December 17th, 2023 • 3h 1m
Shownotes
Every new episode of No Agenda is accompanied by a comprehensive list of shownotes curated by Adam while preparing for the show. Clips played by the hosts during the show can also be found here.
TODAY
Ainsley Costello and Just Loud Live Concert V4V Dec 20 and Dec 21st
Migration Replacement
Great Reset
War on Homeless
Big Pharma
SPECIAL REPORT-Maker of Wegovy, Ozempic showers money on U.S. obesity doctors
One of the doctors accepting Novo money — Dr. Ania Jastreboff of Yale University’s Center for Weight Management — bemoaned the small proportion of overweight Americans taking weight-loss drugs compared to the 46% of eligible adults. She cited a study from 2016, before the latest wave of blockbuster GLP-1 drugs, that found just 2% of that group took weight-loss medicines.
“That is abysmal,” Jastreboff told doctors at the June conference. “Is it OK to treat 2% of people with heart disease, or 2% of people with cancer or 2% of people with HIV or any other disease?”
Since 2017, Novo has highlighted that same 2% figure to Wall Street analysts to illustrate untapped demand. Jastreboff did not respond to requests for comment. In all, she has accepted nearly $130,000 in consulting fees and other payments from Novo since 2014.
At the conference, she emphasized keeping patients on medication long-term to prevent them from regaining weight. "Obesity is a chronic disease,” Jastreboff said. “That necessitates lifelong treatment."
Jastreboff has also worked on clinical trials of obesity drugs for Eli Lilly, which markets a Wegovy competitor. Lilly’s Zepbound, another GLP-1 drug, was approved in November for weight loss and has the same active ingredient as Lilly’s Mounjaro, a diabetes drug also commonly used for weight loss.
Biden
All WWII Veterans are now eligible for VA health care - VA News BOTG
A few weeks ago, my family was excited to hear on your show that President Biden had announced free nursing home care for all WWII veterans.
My wife's 96-year-old grandfather is a WWII veteran who landed in Nagasaki about two weeks after the bomb dropped. He is currently in a facility that's not so great and we were excited at the prospect of him moving into better care, despite his limited funds.
After he was put on a waitlist for the local five-star VA facility, I decided to do more research. That's when I found out it was all a lie. The VA updated the announcement to say that only certain WWII vets were eligible. My wife's grandfather isn't one of them.
Now our hopes are dashed, he will likely have to remain in the subpar facility and will not be able to pass his home to his children. I'm angry that once again a politician has used vets to further their political careers and then left them in the dust when no one was looking.
Why no one in the media is talking about this blatant lie is beyond me. I wonder if there are others in the Gitmo nation in the same position.
Link to updated announcement:
Big Tech & AI
Jews vs Muslims
Deep State
Secretary Mayorkas Announces Establishment of Homeland Intelligence Experts Group | Homeland Security
John Bellinger, Partner, Arnold & Porter (Former Legal Advisor, Department of State and National Security Council)
John Brennan, Distinguished Fellow, Fordham University School of Law and University of Texas at Austin (Former Director, Central Intelligence Agency)
James Clapper, CNN National Security Analyst (Former Director of National Intelligence)
Rajesh De, Partner, Mayer Brown (Former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Legal Policy and NSA General Counsel)
Thomas Galati, Senior Vice President, East Coast Security Operations, NBC Universal (Former New York Police Department, Chief, Intelligence and Counterterrorism)
Tashina Gauhar, Senior Director, Compliance, Strategy and Policy, The Boeing Company (Former Associate Deputy Attorney General and Deputy Assistant Attorney General, National Security Division, Department of Justice)
Asha M. George, Executive Director, Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense (Former Subcommittee Staff Director, House Committee on Homeland Security)
Karen Greenberg, Director, Center on National Security, Fordham University School of Law
Emily Harding, Senior Fellow and Deputy Director of the International Security Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies (Former Deputy Staff Director, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence)
Paul Kolbe, Senior Fellow and former Director of the Intelligence Project, Harvard Kennedy School Belfer Center (Former Operations Officer, Central Intelligence Agency)
David Kris, Co-Founder, Culper Partners LLC (Former Assistant Attorney General, National Security Division, Department of Justice)
Michael Leiter, Partner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (Former Director, National Counterterrorism Center)
Elisa Massimino, Executive Director, Human Rights Institute, Georgetown Law
Gregory Nojeim, Senior Counsel and Director, Security and Surveillance Project, Center for Democracy & Technology
Francis Taylor, Principal, Cambridge Global Advisors (Former Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis, DHS)
Caryn Wagner, Former Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis, DHS
Benjamin Wittes, Senior Fellow in Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution, an
STORIES
Secretary Mayorkas Announces Establishment of Homeland Intelligence Experts Group | Homeland Security
Sun, 17 Dec 2023 18:24
Experts Group to provide advice and perspectives on intelligence and national security efforts to the Office of Intelligence and Analysis and the Office of Counterterrorism Coordinator to support DHS' vital work to protect our country
WASHINGTON '' Today, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) Ken Wainstein, and Counterterrorism Coordinator Nicholas Rasmussen announced the establishment of the Homeland Intelligence Experts Group (Experts Group). The group is comprised of private sector experts who will provide their unique perspectives on the federal government's intelligence enterprise to DHS's I&A and the Office of the Counterterrorism Coordinator.''The security of the American people depends on our capacity to collect, generate, and disseminate actionable intelligence to our federal, state, local, territorial, tribal, campus, and private sector partners,'' said Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas. ''I express my deep gratitude to these distinguished individuals for dedicating their exceptional expertise, experience, and vision to our critical mission.''
''The Homeland Intelligence Experts Group is being formed at a time of unprecedented challenge, with the U.S. intelligence enterprise facing threats from a range of malign actors, to include foreign nation-state adversaries, domestic violent extremists, cyber criminals, drug-trafficking cartels and other transnational criminal organizations,'' said Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis Ken Wainstein. ''The Experts Group will be an invaluable asset as we navigate through this evolving threat and operating environment and continue to strengthen our efforts to protect the Homeland.''
''The homeland threat environment is more diverse, dynamic, and challenging than at any point in our post 9/11 history, with threats tied to an array of different terrorist and violent extremist ideologies and narratives,'' said Counterterrorism Coordinator Nicholas Rasmussen. ''The experience, expertise, and perspective offered by Experts Group members will undoubtedly put the Department in a strong position to confront this threat landscape, and we are grateful for the willingness of the Experts Group members to serve in this important capacity."
The Experts Group will provide DHS with a wide range of views and perspectives, with a membership that includes former senior intelligence officials, journalists, and prominent human rights and civil liberties advocates.
The Experts Group members are the following:
John Bellinger, Partner, Arnold & Porter (Former Legal Advisor, Department of State and National Security Council)John Brennan, Distinguished Fellow, Fordham University School of Law and University of Texas at Austin (Former Director, Central Intelligence Agency)James Clapper, CNN National Security Analyst (Former Director of National Intelligence)Rajesh De, Partner, Mayer Brown (Former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Legal Policy and NSA General Counsel)Thomas Galati, Senior Vice President, East Coast Security Operations, NBC Universal (Former New York Police Department, Chief, Intelligence and Counterterrorism) Tashina Gauhar, Senior Director, Compliance, Strategy and Policy, The Boeing Company (Former Associate Deputy Attorney General and Deputy Assistant Attorney General, National Security Division, Department of Justice) Asha M. George, Executive Director, Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense (Former Subcommittee Staff Director, House Committee on Homeland Security)Karen Greenberg, Director, Center on National Security, Fordham University School of LawEmily Harding, Senior Fellow and Deputy Director of the International Security Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies (Former Deputy Staff Director, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence)Paul Kolbe, Senior Fellow and former Director of the Intelligence Project, Harvard Kennedy School Belfer Center (Former Operations Officer, Central Intelligence Agency) David Kris, Co-Founder, Culper Partners LLC (Former Assistant Attorney General, National Security Division, Department of Justice)Michael Leiter, Partner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (Former Director, National Counterterrorism Center)Elisa Massimino, Executive Director, Human Rights Institute, Georgetown LawGregory Nojeim, Senior Counsel and Director, Security and Surveillance Project, Center for Democracy & TechnologyFrancis Taylor, Principal, Cambridge Global Advisors (Former Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis, DHS)Caryn Wagner, Former Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis, DHSBenjamin Wittes, Senior Fellow in Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution, and Co-Founder and Editor in Chief, Lawfare The Experts Group will meet four times annually and leverage the expertise of each member to provide input on I&A's most complex problems and challenges, including terrorism, fentanyl, transborder issues, and emerging technology.For more information on I&A's vital work, please visit Office of Intelligence and Analysis | Homeland Security (dhs.gov).
###
Urgent action needed to protect children and prevent the uptake of e-cigarettes
Sun, 17 Dec 2023 18:23
Urgent action is needed to control e-cigarettes to protect children, as well as non-smokers and minimize health harms to the population. E-cigarettes as consumer products are not shown to be effective for quitting tobacco use at the population level. Instead, alarming evidence has emerged on adverse population health effects.
E-cigarettes have been allowed on the open market and aggressively marketed to young people. Thirty-four countries ban the sale of e-cigarettes, 88 countries have no minimum age at which e-cigarettes can be bought and 74 countries have no regulations in place for these harmful products.
''Kids are being recruited and trapped at an early age to use e-cigarettes and may get hooked to nicotine," said Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General. "I urge countries to implement strict measures to prevent uptake to protect their citizens, especially their children and young people.''
E-cigarettes with nicotine are highly addictive and are harmful to health. Whilst long-term health effects are not fully understood, it has been established that they generate toxic substances, some of which are known to cause cancer and some that increase the risk of heart and lung disorders. Use of e-cigarettes can also affect brain development and lead to learning disorders for young people. Fetal exposure to e-cigarettes can adversely affect the development of the fetus in pregnant women. Exposure to emissions from e-cigarettes also poses risks to bystanders.
''E-cigarettes target children through social media and influencers, with at least 16 000 flavours. Some of these products use cartoon characters and have sleek designs, which appeal to the younger generation. There is an alarming increase in the use of e-cigarettes among children and young people with rates exceeding adult use in many countries,'' Dr Ruediger Krech, WHO Director for Health Promotion.
Children 13''15-years old are using e-cigarettes at rates higher than adults in all WHO regions. In Canada, the rates of e-cigarette use among 16''19-year-olds has doubled between 2017''2022, and in England (the United Kingdom) the number of young users has tripled in the past three years.
Even brief exposure to e-cigarette content on social media can be associated with increased intention to use these products, as well as more positive attitudes toward e-cigarettes. Studies consistently show that young people that use e-cigarettes are almost three times more likely to use cigarettes later in life.
Urgent measures are necessary to prevent uptake of e-cigarettes and counter nicotine addiction alongside a comprehensive approach to tobacco control, and in light of national circumstances.
Where countries ban the sale of e-cigarettes, to strengthen implementation of the ban and continue monitoring and surveillance to support public health interventions and ensure strong enforcement; andWhere countries permit commercialization (sale, importation, distribution and manufacture) of e-cigarettes as consumer products, to ensure strong regulations to reduce their appeal and their harm to the population, including banning all flavours, limiting the concentration and quality of nicotine, and taxing them.Cessation strategies should be based on the best available evidence of efficacy, to go with other tobacco control measures and subject to monitoring and evaluation. Based on the current evidence, it is not recommended that governments permit sale of e-cigarettes as consumer products in pursuit of a cessation objective.
Any government pursuing a smoking cessation strategy using e-cigarettes should control the conditions under which the products are accessed to ensure appropriate clinical conditions and regulate the products as medicines (including requiring marketing authorization as medicines). The decision to pursue a smoking cessation objective, even in such a controlled form, should be made only after considering national circumstances, along with the risk of uptake and after exhausting other proven cessation strategies.
The tobacco industry profits from destroying health and is using these newer products to get a seat at the policy-making table with governments to lobby against health policies. The tobacco industry funds and promotes false evidence to argue that these products reduce harm, while at the same time heavily promoting these products to children and non-smokers and continuing to sell billions of cigarettes.
Strong decisive action is needed to prevent the uptake of e-cigarettes based on the growing body of evidence of its use by children and adolescents and health harms.
Long-Term Use of Statins Linked to Heart Disease: Studies | The Epoch Times
Sun, 17 Dec 2023 17:07
A new expert review suggests that long-term use of statins may be inadvertently aiding the enemy by accelerating coronary artery calcification.
For decades, statins have been heralded as the reliable heroes in the battle against heart disease, the leading cause of death in the United States and globally. However, this seemingly flawless reputation has been called into question.
A new expert review suggests that long-term use of statins may be inadvertently aiding the enemy by accelerating coronary artery calcification instead of providing protection.
Statins Deplete Heart-Protecting Nutrients The review,
published in Clinical Pharmacology, suggests statins may act as ''mitochondrial toxins,'' impairing muscle function in the heart and blood vessels by depleting coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10), an antioxidant cells use for growth and maintenance.
Multiple studies show statins inhibit CoQ10 synthesis, leading many patients to supplement.
CoQ10 is vital for producing ATP, the cell's fundamental energy carrier. Insufficient CoQ10 inhibits ATP production, resulting in an energy deficit that the review authors say ''could be a major cause for heart muscle and coronary artery damage.
''We believe that many years of statin drug therapy result in the gradual accumulation of mitochondrial DNA damage,'' according to the authors.
A 2008 study
published in BioFactors reaffirms the statin''CoQ10 link. Researchers evaluated 50 statin patients for side effects like fatigue and muscle pain. All then stopped statins and supplemented CoQ10 for 22 months on average.
Heart function improved or held steady for the majority of patients. The researchers conclude statin side effects, including statin cardiomyopathy, ''are far more common than previously published and are reversible with the combination of statin discontinuation and supplemental CoQ10.''
Statins Deplete Vitamin K, Raising Heart Calcification RiskStatins impair the production of vitamin K, an essential vitamin in managing calcification, according to the review. Optimal vitamin K2 intake helps
avoid plaque buildup of atherosclerosis'--thickening or hardening of the arteries'--and keeps calcification risk low.
Coronary calcification happens when calcium accumulates in the walls of the coronary arteries that provide oxygen to the heart. This plaque buildup is a sign of early coronary artery disease, which can block blood flow and trigger a heart attack.
A
2021 study published in the Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences found a connection between statin use, coronary artery calcification, and vitamin K2 deficiency. The results shed light on how statins may spur arterial calcium accumulation by inhibiting vitamin K. The study's findings were ''in agreement with the existing evidence about positive association between statins and vascular calcification,'' the authors added.
Statins also damage selenoproteins, carriers of the mineral selenium essential for heart health.
Statins were also linked to increased calcification in a
2022 study published in Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. However, the authors proposed that statins may encourage calcification by heightening inflammation rather than nutrient deficiency.
Physicians Overlook Statins as Driver of Heart Failure: ExpertsBased on emerging evidence on statins' potential cardiac downsides, the authors of the new review warn that ''physicians in general are not aware that statins can cause heart failure and are clearly not recognizing it.'' Though doctors readily diagnose heart failure in statin users, they usually attribute it to factors like age, high blood pressure, or artery disease.
Doctors prescribing cholesterol drugs ''cannot ignore the moral responsibility of 'informed consent,''' the researchers wrote, noting that patients deserve full disclosure of side effects like cardiovascular disease or heart failure.
With over a million annual heart failure hospitalizations in the United States, the condition is often referred to as an epidemic'--and it may be that ''statin drug therapy is a major contributing factor,'' according to the review.
Marketer sparks panic with claims it uses smart devices to eavesdrop on people | Ars Technica
Sun, 17 Dec 2023 13:12
We've all experienced it or heard about it happening: Someone has a conversation about wanting a red jacket, and then suddenly, it seems like they're seeing ads for red jackets all over the place.
Makers of microphone-equipped electronics sometimes admit to selling voice data to third parties (advertisers). But that's usually voice data accumulated after a user has prompted their device to start listening to them and after they've opted into (preferably not by default) this sort of data collection.
But a marketing company called CMG Local Solutions sparked panic recently by alluding that it has access to people's private conversations by tapping into data gathered by the microphones on their phones, TVs, and other personal electronics, as first reported by 404 Media on Thursday. The marketing firm had said it uses these personal conversations for ad targeting.
Active ListeningCMG's Active Listening website starts with a banner promoting an accurate but worrisome statement, "It's true. Your devices are listening to you."
Enlarge / A screenshot from CMG's Active Listening website.
A November 28 blog post described Active Listening technology as using AI to "detect relevant conversations via smartphones, smart TVs, and other devices." As such, CMG claimed that it knows "when and what to tune into."
The blog also shamelessly highlighted advertisers' desire to hear every single whisper made that could help them target campaigns:
This is a world where no pre-purchase murmurs go unanalyzed, and the whispers of consumers become a tool for you to target, retarget, and conquer your local market.
The marketing company didn't thoroughly detail how it backs its claims. An archived version of the Active Listening site provided a vague breakdown of how Active Listening purportedly works.
The website previously pointed to CMG uploading past client data into its platform to make "buyer personas." Then, the company would identify relevant keywords for the type of person a CMG customer would want to target. CMG also mentioned placing a tracking pixel on its customers' sites before entering the Listening Stage, which was only described as: "Active Listening begins and is analyzed via AI to detect pertinent conversations via smartphones, smart TVs, and other devices."
Advertisement The archived version of the page discussed an AI-based analysis of the data and generating an "encrypted evergreen audience list" used to re-target ads on various platforms, including streaming TV and audio, display ads, paid social media, YouTube, Google, and Bing Search.
That explanation doesn't appear to be on the Active Listening page anymore, but CMG still says it can target people who are actively saying things like, "A minivan would be perfect for us" or "This AC is on it's [sic] last leg!" in conversations.
But are they actively listening?In a statement emailed to Ars Technica, Cox Media Group said that its advertising tools include "third-party vendor products powered by data sets sourced from users by various social media and other applications then packaged and resold to data servicers." The statement continues:
Advertising data based on voice and other data is collected by these platforms and devices under the terms and conditions provided by those apps and accepted by their users, and can then be sold to third-party companies and converted into anonymized information for advertisers. This anonymized data then is resold by numerous advertising companies.
The company added that it does not "listen to any conversations or have access to anything beyond a third-party aggregated, anonymized and fully encrypted data set that can be used for ad placement" and "regret[s] any confusion."
Before Cox Media Group sent its statement, though, CMG's claims of collecting data on "casual conversations in real-time," as its blog stated, were questionable. CMG never explained how our devices would somehow be able to garner the computing and networking power necessary to record and send every conversation spoken within the device's range in "real-time," unbeknownst to the device's owner. The firm also never explained how it acquired the type of access that requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant. This is despite CMG's blog claiming that with Active Listening, advertisers would be able to know "the second someone in your area is concerned about mold in their closet," for example.
CMG's November blog post pointed to an unnamed technology partner that can "aggregate and analyze voice data during pre-purchase conversations," as well as a "growing ability to access microphone data on devices."
All WWII Veterans are now eligible for VA health care - VA News
Sun, 17 Dec 2023 12:45
WASHINGTON '-- Today, the Department of Veterans Affairs announced that all World War II Veterans are now eligible for no-cost VA inpatient and outpatient health care.
Under this expansion, all WWII Veterans who served between Dec. 7, 1941, and Dec. 31, 1946, are now eligible for VA health care, regardless of their length of service or financial status. These Veterans will not have to pay inpatient or outpatient copays, enrollment fees, or monthly premiums.
VA is reaching out by phone and mail to encourage WWII Veterans who are not currently enrolled in VA care to apply today. Veterans who enroll may also keep their private providers, Medicare, and most other insurance to meet their health care needs.
''These members of Greatest Generation answered the call to serve when our nation '' and the world '' needed them most. Now, it's our job to serve them in every way that we can,'' said VA Under Secretary for Health, Dr. Shereef Elnahal. ''We are proud to provide world-class, low- or no-cost health care to these heroes at VA, and we encourage all of them to enroll today.''
All WWII Veterans are encouraged to enroll in VA health care '' the best, most-affordable health care in America for Veterans. Veterans who are enrolled in VA health care are proven to have better health outcomes than non-enrolled Veterans, and VA hospitals have dramatically outperformed non-VA hospitals in overall quality ratings and patient satisfaction ratings.
Veterans who were not approved for VA health care in the past due to income limits should apply again; income levels no longer apply due to this expansion. VA cannot automatically enroll these Veterans in health care; WWII Veterans must apply for VA health care if they are not currently enrolled.
While World War II Veterans will no longer have to pay inpatient or outpatient copays, they may still have to pay modest medication or urgent care or long-term care copayments in some cases, depending on their eligibility and service connection.
This expansion is made possible through the Joseph Maxwell Cleland and Robert Joseph Dole Memorial Veterans Benefits and Health Care Improvement Act of 2022 (Cleland-Dole Act), signed in December 2022.
To apply for VA health care, visit VA's health care enrollment website, call 1-800-MyVA411 (800-698-2411), or visit your nearest VA medical center or clinic.
Update to the release: Nursing home care is free (no copays) for nearly all World War II Veterans who are eligible for nursing home services at VA, including 1) anyone in need of such care for a service-connected disability, (2) anyone in need of such care who also has a service-connected disability rated at 70 percent or more. However, contrary to the language of the release, not all World War II Veterans are eligible for nursing home care under this new law.
Additionally, as stated in the release, all World War II Veterans are eligible for VA health care and will not have to pay inpatient or outpatient copays. However, these Veterans may still have to pay modest copayments for medication or urgent care or long-term care in some cases, depending on their eligibility and service connection.
We at VA apologize for this mistake and any confusion that it may have caused. We are continuing to reach out directly to these Veterans to inform them of the expansion of care available to them, and we urge any WWII Veteran to enroll in VA health care today.
Reporters and media outlets with questions or comments should contact the Office of Media Relations at vapublicaffairs@va.gov
Veterans with questions about their health care and benefits (including GI Bill). Questions, updates and documents can be submitted online.
Contact us online through Ask VA
Veterans can also use our chatbot to get information about VA benefits and services. The chatbot won't connect you with a person, but it can show you where to go on VA.gov to find answers to some common questions.
Learn about our chatbot and ask a question
These four social media influencers were swept up by a movement that claims obesity is perfectly healthy... The tragic truth is they have all died under the age of 45 | Daily Mail Online
Sun, 17 Dec 2023 12:28
The final videos posted to Brittany Sauer's TikTok page make for upsetting viewing. Speaking tearfully to the camera, the 31-stone social media star, who often posted defiantly 'body-positive' content about how 'hot' she felt in certain outfits, admitted with shocking candour that she had 'ruined her life' with food and binge eating.
And it had left her, aged just 28, full of regrets.
Brittany had been a virtual prisoner in her own home for two years, dealing with type 2 diabetes and repeated bouts of the skin infection cellulitis which had caused a growth in her pelvis weighing more than two stone. She had even been forced to ask someone else to cut her toenails, as it left her 'too breathless'.
Yet she hoped, desperately, that it wasn't too late to save herself. 'I'm scared I'm going to end up in a bad place that my body can't recover from,' she said to her half-a-million TikTok followers. 'I want you to know it's not worth it '' food isn't worth your life.'
TikTok star, @Wafffler69, died of a 'presumed heart attack', according to his brother, aged just 33 in January. Real name Taylor LeJeune, he did not flaunt his weight but amassed 1.9 million followers by posting videos reviewing bizarre food, including reindeer meat and tinned ham from the 1960s. His last video, posted the day before he died, showed him eating a giant fruit loop in milk
A well-known activist, professor of 'fat studies' Dr Cat Paus(C), who questioned the links between weight and health, lost her life aged 42. Based at Massey University in New Zealand, she also presented a 'fat positive' radio show
Within a week of posting the film last December, Brittany was dead.
Her death turns a spotlight on the controversial body positivity and 'fat acceptance' movements that have seduced Brittany and millions of vulnerable young people like her.
The past decade has seen extraordinary momentum building around a central argument that being obese doesn't have to mean unhealthy. In other words, you can be fat and fit.
Branded Health At Every Size, or HAES, the philosophy has, at its heart, laudable goals. It aims to counter the multi-billion-dollar diet industry '' which has a poor record when it comes to long-term, sustainable weight loss '' and act as an antidote to the stigma encountered by people struggling with their weight.
The idea is that, rather than shame overweight people and force them to diet, they should be encouraged to embrace their bodies, find exercises they enjoy and eat more nutritionally. But some say those philosophies have been taken to extremes, particularly on social media, by celebrating morbid obesity while ignoring its serious health dangers.
The US edition of Cosmopolitan magazine was criticised for running covers featuring plus-size women in yoga poses under the headline: 'This is healthy.' As part of a drive to challenge beauty stereotypes, it also featured US plus-size model Tess Holliday '' who at 5ft 3in and 300lb has a BMI of 53, more than double the healthy range '' a decision condemned 'as dangerous and misguided'.
Self-styled 'fat activists', meanwhile, not only promote larger bodies as healthy but reject decades of science which prove the dangers of excess body fat, encouraging devotees to ignore doctors who recommend they lose weight.
The final videos posted to Brittany Sauer's TikTok page make for upsetting viewing. Speaking tearfully to the camera, the 31-stone social media star, who often posted defiantly 'body-positive' content about how 'hot' she felt in certain outfits, admitted with shocking candour that she had 'ruined her life' with food and binge eating
Some dieticians backing the belief even oppose weight-loss jabs such as Wegovy (also known as Ozempic) and bariatric surgery because they 'continue to encourage weight loss as an important part of health'.
One organisation, HAES UK, described weight-loss surgery as 'mutilating body parts' and 'not compatible with loving your body as it is'. And those who criticise it are labelled 'fat-phobic' or 'anti-woke'.
Little wonder that experts have described the movement as a 'cult'. Some say this so-called 'body positive' approach is also putting vulnerable young people at risk by failing to point out the unpalatable scientific truth: that obesity dramatically increases the risk of a wide range of chronic and life-limiting diseases.
In some cases, they say, it could prove attractive to those with binge eating disorders, like US-born Brittany. After all, she is not the only one to lose her life.
Another TikTok star, @Wafffler69, died of a 'presumed heart attack', according to his brother, aged just 33 in January.
Jamie Lopez, who starred in US reality TV show Super Sized Salon, died from heart complications aged 37 last December
Real name Taylor LeJeune, he did not flaunt his weight but amassed 1.9 million followers by posting videos reviewing bizarre food, including reindeer meat and tinned ham from the 1960s. His last video, posted the day before he died, showed him eating a giant fruit loop in milk.
Jamie Lopez, who starred in US reality TV show Super Sized Salon, died from heart complications aged 37 last December. The show centred around obese women getting beauty treatments and featured the catchphrase: 'Go big or go home.'
She had described being discriminated against for being a plus-size make-up artist, and wanted women like her to feel 'confident and sexy'.
But then Jamie decided to overhaul her health, eventually losing almost 29st (180kg) '' half her body weight '' before her death.
A well-known activist, professor of 'fat studies' Dr Cat Paus(C), who questioned the links between weight and health, lost her life aged 42. Based at Massey University in New Zealand, she also presented a 'fat positive' radio show.
She had said: 'The science isn't quite as clear cut as we'd like to believe and there's not really quite a consensus yet about the relationship between weight and health.
'Obese people, and even morbidly obese people, have just as good health or better health than someone in the normal weight range.' She died in March 2022 from causes which have not been made public.
Obesity researcher Sarah Le Brocq, founder of charity All About Obesity, says that ignoring the health implications of excess fat is delusional.
'People are always going to be different shapes and sizes,' she says. 'That's OK, and we need to be more accepting of that, but you must be mindful of the health implications.
What we know is the more body fat you have, the more likely it is your body will be in an inflamed state. This means you might become insulin resistant and develop diabetes or end up with heart problems.
'Not everyone will, but the more fat you have the more likely it is.'
She adds: 'What we can't do is be delusional about that. If you have a high BMI and you're not eating well, moving much or looking after yourself, it's only a matter of time before that becomes a problem for your health and you start getting aching knees, high blood pressure or sleep apnoea '' and that's just the start.'
Fat Pride has become a central new battle ground in America's culture war
Ms Le Brocq says her encounters with activists have been 'quite cultish '' everyone seems to think and speak the same way, as if they've got a handbook to recite from', adding. 'There's this idea that if you're big you should stay that way, whatever the cost.'
For obesity specialist Professor Naveed Sattar, from the University of Glasgow, the science around health and obesity is irrefutable.
'Ample evidence shows obesity can promote or accelerate over 200 diseases, such as diabetes, strokes, many cancers, diseases that impact movement such as arthritis, and mental health,' he says.
'Higher waist girth is a major reason for many people living with multiple chronic conditions, leading to suffering and health costs.' And for those who say losing weight is not necessary to improve health, he adds: 'Considerable evidence now shows intentional weight loss '' via lifestyle or drugs '' can help lower the risk of many chronic conditions and even reverse some, such as diabetes.'
Of course, these issues do raise some important points.
Far too many people do not like how they look, and, for many people diets do not work in the longer term. And repeatedly failing to lose weight can take its toll on mental health. For some, using social media to post pictures of themselves fat, happy and eating what they want is a way to love themselves and their bodies.
Colorado , America's slimmest state, where Boulder is situated, is set to become the first state in the US for 50 years to ban 'fat phobia' by law
Dr Asher Larmie, a GP based in Hertfordshire and one of the UK's more public proponents of HAES, believes doctors should not recommend weight loss.
Posting to his 14,000 followers on Instagram as @thefatdoctor, he uses slogans such as 'fat and thriving' and 'you do not need to lose weight to improve your health'. However, Dr Larmie does concede that 'people who are fat are more likely to have certain conditions', although he says the evidence does not prove excess fat is the cause.
He explains: 'What is more important in driving illness is chronic stress, the impact of repeated dieting, and weight stigma and discrimination which means fat people receive far poorer care.
'The deaths of all of these people is heartbreaking and tragic. Some are deeply sad and involve binge eating disorders, which shouldn't be confused with fat acceptance. But they in no way prove that you can't be obese and healthy.'
Dr Larmie's approach is not to mention weight or diets at all, and instead find out what might improve an individual's overall wellbeing.
'I find what activity makes them happy and ask them to incorporate more of it in their daily lives, whether that's walking on the beach, gardening or cleaning the house. If they enjoy it, it's sustainable and will keep them moving in the longer term. I'll look at someone's daily diet and work out ways of eating better, but without restrictions.
'The result means people are happier and at a stable weight that's right for their bodies '' they might, in some cases, lose weight. Just releasing people from that cycle of stress and anxiety over their weight can make them healthier overall.'
At one point, some MPs on the Women and Equalities Committee called for medics to adopt the HAES approach to avoid people being 'shamed' for their BMI.
But is it all starting to crumble? The organisation HAES UK appears to have been disbanded, and individuals have posted on social media about rejecting the movement as a result of the spate of deaths.
One wrote that 'body positivity kept me fat and complacent' and 'enabled me to not make good decisions'. Another added: 'I feel guilty for being a part of this movement. Health is real, organs failing is real, diabetes is real. It's not fat-phobic to care about your health.'
Luci Daniels, former chairman of the British Dietetic Association, the professional association for UK dieticians, says: 'HAES and fat acceptance started off with the best of intentions, but it has gone too far. Most people with excess weight would be healthier with less of it. We've been persuaded to accept that big is OK and people who are obese must learn to love themselves. But I've never met an obese person who didn't want to be a more regular size.'
She concludes: 'If you are overweight, don't give up on healthy eating and healthier lifestyle choices. Yes, that will be harder than simply buying into the myth you can be obese and healthy, but it'll be far more worthwhile health-wise.'
Southwest Gives Free Extra Seats: How Airlines Handle Plus-Sized Passengers | Time
Sun, 17 Dec 2023 12:26
''Hi, I'm hoping to use your customer-of-size policy today,'' a woman says to a Southwest Airlines gate agent before being handed a complimentary second ticket for the adjacent seat on the flight she was boarding, in a now-viral TikTok video. The post, which has racked up more than 900,000 views since it was first shared in October, has sparked strong, mixed reactions about the ways in which plus-sized travelers are'--or aren't'--accommodated in the air.
Some have praised Southwest's approach as ''amazing,'' while others have criticized the airline for ''rewarding obesity.''
Southwest's customer-of-size policy isn't new, but the renewed attention brought to it in recent weeks reflects the increasing relevance of airlines' plus-sized-passenger rules'--especially as Americans on average continue to grow larger, while airplane seats have allegedly become smaller.
Since the 1960s, the number of obese people in the U.S. aged 20 and above has increased from just 10% of the population to some 42% by 2020, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Meanwhile, advocates claim that airplane seat widths have decreased by as much as 3 inches over the last three decades.
Read More: More Than Half of the World Will Be Obese By 2035
Often, the onus of figuring out how to manage the incongruity is put on customers, whose options are limited and often result in frustration for both the passenger whose seat is too small as well as their neighbors who may feel encroached upon.
Jae'lynn Chaney, a plus-sized traveler and influencer, launched a petition earlier this year asking the Federal Aviation Administration to require all airlines to implement a clear and comprehensive customer-of-size policy.
For now, most airlines simply recommend requesting a seatbelt extender, purchasing an additional seat, or upgrading to a higher fare class that offers more personal space.
Tigress Osborn, executive director of the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance, told CNBC in August that plus-sized people also often face calls to simply avoid air travel, which she describes as unreasonable.
''Fat people deserve to travel for pleasure just like everyone else, and we also need to remember that air travel is for work, for family obligations, and for other responsibilities, too,'' she said. ''Our taxes help support this industry, and we deserve to be accommodated safely and comfortably, with access to accessible seating at all price levels.''
Here is the current guidance U.S. airlines offer for passengers who exceed size restrictions:
Alaska AirlinesAccording to its website, Alaska Airlines requires the purchase of an additional seat for any customer ''who cannot comfortably seat with the armrests in the down position.'' The width between Alaska Airlines' armrests is 17 inches for economy seating and 21 inches for first class.
Alaska recommends booking the extra seat ahead of time. ''If a second seat has not been purchased, you'll be asked to purchase an additional seat before boarding the aircraft,'' it says.
If the flight departed with an open seat available, the passenger is eligible to request a refund for their second seat.
Allegiant AirWith a seat width of 17.8 inches, passengers who either are unable to lower the armrests or compromise any portion of adjacent seats ''should purchase an additional ticket'' during reservation, Allegiant Air's website says. Two adjacent seats will then be pre-assigned'--at no additional cost.If an extra seat was not pre-booked, on the date of travel, a ''passenger of size'' may only be able to purchase a second ticket if two adjacent seats are still available. ''In the event the flight is sold out and an extra seat is unavailable, the passenger of size shall be denied travel in the interest of safety.''
American Airlines''If a customer needs extra space outside a single seat to travel safely, another seat is required,'' American Airlines' website says. Like other airlines, it recommends reserving the extra seat during the initial booking.
''If you didn't book an extra seat in advance,'' the guidance says, ''you may be offered a seat in a higher class of service that may provide more space; in this case, you'll be responsible for the fare difference. If accommodations can't be made on your original flight, you can buy seats on a different flight at the same price as your original seats.''
Delta AirlinesDelta Airlines' economy seats are 17.2 inches in width and have 31-32 inches of legroom. Seatbelt extenders can be provided upon request in-flight, but personal seatbelt extenders are barred.
''For customers who need extra space,'' Delta says on its website, ''you can ask to be reseated next to an empty seat or pay to upgrade to First/Business class. To ensure your comfort, you might consider booking an additional seat.''
Frontier AirlinesFrontier Airlines' website simply says that passengers unable to lower the armrests should book two seats prior to travel. ''The armrest is considered to be the definitive boundary between seats,'' it says.
Hawaiian AirlinesMost seats on Hawaiian Airlines' airplanes are 18 inches wide, according to its website, which breaks down the seat size on the various aircraft it operates.
''If you are unable to sit comfortably in your seat with the armrests lowered, we will try to find a suitable alternative,'' guidelines on Hawaiian Airlines' website say, recommending booking an extra seat in advance and calling their hotlines to ensure the seats are adjacent. ''However, if no safe alternative seating can be found, we may not be able to transport you on your ticketed flight.''
JetBlueJetBlue does not appear to have any specific policy for plus-sized passengers and did not respond to a request for comment from TIME. Flyers can purchase extra seats for themselves, and passengers can request seatbelt extenders in-flight, according to the website Portly Passengers, which is one of several sites that offer travel tips for plus-sized passengers.
Southwest AirlinesAccording to Southwest's website, customers who encroach upon any part of the neighboring seat, as demarcated by the armrests, ''may proactively purchase the needed number of seats prior to travel'' to ensure availability. ''The purchase of additional seats serves as a notification of a special seating need and allows us to adequately plan for the number of occupied seats onboard,'' the policy states, emphasizing that the airline will ''refund all extra seat purchases for a Customer of size, even if the flight oversells.''
''If you prefer not to purchase an additional seat in advance, you have the option of purchasing just one seat and then discussing your seating needs with the Customer Service Agent at the departure gate. If it's determined that a second (or third) seat is needed, you'll be accommodated with a complimentary additional seat.''
Spirit AirlinesSpirit Airlines says on its website that ''a guest of size who encroaches on an adjacent seat area and/or is unable to sit in a single seat with the armrests lowered'' is required to purchase an extra seat.
United AirlinesAccording to United's website, if a passenger cannot buckle their seatbelt, takes up space in adjacent seats, or cannot keep their armrests lowered while they are seated, they must buy an extra seat.
''If an extra seat isn't available, you'll need to change your flight to one that has extra seats. If you're not in your home city, state, or country, and your new flight requires you to stay overnight,'' the guidance also stipulates, ''we can give you meal and hotel vouchers as well.''
More Must-Reads From TIME
Taylor Swift Is TIME's 2023 Person of the Year Sam Altman on OpenAI and Artificial General Intelligence Conversion Therapy Is Still Happening in Almost Every U.S. State You've Heard of Long COVID. Long Flu Is a Health Risk, Too Padma Lakshmi Is Transforming How Americans Think About Food Column: The Dangers of Curtailing Free Speech on Campus The Most Anticipated Books of 2024 Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time Contact us at letters@time.com.
San Francisco faces deadliest year for drug overdoses due to rise of fentanyl | San Francisco | The Guardian
Sun, 17 Dec 2023 12:25
San Francisco is facing its deadliest year ever for drug overdoses, a trend blamed on the surge of powerful synthetic fentanyl in the US's illicit drug supply.
In the first nine months of 2023, the northern California city saw 692 people die of overdoses, more than in the entire year of 2022, according to new data reported by the city's medical examiner. The city is on track to see more than 800 deaths this year, topping its highest year ever, 2020, when it saw 720.
August was the deadliest month on record '' with an overdose death every nine hours.
''It's going to be an almost 25% increase over last year '' that's crazy and unfortunate,'' said Dr Daniel Ciccarone, a professor at the University of California, San Francisco, who specializes in addiction medicine.
The deaths in San Francisco come despite a blitzkrieg of policies aimed at stemming the crisis. And experts warn that a new and troubling trend is emerging: more and more victims are found to have consumed both fentanyl and methamphetamine.
Only a handful of jurisdictions across the US release overdose statistics quickly enough to track trends in real time. But a number of those that did show that other metro areas '' particularly on the west coast '' have also seen their overdose numbers climb in 2023. The state of Oregon, and Santa Clara county, California, both reported increases in overdose deaths this year. Washington state, one of the latest to see a surge in fentanyl overdoses, now is showing the biggest increases in the US '' with overdose deaths jumping 39% in the 12 months ending in June 2023. In the midwest, Cleveland, Ohio, also reported a rise in deaths, and so did Washington DC on the east coast.
Map of the US with spikes pointing up and down to indicate the percent change in overdose deaths in the past year.Federal officials and addiction experts had been hopeful that the fentanyl crisis would recede after the Covid-19 pandemic eased, but national statistics show that 110,000 people died of drug overdoses in the 12 months ending in June 2023 '' a climb of 2.6% over the prior year.
''I had predicted the epidemic would start to burn out,'' said Ciccarone. ''But it is unbelievably resilient and horribly durable.''
Several east coast states, where fentanyl first hit and began ravishing the drug-using population around 2013, have started to show small decreases in deaths. But on the West Coast, where the deadly synthetic didn't saturate the market until around 2019, the numbers are still climbing rapidly.
''California has now surpassed the national average and it's becoming the single most important place for overdose intervention in terms of sheer numbers,'' said Joseph Friedman, an addiction researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Using meth to counteract fentanylCiccarone and Friedman, through their separate research, have described how the opioid epidemic has moved across the US in a series of deadly waves. First, in the early 2000s, millions of people became addicted to prescription opioids that were marketed by drug companies and readily handed out by doctors. Then, as providers cracked down on prescriptions around 2010, millions of drug consumers turned to heroin on the streets. In the third wave, cheap, super-powerful fentanyl flooded the illegal market beginning around 2013. Eventually it largely replaced heroin and killed thousands of drug users in its wake. The drug is so strong that just a few extra grains of powder can send someone into a life-threatening overdose.
Now, Ciccarone, Friedman and others have identified a new, hugely troubling fourth wave, as more and more deaths involve users who have mixed methamphetamine with their fentanyl use.
A study by Friedman and UCLA epidemiologist Chelsea Shover found that the number of overdose deaths involving both stimulants, like meth, and fentanyl has increased 50-fold since 2010.
Users are adding meth to their drug use to counteract fentanyl side effects that they don't like, Friedman said: ''Fentanyl took over the illicit opioid market not because the consumers like it, but because the distributors like it. It's massively profitable.''
Line chart of four different overdose rates, with Fentanyl with stimulants highlightedBut fentanyl consumers ''are finding that they're withdrawing really soon and they can't sleep through the night anymore'', he said. ''So with the rise of really, really pure methamphetamine, basically available everywhere in the western US, it's become a natural thing for people to use that to offset the negative aspects of fentanyl.''
skip past newsletter promotionSign up to First Thing
Free daily newsletterOur US morning briefing breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion
While it's still an open question whether mixing meth with fentanyl use is more deadly in the short term, the fact that people are combining the drugs raises a host of thorny problems for healthcare providers. There are medicines, such as buprenorphine, proven to help people break addiction to opioids, but there are no FDA-approved drugs to counter meth dependence.
Meth use is also believed to increase risks of a number of severe mental health symptoms, including paranoia, delusions and hallucinations.
'Our policy options are not working'In San Francisco, city officials have tried a yo-yoing assortment of tactics to stop the deaths, from declaring a state of emergency to creating, and later closing, a facility where users could use drugs under supervision, and then flooding the streets with police.
In an emailed statement, the San Francisco department of public health said it recognized the impact of the crisis, and is working to expand substance use treatment options and overdose prevention efforts.
Ciccarone noted that the city's latest tack towards arresting people has not helped save lives. ''Clearly the city has not done well enough. If our North Star is reducing deaths, our policy options are not working.''
In King county, which includes Seattle, half of overdose deaths now involve both fentanyl and meth, said Brad Finegood, who leads overdose prevention efforts for the county's public health department.
''The lethality of drugs is up '' they are much more potent and powerful,'' he said. ''Now that the drug market has gone synthetic, [formulas] can be changed in production. We don't always know what is being cooked up. Drugs are also low-cost and high-availability.''
Ciccarone said despite the troubling developments, the fact that many east coast states are starting to see slight downturns in the number of overdose deaths makes him optimistic that interventions, such as increased availability of addiction treatment and the life-saving drug Narcan, are starting to reverse the tide.
Finegood, who lost his own brother to a multi-substance overdose 19 years ago, said it is important to have hope and to break down the stigma drug users face.
''The more that we stigmatize people who use drugs, the more that we're pushing them further into the fringes,'' he said. ''I'm cognizant that every single person who dies out there is somebody's kid. And also every single person out there struggling is capable of recovery. We just have to continue to keep our arms wide open and keep engaging people.''
Farage plans return to 'help Reform UK make election about immigration' | Nigel Farage | The Guardian
Sun, 17 Dec 2023 12:24
Allies of Nigel Farage believe he will be unable to resist taking a prominent role for Reform UK's imminent attempts to make the next election a referendum on ''mass migration''.
The former Brexit party leader did not rule out a return to frontline politics after he completed his appearance on I'm a Celebrity '... Get Me Out of Here! earlier this month, though he dismissed the idea of rejoining the Conservatives under Rishi Sunak.
However, figures close to him are increasingly confident that he will want to seize the opportunity to shape the next election with Reform UK. It is understood that the party is planning a press conference at the start of January to kick off its campaign to create an ''immigration election'' when voters go to the polls next year. It follows Tory infighting over Sunak's plan to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda.
The latest Opinium poll for the Observer puts Reform UK on 9% support. However, it also reveals that 37% of current Conservative voters would be more favourable towards Reform with Farage as leader.
poll chartThe poll also shows a fifth of Reform voters would vote Conservative if their party was not on the ballot paper. While that suggests it is already holding down Tory support, the polling numbers involved were too small to draw firm conclusions.
It seems unlikely that Farage '' who has lost on each of the seven occasions he has stood to be an MP '' will run for a Westminster seat, preferring a role that allows him to roam the country and attract the cameras, rather than be tied to a constituency. However, Farage's allies believe Sunak's decision to put his Rwanda plan at the heart of his programme for government has given him the chance to ''shape politics'' once again with a prominent campaign role.
''He's going to work out how and in what shape and style he puts his shoulder behind the wheel,'' said an ally. ''The idea that he would sit back and watch an election on his home turf '' an immigration election '' come and go is for the birds. He has talked about immigration for 15 to 20 years. Many of his predictions have now come true. He can have another significant influence in the debate and potentially demolish the Tories.
''Whether the mainstream parties like it or not, we will turn this into an immigration election. The last one was a Brexit election. This will be an immigration election '' both legal and illegal. Reform will pose a very simple question: who voted for mass immigration?''
The party's latest tactic has been to broaden its attack on immigration away from just the ''small boats'' crossing the Channel that Sunak has pledged to eliminate, to a wider criticism on the overall numbers coming to the UK. Net migration to the UK hit a record 745,000 in 2022.
skip past newsletter promotionSign up to First Edition
Free daily newsletterOur morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion
Reform's leader Richard Tice has already made clear there will be no deals with the Tories before the next election as there was in 2019.
He has also said he would reject a peerage or any other attempt to induce his party to stand aside.
While Reform's national poll rating remains low, many Tories are already concerned about its possible impact on their party's performance. Meanwhile, continued Tory wrangling over the Rwanda bill also presents Farage with an opportunity to appeal to voters from the right.While No 10 was delighted that no Conservatives voted against the Rwanda bill, winning a 44-vote majority, there will be attempts to amend the proposals in the new year. Tory MPs also suspect that the left and right of the party have been given contradictory guarantees about the changes the government would accept.
Any greater involvement by Farage in the new year would cause further anxiety among many Tories on the right, who believe the Rwanda issue was completely mismanaged by Downing Street. Other senior Tories were baffled that Sunak has spent so much time on a divisive issue within his own party.
According to Opinium, reducing illegal immigration to the UK is the fourth highest priority for the public. Some 36% selected it as a priority before the next general election, up from 33% in mid-November. While 49% of voters think the Conservatives under Sunak generally prefer lower immigration, only 16% think they have a plan to achieve it. Just 26% think Labour under Keir Starmer generally prefers higher levels of immigration, with 34% believing he prefers lower levels.
Mein Kampf (My Struggle)
Sun, 17 Dec 2023 12:22
Project GutenbergAustraliaatreasure-trove of literature treasure found hiddenwith no evidence of ownership BROWSE the site for other works by this author(and our other authors) or get HELP Reading, Downloading and Converting files)orSEARCH the entire site withGoogle Site SearchTitle: Mein Kampf (My Struggle)Author: Adolf Hitler (1889-1945)Translated into English by James Murphy (died 1946)eBook No.: 0200601h.htmlLanguage: EnglishDate first posted: September 2002Date most recently updated: February 2016This eBook was produced by Colin Choat
View our licence and header
byAdolph Hitler
Adolf Hitler
Translated into English by James MurphyThis translation of the unexpurgated edition of "MeinKampf"was first published on March 21st, 1939 by Hurst And BlackettLtd.
Cover of 1939 English translation
Dust jacket of 1926-8 German edition
NOTE:This ebook includes a Review of Mein Kampfwritten by George Orwell in 1940. See AppendixCONTENTSDedicationAuthor's PrefaceTranslator's IntroductionVOLUME I. A RETROSPECTChapter I. IN THE HOME OF MY PARENTSChapter II. YEARS OF STUDY AND SUFFERING INVIENNAChapter III. POLITICAL REFLECTIONS ARISINGOUT OF MY SOJOURN IN VIENNAChapter IV. MUNICHChapter V. THE WORLD WARChapter VI. WAR PROPAGANDAChapter VII. THE REVOLUTIONChapter VIII. THE BEGINNING OF MY POLITICALACTIVITIESChapter IX. THE GERMAN LABOUR PARTYChapter X. WHY THE SECOND REICH COLLAPSEDChapter XI. RACE AND PEOPLEChapter XII. THE FIRST STAGE IN THEDEVELOPMENT OF THE GERMAN NATIONAL SOCIALIST LABOUR PARTYVOLUME II. THE NATIONAL SOCIALISTMOVEMENTChapter I. WELTANSCHAUUNG AND PARTYChapter II. THE STATEChapter III. CITIZENS AND SUBJECTS OF THESTATEChapter IV. PERSONALITY AND THE IDEAL OF THEPEOPLE'S STATEChapter V. WELTANSCHAUUNG ANDORGANIZATIONChapter VI. THE FIRST PERIOD OF OURSTRUGGLEChapter VII. THE CONFLICT WITH THE REDFORCESChapter VIII. THE STRONG IS STRONGEST WHENALONEChapter IX. FUNDAMENTAL IDEAS REGARDING THENATURE AND ORGANIZATION OF THE STORM TROOPSChapter X. THE MASK OF FEDERALISMChapter XI. PROPAGANDA AND ORGANIZATIONChapter XII. THE PROBLEM OF THE TRADEUNIONSChapter XIII. THE GERMAN POST-WAR POLICY OFALLIANCESChapter XIV. GERMANY'S POLICY IN EASTERNEUROPEChapter XV. THE RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENCEEpilogueA Review of Mein Kampf by GeorgeOrwell
DEDICATIONAt half-past twelve in the afternoon of November 9th, 1923,those whose names are given below fell in front of theFeldherrnhalle and in the forecourt of the former WarMinistry in Munich for their loyal faith in the resurrection oftheir people:
Alfarth, Felix, Merchant, born July 5th, 1901 Bauriedl, Andreas,Hatmaker, born May 4th, 1879 Casella, Theodor, Bank Official, bornAugust 8th, 1900 Ehrlich, Wilhelm, Bank Official, born August 19th,1894 Faust, Martin, Bank Official, born January 27th, 1901Hechenberger, Anton, Locksmith, born September 28th, 1902 Koerner,Oskar, Merchant, born January 4th, 1875 Kuhn, Karl, Head Waiter,born July 25th, 1897 Laforce, Karl, Student of Engineering, bornOctober 28th, 1904 Neubauer, Kurt, Waiter, born March 27th, 1899Pape, Claus von, Merchant, born August 16th, 1904 Pfordten, Theodorvon der, Councillor to the Superior Provincial Court, born May14th, 1873 Rickmers, Johann, retired Cavalry Captain, born May 7th,1881 Scheubner-Richter, Max Erwin von, Dr. of Engineering, bornJanuary 9th, 1884 Stransky, Lorenz Ritter von, Engineer, born March14th, 1899 Wolf, Wilhelm, Merchant, born October 19th, 1898
So-called national officials refused to allow the dead heroes acommon burial. So I dedicate the first volume of this work to themas a common memorial, that the memory of those martyrs may be apermanent source of light for the followers of our Movement.
The Fortress, Landsberg a/L.,
October 16th, 1924
Adolf Hitler.
AUTHOR'S PREFACEOn April 1st, 1924, I began to serve my sentence of detention inthe Fortress of Landsberg am Lech, following the verdict of theMunich People's Court of that time.
After years of uninterrupted labour it was now possible for thefirst time to begin a work which many had asked for and which Imyself felt would be profitable for the Movement. So I decided todevote two volumes to a description not only of the aims of ourMovement but also of its development. There is more to be learnedfrom this than from any purely doctrinaire treatise.
This has also given me the opportunity of describing my owndevelopment in so far as such a description is necessary to theunderstanding of the first as well as the second volume and todestroy the legendary fabrications which the Jewish Press havecirculated about me.
In this work I turn not to strangers but to those followers ofthe Movement whose hearts belong to it and who wish to study itmore profoundly. I know that fewer people are won over by thewritten word than by the spoken word and that every great movementon this earth owes its growth to great speakers and not to greatwriters.
Nevertheless, in order to produce more equality and uniformityin the defence of any doctrine, its fundamental principles must becommitted to writing. May these two volumes therefore serve as thebuilding stones which I contribute to the joint work.
The Fortress, Landsberg am Lech.
Adolf Hitler.
TRANSLATOR'S INTRODUCTIONIn placing before the reader this unabridged translation ofAdolf Hitler's book, Mein Kampf, I feel it my duty to callattention to certain historical facts which must be borne in mindif the reader would form a fair judgment of what is written in thisextraordinary work.
The first volume of Mein Kampf was written while theauthor was imprisoned in a Bavarian fortress. How did he get thereand why? The answer to that question is important, because the bookdeals with the events which brought the author into this plight andbecause he wrote under the emotional stress caused by thehistorical happenings of the time. It was the hour of Germany'sdeepest humiliation, somewhat parallel to that of a little over acentury before, when Napoleon had dismembered the old German Empireand French soldiers occupied almost the whole of Germany.
In the beginning of 1923 the French invaded Germany, occupiedthe Ruhr district and seized several German towns in the Rhineland.This was a flagrant breach of international law and was protestedagainst by every section of British political opinion at that time.The Germans could not effectively defend themselves, as they hadbeen already disarmed under the provisions of the VersaillesTreaty. To make the situation more fraught with disaster forGermany, and therefore more appalling in its prospect, the Frenchcarried on an intensive propaganda for the separation of theRhineland from the German Republic and the establishment of anindependent Rhenania. Money was poured out lavishly to bribeagitators to carry on this work, and some of the most insidiouselements of the German population became active in the pay of theinvader. At the same time a vigorous movement was being carried onin Bavaria for the secession of that country and the establishmentof an independent Catholic monarchy there, under vassalage toFrance, as Napoleon had done when he made Maximilian the first Kingof Bavaria in 1805.
The separatist movement in the Rhineland went so far that someleading German politicians came out in favour of it, suggestingthat if the Rhineland were thus ceded it might be possible for theGerman Republic to strike a bargain with the French in regard toReparations. But in Bavaria the movement went even farther. And itwas more far-reaching in its implications; for, if an independentCatholic monarchy could be set up in Bavaria, the next move wouldhave been a union with Catholic German-Austria. possibly under aHabsburg King. Thus a Catholic bloc would have been createdwhich would extend from the Rhineland through Bavaria and Austriainto the Danube Valley and would have been at least under the moraland military, if not the full political, hegemony of France. Thedream seems fantastic now, but it was considered quite a practicalthing in those fantastic times. The effect of putting such a planinto action would have meant the complete dismemberment of Germany;and that is what French diplomacy aimed at. Of course such an aimno longer exists. And I should not recall what must now seem "old,unhappy, far-off things" to the modern generation, were it not thatthey were very near and actual at the time Mein Kampf waswritten and were more unhappy then than we can even imaginenow.
By the autumn of 1923 the separatist movement in Bavaria was onthe point of becoming an accomplished fact. General von Lossow, theBavarian chief of the Reichswehr no longer took orders fromBerlin. The flag of the German Republic was rarely to be seen,Finally, the Bavarian Prime Minister decided to proclaim anindependent Bavaria and its secession from the German Republic.This was to have taken place on the eve of the Fifth Anniversary ofthe establishment of the German Republic (November 9th, 1918.)
Hitler staged a counter-stroke. For several days he had beenmobilizing his storm battalions in the neighbourhood of Munich,intending to make a national demonstration and hoping that theReichswehr would stand by him to prevent secession.Ludendorff was with him. And he thought that the prestige of thegreat German Commander in the World War would be sufficient to winthe allegiance of the professional army.
A meeting had been announced to take place in the B¼rgerbr¤uKeller on the night of November 8th. The Bavarian patrioticsocieties were gathered there, and the Prime Minister, Dr. vonKahr, started to read his official pronunciamento, whichpractically amounted to a proclamation of Bavarian independence andsecession from the Republic. While von Kahr was speaking Hitlerentered the hall, followed by Ludendorff. And the meeting wasbroken up.
Next day the Nazi battalions took the street for the purpose ofmaking a mass demonstration in favour of national union. Theymarched in massed formation, led by Hitler and Ludendorff. As theyreached one of the central squares of the city the army opened fireon them. Sixteen of the marchers were instantly killed, and twodied of their wounds in the local barracks of theReichswehr. Several others were wounded also. Hitler fell onthe pavement and broke a collar-bone. Ludendorff marched straightup to the soldiers who were firing from the barricade, but not aman dared draw a trigger on his old Commander.
Hitler was arrested with several of his comrades and imprisonedin the fortress of Landsberg on the River Lech. On February 26th,1924, he was brought to trial before the Volksgericht, orPeople's Court in Munich. He was sentenced to detention in afortress for five years. With several companions, who had been alsosentenced to various periods of imprisonment, he returned toLandsberg am Lech and remained there until the 20th of thefollowing December, when he was released. In all he spent aboutthirteen months in prison. It was during this period that he wrotethe first volume of Mein Kampf.
If we bear all this in mind we can account for the emotionalstress under which Mein Kampf was written. Hitler wasnaturally incensed against the Bavarian government authorities,against the footling patriotic societies who were pawns in theFrench game, though often unconsciously so, and of course againstthe French. That he should write harshly of the French was onlynatural in the circumstances. At that time there was noexaggeration whatsoever in calling France the implacable and mortalenemy of Germany. Such language was being used by even thepacifists themselves, not only in Germany but abroad. And eventhough the second volume of Mein Kampf was written afterHitler's release from prison and was published after the French hadleft the Ruhr, the tramp of the invading armies still echoed inGerman ears, and the terrible ravages that had been wrought in theindustrial and financial life of Germany, as a consequence of theFrench invasion, had plunged the country into a state of social andeconomic chaos. In France itself the franc fell to fifty per centof its previous value. Indeed, the whole of Europe had been broughtto the brink of ruin, following the French invasion of the Ruhr andRhineland.
But, as those things belong to the limbo of a dead past thatnobody wishes to have remembered now, it is often asked: Whydoesn't Hitler revise Mein Kampf? The answer, as I think,which would immediately come into the mind of an impartial criticis that Mein Kampf is an historical document which bears theimprint of its own time. To revise it would involve taking it outof its historical context. Moreover Hitler has declared that hisacts and public statements constitute a partial revision of hisbook and are to be taken as such. This refers especially to thestatements in Mein Kampf regarding France and those Germankinsfolk that have not yet been incorporated in the Reich On behalfof Germany he has definitely acknowledged the German portion ofSouth Tyrol as permanently belonging to Italy and, in regard toFrance, he has again and again declared that no grounds now existfor a conflict of political interests between Germany and Franceand that Germany has no territorial claims against France. Finally,I may note here that Hitler has also declared that, as he was onlya political leader and not yet a statesman in a position ofofficial responsibility, when he wrote this book, what he stated inMein Kampf does not implicate him as Chancellor of theReich.
I now come to some references in the text which are frequentlyrecurring and which may not always be clear to every reader. Forinstance, Hitler speaks indiscriminately of the GermanReich. Sometimes he means to refer to the firstReich, or Empire, and sometimes to the German Empire asfounded under William I in 1871. Incidentally the regime which heinaugurated in 1933 is generally known as the third Reich,though this expression is not used in Mein Kampf. Hitleralso speaks of the Austrian Reich and the East Mark, withoutalways explicitly distinguishing between the Habsburg Empire andAustria proper. If the reader will bear the following historicaloutline in mind, he will understand the references as theyoccur.
The word Reich, which is a German form of the Latin wordRegnum, does not mean Kingdom or Empire or Republic. It is asort of basic word that may apply to any form of Constitution.Perhaps our word, Realm, would be the best translation, though theword Empire can be used when the Reich was actually an Empire. Theforerunner of the first German Empire was the Holy Roman Empirewhich Charlemagne founded in A.D. 800. Charlemagne was King of theFranks, a group of Germanic tribes that subsequently becameRomanized. In the tenth century Charlemagne's Empire passed intoGerman hands when Otto I (936-973) became Emperor. As the HolyRoman Empire of the German Nation, its formal appellation, itcontinued to exist under German Emperors until Napoleon overran anddismembered Germany during the first decade of the last century. OnAugust 6th, 1806, the last Emperor, Francis II, formally resignedthe German crown. In the following October Napoleon entered Berlinin triumph, after the Battle of Jena.
