
reorganization of public affairs becomes once again a business of
earning one's daily bread, which for the parliamentarians means merely
the attendance that is required in order to be able to draw their daily
remunerations. Morning after morning the honourable deputy wends his way
to the House, and though he may not enter the Chamber itself he gets at
least as far as the front hall, where he will find the register on which
the names of the deputies in attendance have to be inscribed. As a part
of his onerous service to his constituents he enters his name, and in
return receives a small indemnity as a well-earned reward for his
unceasing and exhausting labours.
 
When four years have passed, or in the meantime if there should be some
critical weeks during which the parliamentary corporations have to face
the danger of being dissolved, these honourable gentlemen become
suddenly seized by an irresistible desire to act. Just as the grub-worm
cannot help growing into a cock-chafer, these parliamentarian worms
leave the great House of Puppets and flutter on new wings out among the
beloved public. They address the electors once again, give an account of
the enormous labours they have accomplished and emphasize the malicious
obstinacy of their opponents. They do not always meet with grateful
applause; for occasionally the unintelligent masses throw rude and
unfriendly remarks in their faces. When this spirit of public
ingratitude reaches a certain pitch there is only one way of saving the
situation. The prestige of the party must be burnished up again. The
programme has to be amended. The committee is called into existence once
again. And the swindle begins anew. Once we understand the impenetrable
stupidity of our public we cannot be surprised that such tactics turn
out successful. Led by the Press and blinded once again by the alluring
appearance of the new programme, the bourgeois as well as the
proletarian herds of voters faithfully return to the common stall and
re-elect their old deceivers. The 'people's man' and labour candidate
now change back again into the parliamentarian grub and become fat and
rotund as they batten on the leaves that grow on the tree of public
life--to be retransformed into the glittering butterfly after another
four years have passed.
 
Scarcely anything else can be so depressing as to watch this process in
sober reality and to be the eyewitness of this repeatedly recurring
fraud. On a spiritual training ground of that kind it is not possible
for the bourgeois forces to develop the strength which is necessary to
carry on the fight against the organized might of Marxism. Indeed they
have never seriously thought of doing so. Though these parliamentary
quacks who represent the white race are generally recognized as persons
of quite inferior mental capacity, they are shrewd enough to know that
they could not seriously entertain the hope of being able to use the
weapon of Western Democracy to fight a doctrine for the advance of which
Western Democracy, with all its accessories, is employed as a means to
an end. Democracy is exploited by the Marxists for the purpose of
paralysing their opponents and gaining for themselves a free hand to put
their own methods into action. When certain groups of Marxists use all
their ingenuity for the time being to make it be believed that they are
inseparably attached to the principles of democracy, it may be well to
recall the fact that when critical occasions arose these same gentlemen
snapped their fingers at the principle of decision by majority vote, as
that principle is understood by Western Democracy. Such was the case in
those days when the bourgeois parliamentarians, in their monumental
shortsightedness, believed that the security of the REICH was guaranteed
because it had an overwhelming numerical majority in its favour, and the
Marxists did not hesitate suddenly to grasp supreme power in their own
hands, backed by a mob of loafers, deserters, political place-hunters
and Jewish dilettanti. That was a blow in the face for that democracy in
which so many parliamentarians believed. Only those credulous
parliamentary wizards who represented bourgeois democracy could have
believed that the brutal determination of those whose interest it is to
spread the Marxist world-pest, of which they are the carriers, could for
a moment, now or in the future, be held in check by the magical formulas
of Western Parliamentarianism. Marxism will march shoulder to shoulder
with democracy until it succeeds indirectly in securing for its own
criminal purposes even the support of those whose minds are nationally
orientated and whom Marxism strives to exterminate. But if the Marxists
should one day come to believe that there was a danger that from this
witch's cauldron of our parliamentary democracy a majority vote might be
concocted, which by reason of its numerical majority would be empowered
to enact legislation and might use that power seriously to combat
Marxism, then the whole parliamentarian hocus-pocus would be at an end.
Instead of appealing to the democratic conscience, the standard bearers
of the Red International would immediately send forth a furious
rallying-cry among the proletarian masses and the ensuing fight would
not take place in the sedate atmosphere of Parliament but in the
factories and the streets. Then democracy would be annihilated
forthwith. And what the intellectual prowess of the apostles who
represented the people in Parliament had failed to accomplish would now
be successfully carried out by the crow-bar and the sledge-hammer of the
exasperated proletarian masses--just as in the autumn of 1918. At a blow
they would awaken the bourgeois world to see the madness of thinking
that the Jewish drive towards world-conquest can be effectually opposed
by means of Western Democracy.
 
As I have said, only a very credulous soul could think of binding
himself to observe the rules of the game when he has to face a player
for whom those rules are nothing but a mere bluff or a means of serving
his own interests, which means he will discard them when they prove no
longer useful for his purpose.
 
All the parties that profess so-called bourgeois principles look upon
political life as in reality a struggle for seats in Parliament. The
moment their principles and convictions are of no further use in that
struggle they are thrown overboard, as if they were sand ballast. And
the programmes are constructed in such a way that they can be dealt with
in like manner. But such practice has a correspondingly weakening effect
on the strength of those parties. They lack the great magnetic force
which alone attracts the broad masses; for these masses always respond
to the compelling force which emanates from absolute faith in the ideas
put forward, combined with an indomitable zest to fight for and defend
them.
 
At a time in which the one side, armed with all the fighting power that
springs from a systematic conception of life--even though it be criminal
in a thousand ways--makes an attack against the established order the
other side will be able to resist when it draws its strength from a new
faith, which in our case is a political faith. This faith must supersede
the weak and cowardly command to defend. In its stead we must raise the
battle-cry of a courageous and ruthless attack. Our present movement is
accused, especially by the so-called national bourgeois cabinet
ministers--the Bavarian representatives of the Centre, for example--of
heading towards a revolution. We have one answer to give to those
political pigmies. We say to them: We are trying to make up for that
which you, in your criminal stupidity, have failed to carry out. By your
parliamentarian jobbing you have helped to drag the nation into ruin.
But we, by our aggressive policy, are setting up a new WELTANSCHAUUNG
which we shall defend with indomitable devotion. Thus we are building
the steps on which our nation once again may ascend to the temple of
freedom.
 
And so during the first stages of founding our movement we had to take
special care that our militant group which fought for the establishment
of a new and exalted political faith should not degenerate into a
society for the promotion of parliamentarian interests.
 
The first preventive measure was to lay down a programme which of itself
would tend towards developing a certain moral greatness that would scare
away all the petty and weakling spirits who make up the bulk of our
present party politicians.
 
Those fatal defects which finally led to Germany's downfall afford the
clearest proof of how right we were in considering it absolutely
necessary to set up programmatic aims which were sharply and distinctly
defined.
 
Because we recognized the defects above mentioned, we realized that a
new conception of the State had to be formed, which in itself became a
part of our new conception of life in general.
 
In the first volume of this book I have already dealt with the term
VÖLKISCH, and I said then that this term has not a sufficiently precise
meaning to furnish the kernel around which a closely consolidated
militant community could be formed. All kinds of people, with all kinds
of divergent opinions, are parading about at the present moment under
the device VÖLKISCH on their banners. Before I come to deal with the
purposes and aims of the National Socialist Labour Party I want to
establish a clear understanding of what is meant by the concept VÖLKISCH
and herewith explain its relation to our party movement. The word
VÖLKISCH does not express any clearly specified idea. It may be
interpreted in several ways and in practical application it is just as
general as the word 'religious', for instance. It is difficult to attach
any precise meaning to this latter word, either as a theoretical concept
or as a guiding principle in practical life. The word 'religious'
acquires a precise meaning only when it is associated with a distinct
and definite form through which the concept is put into practice. To say
that a person is 'deeply religious' may be very fine phraseology; but,
generally speaking, it tells us little or nothing. There may be some few
people who are content with such a vague description and there may even
be some to whom the word conveys a more or less definite picture of the
inner quality of a person thus described. But, since the masses of the
people are not composed of philosophers or saints, such a vague
religious idea will mean for them nothing else than to justify each
individual in thinking and acting according to his own bent. It will not
lead to that practical faith into which the inner religious yearning is
transformed only when it leaves the sphere of general metaphysical ideas
and is moulded to a definite dogmatic belief. Such a belief is certainly
not an end in itself, but the means to an end. Yet it is a means without
which the end could never be reached at all. This end, however, is not
merely something ideal; for at the bottom it is eminently practical. We
must always bear in mind the fact that, generally speaking, the highest
ideals are always the outcome of some profound vital need, just as the
most sublime beauty owes its nobility of shape, in the last analysis, to
the fact that the most beautiful form is the form that is best suited to
the purpose it is meant to serve.
 
By helping to lift the human being above the level of mere animal
existence, Faith really contributes to consolidate and safeguard its own
existence. Taking humanity as it exists to-day and taking into
consideration the fact that the religious beliefs which it generally
holds and which have been consolidated through our education, so that
they serve as moral standards in practical life, if we should now
abolish religious teaching and not replace it by anything of equal value
the result would be that the foundations of human existence would be
seriously shaken. We may safely say that man does not live merely to
serve higher ideals, but that these ideals, in their turn, furnish the
necessary conditions of his existence as a human being. And thus the
circle is closed.
 
Of course, the word 'religious' implies some ideas and beliefs that are
fundamental. Among these we may reckon the belief in the immortality of
the soul, its future existence in eternity, the belief in the existence
of a Higher Being, and so on. But all these ideas, no matter how firmly
the individual believes in them, may be critically analysed by any
person and accepted or rejected accordingly, until the emotional concept
or yearning has been transformed into an active service that is governed
by a clearly defined doctrinal faith. Such a faith furnishes the
practical outlet for religious feeling to express itself and thus opens
the way through which it can be put into practice.
 
Without a clearly defined belief, the religious feeling would not only
be worthless for the purposes of human existence but even might
contribute towards a general disorganization, on account of its vague
and multifarious tendencies.
 
What I have said about the word 'religious' can also be applied to the
term VÖLKISCH. This word also implies certain fundamental ideas. Though
these ideas are very important indeed, they assume such vague and
indefinite forms that they cannot be estimated as having a greater value
than mere opinions, until they become constituent elements in the
structure of a political party. For in order to give practical force to
the ideals that grow out of a WELTANSCHAUUNG and to answer the demands
which are a logical consequence of such ideals, mere sentiment and inner
longing are of no practical assistance, just as freedom cannot be won by
a universal yearning for it. No. Only when the idealistic longing for
independence is organized in such a way that it can fight for its ideal
with military force, only then can the urgent wish of a people be
transformed into a potent reality.
 
Any WELTANSCHAUUNG, though a thousandfold right and supremely
beneficial to humanity, will be of no practical service for the
maintenance of a people as long as its principles have not yet become
the rallying point of a militant movement. And, on its own side, this
movement will remain a mere party until is has brought its ideals to
victory and transformed its party doctrines into the new foundations of
a State which gives the national community its final shape.
 
If an abstract conception of a general nature is to serve as the basis
of a future development, then the first prerequisite is to form a clear
understanding of the nature and character and scope of this conception.
For only on such a basis can a movement he founded which will be able to
draw the necessary fighting strength from the internal cohesion of its
principles and convictions. From general ideas a political programme
must be constructed and a general WELTANSCHAUUNG must receive the stamp
of a definite political faith. Since this faith must be directed towards
ends that have to be attained in the world of practical reality, not
only must it serve the general ideal as such but it must also take into
consideration the means that have to be employed for the triumph of the
ideal. Here the practical wisdom of the statesman must come to the
assistance of the abstract idea, which is correct in itself. In that way
an eternal ideal, which has everlasting significance as a guiding star
to mankind, must be adapted to the exigencies of human frailty so that
its practical effect may not be frustrated at the very outset through
those shortcomings which are general to mankind. The exponent of truth
must here go hand in hand with him who has a practical knowledge of the
soul of the people, so that from the realm of eternal verities and
ideals what is suited to the capacities of human nature may be selected
and given practical form. To take abstract and general principles,
derived from a WELTANSCHAUUNG which is based on a solid foundation of
truth, and transform them into a militant community whose members have
the same political faith--a community which is precisely defined,
rigidly organized, of one mind and one will--such a transformation is
the most important task of all; for the possibility of successfully
carrying out the idea is dependent on the successful fulfilment of that
task. Out of the army of millions who feel the truth of these ideas, and
even may understand them to some extent, one man must arise. This man
must have the gift of being able to expound general ideas in a clear and
definite form, and, from the world of vague ideas shimmering before the
minds of the masses, he must formulate principles that will be as
clear-cut and firm as granite. He must fight for these principles as the
only true ones, until a solid rock of common faith and common will
emerges above the troubled waves of vagrant ideas. The general
justification of such action is to be sought in the necessity for it and
the individual will be justified by his success.
 
If we try to penetrate to the inner meaning of the word VÖLKISCH we
arrive at the following conclusions:
 
The current political conception of the world is that the State, though
it possesses a creative force which can build up civilizations, has
nothing in common with the concept of race as the foundation of the
State. The State is considered rather as something which has resulted
from economic necessity, or, at best, the natural outcome of the play of
political forces and impulses. Such a conception of the foundations of
the State, together with all its logical consequences, not only ignores
the primordial racial forces that underlie the State, but it also leads
to a policy in which the importance of the individual is minimized. If
it be denied that races differ from one another in their powers of
cultural creativeness, then this same erroneous notion must necessarily
influence our estimation of the value of the individual. The assumption
that all races are alike leads to the assumption that nations and
individuals are equal to one another. And international Marxism is
nothing but the application--effected by the Jew, Karl Marx--of a
general conception of life to a definite profession of political faith;
but in reality that general concept had existed long before the time of
Karl Marx. If it had not already existed as a widely diffused infection
the amazing political progress of the Marxist teaching would never have
been possible. In reality what distinguished Karl Marx from the millions
who were affected in the same way was that, in a world already in a
state of gradual decomposition, he used his keen powers of prognosis to
detect the essential poisons, so as to extract them and concentrate
them, with the art of a necromancer, in a solution which would bring
about the rapid destruction of the independent nations on the globe. But
all this was done in the service of his race.
 
Thus the Marxist doctrine is the concentrated extract of the mentality
which underlies the general concept of life to-day. For this reason
alone it is out of the question and even ridiculous to think that what
is called our bourgeois world can put up any effective fight against
Marxism. For this bourgeois world is permeated with all those same
poisons and its conception of life in general differs from Marxism only
in degree and in the character of the persons who hold it. The bourgeois
world is Marxist but believes in the possibility of a certain group of
people--that is to say, the bourgeoisie--being able to dominate the
world, while Marxism itself systematically aims at delivering the world
into the hands of the Jews.
 
Over against all this, the VÖLKISCH concept of the world recognizes that
the primordial racial elements are of the greatest significance for
mankind. In principle, the State is looked upon only as a means to an
end and this end is the conservation of the racial characteristics of
mankind. Therefore on the VÖLKISCH principle we cannot admit that one
race is equal to another. By recognizing that they are different, the
VÖLKISCH concept separates mankind into races of superior and inferior
quality. On the basis of this recognition it feels bound in conformity
with the eternal Will that dominates the universe, to postulate the
victory of the better and stronger and the subordination of the inferior
and weaker. And so it pays homage to the truth that the principle
underlying all Nature's operations is the aristocratic principle and it
believes that this law holds good even down to the last individual
organism. It selects individual values from the mass and thus operates
as an organizing principle, whereas Marxism acts as a disintegrating
solvent. The VÖLKISCH belief holds that humanity must have its ideals,
because ideals are a necessary condition of human existence itself. But,
on the other hand, it denies that an ethical ideal has the right to
prevail if it endangers the existence of a race that is the
standard-bearer of a higher ethical ideal. For in a world which would be
composed of mongrels and negroids all ideals of human beauty and
nobility and all hopes of an idealized future for our humanity would be
lost forever.
 
On this planet of ours human culture and civilization are indissolubly
bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he should be exterminated or
subjugated, then the dark shroud of a new barbarian era would enfold the
earth.
 
To undermine the existence of human culture by exterminating its
founders and custodians would be an execrable crime in the eyes of those
who believe that the folk-idea lies at the basis of human existence.
Whoever would dare to raise a profane hand against that highest image of
God among His creatures would sin against the bountiful Creator of this
marvel and would collaborate in the expulsion from Paradise.
 
Hence the folk concept of the world is in profound accord with Nature's
will; because it restores the free play of the forces which will lead
the race through stages of sustained reciprocal education towards a
higher type, until finally the best portion of mankind will possess the
earth and will be free to work in every domain all over the world and
even reach spheres that lie outside the earth.
 
We all feel that in the distant future many may be faced with problems
which can be solved only by a superior race of human beings, a race
destined to become master of all the other peoples and which will have
at its disposal the means and resources of the whole world.
 
It is evident that such a general sketch of the ideas implied in the
folk concept of the world may easily be interpreted in a thousand
different ways. As a matter of fact there is scarcely one of our recent
political movements that does not refer at some point to this conception
of the world. But the fact that this conception of the world still
maintains its independent existence in face of all the others proves
that their ways of looking at life are quite difierent from this. Thus
the Marxist conception, directed by a central organization endowed with
supreme authority, is opposed by a motley crew of opinions which is not
very impressive in face of the solid phalanx presented by the enemy.
Victory cannot be achieved with such weak weapons. Only when the
international idea, politically organized by Marxism, is confronted by
the folk idea, equally well organized in a systematic way and equally
well led--only then will the fighting energy in the one camp be able to
meet that of the other on an equal footing; and victory will be found on
the side of eternal truth.
 
But a general conception of life can never be given an organic
embodiment until it is precisely and definitely formulated. The function
which dogma fulfils in religious belief is parallel to the function
which party principles fulfil for a political party which is in the
process of being built up. Therefore, for the conception of life that is
based on the folk idea it is necessary that an instrument be forged
which can be used in fighting for this ideal, similar to the Marxist
party organization which clears the way for internationalism.
 
And this is the aim which the German National Socialist Labour Movement
pursues.
 
The folk conception must therefore be definitely formulated so that it
may be organically incorporated in the party. That is a necessary
prerequisite for the success of this idea. And that it is so is very
clearly proved even by the indirect acknowledgment of those who oppose
such an amalgamation of the folk idea with party principles. The very
people who never tire of insisting again and again that the conception
of life based on the folk idea can never be the exclusive property of a
single group, because it lies dormant or 'lives' in myriads of hearts,
only confirm by their own statements the simple fact that the general
presence of such ideas in the hearts of millions of men has not proved
sufficient to impede the victory of the opposing ideas, which are
championed by a political party organized on the principle of class
conflict. If that were not so, the German people ought already to have
gained a gigantic victory instead of finding themselves on the brink of
the abyss. The international ideology achieved success because it was
organized in a militant political party which was always ready to take
the offensive. If hitherto the ideas opposed to the international
concept have had to give way before the latter the reason is that they
lacked a united front to fight for their cause. A doctrine which forms a
definite outlook on life cannot struggle and triumph by allowing the
right of free interpretation of its general teaching, but only by
defining that teaching in certain articles of faith that have to be
accepted and incorporating it in a political organization.
 
Therefore I considered it my special duty to extract from the extensive
but vague contents of a general WELTANSCHAUUNG the ideas which were
essential and give them a more or less dogmatic form. Because of their
precise and clear meaning, these ideas are suited to the purpose of
uniting in a common front all those who are ready to accept them as
principles. In other words: The German National Socialist Labour Party
extracts the essential principles from the general conception of the
world which is based on the folk idea. On these principles it
establishes a political doctrine which takes into account the practical
realities of the day, the nature of the times, the available human
material and all its deficiencies. Through this political doctrine it is
possible to bring great masses of the people into an organization which
is constructed as rigidly as it could be. Such an organization is the
main preliminary that is necessary for the final triumph of this ideal.
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER II
 
 
 
THE STATE
 
 
Already in 1920-1921 certain circles belonging to the effete bourgeois
class accused our movement again and again of taking up a negative
attitude towards the modern State. For that reason the motley gang of
camp followers attached to the various political parties, representing a
heterogeneous conglomeration of political views, assumed the right of
utilizing all available means to suppress the protagonists of this young
movement which was preaching a new political gospel. Our opponents
deliberately ignored the fact that the bourgeois class itself stood for
no uniform opinion as to what the State really meant and that the
bourgeoisie did not and could not give any coherent definition of this
institution. Those whose duty it is to explain what is meant when we
speak of the State, hold chairs in State universities, often in the
department of constitutional law, and consider it their highest duty to
find explanations and justifications for the more or less fortunate
existence of that particular form of State which provides them with
their daily bread. The more absurd such a form of State is the more
obscure and artificial and incomprehensible are the definitions which
are advanced to explain the purpose of its existence. What, for
instance, could a royal and imperial university professor write about
the meaning and purpose of a State in a country whose statal form
represented the greatest monstrosity of the twentieth century? That
would be a difficult undertaking indeed, in view of the fact that the
contemporary professor of constitutional law is obliged not so much to
serve the cause of truth but rather to serve a certain definite purpose.
And this purpose is to defend at all costs the existence of that
monstrous human mechanism which we now call the State. Nobody can be
surprised if concrete facts are evaded as far as possible when the
problem of the State is under discussion and if professors adopt the
tactics of concealing themselves in morass of abstract values and duties
and purposes which are described as 'ethical' and 'moral'.
 
Generally speaking, these various theorists may be classed in three
groups:
 
1. Those who hold that the State is a more or less voluntary association
of men who have agreed to set up and obey a ruling authority.
 
This is numerically the largest group. In its ranks are to be found
those who worship our present principle of legalized authority. In their
eyes the will of the people has no part whatever in the whole affair.
For them the fact that the State exists is sufficient reason to consider
it sacred and inviolable. To accept this aberration of the human brain
one would have to have a sort of canine adoration for what is called the
authority of the State. In the minds of these people the means is
substituted for the end, by a sort of sleight-of-hand movement. The
State no longer exists for the purpose of serving men but men exist for
the purpose of adoring the authority of the State, which is vested in
its functionaries, even down to the smallest official. So as to prevent
this placid and ecstatic adoration from changing into something that
might become in any way disturbing, the authority of the State is
limited simply to the task of preserving order and tranquillity.
Therewith it is no longer either a means or an end. The State must see
that public peace and order are preserved and, in their turn, order and
peace must make the existence of the State possible. All life must move
between these two poles. In Bavaria this view is upheld by the artful
politicians of the Bavarian Centre, which is called the 'Bavarian
Populist Party'. In Austria the Black-and-Yellow legitimists adopt a
similar attitude. In the REICH, unfortunately, the so-called
conservative elements follow the same line of thought.
 
2. The second group is somewhat smaller in numbers. It includes those
who would make the existence of the State dependent on some conditions
at least. They insist that not only should there be a uniform system of
government but also, if possible, that only one language should be used,
though solely for technical reasons of administration. In this view the
authority of the State is no longer the sole and exclusive end for which
the State exists. It must also promote the good of its subjects. Ideas
of 'freedom', mostly based on a misunderstanding of the meaning of that
word, enter into the concept of the State as it exists in the minds of
this group. The form of government is no longer considered inviolable
simply because it exists. It must submit to the test of practical
efficiency. Its venerable age no longer protects it from being
criticized in the light of modern exigencies. Moreover, in this view the
first duty laid upon the State is to guarantee the economic well-being
of the individual citizens. Hence it is judged from the practical
standpoint and according to general principles based on the idea of
economic returns. The chief representatives of this theory of the State
are to be found among the average German bourgeoisie, especially our
liberal democrats.
 
3. The third group is numerically the smallest. In the State they
discover a means for the realization of tendencies that arise from a
policy of power, on the part of a people who are ethnically homogeneous
and speak the same language. But those who hold this view are not clear
about what they mean by 'tendencies arising from a policy of power'. A
common language is postulated not only because they hope that thereby
the State would be furnished with a solid basis for the extension of its
power outside its own frontiers, but also because they think--though
falling into a fundamental error by doing so--that such a common
language would enable them to carry out a process of nationalization in
a definite direction.
 
During the last century it was lamentable for those who had to witness
it, to notice how in these circles I have just mentioned the word
'Germanization' was frivolously played with, though the practice was
often well intended. I well remember how in the days of my youth this
very term used to give rise to notions which were false to an incredible
degree. Even in Pan-German circles one heard the opinion expressed that
the Austrian Germans might very well succeed in Germanizing the Austrian
Slavs, if only the Government would be ready to co-operate. Those people
did not understand that a policy of Germanization can be carried out
only as regards human beings. What they mostly meant by Germanization
was a process of forcing other people to speak the German language. But
it is almost inconceivable how such a mistake could be made as to think
that a Nigger or a Chinaman will become a German because he has learned
the German language and is willing to speak German for the future, and
even to cast his vote for a German political party. Our bourgeois
nationalists could never clearly see that such a process of
Germanization is in reality de-Germanization; for even if all the
outstanding and visible differences between the various peoples could be
bridged over and finally wiped out by the use of a common language, that
would produce a process of bastardization which in this case would not
signify Germanization but the annihilation of the German element. In the
course of history it has happened only too often that a conquering race
succeeded by external force in compelling the people whom they subjected
to speak the tongue of the conqueror and that after a thousand years
their language was spoken by another people and that thus the conqueror
finally turned out to be the conquered.
 
What makes a people or, to be more correct, a race, is not language but
blood. Therefore it would be justifiable to speak of Germanization only
if that process could change the blood of the people who would be
subjected to it, which is obviously impossible. A change would be
possible only by a mixture of blood, but in this case the quality of the
superior race would be debased. The final result of such a mixture would
be that precisely those qualities would be destroyed which had enabled
the conquering race to achieve victory over an inferior people. It is
especially the cultural creativeness which disappears when a superior
race intermixes with an inferior one, even though the resultant mongrel
race should excel a thousandfold in speaking the language of the race
that once had been superior. For a certain time there will be a conflict
between the different mentalities, and it may be that a nation which is
in a state of progressive degeneration will at the last moment rally its
cultural creative power and once again produce striking examples of that
power. But these results are due only to the activity of elements that
have remained over from the superior race or hybrids of the first
crossing in whom the superior blood has remained dominant and seeks to
assert itself. But this will never happen with the final descendants of
such hybrids. These are always in a state of cultural retrogression.
 
We must consider it as fortunate that a Germanization of Austria
according to the plan of Joseph II did not succeed. Probably the result
would have been that the Austrian State would have been able to survive,
but at the same time participation in the use of a common language would
have debased the racial quality of the German element. In the course of
centuries a certain herd instinct might have been developed but the herd
itself would have deteriorated in quality. A national State might have
arisen, but a people who had been culturally creative would have
disappeared.
 
For the German nation it was better that this process of intermixture
did not take place, although it was not renounced for any high-minded
reasons but simply through the short-sighted pettiness of the Habsburgs.
If it had taken place the German people could not now be looked upon as
a cultural factor.
 
Not only in Austria, however, but also in the REICH, these so-called
national circles were, and still are, under the influence of similar
erroneous ideas. Unfortunately, a policy towards Poland, whereby the
East was to be Germanized, was demanded by many and was based on the
same false reasoning. Here again it was believed that the Polish people
could be Germanized by being compelled to use the German language. The
result would have been fatal. A people of foreign race would have had to
use the German language to express modes of thought that were foreign to
the German, thus compromising by its own inferiority the dignity and
nobility of our nation.
 
It is revolting to think how much damage is indirectly done to German
prestige to-day through the fact that the German patois of the Jews when
they enter the United States enables them to be classed as Germans,
because many Americans are quite ignorant of German conditions. Among
us, nobody would think of taking these unhygienic immigrants from the
East for members of the German race and nation merely because they
mostly speak German.
 
What has been beneficially Germanized in the course of history was the
land which our ancestors conquered with the sword and colonized with
German tillers of the soil. To the extent that they introduced foreign
blood into our national body in this colonization, they have helped to
disintegrate our racial character, a process which has resulted in our
German hyper-individualism, though this latter characteristic is even
now frequently praised.
 
In this third group also there are people who, to a certain degree,
consider the State as an end in itself. Hence they consider its
preservation as one of the highest aims of human existence. Our analysis
may be summed up as follows:
 
All these opinions have this common feature and failing: that they are
not grounded in a recognition of the profound truth that the capacity
for creating cultural values is essentially based on the racial element
and that, in accordance with this fact, the paramount purpose of the
State is to preserve and improve the race; for this is an indispensable
condition of all progress in human civilization.
 
Thus the Jew, Karl Marx, was able to draw the final conclusions from
these false concepts and ideas on the nature and purpose of the State.
By eliminating from the concept of the State all thought of the
obligation which the State bears towards the race, without finding any
other formula that might be universally accepted, the bourgeois teaching
prepared the way for that doctrine which rejects the State as such.
 
That is why the bourgeois struggle against Marxist internationalism is
absolutely doomed to fail in this field. The bourgeois classes have
already sacrificed the basic principles which alone could furnish a
solid footing for their ideas. Their crafty opponent has perceived the
defects in their structure and advances to the assault on it with those
weapons which they themselves have placed in his hands though not
meaning to do so.
 
Therefore any new movement which is based on the racial concept of the
world will first of all have to put forward a clear and logical doctrine
of the nature and purpose of the State.
 
The fundamental principle is that the State is not an end in itself but
the means to an end. It is the preliminary condition under which alone a
higher form of human civilization can be developed, but it is not the
source of such a development. This is to be sought exclusively in the
actual existence of a race which is endowed with the gift of cultural
creativeness. There may be hundreds of excellent States on this earth,
and yet if the Aryan, who is the creator and custodian of civilization,
should disappear, all culture that is on an adequate level with the
spiritual needs of the superior nations to-day would also disappear. We
may go still further and say that the fact that States have been created
by human beings does not in the least exclude the possiblity that the
human race may become extinct, because the superior intellectual
faculties and powers of adaptation would be lost when the racial bearer
of these faculties and powers disappeared.
 
If, for instance, the surface of the globe should be shaken to-day by
some seismic convulsion and if a new Himalaya would emerge from the
waves of the sea, this one catastrophe alone might annihilate human
civilization. No State could exist any longer. All order would be
shattered. And all vestiges of cultural products which had been evolved
through thousands of years would disappear. Nothing would be left but
one tremendous field of death and destruction submerged in floods of
water and mud. If, however, just a few people would survive this
terrible havoc, and if these people belonged to a definite race that had
the innate powers to build up a civilization, when the commotion had
passed, the earth would again bear witness to the creative power of the
human spirit, even though a span of a thousand years might intervene.
Only with the extermination of the last race that possesses the gift of
cultural creativeness, and indeed only if all the individuals of that
race had disappeared, would the earth definitely be turned into a
desert. On the other hand, modern history furnishes examples to show
that statal institutions which owe their beginnings to members of a race
which lacks creative genius are not made of stuff that will endure. Just
as many varieties of prehistoric animals had to give way to others and
leave no trace behind them, so man will also have to give way, if he
loses that definite faculty which enables him to find the weapons that
are necessary for him to maintain his own existence.
 
It is not the State as such that brings about a certain definite advance
in cultural progress. The State can only protect the race that is the
cause of such progress. The State as such may well exist without
undergoing any change for hundreds of years, though the cultural
faculties and the general life of the people, which is shaped by these
faculties, may have suffered profound changes by reason of the fact that
the State did not prevent a process of racial mixture from taking place.
The present State, for instance, may continue to exist in a mere
mechanical form, but the poison of miscegenation permeating the national
body brings about a cultural decadence which manifests itself already in
various symptoms that are of a detrimental character.
 
Thus the indispensable prerequisite for the existence of a superior
quality of human beings is not the State but the race, which is alone
capable of producing that higher human quality.
 
This capacity is always there, though it will lie dormant unless
external circumstances awaken it to action. Nations, or rather races,
which are endowed with the faculty of cultural creativeness possess this
faculty in a latent form during periods when the external circumstances
are unfavourable for the time being and therefore do not allow the
faculty to express itself effectively. It is therefore outrageously
unjust to speak of the pre-Christian Germans as barbarians who had no
civilization. They never have been such. But the severity of the climate
that prevailed in the northern regions which they inhabited imposed
conditions of life which hampered a free development of their creative
faculties. If they had come to the fairer climate of the South, with no
previous culture whatsoever, and if they acquired the necessary human
material--that is to say, men of an inferior race--to serve them as
working implements, the cultural faculty dormant in them would have
splendidly blossomed forth, as happened in the case of the Greeks, for
example. But this primordial creative faculty in cultural things was not
solely due to their northern climate. For the Laplanders or the Eskimos
would not have become creators of a culture if they were transplanted to
the South. No, this wonderful creative faculty is a special gift
bestowed on the Aryan, whether it lies dormant in him or becomes active,
according as the adverse conditions of nature prevent the active
expression of that faculty or favourable circumstances permit it.
 
From these facts the following conclusions may be drawn:
 
The State is only a means to an end. Its end and its purpose is to
preserve and promote a community of human beings who are physically as
well as spiritually kindred. Above all, it must preserve the existence
of the race, thereby providing the indispensable condition for the free
development of all the forces dormant in this race. A great part of
these faculties will always have to be employed in the first place to
maintain the physical existence of the race, and only a small portion
will be free to work in the field of intellectual progress. But, as a
matter of fact, the one is always the necessary counterpart of the
other.
 
Those States which do not serve this purpose have no justification for
their existence. They are monstrosities. The fact that they do exist is
no more of a justification than the successful raids carried out by a
band of pirates can be considered a justification of piracy.
 
We National Socialists, who are fighting for a new WELTANSCHAUUNG, must
never take our stand on the famous 'basis of facts', and especially not
on mistaken facts. If we did so, we should cease to be the protagonists
of a new and great idea and would become slaves in the service of the
fallacy which is dominant to-day. We must make a clear-cut distinction
between the vessel and its contents. The State is only the vessel and
the race is what it contains. The vessel can have a meaning only if it
preserves and safeguards the contents. Otherwise it is worthless.
 
Hence the supreme purpose of the ethnical State is to guard and preserve
those racial elements which, through their work in the cultural field,
create that beauty and dignity which are characteristic of a higher
mankind. As Aryans, we can consider the State only as the living
organism of a people, an organism which does not merely maintain the
existence of a people, but functions in such a way as to lead its people
to a position of supreme liberty by the progressive development of the
intellectual and cultural faculties.
 
What they want to impose upon us as a State to-day is in most cases
nothing but a monstrosity, the product of a profound human aberration
which brings untold suffering in its train.
 
We National Socialists know that in holding these views we take up a
revolutionary stand in the world of to-day and that we are branded as
revolutionaries. But our views and our conduct will not be determined by
the approbation or disapprobation of our contemporaries, but only by our
duty to follow a truth which we have acknowledged. In doing this we have
reason to believe that posterity will have a clearer insight, and will
not only understand the work we are doing to-day, but will also ratify
it as the right work and will exalt it accordingly.
 
On these principles we National Socialists base our standards of value
in appraising a State. This value will be relative when viewed from the
particular standpoint of the individual nation, but it will be absolute
when considered from the standpoint of humanity as a whole. In other
words, this means:
 
That the excellence of a State can never be judged by the level of its
culture or the degree of importance which the outside world attaches to
its power, but that its excellence must be judged by the degree to which
its institutions serve the racial stock which belongs to it.
 
A State may be considered as a model example if it adequately serves not
only the vital needs of the racial stock it represents but if it
actually assures by its own existence the preservation of this same
racial stock, no matter what general cultural significance this statal
institution may have in the eyes of the rest of the world. For it is not
the task of the State to create human capabilities, but only to assure
free scope for the exercise of capabilities that already exist. On the
other hand, a State may be called bad if, in spite of the existence of a
high cultural level, it dooms to destruction the bearers of that culture
by breaking up their racial uniformity. For the practical effect of such
a policy would be to destroy those conditions that are indispensable for
the ulterior existence of that culture, which the State did not create
but which is the fruit of the creative power inherent in the racial
stock whose existence is assured by being united in the living organism
of the State. Once again let me emphasize the fact that the State itself
is not the substance but the form. Therefore, the cultural level is not
the standard by which we can judge the value of the State in which that
people lives. It is evident that a people which is endowed with high
creative powers in the cultural sphere is of more worth than a tribe of
negroes. And yet the statal organization of the former, if judged from
the standpoint of efficiency, may be worse than that of the negroes. Not
even the best of States and statal institutions can evolve faculties
from a people which they lack and which they never possessed, but a bad
State may gradually destroy the faculties which once existed. This it
can do by allowing or favouring the suppression of those who are the
bearers of a racial culture.
 
Therefore, the worth of a State can be determined only by asking how far
it actually succeeds in promoting the well-being of a definite race and
not by the role which it plays in the world at large. Its relative worth
can be estimated readily and accurately; but it is difficult to judge
its absolute worth, because the latter is conditioned not only by the
State but also by the quality and cultural level of the people that
belong to the individual State in question.
 
Therefore, when we speak of the high mission of the State we must not
forget that the high mission belongs to the people and that the business
of the State is to use its organizing powers for the purpose of
furnishing the necessary conditions which allow this people freely to
unfold its creative faculties. And if we ask what kind of statal
institution we Germans need, we must first have a clear notion as to the
people which that State must embrace and what purpose it must serve.
 
Unfortunately the German national being is not based on a uniform racial
type. The process of welding the original elements together has not gone
so far as to warrant us in saying that a new race has emerged. On the
contrary, the poison which has invaded the national body, especially
since the Thirty Years' War, has destroyed the uniform constitution not
only of our blood but also of our national soul. The open frontiers of
our native country, the association with non-German foreign elements in
the territories that lie all along those frontiers, and especially the
strong influx of foreign blood into the interior of the REICH itself,
has prevented any complete assimilation of those various elements,
because the influx has continued steadily. Out of this melting-pot no
new race arose. The heterogeneous elements continue to exist side by
side. And the result is that, especially in times of crisis, when the
herd usually flocks together, the Germans disperse in all directions.
The fundamental racial elements are not only different in different
districts, but there are also various elements in the single districts.
Beside the Nordic type we find the East-European type, beside the
Eastern there is the Dinaric, the Western type intermingling with both,
and hybrids among them all. That is a grave drawback for us. Through it
the Germans lack that strong herd instinct which arises from unity of
blood and saves nations from ruin in dangerous and critical times;
because on such occasions small differences disappear, so that a united
herd faces the enemy. What we understand by the word hyper-individualism
arises from the fact that our primordial racial elements have existed
side by side without ever consolidating. During times of peace such a
situation may offer some advantages, but, taken all in all, it has
prevented us from gaining a mastery in the world. If in its historical
development the German people had possessed the unity of herd instinct
by which other peoples have so much benefited, then the German REICH
would probably be mistress of the globe to-day. World history would have
taken another course and in this case no man can tell if what many
blinded pacifists hope to attain by petitioning, whining and crying, may
not have been reached in this way: namely, a peace which would not be
based upon the waving of olive branches and tearful misery-mongering of
pacifist old women, but a peace that would be guaranteed by the
triumphant sword of a people endowed with the power to master the world
and administer it in the service of a higher civilization.
 
The fact that our people did not have a national being based on a unity
of blood has been the source of untold misery for us. To many petty
German potentates it gave residential capital cities, but the German
people as a whole was deprived of its right to rulership.
 
Even to-day our nation still suffers from this lack of inner unity; but
what has been the cause of our past and present misfortunes may turn out
a blessing for us in the future. Though on the one hand it may be a
drawback that our racial elements were not welded together, so that no
homogeneous national body could develop, on the other hand, it was
fortunate that, since at least a part of our best blood was thus kept
pure, its racial quality was not debased.
 
A complete assimilation of all our racial elements would certainly have
brought about a homogeneous national organism; but, as has been proved
in the case of every racial mixture, it would have been less capable of
creating a civilization than by keeping intact its best original
elements. A benefit which results from the fact that there was no
all-round assimilation is to be seen in that even now we have large
groups of German Nordic people within our national organization, and
that their blood has not been mixed with the blood of other races. We
must look upon this as our most valuable treasure for the sake of the
future. During that dark period of absolute ignorance in regard to all
racial laws, when each individual was considered to be on a par with
every other, there could be no clear appreciation of the difference
between the various fundamental racial characteristics. We know to-day
that a complete assimilation of all the various elements which
constitute the national being might have resulted in giving us a larger
share of external power: but, on the other hand, the highest of human
aims would not have been attained, because the only kind of people which
fate has obviously chosen to bring about this perfection would have been
lost in such a general mixture of races which would constitute such a
racial amalgamation.
 
But what has been prevented by a friendly Destiny, without any
assistance on our part, must now be reconsidered and utilized in the
light of our new knowledge.
 
He who talks of the German people as having a mission to fulfil on this
earth must know that this cannot be fulfilled except by the building up
of a State whose highest purpose is to preserve and promote those nobler
elements of our race and of the whole of mankind which have remained
unimpaired.
 
Thus for the first time a high inner purpose is accredited to the State.
In face of the ridiculous phrase that the State should do no more than
act as the guardian of public order and tranquillity, so that everybody
can peacefully dupe everybody else, it is given a very high mission
indeed to preserve and encourage the highest type of humanity which a
beneficent Creator has bestowed on this earth. Out of a dead mechanism
which claims to be an end in itself a living organism shall arise which
has to serve one purpose exclusively: and that, indeed, a purpose which
belongs to a higher order of ideas.
 
As a State the German REICH shall include all Germans. Its task is not
only to gather in and foster the most valuable sections of our people
but to lead them slowly and surely to a dominant position in the world.
 
Thus a period of stagnation is superseded by a period of effort. And
here, as in every other sphere, the proverb holds good that to rest is
to rust; and furthermore the proverb that victory will always be won by
him who attacks. The higher the final goal which we strive to reach, and
the less it be understood at the time by the broad masses, the more
magnificent will be its success. That is what the lesson of history
teaches. And the achievement will be all the more significant if the end
is conceived in the right way and the fight carried through with
unswerving persistence. Many of the officials who direct the affairs of
State nowadays may find it easier to work for the maintenance of the
present order than to fight for a new one. They will find it more
comfortable to look upon the State as a mechanism, whose purpose is its
own preservation, and to say that 'their lives belong to the State,' as
if anything that grew from the inner life of the nation can logically
serve anything but the national being, and as if man could be made for
anything else than for his fellow beings. Naturally, it is easier, as I
have said, to consider the authority of the State as nothing but the
formal mechanism of an organization, rather than as the sovereign
incarnation of a people's instinct for self-preservation on this earth.
For these weak minds the State and the authority of the State is nothing
but an aim in itself, while for us it is an effective weapon in the
service of the great and eternal struggle for existence, a weapon which
everyone must adopt, not because it is a mere formal mechanism, but
because it is the main expression of our common will to exist.
 
Therefore, in the fight for our new idea, which conforms completely to
the primal meaning of life, we shall find only a small number of
comrades in a social order which has become decrepit not only physically
but mentally also. From these strata of our population only a few
exceptional people will join our ranks, only those few old people whose
hearts have remained young and whose courage is still vigorous, but not
those who consider it their duty to maintain the state of affairs that
exists.
 
Against us we have the innumerable army of all those who are lazy-minded
and indifferent rather than evil, and those whose self-interest leads
them to uphold the present state of affairs. On the apparent
hopelessness of our great struggle is based the magnitude of our task
and the possibilities of success. A battle-cry which from the very start
will scare off all the petty spirits, or at least discourage them, will
become the signal for a rally of all those temperaments that are of the
real fighting metal. And it must be clearly recognized that if a highly
energetic and active body of men emerge from a nation and unite in the
fight for one goal, thereby ultimately rising above the inert masses of
the people, this small percentage will become masters of the whole.
World history is made by minorities if these numerical minorities
represent in themselves the will and energy and initiative of the people
as a whole.
 
What seems an obstacle to many persons is really a preliminary condition
of our victory. Just because our task is so great and because so many
difficulties have to be overcome, the highest probability is that only
the best kind of protagonists will join our ranks. This selection is the
guarantee of our success. Nature generally takes certain measures to
correct the effect which racial mixture produces in life. She is not
much in favour of the mongrel. The later products of cross-breeding have
to suffer bitterly, especially the third, fourth and fifth generations.
Not only are they deprived of the higher qualities that belonged to the
parents who participated in the first mixture, but they also lack
definite will-power and vigorous vital energies owing to the lack of
harmony in the quality of their blood. At all critical moments in which
a person of pure racial blood makes correct decisions, that is to say,
decisions that are coherent and uniform, the person of mixed blood will
become confused and take measures that are incoherent. Hence we see that
a person of mixed blood is not only relatively inferior to a person of
pure blood, but is also doomed to become extinct more rapidly. In
innumerable cases wherein the pure race holds its ground the mongrel
breaks down. Therein we witness the corrective provision which Nature
adopts. She restricts the possibilities of procreation, thus impeding
the fertility of cross-breeds and bringing them to extinction.
 
For instance, if an individual member of a race should mingle his blood
with the member of a superior race the first result would be a lowering
of the racial level, and furthermore the descendants of this
cross-breeding would be weaker than those of the people around them who
had maintained their blood unadulterated. Where no new blood from the
superior race enters the racial stream of the mongrels, and where those
mongrels continue to cross-breed among themselves, the latter will
either die out because they have insufficient powers of resistance,
which is Nature's wise provision, or in the course of many thousands of
years they will form a new mongrel race in which the original elements
will become so wholly mixed through this millennial crossing that traces
of the original elements will be no longer recognizable. And thus a new
people would be developed which possessed a certain resistance capacity
of the herd type, but its intellectual value and its cultural
significance would be essentially inferior to those which the first
cross-breeds possessed. But even in this last case the mongrel product
would succumb in the mutual struggle for existence with a higher racial
group that had maintained its blood unmixed. The herd solidarity which
this mongrel race had developed through thousands of years will not be
equal to the struggle. And this is because it would lack elasticity and
constructive capacity to prevail over a race of homogeneous blood that
was mentally and culturally superior.
 
Therewith we may lay down the following principle as valid: every racial
mixture leads, of necessity, sooner or later to the downfall of the
mongrel product, provided the higher racial strata of this cross-breed
has not retained within itself some sort of racial homogeneity. The
danger to the mongrels ceases only when this higher stratum, which has
maintained certain standards of homogeneous breeding, ceases to be true
to its pedigree and intermingles with the mongrels.
 
This principle is the source of a slow but constant regeneration whereby
all the poison which has invaded the racial body is gradually eliminated
so long as there still remains a fundamental stock of pure racial
elements which resists further crossbreeding.
 
Such a process may set in automatically among those people where a
strong racial instinct has remained. Among such people we may count
those elements which, for some particular cause such as coercion, have
been thrown out of the normal way of reproduction along strict racial
lines. As soon as this compulsion ceases, that part of the race which
has remained intact will tend to marry with its own kind and thus impede
further intermingling. Then the mongrels recede quite naturally into the
background unless their numbers had increased so much as to be able to
withstand all serious resistance from those elements which had preserved
the purity of their race.
 
When men have lost their natural instincts and ignore the obligations
imposed on them by Nature, then there is no hope that Nature will
correct the loss that has been caused, until recognition of the lost
instincts has been restored. Then the task of bringing back what has
been lost will have to be accomplished. But there is serious danger that
those who have become blind once in this respect will continue more and
more to break down racial barriers and finally lose the last remnants of
what is best in them. What then remains is nothing but a uniform
mish-mash, which seems to be the dream of our fine Utopians. But that
mish-mash would soon banish all ideals from the world. Certainly a great
herd could thus be formed. One can breed a herd of animals; but from a
mixture of this kind men such as have created and founded civilizations
would not be produced. The mission of humanity might then be considered
at an end.
 
Those who do not wish that the earth should fall into such a condition
must realize that it is the task of the German State in particular to
see to it that the process of bastardization is brought to a stop.
 
Our contemporary generation of weaklings will naturally decry such a
policy and whine and complain about it as an encroachment on the most
sacred of human rights. But there is only one right that is sacrosanct
and this right is at the same time a most sacred duty. This right and
obligation are: that the purity of the racial blood should be guarded,
so that the best types of human beings may be preserved and that thus we
should render possible a more noble development of humanity itself.
 
A folk-State should in the first place raise matrimony from the level of
being a constant scandal to the race. The State should consecrate it as
an institution which is called upon to produce creatures made in the
likeness of the Lord and not create monsters that are a mixture of man
and ape. The protest which is put forward in the name of humanity does
not fit the mouth of a generation that makes it possible for the most
depraved degenerates to propagate themselves, thereby imposing
unspeakable suffering on their own products and their contemporaries,
while on the other hand contraceptives are permitted and sold in every
drug store and even by street hawkers, so that babies should not be born
even among the healthiest of our people. In this present State of ours,
whose function it is to be the guardian of peace and good order, our
national bourgeoisie look upon it as a crime to make procreation
impossible for syphilitics and those who suffer from tuberculosis or
other hereditary diseases, also cripples and imbeciles. But the
practical prevention of procreation among millions of our very best
people is not considered as an evil, nor does it offend against the
noble morality of this social class but rather encourages their
short-sightedness and mental lethargy. For otherwise they would at least
stir their brains to find an answer to the question of how to create
conditions for the feeding and maintaining of those future beings who
will be the healthy representatives of our nation and must also provide
the conditions on which the generation that is to follow them will have
to support itself and live.
 
How devoid of ideals and how ignoble is the whole contemporary system!
The fact that the churches join in committing this sin against the image
of God, even though they continue to emphasize the dignity of that
image, is quite in keeping with their present activities. They talk
about the Spirit, but they allow man, as the embodiment of the Spirit,
to degenerate to the proletarian level. Then they look on with amazement
when they realize how small is the influence of the Christian Faith in
their own country and how depraved and ungodly is this riff-raff which
is physically degenerate and therefore morally degenerate also. To
balance this state of affairs they try to convert the Hottentots and the
Zulus and the Kaffirs and to bestow on them the blessings of the Church.
While our European people, God be praised and thanked, are left to
become the victims of moral depravity, the pious missionary goes out to
Central Africa and establishes missionary stations for negroes. Finally,
sound and healthy--though primitive and backward--people will be
transformed, under the name of our 'higher civilization', into a motley
of lazy and brutalized mongrels.
 
It would better accord with noble human aspirations if our two Christian
denominations would cease to bother the negroes with their preaching,
which the negroes do not want and do not understand. It would be better
if they left this work alone, and if, in its stead, they tried to teach
people in Europe, kindly and seriously, that it is much more pleasing to
God if a couple that is not of healthy stock were to show loving
kindness to some poor orphan and become a father and mother to him,
rather than give life to a sickly child that will be a cause of
suffering and unhappiness to all.
 
In this field the People's State will have to repair the damage that
arises from the fact that the problem is at present neglected by all the
various parties concerned. It will be the task of the People's State to
make the race the centre of the life of the community. It must make sure
that the purity of the racial strain will be preserved. It must proclaim
the truth that the child is the most valuable possession a people can
have. It must see to it that only those who are healthy shall beget
children; that there is only one infamy, namely, for parents that are
ill or show hereditary defects to bring children into the world and that
in such cases it is a high honour to refrain from doing so. But, on the
other hand, it must be considered as reprehensible conduct to refrain
from giving healthy children to the nation. In this matter the State
must assert itself as the trustee of a millennial future, in face of
which the egotistic desires of the individual count for nothing and will
have to give way before the ruling of the State. In order to fulfil this
duty in a practical manner the State will have to avail itself of modern
medical discoveries. It must proclaim as unfit for procreation all those
who are inflicted with some visible hereditary disease or are the
carriers of it; and practical measures must be adopted to have such
people rendered sterile. On the other hand, provision must be made for
the normally fertile woman so that she will not be restricted in
child-bearing through the financial and economic system operating in a
political regime that looks upon the blessing of having children as a
curse to their parents. The State will have to abolish the cowardly and
even criminal indifference with which the problem of social amenities
for large families is treated, and it will have to be the supreme
protector of this greatest blessing that a people can boast of. Its
attention and care must be directed towards the child rather than the
adult.
 
Those who are physically and mentally unhealthy and unfit must not
perpetuate their own suffering in the bodies of their children. From the
educational point of view there is here a huge task for the People's
State to accomplish. But in a future era this work will appear greater
and more significant than the victorious wars of our present bourgeois
epoch. Through educational means the State must teach individuals that
illness is not a disgrace but an unfortunate accident which has to be
pitied, yet that it is a crime and a disgrace to make this affliction
all the worse by passing on disease and defects to innocent creatures
out of mere egotism.
 
And the State must also teach the people that it is an expression of a
really noble nature and that it is a humanitarian act worthy of
admiration if a person who innocently suffers from hereditary disease
refrains from having a child of his own but gives his love and affection
to some unknown child who, through its health, promises to become a
robust member of a healthy community. In accomplishing such an
educational task the State integrates its function by this activity in
the moral sphere. It must act on this principle without paying any
attention to the question of whether its conduct will be understood or
misconstrued, blamed or praised.
 
If for a period of only 600 years those individuals would be sterilized
who are physically degenerate or mentally diseased, humanity would not
only be delivered from an immense misfortune but also restored to a
state of general health such as we at present can hardly imagine. If the
fecundity of the healthy portion of the nation should be made a
practical matter in a conscientious and methodical way, we should have
at least the beginnings of a race from which all those germs would be
eliminated which are to-day the cause of our moral and physical
decadence. If a people and a State take this course to develop that
nucleus of the nation which is most valuable from the racial standpoint
and thus increase its fecundity, the people as a whole will subsequently
enjoy that most precious of gifts which consists in a racial quality
fashioned on truly noble lines.
 
To achieve this the State should first of all not leave the colonization
of newly acquired territory to a haphazard policy but should have it
carried out under the guidance of definite principles. Specially
competent committees ought to issue certificates to individuals
entitling them to engage in colonization work, and these certificates
should guarantee the racial purity of the individuals in question. In
this way frontier colonies could gradually be founded whose inhabitants
would be of the purest racial stock, and hence would possess the best
qualities of the race. Such colonies would be a valuable asset to the
whole nation. Their development would be a source of joy and confidence
and pride to each citizen of the nation, because they would contain the
pure germ which would ultimately bring about a great development of the
nation and indeed of mankind itself.
 
The WELTANSCHAUUNG which bases the State on the racial idea must
finally succeed in bringing about a nobler era, in which men will no
longer pay exclusive attention to breeding and rearing pedigree dogs and
horses and cats, but will endeavour to improve the breed of the human
race itself. That will be an era of silence and renunciation for one
class of people, while the others will give their gifts and make their
sacrifices joyfully.
 
That such a mentality may be possible cannot be denied in a world where
hundreds and thousands accept the principle of celibacy from their own
choice, without being obliged or pledged to do so by anything except an
ecclesiastical precept. Why should it not be possible to induce people
to make this sacrifice if, instead of such a precept, they were simply
told that they ought to put an end to this truly original sin of racial
corruption which is steadily being passed on from one generation to
another. And, further, they ought to be brought to realize that it is
their bounden duty to give to the Almighty Creator beings such as He
himself made to His own image.
 
Naturally, our wretched army of contemporary philistines will not
understand these things. They will ridicule them or shrug their round
shoulders and groan out their everlasting excuses: "Of course it is a
fine thing, but the pity is that it cannot be carried out." And we
reply: "With you indeed it cannot be done, for your world is incapable
of such an idea. You know only one anxiety and that is for your own
personal existence. You have one God, and that is your money. We do not
turn to you, however, for help, but to the great army of those who are
too poor to consider their personal existence as the highest good on
earth. They do not place their trust in money but in other gods, into
whose hands they confide their lives. Above all we turn to the vast army
of our German youth. They are coming to maturity in a great epoch, and
they will fight against the evils which were due to the laziness and
indifference of their fathers." Either the German youth will one day
create a new State founded on the racial idea or they will be the last
witnesses of the complete breakdown and death of the bourgeois world.
 
For if a generation suffers from defects which it recognizes and even
admits and is nevertheless quite pleased with itself, as the bourgeois
world is to-day, resorting to the cheap excuse that nothing can be done
to remedy the situation, then such a generation is doomed to disaster. A
marked characteristic of our bourgeois world is that they no longer can
deny the evil conditions that exist. They have to admit that there is
much which is foul and wrong; but they are not able to make up their
minds to fight against that evil, which would mean putting forth the
energy to mobilize the forces of 60 or 70 million people and thus oppose
this menace. They do just the opposite. When such an effort is made
elsewhere they only indulge in silly comment and try from a safe
distance to show that such an enterprise is theoretically impossible and
doomed to failure. No arguments are too stupid to be employed in the
service of their own pettifogging opinions and their knavish moral
attitude. If, for instance, a whole continent wages war against
alcoholic intoxication, so as to free a whole people from this
devastating vice, our bourgeois European does not know better than to
look sideways stupidly, shake the head in doubt and ridicule the
movement with a superior sneer--a state of mind which is effective in a
society that is so ridiculous. But when all these stupidities miss their
aim and in that part of the world this sublime and intangible attitude
is treated effectively and success attends the movement, then such
success is called into question or its importance minimized. Even moral
principles are used in this slanderous campaign against a movement which
aims at suppressing a great source of immorality.
 
No. We must not permit ourselves to be deceived by any illusions on this
point. Our contemporary bourgeois world has become useless for any such
noble human task because it has lost all high quality and is evil, not
so much--as I think--because evil is wished but rather because these
people are too indolent to rise up against it. That is why those
political societies which call themselves 'bourgeois parties' are
nothing but associations to promote the interests of certain
professional groups and classes. Their highest aim is to defend their
own egoistic interests as best they can. It is obvious that such a
guild, consisting of bourgeois politicians, may be considered fit for
anything rather than a struggle, especially when the adversaries are not
cautious shopkeepers but the proletarian masses, goaded on to
extremities and determined not to hesitate before deeds of violence.
 
If we consider it the first duty of the State to serve and promote the
general welfare of the people, by preserving and encouraging the
development of the best racial elements, the logical consequence is that
this task cannot be limited to measures concerning the birth of the
infant members of the race and nation but that the State will also have
to adopt educational means for making each citizen a worthy factor in
the further propagation of the racial stock.
 
Just as, in general, the racial quality is the preliminary condition for
the mental efficiency of any given human material, the training of the
individual will first of all have to be directed towards the development
of sound bodily health. For the general rule is that a strong and
healthy mind is found only in a strong and healthy body. The fact that
men of genius are sometimes not robust in health and stature, or even of
a sickly constitution, is no proof against the principle I have
enunciated. These cases are only exceptions which, as everywhere else,
prove the rule. But when the bulk of a nation is composed of physical
degenerates it is rare for a great spirit to arise from such a miserable
motley. And in any case his activities would never meet with great
success. A degenerate mob will either be incapable of understanding him
at all or their will-power is so feeble that they cannot follow the
soaring of such an eagle.
 
The State that is grounded on the racial principle and is alive to the
significance of this truth will first of all have to base its
educational work not on the mere imparting of knowledge but rather on
physical training and development of healthy bodies. The cultivation of
the intellectual facilities comes only in the second place. And here
again it is character which has to be developed first of all, strength
of will and decision. And the educational system ought to foster the
spirit of readiness to accept responsibilities gladly. Formal
instruction in the sciences must be considered last in importance.
Accordingly the State which is grounded on the racial idea must start
with the principle that a person whose formal education in the sciences
is relatively small but who is physically sound and robust, of a
steadfast and honest character, ready and able to make decisions and
endowed with strength of will, is a more useful member of the national
community than a weakling who is scholarly and refined. A nation
composed of learned men who are physical weaklings, hesitant about
decisions of the will, and timid pacifists, is not capable of assuring
even its own existence on this earth. In the bitter struggle which
decides the destiny of man it is very rare that an individual has
succumbed because he lacked learning. Those who fail are they who try to
ignore these consequences and are too faint-hearted about putting them
into effect. There must be a certain balance between mind and body. An
ill-kept body is not made a more beautiful sight by the indwelling of a
radiant spirit. We should not be acting justly if we were to bestow the
highest intellectual training on those who are physically deformed and
crippled, who lack decision and are weak-willed and cowardly. What has
made the Greek ideal of beauty immortal is the wonderful union of a
splendid physical beauty with nobility of mind and spirit.
 
Moltke's saying, that in the long run fortune favours only the
efficient, is certainly valid for the relationship between body and
spirit. A mind which is sound will generally maintain its dwelling in a
body that is sound.
 
Accordingly, in the People's State physical training is not a matter for
the individual alone. Nor is it a duty which first devolves on the
parents and only secondly or thirdly a public interest; but it is
necessary for the preservation of the people, who are represented and
protected by the State. As regards purely formal education the State
even now interferes with the individual's right of self-determination
and insists upon the right of the community by submitting the child to
an obligatory system of training, without paying attention to the
approval or disapproval of the parents. In a similar way and to a higher
degree the new People's State will one day make its authority prevail
over the ignorance and incomprehension of individuals in problems
appertaining to the safety of the nation. It must organize its
educational work in such a way that the bodies of the young will be
systematically trained from infancy onwards, so as to be tempered and
hardened for the demands to be made on them in later years. Above all,
the State must see to it that a generation of stay-at-homes is not
developed.
 
The work of education and hygiene has to begin with the young mother.
The painstaking efforts carried on for several decades have succeeded in
abolishing septic infection at childbirth and reducing puerperal fever
to a relatively small number of cases. And so it ought to be possible by
means of instructing sisters and mothers in an opportune way, to
institute a system of training the child from early infancy onwards so
that this may serve as an excellent basis for future development.
 
The People's State ought to allow much more time for physical training
in the school. It is nonsense to burden young brains with a load of
material of which, as experience shows, they retain only a small part,
and mostly not the essentials, but only the secondary and useless
portion; because the young mind is incapable of sifting the right kind
of learning out of all the stuff that is pumped into it. To-day, even in
the curriculum of the high schools, only two short hours in the week are
reserved for gymnastics; and worse still, it is left to the pupils to
decide whether or not they want to take part. This shows a grave
disproportion between this branch of education and purely intellectual
instruction. Not a single day should be allowed to pass in which the
young pupil does not have one hour of physical training in the morning
and one in the evening; and every kind of sport and gymnastics should be
included. There is one kind of sport which should be specially
encouraged, although many people who call themselves VÖLKISCH consider
it brutal and vulgar, and that is boxing. It is incredible how many
false notions prevail among the 'cultivated' classes. The fact that the
young man learns how to fence and then spends his time in duels is
considered quite natural and respectable. But boxing--that is brutal.
Why? There is no other sport which equals this in developing the
militant spirit, none that demands such a power of rapid decision or
which gives the body the flexibility of good steel. It is no more vulgar
when two young people settle their differences with their fists than
with sharp-pointed pieces of steel. One who is attacked and defends
himself with his fists surely does not act less manly than one who runs
off and yells for the assistance of a policeman. But, above all, a
healthy youth has to learn to endure hard knocks. This principle may
appear savage to our contemporary champions who fight only with the
weapons of the intellect. But it is not the purpose of the People's
State to educate a colony of aesthetic pacifists and physical
degenerates. This State does not consider that the human ideal is to be
found in the honourable philistine or the maidenly spinster, but in a
dareful personification of manly force and in women capable of bringing
men into the world.
 
Generally speaking, the function of sport is not only to make the
individual strong, alert and daring, but also to harden the body and
train it to endure an adverse environment.
 
If our superior class had not received such a distinguished education,
and if, on the contrary, they had learned boxing, it would never have
been possible for bullies and deserters and other such CANAILLE to carry
through a German revolution. For the success of this revolution was not
due to the courageous, energetic and audacious activities of its authors
but to the lamentable cowardice and irresolution of those who ruled the
German State at that time and were responsible for it. But our educated
leaders had received only an 'intellectual' training and thus found
themselves defenceless when their adversaries used iron bars instead of
intellectual weapons. All this could happen only because our superior
scholastic system did not train men to be real men but merely to be
civil servants, engineers, technicians, chemists, litterateurs, jurists
and, finally, professors; so that intellectualism should not die out.
 
Our leadership in the purely intellectual sphere has always been
brilliant, but as regards will-power in practical affairs our leadership
has been beneath criticism.
 
Of course education cannot make a courageous man out of one who is
temperamentally a coward. But a man who naturally possesses a certain
degree of courage will not be able to develop that quality if his
defective education has made him inferior to others from the very start
as regards physical strength and prowess. The army offers the best
example of the fact that the knowledge of one's physical ability
develops a man's courage and militant spirit. Outstanding heroes are not
the rule in the army, but the average represents men of high courage.
The excellent schooling which the German soldiers received before the
War imbued the members of the whole gigantic organism with a degree of
confidence in their own superiority such as even our opponents never
thought possible. All the immortal examples of dauntless courage and
daring which the German armies gave during the late summer and autumn of
1914, as they advanced from triumph to triumph, were the result of that
education which had been pursued systematically. During those long years
of peace before the last War men who were almost physical weaklings were
made capable of incredible deeds, and thus a self-confidence was
developed which did not fail even in the most terrible battles.
 
It is our German people, which broke down and were delivered over to be
kicked by the rest of the world, that had need of the power that comes
by suggestion from self-confidence. But this confidence in one's self
must be instilled into our children from their very early years. The
whole system of education and training must be directed towards
fostering in the child the conviction that he is unquestionably a match
for any- and everybody. The individual has to regain his own physical
strength and prowess in order to believe in the invincibility of the
nation to which he belongs. What has formerly led the German armies to
victory was the sum total of the confidence which each individual had in
himself, and which all of them had in those who held the positions of
command. What will restore the national strength of the German people is
the conviction that they will be able to reconquer their liberty. But
this conviction can only be the final product of an equal feeling in the
millions of individuals. And here again we must have no illusions.
 
The collapse of our people was overwhelming, and the efforts to put an
end to so much misery must also be overwhelming. It would be a bitter
and grave error to believe that our people could be made strong again
simply by means of our present bourgeois training in good order and
obedience. That will not suffice if we are to break up the present order
of things, which now sanctions the acknowledgment of our defeat and cast
the broken chains of our slavery in the face of our opponents. Only by a
superabundance of national energy and a passionate thirst for liberty
can we recover what has been lost.
 
Also the manner of clothing the young should be such as harmonizes with
this purpose. It is really lamentable to see how our young people have
fallen victims to a fashion mania which perverts the meaning of the old
adage that clothes make the man.
 
Especially in regard to young people clothes should take their place in
the service of education. The boy who walks about in summer-time wearing
long baggy trousers and clad up to the neck is hampered even by his
clothes in feeling any inclination towards strenuous physical exercise.
Ambition and, to speak quite frankly, even vanity must be appealed to. I
do not mean such vanity as leads people to want to wear fine clothes,
which not everybody can afford, but rather the vanity which inclines a
person towards developing a fine bodily physique. And this is something
which everybody can help to do.
 
This will come in useful also for later years. The young girl must
become acquainted with her sweetheart. If the beauty of the body were
not completely forced into the background to-day through our stupid
manner of dressing, it would not be possible for thousands of our girls
to be led astray by Jewish mongrels, with their repulsive crooked
waddle. It is also in the interests of the nation that those who have a
beautiful physique should be brought into the foreground, so that they
might encourage the development of a beautiful bodily form among the
people in general.
 
Military training is excluded among us to-day, and therewith the only
institution which in peace-times at least partly made up for the lack of
physical training in our education. Therefore what I have suggested is
all the more necessary in our time. The success of our old military
training not only showed itself in the education of the individual but
also in the influence which it exercised over the mutual relationship
between the sexes. The young girl preferred the soldier to one who was
not a soldier. The People's State must not confine its control of
physical training to the official school period, but it must demand
that, after leaving school and while the adolescent body is still
developing, the boy continues this training. For on such proper physical
development success in after-life largely depends. It is stupid to think
that the right of the State to supervise the education of its young
citizens suddenly comes to an end the moment they leave school and
recommences only with military service. This right is a duty, and as
such it must continue uninterruptedly. The present State, which does not
interest itself in developing healthy men, has criminally neglected this
duty. It leaves our contemporary youth to be corrupted on the streets
and in the brothels, instead of keeping hold of the reins and continuing
the physical training of these youths up to the time when they are grown
into healthy young men and women.
 
For the present it is a matter of indifference what form the State
chooses for carrying on this training. The essential matter is that it
should be developed and that the most suitable ways of doing so should
be investigated. The People's State will have to consider the physical
training of the youth after the school period just as much a public duty
as their intellectual training; and this training will have to be
carried out through public institutions. Its general lines can be a
preparation for subsequent service in the army. And then it will no
longer be the task of the army to teach the young recruit the most
elementary drill regulations. In fact the army will no longer have to
deal with recruits in the present sense of the word, but it will rather
have to transform into a soldier the youth whose bodily prowess has been
already fully trained.
 
In the People's State the army will no longer be obliged to teach boys
how to walk and stand erect, but it will be the final and supreme school
of patriotic education. In the army the young recruit will learn the art
of bearing arms, but at the same time he will be equipped for his other
duties in later life. And the supreme aim of military education must
always be to achieve that which was attributed to the old army as its
highest merit: namely, that through his military schooling the boy must
be transformed into a man, that he must not only learn to obey but also
acquire the fundamentals that will enable him one day to command. He
must learn to remain silent not only when he is rightly rebuked but also
when he is wrongly rebuked.
 
Furthermore, on the self-consciousness of his own strength and on the
basis of that ESPRIT DE CORPS which inspires him and his comrades, he
must become convinced that he belongs to a people who are invincible.
 
After he has completed his military training two certificates shall be
handed to the soldier. The one will be his diploma as a citizen of the
State, a juridical document which will enable him to take part in public
affairs. The second will be an attestation of his physical health, which
guarantees his fitness for marriage.
 
The People's State will have to direct the education of girls just as
that of boys and according to the same fundamental principles. Here
again special importance must be given to physical training, and only
after that must the importance of spiritual and mental training be taken
into account. In the education of the girl the final goal always to be
kept in mind is that she is one day to be a mother.
 
It is only in the second place that the People's State must busy itself
with the training of character, using all the means adapted to that
purpose.
 
Of course the essential traits of the individual character are already
there fundamentally before any education takes place. A person who is
fundamentally egoistic will always remain fundamentally egoistic, and
the idealist will always remain fundamentally an idealist. Besides
those, however, who already possess a definite stamp of character there
are millions of people with characters that are indefinite and vague.
The born delinquent will always remain a delinquent, but numerous people
who show only a certain tendency to commit criminal acts may become
useful members of the community if rightly trained; whereas, on the
other hand, weak and unstable characters may easily become evil elements
if the system of education has been bad.
 
During the War it was often lamented that our people could be so little
reticent. This failing made it very difficult to keep even highly
important secrets from the knowledge of the enemy. But let us ask this
question: What did the German educational system do in pre-War times to
teach the Germans to be discreet? Did it not very often happen in
schooldays that the little tell-tale was preferred to his companions who
kept their mouths shut? Is it not true that then, as well as now,
complaining about others was considered praiseworthy 'candour', while
silent discretion was taken as obstinacy? Has any attempt ever been made
to teach that discretion is a precious and manly virtue? No, for such
matters are trifles in the eyes of our educators. But these trifles cost
our State innumerable millions in legal expenses; for 90 per cent of all
the processes for defamation and such like charges arise only from a
lack of discretion. Remarks that are made without any sense of
responsibility are thoughtlessly repeated from mouth to mouth; and our
economic welfare is continually damaged because important methods of
production are thus disclosed. Secret preparations for our national
defence are rendered illusory because our people have never learned the
duty of silence. They repeat everything they happen to hear. In times of
war such talkative habits may even cause the loss of battles and
therefore may contribute essentially to the unsuccessful outcome of a
campaign. Here, as in other matters, we may rest assured that adults
cannot do what they have not learnt to do in youth. A teacher must not
try to discover the wild tricks of the boys by encouraging the evil
practice of tale-bearing. Young people form a sort of State among
themselves and face adults with a certain solidarity. That is quite
natural. The ties which unite the ten-year boys to one another are
stronger and more natural than their relationship to adults. A boy who
tells on his comrades commits an act of treason and shows a bent of
character which is, to speak bluntly, similar to that of a man who
commits high treason. Such a boy must not be classed as 'good',
'reliable', and so on, but rather as one with undesirable traits of
character. It may be rather convenient for the teacher to make use of
such unworthy tendencies in order to help his own work, but by such an
attitude the germ of a moral habit is sown in young hearts and may one
day show fatal consequences. It has happened more often than once that a
young informer developed into a big scoundrel.
 
This is only one example among many. The deliberate training of fine and
noble traits of character in our schools to-day is almost negative. In
the future much more emphasis will have to be laid on this side of our
educational work. Loyalty, self-sacrifice and discretion are virtues
which a great nation must possess. And the teaching and development of
these in the school is a more important matter than many others things
now included in the curriculum. To make the children give up habits of
complaining and whining and howling when they are hurt, etc., also
belongs to this part of their training. If the educational system fails
to teach the child at an early age to endure pain and injury without
complaining we cannot be surprised if at a later age, when the boy has
grown to be the man and is, for example, in the trenches, the postal
service is used for nothing else than to send home letters of weeping
and complaint. If our youths, during their years in the primary schools,
had had their minds crammed with a little less knowledge, and if instead
they had been better taught how to be masters of themselves, it would
have served us well during the years 1914-1918.
 
In its educational system the People's State will have to attach the
highest importance to the development of character, hand-in-hand with
physical training. Many more defects which our national organism shows
at present could be at least ameliorated, if not completely eliminated,
by education of the right kind.
 
Extreme importance should be attached to the training of will-power and
the habit of making firm decisions, also the habit of being always ready
to accept responsibilities.
 
In the training of our old army the principle was in vogue that any
order is always better than no order. Applied to our youth this
principle ought to take the form that any answer is better than no
answer. The fear of replying, because one fears to be wrong, ought to be
considered more humiliating than giving the wrong reply. On this simple
and primitive basis our youth should be trained to have the courage to
act.
 
It has been often lamented that in November and December 1918 all the
authorities lost their heads and that, from the monarch down to the last
divisional commander, nobody had sufficient mettle to make a decision on
his own responsibility. That terrible fact constitutes a grave rebuke to
our educational system; because what was then revealed on a colossal
scale at that moment of catastrophe was only what happens on a smaller
scale everywhere among us. It is the lack of will-power, and not the
lack of arms, which renders us incapable of offering any serious
resistance to-day. This defect is found everywhere among our people and
prevents decisive action wherever risks have to be taken, as if any
great action can be taken without also taking the risk. Quite
unsuspectingly, a German General found a formula for this lamentable
lack of the will-to-act when he said: "I act only when I can count on a
51 per cent probability of success." In that '51 per cent probability'
we find the very root of the German collapse. The man who demands from
Fate a guarantee of his success deliberately denies the significance of
an heroic act. For this significance consists in the very fact that, in
the definite knowledge that the situation in question is fraught with
mortal danger, an action is undertaken which may lead to success. A
patient suffering from cancer and who knows that his death is certain if
he does not undergo an operation, needs no 51 per cent probability of a
cure before facing the operation. And if the operation promises only
half of one per cent probability of success a man of courage will risk
it and would not whine if it turned out unsuccessful.
 
All in all, the cowardly lack of will-power and the incapacity for
making decisions are chiefly results of the erroneous education given us
in our youth. The disastrous effects of this are now widespread among
us. The crowning examples of that tragic chain of consequences are shown
in the lack of civil courage which our leading statesmen display.
 
The cowardice which leads nowadays to the shirking of every kind of
responsibility springs from the same roots. Here again it is the fault
of the education given our young people. This drawback permeates all
sections of public life and finds its immortal consummation in the
institutions of government that function under the parliamentary regime.
 
Already in the school, unfortunately, more value is placed on
'confession and full repentance' and 'contrite renouncement', on the
part of little sinners, than on a simple and frank avowal. But this
latter seems to-day, in the eyes of many an educator, to savour of a
spirit of utter incorrigibility and depravation. And, though it may seem
incredible, many a boy is told that the gallows tree is waiting for him
because he has shown certain traits which might be of inestimable value
in the nation as a whole.
 
Just as the People's State must one day give its attention to training
the will-power and capacity for decision among the youth, so too it must
inculcate in the hearts of the young generation from early childhood
onwards a readiness to accept responsibilities, and the courage of open
and frank avowal. If it recognizes the full significance of this
necessity, finally--after a century of educative work--it will succeed
in building up a nation which will no longer be subject to those defeats
that have contributed so disastrously to bring about our present
overthrow.
 
The formal imparting of knowledge, which constitutes the chief work of
our educational system to-day, will be taken over by the People's State
with only few modifications. These modifications must be made in three
branches.
 
First of all, the brains of the young people must not generally be
burdened with subjects of which ninety-five per cent are useless to them
and are therefore forgotten again. The curriculum of the primary and
secondary schools presents an odd mixture at the present time. In many
branches of study the subject matter to be learned has become so
enormous that only a very small fraction of it can be remembered later
on, and indeed only a very small fraction of this whole mass of
knowledge can be used. On the other hand, what is learned is
insufficient for anybody who wishes to specialize in any certain branch
for the purpose of earning his daily bread. Take, for example, the
average civil servant who has passed through the GYMNASIUM or High
School, and ask him at the age of thirty or forty how much he has
retained of the knowledge that was crammed into him with so much pains.
 
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 lamentable results of our political conduct
unless one is now determined to give our people a better political
education. In 99 out of 100 cases the results of our present teaching of
history are deplorable. Usually only a few dates, years of birth and
names, remain in the memory, while a knowledge of the main and clearly
defined lines of historical development is completely lacking. The
essential features which are of real significance are not taught. It is
left to the more or less bright intelligence of the individual to
discover the inner motivating urge amid the mass of dates and
chronological succession of events.
 
You may object as strongly as you like to this unpleasant statement. But
read with attention the speeches which our parliamentarians make during
one session alone on political problems and on questions of foreign
policy in particular. Remember that those gentlemen are, or claim to be,
the elite of the German nation and that at least a great number of them
have sat on the benches of our secondary schools and that many of them
have passed through our universities. Then you will realize how
defective the historical education of these people has been. If these
gentlemen had never studied history at all but had possessed a sound
instinct for public affairs, things would have gone better, and the
nation would have benefited greatly thereby.
 
The subject matter of our historical teaching must be curtailed. The
chief value of that teaching is to make the principal lines of
historical development understood. The more our historical teaching is
limited to this task, the more we may hope that it will turn out
subsequently to be of advantage to the individual and, through the
individual, to the community as a whole. For history must not be studied
merely with a view to knowing what happened in the past but as a guide
for the future, and to teach us what policy would be the best to follow
for the preservation of our own people. That is the real end; and the
teaching of history is only a means to attain this end. But here again
the means has superseded the end in our contemporary education. The goal
is completely forgotten. Do not reply that a profound study of history
demands a detailed knowledge of all these dates because otherwise we
could not fix the great lines of development. That task belongs to the
professional historians. But the average man is not a professor of
history. For him history has only one mission and that is to provide him
with such an amount of historical knowledge as is necessary in order to
enable him to form an independent opinion on the political affairs of
his own country. The man who wants to become a professor of history can
devote himself to all the details later on. Naturally he will have to
occupy himself even with the smallest details. Of course our present
teaching of history is not adequate to all this. Its scope is too vast
for the average student and too limited for the student who wishes to be
an historical expert.
 
Finally, it is the business of the People's State to arrange for the
writing of a world history in which the race problem will occupy a
dominant position.
 
To sum up: The People's State must reconstruct our system of general
instruction in such a way that it will embrace only what is essential.
Beyond this it will have to make provision for a more advanced teaching
in the various subjects for those who want to specialize in them. It
will suffice for the average individual to be acquainted with the
fundamentals of the various subjects to serve as the basis of what may
be called an all-round education. He ought to study exhaustively and in
detail only that subject in which he intends to work during the rest of
his life. A general instruction in all subjects should be obligatory,
and specialization should be left to the choice of the individual.
 
In this way the scholastic programme would be shortened, and thus
several school hours would be gained which could be utilized for
physical training and character training, in will-power, the capacity
for making practical judgments, decisions, etc.
 
The little account taken by our school training to-day, especially in
the secondary schools, of the callings that have to be followed in after
life is demonstrated by the fact that men who are destined for the same
calling in life are educated in three different kinds of schools. What
is of decisive importance is general education only and not the special
teaching. When special knowledge is needed it cannot be given in the
curriculum of our secondary schools as they stand to-day.
 
Therefore the People's State will one day have to abolish such
half-measures.
 
The second modification in the curriculum which the People's State will
have to make is the following:
 
It is a characteristic of our materialistic epoch that our scientific
education shows a growing emphasis on what is real and practical: such
subjects, for instance, as applied mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc.
Of course they are necessary in an age that is dominated by industrial
technology and chemistry, and where everyday life shows at least the
external manifestations of these. But it is a perilous thing to base the
general culture of a nation on the knowledge of these subjects. On the
contrary, that general culture ought always to be directed towards
ideals. It ought to be founded on the humanist disciplines and should
aim at giving only the ground work of further specialized instruction in
the various practical sciences. Otherwise we should sacrifice those
forces that are more important for the preservation of the nation than
any technical knowledge. In the historical department the study of
ancient history should not be omitted. Roman history, along general
lines, is and will remain the best teacher, not only for our own time
but also for the future. And the ideal of Hellenic culture should be
preserved for us in all its marvellous beauty. The differences between
the various peoples should not prevent us from recognizing the community
of race which unites them on a higher plane. The conflict of our times
is one that is being waged around great objectives. A civilization is
fighting for its existence. It is a civilization that is the product of
thousands of years of historical development, and the Greek as well as
the German forms part of it.
 
A clear-cut division must be made between general culture and the
special branches. To-day the latter threaten more and more to devote
themselves exclusively to the service of Mammon. To counterbalance this
tendency, general culture should be preserved, at least in its ideal
forms. The principle should be repeatedly emphasized, that industrial
and technical progress, trade and commerce, can flourish only so long as
a folk community exists whose general system of thought is inspired by
ideals, since that is the preliminary condition for a flourishing
development of the enterprises I have spoken of. That condition is not
created by a spirit of materialist egotism but by a spirit of
self-denial and the joy of giving one's self in the service of others.
 
The system of education which prevails to-day sees its principal object
in pumping into young people that knowledge which will help them to make
their way in life. This principle is expressed in the following terms:
"The young man must one day become a useful member of human society." By
that phrase they mean the ability to gain an honest daily livelihood.
The superficial training in the duties of good citizenship, which he
acquires merely as an accidental thing, has very weak foundations. For
in itself the State represents only a form, and therefore it is
difficult to train people to look upon this form as the ideal which they
will have to serve and towards which they must feel responsible. A form
can be too easily broken. But, as we have seen, the idea which people
have of the State to-day does not represent anything clearly defined.
Therefore, there is nothing but the usual stereotyped 'patriotic'
training. In the old Germany the greatest emphasis was placed on the
divine right of the small and even the smallest potentates. The way in
which this divine right was formulated and presented was never very
clever and often very stupid. Because of the large numbers of those
small potentates, it was impossible to give adequate biographical
accounts of the really great personalities that shed their lustre on the
history of the German people. The result was that the broad masses
received a very inadequate knowledge of German history. Here, too, the
great lines of development were missing.
 
It is evident that in such a way no real national enthusiasm could be
aroused. Our educational system proved incapable of selecting from the
general mass of our historical personages the names of a few
personalities which the German people could be proud to look upon as
their own. Thus the whole nation might have been united by the ties of a
common knowledge of this common heritage. The really important figures
in German history were not presented to the present generation. The
attention of the whole nation was not concentrated on them for the
purpose of awakening a common national spirit. From the various subjects
that were taught, those who had charge of our training seemed incapable
of selecting what redounded most to the national honour and lifting that
above the common objective level, in order to inflame the national pride
in the light of such brilliant examples. At that time such a course
would have been looked upon as rank chauvinism, which did not then have
a very pleasant savour. Pettifogging dynastic patriotism was more
acceptable and more easily tolerated than the glowing fire of a supreme
national pride. The former could be always pressed into service, whereas
the latter might one day become a dominating force. Monarchist
patriotism terminated in Associations of Veterans, whereas passionate
national patriotism might have opened a road which would be difficult to
determine. This national passion is like a highly tempered thoroughbred
who is discriminate about the sort of rider he will tolerate in the
saddle. No wonder that most people preferred to shirk such a danger.
Nobody seemed to think it possible that one day a war might come which
would put the mettle of this kind of patriotism to the test, in
artillery bombardment and waves of attacks with poison gas. But when it
did come our lack of this patriotic passion was avenged in a terrible
way. None were very enthusiastic about dying for their imperial and
royal sovereigns; while on the other hand the 'Nation' was not
recognized by the greater number of the soldiers.
 
Since the revolution broke out in Germany and the monarchist patriotism
was therefore extinguished, the purpose of teaching history was nothing
more than to add to the stock of objective knowledge. The present State
has no use for patriotic enthusiasm; but it will never obtain what it
really desires. For if dynastic patriotism failed to produce a supreme
power of resistance at a time when the principle of nationalism
dominated, it will be still less possible to arouse republican
enthusiasm. There can be no doubt that the German people would not have
stood on the field of battle for four and a half years to fight under
the battle slogan 'For the Republic,' and least of all those who created
this grand institution.
 
In reality this Republic has been allowed to exist undisturbed only by
grace of its readiness and its promise to all and sundry, to pay tribute
and reparations to the stranger and to put its signature to any kind of
territorial renunciation. The rest of the world finds it sympathetic,
just as a weakling is always more pleasing to those who want to bend him
to their own uses than is a man who is made of harder metal. But the
fact that the enemy likes this form of government is the worst kind of
condemnation. They love the German Republic and tolerate its existence
because no better instrument could be found which would help them to
keep our people in slavery. It is to this fact alone that this
magnanimous institution owes its survival. And that is why it can
renounce any REAL system of national education and can feel satisfied
when the heroes of the REICH banner shout their hurrahs, but in reality
these same heroes would scamper away like rabbits if called upon to
defend that banner with their blood.
 
The People's State will have to fight for its existence. It will not
gain or secure this existence by signing documents like that of the
Dawes Plan. But for its existence and defence it will need precisely
those things which our present system believes can be repudiated. The
more worthy its form and its inner national being. the greater will be
the envy and opposition of its adversaries. The best defence will not be
in the arms it possesses but in its citizens. Bastions of fortresses
will not save it, but the living wall of its men and women, filled with
an ardent love for their country and a passionate spirit of national
patriotism.
 
Therefore the third point which will have to be considered in relation
to our educational system is the following:
 
The People's State must realize that the sciences may also be made a
means of promoting a spirit of pride in the nation. Not only the history
of the world but the history of civilization as a whole must be taught
in the light of this principle. An inventor must appear great not only
as an inventor but also, and even more so, as a member of the nation.
The admiration aroused by the contemplation of a great achievement must
be transformed into a feeling of pride and satisfaction that a man of
one's own race has been chosen to accomplish it. But out of the
abundance of great names in German history the greatest will have to be
selected and presented to our young generation in such a way as to
become solid pillars of strength to support the national spirit.
 
The subject matter ought to be systematically organized from the
standpoint of this principle. And the teaching should be so orientated
that the boy or girl, after leaving school, will not be a semi-pacifist,
a democrat or of something else of that kind, but a whole-hearted
German. So that this national feeling be sincere from the very
beginning, and not a mere pretence, the following fundamental and
inflexible principle should be impressed on the young brain while it is
yet malleable: The man who loves his nation can prove the sincerity of
this sentiment only by being ready to make sacrifices for the nation's
welfare. There is no such thing as a national sentiment which is
directed towards personal interests. And there is no such thing as a
nationalism that embraces only certain classes. Hurrahing proves nothing
and does not confer the right to call oneself national if behind that
shout there is no sincere preoccupation for the conservation of the
nation's well-being. One can be proud of one's people only if there is
no class left of which one need to be ashamed. When one half of a nation
is sunk in misery and worn out by hard distress, or even depraved or
degenerate, that nation presents such an unattractive picture that
nobody can feel proud to belong to it. It is only when a nation is sound
in all its members, physically and morally, that the joy of belonging to
it can properly be intensified to the supreme feeling which we call
national pride. But this pride, in its highest form, can be felt only by
those who know the greatness of their nation.
 
The spirit of nationalism and a feeling for social justice must be fused
into one sentiment in the hearts of the youth. Then a day will come when
a nation of citizens will arise which will be welded together through a
common love and a common pride that shall be invincible and
indestructible for ever.
 
The dread of chauvinism, which is a symptom of our time, is a sign of
its impotence. Since our epoch not only lacks everything in the nature
of exuberant energy but even finds such a manifestation disagreeable,
fate will never elect it for the accomplishment of any great deeds. For
the greatest changes that have taken place on this earth would have been
inconceivable if they had not been inspired by ardent and even
hysterical passions, but only by the bourgeois virtues of peacefulness
and order.
 
One thing is certain: our world is facing a great revolution. The only
question is whether the outcome will be propitious for the Aryan portion
of mankind or whether the everlasting Jew will profit by it.
 
By educating the young generation along the right lines, the People's
State will have to see to it that a generation of mankind is formed
which will be adequate to this supreme combat that will decide the
destinies of the world.
 
That nation will conquer which will be the first to take this road.
 
The whole organization of education and training which the People's
State is to build up must take as its crowning task the work of
instilling into the hearts and brains of the youth entrusted to it the
racial instinct and understanding of the racial idea. No boy or girl
must leave school without having attained a clear insight into the
meaning of racial purity and the importance of maintaining the racial
blood unadulterated. Thus the first indispensable condition for the
preservation of our race will have been established and thus the future
cultural progress of our people will be assured.
 
For in the last analysis all physical and mental training would be in
vain unless it served an entity which is ready and determined to carry
on its own existence and maintain its own characteristic qualities.
 
If it were otherwise, something would result which we Germans have cause
to regret already, without perhaps having hitherto recognized the extent
of the tragic calamity. We should be doomed to remain also in the future
only manure for civilization. And that not in the banal sense of the
contemporary bourgeois mind, which sees in a lost fellow member of our
people only a lost citizen, but in a sense which we should have
painfully to recognize: namely, that our racial blood would be destined
to disappear. By continually mixing with other races we might lift them
from their former lower level of civilization to a higher grade; but we
ourselves should descend for ever from the heights we had reached.
 
Finally, from the racial standpoint this training also must find its
culmination in the military service. The term of military service is to
be a final stage of the normal training which the average German
receives.
 
While the People's State attaches the greatest importance to physical
and mental training, it has also to consider, and no less importantly,
the task of selecting men for the service of the State itself. This
important matter is passed over lightly at the present time. Generally
the children of parents who are for the time being in higher situations
are in their turn considered worthy of a higher education. Here talent
plays a subordinate part. But talent can be estimated only relatively.
Though in general culture he may be inferior to the city child, a
peasant boy may be more talented than the son of a family that has
occupied high positions through many generations. But the superior
culture of the city child has in itself nothing to do with a greater or
lesser degree of talent; for this culture has its roots in the more
copious mass of impressions which arise from the more varied education
and the surroundings among which this child lives. If the intelligent
son of peasant parents were educated from childhood in similar
surroundings his intellectual accomplishments would be quite otherwise.
In our day there is only one sphere where the family in which a person
has been born means less than his innate gifts. That is the sphere of
art. Here, where a person cannot just 'learn,' but must have innate
gifts that later on may undergo a more or less happy development (in the
sense of a wise development of what is already there), money and
parental property are of no account. This is a good proof that genius is
not necessarily connected with the higher social strata or with wealth.
Not rarely the greatest artists come from poor families. And many a boy
from the country village has eventually become a celebrated master.
 
It does not say much for the mental acumen of our time that advantage is
not taken of this truth for the sake of our whole intellectual life. The
opinion is advanced that this principle, though undoubtedly valid in the
field of art, has not the same validity in regard to what are called the
applied sciences. It is true that a man can be trained to a certain
amount of mechanical dexterity, just as a poodle can be taught
incredible tricks by a clever master. But such training does not bring
the animal to use his intelligence in order to carry out those tricks.
And the same holds good in regard to man. It is possible to teach men,
irrespective of talent or no talent, to go through certain scientific
exercises, but in such cases the results are quite as inanimate and
mechanical as in the case of the animal. It would even be possible to
force a person of mediocre intelligence, by means of a severe course of
intellectual drilling, to acquire more than the average amount of
knowledge; but that knowledge would remain sterile. The result would be
a man who might be a walking dictionary of knowledge but who will fail
miserably on every critical occasion in life and at every juncture where
vital decisions have to be taken. Such people need to be drilled
specially for every new and even most insignificant task and will never
be capable of contributing in the least to the general progress of
mankind. Knowledge that is merely drilled into people can at best
qualify them to fill government positions under our present regime.
 
It goes without saying that, among the sum total of individuals who make
up a nation, gifted people are always to be found in every sphere of
life. It is also quite natural that the value of knowledge will be all
the greater the more vitally the dead mass of learning is animated by
the innate talent of the individual who possesses it. Creative work in
this field can be done only through the marriage of knowledge and
talent.
 
One example will suffice to show how much our contemporary world is at
fault in this matter. From time to time our illustrated papers publish,
for the edification of the German philistine, the news that in some
quarter or other of the globe, and for the first time in that locality,
a Negro has become a lawyer, a teacher, a pastor, even a grand opera
tenor or something else of that kind. While the bourgeois blockhead
stares with amazed admiration at the notice that tells him how
marvellous are the achievements of our modern educational technique, the
more cunning Jew sees in this fact a new proof to be utilized for the
theory with which he wants to infect the public, namely that all men are
equal. It does not dawn on the murky bourgeois mind that the fact which
is published for him is a sin against reason itself, that it is an act
of criminal insanity to train a being who is only an anthropoid by birth
until the pretence can be made that he has been turned into a lawyer;
while, on the other hand, millions who belong to the most civilized
races have to remain in positions which are unworthy of their cultural
level. The bourgeois mind does not realize that it is a sin against the
will of the eternal Creator to allow hundreds of thousands of highly
gifted people to remain floundering in the swamp of proletarian misery
while Hottentots and Zulus are drilled to fill positions in the
intellectual professions. For here we have the product only of a
drilling technique, just as in the case of the performing dog. If the
same amount of care and effort were applied among intelligent races each
individual would become a thousand times more capable in such matters.
 
This state of affairs would become intolerable if a day should arrive
when it no longer refers to exceptional cases. But the situation is
already intolerable where talent and natural gifts are not taken as
decisive factors in qualifying for the right to a higher education. It
is indeed intolerable to think that year after year hundreds of
thousands of young people without a single vestige of talent are deemed
worthy of a higher education, while other hundreds of thousands who
possess high natural gifts have to go without any sort of higher
schooling at all. The practical loss thus caused to the nation is
incalculable. If the number of important discoveries which have been
made in America has grown considerably in recent years one of the
reasons is that the number of gifted persons belonging to the lowest
social classes who were given a higher education in that country is
proportionately much larger than in Europe.
 
A stock of knowledge packed into the brain will not suffice for the
making of discoveries. What counts here is only that knowledge which is
illuminated by natural talent. But with us at the present time no value
is placed on such gifts. Only good school reports count.
 
Here is another educative work that is waiting for the People's State to
do. It will not be its task to assure a dominant influence to a certain
social class already existing, but it will be its duty to attract the
most competent brains in the total mass of the nation and promote them
to place and honour. It is not merely the duty of the State to give to
the average child a certain definite education in the primary school,
but it is also its duty to open the road to talent in the proper
direction. And above all, it must open the doors of the higher schools
under the State to talent of every sort, no matter in what social class
it may appear. This is an imperative necessity; for thus alone will it
be possible to develop a talented body of public leaders from the class
which represents learning that in itself is only a dead mass.
 
There is still another reason why the State should provide for this
situation. Our intellectual class, particularly in Germany, is so shut
up in itself and fossilized that it lacks living contact with the
classes beneath it. Two evil consequences result from this: First, the
intellectual class neither understands nor sympathizes with the broad
masses. It has been so long cut off from all connection with them that
it cannot now have the necessary psychological ties that would enable it
to understand them. It has become estranged from the people. Secondly,
the intellectual class lacks the necessary will-power; for this faculty
is always weaker in cultivated circles, which live in seclusion, than
among the primitive masses of the people. God knows we Germans have
never been lacking in abundant scientific culture, but we have always
had a considerable lack of will-power and the capacity for making
decisions. For example, the more 'intellectual' our statesmen have been
the more lacking they have been, for the most part, in practical
achievement. Our political preparation and our technical equipment for
the world war were defective, certainly not because the brains governing
the nation were too little educated, but because the men who directed
our public affairs were over-educated, filled to over-flowing with
knowledge and intelligence, yet without any sound instinct and simply
without energy, or any spirit of daring. It was our nation's tragedy to
have to fight for its existence under a Chancellor who was a
dillydallying philosopher. If instead of a Bethmann von Hollweg we had
had a rough man of the people as our leader the heroic blood of the
common grenadier would not have been shed in vain. The exaggeratedly
intellectual material out of which our leaders were made proved to be
the best ally of the scoundrels who carried out the November revolution.
These intellectuals safeguarded the national wealth in a miserly
fashion, instead of launching it forth and risking it, and thus they set
the conditions on which the others won success.
 
Here the Catholic Church presents an instructive example. Clerical
celibacy forces the Church to recruit its priests not from their own
ranks but progressively from the masses of the people. Yet there are not
many who recognize the significance of celibacy in this relation. But
therein lies the cause of the inexhaustible vigour which characterizes
that ancient institution. For by thus unceasingly recruiting the
ecclesiastical dignitaries from the lower classes of the people, the
Church is enabled not only to maintain the contact of instinctive
understanding with the masses of the population but also to assure
itself of always being able to draw upon that fund of energy which is
present in this form only among the popular masses. Hence the surprising
youthfulness of that gigantic organism, its mental flexibility and its
iron will-power.
 
It will be the task of the Peoples' State so to organize and administer
its educational system that the existing intellectual class will be
constantly furnished with a supply of fresh blood from beneath. From the
bulk of the nation the State must sift out with careful scrutiny those
persons who are endowed with natural talents and see that they are
employed in the service of the community. For neither the State itself
nor the various departments of State exist to furnish revenues for
members of a special class, but to fulfil the tasks allotted to them.
This will be possible, however, only if the State trains individuals
specially for these offices. Such individuals must have the necessary
fundamental capabilities and will-power. The principle does not hold
true only in regard to the civil service but also in regard to all those
who are to take part in the intellectual and moral leadership of the
people, no matter in what sphere they may be employed. The greatness of
a people is partly dependent on the condition that it must succeed in
training the best brains for those branches of the public service for
which they show a special natural aptitude and in placing them in the
offices where they can do their best work for the good of the community.
If two nations of equal strength and quality engage in a mutual conflict
that nation will come out victorious which has entrusted its
intellectual and moral leadership to its best talents and that nation
will go under whose government represents only a common food trough for
privileged groups or classes and where the inner talents of its
individual members are not availed of.
 
Of course such a reform seems impossible in the world as it is to-day.
The objection will at once be raised, that it is too much to expect from
the favourite son of a highly-placed civil servant, for instance, that
he shall work with his hands simply because somebody else whose parents
belong to the working-class seems more capable for a job in the civil
service. That argument may be valid as long as manual work is looked
upon in the same way as it is looked upon to-day. Hence the Peoples'
State will have to take up an attitude towards the appreciation of
manual labour which will be fundamentally different from that which now
exists. If necessary, it will have to organize a persistent system of
teaching which will aim at abolishing the present-day stupid habit of
looking down on physical labour as an occupation to be ashamed of.
 
The individual will have to be valued, not by the class of work he does
but by the way in which he does it and by its usefulness to the
community. This statement may sound monstrous in an epoch when the most
brainless columnist on a newspaper staff is more esteemed than the most
expert mechanic, merely because the former pushes a pen. But, as I have
said, this false valuation does not correspond to the nature of things.
It has been artificially introduced, and there was a time when it did
not exist at all. The present unnatural state of affairs is one of those
general morbid phenomena that have arisen from our materialistic epoch.
Fundamentally every kind of work has a double value; the one material,
the other ideal. The material value depends on the practical importance
of the work to the life of the community. The greater the number of the
population who benefit from the work, directly or indirectly, the higher
will be its material value. This evaluation is expressed in the material
recompense which the individual receives for his labour. In
contradistinction to this purely material value there is the ideal
value. Here the work performed is not judged by its material importance
but by the degree to which it answers a necessity. Certainly the
material utility of an invention may be greater than that of the service
rendered by an everyday workman; but it is also certain that the
community needs each of those small daily services just as much as the
greater services. From the material point of view a distinction can be
made in the evaluation of different kinds of work according to their
utility to the community, and this distinction is expressed by the
differentiation in the scale of recompense; but on the ideal or abstract
plans all workmen become equal the moment each strives to do his best in
his own field, no matter what that field may be. It is on this that a
man's value must be estimated, and not on the amount of recompense
received.
 
In a reasonably directed State care must be taken that each individual
is given the kind of work which corresponds to his capabilities. In
other words, people will be trained for the positions indicated by their
natural endowments; but these endowments or faculties are innate and
cannot be acquired by any amount of training, being a gift from Nature
and not merited by men. Therefore, the way in which men are generally
esteemed by their fellow-citizens must not be according to the kind of
work they do, because that has been more or less assigned to the
individual. Seeing that the kind of work in which the individual is
employed is to be accounted to his inborn gifts and the resultant
training which he has received from the community, he will have to be
judged by the way in which he performs this work entrusted to him by the
community. For the work which the individual performs is not the purpose
of his existence, but only a means. His real purpose in life is to
better himself and raise himself to a higher level as a human being; but
this he can only do in and through the community whose cultural life he
shares. And this community must always exist on the foundations on which
the State is based. He ought to contribute to the conservation of those
foundations. Nature determines the form of this contribution. It is the
duty of the individual to return to the community, zealously and
honestly, what the community has given him. He who does this deserves
the highest respect and esteem. Material remuneration may be given to
him whose work has a corresponding utility for the community; but the
ideal recompense must lie in the esteem to which everybody has a claim
who serves his people with whatever powers Nature has bestowed upon him
and which have been developed by the training he has received from the
national community. Then it will no longer be dishonourable to be an
honest craftsman; but it will be a cause of disgrace to be an
inefficient State official, wasting God's day and filching daily bread
from an honest public. Then it will be looked upon as quite natural that
positions should not be given to persons who of their very nature are
incapable of filling them.
 
Furthermore, this personal efficiency will be the sole criterion of the
right to take part on an equal juridical footing in general civil
affairs.
 
The present epoch is working out its own ruin. It introduces universal
suffrage, chatters about equal rights but can find no foundation for
this equality. It considers the material wage as the expression of a
man's value and thus destroys the basis of the noblest kind of equality
that can exist. For equality cannot and does not depend on the work a
man does, but only on the manner in which each one does the particular
work allotted to him. Thus alone will mere natural chance be set aside
in determining the work of a man and thus only does the individual
become the artificer of his own social worth.
 
At the present time, when whole groups of people estimate each other's
value only by the size of the salaries which they respectively receive,
there will be no understanding of all this. But that is no reason why we
should cease to champion those ideas. Quite the opposite: in an epoch
which is inwardly diseased and decaying anyone who would heal it must
have the courage first to lay bare the real roots of the disease. And
the National Socialist Movement must take that duty on its shoulders. It
will have to lift its voice above the heads of the small bourgeoisie and
rally together and co-ordinate all those popular forces which are ready
to become the protagonists of a new WELTANSCHAUUNG.
 
 
 
Of course the objection will be made that in general it is difficult to
differentiate between the material and ideal values of work and that the
lower prestige which is attached to physical labour is due to the fact
that smaller wages are paid for that kind of work. It will be said that
the lower wage is in its turn the reason why the manual worker has less
chance to participate in the culture of the nation; so that the ideal
side of human culture is less open to him because it has nothing to do
with his daily activities. It may be added that the reluctance to do
physical work is justified by the fact that, on account of the small
income, the cultural level of manual labourers must naturally be low,
and that this in turn is a justification for the lower estimation in
which manual labour is generally held.
 
There is quite a good deal of truth in all this. But that is the very
reason why we ought to see that in the future there should not be such a
wide difference in the scale of remuneration. Don't say that under such
conditions poorer work would be done. It would be the saddest symptom of
decadence if finer intellectual work could be obtained only through the
stimulus of higher payment. If that point of view had ruled the world up
to now humanity would never have acquired its greatest scientific and
cultural heritage. For all the greatest inventions, the greatest
discoveries, the most profoundly revolutionary scientific work, and the
most magnificent monuments of human culture, were never given to the
world under the impulse or compulsion of money. Quite the contrary: not
rarely was their origin associated with a renunciation of the worldly
pleasures that wealth can purchase.
 
It may be that money has become the one power that governs life to-day.
Yet a time will come when men will again bow to higher gods. Much that
we have to-day owes its existence to the desire for money and property;
but there is very little among all this which would leave the world
poorer by its lack.
 
It is also one of the aims before our movement to hold out the prospect
of a time when the individual will be given what he needs for the
purposes of his life and it will be a time in which, on the other hand,
the principle will be upheld that man does not live for material
enjoyment alone. This principle will find expression in a wiser scale of
wages and salaries which will enable everyone, including the humblest
workman who fulfils his duties conscientiously, to live an honourable
and decent life both as a man and as a citizen. Let it not be said that
this is merely a visionary ideal, that this world would never tolerate
it in practice and that of itself it is impossible to attain.
 
Even we are not so simple as to believe that there will ever be an age
in which there will be no drawbacks. But that does not release us from
the obligation to fight for the removal of the defects which we have
recognized, to overcome the shortcomings and to strive towards the
ideal. In any case the hard reality of the facts to be faced will always
place only too many limits to our aspirations. But that is precisely why
man must strive again and again to serve the ultimate aim and no
failures must induce him to renounce his intentions, just as we cannot
spurn the sway of justice because mistakes creep into the administration
of the law, and just as we cannot despise medical science because, in
spite of it, there will always be diseases.
 
Man should take care not to have too low an estimate of the power of an
ideal. If there are some who may feel disheartened over the present
conditions, and if they happen to have served as soldiers, I would
remind them of the time when their heroism was the most convincing
example of the power inherent in ideal motives. It was not preoccupation
about their daily bread that led men to sacrifice their lives, but the
love of their country, the faith which they had in its greatness, and an
all round feeling for the honour of the nation. Only after the German
people had become estranged from these ideals, to follow the material
promises offered by the Revolution, only after they threw away their
arms to take up the rucksack, only then--instead of entering an earthly
paradise--did they sink into the purgatory of universal contempt and at
the same time universal want.
 
That is why we must face the calculators of the materialist Republic
with faith in an idealist REICH.
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER III
 
 
 
CITIZENS AND SUBJECTS OF THE STATE
 
 
The institution that is now erroneously called the State generally
classifies people only into two groups: citizens and aliens. Citizens
are all those who possess full civic rights, either by reason of their
birth or by an act of naturalization. Aliens are those who enjoy the
same rights in some other State. Between these two categories there are
certain beings who resemble a sort of meteoric phenomena. They are
people who have no citizenship in any State and consequently no civic
rights anywhere.
 
In most cases nowadays a person acquires civic rights by being born
within the frontiers of a State. The race or nationality to which he may
belong plays no role whatsoever. The child of a Negro who once lived in
one of the German protectorates and now takes up his residence in
Germany automatically becomes a 'German Citizen' in the eyes of the
world. In the same way the child of any Jew, Pole, African or Asian may
automatically become a German Citizen.
 
Besides naturalization that is acquired through the fact of having been
born within the confines of a State there exists another kind of
naturalization which can be acquired later. This process is subject to
various preliminary requirements. For example one condition is that, if
possible, the applicant must not be a burglar or a common street thug.
It is required of him that his political attitude is not such as to give
cause for uneasiness; in other words he must be a harmless simpleton in
politics. It is required that he shall not be a burden to the State of
which he wishes to become a citizen. In this realistic epoch of ours
this last condition naturally only means that he must not be a financial
burden. If the affairs of the candidate are such that it appears likely
he will turn out to be a good taxpayer, that is a very important
consideration and will help him to obtain civic rights all the more
rapidly.
 
The question of race plays no part at all.
 
The whole process of acquiring civic rights is not very different from
that of being admitted to membership of an automobile club, for
instance. A person files his application. It is examined. It is
sanctioned. And one day the man receives a card which informs him that
he has become a citizen. The information is given in an amusing way. An
applicant who has hitherto been a Zulu or Kaffir is told: "By these
presents you are now become a German Citizen."
 
The President of the State can perform this piece of magic. What God
Himself could not do is achieved by some Theophrastus Paracelsus (Note 16)
of a civil servant through a mere twirl of the hand. Nothing but a stroke
of the pen, and a Mongolian slave is forthwith turned into a real
German. Not only is no question asked regarding the race to which the
new citizen belongs; even the matter of his physical health is not
inquired into. His flesh may be corrupted with syphilis; but he will
still be welcome in the State as it exists to-day so long as he may not
become a financial burden or a political danger.
 
[Note 16. The last and most famous of the medieval alchemists. He was born
at Basleabout the year 1490 and died at Salzburg in 1541. He taught that
all metals could be transmuted through the action of one primary element
common to them all. This element he called ALCAHEST. If it could be found
it would proveto be at once the philosopher's stone, the universal
medicine and their resistible solvent. There are many aspects of his
teaching which are now looked upon as by no means so fantastic as they
were considered in his own time.]
 
In this way, year after year, those organisms which we call States take
up poisonous matter which they can hardly ever overcome.
 
Another point of distinction between a citizen and an alien is that the
former is admitted to all public offices, that he may possibly have to
do military service and that in return he is permitted to take a passive
or active part at public elections. Those are his chief privileges. For
in regard to personal rights and personal liberty the alien enjoys the
same amount of protection as the citizen, and frequently even more.
Anyhow that is how it happens in our present German Republic.
 
I realize fully that nobody likes to hear these things. But it would be
difficult to find anything more illogical or more insane than our
contemporary laws in regard to State citizenship.
 
At present there exists one State which manifests at least some modest
attempts that show a better appreciation of how things ought to be done
in this matter. It is not, however, in our model German Republic but in
the U.S.A. that efforts are made to conform at least partly to the
counsels of commonsense. By refusing immigrants to enter there if they
are in a bad state of health, and by excluding certain races from the
right to become naturalized as citizens, they have begun to introduce
principles similar to those on which we wish to ground the People's
State.
 
The People's State will classify its population in three groups:
Citizens, subjects of the State, and aliens.
 
The principle is that birth within the confines of the State gives only
the status of a subject. It does not carry with it the right to fill any
position under the State or to participate in political life, such as
taking an active or passive part in elections. Another principle is that
the race and nationality of every subject of the State will have to be
proved. A subject is at any time free to cease being a subject and to
become a citizen of that country to which he belongs in virtue of his
nationality. The only difference between an alien and a subject of the
State is that the former is a citizen of another country.
 
The young boy or girl who is of German nationality and is a subject of
the German State is bound to complete the period of school education
which is obligatory for every German. Thereby he submits to the system
of training which will make him conscious of his race and a member of
the folk-community. Then he has to fulfil all those requirements laid
down by the State in regard to physical training after he has left
school; and finally he enters the army. The training in the army is of a
general kind. It must be given to each individual German and will render
him competent to fulfil the physical and mental requirements of military
service. The rights of citizenship shall be conferred on every young man
whose health and character have been certified as good, after having
completed his period of military service. This act of inauguration in
citizenship shall be a solemn ceremony. And the diploma conferring the
rights of citizenship will be preserved by the young man as the most
precious testimonial of his whole life. It entitles him to exercise all
the rights of a citizen and to enjoy all the privileges attached
thereto. For the State must draw a sharp line of distinction between
those who, as members of the nation, are the foundation and the support
of its existence and greatness, and those who are domiciled in the State
simply as earners of their livelihood there.
 
On the occasion of conferring a diploma of citizenship the new citizen
must take a solemn oath of loyalty to the national community and the
State. This diploma must be a bond which unites together all the various
classes and sections of the nation. It shall be a greater honour to be a
citizen of this REICH, even as a street-sweeper, than to be the King of
a foreign State.
 
The citizen has privileges which are not accorded to the alien. He is
the master in the REICH. But this high honour has also its obligations.
Those who show themselves without personal honour or character, or
common criminals, or traitors to the fatherland, can at any time be
deprived of the rights of citizenship. Therewith they become merely
subjects of the State.
 
The German girl is a subject of the State but will become a citizen when
she marries. At the same time those women who earn their livelihood
independently have the right to acquire citizenship if they are German
subjects.
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER IV
 
 
 
PERSONALITY AND THE IDEAL OF THE PEOPLE'S STATE
 
 
If the principal duty of the National Socialist People's State be to
educate and promote the existence of those who are the material out of
which the State is formed, it will not be sufficient to promote those
racial elements as such, educate them and finally train them for
practical life, but the State must also adapt its own organization to
meet the demands of this task.
 
It would be absurd to appraise a man's worth by the race to which he
belongs and at the same time to make war against the Marxist principle,
that all men are equal, without being determined to pursue our own
principle to its ultimate consequences. If we admit the significance of
blood, that is to say, if we recognize the race as the fundamental
element on which all life is based, we shall have to apply to the
individual the logical consequences of this principle. In general I must
estimate the worth of nations differently, on the basis of the different
races from which they spring, and I must also differentiate in
estimating the worth of the individual within his own race. The
principle, that one people is not the same as another, applies also to
the individual members of a national community. No one brain, for
instance, is equal to another; because the constituent elements
belonging to the same blood vary in a thousand subtle details, though
they are fundamentally of the same quality.
 
The first consequence of this fact is comparatively simple. It demands
that those elements within the folk-community which show the best racial
qualities ought to be encouraged more than the others and especially
they should be encouraged to increase and multiply.
 
This task is comparatively simple because it can be recognized and
carried out almost mechanically. It is much more difficult to select
from among a whole multitude of people all those who actually possess
the highest intellectual and spiritual characteristics and assign them
to that sphere of influence which not only corresponds to their
outstanding talents but in which their activities will above all things
be of benefit to the nation. This selection according to capacity and
efficiency cannot be effected in a mechanical way. It is a work which
can be accomplished only through the permanent struggle of everyday life
itself.
 
A WELTANSCHAUUNG which repudiates the democratic principle of the rule
of the masses and aims at giving this world to the best people--that
is, to the highest quality of mankind--must also apply that same
aristocratic postulate to the individuals within the folk-community. It
must take care that the positions of leadership and highest influence
are given to the best men. Hence it is not based on the idea of the
majority, but on that of personality.
 
Anyone who believes that the People's National Socialist State should
distinguish itself from the other States only mechanically, as it were,
through the better construction of its economic life--thanks to a
better equilibrium between poverty and riches, or to the extension to
broader masses of the power to determine the economic process, or to a
fairer wage, or to the elimination of vast differences in the scale of
salaries--anyone who thinks this understands only the superficial
features of our movement and has not the least idea of what we mean when
we speak of our WELTANSCHAUUNG. All these features just mentioned could
not in the least guarantee us a lasting existence and certainly would be
no warranty of greatness. A nation that could content itself with
external reforms would not have the slightest chance of success in the
general struggle for life among the nations of the world. A movement
that would confine its mission to such adjustments, which are certainly
right and equitable, would effect no far-reaching or profound reform in
the existing order. The whole effect of such measures would be limited
to externals. They would not furnish the nation with that moral armament
which alone will enable it effectively to overcome the weaknesses from
which we are suffering to-day.
 
In order to elucidate this point of view it may be worth while to glance
once again at the real origins and causes of the cultural evolution of
mankind.
 
The first step which visibly brought mankind away from the animal world
was that which led to the first invention. The invention itself owes its
origin to the ruses and stratagems which man employed to assist him in
the struggle with other creatures for his existence and often to provide
him with the only means he could adopt to achieve success in the
struggle. Those first very crude inventions cannot be attributed to the
individual; for the subsequent observer, that is to say the modern
observer, recognizes them only as collective phenomena. Certain tricks
and skilful tactics which can be observed in use among the animals
strike the eye of the observer as established facts which may be seen
everywhere; and man is no longer in a position to discover or explain
their primary cause and so he contents himself with calling such
phenomena 'instinctive.'
 
In our case this term has no meaning. Because everyone who believes in
the higher evolution of living organisms must admit that every
manifestation of the vital urge and struggle to live must have had a
definite beginning in time and that one subject alone must have
manifested it for the first time. It was then repeated again and again;
and the practice of it spread over a widening area, until finally it
passed into the subconscience of every member of the species, where it
manifested itself as 'instinct.'
 
This is more easily understood and more easy to believe in the case of
man. His first skilled tactics in the struggle with the rest of the
animals undoubtedly originated in his management of creatures which
possessed special capabilities.
 
There can be no doubt that personality was then the sole factor in all
decisions and achievements, which were afterwards taken over by the
whole of humanity as a matter of course. An exact exemplification of
this may be found in those fundamental military principles which have
now become the basis of all strategy in war. Originally they sprang from
the brain of a single individual and in the course of many years, maybe
even thousands of years, they were accepted all round as a matter of
course and this gained universal validity.
 
Man completed his first discovery by making a second. Among other things
he learned how to master other living beings and make them serve him in
his struggle for existence. And thus began the real inventive activity
of mankind, as it is now visible before our eyes. Those material
inventions, beginning with the use of stones as weapons, which led to
the domestication of animals, the production of fire by artificial
means, down to the marvellous inventions of our own days, show clearly
that an individual was the originator in each case. The nearer we come
to our own time and the more important and revolutionary the inventions
become, the more clearly do we recognize the truth of that statement.
All the material inventions which we see around us have been produced by
the creative powers and capabilities of individuals. And all these
inventions help man to raise himself higher and higher above the animal
world and to separate himself from that world in an absolutely definite
way. Hence they serve to elevate the human species and continually to
promote its progress. And what the most primitive artifice once did for
man in his struggle for existence, as he went hunting through the
primeval forest, that same sort of assistance is rendered him to-day in
the form of marvellous scientific inventions which help him in the
present day struggle for life and to forge weapons for future struggles.
In their final consequences all human thought and invention help man in
his life-struggle on this planet, even though the so-called practical
utility of an invention, a discovery or a profound scientific theory,
may not be evident at first sight. Everything contributes to raise man
higher and higher above the level of all the other creatures that
surround him, thereby strengthening and consolidating his position; so
that he develops more and more in every direction as the ruling being on
this earth.
 
Hence all inventions are the result of the creative faculty of the
individual. And all such individuals, whether they have willed it or
not, are the benefactors of mankind, both great and small. Through their
work millions and indeed billions of human beings have been provided
with means and resources which facilitate their struggle for existence.
 
Thus at the origin of the material civilization which flourishes to-day
we always see individual persons. They supplement one another and one of
them bases his work on that of the other. The same is true in regard to
the practical application of those inventions and discoveries. For all
the various methods of production are in their turn inventions also and
consequently dependent on the creative faculty of the individual. Even
the purely theoretical work, which cannot be measured by a definite rule
and is preliminary to all subsequent technical discoveries, is
exclusively the product of the individual brain. The broad masses do not
invent, nor does the majority organize or think; but always and in every
case the individual man, the person.
 
Accordingly a human community is well organized only when it facilitates
to the highest possible degree individual creative forces and utilizes
their work for the benefit of the community. The most valuable factor of
an invention, whether it be in the world of material realities or in the
world of abstract ideas, is the personality of the inventor himself. The
first and supreme duty of an organized folk community is to place the
inventor in a position where he can be of the greatest benefit to all.
Indeed the very purpose of the organization is to put this principle
into practice. Only by so doing can it ward off the curse of
mechanization and remain a living thing. In itself it must personify the
effort to place men of brains above the multitude and to make the latter
obey the former.
 
Therefore not only does the organization possess no right to prevent men
of brains from rising above the multitude but, on the contrary, it must
use its organizing powers to enable and promote that ascension as far as
it possibly can. It must start out from the principle that the blessings
of mankind never came from the masses but from the creative brains of
individuals, who are therefore the real benefactors of humanity. It is
in the interest of all to assure men of creative brains a decisive
influence and facilitate their work. This common interest is surely not
served by allowing the multitude to rule, for they are not capable of
thinking nor are they efficient and in no case whatsoever can they be
said to be gifted. Only those should rule who have the natural
temperament and gifts of leadership.
 
Such men of brains are selected mainly, as I have already said, through
the hard struggle for existence itself. In this struggle there are many
who break down and collapse and thereby show that they are not called by
Destiny to fill the highest positions; and only very few are left who
can be classed among the elect. In the realm of thought and of artistic
creation, and even in the economic field, this same process of selection
takes place, although--especially in the economic field--its operation
is heavily handicapped. This same principle of selection rules in the
administration of the State and in that department of power which
personifies the organized military defence of the nation. The idea of
personality rules everywhere, the authority of the individual over his
subordinates and the responsibility of the individual towards the
persons who are placed over him. It is only in political life that this
very natural principle has been completely excluded. Though all human
civilization has resulted exclusively from the creative activity of the
individual, the principle that it is the mass which counts--through the
decision of the majority--makes its appearance only in the
administration of the national community especially in the higher
grades; and from there downwards the poison gradually filters into all
branches of national life, thus causing a veritable decomposition. The
destructive workings of Judaism in different parts of the national body
can be ascribed fundamentally to the persistent Jewish efforts at
undermining the importance of personality among the nations that are
their hosts and, in place of personality, substituting the domination of
the masses. The constructive principle of Aryan humanity is thus
displaced by the destructive principle of the Jews, They become the
'ferment of decomposition' among nations and races and, in a broad
sense, the wreckers of human civilization.
 
Marxism represents the most striking phase of the Jewish endeavour to
eliminate the dominant significance of personality in every sphere of
human life and replace it by the numerical power of the masses. In
politics the parliamentary form of government is the expression of this
effort. We can observe the fatal effects of it everywhere, from the
smallest parish council upwards to the highest governing circles of the
nation. In the field of economics we see the trade union movement, which
does not serve the real interests of the employees but the destructive
aims of international Jewry. Just to the same degree in which the
principle of personality is excluded from the economic life of the
nation, and the influence and activities of the masses substituted in
its stead, national economy, which should be for the service and benefit
of the community as a whole, will gradually deteriorate in its creative
capacity. The shop committees which, instead of caring for the interests
of the employees, strive to influence the process of production, serve
the same destructive purpose. They damage the general productive system
and consequently injure the individual engaged in industry. For in the
long run it is impossible to satisfy popular demands merely by
high-sounding theoretical phrases. These can be satisfied only by
supplying goods to meet the individual needs of daily life and by so
doing create the conviction that, through the productive collaboration
of its members, the folk community serves the interests of the
individual.
 
Even if, on the basis of its mass-theory, Marxism should prove itself
capable of taking over and developing the present economic system, that
would not signify anything. The question as to whether the Marxist
doctrine be right or wrong cannot be decided by any test which would
show that it can administer for the future what already exists to-day,
but only by asking whether it has the creative power to build up
according to its own principles a civilization which would be a
counterpart of what already exists. Even if Marxism were a thousandfold
capable of taking over the economic life as we now have it and
maintaining it in operation under Marxist direction, such an achievement
would prove nothing; because, on the basis of its own principles,
Marxism would never be able to create something which could supplant
what exists to-day.
 
And Marxism itself has furnished the proof that it cannot do this. Not
only has it been unable anywhere to create a cultural or economic system
of its own; but it was not even able to develop, according to its own
principles, the civilization and economic system it found ready at hand.
It has had to make compromises, by way of a return to the principle of
personality, just as it cannot dispense with that principle in its own
organization.
 
The racial WELTANSCHAUUNG is fundamentally distinguished from the
Marxist by reason of the fact that the former recognizes the
significance of race and therefore also personal worth and has made
these the pillars of its structure. These are the most important factors
of its WELTANSCHAUUNG.
 
If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand the
fundamental importance of this essential principle, if it should merely
varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt the
majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete with
Marxism on its own ground. For that reason it would not have the right
to call itself a WELTANSCHAUUNG. If the social programme of the
movement consisted in eliminating personality and putting the multitude
in its place, then National Socialism would be corrupted with the poison
of Marxism, just as our national-bourgeois parties are.
 
The People's State must assure the welfare of its citizens by
recognizing the importance of personal values under all circumstances
and by preparing the way for the maximum of productive efficiency in all
the various branches of economic life, thus securing to the individual
the highest possible share in the general output.
 
Hence the People's State must mercilessly expurgate from all the leading
circles in the government of the country the parliamentarian principle,
according to which decisive power through the majority vote is invested
in the multitude. Personal responsibility must be substituted in its
stead.
 
From this the following conclusion results:
 
The best constitution and the best form of government is that which
makes it quite natural for the best brains to reach a position of
dominant importance and influence in the community.
 
Just as in the field of economics men of outstanding ability cannot be
designated from above but must come forward in virtue of their own
efforts, and just as there is an unceasing educative process that leads
from the smallest shop to the largest undertaking, and just as life
itself is the school in which those lessons are taught, so in the
political field it is not possible to 'discover' political talent all in
a moment. Genius of an extraordinary stamp is not to be judged by normal
standards whereby we judge other men.
 
In its organization the State must be established on the principle of
personality, starting from the smallest cell and ascending up to the
supreme government of the country.
 
There are no decisions made by the majority vote, but only by
responsible persons. And the word 'council' is once more restored to its
original meaning. Every man in a position of responsibility will have
councillors at his side, but the decision is made by that individual
person alone.
 
The principle which made the former Prussian Army an admirable
instrument of the German nation will have to become the basis of our
statal constitution, that is to say, full authority over his
subordinates must be invested in each leader and he must be responsible
to those above him.
 
Even then we shall not be able to do without those corporations which at
present we call parliaments. But they will be real councils, in the
sense that they will have to give advice. The responsibility can and
must be borne by one individual, who alone will be vested with authority
and the right to command.
 
Parliaments as such are necessary because they alone furnish the
opportunity for leaders to rise gradually who will be entrusted
subsequently with positions of special responsibility.
 
The following is an outline of the picture which the organization will
present:
 
From the municipal administration up to the government of the REICH, the
People's State will not have any body of representatives which makes its
decisions through the majority vote. It will have only advisory bodies
to assist the chosen leader for the time being and he will distribute
among them the various duties they are to perform. In certain fields
they may, if necessary, have to assume full responsibility, such as the
leader or president of each corporation possesses on a larger scale.
 
In principle the People's State must forbid the custom of taking advice
on certain political problems--economics, for instance--from persons
who are entirely incompetent because they lack special training and
practical experience in such matters. Consequently the State must divide
its representative bodies into a political chamber and a corporative
chamber that represents the respective trades and professions.
 
To assure an effective co-operation between those two bodies, a selected
body will be placed over them. This will be a special senate.
 
No vote will be taken in the chambers or senate. They are to be
organizations for work and not voting machines. The individual members
will have consultive votes but no right of decision will be attached
thereto. The right of decision belongs exclusively to the president, who
must be entirely responsible for the matter under discussion.
 
This principle of combining absolute authority with absolute
responsibility will gradually cause a selected group of leaders to
emerge; which is not even thinkable in our present epoch of
irresponsible parliamentarianism.
 
The political construction of the nation will thereby be brought into
harmony with those laws to which the nation already owes its greatness
in the economic and cultural spheres.
 
Regarding the possibility of putting these principles into practice, I
should like to call attention to the fact that the principle of
parliamentarian democracy, whereby decisions are enacted through the
majority vote, has not always ruled the world. On the contrary, we find
it prevalent only during short periods of history, and those have always
been periods of decline in nations and States.
 
One must not believe, however, that such a radical change could be
effected by measures of a purely theoretical character, operating from
above downwards; for the change I have been describing could not be
limited to transforming the constitution of a State but would have to
include the various fields of legislation and civic existence as a
whole. Such a revolution can be brought about only by means of a
movement which is itself organized under the inspiration of these
principles and thus bears the germ of the future State in its own
organism.
 
Therefore it is well for the National Socialist Movement to make itself
completely familiar with those principles to-day and actually to put
them into practice within its own organization, so that not only will it
be in a position to serve as a guide for the future State but will have
its own organization such that it can subsequently be placed at the
disposal of the State itself.
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER V
 
 
 
WELTANSCHAUUNG AND ORGANIZATION
 
 
The People's State, which I have tried to sketch in general outline,
will not become a reality in virtue of the simple fact that we know the
indispensable conditions of its existence. It does not suffice to know
what aspect such a State would present. The problem of its foundation is
far more important. The parties which exist at present and which draw
their profits from the State as it now is cannot be expected to bring
about a radical change in the regime or to change their attitude on
their own initiative. This is rendered all the more impossible because
the forces which now have the direction of affairs in their hands are
Jews here and Jews there and Jews everywhere. The trend of development
which we are now experiencing would, if allowed to go on unhampered,
lead to the realization of the Pan-Jewish prophecy that the Jews will
one day devour the other nations and become lords of the earth.
 
In contrast to the millions of 'bourgeois' and 'proletarian' Germans,
who are stumbling to their ruin, mostly through timidity, indolence and
stupidity, the Jew pursues his way persistently and keeps his eye always
fixed on his future goal. Any party that is led by him can fight for no
other interests than his, and his interests certainly have nothing in
common with those of the Aryan nations.
 
If we would transform our ideal picture of the People's State into a
reality we shall have to keep independent of the forces that now control
public life and seek for new forces that will be ready and capable of
taking up the fight for such an ideal. For a fight it will have to be,
since the first objective will not be to build up the idea of the
People's State but rather to wipe out the Jewish State which is now in
existence. As so often happens in the course of history, the main
difficulty is not to establish a new order of things but to clear the
ground for its establishment. Prejudices and egotistic interests join
together in forming a common front against the new idea and in trying by
every means to prevent its triumph, because it is disagreeable to them
or threatens their existence.
 
That is why the protagonist of the new idea is unfortunately, in spite
of his {254}desire for constructive work, compelled to wage a
destructive battle first, in order to abolish the existing state of
affairs.
 
A doctrine whose principles are radically new and of essential
importance must adopt the sharp probe of criticism as its weapon, though
this may show itself disagreeable to the individual followers.
 