After the fall of Napoleon a movement set in for the reunion ofthe German states in one Empire. But the first decisive steptowards that end was the foundation of the Second German Empire in1871, after the Franco-Prussian War. This Empire, however, did notinclude the German lands which remained under the Habsburg Crown.These were known as German Austria. It was Bismarck's dream tounite German Austria with the German Empire; but it remained only adream until Hitler turned it into a reality in 1938'. It is well tobear that point in mind, because this dream of reuniting all theGerman states in one Reich has been a dominant feature of Germanpatriotism and statesmanship for over a century and has been one ofHitler's ideals since his childhood.
In Mein Kampf Hitler often speaks of the East Mark. ThisEast Mark'--i.e. eastern frontier land'--was founded byCharlemagne as the eastern bulwark of the Empire. It was inhabitedprincipally by Germano-Celtic tribes called Bajuvari and stood forcenturies as the firm bulwark of Western Christendom againstinvasion from the East, especially against the Turks.Geographically it was almost identical with German Austria.
There are a few points more that I wish to mention in thisintroductory note. For instance, I have let the wordWeltanschauung stand in its original form very often. Wehave no one English word to convey the same meaning as the Germanword, and it would have burdened the text too much if I were to usea circumlocution each time the word occurs. Weltanschauungliterally means "Outlook-on-the World". But as generally used inGerman this outlook on the world means a whole system of ideasassociated together in an organic unity'--ideas of human life,human values, cultural and religious ideas, politics, economics,etc., in fact a totalitarian view of human existence. ThusChristianity could be called a Weltanschauung, andMohammedanism could be called a Weltanschauung, andSocialism could be called a Weltanschauung, especially aspreached in Russia. National Socialism claims definitely to be aWeltanschauung.
Another word I have often left standing in the original isv¶lkisch. The basic word here is Volk, which issometimes translated as People; but the German word,Volk, means the whole body of the people without anydistinction of class or caste. It is a primary word also thatsuggests what might be called the basic national stock. Now, afterthe defeat in 1918, the downfall of the Monarchy and thedestruction of the aristocracy and the upper classes, the conceptof Das Volk came into prominence as the unifyingco-efficient which would embrace the whole German people. Hence thelarge number of v¶lkisch societies that arose after the warand hence also the National Socialist concept of unification whichis expressed by the word Volksgemeinschaft, or folkcommunity. This is used in contradistinction to the Socialistconcept of the nation as being divided into classes. Hitler's idealis the V¶lkischer Staat, which I have translated as thePeople's State.
Finally, I would point out that the term Social Democracy may bemisleading in English, as it has not a democratic connotation inour sense. It was the name given to the Socialist Party in Germany.And that Party was purely Marxist; but it adopted the name SocialDemocrat in order to appeal to the democratic sections of theGerman people.
JAMES MURPHY.
Abbots Langley, February, 1939
VOLUME I: A RETROSPECTCHAPTER I. IN THE HOME OF MYPARENTSIt has turned out fortunate for me to-day that destiny appointedBraunau-on-the-Inn to be my birthplace. For that little town issituated just on the frontier between those two States the reunionof which seems, at least to us of the younger generation, a task towhich we should devote our lives and in the pursuit of which everypossible means should be employed.
German-Austria must be restored to the great German Motherland.And not indeed on any grounds of economic calculation whatsoever.No, no. Even if the union were a matter of economic indifference,and even if it were to be disadvantageous from the economicstandpoint, still it ought to take place. People of the same bloodshould be in the same Reich. The German people will have no rightto engage in a colonial policy until they shall have brought alltheir children together in the one State. When the territory of theReich embraces all the Germans and finds itself unable to assurethem a livelihood, only then can the moral right arise, from theneed of the people to acquire foreign territory. The plough is thenthe sword; and the tears of war will produce the daily bread forthe generations to come.
And so this little frontier town appeared to me as the symbol ofa great task. But in another regard also it points to a lesson thatis applicable to our day. Over a hundred years ago this sequesteredspot was the scene of a tragic calamity which affected the wholeGerman nation and will be remembered for ever, at least in theannals of German history. At the time of our Fatherland's deepesthumiliation a bookseller, Johannes Palm, uncompromising nationalistand enemy of the French, was put to death here because he had themisfortune to have loved Germany well. He obstinately refused todisclose the names of his associates, or rather the principals whowere chiefly responsible for the affair. Just as it happened withLeo Schlageter. The former, like the latter, was denounced to theFrench by a Government agent. It was a director of police fromAugsburg who won an ignoble renown on that occasion and set theexample which was to be copied at a later date by the neo-Germanofficials of the Reich under Herr Severing's regime (Note 1).
In this little town on the Inn, haloed by the memory of a Germanmartyr, a town that was Bavarian by blood but under the rule of theAustrian State, my parents were domiciled towards the end of thelast century. My father was a civil servant who fulfilled hisduties very conscientiously. My mother looked after the householdand lovingly devoted herself to the care of her children. From thatperiod I have not retained very much in my memory; because after afew years my father had to leave that frontier town which I hadcome to love so much and take up a new post farther down the Innvalley, at Passau, therefore actually in Germany itself.
In those days it was the usual lot of an Austrian civil servantto be transferred periodically from one post to another. Not longafter coming to Passau my father was transferred to Linz, and whilethere he retired finally to live on his pension. But this did notmean that the old gentleman would now rest from his labours.
He was the son of a poor cottager, and while still a boy he grewrestless and left home. When he was barely thirteen years old hebuckled on his satchel and set forth from his native woodlandparish. Despite the dissuasion of villagers who could speak from'experience,' he went to Vienna to learn a trade there. This was inthe fiftieth year of the last century. It was a sore trial, that ofdeciding to leave home and face the unknown, with three gulden inhis pocket. By when the boy of thirteen was a lad of seventeen andhad passed his apprenticeship examination as a craftsman he was notcontent. Quite the contrary. The persistent economic depression ofthat period and the constant want and misery strengthened hisresolution to give up working at a trade and strive for 'somethinghigher.' As a boy it had seemed to him that the position of theparish priest in his native village was the highest in the scale ofhuman attainment; but now that the big city had enlarged hisoutlook the young man looked up to the dignity of a State officialas the highest of all. With the tenacity of one whom misery andtrouble had already made old when only half-way through his youththe young man of seventeen obstinately set out on his new projectand stuck to it until he won through. He became a civil servant. Hewas about twenty-three years old, I think, when he succeeded inmaking himself what he had resolved to become. Thus he was able tofulfil the promise he had made as a poor boy not to return to hisnative village until he was 'somebody.'
He had gained his end. But in the village there was nobody whohad remembered him as a little boy, and the village itself hadbecome strange to him.
Now at last, when he was fifty-six years old, he gave up hisactive career; but he could not bear to be idle for a single day.On the outskirts of the small market town of Lambach in UpperAustria he bought a farm and tilled it himself. Thus, at the end ofa long and hard-working career, he came back to the life which hisfather had led.
It was at this period that I first began to have ideals of myown. I spent a good deal of time scampering about in the open, onthe long road from school, and mixing up with some of the roughestof the boys, which caused my mother many anxious moments. All thistended to make me something quite the reverse of a stay-at-home. Igave scarcely any serious thought to the question of choosing avocation in life; but I was certainly quite out of sympathy withthe kind of career which my father had followed. I think that aninborn talent for speaking now began to develop and take shapeduring the more or less strenuous arguments which I used to havewith my comrades. I had become a juvenile ringleader who learnedwell and easily at school but was rather difficult to manage. In myfreetime I practised singing in the choir of the monastery churchat Lambach, and thus it happened that I was placed in a veryfavourable position to be emotionally impressed again and again bythe magnificent splendour of ecclesiastical ceremonial. What couldbe more natural for me than to look upon the Abbot as representingthe highest human ideal worth striving for, just as the position ofthe humble village priest had appeared to my father in his ownboyhood days? At least, that was my idea for a while. But thejuvenile disputes I had with my father did not lead him toappreciate his son's oratorical gifts in such a way as to see inthem a favourable promise for such a career, and so he naturallycould not understand the boyish ideas I had in my head at thattime. This contradiction in my character made him feel somewhatanxious.
As a matter of fact, that transitory yearning after such avocation soon gave way to hopes that were better suited to mytemperament. Browsing through my father's books, I chanced to comeacross some publications that dealt with military subjects. One ofthese publications was a popular history of the Franco-German Warof 1870-71. It consisted of two volumes of an illustratedperiodical dating from those years. These became my favouritereading. In a little while that great and heroic conflict began totake first place in my mind. And from that time onwards I becamemore and more enthusiastic about everything that was in any wayconnected with war or military affairs.
But this story of the Franco-German War had a specialsignificance for me on other grounds also. For the first time, andas yet only in quite a vague way, the question began to presentitself: Is there a difference'--and if there be, what isit'--between the Germans who fought that war and the otherGermans? Why did not Austria also take part in it? Why did not myfather and all the others fight in that struggle? Are we not thesame as the other Germans? Do we not all belong together?
That was the first time that this problem began to agitate mysmall brain. And from the replies that were given to the questionswhich I asked very tentatively, I was forced to accept the fact,though with a secret envy, that not all Germans had the good luckto belong to Bismarck's Empire. This was something that I could notunderstand.
It was decided that I should study. Considering my character asa whole, and especially my temperament, my father decided that theclassical subjects studied at the Lyceum were not suited to mynatural talents. He thought that the Realschule (Note 2)would suit me better. My obvious talent for drawing confirmed himin that view; for in his opinion drawing was a subject too muchneglected in the Austrian Gymnasium. Probably also the memory ofthe hard road which he himself had travelled contributed to makehim look upon classical studies as unpractical and accordingly toset little value on them. At the back of his mind he had the ideathat his son also should become an official of the Government.Indeed he had decided on that career for me. The difficultiesthrough which he had to struggle in making his own career led himto overestimate what he had achieved, because this was exclusivelythe result of his own indefatigable industry and energy. Thecharacteristic pride of the self-made man urged him towards theidea that his son should follow the same calling and if possiblerise to a higher position in it. Moreover, this idea wasstrengthened by the consideration that the results of his ownlife's industry had placed him in a position to facilitate hisson's advancement in the same career.
He was simply incapable of imagining that I might reject whathad meant everything in life to him. My father's decision wassimple, definite, clear and, in his eyes, it was something to betaken for granted. A man of such a nature who had become anautocrat by reason of his own hard struggle for existence, couldnot think of allowing 'inexperienced' and irresponsible youngfellows to choose their own careers. To act in such a way, wherethe future of his own son was concerned, would have been a graveand reprehensible weakness in the exercise of parental authorityand responsibility, something utterly incompatible with hischaracteristic sense of duty.
And yet it had to be otherwise.
For the first time in my life'--I was then eleven yearsold'--I felt myself forced into open opposition. No matter howhard and determined my father might be about putting his own plansand opinions into action, his son was no less obstinate in refusingto accept ideas on which he set little or no value.
I would not become a civil servant.
No amount of persuasion and no amount of 'grave' warnings couldbreak down that opposition. I would not become a State official,not on any account. All the attempts which my father made to arousein me a love or liking for that profession, by picturing his owncareer for me, had only the opposite effect. It nauseated me tothink that one day I might be fettered to an office stool, that Icould not dispose of my own time but would be forced to spend thewhole of my life filling out forms.
One can imagine what kind of thoughts such a prospect awakenedin the mind of a young fellow who was by no means what is called a'good boy' in the current sense of that term. The ridiculously easyschool tasks which we were given made it possible for me to spendfar more time in the open air than at home. To-day, when mypolitical opponents pry into my life with diligent scrutiny, as farback as the days of my boyhood, so as finally to be able to provewhat disreputable tricks this Hitler was accustomed to in his youngdays, I thank heaven that I can look back to those happy days andfind the memory of them helpful. The fields and the woods were thenthe terrain on which all disputes were fought out.
Even attendance at the Realschule could not alter my wayof spending my time. But I had now another battle to fight.
So long as the paternal plan to make a State functionarycontradicted my own inclinations only in the abstract, the conflictwas easy to bear. I could be discreet about expressing my personalviews and thus avoid constantly recurrent disputes. My ownresolution not to become a Government official was sufficient forthe time being to put my mind completely at rest. I held on to thatresolution inexorably. But the situation became more difficult onceI had a positive plan of my own which I might present to my fatheras a counter-suggestion. This happened when I was twelve years old.How it came about I cannot exactly say now; but one day it becameclear to me that I would be a painter'--I mean an artist. ThatI had an aptitude for drawing was an admitted fact. It was even oneof the reasons why my father had sent me to the Realschule;but he had never thought of having that talent developed in such away that I could take up painting as a professional career. Quitethe contrary. When, as a result of my renewed refusal to adopt hisfavourite plan, my father asked me for the first time what I myselfreally wished to be, the resolution that I had already formedexpressed itself almost automatically. For a while my father wasspeechless. "A painter? An artist-painter?" he exclaimed.
He wondered whether I was in a sound state of mind. He thoughtthat he might not have caught my words rightly, or that he hadmisunderstood what I meant. But when I had explained my ideas tohim and he saw how seriously I took them, he opposed them with thatfull determination which was characteristic of him. His decisionwas exceedingly simple and could not be deflected from its courseby any consideration of what my own natural qualifications reallywere.
"Artist! Not as long as I live, never." As the son had inheritedsome of the father's obstinacy, besides having other qualities ofhis own, my reply was equally energetic. But it stated somethingquite the contrary.
At that our struggle became stalemate. The father would notabandon his 'Never', and I became all the more consolidated in my'Nevertheless'.
Naturally the resulting situation was not pleasant. The oldgentleman was bitterly annoyed; and indeed so was I, although Ireally loved him. My father forbade me to entertain any hopes oftaking up the art of painting as a profession. I went a stepfurther and declared that I would not study anything else. Withsuch declarations the situation became still more strained, so thatthe old gentleman irrevocably decided to assert his parentalauthority at all costs. That led me to adopt an attitude ofcircumspect silence, but I put my threat into execution. I thoughtthat, once it became clear to my father that I was making noprogress at the Realschule, for weal or for woe, he would beforced to allow me to follow the happy career I had dreamed of.
I do not know whether I calculated rightly or not. Certainly myfailure to make progress became quite visible in the school. Istudied just the subjects that appealed to me, especially thosewhich I thought might be of advantage to me later on as a painter.What did not appear to have any importance from this point of view,or what did not otherwise appeal to me favourably, I completelysabotaged. My school reports of that time were always in theextremes of good or bad, according to the subject and the interestit had for me. In one column my qualification read 'very good' or'excellent'. In another it read 'average' or even 'below average'.By far my best subjects were geography and, even more so, generalhistory. These were my two favourite subjects, and I led the classin them.
When I look back over so many years and try to judge the resultsof that experience I find two very significant facts standing outclearly before my mind.
First, I became a nationalist.
Second, I learned to understand and grasp the true meaning ofhistory.
The old Austria was a multi-national State. In those days atleast the citizens of the German Empire, taken through and through,could not understand what that fact meant in the everyday life ofthe individuals within such a State. After the magnificenttriumphant march of the victorious armies in the Franco-German Warthe Germans in the Reich became steadily more and more estrangedfrom the Germans beyond their frontiers, partly because they didnot deign to appreciate those other Germans at their true value orsimply because they were incapable of doing so.
The Germans of the Reich did not realize that if the Germans inAustria had not been of the best racial stock they could never havegiven the stamp of their own character to an Empire of 52 millions,so definitely that in Germany itself the idea arose'--thoughquite an erroneous one'--that Austria was a German State. Thatwas an error which led to dire consequences; but all the same itwas a magnificent testimony to the character of the ten millionGermans in that East Mark. (Note 3) Only very few of the Germans inthe Reich itself had an idea of the bitter struggle which thoseEastern Germans had to carry on daily for the preservation of theirGerman language, their German schools and their German character.Only to-day, when a tragic fate has torn several millions of ourkinsfolk away from the Reich and has forced them to live under therule of the stranger, dreaming of that common fatherland towardswhich all their yearnings are directed and struggling to uphold atleast the sacred right of using their mother tongue'--only nowhave the wider circles of the German population come to realizewhat it means to have to fight for the traditions of one's race.And so at last perhaps there are people here and there who canassess the greatness of that German spirit which animated the oldEast Mark and enabled those people, left entirely dependent ontheir own resources, to defend the Empire against the Orient forseveral centuries and subsequently to hold fast the frontiers ofthe German language through a guerilla warfare of attrition, at atime when the German Empire was sedulously cultivating an interestfor colonies but not for its own flesh and blood before thethreshold of its own door.
What has happened always and everywhere, in every kind ofstruggle, happened also in the language fight which was carried onin the old Austria. There were three groups'--the fighters, thehedgers and the traitors. Even in the schools this sifting alreadybegan to take place. And it is worth noting that the struggle forthe language was waged perhaps in its bitterest form around theschool; because this was the nursery where the seeds had to bewatered which were to spring up and form the future generation. Thetactical objective of the fight was the winning over of the child,and it was to the child that the first rallying cry wasaddressed:
"German youth, do not forget that you are a German," and"Remember, little girl, that one day you must be a Germanmother."
Those who know something of the juvenile spirit can understandhow youth will always lend a glad ear to such a rallying cry. Undermany forms the young people led the struggle, fighting in their ownway and with their own weapons. They refused to sing non-Germansongs. The greater the efforts made to win them away from theirGerman allegiance, the more they exalted the glory of their Germanheroes. They stinted themselves in buying things to eat, so thatthey might spare their pennies to help the war chest of theirelders. They were incredibly alert in the significance of what thenon-German teachers said and they contradicted in unison. They worethe forbidden emblems of their own kinsfolk and were happy whenpenalised for doing so, or even physically punished. In miniaturethey were mirrors of loyalty from which the older people mightlearn a lesson.
And thus it was that at a comparatively early age I took part inthe struggle which the nationalities were waging against oneanother in the old Austria. When meetings were held for the SouthMark German League and the School League we wore cornflowers andblack-red-gold colours to express our loyalty. We greeted oneanother with Heil! and instead of the Austrian anthem wesang our own Deutschland ¼ber Alles, despite warnings andpenalties. Thus the youth were educated politically at a time whenthe citizens of a so-called national State for the most part knewlittle of their own nationality except the language. Of course, Idid not belong to the hedgers. Within a little while I had becomean ardent 'German National', which has a different meaning from theparty significance attached to that phrase to-day.
I developed very rapidly in the nationalist direction, and bythe time I was 15 years old I had come to understand thedistinction between dynastic patriotism and nationalism based onthe concept of folk, or people, my inclination being entirely infavour of the latter.
Such a preference may not perhaps be clearly intelligible tothose who have never taken the trouble to study the internalconditions that prevailed under the Habsburg Monarchy.
Among historical studies universal history was the subjectalmost exclusively taught in the Austrian schools, for of specificAustrian history there was only very little. The fate of this Statewas closely bound up with the existence and development of Germanyas a whole; so a division of history into German history andAustrian history would be practically inconceivable. And indeed itwas only when the German people came to be divided between twoStates that this division of German history began to takeplace.
The insignia (Note 4) of a former imperial sovereignty whichwere still preserved in Vienna appeared to act as magical relicsrather than as the visible guarantee of an everlasting bond ofunion.
When the Habsburg State crumbled to pieces in 1918 the AustrianGermans instinctively raised an outcry for union with their Germanfatherland. That was the voice of a unanimous yearning in thehearts of the whole people for a return to the unforgotten home oftheir fathers. But such a general yearning could not be explainedexcept by attributing the cause of it to the historical trainingthrough which the individual Austrian Germans had passed. Thereinlay a spring that never dried up. Especially in times ofdistraction and forgetfulness its quiet voice was a reminder of thepast, bidding the people to look out beyond the mere welfare of themoment to a new future.
The teaching of universal history in what are called the middleschools is still very unsatisfactory. Few teachers realize that thepurpose of teaching history is not the memorizing of some dates andfacts, that the student is not interested in knowing the exact dateof a battle or the birthday of some marshal or other, and not atall'--or at least only very insignificantly'--interested inknowing when the crown of his fathers was placed on the brow ofsome monarch. These are certainly not looked upon as importantmatters.
To study history means to search for and discover the forcesthat are the causes of those results which appear before our eyesas historical events. The art of reading and studying consists inremembering the essentials and forgetting what is notessential.
Probably my whole future life was determined by the fact that Ihad a professor of history who understood, as few othersunderstand, how to make this viewpoint prevail in teaching and inexamining. This teacher was Dr. Leopold Poetsch, of theRealschule at Linz. He was the ideal personification of thequalities necessary to a teacher of history in the sense I havementioned above. An elderly gentleman with a decisive manner but akindly heart, he was a very attractive speaker and was able toinspire us with his own enthusiasm. Even to-day I cannot recallwithout emotion that venerable personality whose enthusiasticexposition of history so often made us entirely forget the presentand allow ourselves to be transported as if by magic into the past.He penetrated through the dim mist of thousands of years andtransformed the historical memory of the dead past into a livingreality. When we listened to him we became afire with enthusiasmand we were sometimes moved even to tears.
It was still more fortunate that this professor was able notonly to illustrate the past by examples from the present but fromthe past he was also able to draw a lesson for the present. Heunderstood better than any other the everyday problems that werethen agitating our minds. The national fervour which we felt in ourown small way was utilized by him as an instrument of oureducation, inasmuch as he often appealed to our national sense ofhonour; for in that way he maintained order and held our attentionmuch more easily than he could have done by any other means. It wasbecause I had such a professor that history became my favouritesubject. As a natural consequence, but without the consciousconnivance of my professor, I then and there became a young rebel.But who could have studied German history under such a teacher andnot become an enemy of that State whose rulers exercised such adisastrous influence on the destinies of the German nation?Finally, how could one remain the faithful subject of the House ofHabsburg, whose past history and present conduct proved it to beready ever and always to betray the interests of the German peoplefor the sake of paltry personal interests? Did not we as youngstersfully realize that the House of Habsburg did not, and could not,have any love for us Germans?
What history taught us about the policy followed by the House ofHabsburg was corroborated by our own everyday experiences. In thenorth and in the south the poison of foreign races was eating intothe body of our people, and even Vienna was steadily becoming moreand more a non-German city. The 'Imperial House' favoured theCzechs on every possible occasion. Indeed it was the hand of thegoddess of eternal justice and inexorable retribution that causedthe most deadly enemy of Germanism in Austria, the Archduke FranzFerdinand, to fall by the very bullets which he himself had helpedto cast. Working from above downwards, he was the chief patron ofthe movement to make Austria a Slav State.
The burdens laid on the shoulders of the German people wereenormous and the sacrifices of money and blood which they had tomake were incredibly heavy.
Yet anybody who was not quite blind must have seen that it wasall in vain. What affected us most bitterly was the consciousnessof the fact that this whole system was morally shielded by thealliance with Germany, whereby the slow extirpation of Germanism inthe old Austrian Monarchy seemed in some way to be more or lesssanctioned by Germany herself. Habsburg hypocrisy, whichendeavoured outwardly to make the people believe that Austria stillremained a German State, increased the feeling of hatred againstthe Imperial House and at the same time aroused a spirit ofrebellion and contempt.
But in the German Empire itself those who were then its rulerssaw nothing of what all this meant. As if struck blind, they stoodbeside a corpse and in the very symptoms of decomposition theybelieved that they recognized the signs of a renewed vitality. Inthat unhappy alliance between the young German Empire and theillusory Austrian State lay the germ of the World War and also ofthe final collapse.
In the subsequent pages of this book I shall go to the root ofthe problem. Suffice it to say here that in the very early years ofmy youth I came to certain conclusions which I have neverabandoned. Indeed I became more profoundly convinced of them as theyears passed. They were: That the dissolution of the AustrianEmpire is a preliminary condition for the defence of Germany;further, that national feeling is by no means identical withdynastic patriotism; finally, and above all, that the House ofHabsburg was destined to bring misfortune to the German nation.
As a logical consequence of these convictions, there arose in mea feeling of intense love for my German-Austrian home and aprofound hatred for the Austrian State.
That kind of historical thinking which was developed in methrough my study of history at school never left me afterwards.World history became more and more an inexhaustible source for theunderstanding of contemporary historical events, which meanspolitics. Therefore I will not "learn" politics but let politicsteach me.
A precocious revolutionary in politics I was no less aprecocious revolutionary in art. At that time the provincialcapital of Upper Austria had a theatre which, relatively speaking,was not bad. Almost everything was played there. When I was twelveyears old I saw William Tell performed. That was my firstexperience of the theatre. Some months later I attended aperformance of Lohengrin, the first opera I had ever heard.I was fascinated at once. My youthful enthusiasm for the BayreuthMaster knew no limits. Again and again I was drawn to hear hisoperas; and to-day I consider it a great piece of luck that thesemodest productions in the little provincial city prepared the wayand made it possible for me to appreciate the better productionslater on.
But all this helped to intensify my profound aversion for thecareer that my father had chosen for me; and this dislike becameespecially strong as the rough corners of youthful boorishnessbecame worn off, a process which in my case caused a good deal ofpain. I became more and more convinced that I should never be happyas a State official. And now that the Realschule hadrecognized and acknowledged my aptitude for drawing, my ownresolution became all the stronger. Imprecations and threats had nolonger any chance of changing it. I wanted to become a painter andno power in the world could force me to become a civil servant. Theonly peculiar feature of the situation now was that as I grewbigger I became more and more interested in architecture. Iconsidered this fact as a natural development of my flair forpainting and I rejoiced inwardly that the sphere of my artisticinterests was thus enlarged. I had no notion that one day it wouldhave to be otherwise.
The question of my career was decided much sooner than I couldhave expected.
When I was in my thirteenth year my father was suddenly takenfrom us. He was still in robust health when a stroke of apoplexypainlessly ended his earthly wanderings and left us all deeplybereaved. His most ardent longing was to be able to help his son toadvance in a career and thus save me from the harsh ordeal that hehimself had to go through. But it appeared to him then as if thatlonging were all in vain. And yet, though he himself was notconscious of it, he had sown the seeds of a future which neither ofus foresaw at that time.
At first nothing changed outwardly.
My mother felt it her duty to continue my education inaccordance with my father's wishes, which meant that she would haveme study for the civil service. For my own part I was even morefirmly determined than ever before that under no circumstanceswould I become an official of the State. The curriculum andteaching methods followed in the middle school were so far removedfrom my ideals that I became profoundly indifferent. Illnesssuddenly came to my assistance. Within a few weeks it decided myfuture and put an end to the long-standing family conflict. Mylungs became so seriously affected that the doctor advised mymother very strongly not under any circumstances to allow me totake up a career which would necessitate working in an office. Heordered that I should give up attendance at the Realschulefor a year at least. What I had secretly desired for such a longtime, and had persistently fought for, now became a reality almostat one stroke.
Influenced by my illness, my mother agreed that I should leavethe Realschule and attend the Academy.
Those were happy days, which appeared to me almost as a dream;but they were bound to remain only a dream. Two years later mymother's death put a brutal end to all my fine projects. Shesuccumbed to a long and painful illness which from the verybeginning permitted little hope of recovery. Though expected, herdeath came as a terrible blow to me. I respected my father, but Iloved my mother.
Poverty and stern reality forced me to decide promptly.
The meagre resources of the family had been almost entirely usedup through my mother's severe illness. The allowance which came tome as an orphan was not enough for the bare necessities of life.Somehow or other I would have to earn my own bread.
With my clothes and linen packed in a valise and with anindomitable resolution in my heart, I left for Vienna. I hoped toforestall fate, as my father had done fifty years before. I wasdetermined to become 'something''--but certainly not a civilservant.
CHAPTER II. YEARS OF STUDY ANDSUFFERING IN VIENNAWhen my mother died my fate had already been decided in onerespect. During the last months of her illness I went to Vienna totake the entrance examination for the Academy of Fine Arts. Armedwith a bulky packet of sketches, I felt convinced that I shouldpass the examination quite easily. At the Realschule I wasby far the best student in the drawing class, and since that time Ihad made more than ordinary progress in the practice of drawing.Therefore I was pleased with myself and was proud and happy at theprospect of what I considered an assured success.
But there was one misgiving: It seemed to me that I was betterqualified for drawing than for painting, especially in the variousbranches of architectural drawing. At the same time my interest inarchitecture was constantly increasing. And I advanced in thisdirection at a still more rapid pace after my first visit toVienna, which lasted two weeks. I was not yet sixteen years old. Iwent to the Hof Museum to study the paintings in the art gallerythere; but the building itself captured almost all my interest,from early morning until late at night I spent all my time visitingthe various public buildings. And it was the buildings themselvesthat were always the principal attraction for me. For hours andhours I could stand in wonderment before the Opera and theParliament. The whole Ring Strasse had a magic effect upon me, asif it were a scene from the Thousand-and-one-Nights.
And now I was here for the second time in this beautiful city,impatiently waiting to hear the result of the entrance examinationbut proudly confident that I had got through. I was so convinced ofmy success that when the news that I had failed to pass was broughtto me it struck me like a bolt from the skies. Yet the fact wasthat I had failed. I went to see the Rector and asked him toexplain the reasons why they refused to accept me as a student inthe general School of Painting, which was part of the Academy. Hesaid that the sketches which I had brought with me unquestionablyshowed that painting was not what I was suited for but that thesame sketches gave clear indications of my aptitude forarchitectural designing. Therefore the School of Painting did notcome into question for me but rather the School of Architecture,which also formed part of the Academy. At first it was impossibleto understand how this could be so, seeing that I had never been toa school for architecture and had never received any instruction inarchitectural designing.
When I left the Hansen Palace, on the Schiller Platz, I wasquite crestfallen. I felt out of sorts with myself for the firsttime in my young life. For what I had heard about my capabilitiesnow appeared to me as a lightning flash which clearly revealed adualism under which I had been suffering for a long time, buthitherto I could give no clear account whatsoever of the why andwherefore.
Within a few days I myself also knew that I ought to become anarchitect. But of course the way was very difficult. I was nowforced bitterly to rue my former conduct in neglecting anddespising certain subjects at the Realschule. Before takingup the courses at the School of Architecture in the Academy it wasnecessary to attend the Technical Building School; but a necessaryqualification for entrance into this school was a LeavingCertificate from the Middle School. And this I simply did not have.According to the human measure of things my dream of following anartistic calling seemed beyond the limits of possibility.
After the death of my mother I came to Vienna for the thirdtime. This visit was destined to last several years. Since I hadbeen there before I had recovered my old calm and resoluteness. Theformer self-assurance had come back, and I had my eyes steadilyfixed on the goal. I would be an architect. Obstacles are placedacross our path in life, not to be boggled at but to be surmounted.And I was fully determined to surmount these obstacles, having thepicture of my father constantly before my mind, who had raisedhimself by his own efforts to the position of a civil servantthough he was the poor son of a village shoemaker. I had a betterstart, and the possibilities of struggling through were better. Atthat time my lot in life seemed to me a harsh one; but to-day I seein it the wise workings of Providence. The Goddess of Fate clutchedme in her hands and often threatened to smash me; but the will grewstronger as the obstacles increased, and finally the willtriumphed.
I am thankful for that period of my life, because it hardened meand enabled me to be as tough as I now am. And I am even morethankful because I appreciate the fact that I was thus saved fromthe emptiness of a life of ease and that a mother's darling wastaken from tender arms and handed over to Adversity as to a newmother. Though I then rebelled against it as too hard a fate, I amgrateful that I was thrown into a world of misery and poverty andthus came to know the people for whom I was afterwards tofight.
It was during this period that my eyes were opened to twoperils, the names of which I scarcely knew hitherto and had nonotion whatsoever of their terrible significance for the existenceof the German people. These two perils were Marxism andJudaism.
For many people the name of Vienna signifies innocent jollity, afestive place for happy mortals. For me, alas, it is a livingmemory of the saddest period in my life. Even to-day the mention ofthat city arouses only gloomy thoughts in my mind. Five years ofpoverty in that Phaecian (Note 5) town. Five years in which, firstas a casual labourer and then as a painter of little trifles, I hadto earn my daily bread. And a meagre morsel indeed it was, not evensufficient to still the hunger which I constantly felt. That hungerwas the faithful guardian which never left me but took part ineverything I did. Every book that I bought meant renewed hunger,and every visit I paid to the opera meant the intrusion of thatinalienabl companion during the following days. I was alwaysstruggling with my unsympathic friend. And yet during that time Ilearned more than I had ever learned before. Outside myarchitectural studies and rare visits to the opera, for which I hadto deny myself food, I had no other pleasure in life except mybooks.
I read a great deal then, and I pondered deeply over what Iread. All the free time after work was devoted exclusively tostudy. Thus within a few years I was able to acquire a stock ofknowledge which I find useful even to-day.
But more than that. During those years a view of life and adefinite outlook on the world took shape in my mind. These becamethe granite basis of my conduct at that time. Since then I haveextended that foundation only very little, and I have changednothing in it.
On the contrary: I am firmly convinced to-day that, generallyspeaking, it is in youth that men lay the essential groundwork oftheir creative thought, wherever that creative thought exists. Imake a distinction between the wisdom of age'--which can onlyarise from the greater profundity and foresight that are based onthe experiences of a long life'--and the creative genius ofyouth, which blossoms out in thought and ideas with inexhaustiblefertility, without being able to put these into practiceimmediately, because of their very superabundance. These furnishthe building materials and plans for the future; and it is fromthem that age takes the stones and builds the edifice, unless theso-called wisdom of the years may have smothered the creativegenius of youth.
The life which I had hitherto led at home with my parentsdiffered in little or nothing from that of all the others. I lookedforward without apprehension to the morrow, and there was no suchthing as a social problem to be faced. Those among whom I passed myyoung days belonged to the small bourgeois class. Therefore it wasa world that had very little contact with the world of genuinemanual labourers. For, though at first this may appear astonishing,the ditch which separates that class, which is by no meanseconomically well-off; from the manual labouring class is oftendeeper than people think. The reason for this division, which wemay almost call enmity, lies in the fear that dominates a socialgroup which has only just risen above the level of the manuallabourer'--a fear lest it may fall back into its old conditionor at least be classed with the labourers. Moreover, there issomething repulsive in remembering the cultural indigence of thatlower class and their rough manners with one another; so thatpeople who are only on the first rung of the social ladder find itunbearable to be forced to have any contact with the cultural leveland standard of living out of which they have passed.
And so it happens that very often those who belong to what canreally be called the upper classes find it much easier than do theupstarts to descend to and intermingle with their fellow beings onthe lowest social level. For by the word upstart I mean everyonewho has raised himself through his own efforts to a social levelhigher than that to which he formerly belonged. In the case of sucha person the hard struggle through which he passes often destroyshis normal human sympathy. His own fight for existence kills hissensibility for the misery of those who have been left behind.
From this point of view fate had been kind to me. Circumstancesforced me to return to that world of poverty and economicinsecurity above which my father had raised himself in his earlydays; and thus the blinkers of a narrow petit bourgeoiseducation were torn from my eyes. Now for the first time I learnedto know men and I learned to distinguish between empty appearancesor brutal manners and the real inner nature of the people whooutwardly appeared thus.
At the beginning of the century Vienna had already taken rankamong those cities where social conditions are iniquitous. Dazzlingriches and loathsome destitution were intermingled in violentcontrast. In the centre and in the Inner City one felt thepulse-beat of an Empire which had a population of fifty-twomillions, with all the perilous charm of a State made up ofmultiple nationalities. The dazzling splendour of the Court actedlike a magnet on the wealth and intelligence of the whole Empire.And this attraction was further strengthened by the dynastic policyof the Habsburg Monarchy in centralizing everything in itself andfor itself.
This centralizing policy was necessary in order to hold togetherthat hotchpotch of heterogeneous nationalities. But the result ofit was an extraordinary concentration of higher officials in thecity, which was at one and the same time the metropolis andimperial residence.
But Vienna was not merely the political and intellectual centreof the Danubian Monarchy; it was also the commercial centre.Besides the horde of military officers of high rank, Stateofficials, artists and scientists, there was the still vaster hordeof workers. Abject poverty confronted the wealth of the aristocracyand the merchant class face to face. Thousands of unemployedloitered in front of the palaces on the Ring Strasse; and belowthat Via Triumphalis of the old Austria the homeless huddledtogether in the murk and filth of the canals.
There was hardly any other German city in which the socialproblem could be studied better than in Vienna. But here I mustutter a warning against the illusion that this problem can be'studied' from above downwards. The man who has never been in theclutches of that crushing viper can never know what its poison is.An attempt to study it in any other way will result only insuperficial talk and sentimental delusions. Both are harmful. Thefirst because it can never go to the root of the question, thesecond because it evades the question entirely. I do not know whichis the more nefarious: to ignore social distress, as do themajority of those who have been favoured by fortune and those whohave risen in the social scale through their own routine labour, orthe equally supercilious and often tactless but always genteelcondescension displayed by people who make a fad of beingcharitable and who plume themselves on 'sympathising with thepeople.' Of course such persons sin more than they can imagine fromlack of instinctive understanding. And thus they are astonished tofind that the 'social conscience' on which they pride themselvesnever produces any results, but often causes their good intentionsto be resented; and then they talk of the ingratitude of thepeople.
Such persons are slow to learn that here there is no place formerely social activities and that there can be no expectation ofgratitude; for in this connection there is no question at all ofdistributing favours but essentially a matter of retributivejustice. I was protected against the temptation to study the socialquestion in the way just mentioned, for the simple reason that Iwas forced to live in the midst of poverty-stricken people.Therefore it was not a question of studying the problemobjectively, but rather one of testing its effects on myself.Though the rabbit came through the ordeal of the experiment, thismust not be taken as evidence of its harmlessness.
When I try to-day to recall the succession of impressionsreceived during that time I find that I can do so only withapproximate completeness. Here I shall describe only the moreessential impressions and those which personally affected me andoften staggered me. And I shall mention the few lessons I thenlearned from this experience.
At that time it was for the most part not very difficult to findwork, because I had to seek work not as a skilled tradesman but asa so-called extra-hand ready to take any job that turned up bychance, just for the sake of earning my daily bread.
Thus I found myself in the same situation as all those emigrantswho shake the dust of Europe from their feet, with the cast-irondetermination to lay the foundations of a new existence in the NewWorld and acquire for themselves a new home. Liberated from all theparalysing prejudices of class and calling, environment andtradition, they enter any service that opens its doors to them,accepting any work that comes their way, filled more and more withthe idea that honest work never disgraced anybody, no matter whatkind it may be. And so I was resolved to set both feet in what wasfor me a new world and push forward on my own road.
I soon found out that there was some kind of work always to begot, but I also learned that it could just as quickly and easily belost. The uncertainty of being able to earn a regular dailylivelihood soon appeared to me as the gloomiest feature in this newlife that I had entered.
Although the skilled worker was not so frequently thrown idle onthe streets as the unskilled worker, yet the former was by no meansprotected against the same fate; because though he may not have toface hunger as a result of unemployment due to the lack of demandin the labour market, the lock-out and the strike deprived theskilled worker of the chance to earn his bread. Here the element ofuncertainty in steadily earning one's daily bread was the bitterestfeature of the whole social-economic system itself.
The country lad who migrates to the big city feels attracted bywhat has been described as easy work'--which it may be inreality'--and few working hours. He is especially entranced bythe magic glimmer spread over the big cities. Accustomed in thecountry to earn a steady wage, he has been taught not to quit hisformer post until a new one is at least in sight. As there is agreat scarcity of agricultural labour, the probability of longunemployment in the country has been very small. It is a mistake topresume that the lad who leaves the countryside for the town is notmade of such sound material as those who remain at home to work onthe land. On the contrary, experience shows that it is the morehealthy and more vigorous that emigrate, and not the reverse. Amongthese emigrants I include not merely those who emigrate to America,but also the servant boy in the country who decides to leave hisnative village and migrate to the big city where he will be astranger. He is ready to take the risk of an uncertain fate. Inmost cases he comes to town with a little money in his pocket andfor the first few days he is not discouraged if he should not havethe good fortune to find work. But if he finds a job and then losesit in a little while, the case is much worse. To find work anew,especially in winter, is often difficult and indeed sometimesimpossible. For the first few weeks life is still bearable Hereceives his out-of-work money from his trade union and is thusenabled to carry on. But when the last of his own money is gone andhis trade union ceases to pay out because of the prolongedunemployment, then comes the real distress. He now loiters aboutand is hungry. Often he pawns or sells the last of his belongings.His clothes begin to get shabby and with the increasing poverty ofhis outward appearance he descends to a lower social level andmixes up with a class of human beings through whom his mind is nowpoisoned, in addition to his physical misery. Then he has nowhereto sleep and if that happens in winter, which is very often thecase, he is in dire distress. Finally he gets work. But the oldstory repeats itself. A second time the same thing happens. Then athird time; and now it is probably much worse. Little by little hebecomes indifferent to this everlasting insecurity. Finally hegrows used to the repetition. Thus even a man who is normally ofindustrious habits grows careless in his whole attitude towardslife and gradually becomes an instrument in the hands ofunscrupulous people who exploit him for the sake of their ownignoble aims. He has been so often thrown out of employment throughno fault of his own that he is now more or less indifferent whetherthe strike in which he takes part be for the purpose of securinghis economic rights or be aimed at the destruction of the State,the whole social order and even civilization itself. Though theidea of going on strike may not be to his natural liking, yet hejoins in it out of sheer indifference.
I saw this process exemplified before my eyes in thousands ofcases. And the longer I observed it the greater became my dislikefor that mammoth city which greedily attracts men to its bosom, inorder to break them mercilessly in the end. When they came theystill felt themselves in communion with their own people at home;if they remained that tie was broken.
I was thrown about so much in the life of the metropolis that Iexperienced the workings of this fate in my own person and felt theeffects of it in my own soul. One thing stood out clearly before myeyes: It was the sudden changes from work to idleness and viceversa; so that the constant fluctuations thus caused by earningsand expenditure finally destroyed the 'sense of thrift for manypeople and also the habit of regulating expenditure in anintelligent way. The body appeared to grow accustomed to thevicissitudes of food and hunger, eating heartily in good times andgoing hungry in bad. Indeed hunger shatters all plans for rationingexpenditure on a regular scale in better times when employment isagain found. The reason for this is that the deprivations which theunemployed worker has to endure must be compensated forpsychologically by a persistent mental mirage in which he imagineshimself eating heartily once again. And this dream develops intosuch a longing that it turns into a morbid impulse to cast off allself-restraint when work and wages turn up again. Therefore themoment work is found anew he forgets to regulate the expenditure ofhis earnings but spends them to the full without thinking ofto-morrow. This leads to confusion in the little weeklyhousekeeping budget, because the expenditure is not rationallyplanned. When the phenomenon which I have mentioned first happens,the earnings will last perhaps for five days instead of seven; onsubsequent occasions they will last only for three days; as thehabit recurs, the earnings will last scarcely for a day; andfinally they will disappear in one night of feasting.
Often there are wife and children at home. And in many cases ithappens that these become infected by such a way of living,especially if the husband is good to them and wants to do the besthe can for them and loves them in his own way and according to hisown lights. Then the week's earnings are spent in common at homewithin two or three days. The family eat and drink together as longas the money lasts and at the end of the week they hunger together.Then the wife wanders about furtively in the neighbourhood, borrowsa little, and runs up small debts with the shopkeepers in an effortto pull through the lean days towards the end of the week. They sitdown together to the midday meal with only meagre fare on thetable, and often even nothing to eat. They wait for the comingpayday, talking of it and making plans; and while they are thushungry they dream of the plenty that is to come. And so the littlechildren become acquainted with misery in their early years.
But the evil culminates when the husband goes his own way fromthe beginning of the week and the wife protests, simply out of lovefor the children. Then there are quarrels and bad feeling and thehusband takes to drink according as he becomes estranged from hiswife. He now becomes drunk every Saturday. Fighting for her ownexistence and that of the children, the wife has to hound him alongthe road from the factory to the tavern in order to get a fewshillings from him on payday. Then when he finally comes home,maybe on the Sunday or the Monday, having parted with his lastshillings and pence, pitiable scenes follow, scenes that cry outfor God's mercy.
I have had actual experience of all this in hundreds of cases.At first I was disgusted and indignant; but later on I came torecognize the whole tragedy of their misfortune and to understandthe profound causes of it. They were the unhappy victims of evilcircumstances.
Housing conditions were very bad at that time. The Vienna manuallabourers lived in surroundings of appalling misery. I shudder evento-day when I think of the woeful dens in which people dwelt, thenight shelters and the slums, and all the tenebrous spectacles ofordure, loathsome filth and wickedness.
What will happen one day when hordes of emancipated slaves comeforth from these dens of misery to swoop down on their unsuspectingfellow men? For this other world does not think about such apossibility. They have allowed these things to go on without caringand even without suspecting'--in their total lack ofinstinctive understanding'--that sooner or later destiny willtake its vengeance unless it will have been appeased in time.
To-day I fervidly thank Providence for having sent me to such aschool. There I could not refuse to take an interest in mattersthat did not please me. This school soon taught me a profoundlesson.
In order not to despair completely of the people among whom Ithen lived I had to set on one side the outward appearances oftheir lives and on the other the reasons why they had developed inthat way. Then I could hear everything without discouragement; forthose who emerged from all this misfortune and misery, from thisfilth and outward degradation, were not human beings as such butrather lamentable results of lamentable laws. In my own lifesimilar hardships prevented me from giving way to a pityingsentimentality at the sight of these degraded products which hadfinally resulted from the pressure of circumstances. No, thesentimental attitude would be the wrong one to adopt.
Even in those days I already saw that there was a two-foldmethod by which alone it would be possible to bring about anamelioration of these conditions. This method is: first, to createbetter fundamental conditions of social development by establishinga profound feeling for social responsibilities among the public;second, to combine this feeling for social responsibilities with aruthless determination to prune away all excrescences which areincapable of being improved.
Just as Nature concentrates its greatest attention, not to themaintenance of what already exists but on the selective breeding ofoffspring in order to carry on the species, so in human life alsoit is less a matter of artificially improving the existinggeneration'--which, owing to human characteristics, isimpossible in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred'--and more amatter of securing from the very start a better road for futuredevelopment.
During my struggle for existence in Vienna I perceived veryclearly that the aim of all social activity must never be merelycharitable relief, which is ridiculous and useless, but it mustrather be a means to find a way of eliminating the fundamentaldeficiencies in our economic and cultural life'--deficiencieswhich necessarily bring about the degradation of the individual orat least lead him towards such degradation. The difficulty ofemploying every means, even the most drastic, to eradicate thehostility prevailing among the working classes towards the State islargely due to an attitude of uncertainty in deciding upon theinner motives and causes of this contemporary phenomenon. Thegrounds of this uncertainty are to be found exclusively in thesense of guilt which each individual feels for having permittedthis tragedy of degradation. For that feeling paralyses everyeffort at making a serious and firm decision to act. And thusbecause the people whom it concerns are vacillating they are timidand half-hearted in putting into effect even the measures which areindispensable for self-preservation. When the individual is nolonger burdened with his own consciousness of blame in this regard,then and only then will he have that inner tranquillity and outerforce to cut off drastically and ruthlessly all the parasite growthand root out the weeds.
But because the Austrian State had almost no sense of socialrights or social legislation its inability to abolish those evilexcrescences was manifest.
I do not know what it was that appalled me most at that time:the economic misery of those who were then my companions, theircrude customs and morals, or the low level of their intellectualculture.
How often our bourgeoisie rises up in moral indignation onhearing from the mouth of some pitiable tramp that it is all thesame to him whether he be a German or not and that he will findhimself at home wherever he can get enough to keep body and soultogether. They protest sternly against such a lack of 'nationalpride' and strongly express their horror at such sentiments.
But how many people really ask themselves why it is that theirown sentiments are better? How many of them understand that theirnatural pride in being members of so favoured a nation arises fromthe innumerable succession of instances they have encountered whichremind them of the greatness of the Fatherland and the Nation inall spheres of artistic and cultural life? How many of them realizethat pride in the Fatherland is largely dependent on knowledge ofits greatness in all those spheres? Do our bourgeois circles everthink what a ridiculously meagre share the people have in thatknowledge which is a necessary prerequisite for the feeling ofpride in one's fatherland?
It cannot be objected here that in other countries similarconditions exist and that nevertheless the working classes in thosecountries have remained patriotic. Even if that were so, it wouldbe no excuse for our negligent attitude. But it is not so. What wecall chauvinistic education'--in the case of the French people,for example'--is only the excessive exaltation of the greatnessof France in all spheres of culture or, as the French say,civilization. The French boy is not educated on purely objectiveprinciples. Wherever the importance of the political and culturalgreatness of his country is concerned he is taught in the mostsubjective way that one can imagine.
This education will always have to be confined to general ideasin a large perspective and these ought to be deeply engraven, byconstant repetition if necessary, on the memories and feelings ofthe people.
In our case, however, we are not merely guilty of negative sinsof omission but also of positively perverting the little which someindividuals had the luck to learn at school. The rats that poisonour body-politic gnaw from the hearts and memories of the broadmasses even that little which distress and misery have left.
Let the reader try to picture the following:
There is a lodging in a cellar and this lodging consists of twodamp rooms. In these rooms a workman and his familylive'--seven people in all. Let us assume that one of thechildren is a boy of three years. That is the age at which childrenfirst become conscious of the impressions which they receive. Inthe case of highly gifted people traces of the impressions receivedin those early years last in the memory up to an advanced age. Nowthe narrowness and congestion of those living quarters do notconduce to pleasant inter-relations. Thus quarrels and fits ofmutual anger arise. These people can hardly be said to live withone another, but rather down on top of one another. The smallmisunderstandings which disappear of themselves in a home wherethere is enough space for people to go apart from one another for awhile, here become the source of chronic disputes. As far as thechildren are concerned the situation is tolerable from this pointof view. In such conditions they are constantly quarrelling withone another, but the quarrels are quickly and entirely forgotten.But when the parents fall out with one another these dailybickerings often descend to rudeness such as cannot be adequatelyimagined. The results of such experiences must become apparentlater on in the children. One must have practical experience ofsuch a milieu so as to be able to picture the state ofaffairs that arises from these mutual recriminations when thefather physically assaults the mother and maltreats her in a fit ofdrunken rage. At the age of six the child can no longer ignorethose sordid details which even an adult would find revolting.Infected with moral poison, bodily undernourished, and the poorlittle head filled with vermin, the young 'citizen' goes to theprimary school. With difficulty he barely learns to read and write.There is no possibility of learning any lessons at home. Quite thecontrary. The father and mother themselves talk before the childrenin the most disparaging way about the teacher and the school andthey are much more inclined to insult the teachers than to puttheir offspring across the knee and knock sound reason into him.What the little fellow hears at home does not tend to increaserespect for his human surroundings. Here nothing good is said ofhuman nature as a whole and every institution, from the school tothe government, is reviled. Whether religion and morals areconcerned or the State and the social order, it is all the same;they are all scoffed at. When the young lad leaves school, at theage of fourteen, it would be difficult to say what are the moststriking features of his character, incredible ignorance in so faras real knowledge is concerned or cynical impudence combined withan attitude towards morality which is really startling at so youngan age.
What station in life can such a person fill, to whom nothing issacred, who has never experienced anything noble but, on thecontrary, has been intimately acquainted with the lowest kind ofhuman existence? This child of three has got into the habit ofreviling all authority by the time he is fifteen. He has beenacquainted only with moral filth and vileness, everything beingexcluded that might stimulate his thought towards higher things.And now this young specimen of humanity enters the school oflife.
He leads the same kind of life which was exemplified for him byhis father during his childhood. He loiters about and comes home atall hours. He now even black-guards that broken-hearted being whogave him birth. He curses God and the world and finally ends up ina House of Correction for young people. There he gets the finalpolish.
And his bourgeois contemporaries are astonished at the lack of'patriotic enthusiasm' which this young 'citizen' manifests.
Day after day the bourgeois world are witnesses to thephenomenon of spreading poison among the people through theinstrumentality of the theatre and the cinema, gutter journalismand obscene books; and yet they are astonished at the deplorable'moral standards' and 'national indifference' of the masses. As ifthe cinema bilge and the gutter press and suchlike could inculcateknowledge of the greatness of one's country, apart entirely fromthe earlier education of the individual.
I then came to understand, quickly and thoroughly, what I hadnever been aware of before. It was the following:
The question of 'nationalizing' a people is first and foremostone of establishing healthy social conditions which will furnishthe grounds that are necessary for the education of the individual.For only when family upbringing and school education haveinculcated in the individual a knowledge of the cultural andeconomic and, above all, the political greatness of his owncountry'--then, and then only, will it be possible for him tofeel proud of being a citizen of such a country. I can fight onlyfor something that I love. I can love only what I respect. And inorder to respect a thing I must at least have some knowledge ofit.
As soon as my interest in social questions was once awakened Ibegan to study them in a fundamental way. A new and hithertounknown world was thus revealed to me.
In the years 1909-10 I had so far improved my, position that Ino longer had to earn my daily bread as a manual labourer. I wasnow working independently as draughtsman, and painter in watercolours. This m(C)tier was a poor one indeed as far asearnings were concerned; for these were only sufficient to meet thebare exigencies of life. Yet it had an interest for me in view ofthe profession to which I aspired. Moreover, when I came home inthe evenings I was now no longer dead-tired as formerly, when Iused to be unable to look into a book without falling asleep almostimmediately. My present occupation therefore was in line with theprofession I aimed at for the future. Moreover, I was master of myown time and could distribute my working-hours now better thanformerly. I painted in order to earn my bread, and I studiedbecause I liked it.
Thus I was able to acquire that theoretical knowledge of thesocial problem which was a necessary complement to what I waslearning through actual experience. I studied all the books which Icould find that dealt with this question and I thought deeply onwhat I read. I think that the milieu in which I then livedconsidered me an eccentric person.
Besides my interest in the social question I naturally devotedmyself with enthusiasm to the study of architecture. Side by sidewith music, I considered it queen of the arts. To study it was forme not work but pleasure. I could read or draw until the smallhours of the morning without ever getting tired. And I became moreand more confident that my dream of a brilliant future would becometrue, even though I should have to wait long years for itsfulfilment. I was firmly convinced that one day I should make aname for myself as an architect.
The fact that, side by side with my professional studies, I tookthe greatest interest in everything that had to do with politicsdid not seem to me to signify anything of great importance. On thecontrary: I looked upon this practical interest in politics merelyas part of an elementary obligation that devolves on every thinkingman. Those who have no understanding of the political world aroundthem have no right to criticize or complain. On political questionstherefore I still continued to read and study a great deal. Butreading had probably a different significance for me from thatwhich it has for the average run of our so-called'intellectuals'.
I know people who read interminably, book after book, from pageto page, and yet I should not call them 'well-read people'. Ofcourse they 'know' an immense amount; but their brain seemsincapable of assorting and classifying the material which they havegathered from books. They have not the faculty of distinguishingbetween what is useful and useless in a book; so that they mayretain the former in their minds and if possible skip over thelatter while reading it, if that be not possible, then'--whenonce read'--throw it overboard as useless ballast. Reading isnot an end in itself, but a means to an end. Its chief purpose isto help towards filling in the framework which is made up of thetalents and capabilities that each individual possesses. Thus eachone procures for himself the implements and materials necessary forthe fulfilment of his calling in life, no matter whether this bethe elementary task of earning one's daily bread or a calling thatresponds to higher human aspirations. Such is the first purpose ofreading. And the second purpose is to give a general knowledge ofthe world in which we live. In both cases, however, the materialwhich one has acquired through reading must not be stored up in thememory on a plan that corresponds to the successive chapters of thebook; but each little piece of knowledge thus gained must betreated as if it were a little stone to be inserted into a mosaic,so that it finds its proper place among all the other pieces andparticles that help to form a general world-picture in the brain ofthe reader. Otherwise only a confused jumble of chaotic notionswill result from all this reading. That jumble is not merelyuseless, but it also tends to make the unfortunate possessor of itconceited. For he seriously considers himself a well-educatedperson and thinks that he understands something of life. Hebelieves that he has acquired knowledge, whereas the truth is thatevery increase in such 'knowledge' draws him more and more awayfrom real life, until he finally ends up in some sanatorium ortakes to politics and becomes a parliamentary deputy.
Such a person never succeeds in turning his knowledge topractical account when the opportune moment arrives; for his mentalequipment is not ordered with a view to meeting the demands ofeveryday life. His knowledge is stored in his brain as a literaltranscript of the books he has read and the order of succession inwhich he has read them. And if Fate should one day call upon him touse some of his book-knowledge for certain practical ends in lifethat very call will have to name the book and give the number ofthe page; for the poor noodle himself would never be able to findthe spot where he gathered the information now called for. But ifthe page is not mentioned at the critical moment the widely-readintellectual will find himself in a state of hopelessembarrassment. In a high state of agitation he searches foranalogous cases and it is almost a dead certainty that he willfinally deliver the wrong prescription.
If that is not a correct description, then how can we explainthe political achievements of our Parliamentary heroes who hold thehighest positions in the government of the country? Otherwise weshould have to attribute the doings of such political leaders, notto pathological conditions but simply to malice and chicanery.
On the other hand, one who has cultivated the art of readingwill instantly discern, in a book or journal or pamphlet, whatought to be remembered because it meets one's personal needs or isof value as general knowledge. What he thus learns is incorporatedin his mental analogue of this or that problem or thing, furthercorrecting the mental picture or enlarging it so that it becomesmore exact and precise. Should some practical problem suddenlydemand examination or solution, memory will immediately select theopportune information from the mass that has been acquired throughyears of reading and will place this information at the service ofone's powers of judgment so as to get a new and clearer view of theproblem in question or produce a definitive solution.
Only thus can reading have any meaning or be worth while.
The speaker, for example, who has not the sources of informationready to hand which are necessary to a proper treatment of hissubject is unable to defend his opinions against an opponent, eventhough those opinions be perfectly sound and true. In everydiscussion his memory will leave him shamefully in the lurch. Hecannot summon up arguments to support his statements or to refutehis opponent. So long as the speaker has only to defend himself onhis own personal account, the situation is not serious; but theevil comes when Chance places at the head of public affairs such asoi-disant know-it-all, who in reality knows nothing.
From early youth I endeavoured to read books in the right wayand I was fortunate in having a good memory and intelligence toassist me. From that point of view my sojourn in Vienna wasparticularly useful and profitable. My experiences of everyday lifethere were a constant stimulus to study the most diverse problemsfrom new angles. Inasmuch as I was in a position to put theory tothe test of reality and reality to the test of theory, I was safefrom the danger of pedantic theorizing on the one hand and, on theother, from being too impressed by the superficial aspects ofreality.
The experience of everyday life at that time determined me tomake a fundamental theoretical study of two most importantquestions outside of the social question.
It is impossible to say when I might have started to make athorough study of the doctrine and characteristics of Marxism wereit not for the fact that I then literally ran head foremost intothe problem.
What I knew of Social Democracy in my youth was precious littleand that little was for the most part wrong. The fact that it ledthe struggle for universal suffrage and the secret ballot gave mean inner satisfaction; for my reason then told me that this wouldweaken the Habsburg regime, which I so thoroughly detested. I wasconvinced that even if it should sacrifice the German element theDanubian State could not continue to exist. Even at the price of along and slow Slaviz-ation of the Austrian Germans the State wouldsecure no guarantee of a really durable Empire; because it was veryquestionable if and how far the Slavs possessed the necessarycapacity for constructive politics. Therefore I welcomed everymovement that might lead towards the final disruption of thatimpossible State which had decreed that it would stamp out theGerman character in ten millions of people. The more this babel oftongues wrought discord and disruption, even in the Parliament, thenearer the hour approached for the dissolution of this BabylonianEmpire. That would mean the liberation of my German Austrianpeople, and only then would it become possible for them to bere-united to the Motherland.
Accordingly I had no feelings of antipathy towards the actualpolicy of the Social Democrats. That its avowed purpose was toraise the level of the working classes'--which in my ignoranceI then foolishly believed'--was a further reason why I shouldspeak in favour of Social Democracy rather than against it. But thefeatures that contributed most to estrange me from the SocialDemocratic movement was its hostile attitude towards the strugglefor the conservation of Germanism in Austria, its lamentablecocotting with the Slav 'comrades', who received these approachesfavourably as long as any practical advantages were forthcoming butotherwise maintained a haughty reserve, thus giving the importunatemendicants the sort of answer their behaviour deserved.
And so at the age of seventeen the word 'Marxism' was verylittle known to me, while I looked on 'Social Democracy' and'Socialism' as synonymous expressions. It was only as the result ofa sudden blow from the rough hand of Fate that my eyes were openedto the nature of this unparalleled system for duping thepublic.
Hitherto my acquaintance with the Social Democratic Party wasonly that of a mere spectator at some of their mass meetings. I hadnot the slightest idea of the social-democratic teaching or thementality of its partisans. All of a sudden I was brought face toface with the products of their teaching and what they called theirWeltanschauung. In this way a few months sufficed for me tolearn something which under other circumstances might havenecessitated decades of study'--namely, that under the cloak ofsocial virtue and love of one's neighbour a veritable pestilencewas spreading abroad and that if this pestilence be not stamped outof the world without delay it may eventually succeed inexterminating the human race.