It is evidence of a very superficial insight into historical
developments if the so-called folkists emphasize again and again that
they will adopt the use of negative criticism under no circumstances but
will engage only in constructive work. That is nothing but puerile
chatter and is typical of the whole lot of folkists. It is another proof
that the history of our own times has made no impression on these minds.
Marxism too has had its aims to pursue and it also recognizes
constructive work, though by this it understands only the establishment
of despotic rule in the hands of international Jewish finance.
Nevertheless for seventy years its principal work still remains in the
field of criticism. And what disruptive and destructive criticism it has
been! Criticism repeated again and again, until the corrosive acid ate
into the old State so thoroughly that it finally crumbled to pieces.
Only then did the so-called 'constructive' critical work of Marxism
begin. And that was natural, right and logical. An existing order of
things is not abolished by merely proclaiming and insisting on a new
one. It must not be hoped that those who are the partisans of the
existing order and have their interests bound up with it will be
converted and won over to the new movement simply by being shown that
something new is necessary. On the contrary, what may easily happen is
that two different situations will exist side by side and that a
WELTANSCHAUUNG is transformed into a party, above which level it will
not be able to raise itself afterwards. For a WELTANSCHAUUNG is
intolerant and cannot permit another to exist side by side with it. It
imperiously demands its own recognition as unique and exclusive and a
complete transformation in accordance with its views throughout all the
branches of public life. It can never allow the previous state of
affairs to continue in existence by its side.
 
And the same holds true of religions.
 
Christianity was not content with erecting an altar of its own. It had
first to destroy the pagan altars. It was only in virtue of this
passionate intolerance that an apodictic faith could grow up. And
intolerance is an indispensable condition for the growth of such a
faith.
 
It may be objected here that in these phenomena which we find throughout
the history of the world we have to recognize mostly a specifically
Jewish mode of thought and that such fanaticism and intolerance are
typical symptoms of Jewish mentality. That may be a thousandfold true;
and it is a fact deeply to be regretted. The appearance of intolerance
and fanaticism in the history of mankind may be deeply regrettable, and
it may be looked upon as foreign to human nature, but the fact does not
change conditions as they exist to-day. The men who wish to liberate our
German nation from the conditions in which it now exists cannot cudgel
their brains with thinking how excellent it would be if this or that had
never arisen. They must strive to find ways and means of abolishing what
actually exists. A philosophy of life which is inspired by an infernal
spirit of intolerance can only be set aside by a doctrine that is
advanced in an equally ardent spirit and fought for with as determined a
will and which is itself a new idea, pure and absolutely true.
 
Each one of us to-day may regret the fact that the advent of
Christianity was the first occasion on which spiritual terror was
introduced into the much freer ancient world, but the fact cannot be
denied that ever since then the world is pervaded and dominated by this
kind of coercion and that violence is broken only by violence and terror
by terror. Only then can a new regime be created by means of
constructive work. Political parties are prone to enter compromises; but
a WELTANSCHAUUNG never does this. A political party is inclined to
adjust its teachings with a view to meeting those of its opponents, but
a WELTANSCHAUUNG proclaims its own infallibility.
 
In the beginning, political parties have also and nearly always the
intention of {255}securing an exclusive and despotic domination for
themselves. They always show a slight tendency to become
WELTANSCHHAUUNGen. But the limited nature of their programme is in
itself enough to rob them of that heroic spirit which a WELTANSCHAUUNG
demands. The spirit of conciliation which animates their will attracts
those petty and chicken-hearted people who are not fit to be
protagonists in any crusade. That is the reason why they mostly become
struck in their miserable pettiness very early on the march. They give
up fighting for their ideology and, by way of what they call 'positive
collaboration,' they try as quickly as possible to wedge themselves into
some tiny place at the trough of the existent regime and to stick there
as long as possible. Their whole effort ends at that. And if they should
get shouldered away from the common manger by a competition of more
brutal manners then their only idea is to force themselves in again, by
force or chicanery, among the herd of all the others who have similar
appetites, in order to get back into the front row, and finally--even
at the expense of their most sacred convictions--participate anew in
that beloved spot where they find their fodder. They are the jackals of
politics.
 
But a general WELTANSCHAUUNG will never share its place with something
else. Therefore it can never agree to collaborate in any order of things
that it condemns. On the contrary it feels obliged to employ every means
in fighting against the old order and the whole world of ideas belonging
to that order and prepare the way for its destruction.
 
These purely destructive tactics, the danger of which is so readily
perceived by the enemy that he forms a united front against them for his
common defence, and also the constructive tactics, which must be
aggressive in order to carry the new world of ideas to success--both
these phases of the struggle call for a body of resolute fighters. Any
new philosophy of life will bring its ideas to victory only if the most
courageous and active elements of its epoch and its people are enrolled
under its standards and grouped firmly together in a powerful fighting
organization. To achieve this purpose it is absolutely necessary to
select from the general system of doctrine a certain number of ideas
which will appeal to such individuals and which, once they are expressed
in a precise and clear-cut form, will serve as articles of faith for a
new association of men. While the programme of the ordinary political
party is nothing but the recipe for cooking up favourable results out of
the next general elections, the programme of a WELTANSCHAUUNG
represents a declaration of war against an existing order of things,
against present conditions, in short, against the established
WELTANSCHAUUNG.
 
It is not necessary, however, that every individual fighter for such a
new doctrine need have a full grasp of the ultimate ideas and plans of
those who are the leaders of the movement. It is only necessary that
each should have a clear notion of the fundamental ideas and that he
should thoroughly assimilate a few of the most fundamental principles,
so that he will be convinced of the necessity of carrying the movement
and its doctrines to success. The individual soldier is not initiated in
the knowledge of high strategical plans. But he is trained to submit to
a rigid discipline, to be passionately convinced of the justice and
inner worth of his cause and that he must devote himself to it without
reserve. So, too, the individual follower of a movement must be made
acquainted with its far-reaching purpose, how it is inspired by a
powerful will and has a great future before it.
 
Supposing that each soldier in an army were a general, and had the
training and capacity for generalship, that army would not be an
efficient fighting instrument. Similarly a political movement would not
be very efficient in fighting for a WELTANSCHAUUNG if it were made up
exclusively of intellectuals. No, we need the simple soldier also.
Without him no discipline can be established.
 
By its very nature, an organization can exist only if leaders of high
intellectual ability are served by a large mass of men who are
emotionally devoted to the cause. To maintain discipline in a company of
two hundred men who are equally intelligent and capable would turn out
more difficult in the long run than in a company of one hundred and
ninety less gifted men and ten who have had a higher education.
 
{256}The Social-Democrats have profited very much by recognizing this
truth. They took the broad masses of our people who had just completed
military service and learned to submit to discipline, and they subjected
this mass of men to the discipline of the Social-Democratic
organization, which was no less rigid than the discipline through which
the young men had passed in their military training. The
Social-Democratic organization consisted of an army divided into
officers and men. The German worker who had passed through his military
service became the private soldier in that army, and the Jewish
intellectual was the officer. The German trade union functionaries may
be compared to the non-commissioned officers. The fact, which was always
looked upon with indifference by our middle-classes, that only the
so-called uneducated classes joined Marxism was the very ground on which
this party achieved its success. For while the bourgeois parties,
because they mostly consisted of intellectuals, were only a feckless
band of undisciplined individuals, out of much less intelligent human
material the Marxist leaders formed an army of party combatants who obey
their Jewish masters just as blindly as they formerly obeyed their
German officers. The German middle-classes, who never; bothered their
heads about psychological problems because they felt themselves superior
to such matters, did not think it necessary to reflect on the profound
significance of this fact and the secret danger involved in it. Indeed
they believed. that a political movement which draws its followers
exclusively from intellectual circles must, for that very reason, be of
greater importance and have better grounds. for its chances of success,
and even a greater probability of taking over the government of the
country than a party made up of the ignorant masses. They completely
failed to realize the fact that the strength of a political party never
consists in the intelligence and independent spirit of the rank-and-file
of its members but rather in the spirit of willing obedience with which
they follow their intellectual leaders. What is of decisive importance
is the leadership itself. When two bodies of troops are arrayed in
mutual combat victory will not fall to that side in which every soldier
has an expert knowledge of the rules of strategy, but rather to that
side which has the best leaders and at the same time the best
disciplined, most blindly obedient and best drilled troops.
 
That is a fundamental piece of knowledge which we must always bear in
mind when we examine the possibility of transforming a WELTANSCHAUUNG
into a practical reality.
 
If we agree that in order to carry a WELTANSCHAUUNG into practical
effect it must be incorporated in a fighting movement, then the logical
consequence is that the programme of such a movement must take account
of the human material at its disposal. Just as the ultimate aims and
fundamental principles must be absolutely definite and unmistakable, so
the propagandist programme must be well drawn up and must be inspired by
a keen sense of its psychological appeals to the minds of those without
whose help the noblest ideas will be doomed to remain in the eternal,
realm of ideas.
 
If the idea of the People's State, which is at present an obscure wish,
is one day to attain a clear and definite success, from its vague and
vast mass of thought it will have to put forward certain definite
principles which of their very nature and content are calculated to
attract a broad mass of adherents; in other words, such a group of
people as can guarantee that these principles will be fought for. That
group of people are the German workers.
 
That is why the programme of the new movement was condensed into a few
fundamental postulates, twenty-five in all. They are meant first of all
to give the ordinary man a rough sketch of what the movement is aiming
at. They are, so to say, a profession of faith which on the one hand is
meant to win adherents to the movement and, on the other, they are meant
to unite such adherents together in a covenant to which all have
subscribed.
 
In these matters we must never lose sight of the following: What we call
the programme of the movement is absolutely right as far as its ultimate
aims are concerned, but as regards the manner in which that programme is
formulated, certain psychological considerations had to be taken
into account. Hence, in the course of time, the opinion may well arise
that certain principles should be expressed differently and might be
better formulated. But any attempt at a different formulation has a
fatal effect in most cases. For something that ought to be fixed and
unshakable thereby becomes the subject of discussion. As soon as one
point alone is removed from the sphere of dogmatic certainty, the
discussion will not simply result in a new and better formulation which
will have greater consistency but may easily lead to endless debates and
general confusion. In such cases the question must always be carefully
considered as to whether a new and more adequate formulation is to be
preferred, though it may cause a controversy within the movement, or
whether it may not be better to retain the old formula which, though
probably not the best, represents an organism enclosed in itself, solid
and internally homogeneous. All experience shows that the second of
these alternatives is preferable. For since in these changes one is
dealing only with external forms such corrections will always appear
desirable and possible. But in the last analysis the generality of
people think superficially and therefore the great danger is that in
what is merely an external formulation of the programme people will see
an essential aim of the movement. In that way the will and the combative
force at the service of the ideas are weakened and the energies that
ought to be directed towards the outer world are dissipated in
programmatic discussions within the ranks of the movement.
 
For a doctrine that is actually right in its main features it is less
dangerous to retain a formulation which may no longer be quite adequate
instead of trying to improve it and thereby allowing a fundamental
principle of the movement, which had hitherto been considered as solid
as granite, to become the subject of a general discussion which may have
unfortunate consequences. This is particularly to be avoided as long as
a movement is still fighting for victory. For would it be possible to
inspire people with blind faith in the truth of a doctrine if doubt and
uncertainty are encouraged by continual alterations in its external
formulation?
 
The essentials of a teaching must never be looked for in its external
formulas, but always in its inner meaning. And this meaning is
unchangeable. And in its interest one can only wish that a movement
should exclude everything that tends towards disintegration and
uncertainty in order to preserve the unified force that is necessary for
its triumph.
 
Here again the Catholic Church has a lesson to teach us. Though
sometimes, and often quite unnecessarily, its dogmatic system is in
conflict with the exact sciences and with scientific discoveries, it is
not disposed to sacrifice a syllable of its teachings. It has rightly
recognized that its powers of resistance would be weakened by
introducing greater or less doctrinal adaptations to meet the temporary
conclusions of science, which in reality are always vacillating. And
thus it holds fast to its fixed and established dogmas which alone can
give to the whole system the character of a faith. And that is the
reason why it stands firmer to-day than ever before. We may prophesy
that, as a fixed pole amid fleeting phenomena, it will continue to
attract increasing numbers of people who will be blindly attached to it
the more rapid the rhythm of changing phenomena around it.
 
Therefore whoever really and seriously desires that the idea of the
People's State should triumph must realize that this triumph can be
assured only through a militant movement and that this movement must
ground its strength only on the granite firmness of an impregnable and
firmly coherent programme. In regard to its formulas it must never make
concessions to the spirit of the time but must maintain the form that
has once and for all been decided upon as the right one; in any case
until victory has crowned its efforts. Before this goal has been reached
any attempt to open a discussion on the opportuneness of this or that
point in the programme might tend to disintegrate the solidity and
fighting strength of the movement, according to the measures in which
its followers might take part in such an internal dispute. Some
'improvements' introduced to-day might be subjected to a critical
examination to-morrow, in order to substitute it with something better
{258}the day after. Once the barrier has been taken down the road is
opened and we know only the beginning, but we do not know to what
shoreless sea it may lead.
 
This important principle had to be acknowledged in practice by the
members of the National Socialist Movement at its very beginning. In its
programme of twenty-five points the National Socialist German Labour
Party has been furnished with a basis that must remain unshakable. The
members of the movement, both present and future, must never feel
themselves called upon to undertake a critical revision of these leading
postulates, but rather feel themselves obliged to put them into practice
as they stand. Otherwise the next generation would, in its turn and with
equal right, expend its energy in such purely formal work within the
party, instead of winning new adherents to the movement and thus adding
to its power. For the majority of our followers the essence of the
movement will consist not so much in the letter of our theses but in the
meaning that we attribute to them.
 
The new movement owes its name to these considerations, and later on its
programme was drawn up in conformity with them. They are the basis of
our propaganda. In order to carry the idea of the People's State to
victory, a popular party had to be founded, a party that did not consist
of intellectual leaders only but also of manual labourers. Any attempt
to carry these theories into effect without the aid of a militant
organization would be doomed to failure to-day, as it has failed in the
past and must fail in the future. That is why the movement is not only
justified but it is also obliged to consider itself as the champion and
representative of these ideas. Just as the fundamental principles of the
National Socialist Movement are based on the folk idea, folk ideas are
National Socialist. If National Socialism would triumph it will have to
hold firm to this fact unreservedly, and here again it has not only the
right but also the duty to emphasize most rigidly that any attempt to
represent the folk idea outside of the National Socialist German Labour
Party is futile and in most cases fraudulent.
 
If the reproach should be launched against our movement that it has
'monopolized' the folk idea, there is only one answer to give.
 
Not only have we monopolized the folk idea but, to all practical intents
and purposes, we have created it.
 
For what hitherto existed under this name was not in the least capable
of influencing the destiny of our people, since all those ideas lacked a
political and coherent formulation. In most cases they are nothing but
isolated and incoherent notions which are more or less right. Quite
frequently these were in open contradiction to one another and in no
case was there any internal cohesion among them. And even if this
internal cohesion existed it would have been much too weak to form the
basis of any movement.
 
Only the National Socialist Movement proved capable of fulfilling this
task.
 
All kinds of associations and groups, big as well as little, now claim
the title VÖLKISCH. This is one result of the work which National
Socialism has done. Without this work, not one of all these parties
would have thought of adopting the word VÖLKISCH at all. That expression
would have meant nothing to them and especially their directors would
never have had anything to do with such an idea. Not until the work of
the German National Socialist Labour Party had given this idea a
pregnant meaning did it appear in the mouths of all kinds of people. Our
party above all, by the success of its propaganda, has shown the force
of the folk idea; so much so that the others, in an effort to gain
proselytes, find themselves forced to copy our example, at least in
words.
 
Just as heretofore they exploited everything to serve their petty
electoral purposes, to-day they use the word VÖLKISCH only as an
external and hollow-sounding phrase for the purpose of counteracting the
force of the impression which the National Socialist Party makes on the
members of those other parties. Only the desire to maintain their
existence and the fear that our movement may prevail, because it is
based on a WELTANSCHAUUNG that is of universal importance, and because
they feel that the exclusive character of our movement betokens danger
for them--only for these reasons do they use words which they
repudiated eight {259}years ago, derided seven years ago, branded as
stupid six years ago, combated five years ago, hated four years ago, and
finally, two years ago, annexed and incorporated them in their present
political vocabulary, employing them as war slogans in their struggle.
 
And so it is necessary even now not to cease calling attention to the
fact that not one of those parties has the slightest idea of what the
German nation needs. The most striking proof of this is represented by
the superficial way in which they use the word VÖLKISCH.
 
Not less dangerous are those who run about as semi-folkists formulating
fantastic schemes which are mostly based on nothing else than a fixed
idea which in itself might be right but which, because it is an isolated
notion, is of no use whatsoever for the formation of a great homogeneous
fighting association and could by no means serve as the basis of its
organization. Those people who concoct a programme which consists partly
of their own ideas and partly of ideas taken from others, about which
they have read somewhere, are often more dangerous than the outspoken
enemies of the VÖLKISCH idea. At best they are sterile theorists but
more frequently they are mischievous agitators of the public mind. They
believe that they can mask their intellectual vanity, the futility of
their efforts, and their lack of stability, by sporting flowing beards
and indulging in ancient German gestures.
 
In face of all those futile attempts, it is therefore worth while to
recall the time when the new National Socialist Movement began its
fight.
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER VI
 
 
 
THE FIRST PERIOD OF OUR STRUGGLE
 
 
The echoes of our first great meeting, in the banquet hall of the
Hofbräuhaus on February 24th, 1920, had not yet died away when we began
preparations for our next meeting. Up to that time we had to consider
carefully the venture of holding a small meeting every month or at most
every fortnight in a city like Munich; but now it was decided that we
should hold a mass meeting every week. I need not say that we anxiously
asked ourselves on each occasion again and again: Will the people come
and will they listen? Personally I was firmly convinced that if once
they came they would remain and listen.
 
During that period the hall of the Hofbrau Haus in Munich acquired for
us, National Socialists, a sort of mystic significance. Every week there
was a meeting, almost always in that hall, and each time the hall was
better filled than on the former occasion, and our public more
attentive.
 
Starting with the theme, 'Responsibility for the War,' which nobody at
that time cared about, and passing on to the discussion of the peace
treaties, we dealt with almost everything that served to stimulate the
minds of our audience and make them interested in our ideas. We drew
attention to the peace treaties. What the new movement prophesied again
and again before those great masses of people has been fulfilled almost
in every detail. To-day it is easy to talk and write about these things.
But in those days a public mass meeting which was attended not by the
small bourgeoisie but by proletarians who had been aroused by agitators,
to criticize the Peace Treaty of Versailles meant an attack on the
Republic and an evidence of reaction, if not of monarchist tendencies.
The moment one uttered the first criticism of the Versailles Treaty one
could expect an immediate reply, which became almost stereotyped: 'And
Brest-Litowsk?' 'Brest-Litowsk!' And then the crowd would murmur and the
murmur would gradually swell into a roar, until the speaker would have
to give up his attempt to persuade them. It would be like knocking one's
head against a wall, so desperate were these people. They would not
listen nor understand that Versailles was a scandal and a disgrace and
that the dictate signified an act of highway robbery against our people.
The disruptive work done by the Marxists and the poisonous propaganda of
the external enemy had robbed these people of their reason. And one had
no right to complain. For the guilt on this side was enormous. What had
the German bourgeoisie done to call a halt to this terrible campaign of
disintegration, to oppose it and open a way to a recognition of the
truth by giving a better and more thorough explanation of the situation
than that of the Marxists? Nothing, nothing. At that time I never saw
those who are now the great apostles of the people. Perhaps they spoke
to select groups, at tea parties of their own little coteries; but there
where they should have been, where the wolves were at work, they never
risked their appearance, unless it gave them the opportunity of yelling
in concert with the wolves.
 
As for myself, I then saw clearly that for the small group which first
composed our movement the question of war guilt had to be cleared up,
and cleared up in the light of historical truth. A preliminary condition
for the future success of our movement was that it should bring
knowledge of the meaning of the peace treaties to the minds of the
popular masses. In the opinion of the masses, the peace treaties then
signified a democratic success. Therefore, it was necessary to take the
opposite side and dig ourselves into the minds of the people as the
enemies of the peace treaties; so that later on, when the naked truth of
this despicable swindle would be disclosed in all its hideousness, the
people would recall the position which we then took and would give us
their confidence.
 
Already at that time I took up my stand on those important fundamental
questions where public opinion had gone wrong as a whole. I opposed
these wrong notions without regard either for popularity or for hatred,
and I was ready to face the fight. The National Socialist German Labour
Party ought not to be the beadle but rather the master of public
opinion. It must not serve the masses but rather dominate them.
 
In the case of every movement, especially during its struggling stages,
there is naturally a temptation to conform to the tactics of an opponent
and use the same battle-cries, when his tactics have succeeded in
leading the people to crazy conclusions or to adopt mistaken attitudes
towards the questions at issue. This temptation is particularly strong
when motives can be found, though they are entirely illusory, that seem
to point towards the same ends which the young movement is aiming at.
Human poltroonery will then all the more readily adopt those arguments
which give it a semblance of justification, 'from its own point of
view,' in participating in the criminal policy which the adversary is
following.
 
On several occasions I have experienced such cases, in which the
greatest energy had to be employed to prevent the ship of our movement
from being drawn into a general current which had been started
artificially, and indeed from sailing with it. The last occasion was
when our German Press, the Hecuba of the existence of the German nation,
succeeded in bringing the question of South Tyrol into a position of
importance which was seriously damaging to the interests of the German
people. Without considering what interests they were serving, several
so-called 'national' men, parties and leagues, joined in the general
cry, simply for fear of public opinion which had been excited by the
Jews, and foolishly contributed to help in the struggle against a system
which we Germans ought, particularly in those days, to consider as the
one ray of light in this distracted world. While the international
World-Jew is slowly but surely strangling us, our so-called patriots
vociferate against a man and his system which have had the courage to
liberate themselves from the shackles of Jewish Freemasonry at least in
one quarter of the globe and to set the forces of national resistance
against the international world-poison. But weak characters were tempted
to set their sails according to the direction of the wind and capitulate
before the shout of public opinion. For it was veritably a capitulation.
They are so much in the habit of lying and so morally base that men may
not admit this even to themselves, but the truth remains that only
cowardice and fear of the public feeling aroused by the Jews induced
certain people to join in the hue and cry. All the other reasons put
forward were only miserable excuses of paltry culprits who were
conscious of their own crime.
 
There it was necessary to grasp the rudder with an iron hand and turn
the movement about, so as to save it from a course that would have led
it on the rocks. Certainly to attempt such a change of course was not a
popular manoeuvre at that time, because all the leading forces of public
opinion had been active and a great flame of public feeling illuminated
only one direction. Such a decision almost always brings disfavour on
those who dare to take it. In the course of history not a few men have
been stoned for an act for which posterity has afterwards thanked them
on its knees.
 
But a movement must count on posterity and not on the plaudits of the
movement. It may well be that at such moments certain individuals have
to endure hours of anguish; but they should not forget that the moment
of liberation will come and that a movement which purposes to reshape
the world must serve the future and not the passing hour.
 
On this point it may be asserted that the greatest and most enduring
successes in history are mostly those which were least understood at the
beginning, because they were in strong contrast to public opinion and
the views and wishes of the time.
 
We had experience of this when we made our own first public appearance.
In all truth it can be said that we did not court public favour but made
an onslaught on the follies of our people. In those days the following
happened almost always: I presented myself before an assembly of men who
believed the opposite of what I wished to say and who wanted the
opposite of what I believed in. Then I had to spend a couple of hours in
persuading two or three thousand people to give up the opinions they had
first held, in destroying the foundations of their views with one blow
after another and finally in leading them over to take their stand on
the grounds of our own convictions and our WELTANSCHAUUNG.
 
I learned something that was important at that time, namely, to snatch
from the hands of the enemy the weapons which he was using in his reply.
I soon noticed that our adversaries, especially in the persons of those
who led the discussion against us, were furnished with a definite
repertoire of arguments out of which they took points against our claims
which were being constantly repeated. The uniform character of this mode
of procedure pointed to a systematic and unified training. And so we
were able to recognize the incredible way in which the enemy's
propagandists had been disciplined, and I am proud to-day that I
discovered a means not only of making this propaganda ineffective but of
beating the artificers of it at their own work. Two years later I was
master of that art.
 
In every speech which I made it was important to get a clear idea
beforehand of the probable form and matter of the counter-arguments we
had to expect in the discussion, so that in the course of my own speech
these could be dealt with and refuted. To this end it was necessary to
mention all the possible objections and show their inconsistency; it was
all the easier to win over an honest listener by expunging from his
memory the arguments which had been impressed upon it, so that we
anticipated our replies. What he had learned was refuted without having
been mentioned by him and that made him all the more attentive to what I
had to say.
 
That was the reason why, after my first lecture on the 'Peace Treaty of
Versailles,' which I delivered to the troops while I was still a
political instructor in my regiment, I made an alteration in the title
and subject and henceforth spoke on 'The Treaties of Brest-Litowsk and
Versailles.' For after the discussion which followed my first lecture I
quickly ascertained that in reality people knew nothing about the Treaty
of Brest-Litowsk and that able party propaganda had succeeded in
presenting that Treaty as one of the most scandalous acts of violence in
the history of the world.
 
As a result of the persistency with which this falsehood was repeated
again and again before the masses of the people, millions of Germans saw
in the Treaty of Versailles a just castigation for the crime we had
committed at Brest-Litowsk. Thus they considered all opposition to
Versailles as unjust and in many cases there was an honest moral dislike
to such a proceeding. And this was also the reason why the shameless and
monstrous word 'Reparations' came into common use in Germany. This
hypocritical falsehood appeared to millions of our exasperated fellow
countrymen as the fulfilment of a higher justice. It is a terrible
thought, but the fact was so. The best proof of this was the propaganda
which I initiated against Versailles by explaining the Treaty of
Brest-Litowsk. I compared the two treaties with one another, point by
point, and showed how in truth the one treaty was immensely humane, in
contradistinction to the inhuman barbarity of the other. The effect was
very striking. Then I spoke on this theme before an assembly of two
thousand persons, during which I often saw three thousand six hundred
hostile eyes fixed on me. And three hours later I had in front of me a
swaying mass of righteous indignation and fury. A great lie had been
uprooted from the hearts and brains of a crowd composed of thousands of
individuals and a truth had been implanted in its place.
 
The two lectures--that 'On the Causes of the World War' and 'On the
Peace Treaties of Brest-Litowsk and Versailles' respectively--I then
considered as the most important of all. Therefore I repeated them
dozens of times, always giving them a new intonation; until at least on
those points a definitely clear and unanimous opinion reigned among
those from whom our movement recruited its first members.
 
Furthermore, these gatherings brought me the advantage that I slowly
became a platform orator at mass meetings, and gave me practice in the
pathos and gesture required in large halls that held thousands of
people.
 
Outside of the small circles which I have mentioned, at that time I
found no party engaged in explaining things to the people in this way.
Not one of these parties was then active which talk to-day as if it was
they who had brought about the change in public opinion. If a political
leader, calling himself a nationalist, pronounced a discourse somewhere
or other on this theme it was only before circles which for the most
part were already of his own conviction and among whom the most that was
done was to confirm them in their opinions. But that was not what was
needed then. What was needed was to win over through propaganda and
explanation those whose opinions and mental attitudes held them bound to
the enemy's camp.
 
The one-page circular was also adopted by us to help in this propaganda.
While still a soldier I had written a circular in which I contrasted the
Treaty of Brest-Litowsk with that of Versailles. That circular was
printed and distributed in large numbers. Later on I used it for the
party, and also with good success. Our first meetings were distinguished
by the fact that there were tables covered with leaflets, papers, and
pamphlets of every kind. But we relied principally on the spoken word.
And, in fact, this is the only means capable of producing really great
revolutions, which can be explained on general psychological grounds.
 
In the first volume I have already stated that all the formidable events
which have changed the aspect of the world were carried through, not by
the written but by the spoken word. On that point there was a long
discussion in a certain section of the Press during the course of which
our shrewd bourgeois people strongly opposed my thesis. But the reason
for this attitude confounded the sceptics. The bourgeois intellectuals
protested against my attitude simply because they themselves did not
have the force or ability to influence the masses through the spoken
word; for they always relied exclusively on the help of writers and did
not enter the arena themselves as orators for the purpose of arousing
the people. The development of events necessarily led to that condition
of affairs which is characteristic of the bourgeoisie to-day, namely,
the loss of the psychological instinct to act upon and influence the
masses.
 
An orator receives continuous guidance from the people before whom he
speaks. This helps him to correct the direction of his speech; for he
can always gauge, by the faces of his hearers, how far they follow and
understand him, and whether his words are producing the desired effect.
But the writer does not know his reader at all. Therefore, from the
outset he does not address himself to a definite human group of persons
which he has before his eyes but must write in a general way. Hence, up
to a certain extent he must fail in psychological finesse and
flexibility. Therefore, in general it may be said that a brilliant
orator writes better than a brilliant writer can speak, unless the
latter has continual practice in public speaking. One must also remember
that of itself the multitude is mentally inert, that it remains attached
to its old habits and that it is not naturally prone to read something
which does not conform with its own pre-established beliefs when such
writing does not contain what the multitude hopes to find there.
Therefore, some piece of writing which has a particular tendency is for
the most part read only by those who are in sympathy with it. Only a
leaflet or a placard, on account of its brevity, can hope to arouse a
momentary interest in those whose opinions differ from it. The picture,
in all its forms, including the film, has better prospects. Here there
is less need of elaborating the appeal to the intelligence. It is
sufficient if one be careful to have quite short texts, because many
people are more ready to accept a pictorial presentation than to read a
long written description. In a much shorter time, at one stroke I might
say, people will understand a pictorial presentation of something which
it would take them a long and laborious effort of reading to understand.
 
The most important consideration, however, is that one never knows into
what hands a piece of written material comes and yet the form in which
its subject is presented must remain the same. In general the effect is
greater when the form of treatment corresponds to the mental level of
the reader and suits his nature. Therefore, a book which is meant for
the broad masses of the people must try from the very start to gain its
effects through a style and level of ideas which would be quite
different from a book intended to be read by the higher intellectual
classes.
 
Only through his capacity for adaptability does the force of the written
word approach that of oral speech. The orator may deal with the same
subject as a book deals with; but if he has the genius of a great and
popular orator he will scarcely ever repeat the same argument or the
same material in the same form on two consecutive occasions. He will
always follow the lead of the great mass in such a way that from the
living emotion of his hearers the apt word which he needs will be
suggested to him and in its turn this will go straight to the hearts of
his hearers. Should he make even a slight mistake he has the living
correction before him. As I have already said, he can read the play of
expression on the faces of his hearers, first to see if they understand
what he says, secondly to see if they take in the whole of his argument,
and, thirdly, in how far they are convinced of the justice of what has
been placed before them. Should he observe, first, that his hearers do
not understand him he will make his explanation so elementary and clear
that they will be able to grasp it, even to the last individual.
Secondly, if he feels that they are not capable of following him he will
make one idea follow another carefully and slowly until the most
slow-witted hearer no longer lags behind. Thirdly, as soon as he has the
feeling that they do not seem convinced that he is right in the way he
has put things to them he will repeat his argument over and over again,
always giving fresh illustrations, and he himself will state their
unspoken objection. He will repeat these objections, dissecting them and
refuting them, until the last group of the opposition show him by their
behaviour and play of expression that they have capitulated before his
exposition of the case.
 
Not infrequently it is a case of overcoming ingrained prejudices which
are mostly unconscious and are supported by sentiment rather than
reason. It is a thousand times more difficult to overcome this barrier
of instinctive aversion, emotional hatred and preventive dissent than to
correct opinions which are founded on defective or erroneous knowledge.
False ideas and ignorance may be set aside by means of instruction, but
emotional resistance never can. Nothing but an appeal to these hidden
forces will be effective here. And that appeal can be made by scarcely
any writer. Only the orator can hope to make it.
 
A very striking proof of this is found in the fact that, though we had a
bourgeois Press which in many cases was well written and produced and
had a circulation of millions among the people, it could not prevent the
broad masses from becoming the implacable enemies of the bourgeois
class. The deluge of papers and books published by the intellectual
circles year after year passed over the millions of the lower social
strata like water over glazed leather. This proves that one of two
things must be true: either that the matter offered in the bourgeois
Press was worthless or that it is impossible to reach the hearts of the
broad masses by means of the written word alone. Of course, the latter
would be specially true where the written material shows such little
psychological insight as has hitherto been the case.
 
It is useless to object here, as certain big Berlin papers of
German-National tendencies have attempted to do, that this statement is
refuted by the fact that the Marxists have exercised their greatest
influence through their writings, and especially through their principal
book, published by Karl Marx. Seldom has a more superficial argument
been based on a false assumption. What gave Marxism its amazing
influence over the broad masses was not that formal printed work which
sets forth the Jewish system of ideas, but the tremendous oral
propaganda carried on for years among the masses. Out of one hundred
thousand German workers scarcely one hundred know of Marx's book. It has
been studied much more in intellectual circles and especially by the
Jews than by the genuine followers of the movement who come from the
lower classes. That work was not written for the masses, but exclusively
for the intellectual leaders of the Jewish machine for conquering the
world. The engine was heated with quite different stuff: namely, the
journalistic Press. What differentiates the bourgeois Press from the
Marxist Press is that the latter is written by agitators, whereas the
bourgeois Press would like to carry on agitation by means of
professional writers. The Social-Democrat sub-editor, who almost always
came directly from the meeting to the editorial offices of his paper,
felt his job on his finger-tips. But the bourgeois writer who left his
desk to appear before the masses already felt ill when he smelled the
very odour of the crowd and found that what he had written was useless
to him.
 
What won over millions of workpeople to the Marxist cause was not the EX
CATHEDRA style of the Marxist writers but the formidable propagandist
work done by tens of thousands of indefatigable agitators, commencing
with the leading fiery agitator down to the smallest official in the
syndicate, the trusted delegate and the platform orator. Furthermore,
there were the hundreds of thousands of meetings where these orators,
standing on tables in smoky taverns, hammered their ideas into the heads
of the masses, thus acquiring an admirable psychological knowledge of
the human material they had to deal with. And in this way they were
enabled to select the best weapons for their assault on the citadel of
public opinion. In addition to all this there were the gigantic
mass-demonstrations with processions in which a hundred thousand men
took part. All this was calculated to impress on the petty-hearted
individual the proud conviction that, though a small worm, he was at the
same time a cell of the great dragon before whose devastating breath the
hated bourgeois world would one day be consumed in fire and flame, and
the dictatorship of the proletariat would celebrate its conclusive
victory.
 
This kind of propaganda influenced men in such a way as to give them a
taste for reading the Social Democratic Press and prepare their minds
for its teaching. That Press, in its turn, was a vehicle of the spoken
word rather than of the written word. Whereas in the bourgeois camp
professors and learned writers, theorists and authors of all kinds, made
attempts at talking, in the Marxist camp real speakers often made
attempts at writing. And it was precisely the Jew who was most prominent
here. In general and because of his shrewd dialectical skill and his
knack of twisting the truth to suit his own purposes, he was an
effective writer but in reality his MÉTIER was that of a revolutionary
orator rather than a writer.
 
For this reason the journalistic bourgeois world, setting aside the fact
that here also the Jew held the whip hand and that therefore this press
did not really interest itself in the instructtion of the broad masses,
was not able to exercise even the least influence over the opinions held
by the great masses of our people.
 
It is difficult to remove emotional prejudices, psychological bias,
feelings, etc., and to put others in their place. Success depends here
on imponderable conditions and influences. Only the orator who is gifted
with the most sensitive insight can estimate all this. Even the time of
day at which the speech is delivered has a decisive influence on its
results. The same speech, made by the same orator and on the same theme,
will have very different results according as it is delivered at ten
o'clock in the forenoon, at three in the afternoon, or in the evening.
When I first engaged in public speaking I arranged for meetings to take
place in the forenoon and I remember particularly a demonstration that
we held in the Munich Kindl Keller 'Against the Oppression of German
Districts.' That was the biggest hall then in Munich and the audacity of
our undertaking was great. In order to make the hour of the meeting
attractive for all the members of our movement and the other people who
might come, I fixed it for ten o'clock on a Sunday morning. The result
was depressing. But it was very instructive. The hall was filled. The
impression was profound, but the general feeling was cold as ice. Nobody
got warmed up, and I myself, as the speaker of the occasion, felt
profoundly unhappy at the thought that I could not establish the
slightest contact with my audience. I do not think I spoke worse than
before, but the effect seemed absolutely negative. I left the hall very
discontented, but also feeling that I had gained a new experience. Later
on I tried the same kind of experiment, but always with the same
results.
 
That was nothing to be wondered at. If one goes to a theatre to see a
matinée performance and then attends an evening performance of the same
play one is astounded at the difference in the impressions created. A
sensitive person recognizes for himself the fact that these two states
of mind caused by the matinee and the evening performance respectively
are quite different in themselves. The same is true of cinema
productions. This latter point is important; for one may say of the
theatre that perhaps in the afternoon the actor does not make the same
effort as in the evening. But surely it cannot be said that the cinema
is different in the afternoon from what it is at nine o'clock in the
evening. No, here the time exercises a distinct influence, just as a
room exercises a distinct influence on a person. There are rooms which
leave one cold, for reasons which are difficult to explain. There are
rooms which refuse steadfastly to allow any favourable atmosphere to be
created in them. Moreover, certain memories and traditions which are
present as pictures in the human mind may have a determining influence
on the impression produced. Thus, a representation of Parsifal at
Bayreuth will have an effect quite different from that which the same
opera produces in any other part of the world. The mysterious charm of
the House on the 'Festival Heights' in the old city of The Margrave
cannot be equalled or substituted anywhere else.
 
In all these cases one deals with the problem of influencing the freedom
of the human will. And that is true especially of meetings where there
are men whose wills are opposed to the speaker and who must be brought
around to a new way of thinking. In the morning and during the day it
seems that the power of the human will rebels with its strongest energy
against any attempt to impose upon it the will or opinion of another. On
the other hand, in the evening it easily succumbs to the domination of a
stronger will. Because really in such assemblies there is a contest
between two opposite forces. The superior oratorical art of a man who
has the compelling character of an apostle will succeed better in
bringing around to a new way of thinking those who have naturally been
subjected to a weakening of their forces of resistance rather than in
converting those who are in full possession of their volitional and
intellectual energies.
 
The mysterious artificial dimness of the Catholic churches also serves
this purpose, the burning candles, the incense, the thurible, etc.
 
In this struggle between the orator and the opponent whom he must
convert to his cause this marvellous sensibility towards the
psychological influences of propaganda can hardly ever be availed of by
an author. Generally speaking, the effect of the writer's work helps
rather to conserve, reinforce and deepen the foundations of a mentality
already existing. All really great historical revolutions were not
produced by the written word. At most, they were accompanied by it.
 
It is out of the question to think that the French Revolution could have
been carried into effect by philosophizing theories if they had not
found an army of agitators led by demagogues of the grand style. These
demagogues inflamed popular passion that had been already aroused, until
that volcanic eruption finally broke out and convulsed the whole of
Europe. And the same happened in the case of the gigantic Bolshevik
revolution which recently took place in Russia. It was not due to the
writers on Lenin's side but to the oratorical activities of those who
preached the doctrine of hatred and that of the innumerable small and
great orators who took part in the agitation.
 
The masses of illiterate Russians were not fired to Communist
revolutionary enthusiasm by reading the theories of Karl Marx but by the
promises of paradise made to the people by thousands of agitators in the
service of an idea.
 
It was always so, and it will always be so.
 
It is just typical of our pig-headed intellectuals, who live apart from
the practical world, to think that a writer must of necessity be
superior to an orator in intelligence. This point of view was once
exquisitely illustrated by a critique, published in a certain National
paper which I have already mentioned, where it was stated that one is
often disillusioned by reading the speech of an acknowledged great
orator in print. That reminded me of another article which came into my
hands during the War. It dealt with the speeches of Lloyd George, who
was then Minister of Munitions, and examined them in a painstaking way
under the microscope of criticism. The writer made the brilliant
statement that these speeches showed inferior intelligence and learning
and that, moreover, they were banal and commonplace productions. I
myself procured some of these speeches, published in pamphlet form, and
had to laugh at the fact that a normal German quill-driver did not in
the least understand these psychological masterpieces in the art of
influencing the masses. This man criticized these speeches exclusively
according to the impression they made on his own blasé mind, whereas the
great British Demagogue had produced an immense effect on his audience
through them, and in the widest sense on the whole of the British
populace. Looked at from this point of view, that Englishman's speeches
were most wonderful achievements, precisely because they showed an
astounding knowledge of the soul of the broad masses of the people. For
that reason their effect was really penetrating. Compare with them the
futile stammerings of a Bethmann-Hollweg. On the surface his speeches
were undoubtedly more intellectual, but they just proved this man's
inability to speak to the people, which he really could not do.
Nevertheless, to the average stupid brain of the German writer, who is,
of course, endowed with a lot of scientific learning, it came quite
natural to judge the speeches of the English Minister--which were made
for the purpose of influencing the masses--by the impression which they
made on his own mind, fossilized in its abstract learning. And it was
more natural for him to compare them in the light of that impression
with the brilliant but futile talk of the German statesman, which of
course appealed to the writer's mind much more favourably. That the
genius of Lloyd George was not only equal but a thousandfold superior to
that of a Bethmann-Hollweg is proved by the fact that he found for his
speeches that form and expression which opened the hearts of his people
to him and made these people carry out his will absolutely. The
primitive quality itself of those speeches, the originality of his
expressions, his choice of clear and simple illustration, are examples
which prove the superior political capacity of this Englishman. For one
must never judge the speech of a statesman to his people by the
impression which it leaves on the mind of a university professor but by
the effect it produces on the people. And this is the sole criterion of
the orator's genius.
 
The astonishing development of our movement, which was created from
nothing a few years ago and is to-day singled out for persecution by all
the internal and external enemies of our nation, must be attributed to
the constant recognition and practical application of those principles.
 
Written matter also played an important part in our movement; but at the
stage of which I am writing it served to give an equal and uniform
education to the directors of the movement, in the upper as well as in
the lower grades, rather than to convert the masses of our adversaries.
It was only in very rare cases that a convinced and devoted Social
Democrat or Communist was induced to acquire an understanding of our
WELTANSCHAUUNG or to study a criticism of his own by procuring and
reading one of our pamphlets or even one of our books. Even a newspaper
is rarely read if it does not bear the stamp of a party affiliation.
Moreover, the reading of newspapers helps little; because the general
picture given by a single number of a newspaper is so confused and
produces such a fragmentary impression that it really does not influence
the occasional reader. And where a man has to count his pennies it
cannot be assumed that, exclusively for the purpose of being objectively
informed, he will become a regular reader or subscriber to a paper which
opposes his views. Only one who has already joined a movement will
regularly read the party organ of that movement, and especially for the
purpose of keeping himself informed of what is happening in the
movement.
 
It is quite different with the 'spoken' leaflet. Especially if it be
distributed gratis it will be taken up by one person or another, all the
more willingly if its display title refers to a question about which
everybody is talking at the moment. Perhaps the reader, after having
read through such a leaflet more or less thoughtfully, will have new
viewpoints and mental attitudes and may give his attention to a new
movement. But with these, even in the best of cases, only a small
impulse will be given, but no definite conviction will be created;
because the leaflet can do nothing more than draw attention to something
and can become effective only by bringing the reader subsequently into a
situation where he is more fundamentally informed and instructed. Such
instruction must always be given at the mass assembly.
 
Mass assemblies are also necessary for the reason that, in attending
them, the individual who felt himself formerly only on the point of
joining the new movement, now begins to feel isolated and in fear of
being left alone as he acquires for the first time the picture of a
great community which has a strengthening and encouraging effect on most
people. Brigaded in a company or battalion, surrounded by his
companions, he will march with a lighter heart to the attack than if he
had to march alone. In the crowd he feels himself in some way thus
sheltered, though in reality there are a thousand arguments against such
a feeling.
 
Mass demonstrations on the grand scale not only reinforce the will of
the individual but they draw him still closer to the movement and help
to create an ESPRIT DE CORPS. The man who appears first as the
representative of a new doctrine in his place of business or in his
factory is bound to feel himself embarrassed and has need of that
reinforcement which comes from the consciousness that he is a member of
a great community. And only a mass demonstration can impress upon him
the greatness of this community. If, on leaving the shop or mammoth
factory, in which he feels very small indeed, he should enter a vast
assembly for the first time and see around him thousands and thousands
of men who hold the same opinions; if, while still seeking his way, he
is gripped by the force of mass-suggestion which comes from the
excitement and enthusiasm of three or four thousand other men in whose
midst he finds himself; if the manifest success and the concensus of
thousands confirm the truth and justice of the new teaching and for the
first time raise doubt in his mind as to the truth of the opinions held
by himself up to now--then he submits himself to the fascination of
what we call mass-suggestion. The will, the yearning and indeed the
strength of thousands of people are in each individual. A man who enters
such a meeting in doubt and hesitation leaves it inwardly fortified; he
has become a member of a community.
 
The National Socialist Movement should never forget this, and it should
never allow itself to be influenced by these bourgeois duffers who think
they know everything but who have foolishly gambled away a great State,
together with their own existence and the supremacy of their own class.
They are overflowing with ability; they can do everything, and they know
everything. But there is one thing they have not known how to do, and
that is how to save the German people from falling into the arms of
Marxism. In that they have shown themselves most pitiably and miserably
impotent. So that the present opinion they have of themselves is only
equal to their conceit. Their pride and stupidity are fruits of the same
tree.
 
If these people try to disparage the importance of the spoken word
to-day, they do it only because they realize--God be praised and
thanked--how futile all their own speechifying has been.
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER VII
 
 
 
THE CONFLICT WITH THE RED FORCES
 
 
In 1919-20 and also in 1921 I attended some of the bourgeois meetings.
Invariably I had the same feeling towards these as towards the
compulsory dose of castor oil in my boyhood days. It just had to be
taken because it was good for one: but it certainly tasted unpleasant.
If it were possible to tie ropes round the German people and forcibly
drag them to these bourgeois meetings, keeping them there behind barred
doors and allowing nobody to escape until the meeting closed, then this
procedure might prove successful in the course of a few hundred years.
For my own part, I must frankly admit that, under such circumstances, I
could not find life worth living; and indeed I should no longer wish to
be a German. But, thank God, all this is impossible. And so it is not
surprising that the sane and unspoilt masses shun these 'bourgeois mass
meetings' as the devil shuns holy water.
 
I came to know the prophets of the bourgeois WELTANSCHAUUNG, and I was
not surprised at what I learned, as I knew that they attached little
importance to the spoken word. At that time I attended meetings of the
Democrats, the German Nationalists, the German People's Party and the
Bavarian People's Party (the Centre Party of Bavaria). What struck me at
once was the homogeneous uniformity of the audiences. Nearly always they
were made up exclusively of party members. The whole affair was more
like a yawning card party than an assembly of people who had just passed
through a great revolution. The speakers did all they could to maintain
this tranquil atmosphere. They declaimed, or rather read out, their
speeches in the style of an intellectual newspaper article or a learned
treatise, avoiding all striking expressions. Here and there a feeble
professorial joke would be introduced, whereupon the people sitting at
the speaker's table felt themselves obliged to laugh--not loudly but
encouragingly and with well-bred reserve.
 
And there were always those people at the speaker's table. I once
attended a meeting in the Wagner Hall in Munich. It was a demonstration
to celebrate the anniversary of the Battle of Leipzig. (Note 17) The
speech was delivered or rather read out by a venerable old professor from
one or other of the universities. The committee sat on the platform: one
monocle on the right, another monocle on the left, and in the centre a
gentleman with no monocle. All three of them were punctiliously attired
in morning coats, and I had the impression of being present before a
judge's bench just as the death sentence was about to be pronounced or
at a christening or some more solemn religious ceremony. The so-called
speech, which in printed form may have read quite well, had a disastrous
effect. After three quarters of an hour the audience fell into a sort of
hypnotic trance, which was interrupted only when some man or woman left
the hall, or by the clatter which the waitresses made, or by the
increasing yawns of slumbering individuals. I had posted myself behind
three workmen who were present either out of curiosity or because they
were sent there by their parties. From time to time they glanced at one
another with an ill-concealed grin, nudged one another with the elbow,
and then silently left the hall. One could see that they had no
intention whatsoever of interrupting the proceedings, nor indeed was it
necessary to interrupt them. At long last the celebration showed signs
of drawing to a close. After the professor, whose voice had meanwhile
become more and more inaudible, finally ended his speech, the gentleman
without the monocle delivered a rousing peroration to the assembled
'German sisters and brothers.' On behalf of the audience and himself he
expressed gratitude for the magnificent lecture which they had just
heard from Professor X and emphasized how deeply the Professor's words
had moved them all. If a general discussion on the lecture were to take
place it would be tantamount to profanity, and he thought he was voicing
the opinion of all present in suggesting that such a discussion should
not be held. Therefore, he would ask the assembly to rise from their
seats and join in singing the patriotic song, WIR SIND EIN EINIG VOLK
VON BRÜDERN. The proceedings finally closed with the anthem, DEUTSCHLAND
ÜBER ALLES.
 
[Note 17. The Battle of Leipzig (1813), where the Germans inflicted an
overwhelming defeat on Napoleon, was the decisive event which put an end
to the French occupation of Germany.
 
The occupation had lasted about twenty years. After the Great War, and
the partial occupation of Germany once again by French forces, the
Germans used to celebrate the anniversary of the Battle of Leipzig as a
symbol of their yearning.]
 
And then they all sang. It appeared to me that when the second verse was
reached the voices were fewer and that only when the refrain came on
they swelled loudly. When we reached the third verse my belief was
confirmed that a good many of those present were not very familiar with
the text.
 
But what has all this to do with the matter when such a song is sung
wholeheartedly and fervidly by an assembly of German nationals?
 
After this the meeting broke up and everyone hurried to get outside, one
to his glass of beer, one to a cafe, and others simply into the fresh
air.
 
Out into the fresh air! That was also my feeling. And was this the way
to honour an heroic struggle in which hundreds of thousands of Prussians
and Germans had fought? To the devil with it all!
 
That sort of thing might find favour with the Government, it being
merely a 'peaceful' meeting. The Minister responsible for law and order
need not fear that enthusiasm might suddenly get the better of public
decorum and induce these people to pour out of the room and, instead of
dispersing to beer halls and cafes, march in rows of four through the
town singing DEUTSCHLAND hoch in Ehren and causing some unpleasantness
to a police force in need of rest.
 
No. That type of citizen is of no use to anyone.
 
On the other hand the National Socialist meetings were by no means
'peaceable' affairs. Two distinct WELTANSCHHAUUNGen raged in bitter
opposition to one another, and these meetings did not close with the
mechanical rendering of a dull patriotic song but rather with a
passionate outbreak of popular national feeling.
 
It was imperative from the start to introduce rigid discipline into our
meetings and establish the authority of the chairman absolutely. Our
purpose was not to pour out a mixture of soft-soap bourgeois talk; what
we had to say was meant to arouse the opponents at our meetings! How
often did they not turn up in masses with a few individual agitators
among them and, judging by the expression on all their faces, ready to
finish us off there and then.
 
Yes, how often did they not turn up in huge numbers, those supporters of
the Red Flag, all previously instructed to smash up everything once and
for all and put an end to these meetings. More often than not everything
hung on a mere thread, and only the chairman's ruthless determination
and the rough handling by our ushers baffled our adversaries'
intentions. And indeed they had every reason for being irritated.
 
The fact that we had chosen red as the colour for our posters sufficed
to attract them to our meetings. The ordinary bourgeoisie were very
shocked to see that, we had also chosen the symbolic red of Bolshevism
and they regarded this as something ambiguously significant. The
suspicion was whispered in German Nationalist circles that we also were
merely another variety of Marxism, perhaps even Marxists suitably
disguised, or better still, Socialists. The actual difference between
Socialism and Marxism still remains a mystery to these people up to this
day. The charge of Marxism was conclusively proved when it was
discovered that at our meetings we deliberately substituted the words
'Fellow-countrymen and Women' for 'Ladies and Gentlemen' and addressed
each other as 'Party Comrade'. We used to roar with laughter at these
silly faint-hearted bourgeoisie and their efforts to puzzle out our
origin, our intentions and our aims.
 
We chose red for our posters after particular and careful deliberation,
our intention being to irritate the Left, so as to arouse their
attention and tempt them to come to our meetings--if only in order to
break them up--so that in this way we got a chance of talking to the
people.
 
In those years' it was indeed a delightful experience to follow the
constantly changing tactics of our perplexed and helpless adversaries.
First of all they appealed to their followers to ignore us and keep away
from our meetings. Generally speaking this appeal was heeded. But, as
time went on, more and more of their followers gradually found their way
to us and accepted our teaching. Then the leaders became nervous and
uneasy. They clung to their belief that such a development should not be
ignored for ever, and that terror must be applied in order to put an end
to it.
 
Appeals were then made to the 'class-conscious proletariat' to attend
our meetings in masses and strike with the clenched hand of the
proletarian at the representatives of a 'monarchist and reactionary
agitation'.
 
Our meetings suddenly became packed with work-people fully
three-quarters of an hour before the proceedings were scheduled to
begin. These gatherings resembled a powder cask ready to explode at any
moment; and the fuse was conveniently at hand. But matters always turned
out differently. People came as enemies and left, not perhaps prepared
to join us, yet in a reflective mood and disposed critically to examine
the correctness of their own doctrine. Gradually as time went on my
three-hour lectures resulted in supporters and opponents becoming united
in one single enthusiastic group of people. Every signal for the
breaking-up of the meeting failed. The result was that the opposition
leaders became frightened and once again looked for help to those
quarters that had formerly discountenanced these tactics and, with some
show of right, had been of the opinion that on principle the workers
should be forbidden to attend our meetings.
 
Then they did not come any more, or only in small numbers. But after a
short time the whole game started all over again. The instructions to
keep away from us were ignored; the comrades came in steadily increasing
numbers, until finally the advocates of the radical tactics won the day.
We were to be broken up.
 
Yet when, after two, three and even eight meetings, it was realized that
to break up these gatherings was easier said than done and that every
meeting resulted in a decisive weakening of the red fighting forces,
then suddenly the other password was introduced: 'Proletarians, comrades
and comradesses, avoid meetings of the National Socialist agitators'.
 
The same eternally alternating tactics were also to be observed in the
Red Press. Soon they tried to silence us but discovered the uselessness
of such an attempt. After that they swung round to the opposite tactics.
Daily 'reference' was made to us solely for the purpose of absolutely
ridiculing us in the eyes of the working-classes. After a time these
gentlemen must have felt that no harm was being done to us, but that, on
the contrary, we were reaping an advantage in that people were asking
themselves why so much space was being devoted to a subject which was
supposed to be so ludicrous. People became curious. Suddenly there was a
change of tactics and for a time we were treated as veritable criminals
against mankind. One article followed the other, in which our criminal
intentions were explained and new proofs brought forward to support what
was said. Scandalous tales, all of them fabricated from start to finish,
were published in order to help to poison the public mind. But in a
short time even these attacks also proved futile; and in fact they
assisted materially because they attracted public attention to us.
 
In those days I took up the standpoint that it was immaterial whether
they laughed at us or reviled us, whether they depicted us as fools or
criminals; the important point was that they took notice of us and that
in the eyes of the working-classes we came to be regarded as the only
force capable of putting up a fight. I said to myself that the followers
of the Jewish Press would come to know all about us and our real aims.
 
One reason why they never got so far as breaking up our meetings was
undoubtedly the incredible cowardice displayed by the leaders of the
opposition. On every critical occasion they left the dirty work to the
smaller fry whilst they waited outside the halls for the results of the
break up.
 
We were exceptionally well informed in regard to our opponents'
intentions, not only because we allowed several of our party colleagues
to remain members of the Red organizations for reasons of expediency,
but also because the Red wire-pullers, fortunately for us, were
afflicted with a degree of talkativeness that is still unfortunately
very prevalent among Germans. They could not keep their own counsel, and
more often than not they started cackling before the proverbial egg was
laid. Hence, time and again our precautions were such that Red agitators
had no inkling of how near they were to being thrown out of the
meetings.
 
This state of affairs compelled us to take the work of safeguarding our
meetings into our own hands. No reliance could be placed on official
protection. On the contrary; experience showed that such protection
always favoured only the disturbers. The only real outcome of police
intervention would be that the meeting would be dissolved, that is to
say, closed. And that is precisely what our opponents granted.
 
Generally speaking, this led the police to adopt a procedure which, to
say the least, was a most infamous sample of official malpractice. The
moment they received information of a threat that the one or other
meeting was to be broken up, instead of arresting the would-be
disturbers, they promptly advised the innocent parties that the meeting
was forbidden. This step the police proclaimed as a 'precautionary
measure in the interests of law and order'.
 
The political work and activities of decent people could therefore
always be hindered by desperate ruffians who had the means at their
disposal. In the name of peace and order State authority bowed down to
these ruffians and demanded that others should not provoke them. When
National Socialism desired to hold meetings in certain parts and the
labour unions declared that their members would resist, then it was not
these blackmailers that were arrested and gaoled. No. Our meetings were
forbidden by the police. Yes, this organ of the law had the unspeakable
impudence to advise us in writing to this effect in innumerable
instances. To avoid such eventualities, it was necessary to see to it
that every attempt to disturb a meeting was nipped in the bud. Another
feature to be taken into account in this respect is that all meetings
which rely on police protection must necessarily bring discredit to
their promoters in the eyes of the general public. Meetings that are
only possible with the protective assistance of a strong force of police
convert nobody; because in order to win over the lower strata of the
people there must be a visible show of strength on one's own side. In
the same way that a man of courage will win a woman's affection more
easily than a coward, so a heroic movement will be more successful in
winning over the hearts of a people than a weak movement which relies on
police support for its very existence.
 
It is for this latter reason in particular that our young movement was
to be charged with the responsibility of assuring its own existence,
defending itself; and conducting its own work of smashing the Red
opposition.
 
The work of organizing the protective measures for our meetings was
based on the following:
 
(1) An energetic and psychologically judicious way of conducting the
meeting.
 
(2) An organized squad of troops to maintain order.
 
In those days we and no one else were masters of the situation at our
meetings and on no occasion did we fail to emphasize this. Our opponents
fully realized that any provocation would be the occasion of throwing
them out of the hall at once, whatever the odds against us. At meetings,
particularly outside Munich, we had in those days from five to eight
hundred opponents against fifteen to sixteen National Socialists; yet we
brooked no interference, for we were ready to be killed rather than
capitulate. More than once a handful of party colleagues offered a
heroic resistance to a raging and violent mob of Reds. Those fifteen or
twenty men would certainly have been overwhelmed in the end had not the
opponents known that three or four times as many of themselves would
first get their skulls cracked. Arid that risk they were not willing to
run. We had done our best to study Marxist and bourgeois methods of
conducting meetings, and we had certainly learnt something.
 
The Marxists had always exercised a most rigid discipline so that the
question of breaking up their meetings could never have originated in
bourgeois quarters. This gave the Reds all the more reason for acting on
this plan. In time they not only became past-masters in this art but in
certain large districts of the REICH they went so far as to declare that
non-Marxist meetings were nothing less than a cause of' provocation
against the proletariat. This was particularly the case when the
wire-pullers suspected that a meeting might call attention to their own
transgressions and thus expose their own treachery and chicanery.
Therefore the moment such a meeting was announced to be held a howl of
rage went up from the Red Press. These detractors of the law nearly
always turned first to the authorities and requested in imperative and
threatening language that this 'provocation of the proletariat' be
stopped forthwith in the 'interests of law and order'. Their language
was chosen according to the importance of the official blockhead they
were dealing with and thus success was assured. If by chance the
official happened to be a true German--and not a mere figurehead--and he
declined the impudent request, then the time-honoured appeal to stop
'provocation of the proletariat' was issued together with instructions
to attend such and such a meeting on a certain date in full strength for
the purpose of 'putting a stop to the disgraceful machinations of the
bourgeoisie by means of the proletarian fist'.
 
The pitiful and frightened manner in which these bourgeois meetings are
conducted must be seen in order to be believed. Very frequently these
threats were sufficient to call off such a meeting at once. The feeling
of fear was so marked that the meeting, instead of commencing at eight
o'clock, very seldom was opened before a quarter to nine or nine
o'clock. The Chairman thereupon did his best, by showering compliments
on the 'gentleman of the opposition' to prove how he and all others
present were pleased (a palpable lie) to welcome a visit from men who as
yet were not in sympathy with them for the reason that only by mutual
discussion (immediately agreed to) could they be brought closer together
in mutual understanding. Apart from this the Chairman also assured them
that the meeting had no intention whatsoever of interfering with the
professed convictions of anybody. Indeed no. Everyone had the right to
form and hold his own political views, but others should be allowed to
do likewise. He therefore requested that the speaker be allowed to
deliver his speech without interruption--the speech in any case not
being a long affair. People abroad, he continued, would thus not come to
regard this meeting as another shameful example of the bitter fraternal
strife that is raging in Germany. And so on and so forth
 
The brothers of the Left had little if any appreciation for that sort of
talk; the speaker had hardly commenced when he was shouted down. One
gathered the impression at times that these speakers were graceful for
being peremptorily cut short in their martyr-like discourse. These
bourgeois toreadors left the arena in the midst of a vast uproar, that
is to say, provided that they were not thrown down the stairs with
cracked skulls, which was very often the case.
 
Therefore, our methods of organization at National Socialist meetings
were something quite strange to the Marxists. They came to our meetings
in the belief that the little game which they had so often played could
as a matter of course be also repeated on us. "To-day we shall finish
them off." How often did they bawl this out to each other on entering
the meeting hall, only to be thrown out with lightning speed before they
had time to repeat it.
 
In the first place our method of conducting a meeting was entirely
different. We did not beg and pray to be allowed to speak, and we did
not straightway give everybody the right to hold endless discussions. We
curtly gave everyone to understand that we were masters of the meeting
and that we would do as it pleased us and that everyone who dared to
interrupt would be unceremoniously thrown out. We stated clearly our
refusal to accept responsibility for anyone treated in this manner. If
time permitted and if it suited us, a discussion would be allowed to
take place. Our party colleague would now make his speech.... That kind
of talk was sufficient in itself to astonish the Marxists.
 
Secondly, we had at our disposal a well-trained and organized body of
men for maintaining order at our meetings. On the other hand the
bourgeois parties protected their meetings with a body of men better
classified as ushers who by virtue of their age thought they were
entitled to-authority and respect. But as Marxism has little or no
respect for these things, the question of suitable self-protection at
these bourgeois meetings was, so to speak, in practice non-existent.
 
When our political meetings first started I made it a special point to
organize a suitable defensive squad--a squad composed chiefly of young
men. Some of them were comrades who had seen active service with me;
others were young party members who, right from the start, had been
trained and brought up to realize that only terror is capable of
smashing terror--that only courageous and determined people had made a
success of things in this world and that, finally, we were fighting for
an idea so lofty that it was worth the last drop of our blood. These
young men had been brought up to realize that where force replaced
common sense in the solution of a problem, the best means of defence was
attack and that the reputation of our hall-guard squads should stamp us
as a political fighting force and not as a debating society.
 
And it was extraordinary how eagerly these boys of the War generation
responded to this order. They had indeed good reason for being bitterly
disappointed and indignant at the miserable milksop methods employed by
the bourgeoise.
 
Thus it became clear to everyone that the Revolution had only been
possible thanks to the dastardly methods of a bourgeois government. At
that time there was certainly no lack of man-power to suppress the
revolution, but unfortunately there was an entire lack of directive
brain power. How often did the eyes of my young men light up with
enthusiasm when I explained to them the vital functions connected with
their task and assured them time and again that all earthly wisdom is
useless unless it be supported by a measure of strength, that the gentle
goddess of Peace can only walk in company with the god of War, and that
every great act of peace must be protected and assisted by force. In
this way the idea of military service came to them in a far more
realistic form--not in the fossilized sense of the souls of decrepit
officials serving the dead authority of a dead State, but in the living
realization of the duty of each man to sacrifice his life at all times
so that his country might live.
 
How those young men did their job!
 
Like a swarm of hornets they tackled disturbers at our meetings,
regardless of superiority of numbers, however great, indifferent to
wounds and bloodshed, inspired with the great idea of blazing a trail
for the sacred mission of our movement.
 
As early as the summer of 1920 the organization of squads of men as hall
guards for maintaining order at our meetings was gradually assuming
definite shape. By the spring of 1921 this body of men were sectioned
off into squads of one hundred, which in turn were sub-divided into
smaller groups.
 
The urgency for this was apparent, as meanwhile the number of our
meetings had steadily increased. We still frequently met in the Munich
Hofbräuhaus but more frequently in the large meeting halls throughout
the city itself. In the autumn and winter of 1920-1921 our meetings in
the Bürgerbräu and Munich Kindlbräu had assumed vast proportions and it
was always the same picture that presented itself; namely, meetings of
the NSDAP (The German National Socialist Labour Party) were always
crowded out so that the police were compelled to close and bar the doors
long before proceedings commenced.
 
The organization of defence guards for keeping order at our meetings
cleared up a very difficult question. Up till then the movement had
possessed no party badge and no party flag. The lack of these tokens was
not only a disadvantage at that time but would prove intolerable in the
future. The disadvantages were chiefly that members of the party
possessed no outward broken of membership which linked them together,
and it was absolutely unthinkable that for the future they should remain
without some token which would be a symbol of the movement and could be
set against that of the International.
 
More than once in my youth the psychological importance of such a symbol
had become clearly evident to me and from a sentimental point of view
also it was advisable. In Berlin, after the War, I was present at a
mass-demonstration of Marxists in front of the Royal Palace and in the
Lustgarten. A sea of red flags, red armlets and red flowers was in
itself sufficient to give that huge assembly of about 120,000 persons an
outward appearance of strength. I was now able to feel and understand
how easily the man in the street succumbs to the hypnotic magic of such
a grandiose piece of theatrical presentation.
 
The bourgeoisie, which as a party neither possesses or stands for any
WELTANSCHAUUNG, had therefore not a single banner. Their party was
composed of 'patriots' who went about in the colours of the REICH. If
these colours were the symbol of a definite WELTANSCHAUUNG then one
could understand the rulers of the State regarding this flag as
expressive of their own WELTANSCHAUUNG, seeing that through their
efforts the official REICH flag was expressive of their own
WELTANSCHAUUNG.
 
But in reality the position was otherwise.
 
The REICH was morticed together without the aid of the German
bourgeoisie and the flag itself was born of the War and therefore merely
a State flag possessing no importance in the sense of any particular
ideological mission.
 
Only in one part of the German-speaking territory--in
German-Austria--was there anything like a bourgeois party flag in
evidence. Here a section of the national bourgeoisie selected the 1848
colours (black, red and gold) as their party flag and therewith created
a symbol which, though of no importance from a weltanschauliche
viewpoint, had, nevertheless, a revolutionary character from a national
point of view. The most bitter opponents of this flag at that time, and
this should not be forgotten to-day, were the Social Democrats and the
Christian Socialists or clericals. They, in particular, were the ones
who degraded and besmirched these colours in the same way as in 1918
they dragged black, white and red into the gutter. Of course, the black,
red and gold of the German parties in the old Austria were the colours
of the year 1848: that is to say, of a period likely to be regarded as
somewhat visionary, but it was a period that had honest German souls as
its representatives, although the Jews were lurking unseen as
wire-pullers in the background. It was high treason and the shameful
enslavement of the German territory that first of all made these colours
so attractive to the Marxists of the Centre Party; so much so that
to-day they revere them as their most cherished possession and use them
as their own banners for the protection of the flag they once foully
besmirched.
 
It is a fact, therefore, that, up till 1920, in opposition to the
Marxists there was no flag that would have stood for a consolidated
resistance to them. For even if the better political elements of the
German bourgeoisie were loath to accept the suddenly discovered black,
red and gold colours as their symbol after the year 1918, they
nevertheless were incapable of counteracting this with a future
programme of their own that would correspond to the new trend of
affairs. At the most, they had a reconstruction of the old REICH in
mind.
 
And it is to this way of thinking that the black, white and red colours
of the old REICH are indebted for their resurrection as the flag of our
so-called national bourgeois parties.
 
It was obvious that the symbol of a régime which had been overthrown by
the Marxists under inglorious circumstances was not now worthy to serve
as a banner under which the same Marxism was to be crushed in its turn.
However much any decent German may love and revere those old colours,
glorious when placed side by side in their youthful freshness, when he
had fought under them and seen the sacrifice of so many lives, that flag
had little value for the struggle of the future.
 
In our Movement I have always adopted the standpoint that it was a
really lucky thing for the German nation that it had lost its old flag
(Note 18). This standpoint of mine was in strong contrast to that of the
bourgeois politicians. It may be immaterial to us what the Republic does
under its flag. But let us be deeply grateful to fate for having so
graciously spared the most glorious war flag for all time from becoming
an ignominious rag. The REICH of to-day, which sells itself and its
people, must never be allowed to adopt the honourable and heroic black,
white and red colours.
 
[Note 18. The flag of the German Empire, founded in 1871, was
Black-White-Red. This was discarded in 1918 and Black-Red-Gold was chosen
as the flag of the German Republic founded at Weimar in 1919. The flag
designed by Hitler--red with a white disc in the centre, bearing the
black swastika--is now the national flag.]
 
As long as the November outrage endures, that outrage may continue to
bear its own external sign and not steal that of an honourable past. Our
bourgeois politicians should awaken their consciences to the fact that
whoever desires this State to have the black, white and red colours is
pilfering from the past. The old flag was suitable only for the old
REICH and, thank Heaven, the Republic chose the colours best suited to
itself.
 
This was also the reason why we National Socialists recognized that
hoisting the old colours would be no symbol of our special aims; for we
had no wish to resurrect from the dead the old REICH which had been
ruined through its own blunders, but to build up a new State.
 
The Movement which is fighting Marxism to-day along these lines must
display on its banner the symbol of the new State.
 
The question of the new flag, that is to say the form and appearance it
must take, kept us very busy in those days. Suggestions poured in from
all quarters, which although well meant were more or less impossible in
practice. The new flag had not only to become a symbol expressing our
own struggle but on the other hand it was necessary that it should prove
effective as a large poster. All those who busy themselves with the
tastes of the public will recognize and appreciate the great importance
of these apparently petty matters. In hundreds of thousands of cases a
really striking emblem may be the first cause of awakening interest in a
movement.
 
For this reason we declined all suggestions from various quarters for
identifying our movement by means of a white flag with the old State or
rather with those decrepit parties whose sole political objective is the
restoration of past conditions. And, apart from this, white is not a
colour capable of attracting and focusing public attention. It is a
colour suitable only for young women's associations and not for a
movement that stands for reform in a revolutionary period.
 
Black was also suggested--certainly well-suited to the times, but
embodying no significance to empress the will behind our movement. And,
finally, black is incapable of attracting attention.
 
White and blue was discarded, despite its admirable aesthetic appeal--as
being the colours of an individual German Federal State--a State that,
unfortunately, through its political attitude of particularist
narrow-mindedness did not enjoy a good reputation. And, generally
speaking, with these colours it would have been difficult to attract
attention to our movement. The same applies to black and white.
 
Black, red and gold did not enter the question at all.
 
And this also applies to black, white and red for reasons already
stated. At least, not in the form hitherto in use. But the effectiveness
of these three colours is far superior to all the others and they are
certainly the most strikingly harmonious combination to be found.
 
I myself was always for keeping the old colours, not only because I, as
a soldier, regarded them as my most sacred possession, but because in
their aesthetic effect, they conformed more than anything else to my
personal taste. Accordingly I had to discard all the innumerable
suggestions and designs which had been proposed for the new movement,
among which were many that had incorporated the swastika into the old
colours. I, as leader, was unwilling to make public my own design, as it
was possible that someone else could come forward with a design just as
good, if not better, than my own. As a matter of fact, a dental surgeon
from Starnberg submitted a good design very similar to mine, with only
one mistake, in that his swastika with curved corners was set upon a
white background.
 
After innumerable trials I decided upon a final form--a flag of red
material with a white disc bearing in its centre a black swastika. After
many trials I obtained the correct proportions between the dimensions of
the flag and of the white central disc, as well as that of the swastika.
And this is how it has remained ever since.
 
At the same time we immediately ordered the corresponding armlets for
our squad of men who kept order at meetings, armlets of red material, a
central white disc with the black swastika upon it. Herr Füss, a Munich
goldsmith, supplied the first practical and permanent design.
 
The new flag appeared in public in the midsummer of 1920. It suited our
movement admirably, both being new and young. Not a soul had seen this
flag before; its effect at that time was something akin to that of a
blazing torch. We ourselves experienced almost a boyish delight when one
of the ladies of the party who had been entrusted with the making of the
flag finally handed it over to us. And a few months later those of us in
Munich were in possession of six of these flags. The steadily increasing
strength of our hall guards was a main factor in popularizing the
symbol.
 
And indeed a symbol it proved to be.
 
Not only because it incorporated those revered colours expressive of our
homage to the glorious past and which once brought so much honour to the
German nation, but this symbol was also an eloquent expression of the
will behind the movement. We National Socialists regarded our flag as
being the embodiment of our party programme. The red expressed the
social thought underlying the movement. White the national thought. And
the swastika signified the mission allotted to us--the struggle for the
victory of Aryan mankind and at the same time the triumph of the ideal
of creative work which is in itself and always will be anti-Semitic.
 
Two years later, when our squad of hall guards had long since grown into
storm detachments, it seemed necessary to give this defensive
organization of a young WELTANSCHAUUNG a particular symbol of victory,
namely a Standard. I also designed this and entrusted the execution of
it to an old party comrade, Herr Gahr, who was a goldsmith. Ever since
that time this Standard has been the distinctive token of the National
Socialist struggle.
 
The increasing interest taken in our meetings, particularly during 1920,
compelled us at times to hold two meetings a week. Crowds gathered round
our posters; the large meeting halls in the town were always filled and
tens of thousands of people, who had been led astray by the teachings of
Marxism, found their way to us and assisted in the work of fighting for
the liberation of the REICH. The public in Munich had got to know us. We
were being spoken about. The words 'National Socialist' had become
common property to many and signified for them a definite party
programme. Our circle of supporters and even of members was constantly
increasing, so that in the winter of 1920-21 we were able to appear as a
strong party in Munich.
 
At that time there was no party in Munich with the exception of the
Marxist parties--certainly no nationalist party--which was able to hold
such mass demonstrations as ours. The Munich Kindl Hall, which held
5,000 people, was more than once overcrowded and up till then there was
only one other hall, the Krone Circus Hall, into which we had not
ventured.
 
At the end of January 1921 there was again great cause for anxiety in
Germany. The Paris Agreement, by which Germany pledged herself to pay
the crazy sum of a hundred milliards of gold marks, was to be confirmed
by the London Ultimatum.
 
Thereupon an old-established Munich working committee, representative of
so-called VÖLKISCH groups, deemed it advisable to call for a public
meeting of protest. I became nervous and restless when I saw that a lot
of time was being wasted and nothing undertaken. At first a meeting was
suggested in the KÖNIG PLATZ; on second thoughts this was turned down,
as someone feared the proceedings might be wrecked by Red elements.
Another suggestion was a demonstration in front of the Feldherrn Hall,
but this also came to nothing. Finally a combined meeting in the Munich
Kindl Hall was suggested. Meanwhile, day after day had gone by; the big
parties had entirely ignored the terrible event, and the working
committee could not decide on a definite date for holding the
demonstration.
 
On Tuesday, February 1st, I put forward an urgent demand for a final
decision. I was put off until Wednesday. On that day I demanded to be
told clearly if and when the meeting was to take place. The reply was
again uncertain and evasive, it being stated that it was 'intended' to
arrange a demonstration that day week.
 
At that I lost all patience and decided to conduct a demonstration of
protest on my own. At noon on Wednesday I dictated in ten minutes the
text of the poster and at the same time hired the Krone Circus Hall for
the next day, February 3rd.
 
In those days this was a tremendous venture. Not only because of the
uncertainty of filling that vast hall, but also because of the risk of
the meeting being wrecked.
 
Numerically our squad of hall guards was not strong enough for this vast
hall. I was also uncertain about what to do in case the meeting was
broken up--a huge circus building being a different proposition from an
ordinary meeting hall. But events showed that my fears were misplaced,
the opposite being the case. In that vast building a squad of wreckers
could be tackled and subdued more easily than in a cramped hall.
 
One thing was certain: A failure would throw us back for a long time to
come. If one meeting was wrecked our prestige would be seriously injured
and our opponents would be encouraged to repeat their success. That
would lead to sabotage of our work in connection with further meetings
and months of difficult struggle would be necessary to overcome this.
 
We had only one day in which to post our bills, Thursday. Unfortunately
it rained on the morning of that day and there was reason to fear that
many people would prefer to remain at home rather than hurry to a
meeting through rain and snow, especially when there was likely to be
violence and bloodshed.
 
And indeed on that Thursday morning I was suddenly struck with fear that
the hall might never be filled to capacity, which would have made me
ridiculous in the eyes of the working committee. I therefore immediately
dictated various leaflets, had them printed and distributed in the
afternoon. Of course they contained an invitation to attend the meeting.
 
Two lorries which I hired were draped as much as possible in red, each
had our new flag hoisted on it and was then filled with fifteen or
twenty members of our party. Orders were given the members to canvas the
streets thoroughly, distribute leaflets and conduct propaganda for the
mass meeting to be held that evening. It was the first time that lorries
had driven through the streets bearing flags and not manned by Marxists.
The public stared open-mouthed at these red-draped cars, and in the
outlying districts clenched fists were angrily raised at this new
evidence of 'provocation of the proletariat'. Were not the Marxists the
only ones entitled to hold meetings and drive about in motor lorries?
 
At seven o'clock in the evening only a few had gathered in the circus
hall. I was being kept informed by telephone every ten minutes and was
becoming uneasy. Usually at seven or a quarter past our meeting halls
were already half filled; sometimes even packed. But I soon found out
the reason why I was uneasy. I had entirely forgotten to take into
account the huge dimensions of this new meeting place. A thousand people
in the Hofbräuhaus was quite an impressive sight, but the same number in
the Circus building was swallowed up in its dimensions and was hardly
noticeable. Shortly afterwards I received more hopeful reports and at a
quarter to eight I was informed that the hall was three-quarters filled,
with huge crowds still lined up at the pay boxes. I then left for the
meeting.
 
I arrived at the Circus building at two minutes past eight. There was
still a crowd of people outside, partly inquisitive people and many
opponents who preferred to wait outside for developments.
 
When I entered the great hall I felt the same joy I had felt a year
previously at the first meeting in the Munich Hofbräu Banquet Hall; but
it was not until I had forced my way through the solid wall of people
and reached the platform that I perceived the full measure of our
success. The hall was before me, like a huge shell, packed with
thousands and thousands of people. Even the arena was densely crowded.
More than 5,600 tickets had been sold and, allowing for the unemployed,
poor students and our own detachments of men for keeping order, a crowd
of about 6,500 must have been present.
 
My theme was 'Future or Downfall' and I was filled with joy at the
conviction that the future was represented by the crowds that I was
addressing.
 
I began, and spoke for about two and a half hours. I had the feeling
after the first half-hour that the meeting was going to be a big
success. Contact had been at once established with all those thousands
of individuals. After the first hour the speech was already being
received by spontaneous outbreaks of applause, but after the second hour
this died down to a solemn stillness which I was to experience so often
later on in this same hall, and which will for ever be remembered by all
those present. Nothing broke this impressive silence and only when the
last word had been spoken did the meeting give vent to its feelings by
singing the national anthem.
 
I watched the scene during the next twenty minutes, as the vast hall
slowly emptied itself, and only then did I leave the platform, a happy
man, and made my way home.
 
Photographs were taken of this first meeting in the Krone Circus Hall in
Munich. They are more eloquent than words to demonstrate the success of
this demonstration. The bourgeois papers reproduced photographs and
reported the meeting as having been merely 'nationalist' in character;
in their usual modest fashion they omitted all mention of its promoters.
 
Thus for the first time we had developed far beyond the dimensions of an
ordinary party. We could no longer be ignored. And to dispel all doubt
that the meeting was merely an isolated success, I immediately arranged
for another at the Circus Hall in the following week, and again we had
the same success. Once more the vast hall was overflowing with people;
so much so that I decided to hold a third meeting during the following
week, which also proved a similar success.
 
After these initial successes early in 1921 I increased our activity in
Munich still further. I not only held meetings once a week, but during
some weeks even two were regularly held and very often during midsummer
and autumn this increased to three. We met regularly at the Circus Hall
and it gave us great satisfaction to see that every meeting brought us
the same measure of success.
 
The result was shown in an ever-increasing number of supporters and
members into our party.
 
Naturally, such success did not allow our opponents to sleep soundly. At
first their tactics fluctuated between the use of terror and silence in
our regard. Then they recognized that neither terror nor silence could
hinder the progress of our movement. So they had recourse to a supreme
act of terror which was intended to put a definite end to our activities
in the holding of meetings.
 
As a pretext for action along this line they availed themselves of a
very mysterious attack on one of the Landtag deputies, named Erhard
Auer. It was declared that someone had fired several shots at this man
one evening. This meant that he was not shot but that an attempt had
been made to shoot him. A fabulous presence of mind and heroic courage
on the part of Social Democratic leaders not only prevented the
sacrilegious intention from taking effect but also put the crazy
would-be assassins to flight, like the cowards that they were. They were
so quick and fled so far that subsequently the police could not find
even the slightest traces of them. This mysterious episode was used by
the organ of the Social Democratic Party to arouse public feeling
against the movement, and while doing this it delivered its old
rigmarole about the tactics that were to be employed the next time.
Their purpose was to see to it that our movement should not grow but
should be immediately hewn down root and branch by the hefty arm of the
proletariat.
 
A few days later the real attack came. It was decided finally to
interrupt one of our meetings which was billed to take place in the
Munich Hofbräuhaus, and at which I myself was to speak.
 
On November 4th, 1921, in the evening between six and seven o'clock I
received the first precise news that the meeting would positively be
broken up and that to carry out this action our adversaries had decided
to send to the meeting great masses of workmen employed in certain 'Red'
factories.
 
It was due to an unfortunate accident that we did not receive this news
sooner. On that day we had given up our old business office in the
Sternecker Gasse in Munich and moved into other quarters; or rather we
had given up the old offices and our new quarters were not yet in
functioning order. The telephone arrangements had been cut off by the
former tenants and had not yet been reinstalled. Hence it happened that
several attempts made that day to inform us by telephone of the break-up
which had been planned for the evening did not reach us.
 
Consequently our order troops were not present in strong force at that
meeting. There was only one squad present, which did not consist of the
usual one hundred men, but only of about forty-six. And our telephone
connections were not yet sufficiently organized to be able to give the
alarm in the course of an hour or so, so that a sufficiently powerful
number of order troops to deal with the situation could be called. It
must also be added that on several previous occasions we had been
forewarned, but nothing special happened. The old proverb, 'Revolutions
which were announced have scarcely ever come off', had hitherto been
proved true in our regard.
 
Possibly for this reason also sufficiently strong precautions had not
been taken on that day to cope with the brutal determination of our
opponents to break up our meeting.
 
Finally, we did not believe that the Hofbräuhaus in Munich was suitable
for the interruptive tactics of our adversaries. We had feared such a
thing far more in the bigger halls, especially that of the Krone Circus.
But on this point we learned a very serviceable lesson that evening.
Later, we studied this whole question according to a scientific system
and arrived at results, both interesting and incredible, and which
subsequently were an essential factor in the direction of our
organization and in the tactics of our Storm Troops.
 
When I arrived in the entrance halt of the Hofbräuhaus at 7.45 that
evening I realizcd that there could be no doubt as to what the 'Reds'
intended. The hall was filled, and for that reason the police had barred
the entrances. Our adversaries, who had arrived very early, were in the
hall, and our followers were for the most part outside. The small
bodyguard awaited me at the entrance. I had the doors leading to the
principal hall closed and then asked the bodyguard of forty-five or
forty-six men to come forward. I made it clear to the boys that perhaps
on that evening for the first time they would have to show their
unbending and unbreakable loyalty to the movement and that not one of us
should leave the hall unless carried out dead. I added that I would
remain in the hall and that I did not believe that one of them would
abandon me, and that if I saw any one of them act the coward I myself
would personally tear off his armlet and his badge. I demanded of them
that they should come forward if the slightest attempt to sabotage the
meeting were made and that they must remember that the best defence is
always attack.
 
I was greeted with a triple 'HEIL' which sounded more hoarse and violent
than usual.
 
Then I advanced through the hall and could take in the situation with my
own eyes. Our opponents sat closely huddled together and tried to pierce
me through with their looks. Innumerable faces glowing with hatred and
rage were fixed on me, while others with sneering grimaces shouted at me
together. Now they would 'Finish with us. We must look out for our
entrails. To-day they would smash in our faces once and for all.' And
there were other expressions of an equally elegant character. They knew
that they were there in superior numbers and they acted accordingly.
 
Yet we were able to open the meeting; and I began to speak. In the Hall
of the Hofbräuhaus I stood always at the side, away from the entry and
on top of a beer table. Therefore I was always right in the midst of the
audience. Perhaps this circumstance was responsible for creating a
certain feeling and a sense of agreement which I never found elsewhere.
 
Before me, and especially towards my left, there were only opponents,
seated or standing. They were mostly robust youths and men from the
Maffei Factory, from Kustermann's, and from the factories on the Isar,
etc. Along the right-hand wall of the hall they were thickly massed
quite close to my table. They now began to order litre mugs of beer, one
after the other, and to throw the empty mugs under the table. In this
way whole batteries were collected. I should have been surprised had
this meeting ended peacefully.
 
In spite of all the interruptions, I was able to speak for about an hour
and a half and I felt as if I were master of the situation. Even the
ringleaders of the disturbers appeared to be convinced of this; for they
steadily became more uneasy, often left the hall, returned and spoke to
their men in an obviously nervous way.
 
A small psychological error which I committed in replying to an
interruption, and the mistake of which I myself was conscious the moment
the words had left my mouth, gave the sign for the outbreak.
 
There were a few furious outbursts and all in a moment a man jumped on a
seat and shouted "Liberty". At that signal the champions of liberty
began their work.
 
In a few moments the hall was filled with a yelling and shrieking mob.
Numerous beer-mugs flew like howitzers above their heads. Amid this
uproar one heard the crash of chair legs, the crashing of mugs, groans
and yells and screams.
 
It was a mad spectacle. I stood where I was and could observe my boys
doing their duty, every one of them.
 
There I had the chance of seeing what a bourgeois meeting could be.
 
The dance had hardly begun when my Storm Troops, as they were called
from that day onwards, launched their attack. Like wolves they threw
themselves on the enemy again and again in parties of eight or ten and
began steadily to thrash them out of the hall. After five minutes I
could see hardly one of them that was not streaming with blood. Then I
realized what kind of men many of them were, above all my brave Maurice
Hess, who is my private secretary to-day, and many others who, even
though seriously wounded, attacked again and again as long as they could
stand on their feet. Twenty minutes long the pandemonium continued. Then
the opponents, who had numbered seven or eight hundred, had been driven
from the hall or hurled out headlong by my men, who had not numbered
fifty. Only in the left corner a big crowd still stood out against our
men and put up a bitter fight. Then two pistol shots rang out from the
entrance to the hall in the direction of the platform and now a wild din
of shooting broke out from all sides. One's heart almost rejoiced at
this spectacle which recalled memories of the War.
 
At that moment it was not possible to identify the person who had fired
the shots. But at any rate I could see that my boys renewed the attack
with increased fury until finally the last disturbers were overcome and
flung out of the hall.
 
About twenty-five minutes had passed since it all began. The hall looked
as if a bomb had exploded there. Many of my comrades had to be bandaged
and others taken away. But we remained masters of the situation. Hermann
Essen, who was chairman of the meeting, announced: "The meeting will
continue. The speaker shall proceed." So I went on with my speech.
 
When we ourselves declared the meeting at an end an excited police
officer rushed in, waved his hands and declared: "The meeting is
dissolved."
 
Without wishing to do so I had to laugh at this example of the law's
delay. It was the authentic constabulary officiosiousness. The smaller
they are the greater they must always appear.
 
That evening we learned a real lesson. And our adversaries never forgot
the lesson they had received.
 
Up to the autumn of 1923 the Münchener post did not again mention the
clenched fists of the Proletariat.
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER VIII
 
 
 
THE STRONG IS STRONGEST WHEN ALONE
 
 
In the preceding chapter I mentioned the existence of a co-operative
union between the German patriotic associations. Here I shall deal
briefly with this question.
 
In speaking of a co-operative union we generally mean a group of
associations which, for the purpose of facilitating their work,
establish mutual relations for collaborating with one another along
certain lines, appointing a common directorate with varying powers and
thenceforth carrying out a common line of action. The average citizen is
pleased and reassured when he hears that these associations, by
establishing a co-operative union among one another, have at long last
discovered a common platform on which they can stand united and have
eliminated all grounds of mutual difference. Therewith a general
conviction arises, to the effect that such a union is an immense gain in
strength and that small groups which were weak as long as they stood
alone have now suddenly become strong. Yet this conviction is for the
most part a mistaken one.
 
It will be interesting and, in my opinion, important for the better
understanding of this question if we try to get a clear notion of how it
comes about that these associations, unions, etc., are established, when
all of them declare that they have the same ends in view. In itself it
would be logical to expect that one aim should be fought for by a single
association and it would be more reasonable if there were not a number
of associations fighting for the same aim. In the beginning there was
undoubtedly only one association which had this one fixed aim in view.
One man proclaimed a truth somewhere and, calling for the solution of a
definite question, fixed his aim and founded a movement for the purpose
of carrying his views into effect.
 
That is how an association or a party is founded, the scope of whose
programme is either the abolition of existing evils or the positive
establishment of a certain order of things in the future.
 
Once such a movement has come into existence it may lay practical claim
to certain priority rights. The natural course of things would now be
that all those who wish to fight for the same objective as this movement
is striving for should identify themselves with it and thus increase its
strength, so that the common purpose in view may be all the better
served. Especially men of superior intelligence must feel, one and all,
that by joining the movement they are establishing precisely those
conditions which are necessary for practical success in the common
struggle. Accordingly it is reasonable and, in a certain sense,
honest--which honesty, as I shall show later, is an element of very
great importance--that only one movement should be founded for the
purpose of attaining the one aim.
 
The fact that this does not happen must be attributed to two causes. The
first may almost be described as tragic. The second is a matter for
pity, because it has its foundation in the weaknesses of human nature.
But, on going to the bottom of things, I see in both causes only facts
which give still another ground for strengthening our will, our energy
and intensity of purpose; so that finally, through the higher
development of the human faculties, the solution of the problem in
question may be rendered possible.
 
The tragic reason why it so often happens that the pursuit of one
definite task is not left to one association alone is as follows:
Generally speaking, every action carried out on the grand style in this
world is the expression of a desire that has already existed for a long
time in millions of human hearts, a longing which may have been
nourished in silence. Yes, it may happen that throughout centuries men
may have been yearning for the solution of a definite problem, because
they have been suffering under an unendurable order of affairs, without
seeing on the far horizon the coming fulfilment of the universal
longing. Nations which are no longer capable of finding an heroic
deliverance from such a sorrowful fate may be looked upon as effete.
But, on the other hand, nothing gives better proof of the vital forces
of a people and the consequent guarantee of its right to exist than that
one day, through a happy decree of Destiny, a man arises who is capable
of liberating his people from some great oppression, or of wiping out
some bitter distress, or of calming the national soul which had been
tormented through its sense of insecurity, and thus fulfilling what had
long been the universal yearning of the people.
 
An essential characteristic of what are called the great questions of
the time is that thousands undertake the task of solving them and that
many feel themselves called to this task: yea, even that Destiny itself
has proposed many for the choice, so that through the free play of
forces the stronger and bolder shall finally be victorious and to him
shall be entrusted the task of solving the problem.
 
Thus it may happen that for centuries many are discontented with the
form in which their religious life expresses itself and yearn for a
renovation of it; and so it may happen that through this impulse of the
soul some dozens of men may arise who believe that, by virtue of their
understanding and their knowledge, they are called to solve the
religious difficulties of the time and accordingly present themselves as
the prophets of a new teaching or at least as declared adversaries of
the standing beliefs.
 
Here also it is certain that the natural law will take its course,
inasmuch as the strongest will be destined to fulfil the great mission.
But usually the others are slow to acknowledge that only one man is
called. On the contrary, they all believe that they have an equal right
to engage in the solution of the diffculties in question and that they
are equally called to that task. Their contemporary world is generally
quite unable to decide which of all these possesses the highest gifts
and accordingly merits the support of all.
 
So in the course of centuries, or indeed often within the same epoch,
different men establish different movements to struggle towards the same
end. At least the end is declared by the founders of the movements to be
the same, or may be looked upon as such by the masses of the people. The
populace nourishes vague desires and has only general opinions, without
having any precise notion of their own ideals and desires or of the
question whether and how it is impossible for these ideals and desires
to be fulfilled.
 
The tragedy lies in the fact that many men struggle to reach the same
objective by different roads, each one genuinely believing in his own
mission and holding himself in duty bound to follow his own road without
any regard for the others.
 
These movements, parties, religious groups, etc., originate entirely
independently of one another out of the general urge of the time, and
all with a view to working towards the same goal. It may seem a tragic
thing, at least at first sight, that this should be so, because people
are too often inclined to think that forces which are dispersed in
different directions would attain their ends far more quickly and more
surely if they were united in one common effort. But that is not so. For
Nature herself decides according to the rules of her inexorable logic.
She leaves these diverse groups to compete with one another and dispute
the palm of victory and thus she chooses the clearest, shortest and
surest way along which she leads the movement to its final goal.
 
How could one decide from outside which is the best way, if the forces
at hand were not allowed free play, if the final decision were to rest
with the doctrinaire judgment of men who are so infatuated with their
own superior knowledge that their minds are not open to accept the
indisputable proof presented by manifest success, which in the last
analysis always gives the final confirmation of the justice of a course
of action.
 
Hence, though diverse groups march along different routes towards the
same objective, as soon as they come to know that analogous efforts are
being made around them, they will have to study all the more carefully
whether they have chosen the best way and whether a shorter way may not
be found and how their efforts can best be employed to reach the
objective more quickly.
 
Through this rivalry each individual protagonist develops his faculties
to a still higher pitch of perfection and the human race has frequently
owed its progress to the lessons learned from the misfortunes of former
attempts which have come to grief. Therefore we may conclude that we
come to know the better ways of reaching final results through a state
of things which at first sight appeared tragic; namely, the initial
dispersion of individual efforts, wherein each group was unconsciously
responsible for such dispersion.
 
In studying the lessons of history with a view to finding a way for the
solution of the German problem, the prevailing opinion at one time was
that there were two possible paths along which that problem might be
solved and that these two paths should have united from the very
beginning. The chief representatives and champions of these two paths
were Austria and Prussia respectively, Habsburg and Hohenzollern. All
the rest, according to this prevalent opinion, ought to have entrusted
their united forces to the one or the other party. But at that time the
path of the most prominent representative, the Habsburg, would have been
taken, though the Austrian policy would never have led to the foundation
of a united German REICH.
 
Finally, a strong and united German REICH arose out of that which many
millions of Germans deplored in their hearts as the last and most
terrible manifestation of our fratricidal strife. The truth is that the
German Imperial Crown was retrieved on the battle field of Königgrätz
and not in the fights that were waged before Paris, as was commonly
asserted afterwards.
 
Thus the foundation of the German REICH was not the consequence of any
common will working along common lines, but it was much more the outcome
of a deliberate struggle for hegemony, though the protagonists were
often hardly conscious of this. And from this struggle Prussia finally
came out victorious. Anybody who is not so blinded by partisan politics
as to deny this truth will have to agree that the so-called wisdom of
men would never have come to the same wise decision as the wisdom of
Life itself, that is to say, the free play of forces, finally brought to
realization. For in the German lands of two hundred years before who
would seriously have believed that Hohenzollern Prussia, and not
Habsburg, would become the germ cell, the founder and the tutor of the
new REICH? And, on the other hand, who would deny to-day that Destiny
thus acted wiser than human wisdom. Who could now imagine a German REICH
based on the foundations of an effete and degenerate dynasty?
 
No. The general evolution of things, even though it took a century of
struggle, placed the best in the position that it had merited.
 
And that will always be so. Therefore it is not to be regretted if
different men set out to attain the same objective. In this way the
strongest and swiftest becomes recognized and turns out to be the
victor.
 
Now there is a second cause for the fact that often in the lives of
nations several movements which show the same characteristics strive
along different ways to reach what appears to be the same goal. This
second cause is not at all tragic, but just something that rightly calls
forth pity. It arises from a sad mixture of envy, jealousy, ambition,
and the itch for taking what belongs to others. Unfortunately these
failings are often found united in single specimens of the human
species.
 
The moment a man arises who profoundly understands the distress of his
people and, having diagnosed the evil with perfect accuracy, takes
measures to cure it; the moment he fixes his aim and chooses the means
to reach it--then paltry and pettifogging people become all attention
and eagerly follow the doings of this man who has thus come before the
public gaze. Just like sparrows who are apparently indifferent, but in
reality are firmly intent on the movements of the fortunate companion
with the morsel of bread so that they may snatch it from him if he
should momentarily relax his hold on it, so it is also with the human
species. All that is needed is that one man should strike out on a new
road and then a crowd of poltroons will prick up their ears and begin to
sniff for whatever little booty may possibly lie at the end of that
road. The moment they think they have discovered where the booty is to
be gathered they hurry to find another way which may prove to be quicker
in reaching that goal.
 
As soon as a new movement is founded and has formulated a definite
programme, people of that kind come forward and proclaim that they are
fighting for the same cause. This does not imply that they are ready
honestly to join the ranks of such a movement and thus recognize its
right of priority. It implies rather that they intend to steal the
programme and found a new party on it. In doing this they are shameless
enough to assure the unthinking public that for a long time they had
intended to take the same line of action as the other has now taken, and
frequently they succeed in thus placing themselves in a favourable
light, instead of arousing the general disapprobation which they justly
deserve. For it is a piece of gross impudence to take what has already
been inscribed on another's flag and display it on one's own, to steal
the programme of another, and then to form a separate group as if all
had been created by the new founder of this group. The impudence of such
conduct is particularly demonstrated when the individuals who first
caused dispersion and disruption by their new foundation are those
who--as experience has shown--are most emphatic in proclaiming the
necessity of union and unity the moment they find they cannot catch up
with their adversary's advance.
 
It is to that kind of conduct that the so-called 'patriotic
disintegration' is to be attributed.
 
Certainly in the years 1918--1919 the founding of a multitude of new
groups, parties, etc., calling themselves 'Patriotic,' was a natural
phenomenon of the time, for which the founders were not at all
responsible. By 1920 the National Socialist German Labour Party had
slowly crystallized from all these parties and had become supreme. There
could be no better proof of the sterling honesty of certain individual
founders than the fact that many of them decided, in a really admirable
manner, to sacrifice their manifestly less successful movements to the
stronger movement, by joining it unconditionally and dissolving their
own.
 
This is specially true in regard to Julius Streicher, who was at that
time the protagonist of the German Socialist party in Nürnberg. The
National Socialist German Labour Party had been founded with similar
aims in view, but quite independently of the other. I have already said
that Streicher, then a teacher in Nürnberg, was the chief protagonist of
the German Socialist Party. He had a sacred conviction of the mission
and future of his own movement. As soon, however, as the superior
strength and stronger growth of the National Socialist Party became
clear and unquestionable to his mind, he gave up his work in the German
Socialist Party and called upon his followers to fall into line with the
National Socialist German Labour Party, which had come out victorious
from the mutual contest, and carry on the fight within its ranks for the
common cause. The decision was personally a difficult one for him, but
it showed a profound sense of honesty.
 
When that first period of the movement was over there remained no
further dispersion of forces: for their honest intentions had led the
men of that time to the same honourable, straightforward and just
conclusion. What we now call the 'patriotic disintegration' owes its
existence exclusively to the second of the two causes which I have
mentioned. Ambitious men who at first had no ideas of their own, and
still less any concept of aims to be pursued, felt themselves 'called'
exactly at that moment in which the success of the National Socialist
German Labour Party became unquestionable.
 
Suddenly programmes appeared which were mere transcripts of ours. Ideas
were proclaimed which had been taken from us. Aims were set up on behalf
of which we had been fighting for several years, and ways were mapped
out which the National Socialists had for a long time trodden. All kinds
of means were resorted to for the purpose of trying to convince the
public that, although the National Socialist German Labour Party had now
been for a long time in existence, it was found necessary to establish
these new parties. But all these phrases were just as insincere as the
motives behind them were ignoble.
 
In reality all this was grounded only on one dominant motive. That
motive was the personal ambition of the founders, who wished to play a
part in which their own pigmy talents could contribute nothing original
except the gross effrontery which they displayed in appropriating the
ideas of others, a mode of conduct which in ordinary life is looked upon
as thieving.
 
At that time there was not an idea or concept launched by other people
which these political kleptomaniacs did not seize upon at once for the
purpose of applying to their own base uses. Those who did all this were
the same people who subsequently, with tears in their eyes, profoundly
deplored the 'patriotic disintegration' and spoke unceasingly about the
'necessity of unity'. In doing this they nurtured the secret hope that
they might be able to cry down the others, who would tire of hearing
these loud-mouthed accusations and would end up by abandoning all claim
to the ideas that had been stolen from them and would abandon to the
thieves not only the task of carrying these ideas into effect but also
the task of carrying on the movements of which they themselves were the
original founders.
 
When that did not succeed, and the new enterprises, thanks to the paltry
mentality of their promoters, did not show the favourable results which
had been promised beforehand, then they became more modest in their
pretences and were happy if they could land themselves in one of the
so-called 'co-operative unions'.
 
At that period everything which could not stand on its own feet joined
one of those co-operative unions, believing that eight lame people
hanging on to one another could force a gladiator to surrender to them.
 
But if among all these cripples there was one who was sound of limb he
had to use all his strength to sustain the others and thus he himself
was practically paralysed.
 
We ought to look upon the question of joining these working coalitions
as a tactical problem, but, in coming to a decision, we must never
forget the following fundamental principle:
 
Through the formation of a working coalition associations which are weak
in themselves can never be made strong, whereas it can and does happen
not infrequently that a strong association loses its strength by joining
in a coalition with weaker ones. It is a mistake to believe that a
factor of strength will result from the coalition of weak groups;
because experience shows that under all forms and all conditions the
majority represents the duffers and poltroons. Hence a multiplicity of
associations, under a directorate of many heads, elected by these same
associations, is abandoned to the control of poltroons and weaklings.
Through such a coalition the free play of forces is paralysed, the
struggle for the selection of the best is abolished and therewith the
necessary and final victory of the healthier and stronger is impeded.
Coalitions of that kind are inimical to the process of natural
development, because for the most part they hinder rather than advance
the solution of the problem which is being fought for.
 
It may happen that, from considerations of a purely tactical kind, the
supreme command of a movement whose goal is set in the future will enter
into a coalition with such associations for the treatment of special
questions and may also stand on a common platform with them, but this
can be only for a short and limited period. Such a coalition must not be
permanent, if the movement does not wish to renounce its liberating
mission. Because if it should become indissolubly tied up in such a
combination it would lose the capacity and the right to allow its own
forces to work freely in following out a natural development, so as to
overcome rivals and attain its own objective triumphantly.
 
It must never be forgotten that nothing really great in this world has
ever been achieved through coalitions, but that such achievements have
always been due to the triumph of the individual. Successes achieved
through coalitions, owing to the very nature of their source, carry the
germs of future disintegration in them from the very start; so much so
that they have already forfeited what has been achieved. The great
revolutions which have taken place in human thought and have veritably
transformed the aspect of the world would have been inconceivable and
impossible to carry out except through titanic struggles waged between
individual natures, but never as the enterprises of coalitions.
 
And, above all things, the People's State will never be created by the
desire for compromise inherent in a patriotic coalition, but only by the
iron will of a single movement which has successfully come through in
the struggle with all the others.
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER IX
 
 
 
FUNDAMENTAL IDEAS REGARDING THE NATURE AND ORGANIZATION OF THE STORM TROOPS
 
 
The strength of the old state rested on three pillars: the monarchical
form of government, the civil service, and the army. The Revolution of
1918 abolished the form of government, dissolved the army and abandoned
the civil service to the corruption of party politics. Thus the
essential supports of what is called the Authority of the State were
shattered. This authority nearly always depends on three elements, which
are the essential foundations of all authority.
 
Popular support is the first element which is necessary for the creation
of authority. But an authority resting on that foundation alone is still
quite frail, uncertain and vacillating. Hence everyone who finds himself
vested with an authority that is based only on popular support must take
measures to improve and consolidate the foundations of that authority by
the creation of force. Accordingly we must look upon power, that is to
say, the capacity to use force, as the second foundation on which all
authority is based. This foundation is more stable and secure, but not
always stronger, than the first. If popular support and power are united
together and can endure for a certain time, then an authority may arise
which is based on a still stronger foundation, namely, the authority of
tradition. And, finally, if popular support, power, and tradition are
united together, then the authority based on them may be looked upon as
invincible.
 
In Germany the Revolution abolished this last foundation. There was no
longer even a traditional authority. With the collapse of the old REICH,
the suppression of the monarchical form of government, the destruction
of all the old insignia of greatness and the imperial symbols, tradition
was shattered at a blow. The result was that the authority of the State
was shaken to its foundations.
 
The second pillar of statal authority, namely POWER, also ceased to
exist. In order to carry through the Revolution it was necessary to
dissolve that body which had hitherto incorporated the organized force
and power of the State, namely, the Army. Indeed, some detached
fragments of the Army itself had to be employed as fighting elements in
the Revolution. The Armies at the front were not subjected in the same
measure to this process of disruption; but as they gradually left
farther behind them the fields of glory on which they had fought
heroically for four-and-half years, they were attacked by the solvent
acid that had permeated the Fatherland; and when they arrived at the
demobilizing centres they fell into that state of confusion which was
styled voluntary obedience in the time of the Soldiers' Councils.
 
Of course it was out of the question to think of founding any kind of
authority on this crowd of mutineering soldiers, who looked upon
military service as a work of eight hours per day. Therefore the second
element, that which guarantees the stability of authority, was also
abolished and the Revolution had only the original element, popular
support, on which to build up its authority. But this basis was
extraordinarily insecure. By means of a few violent thrusts the
Revolution had shattered the old statal edifice to its deepest
foundations, but only because the normal equilibrium within the social
structure of the nation had already been destroyed by the war.
 
Every national body is made up of three main classes. At one extreme we
have the best of the people, taking the word 'best' here to indicate
those who are highly endowed with the civic virtues and are noted for
their courage and their readiness to sacrifice their private interests.
At the other extreme are the worst dregs of humanity, in whom vice and
egotistic interests prevail. Between these two extremes stands the third
class, which is made up of the broad middle stratum, who do not
represent radiant heroism or vulgar vice.
 
The stages of a nation's rise are accomplished exclusively under the
leadership of the best extreme.
 
Times of normal and symmetrical development, or of stable conditions,
owe their existence and outwardly visible characteristics to the
preponderating influence of the middle stratum. In this stage the two
extreme classes are balanced against one another; in other words, they
are relatively cancelled out.
 
Times of national collapse are determined by the preponderating
influence of the worst elements.
 
It must be noted here, however, that the broad masses, which constitute
what I have called the middle section, come forward and make their
influence felt only when the two extreme sections are engaged in mutual
strife. In case one of the extreme sections comes out victorious the
middle section will readily submit to its domination. If the best
dominate, the broad masses will follow it. Should the worst extreme turn
out triumphant, then the middle section will at least offer no
opposition to it; for the masses that constitute the middle class never
fight their own battles.
 
The outpouring of blood for four-and-a-half years during the war
destroyed the inner equilibrium between these three sections in so far
as it can be said--though admitting the sacrifices made by the middle
section--that the class which consisted of the best human elements
almost completely disappeared through the loss of so much of its blood
in the war, because it was impossible to replace the truly enormous
quantity of heroic German blood which had been shed during those
four-and-a-half years. In hundreds of thousands of cases it was always a
matter of 'VOLUNTEERS to the front', VOLUNTEERS for patrol and duty,
VOLUNTEER dispatch carriers, VOLUNTEERS for establishing and working
telephonic communications, VOLUNTEERS for bridge-building, VOLUNTEERS
for the submarines, VOLUNTEERS for the air service, VOLUNTEERS for the
storm battalions, and so on, and so on. During four-and-a-half years,
and on thousands of occasions, there was always the call for volunteers
and again for volunteers. And the result was always the same. Beardless
young fellows or fully developed men, all filled with an ardent love for
their country, urged on by their own courageous spirit or by a lofty
sense of their duty--it was always such men who answered the call for
volunteers. Tens of thousands, indeed hundreds of thousands, of such men
came forward, so that that kind of human material steadily grew scarcer
and scarcer. What did not actually fall was maimed in the fight or
gradually had to join the ranks of the crippled because of the wounds
they were constantly receiving, and thus they had to carry on
interminably owing to the steady decrease in the supply of such men. In
1914 whole armies were composed of volunteers who, owing to a criminal
lack of conscience on the part of our feckless parliamentarians, had not
received any proper training in times of peace, and so were thrown as
defenceless cannon-fodder to the enemy. The four hundred thousand who
thus fell or were permanently maimed on the battlefields of Flanders
could not be replaced any more. Their loss was something far more than
merely numerical. With their death the scales, which were already too
lightly weighed at that end of the social structure which represented
our best human quality, now moved upwards rapidly, becoming heavier on
the other end with those vulgar elements of infamy and cowardice--in
short, there was an increase in the elements that constituted the worst
extreme of our population.
 
And there was something more: While for four-and-a-half years our best
human material was being thinned to an exceptional degree on the
battlefields, our worst people wonderfully succeeded in saving
themselves. For each hero who made the supreme sacrifice and ascended
the steps of Valhalla, there was a shirker who cunningly dodged death on
the plea of being engaged in business that was more or less useful at
home.
 
And so the picture which presented itself at the end of the war was
this: The great middle stratum of the nation had fulfilled its duty and
paid its toll of blood. One extreme of the population, which was
constituted of the best elements, had given a typical example of its
heroism and had sacrificed itself almost to a man. The other extreme,
which was constituted of the worst elements of the population, had
preserved itself almost intact, through taking advantage of absurd laws
and also because the authorities failed to enforce certain articles of
the military code.
 
This carefully preserved scum of our nation then made the Revolution.
And the reason why it could do so was that the extreme section composed
of the best elements was no longer there to oppose it. It no longer
existed.
 
Hence the German Revolution, from the very beginning, depended on only
one section of the population. This act of Cain was not committed by the
German people as such, but by an obscure CANAILLE of deserters,
hooligans, etc.
 
The man at the front gladly welcomed the end of the strife in which so
much blood had been shed. He was happy to be able to return home and see
his wife and children once again. But he had no moral connection with
the Revolution. He did not like it, nor did he like those who had
provoked and organized it. During the four-and-a-half years of that
bitter struggle at the front he had come to forget the party hyenas at
home and all their wrangling had become foreign to him.
 
The Revolution was really popular only with a small section of the
German people: namely, that class and their accomplices who had selected
the rucksack as the hall-mark of all honourable citizens in this new
State. They did not like the Revolution for its own sake, though many
people still erroneously believe the contrary, but for the consequences
which followed in its train.
 
But it was very difficult to establish any abiding authority on the
popular support given to these Marxist freebooters. And yet the young
Republic stood in need of authority at any cost, unless it was ready to
agree to be overthrown after a short period of chaos by an elementary
force assembled from those last elements that still remained among the
best extreme of the population.
 
The danger which those who were responsible for the Revolution feared
most at that time was that, in the turmoil of the confusion which they
themselves had created, the ground would suddenly be taken from under
their feet, that they might be suddenly seized and transported to
another terrain by an iron grip, such as has often appeared at these
junctures in the history of nations. The Republic must be consolidated
at all costs.
 
Hence it was forced almost immediately after its foundation to erect
another pillar beside that wavering pillar of popularity. They found
that power must be organized once again in order to procure a firmer
foundation for their authority.
 
When those who had been the matadors of the Revolution in December 1918,
and January and February 1919, felt the ground trembling beneath their
feet they looked around them for men who would be ready to reinforce
them with military support; for their feeble position was dependent only
on whatever popular favour they enjoyed. The 'anti-militarist' Republic
had need of soldiers. But the first and only pillar on which the
authority of the State rested, namely, its popularity, was grounded only
on a conglomeration of rowdies and thieves, burglars, deserters,
shirkers, etc. Therefore in that section of the nation which we have
called the evil extreme it was useless to look for men who would be
willing to sacrifice their lives on behalf of a new ideal. The section
which had nourished the revolutionary idea and carried out the
Revolution was neither able nor willing to call on the soldiers to
protect it. For that section had no wish whatsoever to organize a
republican State, but to disorganize what already existed and thus
satisfy its own instincts all the better. Their password was not the
organization and construction of the German Republic, but rather the
plundering of it.
 
Hence the cry for help sent out by the public representatives, who were
beset by a thousand anxieties, did not find any response among this
class of people, but rather provoked a feeling of bitterness and
repudiation. For they looked upon this step as the beginning of a breach
of faith and trust, and in the building up of an authority which was no
longer based on popular support but also on force they saw the beginning
of a hostile move against what the Revolution meant essentially for
those elements. They feared that measures might be taken against the
right to robbery and absolute domination on the part of a horde of
thieves and plunderers--in short, the worst rabble--who had broken out
of the convict prisons and left their chains behind.
 
The representatives of the people might cry out as much as they liked,
but they could get no help from that rabble. The cries for help were met
with the counter-cry 'traitors' by those very people on whose support
the popularity of the regime was founded.
 
Then for the first time large numbers of young Germans were found who
were ready to button on the military uniform once again in the service
of 'Peace and Order', as they believed, shouldering the carbine and
rifle and donning the steel helmet to defend the wreckers of the
Fatherland. Volunteer corps were assembled and, although hating the
Revolution, they began to defend it. The practical effect of their
action was to render the Revolution firm and stable. In doing this they
acted in perfect good faith.
 
The real organizer of the Revolution and the actual wire-puller behind
it, the international Jew, had sized up the situation correctly. The
German people were not yet ripe to be drawn into the blood swamp of
Bolshevism, as the Russian people had been drawn. And that was because
there was a closer racial union between the intellectual classes in
Germany and the manual workers, and also because broad social strata
were permeated with cultured people, such as was the case also in the
other States of Western Europe; but this state of affairs was completely
lacking in Russia. In that country the intellectual classes were mostly
not of Russian nationality, or at least they did not have the racial
characteristics of the Slav. The thin upper layer of intellectuals which
then existed in Russia might be abolished at any time, because there was
no intermediate stratum connecting it organically with the great mass of
the people. There the mental and moral level of the great mass of the
people was frightfully low.
 
In Russia the moment the agitators were successful in inciting broad
masses of the people, who could not read or write, against the upper
layer of intellectuals who were not in contact with the masses or
permanently linked with them in any way--at that moment the destiny of
Russia was decided, the success of the Revolution was assured. Thereupon
the analphabetic Russian became the slave of his Jewish dictators who,
on their side, were shrewd enough to name their dictatorship 'The
Dictatorship of the People'.
 
In the case of Germany an additional factor must be taken into account.
Here the Revolution could be carried into effect only if the Army could
first be gradually dismembered. But the real author of the Revolution
and of the process of disintegration in the Army was not the soldier who
had fought at the front but the CANAILLE which more or less shunned the
light and which were either quartered in the home garrisons or were
officiating as 'indispensables' somewhere in the business world at home.
This army was reinforced by ten thousand deserters who, without running
any particular risk, could turn their backs on the Front. At all times
the real poltroon fears nothing so much as death. But at the Front he
had death before his eyes every day in a thousand different shapes.
There has always been one possible way, and one only, of making weak or
wavering men, or even downright poltroons, face their duty steadfastly.
This means that the deserter must be given to understand that his
desertion will bring upon him just the very thing he is flying from. At
the Front a man may die, but the deserter MUST die. Only this draconian
threat against every attempt to desert the flag can have a terrifying
effect, not merely on the individual but also on the mass. Therein lay
the meaning and purpose of the military penal code.
 
It was a fine belief to think that the great struggle for the life of a
nation could be carried through if it were based solely on voluntary
fidelity arising from and sustained by the knowledge that such a
struggle was necessary. The voluntary fulfilment of one's duty is a
motive that determines the actions of only the best men, but not of the
average type of men. Hence special laws are necessary; just as, for
instance, the law against stealing, which was not made for men who are
honest on principle but for the weak and unstable elements. Such laws
are meant to hinder the evil-doer through their deterrent effect and
thus prevent a state of affairs from arising in which the honest man is
considered the more stupid, and which would end in the belief that it is
better to have a share in the robbery than to stand by with empty hands
or allow oneself to be robbed.
 
It was a mistake to believe that in a struggle which, according to all
human foresight, might last for several years it would be possible to
dispense with those expedients which the experience of hundreds and even
of thousands of years had proved to be effective in making weak and
unstable men face and fulfil their duty in difficult times and at
moments of great nervous stress.
 
For the voluntary war hero it is, of course, not necessary to have the
death penalty in the military code, but it is necessary for the cowardly
egoists who value their own lives more than the existence of the
community in the hour of national need. Such weak and characterless
people can be held back from surrendering to their cowardice only by the
application of the heaviest penalties. When men have to struggle with
death every day and remain for weeks in trenches of mire, often very
badly supplied with food, the man who is unsure of himself and begins to
waver cannot be made to stick to his post by threats of imprisonment or
even penal servitude. Only by a ruthless enforcement of the death
penalty can this be effected. For experience shows that at such a time
the recruit considers prison a thousand times more preferable than the
battlefield. In prison at least his precious life is not in danger. The
practical abolition of the death penalty during the war was a mistake
for which we had to pay dearly. Such omission really meant that the
military penal code was no longer recognized as valid. An army of
deserters poured into the stations at the rear or returned home,
especially in 1918, and there began to form that huge criminal
organization with which we were suddenly faced, after November 7th,
1918, and which perpetrated the Revolution.
 
The Front had nothing to do with all this. Naturally, the soldiers at
the Front were yearning for peace. But it was precisely that fact which
represented a special danger for the Revolution. For when the German
soldiers began to draw near home, after the Armistice, the
revolutionaries were in trepidation and asked the same question again
and again: What will the troops from the Front do? Will the field-greys
stand for it?
 
During those weeks the Revolution was forced to give itself at least an
external appearance of moderation, if it were not to run the risk of
being wrecked in a moment by a few German divisions. For at that time,
even if the commander of one division alone had made up his mind to
rally the soldiers of his division, who had always remained faithful to
him, in an onslaught to tear down the red flag and put the 'councils' up
against the wall, or, if there was any resistance, to break it with
trench-mortars and hand grenades, that division would have grown into an
army of sixty divisions in less than four weeks. The Jew wire-pullers
were terrified by this prospect more than by anything else; and to
forestall this particular danger they found it necessary to give the
Revolution a certain aspect of moderation. They dared not allow it to
degenerate into Bolshevism, so they had to face the existing conditions
by putting up the hypocritical picture of 'order and tranquillity'.
Hence many important concessions, the appeal to the old civil service
and to the heads of the old Army. They would be needed at least for a
certain time, and only when they had served the purpose of Turks' Heads
could the deserved kick-out be administered with impunity. Then the
Republic would be taken entirely out of the hands of the old servants of
the State and delivered into the claws of the revolutionaries.
 
They thought that this was the only plan which would succeed in duping
the old generals and civil servants and disarm any eventual opposition
beforehand through the apparently harmless and mild character of the new
regime.
 
Practical experience has shown to what extent the plan succeeded.
 
The Revolution, however, was not made by the peaceful and orderly
elements of the nation but rather by rioters, thieves and robbers. And
the way in which the Revolution was developing did not accord with the
intentions of these latter elements; still, on tactical grounds, it was
not possible to explain to them the reasons for the course things were
taking and make that course acceptable.
 
As Social Democracy gradually gained power it lost more and more the
character of a crude revolutionary party. Of course in their inner
hearts the Social Democrats wanted a revolution; and their leaders had
no other end in view. Certainly not. But what finally resulted was only
a revolutionary programme; but not a body of men who would be able to
carry it out. A revolution cannot be carried through by a party of ten
million members. If such a movement were attempted the leaders would
find that it was not an extreme section of the population on which they
had to depend butrather the broad masses of the middle stratum; hence
the inert masses.
 
Recognizing all this, already during the war, the Jews caused the famous
split in the Social Democratic Party. While the Social Democratic Party,
conforming to the inertia of its mass following, clung like a leaden
weight on the neck of the national defence, the actively radical
elements were extracted from it and formed into new aggressive columns
for purposes of attack. The Independent Socialist Party and the
Spartacist League were the storm battalions of revolutionary Marxism.
The objective assigned to them was to create a FAIT ACCOMPLI, on the
grounds of which the masses of the Social Democratic Party could take
their stand, having been prepared for this event long beforehand. The
feckless bourgeoisie had been estimated at its just value by the
Marxists and treated EN CANAILLE. Nobody bothered about it, knowing well
that in their canine servility the representatives of an old and
worn-out generation would not be able to offer any serious resistance.
 
When the Revolution had succeeded and its artificers believed that the
main pillars of the old State had been broken down, the Army returning
from the Front began to appear in the light of a sinister sphinx and
thus made it necessary to slow down the national course of the
Revolution. The main body of the Social Democratic horde occupied the
conquered positions, and the Independent Socialist and Spartacist storm
battalions were side-tracked.
 
But that did not happen without a struggle.
 
The activist assault formations that had started the Revolution were
dissatisfied and felt that they had been betrayed. They now wanted to
continue the fight on their own account. But their illimitable
racketeering became odious even to the wire-pullers of the Revolution.
For the Revolution itself had scarcely been accomplished when two camps
appeared. In the one camp were the elements of peace and order; in the
other were those of blood and terror. Was it not perfectly natural that
our bourgeoisie should rush with flying colours to the camp of peace and
order? For once in their lives their piteous political organizations
found it possible to act, inasmuch as the ground had been prepared for
them on which they were glad to get a new footing; and thus to a certain
extent they found themselves in coalition with that power which they
hated but feared. The German political bourgeoisie achieved the high
honour of being able to associate itself with the accursed Marxist
leaders for the purpose of combating Bolshevism.
 
Thus the following state of affairs took shape as early as December 1918
and January 1919:
 
A minority constituted of the worst elements had made the Revolution.
And behind this minority all the Marxist parties immediately fell into
step. The Revolution itself had an outward appearance of moderation,
which aroused against it the enmity of the fanatical extremists. These
began to launch hand-grenades and fire machine-guns, occupying public
buildings, thus threatening to destroy the moderate appearance of the
Revolution. To prevent this terror from developing further a truce was
concluded between the representatives of the new regime and the
adherents of the old order, so as to be able to wage a common fight
against the extremists. The result was that the enemies of the Republic
ceased to oppose the Republic as such and helped to subjugate those who
were also enemies of the Republic, though for quite different reasons.
But a further result was that all danger of the adherents of the old
State putting up a fight against the new was now definitely averted.
 
This fact must always be clearly kept in mind. Only by remembering it
can we understand how it was possible that a nation in which nine-tenths
of the people had not joined in a revolution, where seven-tenths
repudiated it and six-tenths detested it--how this nation allowed the
Revolution to be imposed upon it by the remaining one-tenth of the
population.
 
Gradually the barricade heroes in the Spartacist camp petered out, and
so did the nationalist patriots and idealists on the other side. As
these two groups steadily dwindled, the masses of the middle stratum, as
always happens, triumphed. The Bourgeoisie and the Marxists met together
on the grounds of accomplished facts, and the Republic began to be
consolidated. At first, however, that did not prevent the bourgeois
parties from propounding their monarchist ideas for some time further,
especially at the elections, whereby they endeavoured to conjure up the
spirits of the dead past to encourage their own feeble-hearted
followers. It was not an honest proceeding. In their hearts they had
broken with the monarchy long ago; but the foulness of the new regime
had begun to extend its corruptive action and make itself felt in the
camp of the bourgeois parties. The common bourgeois politician now felt
better in the slime of republican corruption than in the severe decency
of the defunct State, which still lived in his memory.
 
As I have already pointed out, after the destruction of the old Army the
revolutionary leaders were forced to strengthen statal authority by
creating a new factor of power. In the conditions that existed they
could do this only by winning over to their side the adherents of a
WELTANSCHAUUNG which was a direct contradiction of their own. From
those elements alone it was possible slowly to create a new army which,
limited numerically by the peace treaties, had to be subsequently
transformed in spirit so as to become an instrument of the new regime.
 
Setting aside the defects of the old State, which really became the
cause of the Revolution, if we ask how it was possible to carry the
Revolution to a successful issue as a political act, we arrive at the
following conclusions:
 
l. It was due to a process of dry rot in our conceptions of duty and
obedience.
 
2. It was due also to the passive timidity of the Parties who were
supposed to uphold the State.
 
To this the following must be added: The dry rot which attacked our
concepts of duty and obedience was fundamentally due to our wholly
non-national and purely State education. From this came the habit of
confusing means and ends. Consciousness of duty, fulfilment of duty, and
obedience, are not ends in themselves no more than the State is an end
in itself; but they all ought to be employed as means to facilitate and
assure the existence of a community of people who are kindred both
physically and spiritually. At a moment when a nation is manifestly
collapsing and when all outward signs show that it is on the point of
becoming the victim of ruthless oppression, thanks to the conduct of a
few miscreants, to obey these people and fulfil one's duty towards them
is merely doctrinaire formalism, and indeed pure folly; whereas, on the
other hand, the refusal of obedience and fulfilment of duty in such a
case might save the nation from collapse. According to our current
bourgeois idea of the State, if a divisional general received from above
the order not to shoot he fulfilled his duty and therefore acted rightly
in not shooting, because to the bourgeois mind blind formal obedience is
a more valuable thing than the life of a nation. But according to the
National Socialist concept it is not obedience to weak superiors that
should prevail at such moments, in such an hour the duty of assuming
personal responsibility towards the whole nation makes its appearance.
 
The Revolution succeeded because that concept had ceased to be a vital
force with our people, or rather with our governments, and died down to
something that was merely formal and doctrinaire.
 
As regards the second point, it may be said that the more profound cause
of the fecklessness of the bourgeois parties must be attributed to the
fact that the most active and upright section of our people had lost
their lives in the war. Apart from that, the bourgeois parties, which
may be considered as the only political formations that stood by the old
State, were convinced that they ought to defend their principles only by
intellectual ways and means, since the use of physical force was
permitted only to the State. That outlook was a sign of the weakness and
decadence which had been gradually developing. And it was also senseless
at a period when there was a political adversary who had long ago
abandoned that standpoint and, instead of this, had openly declared that
he meant to attain his political ends by force whenever that became
possible. When Marxism emerged in the world of bourgeois democracy, as a
consequence of that democracy itself, the appeal sent out by the
bourgeois democracy to fight Marxism with intellectual weapons was a
piece of folly for which a terrible expiation had to be made later on.
For Marxism always professed the doctrine that the use of arms was a
matter which had to be judged from the standpoint of expediency and that
success justified the use of arms.
 
This idea was proved correct during the days from November 7 to 10,
1918. The Marxists did not then bother themselves in the least about
parliament or democracy, but they gave the death blow to both by turning
loose their horde of criminals to shoot and raise hell.
 
When the Revolution was over the bourgeois parties changed the title of
their firm and suddenly reappeared, the heroic leaders emerging from
dark cellars or more lightsome storehouses where they had sought refuge.
But, just as happens in the case of all representatives of antiquated
institutions, they had not forgotten their errors or learned anything
new. Their political programme was grounded in the past, even though
they themselves had become reconciled to the new regime. Their aim was
to secure a share in the new establishment, and so they continued the
use of words as their sole weapon.
 
Therefore after the Revolution the bourgeois parties also capitulated to
the street in a miserable fashion.
 
When the law for the Protection of the Republic was introduced the
majority was not at first in favour of it. But, confronted with two
hundred thousand Marxists demonstrating in the streets, the bourgeois
'statesmen' were so terror-stricken that they voted for the Law against
their wills, for the edifying reason that otherwise they feared they
might get their heads smashed by the enraged masses on leaving the
Reichstag.
 
And so the new State developed along its own course, as if there had
been no national opposition at all.
 
The only organizations which at that time had the strength and courage
to face Marxism and its enraged masses were first of all the volunteer
corps (Note 19), and subsequently the organizations for self-defence, the
civic guards and finally the associations formed by the demobilized
soldiers of the old Army.
 
[Note 19. After the DEBACLE of 1918 several semi-military associations were
formed by demobilized officers who had fought at the Front. These were
semi-clandestine associations and were known as FREIKORPS (Volunteer
corps). Their principal purpose was to act as rallying centres for the
old nationalist elements.]
 
But the existence of these bodies did not appreciably change the course
of German history; and that for the following causes:
 
As the so-called national parties were without influence, because they
had no force which could effectively demonstrate in the street, the
Leagues of Defence could not exercise any influence because they had no
political idea and especially because they had no definite political aim
in view.
 
The success which Marxism once attained was due to perfect co-operation
between political purposes and ruthless force. What deprived nationalist
Germany of all practical hopes of shaping German development was the
lack of a determined co-operation between brute force and political aims
wisely chosen.
 
Whatever may have been the aspirations of the 'national' parties, they
had no force whatsoever to fight for these aspirations, least of all in
the streets.
 
The Defence Leagues had force at their disposal. They were masters of
the street and of the State, but they lacked political ideas and aims on
behalf of which their forces might have been or could have been employed
in the interests of the German nation. The cunning Jew was able in both
cases, by his astute powers of persuasion, in reinforcing an already
existing tendency to make this unfortunate state of affairs permanent
and at the same time to drive the roots of it still deeper.
 
The Jew succeeded brilliantly in using his Press for the purpose of
spreading abroad the idea that the defence associations were of a
'non-political' character just as in politics he was always astute
enough to praise the purely intellectual character of the struggle and
demand that it must always be kept on that plane
 
Millions of German imbeciles then repeated this folly without having the
slightest suspicion that by so doing they were, for all practical
purposes, disarming themselves and delivering themselves defenceless
into the hands of the Jew.
 
But there is a natural explanation of this also. The lack of a great
idea which would re-shape things anew has always meant a limitation in
fighting power. The conviction of the right to employ even the most
brutal weapons is always associated with an ardent faith in the
necessity for a new and revolutionary transformation of the world.
 
A movement which does not fight for such high aims and ideals will never
have recourse to extreme means.
 