I first came into contact with the Social Democrats whileworking in the building trade.
From the very time that I started work the situation was notvery pleasant for me. My clothes were still rather decent. I wascareful of my speech and I was reserved in manner. I was sooccupied with thinking of my own present lot and futurepossibilities that I did not take much of an interest in myimmediate surroundings. I had sought work so that I shouldn'tstarve and at the same time so as to be able to make furtherheadway with my studies, though this headway might be slow.Possibly I should not have bothered to be interested in mycompanions were it not that on the third or fourth day an eventoccurred which forced me to take a definite stand. I was ordered tojoin the trade union.
At that time I knew nothing about the trades unions. I had hadno opportunity of forming an opinion on their utility or inutility,as the case might be. But when I was told that I must join theunion I refused. The grounds which I gave for my refusal weresimply that I knew nothing about the matter and that anyhow I wouldnot allow myself to be forced into anything. Probably the formerreason saved me from being thrown out right away. They probablythought that within a few days I might be converted' and becomemore docile. But if they thought that they were profoundlymistaken. After two weeks I found it utterly impossible for me totake such a step, even if I had been willing to take it at first.During those fourteen days I came to know my fellow workmen better,and no power in the world could have moved me to join anorganization whose representatives had meanwhile shown themselvesin a light which I found so unfavourable.
During the first days my resentment was aroused.
At midday some of my fellow workers used to adjourn to thenearest tavern, while the others remained on the building premisesand there ate their midday meal, which in most cases was a veryscanty one. These were married men. Their wives brought them themidday soup in dilapidated vessels. Towards the end of the weekthere was a gradual increase in the number of those who remained toeat their midday meal on the building premises. I understood thereason for this afterwards. They now talked politics.
I drank my bottle of milk and ate my morsel of bread somewhereon the outskirts, while I circumspectly studied my environment orelse fell to meditating on my own harsh lot. Yet I heard more thanenough. And I often thought that some of what they said was meantfor my ears, in the hope of bringing me to a decision. But all thatI heard had the effect of arousing the strongest antagonism in me.Everything was disparaged'--the nation, because it was held tobe an invention of the 'capitalist' class (how often I had tolisten to that phrase!); the Fatherland, because it was held to bean instrument in the hands of the bourgeoisie for the exploitationof' the working masses; the authority of the law, because that wasa means of holding down the proletariat; religion, as a means ofdoping the people, so as to exploit them afterwards; morality, as abadge of stupid and sheepish docility. There was nothing that theydid not drag in the mud.
At first I remained silent; but that could not last very long.Then I began to take part in the discussion and to reply to theirstatements. I had to recognize, however, that this was bound to beentirely fruitless, as long as I did not have at least a certainamount of definite information about the questions that werediscussed. So I decided to consult the source from which myinterlocutors claimed to have drawn their so-called wisdom. Idevoured book after book, pamphlet after pamphlet.
Meanwhile, we argued with one another on the building premises.From day to day I was becoming better informed than my companionsin the subjects on which they claimed to be experts. Then a daycame when the more redoubtable of my adversaries resorted to themost effective weapon they had to replace the force of reason. Thiswas intimidation and physical force. Some of the leaders among myadversaries ordered me to leave the building or else get flung downfrom the scaffolding. As I was quite alone I could not put up anyphysical resistance; so I chose the first alternative and departed,richer however by an experience.
I went away full of disgust; but at the same time so deeplymoved that it was quite impossible for me to turn my back on thewhole situation and think no more about it. When my anger began tocalm down the spirit of obstinacy got the upper hand and I decidedthat at all costs I would get back to work again in the buildingtrade. This decision became all the stronger a few weeks later,when my little savings had entirely run out and hunger clutched meonce again in its merciless arms. No alternative was left to me. Igot work again and had to leave it for the same reasons asbefore.
Then I asked myself: Are these men worthy of belonging to agreat people? The question was profoundly disturbing; for if theanswer were 'Yes', then the struggle to defend one's nationality isno longer worth all the trouble and sacrifice we demand of our bestelements if it be in the interests of such a rabble. On the otherhand, if the answer had to be 'No'--these men are not worthy ofthe nation', then our nation is poor indeed in men. During thosedays of mental anguish and deep meditation I saw before my mind theever-increasing and menacing army of people who could no longer bereckoned as belonging to their own nation.
It was with quite a different feeling, some days later, that Igazed on the interminable ranks, four abreast, of Viennese workmenparading at a mass demonstration. I stood dumbfounded for almosttwo hours, watching that enormous human dragon which slowlyuncoiled itself there before me. When I finally left the square andwandered in the direction of my lodgings I felt dismayed anddepressed. On my way I noticed the Arbeiterzeitung (TheWorkman's Journal) in a tobacco shop. This was the chiefpress-organ of the old Austrian Social Democracy. In a cheap caf(C),where the common people used to foregather and where I often wentto read the papers, the Arbeiterzeitung was also displayed.But hitherto I could not bring myself to do more than glance at thewretched thing for a couple of minutes: for its whole tone was asort of mental vitriol to me. Under the depressing influence of thedemonstration I had witnessed, some interior voice urged me to buythe paper in that tobacco shop and read it through. So I brought ithome with me and spent the whole evening reading it, despite thesteadily mounting rage provoked by this ceaseless outpouring offalsehoods.
I now found that in the social democratic daily papers I couldstudy the inner character of this politico-philosophic system muchbetter than in all their theoretical literature.
For there was a striking discrepancy between the two. In theliterary effusions which dealt with the theory of Social Democracythere was a display of high-sounding phraseology about liberty andhuman dignity and beauty, all promulgated with an air of profoundwisdom and serene prophetic assurance; a meticulously-woven glitterof words to dazzle and mislead the reader. On the other hand, thedaily Press inculcated this new doctrine of human redemption in themost brutal fashion. No means were too base, provided they could beexploited in the campaign of slander. These journalists were realvirtuosos in the art of twisting facts and presenting them in adeceptive form. The theoretical literature was intended for thesimpletons of the soi-disant intellectuals belonging to the middleand, naturally, the upper classes. The newspaper propaganda wasintended for the masses.
This probing into books and newspapers and studying theteachings of Social Democracy reawakened my love for my own people.And thus what at first seemed an impassable chasm became theoccasion of a closer affection.
Having once understood the working of the colossal system forpoisoning the popular mind, only a fool could blame the victims ofit. During the years that followed I became more independent and,as I did so, I became better able to understand the inner cause ofthe success achieved by this Social Democratic gospel. I nowrealized the meaning and purpose of those brutal orders whichprohibited the reading of all books and newspapers that were not'red' and at the same time demanded that only the 'red' meetingsshould be attended. In the clear light of brutal reality I was ableto see what must have been the inevitable consequences of thatintolerant teaching.
The psyche of the broad masses is accessible only to whatis strong and uncompromising. Like a woman whose innersensibilities are not so much under the sway of abstract reasoningbut are always subject to the influence of a vague emotionallonging for the strength that completes her being, and who wouldrather bow to the strong man than dominate the weakling'--inlike manner the masses of the people prefer the ruler to thesuppliant and are filled with a stronger sense of mental securityby a teaching that brooks no rival than by a teaching which offersthem a liberal choice. They have very little idea of how to makesuch a choice and thus they are prone to feel that they have beenabandoned. They feel very little shame at being terrorizedintellectually and they are scarcely conscious of the fact thattheir freedom as human beings is impudently abused; and thus theyhave not the slightest suspicion of the intrinsic fallacy of thewhole doctrine. They see only the ruthless force and brutality ofits determined utterances, to which they always submit.
If Social Democracy should be opposed by a more truthfulteaching, then even, though the struggle be of the bitterest kind,this truthful teaching will finally prevail provided it be enforcedwith equal ruthlessness.
Within less than two years I had gained a clear understanding ofSocial Democracy, in its teaching and the technique of itsoperations.
I recognized the infamy of that technique whereby the movementcarried on a campaign of mental terrorism against the bourgeoisie,who are neither morally nor spiritually equipped to withstand suchattacks. The tactics of Social Democracy consisted in opening, at agiven signal, a veritable drum-fire of lies and calumnies againstthe man whom they believed to be the most redoubtable of theiradversaries, until the nerves of the latter gave way and theysacrificed the man who was attacked, simply in the hope of beingallowed to live in peace. But the hope proved always to be afoolish one, for they were never left in peace.
The same tactics are repeated again and again, until fear ofthese mad dogs exercises, through suggestion, a paralysing effecton their Victims.
Through its own experience Social Democracy learned the value ofstrength, and for that reason it attacks mostly those in whom itscents stuff of the more stalwart kind, which is indeed a very rarepossession. On the other hand it praises every weakling among itsadversaries, more or less cautiously, according to the measure ofhis mental qualities known or presumed. They have less fear of aman of genius who lacks will-power than of a vigorous characterwith mediocre intelligence and at the same time they highly commendthose who are devoid of intelligence and will-power.
The Social Democrats know how to create the impression that theyalone are the protectors of peace. In this way, acting verycircumspectly but never losing sight of their ultimate goal, theyconquer one position after another, at one time by methods of quietintimidation and at another time by sheer daylight robbery,employing these latter tactics at those moments when publicattention is turned towards other matters from which it does notwish to be diverted, or when the public considers an incident tootrivial to create a scandal about it and thus provoke the anger ofa malignant opponent.
These tactics are based on an accurate estimation of humanfrailties and must lead to success, with almost mathematicalcertainty, unless the other side also learns how to fight poisongas with poison gas. The weaker natures must be told that here itis a case of to be or not to be.
I also came to understand that physical intimidation has itssignificance for the mass as well as for the individual. Here againthe Socialists had calculated accurately on the psychologicaleffect.
Intimidation in workshops and in factories, in assembly hallsand at mass demonstrations, will always meet with success as longas it does not have to encounter the same kind of terror in astronger form.
Then of course the Party will raise a horrified outcry, yellingblue murder and appealing to the authority of the State, which theyhave just repudiated. In doing this their aim generally is to addto the general confusion, so that they may have a betteropportunity of reaching their own goal unobserved. Their idea is tofind among the higher government officials some bovine creaturewho, in the stupid hope that he may win the good graces of theseawe-inspiring opponents so that they may remember him in case offuture eventualities, will help them now to break all those who mayoppose this world pest.
The impression which such successful tactics make on the mindsof the broad masses, whether they be adherents or opponents, can beestimated only by one who knows the popular mind, not from booksbut from practical life. For the successes which are thus obtainedare taken by the adherents of Social Democracy as a triumphantsymbol of the righteousness of their own cause; on the other handthe beaten opponent very often loses faith in the effectiveness ofany further resistance.
The more I understood the methods of physical intimidation thatwere employed, the more sympathy I had for the multitude that hadsuccumbed to it.
I am thankful now for the ordeal which I had to go through atthat time; for it was the means of bringing me to think kindlyagain of my own people, inasmuch as the experience enabled me todistinguish between the false leaders and the victims who have beenled astray.
We must look upon the latter simply as victims. I have just nowtried to depict a few traits which express the mentality of thoseon the lowest rung of the social ladder; but my picture would bedisproportionate if I do not add that amid the social depths Istill found light; for I experienced a rare spirit ofself-sacrifice and loyal comradeship among those men, who demandedlittle from life and were content amid their modest surroundings.This was true especially of the older generation of workmen. Andalthough these qualities were disappearing more and more in theyounger generation, owing to the all-pervading influence of the bigcity, yet among the younger generation also there were many whowere sound at the core and who were able to maintain themselvesuncontaminated amid the sordid surroundings of their everydayexistence. If these men, who in many cases meant well and wereupright in themselves, gave the support to the political activitiescarried on by the common enemies of our people, that was becausethose decent workpeople did not and could not grasp the downrightinfamy of the doctrine taught by the socialist agitators.Furthermore, it was because no other section of the communitybothered itself about the lot of the working classes. Finally, thesocial conditions became such that men who otherwise would haveacted differently were forced to submit to them, even thoughunwillingly at first. A day came when poverty gained the upper handand drove those workmen into the Social Democratic ranks.
On innumerable occasions the bourgeoisie took a definite standagainst even the most legitimate human demands of the workingclasses. That conduct was ill-judged and indeed immoral and couldbring no gain whatsoever to the bourgeois class. The result wasthat the honest workman abandoned the original concept of thetrades union organization and was dragged into politics.
There were millions and millions of workmen who began by beinghostile to the Social Democratic Party; but their defences wererepeatedly stormed and finally they had to surrender. Yet thisdefeat was due to the stupidity of the bourgeois parties, who hadopposed every social demand put forward by the working class. Theshort-sighted refusal to make an effort towards improving labourconditions, the refusal to adopt measures which would insure theworkman in case of accidents in the factories, the refusal toforbid child labour, the refusal to consider protective measuresfor female workers, especially expectant mothers'--all this wasof assistance to the Social Democratic leaders, who were thankfulfor every opportunity which they could exploit for forcing themasses into their net. Our bourgeois parties can never repair thedamage that resulted from the mistake they then made. For theysowed the seeds of hatred when they opposed all efforts at socialreform. And thus they gave, at least, apparent grounds to justifythe claim put forward by the Social Democrats'--namely, thatthey alone stand up for the interests of the working class.
And this became the principal ground for the moral justificationof the actual existence of the Trades Unions, so that the labourorganization became from that time onwards the chief politicalrecruiting ground to swell the ranks of the Social DemocraticParty.
While thus studying the social conditions around me I wasforced, whether I liked it or not, to decide on the attitude Ishould take towards the Trades Unions. Because I looked upon themas inseparable from the Social Democratic Party, my decision washasty'--and mistaken. I repudiated them as a matter of course.But on this essential question also Fate intervened and gave me alesson, with the result that I changed the opinion which I hadfirst formed.
When I was twenty years old I had learned to distinguish betweenthe Trades Union as a means of defending the social rights of theemployees and fighting for better living conditions for them and,on the other hand, the Trades Union as a political instrument usedby the Party in the class struggle.
The Social Democrats understood the enormous importance of theTrades Union movement. They appropriated it as an instrument andused it with success, while the bourgeois parties failed tounderstand it and thus lost their political prestige. They thoughtthat their own arrogant veto would arrest the logicaldevelopment of the movement and force it into an illogicalposition. But it is absurd and also untrue to say that the TradesUnion movement is in itself hostile to the nation. The opposite isthe more correct view. If the activities of the Trades Union aredirected towards improving the condition of a class, and succeed indoing so, such activities are not against the Fatherland or theState but are, in the truest sense of the word, national. In thatway the trades union organization helps to create the socialconditions which are indispensable in a general system of nationaleducation. It deserves high recognition when it destroys thepsychological and physical germs of social disease and thus fostersthe general welfare of the nation.
It is superfluous to ask whether the Trades Union isindispensable.
So long as there are employers who attack social understandingand have wrong ideas of justice and fair play it is not only theright but also the duty of their employees'--who are, afterall, an integral part of our people'--to protect the generalinterests against the greed and unreason of the individual. For tosafeguard the loyalty and confidence of the people is as much inthe interests of the nation as to safeguard public health.
Both are seriously menaced by dishonourable employers who arenot conscious of their duty as members of the national community.Their personal avidity or irresponsibility sows the seeds of futuretrouble. To eliminate the causes of such a development is an actionthat surely deserves well of the country.
It must not be answered here that the individual workman is freeat any time to escape from the consequences of an injustice whichhe has actually suffered at the hands of an employer, or which hethinks he has suffered'--in other words, he can leave. No. Thatargument is only a ruse to detract attention from the question atissue. Is it, or is it not, in the interests of the nation toremove the causes of social unrest? If it is, then the fight mustbe carried on with the only weapons that promise success. But theindividual workman is never in a position to stand up against themight of the big employer; for the question here is not one thatconcerns the triumph of right. If in such a relation right had beenrecognized as the guiding principle, then the conflict could nothave arisen at all. But here it is a question of who is thestronger. If the case were otherwise, the sentiment of justicealone would solve the dispute in an honourable way; or, to put thecase more correctly, matters would not have come to such a disputeat all.
No. If unsocial and dishonourable treatment of men provokesresistance, then the stronger party can impose its decision in theconflict until the constitutional legislative authorities do awaywith the evil through legislation. Therefore it is evident that ifthe individual workman is to have any chance at all of winningthrough in the struggle he must be grouped with his fellow workmenand present a united front before the individual employer, whoincorporates in his own person the massed strength of the vestedinterests in the industrial or commercial undertaking which heconducts.
Thus the trades unions can hope to inculcate and strengthen asense of social responsibility in workaday life and open the roadto practical results. In doing this they tend to remove thosecauses of friction which are a continual source of discontent andcomplaint.
Blame for the fact that the trades unions do not fulfil thismuch-desired function must be laid at the doors of those who barredthe road to legislative social reform, or rendered such a reformineffective by sabotaging it through their political influence.
The political bourgeoisie failed to understand'--or, rather,they did not wish to understand'--the importance of the tradesunion movement. The Social Democrats accordingly seized theadvantage offered them by this mistaken policy and took the labourmovement under their exclusive protection, without any protest fromthe other side. In this way they established for themselves a solidbulwark behind which they could safely retire whenever the struggleassumed a critical aspect. Thus the genuine purpose of the movementgradually fell into oblivion, and was replaced by new objectives.For the Social Democrats never troubled themselves to respect anduphold the original purpose for which the trade unionist movementwas founded. They simply took over the Movement, lock, stock andbarrel, to serve their own political ends.
Within a few decades the Trades Union Movement was transformed,by the expert hand of Social Democracy, from an instrument whichhad been originally fashioned for the defence of human rights intoan instrument for the destruction of the national economicstructure. The interests of the working class were not allowed fora moment to cross the path of this purpose; for in politics theapplication of economic pressure is always possible if the one sidebe sufficiently unscrupulous and the other sufficiently inert anddocile. In this case both conditions were fulfilled.
By the beginning of the present century the Trades UnionistMovement had already ceased to recognize the purpose for which ithad been founded. From year to year it fell more and more under thepolitical control of the Social Democrats, until it finally came tobe used as a battering-ram in the class struggle. The plan was toshatter, by means of constantly repeated blows, the economicedifice in the building of which so much time and care had beenexpended. Once this objective had been reached, the destruction ofthe State would become a matter of course, because the State wouldalready have been deprived of its economic foundations. Attentionto the real interests of the working-classes, on the part of theSocial Democrats, steadily decreased until the cunning leaders sawthat it would be in their immediate political interests if thesocial and cultural demands of the broad masses remained unheeded;for there was a danger that if these masses once felt content theycould no longer be employed as mere passive material in thepolitical struggle.
The gloomy prospect which presented itself to the eyes of thecondottieri of the class warfare, if the discontent of themasses were no longer available as a war weapon, created so muchanxiety among them that they suppressed and opposed even the mostelementary measures of social reform. And conditions were such thatthose leaders did not have to trouble about attempting to justifysuch an illogical policy.
As the masses were taught to increase and heighten their demandsthe possibility of satisfying them dwindled and whateverameliorative measures were taken became less and less significant;so that it was at that time possible to persuade the masses thatthis ridiculous measure in which the most sacred claims of theworking-classes were being granted represented a diabolical plan toweaken their fighting power in this easy way and, if possible, toparalyse it. One will not be astonished at the success of theseallegations if one remembers what a small measure of thinking powerthe broad masses possess.
In the bourgeois camp there was high indignation over the badfaith of the Social Democratic tactics; but nothing was done todraw a practical conclusion and organize a counter attack from thebourgeois side. The fear of the Social Democrats, to improve themiserable conditions of the working-classes ought to have inducedthe bourgeois parties to make the most energetic efforts in thisdirection and thus snatch from the hands of the class-warfareleaders their most important weapon; but nothing of this kindhappened.
Instead of attacking the position of their adversaries thebourgeoisie allowed itself to be pressed and harried. Finally itadopted means that were so tardy and so insignificant that theywere ineffective and were repudiated. So the whole situationremained just as it had been before the bourgeois intervention; butthe discontent had thereby become more serious.
Like a threatening storm, the 'Free Trades Union' hovered abovethe political horizon and above the life of each individual. It wasone of the most frightful instruments of terror that threatened thesecurity and independence of the national economic structure, thefoundations of the State and the liberty of the individual. Aboveall, it was the 'Free Trades Union' that turned democracy into aridiculous and scorned phrase, insulted the ideal of liberty andstigmatized that of fraternity with the slogan 'If you will notbecome our comrade we shall crack your skull'.
It was thus that I then came to know this friend of humanity.During the years that followed my knowledge of it became wider anddeeper; but I have never changed anything in that regard.
The more I became acquainted with the external forms of SocialDemocracy, the greater became my desire to understand the innernature of its doctrines.
For this purpose the official literature of the Party could nothelp very much. In discussing economic questions its statementswere false and its proofs unsound. In treating of political aimsits attitude was insincere. Furthermore, its modern methods ofchicanery in the presentation of its arguments were profoundlyrepugnant to me. Its flamboyant sentences, its obscure andincomprehensible phrases, pretended to contain great thoughts, butthey were devoid of thought, and meaningless. One would have to bea decadent Bohemian in one of our modern cities in order to feel athome in that labyrinth of mental aberration, so that he mightdiscover 'intimate experiences' amid the stinking fumes of thisliterary Dadism. These writers were obviously counting on theproverbial humility of a certain section of our people, who believethat a person who is incomprehensible must be profoundly wise.
In confronting the theoretical falsity and absurdity of thatdoctrine with the reality of its external manifestations, Igradually came to have a clear idea of the ends at which itaimed.
During such moments I had dark presentiments and fearedsomething evil. I had before me a teaching inspired by egoism andhatred, mathematically calculated to win its victory, but thetriumph of which would be a mortal blow to humanity.
Meanwhile I had discovered the relations existing between thisdestructive teaching and the specific character of a people, who upto that time had been to me almost unknown.
Knowledge of the Jews is the only key whereby one may understandthe inner nature and therefore the real aims of SocialDemocracy.
The man who has come to know this race has succeeded in removingfrom his eyes the veil through which he had seen the aims andmeaning of his Party in a false light; and then, out of the murkand fog of social phrases rises the grimacing figure ofMarxism.
To-day it is hard and almost impossible for me to say when theword 'Jew' first began to raise any particular thought in my mind.I do not remember even having heard the word at home during myfather's lifetime. If this name were mentioned in a derogatorysense I think the old gentleman would just have considered thosewho used it in this way as being uneducated reactionaries. In thecourse of his career he had come to be more or less a cosmopolitan,with strong views on nationalism, which had its effect on me aswell. In school, too, I found no reason to alter the picture ofthings I had formed at home.
At the Realschule I knew one Jewish boy. We were all onour guard in our relations with him, but only because his reticenceand certain actions of his warned us to be discreet. Beyond that mycompanions and myself formed no particular opinions in regard tohim.
It was not until I was fourteen or fifteen years old that Ifrequently ran up against the word 'Jew', partly in connection withpolitical controversies. These references aroused a slight aversionin me, and I could not avoid an uncomfortable feeling which alwayscame over me when I had to listen to religious disputes. But atthat time I had no other feelings about the Jewish question.
There were very few Jews in Linz. In the course of centuries theJews who lived there had become Europeanized in external appearanceand were so much like other human beings that I even looked uponthem as Germans. The reason why I did not then perceive theabsurdity of such an illusion was that the only external mark whichI recognized as distinguishing them from us was the practice oftheir strange religion. As I thought that they were persecuted onaccount of their Faith my aversion to hearing remarks against themgrew almost into a feeling of abhorrence. I did not in the leastsuspect that there could be such a thing as a systematicanti-Semitism.
Then I came to Vienna.
Confused by the mass of impressions I received from thearchitectural surroundings and depressed by my own troubles, I didnot at first distinguish between the different social strata ofwhich the population of that mammoth city was composed. AlthoughVienna then had about two hundred thousand Jews among itspopulation of two millions, I did not notice them. During the firstweeks of my sojourn my eyes and my mind were unable to cope withthe onrush of new ideas and values. Not until I gradually settleddown to my surroundings, and the confused picture began to growclearer, did I acquire a more discriminating view of my new world.And with that I came up against the Jewish problem.
I will not say that the manner in which I first becameacquainted with it was particularly unpleasant for me. In the Jew Istill saw only a man who was of a different religion, andtherefore, on grounds of human tolerance, I was against the ideathat he should be attacked because he had a different faith. And soI considered that the tone adopted by the anti-Semitic Press inVienna was unworthy of the cultural traditions of a great people.The memory of certain events which happened in the middle ages cameinto my mind, and I felt that I should not like to see themrepeated. Generally speaking, these anti-Semitic newspapers did notbelong to the first rank'--but I did not then understand thereason of this'--and so I regarded them more as the products ofjealousy and envy rather than the expression of a sincere, thoughwrong-headed, feeling.
My own opinions were confirmed by what I considered to be theinfinitely more dignified manner in which the really great Pressreplied to those attacks or simply ignored them, which latterseemed to me the most respectable way.
I diligently read what was generally called the WorldPress'--Neue Freie Presse, Wiener Tageblatt,etc.'--and I was astonished by the abundance of informationthey gave their readers and the impartial way in which theypresented particular problems. I appreciated their dignified tone;but sometimes the flamboyancy of the style was unconvincing, and Idid not like it. But I attributed all this to the overpoweringinfluence of the world metropolis.
Since I considered Vienna at that time as such a worldmetropolis, I thought this constituted sufficient grounds to excusethese shortcomings of the Press. But I was frequently disgusted bythe grovelling way in which the Vienna Press played lackey to theCourt. Scarcely a move took place at the Hofburg which was notpresented in glorified colours to the readers. It was a foolishpractice, which, especially when it had to do with 'The WisestMonarch of all Times', reminded one almost of the dance which themountain cock performs at pairing time to woo his mate. It was allempty nonsense. And I thought that such a policy was a stain on theideal of liberal democracy. I thought that this way of curryingfavour at the Court was unworthy of the people. And that was thefirst blot that fell on my appreciation of the great ViennaPress.
While in Vienna I continued to follow with a vivid interest allthe events that were taking place in Germany, whether connectedwith political or cultural question. I had a feeling of pride andadmiration when I compared the rise of the young German Empire withthe decline of the Austrian State. But, although the foreign policyof that Empire was a source of real pleasure on the whole, theinternal political happenings were not always so satisfactory. Idid not approve of the campaign which at that time was beingcarried on against William II. I looked upon him not only as theGerman Emperor but, above all, as the creator of the German Navy.The fact that the Emperor was prohibited from speaking in theReichstag made me very angry, because the prohibition came from aside which in my eyes had no authority to make it. For at a singlesitting those same parliamentary ganders did more cackling togetherthan the whole dynasty of Emperors, comprising even the weakest,had done in the course of centuries.
It annoyed me to have to acknowledge that in a nation where anyhalf-witted fellow could claim for himself the right to criticizeand might even be let loose on the people as a 'Legislator' in theReichstag, the bearer of the Imperial Crown could be the subject ofa 'reprimand' on the part of the most miserable assembly ofdrivellers that had ever existed.
I was even more disgusted at the way in which this same ViennaPress salaamed obsequiously before the meanest steed belonging tothe Habsburg royal equipage and went off into wild ecstacies ofdelight if the nag wagged its tail in response. And at the sametime these newspapers took up an attitude of anxiety in mattersthat concerned the German Emperor, trying to cloak their enmity bythe serious air they gave themselves. But in my eyes that enmityappeared to be only poorly cloaked. Naturally they protested thatthey had no intention of mixing in Germany's internalaffairs'--God forbid! They pretended that by touching adelicate spot in such a friendly way they were fulfilling a dutythat devolved upon them by reason of the mutual alliance betweenthe two countries and at the same time discharging theirobligations of journalistic truthfulness. Having thus excusedthemselves about tenderly touching a sore spot, they bored with thefinger ruthlessly into the wound.
That sort of thing made my blood boil. And now I began to bemore and more on my guard when reading the great Vienna Press.
I had to acknowledge, however, that on such subjects one of theanti-Semitic papers'--the DeutscheVolksblatt'--acted more decently.
What got still more on my nerves was the repugnant manner inwhich the big newspapers cultivated admiration for France. Onereally had to feel ashamed of being a German when confronted bythose mellifluous hymns of praise for 'the great culture-nation'.This wretched Gallomania more often than once made me throw awayone of those 'world newspapers'. I now often turned to theVolksblatt, which was much smaller in size but which treatedsuch subjects more decently. I was not in accord with its sharpanti-Semitic tone; but again and again I found that its argumentsgave me grounds for serious thought.
Anyhow, it was as a result of such reading that I came to knowthe man and the movement which then determined the fate of Vienna.These were Dr. Karl Lueger and the Christian Socialist Movement. Atthe time I came to Vienna I felt opposed to both. I looked on theman and the movement as 'reactionary'.
But even an elementary sense of justice enforced me to change myopinion when I had the opportunity of knowing the man and his work,and slowly that opinion grew into outspoken admiration when I hadbetter grounds for forming a judgment. To-day, as well as then, Ihold Dr. Karl Lueger as the most eminent type of GermanBurgermeister. How many prejudices were thrown over through such achange in my attitude towards the Christian-Socialist Movement!
My ideas about anti-Semitism changed also in the course of time,but that was the change which I found most difficult. It cost me agreater internal conflict with myself, and it was only after astruggle between reason and sentiment that victory began to bedecided in favour of the former. Two years later sentiment ralliedto the side of reasons and became a faithful guardian andcounsellor.
At the time of this bitter struggle, between calm reason and thesentiments in which I had been brought up, the lessons that Ilearned on the streets of Vienna rendered me invaluable assistance.A time came when I no longer passed blindly along the street of themighty city, as I had done in the early days, but now with my eyesopen not only to study the buildings but also the human beings.
Once, when passing through the inner City, I suddenlyencountered a phenomenon in a long caftan and wearing blackside-locks. My first thought was: Is this a Jew? They certainly didnot have this appearance in Linz. I watched the man stealthily andcautiously; but the longer I gazed at the strange countenance andexamined it feature by feature, the more the question shaped itselfin my brain: Is this a German?
As was always my habit with such experiences, I turned to booksfor help in removing my doubts. For the first time in my life Ibought myself some anti-Semitic pamphlets for a few pence. Butunfortunately they all began with the assumption that in principlethe reader had at least a certain degree of information on theJewish question or was even familiar with it. Moreover, the tone ofmost of these pamphlets was such that I became doubtful again,because the statements made were partly superficial and the proofsextraordinarily unscientific. For weeks, and indeed for months, Ireturned to my old way of thinking. The subject appeared soenormous and the accusations were so far-reaching that I was afraidof dealing with it unjustly and so I became again anxious anduncertain.
Naturally I could no longer doubt that here there was not aquestion of Germans who happened to be of a different religion butrather that there was question of an entirely different people. Foras soon as I began to investigate the matter and observe the Jews,then Vienna appeared to me in a different light. Wherever I nowwent I saw Jews, and the more I saw of them the more strikingly andclearly they stood out as a different people from the othercitizens. Especially the Inner City and the district northwardsfrom the Danube Canal swarmed with a people who, even in outerappearance, bore no similarity to the Germans.
But any indecision which I may still have felt about that pointwas finally removed by the activities of a certain section of theJews themselves. A great movement, called Zionism, arose amongthem. Its aim was to assert the national character of Judaism, andthe movement was strongly represented in Vienna.
To outward appearances it seemed as if only one group of Jewschampioned this movement, while the great majority disapproved ofit, or even repudiated it. But an investigation of the situationshowed that those outward appearances were purposely misleading.These outward appearances emerged from a mist of theories which hadbeen produced for reasons of expediency, if not for purposes ofdownright deception. For that part of Jewry which was styledLiberal did not disown the Zionists as if they were not members oftheir race but rather as brother Jews who publicly professed theirfaith in an unpractical way, so as to create a danger for Jewryitself.
Thus there was no real rift in their internal solidarity.
This fictitious conflict between the Zionists and the LiberalJews soon disgusted me; for it was false through and through and indirect contradiction to the moral dignity and immaculate characteron which that race had always prided itself.
Cleanliness, whether moral or of another kind, had its ownpeculiar meaning for these people. That they were water-shy wasobvious on looking at them and, unfortunately, very often also whennot looking at them at all. The odour of those people in caftansoften used to make me feel ill. Beyond that there were the unkemptclothes and the ignoble exterior.
All these details were certainly not attractive; but therevolting feature was that beneath their unclean exterior onesuddenly perceived the moral mildew of the chosen race.
What soon gave me cause for very serious consideration were theactivities of the Jews in certain branches of life, into themystery of which I penetrated little by little. Was there any shadyundertaking, any form of foulness, especially in cultural life, inwhich at least one Jew did not participate? On putting the probingknife carefully to that kind of abscess one immediately discovered,like a maggot in a putrescent body, a little Jew who was oftenblinded by the sudden light.
In my eyes the charge against Judaism became a grave one themoment I discovered the Jewish activities in the Press, in art, inliterature and the theatre. All unctuous protests were now more orless futile. One needed only to look at the posters announcing thehideous productions of the cinema and theatre, and study the namesof the authors who were highly lauded there in order to becomepermanently adamant on Jewish questions. Here was a pestilence, amoral pestilence, with which the public was being infected. It wasworse than the Black Plague of long ago. And in what mighty dosesthis poison was manufactured and distributed. Naturally, the lowerthe moral and intellectual level of such an author of artisticproducts the more inexhaustible his fecundity. Sometimes it went sofar that one of these fellows, acting like a sewage pump, wouldshoot his filth directly in the face of other members of the humanrace. In this connection we must remember there is no limit to thenumber of such people. One ought to realize that for one, Goethe,Nature may bring into existence ten thousand such despoilers whoact as the worst kind of germ-carriers in poisoning human souls. Itwas a terrible thought, and yet it could not be avoided, that thegreater number of the Jews seemed specially destined by Nature toplay this shameful part.
And is it for this reason that they can be called the chosenpeople?
I began then to investigate carefully the names of all thefabricators of these unclean products in public cultural life. Theresult of that inquiry was still more disfavourable to the attitudewhich I had hitherto held in regard to the Jews. Though my feelingsmight rebel a thousand time, reason now had to draw its ownconclusions.
The fact that nine-tenths of all the smutty literature, artistictripe and theatrical banalities, had to be charged to the accountof people who formed scarcely one per cent. of thenation'--that fact could not be gainsaid. It was there, and hadto be admitted. Then I began to examine my favourite 'World Press',with that fact before my mind.
The deeper my soundings went the lesser grew my respect for thatPress which I formerly admired. Its style became still morerepellent and I was forced to reject its ideas as entirely shallowand superficial. To claim that in the presentation of facts andviews its attitude was impartial seemed to me to contain morefalsehood than truth. The writers were'--Jews.
Thousands of details that I had scarcely noticed before seemedto me now to deserve attention. I began to grasp and understandthings which I had formerly looked at in a different light.
I saw the Liberal policy of that Press in another light. Itsdignified tone in replying to the attacks of its adversaries andits dead silence in other cases now became clear to me as part of acunning and despicable way of deceiving the readers. Its brillianttheatrical criticisms always praised the Jewish authors and itsadverse, criticism was reserved exclusively for the Germans.
The light pin-pricks against William II showed the persistencyof its policy, just as did its systematic commendation of Frenchculture and civilization. The subject matter of the feuilletons wastrivial and often pornographic. The language of this Press as awhole had the accent of a foreign people. The general tone wasopenly derogatory to the Germans and this must have been definitelyintentional.
What were the interests that urged the Vienna Press to adoptsuch a policy? Or did they do so merely by chance? In attempting tofind an answer to those questions I gradually became more and moredubious.
Then something happened which helped me to come to an earlydecision. I began to see through the meaning of a whole series ofevents that were taking place in other branches of Viennese life.All these were inspired by a general concept of manners and moralswhich was openly put into practice by a large section of the Jewsand could be established as attributable to them. Here, again, thelife which I observed on the streets taught me what evil reallyis.
The part which the Jews played in the social phenomenon ofprostitution, and more especially in the white slave traffic, couldbe studied here better than in any other West-European city, withthe possible exception of certain ports in Southern France. Walkingby night along the streets of the Leopoldstadt, almost at everyturn whether one wished it or not, one witnessed certain happeningsof whose existence the Germans knew nothing until the War made itpossible and indeed inevitable for the soldiers to see such thingson the Eastern front.
A cold shiver ran down my spine when I first ascertained that itwas the same kind of cold-blooded, thick-skinned and shameless Jewwho showed his consummate skill in conducting that revoltingexploitation of the dregs of the big city. Then I became fired withwrath.
I had now no more hesitation about bringing the Jewish problemto light in all its details. No. Henceforth I was determined to doso. But as I learned to track down the Jew in all the differentspheres of cultural and artistic life, and in the variousmanifestations of this life everywhere, I suddenly came upon him ina position where I had least expected to find him. I now realizedthat the Jews were the leaders of Social Democracy. In face of thatrevelation the scales fell from my eyes. My long inner struggle wasat an end.
In my relations with my fellow workmen I was often astonished tofind how easily and often they changed their opinions on the samequestions, sometimes within a few days and sometimes even withinthe course of a few hours. I found it difficult to understand howmen who always had reasonable ideas when they spoke as individualswith one another suddenly lost this reasonableness the moment theyacted in the mass. That phenomenon often tempted one almost todespair. I used to dispute with them for hours and when I succeededin bringing them to what I considered a reasonable way of thinkingI rejoiced at my success. But next day I would find that it hadbeen all in vain. It was saddening to think I had to begin it allover again. Like a pendulum in its eternal sway, they would fallback into their absurd opinions.
I was able to understand their position fully. They weredissatisfied with their lot and cursed the fate which had hit themso hard. They hated their employers, whom they looked upon as theheartless administrators of their cruel destiny. Often they usedabusive language against the public officials, whom they accused ofhaving no sympathy with the situation of the working people. Theymade public protests against the cost of living and paraded throughthe streets in defence of their claims. At least all this could beexplained on reasonable grounds. But what was impossible tounderstand was the boundless hatred they expressed against theirown fellow citizens, how they disparaged their own nation, mockedat its greatness, reviled its history and dragged the names of itsmost illustrious men in the gutter.
This hostility towards their own kith and kin, their own nativeland and home was as irrational as it was incomprehensible. It wasagainst Nature.
One could cure that malady temporarily, but only for some daysor at least some weeks. But on meeting those whom one believed tohave been converted one found that they had become as they werebefore. That malady against Nature held them once again in itsclutches.
I gradually discovered that the Social Democratic Press waspredominantly controlled by Jews. But I did not attach specialimportance to this circumstance, for the same state of affairsexisted also in other newspapers. But there was one striking factin this connection. It was that there was not a single newspaperwith which Jews were connected that could be spoken of as National,in the meaning that my education and convictions attached to thatword.
Making an effort to overcome my natural reluctance, I tried toread articles of this nature published in the Marxist Press; but indoing so my aversion increased all the more. And then I set aboutlearning something of the people who wrote and published thismischievous stuff. From the publisher downwards, all of them wereJews. I recalled to mind the names of the public leaders ofMarxism, and then I realized that most of them belonged to theChosen Race'--the Social Democratic representatives in theImperial Cabinet as well as the secretaries of the Trades Unionsand the street agitators. Everywhere the same sinister picturepresented itself. I shall never forget the row ofnames'--Austerlitz, David, Adler, Ellenbogen, and others. Onefact became quite evident to me. It was that this alien race heldin its hands the leadership of that Social Democratic Party withwhose minor representatives I had been disputing for months past. Iwas happy at last to know for certain that the Jew is not aGerman.
Thus I finally discovered who were the evil spirits leading ourpeople astray. The sojourn in Vienna for one year had proved longenough to convince me that no worker is so rooted in hispreconceived notions that he will not surrender them in face ofbetter and clearer arguments and explanations. Gradually I becamean expert in the doctrine of the Marxists and used this knowledgeas an instrument to drive home my own firm convictions. I wassuccessful in nearly every case. The great masses can be rescued,but a lot of time and a large share of human patience must bedevoted to such work.
But a Jew can never be rescued from his fixed notions.
It was then simple enough to attempt to show them the absurdityof their teaching. Within my small circle I talked to them until mythroat ached and my voice grew hoarse. I believed that I couldfinally convince them of the danger inherent in the Marxistfollies. But I only achieved the contrary result. It seemed to methat immediately the disastrous effects of the Marxist Theory andits application in practice became evident, the stronger becametheir obstinacy.
The more I debated with them the more familiar I became withtheir argumentative tactics. At the outset they counted upon thestupidity of their opponents, but when they got so entangled thatthey could not find a way out they played the trick of acting asinnocent simpletons. Should they fail, in spite of their tricks oflogic, they acted as if they could not understand the counterarguments and bolted away to another field of discussion. Theywould lay down truisms and platitudes; and, if you accepted these,then they were applied to other problems and matters of anessentially different nature from the original theme. If you facedthem with this point they would escape again, and you could notbring them to make any precise statement. Whenever one tried to geta firm grip on any of these apostles one's hand grasped only jellyand slime which slipped through the fingers and combined again intoa solid mass a moment afterwards. If your adversary felt forced togive in to your argument, on account of the observers present, andif you then thought that at last you had gained ground, a surprisewas in store for you on the following day. The Jew would be utterlyoblivious to what had happened the day before, and he would startonce again by repeating his former absurdities, as if nothing hadhappened. Should you become indignant and remind him of yesterday'sdefeat, he pretended astonishment and could not remember anything,except that on the previous day he had proved that his statementswere correct. Sometimes I was dumbfounded. I do not know whatamazed me the more'--the abundance of their verbiage or theartful way in which they dressed up their falsehoods. I graduallycame to hate them.
Yet all this had its good side; because the more I came to knowthe individual leaders, or at least the propagandists, of SocialDemocracy, my love for my own people increased correspondingly.Considering the Satanic skill which these evil counsellorsdisplayed, how could their unfortunate victims be blamed? Indeed, Ifound it extremely difficult myself to be a match for thedialectical perfidy of that race. How futile it was to try to winover such people with argument, seeing that their very mouthsdistorted the truth, disowning the very words they had just usedand adopting them again a few moments afterwards to serve their ownends in the argument! No. The more I came to know the Jew, theeasier it was to excuse the workers.
In my opinion the most culpable were not to be found among theworkers but rather among those who did not think it worth while totake the trouble to sympathize with their own kinsfolk and give tothe hard-working son of the national family what was his by theiron logic of justice, while at the same time placing his seducerand corrupter against the wall.
Urged by my own daily experiences, I now began to investigatemore thoroughly the sources of the Marxist teaching itself. Itseffects were well known to me in detail. As a result of carefulobservation, its daily progress had become obvious to me. And oneneeded only a little imagination in order to be able to forecastthe consequences which must result from it. The only question nowwas: Did the founders foresee the effects of their work in the formwhich those effects have shown themselves to-day, or were thefounders themselves the victims of an error? To my mind bothalternatives were possible.
If the second question must be answered in the affirmative, thenit was the duty of every thinking person to oppose this sinistermovement with a view to preventing it from producing its worstresults. But if the first question must be answered in theaffirmative, then it must be admitted that the original authors ofthis evil which has infected the nations were devils incarnate. Foronly in the brain of a monster, and not that of a man, could theplan of this organization take shape whose workings must finallybring about the collapse of human civilization and turn this worldinto a desert waste.
Such being the case the only alternative left was to fight, andin that fight to employ all the weapons which the human spirit andintellect and will could furnish leaving it to Fate to decide inwhose favour the balance should fall.
And so I began to gather information about the authors of thisteaching, with a view to studying the principles of the movement.The fact that I attained my object sooner than I could haveanticipated was due to the deeper insight into the Jewish questionwhich I then gained, my knowledge of this question being hithertorather superficial. This newly acquired knowledge alone enabled meto make a practical comparison between the real content and thetheoretical pretentiousness of the teaching laid down by theapostolic founders of Social Democracy; because I now understoodthe language of the Jew. I realized that the Jew uses language forthe purpose of dissimulating his thought or at least veiling it, sothat his real aim cannot be discovered by what he says but ratherby reading between the lines. This knowledge was the occasion ofthe greatest inner revolution that I had yet experienced. Frombeing a soft-hearted cosmopolitan I became an out-and-outanti-Semite.
Only on one further occasion, and that for the last time, did Igive way to oppressing thoughts which caused me some moments ofprofound anxiety.
As I critically reviewed the activities of the Jewish peoplethroughout long periods of history I became anxious and askedmyself whether for some inscrutable reasons beyond thecomprehension of poor mortals such as ourselves, Destiny may nothave irrevocably decreed that the final victory must go to thissmall nation? May it not be that this people which has lived onlyfor the earth has been promised the earth as a recompense? is ourright to struggle for our own self-preservation based on reality,or is it a merely subjective thing? Fate answered the question forme inasmuch as it led me to make a detached and exhaustive inquiryinto the Marxist teaching and the activities of the Jewish peoplein connection with it.
The Jewish doctrine of Marxism repudiates the aristocraticprinciple of Nature and substitutes for it the eternal privilege offorce and energy, numerical mass and its dead weight. Thus itdenies the individual worth of the human personality, impugns theteaching that nationhood and race have a primary significance, andby doing this it takes away the very foundations of human existenceand human civilization. If the Marxist teaching were to be acceptedas the foundation of the life of the universe, it would lead to thedisappearance of all order that is conceivable to the human mind.And thus the adoption of such a law would provoke chaos in thestructure of the greatest organism that we know, with the resultthat the inhabitants of this earthly planet would finallydisappear.
Should the Jew, with the aid of his Marxist creed, triumph overthe people of this world, his Crown will be the funeral wreath ofmankind, and this planet will once again follow its orbit throughether, without any human life on its surface, as it did millions ofyears ago.
And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance withthe will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the JewI am defending the handiwork of the Lord.
CHAPTER III. POLITICALREFLECTIONS ARISING OUT OF MY SOJOURN IN VIENNAGenerally speaking a man should not publicly take part inpolitics before he has reached the age of thirty, though, ofcourse, exceptions must be made in the case of those who arenaturally gifted with extraordinary political abilities. That atleast is my opinion to-day. And the reason for it is that until hereaches his thirtieth year or thereabouts a man's mentaldevelopment will mostly consist in acquiring and sifting suchknowledge as is necessary for the groundwork of a general platformfrom which he can examine the different political problems thatarise from day to day and be able to adopt a definite attitudetowards each. A man must first acquire a fund of general ideas andfit them together so as to form an organic structure of personalthought or outlook on life'--a Weltanschauung. Then hewill have that mental equipment without which he cannot form hisown judgments on particular questions of the day, and he will haveacquired those qualities that are necessary for consistency andsteadfastness in the formation of political opinions. Such a man isnow qualified, at least subjectively, to take his part in thepolitical conduct of public affairs.
If these pre-requisite conditions are not fulfilled, and if aman should enter political life without this equipment, he will runa twofold risk. In the first place, he may find during the courseof events that the stand which he originally took in regard to someessential question was wrong. He will now have to abandon hisformer position or else stick to it against his better knowledgeand riper wisdom and after his reason and convictions have alreadyproved it untenable. If he adopt the former line of action he willfind himself in a difficult personal situation; because in givingup a position hitherto maintained he will appear inconsistent andwill have no right to expect his followers to remain as loyal tohis leadership as they were before. And, as regards the followersthemselves, they may easily look upon their leader's change ofpolicy as showing a lack of judgment inherent in his character.Moreover, the change must cause in them a certain feeling ofdiscomfiture vis- -vis those whom the leader formerlyopposed.
If he adopts the second alternative'--which so veryfrequently happens to-day'--then public pronouncements of theleader have no longer his personal persuasion to support them. Andthe more that is the case the defence of his cause will be all themore hollow and superficial. He now descends to the adoption ofvulgar means in his defence. While he himself no longer dreamsseriously of standing by his political protestations to thelast'--for no man will die in defence of something in which hedoes not believe'--he makes increasing demands on hisfollowers. Indeed, the greater be the measure of his owninsincerity, the more unfortunate and inconsiderate become hisclaims on his party adherents. Finally, he throws aside the lastvestiges of true leadership and begins to play politics. This meansthat he becomes one of those whose only consistency is theirinconsistency, associated with overbearing insolence and oftentimesan artful mendacity developed to a shamelessly high degree.
Should such a person, to the misfortune of all decent people,succeed in becoming a parliamentary deputy it will be clear fromthe outset that for him the essence of political activity consistsin a heroic struggle to keep permanent hold on this milk-bottle asa source of livelihood for himself and his family. The more hiswife and children are dependent on him, the more stubbornly will hefight to maintain for himself the representation of hisparliamentary constituency. For that reason any other person whogives evidence of political capacity is his personal enemy. Inevery new movement he will apprehend the possible beginning of hisown downfall. And everyone who is a better man than himself willappear to him in the light of a menace.
I shall subsequently deal more fully with the problem to whichthis kind of parliamentary vermin give rise.
When a man has reached his thirtieth year he has still a greatdeal to learn. That is obvious. But henceforward what he learnswill principally be an amplification of his basic ideas; it will befitted in with them organically so as to fill up the framework ofthe fundamental Weltanschauung which he already possesses.What he learns anew will not imply the abandonment of principlesalready held, but rather a deeper knowledge of those principles.And thus his colleagues will never have the discomforting feelingthat they have been hitherto falsely led by him. On the contrary,their confidence is increased when they perceive that theirleader's qualities are steadily developing along the lines of anorganic growth which results from the constant assimilation of newideas; so that the followers look upon this process as signifyingan enrichment of the doctrines in which they themselves believe, intheir eyes every such development is a new witness to thecorrectness of that whole body of opinion which has hitherto beenheld.
A leader who has to abandon the platform founded on his generalprinciples, because he recognizes the foundation as false, can actwith honour only when he declares his readiness to accept the finalconsequences of his erroneous views. In such a case he ought torefrain from taking public part in any further political activity.Having once gone astray on essential things he may possibly goastray a second time. But, anyhow, he has no right whatsoever toexpect or demand that his fellow citizens should continue to givehim their support.
How little such a line of conduct commends itself to our publicleaders nowadays is proved by the general corruption prevalentamong the cabal which at the present moment feels itself called topolitical leadership. In the whole cabal there is scarcely one whois properly equipped for this task.
Although in those days I used to give more time than most othersto the consideration of political question, yet I carefullyrefrained from taking an open part in politics. Only to a smallcircle did I speak of those things which agitated my mind or werethe cause of constant preoccupation for me. The habit of discussingmatters within such a restricted group had many advantages initself. Rather than talk at them, I learned to feel my way into themodes of thought and views of those men around me. Oftentimes suchways of thinking and such views were quite primitive. Thus I tookevery possible occasion to increase my knowledge of men.
Nowhere among the German people was the opportunity for makingsuch a study so favourable as in Vienna.
In the old Danubian Monarchy political thought was wider in itsrange and had a richer variety of interests than in the Germany ofthat epoch'--excepting certain parts of Prussia, Hamburg andthe districts bordering on the North Sea. When I speak ofAustria here I mean that part of the great Habsburg Empirewhich, by reason of its German population, furnished not only thehistoric basis for the formation of this State but whose populationwas for several centuries also the exclusive source of culturallife in that political system whose structure was so artificial. Astime went on the stability of the Austrian State and the guaranteeof its continued existence depended more and more on themaintenance of this germ-cell of that Habsburg Empire.
The hereditary imperial provinces constituted the heart of theEmpire. And it was this heart that constantly sent the blood oflife pulsating through the whole political and cultural system.Corresponding to the heart of the Empire, Vienna signified thebrain and the will. At that time Vienna presented an appearancewhich made one think of her as an enthroned queen whoseauthoritative sway united the conglomeration of heterogenousnationalities that lived under the Habsburg sceptre. The radiantbeauty of the capital city made one forget the sad symptoms ofsenile decay which the State manifested as a whole.
Though the Empire was internally rickety because of the terrificconflict going on between the various nationalities, the outsideworld'--and Germany in particular'--saw only that lovelypicture of the city. The illusion was all the greater because atthat time Vienna seemed to have risen to its highest pitch ofsplendour. Under a Mayor, who had the true stamp of administrativegenius, the venerable residential City of the Emperors of the oldEmpire seemed to have the glory of its youth renewed. The lastgreat German who sprang from the ranks of the people that hadcolonized the East Mark was not a 'statesman', in the officialsense. This Dr. Luegar, however, in his r´le as Mayor of 'theImperial Capital and Residential City', had achieved so much inalmost all spheres of municipal activity, whether economic orcultural, that the heart of the whole Empire throbbed with renewedvigour. He thus proved himself a much greater statesman than theso-called 'diplomats' of that period.
The fact that this political system of heterogeneous racescalled Austria, finally broke down is no evidence whatsoeverof political incapacity on the part of the German element in theold East Mark. The collapse was the inevitable result of animpossible situation. Ten million people cannot permanently holdtogether a State of fifty millions, composed of different andconvicting nationalities, unless certain definite pre-requisiteconditions are at hand while there is still time to avail ofthem.
The German-Austrian had very big ways of thinking. Accustomed tolive in a great Empire, he had a keen sense of the obligationsincumbent on him in such a situation. He was the only member of theAustrian State who looked beyond the borders of the narrow landsbelonging to the Crown and took in all the frontiers of the Empirein the sweep of his mind. Indeed when destiny severed him from thecommon Fatherland he tried to master the tremendous task which wasset before him as a consequence. This task was to maintain for theGerman-Austrians that patrimony which, through innumerablestruggles, their ancestors had originally wrested from the East. Itmust be remembered that the German-Austrians could not put theirundivided strength into this effort, because the hearts and mindsof the best among them were constantly turning back towards theirkinsfolk in the Motherland, so that only a fraction of their energyremained to be employed at home.
The mental horizon of the German-Austrian was comparativelybroad. His commercial interests comprised almost every section ofthe heterogeneous Empire. The conduct of almost all importantundertakings was in his hands. He provided the State, for the mostpart, with its leading technical experts and civil servants. He wasresponsible for carrying on the foreign trade of the country, asfar as that sphere of activity was not under Jewish control, TheGerman-Austrian exclusively represented the political cement thatheld the State together. His military duties carried him far beyondthe narrow frontiers of his homeland. Though the recruit might joina regiment made up of the German element, the regiment itself mightbe stationed in Herzegovina as well as in Vienna or Galicia. Theofficers in the Habsburg armies were still Germans and so was thepredominating element in the higher branches of the civil service.Art and science were in German hands. Apart from the new artistictrash, which might easily have been produced by a negro tribe, allgenuine artistic inspiration came from the German section of thepopulation. In music, architecture, sculpture and painting, Viennaabundantly supplied the entire Dual Monarchy. And the source neverseemed to show signs of a possible exhaustion. Finally, it was theGerman element that determined the conduct of foreign policy,though a small number of Hungarians were also active in thatfield.
All efforts, however, to save the unity of the State were doomedto end in failure, because the essential pre-requisites weremissing.
There was only one possible way to control and hold in check thecentrifugal forces of the different and differing nationalities.This way was: to govern the Austrian State and organize itinternally on the principle of centralization. In no other wayimaginable could the existence of that State be assured.
Now and again there were lucid intervals in the higher rulingquarters when this truth was recognized. But it was soon forgottenagain, or else deliberately ignored, because of the difficulties tobe overcome in putting it into practice. Every project which aimedat giving the Empire a more federal shape was bound to beineffective because there was no strong central authority whichcould exercise sufficient power within the State to hold thefederal elements together. It must be remembered in this connectionthat conditions in Austria were quite different from those whichcharacterized the German State as founded by Bismarck. Germany wasfaced with only one difficulty, which was that of transforming thepurely political traditions, because throughout the whole ofBismarck's Germany there was a common cultural basis. The GermanEmpire contained only members of one and the same racial ornational stock, with the exception of a few minor foreignfragments.
Demographic conditions in Austria were quite the reverse. Withthe exception of Hungary there was no political tradition, comingdown from a great past, in any of the various affiliated countries.If there had been, time had either wiped out all traces of it, orat least, rendered them obscure. Moreover, this was the epoch whenthe principle of nationality began to be in ascendant; and thatphenomenon awakened the national instincts in the various countriesaffiliated under the Habsburg sceptre. It was difficult to controlthe action of these newly awakened national forces; because,adjacent to the frontiers of the Dual Monarchy, new national Stateswere springing up whose people were of the same or kindred racialstock as the respective nationalities that constituted the HabsburgEmpire. These new States were able to exercise a greater influencethan the German element.
Even Vienna could not hold out for a lengthy period in thisconflict. When Budapest had developed into a metropolis a rival hadgrown up whose mission was, not to help in holding together thevarious divergent parts of the Empire, but rather to strengthen onepart. Within a short time Prague followed the example of Budapest;and later on came Lemberg, Laibach and others. By raising theseplaces which had formerly been provincial towns to the rank ofnational cities, rallying centres were provided for an independentcultural life. Through this the local national instincts acquired aspiritual foundation and therewith gained a more profound hold onthe people. The time was bound to come when the particularistinterests of those various countries would become stronger thantheir common imperial interests. Once that stage had been reached,Austria's doom was sealed.
The course of this development was clearly perceptible since thedeath of Joseph II. Its rapidity depended on a number of factors,some of which had their source in the Monarchy itself; while othersresulted from the position which the Empire had taken in foreignpolitics.
It was impossible to make anything like a successful effort forthe permanent consolidation of the Austrian State unless a firm andpersistent policy of centralization were put into force. Beforeeverything else the principle should have been adopted that onlyone common language could be used as the official language of theState. Thus it would be possible to emphasize the formal unity ofthat imperial commonwealth. And thus the administration would havein its hands a technical instrument without which the State couldnot endure as a political unity. In the same way the school andother forms of education should have been used to inculcate afeeling of common citizenship. Such an objective could not bereached within ten or twenty years. The effort would have to beenvisaged in terms of centuries; just as in all problems ofcolonization, steady perseverance is a far more important elementthan the output of energetic effort at the moment.
It goes without saying that in such circumstances the countrymust be governed and administered by strictly adhering to theprinciple of uniformity.
For me it was quite instructive to discover why this did nottake place, or rather why it was not done. Those who were guilty ofthe omission must be held responsible for the break-up of theHabsburg Empire.
More than any other State, the existence of the old Austriadepended on a strong and capable Government. The Habsburg Empirelacked ethnical uniformity, which constitutes the fundamental basisof a national State and will preserve the existence of such a Stateeven though the ruling power should be grossly inefficient. When aState is composed of a homogeneous population, the natural inertiaof such a population will hold the Stage together and maintain itsexistence through astonishingly long periods of misgovernment andmaladministration. It may often seem as if the principle of lifehad died out in such a body-politic; but a time comes when theapparent corpse rises up and displays before the world anastonishing manifestation of its indestructible vitality.
But the situation is utterly different in a country where thepopulation is not homogeneous, where there is no bond of commonblood but only that of one ruling hand. Should the ruling hand showsigns of weakness in such a State the result will not be to cause akind of hibernation of the State but rather to awaken theindividualist instincts which are slumbering in the ethnologicalgroups. These instincts do not make themselves felt as long asthese groups are dominated by a strong central will-to-govern. Thedanger which exists in these slumbering separatist instincts can berendered more or less innocuous only through centuries of commoneducation, common traditions and common interests. The younger suchStates are, the more their existence will depend on the ability andstrength of the central government. If their foundation was dueonly to the work of a strong personality or a leader who is a manof genius, in many cases they will break up as soon as the founderdisappears; because, though great, he stood alone. But even aftercenturies of a common education and experiences these separatistinstincts I have spoken of are not always completely overcome. Theymay be only dormant and may suddenly awaken when the centralgovernment shows weakness and the force of a common education aswell as the prestige of a common tradition prove unable towithstand the vital energies of separatist nationalities forgingahead towards the shaping of their own individual existence.
The failure to see the truth of all this constituted what may becalled the tragic crime of the Habsburg rulers.
Only before the eyes of one Habsburg ruler, and that for thelast time, did the hand of Destiny hold aloft the torch that threwlight on the future of his country. But the torch was thenextinguished for ever.
Joseph II, Roman Emperor of the German nation, was filled with agrowing anxiety when he realized the fact that his House wasremoved to an outlying frontier of his Empire and that the timewould soon be at hand when it would be overturned and engulfed inthe whirlpool caused by that Babylon of nationalities, unlesssomething was done at the eleventh hour to overcome the direconsequences resulting from the negligence of his ancestors. Withsuperhuman energy this 'Friend of Mankind' made every possibleeffort to counteract the effects of the carelessness andthoughtlessness of his predecessors. Within one decade he strove torepair the damage that had been done through centuries. If Destinyhad only granted him forty years for his labours, and if only twogenerations had carried on the work which he had started, themiracle might have been performed. But when he died, broken in bodyand spirit after ten years of rulership, his work sank with himinto the grave and rests with him there in the Capucin Crypt,sleeping its eternal sleep, having never again showed signs ofawakening.
His successors had neither the ability nor the will-powernecessary for the task they had to face.