The appearance of a new and great idea was the secret of success in the
French Revolution. The Russian Revolution owes its triumph to an idea.
And it was only the idea that enabled Fascism triumphantly to subject a
whole nation to a process of complete renovation.
 
Bourgeois parties are not capable of such an achievement. And it was not
the bourgeois parties alone that fixed their aim in a restoration of the
past. The defence associations also did so, in so far as they concerned
themselves with political aims at all. The spirit of the old war legions
and Kyffauser tendencies lived in them and therewith helped politically
to blunt the sharpest weapons which the German nation then possessed and
allow them to rust in the hands of republican serfs. The fact that these
associations were inspired by the best of intentions in so doing, and
certainly acted in good faith, does not alter in the slightest degree
the foolishness of the course they adopted.
 
In the consolidated REICHSWEHR Marxism gradually acquired the support of
force, which it needed for its authority. As a logical consequence it
proceeded to abolish those defence associations which it considered
dangerous, declaring that they were now no longer necessary. Some rash
leaders who defied the Marxist orders were summoned to court and sent to
prison. But they all got what they had deserved.
 
The founding of the National Socialist German Labour Party incited a
movement which was the first to fix its aim, not in a mechanical
restoration of the past--as the bourgeois parties did--but in the
substitution of an organic People's State for the present absurd statal
mechanism.
 
From the first day of its foundation the new movement took its stand on
the principle that its ideas had to be propagated by intellectual means
but that, wherever necessary, muscular force must be employed to support
this propaganda. In accordance with their conviction of the paramount
importance of the new doctrine, the leaders of the new movement
naturally believe that no sacrifice can be considered too great when it
is a question of carrying through the purpose of the movement.
 
I have emphasized that in certain circumstances a movement which is
meant to win over the hearts of the people must be ready to defend
itself with its own forces against terrorist attempts on the part of its
adversaries. It has invariably happened in the history of the world that
formal State authority has failed to break a reign of terror which was
inspired by a WELTANSCHAUUNG. It can only be conquered by a new and
different WELTANSCHAUUNG whose representatives are quite as audacious
and determined. The acknowledgment of this fact has always been very
unpleasant for the bureaucrats who are the protectors of the State, but
the fact remains nevertheless. The rulers of the State can guarantee
tranquillity and order only in case the State embodies a WELTANSCHAUUNG
which is shared in by the people as a whole; so that elements of
disturbance can be treated as isolated criminals, instead of being
considered as the champions of an idea which is diametrically opposed to
official opinions. If such should be the case the State may employ the
most violent measures for centuries long against the terror that
threatens it; but in the end all these measures will prove futile, and
the State will have to succumb.
 
The German State is intensely overrun by Marxism. In a struggle that
went on for seventy years the State was not able to prevent the triumph
of the Marxist idea. Even though the sentences to penal servitude and
imprisonment amounted in all to thousands of years, and even though the
most sanguinary methods of repression were in innumerable instances
threatened against the champions of the Marxist WELTANSCHAUUNG, in the
end the State was forced to capitulate almost completely. The ordinary
bourgeois political leaders will deny all this, but their protests are
futile.
 
Seeing that the State capitulated unconditionally to Marxism on November
9th, 1918, it will not suddenly rise up tomorrow as the conqueror of
Marxism. On the contrary. Bourgeois simpletons sitting on office stools
in the various ministries babble about the necessity of not governing
against the wishes of the workers, and by the word 'workers' they mean
the Marxists. By identifying the German worker with Marxism not only are
they guilty of a vile falsification of the truth, but they thus try to
hide their own collapse before the Marxist idea and the Marxist
organization.
 
In view of the complete subordination of the present State to Marxism,
the National Socialist Movement feels all the more bound not only to
prepare the way for the triumph of its idea by appealing to the reason
and understanding of the public but also to take upon itself the
responsibility of organizing its own defence against the terror of the
International, which is intoxicated with its own victory.
 
I have already described how practical experience in our young movement
led us slowly to organize a system of defence for our meetings. This
gradually assumed the character of a military body specially trained for
the maintenance of order, and tended to develop into a service which
would have its properly organized cadres.
 
This new formation might resemble the defence associations externally,
but in reality there were no grounds of comparison between the one and
the other.
 
As I have already said, the German defence organizations did not have
any definite political ideas of their own. They really were only
associations for mutual protection, and they were trained and organized
accordingly, so that they were an illegal complement or auxiliary to the
legal forces of the State. Their character as free corps arose only from
the way in which they were constructed and the situation in which the
State found itself at that time. But they certainly could not claim to
be free corps on the grounds that they were associations formed freely
and privately for the purpose of fighting for their own freely formed
political convictions. Such they were not, despite the fact that some of
their leaders and some associations as such were definitely opposed to
the Republic. For before we can speak of political convictions in the
higher sense we must be something more than merely convinced that the
existing regime is defective. Political convictions in the higher sense
mean that one has the picture of a new regime clearly before one's mind,
feels that the establishment of this regime is an absolute necessity and
sets himself to carry out that purpose as the highest task to which his
life can be devoted.
 
The troops for the preservation of order, which were then formed under
the National Socialist Movement, were fundamentally different from all
the other defence associations by reason of the fact that our formations
were not meant in any way to defend the state of things created by the
Revolution, but rather that they were meant exclusively to support our
struggle for the creation of a new Germany.
 
In the beginning this body was merely a guard to maintain order at our
meetings. Its first task was limited to making it possible for us to
hold our meetings, which otherwise would have been completely prevented
by our opponents. These men were at that time trained merely for
purposes of attack, but they were not taught to adore the big stick
exclusively, as was then pretended in stupid German patriotic circles.
They used the cudgel because they knew that it can be made impossible
for high ideals to be put forward if the man who endeavours to propagate
them can be struck down with the cudgel. As a matter of fact, it has
happened in history not infrequently that some of the greatest minds
have perished under the blows of the most insignificant helots. Our
bodyguards did not look upon violence as an end in itself, but they
protected the expositors of ideal aims and purposes against hostile
coercion by violence. They also understood that there was no obligation
to undertake the defence of a State which did not guarantee the defence
of the nation, but that, on the contrary, they had to defend the nation
against those who were threatening to destroy nation and State.
 
After the fight which took place at the meeting in the Munich
Hofbräuhaus, where the small number of our guards who were present won
everlasting fame for themselves by the heroic manner in which they
stormed the adversaries; these guards were called THE STORM DETACHMENT.
As the name itself indicates, they represent only a DETACHMENT of the
Movement. They are one constituent element of it, just as is the Press,
the propaganda, educational institutes, and other sections of the Party.
 
We learned how necessary was the formation of such a body, not only from
our experience on the occasion of that memorable meeting but also when
we sought gradually to carry the Movement beyond Munich and extend it to
the other parts of Germany. Once we had begun to appear as a danger to
Marxism the Marxists lost no opportunity of trying to crush beforehand
all preparations for the holding of National Socialist meetings. When
they did not succeed in this they tried to break up the meeting itself.
It goes without saying that all the Marxist organizations, no matter of
what grade or view, blindly supported the policy and activities of their
representations in every case. But what is to be said of the bourgeois
parties who, when they were reduced to silence by these same Marxists
and in many places did not dare to send their speakers to appear before
the public, yet showed themselves pleased, in a stupid and
incomprehensible manner, every time we received any kind of set-back in
our fight against Marxism. The bourgeois parties were happy to think
that those whom they themselves could not stand up against, but had to
knuckle down to, could not be broken by us. What must be said of those
State officials, chiefs of police, and even cabinet ministers, who
showed a scandalous lack of principle in presenting themselves
externally to the public as 'national' and yet shamelessly acted as the
henchmen of the Marxists in the disputes which we, National Socialists,
had with the latter. What can be said of persons who debased themselves
so far, for the sake of a little abject praise in the Jewish Press, that
they persecuted those men to whose heroic courage and intervention,
regardless of risk, they were partly indebted for not having been torn
to pieces by the Red mob a few years previously and strung up to the
lamp-posts?
 
One day these lamentable phenomena fired the late but unforgotten
Prefect Pöhner--a man whose unbending straightforwardness forced him to
hate all twisters and to hate them as only a man with an honest heart
can hate--to say: "In all my life I wished to be first a German and then
an official, and I never wanted to mix up with these creatures who, as
if they were kept officials, prostituted themselves before anybody who
could play lord and master for the time being."
 
It was a specially sad thing that gradually tens of thousands of honest
and loyal servants of the State did not only come under the power of
such people but were also slowly contaminated by their unprincipled
morals. Moreover, these kind of men pursued honest officials with a
furious hatred, degrading them and driving them from their positions,
and yet passed themselves off as 'national' by the aid of their lying
hypocrisy.
 
From officials of that kind we could expect no support, and only in very
rare instances was it given. Only by building up its own defence could
our movement become secure and attract that amount of public attention
and general respect which is given to those who can defend themselves
when attacked.
 
As an underlying principle in the internal development of the Storm
Detachment, we came to the decision that not only should it be perfectly
trained in bodily efficiency but that the men should be so instructed as
to make them indomitably convinced champions of the National Socialist
ideas and, finally, that they should be schooled to observe the
strictest discipline. This body was to have nothing to do with the
defence organizations of the bourgeois type and especially not with any
secret organization.
 
My reasons at that time for guarding strictly against letting the Storm
Detachment of the German National Socialist Labour Party appear as a
defence association were as follows:
 
On purely practical grounds it is impossible to build up a national
defence organization by means of private associations, unless the State
makes an enormous contribution to it. Whoever thinks otherwise
overestimates his own powers. Now it is entirely out of the question to
form organizations of any military value for a definite purpose on the
principle of so-called 'voluntary discipline'. Here the chief support
for enforcing orders, namely, the power of inflicting punishment, is
lacking. In the autumn, or rather in the spring, of 1919 it was still
possible to raise 'volunteer corps', not only because most of the men
who came forward at that time had been through the school of the old
Army, but also because the kind of duty imposed there constrained the
individual to absolute obedience at least for a definite period of time.
 
That spirit is entirely lacking in the volunteer defence organizations
of to-day. The more the defence association grows, the weaker its
discipline becomes and so much the less can one demand from the
individual members. Thus the whole organization will more and more
assume the character of the old non-political associations of war
comrades and veterans.
 
It is impossible to carry through a voluntary training in military
service for larger masses unless one is assured absolute power of
command. There will always be few men who will voluntarily and
spontaneously submit to that kind of obedience which is considered
natural and necessary in the Army.
 
Moreover, a proper system of military training cannot be developed where
there are such ridiculously scanty means as those at the disposal of the
defence associations. The principal task of such an institution must be
to impart the best and most reliable kind of instruction. Eight years
have passed since the end of the War, and during that time none of our
German youth, at an age when formerly they would have had to do military
service, have received any systematic training at all. The aim of a
defence association cannot be to enlist here and now all those who have
already received a military training; for in that case it could be
reckoned with mathematical accuracy when the last member would leave the
association. Even the younger soldier from 1918 will no longer be fit
for front-line service twenty years later, and we are approaching that
state of things with a rapidity that gives cause for anxiety. Thus the
defence associations must assume more and more the aspect of the old
ex-service men's societies. But that cannot be the meaning and purpose
of an institution which calls itself, not an association of ex-service
men but a DEFENCE association, indicating by this title that it
considers its task to be, not only to preserve the tradition of the old
soldiers and hold them together but also to propagate the idea of
national defence and be able to carry this idea into practical effect,
which means the creation of a body of men who are fit and trained for
military defence.
 
But this implies that those elements will receive a military training
which up to now have received none. This is something that in practice
is impossible for the defence associations. Real soldiers cannot be made
by a training of one or two hours per week. In view of the enormously
increasing demands which modern warfare imposes on each individual
soldier to-day, a military service of two years is barely sufficient to
transform a raw recruit into a trained soldier. At the Front during the
War we all saw the fearful consequences which our young recruits had to
suffer from their lack of a thorough military training. Volunteer
formations which had been drilled for fifteen or twenty weeks under an
iron discipline and shown unlimited self-denial proved nevertheless to
be no better than cannon fodder at the Front. Only when distributed
among the ranks of the old and experienced soldiers could the young
recruits, who had been trained for four or six months, become useful
members of a regiment. Guided by the 'old men', they adapted themselves
gradually to their task.
 
In the light of all this, how hopeless must the attempt be to create a
body of fighting troops by a so-called training of one or two hours in
the week, without any definite power of command and without any
considerable means. In that way perhaps one could refresh military
training in old soldiers, but raw recruits cannot thus be transformed
into expert soldiers.
 
How such a proceeding produces utterly worthless results may also be
demonstrated by the fact that at the same time as these so-called
volunteer defence associations, with great effort and outcry and under
difficulties and lack of necessities, try to educate and train a few
thousand men of goodwill (the others need not be taken into account) for
purposes of national defence, the State teaches our young men democratic
and pacifist ideas and thus deprives millions and millions of their
national instincts, poisons their logical sense of patriotism and
gradually turns them into a herd of sheep who will patiently follow any
arbitrary command. Thus they render ridiculous all those attempts made
by the defence associations to inculcate their ideas in the minds of the
German youth.
 
Almost more important is the following consideration, which has always
made me take up a stand against all attempts at a so-called military
training on the basis of the volunteer associations.
 
Assuming that, in spite of all the difficulties just mentioned, a
defence association were successful in training a certain number of
Germans every year to be efficient soldiers, not only as regards their
mental outlook but also as regards bodily efficiency and the expert
handling of arms, the result must necessarily be null and void in a
State whose whole tendency makes it not only look upon such a defensive
formation as undesirable but even positively hate it, because such an
association would completely contradict the intimate aims of the
political leaders, who are the corrupters of this State.
 
But anyhow, such a result would be worthless under governments which
have demonstrated by their own acts that they do not lay the slightest
importance on the military power of the nation and are not disposed to
permit an appeal to that power only in case that it were necessary for
the protection of their own malignant existence.
 
And that is the state of affairs to-day. It is not ridiculous to think
of training some ten thousand men in the use of arms, and carry on that
training surreptitiously, when a few years previously the State, having
shamefully sacrificed eight-and-a-half million highly trained soldiers,
not merely did not require their services any more, but, as a mark of
gratitude for their sacrifices, held them up to public contumely. Shall
we train soldiers for a regime which besmirched and spat upon our most
glorious soldiers, tore the medals and badges from their breasts,
trampled on their flags and derided their achievements? Has the present
regime taken one step towards restoring the honour of the old army and
bringing those who destroyed and outraged it to answer for their deeds?
Not in the least. On the contrary, the people I have just referred to
may be seen enthroned in the highest positions under the State to-day.
And yet it was said at Leipzig: "Right goes with might." Since, however,
in our Republic to-day might is in the hands of the very men who
arranged for the Revolution, and since that Revolution represents a most
despicable act of high treason against the nation--yea, the vilest act
in German history--there can surely be no grounds for saying that might
of this character should be enhanced by the formation of a new young
army. It is against all sound reason.
 
The importance which this State attached, after the Revolution of 1918,
to the reinforcement of its position from the military point of view is
clearly and unmistakably demonstrated by its attitude towards the large
self-defence organizations which existed in that period. They were not
unwelcome as long as they were of use for the personal protection of the
miserable creatures cast up by the Revolution.
 
But the danger to these creatures seemed to disappear as the debasement
of our people gradually increased. As the existence of the defence
associations no longer implied a reinforcement of the national policy
they became superfluous. Hence every effort was made to disarm them and
suppress them wherever that was possible.
 
History records only a few examples of gratitude on the part of princes.
But there is not one patriot among the new bourgeoisie who can count on
the gratitude of revolutionary incendiaries and assassins, persons who
have enriched themselves from the public spoil and betrayed the nation.
In examining the problem as to the wisdom of forming these defence
associations I have never ceased to ask: 'For whom shall I train these
young men? For what purpose will they be employed when they will have to
be called out?' The answer to these questions lays down at the same time
the best rule for us to follow.
 
If the present State should one day have to call upon trained troops of
this kind it would never be for the purpose of defending the interests
of the nation VIS-À-VIS those of the stranger but rather to protect the
oppressors of the nation inside the country against the danger of a
general outbreak of wrath on the part of a nation which has been
deceived and betrayed and whose interests have been bartered away.
 
For this reason it was decided that the Storm Detachment of the German
National Socialist Labour Party ought not to be in the nature of a
military organization. It had to be an instrument of protection and
education for the National Socialist Movement and its duties should be
in quite a different sphere from that of the military defence
association.
 
And, of course, the Storm Detachment should not be in the nature of a
secret organization. Secret organizations are established only for
purposes that are against the law. Therewith the purpose of such an
organization is limited by its very nature. Considering the loquacious
propensities of the German people, it is not possible to build up any
vast organization, keeping it secret at the same time and cloaking its
purpose. Every attempt of that kind is destined to turn out absolutely
futile. It is not merely that our police officials to-day have at their
disposal a staff of eaves-droppers and other such rabble who are ready
to play traitor, like Judas, for thirty pieces of silver and will betray
whatever secrets they can discover and will invent what they would like
to reveal. In order to forestall such eventualities, it is never
possible to bind one's own followers to the silence that is necessary.
Only small groups can become really secret societies, and that only
after long years of filtration. But the very smallness of such groups
would deprive them of all value for the National Socialist Movement.
What we needed then and need now is not one or two hundred dare-devil
conspirators but a hundred thousand devoted champions of our
WELTANSCHAUUNG. The work must not be done through secret conventicles
but through formidable mass demonstrations in public. Dagger and pistol
and poison-vial cannot clear the way for the progress of the movement.
That can be done only by winning over the man in the street. We must
overthrow Marxism, so that for the future National Socialism will be
master of the street, just as it will one day become master of the
State.
 
There is another danger connected with secret societies. It lies in the
fact that their members often completely misunderstand the greatness of
the task in hand and are apt to believe that a favourable destiny can be
assured for the nation all at once by means of a single murder. Such a
belief may find historical justification by appealing to cases where a
nation had been suffering under the tyranny of some oppressor who at the
same time was a man of genius and whose extraordinary personality
guaranteed the internal solidity of his position and enabled him to
maintain his fearful oppression. In such cases a man may suddenly arise
from the ranks of the people who is ready to sacrifice himself and
plunge the deadly steel into the heart of the hated individual. In order
to look upon such a deed as abhorrent one must have the republican
mentality of that petty CANAILLE who are conscious of their own crime.
But the greatest champion (Note 20) of liberty that the German people have
ever had has glorified such a deed in WILLIAM TELL.
 
[Note 20. Schiller, who wrote the famous drama of WILLIAM TELL.]
 
During 1919 and 1920 there was danger that the members of secret
organizations, under the influence of great historical examples and
overcome by the immensity of the nation's misfortunes, might attempt to
wreak vengeance on the destroyers of their country, under the belief
that this would end the miseries of the people. All such attempts were
sheer folly, for the reason that the Marxist triumph was not due to the
superior genius of one remarkable person but rather to immeasurable
incompetence and cowardly shirking on the part of the bourgeoisie. The
hardest criticism that can be uttered against our bourgeoisie is simply
to state the fact that it submitted to the Revolution, even though the
Revolution did not produce one single man of eminent worth. One can
always understand how it was possible to capitulate before a
Robespierre, a Danton, or a Marat; but it was utterly scandalous to go
down on all fours before the withered Scheidemann, the obese Herr
Erzberger, Frederick Ebert, and the innumerable other political pigmies
of the Revolution. There was not a single man of parts in whom one could
see the revolutionary man of genius. Therein lay the country's
misfortune; for they were only revolutionary bugs, Spartacists wholesale
and retail. To suppress one of them would be an act of no consequence.
The only result would be that another pair of bloodsuckers, equally fat
and thirsty, would be ready to take his place.
 
During those years we had to take up a determined stand against an idea
which owed its origin and foundation to historical episodes that were
really great, but to which our own despicable epoch did not bear the
slightest similarity.
 
The same reply may be given when there is question of putting somebody
'on the spot' who has acted as a traitor to his country. It would be
ridiculous and illogical to shoot a poor wretch (Note 21) who had betrayed
the position of a howitzer to the enemy while the highest positions of the
government are occupied by a rabble who bartered away a whole empire,
who have on their consciences the deaths of two million men who were
sacrificed in vain, fellows who were responsible for the millions maimed
in the war and who make a thriving business out of the republican regime
without allowing their souls to be disturbed in any way. It would be
absurd to do away with small traitors in a State whose government has
absolved the great traitors from all punishment. For it might easily
happen that one day an honest idealist, who, out of love for his
country, had removed from circulation some miserable informer that had
given information about secret stores of arms might now be called to
answer for his act before the chief traitors of the country. And there
is still an important question: Shall some small traitorous creature be
suppressed by another small traitor, or by an idealist? In the former
case the result would be doubtful and the deed would almost surely be
revealed later on. In the second case a petty rascal is put out of the
way and the life of an idealist who may be irreplaceable is in jeopardy.
 
[Note 21. The reference here is to those who gave information to the
Allied Commissions about hidden stores of arms in Germany.]
 
For myself, I believe that small thieves should not be hanged while big
thieves are allowed to go free. One day a national tribunal will have to
judge and sentence some tens of thousands of organizers who were
responsible for the criminal November betrayal and all the consequences
that followed on it. Such an example will teach the necessary lesson,
once and for ever, to those paltry traitors who revealed to the enemy
the places where arms were hidden.
 
On the grounds of these considerations I steadfastly forbade all
participation in secret societies, and I took care that the Storm
Detachment should not assume such a character. During those years I kept
the National Socialist Movement away from those experiments which were
being undertaken by young Germans who for the most part were inspired
with a sublime idealism but who became the victims of their own deeds,
because they could not ameliorate the lot of their fatherland to the
slightest degree.
 
If then the Storm Detachment must not be either a military defence
organization or a secret society, the following conclusions must result:
 
1. Its training must not be organized from the military standpoint but
from the standpoint of what is most practical for party purposes. Seeing
that its members must undergo a good physical training, the place of
chief importance must not be given to military drill but rather to the
practice of sports. I have always considered boxing and ju-jitsu more
important than some kind of bad, because mediocre, training in
rifle-shooting. If the German nation were presented with a body of young
men who had been perfectly trained in athletic sports, who were imbued
with an ardent love for their country and a readiness to take the
initiative in a fight, then the national State could make an army out of
that body within less than two years if it were necessary, provided the
cadres already existed. In the actual state of affairs only the
REICHSWEHR could furnish the cadres and not a defence organization that
was neither one thing nor the other. Bodily efficiency would develop in
the individual a conviction of his superiority and would give him that
confidence which is always based only on the consciousness of one's own
powers. They must also develop that athletic agility which can be
employed as a defensive weapon in the service of the Movement.
 
2. In order to safeguard the Storm Detachment against any tendency
towards secrecy, not only must the uniform be such that it can
immediately be recognized by everybody, but the large number of its
effectives show the direction in which the Movement is going and which
must be known to the whole public. The members of the Storm Detachment
must not hold secret gatherings but must march in the open and thus, by
their actions, put an end to all legends about a secret organization. In
order to keep them away from all temptations towards finding an outlet
for their activities in small conspiracies, from the very beginning we
had to inculcate in their minds the great idea of the Movement and
educate them so thoroughly to the task of defending this idea that their
horizon became enlarged and that the individual no longer considered it
his mission to remove from circulation some rascal or other, whether big
or small, but to devote himself entirely to the task of bringing about
the establishment of a new National Socialist People's State. In this
way the struggle against the present State was placed on a higher plane
than that of petty revenge and small conspiracies. It was elevated to
the level of a spiritual struggle on behalf of a WELTANSCHAUUNG, for
the destruction of Marxism in all its shapes and forms.
 
3. The form of organization adopted for the Storm Detachment, as well as
its uniform and equipment, had to follow different models from those of
the old Army. They had to be specially suited to the requirements of the
task that was assigned to the Storm Detachment.
 
These were the ideas I followed in 1920 and 1921. I endeavoured to
instil them gradually into the members of the young organization. And
the result was that by the midsummer of 1922 we had a goodly number of
formations which consisted of a hundred men each. By the late autumn of
that year these formations received their distinctive uniforms. There
were three events which turned out to be of supreme importance for the
subsequent development of the Storm Detachment.
 
1. The great mass demonstration against the Law for the Protection of
the Republic. This demonstration was held in the late summer of 1922 on
the KÖNIGS-PLATZ in Munich, by all the patriotic societies. The National
Socialist Movement also participated in it. The march-past of our party,
in serried ranks, was led by six Munich companies of a hundred men each,
followed by the political sections of the Party. Two bands marched with
us and about fifteen flags were carried. When the National Socialists
arrived at the great square it was already half full, but no flag was
flying. Our entry aroused unbounded enthusiasm. I myself had the honour
of being one of the speakers who addressed that mass of about sixty
thousand people.
 
The demonstration was an overwhelming success; especially because it was
proved for the first time that nationalist Munich could march on the
streets, in spite of all threats from the Reds. Members of the
organization for the defence of the Red Republic endeavoured to hinder
the marching columns by their terrorist activities, but they were
scattered by the companies of the Storm Detachment within a few minutes
and sent off with bleeding skulls. The National Socialist Movement had
then shown for the first time that in future it was determined to
exercise the right to march on the streets and thus take this monopoly
away from the international traitors and enemies of the country.
 
The result of that day was an incontestable proof that our ideas for the
creation of the Storm Detachment were right, both from the psychological
viewpoint and as to the manner in which this body was organized.
 
On the basis of this success the enlistment progressed so rapidly that
within a few weeks the number of Munich companies of a hundred men each
became doubled.
 
2. The expedition to Coburg in October 1922.
 
Certain People's Societies had decided to hold a German Day at Coburg. I
was invited to take part, with the intimation that they wished me to
bring a following along. This invitation, which I received at eleven
o'clock in the morning, arrived just in time. Within an hour the
arrangements for our participation in the German Congress were ready. I
picked eight hundred men of the Storm Detachment to accompany me. These
were divided into about fourteen companies and had to be brought by
special train from Munich to Coburg, which had just voted by plebiscite
to be annexed to Bavaria. Corresponding orders were given to other
groups of the National Socialist Storm Detachment which had meanwhile
been formed in various other localities.
 
This was the first time that such a special train ran in Germany. At all
the places where the new members of the Storm Detachment joined us our
train caused a sensation. Many of the people had never seen our flag.
And it made a very great impression.
 
As we arrived at the station in Coburg we were received by a deputation
of the organizing committee of the German Day. They announced that it
had been 'arranged' at the orders of local trades unions--that is to
say, the Independent and Communist Parties--that we should not enter the
town with our flags unfurled and our band playing (we had a band
consisting of forty-two musicians with us) and that we should not march
with closed ranks.
 
I immediately rejected these unmilitary conditions and did not fail to
declare before the gentlemen who had arranged this 'day' how astonished
I was at the idea of their negotiating with such people and coming to an
agreement with them. Then I announced that the Storm Troops would
immediately march into the town in company formation, with our flags
flying and the band playing.
 
And that is what happened.
 
As we came out into the station yard we were met by a growling and
yelling mob of several thousand, that shouted at us: 'Assassins',
'Bandits', 'Robbers', 'Criminals'. These were the choice names which
these exemplary founders of the German Republic showered on us. The
young Storm Detachment gave a model example of order. The companies fell
into formation on the square in front of the station and at first took
no notice of the insults hurled at them by the mob. The police were
anxious. They did not pilot us to the quarters assigned to us on the
outskirts of Coburg, a city quite unknown to us, but to the Hofbräuhaus
Keller in the centre of the town. Right and left of our march the tumult
raised by the accompanying mob steadily increased. Scarcely had the last
company entered the courtyard of the Hofbräuhaus when the huge mass made
a rush to get in after them, shouting madly. In order to prevent this,
the police closed the gates. Seeing the position was untenable I called
the Storm Detachment to attention and then asked the police to open the
gates immediately. After a good deal of hesitation, they consented.
 
We now marched back along the same route as we had come, in the
direction of our quarters, and there we had to make a stand against the
crowd. As their cries and yells all along the route had failed to
disturb the equanimity of our companies, the champions of true
Socialism, Equality, and Fraternity now took to throwing stones. That
brought our patience to an end. For ten minutes long, blows fell right
and left, like a devastating shower of hail. Fifteen minutes later there
were no more Reds to be seen in the street.
 
The collisions which took place when the night came on were more
serious. Patrols of the Storm Detachment had discovered National
Socialists who had been attacked singly and were in an atrocious state.
Thereupon we made short work of the opponents. By the following morning
the Red terror, under which Coburg had been suffering for years, was
definitely smashed.
 
Adopting the typically Marxist and Jewish method of spreading
falsehoods, leaflets were distributed by hand on the streets, bearing
the caption: "Comrades and Comradesses of the International
Proletariat." These leaflets were meant to arouse the wrath of the
populace. Twisting the facts completely around, they declared that our
'bands of assasins' had commenced 'a war of extermination against the
peaceful workers of Coburg'. At half-past one that day there was to be a
'great popular demonstration', at which it was hoped that the workers of
the whole district would turn up. I was determined finally to crush this
Red terror and so I summoned the Storm Detachment to meet at midday.
Their number had now increased to 1,500. I decided to march with these
men to the Coburg Festival and to cross the big square where the Red
demonstration was to take place. I wanted to see if they would attempt
to assault us again. When we entered the square we found that instead of
the ten thousand that had been advertised, there were only a few hundred
people present. As we approached they remained silent for the most part,
and some ran away. Only at certain points along the route some bodies of
Reds, who had arrived from outside the city and had not yet come to know
us, attempted to start a row. But a few fisticuffs put them to flight.
And now one could see how the population, which had for such a long time
been so wretchedly intimidated, slowly woke up and recovered their
courage. They welcomed us openly, and in the evening, on our return
march, spontaneous shouts of jubilation broke out at several points
along the route.
 
At the station the railway employees informed us all of a sudden that
our train would not move. Thereupon I had some of the ringleaders told
that if this were the case I would have all the Red Party heroes
arrested that fell into our hands, that we would drive the train
ourselves, but that we would take away with us, in the locomotive and
tender and in some of the carriages, a few dozen members of this
brotherhood of international solidarity. I did not omit to let those
gentry know that if we had to conduct the train the journey would
undoubtedly be a very risky adventure and that we might all break our
necks. It would be a consolation, however, to know that we should not go
to Eternity alone, but in equality and fraternity with the Red gentry.
 
Thereupon the train departed punctually and we arrived next morning in
Munich safe and sound.
 
Thus at Coburg, for the first time since 1914, the equality of all
citizens before the law was re-established. For even if some coxcomb of
a higher official should assert to-day that the State protects the lives
of its citizens, at least in those days it was not so. For at that time
the citizens had to defend themselves against the representatives of the
present State.
 
At first it was not possible fully to estimate the importance of the
consequences which resulted from that day. The victorious Storm Troops
had their confidence in themselves considerably reinforced and also
their faith in the sagacity of their leaders. Our contemporaries began
to pay us special attention and for the first time many recognized the
National Socialist Movement as an organization that in all probability
was destined to bring the Marxist folly to a deserving end.
 
Only the democrats lamented the fact that we had not the complaisance to
allow our skulls to be cracked and that we had dared, in a democratic
Republic, to hit back with fists and sticks at a brutal assault, rather
than with pacifist chants.
 
Generally speaking, the bourgeois Press was partly distressed and partly
vulgar, as always. Only a few decent newspapers expressed their
satisfaction that at least in one locality the Marxist street bullies
had been effectively dealt with.
 
And in Coburg itself at least a part of the Marxist workers who must be
looked upon as misled, learned from the blows of National Socialist
fists that these workers were also fighting for ideals, because
experience teaches that the human being fights only for something in
which he believes and which he loves.
 
The Storm Detachment itself benefited most from the Coburg events. It
grew so quickly in numbers that at the Party Congress in January 1923
six thousand men participated in the ceremony of consecrating the flags
and the first companies were fully clad in their new uniform.
 
Our experience in Coburg proved how essential it is to introduce one
distinctive uniform for the Storm Detachment, not only for the purpose
of strengthening the ESPRIT DE CORPS but also to avoid confusion and the
danger of not recognizing the opponent in a squabble. Up to that time
they had merely worn the armlet, but now the tunic and the well-known
cap were added.
 
But the Coburg experience had also another important result. We now
determined to break the Red Terror in all those localities where for
many years it had prevented men of other views from holding their
meetings. We were determined to restore the right of free assembly. From
that time onwards we brought our battalions together in such places and
little by little the red citadels of Bavaria, one after another, fell
before the National Socialist propaganda. The Storm Troops became more
and more adept at their job. They increasingly lost all semblance of an
aimless and lifeless defence movement and came out into the light as an
active militant organization, fighting for the establishment of a new
German State.
 
This logical development continued until March 1923. Then an event
occurred which made me divert the Movement from the course hitherto
followed and introduce some changes in its outer formation.
 
In the first months of 1923 the French occupied the Ruhr district. The
consequence of this was of great importance in the development of the
Storm Detachment.
 
It is not yet possible, nor would it be in the interest of the nation,
to write or speak openly and freely on the subject. I shall speak of it
only as far as the matter has been dealt with in public discussions and
thus brought to the knowledge of everybody.
 
The occupation of the Ruhr district, which did not come as a surprise to
us, gave grounds for hoping that Germany would at last abandon its
cowardly policy of submission and therewith give the defensive
associations a definite task to fulfil. The Storm Detachment also, which
now numbered several thousand of robust and vigorous young men, should
not be excluded from this national service. During the spring and summer
of 1923 it was transformed into a fighting military organization. It is
to this reorganization that we must in great part attribute the later
developments that took place during 1923, in so far as it affected our
Movement.
 
Elsewhere I shall deal in broad outline with the development of events
in 1923. Here I wish only to state that the transformation of the Storm
Detachment at that time must have been detrimental to the interests of
the Movement if the conditions that had motivated the change were not to
be carried into effect, namely, the adoption of a policy of active
resistance against France.
 
The events which took place at the close of 1923, terrible as they may
appear at first sight, were almost a necessity if looked at from a
higher standpoint; because, in view of the attitude taken by the
Government of the German REICH, conversion of the Storm Troops into a
military force would be meaningless and thus a transformation which
would also be harmful to the Movement was ended at one stroke. At the
same time it was made possible for us to reconstruct at the point where
we had been diverted from the proper course.
 
In the year 1925 the German National Socialist Labour Party was
re-founded and had to organize and train its Storm Detachment once again
according to the principles I have laid down. It must return to the
original idea and once more it must consider its most essential task to
function as the instrument of defence and reinforcement in the spiritual
struggle to establish the ideals of the Movement.
 
The Storm Detachment must not be allowed to sink to the level of
something in the nature of a defence organization or a secret society.
Steps must be taken rather to make it a vanguard of 100,000 men in the
struggle for the National Socialist ideal which is based on the profound
principle of a People's State.
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER X
 
 
 
THE MASK OF FEDERALISM
 
 
In the winter of 1919, and still more in the spring and summer of 1920,
the young Party felt bound to take up a definite stand on a question
which already had become quite serious during the War. In the first
volume of this book I have briefly recorded certain facts which I had
personally witnessed and which foreboded the break-up of Germany. In
describing these facts I made reference to the special nature of the
propaganda which was directed by the English as well as the French
towards reopening the breach that had existed between North and South in
Germany. In the spring of 1915 there appeared the first of a series of
leaflets which was systematically followed up and the aim of which was
to arouse feeling against Prussia as being solely responsible for the
war. Up to 1916 this system had been developed and perfected in a
cunning and shameless manner. Appealing to the basest of human
instincts, this propaganda endeavoured to arouse the wrath of the South
Germans against the North Germans and after a short time it bore fruit.
Persons who were then in high positions under the Government and in the
Army, especially those attached to headquarters in the Bavarian Army,
merited the just reproof of having blindly neglected their duty and
failed to take the necessary steps to counter such propaganda. But
nothing was done. On the contrary, in some quarters it did not appear to
be quite unwelcome and probably they were short-sighted enough to think
that such propaganda might help along the development of unification in
Germany but even that it might automatically bring about consolidation
of the federative forces. Scarcely ever in history was such a wicked
neglect more wickedly avenged. The weakening of Prussia, which they
believed would result from this propaganda, affected the whole of
Germany. It resulted in hastening the collapse which not only wrecked
Germany as a whole but even more particularly the federal states.
 
In that town where the artificially created hatred against Prussia raged
most violently the revolt against the reigning House was the beginning
of the Revolution.
 
It would be a mistake to think that the enemy propaganda was exclusively
responsible for creating an anti-Prussian feeling and that there were no
reasons which might excuse the people for having listened to this
propaganda. The incredible fashion in which the national economic
interests were organized during the War, the absolutely crazy system of
centralization which made the whole REICH its ward and exploited the
REICH, furnished the principal grounds for the growth of that
anti-Prussian feeling. The average citizen looked upon the companies for
the placing of war contracts, all of which had their headquarters in
Berlin, as identical with Berlin and Berlin itself as identical with
Prussia. The average citizen did not know that the organization of these
robber companies, which were called War Companies, was not in the hands
of Berlin or Prussia and not even in German hands at all. People
recognized only the gross irregularities and the continual encroachments
of that hated institution in the Metropolis of the REICH and directed
their anger towards Berlin and Prussia, all the more because in certain
quarters (the Bavarian Government) nothing was done to correct this
attitude, but it was even welcomed with silent rubbing of hands.
 
The Jew was far too shrewd not to understand that the infamous campaign
which he had organized, under the cloak of War Companies, for plundering
the German nation would and must eventually arouse opposition. As long
as that opposition did not spring directly at his own throat he had no
reason to be afraid. Hence he decided that the best way of forestalling
an outbreak on the part of the enraged and desperate masses would be to
inflame their wrath and at the same time give it another outlet.
 
Let Bavaria quarrel as much as it liked with Prussia and Prussia with
Bavaria. The more, the merrier. This bitter strife between the two
states assured peace to the Jew. Thus public attention was completely
diverted from the international maggot in the body of the nation;
indeed, he seemed to have been forgotten. Then when there came a danger
that level-headed people, of whom there are many to be found also in
Bavaria, would advise a little more reserve and a more judicious
evaluation of things, thus calming the rage against Prussia, all the Jew
had to do in Berlin was to stage a new provocation and await results.
Every time that was done all those who had profiteered out of the
conflict between North and South filled their lungs and again fanned the
flame of indignation until it became a blaze.
 
It was a shrewd and expert manoeuvre on the part of the Jew, to set the
different branches of the German people quarrelling with one another, so
that their attention would be turned away from himself and he could
plunder them all the more completely.
 
Then came the Revolution.
 
Until the year 1918, or rather until the November of that year, the
average German citizen, particularly the less educated lower
middle-class and the workers, did not rightly understand what was
happening and did not realize what must be the inevitable consequences,
especially for Bavaria, of this internecine strife between the branches
of the German people; but at least those sections which called
themselves 'National' ought to have clearly perceived these consequences
on the day that the Revolution broke out. For the moment the COUP D'ÉTAT
had succeeded, the leader and organizer of the Revolution in Bavaria put
himself forward as the defender of 'Bavarian' interests. The
international Jew, Kurt Eisner, began to play off Bavaria against
Prussia. This Oriental was just about the last person in the world that
could be pointed to as the logical defender of Bavarian interests. In
his trade as newspaper reporter he had wandered from place to place all
over Germany and to him it was a matter of sheer indifference whether
Bavaria or any other particular part of God's whole world continued to
exist.
 
In deliberately giving the revolutionary rising in Bavaria the character
of an offensive against Prussia, Kurt Eisner was not acting in the
slightest degree from the standpoint of Bavarian interests, but merely
as the commissioned representative of Jewry. He exploited existing
instincts and antipathies in Bavaria as a means which would help to make
the dismemberment of Germany all the more easy. When once dismembered,
the REICH would fall an easy prey to Bolshevism.
 
The tactics employed by him were continued for a time after his death.
The Marxists, who had always derided and exploited the individual German
states and their princes, now suddenly appealed, as an 'Independent
Party' to those sentiments and instincts which had their strongest roots
in the families of the reigning princes and the individual states.
 
The fight waged by the Bavarian Soviet Republic against the military
contingents that were sent to free Bavaria from its grasp was
represented by the Marxist propagandists as first of all the 'Struggle
of the Bavarian Worker' against 'Prussian Militarism.' This explains why
it was that the suppression of the Soviet Republic in Munich did not
have the same effect there as in the other German districts. Instead of
recalling the masses to a sense of reason, it led to increased
bitterness and anger against Prussia.
 
The art of the Bolshevik agitators, in representing the suppression of
the Bavarian Soviet Republic as a victory of 'Prussian Militarism' over
the 'Anti-militarists' and 'Anti-Prussian' people of Bavaria, bore rich
fruit. Whereas on the occasion of the elections to the Bavarian
Legislative Diet, Kurt Eisner did not have ten thousand followers in
Munich and the Communist party less than three thousand, after the fall
of the Bavarian Republic the votes given to the two parties together
amounted to nearly one hundred thousand.
 
It was then that I personally began to combat that crazy incitement of
some branches of the German people against other branches.
 
I believe that never in my life did I undertake a more unpopular task
than I did when I took my stand against the anti-Prussian incitement.
During the Soviet regime in Munich great public meetings were held at
which hatred against the rest of Germany, but particularly against
Prussia, was roused up to such a pitch that a North German would have
risked his life in attending one of those meetings. These meetings often
ended in wild shouts: "Away from Prussia", "Down with the Prussians",
"War against Prussia", and so on. This feeling was openly expressed in
the Reichstag by a particularly brilliant defender of Bavarian sovereign
rights when he said: "Rather die as a Bavarian than rot as a Prussian".
 
One should have attended some of the meetings held at that time in order
to understand what it meant for one when, for the first time and
surrounded by only a handful of friends, I raised my voice against this
folly at a meeting held in the Munich Löwenbräu Keller. Some of my War
comrades stood by me then. And it is easy to imagine how we felt when
that raging crowd, which had lost all control of its reason, roared at
us and threatened to kill us. During the time that we were fighting for
the country the same crowd were for the most part safely ensconced in
the rear positions or were peacefully circulating at home as deserters
and shirkers. It is true that that scene turned out to be of advantage
to me. My small band of comrades felt for the first time absolutely
united with me and readily swore to stick by me through life and death.
 
These conflicts, which were constantly repeated in 1919, seemed to
become more violent soon after the beginning of 1920. There were
meetings--I remember especially one in the Wagner Hall in the
Sonnenstrasse in Munich--during the course of which my group, now grown
much larger, had to defend themselves against assaults of the most
violent character. It happened more than once that dozens of my
followers were mishandled, thrown to the floor and stamped upon by the
attackers and were finally thrown out of the hall more dead than alive.
 
The struggle which I had undertaken, first by myself alone and
afterwards with the support of my war comrades, was now continued by the
young movement, I might say almost as a sacred mission.
 
I am proud of being able to say to-day that we--depending almost
exclusively on our followers in Bavaria--were responsible for putting an
end, slowly but surely, to the coalition of folly and treason. I say
folly and treason because, although convinced that the masses who joined
in it meant well but were stupid, I cannot attribute such simplicity as
an extenuating circumstance in the case of the organizers and their
abetters. I then looked upon them, and still look upon them to-day, as
traitors in the payment of France. In one case, that of Dorten, history
has already pronounced its judgment.
 
The situation became specially dangerous at that time by reason of the
fact that they were very astute in their ability to cloak their real
tendencies, by insisting primarily on their federative intentions and
claiming that those were the sole motives of the agitation. Of course it
is quite obvious that the agitation against Prussia had nothing to do
with federalism. Surely 'Federal Activities' is not the phrase with
which to describe an effort to dissolve and dismember another federal
state. For an honest federalist, for whom the formula used by Bismarck
to define his idea of the REICH is not a counterfeit phrase, could not
in the same breath express the desire to cut off portions of the
Prussian State, which was created or at least completed by Bismarck. Nor
could he publicly support such a separatist attempt.
 
What an outcry would be raised in Munich if some prussian conservative
party declared itself in favour of detaching Franconia from Bavaria or
took public action in demanding and promoting such a separatist policy.
Nevertheless, one can only have sympathy for all those real and honest
federalists who did not see through this infamous swindle, for they were
its principal victims. By distorting the federalist idea in such a way
its own champions prepared its grave. One cannot make propaganda for a
federalist configuration of the REICH by debasing and abusing and
besmirching the essential element of such a political structure, namely
Prussia, and thus making such a Confederation impossible, if it ever had
been possible. It is all the more incredible by reason of the fact that
the fight carried on by those so-called federalists was directed against
that section of the Prussian people which was the last that could be
looked upon as connected with the November democracy. For the abuse and
attacks of these so-called federalists were not levelled against the
fathers of the Weimar Constitution--the majority of whom were South
Germans or Jews--but against those who represented the old conservative
Prussia, which was the antipodes of the Weimar Constitution. The fact
that the directors of this campaign were careful not to touch the Jews
is not to be wondered at and perhaps gives the key to the whole riddle.
 
Before the Revolution the Jew was successful in distracting attention
from himself and his War Companies by inciting the masses, and
especially the Bavarians, against Prussia. Similarly he felt obliged,
after the Revolution, to find some way of camouflaging his new plunder
campaign which was nine or ten times greater. And again he succeeded, in
this case by provoking the so-called 'national' elements against one
another: the conservative Bavarians against the Prussians, who were just
as conservative. He acted again with extreme cunning, inasmuch as he who
held the reins of Prussia's destiny in his hands provoked such crude and
tactless aggressions that again and again they set the blood boiling in
those who were being continually duped. Never against the Jew, however,
but always the German against his own brother. The Bavarian did not see
the Berlin of four million industrious and efficient working people, but
only the lazy and decadent Berlin which is to be found in the worst
quarters of the West End. And his antipathy was not directed against
this West End of Berlin but against the 'Prussian' city.
 
In many cases it tempted one to despair.
 
The ability which the Jew has displayed in turning public attention away
from himself and giving it another direction may be studied also in what
is happening to-day.
 
In 1918 there was nothing like an organized anti-Semitic feeling. I
still remember the difficulties we encountered the moment we mentioned
the Jew. We were either confronted with dumb-struck faces or else a
lively and hefty antagonism. The efforts we made at the time to point
out the real enemy to the public seemed to be doomed to failure. But
then things began to change for the better, though only very slowly. The
'League for Defence and Offence' was defectively organized but at least
it had the great merit of opening up the Jewish question once again. In
the winter of 1918-1919 a kind of anti-semitism began slowly to take
root. Later on the National Socialist Movement presented the Jewish
problem in a new light. Taking the question beyond the restricted
circles of the upper classes and small bourgeoisie we succeeded in
transforming it into the driving motive of a great popular movement. But
the moment we were successful in placing this problem before the German
people in the light of an idea that would unite them in one struggle the
Jew reacted. He resorted to his old tactics. With amazing alacrity he
hurled the torch of discord into the patriotic movement and opened a
rift there. In bringing forward the ultramontane question and in the
mutual quarrels that it gave rise to between Catholicism and
Protestantism lay the sole possibility, as conditions then were, of
occupying public attention with other problems and thus ward off the
attack which had been concentrated against Jewry. The men who dragged
our people into this controversy can never make amends for the crime
they then committed against the nation. Anyhow, the Jew has attained the
ends he desired. Catholics and Protestants are fighting with one another
to their hearts' content, while the enemy of Aryan humanity and all
Christendom is laughing up his sleeve.
 
Once it was possible to occupy the attention of the public for several
years with the struggle between federalism and unification, wearing out
their energies in this mutual friction while the Jew trafficked in the
freedom of the nation and sold our country to the masters of
international high finance. So in our day he has succeeded again, this
time by raising ructions between the two German religious denominations
while the foundations on which both rest are being eaten away and
destroyed through the poison injected by the international and
cosmopolitan Jew.
 
Look at the ravages from which our people are suffering daily as a
result of being contaminated with Jewish blood. Bear in mind the fact
that this poisonous contamination can be eliminated from the national
body only after centuries, or perhaps never. Think further of how the
process of racial decomposition is debasing and in some cases even
destroying the fundamental Aryan qualities of our German people, so that
our cultural creativeness as a nation is gradually becoming impotent and
we are running the danger, at least in our great cities, of falling to
the level where Southern Italy is to-day. This pestilential adulteration
of the blood, of which hundreds of thousands of our people take no
account, is being systematically practised by the Jew to-day.
Systematically these negroid parasites in our national body corrupt our
innocent fair-haired girls and thus destroy something which can no
longer be replaced in this world.
 
The two Christian denominations look on with indifference at the
profanation and destruction of a noble and unique creature who was given
to the world as a gift of God's grace. For the future of the world,
however, it does not matter which of the two triumphs over the other,
the Catholic or the Protestant. But it does matter whether Aryan
humanity survives or perishes. And yet the two Christian denominations
are not contending against the destroyer of Aryan humanity but are
trying to destroy one another. Everybody who has the right kind of
feeling for his country is solemnly bound, each within his own
denomination, to see to it that he is not constantly talking about the
Will of God merely from the lips but that in actual fact he fulfils the
Will of God and does not allow God's handiwork to be debased. For it was
by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were
given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages
war against God's Creation and God's Will. Therefore everyone should
endeavour, each in his own denomination of course, and should consider
it as his first and most solemn duty to hinder any and everyone whose
conduct tends, either by word or deed, to go outside his own religious
body and pick a quarrel with those of another denomination. For, in view
of the religious schism that exists in Germany, to attack the essential
characteristics of one denomination must necessarily lead to a war of
extermination between the two Christian denominations. Here there can be
no comparison between our position and that of France, or Spain or
Italy. In those three countries one may, for instance, make propaganda
for the side that is fighting against ultramontanism without thereby
incurring the danger of a national rift among the French, or Spanish or
Italian people. In Germany, however, that cannot be so, for here the
Protestants would also take part in such propaganda. And thus the
defence which elsewhere only Catholics organize against clerical
aggression in political matters would assume with us the character of a
Protestant attack against Catholicism. What may be tolerated by the
faithful in one denomination even when it seems unjust to them, will at
once be indignantly rejected and opposed on A PRIORI grounds if it
should come from the militant leaders of another denomination. This is
so true that even men who would be ready and willing to fight for the
removal of manifest grievances within their own religious denomination
will drop their own fight and turn their activities against the outsider
the moment the abolition of such grievances is counselled or demanded by
one who is not of the same faith. They consider it unjustified and
inadmissible and incorrect for outsiders to meddle in matters which do
not affect them at all. Such attempts are not excused even when they are
inspired by a feeling for the supreme interests of the national
community; because even in our day religious feelings still have deeper
roots than all feeling for political and national expediency. That
cannot be changed by setting one denomination against another in bitter
conflict. It can be changed only if, through a spirit of mutual
tolerance, the nation can be assured of a future the greatness of which
will gradually operate as a conciliating factor in the sphere of
religion also. I have no hesitation in saying that in those men who seek
to-day to embroil the patriotic movement in religious quarrels I see
worse enemies of my country than the international communists are. For
the National Socialist Movement has set itself to the task of converting
those communists. But anyone who goes outside the ranks of his own
Movement and tends to turn it away from the fulfilment of its mission is
acting in a manner that deserves the severest condemnation. He is acting
as a champion of Jewish interests, whether consciously or unconsciously
does not matter. For it is in the interests of the Jews to-day that the
energies of the patriotic movement should be squandered in a religious
conflict, because it is beginning to be dangerous for the Jews. I have
purposely used the phrase about SQUANDERING the energies of the
Movement, because nobody but some person who is entirely ignorant of
history could imagine that this movement can solve a question which the
greatest statesmen have tried for centuries to solve, and tried in vain.
 
Anyhow the facts speak for themselves. The men who suddenly discovered,
in 1924, that the highest mission of the patriotic movement was to fight
ultramontanism, have not succeeded in smashing ultramontanism, but they
succeeded in splitting the patriotic movement. I have to guard against
the possibility of some immature brain arising in the patriotic movement
which thinks that it can do what even a Bismarck failed to do. It will
be always one of the first duties of those who are directing the
National Socialist Movement to oppose unconditionally any attempt to
place the National Socialist Movement at the service of such a conflict.
And anybody who conducts a propaganda with that end in view must be
expelled forthwith from its ranks.
 
As a matter of fact we succeeded until the autumn of 1923 in keeping our
movement away from such controversies. The most devoted Protestant could
stand side by side with the most devoted Catholic in our ranks without
having his conscience disturbed in the slightest as far as concerned his
religious convictions. The bitter struggle which both waged in common
against the wrecker of Aryan humanity taught them natural respect and
esteem. And it was just in those years that our movement had to engage
in a bitter strife with the Centre Party not for religious ends but for
national, racial, political and economic ends. The success we then
achieved showed that we were right, but it does not speak to-day in
favour of those who thought they knew better.
 
In recent years things have gone so far that patriotic circles, in
god-forsaken blindness of their religious strife, could not recognize
the folly of their conduct even from the fact that atheist Marxist
newspapers advocated the cause of one religious denomination or the
other, according as it suited Marxist interests, so as to create
confusion through slogans and declarations which were often immeasurably
stupid, now molesting the one party and again the other, and thus poking
the fire to keep the blaze at its highest.
 
But in the case of a people like the Germans, whose history has so often
shown them capable of fighting for phantoms to the point of complete
exhaustion, every war-cry is a mortal danger. By these slogans our
people have often been drawn away from the real problems of their
existence. While we were exhausting our energies in religious wars the
others were acquiring their share of the world. And while the patriotic
movement is debating with itself whether the ultramontane danger be
greater than the Jewish, or vice versa, the Jew is destroying the racial
basis of our existence and thereby annihilating our people. As far as
regards that kind of 'patriotic' warrior, on behalf of the National
Socialist Movement and therefore of the German people I pray with all my
heart: "Lord, preserve us from such friends, and then we can easily deal
with our enemies."
 
The controversy over federation and unification, so cunningly
propagandized by the Jews in 1919-1920 and onwards, forced National
Socialism, which repudiated the quarrel, to take up a definite stand in
relation to the essential problem concerned in it. Ought Germany to be a
confederacy or a military State? What is the practical significance of
these terms? To me it seems that the second question is more important
than the first, because it is fundamental to the understanding of the
whole problem and also because the answer to it may help to clear up
confusion and therewith have a conciliating effect.
 
What is a Confederacy? (Note 22)
 
[Note 22. Before 1918 Germany was a federal Empire, composed of
twenty-five federal states.]
 
By a Confederacy we mean a union of sovereign states which of their own
free will and in virtue of their sovereignty come together and create a
collective unit, ceding to that unit as much of their own sovereign
rights as will render the existence of the union possible and will
guarantee it.
 
But the theoretical formula is not wholly put into practice by any
confederacy that exists to-day. And least of all by the American Union,
where it is impossible to speak of original sovereignty in regard to the
majority of the states. Many of them were not included in the federal
complex until long after it had been established. The states that make
up the American Union are mostly in the nature of territories, more or
less, formed for technical administrative purposes, their boundaries
having in many cases been fixed in the mapping office. Originally these
states did not and could not possess sovereign rights of their own.
Because it was the Union that created most of the so-called states.
Therefore the sovereign rights, often very comprehensive, which were
left, or rather granted, to the various territories correspond not only
to the whole character of the Confederation but also to its vast space,
which is equivalent to the size of a Continent. Consequently, in
speaking of the United States of America one must not consider them as
sovereign states but as enjoying rights or, better perhaps, autarchic
powers, granted to them and guaranteed by the Constitution.
 
Nor does our definition adequately express the condition of affairs in
Germany. It is true that in Germany the individual states existed as
states before the REICH and that the REICH was formed from them. The
REICH, however, was not formed by the voluntary and equal co-operation
of the individual states, but rather because the state of Prussia
gradually acquired a position of hegemony over the others. The
difference in the territorial area alone between the German states
prevents any comparison with the American Union. The great difference in
territorial area between the very small German states that then existed
and the larger, or even still more the largest, demonstrates the
inequality of their achievements and shows that they could not take an
equal part in founding and shaping the federal Empire. In the case of
most of these individual states it cannot be maintained that they ever
enjoyed real sovereignty; and the term 'State Sovereignty' was really
nothing more than an administrative formula which had no inner meaning.
As a matter of fact, not only developments in the past but also in our
own time wiped out several of these so-called 'Sovereign States' and
thus proved in the most definite way how frail these 'sovereign' state
formations were.
 
I cannot deal here with the historical question of how these individual
states came to be established, but I must call attention to the fact
that hardly in any case did their frontiers coincide with ethical
frontiers of the inhabitants. They were purely political phenomena which
for the most part emerged during the sad epoch when the German Empire
was in a state of exhaustion and was dismembered. They represented both
cause and effect in the process of exhaustion and partition of our
fatherland.
 
The Constitution of the old REICH took all this into account, at least
up to a certain degree, in so far as the individual states were not
accorded equal representation in the Reichstag, but a representation
proportionate to their respective areas, their actual importance and the
role which they played in the formation of the REICH.
 
The sovereign rights which the individual states renounced in order to
form the REICH were voluntarily ceded only to a very small degree. For
the most part they had no practical existence or they were simply taken
by Prussia under the pressure of her preponderant power. The principle
followed by Bismarck was not to give the REICH what he could take from
the individual states but to demand from the individual states only what
was absolutely necessary for the REICH. A moderate and wise policy. On
the one side Bismarck showed the greatest regard for customs and
traditions; on the other side his policy secured for the new REICH from
its foundation onwards a great measure of love and willing co-operation.
But it would be a fundamental error to attribute Bismarck's decision to
any conviction on his part that the REICH was thus acquiring all the
rights of sovereignty which would suflice for all time. That was far
from Bismarck's idea. On the contrary, he wished to leave over for the
future what it would be difficult to carry through at the moment and
might not have been readily agreed to by the individual states. He
trusted to the levelling effect of time and to the pressure exercised by
the process of evolution, the steady action of which appeared more
effective than an attempt to break the resistance which the individual
states offered at the moment. By this policy he showed his great ability
in the art of statesmanship. And, as a matter of fact, the sovereignty
of the REICH has continually increased at the cost of the sovereignty of
the individual states. The passing of time has achieved what Bismarck
hoped it would.
 
The German collapse and the abolition of the monarchical form of
government necessarily hastened this development. The German federal
states, which had not been grounded on ethnical foundations but arose
rather out of political conditions, were bound to lose their importance
the moment the monarchical form of government and the dynasties
connected with it were abolished, for it was to the spirit inherent in
these that the individual states owned their political origin and
development. Thus deprived of their internal RAISON D'ÊTRE, they
renounced all right to survival and were induced by purely practical
reasons to fuse with their neighbours or else they joined the more
powerful states out of their own free will. That proved in a striking
manner how extraordinarily frail was the actual sovereignty these small
phantom states enjoyed, and it proved too how lightly they were
estimated by their own citizens.
 
Though the abolition of the monarchical regime and its representatives
had dealt a hard blow to the federal character of the REICH, still more
destructive, from the federal point of view, was the acceptance of the
obligations that resulted from the 'peace' treaty.
 
It was only natural and logical that the federal states should lose all
sovereign control over the finances the moment the REICH, in consequence
of a lost war, was subjected to financial obligations which could never
be guaranteed through separate treaties with the individual states. The
subsequent steps which led the REICH to take over the posts and railways
were an enforced advance in the process of enslaving our people, a
process which the peace treaties gradually developed. The REICH was
forced to secure possession of resources which had to be constantly
increased in order to satisfy the demands made by further extortions.
 
The form in which the powers of the REICH were thus extended to embrace
the federal states was often ridiculously stupid, but in itself the
procedure was logical and natural. The blame for it must be laid at the
door of these men and those parties that failed in the hour of need to
concentrate all their energies in an effort to bring the war to a
victorious issue. The guilt lies on those parties which, especially in
Bavaria, catered for their own egotistic interests during the war and
refused to the REICH what the REICH had to requisition to a tenfold
greater measure when the war was lost. The retribution of History!
Rarely has the vengeance of Heaven followed so closely on the crime as
it did in this case. Those same parties which, a few years previously,
placed the interests of their own states--especially in Bavaria--before
those of the REICH had now to look on passively while the pressure of
events forced the REICH, in its own interests, to abolish the existence
of the individual states. They were the victims of their own defaults.
 
It was an unparalleled example of hypocrisy to raise the cry of
lamentation over the loss which the federal states suffered in being
deprived of their sovereign rights. This cry was raised before the
electorate, for it is only to the electorate that our contemporary
parties address themselves. But these parties, without exception, outbid
one another in accepting a policy of fulfilment which, by the sheer
force of circumstances and in its ultimate consequences, could not but
lead to a profound alteration in the internal structure of the REICH.
Bismarck's REICH was free and unhampered by any obligations towards the
outside world.
 
Bismarck's REICH never had to shoulder such heavy and entirely
unproductive obligations as those to which Germany was subjected under
the Dawes Plan. Also in domestic affairs Bismarck's REICH was able to
limit its powers to a few matters that were absolutely necessary for its
existence. Therefore it could dispense with the necessity of a financial
control over these states and could live from their contributions. On
the other side the relatively small financial tribute which the federal
states had to pay to the REICH induced them to welcome its existence.
But it is untrue and unjust to state now, as certain propagandists do,
that the federal states are displeased with the REICH merely because of
their financial subjection to it. No, that is not how the matter really
stands. The lack of sympathy for the political idea embodied in the
REICH is not due to the loss of sovereign rights on the part of the
individual states. It is much more the result of the deplorable fashion
in which the present régime cares for the interests of the German
people. Despite all the celebrations in honour of the national flag and
the Constitution, every section of the German people feels that the
present REICH is not in accordance with its heart's desire. And the Law
for the Protection of the Republic may prevent outrages against
republican institutions, but it will not gain the love of one single
German. In its constant anxiety to protect itself against its own
citizens by means of laws and sentences of imprisonment, the Republic
has aroused sharp and humiliating criticism of all republican
institutions as such.
 
For another reason also it is untrue to say, as certain parties affirm
to-day, that the REICH has ceased to be popular on account of its
overbearing conduct in regard to certain sovereign rights which the
individual states had heretofore enjoyed. Supposing the REICH had not
extended its authority over the individual states, there is no reason to
believe that it would find more favour among those states if the general
obligations remained so heavy as they now are. On the contrary, if the
individual states had to pay their respective shares of the highly
increased tribute which the REICH has to meet to-day in order to fulfil
the provisions of the Versailles Dictate, the hostility towards the
REICH would be infinitely greater. For then not only would it prove
difficult to collect the respective contributions due to the REICH from
the federal states, but coercive methods would have to be employed in
making the collections. The Republic stands on the footing of the peace
treaties and has neither the courage nor the intention to break them.
That being so, it must observe the obligations which the peace treaties
have imposed on it. The responsibility for this situation is to be
attributed solely to those parties who preach unceasingly to the patient
electoral masses on the necessity of maintaining the autonomy of the
federal states, while at the same time they champion and demand of the
REICH a policy which must necessarily lead to the suppression of even
the very last of those so-called 'sovereign' rights.
 
I say NECESSARILY because the present REICH has no other possible means
of bearing the burden of charges which an insane domestic and foreign
policy has laid on it. Here still another wedge is placed on the former,
to drive it in still deeper. Every new debt which the REICH contracts,
through the criminal way in which the interests of Germany are
represented VIS-À-VIS foreign countries, necessitates a new and stronger
blow which drives the under wedges still deeper, That blow demands
another step in the progressive abolition of the sovereign rights of the
individual states, so as not to allow the germs of opposition to rise up
into activity or even to exist.
 
The chief characteristic difference between the policy of the present
REICH and that of former times lies in this: The old REICH gave freedom
to its people at home and showed itself strong towards the outside
world, whereas the Republic shows itself weak towards the stranger and
oppresses its own citizens at home. In both cases one attitude
determines the other. A vigorous national State does not need to make
many laws for the interior, because of the affection and attachment of
its citizens. The international servile State can live only by coercing
its citizens to render it the services it demands. And it is a piece of
impudent falsehood for the present regime to speak of 'Free citizens'.
Only the old Germany could speak in that manner. The present Republic is
a colony of slaves at the service of the stranger. At best it has
subjects, but not citizens. Hence it does not possess a national flag
but only a trade mark, introduced and protected by official decree and
legislative measures. This symbol, which is the Gessler's cap of German
Democracy, will always remain alien to the spirit of our people. On its
side, the Republic having no sense of tradition or respect for past
greatness, dragged the symbol of the past in the mud, but it will be
surprised one day to discover how superficial is the devotion of its
citizens to its own symbol. The Republic has given to itself the
character of an intermezzo in German history. And so this State is bound
constantly to restrict more and more the sovereign rights of the
individual states, not only for general reasons of a financial character
but also on principle. For by enforcing a policy of financial blackmail,
to squeeze the last ounce of substance out of its people, it is forced
also to take their last rights away from them, lest the general
discontent may one day flame up into open rebellion.
 
We, National Socialists, would reverse this formula and would adopt the
following axiom: A strong national REICH which recognizes and protects
to the largest possible measure the rights of its citizens both within
and outside its frontiers can allow freedom to reign at home without
trembling for the safety of the State. On the other hand, a strong
national Government can intervene to a considerable degree in the
liberties of the individual subject as well as in the liberties of the
constituent states without thereby weakening the ideal of the REICH; and
it can do this while recognizing its responsibility for the ideal of the
REICH, because in these particular acts and measures the individual
citizen recognizes a means of promoting the prestige of the nation as a
whole.
 