When the first signs of a new revolutionary epoch appeared inEurope they gradually scattered the fire throughout Austria. Andwhen the fire began to glow steadily it was fed and fanned not bythe social or political conditions but by forces that had theirorigin in the nationalist yearnings of the various ethnicgroups.
The European revolutionary movement of 1848 primarily took theform of a class conflict in almost every other country, but inAustria it took the form of a new racial struggle. In so far as theGerman-Austrians there forgot the origins of the movement, orperhaps had failed to recognize them at the start and consequentlytook part in the revolutionary uprising, they sealed their ownfate. For they thus helped to awaken the spirit of WesternDemocracy which, within a short while, shattered the foundations oftheir own existence.
The setting up of a representative parliamentary body, withoutinsisting on the preliminary that only one language should be usedin all public intercourse under the State, was the first great blowto the predominance of the German element in the Dual Monarchy.From that moment the State was also doomed to collapse sooner orlater. All that followed was nothing but the historical liquidationof an Empire.
To watch that process of progressive disintegration was a tragicand at the same time an instructive experience. The execution ofhistory's decree was carried out in thousands of details. The factthat great numbers of people went about blindfolded amid themanifest signs of dissolution only proves that the gods had decreedthe destruction of Austria.
I do not wish to dwell on details because that would lie outsidethe scope of this book. I want to treat in detail only those eventswhich are typical among the causes that lead to the decline ofnations and States and which are therefore of importance to ourpresent age. Moreover, the study of these events helped to furnishthe basis of my own political outlook.
Among the institutions which most clearly manifestedunmistakable signs of decay, even to the weak-sighted Philistine,was that which, of all the institutions of State, ought to havebeen the most firmly founded'--I mean the Parliament, or theReichsrat (Imperial Council) as it was called in Austria.
The pattern for this corporate body was obviously that whichexisted in England, the land of classic democracy. The whole ofthat excellent organization was bodily transferred to Austria withas little alteration as possible.
As the Austrian counterpart to the British two-chamber system aChamber of Deputies and a House of Lords (Herrenhaus) wereestablished in Vienna. The Houses themselves, considered asbuildings were somewhat different. When Barry built his palaces,or, as we say the Houses of Parliament, on the shore of the Thames,he could look to the history of the British Empire for theinspiration of his work. In that history he found sufficientmaterial to fill and decorate the 1,200 niches, brackets, andpillars of his magnificent edifice. His statues and paintings madethe House of Lords and the House of Commons temples dedicated tothe glory of the nation.
There it was that Vienna encountered the first difficulty. WhenHansen, the Danish architect, had completed the last gable of themarble palace in which the new body of popular representatives wasto be housed he had to turn to the ancient classical world forsubjects to fill out his decorative plan. This theatrical shrine of'Western Democracy' was adorned with the statues and portraits ofGreek and Roman statesmen and philosophers. As if it were meant fora symbol of irony, the horses of the quadriga that surmounts thetwo Houses are pulling apart from one another towards all fourquarters of the globe. There could be no better symbol for the kindof activity going on within the walls of that same building.
The 'nationalities' were opposed to any kind of glorification ofAustrian history in the decoration of this building, insisting thatsuch would constitute an offence to them and a provocation. Muchthe same happened in Germany, where the Reich-stag, built byWallot, was not dedicated to the German people until the cannonswere thundering in the World War. And then it was dedicated by aninscription.
I was not yet twenty years of age when I first entered thePalace on the Franzens-ring to watch and listen in the Chamber ofDeputies. That first experience aroused in me a profound feeling ofrepugnance.
I had always hated the Parliament, but not as an institution initself. Quite the contrary. As one who cherished ideals ofpolitical freedom I could not even imagine any other form ofgovernment. In the light of my attitude towards the House ofHabsburg I should then have considered it a crime against libertyand reason to think of any kind of dictatorship as a possible formof government.
A certain admiration which I had for the British Parliamentcontributed towards the formation of this opinion. I became imbuedwith that feeling of admiration almost without my being consciousof the effect of it through so much reading of newspapers while Iwas yet quite young. I could not discard that admiration all in amoment. The dignified way in which the British House of Commonsfulfilled its function impressed me greatly, thanks largely to theglowing terms in which the Austrian Press reported these events. Iused to ask myself whether there could be any nobler form ofgovernment than self-government by the people.
But these considerations furnished the very motives of myhostility to the Austrian Parliament. The form in whichparliamentary government was here represented seemed unworthy ofits great prototype. The following considerations also influencedmy attitude:
The fate of the German element in the Austrian State depended onits position in Parliament. Up to the time that universal suffrageby secret ballot was introduced the German representatives had amajority in the Parliament, though that majority was not a verysubstantial one. This situation gave cause for anxiety because theSocial-Democratic fraction of the German element could not berelied upon when national questions were at stake. In matters thatwere of critical concern for the German element, theSocial-Democrats always took up an anti-German stand because theywere afraid of losing their followers among the other nationalgroups. Already at that time'--before the introduction ofuniversal suffrage'--the Social-Democratic Party could nolonger be considered as a German Party. The introduction ofuniversal suffrage put an end even to the purely numericalpredominance of the German element. The way was now clear for thefurther 'de-Germanization' of the Austrian State.
The national instinct of self-preservation made it impossiblefor me to welcome a representative system in which the Germanelement was not really represented as such, but always betrayed bythe Social-Democratic fraction. Yet all these, and many others,were defects which could not be attributed to the parliamentarysystem as such, but rather to the Austrian State in particular. Istill believed that if the German majority could be restored in therepresentative body there would be no occasion to oppose such asystem as long as the old Austrian State continued to exist.
Such was my general attitude at the time when I first enteredthose sacred and contentious halls. For me they were sacred onlybecause of the radiant beauty of that majestic edifice. A Greekwonder on German soil.
But I soon became enraged by the hideous spectacle that met myeyes. Several hundred representatives were there to discuss aproblem of great economical importance and each representative hadthe right to have his say.
That experience of a day was enough to supply me with food forthought during several weeks afterwards.
The intellectual level of the debate was quite low. Some timesthe debaters did not make themselves intelligible at all. Severalof those present did not speak German but only their Slavvernaculars or dialects. Thus I had the opportunity of hearing withmy own ears what I had been hitherto acquainted with only throughreading the newspapers. A turbulent mass of people, allgesticulating and bawling against one another, with a pathetic oldman shaking his bell and making frantic efforts to call the Houseto a sense of its dignity by friendly appeals, exhortations, andgrave warnings.
I could not refrain from laughing.
Several weeks later I paid a second visit. This time the Housepresented an entirely different picture, so much so that one couldhardly recognize it as the same place. The hall was practicallyempty. They were sleeping in the other rooms below. Only a fewdeputies were in their places, yawning in each other's faces. Onewas speechifying. A deputy speaker was in the chair. When he lookedround it was quite plain that he felt bored.
Then I began to reflect seriously on the whole thing. I went tothe Parliament whenever I had any time to spare and watched thespectacle silently but attentively. I listened to the debates, asfar as they could be understood, and I studied the more or lessintelligent features of those 'elect' representatives of thevarious nationalities which composed that motley State. Gradually Iformed my own ideas about what I saw.
A year of such quiet observation was sufficient to transform orcompletely destroy my former convictions as to the character ofthis parliamentary institution. I no longer opposed merely theperverted form which the principle of parliamentary representationhad assumed in Austria. No. It had become impossible for me toaccept the system in itself. Up to that time I had believed thatthe disastrous deficiencies of the Austrian Parliament were due tothe lack of a German majority, but now I recognized that theinstitution itself was wrong in its very essence and form.
A number of problems presented themselves before my mind. Istudied more closely the democratic principle of 'decision by themajority vote', and I scrutinized no less carefully theintellectual and moral worth of the gentlemen who, as the chosenrepresentatives of the nation, were entrusted with the task ofmaking this institution function.
Thus it happened that at one and the same time I came to knowthe institution itself and those of whom it was composed. And itwas thus that, within the course of a few years, I came to form aclear and vivid picture of the average type of that most lightlyworshipped phenomenon of our time'--the parliamentary deputy.The picture of him which I then formed became deeply engraved on mymind and I have never altered it since, at least as far asessentials go.
Once again these object-lessons taken from real life saved mefrom getting firmly entangled by a theory which at first sightseems so alluring to many people, though that theory itself is asymptom of human decadence.
Democracy, as practised in Western Europe to-day, is thefore-runner of Marxism. In fact, the latter would not beconceivable without the former. Democracy is the breeding-ground inwhich the bacilli of the Marxist world pest can grow and spread. Bythe introduction of parliamentarianism, democracy produced anabortion of filth and fire (Note 6), the creative fire of which,however, seems to have died out.
I am more than grateful to Fate that this problem came to mynotice when I was still in Vienna; for if I had been in Germany atthat time I might easily have found only a superficial solution. IfI had been in Berlin when I first discovered what an illogicalthing this institution is which we call Parliament, I might easilyhave gone to the other extreme and believed'--as many peoplebelieved, and apparently not without good reason'--that thesalvation of the people and the Empire could be secured only byrestrengthening the principle of imperial authority. Those who hadthis belief did not discern the tendencies of their time and wereblind to the aspirations of the people.
In Austria one could not be so easily misled. There it wasimpossible to fall from one error into another. If the Parliamentwere worthless, the Habsburgs were worse; or at least not in theslightest degree better. The problem was not solved by rejectingthe parliamentary system. Immediately the question arose: Whatthen? To repudiate and abolish the Vienna Parliament would haveresulted in leaving all power in the hands of the Habsburgs. Forme, especially, that idea was impossible.
Since this problem was specially difficult in regard to Austria,I was forced while still quite young to go into the essentials ofthe whole question more thoroughly than I otherwise should havedone.
The aspect of the situation that first made the most strikingimpression on me and gave me grounds for serious reflection was themanifest lack of any individual responsibility in therepresentative body.
The parliament passes some acts or decree which may have themost devastating consequences, yet nobody bears the responsibilityfor it. Nobody can be called to account. For surely one cannot saythat a Cabinet discharges its responsibility when it retires afterhaving brought about a catastrophe. Or can we say that theresponsibility is fully discharged when a new coalition is formedor parliament dissolved? Can the principle of responsibility meananything else than the responsibility of a definite person?
Is it at all possible actually to call to account the leaders ofa parliamentary government for any kind of action which originatedin the wishes of the whole multitude of deputies and was carriedout under their orders or sanction? Instead of developingconstructive ideas and plans, does the business of a statesmanconsist in the art of making a whole pack of blockheads understandhis projects? Is it his business to entreat and coach them so thatthey will grant him their generous consent?
Is it an indispensable quality in a statesman that he shouldpossess a gift of persuasion commensurate with the statesman'sability to conceive great political measures and carry them throughinto practice?
Does it really prove that a statesman is incompetent if heshould fail to win over a majority of votes to support his policyin an assembly which has been called together as the chance resultof an electoral system that is not always honestlyadministered.
Has there ever been a case where such an assembly has worthilyappraised a great political concept before that concept was putinto practice and its greatness openly demonstrated through itssuccess?
In this world is not the creative act of the genius always aprotest against the inertia of the mass?
What shall the statesman do if he does not succeed in coaxingthe parliamentary multitude to give its consent to his policy?Shall he purchase that consent for some sort of consideration?
Or, when confronted with the obstinate stupidity of his fellowcitizens, should he then refrain from pushing forward the measureswhich he deems to be of vital necessity to the life of the nation?Should he retire or remain in power?
In such circumstances does not a man of character find himselfface to face with an insoluble contradiction between his ownpolitical insight on the one hand and, on the other, his moralintegrity, or, better still, his sense of honesty?
Where can we draw the line between public duty and personalhonour?
Must not every genuine leader renounce the idea of degradinghimself to the level of a political jobber?
And, on the other hand, does not every jobber feel the itch to'play politics', seeing that the final responsibility will neverrest with him personally but with an anonymous mass which can neverbe called to account for their deeds?
Must not our parliamentary principle of government by numericalmajority necessarily lead to the destruction of the principle ofleadership?
Does anybody honestly believe that human progress originates inthe composite brain of the majority and not in the brain of theindividual personality?
Or may it be presumed that for the future human civilizationwill be able to dispense with this as a condition of itsexistence?
But may it not be that, to-day, more than ever before, thecreative brain of the individual is indispensable?
The parliamentary principle of vesting legislative power in thedecision of the majority rejects the authority of the individualand puts a numerical quota of anonymous heads in its place. Indoing so it contradicts the aristrocratic principle, which is afundamental law of nature; but, of course, we must remember that inthis decadent era of ours the aristrocratic principle need not bethought of as incorporated in the upper ten thousand.
The devastating influence of this parliamentary institutionmight not easily be recognized by those who read the Jewish Press,unless the reader has learned how to think independently andexamine the facts for himself. This institution is primarilyresponsible for the crowded inrush of mediocre people into thefield of politics. Confronted with such a phenomenon, a man who isendowed with real qualities of leadership will be tempted torefrain from taking part in political life; because under thesecircumstances the situation does not call for a man who has acapacity for constructive statesmanship but rather for a man who iscapable of bargaining for the favour of the majority. Thus thesituation will appeal to small minds and will attract themaccordingly.
The narrower the mental outlook and the more meagre the amountof knowledge in a political jobber, the more accurate is hisestimate of his own political stock, and thus he will be all themore inclined to appreciate a system which does not demand creativegenius or even high-class talent; but rather that crafty kind ofsagacity which makes an efficient town clerk. Indeed, he valuesthis kind of small craftiness more than the political genius of aPericles. Such a mediocrity does not even have to worry aboutresponsibility for what he does. From the beginning he knows thatwhatever be the results of his 'statesmanship' his end is alreadyprescribed by the stars; he will one day have to clear out and makeroom for another who is of similar mental calibre. For it isanother sign of our decadent times that the number of eminentstatesmen grows according as the calibre of individual personalitydwindles. That calibre will become smaller and smaller the more theindividual politician has to depend upon parliamentary majorities.A man of real political ability will refuse to be the beadle for abevy of footling cacklers; and they in their turn, being therepresentatives of the majority'--which means the dunder-headedmultitude'--hate nothing so much as a superior brain.
For footling deputies it is always quite a consolation to be ledby a person whose intellectual stature is on a level with theirown. Thus each one may have the opportunity to shine in debateamong such compeers and, above all, each one feels that he may oneday rise to the top. If Peter be boss to-day, then why not Paultomorrow?
This new invention of democracy is very closely connected with apeculiar phenomenon which has recently spread to a perniciousextent, namely the cowardice of a large section of our so-calledpolitical leaders. Whenever important decisions have to be madethey always find themselves fortunate in being able to hide behindthe backs of what they call the majority.
In observing one of these political manipulators one notices howhe wheedles the majority in order to get their sanction forwhatever action he takes. He has to have accomplices in order to beable to shift responsibility to other shoulders whenever it isopportune to do so. That is the main reason why this kind ofpolitical activity is abhorrent to men of character and courage,while at the same time it attracts inferior types; for a person whois not willing to accept responsibility for his own actions, but isalways seeking to be covered by something, must be classed amongthe knaves and the rascals. If a national leader should come fromthat lower class of politicians the evil consequences will soonmanifest themselves. Nobody will then have the courage to take adecisive step. They will submit to abuse and defamation rather thanpluck up courage to take a definite stand. And thus nobody is leftwho is willing to risk his position and his career, if needs be, insupport of a determined line of policy.
One truth which must always be borne in mind is that themajority can never replace the man. The majority represents notonly ignorance but also cowardice. And just as a hundred blockheadsdo not equal one man of wisdom, so a hundred poltroons areincapable of any political line of action that requires moralstrength and fortitude.
The lighter the burden of responsibility on each individualleader, the greater will be the number of those who, in spite oftheir sorry mediocrity, will feel the call to place their immortalenergies at the disposal of the nation. They are so much on thetip-toe of expectation that they find it hard to wait their turn.They stand in a long queue, painfully and sadly counting the numberof those ahead of them and calculating the hours until they mayeventually come forward. They watch every change that takes placein the personnel of the office towards which their hopes aredirected, and they are grateful for every scandal which removes oneof the aspirants waiting ahead of them in the queue. If somebodysticks too long to his office stool they consider this as almost abreach of a sacred understanding based on their mutual solidarity.They grow furious and give no peace until that inconsiderate personis finally driven out and forced to hand over his cosy berth forpublic disposal. After that he will have little chance of gettinganother opportunity. Usually those placemen who have been forced togive up their posts push themselves again into the waiting queueunless they are hounded away by the protestations of the otheraspirants.
The result of all this is that, in such a State, the successionof sudden changes in public positions and public offices has a verydisquieting effect in general, which may easily lead to disasterwhen an adverse crisis arises. It is not only the ignorant and theincompetent person who may fall victim to those parliamentaryconditions, for the genuine leader may be affected just as much asthe others, if not more so, whenever Fate has chanced to place acapable man in the position of leader. Let the superior quality ofsuch a leader be once recognized and the result will be that ajoint front will be organized against him, particularly if thatleader, though not coming from their ranks, should fall into thehabit of intermingling with these illustrious nincompoops on theirown level. They want to have only their own company and willquickly take a hostile attitude towards any man who might showhimself obviously above and beyond them when he mingles in theirranks. Their instinct, which is so blind in other directions, isvery sharp in this particular.
The inevitable result is that the intellectual level of theruling class sinks steadily. One can easily forecast how much thenation and State are bound to suffer from such a condition ofaffairs, provided one does not belong to that same class of'leaders'.
The parliamentary r(C)gime in the old Austria was the veryarchetype of the institution as I have described it.
Though the Austrian Prime Minister was appointed by theKing-Emperor, this act of appointment merely gave practical effectto the will of the parliament. The huckstering and bargaining thatwent on in regard to every ministerial position showed all thetypical marks of Western Democracy. The results that followed werein keeping with the principles applied. The intervals between thereplacement of one person by another gradually became shorter,finally ending up in a wild relay chase. With each change thequality of the 'statesman' in question deteriorated, until finallyonly the petty type of political huckster remained. In such peoplethe qualities of statesmanship were measured and valued accordingto the adroitness with which they pieced together one coalitionafter another; in other words, their craftiness in manipulating thepettiest political transactions, which is the only kind ofpractical activity suited to the aptitudes of theserepresentatives.
In this sphere Vienna was the school which offered the mostimpressive examples.
Another feature that engaged my attention quite as much as thefeatures I have already spoken of was the contrast between thetalents and knowledge of these representatives of the people on theone hand and, on the other, the nature of the tasks they had toface. Willingly or unwillingly, one could not help thinkingseriously of the narrow intellectual outlook of these chosenrepresentatives of the various constituent nationalities, and onecould not avoid pondering on the methods through which these noblefigures in our public life were first discovered.
It was worth while to make a thorough study and examination ofthe way in which the real talents of these gentlemen were devotedto the service of their country; in other words, to analysethoroughly the technical procedure of their activities.
The whole spectacle of parliamentary life became more and moredesolate the more one penetrated into its intimate structure andstudied the persons and principles of the system in a spirit ofruthless objectivity. Indeed, it is very necessary to be strictlyobjective in the study of the institution whose sponsors talk of'objectivity' in every other sentence as the only fair basis ofexamination and judgment. If one studied these gentlemen and thelaws of their strenuous existence the results were surprising.
There is no other principle which turns out to be quite soill-conceived as the parliamentary principle, if we examine itobjectively.
In our examination of it we may pass over the methods accordingto which the election of the representatives takes place, as wellas the ways which bring them into office and bestow new titles onthem. It is quite evident that only to a tiny degree are publicwishes or public necessities satisfied by the manner in which anelection takes place; for everybody who properly estimates thepolitical intelligence of the masses can easily see that this isnot sufficiently developed to enable them to form general politicaljudgments on their own account, or to select the men who might becompetent to carry out their ideas in practice.
Whatever definition we may give of the term 'public opinion',only a very small part of it originates from personal experience orindividual insight. The greater portion of it results from themanner in which public matters have been presented to the peoplethrough an overwhelmingly impressive and persistent system of'information'.
In the religious sphere the profession of a denominationalbelief is largely the result of education, while the religiousyearning itself slumbers in the soul; so too the political opinionsof the masses are the final result of influences systematicallyoperating on human sentiment and intelligence in virtue of a methodwhich is applied sometimes with almost-incredible thoroughness andperseverance.
By far the most effective branch of political education, whichin this connection is best expressed by the word 'propaganda', iscarried on by the Press. The Press is the chief means employed inthe process of political 'enlightenment'. It represents a kind ofschool for adults. This educational activity, however, is not inthe hands of the State but in the clutches of powers which arepartly of a very inferior character. While still a young man inVienna I had excellent opportunities for coming to know the men whoowned this machine for mass instruction, as well as those whosupplied it with the ideas it distributed. At first I was quitesurprised when I realized how little time was necessary for thisdangerous Great Power within the State to produce a certain beliefamong the public; and in doing so the genuine will and convictionsof the public were often completely misconstrued. It took the Pressonly a few days to transform some ridiculously trivial matter intoan issue of national importance, while vital problems werecompletely ignored or filched and hidden away from publicattention.
The Press succeeded in the magical art of producing names fromnowhere within the course of a few weeks. They made it appear thatthe great hopes of the masses were bound up with those names. Andso they made those names more popular than any man of real abilitycould ever hope to be in a long lifetime. All this was done,despite the fact that such names were utterly unknown and indeedhad never been heard of even up to a month before the Presspublicly emblazoned them. At the same time old and tried figures inthe political and other spheres of life quickly faded from thepublic memory and were forgotten as if they were dead, though stillhealthy and in the enjoyment of their full viguour. Or sometimessuch men were so vilely abused that it looked as if their nameswould soon stand as permanent symbols of the worst kind ofbaseness. In order to estimate properly the really perniciousinfluence which the Press can exercise one had to study thisinfamous Jewish method whereby honourable and decent people werebesmirched with mud and filth, in the form of low abuse andslander, from hundreds and hundreds of quarters simultaneously, asif commanded by some magic formula.
These highway robbers would grab at anything which might servetheir evil ends.
They would poke their noses into the most intimate familyaffairs and would not rest until they had sniffed out some pettyitem which could be used to destroy the reputation of their victim.But if the result of all this sniffing should be that nothingderogatory was discovered in the private or public life of thevictim, they continued to hurl abuse at him, in the belief thatsome of their animadversions would stick even though refuted athousand times. In most cases it finally turned out impossible forthe victim to continue his defence, because the accuser workedtogether with so many accomplices that his slanders were re-echoedinterminably. But these slanderers would never own that they wereacting from motives which influence the common run of humanity orare understood by them. Oh, no. The scoundrel who defamed hiscontemporaries in this villainous way would crown himself with ahalo of heroic probity fashioned of unctuous phraseology andtwaddle about his 'duties as a journalist' and other mouldynonsense of that kind. When these cuttle-fishes gathered togetherin large shoals at meetings and congresses they would give out alot of slimy talk about a special kind of honour which they calledthe professional honour of the journalist. Then the assembledspecies would bow their respects to one another.
These are the kind of beings that fabricate more than two-thirdsof what is called public opinion, from the foam of which theparliamentary Aphrodite eventually arises.
Several volumes would be needed if one were to give an adequateaccount of the whole procedure and fully describe all its hollowfallacies. But if we pass over the details and look at the productitself while it is in operation I think this alone will besufficient to open the eyes of even the most innocent and credulousperson, so that he may recognize the absurdity of this institutionby looking at it objectively.
In order to realize how this human aberration is as harmful asit is absurd, the test and easiest method is to compare democraticparliamentarianism with a genuine German democracy.
The remarkable characteristic of the parliamentary form ofdemocracy is the fact that a number of persons, let us say fivehundred'--including, in recent time, women also'--areelected to parliament and invested with authority to give finaljudgment on anything and everything. In practice they alone are thegoverning body; for although they may appoint a Cabinet, whichseems outwardly to direct the affairs of state, this Cabinet hasnot a real existence of its own. In reality the so-calledGovernment cannot do anything against the will of the assembly. Itcan never be called to account for anything, since the right ofdecision is not vested in the Cabinet but in the parliamentarymajority. The Cabinet always functions only as the executor of thewill of the majority. Its political ability can be judged onlyaccording to how far it succeeds in adjusting itself to the will ofthe majority or in persuading the majority to agree to itsproposals. But this means that it must descend from the level of areal governing power to that of a mendicant who has to beg theapproval of a majority that may be got together for the time being.Indeed, the chief preoccupation of the Cabinet must be to securefor itself, in the case of' each individual measure, the favour ofthe majority then in power or, failing that, to form a new majoritythat will be more favourably disposed. If it should succeed ineither of these efforts it may go on 'governing' for a littlewhile. If it should fail to win or form a majority it must retire.The question whether its policy as such has been right or wrongdoes not matter at all.
Thereby all responsibility is abolished in practice. To whatconsequences such a state of affairs can lead may easily beunderstood from the following simple considerations:
Those five hundred deputies who have been elected by the peoplecome from various dissimilar callings in life and show very varyingdegrees of political capacity, with the result that the wholecombination is disjointed and sometimes presents quite a sorrypicture. Surely nobody believes that these chosen representativesof the nation are the choice spirits or first-class intellects.Nobody, I hope, is foolish enough to pretend that hundreds ofstatesmen can emerge from papers placed in the ballot box byelectors who are anything else but averagely intelligent. Theabsurd notion that men of genius are born out of universal suffragecannot be too strongly repudiated. In the first place, those timesmay be really called blessed when one genuine statesman makes hisappearance among a people. Such statesmen do not appear all at oncein hundreds or more. Secondly, among the broad masses there isinstinctively a definite antipathy towards every outstandinggenius. There is a better chance of seeing a camel pass through theeye of a needle than of seeing a really great man 'discovered'through an election.
Whatever has happened in history above the level of the averageof the broad public has mostly been due to the driving force of anindividual personality.
But here five hundred persons of less than modest intellectualqualities pass judgment on the most important problems affectingthe nation. They form governments which in turn learn to win theapproval of the illustrious assembly for every legislative stepthat may be taken, which means that the policy to be carried out isactually the policy of the five hundred.
And indeed, generally speaking, the policy bears the stamp ofits origin.
But let us pass over the intellectual qualities of theserepresentatives and ask what is the nature of the task set beforethem. If we consider the fact that the problems which have to bediscussed and solved belong to the most varied and diverse fieldswe can very well realize how inefficient a governing system must bewhich entrusts the right of decision to a mass assembly in whichonly very few possess the knowledge and experience such as wouldqualify them to deal with the matters that have to be settled. Themost important economic measures are submitted to a tribunal inwhich not more than one-tenth of the members have studied theelements of economics. This means that final authority is vested inmen who are utterly devoid of any preparatory training which mightmake them competent to decide on the questions at issue.
The same holds true of every other problem. It is always amajority of ignorant and incompetent people who decide on eachmeasure; for the composition of the institution does not vary,while the problems to be dealt with come from the most variedspheres of public life. An intelligent judgment would be possibleonly if different deputies had the authority to deal with differentissues. It is out of the question to think that the same people arefitted to decide on transport questions as well as, let us say, onquestions of foreign policy, unless each of them be a universalgenius. But scarcely more than one genius appears in a century.Here we are scarcely ever dealing with real brains, but only withdilettanti who are as narrow-minded as they are conceited andarrogant, intellectual demi-mondes of the worst kind. Thisis why these honourable gentlemen show such astonishing levity indiscussing and deciding on matters that would demand the mostpainstaking consideration even from great minds. Measures ofmomentous importance for the future existence of the State areframed and discussed in an atmosphere more suited to thecard-table. Indeed the latter suggests a much more fittingoccupation for these gentlemen than that of deciding the destiniesof a people.
Of course it would be unfair to assume that each member in sucha parliament was endowed by nature with such a small sense ofresponsibility. That is out of the question.
But this system, by forcing the individual to pass judgment onquestions for which he is not competent gradually debases his moralcharacter. Nobody will have the courage to say: "Gentlemen, I amafraid we know nothing about what we are talking about. I for onehave no competency in the matter at all." Anyhow if such adeclaration were made it would not change matters very much; forsuch outspoken honesty would not be understood. The person who madethe declaration would be deemed an honourable ass who ought not tobe allowed to spoil the game. Those who have a knowledge of humannature know that nobody likes to be considered a fool among hisassociates; and in certain circles honesty is taken as an index ofstupidity.
Thus it happens that a naturally upright man, once he findshimself elected to parliament, may eventually be induced by theforce of circumstances to acquiesce in a general line of conductwhich is base in itself and amounts to a betrayal of the publictrust. That feeling that if the individual refrained from takingpart in a certain decision his attitude would not alter thesituation in the least, destroys every real sense of honour whichmight occasionally arouse the conscience of one person or another.Finally, the otherwise upright deputy will succeed in persuadinghimself that he is by no means the worst of the lot and that bytaking part in a certain line of action he may prevent somethingworse from happening.
A counter argument may be put forward here. It may be said thatof course the individual member may not have the knowledge which isrequisite for the treatment of this or that question, yet hisattitude towards it is taken on the advice of his Party as theguiding authority in each political matter; and it may further besaid that the Party sets up special committees of experts who haveeven more than the requisite knowledge for dealing with thequestions placed before them.
At first sight, that argument seems sound. But then anotherquestion arises'--namely, why are five hundred persons electedif only a few have the wisdom which is required to deal with themore important problems?
It is not the aim of our modern democratic parliamentary systemto bring together an assembly of intelligent and well-informeddeputies. Not at all. The aim rather is to bring together a groupof nonentities who are dependent on others for their views and whocan be all the more easily led, the narrower the mental outlook ofeach individual is. That is the only way in which a party policy,according to the evil meaning it has to-day, can be put intoeffect. And by this method alone it is possible for the wirepuller,who exercises the real control, to remain in the dark, so thatpersonally he can never be brought to account for his actions. Forunder such circumstances none of the decisions taken, no matter howdisastrous they may turn out for the nation as a whole, can be laidat the door of the individual whom everybody knows to be the evilgenius responsible for the whole affair. All responsibility isshifted to the shoulders of the Party as a whole.
In practice no actual responsibility remains. For responsibilityarises only from personal duty and not from the obligations thatrest with a parliamentary assembly of empty talkers.
The parliamentary institution attracts people of the badgertype, who do not like the open light. No upright man, who is readyto accept personal responsibility for his acts, will be attractedto such an institution.
That is the reason why this brand of democracy has become a toolin the hand of that race which, because of the inner purposes itwishes to attain, must shun the open light, as it has always doneand always will do. Only a Jew can praise an institution which isas corrupt and false as himself.
As a contrast to this kind of democracy we have the Germandemocracy, which is a true democracy; for here the leader is freelychosen and is obliged to accept full responsibility for all hisactions and omissions. The problems to be dealt with are not put tothe vote of the majority; but they are decided upon by theindividual, and as a guarantee of responsibility for thosedecisions he pledges all he has in the world and even his life.
The objection may be raised here that under such conditions itwould be very difficult to find a man who would be ready to devotehimself to so fateful a task. The answer to that objection is asfollows:
We thank God that the inner spirit of our German democracy willof itself prevent the chance careerist, who may be intellectuallyworthless and a moral twister, from coming by devious ways to aposition in which he may govern his fellow-citizens. The fear ofundertaking such far-reaching responsibilities, under Germandemocracy, will scare off the ignorant and the feckless.
But should it happen that such a person might creep insurreptitiously it will be easy enough to identify him andapostrophize him ruthlessly. somewhat thus: "Be off, you scoundrel.Don't soil these steps with your feet; because these are the stepsthat lead to the portals of the Pantheon of History, and they arenot meant for place-hunters but for men of noble character."
Such were the views I formed after two years of attendance atthe sessions of the Viennese Parliament. Then I went there nomore.
The parliamentary regime became one of the causes why thestrength of the Habsburg State steadily declined during the lastyears of its existence. The more the predominance of the Germanelement was whittled away through parliamentary procedure, the moreprominent became the system of playing off one of the variousconstituent nationalities against the other. In the ImperialParliament it was always the German element that suffered throughthe system, which meant that the results were detrimental to theEmpire as a whole; for at the close of the century even the mostsimple-minded people could recognize that the cohesive forceswithin the Dual Monarchy no longer sufficed to counterbalance theseparatist tendencies of the provincial nationalities. On thecontrary!
The measures which the State adopted for its own maintenancebecame more and more mean spirited and in a like degree the generaldisrespect for the State increased. Not only Hungary but also thevarious Slav provinces gradually ceased to identify themselves withthe monarchy which embraced them all, and accordingly they did notfeel its weakness as in any way detrimental to themselves. Theyrather welcomed those manifestations of senile decay. They lookedforward to the final dissolution of the State, and not to itsrecovery.
The complete collapse was still forestalled in Parliament by thehumiliating concessions that were made to every kind of importunatedemands, at the cost of the German element. Throughout the countrythe defence of the State rested on playing off the variousnationalities against one another. But the general trend of thisdevelopment was directed against the Germans. Especially since theright of succession to the throne conferred certain influence onthe Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the policy of increasing the power ofthe Czechs was carried out systematically from the upper grades ofthe administration down to the lower. With all the means at hiscommand the heir to the Dual Monarchy personally furthered thepolicy that aimed at eliminating the influence of the Germanelement, or at least he acted as protector of that policy. By theuse of State officials as tools, purely German districts weregradually but decisively brought within the danger zone of themixed languages. Even in Lower Austria this process began to makeheadway with a constantly increasing tempo and Vienna was lookedupon by the Czechs as their biggest city.
In the family circle of this new Habsburger the Czech languagewas favoured. The wife of the Archduke had formerly been a CzechCountess and was wedded to the Prince by a morganatic marriage. Shecame from an environment where hostility to the Germans had beentraditional. The leading idea in the mind of the Archduke was toestablish a Slav State in Central Europe, which was to beconstructed on a purely Catholic basis, so as to serve as a bulwarkagainst Orthodox Russia.
As had happened often in Habsburg history, religion was thusexploited to serve a purely political policy, and in this case afatal policy, at least as far as German interests were concerned.The result was lamentable in many respects.
Neither the House of Habsburg nor the Catholic Church receivedthe reward which they expected. Habsburg lost the throne and theChurch lost a great State. By employing religious motives in theservice of politics, a spirit was aroused which the instigators ofthat policy had never thought possible.
From the attempt to exterminate Germanism in the old monarchy byevery available means arose the Pan-German Movement in Austria, asa response.
In the 'eighties of the last century Manchester Liberalism,which was Jewish in its fundamental ideas, had reached the zenithof its influence in the Dual Monarchy, or had already passed thatpoint. The reaction which set in did not arise from social but fromnationalistic tendencies, as was always the case in the oldAustria. The instinct of self-preservation drove the German elementto defend itself energetically. Economic considerations only slowlybegan to gain an important influence; but they were of secondaryconcern. But of the general political chaos two party organizationsemerged. The one was more of a national, and the other more of asocial, character; but both were highly interesting and instructivefor the future.
After the war of 1866, which had resulted in the humiliation ofAustria, the House of Habsburg contemplated a revanche onthe battlefield. Only the tragic end of the Emperor Maximilian ofMexico prevented a still closer collaboration with France. Thechief blame for Maximilian's disastrous expedition was attributedto Napoleon III and the fact that the Frenchman left him in thelurch aroused a general feeling of indignation. Yet the Habsburgswere still lying in wait for their opportunity. If the war of1870-71 had not been such a singular triumph, the Viennese Courtmight have chanced the game of blood in order to get its revengefor Sadowa. But when the first reports arrived from theFranco-German battlefield, which, though true, seemed miraculousand almost incredible, the 'most wise' of all monarchs recognizedthat the moment was inopportune and tried to accept theunfavourable situation with as good a grace as possible.
The heroic conflict of those two years (1870-71) produced astill greater miracle; for with the Habsburgs the change ofattitude never came from an inner heartfelt urge but only from thepressure of circumstances. The German people of the East Mark,however, were entranced by the triumphant glory of the newlyestablished German Empire and were profoundly moved when they sawthe dream of their fathers resurgent in a magnificent reality.
For'--let us make no mistake about it'--the trueGerman-Austrian realized from this time onward, that K¶niggr¤tz wasthe tragic, though necessary, pre-condition for there-establishment of an Empire which should no longer be burdenedwith the palsy of the old alliance and which indeed had no share inthat morbid decay. Above all, the German-Austrian had come to feelin the very depths of his own being that the historical mission ofthe House of Habsburg had come to an end and that the new Empirecould choose only an Emperor who was of heroic mould and wastherefore worthy to wear the 'Crown of the Rhine'. It was right andjust that Destiny should be praised for having chosen a scion ofthat House of which Frederick the Great had in past times given thenation an elevated and resplendent symbol for all time to come.
After the great war of 1870-71 the House of Habsburg set to workwith all its determination to exterminate the dangerous Germanelement'--about whose inner feelings and attitude there couldbe no doubt'--slowly but deliberately. I use the wordexterminate, because that alone expresses what must have been thefinal result of the Slavophile policy. Then it was that the fire ofrebellion blazed up among the people whose extermination had beendecreed. That fire was such as had never been witnessed in modernGerman history.
For the first time nationalists and patriots were transformedinto rebels.
Not rebels against the nation or the State as such but rebelsagainst that form of government which they were convinced, wouldinevitably bring about the ruin of their own people. For the firsttime in modern history the traditional dynastic patriotism andnational love of fatherland and people were in open conflict.
It was to the merit of the Pan-German movement in Austria duringthe closing decade of the last century that it pointed out clearlyand unequivocally that a State is entitled to demand respect andprotection for its authority only when such authority isadministered in accordance with the interests of the nation, or atleast not in a manner detrimental to those interests.
The authority of the State can never be an end in itself; for,if that were so, any kind of tyranny would be inviolable andsacred.
If a government uses the instruments of power in its hands forthe purpose of leading a people to ruin, then rebellion is not onlythe right but also the duty of every individual citizen.
The question of whether and when such a situation exists cannotbe answered by theoretical dissertations but only by the exerciseof force, and it is success that decides the issue.
Every government, even though it may be the worst possible andeven though it may have betrayed the nation's trust in thousands ofways, will claim that its duty is to uphold the authority of theState. Its adversaries, who are fighting for nationalself-preservation, must use the same weapons which the governmentuses if they are to prevail against such a rule and secure theirown freedom and independence. Therefore the conflict will be foughtout with 'legal' means as long as the power which is to beoverthrown uses them; but the insurgents will not hesitate to applyillegal means if the oppressor himself employs them.
Generally speaking, we must not forget that the highest aim ofhuman existence is not the maintenance of a State of Government butrather the conservation of the race.
If the race is in danger of being oppressed or even exterminatedthe question of legality is only of secondary importance. Theestablished power may in such a case employ only those means whichare recognized as 'legal'. yet the instinct of self-preservation onthe part of the oppressed will always justify, to the highestdegree, the employment of all possible resources.
Only on the recognition of this principle was it possible forthose struggles to be carried through, of which history furnishesmagnificent examples in abundance, against foreign bondage oroppression at home.
Human rights are above the rights of the State. But if a peoplebe defeated in the struggle for its human rights this means thatits weight has proved too light in the scale of Destiny to have theluck of being able to endure in this terrestrial world.
The world is not there to be possessed by the faint-heartedraces.
Austria affords a very clear and striking example of how easy itis for tyranny to hide its head under the cloak of what is called'legality'.
The legal exercise of power in the Habsburg State was then basedon the anti-German attitude of the parliament, with its non-Germanmajorities, and on the dynastic House, which was also hostile tothe German element. The whole authority of the State wasincorporated in these two factors. To attempt to alter the lot ofthe German element through these two factors would have beensenseless. Those who advised the 'legal' way as the only possibleway, and also obedience to the State authority, could offer noresistance; because a policy of resistance could not have been putinto effect through legal measures. To follow the advice of thelegalist counsellors would have meant the inevitable ruin of theGerman element within the Monarchy, and this disaster would nothave taken long to come. The German element has actually been savedonly because the State as such collapsed.
The spectacled theorist would have given his life for hisdoctrine rather than for his people.
Because man has made laws he subsequently comes to think that heexists for the sake of the laws.
A great service rendered by the pan-German movement then wasthat it abolished all such nonsense, though the doctrinairetheorists and other fetish worshippers were shocked.
When the Habsburgs attempted to come to close quarters with theGerman element, by the employment of all the means of attack whichthey had at their command, the Pan-German Party hit out ruthlesslyagainst the 'illustrious' dynasty. This Party was the first toprobe into and expose the corrupt condition of the State; and indoing so they opened the eyes of hundreds of thousands. To haveliberated the high ideal of love for one's country from the embraceof this deplorable dynasty was one of the great services renderedby the Pan-German movement.
When that Party first made its appearance it secured a largefollowing'--indeed, the movement threatened to become almost anavalanche. But the first successes were not maintained. At the timeI came to Vienna the pan-German Party had been eclipsed by theChristian-Socialist Party, which had come into power in themeantime. Indeed, the Pan-German Party had sunk to a level ofalmost complete insignificance.
The rise and decline of the Pan-German movement on the one handand the marvellous progress of the Christian-Socialist Party on theother, became a classic object of study for me, and as such theyplayed an important part in the development of my own views.
When I came to Vienna all my sympathies were exclusively withthe Pan-German Movement.
I was just as much impressed by the fact that they had thecourage to shout Heil Hohenzollern as I rejoiced at theirdetermination to consider themselves an integral part of the GermanEmpire, from which they were separated only provisionally. Theynever missed an opportunity to explain their attitude in public,which raised my enthusiasm and confidence. To avow one's principlespublicly on every problem that concerned Germanism, and never tomake any compromises, seemed to me the only way of saving ourpeople. What I could not understand was how this movement brokedown so soon after such a magnificent start; and it was no lessincomprehensible that the Christian-Socialists should gain suchtremendous power within such a short time. They had just reachedthe pinnacle of their popularity.
When I began to compare those two movements Fate placed beforeme the best means of understanding the causes of this puzzlingproblem. The action of Fate in this case was hastened by my ownstraitened circumstances.
I shall begin my analysis with an account of the two men whomust be regarded as the founders and leaders of the two movements.These were George von Sch¶nerer and Dr. Karl Lueger.
As far as personality goes, both were far above the level andstature of the so-called parliamentary figures. They lived lives ofimmaculate and irreproachable probity amidst the miasma ofall-round political corruption. Personally I first liked thePan-German representative, Sch¶nerer, and it was only afterwardsand gradually that I felt an equal liking for theChristian-Socialist leader.
When I compared their respective abilities Sch¶nerer seemed tome a better and more profound thinker on fundamental problems. Heforesaw the inevitable downfall of the Austrian State more clearlyand accurately than anyone else. If this warning in regard to theHabsburg Empire had been heeded in Germany the disastrous worldwar, which involved Germany against the whole of Europe, wouldnever have taken place.
But though Sch¶nerer succeeded in penetrating to the essentialsof a problem he was very often much mistaken in his judgment ofmen.
And herein lay Dr. Lueger's special talent. He had a rare giftof insight into human nature and he was very careful not to takemen as something better than they were in reality. He based hisplans on the practical possibilities which human life offered him,whereas Sch¶nerer had only little discrimination in that respect.All ideas that this Pan-German had were right in the abstract, buthe did not have the forcefulness or understanding necessary to puthis ideas across to the broad masses. He was not able to formulatethem so that they could be easily grasped by the masses, whosepowers of comprehension are limited and will always remain so.Therefore all Sch¶nerer's knowledge was only the wisdom of aprophet and he never could succeed in having it put intopractice.
This lack of insight into human nature led him to form a wrongestimate of the forces behind certain movements and the inherentstrength of old institutions.
Sch¶nerer indeed realized that the problems he had to deal withwere in the nature of a Weltanschauung; but he did notunderstand that only the broad masses of a nation can make suchconvictions prevail, which are almost of a religious nature.
Unfortunately he understood only very imperfectly how feeble isthe fighting spirit of the so-called bourgeoisie. That weakness isdue to their business interests, which individuals are too muchafraid of risking and which therefore deter them from takingaction. And, generally speaking, a Weltanschauung can haveno prospect of success unless the broad masses declare themselvesready to act as its standard-bearers and to fight on its behalfwherever and to whatever extent that may be necessary.
This failure to understand the importance of the lower strata ofthe population resulted in a very inadequate concept of the socialproblem.
In all this Dr. Lueger was the opposite of Sch¶nerer. Hisprofound knowledge of human nature enabled him to form a correctestimate of the various social forces and it saved him fromunder-rating the power of existing institutions. And it was perhapsthis very quality which enabled him to utilize those institutionsas a means to serve the purposes of his policy.
He saw only too clearly that, in our epoch, the politicalfighting power of the upper classes is quite insignificant and notat all capable of fighting for a great new movement until thetriumph of that movement be secured. Thus he devoted the greatestpart of his political activity to the task of winning over thosesections of the population whose existence was in danger andfostering the militant spirit in them rather than attempting toparalyse it. He was also quick to adopt all available means forwinning the support of long-established institutions, so as to beable to derive the greatest possible advantage for his movementfrom those old sources of power.
Thus it was that, first of all, he chose as the social basis ofhis new Party that middle class which was threatened withextinction. In this way he secured a solid following which waswilling to make great sacrifices and had good fighting stamina. Hisextremely wise attitude towards the Catholic Church rapidly wonover the younger clergy in such large numbers that the old ClericalParty was forced to retire from the field of action or else, whichwas the wiser course, join the new Party, in the hope of graduallywinning back one position after another.
But it would be a serious injustice to the man if we were toregard this as his essential characteristic. For he possessed thequalities of an able tactician, and had the true genius of a greatreformer; but all these were limited by his exact perception of thepossibilities at hand and also of his own capabilities.
The aims which this really eminent man decided to pursue wereintensely practical. He wished to conquer Vienna, the heart of theMonarchy. It was from Vienna that the last pulses of life beatthrough the diseased and worn-out body of the decrepit Empire. Ifthe heart could be made healthier the others parts of the body werebound to revive. That idea was correct in principle; but the timewithin which it could be applied in practice was strictly limited.And that was the man's weak point.
His achievements as Burgomaster of the City of Vienna areimmortal, in the best sense of the word. But all that could notsave the Monarchy. It came too late.
His rival, Sch¶nerer, saw this more clearly. What Dr. Luegerundertook to put into practice turned out marvellously successful.But the results which he expected to follow these achievements didnot come. Sch¶nerer did not attain the ends he had proposed tohimself; but his fears were realized, alas, in a terrible fashion.Thus both these men failed to attain their further objectives.Lueger could not save Austria and Sch¶nerer could not prevent thedownfall of the German people in Austria.
To study the causes of failure in the case of these two partiesis to learn a lesson that is highly instructive for our own epoch.This is specially useful for my friends, because in many points thecircumstances of our own day are similar to those of that time.Therefore such a lesson may help us to guard against the mistakeswhich brought one of those movements to an end and rendered theother barren of results.
In my opinion, the wreck of the Pan-German Movement in Austriamust be attributed to three causes.
The first of these consisted in the fact that the leaders didnot have a clear concept of the importance of the social problem,particularly for a new movement which had an essentiallyrevolutionary character. Sch¶nerer and his followers directed theirattention principally to the bourgeois classes. For that reasontheir movement was bound to turn out mediocre and tame. The Germanbourgeoisie, especially in its upper circles, is pacifist even tothe point of complete self-abnegation'--though the individualmay not be aware of this'--wherever the internal affairs of thenation or State are concerned. In good times, which in this casemeans times of good government, such a psychological attitude makesthis social layer extraordinarily valuable to the State. But whenthere is a bad government, such a quality has a destructive effect.In order to assure the possibility of carrying through a reallystrenuous struggle, the Pan-German Movement should have devoted itsefforts to winning over the masses. The failure to do this left themovement from the very beginning without the elementary impulsewhich such a wave needs if it is not to ebb within a shortwhile.
In failing to see the truth of this principle clearly at thevery outset of the movement and in neglecting to put it intopractice the new Party made an initial mistake which could notpossibly be rectified afterwards. For the numerous moderatebourgeois elements admitted into the movements increasinglydetermined its internal orientation and thus forestalled allfurther prospects of gaining any appreciable support among themasses of the people. Under such conditions such a movement couldnot get beyond mere discussion and criticism. Quasi-religious faithand the spirit of sacrifice were not to be found in the movementany more. Their place was taken by the effort towards 'positive'collaboration, which in this case meant the acknowledgment of theexisting state of affairs, gradually whittling away the roughcorners of the questions in dispute, and ending up with the makingof a dishonourable peace.
Such was the fate of the Pan-German Movement, because at thestart the leaders did not realize that the most important conditionof success was that they should recruit their following from thebroad masses of the people. The Movement thus became bourgeois andrespectable and radical only in moderation.
From this failure resulted the second cause of its rapiddecline.
The position of the Germans in Austria was already desperatewhen Pan-Germanism arose. Year after year Parliament was being usedmore and more as an instrument for the gradual extinction of theGerman-Austrian population. The only hope for any eleventh-houreffort to save it lay in the overthrow of the parliamentary system;but there was very little prospect of this happening.
Therewith the Pan-German Movement was confronted with a questionof primary importance.
To overthrow the Parliament, should the Pan-Germanists haveentered it 'to undermine it from within', as the current phrasewas? Or should they have assailed the institution as such from theoutside?
They entered the Parliament and came out defeated. But they hadfound themselves obliged to enter.
For in order to wage an effective war against such a power fromthe outside, indomitable courage and a ready spirit of sacrificewere necessary weapons. In such cases the bull must be seized bythe horns. Furious drives may bring the assailant to the groundagain and again; but if he has a stout heart he will stand up, eventhough some bones may be broken, and only after a long and toughstruggle will he achieve his triumph. New champions are attractedto a cause by the appeal of great sacrifices made for its sake,until that indomitable spirit is finally crowned with success.
For such a result, however, the children of the people from thegreat masses are necessary. They alone have the requisitedetermination and tenacity to fight a sanguinary issue through tothe end. But the Pan-German Movement did not have these broadmasses as its champions, and so no other means of solution could betried out except that of entering Parliamcnt.
It would be a mistake to think that this decision resulted froma long series of internal hesitations of a moral kind, or that itwas the outcome of careful calculation. No. They did not even thinkof another solution. Those who participated in this blunder wereactuated by general considerations and vague notions as to whatwould be the significance and effect of taking part in such aspecial way in that institution which they had condemned onprinciple. In general they hoped that they would thus have themeans of expounding their cause to the great masses of the people,because they would be able to speak before 'the forum of the wholenation'. Also, it seemed reasonable to believe that by attackingthe evil in the root they would be more effective than if theattack came from outside. They believed that, if protected by theimmunity of Parliament, the position of the individual protagonistswould be strengthened and that thus the force of their attackswould be enhanced.
In reality everything turned out quite otherwise.
The Forum before which the Pan-German representatives spoke hadnot grown greater, but had actually become smaller; for each spokeonly to the circle that was ready to listen to him or could readthe report of his speech in the newspapers.
But the greater forum of immediate listeners is not theparliamentary auditorium: it is the large public meeting. For herealone will there be thousands of men who have come simply to hearwhat a speaker has to say, whereas in the parliamentary sittingsonly a few hundred are present; and for the most part these arethere only to earn their daily allowance for attendance and not tobe enlightened by the wisdom of one or other of the'representatives of the people'.
The most important consideration is that the same public isalways present and that this public does not wish to learn anythingnew; because, setting aside the question of its intelligence, itlacks even that modest quantum of will-power which is necessary forthe effort of learning.
Not one of the representatives of the people will pay homage toa superior truth and devote himself to its service. No. Not one ofthese gentry will act thus, except he has grounds for hoping thatby such a conversion he may be able to retain the representation ofhis constituency in the coming legislature. Therefore, only when itbecomes quite clear that the old party is likely to have a bad timeof it at the forthcoming elections'--only then will thosemodels of manly virtue set out in search of a new party or a newpolicy which may have better electoral prospects; but of coursethis change of position will be accompanied by a veritable delugeof high moral motives to justify it. And thus it always happensthat when an existing Party has incurred such general disfavouramong the public that it is threatened with the probability of acrushing defeat, then a great migration commences. Theparliamentary rats leave the Party ship.
All this happens not because the individuals in the case havebecome better informed on the questions at issue and have resolvedto act accordingly. These changes of front are evidence only ofthat gift of clairvoyance which warns the parliamentary flea at theright moment and enables him to hop into another warm Partybed.
To speak before such a forum signifies casting pearls beforecertain animals.
Verily it does not repay the pains taken; for the result mustalways be negative.
And that is actually what happened. The Pan-Germanrepresentatives might have talked themselves hoarse, but to noeffect whatsoever.
The Press either ignored them totally or so mutilated theirspeeches that the logical consistency was destroyed or the meaningtwisted round in such a way that the public got only a very wrongimpression regarding the aims of the new movement. What theindividual members said was not of importance. The important matterwas what people read as coming from them. This consisted of mereextracts which had been torn out of the context of the speeches andgave an impression of incoherent nonsense, which indeed waspurposely meant. Thus the only public before which they reallyspoke consisted merely of five hundred parliamentarians; and thatsays enough.
The worst was the following:
The Pan-German Movement could hope for success only if theleaders realized from the very first moment that here there was noquestion so much of a new Party as of a new Weltanschauung.This alone could arouse the inner moral forces that were necessaryfor such a gigantic struggle. And for this struggle the leadersmust be men of first-class brains and indomitable courage. If thestruggle on behalf of a Weltanschauung is not conducted bymen of heroic spirit who are ready to sacrifice, everything, withina short while it will become impossible to find real fightingfollowers who are ready to lay down their lives for the cause. Aman who fights only for his own existence has not much left overfor the service of the community.
In order to secure the conditions that are necessary forsuccess, everybody concerned must be made to understand that thenew movement looks to posterity for its honour and glory but thatit has no recompense to offer to the present-day members. If amovement should offer a large number of positions and offices thatare easily accessible the number of unworthy candidates admitted tomembership will be constantly on the increase and eventually a daywill come when there will be such a preponderance of politicalprofiteers among the membership of a successful Party that thecombatants who bore the brunt of the battle in the earlier stagesof the movement can now scarcely recognize their own Party and maybe ejected by the later arrivals as unwanted ballast. Therewith themovement will no longer have a mission to fulfil.
Once the Pan-Germanists decided to collaborate with Parliamentthey were no longer leaders and combatants in a popular movement,but merely parliamentarians. Thus the Movement sank to the commonpolitical party level of the day and no longer had the strength toface a hostile fate and defy the risk of martyrdom. Instead offighting, the Pan-German leaders fell into the habit of talking andnegotiating. The new parliamentarians soon found that it was a moresatisfactory, because less risky, way of fulfilling their task ifthey would defend the new Weltanschauung with the spiritualweapon of parliamentary rhetoric rather than take up a fight inwhich they placed their lives in danger, the outcome of which alsowas uncertain and even at the best could offer no prospect ofpersonal gain for themselves.
When they had taken their seats in Parliament their adherentsoutside hoped and waited for miracles to happen. Naturally no suchmiracles happened or could happen. Whereupon the adherents of themovement soon grew impatient, because reports they read about theirown deputies did not in the least come up to what had been expectedwhen they voted for these deputies at the elections. The reason forthis was not far to seek. It was due to the fact that an unfriendlyPress refrained from giving a true account of what the Pan-Germanrepresentatives of the people were actually doing.
According as the new deputies got to like this mild form of'revolutionary' struggle in Parliament and in the provincial dietsthey gradually became reluctant to resume the more hazardous workof expounding the principles of the movement before the broadmasses of the people.
Mass meetings in public became more and more rare, though theseare the only means of exercising a really effective influence onthe people; because here the influence comes from direct personalcontact and in this way the support of large sections of the peoplecan be obtained.
When the tables on which the speakers used to stand in the greatbeer-halls, addressing an assembly of thousands, were deserted forthe parliamentary tribune and the speeches were no longer addressedto the people directly but to the so-called 'chosen'representatives, the Pan-German Movement lost its popular characterand in a little while degenerated to the level of a more or lessserious club where problems of the day are discussedacademically.
The wrong impression created by the Press was no longercorrected by personal contact with the people through publicmeetings, whereby the individual representatives might have given atrue account of their activities. The final result of this neglectwas that the word 'Pan-German' came to have an unpleasant sound inthe ears of the masses.
The knights of the pen and the literary snobs of to-day shouldbe made to realize that the great transformations which have takenplace in this world were never conducted by a goosequill. No. Thetask of the pen must always be that of presenting the theoreticalconcepts which motivate such changes. The force which has ever andalways set in motion great historical avalanches of religious andpolitical movements is the magic power of the spoken word.
The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appealof rhetoric than to any other force. All great movements arepopular movements. They are the volcanic eruptions of humanpassions and emotions, stirred into activity by the ruthlessGoddess of Distress or by the torch of the spoken word cast intothe midst of the people. In no case have great movements been setafoot by the syrupy effusions of aesthetic litt(C)rateurs anddrawing-room heroes.
The doom of a nation can be averted only by a storm of glowingpassion; but only those who are passionate themselves can arousepassion in others. It is only through the capacity for passionatefeeling that chosen leaders can wield the power of the word which,like hammer blows, will open the door to the hearts of thepeople.
He who is not capable of passionate feeling and speech was neverchosen by Providence to be the herald of its will. Therefore awriter should stick to his ink-bottle and busy himself withtheoretical questions if he has the requisite ability andknowledge. He has not been born or chosen to be a leader.
A movement which has great ends to achieve must carefully guardagainst the danger of losing contact with the masses of the people.Every problem encountered must be examined from this viewpointfirst of all and the decision to be made must always be in harmonywith this principle.
The movement must avoid everything which might lessen or weakenits power of influencing the masses; not from demagogical motivesbut because of the simple fact that no great idea, no matter howsublime and exalted it may appear, can be realized in practicewithout the effective power which resides in the popular masses.Stern reality alone must mark the way to the goal. To be unwillingto walk the road of hardship means, only too often in this world,the total renunciation of our aims and purposes, whether thatrenunciation be consciously willed or not.
The moment the Pan-German leaders, in virtue of their acceptanceof the parliamentary principle, moved the centre of theiractivities away from the people and into Parliament, in that momentthey sacrificed the future for the sake of a cheap momentarysuccess. They chose the easier way in the struggle and in doing sorendered themselves unworthy of the final victory.
While in Vienna I used to ponder seriously over these twoquestions, and I saw that the main reason for the collapse of thePan-German Movement lay in the fact that these very questions werenot rightly appreciated. To my mind at that time the Movementseemed chosen to take in its hands the leadership of the Germanelement in Austria.
These first two blunders which led to the downfall of thePan-German Movement were very closely connected with one another.Faulty recognition of the inner driving forces that urge greatmovements forward led to an inadequate appreciation of the partwhich the broad masses play in bringing about such changes. Theresult was that too little attention was given to the socialproblem and that the attempts made by the movement to capture theminds of the lower classes were too few and too weak. Anotherresult was the acceptance of the parliamentary policy, which had asimilar effect in regard to the importance of the masses.
If there had been a proper appreciation of the tremendous powersof endurance always shown by the masses in revolutionary movementsa different attitude towards the social problem would have beentaken, and also a different policy in the matter of propaganda.Then the centre of gravity of the movement would not have beentransferred to the Parliament but would have remained in theworkshops and in the streets.
There was a third mistake, which also had its roots in thefailure to understand the worth of the masses. The masses are firstset in motion, along a definite direction, by men of superiortalents; but then these masses once in motion are like a flywheelinasmuch as they sustain the momentum and steady balance of theoffensive.
The policy of the Pan-German leaders in deciding to carrythrough a difficult fight against the Catholic Church can beexplained only by attributing it to an inadequate understanding ofthe spiritual character of the people.
The reasons why the new Party engaged in a violent campaignagainst Rome were as follows:
As soon as the House of Habsburg had definitely decided totransform Austria into a Slav State all sorts of means were adoptedwhich seemed in any way serviceable for that purpose. The Habsburgrulers had no scruples of conscience about exploiting evenreligious institutions in the service of this new 'State Idea'. Oneof the many methods thus employed was the use of Czech parishes andtheir clergy as instruments for spreading Slav hegemony throughoutAustria. This proceeding was carried out as follows:
Parish priests of Czech nationality were appointed in purelyGerman districts. Gradually but steadily pushing forward theinterests of the Czech people before those of the Church, theparishes and their priests became generative cells in the processof de-Germanization.
Unfortunately the German-Austrian clergy completely failed tocounter this procedure. Not only were they incapable of taking asimilar initiative on the German side, but they showed themselvesunable to meet the Czech offensive with adequate resistance. TheGerman element was accordingly pushed backwards, slowly butsteadily, through the perversion of religious belief for politicalends on the one side, and the Jack of proper resistance on theother side. Such were the tactics used in dealing with the smallerproblems; but those used in dealing with the larger problems werenot very different.
The anti-German aims pursued by the Habsburgs, especiallythrough the instrumentality of the higher clergy, did not meet withany vigorous resistance, while the clerical representatives of theGerman interests withdrew completely to the rear. The generalimpression created could not be other than that the Catholic clergyas such were grossly neglecting the rights of the Germanpopulation.
Therefore it looked as if the Catholic Church was not insympathy with the German people but that it unjustly supportedtheir adversaries. The root of the whole evil, especially accordingto Sch¶nerer's opinion, lay in the fact that the leadership of theCatholic Church was not in Germany, and that this fact alone wassufficient reason for the hostile attitude of the Church towardsthe demands of our people.
The so-called cultural problem receded almost completely intothe background, as was generally the case everywhere throughoutAustria at that time. In assuming a hostile attitude towards theCatholic Church, the Pan-German leaders were influenced not so muchby the Church's position in questions of science but principally bythe fact that the Church did not defend German rights, as it shouldhave done, but always supported those who encroached on theserights, especially then Slavs.
George Sch¶nerer was not a man who did things by halves. He wentinto battle against the Church because he was convinced that thiswas the only way in which the German people could be saved. TheLos-von-Rom (Away from Rome) Movement seemed the mostformidable, but at the same time most difficult, method ofattacking and destroying the adversary's citadel. Sch¶nererbelieved that if this movement could be carried throughsuccessfully the unfortunate division between the two greatreligious denominations in Germany would be wiped out and that theinner forces of the German Empire and Nation would be enormouslyenhanced by such a victory.
But the premises as well as the conclusions in this case wereboth erroneous.
It was undoubtedly true that the national powers of resistance,in everything concerning Germanism as such, were much weaker amongthe German Catholic clergy than among their non-German confr¨res,especially the Czechs. And only an ignorant person could be unawareof the fact that it scarcely ever entered the mind of the Germanclergy to take the offensive on behalf of German interests.
But at the same time everybody who is not blind to facts mustadmit that all this should be attributed to a characteristic underwhich we Germans have all been doomed to suffer. Thischaracteristic shows itself in our objective way of regarding ourown nationality, as if it were something that lay outside ofus.
While the Czech priest adopted a subjective attitude towards hisown people and only an objective attitude towards the Church, theGerman parish priest showed a subjective devotion to his Church andremained objective in regard to his nation. It is a phenomenonwhich, unfortunately for us, can be observed occurring in exactlythe same way in thousands of other cases.
It is by no means a peculiar inheritance from Catholicism; butit is something in us which does not take long to gnaw the vitalsof almost every institution, especially institutions of State andthose which have ideal aims. Take, for example, the attitude of ourState officials in regard to the efforts made for bringing about anational resurgence and compare that attitude with the stand whichthe public officials of any other nation would have taken in such acase. Or is it to be believed that the military officers of anyother country in the world would refuse to come forward on behalfof the national aspirations, but would rather hide behind thephrase 'Authority of the State', as has been the case in ourcountry during the last five years and has even been deemed ameritorious attitude? Or let us take another example. In regard tothe Jewish problem, do not the two Christian denominations take upa standpoint to-day which does not respond to the nationalexigencies or even the interests of religion? Consider the attitudeof a Jewish Rabbi towards any question, even one of quiteinsignificant importance, concerning the Jews as a race, andcompare his attitude with that of the majority of our clergy,whether Catholic or Protestant.
We observe the same phenomenon wherever it is a matter ofstanding up for some abstract idea.
'Authority of the State', 'Democracy', 'Pacifism','International Solidarity', etc., all such notions become rigid,dogmatic concepts with us; and the more vital the generalnecessities of the nation, the more will they be judged exclusivelyin the light of those concepts.
This unfortunate habit of looking at all national demands fromthe viewpoint of a pre-conceived notion makes it impossible for usto see the subjective side of a thing which objectively contradictsone's own doctrine. It finally leads to a complete reversion in therelation of means to an end. Any attempt at a national revival willbe opposed if the preliminary condition of such a revival be that abad and pernicious regime must first of all be overthrown; becausesuch an action will be considered as a violation of the 'Authorityof the State'. In the eyes of those who take that standpoint, the'Authority of the State' is not a means which is there to serve anend but rather, to the mind of the dogmatic believer inobjectivity, it is an end in itself; and he looks upon that assufficient apology for his own miserable existence. Such peoplewould raise an outcry, if, for instance, anyone should attempt toset up a dictatorship, even though the man responsible for it wereFrederick the Great and even though the politicians for the timebeing, who constituted the parliamentary majority, were small andincompetent men or maybe even on a lower grade of inferiority;because to such sticklers for abstract principles the law ofdemocracy is more sacred than the welfare of the nation. Inaccordance with his principles, one of these gentry will defend theworst kind of tyranny, though it may be leading a people to ruin,because it is the fleeting embodiment of the 'Authority of theState', and another will reject even a highly beneficent governmentif it should happen not to be in accord with his notion of'democracy'.
In the same way our German pacifist will remain silent while thenation is groaning under an oppression which is being exercised bya sanguinary military power, when this state of affairs gives riseto active resistance; because such resistance means the employmentof physical force, which is against the spirit of the pacifistassociations. The German International Socialist may be rooked andplundered by his comrades in all the other countries of the worldin the name of 'solidarity', but he responds with fraternalkindness and never thinks of trying to get his own back, or even ofdefending himself. And why? Because he is a'--German.
It may be unpleasant to dwell on such truths, but if somethingis to be changed we must start by diagnosing the disease.
The phenomenon which I have just described also accounts for thefeeble manner in which German interests are promoted and defendedby a section of the clergy.
Such conduct is not the manifestation of a malicious intent, noris it the outcome of orders given from 'above', as we say; but sucha lack of national grit and determination is due to defects in oureducational system. For, instead of inculcating in the youth alively sense of their German nationality, the aim of theeducational system is to make the youth prostrate themselves inhomage to the idea, as if the idea were an idol.
The education which makes them the devotees of such abstractnotions as 'Democracy', 'International Socialism', 'Pacifism',etc., is so hard-and-fast and exclusive and, operating as it doesfrom within outwards, is so purely subjective that in forming theirgeneral picture of outside life as a whole they are fundamentallyinfluenced by these a priori notions. But, on the otherhand, the attitude towards their own German nationality has beenvery objective from youth upwards. The Pacifist'--in so far ashe is a German'--who surrenders himself subjectively, body andsoul, to the dictates of his dogmatic principles, will always firstconsider the objective right or wrong of a situation when dangerthreatens his own people, even though that danger be grave andunjustly wrought from outside. But he will never take his stand inthe ranks of his own people and fight for and with them from thesheer instinct of self-preservation.
Another example may further illustrate how far this applies tothe different religious denominations. In so far as its origin andtradition are based on German ideals, Protestantism of itselfdefends those ideals better. But it fails the moment it is calledupon to defend national interests which do not belong to the sphereof its ideals and traditional development, or which, for somereason or other, may be rejected by that sphere.
Therefore Protestantism will always take its part in promotingGerman ideals as far as concerns moral integrity or nationaleducation, when the German spiritual being or language or spiritualfreedom are to be defended: because these represent the principleson which Protestantism itself is grounded. But this sameProtestantism violently opposes every attempt to rescue the nationfrom the clutches of its mortal enemy; because the Protestantattitude towards the Jews is more or less rigidly and dogmaticallyfixed. And yet this is the first problem which has to be solved,unless all attempts to bring about a German resurgence or to raisethe level of the nation's standing are doomed to turn outnonsensical and impossible.
During my sojourn in Vienna I had ample leisure and opportunityto study this problem without allowing any prejudices to intervene;and in my daily intercourse with people I was able to establish thecorrectness of the opinion I formed by the test of thousands ofinstances.
In this focus where the greatest varieties of nationality hadconverged it was quite clear and open to everybody to see that theGerman pacifist was always and exclusively the one who tried toconsider the interests of his own nation objectively; but you couldnever find a Jew who took a similar attitude towards his own race.Furthermore, I found that only the German Socialist is'international' in the sense that he feels himself obliged not todemand justice for his own people in any other manner than bywhining and wailing to his international comrades. Nobody couldever reproach Czechs or Poles or other nations with such conduct.In short, even at that time, already I recognized that this evil isonly partly a result of the doctrines taught by Socialism,Pacifism, etc., but mainly the result of our totally inadequatesystem of education, the defects of which are responsible for thelack of devotion to our own national ideals.
Therefore the first theoretical argument advanced by thePan-German leaders as the basis of their offensive againstCatholicism was quite entenable.
The only way to remedy the evil I have been speaking of is totrain the Germans from youth upwards to an absolute recognition ofthe rights of their own people, instead of poisoning their minds,while they are still only children, with the virus of this curbed'objectivity', even in matters concerning the very maintenance ofour own existence. The result of this would be that the Catholic inGermany, just as in Ireland, Poland or France, will be a Germanfirst and foremost. But all this presupposes a radical change inthe national government.
The strongest proof in support of my contention is furnished bywhat took place at that historical juncture when our people werecalled for the last time before the tribunal of History to defendtheir own existence, in a life-or-death struggle.
As long as there was no lack of leadership in the highercircles, the people fulfilled their duty and obligations to anoverwhelming extent. Whether Protestant pastor or Catholic priest,each did his very utmost in helping our powers of resistance tohold out, not only in the trenches but also, and even more so, athome. During those years, and especially during the first outburstof enthusiasm, in both religious camps there was one undivided andsacred German Empire for whose preservation and future existencethey all prayed to Heaven.
The Pan-German Movement in Austria ought to have asked itselfthis one question: Is the maintenance of the German element inAustria possible or not, as long as that element remains within thefold of the Catholic Faith? If that question should have beenanswered in the affirmative, then the political Party should nothave meddled in religious and denominational questions. But if thequestion had to be answered in the negative, then a religiousreformation should have been started and not a political partymovement.
Anyone who believes that a religious reformation can be achievedthrough the agency of a political organization shows that he has noidea of the development of religious conceptions and doctrines offaith and how these are given practical effect by the Church.
No man can serve two masters. And I hold that the foundation oroverthrow of a religion has far greater consequences than thefoundation or overthrow of a State, to say nothing of a Party.
It is no argument to the contrary to say that the attacks wereonly defensive measures against attacks from the other side.
Undoubtedly there have always been unscrupulous rogues who didnot hesitate to degrade religion to the base uses of politics.Nearly always such a people had nothing else in their minds exceptto make a business of religions and politics. But on the other handit would be wrong to hold religion itself, or a religiousdenomination, responsible for a number of rascals who exploit theChurch for their own base interests just as they would exploitanything else in which they had a part.
Nothing could be more to the taste of one of these parliamentaryloungers and tricksters than to be able to find a scapegoat for hispolitical sharp-practice'--after the event, of course. Themoment religion or a religious denomination is attacked and maderesponsible for his personal misdeeds this shrewd fellow will raisea row at once and call the world to witness how justified he was inacting as he did, proclaiming that he and his eloquence alone havesaved religion and the Church. The public, which is mostly stupidand has a very short memory, is not capable of recognizing the realinstigator of the quarrel in the midst of the turmoil that has beenraised. Frequently it does not remember the beginning of the fightand so the rogue gets by with his stunt.
A cunning fellow of that sort is quite well aware that hismisdeeds have nothing to do with religion. And so he will laugh uphis sleeve all the more heartily when his honest but artlessadversary loses the game and, one day losing all faith in humanity,retires from the activities of public life.
But from another viewpoint also it would be wrong to makereligion, or the Church as such, responsible for the misdeeds ofindividuals. If one compares the magnitude of the organization, asit stands visible to every eye, with the average weakness of humannature we shall have to admit that the proportion of good to bad ismore favourable here than anywhere else. Among the priests theremay, of course, be some who use their sacred calling to furthertheir political ambitions. There are clergy who unfortunatelyforget that in the political mªl(C)e they ought to be the paladins ofthe more sublime truths and not the abettors of falsehood andslander. But for each one of these unworthy specimens we can find athousand or more who fulfil their mission nobly as the trustworthyguardians of souls and who tower above the level of our corruptepoch, as little islands above the seaswamp.
I cannot condemn the Church as such, and I should feel quite aslittle justified in doing so if some depraved person in the robe ofa priest commits some offence against the moral law. Nor should Ifor a moment think of blaming the Church if one of its innumerablemembers betrays and besmirches his compatriots, especially not inepochs when such conduct is quite common. We must not forget,particularly in our day, that for one such Ephialtes (Note 7) thereare a thousand whose hearts bleed in sympathy with their peopleduring these years of misfortune and who, together with the best ofour nation, yearn for the hour when fortune will smile on usagain.
If it be objected that here we are concerned not with the pettyproblems of everyday life but principally with fundamental truthsand questions of dogma, the only way of answering that objection isto ask a question:
Do you feel that Providence has called you to proclaim the Truthto the world? If so, then go and do it. But you ought to have thecourage to do it directly and not use some political party as yourmouthpiece; for in this way you shirk your vocation. In the placeof something that now exists and is bad put something else that isbetter and will last into the future.
If you lack the requisite courage or if you yourself do not knowclearly what your better substitute ought to be, leave the wholething alone. But, whatever happens, do not try to reach the goal bythe roundabout way of a political party if you are not brave enoughto fight with your visor lifted.
Political parties have no right to meddle in religious questionsexcept when these relate to something that is alien to the nationalwell-being and thus calculated to undermine racial customs andmorals.
If some ecclesiastical dignitaries should misuse religiousceremonies or religious teaching to injure their own nation theiropponents ought never to take the same road and fight them with thesame weapons.
To a political leader the religious teachings and practices ofhis people should be sacred and inviolable. Otherwise he should notbe a statesman but a reformer, if he has the necessary qualitiesfor such a mission.
Any other line of conduct will lead to disaster, especially inGermany.
In studying the Pan-German Movement and its conflict with Rome Iwas then firmly persuaded, and especially in the course of lateryears, that by their failure to understand the importance of thesocial problem the Pan-Germanists lost the support of the broadmasses, who are the indispensable combatants in such a movement. Byentering Parliament the Pan-German leaders deprived themselves ofthe great driving force which resides in the masses and at the sametime they laid on their own shoulders all the defects of theparliamentary institution. Their struggle against the Church madetheir position impossible in numerous circles of the lower andmiddle class, while at the same time it robbed them of innumerablehigh-class elements'--some of the best indeed that the nationpossessed. The practical outcome of the Austrian Kulturkampf wasnegative.
Although they succeeded in winning 100,000 members away from theChurch, that did not do much harm to the latter. The Church did notreally need to shed any tears over these lost sheep, for it lostonly those who had for a long time ceased to belong to it in theirinner hearts. The difference between this new reformation and thegreat Reformation was that in the historic epoch of the greatReformation some of the best members left the Church because ofreligious convictions, whereas in this new reformation only thoseleft who had been indifferent before and who were now influenced bypolitical considerations. From the political point of view alonethe result was as ridiculous as it was deplorable.
Once again a political movement which had promised so much forthe German nation collapsed, because it was not conducted in aspirit of unflinching adherence to naked reality, but lost itselfin fields where it was bound to get broken up.
The Pan-German Movement would never have made this mistake if ithad properly understood the psyche of the broad masses. Ifthe leaders had known that, for psychological reasons alone, it isnot expedient to place two or more sets of adversaries before themasses'--since that leads to a complete splitting up of theirfighting strength'--they would have concentrated the full andundivided force of their attack against a single adversary. Nothingin the policy of a political party is so fraught with danger as toallow its decisions to be directed by people who want to have theirfingers in every pie though they do not know how to cook thesimplest dish.
But even though there is much that can really be said againstthe various religious denominations, political leaders must notforget that the experience of history teaches us that no purelypolitical party in similar circumstances ever succeeded in bringingabout a religious reformation. One does not study history for thepurpose of forgetting or mistrusting its lessons afterwards, whenthe time comes to apply these lessons in practice. It would be amistake to believe that in this particular case things weredifferent, so that the eternal truths of history were no longerapplicable. One learns history in order to be able to apply itslessons to the present time and whoever fails to do this cannotpretend to be a political leader. In reality he is quite asuperficial person or, as is mostly the case, a conceited simpletonwhose good intentions cannot make up for his incompetence inpractical affairs.
The art of leadership, as displayed by really great popularleaders in all ages, consists in consolidating the attention of thepeople against a single adversary and taking care that nothing willsplit up that attention into sections. The more the militantenergies of the people are directed towards one objective the morewill new recruits join the movement, attracted by the magnetism ofits unified action, and thus the striking power will be all themore enhanced. The leader of genius must have the ability to makedifferent opponents appear as if they belonged to the one category;for weak and wavering natures among a leader's following may easilybegin to be dubious about the justice of their own cause if theyhave to face different enemies.
As soon as the vacillating masses find themselves facing anopposition that is made up of different groups of enemies theirsense of objectivity will be aroused and they will ask how is itthat all the others can be in the wrong and they themselves, andtheir movement, alone in the right.
Such a feeling would be the first step towards a paralysis oftheir fighting vigour. Where there are various enemies who aresplit up into divergent groups it will be necessary to block themall together as forming one solid front, so that the mass offollowers in a popular movement may see only one common enemyagainst whom they have to fight. Such uniformity intensifies theirbelief in the justice of their own cause and strengthens theirfeeling of hostility towards the opponent.
The Pan-German Movement was unsuccessful because the leaders didnot grasp the significance of that truth. They saw the goal clearlyand their intentions were right; but they took the wrong road.Their action may be compared to that of an Alpine climber who neverloses sight of the peak he wants to reach, who has set out with thegreatest determination and energy, but pays no attention to theroad beneath his feet. With his eye always fixed firmly on the goalhe does not think over or notice the nature of the ascent andfinally he fails.
The manner in which the great rival of the Pan-German Party setout to attain its goal was quite different. The way it took waswell and shrewdly chosen; but it did not have a clear vision of thegoal. In almost all the questions where the Pan-German Movementfailed, the policy of the Christian-Socialist Party was correct andsystematic.
They assessed the importance of the masses correctly, and thusthey gained the support of large numbers of the popular masses byemphasizing the social character of the Movement from the verystart. By directing their appeal especially to the lower middleclass and the artisans, they gained adherents who were faithful,persevering and self-sacrificing. The Christian-Socialist leaderstook care to avoid all controversy with the institutions ofreligion and thus they secured the support of that mightyorganization, the Catholic Church. Those leaders recognized thevalue of propaganda on a large scale and they were veritablevirtuosos in working up the spiritual instincts of the broad massesof their adherents.
The failure of this Party to carry into effect the dream ofsaving Austria from dissolution must be attributed to two maindefects in the means they employed and also the lack of a clearperception of the ends they wished to reach.
The anti-Semitism of the Christian-Socialists was based onreligious instead of racial principles. The reason for this mistakegave rise to the second error also.
The founders of the Christian-Socialist Party were of theopinion that they could not base their position on the racialprinciple if they wished to save Austria, because they felt that ageneral disintegration of the State might quickly result from theadoption of such a policy. In the opinion of the Party chiefs thesituation in Vienna demanded that all factors which tended toestrange the nationalities from one another should be carefullyavoided and that all factors making for unity should beencouraged.
At that time Vienna was so honeycombed with foreign elements,especially the Czechs, that the greatest amount of tolerance wasnecessary if these elements were to be enlisted in the ranks of anyparty that was not anti-German on principle. If Austria was to besaved those elements were indispensable. And so attempts were madeto win the support of the small traders, a great number of whomwere Czechs, by combating the liberalism of the Manchester School;and they believed that by adopting this attitude they had found aslogan against Jewry which, because of its religious implications,would unite all the different nationalities which made up thepopulation of the old Austria.
It was obvious, however, that this kind of anti-Semitism did notupset the Jews very much, simply because it had a purely religiousfoundation. If the worst came to the worst a few drops of baptismalwater would settle the matter, hereupon the Jew could still carryon his business safely and at the same time retain his Jewishnationality.
On such superficial grounds it was impossible to deal with thewhole problem in an earnest and rational way. The consequence wasthat many people could not understand this kind of anti-Semitismand therefore refused to take part in it.
The attractive force of the idea was thus restricted exclusivelyto narrow-minded circles, because the leaders failed to go beyondthe mere emotional appeal and did not ground their position on atruly rational basis. The intellectuals were opposed to such apolicy on principle. It looked more and more as if the wholemovement was a new attempt to proselytize the Jews, or, on theother hand, as if it were merely organized from the wish to competewith other contemporary movements. Thus the struggle lost alltraces of having been organized for a spiritual and sublimemission. Indeed, it seemed to some people'--and these were byno means worthless elements'--to be immoral and reprehensible.The movement failed to awaken a belief that here there was aproblem of vital importance for the whole of humanity and on thesolution of which the destiny of the whole Gentile worlddepended.
Through this shilly-shally way of dealing with the problem theanti-Semitism of the Christian-Socialists turned out to be quiteineffective.
It was anti-Semitic only in outward appearance. And this wasworse than if it had made no pretences at all to anti-Semitism; forthe pretence gave rise to a false sense of security among peoplewho believed that the enemy had been taken by the ears; but, as amatter of fact, the people themselves were being led by thenose.
The Jew readily adjusted himself to this form of anti-Semitismand found its continuance more profitable to him than its abolitionwould be.
This whole movement led to great sacrifices being made for thesake of that State which was composed of many heterogeneousnationalities; but much greater sacrifices had to be made by thetrustees of the German element.
One did not dare to be 'nationalist', even in Vienna, lest theground should fall away from under one's feet. It was hoped thatthe Habsburg State might be saved by a silent evasion of thenationalist question; but this policy led that State to ruin. Thesame policy also led to the collapse of Christian Socialism, forthus the Movement was deprived of the only source of energy fromwhich a political party can draw the necessary driving force.
During those years I carefully followed the two movements andobserved how they developed, one because my heart was with it andthe other because of my admiration for that remarkable man who thenappeared to me as a bitter symbol of the whole German population inAustria.
When the imposing funeral cort¨ge of the dead Burgomasterwound its way from the City Hall towards the Ring Strasse I stoodamong the hundreds of thousands who watched the solemn processionpass by. As I stood there I felt deeply moved, and my instinctclearly told me that the work of this man was all in vain, becausea sinister Fate was inexorably leading this State to its downfall.If Dr. Karl Lueger had lived in Germany he would have been rankedamong the great leaders of our people. It was a misfortune for hiswork and for himseif that he had to live in this impossibleState.
When he died the fire had already been enkindled in the Balkansand was spreading month by month. Fate had been merciful in sparinghim the sight of what, even to the last, he had hoped toprevent.
I endeavoured to analyse the cause which rendered one of thosemovements futile and wrecked the progress of the other. The resultof this investigation was the profound conviction that, apart fromthe inherent impossibility of consolidating the position of theState in the old Austria, the two parties made the following fatalmistake:
The Pan-German Party was perfectly right in its fundamentalideas regarding the aim of the Movement, which was to bring about aGerman restoration, but it was unfortunate in its choice of means.It was nationalist, but unfortunately it paid too little heed tothe social problem, and thus it failed to gain the support of themasses. Its anti-Jewish policy, however, was grounded on a correctperception of the significance of the racial problem and not onreligious principles. But it was mistaken in its assessment offacts and adopted the wrong tactics when it made war against one ofthe religious denominations.
The Christian-Socialist Movement had only a vague concept of aGerman revival as part of its object, but it was intelligent andfortunate in the choice of means to carry out its policy as aParty. The Christian-Socialists grasped the significance of thesocial question; but they adopted the wrong principles in theirstruggle against Jewry, and they utterly failed to appreciate thevalue of the national idea as a source of political energy.
If the Christian-Socialist Party, together with its shrewdjudgment in regard to the worth of the popular masses, had onlyjudged rightly also on the importance of the racialproblem'--which was properly grasped by the Pan-GermanMovement'--and if this party had been really nationalist; or ifthe Pan-German leaders, on the other hand, in addition to theircorrect judgment of the Jewish problem and of the national idea,had adopted the practical wisdom of the Christian-Socialist Party,and particularly their attitude towards Socialism'--then amovement would have developed which, in my opinion, might at thattime have successfully altered the course of German destiny.
If things did not turn out thus, the fault lay for the most partin the inherent nature of the Austrian State.
I did not find my own convictions upheld by any party then inexistence, and so I could not bring myself to enlist as a member inany of the existing organizations or even lend a hand in theirstruggle. Even at that time all those organizations seemed to me tobe already jaded in their energies and were therefore incapable ofbringing about a national revival of the German people in a reallyprofound way, not merely outwardly.
My inner aversion to the Habsburg State was increasingdaily.
The more I paid special attention to questions of foreignpolicy, the more the conviction grew upon me that this phantomState would surely bring misfortune on the Germans. I realized moreand more that the destiny of the German nation could not bedecisively influenced from here but only in the German Empireitself. And this was true not only in regard to general politicalquestions but also'--and in no less a degree'--in regard tothe whole sphere of cultural life.
Here, also, in all matters affecting the national culture andart, the Austrian State showed all the signs of senile decrepitude,or at least it was ceasing to be of any consequence to the Germannation, as far as these matters were concerned. This was especiallytrue of its architecture. Modern architecture could not produce anygreat results in Austria because, since the building of the RingStrasse'--at least in Vienna'--architectural activities hadbecome insignificant when compared with the progressive plans whichwere being thought out in Germany.
And so I came more and more to lead what may be called a twofoldexistence. Reason and reality forced me to continue my harshapprenticeship in Austria, though I must now say that thisapprenticeship turned out fortunate in the end. But my heart waselsewhere.
A feeling of discontent grew upon me and made me depressed themore I came to realize the inside hollowness of this State and theimpossibility of saving it from collapse. At the same time I feltperfectly certain that it would bring all kinds of misfortune tothe German people.
I was convinced that the Habsburg State would balk and hinderevery German who might show signs of real greatness, while at thesame time it would aid and abet every non-German activity.
This conglomerate spectacle of heterogeneous races which thecapital of the Dual Monarchy presented, this motley of Czechs,Poles, Hungarians, Ruthenians, Serbs and Croats, etc., and alwaysthat bacillus which is the solvent of human society, the Jew, hereand there and everywhere'--the whole spectacle was repugnant tome. The gigantic city seemed to be the incarnation of mongreldepravity.
The German language, which I had spoken from the time of myboyhood, was the vernacular idiom of Lower Bavaria. I never forgotthat particular style of speech, and I could never learn theViennese dialect. The longer I lived in that city the strongerbecame my hatred for the promiscuous swarm of foreign peoples whichhad begun to batten on that old nursery ground of German culture.The idea that this State could maintain its further existence forany considerable time was quite absurd.
Austria was then like a piece of ancient mosaic in which thecohesive cement had dried up and become old and friable. As long assuch a work of art remains untouched it may hold together andcontinue to exist; but the moment some blow is struck on it then itbreaks up into thousands of fragments. Therefore it was now only aquestion of when the blow would come.
Because my heart was always with the German Empire and not withthe Austrian Monarchy, the hour of Austria's dissolution as a Stateappeared to me only as the first step towards the emancipation ofthe German nation.
All these considerations intensified my yearning to depart forthat country for which my heart had been secretly longing since thedays of my youth.
I hoped that one day I might be able to make my mark as anarchitect and that I could devote my talents to the service of mycountry on a large or small scale, according to the will ofFate.
A final reason was that I longed to be among those who lived andworked in that land from which the movement should be launched, theobject of which would be the fulfilment of what my heart had alwayslonged for, namely, the union of the country in which I was bornwith our common fatherland, the German Empire.
There are many who may not understand how such a yearning can beso strong; but I appeal especially to two groups of people. Thefirst includes all those who are still denied the happiness I havespoken of, and the second embraces those who once enjoyed thathappiness but had it torn from them by a harsh fate. I turn to allthose who have been torn from their motherland and who have tostruggle for the preservation of their most sacred patrimony, theirnative language, persecuted and harried because of their loyaltyand love for the homeland, yearning sadly for the hour when theywill be allowed to return to the bosom of their father's household.To these I address my words, and I know that they willunderstand.
Only he who has experienced in his own inner life what it meansto be German and yet to be denied the right of belonging to hisfatherland can appreciate the profound nostalgia which thatenforced exile causes. It is a perpetual heartache, and there is noplace for joy and contentment until the doors of paternal home arethrown open and all those through whose veins kindred blood isflowing will find peace and rest in their common Reich.
Vienna was a hard school for me; but it taught me the mostprofound lessons of my life. I was scarcely more than a boy when Icame to live there, and when I left it I had grown to be a man of agrave and pensive nature. In Vienna I acquired the foundations of aWeltanschauung in general and developed a faculty foranalysing political questions in particular. ThatWeltanschauung and the political ideas then formed havenever been abandoned, though they were expanded later on in somedirections. It is only now that I can fully appreciate how valuablethose years of apprenticeship were for me.
That is why I have given a detailed account of this period.There, in Vienna, stark reality taught me the truths that now formthe fundamental principles of the Party which within the course offive years has grown from modest beginnings to a great massmovement. I do not know what my attitude towards Jewry,Social-Democracy, or rather Marxism in general, to the socialproblem, etc., would be to-day if I had not acquired a stock ofpersonal beliefs at such an early age, by dint of hard study andunder the duress of Fate.
For, although the misfortunes of the Fatherland may havestimulated thousands and thousands to ponder over the inner causesof the collapse, that could not lead to such a thorough knowledgeand deep insight as a man may develop who has fought a hardstruggle for many years so that he might be master of his ownfate.
CHAPTER IV. MUNICHAt last I came to Munich, in the spring of 1912.
The city itself was as familiar to me as if I had lived foryears within its walls.
This was because my studies in architecture had been constantlyturning my attention to the metropolis of German art. One must knowMunich if one would know Germany, and it is impossible to acquire aknowledge of German art without seeing Munich.
All things considered, this pre-war sojourn was by far thehappiest and most contented time of my life. My earnings were veryslender; but after all I did not live for the sake of painting. Ipainted in order to get the bare necessities of existence while Icontinued my studies. I was firmly convinced that I should finallysucceed in reaching the goal I had marked out for myself. And thisconviction alone was strong enough to enable me to bear the pettyhardships of everyday life without worrying very much aboutthem.
Moreover, almost from the very first moment of my sojourn thereI came to love that city more than any other place known to me. AGerman city! I said to myself. How different to Vienna. It was witha feeling of disgust that my imagination reverted to that Babylonof races. Another pleasant feature here was the way the peoplespoke German, which was much nearer my own way of speaking than theViennese idiom. The Munich idiom recalled the days of my youth,especially when I spoke with those who had come to Munich fromLower Bavaria. There were a thousand or more things which Iinwardly loved or which I came to love during the course of mystay. But what attracted me most was the marvellous wedlock ofnative folk-energy with the fine artistic spirit of the city, thatunique harmony from the Hofbr¤uhaus to the Odeon, from the OctoberFestival to the Pinakothek, etc. The reason why my heart'sstrings are entwined around this city as around no other spot inthis world is probably because Munich is and will remaininseparably connected with the development of my own career; andthe fact that from the beginning of my visit I felt inwardly happyand contented is to be attributed to the charm of the marvellousWittelsbach Capital, which has attracted probably everybody who isblessed with a feeling for beauty instead of commercialinstincts.
Apart from my professional work, I was most interested in thestudy of current political events, particularly those which wereconnected with foreign relations. I approached these by way of theGerman policy of alliances which, ever since my Austrian days, Ihad considered to be an utterly mistaken one. But in Vienna I hadnot yet seen quite clearly how far the German Empire had gone inthe process of' self-delusion. In Vienna I was inclined to assume,or probably I persuaded myself to do so in order to excuse theGerman mistake, that possibly the authorities in Berlin knew howweak and unreliable their ally would prove to be when brought faceto face with realities, but that, for more or less mysteriousreasons, they refrained from allowing their opinions on this pointto be known in public. Their idea was that they should support thepolicy of alliances which Bismarck had initiated and the suddendiscontinuance of which might be undesirable, if for no otherreason than that it might arouse those foreign countries which werelying in wait for their chance or might alarm the Philistines athome.
But my contact with the people soon taught me, to my horror,that my assumptions were wrong. I was amazed to find everywhere,even in circles otherwise well informed, that nobody had theslightest intimation of the real character of the HabsburgMonarchy. Among the common people in particular there was aprevalent illusion that the Austrian ally was a Power which wouldhave to be seriously reckoned with and would rally its man-power inthe hour of need. The mass of the people continued to look upon theDual Monarchy as a 'German State' and believed that it could berelied upon. They assumed that its strength could be measured bythe millions of its subjects, as was the case in Germany. First ofall, they did not realize that Austria had ceased to be a GermanState and, secondly, that the conditions prevailing within theAustrian Empire were steadily pushing it headlong to the brink ofdisaster.
At that time I knew the condition of affairs in the AustrianState better than the professional diplomats. Blindfolded, asnearly always, these diplomats stumbled along on their way todisaster. The opinions prevailing among the bulk of the peoplereflected only what had been drummed into them from officialquarters above. And these higher authorities grovelled before the'Ally', as the people of old bowed down before the Golden Calf.They probably thought that by being polite and amiable they mightbalance the lack of honesty on the other side. Thus they took everydeclaration at its full face value.
Even while in Vienna I used to be annoyed again and again by thediscrepancy between the speeches of the official statesmen and thecontents of the Viennese Press. And yet Vienna was still a Germancity, at least as far as appearances went. But one encountered anutterly different state of things on leaving Vienna, or ratherGerman-Austria, and coming into the Slav provinces. It needed onlya glance at the Prague newspapers in order to see how the wholeexalted hocus-pocus of the Triple Alliance was judged from there.In Prague there was nothing but gibes and sneers for thatmasterpiece of statesmanship. Even in the piping times of peace,when the two emperors kissed each other on the brow in token offriendship, those papers did not cloak their belief that thealliance would be liquidated the moment a first attempt was made tobring it down from the shimmering glory of a Nibelungen ideal tothe plane of practical affairs.
Great indignation was aroused a few years later, when thealliances were put to the first practical test. Italy not onlywithdrew from the Triple Alliance, leaving the other two members tomarch by themselves. but she even joined their enemies. Thatanybody should believe even for a moment in the possibility of sucha miracle as that of Italy fighting on the same side as Austriawould be simply incredible to anyone who did not suffer from theblindness of official diplomacy. And that was just how people feltin Austria also.
In Austria only the Habsburgs and the German-Austrians supportedthe alliance. The Habsburgs did so from shrewd calculation of theirown interests and from necessity. The Germans did it out of goodfaith and political ignorance. They acted in good faith inasmuch asthey believed that by establishing the Triple Alliance they weredoing a great service to the German Empire and were thus helping tostrengthen it and consolidate its defence. They showed theirpolitical ignorance, however, in holding such ideas, because,instead of helping the German Empire they really chained it to amoribund State which might bring its associate into the grave withitself; and, above all, by championing this alliance they fell moreand more a prey to the Habsburg policy of de-Germanization. For thealliance gave the Habsburgs good grounds for believing that theGerman Empire would not interfere in their domestic affairs andthus they were in a position to carry into effect, with more easeand less risk, their domestic policy of gradually eliminating theGerman element. Not only could the 'objectiveness' of the GermanGovernment be counted upon, and thus there need be no fear ofprotest from that quarter, but one could always remind theGerman-Austrians of the alliance and thus silence them in case theyshould ever object to the reprehensible means that were beingemployed to establish a Slav hegemony in the Dual Monarchy.
What could the German-Austrians do, when the people of theGerman Empire itself had openly proclaimed their trust andconfidence in the Habsburg r(C)gime?
Should they resist, and thus be branded openly before theirkinsfolk in the Reich as traitors to their own national interests?They, who for so many decades had sacrificed so much for the sakeof their German tradition!
Once the influence of the Germans in Austria had been wiped out,what then would be the value of the alliance? If the TripleAlliance were to be advantageous to Germany, was it not a necessarycondition that the predominance of the German element in Austriashould be maintained? Or did anyone really believe that Germanycould continue to be the ally of a Habsburg Empire under thehegemony of the Slavs?
The official attitude of German diplomacy, as well as that ofthe general public towards internal problems affecting the Austriannationalities was not merely stupid, it was insane. On thealliance, as on a solid foundation, they grounded the security andfuture existence of a nation of seventy millions, while at the sametime they allowed their partner to continue his policy ofundermining the sole foundation of that alliance methodically andresolutely, from year to year. A day must come when nothing but aformal contract with Viennese diplomats would be left. The allianceitself, as an effective support, would be lost to Germany.
As far as concerned Italy, such had been the case from theoutset.
If people in Germany had studied history and the psychology ofnations a little more carefully not one of them could have believedfor a single hour that the Quirinal and the Viennese Hofburg couldever stand shoulder to shoulder on a common battle front. Italywould have exploded like a volcano if any Italian government haddared to send a single Italian soldier to fight for the HabsburgState. So fanatically hated was this State that the Italians couldstand in no other relation to it on a battle front except asenemies. More than once in Vienna I have witnessed explosions ofthe contempt and profound hatred which 'allied' the Italian to theAustrian State. The crimes which the House of Habsburg committedagainst Italian freedom and independence during several centurieswere too grave to be forgiven, even with the best of goodwill. Butthis goodwill did not exist, either among the rank and file of thepopulation or in the government. Therefore for Italy there wereonly two ways of co-existing with Austria'--alliance or war. Bychoosing the first it was possible to prepare leisurely for thesecond.
Especially since relations between Russia and Austria tendedmore and more towards the arbitrament of war, the German policy ofalliances was as senseless as it was dangerous. Here was aclassical instance which demonstrated the lack of any broad orlogical lines of thought.
But what was the reason for forming the alliance at all? Itcould not have been other than the wish to secure the future of theReich better than if it were to depend exclusively on its ownresources. But the future of the Reich could not have meantanything else than the problem of securing the means of existencefor the German people.
The only questions therefore were the following: What form shallthe life of the nation assume in the near future'--that is tosay within such a period as we can forecast? And by what means canthe necessary foundation and security be guaranteed for thisdevelopment within the framework of the general distribution ofpower among the European nations? A clear analysis of theprinciples on which the foreign policy of German statecraft were tobe based should have led to the following conclusions:
The annual increase of population in Germany amounts to almost900,000 souls. The difficulties of providing for this army of newcitizens must grow from year to year and must finally lead to acatastrophe, unless ways and means are found which will forestallthe danger of misery and hunger. There were four ways of providingagainst this terrible calamity:
(1) It was possible to adopt the French example and artificiallyrestrict the number of births, thus avoiding an excess ofpopulation.
Under certain circumstances, in periods of distress or under badclimatic condition, or if the soil yields too poor a return, Natureherself tends to check the increase of population in some countriesand among some races, but by a method which is quite as ruthless asit is wise. It does not impede the procreative faculty as such; butit does impede the further existence of the offspring by submittingit to such tests and privations that everything which is lessstrong or less healthy is forced to retreat into the bosom of tileunknown. Whatever survives these hardships of existence has beentested and tried a thousandfold, hardened and renders fit tocontinue the process of procreation; so that the same thoroughselection will begin all over again. By thus dealing brutally withthe individual and recalling him the very moment he shows that heis not fitted for the trials of life, Nature preserves the strengthof the race and the species and raises it to the highest degree ofefficiency.
The decrease in numbers therefore implies an increase ofstrength, as far as the individual is concerned, and this finallymeans the invigoration of the species.
But the case is different when man himself starts the process ofnumerical restriction. Man is not carved from Nature's wood. He ismade of 'human' material. He knows more than the ruthless Queen ofWisdom. He does not impede the preservation of the individual butprevents procreation itself. To the individual, who always seesonly himself and not the race, this line of action seems morehumane and just than the opposite way. But, unfortunately, theconsequences are also the opposite.
By leaving the process of procreation unchecked and bysubmitting the individual to the hardest preparatory tests in life,Nature selects the best from an abundance of single elements andstamps them as fit to live and carry on the conservation of thespecies. But man restricts the procreative faculty and strivesobstinately to keep alive at any cost whatever has once been born.This correction of the Divine Will seems to him to be wise andhumane, and he rejoices at having trumped Nature's card in one gameat least and thus proved that she is not entirely reliable. Thedear little ape of an all-mighty father is delighted to see andhear that he has succeeded in effecting a numerical restriction;but he would be very displeased if told that this, his system,brings about a degeneration in personal quality.
For as soon as the procreative faculty is thwarted and thenumber of births diminished, the natural struggle for existencewhich allows only healthy and strong individuals to survive isreplaced by a sheer craze to 'save' feeble and even diseasedcreatures at any cost. And thus the seeds are sown for a humanprogeny which will become more and more miserable from onegeneration to another, as long as Nature's will is scorned.
But if that policy be carried out the final results must be thatsuch a nation will eventually terminate its own existence on thisearth; for though man may defy the eternal laws of procreationduring a certain period, vengeance will follow sooner or later. Astronger race will oust that which has grown weak; for the vitalurge, in its ultimate form, will burst asunder all the absurdchains of this so-called humane consideration for the individualand will replace it with the humanity of Nature, which wipes outwhat is weak in order to give place to the strong.
Any policy which aims at securing the existence of a nation byrestricting the birth-rate robs that nation of its future.
(2) A second solution is that of internal colonization. This isa proposal which is frequently made in our own time and one hearsit lauded a good deal. It is a suggestion that is well-meant but itis misunderstood by most people, so that it is the source of moremischief than can be imagined.
It is certainly true that the productivity of the soil can beincreased within certain limits; but only within defined limits andnot indefinitely. By increasing the productive powers of the soilit will be possible to balance the effect of a surplus birth-ratein Germany for a certain period of time, without running any dangerof hunger. But we have to face the fact that the general standardof living is rising more quickly than even the birth rate. Therequirements of food and clothing are becoming greater from year toyear and are out of proportion to those of our ancestors of, let ussay, a hundred years ago. It would, therefore, be a mistaken viewthat every increase in the productive powers of the soil willsupply the requisite conditions for an increase in the population.No. That is true up to a certain point only, for at least a portionof the increased produce of the soil will be consumed by the marginof increased demands caused by the steady rise in the standard ofliving. But even if these demands were to be curtailed to thenarrowest limits possible and if at the same time we were to useall our available energies in the intenser cultivation, we shouldhere reach a definite limit which is conditioned by the inherentnature of the soil itself. No matter how industriously we maylabour we cannot increase agricultural production beyond thislimit. Therefore, though we may postpone the evil hour of distressfor a certain time, it will arrive at last. The first phenomenonwill be the recurrence of famine periods from time to time, afterbad harvests, etc. The intervals between these famines will becomeshorter and shorter the more the population increases; and,finally, the famine times will disappear only in those rare yearsof plenty when the granaries are full. And a time will ultimatelycome when even in those years of plenty there will not be enough togo round; so that hunger will dog the footsteps of the nation.Nature must now step in once more and select those who are tosurvive, or else man will help himself by artificially preventinghis own increase, with all the fatal consequences for the race andthe species which have been already mentioned.
It may be objected here that, in one form or another, thisfuture is in store for all mankind and that the individual nationor race cannot escape the general fate.
At first glance, that objection seems logical enough; but wehave to take the following into account:
The day will certainly come when the whole of mankind will beforced to check the augmentation of the human species, becausethere will be no further possibility of adjusting the productivityof the soil to the perpetual increase in the population. Naturemust then be allowed to use her own methods or man may possiblytake the task of regulation into his own hands and establish thenecessary equilibrium by the application of better means than wehave at our disposal to-day. But then it will be a problem formankind as a whole, whereas now only those races have to sufferfrom want which no longer have the strength and daring to acquiresufficient soil to fulfil their needs. For, as things stand to-day,vast spaces still lie uncultivated all over the surface of theglobe. Those spaces are only waiting for the ploughshare. And it isquite certain that Nature did not set those territories apart asthe exclusive pastures of any one nation or race to be heldunutilized in reserve for the future. Such land awaits the peoplewho have the strength to acquire it and the diligence to cultivateit.
Nature knows no political frontiers. She begins by establishinglife on this globe and then watches the free play of forces. Thosewho show the greatest courage and industry are the children nearestto her heart and they will be granted the sovereign right ofexistence.
If a nation confines itself to 'internal colonization' whileother races are perpetually increasing their territorialannexations all over the globe, that nation will be forced torestrict the numerical growth of its population at a time when theother nations are increasing theirs. This situation must eventuallyarrive. It will arrive soon if the territory which the nation hasat its disposal be small. Now it is unfortunately true that onlytoo often the best nations'--or, to speak more exactly, theonly really cultured nations, who at the same time are the chiefbearers of human progress'--have decided, in their blindpacifism, to refrain from the acquisition of new territory and tobe content with 'internal colonization.' But at the same timenations of inferior quality succeed in getting hold of large spacesfor colonization all over the globe. The state of affairs whichmust result from this contrast is the following:
Races which are culturally superior but less ruthless would beforced to restrict their increase, because of insufficientterritory to support the population, while less civilized racescould increase indefinitely, owing to the vast territories at theirdisposal. In other words: should that state of affairs continue,then the world will one day be possessed by that portion of mankindwhich is culturally inferior but more active and energetic.
A time will come, even though in the distant future, when therecan be only two alternatives: Either the world will be ruledaccording to our modern concept of democracy, and then everydecision will be in favour of the numerically stronger races; orthe world will be governed by the law of natural distribution ofpower, and then those nations will be victorious who are of morebrutal will and are not the nations who have practisedself-denial.
Nobody can doubt that this world will one day be the scene ofdreadful struggles for existence on the part of mankind. In the endthe instinct of self-preservation alone will triumph. Before itsconsuming fire this so-called humanitarianism, which connotes onlya mixture of fatuous timidity and self-conceit, will melt away asunder the March sunshine. Man has become great through perpetualstruggle. In perpetual peace his greatness must decline.
For us Germans, the slogan of 'internal colonization' is fatal,because it encourages the belief that we have discovered a meanswhich is in accordance with our innate pacifism and which willenable us to work for our livelihood in a half slumberingexistence. Such a teaching, once it were taken seriously by ourpeople, would mean the end of all effort to acquire for ourselvesthat place in the world which we deserve. If. the average Germanwere once convinced that by this measure he has the chance ofensuring his livelihood and guaranteeing his future, any attempt totake an active and profitable part in sustaining the vital demandsof his country would be out of the question. Should the nationagree to such an attitude then any really useful foreign policymight be looked upon as dead and buried, together with all hope forthe future of the German people.
Once we know what the consequences of this 'internalcolonization' theory would be we can no longer consider as a mereaccident the fact that among those who inculcate this quitepernicious mentality among our people the Jew is always in thefirst line. He knows his softies only too well not to know thatthey are ready to be the grateful victims of every swindle whichpromises them a gold-block in the shape of a discovery that willenable them to outwit Nature and thus render superfluous the hardand inexorable struggle for existence; so that finally they maybecome lords of the planet partly by sheer dolce far nienteand partly by working when a pleasing opportunity arises.
It cannot be too strongly emphasised that any German 'internalcolonization' must first of all be considered as suited only forthe relief of social grievances. To carry out a system of internalcolonization, the most important preliminary measure would be tofree the soil from the grip of the speculator and assure thatfreedom. But such a system could never suffice to assure the futureof the nation without the acquisition of new territory.
If we adopt a different plan we shall soon reach a point beyondwhich the resources of our soil can no longer be exploited, and atthe same time we shall reach a point beyond which our man-powercannot develop.
In conclusion, the following must be said:
The fact that only up to a limited extent can internalcolonization be practised in a national territory which is ofdefinitely small area and the restriction of the procreativefaculty which follows as a result of such conditions'--thesetwo factors have a very unfavourable effect on the military andpolitical standing of a nation.
The extent of the national territory is a determining factor inthe external security of the nation. The larger the territory whicha people has at its disposal the stronger are the national defencesof that people. Military decisions are more quickly, more easily,more completely and more effectively gained against a peopleoccupying a national territory which is restricted in area, thanagainst States which have extensive territories. Moreover, themagnitude of a national territory is in itself a certain assurancethat an outside Power will not hastily risk the adventure of aninvasion; for in that case the struggle would have to be long andexhausting before victory could be hoped for. The risk being sogreat. there would have to be extraordinary reasons for such anaggressive adventure. Hence it is that the territorial magnitude ofa State furnishes a basis whereon national liberty and independencecan be maintained with relative ease; while, on the contrary, aState whose territory is small offers a natural temptation to theinvader.
As a matter of fact, so-called national circles in the GermanReich rejected those first two possibilities of establishing abalance between the constant numerical increase in the populationand a national territory which could not expand proportionately.But the reasons given for that rejection were different from thosewhich I have just expounded. It was mainly on the basis of certainmoral sentiments that restriction of the birth-rate was objectedto. Proposals for internal colonization were rejected indignantlybecause it was suspected that such a policy might mean an attack onthe big landowners, and that this attack might be the forerunner ofa general assault against the principle of private property as awhole. The form in which the latter solution'--internalcolonization'--was recommended justified the misgivings of thebig landowners.
But the form in which the colonization proposal was rejected wasnot very clever, as regards the impression which such rejectionmight be calculated to make on the mass of the people, and anyhowit did not go to the root of the problem at all.
Only two further ways were left open in which work and breadcould be secured for the increasing population.
(3) It was possible to think of acquiring new territory on whicha certain portion of' the increasing population could be settledeach year; or else
(4) Our industry and commerce had to be organized in such amanner as to secure an increase in the exports and thus be able tosupport our people by the increased purchasing power accruing fromthe profits made on foreign markets.
Therefore the problem was: A policy of territorial expansion ora colonial and commercial policy. Both policies were taken intoconsideration, examined, recommended and rejected, from variousstandpoints, with the result that the second alternative wasfinally adopted. The sounder alternative, however, was undoubtedlythe first.
The principle of acquiring new territory, on which the surpluspopulation could be settled, has many advantages to recommend it,especially if we take the future as well as the present intoaccount.
In the first place, too much importance cannot be placed on thenecessity for adopting a policy which will make it possible tomaintain a healthy peasant class as the basis of the nationalcommunity. Many of our present evils have their origin exclusivelyin the disproportion between the urban and rural portions of thepopulation. A solid stock of small and medium farmers has at alltimes been the best protection which a nation could have againstthe social diseases that are prevalent to-day. Moreover, that isthe only solution which guarantees the daily bread of a nationwithin the framework of its domestic national economy. With thiscondition once guaranteed, industry and commerce would retire fromthe unhealthy position of foremost importance which they holdto-day and would take their due place within the general scheme ofnational economy, adjusting the balance between demand and supply.Thus industry and commerce would no longer constitute the basis ofthe national subsistence, but would be auxiliary institutions. Byfulfilling their proper function, which is to adjust the balancebetween national production and national consumption, they renderthe national subsistence more or less independent of foreigncountries and thus assure the freedom and independence of thenation, especially at critical junctures in its history.
Such a territorial policy, however, cannot find its fulfilmentin the Cameroons but almost exclusively here in Europe. One mustcalmly and squarely face the truth that it certainly cannot be partof the dispensation of Divine Providence to give a fifty timeslarger share of the soil of this world to one nation than toanother. In considering this state of affairs to-day, one must notallow existing political frontiers to distract attention from whatought to exist on principles of strict justice. If this earth hassufficient room for all, then we ought to have that share of thesoil which is absolutely necessary for our existence.
Of course people will not voluntarily make that accommodation.At this point the right of self-preservation comes into effect. Andwhen attempts to settle the difficulty in an amicable way arerejected the clenched hand must take by force that which wasrefused to the open hand of friendship. If in the past ourancestors had based their political decisions on similar pacifistnonsense as our present generation does, we should not possess morethan one-third of the national territory that we possess to-day andprobably there would be no German nation to worry about its futurein Europe. No. We owe the two Eastern Marks (Note 8) of the Empireto the natural determination of our forefathers in their strugglefor existence, and thus it is to the same determined policy that weowe the inner strength which is based on the extent of ourpolitical and racial territories and which alone has made itpossible for us to exist up to now.
And there is still another reason why that solution would havebeen the correct one:
Many contemporary European States are like pyramids standing ontheir apexes. The European territory which these States possess isridiculously small when compared with the enormous overhead weightof their colonies, foreign trade, etc. It may be said that theyhave the apex in Europe and the base of the pyramid all over theworld; quite different from the United States of America, which hasits base on the American Continent and is in contact with the restof the world only through its apex. Out of that situation arisesthe incomparable inner strength of the U.S.A. and the contrarysituation is responsible for the weakness of most of the colonialEuropean Powers.
England cannot be suggested as an argument against thisassertion, though in glancing casually over the map of the BritishEmpire one is inclined easily to overlook the existence of a wholeAnglo-Saxon world. England's position cannot be compared with thatof any other State in Europe, since it forms a vast community oflanguage and culture together with the U.S.A.
Therefore the only possibility which Germany had of carrying asound territorial policy into effect was that of acquiring newterritory in Europe itself. Colonies cannot serve this purpose aslong as they are not suited for settlement by Europeans on a largescale. In the nineteenth century it was no longer possible toacquire such colonies by peaceful means. Therefore any attempt atsuch a colonial expansion would have meant an enormous militarystruggle. Consequently it would have been more practical toundertake that military struggle for new territory in Europe ratherthan to wage war for the acquisition of possessions abroad.
Such a decision naturally demanded that the nation's undividedenergies should be devoted to it. A policy of that kind whichrequires for its fulfilment every ounce of available energy on thepart of everybody concerned, cannot be carried into effect byhalf-measures or in a hesitating manner. The political leadershipof the German Empire should then have been directed exclusively tothis goal. No political step should have been taken in response toother considerations than this task and the means of accomplishingit. Germany should have been alive to the fact that such a goalcould have been reached only by war, and the prospect of war shouldhave been faced with calm and collected determination.
The whole system of alliances should have been envisaged andvalued from that standpoint. If new territory were to be acquiredin Europe it must have been mainly at Russia's cost, and once againthe new German Empire should have set out on its march along thesame road as was formerly trodden by the Teutonic Knights, thistime to acquire soil for the German plough by means of the Germansword and thus provide the nation with its daily bread.
For such a policy, however, there was only one possible ally inEurope. That was England.
Only by alliance with England was it possible to safeguard therear of the new German crusade. The justification for undertakingsuch an expedition was stronger than the justification which ourforefathers had for setting out on theirs. Not one of our pacifistsrefuses to eat the bread made from the grain grown in the East; andyet the first plough here was that called the 'Sword'.
No sacrifice should have been considered too great if it was anecessary means of gaining England's friendship. Colonial and navalambitions should have been abandoned and attempts should not havebeen made to compete against British industries.
Only a clear and definite policy could lead to such anachievement. Such a policy would have demanded a renunciation ofthe endeavour to conquer the world's markets, also a renunciationof colonial intentions and naval power. All the means of power atthe disposal of the State should have been concentrated in themilitary forces on land. This policy would have involved a periodof temporary self-denial, for the sake of a great and powerfulfuture.
There was a time when England might have entered intonegotiations with us, on the grounds of that proposal. For Englandwould have well understood that the problems arising from thesteady increase in population were forcing Germany to look for asolution either in Europe with the help of England or, withoutEngland, in some other part of the world.
This outlook was probably the chief reason why London tried todraw nearer to Germany about the turn of the century. For the firsttime in Germany an attitude was then manifested which afterwardsdisplayed itself in a most tragic way. People then gave expressionto an unpleasant feeling that we might thus find ourselves obligedto pull England's chestnuts out of the fire. As if an alliancecould be based on anything else than mutual give-and-take! AndEngland would have become a party to such a mutual bargain. Britishdiplomats were still wise enough to know that an equivalent must beforthcoming as a consideration for any services rendered.
Let us suppose that in 1904 our German foreign policy wasmanaged astutely enough to enable us to take the part which Japanplayed. It is not easy to measure the greatness of the results thatmight have accrued to Germany from such a policy.
There would have been no world war. The blood which would havebeen shed in 1904 would not have been a tenth of that shed from1914 to 1918. And what a position Germany would hold in the worldto-day?
In any case the alliance with Austria was then an absurdity.
For this mummy of a State did not attach itself to Germany forthe purpose of carrying through a war, but rather to maintain aperpetual state of peace which was meant to be exploited for thepurpose of slowly but persistently exterminating the German elementin the Dual Monarchy.
Another reason for the impossible character of this alliance wasthat nobody could expect such a State to take an active part indefending German national interests, seeing that it did not havesufficient strength and determination to put an end to the policyof de-Germanization within its own frontiers. If Germany herselfwas not moved by a sufficiently powerful national sentiment and wasnot sufficiently ruthless to take away from that absurd HabsburgState the right to decide the destinies of ten million inhabitantswho were of the same nationality as the Germans themselves, surelyit was out of the question to expect the Habsburg State to be acollaborating party in any great and courageous German undertaking.The attitude of the old Reich towards the Austrian question mighthave been taken as a test of its stamina for the struggle where thedestinies of the whole nation were at stake.
In any case, the policy of oppression against the Germanpopulation in Austria should not have been allowed to be carried onand to grow stronger from year to year; for the value of Austria asan ally could be assured only by upholding the German elementthere. But that course was not followed.
Nothing was dreaded so much as the possibility of an armedconflict; but finally, and at a most unfavourable moment, theconflict had to be faced and accepted. They thought to cut loosefrom the cords of destiny, but destiny held them fast.
They dreamt of maintaining a world peace and woke up to findthemselves in a world war.
And that dream of peace was a most significant reason why theabove-mentioned third alternative for the future development ofGermany was not even taken into consideration. The fact wasrecognized that new territory could be gained only in the East; butthis meant that there would be fighting ahead, whereas they wantedpeace at any cost. The slogan of German foreign policy at one timeused to be: The use of all possible means for the maintenance ofthe German nation. Now it was changed to: Maintenance of worldpeace by all possible means. We know what the result was. I shallresume the discussion of this point in detail later on.
There remained still another alternative, which we may call thefourth. This was: Industry and world trade, naval power andcolonies.
Such a development might certainly have been attained moreeasily and more rapidly. To colonize a territory is a slow process,often extending over centuries. Yet this fact is the source of itsinner strength, for it is not through a sudden burst of enthusiasmthat it can be put into effect, but rather through a gradual andenduring process of growth quite different from industrialprogress, which can be urged on by advertisement within a fewyears. The result thus achieved, however, is not of lasting qualitybut something frail, like a soap-bubble. It is much easier to buildquickly than to carry through the tough task of settling aterritory with farmers and establishing farmsteads. But the formeris more quickly destroyed than the latter.
In adopting such a course Germany must have known that to followit out would necessarily mean war sooner or later. Only childrencould believe that sweet and unctuous expressions of goodness andpersistent avowals of peaceful intentions could get them theirbananas through this 'friendly competition between the nations',with the prospect of never having to fight for them.
No. Once we had taken this road, England was bound to be ourenemy at some time or other to come. Of course it fitted in nicelywith our innocent assumptions, but still it was absurd to growindignant at the fact that a day came when the English took theliberty of opposing our peaceful penetration with the brutality ofviolent egoists.
Naturally, we on our side would never have done such athing.
If a European territorial policy against Russia could have beenput into practice only in case we had England as our ally, on theother hand a colonial and world-trade policy could have beencarried into effect only against English interests and with thesupport of Russia. But then this policy should have been adopted infull consciousness of all the consequences it involved and, aboveall things, Austria should have been discarded as quickly aspossible.
At the turn of the century the alliance with Austria had becomea veritable absurdity from all points of view.
But nobody thought of forming an alliance with Russia againstEngland, just as nobody thought of making England an ally againstRussia; for in either case the final result would inevitably havemeant war. And to avoid war was the very reason why a commercialand industrial policy was decided upon. It was believed that thepeaceful conquest of the world by commercial means provided amethod which would permanently supplant the policy of force.Occasionally, however, there were doubts about the efficiency ofthis principle, especially when some quite incomprehensiblewarnings came from England now and again. That was the reason whythe fleet was built. It was not for the purpose of attacking orannihilating England but merely to defend the concept ofworld-peace, mentioned above, and also to protect the principle ofconquering the world by 'peaceful' means. Therefore this fleet waskept within modest limits, not only as regards the number andtonnage of the vessels but also in regard to their armament, theidea being to furnish new proofs of peaceful intentions.
The chatter about the peaceful conquest of the world bycommercial means was probably the most completely nonsensical stuffever raised to the dignity of a guiding principle in the policy ofa State, This nonsense became even more foolish when England waspointed out as a typical example to prove how the thing could beput into practice. Our doctrinal way of regarding history and ourprofessorial ideas in that domain have done irreparable harm andoffer a striking 'proof' of how people 'learn' history withoutunderstanding anything of it. As a matter of fact, England ought tohave been looked upon as a convincing argument against the theoryof the pacific conquest of the world by commercial means. No nationprepared the way for its commercial conquests more brutally thanEngland did by means of the sword, and no other nation has defendedsuch conquests more ruthlessly. Is it not a characteristic qualityof British statecraft that it knows how to use political power inorder to gain economic advantages and, inversely, to turn economicconquests into political power? What an astounding error it was tobelieve that England would not have the courage to give its ownblood for the purposes of its own economic expansion! The fact thatEngland did not possess a national army proved nothing; for it isnot the actual military structure of the moment that matters butrather the will and determination to use whatever military strengthis available. England has always had the armament which she needed.She always fought with those weapons which were necessary forsuccess. She sent mercenary troops, to fight as long as mercenariessufficed; but she never hesitated to draw heavily and deeply fromthe best blood of the whole nation when victory could be obtainedonly by such a sacrifice. And in every case the fighting spirit,dogged determination, and use of brutal means in conductingmilitary operations have always remained the same.