Of course, every State in the world has to face the question of
unification in its internal organization. And Germany is no exception in
this matter. Nowadays it is absurd to speak of 'statal sovereignty' for
the constituent states of the REICH, because that has already become
impossible on account of the ridiculously small size of so many of these
states. In the sphere of commerce as well as that of administration the
importance of the individual states has been steadily decreasing. Modern
means of communication and mechanical progress have been increasingly
restricting distance and space. What was once a State is to-day only a
province and the territory covered by a modern State had once the
importance of a continent. The purely technical difficulty of
administering a State like Germany is not greater than that of governing
a province like Brandenburg a hundred years ago. And to-day it is easier
to cover the distance from Munich to Berlin than it was to cover the
distance from Munich to Starnberg a hundred years ago. In view of the
modern means of transport, the whole territory of the REICH to-day is
smaller than that of certain German federal states at the time of the
Napoleonic wars. To close one's eyes to the consequences of these facts
means to live in the past. There always were, there are and always will
be, men who do this. They may retard but they cannot stop the
revolutions of history.
 
We, National Socialists, must not allow the consequences of that truth
to pass by us unnoticed. In these matters also we must not permit
ourselves to be misled by the phrases of our so-called national
bourgeois parties. I say 'phrases', because these same parodies do not
seriously believe that it is possible for them to carry out their
proposals, and because they themselves are the chief culprits and also
the accomplices responsible for the present state of affairs. Especially
in Bavaria, the demands for a halt in the process of centralization can
be no more than a party move behind which there is no serious idea. If
these parties ever had to pass from the realm of phrase-making into that
of practical deeds they would present a sorry spectacle. Every so-called
'Robbery of Sovereign Rights' from Bavaria by the REICH has met with no
practical resistance, except for some fatuous barking by way of protest.
Indeed, when anyone seriously opposed the madness that was shown in
carrying out this system of centralization he was told by those same
parties that he understood nothing of the nature and needs of the State
to-day. They slandered him and pronounced him anathema and persecuted
him until he was either shut up in prison or illegally deprived of the
right of public speech. In the light of these facts our followers should
become all the more convinced of the profound hypocrisy which
characterizes these so-called federalist circles. To a certain extent
they use the federalist doctrine just as they use the name of religion,
merely as a means of promoting their own base party interests.
 
A certain unification, especially in the field of transport, appears
logical. But we, National Socialists, feel it our duty to oppose with
all our might such a development in the modern State, especially when
the measures proposed are solely for the purpose of screening a
disastrous foreign policy and making it possible. And just because the
present REICH has threatened to take over the railways, the posts, the
finances, etc., not from the high standpoint of a national policy, but
in order to have in its hands the means and pledges for an unlimited
policy of fulfilment--for that reason we, National Socialists, must take
every step that seems suitable to obstruct and, if possible, definitely
to prevent such a policy. We must fight against the present system of
amalgamating institutions that are vitally important for the existence
of our people, because this system is being adopted solely to facilitate
the payment of milliards and the transference of pledges to the
stranger, under the post-War provisions which our politicians have
accepted.
 
For these reasons also the National Socialist Movement has to take up a
stand against such tendencies.
 
Moreover, we must oppose such centralization because in domestic affairs
it helps to reinforce a system of government which in all its
manifestations has brought the greatest misfortunes on the German
nation. The present Jewish-Democratic REICH, which has become a
veritable curse for the German people, is seeking to negative the force
of the criticism offered by all the federal states which have not yet
become imbued with the spirit of the age, and is trying to carry out
this policy by crushing them to the point of annihilation. In face of
this we National Socialists must try to ground the opposition of the
individual states on such a basis that it will be able to operate with a
good promise of success. We must do this by transforming the struggle
against centralization into something that will be an expression of the
higher interests of the German nation as such. Therefore, while the
Bavarian Populist Party, acting from its own narrow and particularist
standpoint, fights to maintain the 'special rights' of the Bavarian
State, we ought to stand on quite a different ground in fighting for the
same rights. Our grounds ought to be those of the higher national
interests in opposition to the November Democracy.
 
A still further reason for opposing a centralizing process of that kind
arises from the certain conviction that in great part this so-called
nationalization does not make for unification at all and still less for
simplification. In many cases it is adopted simply as a means of
removing from the sovereign control of the individual states certain
institutions which they wish to place in the hands of the revolutionary
parties. In German History favouritism has never been of so base a
character as in the democratic republic. A great portion of this
centralization to-day is the work of parties which once promised that
they would open the way for the promotion of talent, meaning thereby
that they would fill those posts and offices entirely with their own
partisans. Since the foundation of the Republic the Jews especially have
been obtaining positions in the economic institutions taken over by the
REICH and also positions in the national administration, so that the one
and the other have become preserves of Jewry.
 
For tactical reasons, this last consideration obliges us to watch with
the greatest attention every further attempt at centralization and fight
it at each step. But in doing this our standpoint must always be that of
a lofty national policy and never a pettifogging particularism.
 
This last observation is necessary, lest an opinion might arise among
our own followers that we do not accredit to the REICH the right of
incorporating in itself a sovereignty which is superior to that of the
constituent states. As regards this right we cannot and must not
entertain the slightest doubt. Because for us the State is nothing but a
form. Its substance, or content, is the essential thing. And that is the
nation, the people. It is clear therefore that every other interest must
be subordinated to the supreme interests of the nation. In particular we
cannot accredit to any other state a sovereign power and sovereign
rights within the confines of the nation and the REICH, which represents
the nation. The absurdity which some federal states commit by
maintaining 'representations' abroad and corresponding foreign
'representations' among themselves--that must cease and will cease.
Until this happens we cannot be surprised if certain foreign countries
are dubious about the political unity of the REICH and act accordingly.
The absurdity of these 'representations' is all the greater because they
do harm and do not bring the slightest advantage. If the interests of a
German abroad cannot be protected by the ambassador of the REICH, much
less can they be protected by the minister from some small federal state
which appears ridiculous in the framework of the present world order.
The real truth is that these small federal states are envisaged as
points of attack for attempts at secession, which prospect is always
pleasing to a certain foreign State. We, National Socialists, must not
allow some noble caste which has become effete with age to occupy an
ambassadorial post abroad, with the idea that by engrafting one of its
withered branches in new soil the green leaves may sprout again. Already
in the time of the old REICH our diplomatic representatives abroad were
such a sorry lot that a further trial of that experience would be out of
the question.
 
It is certain that in the future the importance of the individual states
will be transferred to the sphere of our cultural policy. The monarch
who did most to make Bavaria an important centre was not an obstinate
particularist with anti-German tendencies, but Ludwig I who was as much
devoted to the ideal of German greatness as he was to that of art. His
first consideration was to use the powers of the state to develop the
cultural position of Bavaria and not its political power. And in doing
this he produced better and more durable results than if he had followed
any other line of conduct. Up to this time Munich was a provincial
residence town of only small importance, but he transformed it into the
metropolis of German art and by doing so he made it an intellectual
centre which even to-day holds Franconia to Bavaria, though the
Franconians are of quite a different temperament. If Munich had remained
as it had been earlier, what has happened in Saxony would have been
repeated in Bavaria, with the difference that Leipzig and Bavarian
Nürnberg would have become, not Bavarian but Franconian cities. It was
not the cry of "Down with Prussia" that made Munich great. What made
this a city of importance was the King who wished to present it to the
German nation as an artistic jewel that would have to be seen and
appreciated, and so it has turned out in fact. Therein lies a lesson for
the future. The importance of the individual states in the future will
no longer lie in their political or statal power. I look to them rather
as important ethnical and cultural centres. But even in this respect
time will do its levelling work. Modern travelling facilities shuffle
people among one another in such a way that tribal boundaries will fade
out and even the cultural picture will gradually become more of a
uniform pattern.
 
The army must definitely be kept clear of the influence of the
individual states. The coming National Socialist State must not fall
back into the error of the past by imposing on the army a task which is
not within its sphere and never should have been assigned to it. The
German army does not exist for the purpose of being a school in which
tribal particularisms are to be cultivated and preserved, but rather as
a school for teaching all the Germans to understand and adapt their
habits to one another. Whatever tends to have a separating influence in
the life of the nation ought to be made a unifying influence in the
army. The army must raise the German boy above the narrow horizon of his
own little native province and set him within the broad picture of the
nation. The youth must learn to know, not the confines of his own region
but those of the fatherland, because it is the latter that he will have
to defend one day. It is therefore absurd to have the German youth do
his military training in his own native region. During that period he
ought to learn to know Germany. This is all the more important to-day,
since young Germans no longer travel on their own account as they once
used to do and thus enlarge their horizon. In view of this, is it not
absurd to leave the young Bavarian recruit at Munich, the recruit from
Baden at Baden itself and the Württemberger at Stuttgart and so on? And
would it not be more reasonable to show the Rhine and the North Sea to
the Bavarian, the Alps to the native of Hamburg and the mountains of
Central Germany to the boy from East Prussia? The character proper to
each region ought to be maintained in the troops but not in the training
garrisons. We may disapprove of every attempt at unification but not
that of unifying the army. On the contrary, even though we should wish
to welcome no other kind of unification, this must be greeted with joy.
In view of the size of the present army of the REICH, it would be absurd
to maintain the federal divisions among the troops. Moreover, in the
unification of the German army which has actually been effected we see a
fact which we must not renounce but restore in the future national army.
 
Finally a new and triumphant idea should burst every chain which tends
to paralyse its efforts to push forward. National Socialism must claim
the right to impose its principles on the whole German nation, without
regard to what were hitherto the confines of federal states. And we must
educate the German nation in our ideas and principles. As the Churches
do not feel themselves bound or limited by political confines, so the
National Socialist Idea cannot feel itself limited to the territories of
the individual federal states that belong to our Fatherland.
 
The National Socialist doctrine is not handmaid to the political
interests of the single federal states. One day it must become teacher
to the whole German nation. It must determine the life of the whole
people and shape that life anew. For this reason we must imperatively
demand the right to overstep boundaries that have been traced by a
political development which we repudiate.
 
The more completely our ideas triumph, the more liberty can we concede
in particular affairs to our citizens at home.
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER XI
 
 
 
PROPAGANDA AND ORGANIZATION
 
 
The year 1921 was specially important for me from many points of view.
 
When I entered the German Labour Party I at once took charge of the
propaganda, believing this branch to be far the most important for the
time being. Just then it was not a matter of pressing necessity to
cudgel one's brains over problems of organization. The first necessity
was to spread our ideas among as many people as possible. Propaganda
should go well ahead of organization and gather together the human
material for the latter to work up. I have never been in favour of hasty
and pedantic methods of organization, because in most cases the result
is merely a piece of dead mechanism and only rarely a living
organization. Organization is a thing that derives its existence from
organic life, organic evolution. When the same set of ideas have found a
lodgement in the minds of a certain number of people they tend of
themselves to form a certain degree of order among those people and out
of this inner formation something that is very valuable arises. Of
course here, as everywhere else, one must take account of those human
weaknesses which make men hesitate, especially at the beginning, to
submit to the control of a superior mind. If an organization is imposed
from above downwards in a mechanical fashion, there is always the danger
that some individual may push himself forward who is not known for what
he is and who, out of jealousy, will try to hinder abler persons from
taking a leading place in the movement. The damage that results from
that kind of thing may have fatal consequences, especially in a new
movement.
 
For this reason it is advisable first to propagate and publicly expound
the ideas on which the movement is founded. This work of propaganda
should continue for a certain time and should be directed from one
centre. When the ideas have gradually won over a number of people this
human material should be carefully sifted for the purpose of selecting
those who have ability in leadership and putting that ability to the
test. It will often be found that apparently insignificant persons will
nevertheless turn out to be born leaders.
 
Of course, it is quite a mistake to suppose that those who show a very
intelligent grasp of the theory underlying a movement are for that
reason qualified to fill responsible positions on the directorate. The
contrary is very frequently the case.
 
Great masters of theory are only very rarely great organizers also. And
this is because the greatness of the theorist and founder of a system
consists in being able to discover and lay down those laws that are
right in the abstract, whereas the organizer must first of all be a man
of psychological insight. He must take men as they are, and for that
reason he must know them, not having too high or too low an estimate of
human nature. He must take account of their weaknesses, their baseness
and all the other various characteristics, so as to form something out
of them which will be a living organism, endowed with strong powers of
resistance, fitted to be the carrier of an idea and strong enough to
ensure the triumph of that idea.
 
But it is still more rare to find a great theorist who is at the same
time a great leader. For the latter must be more of an agitator, a truth
that will not be readily accepted by many of those who deal with
problems only from the scientific standpoint. And yet what I say is only
natural. For an agitator who shows himself capable of expounding ideas
to the great masses must always be a psychologist, even though he may be
only a demagogue. Therefore he will always be a much more capable leader
than the contemplative theorist who meditates on his ideas, far from the
human throng and the world. For to be a leader means to be able to move
the masses. The gift of formulating ideas has nothing whatsoever to do
with the capacity for leadership. It would be entirely futile to discuss
the question as to which is the more important: the faculty of
conceiving ideals and human aims or that of being able to have them put
into practice. Here, as so often happens in life, the one would be
entirely meaningless without the other. The noblest conceptions of the
human understanding remain without purpose or value if the leader cannot
move the masses towards them. And, conversely, what would it avail to
have all the genius and elan of a leader if the intellectual theorist
does not fix the aims for which mankind must struggle. But when the
abilities of theorist and organizer and leader are united in the one
person, then we have the rarest phenomenon on this earth. And it is that
union which produces the great man.
 
As I have already said, during my first period in the Party I devoted
myself to the work of propaganda. I had to succeed in gradually
gathering together a small nucleus of men who would accept the new
teaching and be inspired by it. And in this way we should provide the
human material which subsequently would form the constituent elements of
the organization. Thus the goal of the propagandist is nearly always
fixed far beyond that of the organizer.
 
If a movement proposes to overthrow a certain order of things and
construct a new one in its place, then the following principles must be
clearly understood and must dominate in the ranks of its leadership:
Every movement which has gained its human material must first divide
this material into two groups: namely, followers and members.
 
It is the task of the propagandist to recruit the followers and it is
the task of the organizer to select the members.
 
The follower of a movement is he who understands and accepts its aims;
the member is he who fights for them.
 
The follower is one whom the propaganda has converted to the doctrine of
the movement. The member is he who will be charged by the organization
to collaborate in winning over new followers from which in turn new
members can be formed.
 
To be a follower needs only the passive recognition of the idea. To be a
member means to represent that idea and fight for it. From ten followers
one can have scarcely more than two members. To be a follower simply
implies that a man has accepted the teaching of the movement; whereas to
be a member means that a man has the courage to participate actively in
diffusing that teaching in which he has come to believe.
 
Because of its passive character, the simple effort of believing in a
political doctrine is enough for the majority, for the majority of
mankind is mentally lazy and timid. To be a member one must be
intellectually active, and therefore this applies only to the minority.
 
Such being the case, the propagandist must seek untiringly to acquire
new followers for the movement, whereas the organizer must diligently
look out for the best elements among such followers, so that these
elements may be transformed into members. The propagandist need not
trouble too much about the personal worth of the individual proselytes
he has won for the movement. He need not inquire into their abilities,
their intelligence or character. From these proselytes, however, the
organizer will have to select those individuals who are most capable of
actively helping to bring the movement to victory.
 
The propagandist aims at inducing the whole people to accept his
teaching. The organizer includes in his body of membership only those
who, on psychological grounds, will not be an impediment to the further
diffusion of the doctrines of the movement.
 
The propagandist inculcates his doctrine among the masses, with the idea
of preparing them for the time when this doctrine will triumph, through
the body of combatant members which he has formed from those followers
who have given proof of the necessary ability and will-power to carry
the struggle to victory.
 
The final triumph of a doctrine will be made all the more easy if the
propagandist has effectively converted large bodies of men to the belief
in that doctrine and if the organization that actively conducts the
fight be exclusive, vigorous and solid.
 
When the propaganda work has converted a whole people to believe in a
doctrine, the organization can turn the results of this into practical
effect through the work of a mere handful of men. Propaganda and
organization, therefore follower and member, then stand towards one
another in a definite mutual relationship. The better the propaganda has
worked, the smaller will the organization be. The greater the number of
followers, so much the smaller can be the number of members. And
conversely. If the propaganda be bad, the organization must be large.
And if there be only a small number of followers, the membership must be
all the larger--if the movement really counts on being successful.
 
The first duty of the propagandist is to win over people who can
subsequently be taken into the organization. And the first duty of the
organization is to select and train men who will be capable of carrying
on the propaganda. The second duty of the organization is to disrupt the
existing order of things and thus make room for the penetration of the
new teaching which it represents, while the duty of the organizer must
be to fight for the purpose of securing power, so that the doctrine may
finally triumph.
 
A revolutionary conception of the world and human existence will always
achieve decisive success when the new WELTANSCHAUUNG has been taught to
a whole people, or subsequently forced upon them if necessary, and when,
on the other hand, the central organization, the movement itself, is in
the hands of only those few men who are absolutely indispensable to form
the nerve-centres of the coming State.
 
Put in another way, this means that in every great revolutionary
movement that is of world importance the idea of this movement must
always be spread abroad through the operation of propaganda. The
propagandist must never tire in his efforts to make the new ideas
clearly understood, inculcating them among others, or at least he must
place himself in the position of those others and endeavour to upset
their confidence in the convictions they have hitherto held. In order
that such propaganda should have backbone to it, it must be based on an
organization. The organization chooses its members from among those
followers whom the propaganda has won. That organization will become all
the more vigorous if the work of propaganda be pushed forward
intensively. And the propaganda will work all the better when the
organization back of it is vigorous and strong in itself.
 
Hence the supreme task of the organizer is to see to it that any discord
or differences which may arise among the members of the movement will
not lead to a split and thereby cramp the work within the movement.
Moreover, it is the duty of the organization to see that the fighting
spirit of the movement does not flag or die out but that it is
constantly reinvigorated and restrengthened. It is not necessary the
number of members should increase indefinitely. Quite the contrary would
be better. In view of the fact that only a fraction of humanity has
energy and courage, a movement which increases its own organization
indefinitely must of necessity one day become plethoric and inactive.
Organizations, that is to say, groups of members, which increase their
size beyond certain dimensions gradually lose their fighting force and
are no longer in form to back up the propagation of a doctrine with
aggressive elan and determination.
 
Now the greater and more revolutionary a doctrine is, so much the more
active will be the spirit inspiring its body of members, because the
subversive energy of such a doctrine will frighten way the
chicken-hearted and small-minded bourgeoisie. In their hearts they may
believe in the doctrine but they are afraid to acknowledge their belief
openly. By reason of this very fact, however, an organization inspired
by a veritable revolutionary idea will attract into the body of its
membership only the most active of those believers who have been won for
it by its propaganda. It is in this activity on the part of the
membership body, guaranteed by the process of natural selection, that we
are to seek the prerequisite conditions for the continuation of an
active and spirited propaganda and also the victorious struggle for the
success of the idea on which the movement is based.
 
The greatest danger that can threaten a movement is an abnormal increase
in the number of its members, owing to its too rapid success. So long as
a movement has to carry on a hard and bitter fight, people of weak and
fundamentally egotistic temperament will steer very clear of it; but
these will try to be accepted as members the moment the party achieves a
manifest success in the course of its development.
 
It is on these grounds that we are to explain why so many movements
which were at first successful slowed down before reaching the
fulfilment of their purpose and, from an inner weakness which could not
otherwise be explained, gave up the struggle and finally disappeared
from the field. As a result of the early successes achieved, so many
undesirable, unworthy and especially timid individuals became members of
the movement that they finally secured the majority and stifled the
fighting spirit of the others. These inferior elements then turned the
movement to the service of their personal interests and, debasing it to
the level of their own miserable heroism, no longer struggled for the
triumph of the original idea. The fire of the first fervour died out,
the fighting spirit flagged and, as the bourgeois world is accustomed to
say very justly in such cases, the party mixed water with its wine.
 
For this reason it is necessary that a movement should, from the sheer
instinct of self-preservation, close its lists to new membership the
moment it becomes successful. And any further increase in its
organization should be allowed to take place only with the most careful
foresight and after a painstaking sifting of those who apply for
membership. Only thus will it be possible to keep the kernel of the
movement intact and fresh and sound. Care must be taken that the conduct
of the movement is maintained exclusively in the hands of this original
nucleus. This means that the nucleus must direct the propaganda which
aims at securing general recognition for the movement. And the movement
itself, when it has secured power in its hands, must carry out all those
acts and measures which are necessary in order that its ideas should be
finally established in practice.
 
With those elements that originally made the movement, the organization
should occupy all the important positions that have been conquered and
from those elements the whole directorate should be formed. This should
continue until the maxims and doctrines of the party have become the
foundation and policy of the new State. Only then will it be permissible
gradually to give the reins into the hands of the Constitution of that
State which the spirit of the movement has created. But this usually
happens through a process of mutual rivalry, for here it is less a
question of human intelligence than of the play and effect of the forces
whose development may indeed be foreseen from the start but not
perpetually controlled.
 
All great movements, whether of a political or religious nature, owe
their imposing success to the recognition and adoption of those
principles. And no durable success is conceivable if these laws are not
observed.
 
As director of propaganda for the party, I took care not merely to
prepare the ground for the greatness of the movement in its subsequent
stages, but I also adopted the most radical measures against allowing
into the organization any other than the best material. For the more
radical and exciting my propaganda was, the more did it frighten weak
and wavering characters away, thus preventing them from entering the
first nucleus of our organization. Perhaps they remained followers, but
they did not raise their voices. On the contrary, they maintained a
discreet silence on the fact. Many thousands of persons then assured me
that they were in full agreement with us but they could not on any
account become members of our party. They said that the movement was so
radical that to take part in it as members would expose them to grave
censures and grave dangers, so that they would rather continue to be
looked upon as honest and peaceful citizens and remain aside, for the
time being at least, though devoted to our cause with all their hearts.
 
And that was all to the good. If all these men who in their hearts did
not approve of revolutionary ideas came into our movement as members at
that time, we should be looked upon as a pious confraternity to-day and
not as a young movement inspired with the spirit of combat.
 
The lively and combative form which I gave to all our propaganda
fortified and guaranteed the radical tendency of our movement, and the
result was that, with a few exceptions, only men of radical views were
disposed to become members.
 
It was due to the effect of our propaganda that within a short period of
time hundreds of thousands of citizens became convinced in their hearts
that we were right and wished us victory, although personally they were
too timid to make sacrifices for our cause or even participate in it.
 
Up to the middle of 1921 this simple activity of gathering in followers
was sufficient and was of value to the movement. But in the summer of
that year certain events happened which made it seem opportune for us to
bring our organization into line with the manifest successes which the
propaganda had achieved.
 
An attempt made by a group of patriotic visionaries, supported by the
chairman of the party at that time, to take over the direction of the
party led to the break up of this little intrigue and, by a unanimous
vote at a general meeting, entrusted the entire direction of the party
to my own hands. At the same time a new statute was passed which
invested sole responsibility in the chairman of the movement, abolished
the system of resolutions in committee and in its stead introduced the
principle of division of labour which since that time has worked
excellently.
 
From August 1st, 1921, onwards I undertook this internal reorganization
of the party and was supported by a number of excellent men. I shall
mention them and their work individually later on.
 
In my endeavour to turn the results gained by the propaganda to the
advantage of the organization and thus stabilize them, I had to abolish
completely a number of old customs and introduce regulations which none
of the other parties possessed or had adopted.
 
In the years 1920-21 the movement was controlled by a committee elected
by the members at a general meeting. The committee was composed of a
first and second treasurer, a first and second secretary, and a first
and second chairman at the head of it. In addition to these there was a
representative of the members, the director of propaganda, and various
assessors.
 
Comically enough, the committee embodied the very principle against
which the movement itself wanted to fight with all its energy, namely,
the principle of parliamentarianism. Here was a principle which
personified everything that was being opposed by the movement, from the
smallest local groups to the district and regional groups, the state
groups and finally the national directorate itself. It was a system
under which we all suffered and are still suffering.
 
It was imperative to change this state of affairs forthwith, if this bad
foundation in the internal organization was not to keep the movement
insecure and render the fulfilment of its high mission impossible.
 
The sessions of the committee, which were ruled by a protocol, and in
which decisions were made according to the vote of the majority,
presented the picture of a miniature parliament. Here also there was no
such thing as personal responsibility. And here reigned the same
absurdities and illogical state of affairs as flourish in our great
representative bodies of the State. Names were presented to this
committee for election as secretaries, treasurers, representatives of
the members of the organization, propaganda agents and God knows what
else. And then they all acted in common on every particular question and
decided it by vote. Accordingly, the director of propaganda voted on a
question that concerned the man who had to do with the finances and the
latter in his turn voted on a question that concerned only the
organization as such, the organizer voting on a subject that had to do
with the secretarial department, and so on.
 
Why select a special man for propaganda if treasurers and scribes and
commissaries, etc., had to deliver judgment on questions concerning it?
To a person of commonsense that sort of thing seemed as incomprehensible
as it would be if in a great manufacturing concern the board of
directors were to decide on technical questions of production or if,
inversely, the engineers were to decide on questions of administration.
 
I refused to countenance that kind of folly and after a short time I
ceased to appear at the meetings of the committee. I did nothing else
except attend to my own department of propaganda and I did not permit
any of the others to poke their heads into my activities. Conversely, I
did not interfere in the affairs of others.
 
When the new statute was approved and I was appointed as president, I
had the necessary authority in my hands and also the corresponding right
to make short shrift of all that nonsense. In the place of decisions by
the majority vote of the committee, the principle of absolute
responsibility was introduced.
 
The chairman is responsible for the whole control of the movement. He
apportions the work among the members of the committee subordinate to
him and for special work he selects other individuals. Each of these
gentlemen must bear sole responsibility for the task assigned to him. He
is subordinate only to the chairman, whose duty is to supervise the
general collaboration, selecting the personnel and giving general
directions for the co-ordination of the common work.
 
This principle of absolute responsibility is being adopted little by
little throughout the movement. In the small local groups and perhaps
also in the regional and district groups it will take yet a long time
before the principle can be thoroughly imposed, because timid and
hesitant characters are naturally opposed to it. For them the idea of
bearing absolute responsibility for an act opens up an unpleasant
prospect. They would like to hide behind the shoulders of the majority
in the so-called committee, having their acts covered by decisions
passed in that way. But it seems to me a matter of absolute necessity to
take a decisive stand against that view, to make no concessions
whatsoever to this fear of responsibility, even though it takes some
time before we can put fully into effect this concept of duty and
ability in leadership, which will finally bring forward leaders who have
the requisite abilities to occupy the chief posts.
 
In any case, a movement which must fight against the absurdity of
parliamentary institutions must be immune from this sort of thing. Only
thus will it have the requisite strength to carry on the struggle.
 
At a time when the majority dominates everywhere else a movement which
is based on the principle of one leader who has to bear personal
responsibility for the direction of the official acts of the movement
itself will one day overthrow the present situation and triumph over the
existing regime. That is a mathematical certainty.
 
This idea made it necessary to reorganize our movement internally. The
logical development of this reorganization brought about a clear-cut
distinction between the economic section of the movement and the general
political direction. The principle of personal responsibility was
extended to all the administrative branches of the party and it brought
about a healthy renovation, by liberating them from political influences
and allowing them to operate solely on economic principles.
 
In the autumn of 1921, when the party was founded, there were only six
members. The party did not have any headquarters, nor officials, nor
formularies, nor a stamp, nor printed material of any sort. The
committee first held its sittings in a restaurant on the Herrengasse and
then in a café at Gasteig. This state of affairs could not last. So I at
once took action in the matter. I went around to several restaurants and
hotels in Munich, with the idea of renting a room in one of them for the
use of the Party. In the old Sterneckerbräu im Tal, there was a small
room with arched roof, which in earlier times was used as a sort of
festive tavern where the Bavarian Counsellors of the Holy Roman Empire
foregathered. It was dark and dismal and accordingly well suited to its
ancient uses, though less suited to the new purpose it was now destined
to serve. The little street on which its one window looked out was so
narrow that even on the brightest summer day the room remained dim and
sombre. Here we took up our first fixed abode. The rent came to fifty
marks per month, which was then an enormous sum for us. But our
exigencies had to be very modest. We dared not complain even when they
removed the wooden wainscoting a few days after we had taken possession.
This panelling had been specially put up for the Imperial Counsellors.
The place began to look more like a grotto than an office.
 
Still it marked an important step forward. Slowly we had electric light
installed and later on a telephone. A table and some borrowed chairs
were brought, an open paper-stand and later on a cupboard. Two
sideboards, which belonged to the landlord, served to store our
leaflets, placards, etc.
 
As time went on it turned out impossible to direct the course of the
movement merely by holding a committee meeting once a week. The current
business administration of the movement could not be regularly attended
to except we had a salaried official.
 
But that was then very difficult for us. The movement had still so few
members that it was hard to find among them a suitable person for the
job who would be content with very little for himself and at the same
time would be ready to meet the manifold demands which the movement
would make on his time and energy.
 
After long searching we discovered a soldier who consented to become our
first administrator. His name was Schüssler, an old war comrade of mine.
At first he came to our new office every day between six and eight
o'clock in the evening. Later on he came from five to eight and
subsequently for the whole afternoon. Finally it became a full-time job
and he worked in the office from morning until late at night. He was an
industrious, upright and thoroughly honest man, faithful and devoted to
the movement. He brought with him a small Adler typewriter of his own.
It was the first machine to be used in the service of the party.
Subsequently the party bought it by paying for it in installments. We
needed a small safe in order to keep our papers and register of
membership from danger of being stolen--not to guard our funds, which
did not then exist. On the contrary, our financial position was so
miserable that I often had to dip my hand into my own personal savings.
 
After eighteen months our business quarters had become too small, so we
moved to a new place in the Cornelius Strasse. Again our office was in a
restaurant, but instead of one room we now had three smaller rooms and
one large room with great windows. At that time this appeared a
wonderful thing to us. We remained there until the end of November 1923.
 
In December 1920, we acquired the VÖLKISCHER BEOBACHTER. This newspaper
which, as its name implies, championed the claims of the people, was now
to become the organ of the German National Socialist Labour Party. At
first it appeared twice weekly; but at the beginning of 1928 it became a
daily paper, and at the end of August in the same year it began to
appear in the large format which is now well known.
 
As a complete novice in journalism I then learned many a lesson for
which I had to pay dearly.
 
In contradistinction to the enormous number of papers in Jewish hands,
there was at that time only one important newspaper that defended the
cause of the people. This was a matter for grave consideration. As I
have often learned by experience, the reason for that state of things
must be attributed to the incompetent way in which the business side of
the so-called popular newspapers was managed. These were conducted too
much according to the rule that opinion should prevail over action that
produces results. Quite a wrong standpoint, for opinion is of itself
something internal and finds its best expression in productive activity.
The man who does valuable work for his people expresses thereby his
excellent sentiments, whereas another who merely talks about his
opinions and does nothing that is of real value or use to the people is
a person who perverts all right thinking. And that attitude of his is
also pernicious for the community.
 
The VÖLKISCHE BEOBACHTER was a so-called 'popular' organ, as its name
indicated. It had all the good qualities, but still more the errors and
weaknesses, inherent in all popular institutions. Though its contents
were excellent, its management as a business concern was simply
impossible. Here also the underlying idea was that popular newspapers
ought to be subsidized by popular contributions, without recognizing
that it had to make its way in competition with the others and that it
was dishonest to expect the subscriptions of good patriots to make up
for the mistaken management of the undertaking.
 
I took care to alter those conditions promptly, for I recognized the
danger lurking in them. Luck was on my side here, inasmuch as it brought
me the man who since that time has rendered innumerable services to the
movement, not only as business manager of the newspaper but also as
business manager of the party. In 1914, in the War, I made the
acquaintance of Max Amann, who was then my superior and is to-day
general business Director of the Party. During four years in the War I
had occasion to observe almost continually the unusual ability, the
diligence and the rigorous conscientiousness of my future collaborator.
 
In the summer of 1921 I applied to my old regimental comrade, whom I met
one day by chance, and asked him to become business manager of the
movement. At that time the movement was passing through a grave crisis
and I had reason to be dissatisfied with several of our officials, with
one of whom I had had a very bitter experience. Amann then held a good
situation in which there were also good prospects for him.
 
After long hesitation he agreed to my request, but only on condition
that he must not be at the mercy of incompetent committees. He must be
responsible to one master, and only one.
 
It is to the inestimable credit of this first business manager of the
party, whose commercial knowledge is extensive and profound, that he
brought order and probity into the various offices of the party. Since
that time these have remained exemplary and cannot be equalled or
excelled in this by any other branches of the movement. But, as often
happens in life, great ability provokes envy and disfavour. That had
also to be expected in this case and borne patiently.
 
Since 1922 rigorous regulations have been in force, not only for the
commercial construction of the movement but also in the organization of
it as such. There exists now a central filing system, where the names
and particulars of all the members are enrolled. The financing of the
party has been placed on sound lines. The current expenditure must be
covered by the current receipts and special receipts can be used only
for special expenditures. Thus, notwithstanding the difficulties of the
time the movement remained practically without any debts, except for a
few small current accounts. Indeed, there was a permanent increase in
the funds. Things are managed as in a private business. The employed
personnel hold their jobs in virtue of their practical efficiency and
could not in any manner take cover behind their professed loyalty to the
party. A good National Socialist proves his soundness by the readiness,
diligence and capability with which he discharges whatever duties are
assigned to him in whatever situation he holds within the national
community. The man who does not fulfil his duty in the job he holds
cannot boast of a loyalty against which he himself really sins.
 
Adamant against all kinds of outer influence, the new business director
of the party firmly maintained the standpoint that there were no
sinecure posts in the party administration for followers and members of
the movement whose pleasure is not work. A movement which fights so
energetically against the corruption introduced into our civil service
by the various political parties must be immune from that vice in its
own administrative department. It happened that some men were taken on
the staff of the paper who had formerly been adherents of the Bavarian
People's Party, but their work showed that they were excellently
qualified for the job. The result of this experiment was generally
excellent. It was owing to this honest and frank recognition of
individual efficiency that the movement won the hearts of its employees
more swiftly and more profoundly than had ever been the case before.
Subsequently they became good National Socialists and remained so. Not
in word only, but they proved it by the steady and honest and
conscientious work which they performed in the service of the new
movement. Naturally a well qualified party member was preferred to
another who had equal qualifications but did not belong to the party.
The rigid determination with which our new business chief applied these
principles and gradually put them into force, despite all
misunderstandings, turned out to be of great advantage to the movement.
To this we owe the fact that it was possible for us--during the
difficult period of the inflation, when thousands of businesses failed
and thousands of newspapers had to cease publication--not only to keep
the commercial department of the movement going and meet all its
obligations but also to make steady progress with the VÖLKISCHE
BEOBACHTER. At that time it came to be ranked among the great
newspapers.
 
The year 1921 was of further importance for me by reason of the fact
that in my position as chairman of the party I slowly but steadily
succeeded in putting a stop to the criticisms and the intrusions of some
members of the committee in regard to the detailed activities of the
party administration. This was important, because we could not get a
capable man to take on a job if nincompoops were constantly allowed to
butt in, pretending that they knew everything much better; whereas in
reality they had left only general chaos behind them. Then these
wise-acres retired, for the most part quite modestly, to seek another
field for their activities where they could supervise and tell how
things ought to be done. Some men seemed to have a mania for sniffing
behind everything and were, so to say, always in a permanent state of
pregnancy with magnificent plans and ideas and projects and methods.
Naturally their noble aim and ideal were always the formation of a
committee which could pretend to be an organ of control in order to be
able to sniff as experts into the regular work done by others. But it is
offensive and contrary to the spirit of National Socialism when
incompetent people constantly interfere in the work of capable persons.
But these makers of committees do not take that very much into account.
In those years I felt it my duty to safeguard against such annoyance all
those who were entrusted with regular and responsible work, so that
there should be no spying over the shoulder and they would be guaranteed
a free hand in their day's work.
 
The best means of making committees innocuous, which either did nothing
or cooked up impracticable decisions, was to give them some real work to
do. It was then amusing to see how the members would silently fade away
and were soon nowhere to be found. It made me think of that great
institution of the same kind, the Reichstag. How quickly they would
evanesce if they were put to some real work instead of talking,
especially if each member were made personally responsible for the work
assigned to him.
 
I always demanded that, just as in private life so also in the movement,
one should not tire of seeking until the best and honestest and
manifestly the most competent person could be found for the position of
leader or administrator in each section of the movement. Once installed
in his position he was given absolute authority and full freedom of
action towards his subordinates and full responsibility towards his
superiors. Nobody was placed in a position of authority towards his
subordinates unless he himself was competent in the work entrusted to
them. In the course of two years I brought my views more and more into
practice; so that to-day, at least as far as the higher direction of the
movement is concerned, they are accepted as a matter of course.
 
The manifest success of this attitude was shown on November 9th, 1923.
Four years previously, when I entered the movement, it did not have even
a rubber stamp. On November 9th, 1923, the party was dissolved and its
property confiscated. The total sum realized by all the objects of value
and the paper amounted to more than 170,000 gold marks.
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER XII
 
 
 
THE PROBLEM OF THE TRADE UNIONS
 
 
Owing to the rapid growth of the movement, in 1922 we felt compelled to
take a definite stand on a question which has not been fully solved even
yet.
 
In our efforts to discover the quickest and easiest way for the movement
to reach the heart of the broad masses we were always confronted with
the objection that the worker could never completely belong to us while
his interests in the purely vocational and economic sphere were cared
for by a political organization conducted by men whose principles were
quite different from ours.
 
That was quite a serious objection. The general belief was that a
workman engaged in some trade or other could not exist if he did not
belong to a trade union. Not only were his professional interests thus
protected but a guarantee of permanent employment was simply
inconceivable without membership in a trade union. The majority of the
workers were in the trades unions. Generally speaking, the unions had
successfully conducted the battle for the establishment of a definite
scale of wages and had concluded agreements which guaranteed the worker
a steady income. Undoubtedly the workers in the various trades benefited
by the results of that campaign and, for honest men especially,
conflicts of conscience must have arisen if they took the wages which
had been assured through the struggle fought by the trades unions and if
at the same time the men themselves withdrew from the fight.
 
It was difficult to discuss this problem with the average bourgeois
employer. He had no understanding (or did not wish to have any) for
either the material or moral side of the question. Finally he declared
that his own economic interests were in principle opposed to every kind
of organization which joined together the workmen that were dependent on
him. Hence it was for the most part impossible to bring these bourgeois
employers to take an impartial view of the situation. Here, therefore,
as in so many other cases, it was necessary to appeal to disinterested
outsiders who would not be subject to the temptation of fixing their
attention on the trees and failing to see the forest. With a little good
will on their part, they could much more easily understand a state of
affairs which is of the highest importance for our present and future
existence.
 
In the first volume of this book I have already expressed my views on
the nature and purpose and necessity of trade unions. There I took up
the standpoint that unless measures are undertaken by the State (usually
futile in such cases) or a new ideal is introduced in our education,
which would change the attitude of the employer towards the worker, no
other course would be open to the latter except to defend his own
interests himself by appealing to his equal rights as a contracting
party within the economic sphere of the nation's existence. I stated
further that this would conform to the interests of the national
community if thereby social injustices could be redressed which
otherwise would cause serious damage to the whole social structure. I
stated, moreover, that the worker would always find it necessary to
undertake this protective action as long as there were men among the
employers who had no sense of their social obligations nor even of the
most elementary human rights. And I concluded by saying that if such
self-defence be considered necessary its form ought to be that of an
association made up of the workers themselves on the basis of trades
unions.
 
This was my general idea and it remained the same in 1922. But a clear
and precise formula was still to be discovered. We could not be
satisfied with merely understanding the problem. It was necessary to
come to some conclusions that could be put into practice. The following
questions had to be answered:
 
(1) Are trade unions necessary?
 
(2) Should the German National Socialist Labour Party itself operate on
a trade unionist basis or have its members take part in trade unionist
activities in some form or other?
 
(3) What form should a National Socialist Trades Union take? What are
the tasks confronting us and the ends we must try to attain?
 
(4) How can we establish trade unions for such tasks and aims?
 
I think that I have already answered the first question adequately. In
the present state of affairs I am convinced that we cannot possibly
dispense with the trades unions. On the contrary, they are among the
most important institutions in the economic life of the nation. Not only
are they important in the sphere of social policy but also, and even
more so, in the national political sphere. For when the great masses of
a nation see their vital needs satisfied through a just trade unionist
movement the stamina of the whole nation in its struggle for existence
will be enormously reinforced thereby.
 
Before everything else, the trades unions are necessary as building
stones for the future economic parliament, which will be made up of
chambers representing the various professions and occupations.
 
The second question is also easy to answer. If the trade unionist
movement is important, then it is clear that National Socialism ought to
take a definite stand on that question, not only theoretically but also
in practice. But how? That is more difficult to see clearly.
 
The National Socialist Movement, which aims at establishing the National
Socialist People's State, must always bear steadfastly in mind the
principle that every future institution under that State must be rooted
in the movement itself. It is a great mistake to believe that by
acquiring possession of supreme political power we can bring about a
definite reorganization, suddenly starting from nothing, without the
help of a certain reserve stock of men who have been trained beforehand,
especially in the spirit of the movement. Here also the principle holds
good that the spirit is always more important than the external form
which it animates; since this form can be created mechanically and
quickly. For instance, the leadership principle may be imposed on an
organized political community in a dictatorial way. But this principle
can become a living reality only by passing through the stages that are
necessary for its own evolution. These stages lead from the smallest
cell of the State organism upwards. As its bearers and representatives,
the leadership principle must have a body of men who have passed through
a process of selection lasting over several years, who have been
tempered by the hard realities of life and thus rendered capable of
carrying the principle into practical effect.
 
It is out of the question to think that a scheme for the Constitution of
a State can be pulled out of a portfolio at a moment's notice and
'introduced' by imperative orders from above. One may try that kind of
thing but the result will always be something that has not sufficient
vitality to endure. It will be like a stillborn infant. The idea of it
calls to mind the origin of the Weimar Constitution and the attempt to
impose on the German people a new Constitution and a new flag, neither
of which had any inner relation to the vicissitudes of our people's
history during the last half century.
 
The National Socialist State must guard against all such experiments. It
must grow out of an organization which has already existed for a long
time. This organization must possess National Socialist life in itself,
so that finally it may be able to establish a National Socialist State
that will be a living reality.
 
As I have already said, the germ cells of this State must lie in the
administrative chambers which will represent the various occupations and
professions, therefore first of all in the trades unions. If this
subsequent vocational representation and the Central Economic Parliament
are to be National Socialist institutions, these important germ cells
must be vehicles of the National Socialist concept of life. The
institutions of the movement are to be brought over into the State; for
the State cannot call into existence all of a sudden and as if by magic
those institutions which are necessary to its existence, unless it
wishes to have institutions that are bound to remain completely
lifeless.
 
Looking at the matter from the highest standpoint, the National
Socialist Movement will have to recognize the necessity of adopting its
own trade-unionist policy.
 
It must do this for a further reason, namely because a real National
Socialist education for the employer as well as for the employee, in the
spirit of a mutual co-operation within the common framework of the
national community, cannot be secured by theoretical instruction,
appeals and exhortations, but through the struggles of daily life. In
this spirit and through this spirit the movement must educate the
several large economic groups and bring them closer to one another under
a wider outlook. Without this preparatory work it would be sheer
illusion to hope that a real national community can be brought into
existence. The great ideal represented by its philosophy of life and for
which the movement fights can alone form a general style of thought
steadily and slowly. And this style will show that the new state of
things rests on foundations that are internally sound and not merely an
external façade.
 
Hence the movement must adopt a positive attitude towards the
trade-unionist idea. But it must go further than this. For the enormous
number of members and followers of the trade-unionist movement it must
provide a practical education which will meet the exigencies of the
coming National Socialist State.
 
The answer to the third question follows from what has been already
said.
 
The National Socialist Trades Union is not an instrument for class
warfare, but a representative organ of the various occupations and
callings. The National Socialist State recognizes no 'classes'. But,
under the political aspect, it recognizes only citizens with absolutely
equal rights and equal obligations corresponding thereto. And, side by
side with these, it recognizes subjects of the State who have no
political rights whatsoever.
 
According to the National Socialist concept, it is not the task of the
trades union to band together certain men within the national community
and thus gradually transform these men into a class, so as to use them
in a conflict against other groups similarly organized within the
national community. We certainly cannot assign this task to the trades
union as such. This was the task assigned to it the moment it became a
fighting weapon in the hands of the Marxists. The trades union is not
naturally an instrument of class warfare; but the Marxists transformed
it into an instrument for use in their own class struggle. They created
the economic weapon which the international Jew uses for the purpose of
destroying the economic foundations of free and independent national
States, for ruining their national industry and trade and thereby
enslaving free nations to serve Jewish world-finance, which transcends
all State boundaries.
 
In contradistinction to this, the National Socialist Trades Union must
organize definite groups and those who participate in the economic life
of the nation and thus enhance the security of the national economic
system itself, reinforcing it by the elimination of all those anomalies
which ultimately exercise a destructive influence on the social body of
the nation, damaging the vital forces of the national community,
prejudicing the welfare of the State and, by no means as a last
consequence, bringing evil and destruction on economic life itself.
 
Therefore in the hands of the National Socialist Trades Union the strike
is not an instrument for disturbing and dislocating the national
production, but for increasing it and making it run smoothly, by
fighting against all those annoyances which by reason of their unsocial
character hinder efficiency in business and thereby hamper the existence
of the whole nation. For individual efficiency stands always in casual
relation to the general social and juridical position of the individual
in the economic process. Individual efficiency is also the sole root of
the conviction that the economic prosperity of the nation must
necessarily redound to the benefit of the individual citizen.
 
The National Socialist employee will have to recognize the fact that the
economic prosperity of the nation brings with it his own material
happiness.
 
The National Socialist employer must recognize that the happiness and
contentment of his employees are necessary pre-requisites for the
existence and development of his own economic prosperity.
 
National Socialist workers and employers are both together the delegates
and mandatories of the whole national community. The large measure of
personal freedom which is accorded to them for their activities must be
explained by the fact that experience has shown that the productive
powers of the individual are more enhanced by being accorded a generous
measure of freedom than by coercion from above. Moreover, by according
this freedom we give free play to the natural process of selection which
brings forward the ablest and most capable and most industrious. For the
National Socialist Trades Union, therefore, the strike is a means that
may, and indeed must, be resorted to as long as there is not a National
Socialist State yet. But when that State is established it will, as a
matter of course, abolish the mass struggle between the two great groups
made up of employers and employees respectively, a struggle which has
always resulted in lessening the national production and injuring the
national community. In place of this struggle, the National Socialist
State will take over the task of caring for and defending the rights of
all parties concerned. It will be the duty of the Economic Chamber
itself to keep the national economic system in smooth working order and
to remove whatever defects or errors it may suffer from. Questions that
are now fought over through a quarrel that involves millions of people
will then be settled in the Representative Chambers of Trades and
Professions and in the Central Economic Parliament. Thus employers and
employees will no longer find themselves drawn into a mutual conflict
over wages and hours of work, always to the detriment of their mutual
interests. But they will solve these problems together on a higher
plane, where the welfare of the national community and of the State will
be as a shining ideal to throw light on all their negotiations.
 
Here again, as everywhere else, the inflexible principle must be
observed, that the interests of the country must come before party
interests.
 
The task of the National Socialist Trades Union will be to educate and
prepare its members to conform to these ideals. That task may be stated
as follows: All must work together for the maintenance and security of
our people and the People's State, each one according to the abilities
and powers with which Nature has endowed him and which have been
developed and trained by the national community.
 
Our fourth question was: How shall we establish trades unions for such
tasks and aims? That is far more difficult to answer.
 
Generally speaking, it is easier to establish something in new territory
than in old territory which already has its established institutions. In
a district where there is no existing business of a special character
one can easily establish a new business of this character. But it is
more difficult if the same kind of enterprise already exists and it is
most difficult of all when the conditions are such that only one
enterprise of this kind can prosper. For here the promoters of the new
enterprise find themselves confronted not only with the problem of
introducing their own business but also that of how to bring about the
destruction of the other business already existing in the district, so
that the new enterprise may be able to exist.
 
It would be senseless to have a National Socialist Trades Union side by
side with other trades unions. For this Trades Union must be thoroughly
imbued with a feeling for the ideological nature of its task and of the
resulting obligation not to tolerate other similar or hostile
institutions. It must also insist that itself alone is necessary, to the
exclusion of all the rest. It can come to no arrangement and no
compromise with kindred tendencies but must assert its own absolute and
exclusive right.
 
There were two ways which might lead to such a development:
 
(1) We could establish our Trades Union and then gradually take up the
fight against the Marxist International Trades Union.
 
(2) Or we could enter the Marxist Trades Union and inculcate a new
spirit in it, with the idea of transforming it into an instrument in the
service of the new ideal.
 
The first way was not advisable, by reason of the fact that our
financial situation was still the cause of much worry to us at that time
and our resources were quite slender. The effects of the inflation were
steadily spreading and made the particular situation still more
difficult for us, because in those years one could scarcely speak of any
material help which the trades unions could extend to their members.
From this point of view, there was no reason why the individual worker
should pay his dues to the union. Even the Marxist unions then existing
were already on the point of collapse until, as the result of Herr
Cuno's enlightened Ruhr policy, millions were suddenly poured into their
coffers. This so-called 'national' Chancellor of the REICH should go
down in history as the Redeemer of the Marxist trades unions.
 
We could not count on similar financial facilities. And nobody could be
induced to enter a new Trades Union which, on account of its financial
weakness, could not offer him the slightest material benefit. On the
other hand, I felt bound absolutely to guard against the creation of
such an organization which would only be a shelter for shirkers of the
more or less intellectual type.
 
At that time the question of personnel played the most important role. I
did not have a single man whom I might call upon to carry out this
important task. Whoever could have succeeded at that time in
overthrowing the Marxist unions to make way for the triumph of the
National Socialist corporative idea, which would then take the place of
the ruinous class warfare--such a person would be fit to rank with the
very greatest men our nation has produced and his bust should be
installed in the Valhalla at Regensburg for the admiration of posterity.
 
But I knew of no person who could qualify for such a pedestal.
 
In this connection we must not be led astray by the fact that the
international trades unions are conducted by men of only mediocre
significance, for when those unions were founded there was nothing else
of a similar kind already in existence. To-day the National Socialist
Movement must fight against a monster organization which has existed for
a long time, rests on gigantic foundations and is carefully constructed
even in the smallest details. An assailant must always exercise more
intelligence than the defender, if he is to overthrow the latter. The
Marxist trade-unionist citadel may be governed to-day by mediocre
leaders, but it cannot be taken by assault except through the dauntless
energy and genius of a superior leader on the other side. If such a
leader cannot be found it is futile to struggle with Fate and even more
foolish to try to overthrow the existing state of things without being
able to construct a better in its place.
 
Here one must apply the maxim that in life it is often better to allow
something to go by the board rather than try to half do it or do it
badly, owing to a lack of suitable means.
 
To this we must add another consideration, which is not at all of a
demagogic character. At that time I had, and I still have to-day, a
firmly rooted conviction that when one is engaged in a great ideological
struggle in the political field it would be a grave mistake to mix up
economic questions with this struggle in its earlier stages. This
applies particularly to our German people. For if such were to happen in
their case the economic struggle would immediately distract the energy
necessary for the political fight. Once the people are brought to
believe that they can buy a little house with their savings they will
devote themselves to the task of increasing their savings and no spare
time will be left to them for the political struggle against those who,
in one way or another, will one day secure possession of the pennies
that have been saved. Instead of participating in the political conflict
on behalf of the opinions and convictions which they have been brought
to accept they will now go further with their 'settlement' idea and in
the end they will find themselves for the most part sitting on the
ground amidst all the stools.
 
To-day the National Socialist Movement is at the beginning of its
struggle. In great part it must first of all shape and develop its
ideals. It must employ every ounce of its energy in the struggle to have
its great ideal accepted, and the success of this effort is not
conceivable unless the combined energies of the movement be entirely at
the service of this struggle.
 
To-day we have a classical example of how the active strength of a
people becomes paralysed when that people is too much taken up with
purely economic problems.
 
The Revolution which took place in November 1918 was not made by the
trades unions, but it was carried out in spite of them. And the people
of Germany did not wage any political fight for the future of their
country because they thought that the future could be sufficiently
secured by constructive work in the economic field.
 
We must learn a lesson from this experience, because in our case the
same thing must happen under the same circumstances. The more the
combined strength of our movement is concentrated in the political
struggle, the more confidently may we count on being successful along
our whole front. But if we busy ourselves prematurely with trade
unionist problems, settlement problems, etc., it will be to the
disadvantage of our own cause, taken as a whole. For, though these
problems may be important, they cannot be solved in an adequate manner
until we have political power in our hand and are able to use it in the
service of this idea. Until that day comes these problems can have only
a paralysing effect on the movement. And if it takes them up too soon
they will only be a hindrance in the effort to attain its own
ideological aims. It may then easily happen that trade unionist
considerations will control the political direction of the movement,
instead of the ideological aims of the movement directing the way that
the trades unions are to take.
 
The movement and the nation can derive advantage from a National
Socialist trade unionist organization only if the latter be so
thoroughly inspired by National Socialist ideas that it runs no danger
of falling into step behind the Marxist movement. For a National
Socialist Trades Union which would consider itself only as a competitor
against the Marxist unions would be worse than none. It must declare war
against the Marxist Trades Union, not only as an organization but, above
all, as an idea. It must declare itself hostile to the idea of class and
class warfare and, in place of this, it must declare itself as the
defender of the various occupational and professional interests of the
German people.
 
Considered from all these points of view it was not then advisable, nor
is it yet advisable, to think of founding our own Trades Union. That
seemed clear to me, at least until somebody appeared who was obviously
called by fate to solve this particular problem.
 
Therefore there remained only two possible ways. Either to recommend our
own party members to leave the trades unions in which they were enrolled
or to remain in them for the moment, with the idea of causing as much
destruction in them as possible.
 
In general, I recommended the latter alternative.
 
Especially in the year 1922-23 we could easily do that. For, during the
period of inflation, the financial advantages which might be reaped from
a trades union organization would be negligible, because we could expect
to enroll only a few members owing to the undeveloped condition of our
movement. The damage which might result from such a policy was all the
greater because its bitterest critics and opponents were to be found
among the followers of the National Socialist Party.
 
I had already entirely discountenanced all experiments which were
destined from the very beginning to be unsuccessful. I would have
considered it criminal to run the risk of depriving a worker of his
scant earnings in order to help an organization which, according to my
inner conviction, could not promise real advantages to its members.
 
Should a new political party fade out of existence one day nobody would
be injured thereby and some would have profited, but none would have a
right to complain. For what each individual contributes to a political
movement is given with the idea that it may ultimately come to nothing.
But the man who pays his dues to a trade union has the right to expect
some guarantee in return. If this is not done, then the directors of
such a trade union are swindlers or at least careless people who ought
to be brought to a sense of their responsibilities.
 
We took all these viewpoints into consideration before making our
decision in 1922. Others thought otherwise and founded trades unions.
They upbraided us for being short-sighted and failing to see into the
future. But it did not take long for these organizations to disappear
and the result was what would have happened in our own case. But the
difference was that we should have deceived neither ourselves nor those
who believed in us.
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER XIII
 
 
 
THE GERMAN POST-WAR POLICY OF ALLIANCES
 
 
The erratic manner in which the foreign affairs of the REICH were
conducted was due to a lack of sound guiding principles for the
formation of practical and useful alliances. Not only was this state of
affairs continued after the Revolution, but it became even worse.
 
For the confused state of our political ideas in general before the War
may be looked upon as the chief cause of our defective statesmanship;
but in the post-War period this cause must be attributed to a lack of
honest intentions. It was natural that those parties who had fully
achieved their destructive purpose by means of the Revolution should
feel that it would not serve their interests if a policy of alliances
were adopted which must ultimately result in the restoration of a free
German State. A development in this direction would not be in conformity
with the purposes of the November crime. It would have interrupted and
indeed put an end to the internationalization of German national economy
and German Labour. But what was feared most of all was that a successful
effort to make the REICH independent of foreign countries might have an
influence in domestic politics which one day would turn out disastrous
for those who now hold supreme power in the government of the REICH. One
cannot imagine the revival of a nation unless that revival be preceded
by a process of nationalization. Conversely, every important success in
the field of foreign politics must call forth a favourable reaction at
home. Experience proves that every struggle for liberty increases the
national sentiment and national self-consciousness and therewith gives
rise to a keener sensibility towards anti-national elements and
tendencies. A state of things, and persons also, that may be tolerated
and even pass unnoticed in times of peace will not only become the
object of aversion when national enthusiasm is aroused but will even
provoke positive opposition, which frequently turns out disastrous for
them. In this connection we may recall the spy-scare that became
prevalent when the war broke out, when human passion suddenly manifested
itself to such a heightened degree as to lead to the most brutal
persecutions, often without any justifiable grounds, although everybody
knew that the danger resulting from spies is greater during the long
periods of peace; but, for obvious reasons, they do not then attract a
similar amount of public attention. For this reason the subtle instinct
of the State parasites who came to the surface of the national body
through the November happenings makes them feel at once that a policy of
alliances which would restore the freedom of our people and awaken
national sentiment might possibly ruin their own criminal existence.
 
Thus we may explain the fact that since 1918 the men who have held the
reins of government adopted an entirely negative attitude towards
foreign affairs and that the business of the State has been almost
constantly conducted in a systematic way against the interests of the
German nation. For that which at first sight seemed a matter of chance
proved, on closer examination, to be a logical advance along the road
which was first publicly entered upon by the November Revolution of
1918.
 
Undoubtedly a distinction ought to be made between (1) the responsible
administrators of our affairs of State, or rather those who ought to be
responsible; (2) the average run of our parliamentary politicasters, and
(3) the masses of our people, whose sheepish docility corresponds to
their want of intelligence.
 
The first know what they want. The second fall into line with them,
either because they have been already schooled in what is afoot or
because they have not the courage to take an uncompromising stand
against a course which they know and feel to be detrimental. The third
just submit to it because they are too stupid to understand.
 
While the German National Socialist Labour Party was only a small and
practically unknown society, problems of foreign policy could have only
a secondary importance in the eyes of many of its members. This was the
case especially because our movement has always proclaimed the
principle, and must proclaim it, that the freedom of the country in its
foreign relations is not a gift that will be bestowed upon us by Heaven
or by any earthly Powers, but can only be the fruit of a development of
our inner forces. We must first root out the causes which led to our
collapse and we must eliminate all those who are profiting by that
collapse. Then we shall be in a position to take up the fight for the
restoration of our freedom in the management of our foreign relations.
 
It will be easily understood therefore why we did not attach so much
importance to foreign affairs during the early stages of our young
movement, but preferred to concentrate on the problem of internal
reform.
 
But when the small and insignificant society expanded and finally grew
too large for its first framework, the young organization assumed the
importance of a great association and we then felt it incumbent on us to
take a definite stand on problems regarding the development of a foreign
policy. It was necessary to lay down the main lines of action which
would not only be in accord with the fundamental ideas of our
WELTANSCHAUUNG but would actually be an expansion of it in the
practical world of foreign affairs.
 
Just because our people have had no political education in matters
concerning our relations abroad, it was necessary to teach the leaders
in the various sections of our movement, and also the masses of the
people, the chief principles which ought to guide the development of our
foreign relations. That was one of the first tasks to be accomplished in
order to prepare the ground for the practical carrying out of a foreign
policy which would win back the independence of the nation in managing
its external affairs and thus restore the real sovereignty of the REICH.
 
The fundamental and guiding principles which we must always bear in mind
when studying this question is that foreign policy is only a means to an
end and that the sole end to be pursued is the welfare of our own
people. Every problem in foreign politics must be considered from this
point of view, and this point of view alone. Shall such and such a
solution prove advantageous to our people now or in the future, or will
it injure their interests? That is the question.
 
This is the sole preoccupation that must occupy our minds in dealing
with a question. Party politics, religious considerations, humanitarian
ideals--all such and all other preoccupations must absolutely give way
to this.
 
Before the War the purpose to which German foreign policy should have
been devoted was to assure the supply of material necessities for the
maintenance of our people and their children. And the way should have
been prepared which would lead to this goal. Alliances should have been
established which would have proved beneficial to us from this point of
view and would have brought us the necessary auxiliary support. The task
to be accomplished is the same to-day, but with this difference: In
pre-War times it was a question of caring for the maintenance of the
German people, backed up by the power which a strong and independent
State then possessed, but our task to-day is to make our nation powerful
once again by re-establishing a strong and independent State. The
re-establishment of such a State is the prerequisite and necessary
condition which must be fulfilled in order that we may be able
subsequently to put into practice a foreign policy which will serve to
guarantee the existence of our people in the future, fulfilling their
needs and furnishing them with those necessities of life which they
lack. In other words, the aim which Germany ought to pursue to-day in
her foreign policy is to prepare the way for the recovery of her liberty
to-morrow. In this connection there is a fundamental principle which we
must keep steadily before our minds. It is this: The possibility of
winning back the independence of a nation is not absolutely bound up
with the question of territorial reintegration but it will suffice if a
small remnant, no matter how small, of this nation and State will exist,
provided it possesses the necessary independence to become not only the
vehicle of' the common spirit of the whole people but also to prepare
the way for the military fight to reconquer the nation's liberty.
 
When a people who amount to a hundred million souls tolerate the yoke of
common slavery in order to prevent the territory belonging to their
State from being broken up and divided, that is worse than if such a
State and such a people were dismembered while one fragment still
retained its complete independence. Of course, the natural proviso here
is that this fragment must be inspired with a consciousness of the
solemn duty that devolves upon it, not only to proclaim persistently the
inviolable unity of its spiritual and cultural life with that of its
detached members but also to prepare the means that are necessary for
the military conflict which will finally liberate and re-unite the
fragments that are suffering under oppression.
 
One must also bear in mind the fact that the restoration of lost
districts which were formerly parts of the State, both ethnically and
politically, must in the first instance be a question of winning back
political power and independence for the motherland itself, and that in
such cases the special interests of the lost districts must be
uncompromisingly regarded as a matter of secondary importance in the
face of the one main task, which is to win back the freedom of the
central territory. For the detached and oppressed fragments of a nation
or an imperial province cannot achieve their liberation through the
expression of yearnings and protests on the part of the oppressed and
abandoned, but only when the portion which has more or less retained its
sovereign independence can resort to the use of force for the purpose of
reconquering those territories that once belonged to the common
fatherland.
 
Therefore, in order to reconquer lost territories the first condition to
be fulfilled is to work energetically for the increased welfare and
reinforcement of the strength of that portion of the State which has
remained over after the partition. Thus the unquenchable yearning which
slumbers in the hearts of the people must be awakened and restrengthened
by bringing new forces to its aid, so that when the hour comes all will
be devoted to the one purpose of liberating and uniting the whole
people. Therefore, the interests of the separated territories must be
subordinated to the one purpose. That one purpose must aim at obtaining
for the central remaining portion such a measure of power and might that
will enable it to enforce its will on the hostile will of the victor and
thus redress the wrong. For flaming protests will not restore the
oppressed territories to the bosom of a common REICH. That can be done
only through the might of the sword.
 
The forging of this sword is a work that has to be done through the
domestic policy which must be adopted by a national government. To see
that the work of forging these arms is assured, and to recruit the men
who will bear them, that is the task of the foreign policy.
 
In the first volume of this book I discussed the inadequacy of our
policy of alliances before the War. There were four possible ways to
secure the necessary foodstuffs for the maintenance of our people. Of
these ways the fourth, which was the most unfavourable, was chosen.
Instead of a sound policy of territorial expansion in Europe, our rulers
embarked on a policy of colonial and trade expansion. That policy was
all the more mistaken inasmuch as they presumed that in this way the
danger of an armed conflict would be averted. The result of the attempt
to sit on many stools at the same time might have been foreseen. It let
us fall to the ground in the midst of them all. And the World War was
only the last reckoning presented to the REICH to pay for the failure of
its foreign policy.
 
The right way that should have been taken in those days was the third
way I indicated: namely, to increase the strength of the REICH as a
Continental Power by the acquisition of new territory in Europe. And at
the same time a further expansion, through the subsequent acquisition of
colonial territory, might thus be brought within the range of practical
politics. Of course, this policy could not have been carried through
except in alliance with England, or by devoting such abnormal efforts to
the increase of military force and armament that, for forty or fifty
years, all cultural undertakings would have to be completely relegated
to the background. This responsibility might very well have been
undertaken. The cultural importance of a nation is almost always
dependent on its political freedom and independence. Political freedom
is a prerequisite condition for the existence, or rather the creation,
of great cultural undertakings. Accordingly no sacrifice can be too
great when there is question of securing the political freedom of a
nation. What might have to be deducted from the budget expenses for
cultural purposes, in order to meet abnormal demands for increasing the
military power of the State, can be generously paid back later on.
Indeed, it may be said that after a State has concentrated all its
resources in one effort for the purpose of securing its political
independence a certain period of ease and renewed equilibrium sets in.
And it often happens that the cultural spirit of the nation, which had
been heretofore cramped and confined, now suddenly blooms forth. Thus
Greece experienced the great Periclean era after the miseries it had
suffered during the Persian Wars. And the Roman Republic turned its
energies to the cultivation of a higher civilization when it was freed
from the stress and worry of the Punic Wars.
 