But in Germany, through the medium of the schools, the Press andthe comic papers, an idea of the Englishman was gradually formedwhich was bound eventually to lead to the worst kind ofself-deception. This absurdity slowly but persistently spread intoevery quarter of German life. The result was an undervaluation forwhich we have had to pay a heavy penalty. The delusion was soprofound that the Englishman was looked upon as a shrewd businessman, but personally a coward even to an incredible degree.Unfortunately our lofty teachers of professorial history did notbring home to the minds of their pupils the truth that it is notpossible to build up such a mighty organization as the BritishEmpire by mere swindle and fraud. The few who called attention tothat truth were either ignored or silenced. I can vividly recall tomind the astonished looks of my comrades when they found themselvespersonally face to face for the first time with the Tommies inFlanders. After a few days of fighting the consciousness slowlydawned on our soldiers that those Scotsmen were not like the oneswe had seen described and caricatured in the comic papers andmentioned in the communiqu(C)s.
It was then that I formed my first ideas of the efficiency ofvarious forms of propaganda.
Such a falsification, however, served the purpose of those whohad fabricated it. This caricature of the Englishman, though false,could be used to prove the possibility of conquering the worldpeacefully by commercial means. Where the Englishman succeeded weshould also succeed. Our far greater honesty and our freedom fromthat specifically English 'perfidy' would be assets on our side.Thereby it was hoped that the sympathy of the smaller nations andthe confidence of the greater nations could be gained moreeasily.
We did not realize that our honesty was an object of profoundaversion for other people because we ourselves believed in it. Therest of the world looked on our behaviour as the manifestation of ashrewd deceitfulness; but when the revolution came, then they wereamazed at the deeper insight it gave them into our mentality,sincere even beyond the limits of stupidity.
Once we understand the part played by that absurd notion ofconquering the world by peaceful commercial means we can clearlyunderstand how that other absurdity, the Triple Alliance, came toexist. With what State then could an alliance have been made? Inalliance with Austria we could not acquire new territory bymilitary means, even in Europe. And this very fact was the realreason for the inner weakness of the Triple Alliance. A Bismarckcould permit himself such a makeshift for the necessities of themoment, but certainly not any of his bungling successors, and leastof all when the foundations no longer existed on which Bismarck hadformed the Triple Alliance. In Bismarck's time Austria could stillbe looked upon as a German State; but the gradual introduction ofuniversal suffrage turned the country into a parliamentary Babel,in which the German voice was scarcely audible.
From the viewpoint of racial policy, this alliance with Austriawas simply disastrous. A new Slavic Great Power was allowed to growup close to the frontiers of the German Empire. Later on this Powerwas bound to adopt towards Germany an attitude different from thatof Russia, for example. The Alliance was thus bound to become moreempty and more feeble, because the only supporters of it werelosing their influence and were being systematically pushed out ofthe more important public offices.
About the year 1900 the Alliance with Austria had alreadyentered the same phase as the Alliance between Austria andItaly.
Here also only one alternative was possible: Either to take theside of the Habsburg Monarchy or to raise a protest against theoppression of the German element in Austria. But, generallyspeaking, when one takes such a course it is bound eventually tolead to open conflict.
From the psychological point of view also, the Triple decreasesaccording as such an alliance limits its object to the defence ofthe status quo. But, on the other hand, an alliance willincrease its cohesive strength the more the parties concerned in itmay hope to use it as a means of reaching some practical goal ofexpansion. Here, as everywhere else, strength does not lie indefence but in attack.
This truth was recognized in various quarters but,unfortunately, not by the so-called elected representatives of thepeople. As early as 1912 Ludendorff, who was then Colonel and anOfficer of the General Staff, pointed out these weak features ofthe Alliance in a memorandum which he then drew up. But of coursethe 'statesmen' did not attach any importance or value to thatdocument. In general it would seem as if reason were a faculty thatis active only in the case of ordinary mortals but that it isentirely absent when we come to deal with that branch of thespecies known as 'diplomats'.
It was lucky for Germany that the war of 1914 broke out withAustria as its direct cause, for thus the Habsburgs were compelledto participate. Had the origin of the War been otherwise, Germanywould have been left to her own resources. The Habsburg State wouldnever have been ready or willing to take part in a war for theorigin of which Germany was responsible. What was the object of somuch obloquy later in the case of Italy's decision would have takenplace, only earlier, in the case of Austria. In other words, ifGermany had been forced to go to war for some reason of its own,Austria would have remained 'neutral' in order to safeguard theState against a revolution which might begin immediately after thewar had started. The Slav element would have preferred to smash upthe Dual Monarchy in 1914 rather than permit it to come to theassistance of Germany. But at that time there were only a few whounderstood all the dangers and aggravations which resulted from thealliance with the Danubian Monarchy.
In the first place, Austria had too many enemies who wereeagerly looking forward to obtain the heritage of that decrepitState, so that these people gradually developed a certain animosityagainst Germany, because Germany was an obstacle to their desiresinasmuch as it kept the Dual Monarchy from falling to pieces, aconsummation that was hoped for and yearned for on all sides. Theconviction developed that Vienna could be reached only by passingthrough Berlin.
In the second place, by adopting this policy Germany lost itsbest and most promising chances of other alliances. In place ofthese possibilities one now observed a growing tension in therelations with Russia and even with Italy. And this in spite of thefact that the general attitude in Rome was just as favourable toGermany as it was hostile to Austria, a hostility which lay dormantin the individual Italian and broke out violently on occasion.
Since a commercial and industrial policy had been adopted, nomotive was left for waging war against Russia. Only the enemies ofthe two countries, Germany and Russia, could have an activeinterest in such a war under these circumstances. As a matter offact, it was only the Jews and the Marxists who tried to stir upbad blood between the two States.
In the third place, the Alliance constituted a permanent dangerto German security; for any great Power that was hostile toBismarck's Empire could mobilize a whole lot of other States in awar against Germany by promising them tempting spoils at theexpense of the Austrian ally.
It was possible to arouse the whole of Eastern Europe againstAustria, especially Russia, and Italy also. The world coalitionwhich had developed under the leadership of King Edward could neverhave become a reality if Germany's ally, Austria, had not offeredsuch an alluring prospect of booty. It was this fact alone whichmade it possible to combine so many heterogeneous States withdivergent interests into one common phalanx of attack. Every membercould hope to enrich himself at the expense of Austria if he joinedin the general attack against Germany. The fact that Turkey wasalso a tacit party to the unfortunate alliance with Austriaaugmented Germany's peril to an extraordinary degree.
Jewish international finance needed this bait of the Austrianheritage in order to carry out its plans of ruining Germany; forGermany had not yet surrendered to the general control which theinternational captains of finance and trade exercised over theother States. Thus it was possible to consolidate that coalitionand make it strong enough and brave enough, through the sheerweight of numbers, to join in bodily conflict with the 'horned'Siegfried. (Note 9)
The alliance with the Habsburg Monarchy, which I loathed whilestill in Austria, was the subject of grave concern on my part andcaused me to meditate on it so persistently that finally I came tothe conclusions which I have mentioned above.
In the small circles which I frequented at that time I did notconceal my conviction that this sinister agreement with a Statedoomed to collapse would also bring catastrophe to Germany if shedid not free herself from it in time. I never for a moment waveredin that firm conviction, even when the tempest of the World Warseemed to have made shipwreck of the reasoning faculty itself andhad put blind enthusiasm in its place, even among those circleswhere the coolest and hardest objective thinking ought to have heldsway. In the trenches I voiced and upheld my own opinion wheneverthese problems came under discussion. I held that to abandon theHabsburg Monarchy would involve no sacrifice if Germany couldthereby reduce the number of her own enemies; for the millions ofGermans who had donned the steel helmet had done so not to fightfor the maintenance of a corrupt dynasty but rather for thesalvation of the German people.
Before the War there were occasions on which it seemed that atleast one section of the German public had some slight misgivingsabout the political wisdom of the alliance with Austria. From timeto time German conservative circles issued warnings against beingover-confident about the worth of that alliance; but, like everyother reasonable suggestion made at that time, it was thrown to thewinds. The general conviction was that the right measures had beenadopted to 'conquer' the world, that the success of these measureswould be enormous and the sacrifices negligible.
Once again the 'uninitiated' layman could do nothing but observehow the 'elect' were marching straight ahead towards disaster andenticing their beloved people to follow them, as the rats followedthe Pied Piper of Hamelin.
If we would look for the deeper grounds which made it possibleto foist on the people this absurd notion of peacefully conqueringthe world through commercial penetration, and how it was possibleto put forward the maintenance of world-peace as a national aim, weshall find that these grounds lay in a general morbid conditionthat had pervaded the whole body of German political thought.
The triumphant progress of technical science in Germany and themarvellous development of German industries and commerce led us toforget that a powerful State had been the necessary pre-requisiteof that success. On the contrary, certain circles went even so faras to give vent to the theory that the State owed its veryexistence to these phenomena; that it was, above all, an economicinstitution and should be constituted in accordance with economicinterests. Therefore, it was held, the State was dependent on theeconomic structure. This condition of things was looked upon andglorified as the soundest and most normal arrangement.
Now, the truth is that the State in itself has nothingwhatsoever to do with any definite economic concept or a definiteeconomic development. It does not arise from a compact made betweencontracting parties, within a certain delimited territory, for thepurpose of serving economic ends. The State is a community ofliving beings who have kindred physical and spiritual natures,organized for the purpose of assuring the conservation of their ownkind and to help towards fulfilling those ends which Providence hasassigned to that particular race or racial branch. Therein, andtherein alone, lie the purpose and meaning of a State. Economicactivity is one of the many auxiliary means which are necessary forthe attainment of those aims. But economic activity is never theorigin or purpose of a State, except where a State has beenoriginally founded on a false and unnatural basis. And this aloneexplains why a State as such does not necessarily need a certaindelimited territory as a condition of its establishment. Thiscondition becomes a necessary pre-requisite only among those peoplewho would provide and assure subsistence for their kinsfolk throughtheir own industry, which means that they are ready to carry on thestruggle for existence by means of their own work. People who cansneak their way, like parasites, into the human body politic andmake others work for them under various pretences can form a Statewithout possessing any definite delimited territory. This ischiefly applicable to that parasitic nation which, particularly atthe present time preys upon the honest portion of mankind; I meanthe Jews.
The Jewish State has never been delimited in space. It has beenspread all over the world, without any frontiers whatsoever, andhas always been constituted from the membership of one raceexclusively. That is why the Jews have always formed a State withinthe State. One of the most ingenious tricks ever devised has beenthat of sailing the Jewish ship-of-state under the flag of Religionand thus securing that tolerance which Aryans are always ready togrant to different religious faiths. But the Mosaic Law is reallynothing else than the doctrine of the preservation of the Jewishrace. Therefore this Law takes in all spheres of sociological,political and economic science which have a bearing on the main endin view.
The instinct for the preservation of one's own species is theprimary cause that leads to the formation of human communities.Hence the State is a racial organism, and not an economicorganization. The difference between the two is so great as to beincomprehensible to our contemporary so-called 'statesmen'. That iswhy they like to believe that the State may be constituted as aneconomic structure, whereas the truth is that it has alwaysresulted from the exercise of those qualities which are part of thewill to preserve the species and the race. But these qualitiesalways exist and operate through the heroic virtues and havenothing to do with commercial egoism; for the conservation of thespecies always presupposes that the individual is ready tosacrifice himself. Such is the meaning of the poet's lines: (Noe10.)
Und setzet ihr nicht das Leben ein,Nie wird euch das Leben gewonnen sein.(And if you do not stake your life,You will never win life for yourself.)
The sacrifice of the individual existence is necessary in orderto assure the conservation of the race. Hence it is that the mostessential condition for the establishment and maintenance of aState is a certain feeling of solidarity, wounded in an identity ofcharacter and race and in a resolute readiness to defend these atall costs. With people who live on their own territory this willresult in a development of the heroic virtues; with a parasiticpeople it will develop the arts of subterfuge and gross perfidyunless we admit that these characteristics are innate and that thevarying political forms through which the parasitic race expressesitself are only the outward manifestations of innatecharacteristics. At least in the beginning, the formation of aState can result only from a manifestation of the heroic qualitiesI have spoken of. And the people who fail in the struggle forexistence, that is to say those, who become vassals and are therebycondemned to disappear entirely sooner or later, are those who donot display the heroic virtues in the struggle, or those who fallvictims to the perfidy of the parasites. And even in this lattercase the failure is not so much due to lack of intellectual powers,but rather to a lack of courage and determination. An attempt ismade to conceal the real nature of this failing by saying that itis the humane feeling.
The qualities which are employed for the foundation andpreservation of a State have accordingly little or nothing to dowith the economic situation. And this is conspicuously demonstratedby the fact that the inner strength of a State only very rarelycoincides with what is called its economic expansion. On thecontrary, there are numerous examples to show that a period ofeconomic prosperity indicates the approaching decline of a State.If it were correct to attribute the foundation of human communitiesto economic forces, then the power of the State as such would be atits highest pitch during periods of economic prosperity, and notvice versa.
It is specially difficult to understand how the belief that theState is brought into being and preserved by economic forces couldgain currency in a country which has given proof of the opposite inevery phase of its history. The history of Prussia shows in amanner particularly clear and distinct, that it is out of the moralvirtues of the people and not from their economic circumstancesthat a State is formed. It is only under the protection of thosevirtues that economic activities can be developed and the latterwill continue to flourish until a time comes when the creativepolitical capacity declines. Therewith the economic structure willalso break down, a phenomenon which is now happening in an alarmingmanner before our eyes. The material interest of mankind canprosper only in the shade of the heroic virtues. The moment theybecome the primary considerations of life they wreck the basis oftheir own existence.
Whenever the political power of Germany was specially strong theeconomic situation also improved. But whenever economic interestsalone occupied the foremost place in the life of the people, andthrust transcendent ideals into the back.-ground, the Statecollapsed and economic ruin followed readily.
If we consider the question of what those forces actually arewhich are necessary to the creation and preservation of a State, weshall find that they are: The capacity and readiness to sacrificethe individual to the common welfare. That these qualities havenothing at all to do with economics can be proved by referring tothe simple fact that man does not sacrifice himself for materialinterests. In other words, he will die for an ideal but not for abusiness. The marvellous gift for public psychology which theEnglish have was never shown better than the way in which theypresented their case in the World War. We were fighting for ourbread; but the English declared that they were fighting for'freedom', and not at all for their own freedom. Oh, no, but forthe freedom of the small nations. German people laughed at thateffrontery and were angered by it; but in doing so they showed howpolitical thought had declined among our so-called diplomats inGermany even before the War. These diplomatists did not have theslightest notion of what that force was which brought men to facedeath of their own free will and determination.
As long as the German people, in the War of 1914, continued tobelieve that they were fighting for ideals they stood firm. As soonas they were told that they were fighting only for their dailybread they began to give up the struggle.
Our clever 'statesmen' were greatly amazed at this change offeeling. They never understood that as soon as man is called uponto struggle for purely material causes he will avoid death as besthe can; for death and the enjoyment of the material fruits of avictory are quite incompatible concepts. The frailest woman willbecome a heroine when the life of her own child is at stake. Andonly the will to save the race and native land or the State, whichoffers protection to the race, has in all ages been the urge whichhas forced men to face the weapons of their enemies.
The following may be proclaimed as a truth that always holdsgood:
A State has never arisen from commercial causes for the purposeof peacefully serving commercial ends; but States have alwaysarisen from the instinct to maintain the racial group, whether thisinstinct manifest itself in the heroic sphere or in the sphere ofcunning and chicanery. In the first case we have the Aryan States,based on the principles of work and cultural development. In thesecond case we have the Jewish parasitic colonies. But as soon aseconomic interests begin to predominate over the racial andcultural instincts in a people or a State, these economic interestsunloose the causes that lead to subjugation and oppression.
The belief, which prevailed in Germany before the War, that theworld could be opened up and even conquered for Germany through asystem of peaceful commercial penetration and a colonial policy wasa typical symptom which indicated the decline of those realqualities whereby States are created and preserved, and indicatedalso the decline of that insight, will-power and practicaldetermination which belong to those qualities. The World War withits consequences, was the natural liquidation of that decline.
To anyone who had not thought over the matter deeply, thisattitude of the German people'--which was quitegeneral'--must have seemed an insoluble enigma. After all,Germany herself was a magnificent example of an empire that hadbeen built up purely by a policy of power. Prussia, which was thegenerative cell of the German Empire, had been created by brilliantheroic deeds and not by a financial or commercial compact. And theEmpire itself was but the magnificent recompense for a leadershipthat had been conducted on a policy of power and militaryvalour.
How then did it happen that the political instincts of this verysame German people became so degenerate? For it was not merely oneisolated phenomenon which pointed to this decadence, but morbidsymptoms which appeared in alarming numbers, now all over the bodypolitic, or eating into the body of the nation like a gangrenousulcer. It seemed as if some all-pervading poisonous fluid had beeninjected by some mysterious hand into the bloodstream of this onceheroic body, bringing about a creeping paralysis that affected thereason and the elementary instinct of self-preservation.
During the years 1912-1914 I used to ponder perpetually on thoseproblems which related to the policy of the Triple Alliance and theeconomic policy then being pursued by the German Empire. Once againI came to the conclusion that the only explanation of this enigmalay in the operation of that force which I had already becomeacquainted with in Vienna, though from a different angle of vision.The force to which I refer was the Marxist teaching andWeltanschauung and its organized action throughout thenation.
For the second time in my life I plunged deep into the study ofthat destructive teaching. This time, however, I was not urged bythe study of the question by the impressions and influences of mydaily environment, but directed rather by the observation ofgeneral phenomena in the political life of Germany. In delvingagain into the theoretical literature of this new world andendeavouring to get a clear view of the possible consequences ofits teaching, I compared the theoretical principles of Marxism withthe phenomena and happenings brought about by its activities in thepolitical, cultural, and economic spheres.
For the first time in my life I now turned my attention to theefforts that were being made to subdue this universal pest.
I studied Bismarck's exceptional legislation in its originalconcept, its operation and its results. Gradually I formed a basisfor my own opinions, which has proved as solid as a rock, so thatnever since have I had to change my attitude towards the generalproblem. I also made a further and more thorough analysis of therelations between Marxism and Jewry.
During my sojourn in Vienna I used to look upon Germany as animperturbable colossus; but even then serious doubts and misgivingswould often disturb me. In my own mind and in my conversation withmy small circle of acquaintances I used to criticize Germany'sforeign policy and the incredibly superficial way, according to mythinking, in which Marxism was dealt with, though it was then themost important problem in Germany. I could not understand how theycould stumble blindfolded into the midst of this peril, the effectsof which would be momentous if the openly declared aims of Marxismcould be put into practice. Even as early as that time I warnedpeople around me, just as I am warning a wider audience now,against that soothing slogan of all indolent and feckless nature:Nothing can happen to us. A similar mental contagion hadalready destroyed a mighty empire. Can Germany escape the operationof those laws to which all other human communities are subject?
In the years 1913 and 1914 I expressed my opinion for the firsttime in various circles, some of which are now members of theNational Socialist Movement, that the problem of how the future ofthe German nation can be secured is the problem of how Marxism canbe exterminated.
I considered the disastrous policy of the Triple Alliance as oneof the consequences resulting from the disintegrating effects ofthe Marxist teaching; for the alarming feature was that thisteaching was invisibly corrupting the foundations of a healthypolitical and economic outlook. Those who had been themselvescontaminated frequently did not realise that their aims and actionssprang from this Weltanschauung, which they otherwise openlyrepudiated.
Long before then the spiritual and moral decline of the Germanpeople had set in, though those who were affected by the morbiddecadence were frequently unaware'--as often happens'--ofthe forces which were breaking up their very existence. Sometimesthey tried to cure the disease by doctoring the symptoms, whichwere taken as the cause. But since nobody recognized, or wanted torecognize, the real cause of the disease this way of combatingMarxism was no more effective than the application of some quack'sointment.
CHAPTER V. THE WORLD WARDuring the boisterous years of my youth nothing used to damp mywild spirits so much as to think that I was born at a time when theworld had manifestly decided not to erect any more temples of fameexcept in honour of business people and State officials. Thetempest of historical achievements seemed to have permanentlysubsided, so much so that the future appeared to be irrevocablydelivered over to what was called peaceful competition between thenations. This simply meant a system of mutual exploitation byfraudulent means, the principle of resorting to the use of force inself-defence being formally excluded. Individual countriesincreasingly assumed the appearance of commercial undertakings,grabbing territory and clients and concessions from each otherunder any and every kind of pretext. And it was all staged to anaccompaniment of loud but innocuous shouting. This trend of affairsseemed destined to develop steadily and permanently. Having thesupport of public approbation, it seemed bound eventually totransform the world into a mammoth department store. In thevestibule of this emporium there would be rows of monumental bustswhich would confer immortality on those profiteers who had provedthemselves the shrewdest at their trade and those administrativeofficials who had shown themselves the most innocuous. The salesmencould be represented by the English and the administrativefunctionaries by the Germans; whereas the Jews would be sacrificedto the unprofitable calling of proprietorship, for they areconstantly avowing that they make no profits and are always beingcalled upon to 'pay out'. Moreover they have the advantage of beingversed in the foreign languages.
Why could I not have been born a hundred years ago? I used toask myself. Somewhere about the time of the Wars of Liberation,when a man was still of some value even though he had no'business'.
Thus I used to think it an ill-deserved stroke of bad luck thatI had arrived too late on this terrestrial globe, and I feltchagrined at the idea that my life would have to run its coursealong peaceful and orderly lines. As a boy I was anything but apacifist and all attempts to make me so turned out futile.
Then the Boer War came, like a glow of lightning on the farhorizon. Day after day I used to gaze intently at the newspapersand I almost 'devoured' the telegrams and communiques,overjoyed to think that I could witness that heroic struggle, eventhough from so great a distance.
When the Russo-Japanese War came I was older and better able tojudge for myself. For national reasons I then took the side of theJapanese in our discussions. I looked upon the defeat of theRussians as a blow to Austrian Slavism.
Many years had passed between that time and my arrival inMunich. I now realized that what I formerly believed to be a morbiddecadence was only the lull before the storm. During my Vienna daysthe Balkans were already in the grip of that sultry pause whichpresages the violent storm. Here and there a flash of lightningcould be occasionally seen; but it rapidly disappeared in sinistergloom. Then the Balkan War broke out; and therewith the first gustsof the forthcoming tornado swept across a highly-strung Europe. Inthe supervening calm men felt the atmosphere oppressive andforeboding, so much so that the sense of an impending catastrophebecame transformed into a feeling of impatient expectance. Theywished that Heaven would give free rein to the fate which could nowno longer be curbed. Then the first great bolt of lightning struckthe earth. The storm broke and the thunder of the heavensintermingled with the roar of the cannons in the World War.
When the news came to Munich that the Archduke Franz Ferdinandhad been murdered, I had been at home all day and did not get theparticulars of how it happened. At first I feared that the shotsmay have been fired by some German-Austrian students who had beenaroused to a state of furious indignation by the persistentpro-Slav activities of the Heir to the Habsburg Throne andtherefore wished to liberate the German population from thisinternal enemy. It was quite easy to imagine what the result ofsuch a mistake would have been. It would have brought on a new waveof persecution, the motives of which would have been 'justified'before the whole world. But soon afterwards I heard the names ofthe presumed assassins and also that they were known to be Serbs. Ifelt somewhat dumbfounded in face of the inexorable vengeance whichDestiny had wrought. The greatest friend of the Slavs had fallen avictim to the bullets of Slav patriots.
It is unjust to the Vienna government of that time to blame itnow for the form and tenor of the ultimatum which was thenpresented. In a similar position and under similar circumstances,no other Power in the world would have acted otherwise. On hersouthern frontiers Austria had a relentless mortal foe who indulgedin acts of provocation against the Dual Monarchy at intervals whichwere becoming more and more frequent. This persistent line ofconduct would not have been relaxed until the arrival of theopportune moment for the destruction of the Empire. In Austriathere was good reason to fear that, at the latest, this momentwould come with the death of the old Emperor. Once that had takenplace, it was quite possible that the Monarchy would not be able tooffer any serious resistance. For some years past the State hadbeen so completely identified with the personality of FrancisJoseph that, in the eyes of the great mass of the people, the deathof this venerable personification of the Empire would be tantamountto the death of the Empire itself. Indeed it was one of the cleverartifices of Slav policy to foster the impression that the AustrianState owed its very existence exclusively to the prodigies and raretalents of that monarch. This kind of flattery was particularlywelcomed at the Hofburg, all the more because it had no relationwhatsoever to the services actually rendered by the Emperor. Noeffort whatsoever was made to locate the carefully prepared stingwhich lay hidden in this glorifying praise. One fact which wasentirely overlooked, perhaps intentionally, was that the more theEmpire remained dependent on the so-called administrative talentsof 'the wisest Monarch of all times', the more catastrophic wouldbe the situation when Fate came to knock at the door and demand itstribute.
Was it possible even to imagine the Austrian Empire without itsvenerable ruler? Would not the tragedy which befell Maria Theresabe repeated at once?
It is really unjust to the Vienna governmental circles toreproach them with having instigated a war which might have beenprevented. The war was bound to come. Perhaps it might have beenpostponed for a year or two at the most. But it had always been themisfortune of German, as well as Austrian, diplomats that theyendeavoured to put off the inevitable day of reckoning, with theresult that they were finally compelled to deliver their blow at amost inopportune moment.
No. Those who did not wish this war ought to have had thecourage to take the consequences of the refusal upon themselves.Those consequences must necessarily have meant the sacrifice ofAustria. And even then war would have come, not as a war in whichall the nations would have been banded against us but in the formof a dismemberment of the Habsburg Monarchy. In that case we shouldhave had to decide whether we should come to the assistance of theHabsburg or stand aside as spectators, with our arms folded, andthus allow Fate to run its course.
Just those who are loudest in their imprecations to-day and makea great parade of wisdom in judging the causes of the war are thevery same people whose collaboration was the most fatal factor insteering towards the war.
For several decades previously the German Social-Democrats hadbeen agitating in an underhand and knavish way for war againstRussia; whereas the German Centre Party, with religious ends inview, had worked to make the Austrian State the chief centre andturning-point of German policy. The consequences of this folly hadnow to be borne. What came was bound to come and under nocircumstances could it have been avoided. The fault of the GermanGovernment lay in the fact that, merely for the sake of preservingpeace at all costs, it continued to miss the occasions that werefavourable for action, got entangled in an alliance for the purposeof preserving the peace of the world, and thus finally became thevictim of a world coalition which opposed the German effort for themaintenance of peace and was determined to bring about the worldwar.
Had the Vienna Government of that time formulated its ultimatumin less drastic terms, that would not have altered the situation atall: but such a course might have aroused public indignation. For,in the eyes of the great masses, the ultimatum was too moderate andcertainly not excessive or brutal. Those who would deny this to-dayare either simpletons with feeble memories or else deliberatefalsehood-mongers.
The War of 1914 was certainly not forced on the masses; it waseven desired by the whole people.
There was a desire to bring the general feeling of uncertaintyto an end once and for all. And it is only in the light of thisfact that we can understand how more than two million German menand youths voluntarily joined the colours, ready to shed the lastdrop of their blood for the cause.
For me these hours came as a deliverance from the distress thathad weighed upon me during the days of my youth. I am not ashamedto acknowledge to-day that I was carried away by the enthusiasm ofthe moment and that I sank down upon my knees and thanked Heavenout of the fullness of my heart for the favour of having beenpermitted to live in such a time.
The fight for freedom had broken out on an unparalleled scale inthe history of the world. From the moment that Fate took the helmin hand the conviction grew among the mass of the people that nowit was not a question of deciding the destinies of Austria orSerbia but that the very existence of the German nation itself wasat stake.
At last, after many years of blindness, the people saw clearlyinto the future. Therefore, almost immediately after the giganticstruggle had begun, an excessive enthusiasm was replaced by a moreearnest and more fitting undertone, because the exaltation of thepopular spirit was not a mere passing frenzy. It was only toonecessary that the gravity of the situation should be recognized.At that time there was, generally speaking, not the slightestpresentiment or conception of how long the war might last. Peopledreamed of the soldiers being home by Christmas and that then theywould resume their daily work in peace.
Whatever mankind desires, that it will hope for and believe in.The overwhelming majority of the people had long since grown wearyof the perpetual insecurity in the general condition of publicaffairs. Hence it was only natural that no one believed that theAustro-Serbian conflict could be shelved. Therefore they lookedforward to a radical settlement of accounts. I also belonged to themillions that desired this.
The moment the news of the Sarajevo outrage reached Munich twoideas came into my mind: First, that war was absolutely inevitableand, second, that the Habsburg State would now be forced to honourits signature to the alliance. For what I had feared most was thatone day Germany herself, perhaps as a result of the Alliance, wouldbecome involved in a conflict the first direct cause of which didnot affect Austria. In such a contingency, I feared that theAustrian State, for domestic political reasons, would find itselfunable to decide in favour of its ally. But now this danger wasremoved. The old State was compelled to fight, whether it wished todo so or not.
My own attitude towards the conflict was equally simple andclear. I believed that it was not a case of Austria fighting to getsatisfaction from Serbia but rather a case of Germany fighting forher own existence'--the German nation for its ownto-be-or-not-to-be, for its freedom and for its future. The work ofBismarck must now be carried on. Young Germany must show itselfworthy of the blood shed by our fathers on so many heroic fields ofbattle, from Weissenburg to Sedan and Paris. And if this struggleshould bring us victory our people will again rank foremost amongthe great nations. Only then could the German Empire assert itselfas the mighty champion of peace, without the necessity ofrestricting the daily bread of its children for the sake ofmaintaining the peace.
As a boy and as a young man, I often longed for the occasion toprove that my national enthusiasm was not mere vapouring. Hurrahingsometimes seemed to me to be a kind of sinful indulgence, though Icould not give any justification for that feeling; for, after all,who has the right to shout that triumphant word if he has not wonthe right to it there where there is no play-acting and where thehand of the Goddess of Destiny puts the truth and sincerity ofnations and men through her inexorable test? Just as millions ofothers, I felt a proud joy in being permitted to go through thistest. I had so often sung Deutschland ¼ber Alles and sooften roared 'Heil' that I now thought it was as a kind ofretro-active grace that I was granted the right of appearing beforethe Court of Eternal Justice to testify to the truth of thosesentiments.
One thing was clear to me from the very beginning, namely, thatin the event of war, which now seemed inevitable, my books wouldhave to be thrown aside forthwith. I also realized that my placewould have to be there where the inner voice of conscience calledme.
I had left Austria principally for political reasons. Whattherefore could be more rational than that I should put intopractice the logical consequences of my political opinions, nowthat the war had begun. I had no desire to fight for the Habsburgcause, but I was prepared to die at any time for my own kinsfolkand the Empire to which they really belonged.
On August 3rd, 1914, I presented an urgent petition to HisMajesty, King Ludwig III, requesting to be allowed to serve in aBavarian regiment. In those days the Chancellery had its handsquite full and therefore I was all the more pleased when I receivedthe answer a day later, that my request had been granted. I openedthe document with trembling hands; and no words of mine could nowdescribe the satisfaction I felt on reading that I was instructedto report to a Bavarian regiment. Within a few days I was wearingthat uniform which I was not to put oft again for nearly sixyears.
For me, as for every German, the most memorable period of mylife now began. Face to face with that mighty struggle, all thepast fell away into oblivion. With a wistful pride I look back onthose days, especially because we are now approaching the tenthanniversary of that memorable happening. I recall those early weeksof war when kind fortune permitted me to take my place in thatheroic struggle among the nations.
As the scene unfolds itself before my mind, it seems only likeyesterday. I see myself among my young comrades on our first paradedrill, and so on until at last the day came on which we were toleave for the front.
In common with the others, I had one worry during those days.This was a fear that we might arrive too late for the fighting atthe front. Time and again that thought disturbed me and everyannouncement of a victorious engagement left a bitter taste, whichincreased as the news of further victories arrived.
At long last the day came when we left Munich on war service.For the first time in my life I saw the Rhine, as we journeyedwestwards to stand guard before that historic German river againstits traditional and grasping enemy. As the first soft rays of themorning sun broke through the light mist and disclosed to us theNiederwald Statue, with one accord the whole troop train broke intothe strains of Die Wacht am Rhein. I then felt as if myheart could not contain its spirit.
And then followed a damp, cold night in Flanders. We marched insilence throughout the night and as the morning sun came throughthe mist an iron greeting suddenly burst above our heads. Shrapnelexploded in our midst and spluttered in the damp ground. But beforethe smoke of the explosion disappeared a wild 'Hurrah' was shoutedfrom two hundred throats, in response to this first greeting ofDeath. Then began the whistling of bullets and the booming ofcannons, the shouting and singing of the combatants. With eyesstraining feverishly, we pressed forward, quicker and quicker,until we finally came to close-quarter fighting, there beyond thebeet-fields and the meadows. Soon the strains of a song reached usfrom afar. Nearer and nearer, from company to company, it came. Andwhile Death began to make havoc in our ranks we passed the song onto those beside us: Deutschland, Deutschland ¼ber Alles, ¼berAlles in Der Welt.
After four days in the trenches we came back. Even our step wasno longer what it had been. Boys of seventeen looked now like grownmen. The rank and file of the List Regiment (Note 11) had not beenproperly trained in the art of warfare, but they knew how to dielike old soldiers.
That was the beginning. And thus we carried on from year toyear. A feeling of horror replaced the romantic fighting spirit.Enthusiasm cooled down gradually and exuberant spirits were quelledby the fear of the ever-present Death. A time came when there arosewithin each one of us a conflict between the urge toself-preservation and the call of duty. And I had to go throughthat conflict too. As Death sought its prey everywhere andunrelentingly a nameless Something rebelled within the weak bodyand tried to introduce itself under the name of Common Sense; butin reality it was Fear, which had taken on this cloak in order toimpose itself on the individual. But the more the voice whichadvised prudence increased its efforts and the more clear andpersuasive became its appeal, resistance became all the stronger;until finally the internal strife was over and the call of duty wastriumphant. Already in the winter of 1915-16 I had come throughthat inner struggle. The will had asserted its incontestablemastery. Whereas in the early days I went into the fight with acheer and a laugh, I was now habitually calm and resolute. And thatframe of mind endured. Fate might now put me through the final testwithout my nerves or reason giving way. The young volunteer hadbecome an old soldier.
This same transformation took place throughout the whole army.Constant fighting had aged and toughened it and hardened it, sothat it stood firm and dauntless against every assault.
Only now was it possible to judge that army. After two and threeyears of continuous fighting, having been thrown into one battleafter another, standing up stoutly against superior numbers andsuperior armament, suffering hunger and privation, the time hadcome when one could assess the value of that singular fightingforce.
For a thousand years to come nobody will dare to speak ofheroism without recalling the German Army of the World War. Andthen from the dim past will emerge the immortal vision of thosesolid ranks of steel helmets that never flinched and neverfaltered. And as long as Germans live they will be proud toremember that these men were the sons of their forefathers.
I was then a soldier and did not wish to meddle in politics, allthe more so because the time was inopportune. I still believe thatthe most modest stable-boy of those days served his country betterthan the best of, let us say, the 'parliamentary deputies'. Myhatred for those footlers was never greater than in those days whenall decent men who had anything to say said it point-blank in theenemy's face; or, failing this, kept their mouths shut and didtheir duty elsewhere. I despised those political fellows and if Ihad had my way I would have formed them into a Labour Battalion andgiven them the opportunity of babbling amongst themselves to theirhearts' content, without offence or harm to decent people.
In those days I cared nothing for politics; but I could not helpforming an opinion on certain manifestations which affected notonly the whole nation but also us soldiers in particular. Therewere two things which caused me the greatest anxiety at that timeand which I had come to regard as detrimental to our interests.
Shortly after our first series of victories a certain section ofthe Press already began to throw cold water, drip by drip, on theenthusiasm of the public. At first this was not obvious to manypeople. It was done under the mask of good intentions and a spiritof anxious care. The public was told that big celebrations ofvictories were somewhat out of place and were not worthyexpressions of the spirit of a great nation. The fortitude andvalour of German soldiers were accepted facts which did notnecessarily call for outbursts of celebration. Furthermore, it wasasked, what would foreign opinion have to say about thesemanifestations? Would not foreign opinion react more favourably toa quiet and sober form of celebration rather than to all this wildjubilation? Surely the time had come'--so the Pressdeclared'--for us Germans to remember that this war was not ourwork and that hence there need be no feeling of shame in declaringour willingness to do our share towards effecting an understandingamong the nations. For this reason it would not be wise to sullythe radiant deeds of our army with unbecoming jubilation; for therest of the world would never understand this. Furthermore, nothingis more appreciated than the modesty with which a true hero quietlyand unassumingly carries on and forgets. Such was the gist of theirwarning.
Instead of catching these fellows by their long ears anddragging them to some ditch and looping a cord around their necks,so that the victorious enthusiasm of the nation should no longeroffend the aesthetic sensibilities of these knights of the pen, ageneral Press campaign was now allowed to go on against what wascalled 'unbecoming' and 'undignified' forms of victoriouscelebration.
No one seemed to have the faintest idea that when publicenthusiasm is once damped, nothing can enkindle it again, when thenecessity arises. This enthusiasm is an intoxication and must bekept up in that form. Without the support of this enthusiasticspirit how would it be possible to endure in a struggle which,according to human standards, made such immense demands on thespiritual stamina of the nation?
I was only too well acquainted with the psychology of the broadmasses not to know that in such cases a magnaminous 'aestheticism'cannot fan the fire which is needed to keep the iron hot. In myeyes it was even a mistake not to have tried to raise the pitch ofpublic enthusiasm still higher. Therefore I could not at allunderstand why the contrary policy was adopted, that is to say, thepolicy of damping the public spirit.
Another thing which irritated me was the manner in which Marxismwas regarded and accepted. I thought that all this proved howlittle they knew about the Marxist plague. It was believed in allseriousness that the abolition of party distinctions during the Warhad made Marxism a mild and moderate thing.
But here there was no question of party. There was question of adoctrine which was being expounded for the express purpose ofleading humanity to its destruction. The purport of this doctrinewas not understood because nothing was said about that side of thequestion in our Jew-ridden universities and because oursupercilious bureaucratic officials did not think it worth while toread up a subject which had not been prescribed in their universitycourse. This mighty revolutionary trend was going on beside them;but those 'intellectuals' would not deign to give it theirattention. That is why State enterprise nearly always lags behindprivate enterprise. Of these gentry once can truly say that theirmaxim is: What we don't know won't bother us. In the August of 1914the German worker was looked upon as an adherent of Marxistsocialism. That was a gross error. When those fateful hours dawnedthe German worker shook off the poisonous clutches of that plague;otherwise he would not have been so willing and ready to fight. Andpeople were stupid enough to imagine that Marxism had now become'national', another apt illustration of the fact that those inauthority had never taken the trouble to study the real tenor ofthe Marxist teaching. If they had done so, such foolish errorswould not have been committed.
Marxism, whose final objective was and is and will continue tobe the destruction of all non-Jewish national States, had towitness in those days of July 1914 how the German working classes,which it had been inveigling, were aroused by the national spiritand rapidly ranged themselves on the side of the Fatherland. Withina few days the deceptive smoke-screen of that infamous nationalbetrayal had vanished into thin air and the Jewish bosses suddenlyfound themselves alone and deserted. It was as if not a vestige hadbeen left of that folly and madness with which the masses of theGerman people had been inoculated for sixty years. That was indeedan evil day for the betrayers of German Labour. The moment,however, that the leaders realized the danger which threatened themthey pulled the magic cap of deceit over their ears and, withoutbeing identified, played the part of mimes in the nationalreawakening.
The time seemed to have arrived for proceeding against the wholeJewish gang of public pests. Then it was that action should havebeen taken regardless of any consequent whining or protestation. Atone stroke, in the August of 1914, all the empty nonsense aboutinternational solidarity was knocked out of the heads of the Germanworking classes. A few weeks later, instead of this stupid talksounding in their ears, they heard the noise ofAmerican-manufactured shrapnel bursting above the heads of themarching columns, as a symbol of international comradeship. Nowthat the German worker had rediscovered the road to nationhood, itought to have been the duty of any Government which had the care ofthe people in its keeping, to take this opportunity of mercilesslyrooting out everything that was opposed to the national spirit.
While the flower of the nation's manhood was dying at the front,there was time enough at home at least to exterminate this vermin.But, instead of doing so, His Majesty the Kaiser held out his handto these hoary criminals, thus assuring them his protection andallowing them to regain their mental composure.
And so the viper could begin his work again. This time, however,more carefully than before, but still more destructively. Whilehonest people dreamt of reconciliation these perjured criminalswere making preparations for a revolution.
Naturally I was distressed at the half-measures which wereadopted at that time; but I never thought it possible that thefinal consequences could have been so disastrous?
But what should have been done then? Throw the ringleaders intogaol, prosecute them and rid the nation of them? Uncompromisingmilitary measures should have been adopted to root out the evil.Parties should have been abolished and the Reichstag brought to itssenses at the point of the bayonet, if necessary. It would havebeen still better if the Reichstag had been dissolved immediately.Just as the Republic to-day dissolves the parties when it wants to,so in those days there was even more justification for applyingthat measure, seeing that the very existence of the nation was atstake. Of course this suggestion would give rise to the question:Is it possible to eradicate ideas by force of arms? Could aWeltanschauung be attacked by means of physical force?
At that time I turned these questions over and over again in mymind. By studying analogous cases, exemplified in history,particularly those which had arisen from religious circumstances, Icame to the following fundamental conclusion:
Ideas and philosophical systems as well as movements grounded ona definite spiritual foundation, whether true or not, can never bebroken by the use of force after a certain stage, except on onecondition: namely, that this use of force is in the service of anew idea or Weltanschauung which burns with a new flame.
The application of force alone, without moral support based on aspiritual concept, can never bring about the destruction of an ideaor arrest the propagation of it, unless one is ready and ableruthlessly to exterminate the last upholders of that idea even to aman, and also wipe out any tradition which it may tend to leavebehind. Now in the majority of cases the result of such a coursehas been to exclude such a State, either temporarily or for ever,from the comity of States that are of political significance; butexperience has also shown that such a sanguinary method ofextirpation arouses the better section of the population under thepersecuting power. As a matter of fact, every persecution which hasno spiritual motives to support it is morally unjust and raisesopposition among the best elements of the population; so much sothat these are driven more and more to champion the ideas that areunjustly persecuted. With many individuals this arises from thesheer spirit of opposition to every attempt at suppressingspiritual things by brute force.
In this way the number of convinced adherents of the persecuteddoctrine increases as the persecution progresses. Hence the totaldestruction of a new doctrine can be accomplished only by a vastplan of extermination; but this, in the final analysis, means theloss of some of the best blood in a nation or State. And that bloodis then avenged, because such an internal and total clean-up bringsabout the collapse of the nation's strength. And such a procedureis always condemned to futility from the very start if the attackeddoctrine should happen to have spread beyond a small circle.
That is why in this case, as with all other growths, thedoctrine can be exterminated in its earliest stages. As time goeson its powers of resistance increase, until at the approach of ageit gives way to younger elements, but under another form and fromother motives.
The fact remains that nearly all attempts to exterminate adoctrine, without having some spiritual basis of attack against it,and also to wipe out all the organizations it has created, have ledin many cases to the very opposite being achieved; and that for thefollowing reasons:
When sheer force is used to combat the spread of a doctrine,then that force must be employed systematically and persistently.This means that the chances of success in the suppression of adoctrine lie only in the persistent and uniform application of themethods chosen. The moment hesitation is shown, and periods oftolerance alternate with the application of force, the doctrineagainst which these measures are directed will not only recoverstrength but every successive persecution will bring to its supportnew adherents who have been shocked by the oppressive methodsemployed. The old adherents will become more embittered and theirallegiance will thereby be strengthened. Therefore when force isemployed success is dependent on the consistent manner in which itis used. This persistence, however, is nothing less than theproduct of definite spiritual convictions. Every form of force thatis not supported by a spiritual backing will be always indecisiveand uncertain. Such a force lacks the stability that can be foundonly in a Weltanschauung which has devoted champions. Such aforce is the expression of the individual energies; therefore it isfrom time to time dependent on the change of persons in whose handsit is employed and also on their characters and capacities.
But there is something else to be said: EveryWeltanschauung, whether religious or political'--and itis sometimes difficult to say where the one ends and the otherbegins'--fights not so much for the negative destruction of theopposing world of ideas as for the positive realization of its ownideas. Thus its struggle lies in attack rather than in defence. Ithas the advantage of knowing where its objective lies, as thisobjective represents the realization of its own ideas. Inversely,it is difficult to say when the negative aim for the destruction ofa hostile doctrine is reached and secured. For this reason alone aWeltanschauung which is of an aggressive character is moredefinite in plan and more powerful and decisive in action than aWeltanschauung which takes up a merely defensive attitude.If force be used to combat a spiritual power, that force remains adefensive measure only so long as the wielders of it are not thestandard-bearers and apostles of a new spiritual doctrine.
To sum up, the following must be borne in mind: That everyattempt to combat a Weltanschauung by means of force willturn out futile in the end if the struggle fails to take the formof an offensive for the establishment of an entirely new spiritualorder of' things. It is only in the struggle between twoWeltan-schauungen that physical force, consistently and ruthlesslyapplied, will eventually turn the scales in its own favour. It washere that the fight against Marxism had hitherto failed.
This was also the reason why Bismarck's anti-socialistlegislation failed and was bound to fail in the long run, despiteeverything. It lacked the basis of a new Weltanschauung forwhose development and extension the struggle might have been takenup. To say that the serving up of drivel about a so-called'State-Authority' or 'Law-and-Order' was an adequate foundation forthe spiritual driving force in a life-or-death struggle is onlywhat one would expect to hear from the wiseacres in high officialpositions.
It was because there were no adequate spiritual motives back ofthis offensive that Bismarck was compelled to hand over theadministration of his socialist legislative measures to thejudgment and approval of those circles which were themselves theproduct of the Marxist teaching. Thus a very ludicrous state ofaffairs prevailed when the Iron Chancellor surrendered the fate ofhis struggle against Marxism to the goodwill of the bourgeoisdemocracy. He left the goat to take care of the garden. But thiswas only the necessary result of the failure to find afundamentally new Weltanschauung which would attract devotedchampions to its cause and could be established on the ground fromwhich Marxism had been driven out. And thus the result of theBismarckian campaign was deplorable.
During the World War, or at the beginning of it, were theconditions any different? Unfortunately, they were not.
The more I then pondered over the necessity for a change in theattitude of the executive government towards Social-Democracy, asthe incorporation of contemporary Marxism, the more I realized thewant of a practical substitute for this doctrine. SupposingSocial-Democracy were overthrown, what had one to offer the massesin its stead? Not a single movement existed which promised anysuccess in attracting vast numbers of workers who would be now moreor less without leaders, and holding these workers in its train. Itis nonsensical to imagine that the international fanatic who hasjust severed his connection with a class party would forthwith joina bourgeois party, or, in other words, another class organization.For however unsatisfactory these various organizations may appearto be, it cannot be denied that bourgeois politicians look on thedistinction between classes as a very important factor in sociallife, provided it does not turn out politically disadvantageous tothem. If they deny this fact they show themselves not only impudentbut also mendacious.
Generally speaking, one should guard against considering thebroad masses more stupid than they really are. In political mattersit frequently happens that feeling judges more correctly thanintellect. But the opinion that this feeling on the part of themasses is sufficient proof of their stupid international attitudecan be immediately and definitely refuted by the simple fact thatpacifist democracy is no less fatuous, though it draws itssupporters almost exclusively from bourgeois circles. As long asmillions of citizens daily gulp down what the social-democraticPress tells them, it ill becomes the 'Masters' to joke at theexpense of the 'Comrades'; for in the long run they all swallow thesame hash, even though it be dished up with different spices. Inboth cases the cook is one and the same'--the Jew.
One should be careful about contradicting established facts. Itis an undeniable fact that the class question has nothing to dowith questions concerning ideals, though that dope is administeredat election time. Class arrogance among a large section of ourpeople, as well as a prevailing tendency to look down on the manuallabourer, are obvious facts and not the fancies of someday-dreamer. Nevertheless it only illustrates the mentality of ourso-called intellectual circles, that they have not yet grasped thefact that circumstances which are incapable of preventing thegrowth of such a plague as Marxism are certainly not capable ofrestoring what has been lost.
The bourgeois' parties'--a name coined bythemselves'--will never again be able to win over and hold theproletarian masses in their train. That is because two worlds standopposed to one another here, in part naturally and in partartificially divided. These two camps have one leading thought, andthat is that they must fight one another. But in such a fight theyounger will come off victorious; and that is Marxism.
In 1914 a fight against Social-Democracy was indeed quiteconceivable. But the lack of any practical substitute made itdoubtful how long the fight could be kept up. In this respect therewas a gaping void.
Long before the War I was of the same opinion and that was thereason why I could not decide to join any of the parties thenexisting. During the course of the World War my conviction wasstill further confirmed by the manifest impossibility of fightingSocial-Democracy in anything like a thorough way: because for thatpurpose there should have been a movement that was something morethan a mere 'parliamentary' party, and there was none such.
I frequently discussed that want with my intimate comrades. Andit was then that I first conceived the idea of taking up politicalwork later on. As I have often assured my friends, it was just thisthat induced me to become active on the public hustings after theWar, in addition to my professional work. And I am sure that thisdecision was arrived at after much earnest thought.
CHAPTER VI. WARPROPAGANDAIn watching the course of political events I was always struckby the active part which propaganda played in them. I saw that itwas an instrument, which the Marxist Socialists knew how to handlein a masterly way and how to put it to practical uses. Thus I sooncame to realize that the right use of propaganda was an art initself and that this art was practically unknown to our bourgeoisparties. The Christian-Socialist Party alone, especially inLueger's time, showed a certain efficiency in the employment ofthis instrument and owed much of their success to it.
It was during the War, however, that we had the best chance ofestimating the tremendous results which could be obtained by apropagandist system properly carried out. Here again,unfortunately, everything was left to the other side, the work doneon our side being worse than insignificant. It was the totalfailure of the whole German system of information'--a failurewhich was perfectly obvious to every soldier'--that urged me toconsider the problem of propaganda in a comprehensive way. I hadample opportunity to learn a practical lesson in this matter; forunfortunately it was only too well taught us by the enemy. The lackon our side was exploited by the enemy in such an efficient mannerthat one could say it showed itself as a real work of genius. Inthat propaganda carried on by the enemy I found admirable sourcesof instruction. The lesson to be learned from this hadunfortunately no attraction for the geniuses on our own side. Theywere simply above all such things, too clever to accept anyteaching. Anyhow they did not honestly wish to learn anything.
Had we any propaganda at all? Alas, I can reply only in thenegative. All that was undertaken in this direction was so utterlyinadequate and misconceived from the very beginning that not onlydid it prove useless but at times harmful. In substance it wasinsufficient. Psychologically it was all wrong. Anybody who hadcarefully investigated the German propaganda must have formed thatjudgment of it. Our people did not seem to be clear even about theprimary question itself: Whether propaganda is a means or anend?
Propaganda is a means and must, therefore, be judged in relationto the end it is intended to serve. It must be organized in such away as to be capable of attaining its objective. And, as it isquite clear that the importance of the objective may vary from thestandpoint of general necessity, the essential internal characterof the propaganda must vary accordingly. The cause for which wefought during the War was the noblest and highest that man couldstrive for. We were fighting for the freedom and independence ofour country, for the security of our future welfare and the honourof the nation. Despite all views to the contrary, this honour doesactually exist, or rather it will have to exist; for a nationwithout honour will sooner or later lose its freedom andindependence. This is in accordance with the ruling of a higherjustice, for a generation of poltroons is not entitled to freedom.He who would be a slave cannot have honour; for such honour wouldsoon become an object of general scorn.
Germany was waging war for its very existence. The purpose ofits war propaganda should have been to strengthen the fightingspirit in that struggle and help it to victory.
But when nations are fighting for their existence on this earth,when the question of 'to be or not to be' has to be answered, thenall humane and aesthetic considerations must be set aside; forthese ideals do not exist of themselves somewhere in the air butare the product of man's creative imagination and disappear when hedisappears. Nature knows nothing of them. Moreover, they arecharacteristic of only a small number of nations, or rather ofraces, and their value depends on the measure in which they springfrom the racial feeling of the latter. Humane and aesthetic idealswill disappear from the inhabited earth when those races disappearwhich are the creators and standard-bearers of them.
All such ideals are only of secondary importance when a nationis struggling for its existence. They must be prevented fromentering into the struggle the moment they threaten to weaken thestamina of the nation that is waging war. That is always the onlyvisible effect whereby their place in the struggle is to bejudged.
In regard to the part played by humane feeling, Moltke statedthat in time of war the essential thing is to get a decision asquickly as possible and that the most ruthless methods of fightingare at the same time the most humane. When people attempt to answerthis reasoning by highfalutin talk about aesthetics, etc., only oneanswer can be given. It is that the vital questions involved in thestruggle of a nation for its existence must not be subordinated toany aesthetic considerations. The yoke of slavery is and alwayswill remain the most unpleasant experience that mankind can endure.Do the Schwabing (Note 12) decadents look upon Germany's lot to-dayas 'aesthetic'? Of course, one doesn't discuss such a question withthe Jews, because they are the modern inventors of this culturalperfume. Their very existence is an incarnate denial of the beautyof God's image in His creation.
Since these ideas of what is beautiful and humane have no placein warfare, they are not to be used as standards of warpropaganda.
During the War, propaganda was a means to an end. And this endwas the struggle for existence of the German nation. Propaganda,therefore, should have been regarded from the standpoint of itsutility for that purpose. The most cruel weapons were then the mosthumane, provided they helped towards a speedier decision; and onlythose methods were good and beautiful which helped towards securingthe dignity and freedom of the nation. Such was the only possibleattitude to adopt towards war propaganda in the life-or-deathstruggle.
If those in what are called positions of authority had realizedthis there would have been no uncertainty about the form andemployment of war propaganda as a weapon; for it is nothing but aweapon, and indeed a most terrifying weapon in the hands of thosewho know how to use it.
The second question of decisive importance is this: To whomshould propaganda be made to appeal? To the educated intellectualclasses? Or to the less intellectual?
Propaganda must always address itself to the broad masses of thepeople. For the intellectual classes, or what are called theintellectual classes to-day, propaganda is not suited, but onlyscientific exposition. Propaganda has as little to do with scienceas an advertisement poster has to do with art, as far as concernsthe form in which it presents its message. The art of theadvertisement poster consists in the ability of the designer toattract the attention of the crowd through the form and colours hechooses. The advertisement poster announcing an exhibition of arthas no other aim than to convince the public of the importance ofthe exhibition. The better it does that, the better is the art ofthe poster as such. Being meant accordingly to impress upon thepublic the meaning of the exposition, the poster can never take theplace of the artistic objects displayed in the exposition hall.They are something entirely different. Therefore. those who wish tostudy the artistic display must study something that is quitedifferent from the poster; indeed for that purpose a mere wanderingthrough the exhibition galleries is of no use. The student of artmust carefully and thoroughly study each exhibit in order slowly toform a judicious opinion about it.
The situation is the same in regard to what we understand by theword, propaganda. The purpose of propaganda is not the personalinstruction of the individual, but rather to attract publicattention to certain things, the importance of which can be broughthome to the masses only by this means.
Here the art of propaganda consists in putting a matter soclearly and forcibly before the minds of the people as to create ageneral conviction regarding the reality of a certain fact, thenecessity of certain things and the just character of somethingthat is essential. But as this art is not an end in itself andbecause its purpose must be exactly that of the advertisementposter, to attract the attention of the masses and not by any meansto dispense individual instructions to those who already have aneducated opinion on things or who wish to form such an opinion ongrounds of objective study'--because that is not the purpose ofpropaganda, it must appeal to the feelings of the public ratherthan to their reasoning powers.
All propaganda must be presented in a popular form and must fixits intellectual level so as not to be above the heads of the leastintellectual of those to whom it is directed. Thus its purelyintellectual level will have to be that of the lowest mental commondenominator among the public it is desired to reach. When there isquestion of bringing a whole nation within the circle of itsinfluence, as happens in the case of war propaganda, then too muchattention cannot be paid to the necessity of avoiding a high level,which presupposes a relatively high degree of intelligence amongthe public.
The more modest the scientific tenor of this propaganda and themore it is addressed exclusively to public sentiment, the moredecisive will be its success. This is the best test of the value ofa propaganda, and not the approbation of a small group ofintellectuals or artistic people.
The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awakenthe imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings,in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest theattention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses. Thatthis is not understood by those among us whose wits are supposed tohave been sharpened to the highest pitch is only another proof oftheir vanity or mental inertia.
Once we have understood how necessary it is to concentrate thepersuasive forces of propaganda on the broad masses of the people,the following lessons result therefrom:
That it is a mistake to organize the direct propaganda as if itwere a manifold system of scientific instruction.
The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, andtheir understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quicklyforget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must beconfined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed asfar as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should bepersistently repeated until the very last individual has come tograsp the idea that has been put forward. If this principle beforgotten and if an attempt be made to be abstract and general, thepropaganda will turn out ineffective; for the public will not beable to digest or retain what is offered to them in this way.Therefore, the greater the scope of the message that has to bepresented, the more necessary it is for the propaganda to discoverthat plan of action which is psychologically the mostefficient.
It was, for example, a fundamental mistake to ridicule the worthof the enemy as the Austrian and German comic papers made a chiefpoint of doing in their propaganda. The very principle here is amistaken one; for, when they came face to face with the enemy, oursoldiers had quite a different impression. Therefore, the mistakehad disastrous results. Once the German soldier realised what atough enemy he had to fight he felt that he had been deceived bythe manufacturers of the information which had been given him.Therefore, instead of strengthening and stimulating his fightingspirit, this information had quite the contrary effect. Finally helost heart.
On the other hand, British and American war propaganda waspsychologically efficient. By picturing the Germans to their ownpeople as Barbarians and Huns, they were preparing their soldiersfor the horrors of war and safeguarding them against illusions. Themost terrific weapons which those soldiers encountered in the fieldmerely confirmed the information that they had already received andtheir belief in the truth of the assertions made by theirrespective governments was accordingly reinforced. Thus their rageand hatred against the infamous foe was increased. The terriblehavoc caused by the German weapons of war was only anotherillustration of the Hunnish brutality of those barbarians; whereason the side of the Entente no time was left the soldiers tomeditate on the similar havoc which their own weapons were capableof. Thus the British soldier was never allowed to feel that theinformation which he received at home was untrue. Unfortunately theopposite was the case with the Germans, who finally wound up byrejecting everything from home as pure swindle and humbug. Thisresult was made possible because at home they thought that the workof propaganda could be entrusted to the first ass that came along,braying of his own special talents, and they had no conception ofthe fact that propaganda demands the most skilled brains that canbe found.
Thus the German war propaganda afforded us an incomparableexample of how the work of 'enlightenment' should not be done andhow such an example was the result of an entire failure to take anypsychological considerations whatsoever into account.
From the enemy, however, a fund of valuable knowledge could begained by those who kept their eyes open, whose powers ofperception had not yet become sclerotic, and who duringfour-and-a-half years had to experience the perpetual flood ofenemy propaganda.
The worst of all was that our people did not understand the veryfirst condition which has to be fulfilled in every kind ofpropaganda; namely, a systematically one-sided attitude towardsevery problem that has to be dealt with. In this regard so manyerrors were committed, even from the very beginning of the war,that it was justifiable to doubt whether so much folly could beattributed solely to the stupidity of people in higherquarters.
What, for example, should we say of a poster which purported toadvertise some new brand of soap by insisting on the excellentqualities of the competitive brands? We should naturally shake ourheads. And it ought to be just the same in a similar kind ofpolitical advertisement. The aim of propaganda is not to try topass judgment on conflicting rights, giving each its due, butexclusively to emphasize the right which we are asserting.Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in sofar as it is favourable to the other side, present it according tothe theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only thataspect of the truth which is favourable to its own side.
It was a fundamental mistake to discuss the question of who wasresponsible for the outbreak of the war and declare that the soleresponsibility could not be attributed to Germany. The soleresponsibility should have been laid on the shoulders of the enemy,without any discussion whatsoever.
And what was the consequence of these half-measures? The broadmasses of the people are not made up of diplomats or professors ofpublic jurisprudence nor simply of persons who are able to formreasoned judgment in given cases, but a vacillating crowd of humanchildren who are constantly wavering between one idea and another.As soon as our own propaganda made the slightest suggestion thatthe enemy had a certain amount of justice on his side, then we laiddown the basis on which the justice of our own cause could bequestioned. The masses are not in a position to discern where theenemy's fault ends and where our own begins. In such a case theybecome hesitant and distrustful, especially when the enemy does notmake the same mistake but heaps all the blame on his adversary.Could there be any clearer proof of this than the fact that finallyour own people believed what was said by the enemy's propaganda,which was uniform and consistent in its assertions, rather thanwhat our own propaganda said? And that, of course, was increased bythe mania for objectivity which addicts our people. Everybody beganto be careful about doing an injustice to the enemy, even at thecost of seriously injuring, and even ruining his own people andState.
Naturally the masses were not conscious of the fact that thosein authority had failed to study the subject from this angle.
The great majority of a nation is so feminine in its characterand outlook that its thought and conduct are ruled by sentimentrather than by sober reasoning. This sentiment, however, is notcomplex, but simple and consistent. It is not highlydifferentiated, but has only the negative and positive notions oflove and hatred, right and wrong, truth and falsehood. Its notionsare never partly this and partly that. English propagandaespecially understood this in a marvellous way and put what theyunderstood into practice. They allowed no half-measures which mighthave given rise to some doubt.
Proof of how brilliantly they understood that the feeling of themasses is something primitive was shown in their policy ofpublishing tales of horror and outrages which fitted in with thereal horrors of the time, thereby cleverly and ruthlessly preparingthe ground for moral solidarity at the front, even in times ofgreat defeats. Further, the way in which they pilloried the Germanenemy as solely responsible for the war'--which was a brutaland absolute falsehood'--and the way in which they proclaimedhis guilt was excellently calculated to reach the masses, realizingthat these are always extremist in their feelings. And thus it wasthat this atrocious lie was positively believed.
The effectiveness of this kind of propaganda is well illustratedby the fact that after four-and-a-half years, not only was theenemy still carrying on his propagandist work, but it was alreadyundermining the stamina of our people at home.
That our propaganda did not achieve similar results is not to bewondered at, because it had the germs of inefficiency lodged in itsvery being by reason of its ambiguity. And because of the verynature of its content one could not expect it to make the necessaryimpression on the masses. Only our feckless 'statesmen' could haveimagined that on pacifists slops of such a kind the enthusiasmcould be nourished which is necessary to enkindle that spirit whichleads men to die for their country.
And so this product of ours was not only worthless butdetrimental.
No matter what an amount of talent employed in the organizationof propaganda, it will have no result if due account is not takenof these fundamental principles. Propaganda must be limited to afew simple themes and these must be represented again and again.Here, as in innumerable other cases, perseverance is the first andmost important condition of success.
Particularly in the field of propaganda, placid aesthetes andblase intellectuals should never be allowed to take the lead. Theformer would readily transform the impressive character of realpropaganda into something suitable only for literary tea parties.As to the second class of people, one must always beware of thispest; for, in consequence of their insensibility to normalimpressions, they are constantly seeking new excitements.
Such people grow sick and tired of everything. They always longfor change and will always be incapable of putting themselves inthe position of picturing the wants of their less callousfellow-creatures in their immediate neighbourhood, let alone tryingto understand them. The blase intellectuals are always the first tocriticize propaganda, or rather its message, because this appearsto them to be outmoded and trivial. They are always looking forsomething new, always yearning for change; and thus they become themortal enemies of every effort that may be made to influence themasses in an effective way. The moment the organization and messageof a propagandist movement begins to be orientated according totheir tastes it becomes incoherent and scattered.
It is not the purpose of propaganda to create a series ofalterations in sentiment with a view to pleasing these blasegentry. Its chief function is to convince the masses, whoseslowness of understanding needs to be given time in order that theymay absorb information; and only constant repetition will finallysucceed in imprinting an idea on the memory of the crowd.
Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandistmessage must always emphasize the same conclusion. The leadingslogan must of course be illustrated in many ways and from severalangles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion ofthe same formula. In this way alone can propaganda be consistentand dynamic in its effects.
Only by following these general lines and sticking to themsteadfastly, with uniform and concise emphasis, can final successbe reached. Then one will be rewarded by the surprising and almostincredible results that such a persistent policy secures.
The success of any advertisement, whether of a business orpolitical nature, depends on the consistency and perseverance withwhich it is employed.
In this respect also the propaganda organized by our enemies setus an excellent example. It confined itself to a few themes, whichwere meant exclusively for mass consumption, and it repeated thesethemes with untiring perseverance. Once these fundamental themesand the manner of placing them before the world were recognized aseffective, they adhered to them without the slightest alterationfor the whole duration of the War. At first all of it appeared tobe idiotic in its impudent assertiveness. Later on it was lookedupon as disturbing, but finally it was believed.
But in England they came to understand something further:namely, that the possibility of success in the use of thisspiritual weapon consists in the mass employment of it, and thatwhen employed in this way it brings full returns for the largeexpenses incurred.
In England propaganda was regarded as a weapon of the firstorder, whereas with us it represented the last hope of a livelihoodfor our unemployed politicians and a snug job for shirkers of themodest hero type.
Taken all in all, its results were negative.
CHAPTER VII. THEREVOLUTIONIn 1915 the enemy started his propaganda among our soldiers.From 1916 onwards it steadily became more intensive, and at thebeginning of 1918 it had swollen into a storm flood. One could nowjudge the effects of this proselytizing movement step by step.Gradually our soldiers began to think just in the way the enemywished them to think. On the German side there was nocounter-propaganda.
At that time the army authorities, under our able and resoluteCommander, were willing and ready to take up the fight in thepropaganda domain also, but unfortunately they did not have thenecessary means to carry that intention into effect. Moreover, thearmy authorities would have made a psychological mistake had theyundertaken this task of mental training. To be efficacious it hadcome from the home front. For only thus could it be successfulamong men who for nearly four years now had been performingimmortal deeds of heroism and undergoing all sorts of privationsfor the sake of that home. But what were the people at home doing?Was their failure to act merely due to unintelligence or badfaith?
In the midsummer of 1918, after the evacuation of the southernbank of the hearne, the German Press adopted a policy which was sowoefully inopportune, and even criminally stupid, that I used toask myself a question which made me more and more furious day afterday: Is it really true that we have nobody who will dare to put anend to this process of spiritual sabotage which is being carried onamong our heroic troops?
What happened in France during those days of 1914, when ourarmies invaded that country and were marching in triumph from onevictory to another? What happened in Italy when their armiescollapsed on the Isonzo front? What happened in France again duringthe spring of 1918, when German divisions took the main Frenchpositions by storm and heavy long-distance artillery bombardedParis?
How they whipped up the flagging courage of those troops whowere retreating and fanned the fires of national enthusiasm amongthem! How their propaganda and their marvellous aptitude in theexercise of mass-influence reawakened the fighting spirit in thatbroken front and hammered into the heads of the soldiers a, firmbelief in final victory!
Meanwhile, what were our people doing in this sphere? Nothing,or even worse than nothing. Again and again I used to becomeenraged and indignant as I read the latest papers and realized thenature of the mass-murder they were committing: through theirinfluence on the minds of the people and the soldiers. More thanonce I was tormented by the thought that if Providence had put theconduct of German propaganda into my hands, instead of into thehands of those incompetent and even criminal ignoramuses andweaklings, the outcome of the struggle might have beendifferent.
During those months I felt for the first time that Fate wasdealing adversely with me in keeping me on the fighting front andin a position where any chance bullet from some nigger or othermight finish me, whereas I could have done the Fatherland a realservice in another sphere. For I was then presumptuous enough tobelieve that I would have been successful in managing thepropaganda business.
But I was a being without a name, one among eight millions.Hence it was better for me to keep my mouth shut and do my duty aswell as I could in the position to which I had been assigned.
In the summer of 1915 the first enemy leaflets were dropped onour trenches. They all told more or less the same story, with somevariations in the form of it. The story was that distress wassteadily on the increase in Germany; that the War would lastindefinitely; that the prospect of victory for us was becomingfainter day after day; that the people at home were yearning forpeace, but that 'Militarism' and the 'Kaiser' would not permit it;that the world'--which knew this very well'--was not wagingwar against the German people but only against the man who wasexclusively responsible, the Kaiser; that until this enemy ofworld-peace was removed there could be no end to the conflict; butthat when the War was over the liberal and democratic nations wouldreceive the Germans as colleagues in the League for World Peace.This would be done the moment 'Prussian Militarism' had beenfinally destroyed.
To illustrate and substantiate all these statements, theleaflets very often contained 'Letters from Home', the contents ofwhich appeared to confirm the enemy's propagandist message.
Generally speaking, we only laughed at all these efforts. Theleaflets were read, sent to base headquarters, then forgotten untila favourable wind once again blew a fresh contingent into thetrenches. These were mostly dropped from aeroplanes which were usedspecially for that purpose.
One feature of this propaganda was very striking. It was that insections where Bavarian troops were stationed every effort was madeby the enemy propagandists to stir up feeling against thePrussians, assuring the soldiers that Prussia and Prussia alone wasthe guilty party who was responsible for bringing on and continuingthe War, and that there was no hostility whatsoever towards theBavarians; but that there could be no possibility of coming totheir assistance so long as they continued to serve Prussianinterests and helped to pull the Prussian chestnuts out of thefire.
This persistent propaganda began to have a real influence on oursoldiers in 1915. The feeling against Prussia grew quite noticeableamong the Bavarian troops, but those in authority did nothing tocounteract it. This was something more than a mere crime ofomission; for sooner or later not only the Prussians were bound tohave to atone severely for it but the whole German nation andconsequently the Bavarians themselves also.
In this direction the enemy propaganda began to achieveundoubted success from 1916 onwards.
In a similar way letters coming directly from home had longsince been exercising their effect. There was now no furthernecessity for the enemy to broadcast such letters in leaflet form.And also against this influence from home nothing was done except afew supremely stupid 'warnings' uttered by the executivegovernment. The whole front was drenched in this poison whichthoughtless women at home sent out, without suspecting for a momentthat the enemy's chances of final victory were thus strengthened orthat the sufferings of their own men at the front were thus beingprolonged and rendered more severe. These stupid letters written byGerman women eventually cost the lives of hundreds of thousands ofour men.
Thus in 1916 several distressing phenomena were alreadymanifest. The whole front was complaining and grousing,discontented over many things and often justifiably so. While theywere hungry and yet patient, and their relatives at home were indistress, in other quarters there was feasting and revelry. Yes;even on the front itself everything was not as it ought to havebeen in this regard.
Even in the early stages of the war the soldiers were sometimesprone to complain; but such criticism was confined to 'internalaffairs'. The man who at one moment groused and grumbled ceased hismurmur after a few moments and went about his duty silently, as ifeverything were in order. The company which had given signs ofdiscontent a moment earlier hung on now to its bit of trench,defending it tooth and nail, as if Germany's fate depended on thesefew hundred yards of mud and shell-holes. The glorious old army wasstill at its post. A sudden change in my own fortunes soon placedme in a position where I had first-hand experience of the contrastbetween this old army and the home front. At the end of September1916 my division was sent into the Battle of the Somme. For us thiswas the first of a series of heavy engagements, and the impressioncreated was that of a veritable inferno, rather than war. Throughweeks of incessant artillery bombardment we stood firm, at timesceding a little ground but then taking it back again, and nevergiving way. On October 7th, 1916, I was wounded but had the luck ofbeing able to get back to our lines and was then ordered to be sentby ambulance train to Germany.
Two years had passed since I had left home, an almost endlessperiod in such circumstances. I could hardly imagine what Germanslooked like without uniforms. In the clearing hospital at Hermies Iwas startled when I suddenly heard the voice of a German woman whowas acting as nursing sister and talking with one of the woundedmen lying near me. Two years! And then this voice for the firsttime!
The nearer our ambulance train approached the German frontierthe more restless each one of us became. En route we recognised allthese places through which we passed two years before as youngvolunteers'--Brussels, Louvain, Li¨ge'--and finally wethought we recognized the first German homestead, with its familiarhigh gables and picturesque window-shutters. Home!
What a change! From the mud of the Somme battlefields to thespotless white beds in this wonderful building. One hesitated atfirst before entering them. It was only by slow stages that onecould grow accustomed to this new world again. But unfortunatelythere were certain other aspects also in which this new world wasdifferent.
The spirit of the army at the front appeared to be out of placehere. For the first time I encountered something which up to thenwas unknown at the front: namely, boasting of one's own cowardice.For, though we certainly heard complaining and grousing at thefront, this was never in the spirit of any agitation toinsubordination and certainly not an attempt to glorify one's fear.No; there at the front a coward was a coward and nothing else, Andthe contempt which his weakness aroused in the others was quitegeneral, just as the real hero was admired all round. But here inhospital the spirit was quite different in some respects.Loudmouthed agitators were busy here in heaping ridicule on thegood soldier and painting the weak-kneed poltroon in gloriouscolours. A couple of miserable human specimens were the ringleadersin this process of defamation. One of them boasted of havingintentionally injured his hand in barbed-wire entanglements inorder to get sent to hospital. Although his wound was only a slightone, it appeared that he had been here for a very long time andwould be here interminably. Some arrangement for him seemed to beworked by some sort of swindle, just as he got sent here in theambulance train through a swindle. This pestilential specimenactually had the audacity to parade his knavery as themanifestation of a courage which was superior to that of the bravesoldier who dies a hero's death. There were many who heard thistalk in silence; but there were others who expressed their assentto what the fellow said.
Personally I was disgusted at the thought that a seditiousagitator of this kind should be allowed to remain in such aninstitution. What could be done? The hospital authorities here musthave known who and what he was; and actually they did know. Butstill they did nothing about it.
As soon as I was able to walk once again I obtained leave tovisit Berlin.
Bitter want was in evidence everywhere. The metropolis, with itsteeming millions, was suffering from hunger. The talk that wascurrent in the various places of refreshment and hospices visitedby the soldiers was much the same as that in our hospital. Theimpression given was that these agitators purposely singled outsuch places in order to spread their views.
But in Munich conditions were far worse. After my discharge fromhospital, I was sent to a reserve battalion there. I felt as insome strange town. Anger, discontent, complaints met one's earswherever one went. To a certain extent this was due to theinfinitely maladroit manner in which the soldiers who had returnedfrom the front were treated by the non-commissioned officers whohad never seen a day's active service and who on that account werepartly incapable of adopting the proper attitude towards the oldsoldiers. Naturally those old soldiers displayed certaincharacteristics which had been developed from the experiences inthe trenches. The officers of the reserve units could notunderstand these peculiarities, whereas the officer home fromactive service was at least in a position to understand them forhimself. As a result he received more respect from the men thanofficers at the home headquarters. But, apart from all this, thegeneral spirit was deplorable. The art of shirking was looked uponas almost a proof of higher intelligence, and devotion to duty wasconsidered a sign of weakness or bigotry. Government offices werestaffed by Jews. Almost every clerk was a Jew and every Jew was aclerk. I was amazed at this multitude of combatants who belonged tothe chosen people and could not help comparing it with theirslender numbers in the fighting lines.
In the business world the situation was even worse. Here theJews had actually become 'indispensable'. Like leeches, they wereslowly sucking the blood from the pores of the national body. Bymeans of newly floated War Companies an instrument had beendiscovered whereby all national trade was throttled so that nobusiness could be carried on freely
Special emphasis was laid on the necessity for unhamperedcentralization. Hence as early as 1916-17 practically allproduction was under the control of Jewish finance.
But against whom was the anger of the people directed? It wasthen that I already saw the fateful day approaching which mustfinally bring the debcle, unless timely preventive measureswere taken.
While Jewry was busy despoiling the nation and tightening thescrews of its despotism, the work of inciting the people againstthe Prussians increased. And just as nothing was done at the frontto put a stop to the venomous propaganda, so here at home noofficial steps were taken against it. Nobody seemed capable ofunderstanding that the collapse of Prussia could never bring aboutthe rise of Bavaria. On the contrary, the collapse of the one mustnecessarily drag the other down with it.
This kind of behaviour affected me very deeply. In it I couldsee only a clever Jewish trick for diverting public attention fromthemselves to others. While Prussians and Bavarians weresquabbling, the Jews were taking away the sustenance of both fromunder their very noses. While Prussians were being abused inBavaria the Jews organized the revolution and with one strokesmashed both Prussia and Bavaria.
I could not tolerate this execrable squabbling among people ofthe same German stock and preferred to be at the front once again.Therefore, just after my arrival in Munich I reported myself forservice again. At the beginning of March 1917 I rejoined my oldregiment at the front.
Towards the end of 1917 it seemed as if we had got over theworst phases of moral depression at the front. After the Russiancollapse the whole army recovered its courage and hope, and allwere gradually becoming more and more convinced that the strugglewould end in our favour. We could sing once again. The ravens wereceasing to croak. Faith in the future of the Fatherland was oncemore in the ascendant.
The Italian collapse in the autumn of 1917 had a wonderfuleffect; for this victory proved that it was possible to breakthrough another front besides the Russian. This inspiring thoughtnow became dominant in the minds of millions at the front andencouraged them to look forward with confidence to the spring of1918. It was quite obvious that the enemy was in a state ofdepression. During this winter the front was somewhat quieter thanusual. But that was the calm before the storm.
Just when preparations were being made to launch a finaloffensive which would bring this seemingly eternal struggle to anend, while endless columns of transports were bringing men andmunitions to the front, and while the men were being trained forthat final onslaught, then it was that the greatest act oftreachery during the whole War was accomplished in Germany.
Germany must not win the War. At that moment when victory seemedready to alight on the German standards, a conspiracy was arrangedfor the purpose of striking at the heart of the German springoffensive with one blow from the rear and thus making victoryimpossible. A general strike in the munition factories wasorganized.
If this conspiracy could achieve its purpose the German frontwould have collapsed and the wishes of the Vorw¤rts (theorgan of the Social-Democratic Party) that this time victory shouldnot take the side of the German banners, would have been fulfilled.For want of munitions the front would be broken through within afew weeks, the offensive would be effectively stopped and theEntente saved. Then International Finance would assume control overGermany and the internal objective of the Marxist national betrayalwould be achieved. That objective was the destruction of thenational economic system and the establishment of internationalcapitalistic domination in its stead. And this goal has really beenreached, thanks to the stupid credulity of the one side and theunspeakable treachery of the other.
The munition strike, however, did not bring the final successthat had been hoped for: namely, to starve the front of ammunition.It lasted too short a time for the lack of ammunitions as such tobring disaster to the army, as was originally planned. But themoral damage was much more terrible.
In the first place. what was the army fighting for if the peopleat home did not wish it to be victorious? For whom then were theseenormous sacrifices and privations being made and endured? Must thesoldiers fight for victory while the home front goes on strikeagainst it?
In the second place, what effect did this move have on theenemy?
In the winter of 1917-18 dark clouds hovered in the firmament ofthe Entente. For nearly four years onslaught after onslaught hasbeen made against the German giant, but they failed to bring him tothe ground. He had to keep them at bay with one arm that held thedefensive shield because his other arm had to be free to wield thesword against his enemies, now in the East and now in the South.But at last these enemies were overcome and his rear was now freefor the conflict in the West. Rivers of blood had been shed for theaccomplishment of that task; but now the sword was free to combinein battle with the shield on the Western Front. And since the enemyhad hitherto failed to break the German defence here, the Germansthemselves had now to launch the attack. The enemy feared andtrembled before the prospect of this German victory.
At Paris and London conferences followed one another in unendingseries. Even the enemy propaganda encountered difficulties. It wasno longer so easy to demonstrate that the prospect of a Germanvictory was hopeless. A prudent silence reigned at the front, evenamong the troops of the Entente. The insolence of their masters hadsuddenly subsided. A disturbing truth began to dawn on them. Theiropinion of the German soldier had changed. Hitherto they were ableto picture him as a kind of fool whose end would be destruction;but now they found themselves face to face with the soldier who hadovercome their Russian ally. The policy of restricting theoffensive to the East, which had been imposed on the Germanmilitary authorities by the necessities of the situation, nowseemed to the Entente as a tactical stroke of genius. For threeyears these Germans had been battering away at the Russian frontwithout any apparent success at first. Those fruitless efforts werealmost sneered at; for it was thought that in the long run theRussian giant would triumph through sheer force of numbers. Germanywould be worn out through shedding so much blood. And factsappeared to confirm this hope.
Since the September days of 1914, when for the first timeinterminable columns of Russian war prisoners poured into Germanyafter the Battle of Tannenberg, it seemed as if the stream wouldnever end but that as soon as one army was defeated and routedanother would take its place. The supply of soldiers which thegigantic Empire placed at the disposal of the Czar seemedinexhaustible; new victims were always at hand for the holocaust ofwar. How long could Germany hold out in this competition? Would notthe day finally have to come when, after the last victory which theGermans would achieve, there would still remain reserve armies inRussia to be mustered for the final battle? And what then?According to human standards a Russian victory over Germany mightbe delayed but it would have to come in the long run.
All the hopes that had been based on Russia were now lost. TheAlly who had sacrificed the most blood on the altar of their mutualinterests had come to the end of his resources and lay prostratebefore his unrelenting foe. A feeling of terror and dismay cameover the Entente soldiers who had hitherto been buoyed up by blindfaith. They feared the coming spring. For, seeing that hithertothey had failed to break the Germans when the latter couldconcentrate only part of the fighting strength on the WesternFront, how could they count on victory now that the undividedforces of that amazing land of heroes appeared to be gathered for amassed attack in the West?
The shadow of the events which had taken place in South Tyrol,the spectre of General Cadorna's defeated armies, were reflected inthe gloomy faces of the Entente troops in Flanders. Faith invictory gave way to fear of defeat to come.
Then, on those cold nights, when one almost heard the tread ofthe German armies advancing to the great assault, and the decisionwas being awaited in fear and trembling, suddenly a lurid light wasset aglow in Germany and sent its rays into the last shell-hole onthe enemy's front. At the very moment when the German divisionswere receiving their final orders for the great offensive a generalstrike broke out in Germany.
At first the world was dumbfounded. Then the enemy propagandabegan activities once again and pounced on this theme at theeleventh hour. All of a sudden a means had come which could beutilized to revive the sinking confidence of the Entente soldiers.The probabilities of victory could now be presented as certain, andthe anxious foreboding in regard to coming events could now betransformed into a feeling of resolute assurance. The regimentsthat had to bear the brunt of the Greatest German onslaught inhistory could now be inspired with the conviction that the finaldecision in this war would not be won by the audacity of the Germanassault but rather by the powers of endurance on the side of thedefence. Let the Germans now have whatever victories they liked,the revolution and not the victorious army was welcomed in theFatherland.
British, French and American newspapers began to spread thisbelief among their readers while a very ably managed propagandaencouraged the morale of their troops at the front.
'Germany Facing Revolution! An Allied Victory Inevitable!' Thatwas the best medicine to set the staggering Poilu and Tommy ontheir feet once again. Our rifles and machine-guns could now openfire once again; but instead of effecting a panic-stricken retreatthey were now met with a determined resistance that was full ofconfidence.
That was the result of the strike in the munitions factories.Throughout the enemy countries faith in victory was thus revivedand strengthened, and that paralysing feeling of despair which hadhitherto made itself felt on the Entente front was banished.Consequently the strike cost the lives of thousands of Germansoldiers. But the despicable instigators of that dastardly strikewere candidates for the highest public positions in the Germany ofthe Revolution.
At first it was apparently possible to overcome the repercussionof these events on the German soldiers, but on the enemy's sidethey had a lasting effect. Here the resistance had lost all thecharacter of an army fighting for a lost cause. In its place therewas now a grim determination to struggle through to victory. For,according to all human rules of judgment, victory would now beassured if the Western front could hold out against the Germanoffensive even for only a few months. The Allied parliamentsrecognized the possibilities of a better future and voted huge sumsof money for the continuation of the propaganda which was employedfor the purpose of breaking up the internal cohesion ofGermany.
It was my luck that I was able to take part in the first twooffensives and in the final offensive. These have left on me themost stupendous impressions of my life'--stupendous, becausenow for the last time the struggle lost its defensive character andassumed the character of an offensive, just as it was in 1914. Asigh of relief went up from the German trenches and dug-outs whenfinally, after three years of endurance in that inferno, the dayfor the settling of accounts had come. Once again the lustycheering of victorious battalions was heard, as they hung the lastcrowns of the immortal laurel on the standards which theyconsecrated to Victory. Once again the strains of patriotic songssoared upwards to the heavens above the endless columns of marchingtroops, and for the last time the Lord smiled on his ungratefulchildren.
In the midsummer of 1918 a feeling of sultry oppression hungover the front. At home they were quarrelling. About what? We hearda great deal among various units at the front. The War was now ahopeless affair, and only the foolhardy could think of victory. Itwas not the people but the capitalists and the Monarchy who wereinterested in carrying on. Such were the ideas that came from homeand were discussed at the front.
At first this gave rise to only very slight reaction. What diduniversal suffrage matter to us? Is this what we had been fightingfor during four years? It was a dastardly piece of robbery thus tofilch from the graves of our heroes the ideals for which they hadfallen. It was not to the slogan, 'Long Live Universal Suffrage,'that our troops in Flanders once faced certain death but with thecry, 'Deutschland ¼ber Alles in der Welt'. A small but by nomeans an unimportant difference. And the majority of those who wereshouting for this suffrage were absent when it came to fighting forit. All this political rabble were strangers to us at the front.During those days only a fraction of these parliamentarian gentrywere to be seen where honest Germans foregathered.
The old soldiers who had fought at the front had little likingfor those new war aims of Messrs. Ebert, Scheidemann, Barth,Liebknecht and others. We could not understand why, all of asudden, the shirkers should abrogate all executive powers tothemselves, without having any regard to the army.
From the very beginning I had my own definite personal views. Iintensely loathed the whole gang of miserable party politicians whohad betrayed the people. I had long ago realized that the interestsof the nation played only a very small part with this disreputablecrew and that what counted with them was the possibility of fillingtheir own empty pockets. My opinion was that those peoplethoroughly deserved to be hanged, because they were ready tosacrifice the peace and if necessary allow Germany to be defeatedjust to serve their own ends. To consider their wishes would meanto sacrifice the interests of the working classes for the benefitof a gang of thieves. To meet their wishes meant that one shouldagree to sacrifice Germany.
Such, too, was the opinion still held by the majority of thearmy. But the reinforcements which came from home were fastbecoming worse and worse; so much so that their arrival was asource of weakness rather than of strength to our fighting forces.The young recruits in particular were for the most part useless.Sometimes it was hard to believe that they were sons of the samenation that sent its youth into the battles that were fought roundYpres.
In August and September the symptoms of moral disintegrationincreased more and more rapidly, although the enemy's offensive wasnot at all comparable to the frightfulness of our own formerdefensive battles. In comparison with this offensive the battlesfought on the Somme and in Flanders remained in our memories as themost terrible of all horrors.
At the end of September my division occupied, for the thirdtime, those positions which we had once taken by storm as youngvolunteers. What a memory!
Here we had received our baptism of fire, in October andNovember 1914. With a burning love of the homeland in their heartsand a song on their lips, our young regiment went into action as ifgoing to a dance. The dearest blood was given freely here in thebelief that it was shed to protect the freedom and independence ofthe Fatherland.
In July 1917 we set foot for the second time on what we regardedas sacred soil. Were not our best comrades at rest here, some ofthem little more than boys'--the soldiers who had rushed intodeath for their country's sake, their eyes glowing withenthusiastic love.
The older ones among us, who had been with the regiment from thebeginning, were deeply moved as we stood on this sacred spot wherewe had sworn 'Loyalty and Duty unto Death'. Three years ago theregiment had taken this position by storm; now it was called uponto defend it in a gruelling struggle.
With an artillery bombardment that lasted three weeks theEnglish prepared for their great offensive in Flanders. There thespirits of the dead seemed to live again. The regiment dug itselfinto the mud, clung to its shell-holes and craters, neitherflinching nor wavering, but growing smaller in numbers day afterday. Finally the British launched their attack on July 31st,1917.
We were relieved in the beginning of August. The regiment haddwindled down to a few companies, who staggered back, mud-crusted,more like phantoms than human beings. Besides a few hundred yardsof shell-holes, death was the only reward which the Englishgained.
Now in the autumn of 1918 we stood for the third time on theground we had stormed in 1914. The village of Comines, whichformerly had served us as a base, was now within the fighting zone.Although little had changed in the surrounding district itself, yetthe men had become different, somehow or other. They now talkedpolitics. Like everywhere else, the poison from home was having itseffect here also. The young drafts succumbed to it completely. Theyhad come directly from home.
During the night of October 13th-14th, the British opened anattack with gas on the front south of Ypres. They used the yellowgas whose effect was unknown to us, at least from personalexperience. I was destined to experience it that very night. On ahill south of Werwick, in the evening of October 13th, we weresubjected for several hours to a heavy bombardment with gas bombs,which continued throughout the night with more or less intensity.About midnight a number of us were put out of action, some forever. Towards morning I also began to feel pain. It increased withevery quarter of an hour; and about seven o'clock my eyes werescorching as I staggered back and delivered the last dispatch I wasdestined to carry in this war. A few hours later my eyes were likeglowing coals and all was darkness around me.
I was sent into hospital at Pasewalk in Pomerania, and there itwas that I had to hear of the Revolution.
For a long time there had been something in the air which wasindefinable and repulsive. People were saying that something wasbound to happen within the next few weeks, although I could notimagine what this meant. In the first instance I thought of astrike similar to the one which had taken place in spring.Unfavourable rumours were constantly coming from the Navy, whichwas said to be in a state of ferment. But this seemed to be afanciful creation of a few isolated young people. It is true thatat the hospital they were all talking abut the end of the war andhoping that this was not far off, but nobody thought that thedecision would come immediately. I was not able to read thenewspapers.
In November the general tension increased. Then one day disasterbroke in upon us suddenly and without warning. Sailors came inmotor-lorries and called on us to rise in revolt. A few Jew-boyswere the leaders in that combat for the 'Liberty, Beauty, andDignity' of our National Being. Not one of them had seen activeservice at the front. Through the medium of a hospital for venerealdiseases these three Orientals had been sent back home. Now theirred rags were being hoisted here.
During the last few days I had begun to feel somewhat better.The burning pain in the eye-sockets had become less severe.Gradually I was able to distinguish the general outlines of myimmediate surroundings. And it was permissible to hope that atleast I would recover my sight sufficiently to be able to take upsome profession later on. That I would ever be able to draw ordesign once again was naturally out of the question. Thus I was onthe way to recovery when the frightful hour came.
My first thought was that this outbreak of high treason was onlya local affair. I tried to enforce this belief among my comrades.My Bavarian hospital mates, in particular, were readily responsive.Their inclinations were anything but revolutionary. I could notimagine this madness breaking out in Munich; for it seemed to methat loyalty to the House of Wittelsbach was, after all, strongerthan the will of a few Jews. And so I could not help believing thatthis was merely a revolt in the Navy and that it would besuppressed within the next few days.
With the next few days came the most astounding information ofmy life. The rumours grew more and more persistent. I was told thatwhat I had considered to be a local affair was in reality a generalrevolution. In addition to this, from the front came the shamefulnews that they wished to capitulate! What! Was such a thingpossible?
On November 10th the local pastor visited the hospital for thepurpose of delivering a short address. And that was how we came toknow the whole story.
I was in a fever of excitement as I listened to the address. Thereverend old gentleman seemed to be trembling when he informed usthat the House of Hohen-zollern should no longer wear the ImperialCrown, that the Fatherland had become a 'Republic', that we shouldpray to the Almighty not to withhold His blessing from the neworder of things and not to abandon our people in the days to come.In delivering this message he could not do more than brieflyexpress appreciation of the Royal House, its services to Pomerania,to Prussia, indeed, to the whole of the German Fatherland,and'--here he began to weep. A feeling of profound dismay fellon the people in that assembly, and I do not think there was asingle eye that withheld its tears. As for myself, I broke downcompletely when the old gentleman tried to resume his story byinforming us that we must now end this long war, because the warwas lost, he said, and we were at the mercy of the victor. TheFatherland would have to bear heavy burdens in the future. We wereto accept the terms of the Armistice and trust to the magnanimityof our former enemies. It was impossible for me to stay and listenany longer. Darkness surrounded me as I staggered and stumbled backto my ward and buried my aching head between the blankets andpillow.
I had not cried since the day that I stood beside my mother'sgrave. Whenever Fate dealt cruelly with me in my young days thespirit of determination within me grew stronger and stronger.During all those long years of war, when Death claimed many a truefriend and comrade from our ranks, to me it would have appearedsinful to have uttered a word of complaint. Did they not die forGermany? And, finally, almost in the last few days of that titanicstruggle, when the waves of poison gas enveloped me and began topenetrate my eyes, the thought of becoming permanently blindunnerved me; but the voice of conscience cried out immediately:Poor miserable fellow, will you start howling when there arethousands of others whose lot is a hundred times worse than yours?And so I accepted my misfortune in silence, realizing that this wasthe only thing to be done and that personal suffering was nothingwhen compared with the misfortune of one's country.
So all had been in vain. In vain all the sacrifices andprivations, in vain the hunger and thirst for endless months, invain those hours that we stuck to our posts though the fear ofdeath gripped our souls, and in vain the deaths of two millions whofell in discharging this duty. Think of those hundreds of thousandswho set out with hearts full of faith in their fatherland, andnever returned; ought not their graves to open, so that the spiritsof those heroes bespattered with mud and blood should come home andtake vengeance on those who had so despicably betrayed the greatestsacrifice which a human being can make for his country? Was it forthis that the soldiers died in August and September 1914, for thisthat the volunteer regiments followed the old comrades in theautumn of the same year? Was it for this that those boys ofseventeen years of age were mingled with the earth of Flanders? Wasthis meant to be the fruits of the sacrifice which German mothersmade for their Fatherland when, with heavy hearts, they saidgood-bye to their sons who never returned? Has all this been donein order to enable a gang of despicable criminals to lay hands onthe Fatherland?
Was this then what the German soldier struggled for throughsweltering heat and blinding snowstorm, enduring hunger and thirstand cold, fatigued from sleepless nights and endless marches? Wasit for this that he lived through an inferno of artillerybombardments, lay gasping and choking during gas attacks, neitherflinching nor faltering, but remaining staunch to the thought ofdefending the Fatherland against the enemy? Certainly these heroesalso deserved the epitaph:
Traveller, when you come to Germany, tell the Homeland that welie here, true to the Fatherland and faithful to our duty. (Note13)
And at Home? But'--was this the only sacrifice that we hadto consider? Was the Germany of the past a country of little worth?Did she not owe a certain duty to her own history? Were we stillworthy to partake in the glory of the past? How could we justifythis act to future generations?
What a gang of despicable and depraved criminals!
The more I tried then to glean some definite information of theterrible events that had happened the more my head became afirewith rage and shame. What was all the pain I suffered in my eyescompared with this tragedy?
The following days were terrible to bear, and the nights stillworse. To depend on the mercy of the enemy was a precept which onlyfools or criminal liars could recommend. During those nights myhatred increased'--hatred for the orignators of this dastardlycrime.
During the following days my own fate became clear to me. I wasforced now to scoff at the thought of my personal future, whichhitherto had been the cause of so much worry to me. Was it notludicrous to think of building up anything on such a foundation?Finally, it also became clear to me that it was the inevitable thathad happened, something which I had feared for a long time, thoughI really did not have the heart to believe it.
Emperor William II was the first German Emperor to offer thehand of friendship to the Marxist leaders, not suspecting that theywere scoundrels without any sense of honour. While they held theimperial hand in theirs, the other hand was already feeling for thedagger.
There is no such thing as coming to an understanding with theJews. It must be the hard-and-fast 'Either-Or.'
For my part I then decided that I would take up politicalwork.
CHAPTER VIII. THE BEGINNING OFMY POLITICAL ACTIVITIESTowards the end of November I returned to Munich. I went to thedepot of my regiment, which was now in the hands of the 'Soldiers'Councils'. As the whole administration was quite repulsive to me, Idecided to leave it as soon as I possibly could. With my faithfulwar-comrade, Ernst-Schmidt, I came to Traunstein and remained thereuntil the camp was broken up. In March 1919 we were back again inMunich.
The situation there could not last as it was. It tendedirresistibly to a further extension of the Revolution. Eisner'sdeath served only to hasten this development and finally led to thedictatorship of the Councils'--or, to put it more correctly, toa Jewish hegemony, which turned out to be transitory but which wasthe original aim of those who had contrived the Revolution.
At that juncture innumerable plans took shape in my mind. Ispent whole days pondering on the problem of what could be done,but unfortunately every project had to give way before the hardfact that I was quite unknown and therefore did not have even thefirst pre-requisite necessary for effective action. Later on Ishall explain the reasons why I could not decide to join any of theparties then in existence.
As the new Soviet Revolution began to run its course in Munichmy first activities drew upon me the ill-will of the CentralCouncil. In the early morning of April 27th, 1919, I was to havebeen arrested; but the three fellows who came to arrest me did nothave the courage to face my rifle and withdrew just as they hadarrived.
A few days after the liberation of Munich I was ordered toappear before the Inquiry Commission which had been set up in the2nd Infantry Regiment for the purpose of watching revolutionaryactivities. That was my first incursion into the more or lesspolitical field.
After another few weeks I received orders to attend a course oflectures which were being given to members of the army. This coursewas meant to inculcate certain fundamental principles on which thesoldier could base his political ideas. For me the advantage ofthis organization was that it gave me a chance of meeting fellowsoldiers who were of the same way of thinking and with whom I coulddiscuss the actual situation. We were all more or less firmlyconvinced that Germany could not be saved from imminent disaster bythose who had participated in the November treachery'--that isto say, the Centre and the Social-Democrats; and also that theso-called Bourgeois-National group could not make good the damagethat had been done, even if they had the best intentions. Theylacked a number of requisites without which such a task could neverbe successfully undertaken. The years that followed have justifiedthe opinions which we held at that time.
In our small circle we discussed the project of forming a newparty. The leading ideas which we then proposed were the same asthose which were carried into effect afterwards, when the GermanLabour Party was founded. The name of the new movement which was tobe founded should be such that of itself, it would appeal to themass of the people; for all our efforts would turn out vain anduseless if this condition were lacking. And that was the reason whywe chose the name 'Social-Revolutionary Party', particularlybecause the social principles of our new organization were indeedrevolutionary.
But there was also a more fundamental reason. The attentionwhich I had given to economic problems during my earlier years wasmore or less confined to considerations arising directly out of thesocial problem. Subsequently this outlook broadened as I came tostudy the German policy of the Triple Alliance. This policy wasvery largely the result of an erroneous valuation of the economicsituation, together with a confused notion as to the basis on whichthe future subsistence of the German people could be guaranteed.All these ideas were based on the principle that capital isexclusively the product of labour and that, just like labour, itwas subject to all the factors which can hinder or promote humanactivity. Hence, from the national standpoint, the significance ofcapital depended on the greatness and freedom and power of theState, that is to say, of the nation, and that it is thisdependence alone which leads capital to promote the interests ofthe State and the nation, from the instinct of self-preservationand for the sake of its own development.
On such principles the attitude of the State towards capitalwould be comparatively simple and clear. Its only object would beto make sure that capital remained subservient to the State and didnot allocate to itself the right to dominate national interests.Thus it could confine its activities within the two followinglimits: on the one side, to assure a vital and independent systemof national economy and, on the other, to safeguard the socialrights of the workers.
Previously I did not recognize with adequate clearness thedifference between capital which is purely the product of creativelabour and the existence and nature of capital which is exclusivelythe result of financial speculation. Here I needed an impulse toset my mind thinking in this direction; but that impulse hadhitherto been lacking.
The requisite impulse now came from one of the men who deliveredlectures in the course I have already mentioned. This was GottfriedFeder.
For the first time in my life I heard a discussion which dealtwith the principles of stock-exchange capital and capital which wasused for loan activities. After hearing the first lecture deliveredby Feder, the idea immediately came into my head that I had nowfound a way to one of the most essential pre-requisites for thefounding of a new party.
To my mind, Feder's merit consisted in the ruthless andtrenchant way in which he described the double character of thecapital engaged in stock-exchange and loan transaction, laying barethe fact that this capital is ever and always dependent on thepayment of interest. In fundamental questions his statements wereso full of common sense that those who criticized him did not denythat au fond his ideas were sound but they doubted whetherit be possible to put these ideas into practice. To me this seemedthe strongest point in Feder's teaching, though others consideredit a weak point.
It is not the business of him who lays down a theoreticalprogramme to explain the various ways in which something can be putinto practice. His task is to deal with the problem as such; and,therefore, he has to look to the end rather than the means. Theimportant question is whether an idea is fundamentally right ornot. The question of whether or not it may be difficult to carry itout in practice is quite another matter. When a man whose task itis to lay down the principles of a programme or policy begins tobusy himself with the question as to whether it is expedient andpractical, instead of confining himself to the statement of theabsolute truth, his work will cease to be a guiding star to thosewho are looking about for light and leading and will become merelya recipe for every-day iife. The man who lays down the programme ofa movement must consider only the goal. It is for the politicalleader to point out the way in which that goal may be reached. Thethought of the former will, therefore, be determined by thosetruths that are everlasting, whereas the activity of the lattermust always be guided by taking practical account of thecircumstances under which those truths have to be carried intoeffect.
The greatness of the one will depend on the absolute truth ofhis idea, considered in the abstract; whereas that of the otherwill depend on whether or not he correctly judges the givenrealities and how they may be utilized under the guidance of thetruths established by the former. The test of greatness as appliedto a political leader is the success of his plans and hisenterprises, which means his ability to reach the goal for which hesets out; whereas the final goal set up by the politicalphilosopher can never be reached; for human thought may grasptruths and picture ends which it sees like clear crystal, thoughsuch ends can never be completely fulfilled because human nature isweak and imperfect. The more an idea is correct in the abstract,and, therefore, all the more powerful, the smaller is thepossibility of putting it into practice, at least as far as thislatter depends on human beings. The significance of a politicalphilosopher does not depend on the practical success of the planshe lays down but rather on their absolute truth and the influencethey exert on the progress of mankind. If it were otherwise, thefounders of religions could not be considered as the greatest menwho have ever lived, because their moral aims will never becompletely or even approximately carried out in practice. Even thatreligion which is called the Religion of Love is really no morethan a faint reflex of the will of its sublime Founder. But itssignificance lies in the orientation which it endeavoured to giveto human civilization, and human virtue and morals.
This very wide difference between the functions of a politicalphilosopher and a practical political leader is the reason why thequalifications necessary for both functions are scarcely ever foundassociated in the same person. This applies especially to theso-called successful politician of the smaller kind, whose activityis indeed hardly more than practising the art of doing thepossible, as Bismarck modestly defined the art of politics ingeneral. If such a politician resolutely avoids great ideas hissuccess will be all the easier to attain; it will be attained moreexpeditely and frequently will be more tangible. By reason of thisvery fact, however, such success is doomed to futility andsometimes does not even survive the death of its author. Generallyspeaking, the work of politicians is without significance for thefollowing generation, because their temporary success was based onthe expediency of avoiding all really great decisive problems andideas which would be valid also for future generations.
To pursue ideals which will still be of value and significancefor the future is generally not a very profitable undertaking andhe who follows such a course is only very rarely understood by themass of the people, who find beer and milk a more persuasive indexof political values than far-sighted plans for the future, therealization of which can only take place later on and theadvantages of which can be reaped only by posterity.
Because of a certain vanity, which is always one of theblood-relations of unintelligence, the general run of politicianswill always eschew those schemes for the future which are reallydifficult to put into practice; and they will practise thisavoidance so that they may not lose the immediate favour of themob. The importance and the success of such politicians belongexclusively to the present and will be of no consequence for thefuture. But that does not worry small-minded people; they are quitecontent with momentary results.
The position of the constructive political philosopher is quitedifferent. The importance of his work must always be judged fromthe standpoint of the future; and he is frequently described by theword Weltfremd, or dreamer. While the ability of thepolitician consists in mastering the art of the possible, thefounder of a political system belongs to those who are said toplease the gods only because they wish for and demand theimpossible. They will always have to renounce contemporary fame;but if their ideas be immortal, posterity will grant them itsacknowledgment.
Within long spans of human progress it may occasionally happenthat the practical politician and political philosopher are one.The more intimate this union is, the greater will be the obstacleswhich the activity of the politician will have to encounter. Such aman does not labour for the purpose of satisfying demands that areobvious to every philistine, but he reaches out towards ends whichcan be understood only by the few. His life is torn asunder byhatred and love. The protest of his contemporaries, who do notunderstand the man, is in conflict with the recognition ofposterity, for whom he also works.
For the greater the work which a man does for the future, theless will he be appreciated by his contemporaries. His strugglewill accordingly be all the more severe, and his success all therarer. When, in the course of centuries, such a man appears who isblessed with success then, towards the end of his days, he may havea faint prevision of his future fame. But such great men are onlythe Marathon runners of history. The laurels of contemporary fameare only for the brow of the dying hero.
The great protagonists are those who fight for their ideas andideals despite the fact that they receive no recognition at thehands of their contemporaries. They are the men whose memories willbe enshrined in the hearts of the future generations. It seems thenas if each individual felt it his duty to make retroactiveatonement for the wrong which great men have suffered at the handsof their contemporaries. Their lives and their work are thenstudied with touching and grateful admiration. Especially in darkdays of distress, such men have the power of healing broken heartsand elevating the despairing spirit of a people.
To this group belong not only the genuinely great statesmen butall the great reformers as well. Beside Frederick the Great we havesuch men as Martin Luther and Richard Wagner.
When I heard Gottfried Feder's first lecture on 'The Abolitionof the Interest-Servitude', I understood immediately that here wasa truth of transcendental importance for the future of the Germanpeople. The absolute separation of stock-exchange capital from theeconomic life of the nation would make it possible to oppose theprocess of internationalization in German business without at thesame time attacking capital as such, for to do this wouldjeopardize the foundations of our national independence. I clearlysaw what was developing in Germany and I realized then that thestiffest fight we would have to wage would not be against the enemynations but against international capital. In Feder's speech Ifound an effective rallying-cry for our coming struggle.
Here, again, later events proved how correct was the impressionwe then had. The fools among our bourgeois politicians do not mockat us on this point any more; for even those politicians nowsee'--if they would speak the truth'--that internationalstock-exchange capital was not only the chief instigating factor inbringing on the War but that now when the War is over it turns thepeace into a hell.
The struggle against international finance capital andloan-capital has become one of the most important points in theprogramme on which the German nation has based its fight foreconomic freedom and independence.
Regarding the objections raised by so-called practical people,the following answer must suffice: All apprehensions concerning thefearful economic consequences that would follow the abolition ofthe servitude that results from interest-capital are ill-timed;for, in the first place, the economic principles hitherto followedhave proved quite fatal to the interests of the German people. Theattitude adopted when the question of maintaining our nationalexistence arose vividly recalls similar advice once given byexperts'--the Bavarian Medical College, for example'--onthe question of introducing railroads. The fears expressed by thataugust body of experts were not realized. Those who travelled inthe coaches of the new 'Steam-horse' did not suffer from vertigo.Those who looked on did not become ill and the hoardings which hadbeen erected to conceal the new invention were eventually takendown. Only those blinds which obscure the vision of the would-be'experts', have remained. And that will be always so.
In the second place, the following must be borne in mind: Anyidea may be a source of danger if it be looked upon as an end initself, when really it is only the means to an end. For me and forall genuine National-Socialists there is only one doctrine.People and Fatherland.
What we have to fight for is the necessary security for theexistence and increase of our race and people, the subsistence ofits children and the maintenance of our racial stock unmixed, thefreedom and independence of the Fatherland; so that our people maybe enabled to fulfil the mission assigned to it by the Creator.
All ideas and ideals, all teaching and all knowledge, must servethese ends. It is from this standpoint that everything must beexamined and turned to practical uses or else discarded. Thus atheory can never become a mere dead dogma since everything willhave to serve the practical ends of everyday life.
Thus the judgment arrived at by Gottfried Feder determined me tomake a fundamental study of a question with which I had hithertonot been very familiar.
I began to study again and thus it was that I first came tounderstand perfectly what was the substance and purpose of thelife-work of the Jew, Karl Marx. His Capital becameintelligible to me now for the first time. And in the light of it Inow exactly understood the fight of the Social-Democrats againstnational economics, a fight which was to prepare the ground for thehegemony of a real international and stock-exchange capital.
In another direction also this course of lectures had importantconsequences for me.
One day I put my name down as wishing to take part in thediscussion. Another of the participants thought that he would breaka lance for the Jews and entered into a lengthy defence of them.This aroused my opposition. An overwhelming number of those whoattended the lecture course supported my views. The consequence ofit all was that, a few days later, I was assigned to a regimentthen stationed at Munich and given a position there as 'instructionofficer'.
At that time the spirit of discipline was rather weak amongthose troops. It was still suffering from the after-effects of theperiod when the Soldiers' Councils were in control. Only graduallyand carefully could a new spirit of military discipline andobedience be introduced in place of 'voluntary obedience', a termwhich had been used to express the ideal of military disciplineunder Kurt Eisner's higgledy-piggledy regime. The soldiers had tobe taught to think and feel in a national and patriotic way. Inthese two directions lay my future line of action.
I took up my work with the greatest delight and devotion. Here Iwas presented with an opportunity of speaking before quite a largeaudience. I was now able to confirm what I had hitherto merelyfelt, namely, that I had a talent for public speaking. My voice hadbecome so much better that I could be well understood, at least inall parts of the small hall where the soldiers assembled.
No task could have been more pleasing to me than this one; fornow, before being demobilized, I was in a position to render usefulservice to an institution which had been infinitely dear to myheart: namely, the army.
I am able to state that my talks were successful. During thecourse of my lectures I have led back hundreds and even thousandsof my fellow countrymen to their people and their fatherland. I'nationalized' these troops and by so doing I helped to restoregeneral discipline.
Here again I made the acquaintance of several comrades whosethought ran along the same lines as my own and who later becamemembers of the first group out of which the new movementdeveloped.
CHAPTER IX. THE GERMAN LABOURPARTYOne day I received an order from my superiors to investigate thenature of an association which was apparently political. It calleditself 'The German Labour Party' and was soon to hold a meeting atwhich Gottfried Feder would speak. I was ordered to attend thismeeting and report on the situation.
The spirit of curiosity in which the army authorities thenregarded political parties can be very well understood. TheRevolution had granted the soldiers the right to take an activepart in politics and it was particularly those with the smallestexperience who had availed themselves of this right. But not untilthe Centre and the Social-Democratic parties were reluctantlyforced to recognize that the sympathies of the soldiers had turnedaway from the revolutionary parties towards the national movementand the national reawakening, did they feel obliged to withdrawfrom the army the right to vote and to forbid it all politicalactivity.
The fact that the Centre and Marxism had adopted this policy wasinstructive, because if they had not thus curtailed the 'rights ofthe citizen''--as they described the political rights of thesoldiers after the Revolution'--the government which had beenestablished in November 1918 would have been overthrown within afew years and the dishonour and disgrace of the nation would nothave been further prolonged. At that time the soldiers were on thepoint of taking the best way to rid the nation of the vampires andvalets who served the cause of the Entente in the interior of thecountry. But the fact that the so-called 'national' parties votedenthusiastically for the doctrinaire policy of the criminals whoorganized the Revolution in November (1918) helped also to renderthe army ineffective as an instrument of national restoration andthus showed once again where men might be led by the purelyabstract notions accepted by these most gullible people.
The minds of the bourgeois middle classes had become sofossilized that they sincerely believed the army could once againbecome what it had previously been, namely, a rampart of Germanvalour; while the Centre Party and the Marxists intended only toextract the poisonous tooth of nationalism, without which an armymust always remain just a police force but can never be in theposition of a military organization capable of fighting against theoutside enemy. This truth was sufficiently proved by subsequentevents.
Or did our 'national' politicians believe, after all, that thedevelopment of our army could be other than national? This beliefmight be possible and could be explained by the fact that duringthe War they were not soldiers but merely talkers. In other words,they were parliamentarians, and, as such, they did not have theslightest idea of what was passing in the hearts of those men whoremembered the greatness of their own past and also remembered thatthey had once been the first soldiers in the world.
I decided to attend the meeting of this Party, which hadhitherto been entirely unknown to me. When I arrived that eveningin the guest room of the former Sternecker Brewery'--which hasnow become a place of historical significance for us'--I foundapproximately 20-25 persons present, most of them belonging to thelower classes.
The theme of Feder's lecture was already familiar to me; for Ihad heard it in the lecture course I have spoken of. Therefore, Icould concentrate my attention on studying the society itself.
The impression it made upon me was neither good nor bad. I feltthat here was just another one of these many new societies whichwere being formed at that time. In those days everybody felt calledupon to found a new Party whenever he felt displeased with thecourse of events and had lost confidence in all the parties alreadyexisting. Thus it was that new associations sprouted up all round,to disappear just as quickly, without exercising any effect ormaking any noise whatsoever. Generally speaking, the founders ofsuch associations did not have the slightest idea of what it meansto bring together a number of people for the foundations of a partyor a movement. Therefore these associations disappeared because oftheir woeful lack of anything like an adequate grasp of thenecessities of the situation.
My opinion of the 'German Labour Party' was not very differentafter I had listened to their proceedings for about two hours. Iwas glad when Feder finally came to a close. I had observed enoughand was just about to leave when it was announced that anybody whowished was free to open a discussion. Thereupon, I decided toremain. But the discussion seemed to proceed without anything ofvital importance being mentioned, when suddenly a 'professor'commenced to speak. He opened by throwing doubt on the accuracy ofwhat Feder had said, and then. after Feder had replied veryeffectively, the professor suddenly took up his position on what hecalled 'the basis of facts,' but before this he recommended theyoung party most urgently to introduce the secession of Bavariafrom Prussia as one of the leading proposals in its programme. Inthe most self-assured way, this man kept on insisting thatGerman-Austria would join Bavaria and that the peace would thenfunction much better. He made other similarly extravagantstatements. At this juncture I felt bound to ask for permission tospeak and to tell the learned gentleman what I thought. The resultwas that the honourable gentleman who had last spoken slipped outof his place, like a whipped cur, without uttering a sound. While Iwas speaking the audience listened with an expression of surpriseon their faces. When I was just about to say good-night to theassembly and to leave, a man came after me quickly and introducedhimself. I did not grasp the name correctly; but he placed a littlebook in my hand, which was obviously a political pamphlet, andasked me very earnestly to read it.
I was quite pleased; because in this way, I could come to knowabout this association without having to attend its tiresomemeetings. Moreover, this man, who had the appearance of a workman,made a good impression on me. Thereupon, I left the hall.
At that time I was living in one of the barracks of the 2ndInfantry Regiment. I had a little room which still bore theunmistakable traces of the Revolution. During the day I was mostlyout, at the quarters of Light Infantry No. 41 or else attendingmeetings or lectures, held at some other branch of the army. Ispent only the night at the quarters where I lodged. Since Iusually woke up about five o'clock every morning I got into thehabit of amusing myself with watching little mice which playedaround in my small room. I used to place a few pieces of hard breador crust on the floor and watch the funny little beasts playingaround and enjoying themselves with these delicacies. I hadsuffered so many privations in my own life that I well knew whathunger was and could only too well picture to myself the pleasurethese little creatures were experiencing.
So on the morning after the meeting I have mentioned, ithappened that about five o'clock I lay fully awake in bed, watchingthe mice playing and vying with each other. As I was not able to goto sleep again, I suddenly remembered the pamphlet that one of theworkers had given me at the meeting. It was a small pamphlet ofwhich this worker was the author. In his little book he describedhow his mind had thrown off the shackles of the Marxist andtrades-union phraseology, and that he had come back to thenationalist ideals. That was the reason why he had entitled hislittle book: "My Political Awakening". The pamphlet secured myattention the moment I began to read, and I read it with interestto the end. The process here described was similar to that which Ihad experienced in my own case ten years previously. Unconsciouslymy own experiences began to stir again in my mind. During that daymy thoughts returned several times to what I had read; but Ifinally decided to give the matter no further attention. A week orso later, however, I received a postcard which informed me, to myastonishment, that I had been admitted into the German LabourParty. I was asked to answer this communication and to attend ameeting of the Party Committee on Wednesday next.
This manner of getting members rather amazed me, and I did notknow whether to be angry or laugh at it. Hitherto I had not anyidea of entering a party already in existence but wanted to foundone of my own. Such an invitation as I now had received I lookedupon as entirely out of the question for me.
I was about to send a written reply when my curiosity got thebetter of me, and I decided to attend the gathering at the dateassigned, so that I might expound my principles to these gentlemenin person.
Wednesday came. The tavern in which the meeting was to takeplace was the 'Alte Rosenbad' in the Herrnstrasse, into whichapparently only an occasional guest wandered. This was not verysurprising in the year 1919, when the bills of fare even at thelarger restaurants were only very modest and scanty in theirpretensions and thus not very attractive to clients. But I hadnever before heard of this restaurant.
I went through the badly-lighted guest-room, where not a singleguest was to be seen, and searched for the door which led to theside room; and there I was face-to-face with the 'Congress'. Underthe dim light shed by a grimy gas-lamp I could see four youngpeople sitting around a table, one of them the author of thepamphlet. He greeted me cordially and welcomed me as a new memberof the German Labour Party.
I was taken somewhat aback on being informed that actually theNational President of the Party had not yet come; so I decided thatI would keep back my own exposition for the time being. Finally thePresident appeared. He was the man who had been chairman of themeeting held in the Sternecker Brewery, when Feder spoke.
My curiosity was stimulated anew and I sat waiting for what wasgoing to happen. Now I got at least as far as learning the names ofthe gentlemen who had been parties to the whole affair. The ReichNational President of the Association was a certain Herr Harrer andthe President for the Munich district was Anton Drexler.
The minutes of the previous meeting were read out and a vote ofconfidence in the secretary was passed. Then came the treasurer'sreport. The Society possessed a total fund of seven marks and fiftypfennigs (a sum corresponding to 7s. 6d. in English money at par),whereupon the treasurer was assured that he had the confidence ofthe members. This was now inserted in the minutes. Then letters ofreply which had been written by the Chairman were read; first, to aletter received from Kiel, then to one from D¼sseldorf and finallyto one from Berlin. All three replies received the approval of allpresent. Then the incoming letters were read'--one from Berlin,one from D¼sseldorf and one from Kiel. The reception of theseletters seemed to cause great satisfaction. This increasing bulk ofcorrespondence was taken as the best and most obvious sign of thegrowing importance of the German Labour Party. And then? Well,there followed a long discussion of the replies which would begiven to these newly-received letters.
It was all very awful. This was the worst kind of parish-pumpclubbism. And was I supposed to become a member of such a club?
The question of new members was next discussed'--that is tosay, the question of catching myself in the trap.
I now began to ask questions. But I found that, apart from a fewgeneral principles, there was nothing'--no programme, nopamphlet, nothing at all in print, no card of membership, not evena party stamp, nothing but obvious good faith and goodintentions.
I no longer felt inclined to laugh; for what else was all thisbut a typical sign of the most complete perplexity and deepestdespair in regard to all political parties, their programmes andviews and activities? The feeling which had induced those few youngpeople to join in what seemed such a ridiculous enterprise wasnothing but the call of the inner voice which toldthem'--though more intuitively than consciously'--that thewhole party system as it had hitherto existed was not the kind offorce that could restore the German nation or repair the damagesthat had been done to the German people by those who hithertocontrolled the internal affairs of the nation. I quickly readthrough the list of principles that formed the platform of theparty. These principles were stated on typewritten sheets. Hereagain I found evidence of the spirit of longing and searching, butno sign whatever of a knowledge of the conflict that had to befought. I myself had experienced the feelings which inspired thosepeople. It was the longing for a movement which should be more thana party, in the hitherto accepted meaning of that word.
When I returned to my room in the barracks that evening I hadformed a definite opinion on this association and I was facing themost difficult problem of my life. Should I join this party orrefuse?
From the side of the intellect alone, every consideration urgedme to refuse; but my feelings troubled me. The more I tried toprove to myself how senseless this club was, on the whole, the moredid my feelings incline me to favour it. During the following daysI was restless.
I began to consider all the pros and cons. I had long agodecided to take an active part in politics. The fact that I coulddo so only through a new movement was quite clear to me; but I hadhitherto lacked the impulse to take concrete action. I am not oneof those people who will begin something to-day and just give it upthe next day for the sake of something new. That was the mainreason which made it so difficult for me to decide in joiningsomething newly founded; for this must become the real fulfilmentof everything I dreamt, or else it had better not be started atall. I knew that such a decision should bind me for ever and thatthere could be no turning back. For me there could be no idledallying but only a cause to be championed ardently. I had alreadyan instinctive feeling against people who took up everything, butnever carried anything through to the end. I loathed theseJacks-of-all-Trades, and considered the activities of such peopleto be worse than if they were to remain entirely quiescent.
Fate herself now seemed to supply the finger-post that pointedout the way. I should never have entered one of the big partiesalready in existence and shall explain my reasons for this lateron. This ludicrous little formation, with its handful of members,seemed to have the unique advantage of not yet being fossilizedinto an 'organization' and still offered a chance for real personalactivity on the part of the individual. Here it might still bepossible to do some effective work; and, as the movement was stillsmall, one could all the easier give it the required shape. Here itwas still possible to determine the character of the movement, theaims to be achieved and the road to be taken, which would have beenimpossible in the case of the big parties already existing.