Of course, it could not be expected that a parliamentary majority of
feckless and stupid people would be capable of deciding on such a
resolute policy for the absolute subordination of all other national
interests to the one sole task of preparing for a future conflict of
arms which would result in establishing the security of the State. The
father of Frederick the Great sacrificed everything in order to be ready
for that conflict; but the fathers of our absurd parliamentarian
democracy, with the Jewish hall-mark, could not do it.
 
That is why, in pre-War times, the military preparation necessary to
enable us to conquer new territory in Europe was only very mediocre, so
that it was difficult to obtain the support of really helpful allies.
 
Those who directed our foreign affairs would not entertain even the idea
of systematically preparing for war. They rejected every plan for the
acquisition of territory in Europe. And by preferring a policy of
colonial and trade expansion, they sacrificed the alliance with England,
which was then possible. At the same time they neglected to seek the
support of Russia, which would have been a logical proceeding. Finally
they stumbled into the World War, abandoned by all except the
ill-starred Habsburgs.
 
The characteristic of our present foreign policy is that it follows no
discernible or even intelligible lines of action. Whereas before the War
a mistake was made in taking the fourth way that I have mentioned, and
this was pursued only in a halfhearted manner, since the Revolution not
even the sharpest eye can detect any way that is being followed. Even
more than before the War, there is absolutely no such thing as a
systematic plan, except the systematic attempts that are made to destroy
the last possibility of a national revival.
 
If we make an impartial examination of the situation existing in Europe
to-day as far as concerns the relation of the various Powers to one
another, we shall arrive at the following results:
 
For the past three hundred years the history of our Continent has been
definitely determined by England's efforts to keep the European States
opposed to one another in an equilibrium of forces, thus assuring the
necessary protection of her own rear while she pursued the great aims of
British world-policy.
 
The traditional tendency of British diplomacy ever since the reign of
Queen Elizabeth has been to employ systematically every possible means
to prevent any one Power from attaining a preponderant position over the
other European Powers and, if necessary, to break that preponderance by
means of armed intervention. The only parallel to this has been the
tradition of the Prussian Army. England has made use of various forces
to carry out its purpose, choosing them according to the actual
situation or the task to be faced; but the will and determination to use
them has always been the same. The more difficult England's position
became in the course of history the more the British Imperial Government
considered it necessary to maintain a condition of political paralysis
among the various European States, as a result of their mutual
rivalries. When the North American colonies obtained their political
independence it became still more necessary for England to use every
effort to establish and maintain the defence of her flank in Europe. In
accordance with this policy she reduced Spain and the Netherlands to the
position of inferior naval Powers. Having accomplished this, England
concentrated all her forces against the increasing strength of France,
until she brought about the downfall of Napoleon Bonaparte and therewith
destroyed the military hegemony of France, which was the most dangerous
rival that England had to fear.
 
The change of attitude in British statesmanship towards Germany took
place only very slowly, not only because the German nation did not
represent an obvious danger for England as long as it lacked national
unification, but also because public opinion in England, which had been
directed to other quarters by a system of propaganda that had been
carried out for a long time, could be turned to a new direction only by
slow degrees. In order to reach the proposed ends the calmly reflecting
statesman had to bow to popular sentiment, which is the most powerful
motive-force and is at the same time the most lasting in its energy.
When the statesman has attained one of his ends, he must immediately
turn his thoughts to others; but only by degrees and the slow work of
propaganda can the sentiment of the masses be shaped into an instrument
for the attainment of the new aims which their leaders have decided on.
 
As early as 1870-71 England had decided on the new stand it would take.
On certain occasions minor oscillations in that policy were caused by
the growing influence of America in the commercial markets of the world
and also by the increasing political power of Russia; but,
unfortunately, Germany did not take advantage of these and, therefore,
the original tendency of British diplomacy was only reinforced.
 
England looked upon Germany as a Power which was of world importance
commercially and politically and which, partly because of its enormous
industrial development, assumed such threatening proportions that the
two countries already contended against one another in the same sphere
and with equal energy. The so-called peaceful conquest of the world by
commercial enterprise, which, in the eyes of those who governed our
public affairs at that time, represented the highest peak of human
wisdom, was just the thing that led English statesmen to adopt a policy
of resistance. That this resistance assumed the form of an organized
aggression on a vast scale was in full conformity with a type of
statesmanship which did not aim at the maintenance of a dubious world
peace but aimed at the consolidation of British world-hegemony. In
carrying out this policy, England allied herself with those countries
which had a definite military importance. And that was in keeping with
her traditional caution in estimating the power of her adversary and
also in recognizing her own temporary weakness. That line of conduct
cannot be called unscrupulous; because such a comprehensive organization
for war purposes must not be judged from the heroic point of view but
from that of expediency. The object of a diplomatic policy must not be
to see that a nation goes down heroically but rather that it survives in
a practical way. Hence every road that leads to this goal is opportune
and the failure to take it must be looked upon as a criminal neglect of
duty.
 
When the German Revolution took place England's fears of a German world
hegemony came to a satisfactory end.
 
From that time it was not an English interest to see Germany totally
cancelled from the geographic map of Europe. On the contrary, the
astounding collapse which took place in November 1918 found British
diplomacy confronted with a situation which at first appeared untenable.
 
For four-and-a-half years the British Empire had fought to break the
presumed preponderance of a Continental Power. A sudden collapse now
happened which removed this Power from the foreground of European
affairs. That collapse disclosed itself finally in the lack of even the
primordial instinct of self-preservation, so that European equilibrium
was destroyed within forty-eight hours. Germany was annihilated and
France became the first political Power on the Continent of Europe.
 
The tremendous propaganda which was carried on during this war for the
purpose of encouraging the British public to stick it out to the end
aroused all the primitive instincts and passions of the populace and was
bound eventually to hang as a leaden weight on the decisions of British
statesmen. With the colonial, economical and commercial destruction of
Germany, England's war aims were attained. Whatever went beyond those
aims was an obstacle to the furtherance of British interests. Only the
enemies of England could profit by the disappearance of Germany as a
Great Continental Power in Europe. In November 1918, however, and up to
the summer of 1919, it was not possible for England to change its
diplomatic attitude; because during the long war it had appealed, more
than it had ever done before, to the feelings of the populace. In view
of the feeling prevalent among its own people, England could not change
its foreign policy; and another reason which made that impossible was
the military strength to which other European Powers had now attained.
France had taken the direction of peace negotiations into her own hands
and could impose her law upon the others. During those months of
negotiations and bargaining the only Power that could have altered the
course which things were taking was Germany herself; but Germany was
torn asunder by a civil war, and her so-called statesmen had declared
themselves ready to accept any and every dictate imposed on them.
 
Now, in the comity of nations, when one nation loses its instinct for
self-preservation and ceases to be an active member it sinks to the
level of an enslaved nation and its territory will have to suffer the
fate of a colony.
 
To prevent the power of France from becoming too great, the only form
which English negotiations could take was that of participating in
France's lust for aggrandizement.
 
As a matter of fact, England did not attain the ends for which she went
to war. Not only did it turn out impossible to prevent a Continental
Power from obtaining a preponderance over the ratio of strength in the
Continental State system of Europe, but a large measure of preponderance
had been obtained and firmly established.
 
In 1914 Germany, considered as a military State, was wedged in between
two countries, one of which had equal military forces at its disposal
and the other had greater military resources. Then there was England's
overwhelming supremacy at sea. France and Russia alone hindered and
opposed the excessive aggrandizement of Germany. The unfavourable
geographical situation of the REICH, from the military point of view,
might be looked upon as another coefficient of security against an
exaggerated increase of German power. From the naval point of view, the
configuration of the coast-line was unfavourable in case of a conflict
with England. And though the maritime frontier was short and cramped,
the land frontier was widely extended and open.
 
France's position is different to-day. It is the first military Power
without a serious rival on the Continent. It is almost entirely
protected by its southern frontier against Spain and Italy. Against
Germany it is safeguarded by the prostrate condition of our country. A
long stretch of its coast-line faces the vital nervous system of the
British Empire. Not only could French aeroplanes and long-range
batteries attack the vital centres of the British system, but submarines
can threaten the great British commercial routes. A submarine campaign
based on France's long Atlantic coast and on the European and North
African coasts of the Mediterranean would have disastrous consequences
for England.
 
Thus the political results of the war to prevent the development of
German power was the creation of a French hegemony on the Continent. The
military result was the consolidation of France as the first Continental
Power and the recognition of American equality on the sea. The economic
result was the cession of great spheres of British interests to her
former allies and associates.
 
The Balkanization of Europe, up to a certain degree, was desirable and
indeed necessary in the light of the traditional policy of Great
Britain, just as France desired the Balkanization of Germany.
 
What England has always desired, and will continue to desire, is to
prevent any one Continental Power in Europe from attaining a position of
world importance. Therefore England wishes to maintain a definite
equilibrium of forces among the European States--for this equilibrium
seems a necessary condition of England's world-hegemony.
 
What France has always desired, and will continue to desire, is to
prevent Germany from becoming a homogeneous Power. Therefore France
wants to maintain a system of small German States whose forces would
balance one another and over which there should be no central
government. Then, by acquiring possession of the left bank of the Rhine,
she would have fulfilled the pre-requisite conditions for the
establishment and security of her hegemony in Europe.
 
The final aims of French diplomacy must be in perpetual opposition to
the final tendencies of British statesmanship.
 
Taking these considerations as a starting-point, anyone who investigates
the possibilities that exist for Germany to find allies must come to the
conclusion that there remains no other way of forming an alliance except
to approach England. The consequences of England's war policy were and
are disastrous for Germany. However, we cannot close our eyes to the
fact that, as things stand to-day, the necessary interests of England no
longer demand the destruction of Germany. On the contrary, British
diplomacy must tend more and more, from year to year, towards curbing
France's unbridled lust after hegemony. Now, a policy of alliances
cannot be pursued by bearing past grievances in mind, but it can be
rendered fruitful by taking account of past experiences. Experience
should have taught us that alliances formed for negative purposes suffer
from intrinsic weakness. The destinies of nations can be welded together
only under the prospect of a common success, of common gain and
conquest, in short, a common extension of power for both contracting
parties.
 
The ignorance of our people on questions of foreign politics is clearly
demonstrated by the reports in the daily Press which talk about
"friendship towards Germany" on the part of one or the other foreign
statesman, whereby this professed friendship is taken as a special
guarantee that such persons will champion a policy that will be
advantageous to our people. That kind of talk is absurd to an incredible
degree. It means speculating on the unparalleled simplicity of the
average German philistine when he comes to talking politics. There is
not any British, American, or Italian statesman who could ever be
described as 'pro-German'. Every Englishman must naturally be British
first of all. The same is true of every American. And no Italian
statesman would be prepared to adopt a policy that was not pro-Italian.
Therefore, anyone who expects to form alliances with foreign nations on
the basis of a pro-German feeling among the statesmen of other countries
is either an ass or a deceiver. The necessary condition for linking
together the destinies of nations is never mutual esteem or mutual
sympathy, but rather the prospect of advantages accruing to the
contracting parties. It is true that a British statesman will always
follow a pro-British and not a pro-German policy; but it is also true
that certain definite interests involved in this pro-British policy may
coincide on various grounds with German interests. Naturally that can be
so only to a certain degree and the situation may one day be completely
reversed. But the art of statesmanship is shown when at certain periods
there is question of reaching a certain end and when allies are found
who must take the same road in order to defend their own interests.
 
The practical application of these principles at the present time must
depend on the answer given to the following questions: What States are
not vitally interested in the fact that, by the complete abolition of a
German Central Europe, the economic and military power of France has
reached a position of absolute hegemony? Which are the States that, in
consideration of the conditions which are essential to their own
existence and in view of the tradition that has hitherto been followed
in conducting their foreign policy, envisage such a development as a
menace to their own future?
 
Finally, we must be quite clear on the following point: France is and
will remain the implacable enemy of Germany. It does not matter what
Governments have ruled or will rule in France, whether Bourbon or
Jacobin, Napoleonic or Bourgeois-Democratic, Clerical Republican or Red
Bolshevik, their foreign policy will always be directed towards
acquiring possession of the Rhine frontier and consolidating France's
position on this river by disuniting and dismembering Germany.
 
England did not want Germany to be a world Power. France desired that
there should be no Power called Germany. Therefore there was a very
essential difference. To-day we are not fighting for our position as a
World-Power but only for the existence of our country, for national
unity and the daily bread of our children. Taking this point of view
into consideration, only two States remain to us as possible allies in
Europe--England and Italy.
 
England is not pleased to see a France on whose military power there is
no check in Europe, so that one day she might undertake the support of a
policy which in some way or other might come into conflict with British
interests. Nor can England be pleased to see France in possession of
such enormous coal and iron mines in Western Europe as would make it
possible for her one day to play a role in world-commerce which might
threaten danger to British interests. Moreover, England can never be
pleased to see a France whose political position on the Continent, owing
to the dismemberment of the rest of Europe, seems so absolutely assured
that she is not only able to resume a French world-policy on great lines
but would even find herself compelled to do so. The bombs which were
once dropped by the Zeppelins might be multiplied by the thousand every
night. The military predominance of France is a weight that presses
heavily on the hearts of the World Empire over which Great Britain
rules.
 
Nor can Italy desire, nor will she desire, any further strengthening of
France's power in Europe. The future of Italy will be conditioned by the
development of events in the Mediterranean and by the political
situation in the area surrounding that sea. The reason that led Italy
into the War was not a desire to contribute towards the aggrandizement
of France but rather to deal her hated Adriatic rival a mortal blow. Any
further increase of France's power on the Continent would hamper the
development of Italy's future, and Italy does not deceive herself by
thinking that racial kindred between the nations will in any way
eliminate rivalries.
 
Serious and impartial consideration proves that it is these two States,
Great Britain and Italy, whose natural interests not only do not
contrast with the conditions essential to the existence of the German
nation but are identical with them, to a certain extent.
 
But when we consider the possibilities of alliances we must be careful
not to lose sight of three factors. The first factor concerns ourselves;
the other two concern the two States I have mentioned.
 
Is it at all possible to conclude an alliance with Germany as it is
to-day? Can a Power which would enter into an alliance for the purpose
of securing assistance in an effort to carry out its own OFFENSIVE
aims--can such a Power form an alliance with a State whose rulers have
for years long presented a spectacle of deplorable incompetence and
pacifist cowardice and where the majority of the people, blinded by
democratic and Marxist teachings, betray the interests of their own
people and country in a manner that cries to Heaven for vengeance? As
things stand to-day, can any Power hope to establish useful relations
and hope to fight together for the furtherance of their common interests
with this State which manifestly has neither the will nor the courage to
move a finger even in the defence of its bare existence? Take the case
of a Power for which an alliance must be much more than a pact to
guarantee a state of slow decomposition, such as happened with the old
and disastrous Triple Alliance. Can such a Power associate itself for
life or death with a State whose most characteristic signs of activity
consist of a rampant servility in external relations and a scandalous
repression of the national spirit at home? Can such a Power be
associated with a State in which there is nothing of greatness, because
its whole policy does not deserve it? Or can alliances be made with
Governments which are in the hands of men who are despised by their own
fellow-citizens and consequently are not respected abroad?
 
No. A self-respecting Power which expects something more from alliances
than commissions for greedy Parliamentarians will not and cannot enter
into an alliance with our present-day Germany. Our present inability to
form alliances furnishes the principle and most solid basis for the
combined action of the enemies who are robbing us. Because Germany does
not defend itself in any other way except by the flamboyant protests of
our parliamentarian elect, there is no reason why the rest of the world
should take up the fight in our defence. And God does not follow the
principle of granting freedom to a nation of cowards, despite all the
implications of our 'patriotic' associations. Therefore, for those
States which have not a direct interest in our annihilation no other
course remains open except to participate in France's campaign of
plunder, at least to make it impossible for the strength of France to be
exclusively aggrandized thereby.
 
In the second place, we must not forget that among the nations which
were formerly our enemies mass-propaganda has turned the opinions and
feelings of large sections of the population in a fixed direction. When
for years long a foreign nation has been presented to the public as a
horde of 'Huns', 'Robbers', 'Vandals', etc., they cannot suddenly be
presented as something different, and the enemy of yesterday cannot be
recommended as the ally of tomorrow.
 
But the third factor deserves greater attention, since it is of
essential importance for establishing future alliances in Europe.
 
From the political point of view it is not in the interests of Great
Britain that Germany should be ruined even still more, but such a
proceeding would be very much in the interests of the international
money-markets manipulated by the Jew. The cleavage between the official,
or rather traditional, British statesmanship and the controlling
influence of the Jew on the money-markets is nowhere so clearly
manifested as in the various attitudes taken towards problems of British
foreign policy. Contrary to the interests and welfare of the British
State, Jewish finance demands not only the absolute economic destruction
of Germany but its complete political enslavement. The
internationalization of our German economic system, that is to say, the
transference of our productive forces to the control of Jewish
international finance, can be completely carried out only in a State
that has been politically Bolshevized. But the Marxist fighting forces,
commanded by international and Jewish stock-exchange capital, cannot
finally smash the national resistance in Germany without friendly help
from outside. For this purpose French armies would first have to invade
and overcome the territory of the German REICH until a state of
international chaos would set in, and then the country would have to
succumb to Bolshevik storm troops in the service of Jewish international
finance.
 
Hence it is that at the present time the Jew is the great agitator for
the complete destruction of Germany. Whenever we read of attacks against
Germany taking place in any part of the world the Jew is always the
instigator. In peace-time, as well as during the War, the Jewish-Marxist
stock-exchange Press systematically stirred up hatred against Germany,
until one State after another abandoned its neutrality and placed itself
at the service of the world coalition, even against the real interests
of its own people.
 
The Jewish way of reasoning thus becomes quite clear. The Bolshevization
of Germany, that is to say, the extermination of the patriotic and
national German intellectuals, thus making it possible to force German
Labour to bear the yoke of international Jewish finance--that is only
the overture to the movement for expanding Jewish power on a wider scale
and finally subjugating the world to its rule. As has so often happened
in history, Germany is the chief pivot of this formidable struggle. If
our people and our State should fall victims to these oppressors of the
nations, lusting after blood and money, the whole earth would become the
prey of that hydra. Should Germany be freed from its grip, a great
menace for the nations of the world would thereby be eliminated.
 
It is certain that Jewry uses all its subterranean activities not only
for the purpose of keeping alive old national enmities against Germany
but even to spread them farther and render them more acute wherever
possible. It is no less certain that these activities are only very
partially in keeping with the true interests of the nations among whose
people the poison is spread. As a general principle, Jewry carries on
its campaign in the various countries by the use of arguments that are
best calculated to appeal to the mentality of the respective nations and
are most likely to produce the desired results; for Jewry knows what the
public feeling is in each country. Our national stock has been so much
adulterated by the mixture of alien elements that, in its fight for
power, Jewry can make use of the more or less 'cosmopolitan' circles
which exist among us, inspired by the pacifist and international
ideologies. In France they exploit the well-known and accurately
estimated chauvinistic spirit. In England they exploit the commercial
and world-political outlook. In short, they always work upon the
essential characteristics that belong to the mentality of each nation.
When they have in this way achieved a decisive influence in the
political and economic spheres they can drop the limitations which their
former tactics necessitated, now disclosing their real intentions and
the ends for which they are fighting. Their work of destruction now goes
ahead more quickly, reducing one State after another to a mass of ruins
on which they will erect the everlasting and sovereign Jewish Empire.
 
In England, and in Italy, the contrast between the better kind of solid
statesmanship and the policy of the Jewish stock-exchange often becomes
strikingly evident.
 
Only in France there exists to-day more than ever before a profound
accord between the views of the stock-exchange, controlled by the Jews,
and the chauvinistic policy pursued by French statesmen. This identity
of views constitutes an immense, danger for Germany. And it is just for
this reason that France is and will remain by far the most dangerous
enemy. The French people, who are becoming more and more obsessed by
negroid ideas, represent a threatening menace to the existence of the
white race in Europe, because they are bound up with the Jewish campaign
for world-domination. For the contamination caused by the influx of
negroid blood on the Rhine, in the very heart of Europe, is in accord
with the sadist and perverse lust for vengeance on the part of the
hereditary enemy of our people, just as it suits the purpose of the cool
calculating Jew who would use this means of introducing a process of
bastardization in the very centre of the European Continent and, by
infecting the white race with the blood of an inferior stock, would
destroy the foundations of its independent existence.
 
France's activities in Europe to-day, spurred on by the French lust for
vengeance and systematically directed by the Jew, are a criminal attack
against the life of the white race and will one day arouse against the
French people a spirit of vengeance among a generation which will have
recognized the original sin of mankind in this racial pollution.
 
As far as concerns Germany, the danger which France represents involves
the duty of relegating all sentiment to a subordinate place and
extending the hand to those who are threatened with the same menace and
who are not willing to suffer or tolerate France's lust for hegemony.
 
For a long time yet to come there will be only two Powers in Europe with
which it may be possible for Germany to conclude an alliance. These
Powers are Great Britain and Italy.
 
If we take the trouble to cast a glance backwards on the way in which
German foreign policy has been conducted since the Revolution we must,
in view of the constant and incomprehensible acts of submission on the
part. of our governments, either lose heart or become fired with rage
and take up the cudgels against such a regime. Their way of acting
cannot be attributed to a want of understanding, because what seemed to
every thinking man to be inconceivable was accomplished by the leaders
of the November parties with their Cyclopean intellects. They bowed to
France and begged her favour. Yes, during all these recent years, with
the touching simplicity of incorrigible visionaries, they went on their
knees to France again and again. They perpetuaily wagged their tails
before the GRANDE NATION. And in each trick-o'-the-loop which the French
hangmen performed with his rope they recognized a visible change of
feeling. Our real political wire-pullers never shared in this absurd
credulity. The idea of establishing a friendship with France was for
them only a means of thwarting every attempt on Germany's part to adopt
a practical policy of alliances. They had no illusions about French aims
or those of the men behind the scenes in France. What induced them to
take up such an attitude and to act as if they honestly believed that
the fate of Germany could possibly be changed in this way was the cool
calculation that if this did not happen our people might take the reins
into their own hands and choose another road.
 
Of course it is difficult for us to propose England as our possible ally
in the future. Our Jewish Press has always been adept in concentrating
hatred against England particularly. And many of our good German
simpletons perch on these branches which the Jews have limed to capture
them. They babble about a restoration of German sea power and protest
against the robbery of our colonies. Thus they furnish material which
the contriving Jew transmits to his clansmen in England, so that it can
be used there for purposes of practical propaganda. For our
simple-minded bourgeoisie who indulge in politics can take in only
little by little the idea that to-day we have not to fight for
'sea-power' and such things. Even before the War it was absurd to direct
the national energies of Germany towards this end without first having
secured our position in Europe. Such a hope to-day reaches that peak of
absurdity which may be called criminal in the domain of politics.
 
Often one becomes really desperate on seeing how the Jewish wire-pullers
succeeded in concentrating the attention of the people on things which
are only of secondary importance to-day, They incited the people to
demonstrations and protests while at the same time France was tearing
our nation asunder bit by bit and systematically removing the very
foundations of our national independence.
 
In this connection I have to think of the Wooden Horse in the riding of
which the Jew showed extraordinary skill during these years. I mean
South Tyrol.
 
Yes, South Tyrol. The reason why I take up this question here is just
because I want to call to account that shameful CANAILLE who relied on
the ignorance and short memories of large sections of our people and
stimulated a national indignation which is as foreign to the real
character of our parliamentary impostors as the idea of respect for
private property is to a magpie.
 
I should like to state here that I was one of those who, at the time
when the fate of South Tyrol was being decided--that is to say, from
August 1914 to November 1918--took my place where that country also
could have been effectively defended, namely, in the Army. I did my
share in the fighting during those years, not merely to save South Tyrol
from being lost but also to save every other German province for the
Fatherland.
 
The parliamentary sharpers did not take part in that combat. The whole
CANAILLE played party politics. On the other hand, we carried on the
fight in the belief that a victorious issue of the War would enable the
German nation to keep South Tyrol also; but the loud-mouthed traitor
carried on a seditious agitation against such a victorious issue, until
the fighting Siegfried succumbed to the dagger plunged in his back. It
was only natural that the inflammatory and hypocritical speeches of the
elegantly dressed parliamentarians on the Vienna RATHAUS PLATZ or in
front of the FELDHERRNHALLE in Munich could not save South Tyrol for
Germany. That could be done only by the fighting battalions at the
Front. Those who broke up that fighting front betrayed South Tyrol, as
well as the other districts of Germany.
 
Anyone who thinks that the South Tyrol question can be solved to-day by
protests and manifestations and processions organized by various
associations is either a humbug or merely a German philistine.
 
In this regard it must be quite clearly understood that we cannot get
back the territories we have lost if we depend on solemn imprecations
before the throne of the Almighty God or on pious hopes in a League of
Nations, but only by the force of arms.
 
Therefore the only remaining question is: Who is ready to take up arms
for the restoration of the lost territories?
 
As far as concerns myself personally, I can state with a good conscience
that I would have courage enough to take part in a campaign for the
reconquest of South Tyrol, at the head of parliamentarian storm
battalions consisting of parliamentarian gasconaders and all the party
leaders, also the various Councillors of State. Only the Devil knows
whether I might have the luck of seeing a few shells suddenly burst over
this 'burning' demonstration of protest. I think that if a fox were to
break into a poultry yard his presence would not provoke such a
helter-skelter and rush to cover as we should witness in the band of
'protesters'.
 
The vilest part of it all is that these talkers themselves do not
believe that anything can be achieved in this way. Each one of them
knows very well how harmless and ineffective their whole pretence is.
They do it only because it is easier now to babble about the restoration
of South Tyrol than to fight for its preservation in days gone by.
 
Each one plays the part that he is best capable of playing in life. In
those days we offered our blood. To-day these people are engaged in
whetting their tusks.
 
It is particularly interesting to note to-day how legitimist circles in
Vienna preen themselves on their work for the restoration of South
Tyrol. Seven years ago their august and illustrious Dynasty helped, by
an act of perjury and treason, to make it possible for the victorious
world-coalition to take away South Tyrol. At that time these circles
supported the perfidious policy adopted by their Dynasty and did not
trouble themselves in the least about the fate of South Tyrol or any
other province. Naturally it is easier to-day to take up the fight for
this territory, since the present struggle is waged with 'the weapons of
the mind'. Anyhow, it is easier to join in a 'meeting of protestation'
and talk yourself hoarse in giving vent to the noble indignation that
fills your breast, or stain your finger with the writing of a newspaper
article, than to blow up a bridge, for instance, during the occupation
of the Ruhr.
 
The reason why certain circles have made the question of South Tyrol the
pivot of German-Italian relations during the past few years is quite
evident. Jews and Habsburg legitimists are greatly interested in
preventing Germany from pursuing a policy of alliance which might lead
one day to the resurgence of a free German fatherland. It is not out of
love for South Tyrol that they play this role to-day--for their policy
would turn out detrimental rather than helpful to the interests of that
province--but through fear of an agreement being established between
Germany and Italy.
 
A tendency towards lying and calumny lies in the nature of these people,
and that explains how they can calmly and brazenly attempt to twist
things in such a way as to make it appear that we have 'betrayed' South
Tyrol.
 
There is one clear answer that must be given to these gentlemen. It is
this: Tyrol has been betrayed, in the first place, by every German who
was sound in limb and body and did not offer himself for service at the
Front during 1914-1918 to do his duty towards his country.
 
In the second place, Tyrol was betrayed by every man who, during those
years did not help to reinforce the national spirit and the national
powers of resistance, so as to enable the country to carry through the
War and keep up the fight to the very end.
 
In the third place, South Tyrol was betrayed by everyone who took part
in the November Revolution, either directly by his act or indirectly by
a cowardly toleration of it, and thus broke the sole weapon that could
have saved South Tyrol.
 
In the fourth place, South Tyrol was betrayed by those parties and their
adherents who put their signatures to the disgraceful treaties of
Versailles and St. Germain.
 
And so the matter stands, my brave gentlemen, who make your protests
only with words.
 
To-day I am guided by a calm and cool recognition of the fact that the
lost territories cannot be won back by the whetted tongues of
parliamentary spouters but only by the whetted sword; in other words,
through a fight where blood will have to be shed.
 
Now, I have no hesitations in saying that to-day, once the die has been
cast, it is not only impossible to win back South Tyrol through a war
but I should definitely take my stand against such a movement, because I
am convinced that it would not be possible to arouse the national
enthusiasm of the German people and maintain it in such a way as would
be necessary in order to carry through such a war to a successful issue.
On the contrary, I believe that if we have to shed German blood once
again it would be criminal to do so for the sake of liberating 200,000
Germans, when more than seven million neighbouring Germans are suffering
under foreign domination and a vital artery of the German nation has
become a playground for hordes of African niggers.
 
If the German nation is to put an end to a state of things which
threatens to wipe it off the map of Europe it must not fall into the
errors of the pre-War period and make the whole world its enemy. But it
must ascertain who is its most dangerous enemy so that it can
concentrate all its forces in a struggle to beat him. And if, in order
to carry through this struggle to victory, sacrifices should be made in
other quarters, future generations will not condemn us for that. They
will take account of the miseries and anxieties which led us to make
such a bitter decision, and in the light of that consideration they will
more clearly recognize the brilliancy of our success.
 
Again I must say here that we must always be guided by the fundamental
principle that, as a preliminary to winning back lost provinces, the
political independence and strength of the motherland must first be
restored.
 
The first task which has to be accomplished is to make that independence
possible and to secure it by a wise policy of alliances, which
presupposes an energetic management of our public affairs.
 
But it is just on this point that we, National Socialists, have to guard
against being dragged into the tow of our ranting bourgeois patriots who
take their cue from the Jew. It would be a disaster if, instead of
preparing for the coming struggle, our Movement also were to busy itself
with mere protests by word of mouth.
 
It was the fantastic idea of a Nibelungen alliance with the decomposed
body of the Habsburg State that brought about Germany's ruin. Fantastic
sentimentality in dealing with the possibilities of foreign policy
to-day would be the best means of preventing our revival for innumerable
years to come.
 
Here I must briefly answer the objections which may be raised in regard
to the three questions I have put.
 
1. Is it possible at all to form an alliance with the present Germany,
whose weakness is so visible to all eyes?
 
2. Can the ex-enemy nations change their attitude towards Germany?
 
3. In other nations is not the influence of Jewry stronger than the
recognition of their own interests, and does not this influence thwart
all their good intentions and render all their plans futile?
 
I think that I have already dealt adequately with one of the two aspects
of the first point. Of course nobody will enter into an alliance with
the present Germany. No Power in the world would link its fortunes with
a State whose government does not afford grounds for the slightest
confidence. As regards the attempt which has been made by many of our
compatriots to explain the conduct of the Government by referring to the
woeful state of public feeling and thus excuse such conduct, I must
strongly object to that way of looking at things.
 
The lack of character which our people have shown during the last six
years is deeply distressing. The indifference with which they have
treated the most urgent necessities of our nation might veritably lead
one to despair. Their cowardice is such that it often cries to heaven
for vengeance. But one must never forget that we are dealing with a
people who gave to the world, a few years previously, an admirable
example of the highest human qualities. From the first days of August
1914 to the end of the tremendous struggle between the nations, no
people in the world gave a better proof of manly courage, tenacity and
patient endurance, than this people gave who are so cast down and
dispirited to-day. Nobody will dare to assert that the lack of character
among our people to-day is typical of them. What we have to endure
to-day, among us and around us, is due only to the influence of the sad
and distressing effects that followed the high treason committed on
November 9th, 1918. More than ever before the word of the poet is true:
that evil can only give rise to evil. But even in this epoch those
qualities among our people which are fundamentally sound are not
entirely lost. They slumber in the depths of the national conscience,
and sometimes in the clouded firmament we see certain qualities like
shining lights which Germany will one day remember as the first symptoms
of a revival. We often see young Germans assembling and forming
determined resolutions, as they did in 1914, freely and willingly to
offer themselves as a sacrifice on the altar of their beloved
Fatherland. Millions of men have resumed work, whole-heartedly and
zealously, as if no revolution had ever affected them. The smith is at
his anvil once again. And the farmer drives his plough. The scientist is
in his laboratory. And everybody is once again attending to his duty
with the same zeal and devotion as formerly.
 
The oppression which we suffer from at the hands of our enemies is no
longer taken, as it formerly was, as a matter for laughter; but it is
resented with bitterness and anger. There can be no doubt that a great
change of attitude has taken place.
 
This evolution has not yet taken the shape of a conscious intention and
movement to restore the political power and independence of our nation;
but the blame for this must be attributed to those utterly incompetent
people who have no natural endowments to qualify them for statesmanship
and yet have been governing our nation since 1918 and leading it to
ruin.
 
Yes. If anybody accuses our people to-day he ought to be asked: What is
being done to help them? What are we to say of the poor support which
the people give to any measures introduced by the Government? Is it not
true that such a thing as a Government hardly exists at all? And must we
consider the poor support which it receives as a sign of a lack of
vitality in the nation itself; or is it not rather a proof of the
complete failure of the methods employed in the management of this
valuable trust? What have our Governments done to re-awaken in the
nation a proud spirit of self-assertion, up-standing manliness, and a
spirit of righteous defiance towards its enemies?
 
In 1919, when the Peace Treaty was imposed on the German nation, there
were grounds for hoping that this instrument of unrestricted oppression
would help to reinforce the outcry for the freedom of Germany. Peace
treaties which make demands that fall like a whip-lash on the people
turn out not infrequently to be the signal of a future revival.
 
To what purpose could the Treaty of Versailles have been exploited?
 
In the hands of a willing Government, how could this instrument of
unlimited blackmail and shameful humiliation have been applied for the
purpose of arousing national sentiment to its highest pitch? How could a
well-directed system of propaganda have utilized the sadist cruelty of
that treaty so as to change the indifference of the people to a feeling
of indignation and transform that indignation into a spirit of dauntless
resistance?
 
Each point of that Treaty could have been engraved on the minds and
hearts of the German people and burned into them until sixty million men
and women would find their souls aflame with a feeling of rage and
shame; and a torrent of fire would burst forth as from a furnace, and
one common will would be forged from it, like a sword of steel. Then the
people would join in the common cry: "To arms again!"
 
Yes. A treaty of that kind can be used for such a purpose. Its unbounded
oppression and its impudent demands were an excellent propaganda weapon
to arouse the sluggish spirit of the nation and restore its vitality.
 
Then, from the child's story-book to the last newspaper in the country,
and every theatre and cinema, every pillar where placards are posted and
every free space on the hoardings should be utilized in the service of
this one great mission, until the faint-hearted cry, "Lord, deliver us,"
which our patriotic associations send up to Heaven to-day would be
transformed into an ardent prayer: "Almighty God, bless our arms when
the hour comes. Be just, as Thou hast always been just. Judge now if we
deserve our freedom. Lord, bless our struggle."
 
All opportunities were neglected and nothing was done.
 
Who will be surprised now if our people are not such as they should be
or might be? The rest of the world looks upon us only as its valet, or
as a kindly dog that will lick its master's hand after he has been
whipped.
 
Of course the possibilities of forming alliances with other nations are
hampered by the indifference of our own people, but much more by our
Governments. They have been and are so corrupt that now, after eight
years of indescribable oppression, there exists only a faint desire for
liberty.
 
In order that our nation may undertake a policy of alliances, it must
restore its prestige among other nations, and it must have an
authoritative Government that is not a drudge in the service of foreign
States and the taskmaster of its own people, but rather the herald of
the national will.
 
If our people had a government which would look upon this as its
mission, six years would not have passed before a courageous foreign
policy on the part of the REICH would find a corresponding support among
the people, whose desire for freedom would be encouraged and intensified
thereby.
 
The third objection referred to the difficulty of changing the ex-enemy
nations into friendly allies. That objection may be answered as follows:
 
The general anti-German psychosis which has developed in other countries
through the war propaganda must of necessity continue to exist as long
as there is not a renaissance of the national conscience among the
German people, so that the German REICH may once again become a State
which is able to play its part on the chess-board of European politics
and with whom the others feel that they can play. Only when the
Government and the people feel absolutely certain of being able to
undertake a policy of alliances can one Power or another, whose
interests coincide with ours, think of instituting a system of
propaganda for the purpose of changing public opinion among its own
people. Naturally it will take several years of persevering and ably
directed work to reach such a result. Just because a long period is
needed in order to change the public opinion of a country, it is
necessary to reflect calmly before such an enterprise be undertaken.
This means that one must not enter upon this kind of work unless one is
absolutely convinced that it is worth the trouble and that it will bring
results which will be valuable in the future. One must not try to change
the opinions and feelings of a people by basing one's actions on the
vain cajolery of a more or less brilliant Foreign Minister, but only if
there be a tangible guarantee that the new orientation will be really
useful. Otherwise public opinion in the country dealt with may be just
thrown into a state of complete confusion. The most reliable guarantee
that can be given for the possibility of subsequently entering into an
alliance with a certain State cannot be found in the loquacious suavity
of some individual member of the Government, but in the manifest
stability of a definite and practical policy on the part of the
Government as a whole, and in the support which is given to that policy
by the public opinion of the country. The faith of the public in this
policy will be strengthened all the more if the Government organize one
active propaganda to explain its efforts and secure public support for
them, and if public opinion favourably responds to the Government's
policy.
 
Therefore a nation in such a position as ours will be looked upon as a
possible ally if public opinion supports the Government's policy and if
both are united in the same enthusiastic determination to carry through
the fight for national freedom. That condition of affairs must be firmly
established before any attempt can be made to change public opinion in
other countries which, for the sake of defending their most elementary
interests, are disposed to take the road shoulder-to-shoulder with a
companion who seems able to play his part in defending those interests.
In other words, this means that they will be ready to establish an
alliance.
 
For this purpose, however, one thing is necessary. Seeing that the task
of bringing about a radical change in the public opinion of a country
calls for hard work, and many do not at first understand what it means,
it would be both foolish and criminal to commit mistakes which could be
used as weapons in the hands of those who are opposed to such a change.
 
One must recognize the fact that it takes a long time for a people to
understand completely the inner purposes which a Government has in view,
because it is not possible to explain the ultimate aims of the
preparations that are being made to carry through a certain policy. In
such cases the Government has to count on the blind faith of the masses
or the intuitive instinct of the ruling caste that is more developed
intellectually. But since many people lack this insight, this political
acumen and faculty for seeing into the trend of affairs, and since
political considerations forbid a public explanation of why such and
such a course is being followed, a certain number of leaders in
intellectual circles will always oppose new tendencies which, because
they are not easily grasped, can be pointed to as mere experiments. And
that attitude arouses opposition among conservative circles regarding
the measures in question.
 
For this reason a strict duty devolves upon everybody not to allow any
weapon to fall into the hands of those who would interfere with the work
of bringing about a mutual understanding with other nations. This is
specially so in our case, where we have to deal with the pretentions and
fantastic talk of our patriotic associations and our small bourgeoisie
who talk politics in the cafes. That the cry for a new war fleet, the
restoration of our colonies, etc., has no chance of ever being carried
out in practice will not be denied by anyone who thinks over the matter
calmly and seriously. These harmless and sometimes half-crazy spouters
in the war of protests are serving the interests of our mortal enemy,
while the manner in which their vapourings are exploited for political
purposes in England cannot be considered as advantageous to Germany.
 
They squander their energies in futile demonstrations against the whole
world. These demonstrations are harmful to our interests and those who
indulge in them forget the fundamental principle which is a preliminary
condition of all success. What thou doest, do it thoroughly. Because we
keep on howling against five or ten States we fail to concentrate all
the forces of our national will and our physical strength for a blow at
the heart of our bitterest enemy. And in this way we sacrifice the
possibility of securing an alliance which would reinforce our strength
for that decisive conflict.
 
Here, too, there is a mission for National Socialism to fulfil. It must
teach our people not to fix their attention on the little things but
rather on the great things, not to exhaust their energies on secondary
objects, and not to forget that the object we shall have to fight for
one day is the bare existence of our people and that the sole enemy we
shall have to strike at is that Power which is robbing us of this
existence.
 
It may be that we shall have many a heavy burden to bear. But this is by
no means an excuse for refusing to listen to reason and raise
nonsensical outcries against the rest of the world, instead of
concentrating all our forces against the most deadly enemy.
 
Moreover, the German people will have no moral right to complain of the
manner in which the rest of the world acts towards them, as long as they
themselves have not called to account those criminals who sold and
betrayed their own country. We cannot hope to be taken very seriously if
we indulge in long-range abuse and protests against England and Italy
and then allow those scoundrels to circulate undisturbed in our own
country who were in the pay of the enemy war propaganda, took the
weapons out of our hands, broke the backbone of our resistance and
bartered away the REICH for thirty pieces of silver.
 
The enemy did only what was expected. And we ought to learn from the
stand he took and the way he acted.
 
Anyone who cannot rise to the level of this outlook must reflect that
otherwise there would remain nothing else than to renounce the idea of
adopting any policy of alliances for the future. For if we cannot form
an alliance with England because she has robbed us of our colonies, or
with Italy because she has taken possession of South Tyrol, or with
Poland or Czechoslovakia, then there remains no other possibility of an
alliance in Europe except with France which, inter alia, has robbed us
of Alsace and Lorraine.
 
There can scarcely be any doubt as to whether this last alternative
would be advantageous to the interests of the German people. But if it
be defended by somebody one is always doubtful whether that person be
merely a simpleton or an astute rogue.
 
As far as concerns the leaders in these activities, I think the latter
hypothesis is true.
 
A change in public feeling among those nations which have hitherto been
enemies and whose true interests will correspond in the future with ours
could be effected, as far as human calculation goes, if the internal
strength of our State and our manifest determination to secure our own
existence made it clear that we should be valuable allies. Moreover, it
is necessary that our incompetent way of doing things and our criminal
conduct in some matters should not furnish grounds which may be utilized
for purposes of propaganda by those who would oppose our projects of
establishing an alliance with one or other of our former enemies.
 
The answer to the third question is still more difficult: Is it
conceivable that they who represent the true interests of those nations
which may possibly form an alliance with us could put their views into
practice against the will of the Jew, who is the mortal enemy of
national and independent popular States?
 
For instance, could the motive-forces of Great Britain's traditional
statesmanship smash the disastrous influence of the Jew, or could they
not?
 
This question, as I have already said, is very difficult to answer. The
answer depends on so many factors that it is impossible to form a
conclusive judgment. Anyhow, one thing is certain: The power of the
Government in a given State and at a definite period may be so firmly
established in the public estimation and so absolutely at the service of
the country's interests that the forces of international Jewry could not
possibly organize a real and effective obstruction against measures
considered to be politically necessary.
 
The fight which Fascist Italy waged against Jewry's three principal
weapons, the profound reasons for which may not have been consciously
understood (though I do not believe this myself) furnishes the best
proof that the poison fangs of that Power which transcends all State
boundaries are being drawn, even though in an indirect way. The
prohibition of Freemasonry and secret societies, the suppression of the
supernational Press and the definite abolition of Marxism, together with
the steadily increasing consolidation of the Fascist concept of the
State--all this will enable the Italian Government, in the course of
some years, to advance more and more the interests of the Italian people
without paying any attention to the hissing of the Jewish world-hydra.
 
The English situation is not so favourable. In that country which has
'the freest democracy' the Jew dictates his will, almost unrestrained
but indirectly, through his influence on public opinion. And yet there
is a perpetual struggle in England between those who are entrusted with
the defence of State interests and the protagonists of Jewish
world-dictatorship.
 
After the War it became clear for the first time how sharp this contrast
is, when British statesmanship took one stand on the Japanese problem
and the Press took a different stand.
 
Just after the War had ceased the old mutual antipathy between America
and Japan began to reappear. Naturally the great European Powers could
not remain indifferent to this new war menace. In England, despite the
ties of kinship, there was a certain amount of jealousy and anxiety over
the growing importance of the United States in all spheres of
international economics and politics. What was formerly a colonial
territory, the daughter of a great mother, seemed about to become the
new mistress of the world. It is quite understandable that to-day
England should re-examine her old alliances and that British
statesmanship should look anxiously to the danger of a coming moment
when the cry would no longer be: "Britain rules the waves", but rather:
"The Seas belong to the United States".
 
The gigantic North American State, with the enormous resources of its
virgin soil, is much more invulnerable than the encircled German REICH.
Should a day come when the die which will finally decide the destinies
of the nations will have to be cast in that country, England would be
doomed if she stood alone. Therefore she eagerly reaches out her hand to
a member of the yellow race and enters an alliance which, from the
racial point of view is perhaps unpardonable; but from the political
viewpoint it represents the sole possibility of reinforcing Britain's
world position in face of the strenuous developments taking place on the
American continent.
 
Despite the fact that they fought side by side on the European
battlefields, the British Government did not decide to conclude an
alliance with the Asiatic partner, yet the whole Jewish Press opposed
the idea of a Japanese alliance.
 
How can we explain the fact that up to 1918 the Jewish Press championed
the policy of the British Government against the German REICH and then
suddenly began to take its own way and showed itself disloyal to the
Government?
 
It was not in the interests of Great Britain to have Germany
annihilated, but primarily a Jewish interest. And to-day the destruction
of Japan would serve British political interests less than it would
serve the far-reaching intentions of those who are leading the movement
that hopes to establish a Jewish world-empire. While England is using
all her endeavours to maintain her position in the world, the Jew is
organizing his aggressive plans for the conquest of it.
 
He already sees the present European States as pliant instruments in his
hands, whether indirectly through the power of so-called Western
Democracy or in the form of a direct domination through Russian
Bolshevism. But it is not only the old world that he holds in his snare;
for a like fate threatens the new world. Jews control the financial
forces of America on the stock exchange. Year after year the Jew
increases his hold on Labour in a nation of 120 million souls. But a
very small section still remains quite independent and is thus the cause
of chagrin to the Jew.
 
The Jews show consummate skill in manipulating public opinion and using
it as an instrument in fighting for their own future.
 
The great leaders of Jewry are confident that the day is near at hand
when the command given in the Old Testament will be carried out and the
Jews will devour the other nations of the earth.
 
Among this great mass of denationalized countries which have become
Jewish colonies one independent State could bring about the ruin of the
whole structure at the last moment. The reason for doing this would be
that Bolshevism as a world-system cannot continue to exist unless it
encompasses the whole earth. Should one State preserve its national
strength and its national greatness the empire of the Jewish satrapy,
like every other tyranny, would have to succumb to the force of the
national idea.
 
As a result of his millennial experience in accommodating himself to
surrounding circumstances, the Jew knows very well that he can undermine
the existence of European nations by a process of racial bastardization,
but that he could hardly do the same to a national Asiatic State like
Japan. To-day he can ape the ways of the German and the Englishman, the
American and the Frenchman, but he has no means of approach to the
yellow Asiatic. Therefore he seeks to destroy the Japanese national
State by using other national States as his instruments, so that he may
rid himself of a dangerous opponent before he takes over supreme control
of the last national State and transforms that control into a tyranny
for the oppression of the defenceless.
 
He does not want to see a national Japanese State in existence when he
founds his millennial empire of the future, and therefore he wants to
destroy it before establishing his own dictatorship.
 
And so he is busy to-day in stirring up antipathy towards Japan among
the other nations, as he stirred it up against Germany. Thus it may
happen that while British statesmanship is still endeavouring to ground
its policy in the alliance with Japan, the Jewish Press in Great Britain
may be at the same time leading a hostile movement against that ally and
preparing for a war of destruction by pretending that it is for the
triumph of democracy and at the same time raising the war-cry: Down with
Japanese militarism and imperialism.
 
Thus in England to-day the Jew opposes the policy of the State. And for
this reason the struggle against the Jewish world-danger will one day
begin also in that country.
 
And here again the National Socialist Movement has a tremendous task
before it.
 
It must open the eyes of our people in regard to foreign nations and it
must continually remind them of the real enemy who menaces the world
to-day. In place of preaching hatred against Aryans from whom we may be
separated on almost every other ground but with whom the bond of kindred
blood and the main features of a common civilization unite us, we must
devote ourselves to arousing general indignation against the maleficent
enemy of humanity and the real author of all our sufferings.
 
The National Socialist Movement must see to it that at least in our own
country the mortal enemy is recognized and that the fight against him
may be a beacon light pointing to a new and better period for other
nations as well as showing the way of salvation for Aryan humanity in
the struggle for its existence.
 
Finally, may reason be our guide and will-power our strength. And may
the sacred duty of directing our conduct as I have pointed out give us
perseverance and tenacity; and may our faith be our supreme protection.
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER XIV
 
 
 
GERMANY'S POLICY IN EASTERN EUROPE
 
 
There are two considerations which induce me to make a special analysis
of Germany's position in regard to Russia. These are:
 
(1) This may prove to be the most decisive point in determining
Germany's foreign policy.
 
(2) The problem which has to be solved in this connection is also a
touchstone to test the political capacity of the young National
Socialist Movement for clear thinking and acting along the right lines.
 
I must confess that the second consideration has often been a source of
great anxiety to me. The members of our movement are not recruited from
circles which are habitually indifferent to public affairs, but mostly
from among men who hold more or less extreme views. Such being the case,
it is only natural that their understanding of foreign politics should
suffer from the prejudice and inadequate knowledge of those circles to
which they were formerly attached by political and ideological ties. And
this is true not merely of the men who come to us from the Left. On the
contrary, however subversive may have been the kind of teaching they
formerly received in regard to these problems, in very many cases this
was at least partly counterbalanced by the residue of sound and natural
instincts which remained. In such cases it is only necessary to
substitute a better teaching in place of the earlier influences, in
order to transform the instinct of self-preservation and other sound
instincts into valuable assets.
 
On the other hand, it is much more difficult to impress definite
political ideas on the minds of men whose earlier political education
was not less nonsensical and illogical than that given to the partisans
of the Left. These men have sacrificed the last residue of their natural
instincts to the worship of some abstract and entirely objective theory.
It is particularly difficult to induce these representatives of our
so-called intellectual circles to take a realistic and logical view of
their own interests and the interests of their nation in its relations
with foreign countries. Their minds are overladen with a huge burden of
prejudices and absurd ideas and they have lost or renounced every
instinct of self-preservation. With those men also the National
Socialist Movement has to fight a hard battle. And the struggle is all
the harder because, though very often they are utterly incompetent, they
are so self-conceited that, without the slightest justification, they
look down with disdain on ordinary commonsense people. These arrogant
snobs who pretend to know better than other people, are wholly incapable
of calmly and coolly analysing a problem and weighing its pros and cons,
which are the necessary preliminaries of any decision or action in the
field of foreign politics.
 
It is just this circle which is beginning to-day to divert our foreign
policy into most disastrous directions and turn it away from the task of
promoting the real interests of the nation. Seeing that they do this in
order to serve their own fantastic ideologies, I feel myself obliged to
take the greatest pains in laying before my own colleagues a clear
exposition of the most important problem in our foreign policy, namely,
our position in relation to Russia. I shall deal with it, as thoroughly
as may be necessary to make it generally understood and as far as the
limits of this book permit. Let me begin by laying down the following
postulate:
 
When we speak of foreign politics we understand that domain of
government which has set before it the task of managing the affairs of a
nation in its relations with the rest of the world. Now the guiding
principles which must be followed in managing these affairs must be
based on the definite facts that are at hand. Moreover, as National
Socialists, we must lay down the following axiom regarding the manner in
which the foreign policy of a People's State should be conducted:
 
The foreign policy of a People's State must first of all bear in mind
the duty of securing the existence of the race which is incorporated in
this State. And this must be done by establishing a healthy and natural
proportion between the number and growth of the population on the one
hand and the extent and resources of the territory they inhabit, on the
other. That balance must be such that it accords with the vital
necessities of the people.
 
What I call a HEALTHY proportion is that in which the support of a
people is guaranteed by the resources of its own soil and sub-soil. Any
situation which falls short of this condition is none the less unhealthy
even though it may endure for centuries or even a thousand years. Sooner
or later, this lack of proportion must of necessity lead to the decline
or even annihilation of the people concerned.
 
Only a sufficiently large space on this earth can assure the independent
existence of a people.
 
The extent of the territorial expansion that may be necessary for the
settlement of the national population must not be estimated by present
exigencies nor even by the magnitude of its agricultural productivity in
relation to the number of the population. In the first volume of this
book, under the heading "Germany's Policy of Alliances before the War,"
I have already explained that the geometrical dimensions of a State are
of importance not only as the source of the nation's foodstuffs and raw
materials, but also from the political and military standpoints. Once a
people is assured of being able to maintain itself from the resources of
the national territory, it must think of how this national territory can
be defended. National security depends on the political strength of a
State, and this strength, in its turn, depends on the military
possibilities inherent in the geographical situation.
 
Thus the German nation could assure its own future only by being a World
Power. For nearly two thousand years the defence of our national
interests was a matter of world history, as can be seen from our more or
less successful activities in the field of foreign politics. We
ourselves have been witnesses to this, seeing that the gigantic struggle
that went on from 1914 to 1918 was only the struggle of the German
people for their existence on this earth, and it was carried out in such
a way that it has become known in history as the World War.
 
When Germany entered this struggle it was presumed that she was a World
Power. I say PRESUMED, because in reality she was no such thing. In
1914, if there had been a different proportion between the German
population and its territorial area, Germany would have been really a
World Power and, if we leave other factors out of count, the War would
have ended in our favour.
 
It is not my task nor my intention here to discuss what would have
happened if certain conditions had been fulfilled. But I feel it
absolutely incumbent on me to show the present conditions in their bare
and unadorned reality, insisting on the weakness inherent in them, so
that at least in the ranks of the National Socialist Movement they
should receive the necessary recognition.
 
Germany is not at all a World Power to-day. Even though our present
military weakness could be overcome, we still would have no claim to be
called a World Power. What importance on earth has a State in which the
proportion between the size of the population and the territorial area
is so miserable as in the present German REICH? At an epoch in which the
world is being gradually portioned out among States many of whom almost
embrace whole continents one cannot speak of a World Power in the case
of a State whose political motherland is confined to a territorial area
of barely five-hundred-thousand square kilometres.
 
Looked at purely from the territorial point of view, the area comprised
in the German REICH is insignificant in comparison with the other States
that are called World Powers. England must not be cited here as an
example to contradict this statement; for the English motherland is in
reality the great metropolis of the British World Empire, which owns
almost a fourth of the earth's surface. Next to this we must consider
the American Union as one of the foremost among the colossal States,
also Russia and China. These are enormous spaces, some of which are more
than ten times greater in territorial extent than the present German
REICH. France must also be ranked among these colossal States. Not only
because she is adding to the strength of her army in a constantly
increasing measure by recruiting coloured troops from the population of
her gigantic empire, but also because France is racially becoming more
and more negroid, so much so that now one can actually speak of the
creation of an African State on European soil. The contemporary colonial
policy of France cannot be compared with that of Germany in the past. If
France develops along the lines it has taken in our day, and should that
development continue for the next three hundred years, all traces of
French blood will finally be submerged in the formation of a
Euro-African Mulatto State. This would represent a formidable and
compact colonial territory stretching from the Rhine to the Congo,
inhabited by an inferior race which had developed through a slow and
steady process of bastardization.
 
That process distinguishes French colonial policy from the policy
followed by the old Germany.
 
The former German colonial policy was carried out by half-measures, as
was almost everything they did at that time. They did not gain an
expanse of territory for the settlement of German nationals nor did they
attempt to reinforce the power of the REICH through the enlistment of
black troops, which would have been a criminal undertaking. The Askari
in German East Africa represented a small and hesitant step along this
road; but in reality they served only for the defence of the colony
itself. The idea of importing black troops to a European theatre of
war--apart entirely from the practical impossibility of this in the
World War--was never entertained as a proposal to be carried out under
favourable circumstances; whereas, on the contrary, the French always
looked on such an idea as fundamental in their colonial activities.
 
Thus we find in the world to-day not only a number of States that are
much greater than the German in the mere numerical size of their
populations, but also possess a greater support for their political
power. The proportion between the territorial dimensions of the German
REICH and the numerical size of its population was never so unfavourable
in comparison with the other world States as at the beginning of our
history two thousand years ago and again to-day. At the former juncture
we were a young people and we stormed a world which was made up of great
States that were already in a decadent condition, of which the last
giant was Rome, to whose overthrow we contributed. To-day we find
ourselves in a world of great and powerful States, among which the
importance of our own REICH is constantly declining more and more.
 
We must always face this bitter truth with clear and calm minds. We must
study the area and population of the German REICH in relation to the
other States and compare them down through the centuries. Then we shall
find that, as I have said, Germany is not a World Power whether its
military strength be great or not.
 
There is no proportion between our position and that of the other States
throughout the world. And this lack of proportion is to be attributed to
the fact that our foreign policy never had a definite aim to attain, and
also to the fact that we lost every sound impulse and instinct for
self-preservation.
 
If the historians who are to write our national history at some future
date are to give the National Socialist Movement the credit of having
devoted itself to a sacred duty in the service of our people, this
movement will have to recognize the real truth of our situation in
regard to the rest of the world. However painful this recognition may
be, the movement must draw courage from it and a sense of practical
realities in fighting against the aimlessness and incompetence which has
hitherto been shown by our people in the conduct of their foreign
policy. Without respect for 'tradition,' and without any preconceived
notions, the movement must find the courage to organize our national
forces and set them on the path which will lead them away from that
territorial restriction which is the bane of our national life to-day,
and win new territory for them. Thus the movement will save the German
people from the danger of perishing or of being slaves in the service of
any other people.
 
Our movement must seek to abolish the present disastrous proportion
between our population and the area of our national territory,
considering national territory as the source of our maintenance or as a
basis of political power. And it ought to strive to abolish the contrast
between past history and the hopelessly powerless situation in which we
are to-day. In striving for this it must bear in mind the fact that we
are members of the highest species of humanity on this earth, that we
have a correspondingly high duty, and that we shall fulfil this duty
only if we inspire the German people with the racial idea, so that they
will occupy themselves not merely with the breeding of good dogs and
horses and cats, but also care for the purity of their own blood.
 
When I say that the foreign policy hitherto followed by Germany has been
without aim and ineffectual, the proof of my statement will be found in
the actual failures of this policy. Were our people intellectually
backward, or if they lacked courage, the final results of their efforts
could not have been worse than what we see to-day. What happened during
the last decades before the War does not permit of any illusions on this
point; because we must not measure the strength of a State taken by
itself, but in comparison with other States. Now, this comparison shows
that the other States increased their strength in such a measure that
not only did it balance that of Germany but turned out in the end to be
greater; so that, contrary to appearances, when compared with the other
States Germany declined more and more in power until there was a large
margin in her disfavour. Yes, even in the size of our population we
remained far behind, and kept on losing ground. Though it is true that
the courage of our people was not surpassed by that of any other in the
world and that they poured out more blood than any other nation in
defence of their existence, their failure was due only to the erroneous
way in which that courage was turned to practical purposes.
 
In this connection, if we examine the chain of political vicissitudes
through which our people have passed during more than a thousand years,
recalling the innumerable struggles and wars and scrutinizing it all in
the light of the results that are before our eyes to-day, we must
confess that from the ocean of blood only three phenomena have emerged
which we must consider as lasting fruits of political happenings
definitely determined by our foreign policy.
 
(1) The colonization of the Eastern Mark, which was mostly the work of
the Bajuvari.
 
(2) The conquest and settlement of the territory east of the Elbe.
 
(3) The organization of the Brandenburg-Prussian State, which was the
work of the Hohenzollerns and which became the model for the
crystallization of a new REICH.
 
An instructive lesson for the future.
 
These first two great successes of our foreign policy turned out to be
the most enduring. Without them our people would play no role in the
world to-day. These achievements were the first and unfortunately the
only successful attempts to establish a harmony between our increasing
population and the territory from which it drew its livelihood. And we
must look upon it as of really fatal import that our German historians
have never correctly appreciated these formidable facts which were so
full of importance for the following generations. In contradistinction
to this, they wrote panegyrics on many other things, fantastic heroism,
innumerable adventures and wars, without understanding that these latter
had no significance whatsoever for the main line of our national
development.
 
The third great success achieved by our political activity was the
establishment of the Prussian State and the development of a particular
State concept which grew out of this. To the same source we are to
attribute the organization of the instinct of national self-preservation
and self-defence in the German Army, an achievement which suited the
modern world. The transformation of the idea of self-defence on the part
of the individual into the duty of national defence is derived from the
Prussian State and the new statal concept which it introduced. It would
be impossible to over-estimate the importance of this historical
process. Disrupted by excessive individualism, the German nation became
disciplined under the organization of the Prussian Army and in this way
recovered at least some of the capacity to form a national community,
which in the case of other people had originally arisen through the
constructive urge of the herd instinct. Consequently the abolition of
compulsory national military service--which may have no meaning for
dozens of other nations--had fatal consequences for us. Ten generations
of Germans left without the corrective and educative effect of military
training and delivered over to the evil effects of those dissensions and
divisions the roots of which lie in their blood and display their force
also in a disunity of world-outlook--these ten generations would be
sufficient to allow our people to lose the last relics of an independent
existence on this earth.
 
The German spirit could then make its contribution to civilization only
through individuals living under the rule of foreign nations and the
origin of those individuals would remain unknown. They would remain as
the fertilizing manure of civilization, until the last residue of
Nordic-Aryan blood would become corrupted or drained out.
 
It is a remarkable fact that the real political successes achieved by
our people during their millennial struggles are better appreciated and
understood among our adversaries than among ourselves. Even still to-day
we grow enthusiastic about a heroism which robbed our people of millions
of their best racial stock and turned out completely fruitless in the
end.
 
The distinction between the real political successes which our people
achieved in the course of their long history and the futile ends for
which the blood of the nation has been shed is of supreme importance for
the determination of our policy now and in the future.
 
We, National Socialists, must never allow ourselves to re-echo the
hurrah patriotism of our contemporary bourgeois circles. It would be a
fatal danger for us to look on the immediate developments before the War
as constituting a precedent which we should be obliged to take into
account, even though only to the very smallest degree, in choosing our
own way. We can recognize no obligation devolving on us which may have
its historical roots in any part of the nineteenth century. In
contradistinction to the policy of those who represented that period, we
must take our stand on the principles already mentioned in regard to
foreign policy: namely, the necessity of bringing our territorial area
into just proportion with the number of our population. From the past we
can learn only one lesson. And this is that the aim which is to be
pursued in our political conduct must be twofold: namely (1) the
acquisition of territory as the objective of our foreign policy and (2)
the establishment of a new and uniform foundation as the objective of
our political activities at home, in accordance with our doctrine of
nationhood.
 
I shall briefly deal with the question of how far our territorial aims
are justified according to ethical and moral principles. This is all the
more necessary here because, in our so-called nationalist circles, there
are all kinds of plausible phrase-mongers who try to persuade the German
people that the great aim of their foreign policy ought to be to right
the wrongs of 1918, while at the same time they consider it incumbent on
them to assure the whole world of the brotherly spirit and sympathy of
the German people towards all other nations.
 
In regard to this point I should like to make the following statement:
To demand that the 1914 frontiers should be restored is a glaring
political absurdity that is fraught with such consequences as to make
the claim itself appear criminal. The confines of the REICH as they
existed in 1914 were thoroughly illogical; because they were not really
complete, in the sense of including all the members of the German
nation. Nor were they reasonable, in view of the geographical exigencies
of military defence. They were not the consequence of a political plan
which had been well considered and carried out. But they were temporary
frontiers established in virtue of a political struggle that had not
been brought to a finish; and indeed they were partly the chance result
of circumstances. One would have just as good a right, and in many cases
a better right, to choose some other outstanding year than 1914 in the
course of our history and demand that the objective of our foreign
policy should be the re-establishment of the conditions then existing.
The demands I have mentioned are quite characteristic of our bourgeois
compatriots, who in such matters take no political thought of the
future, They live only in the past and indeed only in the immediate
past; for their retrospect does not go back beyond their own times. The
law of inertia binds them to the present order of things, leading them
to oppose every attempt to change this. Their opposition, however, never
passes over into any kind of active defence. It is only mere passive
obstinacy. Therefore, we must regard it as quite natural that the
political horizon of such people should not reach beyond 1914. In
proclaiming that the aim of their political activities is to have the
frontiers of that time restored, they only help to close up the rifts
that are already becoming apparent in the league which our enemies have
formed against us. Only on these grounds can we explain the fact that
eight years after a world conflagration in which a number of Allied
belligerents had aspirations and aims that were partly in conflict with
one another, the coalition of the victors still remains more or less
solid.
 
Each of those States in its turn profited by the German collapse. In the
fear which they all felt before the proof of strength that we had given,
the Great Powers maintained a mutual silence about their individual
feelings of envy and enmity towards one another. They felt that the best
guarantee against a resurgence of our strength in the future would be to
break up and dismember our REICH as thoroughly as possible. A bad
conscience and fear of the strength of our people made up the durable
cement which has held the members of that league together, even up to
the present moment.
 
And our conduct does not tend to change this state of affairs. Inasmuch
as our bourgeoisie sets up the restoration of the 1914 frontiers as the
aim of Germany's political programme, each member of the enemy coalition
who otherwise might be inclined to withdraw from the combination sticks
to it, out of fear lest he might be attacked by us if he isolated
himself and in that case would not have the support of his allies. Each
individual State feels itself aimed at and threatened by this programme.
And the programme is absurd, for the following two reasons:
 
(1) Because there are no available means of extricating it from the
twilight atmosphere of political soirees and transforming it into
reality.
 
(2) Even if it could be really carried into effect the result would be
so miserable that, surely to God, it would not be worth while to risk
the blood of our people once again for such a purpose.
 
For there can be scarcely any doubt whatsoever that only through
bloodshed could we achieve the restoration of the 1914 frontiers. One
must have the simple mind of a child to believe that the revision of the
Versailles Treaty can be obtained by indirect means and by beseeching
the clemency of the victors; without taking into account the fact that
for this we should need somebody who had the character of a
Talleyrand, and there is no Talleyrand among us. Fifty percent of our
politicians consists of artful dodgers who have no character and are
quite hostile to the sympathies of our people, while the other fifty per
cent is made up of well-meaning, harmless, and complaisant incompetents.
Times have changed since the Congress of Vienna. It is no longer princes
or their courtesans who contend and bargain about State frontiers, but
the inexorable cosmopolitan Jew who is fighting for his own dominion
over the nations. The sword is the only means whereby a nation can
thrust that clutch from its throat. Only when national sentiment is
organized and concentrated into an effective force can it defy that
international menace which tends towards an enslavement of the nations.
But this road is and will always be marked with bloodshed.
 
If we are once convinced that the future of Germany calls for the
sacrifice, in one way or another, of all that we have and are, then we
must set aside considerations of political prudence and devote ourselves
wholly to the struggle for a future that will be worthy of our country.
 
For the future of the German nation the 1914 frontiers are of no
significance. They did not serve to protect us in the past, nor do they
offer any guarantee for our defence in the future. With these frontiers
the German people cannot maintain themselves as a compact unit, nor can
they be assured of their maintenance. From the military viewpoint these
frontiers are not advantageous or even such as not to cause anxiety. And
while we are bound to such frontiers it will not be possible for us to
improve our present position in relation to the other World Powers, or
rather in relation to the real World Powers. We shall not lessen the
discrepancy between our territory and that of Great Britain, nor shall
we reach the magnitude of the United States of America. Not only that,
but we cannot substantially lessen the importance of France in
international politics.
 
One thing alone is certain: The attempt to restore the frontiers of
1914, even if it turned out successful, would demand so much bloodshed
on the part of our people that no future sacrifice would be possible to
carry out effectively such measures as would be necessary to assure the
future existence of the nation. On the contrary, under the intoxication
of such a superficial success further aims would be renounced, all the
more so because the so-called 'national honour' would seem to be
revindicated and new ports would be opened, at least for a certain time,
to our commercial development.
 
Against all this we, National Socialists, must stick firmly to the aim
that we have set for our foreign policy; namely, that the German people
must be assured the territorial area which is necessary for it to exist
on this earth. And only for such action as is undertaken to secure those
ends can it be lawful in the eyes of God and our German posterity to
allow the blood of our people to be shed once again. Before God, because
we are sent into this world with the commission to struggle for our
daily bread, as creatures to whom nothing is donated and who must be
able to win and hold their position as lords of the earth only through
their own intelligence and courage. And this justification must be
established also before our German posterity, on the grounds that for
each one who has shed his blood the life of a thousand others will be
guaranteed to posterity. The territory on which one day our German
peasants will be able to bring forth and nourish their sturdy sons will
justify the blood of the sons of the peasants that has to be shed
to-day. And the statesmen who will have decreed this sacrifice may be
persecuted by their contemporaries, but posterity will absolve them from
all guilt for having demanded this offering from their people.
 
Here I must protest as sharply as possible against those nationalist
scribes who pretend that such territorial extension would be a
"violation of the sacred rights of man" and accordingly pour out their
literary effusions against it. One never knows what are the hidden
forces behind the activities of such persons. But it is certain that the
confusion which they provoke suits the game our enemies are playing
against our nation and is in accordance with their wishes. By taking
such an attitude these scribes contribute criminally to weaken from the
inside and to destroy the will of our people to promote their own vital
interests by the only effective means that can be used for that purpose.
For no nation on earth possesses a square yard of ground and soil by
decree of a higher Will and in virtue of a higher Right. The German
frontiers are the outcome of chance, and are only temporary frontiers
that have been established as the result of political struggles which
took place at various times. The same is also true of the frontiers
which demarcate the territories on which other nations live. And just as
only an imbecile could look on the physical geography of the globe as
fixed and unchangeable--for in reality it represents a definite stage in
a given evolutionary epoch which is due to the formidable forces of
Nature and may be altered to-morrow by more powerful forces of
destruction and change--so, too, in the lives of the nations the
confines which are necessary for their sustenance are subject to change.
 
State frontiers are established by human beings and may be changed by
human beings.
 
The fact that a nation has acquired an enormous territorial area is no
reason why it should hold that territory perpetually. At most, the
possession of such territory is a proof of the strength of the conqueror
and the weakness of those who submit to him. And in this strength alone
lives the right of possession. If the German people are imprisoned
within an impossible territorial area and for that reason are face to
face with a miserable future, this is not by the command of Destiny, and
the refusal to accept such a situation is by no means a violation of
Destiny's laws. For just as no Higher Power has promised more territory
to other nations than to the German, so it cannot be blamed for an
unjust distribution of the soil. The soil on which we now live was not a
gift bestowed by Heaven on our forefathers. But they had to conquer it
by risking their lives. So also in the future our people will not obtain
territory, and therewith the means of existence, as a favour from any
other people, but will have to win it by the power of a triumphant
sword.
 
To-day we are all convinced of the necessity of regulating our situation
in regard to France; but our success here will be ineffective in its
broad results if the general aims of our foreign policy will have to
stop at that. It can have significance for us only if it serves to cover
our flank in the struggle for that extension of territory which is
necessary for the existence of our people in Europe. For colonial
acquisitions will not solve that question. It can be solved only by the
winning of such territory for the settlement of our people as will
extend the area of the motherland and thereby will not only keep the new
settlers in the closest communion with the land of their origin, but
will guarantee to this territorial ensemble the advantages which arise
from the fact that in their expansion over greater territory the people
remain united as a political unit.
 
The National Movement must not be the advocate for other nations, but
the protagonist for its own nation. Otherwise it would be something
superfluous and, above all, it would have no right to clamour against
the action of the past; for then it would be repeating the action of the
past. The old German policy suffered from the mistake of having been
determined by dynastic considerations. The new German policy must not
follow the sentimentality of cosmopolitan patriotism. Above all, we must
not form a police guard for the famous 'poor small nations'; but we must
be the soldiers of the German nation.
 
We National Socialists have to go still further. The right to territory
may become a duty when a great nation seems destined to go under unless
its territory be extended. And that is particularly true when the nation
in question is not some little group of negro people but the Germanic
mother of all the life which has given cultural shape to the modern
world. Germany will either become a World Power or will not continue to
exist at all. But in order to become a World Power it needs that
territorial magnitude which gives it the necessary importance to-day and
assures the existence of its citizens.
 
Therefore we National Socialists have purposely drawn a line through the
line of conduct followed by pre-War Germany in foreign policy. We put an
end to the perpetual Germanic march towards the South and West of Europe
and turn our eyes towards the lands of the East. We finally put a stop
to the colonial and trade policy of pre-War times and pass over to the
territorial policy of the future.
 
But when we speak of new territory in Europe to-day we must principally
think of Russia and the border States subject to her.
 
Destiny itself seems to wish to point out the way for us here. In
delivering Russia over to Bolshevism, Fate robbed the Russian people of
that intellectual class which had once created the Russian State and
were the guarantee of its existence. For the Russian State was not
organized by the constructive political talent of the Slav element in
Russia, but was much more a marvellous exemplification of the capacity
for State-building possessed by the Germanic element in a race of
inferior worth. Thus were many powerful Empires created all over the
earth. More often than once inferior races with Germanic organizers and
rulers as their leaders became formidable States and continued to exist
as long as the racial nucleus remained which had originally created each
respective State. For centuries Russia owed the source of its livelihood
as a State to the Germanic nucleus of its governing class. But this
nucleus is now almost wholly broken up and abolished. The Jew has taken
its place. Just as it is impossible for the Russian to shake off the
Jewish yoke by exerting his own powers, so, too, it is impossible for
the Jew to keep this formidable State in existence for any long period
of time. He himself is by no means an organizing element, but rather a
ferment of decomposition. This colossal Empire in the East is ripe for
dissolution. And the end of the Jewish domination in Russia will also be
the end of Russia as a State. We are chosen by Destiny to be the
witnesses of a catastrophe which will afford the strongest confirmation
of the nationalist theory of race.
 
But it is our task, and it is the mission of the National Socialist
Movement, to develop in our people that political mentality which will
enable them to realize that the aim which they must set to themselves
for the fulfilment of their future must not be some wildly enthusiastic
adventure in the footsteps of Alexander the Great but industrious labour
with the German plough, for which the German sword will provide the
soil.
 
That the Jew should declare himself bitterly hostile to such a policy is
only quite natural. For the Jews know better than any others what the
adoption of this line of conduct must mean for their own future. That
fact alone ought to teach all genuine nationalists that this new
orientation is the right and just one. But, unfortunately, the opposite
is the case. Not only among the members of the German-National Party but
also in purely nationalist circles violent opposition is raised against
this Eastern policy. And in connection with that opposition, as in all
such cases, the authority of great names is appealed to. The spirit of
Bismarck is evoked in defence of a policy which is as stupid as it is
impossible, and is in the highest degree detrimental to the interests of
the German people. They say that Bismarck laid great importance on the
value of good relations with Russia. To a certain extent, that is true.
But they quite forget to add that he laid equal stress on the importance
of good relations with Italy, for example. Indeed, the same Herr von
Bismarck once concluded an alliance with Italy so that he might more
easily settle accounts with Austria. Why is not this policy now
advocated? They will reply that the Italy of to-day is not the Italy of
that time. Good. But then, honourable sirs, permit me to remind you that
the Russia of to-day is no longer the Russia of that time. Bismarck
never laid down a policy which would be permanently binding under all
circumstances and should be adhered to on principle. He was too much the
master of the moment to burden himself with that kind of obligation.
Therefore, the question ought not to be what Bismarck then did, but
rather what he would do to-day. And that question is very easy to
answer. His political sagacity would never allow him to ally himself
with a State that is doomed to disappear.
 
Moreover, Bismarck looked upon the colonial and trade policy of his time
with mixed feelings, because what he most desired was to assure the best
possibilities of consolidating and internally strengthening the state
system which he himself had created. That was the sole ground on which
he then welcomed the Russian defence in his rear, so as to give him a
free hand for his activities in the West. But what was advantageous then
to Germany would now be detrimental.
 
As early as 1920-21, when the young movement began slowly to appear on
the political horizon and movements for the liberation of the German
nation were formed here and there, the Party was approached from various
quarters in an attempt to bring it into definite connection with the
liberationist movements in other countries. This was in line with the
plans of the 'League of Oppressed Nations', which had been advertised in
many quarters and was composed principally of representatives of some of
the Balkan States and also of Egypt and India. These always impressed me
as charlatans who gave themselves big airs but had no real background at
all. Not a few Germans, however, especially in the nationalist camp,
allowed themselves to be taken in by these pompous Orientals, and in the
person of some wandering Indian or Egyptian student they believed at
once that they were face to face with a 'representative' of India or
Egypt. They did not realize that in most cases they were dealing with
persons who had no backing whatsoever, who were not authorized by
anybody to conclude any sort of agreement whatsoever; so that the
practical result of every negotiation with such individuals was negative
and the time spent in such dealings had to be reckoned as utterly lost.
I was always on my guard against these attempts. Not only that I had
something better to do than to waste weeks in such sterile
'discussions', but also because I believed that even if one were dealing
with genuine representatives that whole affair would be bound to turn
out futile, if not positively harmful.
 
In peace-time it was already lamentable enough that the policy of
alliances, because it had no active and aggressive aims in view, ended
in a defensive association with antiquated States that had been
pensioned off by the history of the world. The alliance with Austria, as
well as that with Turkey, was not much to be joyful about. While the
great military and industrial States of the earth had come together in a
league for purposes of active aggression, a few old and effete States
were collected, and with this antique bric-à-brac an attempt was made to
face an active world coalition. Germany had to pay dearly for that
mistaken foreign policy and yet not dearly enough to prevent our
incorrigible visionaries from falling back into the same error again.
For the attempt to make possible the disarmament of the all-powerful
victorious States through a 'League of Oppressed Nations' is not only
ridiculous but disastrous. It is disastrous because in that way the
German people are again being diverted from real possibilities, which
they abandon for the sake of fruitless hopes and illusions. In reality
the German of to-day is like a drowning man that clutches at any straw
which may float beside him. And one finds people doing this who are
otherwise highly educated. Wherever some will-o'-the-wisp of a fantastic
hope appears these people set off immediately to chase it. Let this be a
League of Oppressed Nations, a League of Nations, or some other
fantastic invention, thousands of ingenuous souls will always be found
to believe in it.
 
I remember well the childish and incomprehensible hopes which arose
suddenly in nationalist circles in the years 1920-21 to the effect that
England was just nearing its downfall in India. A few Asiatic
mountebanks, who put themselves forward as "the champions of Indian
Freedom", then began to peregrinate throughout Europe and succeeded in
inspiring otherwise quite reasonable people with the fixed notion that
the British World Empire, which had its pivot in India, was just about
to collapse there. They never realized that their own wish was the
father of all these ideas. Nor did they stop to think how absurd their
wishes were. For inasmuch as they expected the end of the British Empire
and of England's power to follow the collapse of its dominion over
India, they themselves admitted that India was of the most outstanding
importance for England.
 
Now in all likelihood the deep mysteries of this most important problem
must have been known not only to the German-National prophets but also
to those who had the direction of British history in their hands. It is
right down puerile to suppose that in England itself the importance of
India for the British Empire was not adequately appreciated. And it is a
proof of having learned nothing from the world war and of thoroughly
misunderstanding or knowing nothing about Anglo-Saxon determination,
when they imagine that England could lose India without first having put
forth the last ounce of her strength in the struggle to hold it.
Moreover, it shows how complete is the ignorance prevailing in Germany
as to the manner in which the spirit of England permeates and
administers her Empire. England will never lose India unless she admits
racial disruption in the machinery of her administration (which at
present is entirely out of the question in India) or unless she is
overcome by the sword of some powerful enemy. But Indian risings will
never bring this about. We Germans have had sufficient experience to
know how hard it is to coerce England. And, apart from all this, I as a
German would far rather see India under British domination than under
that of any other nation.
 
The hopes of an epic rising in Egypt were just as chimerical. The 'Holy
War' may bring the pleasing illusion to our German nincompoops that
others are now ready to shed their blood for them. Indeed, this cowardly
speculation is almost always the father of such hopes. But in reality
the illusion would soon be brought to an end under the fusillade from a
few companies of British machine-guns and a hail of British bombs.
 
A coalition of cripples cannot attack a powerful State which is
determined, if necessary, to shed the last drop of its blood to maintain
its existence. To me, as a nationalist who appreciates the worth of the
racial basis of humanity, I must recognize the racial inferiority of the
so-called 'Oppressed Nations', and that is enough to prevent me from
linking the destiny of my people with the destiny of those inferior
races.
 
To-day we must take up the same sort of attitude also towards Russia.
The Russia of to-day, deprived of its Germanic ruling class, is not a
possible ally in the struggle for German liberty, setting aside entirely
the inner designs of its new rulers. From the purely military viewpoint
a Russo-German coalition waging war against Western Europe, and probably
against the whole world on that account, would be catastrophic for us.
The struggle would have to be fought out, not on Russian but on German
territory, without Germany being able to receive from Russia the
slightest effective support. The means of power at the disposal of the
present German REICH are so miserable and so inadequate to the waging of
a foreign war that it would be impossible to defend our frontiers
against Western Europe, England included. And the industrial area of
Germany would have to be abandoned undefended to the concentrated attack
of our adversaries. It must be added that between Germany and Russia
there is the Polish State, completely in the hands of the French. In
case Germany and Russia together should wage war against Western Europe,
Russia would have to overthrow Poland before the first Russian soldier
could arrive on the German front. But it is not so much a question of
soldiers as of technical equipment. In this regard we should have our
situation in the world war repeated, but in a more terrible manner. At
that time German industry had to be drained to help our glorious allies,
and from the technical side Germany had to carry on the war almost
alone. In this new hypothetical war Russia, as a technical factor, would
count for nothing. We should have practically nothing to oppose to the
general motorization of the world, which in the next war will make its
appearance in an overwhelming and decisive form. In this important field
Germany has not only shamefully lagged behind, but with the little it
has it would have to reinforce Russia, which at the present moment does
not possess a single factory capable of producing a motor gun-wagon.
Under such conditions the presupposed coming struggle would assume the
character of sheer slaughter. The German youth would have to shed more
of its blood than it did even in the world war; for, as always, the
honour of fighting will fall on us alone, and the result would be an
inevitable catastrophe. But even admitting that a miracle were produced
and that this war did not end in the total annihilation of Germany, the
final result would be that the German nation would be bled white, and,
surrounded by great military States, its real situation would be in no
way ameliorated.
 
It is useless to object here that in case of an alliance with Russia we
should not think of an immediate war or that, anyhow, we should have
means of making thorough preparations for war. No. An alliance which is
not for the purpose of waging war has no meaning and no value. Even
though at the moment when an alliance is concluded the prospect of war
is a distant one, still the idea of the situation developing towards war
is the profound reason for entering into an alliance. It is out of the
question to think that the other Powers would be deceived as to the
purpose of such an alliance. A Russo-German coalition would remain
either a matter of so much paper--and in this case it would have no
meaning for us--or the letter of the treaty would be put into practice
visibly, and in that case the rest of the world would be warned. It
would be childish to think that in such circumstances England and France
would wait for ten years to give the Russo-German alliance time to
complete its technical preparations. No. The storm would break over
Germany immediately.
 
Therefore the fact of forming an alliance with Russia would be the
signal for a new war. And the result of that would be the end of
Germany.
 
To these considerations the following must be added:
 
(1) Those who are in power in Russia to-day have no idea of forming an
honourable alliance or of remaining true to it, if they did.
 
It must never be forgotten that the present rulers of Russia are
blood-stained criminals, that here we have the dregs of humanity which,
favoured by the circumstances of a tragic moment, overran a great State,
degraded and extirpated millions of educated people out of sheer
blood-lust, and that now for nearly ten years they have ruled with such
a savage tyranny as was never known before. It must not be forgotten
that these rulers belong to a people in whom the most bestial cruelty is
allied with a capacity for artful mendacity and believes itself to-day
more than ever called to impose its sanguinary despotism on the rest of
the world. It must not be forgotten that the international Jew, who is
to-day the absolute master of Russia, does not look upon Germany as an
ally but as a State condemned to the same doom as Russia. One does not
form an alliance with a partner whose only aim is the destruction of his
fellow-partner. Above all, one does not enter into alliances with people
for whom no treaty is sacred; because they do not move about this earth
as men of honour and sincerity but as the representatives of lies and
deception, thievery and plunder and robbery. The man who thinks that he
can bind himself by treaty with parasites is like the tree that believes
it can form a profitable bargain with the ivy that surrounds it.
 
(2) The menace to which Russia once succumbed is hanging steadily over
Germany. Only a bourgeois simpleton could imagine that Bolshevism can be
tamed. In his superficial way of thinking he does not suspect that here
we are dealing with a phenomenon that is due to an urge of the blood:
namely, the aspiration of the Jewish people to become the despots of the
world. That aspiration is quite as natural as the impulse of the
Anglo-Saxon to sit in the seats of rulership all over the earth. And as
the Anglo-Saxon chooses his own way of reaching those ends and fights
for them with his characteristic weapons, so also does the Jew. The Jew
wriggles his way in among the body of the nations and bores them hollow
from inside. The weapons with which he works are lies and calumny,
poisonous infection and disintegration, until he has ruined his hated
adversary. In Russian Bolshevism we ought to recognize the kind of
attempt which is being made by the Jew in the twentieth century to
secure dominion over the world. In other epochs he worked towards the
same goal but with different, though at bottom similar, means. The kind
of effort which the Jew puts forth springs from the deepest roots in the
nature of his being. A people does not of itself renounce the impulse to
increase its stock and power. Only external circumstances or senile
impotence can force them to renounce this urge. In the same way the Jew
will never spontaneously give up his march towards the goal of world
dictatorship or repress his external urge. He can be thrown back on his
road only by forces that are exterior to him, for his instinct towards
world domination will die out only with himself. The impotence of
nations and their extinction through senility can come only when their
blood has remained no longer pure. And the Jewish people preserve the
purity of their blood better than any other nation on earth. Therefore
the Jew follows his destined road until he is opposed by a force
superior to him. And then a desperate struggle takes place to send back
to Lucifer him who would assault the heavens.
 
To-day Germany is the next battlefield for Russian Bolshevism. All the
force of a fresh missionary idea is needed to raise up our nation once
more, to rescue it from the coils of the international serpent and stop
the process of corruption which is taking place in the internal
constitution of our blood; so that the forces of our nation, once
liberated, may be employed to preserve our nationality and prevent the
repetition of the recent catastrophe from taking place even in the most
distant future. If this be the goal we set to ourselves it would be
folly to ally ourselves with a country whose master is the mortal enemy
of our future. How can we release our people from this poisonous grip if
we accept the same grip ourselves? How can we teach the German worker
that Bolshevism is an infamous crime against humanity if we ally
ourselves with this infernal abortion and recognize its existence as
legitimate. With what right shall we condemn the members of the broad
masses whose sympathies lie with a certain WELTANSCHAUUNG if the rulers
of our State choose the representatives of that WELTANSCHAUUNG as their
allies? The struggle against the Jewish Bolshevization of the world
demands that we should declare our position towards Soviet Russia. We
cannot cast out the Devil through Beelzebub. If nationalist circles
to-day grow enthusiastic about the idea of an alliance with Bolshevism,
then let them look around only in Germany and recognize from what
quarter they are being supported. Do these nationalists believe that a
policy which is recommended and acclaimed by the Marxist international
Press can be beneficial for the German people? Since when has the Jew
acted as shield-bearer for the militant nationalist?
 
One special reproach which could be made against the old German REICH
with regard to its policy of alliances was that it spoiled its relations
towards all others by continually swinging now this way and now that way
and by its weakness in trying to preserve world peace at all costs. But
one reproach which cannot be made against it is that it did not continue
to maintain good relations with Russia.
 
I admit frankly that before the War I thought it would have been better
if Germany had abandoned her senseless colonial policy and her naval
policy and had joined England in an alliance against Russia, therewith
renouncing her weak world policy for a determined European policy, with
the idea of acquiring new territory on the Continent. I do not forget
the constant insolent threats which Pan-Slavist Russia made against
Germany. I do not forget the continual trial mobilizations, the sole
object of which was to irritate Germany. I cannot forget the tone of
public opinion in Russia which in pre-War days excelled itself in
hate-inspired outbursts against our nation and REICH. Nor can I forget
the big Russian Press which was always more favourable to France than to
us.
 
But, in spite of everything, there was still a second way possible
before the War. We might have won the support of Russia and turned
against England. Circumstances are entirely different to-day. If, before
the War, throwing all sentiment to the winds, we could have marched by
the side of Russia, that is no longer possible for us to-day. Since then
the hand of the world-clock has moved forward. The hour has struck and
struck loudly, when the destiny of our people must be decided one way or
another.
 
The present consolidation of the great States of the world is the last
warning signal for us to look to ourselves and bring our people back
from their land of visions to the land of hard truth and point the way
into the future, on which alone the old REICH can march triumphantly
once again.
 
If, in view of this great and most important task placed before it, the
National Socialist Movement sets aside all illusions and takes reason as
its sole effective guide the catastrophe of 1918 may turn out to be an
infinite blessing for the future of our nation. From the lesson of that
collapse it may formulate an entirely new orientation for the conduct of
its foreign policy. Internally reinforced through its new
WELTANSCHAUUNG, the German nation may reach a final stabilization of
its policy towards the outside world. It may end by gaining what England
has, what even Russia had, and what France again and again utilized as
the ultimate grounds on which she was able to base correct decisions for
her own interests: namely, A Political Testament. Political Testament of
the German Nation ought to lay down the following rules, which will be
always valid for its conduct towards the outside world:
 
Never permit two Continental Powers to arise in Europe. Should any
attempt be made to organize a second military Power on the German
frontier by the creation of a State which may become a Military Power,
with the prospect of an aggression against Germany in view, such an
event confers on Germany not only the right but the duty to prevent by
every means, including military means, the creation of such a State and
to crush it if created. See to it that the strength of our nation does
not rest on colonial foundations but on those of our own native
territory in Europe. Never consider the REICH secure unless, for
centuries to come, it is in a position to give every descendant of our
race a piece of ground and soil that he can call his own. Never forget
that the most sacred of all rights in this world is man's right to the
earth which he wishes to cultivate for himself and that the holiest of
all sacrifices is that of the blood poured out for it.
 
I should not like to close this chapter without referring once again to
the one sole possibility of alliances that exists for us in Europe at
the present moment. In speaking of the German alliance problem in the
present chapter I mentioned England and Italy as the only countries with
which it would be worth while for us to strive to form a close alliance
and that this alliance would be advantageous. I should like here to
underline again the military importance of such an alliance.
 
The military consequences of forming this alliance would be the direct
opposite of the consequences of an alliance with Russia. Most important
of all is the fact that a RAPPROCHEMENT with England and Italy would in
no way involve a danger of war. The only Power that could oppose such an
arrangement would be France; and France would not be in a position to
make war. But the alliance should allow to Germany the possibility of
making those preparations in all tranquillity which, within the
framework of such a coalition, might in one way or another be requisite
in view of a regulation of accounts with France. For the full
significance of such an alliance lies in the fact that on its conclusion
Germany would no longer be subject to the threat of a sudden invasion.
The coalition against her would disappear automatically; that is to say,
the Entente which brought such disaster to us. Thus France, the mortal
enemy of our people, would be isolated. And even though at first this
success would have only a moral effect, it would be sufficient to give
Germany such liberty of action as we cannot now imagine. For the new
Anglo-German-Italian alliance would hold the political initiative and no
longer France.
 
A further success would be that at one stroke Germany would be delivered
from her unfavourable strategical situation. On the one side her flank
would be strongly protected; and, on the other, the assurance of being
able to import her foodstuffs and raw materials would be a beneficial
result of this new alignment of States. But almost of greater importance
would be the fact that this new League would include States that possess
technical qualities which mutually supplement each other. For the first
time Germany would have allies who would not be as vampires on her
economic body but would contribute their part to complete our technical
equipment. And we must not forget a final fact: namely, that in this
case we should not have allies resembling Turkey and Russia to-day. The
greatest World Power on this earth and a young national State would
supply far other elements for a struggle in Europe than the putrescent
carcasses of the States with which Germany was allied in the last war.
 
As I have already said, great difficulties would naturally be made to
hinder the conclusion of such an alliance. But was not the formation of
the Entente somewhat more difficult? Where King Edward VII succeeded
partly against interests that were of their nature opposed to his work
we must and will succeed, if the recognition of the necessity of such a
development so inspires us that we shall be able to act with skill and
conquer our own feelings in carrying the policy through. This will be
possible when, incited to action by the miseries of our situation, we
shall adopt a definite purpose and follow it out systematically instead
of the defective foreign policy of the last decades, which never had a
fixed purpose in view.
 
The future goal of our foreign policy ought not to involve an
orientation to the East or the West, but it ought to be an Eastern
policy which will have in view the acquisition of such territory as is
necessary for our German people. To carry out this policy we need that
force which the mortal enemy of our nation, France, now deprives us of
by holding us in her grip and pitilessly robbing us of our strength.
Therefore we must stop at no sacrifice in our effort to destroy the
French striving towards hegemony over Europe. As our natural ally to-day
we have every Power on the Continent that feels France's lust for
hegemony in Europe unbearable. No attempt to approach those Powers ought
to appear too difficult for us, and no sacrifice should be considered
too heavy, if the final outcome would be to make it possible for us to
overthrow our bitterest enemy. The minor wounds will be cured by the
beneficent influence of time, once the ground wounds have been
cauterized and closed.
 
Naturally the internal enemies of our people will howl with rage. But
this will not succeed in forcing us as National Socialists to cease our
preaching in favour of that which our most profound conviction tells us
to be necessary. We must oppose the current of public opinion which will
be driven mad by Jewish cunning in exploiting our German
thoughtlessness. The waves of this public opinion often rage and roar
against us; but the man who swims with the current attracts less
attention than he who buffets it. To-day we are but a rock in the river.
In a few years Fate may raise us up as a dam against which the general
current will be broken, only to flow forward in a new bed. Therefore it
is necessary that in the eyes of the rest of the world our movement
should be recognized as representing a definite and determined political
programme. We ought to bear on our visors the distinguishing sign of
that task which Heaven expects us to fulfil.
 
When we ourselves are fully aware of the ineluctable necessity which
determines our external policy this knowledge will fill us with the grit
which we need in order to stand up with equanimity under the bombardment
launched against us by the enemy Press and to hold firm when some
insinuating voice whispers that we ought to give ground here and there
in order not to have all against us and that we might sometimes howl
with the wolves.
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER XV
 
 
 
THE RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENCE
 
 
After we had laid down our arms, in November 1918, a policy was adopted
which in all human probability was bound to lead gradually to our
complete subjugation. Analogous examples from history show that those
nations which lay down their arms without being absolutely forced to do
so subsequently prefer to submit to the greatest humiliations and
exactions rather than try to change their fate by resorting to arms
again.
 
That is intelligible on purely human grounds. A shrewd conqueror will
always enforce his exactions on the conquered only by stages, as far as
that is possible. Then he may expect that a people who have lost all
strength of character--which is always the case with every nation that
voluntarily submits to the threats of an opponent--will not find in any
of these acts of oppression, if one be enforced apart from the other,
sufficient grounds for taking up arms again. The more numerous the
extortions thus passively accepted so much the less will resistance
appear justified in the eyes of other people, if the vanquished nation
should end by revolting against the last act of oppression in a long
series. And that is specially so if the nation has already patiently and
silently accepted impositions which were much more exacting.
 
The fall of Carthage is a terrible example of the slow agony of a people
which ended in destruction and which was the fault of the people
themselves.
 
In his THREE ARTICLES OF FAITH Clausewitz expressed this idea admirably
and gave it a definite form when he said: "The stigma of shame incurred
by a cowardly submission can never be effaced. The drop of poison which
thus enters the blood of a nation will be transmitted to posterity. It
will undermine and paralyse the strength of later generations." But, on
the contrary, he added: "Even the loss of its liberty after a sanguinary
and honourable struggle assures the resurgence of the nation and is the
vital nucleus from which one day a new tree can draw firm roots."
 
Naturally a nation which has lost all sense of honour and all strength
of character will not feel the force of such a doctrine. But any nation
that takes it to heart will never fall very low. Only those who forget
it or do not wish to acknowledge it will collapse. Hence those
responsible for a cowardly submission cannot be expected suddenly to
take thought with themselves, for the purpose of changing their former
conduct and directing it in the way pointed out by human reason and
experience. On the contrary, they will repudiate such a doctrine, until
the people either become permanently habituated to the yoke of slavery
or the better elements of the nation push their way into the foreground
and forcibly take power away from the hands of an infamous and corrupt
regime. In the first case those who hold power will be pleased with the
state of affairs, because the conquerors often entrust them with the
task of supervising the slaves. And these utterly characterless beings
then exercise that power to the detriment of their own people, more
cruelly than the most cruel-hearted stranger that might be nominated by
the enemy himself.
 
The events which happened subsequent to 1918 in Germany prove how the
hope of securing the clemency of the victor by making a voluntary
submission had the most disastrous influence on the political views and
conduct of the broad masses. I say the broad masses explicitly, because
I cannot persuade myself that the things which were done or left undone
by the leaders of the people are to be attributed to a similar
disastrous illusion. Seeing that the direction of our historical destiny
after the war was now openly controlled by the Jews, it is impossible to
admit that a defective knowledge of the state of affairs was the sole
cause of our misfortunes. On the contrary, the conclusion that must be
drawn from the facts is that our people were intentionally driven to
ruin. If we examine it from this point of view we shall find that the
direction of the nation's foreign policy was not so foolish as it
appeared; for on scrutinizing the matter closely we see clearly that
this conduct was a procedure which had been calmly calculated, shrewdly
defined and logically carried out in the service of the Jewish idea and
the Jewish endeavour to secure the mastery of the world.
 
From 1806 to 1813 Prussia was in a state of collapse. But that period
sufficed to renew the vital energies of the nation and inspire it once
more with a resolute determination to fight. An equal period of time has
passed over our heads from 1918 until to-day, and no advantage has been
derived from it. On the contrary, the vital strength of our State has
been steadily sapped.
 
Seven years after November 1918 the Locarno Treaty was signed.
 
Thus the development which took place was what I have indicated above.
Once the shameful Armistice had been signed our people were unable to
pluck up sufficient courage and energy to call a halt suddenly to the
conduct of our adversary as the oppressive measures were being
constantly renewed. The enemy was too shrewd to put forward all his
demands at once. He confined his duress always to those exactions which,
in his opinion and that of our German Government, could be submitted to
for the moment: so that in this way they did not risk causing an
explosion of public feeling. But according as the single impositions
were increasingly subscribed to and tolerated it appeared less
justifiable to do now in the case of one sole imposition or act of
duress what had not been previously done in the case of so many others,
namely, to oppose it. That is the 'drop of poison' of which Clausewitz
speaks. Once this lack of character is manifested the resultant
condition becomes steadily aggravated and weighs like an evil
inheritance on all future decisions. It may become as a leaden weight
around the nation's neck, which cannot be shaken off but which forces it
to drag out its existence in slavery.
 
Thus, in Germany, edicts for disarmament and oppression and economic
plunder followed one after the other, making us politically helpless.
The result of all this was to create that mood which made so many look
upon the Dawes Plan as a blessing and the Locarno Treaty as a success.
From a higher point of view we may speak of one sole blessing in the
midst of so much misery. This blessing is that, though men may be
fooled, Heaven can't be bribed. For Heaven withheld its blessing. Since
that time Misery and Anxiety have been the constant companions of our
people, and Distress is the one Ally that has remained loyal to us. In
this case also Destiny has made no exceptions. It has given us our
deserts. Since we did not know how to value honour any more, it has
taught us to value the liberty to seek for bread. Now that the nation
has learned to cry for bread, it may one day learn to pray for freedom.
 
The collapse of our nation in the years following 1918 was bitter and
manifest. And yet that was the time chosen to persecute us in the most
malicious way our enemies could devise, so that what happened afterwards
could have been foretold by anybody then. The government to which our
people submitted was as hopelessly incompetent as it was conceited, and
this was especially shown in repudiating those who gave any warning that
disturbed or displeased. Then we saw--and to-day also--the greatest
parliamentary nincompoops, really common saddlers and glove-makers--not
merely by trade, for that would signify very little--suddenly raised to
the rank of statesmen and sermonizing to humble mortals from that
pedestal. It did not matter, and it still does not matter, that such a
'statesman', after having displayed his talents for six months or so as
a mere windbag, is shown up for what he is and becomes the object of
public raillery and sarcasm. It does not matter that he has given the
most evident proof of complete incompetency. No. That does not matter at
all. On the contrary, the less real service the parliamentary statesmen
of this Republic render the country, the more savagely they persecute
all who expect that parliamentary deputies should show some positive
results of their activities. And they persecute everybody who dares to
point to the failure of these activities and predict similar failures
for the future. If one finally succeeds in nailing down one of these
parliamentarians to hard facts, so that this political artist can no
longer deny the real failure of his whole action and its results, then
he will find thousands of grounds for excuse, but will in no way admit
that he himself is the chief cause of the evil.
 
In the winter of 1922-23, at the latest, it ought to have been generally
recognized that, even after the conclusion of peace, France was still
endeavouring with iron consistency to attain those ends which had been
originally envisaged as the final purpose of the War. For nobody could
think of believing that for four and a half years France continued to
pour out the not abundant supply of her national blood in the most
decisive struggle throughout all her history in order subsequently to
obtain compensation through reparations for the damages sustained. Even
Alsace and Lorraine, taken by themselves, would not account for the
energy with which the French conducted the War, if Alsace-Lorraine were
not already considered as a part of the really vast programme which
French foreign policy had envisaged for the future. The aim of that
programme was: Disintegration of Germany into a collection of small
states. It was for this that Chauvinist France waged war; and in doing
so she was in reality selling her people to be the serfs of the
international Jew.
 
French war aims would have been obtained through the World War if, as
was originally hoped in Paris, the struggle had been carried out on
German soil. Let us imagine the bloody battles of the World War not as
having taken place on the Somme, in Flanders, in Artois, in front of
Warsaw, Nizhni-Novogorod, Kowno, and Riga but in Germany, in the Ruhr or
on the Maine, on the Elbe, in front of Hanover, Leipzig, Nürnberg, etc.
If such happened, then we must admit that the destruction of Germany
might have been accomplished. It is very much open to question if our
young federal State could have borne the hard struggle for four and a
half years, as it was borne by a France that had been centralized for
centuries, with the whole national imagination focused on Paris. If this
titanic conflict between the nations developed outside the frontiers of
our fatherland, not only is all the merit due to the immortal service
rendered by our old army but it was also very fortunate for the future
of Germany. I am fully convinced that if things had taken a different
course there would no longer be a German REICH to-day but only 'German
States'. And that is the only reason why the blood which was shed by our
friends and brothers in the War was at least not shed in vain.
 
The course which events took was otherwise. In November 1918 Germany did
indeed collapse with lightning suddenness. But when the catastrophe took
place at home the armies under the Commander-in-Chief were still deep in
the enemy's country. At that time France's first preoccupation was not
the dismemberment of Germany but the problem of how to get the German
armies out of France and Belgium as quickly as possible. And so, in
order to put an end to the War, the first thing that had to be done by
the Paris Government was to disarm the German armies and push them back
into Germany if possible. Until this was done the French could not
devote their attention to carrying out their own particular and original
war aims. As far as concerned England, the War was really won when
Germany was destroyed as a colonial and commercial Power and was reduced
to the rank of a second-class State. It was not in England's interest to
wipe out the German State altogether. In fact, on many grounds it was
desirable for her to have a future rival against France in Europe.
Therefore French policy was forced to carry on by peaceful means the
work for which the War had opened the way; and Clemenceau's statement,
that for him Peace was merely a continuation of the War, thus acquired
an enhanced significance.
 
Persistently and on every opportunity that arose, the effort to
dislocate the framework of the REICH was to have been carried on. By
perpetually sending new notes that demanded disarmament, on the one
hand, and by the imposition of economic levies which, on the other hand,
could be carried out as the process of disarmament progressed, it was
hoped in Paris that the framework of the REICH would gradually fall to
pieces. The more the Germans lost their sense of national honour the
more could economic pressure and continued economic distress be
effective as factors of political destruction. Such a policy of
political oppression and economic exploitation, carried out for ten or
twenty years, must in the long run steadily ruin the most compact
national body and, under certain circumstances, dismember it. Then the
French war aims would have been definitely attained.
 
By the winter of 1922-23 the intentions of the French must already have
been known for a long time back. There remained only two possible ways
of confronting the situation. If the German national body showed itself
sufficiently tough-skinned, it might gradually blunt the will of the
French or it might do--once and for all--what was bound to become
inevitable one day: that is to say, under the provocation of some
particularly brutal act of oppression it could put the helm of the
German ship of state to roundabout and ram the enemy. That would
naturally involve a life-and-death-struggle. And the prospect of coming
through the struggle alive depended on whether France could be so far
isolated that in this second battle Germany would not have to fight
against the whole world but in defence of Germany against a France that
was persistently disturbing the peace of the world.
 
I insist on this point, and I am profoundly convinced of it, namely,
that this second alternative will one day be chosen and will have to be
chosen and carried out in one way or another. I shall never believe that
France will of herself alter her intentions towards us, because, in the
last analysis, they are only the expression of the French instinct for
self-preservation. Were I a Frenchman and were the greatness of France
so dear to me as that of Germany actually is, in the final reckoning I
could not and would not act otherwise than a Clemenceau. The French
nation, which is slowly dying out, not so much through depopulation as
through the progressive disappearance of the best elements of the race,
can continue to play an important role in the world only if Germany be
destroyed. French policy may make a thousand detours on the march
towards its fixed goal, but the destruction of Germany is the end which
it always has in view as the fulfilment of the most profound yearning
and ultimate intentions of the French. Now it is a mistake to believe
that if the will on one side should remain only PASSIVE and intent on
its own self-preservation it can hold out permanently against another
will which is not less forceful but is ACTIVE. As long as the eternal
conflict between France and Germany is waged only in the form of a
German defence against the French attack, that conflict can never be
decided; and from century to century Germany will lose one position
after another. If we study the changes that have taken place, from the
twelfth century up to our day, in the frontiers within which the German
language is spoken, we can hardly hope for a successful issue to result
from the acceptance and development of a line of conduct which has
hitherto been so detrimental for us.
 
Only when the Germans have taken all this fully into account will they
cease from allowing the national will-to-life to wear itself out in
merely passive defence, but they will rally together for a last decisive
contest with France. And in this contest the essential objective of the
German nation will be fought for. Only then will it be possible to put
an end to the eternal Franco-German conflict which has hitherto proved
so sterile. Of course it is here presumed that Germany sees in the
suppression of France nothing more than a means which will make it
possible for our people finally to expand in another quarter. To-day
there are eighty million Germans in Europe. And our foreign policy will
be recognized as rightly conducted only when, after barely a hundred
years, there will be 250 million Germans living on this Continent, not
packed together as the coolies in the factories of another Continent but
as tillers of the soil and workers whose labour will be a mutual
assurance for their existence.
 
In December 1922 the situation between Germany and France assumed a
particularly threatening aspect. France had new and vast oppressive
measures in view and needed sanctions for her conduct. Political
pressure had to precede the economic plunder, and the French believed
that only by making a violent attack against the central nervous system
of German life would they be able to make our 'recalcitrant' people bow
to their galling yoke. By the occupation of the Ruhr District, it was
hoped in France that not only would the moral backbone of Germany be
broken finally but that we should be reduced to such a grave economic
condition that we should be forced, for weal or woe, to subscribe to the
heaviest possible obligations.
 
It was a question of bending and breaking Germany. At first Germany bent
and subsequently broke in pieces completely.
 
Through the occupation of the Ruhr, Fate once more reached out its hand
to the German people and bade them arise. For what at first appeared as
a heavy stroke of misfortune was found, on closer examination, to
contain extremely encouraging possibilities of bringing Germany's
sufferings to an end.
 
As regards foreign politics, the action of France in occupying the Ruhr
really estranged England for the first time in quite a profound way.
Indeed it estranged not merely British diplomatic circles, which had
concluded the French alliance and had upheld it from motives of calm and
objective calculation, but it also estranged large sections of the
English nation. The English business world in particular scarcely
concealed the displeasure it felt at this incredible forward step in
strengthening the power of France on the Continent. From the military
standpoint alone France now assumed a position in Europe such as Germany
herself had not held previously. Moreover, France thus obtained control
over economic resources which practically gave her a monopoly that
consolidated her political and commercial strength against all
competition. The most important iron and coal mines of Europe were now
united in the hand of one nation which, in contrast to Germany, had
hitherto defended her vital interests in an active and resolute fashion
and whose military efficiency in the Great War was still fresh in the
memories of the whole world. The French occupation of the Ruhr coal
field deprived England of all the successes she had gained in the War.
And the victors were now Marshal Foch and the France he represented, no
longer the calm and painstaking British statesmen.
 
In Italy also the attitude towards France, which had not been very
favourable since the end of the War, now became positively hostile. The
great historic moment had come when the Allies of yesterday might become
the enemies of to-morrow. If things happened otherwise and if the Allies
did not suddenly come into conflict with one another, as in the Second
Balkan War, that was due to the fact that Germany had no Enver Pasha but
merely a Cuno as Chancellor of the REICH.
 
Nevertheless, the French invasion of the Ruhr opened up great
possibilities for the future not only in Germany's foreign politics but
also in her internal politics. A considerable section of our people who,
thanks to the persistent influence of a mendacious Press, had looked
upon France as the champion of progress and liberty, were suddenly cured
of this illusion. In 1914 the dream of international solidarity suddenly
vanished from the brain of our German working class. They were brought
back into the world of everlasting struggle, where one creature feeds on
the other and where the death of the weaker implies the life of the
stronger. The same thing happened in the spring of 1923.
 
When the French put their threats into effect and penetrated, at first
hesitatingly and cautiously, into the coal-basin of Lower Germany the
hour of destiny had struck for Germany. It was a great and decisive
moment. If at that moment our people had changed not only their frame of
mind but also their conduct the German Ruhr District could have been
made for France what Moscow turned out to be for Napoleon. Indeed, there
were only two possibilities: either to leave this move also to take its
course and do nothing or to turn to the German people in that region of
sweltering forges and flaming furnaces. An effort might have been made
to set their wills afire with determination to put an end to this
persistent disgrace and to face a momentary terror rather than submit to
a terror that was endless.
 
Cuno, who was then Chancellor of the REICH, can claim the immortal merit
of having discovered a third way; and our German bourgeois political
parties merit the still more glorious honour of having admired him and
collaborated with him.
 
Here I shall deal with the second way as briefly as possible.
 
By occupying the Ruhr France committed a glaring violation of the
Versailles Treaty. Her action brought her into conflict with several of
the guarantor Powers, especially with England and Italy. She could no
longer hope that those States would back her up in her egotistic act of
brigandage. She could count only on her own forces to reap anything like
a positive result from that adventure, for such it was at the start. For
a German National Government there was only one possible way left open.
And this was the way which honour prescribed. Certainly at the beginning
we could not have opposed France with an active armed resistance. But it
should have been clearly recognized that any negotiations which did not
have the argument of force to back them up would turn out futile and
ridiculous. If it were not possible to organize an active resistance,
then it was absurd to take up the standpoint: "We shall not enter into
any negotiations." But it was still more absurd finally to enter into
negotiations without having organized the necessary force as a support.
 
Not that it was possible for us by military means to prevent the
occupation of the Ruhr. Only a madman could have recommended such a
decision. But under the impression produced by the action which France
had taken, and during the time that it was being carried out, measures
could have been, and should have been, undertaken without any regard to
the Versailles Treaty, which France herself had violated, to provide
those military resources which would serve as a collateral argument to
back up the negotiations later on. For it was quite clear from the
beginning that the fate of this district occupied by the French would
one day be decided at some conference table or other. But it also must
have been quite to everybody that even the best negotiators could have
little success as long as the ground on which they themselves stood and
the chair on which they sat were not under the armed protection of their
own people. A weak pigmy cannot contend against athletes, and a
negotiator without any armed defence at his back must always bow in
obeisance when a Brennus throws the sword into the scales on the enemy's
side, unless an equally strong sword can be thrown into the scales at
the other end and thus maintain the balance. It was really distressing
to have to observe the comedy of negotiations which, ever since 1918,
regularly preceded each arbitrary dictate that the enemy imposed upon
us. We offered a sorry spectacle to the eyes of the whole world when we
were invited, for the sake of derision, to attend conference tables
simply to be presented with decisions and programmes which had already
been drawn up and passed a long time before, and which we were permitted
to discuss, but from the beginning had to be considered as unalterable.
It is true that in scarcely a single instance were our negotiators men
of more than mediocre abilities. For the most part they justified only
too well the insolent observation made by Lloyd George when he
sarcastically remarked, in the presence of a former Chancellor of the
REICH, Herr Simon, that the Germans were not able to choose men of
intelligence as their leaders and representatives. But in face of the
resolute determination and the power which the enemy held in his hands,
on the one side, and the lamentable impotence of Germany on the other,
even a body of geniuses could have obtained only very little for
Germany.
 
In the spring of 1923, however, anyone who might have thought of seizing
the opportunity of the French invasion of the Ruhr to reconstruct the
military power of Germany would first have had to restore to the nation
its moral weapons, to reinforce its will-power, and to extirpate those
who had destroyed this most valuable element of national strength.
 
Just as in 1918 we had to pay with our blood for the failure to crush
the Marxist serpent underfoot once and for all in 1914 and 1915, now we
have to suffer retribution for the fact that in the spring of 1923 we
did not seize the opportunity then offered us for finally wiping out the
handiwork done by the Marxists who betrayed their country and were
responsible for the murder of our people.
 
Any idea of opposing French aggression with an efficacious resistance
was only pure folly as long as the fight had not been taken up against
those forces which, five years previously, had broken the German
resistance on the battlefields by the influences which they exercised at
home. Only bourgeois minds could have arrived at the incredible belief
that Marxism had probably become quite a different thing now and that
the CANAILLE of ringleaders in 1918, who callously used the bodies of
our two million dead as stepping-stones on which they climbed into the
various Government positions, would now, in the year 1923, suddenly show
themselves ready to pay their tribute to the national conscience. It was
veritably a piece of incredible folly to expect that those traitors
would suddenly appear as the champions of German freedom. They had no
intention of doing it. Just as a hyena will not leave its carrion, a
Marxist will not give up indulging in the betrayal of his country. It is
out of the question to put forward the stupid retort here, that so many
of the workers gave their blood for Germany. German workers, yes, but no
longer international Marxists. If the German working class, in 1914,
consisted of real Marxists the War would have ended within three weeks.
Germany would have collapsed before the first soldier had put a foot
beyond the frontiers. No. The fact that the German people carried on the
War proved that the Marxist folly had not yet been able to penetrate
deeply. But as the War was prolonged German soldiers and workers
gradually fell back into the hands of the Marxist leaders, and the
number of those who thus relapsed became lost to their country. At the
beginning of the War, or even during the War, if twelve or fifteen
thousand of these Jews who were corrupting the nation had been forced to
submit to poison-gas, just as hundreds of thousands of our best German
workers from every social stratum and from every trade and calling had
to face it in the field, then the millions of sacrifices made at the
front would not have been in vain. On the contrary: If twelve thousand
of these malefactors had been eliminated in proper time probably the
lives of a million decent men, who would be of value to Germany in the
future, might have been saved. But it was in accordance with bourgeois
'statesmanship' to hand over, without the twitch of an eyelid, millions
of human beings to be slaughtered on the battlefields, while they looked
upon ten or twelve thousand public traitors, profiteers, usurers and
swindlers, as the dearest and most sacred national treasure and
proclaimed their persons to be inviolable. Indeed it would be hard to
say what is the most outstanding feature of these bourgeois circles:
mental debility, moral weakness and cowardice, or a mere down-at-heel
mentality. It is a class that is certainly doomed to go under but,
unhappily, it drags down the whole nation with it into the abyss.
 
The situation in 1923 was quite similar to that of 1918. No matter what
form of resistance was decided upon, the first prerequisite for taking
action was the elimination of the Marxist poison from the body of the
nation. And I was convinced that the first task then of a really
National Government was to seek and find those forces that were
determined to wage a war of destruction against Marxism and to give
these forces a free hand. It was their duty not to bow down before the
fetish of 'order and tranquillity' at a moment when the enemy from
outside was dealing the Fatherland a death-blow and when high treason
was lurking behind every street corner at home. No. A really National
Government ought then to have welcomed disorder and unrest if this
turmoil would afford an opportunity of finally settling with the
Marxists, who are the mortal enemies of our people. If this precaution
were neglected, then it was sheer folly to think of resisting, no matter
what form that resistance might take.
 
Of course, such a settlement of accounts with the Marxists as would be
of real historical importance could not be effected along lines laid
down by some secret council or according to some plan concocted by the
shrivelled mind of some cabinet minister. It would have to be in
accordance with the eternal laws of life on this Earth which are and
will remain those of a ceaseless struggle for existence. It must always
be remembered that in many instances a hardy and healthy nation has
emerged from the ordeal of the most bloody civil wars, while from peace
conditions which had been artificially maintained there often resulted a
state of national putrescence that reeked to the skies. The fate of a
nation cannot be changed in kid gloves. And so in the year 1923 brutal
action should have been taken to stamp out the vipers that battened on
the body of the nation. If this were done, then the first prerequisite
for an active opposition would have been fulfilled.
 
At that time I often talked myself hoarse in trying to make it clear, at
least to the so-called national circles, what was then at stake and that
by repeating the errors committed in 1914 and the following years we
must necessarily come to the same kind of catastrophe as in 1918. I
frequently implored of them to let Fate have a free hand and to make it
possible for our Movement to settle with the Marxists. But I preached to
deaf ears. They all thought they knew better, including the Chief of the
Defence Force, until finally they found themselves forced to subscribe
to the vilest capitulation that history records.
 
I then became profoundly convinced that the German bourgeoisie had come
to the end of its mission and was not capable of fulfilling any further
function. And then also I recognized the fact that all the bourgeois
parties had been fighting Marxism merely from the spirit of competition
without sincerely wishing to destroy it. For a long time they had been
accustomed to assist in the destruction of their country, and their one
great care was to secure good seats at the funeral banquet. It was for
this alone that they kept on 'fighting'.
 
At that time--I admit it openly--I conceived a profound admiration for
the great man beyond the Alps, whose ardent love for his people inspired
him not to bargain with Italy's internal enemies but to use all possible
ways and means in an effort to wipe them out. What places Mussolini in
the ranks of the world's great men is his decision not to share Italy
with the Marxists but to redeem his country from Marxism by destroying
internationalism.
 
What miserable pigmies our sham statesmen in Germany appear by
comparison with him. And how nauseating it is to witness the conceit and
effrontery of these nonentities in criticizing a man who is a thousand
times greater than them. And how painful it is to think that this takes
place in a country which could point to a Bismarck as its leader as
recently as fifty years ago.
 
The attitude adopted by the bourgeoisie in 1923 and the way in which
they dealt kindly with Marxism decided from the outset the fate of any
attempt at active resistance in the Ruhr. With that deadly enemy in our
own ranks it was sheer folly to think of fighting France. The most that
could then be done was to stage a sham fight in order to satisfy the
German national element to some extent, to tranquillize the 'boiling
state of the public mind', or dope it, which was what was really
intended. Had they really believed in what they did, they ought to have
recognized that the strength of a nation lies, first of all, not in its
arms but in its will, and that before conquering the external enemy the
enemy at home would have to be eliminated. If not, then disaster must
result if victory be not achieved on the very first day of the fight.
The shadow of one defeat is sufficient to break up the resistance of a
nation that has not been liberated from its internal enemies, and give
the adversary a decisive victory.
 
In the spring of 1923 all this might have been predicted. It is useless
to ask whether it was then possible to count on a military success
against France. For if the result of the German action in regard to the
French invasion of the Ruhr had been only the destruction of Marxism at
home, success would have been on our side. Once liberated from the
deadly enemies of her present and future existence, Germany would
possess forces which no power in the world could strangle again. On the
day when Marxism is broken in Germany the chains that bind Germany will
be smashed for ever. For never in our history have we been conquered by
the strength of our outside enemies but only through our own failings
and the enemy in our own camp.
 
Since it was not able to decide on such heroic action at that time, the
Government could have chosen the first way: namely, to allow things to
take their course and do nothing at all.
 
But at that great moment Heaven made Germany a present of a great man.
This was Herr Cuno. He was neither a statesman nor a politician by
profession, still less a politician by birth. But he belonged to that
type of politician who is merely used for liGYMNASIUMating some definite
question. Apart from that, he had business experience. It was a curse
for Germany that, in the practice of politics, this business man looked
upon politics also as a business undertaking and regulated his conduct
accordingly.
 
"France occupies the Ruhr. What is there in the Ruhr? Coal. And so
France occupies the Ruhr for the sake of its coal?" What could come more
naturally to the mind of Herr Cuno than the idea of a strike, which
would prevent the French from obtaining any coal? And therefore, in the
opinion of Herr Cuno, one day or other they would certainly have to get
out of the Ruhr again if the occupation did not prove to be a paying
business. Such were approximately the lines along which that OUTSTANDING
NATIONAL STATESMAN reasoned. At Stuttgart and other places he spoke to
'his people' and this people became lost in admiration for him. Of
course they needed the Marxists for the strike, because the workers
would have to be the first to go on strike. Now, in the brain of a
bourgeois statesman such as Cuno, a Marxist and a worker are one and the
same thing. Therefore it was necessary to bring the worker into line
with all the other Germans in a united front. One should have seen how
the countenances of these party politicians beamed with the light of
their moth-eaten bourgeois culture when the great genius spoke the word
of revelation to them. Here was a nationalist and also a man of genius.
At last they had discovered what they had so long sought. For now the
abyss between Marxism and themselves could be bridged over. And thus it
became possible for the pseudo-nationalist to ape the German manner and
adopt nationalist phraseology in reaching out the ingenuous hand of
friendship to the internationalist traitors of their country. The
traitor readily grasped that hand, because, just as Herr Cuno had need
of the Marxist chiefs for his 'united front', the Marxist chiefs needed
Herr Cuno's money. So that both parties mutually benefited by the
transaction. Cuno obtained his united front, constituted of nationalist
charlatans and international swindlers. And now, with the help of the
money paid to them by the State, these people were able to pursue their
glorious mission, which was to destroy the national economic system. It
was an immortal thought, that of saving a nation by means of a general
strike in which the strikers were paid by the State. It was a command
that could be enthusiastically obeyed by the most indifferent of
loafers.
 
Everybody knows that prayers will not make a nation free. But that it is
possible to liberate a nation by giving up work has yet to be proved by
historical experience. Instead of promoting a paid general strike at
that time, and making this the basis of his 'united front', if Herr Cuno
had demanded two hours more work from every German, then the swindle of
the 'united front' would have been disposed of within three days.
Nations do not obtain their freedom by refusing to work but by making
sacrifices.
 
Anyhow, the so-called passive resistance could not last long. Nobody but
a man entirely ignorant of war could imagine that an army of occupation
might be frightened and driven out by such ridiculous means. And yet
this could have been the only purpose of an action for which the country
had to pay out milliards and which contributed seriously to devaluate
the national currency.
 
Of course the French were able to make themselves almost at home in the
Ruhr basin the moment they saw that such ridiculous measures were being
adopted against them. They had received the prescription directly from
ourselves of the best way to bring a recalcitrant civil population to a
sense of reason if its conduct implied a serious danger for the
officials which the army of occupation had placed in authority. Nine
years previously we wiped out with lightning rapidity bands of Belgian
FRANCS-TIREURS and made the civil population clearly understand the
seriousness of the situation, when the activities of these bands
threatened grave danger for the German army. In like manner if the
passive resistance of the Ruhr became really dangerous for the French,
the armies of occupation would have needed no more than eight days to
bring the whole piece of childish nonsense to a gruesome end. For we
must always go back to the original question in all this business: What
were we to do if the passive resistance came to the point where it
really got on the nerves of our opponents and they proceeded to suppress
it with force and bloodshed? Would we still continue to resist? If so,
then, for weal or woe, we would have to submit to a severe and bloody
persecution. And in that case we should be faced with the same situation
as would have faced us in the case of an active resistance. In other
words, we should have to fight. Therefore the so-called passive
resistance would be logical only if supported by the determination to
come out and wage an open fight in case of necessity or adopt a kind of
guerilla warfare. Generally speaking, one undertakes such a struggle
when there is a possibility of success. The moment a besieged fortress
is taken by assault there is no practical alternative left to the
defenders except to surrender, if instead of probable death they are
assured that their lives will be spared. Let the garrison of a citadel
which has been completely encircled by the enemy once lose all hope of
being delivered by their friends, then the strength of the defence
collapses totally.
 
That is why passive resistance in the Ruhr, when one considers the final
consequences which it might and must necessarily have if it were to turn
out really successful, had no practical meaning unless an active front
had been organized to support it. Then one might have demanded immense
efforts from our people. If each of these Westphalians in the Ruhr could
have been assured that the home country had mobilized an army of eighty
or a hundred divisions to support them, the French would have found
themselves treading on thorns. Surely a greater number of courageous men
could be found to sacrifice themselves for a successful enterprise than
for an enterprise that was manifestly futile.
 
This was the classic occasion that induced us National Socialists to
take up a resolute stand against the so-called national word of command.
And that is what we did. During those months I was attacked by people
whose patriotism was a mixture of stupidity and humbug and who took part
in the general hue and cry because of the pleasant sensation they felt
at being suddenly enabled to show themselves as nationalists, without
running any danger thereby. In my estimation, this despicable 'united
front' was one of the most ridiculous things that could be imagined. And
events proved that I was right.
 
As soon as the Trades Unions had nearly filled their treasuries with
Cuno's contributions, and the moment had come when it would be necessary
to transform the passive resistance from a mere inert defence into
active aggression, the Red hyenas suddenly broke out of the national
sheepfold and returned to be what they always had been. Without sounding
any drums or trumpets, Herr Cuno returned to his ships. Germany was
richer by one experience and poorer by the loss of one great hope.
 
Up to midsummer of that year several officers, who certainly were not
the least brave and honourable of their kind, had not really believed
that the course of things could take a turn that was so humiliating.
They had all hoped that--if not openly, then at least secretly--the
necessary measures would be taken to make this insolent French invasion
a turning-point in German history. In our ranks also there were many who
counted at least on the intervention of the REICHSWEHR. That conviction
was so ardent that it decisively influenced the conduct and especially
the training of innumerable young men.
 
But when the disgraceful collapse set in and the most humiliating kind
of capitulation was made, indignation against such a betrayal of our
unhappy country broke out into a blaze. Millions of German money had
been spent in vain and thousands of young Germans had been sacrificed,
who were foolish enough to trust in the promises made by the rulers of
the REICH. Millions of people now became clearly convinced that Germany
could be saved only if the whole prevailing system were destroyed root
and branch.
 
There never had been a more propitious moment for such a solution. On
the one side an act of high treason had been committed against the
country, openly and shamelessly. On the other side a nation found itself
delivered over to die slowly of hunger. Since the State itself had
trodden down all the precepts of faith and loyalty, made a mockery of
the rights of its citizens, rendered the sacrifices of millions of its
most loyal sons fruitless and robbed other millions of their last penny,
such a State could no longer expect anything but hatred from its
subjects. This hatred against those who had ruined the people and the
country was bound to find an outlet in one form or another. In this
connection I shall quote here the concluding sentence of a speech which
I delivered at the great court trial that took place in the spring of
1924.
 
"The judges of this State may tranquilly condemn us for our conduct at
that time, but History, the goddess of a higher truth and a better legal
code, will smile as she tears up this verdict and will acquit us all of
the crime for which this verdict demands punishment."
 
But History will then also summon before its own tribunal those who,
invested with power to-day, have trampled on law and justice, condemning
our people to misery and ruin, and who, in the hour of their country's
misfortune, took more account of their own ego than of the life of the
community.
 
Here I shall not relate the course of events which led to November 8th,
1923, and closed with that date. I shall not do so because I cannot see
that this would serve any beneficial purpose in the future and also
because no good could come of opening old sores that have been just only
closed. Moreover, it would be out of place to talk about the guilt of
men who perhaps in the depths of their hearts have as much love for
their people as I myself, and who merely did not follow the same road as
I took or failed to recognize it as the right one to take.
 
In the face of the great misfortune which has befallen our fatherland
and affects all us, I must abstain from offending and perhaps disuniting
those men who must at some future date form one great united front which
will be made up of true and loyal Germans and which will have to
withstand the common front presented by the enemy of our people. For I
know that a time will come when those who then treated us as enemies
will venerate the men who trod the bitter way of death for the sake of
their people.
 
I have dedicated the first volume of this book to our eighteen fallen
heroes. Here at the end of this second volume let me again bring those
men to the memory of the adherents and champions of our ideals, as
heroes who, in the full consciousness of what they were doing,
sacrificed their lives for us all. We must never fail to recall those
names in order to encourage the weak and wavering among us when duty
calls, that duty which they fulfilled with absolute faith, even to its
extreme consequences. Together with those, and as one of the best of
all, I should like to mention the name of a man who devoted his life to
reawakening his and our people, through his writing and his ideas and
finally through positive action. I mean: Dietrich Eckart.
 
 
 
 
EPILOGUE
 
 
 
On November 9th, 1923, four and a half years after its foundation, the
German National Socialist Labour Party was dissolved and forbidden
throughout the whole of the REICH. To-day, in November 1926, it is again
established throughout the REICH, enjoying full liberty, stronger and
internally more compact than ever before.
 
All persecutions of the Movement and the individuals at its head, all
the imputations and calumnies, have not been able to prevail against it.
Thanks to the justice of its ideas, the integrity of its intentions and
the spirit of self-denial that animates its members, it has overcome all
oppression and increased its strength through the ordeal. If, in our
contemporary world of parliamentary corruption, our Movement remains
always conscious of the profound nature of its struggle and feels that
it personifies the values of individual personality and race, and orders
its action accordingly--then it may count with mathematical certainty on
achieving victory some day in the future. And Germany must necessarily
win the position which belongs to it on this Earth if it is led and
organized according to these principles.
 
A State which, in an epoch of racial adulteration, devotes itself to the
duty of preserving the best elements of its racial stock must one day
become ruler of the Earth.
 
The adherents of our Movements must always remember this, whenever they
may have misgivings lest the greatness of the sacrifices demanded of
them may not be justified by the possibilities of success.
 
 
 
[[Category:Source]]
Retrieved from "https://allthetropes.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1222538"