The longer I reflected on the problem, the more my opiniondeveloped that just such a small movement would best serve as aninstrument to prepare the way for the national resurgence, but thatthis could never be done by the political parliamentary partieswhich were too firmly attached to obsolete ideas or had an interestin supporting the new regime. What had to be proclaimed here was anew Weltanschauung and not a new election cry.
It was, however, infinitely difficult to decide on putting theintention into practice. What were the qualifications which I couldbring to the accomplishment of such a task?
The fact that I was poor and without resources could, in myopinion, be the easiest to bear. But the fact that I was utterlyunknown raised a more difficult problem. I was only one of themillions which Chance allows to exist or cease to exist, whom eventheir next-door neighbours will not consent to know. Anotherdifficulty arose from the fact that I had not gone through theregular school curriculum.
The so-called 'intellectuals' still look down with infinitesuperciliousness on anyone who has not been through the prescribedschools and allowed them to pump the necessary knowledge into him.The question of what a man can do is never asked but rather, whathas he learned? 'Educated' people look upon any imbecile who isplastered with a number of academic certificates as superior to theablest young fellow who lacks these precious documents. I couldtherefore easily imagine how this 'educated' world would receive meand I was wrong only in so far as I then believed men to be for themost part better than they proved to be in the cold light ofreality. Because of their being as they are, the few exceptionsstand out all the more conspicuously. I learned more and more todistinguish between those who will always be at school and thosewho will one day come to know something in reality.
After two days of careful brooding and reflection I becameconvinced that I must take the contemplated step.
It was the most fateful decision of my life. No retreat waspossible.
Thus I declared myself ready to accept the membership tenderedme by the German Labour Party and received a provisionalcertificate of membership. I was numbered seven.
CHAPTER X. WHY THE SECONDREICH COLLAPSEDThe depth of a fall is always measured by the difference betweenthe level of the original position from which a body has fallen andthat in which it is now found. The same holds good for Nations andStates. The matter of greatest importance here is the height of theoriginal level, or rather the greatest height that had beenattained before the descent began.
For only the profound decline or collapse of that which wascapable of reaching extraordinary heights can make a strikingimpression on the eye of the beholder. The collapse of the SecondReich was all the more bewildering for those who could ponder overit and feel the effect of it in their hearts, because the Reich hadfallen from a height which can hardly be imagined in these days ofmisery and humiliation.
The Second Reich was founded in circumstances of such dazzlingsplendour that the whole nation had become entranced and exalted byit. Following an unparalleled series of victories, that Empire washanded over as the guerdon of immortal heroism to the children andgrandchildren of the heroes. Whether they were fully conscious ofit or not does not matter; anyhow, the Germans felt that thisEmpire had not been brought into existence by a series of ablepolitical negotiations through parliamentary channels, but that itwas different from political institutions founded elsewhere byreason of the nobler circumstances that had accompanied itsestablishment. When its foundations were laid the accompanyingmusic was not the chatter of parliamentary debates but the thunderand boom of war along the battle front that encircled Paris. It wasthus that an act of statesmanship was accomplished whereby theGermans, princes as well as people, established the future Reichand restored the symbol of the Imperial Crown. Bismarck's State wasnot founded on treason and assassination by deserters and shirkersbut by the regiments that had fought at the front. This uniquebirth and baptism of fire sufficed of themselves to surround theSecond Empire with an aureole of historical splendour such as fewof the older States could lay claim to.
And what an ascension then began! A position of independence inregard to the outside world guaranteed the means of livelihood athome. The nation increased in numbers and in worldly wealth. Thehonour of the State and therewith the honour of the people as awhole were secured and protected by an army which was the moststriking witness of the difference between this new Reich and theold German Confederation.
But the downfall of the Second Empire and the German people hasbeen so profound that they all seem to have been struck dumbfoundedand rendered incapable of feeling the significance of this downfallor reflecting on it. It seems as if people were utterly unable topicture in their minds the heights to which the Empire formerlyattained, so visionary and unreal appears the greatness andsplendour of those days in contrast to the misery of the present.Bearing this in mind we can understand why and how people become sodazed when they try to look back to the sublime past that theyforget to look for the symptoms of the great collapse which mustcertainly have been present in some form or other. Naturally thisapplies only to those for whom Germany was more than merely a placeof abode and a source of livelihood. These are the only people whohave been able to feel the present conditions as reallycatastrophic, whereas others have considered these conditions asthe fulfilment of what they had looked forward to and hithertosilently wished.
The symptoms of future collapse were definitely to be perceivedin those earlier days, although very few made any attempt to draw apractical lesson from their significance. But this is now a greaternecessity than it ever was before. For just as bodily ailments canbe cured only when their origin has been diagnosed, so alsopolitical disease can be treated only when it has been diagnosed.It is obvious of course that the external symptoms of any diseasecan be more readily detected than its internal causes, for thesesymptoms strike the eye more easily. This is also the reason why somany people recognize only external effects and mistake them forcauses. Indeed they will sometimes try to deny the existence ofsuch causes. And that is why the majority of people among usrecognize the German collapse only in the prevailing economicdistress and the results that have followed therefrom. Almosteveryone has to carry his share of this burden, and that is whyeach one looks on the economic catastrophe as the cause of thepresent deplorable state of affairs. The broad masses of the peoplesee little of the cultural, political, and moral background of thiscollapse. Many of them completely lack both the necessary feelingand powers of understanding for it.
That the masses of the people should thus estimate the causes ofGermany's downfall is quite understandable. But the fact thatintelligent sections of the community regard the German collapseprimarily as an economic catastrophe, and consequently think that acure for it may be found in an economic solution, seems to me to bethe reason why hitherto no improvement has been brought about. Noimprovement can be brought about until it be understood thateconomics play only a second or third role, while the main part isplayed by political, moral and racial factors. Only when this isunderstood will it be possible to understand the causes of thepresent evil and consequently to find the ways and means ofremedying them.
Therefore the question of why Germany really collapsed is one ofthe most urgent significance, especially for a political movementwhich aims at overcoming this disaster.
In scrutinizing the past with a view to discovering the causesof the German break-up, it is necessary to be careful lest we maybe unduly impressed by external results that readily strike the eyeand thus ignore the less manifest causes of these results.
The most facile, and therefore the most generally accepted, wayof accounting for the present misfortune is to say that it is theresult of a lost war, and that this is the real cause of thepresent misfortune. Probably there are many who honestly believe inthis absurd explanation but there are many more in whose mouths itis a deliberate and conscious falsehood. This applies to all thosewho are now feeding at the Government troughs. For the prophets ofthe Revolution again and again declared to the people that it wouldbe immaterial to the great masses what the result of the War mightbe. On the contrary, they solemnly assured the public that it wasHigh Finance which was principally interested in a victoriousoutcome of this gigantic struggle among the nations but that theGerman people and the German workers had no interest whatsoever insuch an outcome. Indeed the apostles of world conciliationhabitually asserted that, far from any German downfall, theopposite was bound to take place'--namely, the resurgence ofthe German people'--once 'militarism' had been crushed. Did notthese self-same circles sing the praises of the Entente and didthey not also lay the whole blame for the sanguinary struggle onthe shoulders of Germany? Without this explanation, would they havebeen able to put forward the theory that a military defeat wouldhave no political consequences for the German people? Was not thewhole Revolution dressed up in gala colours as blocking thevictorious advance of the German banners and that thus the Germanpeople would be assured its liberty both at home and abroad?
Is not that so, you miserable, lying rascals?
That kind of impudence which is typical of the Jews wasnecessary in order to proclaim the defeat of the army as the causeof the German collapse. Indeed the Berlin Vorw¤rts, thatorgan and mouthpiece of sedition then wrote on this occasion thatthe German nation should not be permitted to bring home its bannerstriumphantly.
And yet they attribute our collapse to the military defeat.
Of course it would be out of the question to enter into anargument with these liars who deny at one moment what they said themoment before. I should waste no further words on them were it notfor the fact that there are many thoughtless people who repeat allthis in parrot fashion, without being necessarily inspired by anyevil motives. But the observations I am making here are also meantfor our fighting followers, seeing that nowadays one's spoken wordsare often forgotten and twisted in their meaning.
The assertion that the loss of the War was the cause of theGerman collapse can best be answered as follows:
It is admittedly a fact that the loss of the War was of tragicimportance for the future of our country. But that loss was not initself a cause. It was rather the consequence of other causes. Thata disastrous ending to this life-or-death conflict must haveinvolved catastrophes in its train was clearly seen by everyone ofinsight who could think in a straightforward manner. Butunfortunately there were also people whose powers of understandingseemed to fail them at that critical moment. And there were otherpeople who had first questioned that truth and then altogetherdenied it. And there were people who, after their secret desire hadbeen fulfilled, were suddenly faced with the subsequent facts thatresulted from their own collaboration. Such people are responsiblefor the collapse, and not the lost war, though they now want toattribute everything to this. As a matter of fact the loss of theWar was a result of their activities and not the result of badleadership as they now would like to maintain. Our enemies were notcowards. They also know how to die. From the very first day of theWar they outnumbered the German Army, and the arsenals and armamentfactories of the whole world were at their disposal for thereplenishment of military equipment. Indeed it is universallyadmitted that the German victories, which had been steadily wonduring four years of warfare against the whole world, were due tosuperior leadership, apart of course from the heroism of thetroops. And the organization was solely due to the German militaryleadership. That organization and leadership of the German Army wasthe most mighty thing that the world has ever seen. Anyshortcomings which became evident were humanly unavoidable. Thecollapse of that army was not the cause of our present distress. Itwas itself the consequence of other faults. But this consequence inits turn ushered in a further collapse, which was more visible.That such was actually the case can be shown as follows:
Must a military defeat necessarily lead to such a completeoverthrow of the State and Nation? Whenever has this been theresult of an unlucky war? As a matter of fact, are nations everruined by a lost war and by that alone? The answer to this questioncan be briefly stated by referring to the fact that militarydefeats are the result of internal decay, cowardice, want ofcharacter, and are a retribution for such things. If such were notthe causes then a military defeat would lead to a nationalresurgence and bring the nation to a higher pitch of effort. Amilitary defeat is not the tombstone of national life. Historyaffords innumerable examples to confirm the truth of thatstatement.
Unfortunately Germany's military overthrow was not an undeservedcatastrophe, but a well-merited punishment which was in the natureof an eternal retribution. This defeat was more than deserved byus; for it represented the greatest external phenomenon ofdecomposition among a series of internal phenomena, which, althoughthey were visible, were not recognized by the majority of thepeople, who follow the tactics of the ostrich and see only whatthey want to see.
Let us examine the symptoms that were evident in Germany at thetime that the German people accepted this defeat. Is it not truethat in several circles the misfortunes of the Fatherland were evenjoyfully welcomed in the most shameful manner? Who could act insuch a way without thereby meriting vengeance for his attitude?Were there not people who even went further and boasted that theyhad gone to the extent of weakening the front and causing acollapse? Therefore it was not the enemy who brought this disgraceupon our shoulders but rather our own countrymen. If they sufferedmisfortune for it afterwards, was that misfortune undeserved? Wasthere ever a case in history where a people declared itself guiltyof a war, and that even against its better conscience and itsbetter knowledge?
No, and again no. In the manner in which the German nationreacted to its defeat we can see that the real cause of ourcollapse must be looked for elsewhere and not in the purelymilitary loss of a few positions or the failure of an offensive.For if the front as such had given way and thus brought about anational disaster, then the German nation would have accepted thedefeat in quite another spirit. They would have borne thesubsequent misfortune with clenched teeth, or they would have beenoverwhelmed by sorrow. Regret and fury would have filled theirhearts against an enemy into whose hands victory had been given bya chance event or the decree of Fate; and in that case the nation,following the example of the Roman Senate (Note 14), would havefaced the defeated legions on their return and expressed theirthanks for the sacrifices that had been made and would haverequested them not to lose faith in the Empire. Even thecapitulation would have been signed under the sway of calm reason,while the heart would have beaten in the hope of the comingrevanche.
That is the reception that would have been given to a militarydefeat which had to be attributed only to the adverse decree ofFortune. There would have been neither joy-making nor dancing.Cowardice would not have been boasted of, and the defeat would nothave been honoured. On returning from the Front, the troops wouldnot have been mocked at, and the colours would not have beendragged in the dust. But above all, that disgraceful state ofaffairs could never have arisen which induced a British officer,Colonel Repington, to declare with scorn: Every third German is atraitor! No, in such a case this plague would never have assumedthe proportions of a veritable flood which, for the past fiveyears, has smothered every vestige of respect for the German nationin the outside world.
This shows only too clearly how false it is to say that the lossof the War was the cause of the German break-up. No. The militarydefeat was itself but the consequence of a whole series of morbidsymptoms and their causes which had become active in the Germannation before the War broke out. The War was the first catastrophalconsequence, visible to all, of how traditions and national moralehad been poisoned and how the instinct of self-preservation haddegenerated. These were the preliminary causes which for many yearshad been undermining the foundations of the nation and theEmpire.
But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacityfor falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to imputeresponsibility for the downfall precisely to the man who alone hadshown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent thecatastrophe which he had foreseen and to save the nation from thathour of complete overthrow and shame. By placing responsibility forthe loss of the world war on the shoulders of Ludendorff they tookaway the weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerousenough to be likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of theFatherland to Justice. All this was inspired by theprinciple'--which is quite true in itself'--that in the biglie there is always a certain force of credibility; because thebroad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in thedeeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously orvoluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their mindsthey more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie,since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters butwould be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It wouldnever come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, andthey would not believe that others could have the impudence todistort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which provethis to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they willstill doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may besome other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leavestraces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact whichis known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspiretogether in the art of lying. These people know only too well howto use falsehood for the basest purposes.
From time immemorial. however, the Jews have known better thanany others how falsehood and calumny can be exploited. Is not theirvery existence founded on one great lie, namely, that they are areligious community, whereas in reality they are a race? And what arace! One of the greatest thinkers that mankind has produced hasbranded the Jews for all time with a statement which is profoundlyand exactly true. He (Schopenhauer) called the Jew "The GreatMaster of Lies". Those who do not realize the truth of thatstatement, or do not wish to believe it, will never be able to lenda hand in helping Truth to prevail.
We may regard it as a great stroke of fortune for the Germannation that its period of lingering suffering was so suddenlycurtailed and transformed into such a terrible catastrophe. For ifthings had gone on as they were the nation would have more slowly,but more surely, gone to ruin. The disease would have becomechronic; whereas, in the acute form of the disaster, it at leastshowed itself clearly to the eyes of a considerable number ofobservers. It was not by accident that man conquered the blackplague more easily than he conquered tuberculosis. The firstappeared in terrifying waves of death that shook the whole ofmankind, the other advances insidiously; the first induces terror,the other gradual indifference. The result is, however, that menopposed the first with all the energy they were capable of, whilstthey try to arrest tuberculosis by feeble means. Thus man hasmastered the black plague, while tuberculosis still gets the betterof him.
The same applies to diseases in nations. So long as thesediseases are not of a catastrophic character, the population willslowly accustom itself to them and later succumb. It is then astroke of luck'--although a bitter one'--when Fate decidesto interfere in this slow process of decay and suddenly brings thevictim face to face with the final stage of the disease. More oftenthan not the result of a catastrophe is that a cure is at onceundertaken and carried through with rigid determination.
But even in such a case the essential preliminary condition isalways the recognition of the internal causes which have given riseto the disease in question.
The important question here is the differentiation of the rootcauses from the circumstances developing out of them. This becomesall the more difficult the longer the germs of disease remain inthe national body and the longer they are allowed to become anintegral part of that body. It may easily happen that, as time goeson, it will become so difficult to recognize certain definitevirulent poisons as such that they are accepted as belonging to thenational being; or they are merely tolerated as a necessary evil,so that drastic attempts to locate those alien germs are not heldto be necessary.
During the long period of peace prior to the last war certainevils were apparent here and there although, with one or twoexceptions, very little effort was made to discover their origin.Here again these exceptions were first and foremost those phenomenain the economic life of the nation which were more apparent to theindividual than the evil conditions existing in a good many otherspheres.
There were many signs of decay which ought to have been givenserious thought. As far as economics were concerned, the followingmay be said:'--
The amazing increase of population in Germany before the warbrought the question of providing daily bread into a more and moreprominent position in all spheres of political and economic thoughtand action. But unfortunately those responsible could not make uptheir minds to arrive at the only correct solution and preferred toreach their objective by cheaper methods. Repudiation of the ideaof acquiring fresh territory and the substitution for it of the maddesire for the commercial conquest of the world was bound to leadeventually to unlimited and injurious industrialization.
The first and most fatal result brought about in this way wasthe weakening of the agricultural classes, whose decline wasproportionate to the increase in the proletariat of the urbanareas, until finally the equilibrium was completely upset.
The big barrier dividing rich and poor now became apparent.Luxury and poverty lived so close to each other that theconsequences were bound to be deplorable. Want and frequentunemployment began to play havoc with the people and leftdiscontent and embitterment behind them. The result of this was todivide the population into political classes. Discontent increasedin spite of commercial prosperity. Matters finally reached thatstage which brought about the general conviction that 'thingscannot go on as they are', although no one seemed able to visualizewhat was really going to happen.
These were typical and visible signs of the depths which theprevailing discontent had reached. Far worse than these, however,were other consequences which became apparent as a result of theindustrialization of the nation.
In proportion to the extent that commerce assumed definitecontrol of the State, money became more and more of a God whom allhad to serve and bow down to. Heavenly Gods became more and moreold-fashioned and were laid away in the corners to make room forthe worship of mammon. And thus began a period of utterdegeneration which became specially pernicious because it set in ata time when the nation was more than ever in need of an exaltedidea, for a critical hour was threatening. Germany should have beenprepared to protect with the sword her efforts to win her own dailybread in a peaceful way.
Unfortunately, the predominance of money received support andsanction in the very quarter which ought to have been opposed toit. His Majesty, the Kaiser, made a mistake when he raisedrepresentatives of the new finance capital to the ranks of thenobility. Admittedly, it may be offered as an excuse that evenBismarck failed to realize the threatening danger in this respect.In practice, however, all ideal virtues became secondaryconsiderations to those of money, for it was clear that having oncetaken this road, the nobility of the sword would very soon ranksecond to that of finance.
Financial operations succeed easier than war operations. Henceit was no longer any great attraction for a true hero or even astatesman to be brought into touch with the nearest Jew banker.Real merit was not interested in receiving cheap decorations andtherefore declined them with thanks. But from the standpoint ofgood breeding such a development was deeply regrettable. Thenobility began to lose more and more of the racial qualities thatwere a condition of its very existence, with the result that inmany cases the term 'plebeian' would have been moreappropriate.
A serious state of economic disruption was being brought aboutby the slow elimination of the personal control of vested interestsand the gradual transference of the whole economic structure intothe hands of joint stock companies.
In this way labour became degraded into an object of speculationin the hands of unscrupulous exploiters.
The de-personalization of property ownership increased on a vastscale. Financial exchange circles began to triumph and made slowbut sure progress in assuming control of the whole of nationallife.
Before the War the internationalization of the German economicstructure had already begun by the roundabout way of share issues.It is true that a section of the German industrialists made adetermined attempt to avert the danger, but in the end they gaveway before the united attacks of money-grabbing capitalism, whichwas assisted in this fight by its faithful henchmen in the Marxistmovement.
The persistent war against German 'heavy industries' was thevisible start of the internationalization of German economic lifeas envisaged by the Marxists. This, however, could only be broughtto a successful conclusion by the victory which Marxism was able togain in the Revolution. As I write these words, success isattending the general attack on the German State Railways which arenow to be turned over to international capitalists. Thus'International Social-Democracy' has once again attained one of itsmain objectives.
The best evidence of how far this 'commercialization' of theGerman nation was able to go can be plainly seen in the fact thatwhen the War was over one of the leading captains of Germanindustry and commerce gave it as his opinion that commerce as suchwas the only force which could put Germany on its feet again.
This sort of nonsense was uttered just at the time when Francewas restoring public education on a humanitarian basis, thus doingaway with the idea that national life is dependent on commercerather than ideal values. The statement which Stinnes broadcastedto the world at that time caused incredible confusion. It wasimmediately taken up and has become the leading motto of all thosehumbugs and babblers'--the 'statesmen' whom Fate let loose onGermany after the Revolution.
One of the worst evidences of decadence in Germany before theWar was the ever increasing habit of doing things by halves. Thiswas one of the consequences of the insecurity that was felt allround. And it is to be attributed also to a certain timidity whichresulted from one cause or another. And the latter malady wasaggravated by the educational system.
German education in pre-War times had an extraordinary number ofweak features. It was simply and exclusively limited to theproduction of pure knowledge and paid little attention to thedevelopment of practical ability. Still less attention was given tothe development of individual character, in so far as this is everpossible. And hardly any attention at all was paid to thedevelopment of a sense of responsibility, to strengthening the willand the powers of decision. The result of this method was toproduce erudite people who had a passion for knowing everything.Before the War we Germans were accepted and estimated accordingly.The German was liked because good use could be made of him; butthere was little esteem for him personally, on account of thisweakness of character. For those who can read its significancearight, there is much instruction in the fact that among allnationalities Germans were the first to part with their nationalcitizenship when they found themselves in a foreign country. Andthere is a world of meaning in the saying that was then prevalent:'With the hat in the hand one can go through the wholecountry'.
This kind of social etiquette turned out disastrous when itprescribed the exclusive forms that had to be observed in thepresence of His Majesty. These forms insisted that there should beno contradiction whatsoever, but that everything should be praisedwhich His Majesty condescended to like.
It was just here that the frank expression of manly dignity, andnot subservience, was most needed. Servility in the presence ofmonarchs may be good enough for the professional lackey andplace-hunter, in fact for all those decadent beings who are morepleased to be found moving in the high circles of royalty thanamong honest citizens. These exceedingly 'humble' creatureshowever, though they grovel before their lord and bread-giver,invariably put on airs of boundless superciliousness towards othermortals, which was particularly impudent when they posed as theonly people who had the right to be called 'monarchists'. This wasa gross piece of impertinence such as only despicable specimensamong the newly-ennobled or yet-to-be-ennobled could be capableof.
And these have always been just the people who have prepared theway for the downfall of monarchy and the monarchical principle. Itcould not be otherwise. For when a man is prepared to stand up fora cause, come what may, he never grovels before its representative.A man who is serious about the maintenance and welfare of aninstitution will not allow himself to be discouraged when therepresentatives of that institution show certain faults andfailings. And he certainly will not run around to tell the worldabout it, as certain false democratic 'friends' of the monarchyhave done; but he will approach His Majesty, the bearer of theCrown himself, to warn him of the seriousness of a situation andpersuade the monarch to act. Furthermore, he will not take up thestandpoint that it must be left to His Majesty to act as the latterthinks fit, even though the course which he would take must plainlylead to disaster. But the man I am thinking of will deem it hisduty to protect the monarchy against the monarch himself, no matterwhat personal risk he may run in doing so. If the worth of themonarchical institution be dependent on the person of the monarchhimself, then it would be the worst institution imaginable; foronly in rare cases are kings found to be models of wisdom andunderstanding, and integrity of character, though we might like tothink otherwise. But this fact is unpalatable to the professionalknaves and lackeys. Yet all upright men, and they are the backboneof the nation, repudiate the nonsensical fiction that all monarchsare wise, etc. For such men history is history and truth is truth,even where monarchs are concerned. But if a nation should have thegood luck to possess a great king or a great man it ought toconsider itself as specially favoured above all the other nations,and these may be thankful if an adverse fortune has not allottedthe worst to them.
It is clear that the worth and significance of the monarchicalprinciple cannot rest in the person of the monarch alone, unlessHeaven decrees that the crown should be set on the head of abrilliant hero like Frederick the Great, or a sagacious person likeWilliam I. This may happen once in several centuries, but hardlyoftener than that. The ideal of the monarchy takes precedence ofthe person of the monarch, inasmuch as the meaning of theinstitution must lie in the institution it self. Thus the monarchymay be reckoned in the category of those whose duty it is to serve.He, too, is but a wheel in this machine and as such he is obligedto do his duty towards it. He has to adapt himself for thefulfilment of high aims. If, therefore, there were no significanceattached to the idea itself and everything merely centred aroundthe 'sacred' person, then it would never be possible to depose aruler who has shown himself to be an imbecile.
It is essential to insist upon this truth at the present time,because recently those phenomena have appeared again and were in nosmall measure responsible for the collapse of the monarchy. With acertain amount of native impudence these persons once again talkabout 'their King''--that is to say, the man whom theyshamefully deserted a few years ago at a most critical hour. Thosewho refrain from participating in this chorus of lies are summarilyclassified as 'bad Germans'. They who make the charge are the sameclass of quitters who ran away in 1918 and took to wearing redbadges. They thought that discretion was the better part of valour.They were indifferent about what happened to the Kaiser. Theycamouflaged themselves as 'peaceful citizens' but more often thannot they vanished altogether. All of a sudden these champions ofroyalty were nowhere to be found at that time. Circumspectly, oneby one, these 'servants and counsellors' of the Crown reappeared,to resume their lip-service to royalty but only after others hadborne the brunt of the anti-royalist attack and suppressed theRevolution for them. Once again they were all there. rememberingwistfully the flesh-pots of Egypt and almost bursting with devotionfor the royal cause. This went on until the day came when redbadges were again in the ascendant. Then this whole ramshackleassembly of royal worshippers scuttled anew like mice from thecats.
If monarchs were not themselves responsible for such things onecould not help sympathizing with them. But they must realize thatwith such champions thrones can be lost but certainly nevergained.
All this devotion was a mistake and was the result of our wholesystem of education, which in this case brought about aparticularly severe retribution. Such lamentable trumpery was keptup at the various courts that the monarchy was slowly becomingunder mined. When finally it did begin to totter, everything wasswept away. Naturally, grovellers and lick-spittles are neverwilling to die for their masters. That monarchs never realize this,and almost on principle never really take the trouble to learn it,has always been their undoing.
One visible result of wrong educational system was the fear ofshouldering responsibility and the resultant weakness in dealingwith obvious vital problems of existence.
The starting point of this epidemic, however, was in ourparliamentary institution where the shirking of responsibility isparticularly fostered. Unfortunately the disease slowly spread toall branches of everyday life but particularly affected the sphereof public affairs. Responsibility was being shirked everywhere andthis led to insufficient or half-hearted measures being taken,personal responsibility for each act being reduced to aminimum.
If we consider the attitude of various Governments towards awhole series of really pernicious phenomena in public life, weshall at once recognize the fearful significance of this policy ofhalf-measures and the lack of courage to undertakeresponsibilities. I shall single out only a few from the largenumbers of instances known to me.
In journalistic circles it is a pleasing custom to speak of thePress as a 'Great Power' within the State. As a matter of fact itsimportance is immense. One cannot easily overestimate it, for thePress continues the work of education even in adult life.Generally, readers of the Press can be classified into threegroups:
First, those who believe everything they read;
Second, those who no longer believe anything;
Third, those who critically examine what they read and formtheir judgments accordingly.
Numerically, the first group is by far the strongest, beingcomposed of the broad masses of the people. Intellectually, itforms the simplest portion of the nation. It cannot be classifiedaccording to occupation but only into grades of intelligence. Underthis category come all those who have not been born to think forthemselves or who have not learnt to do so and who, partly throughincompetence and partly through ignorance, believe everything thatis set before them in print. To these we must add that type of lazyindividual who, although capable of thinking for himself out ofsheer laziness gratefully absorbs everything that others hadthought over, modestly believing this to have been thoroughly done.The influence which the Press has on all these people is thereforeenormous; for after all they constitute the broad masses of anation. But, somehow they are not in a position or are not willingpersonally to sift what is being served up to them; so that theirwhole attitude towards daily problems is almost solely the resultof extraneous influence. All this can be advantageous where publicenlightenment is of a serious and truthful character, but greatharm is done when scoundrels and liars take a hand at thiswork.
The second group is numerically smaller, being partly composedof those who were formerly in the first group and after a series ofbitter disappointments are now prepared to believe nothing of whatthey see in print. They hate all newspapers. Either they do notread them at all or they become exceptionally annoyed at theircontents, which they hold to be nothing but a congeries of lies andmisstatements. These people are difficult to handle; for they willalways be sceptical of the truth. Consequently, they are uselessfor any form of positive work.
The third group is easily the smallest, being composed of realintellectuals whom natural aptitude and education have taught tothink for themselves and who in all things try to form their ownjudgments, while at the same time carefully sifting what they read.They will not read any newspaper without using their ownintelligence to collaborate with that of the writer and naturallythis does not set writers an easy task. Journalists appreciate thistype of reader only with a certain amount of reservation.
Hence the trash that newspapers are capable of serving up is oflittle danger'--much less of importance'--to the members ofthe third group of readers. In the majority of cases these readershave learnt to regard every journalist as fundamentally a rogue whosometimes speaks the truth. Most unfortunately, the value of thesereaders lies in their intelligence and not in their numericalstrength, an unhappy state of affairs in a period where wisdomcounts for nothing and majorities for everything. Nowadays when thevoting papers of the masses are the deciding factor; the decisionlies in the hands of the numerically strongest group; that is tosay the first group, the crowd of simpletons and the credulous.
It is an all-important interest of the State and a national dutyto prevent these people from falling into the hands of false,ignorant or even evil-minded teachers. Therefore it is the duty ofthe State to supervise their education and prevent every form ofoffence in this respect. Particular attention should be paid to thePress; for its influence on these people is by far the strongestand most penetrating of all; since its effect is not transitory butcontinual. Its immense significance lies in the uniform andpersistent repetition of its teaching. Here, if anywhere, the Stateshould never forget that all means should converge towards the sameend. It must not be led astray by the will-o'-the-wisp of so-called'freedom of the Press', or be talked into neglecting its duty, andwithholding from the nation that which is good and which does good.With ruthless determination the State must keep control of thisinstrument of popular education and place it at the service of theState and the Nation.
But what sort of pabulum was it that the German Press served upfor the consumption of its readers in pre-War days? Was it not theworst virulent poison imaginable? Was not pacifism in its worstform inoculated into our people at a time when others werepreparing slowly but surely to pounce upon Germany? Did not thisself-same Press of ours in peace time already instil into thepublic mind a doubt as to the sovereign rights of the State itself,thereby already handicapping the State in choosing its means ofdefence? Was it not the German Press that under stood how to makeall the nonsensical talk about 'Western democracy' palatable to ourpeople, until an exuberant public was eventually prepared toentrust its future to the League of Nations? Was not this Pressinstrumental in bringing in a state of moral degradation among ourpeople? Were not morals and public decency made to look ridiculousand classed as out-of-date and banal, until finally our people alsobecame modernized? By means of persistent attacks, did not thePress keep on undermining the authority of the State, until oneblow sufficed to bring this institution tottering to the ground?Did not the Press oppose with all its might every movement to givethe State that which belongs to the State, and by means of constantcriticism, injure the reputation of the army, sabotage generalconscription and demand refusal of military credits,etc.'--until the success of this campaign was assured?
The function of the so-called liberal Press was to dig the gravefor the German people and Reich. No mention need be made of thelying Marxist Press. To them the spreading of falsehood is as mucha vital necessity as the mouse is to a cat. Their sole task is tobreak the national backbone of the people, thus preparing thenation to become the slaves of international finance and itsmasters, the Jews.
And what measures did the State take to counteract thiswholesale poisoning of the public mind? None, absolutely nothing atall. By this policy it was hoped to win the favour of thispest'--by means of flattery, by a recognition of the 'value' ofthe Press, its 'importance', its 'educative mission' and similarnonsense. The Jews acknowledged all this with a knowing smile andreturned thanks.
The reason for this ignominious failure on the part of the Statelay not so much in its refusal to realize the danger as in theout-and-out cowardly way of meeting the situation by the adoptionof faulty and ineffective measures. No one had the courage toemploy any energetic and radical methods. Everyone temporised insome way or other; and instead of striking at its heart, the viperwas only further irritated. The result was that not only dideverything remain as it was, but the power of this institutionwhich should have been combated grew greater from year to year.
The defence put up by the Government in those days against amainly Jew-controlled Press that was slowly corrupting the nation,followed no definite line of action, it had no determination behindit and above all, no fixed objective whatsoever in view. This iswhere official understanding of the situation completely failedboth in estimating the importance of the struggle, choosing themeans and deciding on a definite plan. They merely tinkered withthe problem. Occasionally, when bitten, they imprisoned one oranother journalistic viper for a few weeks or months, but the wholepoisonous brood was allowed to carry on in peace.
It must be admitted that all this was partly the result ofextraordinary crafty tactics on the part of Jewry on the one hand,and obvious official stupidity or na¯vet(C) on the other hand. TheJews were too clever to allow a simultaneous attack to be made onthe whole of their Press. No one section functioned as cover forthe other. While the Marxist newspaper, in the most despicablemanner possible, reviled everything that was sacred, furiouslyattacked the State and Government and incited certain classes ofthe community against each other, the bourgeois-democratic papers,also in Jewish hands, knew how to camouflage themselves as modelexamples of objectivity. They studiously avoided harsh language,knowing well that block-heads are capable of judging only byexternal appearances and never able to penetrate to the real depthand meaning of anything. They measure the worth of an object by itsexterior and not by its content. This form of human frailty wascarefully studied and understood by the Press.
For this class of blockheads the Frankfurter Zeitungwould be acknowledged as the essence of respectability. It alwayscarefully avoided calling a spade a spade. It deprecated the use ofevery form of physical force and persistently appealed to thenobility of fighting with 'intellectual' weapons. But this fight,curiously enough, was most popular with the least intellectualclasses. That is one of the results of our defective education,which turns the youth away from the instinctive dictates of Nature,pumps into them a certain amount of knowledge without however beingable to bring them to what is the supreme act of knowing. To thisend diligence and goodwill are of no avail, if innate understandingfail. This final knowledge at which man must aim is theunderstanding of causes which are instinctively perceived.
Let me explain: Man must not fall into the error of thinkingthat he was ever meant to become lord and master of Nature. Alopsided education has helped to encourage that illusion. Man mustrealize that a fundamental law of necessity reigns throughout thewhole realm of Nature and that his existence is subject to the lawof eternal struggle and strife. He will then feel that there cannotbe a separate law for mankind in a world in which planets and sunsfollow their orbits, where moons and planets trace their destinedpaths, where the strong are always the masters of the weak andwhere those subject to such laws must obey them or be destroyed.Man must also submit to the eternal principles of this supremewisdom. He may try to understand them but he can never free himselffrom their sway.
It is just for intellectual demi-monde that the Jewwrites those papers which he calls his 'intellectual' Press. Forthem the Frankfurter Zeitung and Berliner Tageblattare written, the tone being adapted to them, and it is over thesepeople that such papers have an influence. While studiouslyavoiding all forms of expression that might strike the reader ascrude, the poison is injected from other vials into the hearts ofthe clientele. The effervescent tone and the fine phraseology lugthe readers into believing that a love for knowledge and moralprinciple is the sole driving force that determines the policy ofsuch papers, whereas in reality these features represent a cunningway of disarming any opposition that might be directed against theJews and their Press.
They make such a parade of respectability that the imbecilereaders are all the more ready to believe that the excesses whichother papers indulge in are only of a mild nature and not such asto warrant legal action being taken against them. Indeed suchaction might trespass on the freedom of the Press, that expressionbeing a euphemism under which such papers escape legal punishmentfor deceiving the public and poisoning the public mind. Hence theauthorities are very slow indeed to take any steps against thesejournalistic bandits for fear of immediately alienating thesympathy of the so-called respectable Press. A fear that is onlytoo well founded, for the moment any attempt is made to proceedagainst any member of the gutter press all the others rush to itsassistance at once, not indeed to support its policy but simply andsolely to defend the principle of freedom of the Press and libertyof public opinion. This outcry will succeed in cowering the moststalwart; for it comes from the mouth of what is called decentjournalism.
And so this poison was allowed to enter the national bloodstreamand infect public life without the Government taking any effectualmeasures to master the course of the disease. The ridiculoushalf-measures that were taken were in themselves an indication ofthe process of disintegration that was already threatening to breakup the Empire. For an institution practically surrenders itsexistence when it is no longer determined to defend itself with allthe weapons at its command. Every half-measure is the outwardexpression of an internal process of decay which must lead to anexternal collapse sooner or later.
I believe that our present generation would easily master thisdanger if they were rightly led. For this generation has gonethrough certain experiences which must have strengthened the nervesof all those who did not become nervously broken by them. Certainlyin days to come the Jews will raise a tremendous cry throughouttheir newspapers once a hand is laid on their favourite nest, oncea move is made to put an end to this scandalous Press and once thisinstrument which shapes public opinion is brought under Statecontrol and no longer left in the hands of aliens and enemies ofthe people. I am certain that this will be easier for us than itwas for our fathers. The scream of the twelve-inch shrapnel is morepenetrating than the hiss from a thousand Jewish newspaper vipers.Therefore let them go on with their hissing.
A further example of the weak and hesitating way in which vitalnational problems were dealt with in pre-War Germany is thefollowing: Hand in hand with the political and moral process ofinfecting the nation, for many years an equally virulent process ofinfection had been attacking the public health of the people. Inlarge cities, particularly, syphilis steadily increased andtuberculosis kept pace with it in reaping its harvest of deathalmost in every part of the country.
Although in both cases the effect on the nation was alarming, itseemed as if nobody was in a position to undertake any decisivemeasures against these scourges.
In the case of syphilis especially the attitude of the State andpublic bodies was one of absolute capitulation. To combat thisstate of affairs something of far wider sweep should have beenundertaken than was really done. The discovery of a remedy which isof a questionable nature and the excellent way in which it wasplaced on the market were only of little assistance in fightingsuch a scourge. Here again the only course to adopt is to attackthe disease in its causes rather than in its symptoms. But in thiscase the primary cause is to be found in the manner in which lovehas been prostituted. Even though this did not directly bring aboutthe fearful disease itself, the nation must still suffer seriousdamage thereby, for the moral havoc resulting from thisprostitution would be sufficient to bring about the destruction ofthe nation, slowly but surely. This Judaizing of our spiritual lifeand mammonizing of our natural instinct for procreation will sooneror later work havoc with our whole posterity. For instead ofstrong, healthy children, blessed with natural feelings, we shallsee miserable specimens of humanity resulting from economiccalculation. For economic considerations are becoming more and morethe foundations of marriage and the sole preliminary condition ofit. And love looks for an outlet elsewhere.
Here, as elsewhere, one may defy Nature for a certain period oftime; but sooner or later she will take her inexorable revenge. Andwhen man realizes this truth it is often too late.
Our own nobility furnishes an example of the devastatingconsequences that follow from a persistent refusal to recognize theprimary conditions necessary for normal wedlock. Here we are openlybrought face to face with the results of those reproductive habitswhich on the one hand are determined by social pressure and, on theother, by financial considerations. The one leads to inheriteddebility and the other to adulteration of the blood-strain; for allthe Jewish daughters of the department store proprietors are lookedupon as eligible mates to co-operate in propagating His Lordship'sstock. And the stock certainly looks it. All this leads to absolutedegeneration. Nowadays our bourgeoise are making efforts to followin the same path, They will come to the same journey's end.
These unpleasant truths are hastily and nonchalantly brushedaside, as if by so doing the real state of affairs could also beabolished. But no. It cannot be denied that the population of ourgreat towns and cities is tending more and more to avail ofprostitution in the exercise of its amorous instincts and is thusbecoming more and more contaminated by the scourge of venerealdisease. On the one hand, the visible effects of thismass-infection can be observed in our insane asylums and, on theother hand, alas! among the children at home. These are the dolefuland tragic witnesses to the steadily increasing scourge that ispoisoning our sexual life. Their sufferings are the visible resultsof parental vice.
There are many ways of becoming resigned to this unpleasant andterrible fact. Many people go about seeing nothing or, to be morecorrect, not wanting to see anything. This is by far the simplestand cheapest attitude to adopt. Others cover themselves in thesacred mantle of prudery, as ridiculous as it is false. Theydescribe the whole condition of affairs as sinful and areprofoundly indignant when brought face to face with a victim. Theyclose their eyes in reverend abhorrence to this godless scourge andpray to the Almighty that He'--if possible after their owndeath'--may rain down fire and brimstone as on Sodom andGomorrah and so once again make an out standing example of thisshameless section of humanity. Finally, there are those who arewell aware of the terrible results which this scourge will and mustbring about, but they merely shrug their shoulders, fully convincedof their inability to undertake anything against this peril. Hencematters are allowed to take their own course.
Undoubtedly all this is very convenient and simple, only it mustnot be overlooked that this convenient way of approaching thingscan have fatal consequences for our national life. The excuse thatother nations are also not faring any better does not alter thefact of our own deterioration, except that the feeling of sympathyfor other stricken nations makes our own suffering easier to bear.But the important question that arises here is: Which nation willbe the first to take the initiative in mastering this scourge, andwhich nations will succumb to it? This will be the final upshot ofthe whole situation. The present is a period of probation forracial values. The race that fails to come through the test willsimply die out and its place will be taken by the healthier andstronger races, which will be able to endure greater hardships. Asthis problem primarily concerns posterity, it belongs to thatcategory of which it is said with terrible justification that thesins of the fathers are visited on their offspring unto the tenthgeneration. This is a consequence which follows on an infringementof the laws of blood and race.
The sin against blood and race is the hereditary sin in thisworld and it brings disaster on every nation that commits it.
The attitude towards this one vital problem in pre-War Germanywas most regrettable. What measures were undertaken to arrest theinfection of our youth in the large cities? What was done to put anend to the contamination and mammonization of sexual life among us?What was done to fight the resultant spreading of syphilisthroughout the whole of our national life? The reply to thisquestion can best be illustrated by showing what should have beendone.
Instead of tackling this problem in a haphazard way, theauthorities should have realized that the fortunes or misfortunesof future generations depended on its solution. But to admit thiswould have demanded that active measures be carried out in aruthless manner. The primary condition would have been that theenlightened attention of the whole country should be concentratedon this terrible danger, so that every individual would realize theimportance of fighting against it. It would be futile to imposeobligations of a definite character'--which are often difficultto bear'--and expect them to become generally effective, unlessthe public be thoroughly instructed on the necessity of imposingand accepting such obligations. This demands a widespread andsystematic method of enlightenment and all other daily problemsthat might distract public attention from this great centralproblem should be relegated to the background.
In every case where there are exigencies or tasks that seemimpossible to deal with successfully public opinion must beconcentrated on the one problem, under the conviction that thesolution of this problem alone is a matter of life or death. Onlyin this way can public interest be aroused to such a pitch as willurge people to combine in a great voluntary effort and achieveimportant results.
This fundamental truth applies also to the individual, providedhe is desirous of attaining some great end. He must alwaysconcentrate his efforts to one definitely limited stage of hisprogress which has to be completed before the next step beattempted. Those who do not endeavour to realize their aims step bystep and who do not concentrate their energy in reaching theindividual stages, will never attain the final objective. At somestage or other they will falter and fail. This systematic way ofapproaching an objective is an art in itself, and always calls forthe expenditure of every ounce of energy in order to conquer stepafter step of the road.
Therefore the most essential preliminary condition necessary foran attack on such a difficult stage of the human road is that theauthorities should succeed in convincing the masses that theimmediate objective which is now being fought for is the only onethat deserves to be considered and the only one on which everythingdepends. The broad masses are never able clearly to see the wholestretch of the road lying in front of them without becoming tiredand thus losing faith in their ability to complete the task. To acertain extent they will keep the objective in mind, but they areonly able to survey the whole road in small stages, as in the caseof the traveller who knows where his journey is going to end butwho masters the endless stretch far better by attacking it indegrees. Only in this way can he keep up his determination to reachthe final objective.
It is in this way, with the assistance of every form ofpropaganda, that the problem of fighting venereal disease should beplaced before the public'--not as a task for the nation but asthe main task. Every possible means should be employed tobring the truth about this scourge home to the minds of the people,until the whole nation has been convinced that everything dependson the solution of this problem; that is to say, a healthy futureor national decay.
Only after such preparatory measures'--if necessary spreadover a period of many years'--will public attention and publicresolution be fully aroused, and only then can serious and definitemeasures be undertaken without running the risk of not being fullyunderstood or of being suddenly faced with a slackening of thepublic will. It must be made clear to all that a serious fightagainst this scourge calls for vast sacrifices and an enormousamount of work.
To wage war against syphilis means fighting againstprostitution, against prejudice, against old-established customs,against current fashion, public opinion, and, last but not least,against false prudery in certain circles.
The first preliminary condition to be fulfilled before the Statecan claim a moral right to fight against all these things is thatthe young generation should be afforded facilities for contractingearly marriages. Late marriages have the sanction of a customwhich, from whatever angle we view it, is and will remain adisgrace to humanity.
Prostitution is a disgrace to humanity and cannot be removedsimply by charitable or academic methods. Its restriction and finalextermination presupposes the removal of a whole series ofcontributory circumstances. The first remedy must always be toestablish such conditions as will make early marriages possible,especially for young men'--for women are, after all, onlypassive subjects in this matter.
An illustration of the extent to which people have so often beenled astray nowadays is afforded by the fact that not infrequentlyone hears mothers in so-called 'better' circles openly expressingtheir satisfaction at having found as a husband for their daughtera man who has already sown his wild oats, etc. As there is usuallyso little shortage in men of this type, the poor girl finds nodifficulty in getting a mate of this description, and the childrenof this marriage are a visible result of such supposedly sensibleunions.
When one realizes, apart from this, that every possible effortis being made to hinder the process of procreation and that Natureis being wilfully cheated of her rights, there remains really onlyone question: Why is such an institution as marriage still inexistence, and what are its functions? Is it really nothing betterthan prostitution? Does our duty to posterity no longer play anypart? Or do people not realize the nature of the curse they areinflicting on themselves and their offspring by such criminallyfoolish neglect of one of the primary laws of Nature? This is howcivilized nations degenerate and gradually perish.
Marriage is not an end in itself but must serve the greater end,which is that of increasing and maintaining the human species andthe race. This is its only meaning and purpose.
This being admitted, then it is clear that the institution ofmarriage must be judged by the manner in which its allottedfunction is fulfilled. Therefore early marriages should be therule, because thus the young couple will still have that pristineforce which is the fountain head of a healthy posterity withunimpaired powers of resistance. Of course early marriages cannotbe made the rule unless a whole series of social measures are firstundertaken without which early marriages cannot be even thought of.In other words, a solution of this question, which seems a smallproblem in itself, cannot be brought about without adopting radicalmeasures to alter the social background. The importance of suchmeasures ought to be studied and properly estimated, especially ata time when the so-called 'social' Republic has shown itself unableto solve the housing problem and thus has made it impossible forinnumerable couples to get married. That sort of policy preparesthe way for the further advance of prostitution.
Another reason why early marriages are impossible is ournonsensical method of regulating the scale of salaries, which paysfar too little attention to the problem of family support.Prostitution, therefore, can only be really seriously tackled if,by means of a radical social reform, early marriage is made easierthan hitherto. This is the first preliminary necessity for thesolution of this problem.
Secondly, a whole series of false notions must be eradicatedfrom our system of bringing up and educating children'--thingswhich hitherto no one seems to have worried about. In our presenteducational system a balance will have to be established, first andforemost, between mental instruction and physical training.
What is known as Gymnasium (Grammar School) to-day is apositive insult to the Greek institution. Our system of educationentirely loses sight of the fact that in the long run a healthymind can exist only in a healthy body. This statement, with fewexceptions, applies particularly to the broad masses of thenation.
In the pre-War Germany there was a time when no one took thetrouble to think over this truth. Training of the body wascriminally neglected, the one-sided training of the mind beingregarded as a sufficient guarantee for the nation's greatness. Thismistake was destined to show its effects sooner than had beenanticipated. It is not pure chance that the Bolshevic teachingflourishes in those regions whose degenerate population has beenbrought to the verge of starvation, as, for example, in the case ofCentral Germany, Saxony, and the Ruhr Valley. In all thesedistricts there is a marked absence of any serious resistance, evenby the so-called intellectual classes, against this Jewishcontagion. And the simple reason is that the intellectual classesare themselves physically degenerate, not through privation butthrough education. The exclusive intellectualism of the educationin vogue among our upper classes makes them unfit for life'sstruggle at an epoch in which physical force and not mind is thedominating factor. Thus they are neither capable of maintainingthemselves nor of making their way in life. In nearly every casephysical disability is the forerunner of personal cowardice.
The extravagant emphasis laid on purely intellectual educationand the consequent neglect of physical training must necessarilylead to sexual thoughts in early youth. Those boys whoseconstitutions have been trained and hardened by sports andgymnastics are less prone to sexual indulgence than thosestay-at-homes who have been fed exclusively with mental pabulum.Sound methods of education cannot, however, afford to disregardthis, and we must not forget that the expectations of a healthyyoung man from a woman will differ from those of a weakling who hasbeen prematurely corrupted.
Thus in every branch of our education the day's curriculum mustbe arranged so as to occupy a boy's free time in profitabledevelopment of his physical powers. He has no right in those yearsto loaf about, becoming a nuisance in public streets and incinemas; but when his day's work is done he ought to harden hisyoung body so that his strength may not be found wanting when theoccasion arises. To prepare for this and to carry it out should bethe function of our educational system and not exclusively to pumpin knowledge or wisdom. Our school system must also rid itself ofthe notion that the training of the body is a task that should beleft to the individual himself. There is no such thing as allowingfreedom of choice to sin against posterity and thus against therace.
The fight against pollution of the mind must be wagedsimultaneously with the training of the body. To-day the whole ofour public life may be compared to a hot-house for the forcedgrowth of sexual notions and incitements. A glance at thebill-of-fare provided by our cinemas, playhouses, and theatressuffices to prove that this is not the right food, especially forour young people. Hoardings and advertisements kiosks combine toattract the public in the most vulgar manner. Anyone who has notaltogether lost contact with adolescent yearnings will realize thatall this must have very grave consequences. This seductive andsensuous atmosphere puts notions into the heads of our youth which,at their age, ought still to be unknown to them. Unfortunately, theresults of this kind of education can best be seen in ourcontemporary youth who are prematurely grown up and therefore oldbefore their time. The law courts from time to time throw adistressing light on the spiritual life of our 14- and 15-year oldchildren. Who, therefore, will be surprised to learn that venerealdisease claims its victims at this age? And is it not a frightfulshame to see the number of physically weak and intellectuallyspoiled young men who have been introduced to the mysteries ofmarriage by the whores of the big cities?
No; those who want seriously to combat prostitution must firstof all assist in removing the spiritual conditions on which itthrives. They will have to clean up the moral pollution of our city'culture' fearlessly and without regard for the outcry that willfollow. If we do not drag our youth out of the morass of theirpresent environment they will be engulfed by it. Those people whodo not want to see these things are deliberately encouraging themand are guilty of spreading the effects of prostitution to thefuture'--for the future belongs to our young generation. Thisprocess of cleansing our 'Kultur' will have to be applied inpractically all spheres. The stage, art, literature, the cinema,the Press and advertisement posters, all must have the stains ofpollution removed and be placed in the service of a national andcultural idea. The life of the people must be freed from theasphyxiating perfume of our modern eroticism and also from everyunmanly and prudish form of insincerity. In all these things theaim and the method must be determined by thoughtful considerationfor the preservation of our national well-being in body and soul.The right to personal freedom comes second in importance to theduty of maintaining the race.
Only after such measures have been put into practice can amedical campaign against this scourge begin with some hope ofsuccess. But, here again, half-measures will be valueless.Far-reaching and important decisions will have to be made. It wouldbe doing things by halves if incurables were given the opportunityof infecting one healthy person after another. This would be thatkind of humanitarianism which would allow hundreds to perish inorder to save the suffering of one individual. The demand that itshould be made impossible for defective people to continue topropagate defective offspring is a demand that is based on mostreasonable grounds, and its proper fulfilment is the most humanetask that mankind has to face. Unhappy and undeserved suffering inmillions of cases will be spared, with the result that there willbe a gradual improvement in national health. A determined decisionto act in this manner will at the same time provide an obstacleagainst the further spread of venereal disease. It would then be acase, where necessary, of mercilessly isolating allincurables'--perhaps a barbaric measure for thoseunfortunates'--but a blessing for the present generation andfor posterity. The temporary pain thus experienced in this centurycan and will spare future thousands of generations fromsuffering.
The fight against syphilis and its pace-maker, prostitution, isone of the gigantic tasks of mankind; gigantic, because it is notmerely a case of solving a single problem but the removal of awhole series of evils which are the contributory causes of thisscourge. Disease of the body in this case is merely the result of adiseased condition of the moral, social, and racial instincts.
But if for reasons of indolence or cowardice this fight is notfought to a finish we may imagine what conditions will be like 500years hence. Little of God's image will be left in human nature,except to mock the Creator.
But what has been done in Germany to counteract this scourge? Ifwe think calmly over the answer we shall find it distressing. It istrue that in governmental circles the terrible and injuriouseffects of this disease were well known, but the counter-measureswhich were officially adopted were ineffective and a hopelessfailure. They tinkered with cures for the symptoms, whollyregardless of the cause of the disease. Prostitutes were medicallyexamined and controlled as far as possible, and when signs ofinfection were apparent they were sent to hospital. When outwardlycured, they were once more let loose on humanity.
It is true that 'protective legislation' was introduced whichmade sexual intercourse a punishable offence for all those notcompletely cured, or those suffering from venereal disease. Thislegislation was correct in theory, but in practice it failedcompletely. In the first place, in the majority of cases women willdecline to appear in court as witnesses against men who have robbedthem of their health. Women would be exposed far more than men touncharitable remarks in such cases, and one can imagine what theirposition would be if they had been infected by their own husbands.Should women in that case lay a charge? Or what should they do?
In the case of the man there is the additional fact that hefrequently is unfortunate enough to run up against this danger whenhe is under the influence of alcohol. His condition makes itimpossible for him to assess the qualities of his 'amorous beauty,'a fact which is well known to every diseased prostitute and makesthem single out men in this ideal condition for preference. Theresult is that the unfortunate man is not able to recollect lateron who his compassionate benefactress was, which is not surprisingin cities like Berlin and Munich. Many of such cases are visitorsfrom the provinces who, held speechless and enthralled by the magiccharm of city life, become an easy prey for prostitutes.
In the final analysis who is able to say whether he has beeninfected or not?
Are there not innumerable cases on record where an apparentlycured person has a relapse and does untold harm without knowingit?
Therefore in practice the results of these legislative measuresare negative. The same applies to the control of prostitution, and,finally, even medical treatment and cure are nowadays unsafe anddoubtful. One thing only is certain. The scourge has spread furtherand further in spite of all measures, and this alone sufficesdefinitely to stamp and substantiate their inefficiency.
Everything else that was undertaken was just as inefficient asit was absurd. The spiritual prostitution of the people was neitherarrested nor was anything whatsoever undertaken in thisdirection.
Those, however, who do not regard this subject as a serious onewould do well to examine the statistical data of the spread of thisdisease, study its growth in the last century and contemplate thepossibilities of its further development. The ordinary observer,unless he were particularly stupid, would experience a cold shudderif the position were made clear to him.
The half-hearted and wavering attitude adopted in pre-WarGermany towards this iniquitous condition can assuredly be taken asa visible sign of national decay. When the courage to fight forone's own health is no longer in evidence, then the right to livein this world of struggle also ceases.
One of the visible signs of decay in the old Reich was the slowsetback which the general cultural level experienced. But by'Kultur' I do not mean that which we nowadays style ascivilization, which on the contrary may rather be regarded asinimical to the spiritual elevation of life.
At the turn of the last century a new element began to make itsappearance in our world. It was an element which had been hithertoabsolutely unknown and foreign to us. In former times there hadcertainly been offences against good taste; but these were mostlydepartures from the orthodox canons of art, and posterity couldrecognize a certain historical value in them. But the new productsshowed signs, not only of artistic aberration but of spiritualdegeneration. Here, in the cultural sphere, the signs of the comingcollapse first became manifest.
The Bolshevization of art is the only cultural form of life andthe only spiritual manifestation of which Bolshevism iscapable.
Anyone to whom this statement may appear strange need only takea glance at those lucky States which have become Bolshevized and,to his horror, he will there recognize those morbid monstrositieswhich have been produced by insane and degenerate people. All thoseartistic aberrations which are classified under the names of cubismand dadism, since the opening of the present century, aremanifestations of art which have come to be officially recognizedby the State itself. This phenomenon made its appearance evenduring the short-lived period of the Soviet Republic in Bavaria. Atthat time one might easily have recognized how all the officialposters, propagandist pictures and newspapers, etc., showed signsnot only of political but also of cultural decadence.
About sixty years ago a political collapse such as we areexperiencing to-day would have been just as inconceivable as thecultural decline which has been manifested in cubist and futuristpictures ever since 1900. Sixty years ago an exhibition ofso-called dadistic 'experiences' would have been an absolutelypreposterous idea. The organizers of such an exhibition would thenhave been certified for the lunatic asylum, whereas, to-day theyare appointed presidents of art societies. At that time such anepidemic would never have been allowed to spread. Public opinionwould not have tolerated it, and the Government would not haveremained silent; for it is the duty of a Government to save itspeople from being stampeded into such intellectual madness. Butintellectual madness would have resulted from a development thatfollowed the acceptance of this kind of art. It would have markedone of the worst changes in human history; for it would have meantthat a retrogressive process had begun to take place in the humanbrain, the final stages of which would be unthinkable.
If we study the course of our cultural life during the lasttwenty-five years we shall be astonished to note how far we havealready gone in this process of retrogression. Everywhere we findthe presence of those germs which give rise to protuberant growthsthat must sooner or later bring about the ruin of our culture. Herewe find undoubted symptoms of slow corruption; and woe to thenations that are no longer able to bring that morbid process to ahalt.
In almost all the various fields of German art and culture thosemorbid phenomena may be observed. Here everything seems to havepassed the culminating point of its excellence and to have enteredthe curve of a hasty decline. At the beginning of the century thetheatres seemed already degenerating and ceasing to be culturalfactors, except the Court theatres, which opposed this prostitutionof the national art. With these exceptions, and also a few otherdecent institutions, the plays produced on the stage were of such anature that the people would have benefited by not visiting them atall. A sad symptom of decline was manifested by the fact that inthe case of many 'art centres' the sign was posted on the entrancedoors: for adults only.
Let it be borne in mind that these precautions had to be takenin regard to institutions whose main purpose should have been topromote the education of the youth and not merely to provideamusement for sophisticated adults. What would the great dramatistsof other times have said of such measures and, above all, of theconditions which made these measures necessary? How exasperatedSchiller would have been, and how Goethe would have turned away indisgust!
But what are Schiller, Goethe and Shakespeare when confrontedwith the heroes of our modern German literature? Old and frowsy andoutmoded and finished. For it was typical of this epoch that notonly were its own products bad but that the authors of suchproducts and their backers reviled everything that had really beengreat in the past. This is a phenomenon that is very characteristicof such epochs. The more vile and miserable are the men andproducts of an epoch, the more they will hate and denigrate theideal achievements of former generations. What these people wouldlike best would be completely to destroy every vestige of the past,in order to do away with that sole standard of comparison whichprevents their own daubs from being looked upon as art. Thereforethe more lamentable and wretched are the products of each new era,the more it will try to obliterate all the memorials of the past.But any real innovation that is for the benefit of mankind canalways face comparison with the best of what has gone before; andfrequently it happens that those monuments of the past guaranteethe acceptance of those modern productions. There is no fear thatmodern productions of real worth will look pale and worthlessbeside the monuments of the past. What is contributed to thegeneral treasury of human culture often fulfils a part that isnecessary in order to keep the memory of old achievements alive,because this memory alone is the standard whereby our own works areproperly appreciated. Only those who have nothing of value to giveto the world will oppose everything that already exists and wouldhave it destroyed at all costs.
And this holds good not only for new phenomena in the culturaldomain but also in politics. The more inferior new revolutionarymovements are, the more will they try to denigrate the old forms.Here again the desire to pawn off their shoddy products as greatand original achievements leads them into a blind hatred againsteverything which belongs to the past and which is superior to theirown work. As long as the historical memory of Frederick the Great,for instance, still lives, Frederick Ebert can arouse only aproblematic admiration. The relation of the hero of Sans Souci tothe former republican of Bremen may be compared to that of the sunto the moon; for the moon can shine only after the direct rays ofthe sun have left the earth. Thus we can readily understand why itis that all the new moons in human history have hated the fixedstars. In the field of politics, if Fate should happen temporarilyto place the ruling power in the hands of those nonentities theyare not only eager to defile and revile the past but at the sametime they will use all means to evade criticism of their own acts.The Law for the Protection of the Republic, which the new GermanState enacted, may be taken as one example of this truth.
One has good grounds to be suspicious in regard to any new idea,or any doctrine or philosophy, any political or economicalmovement, which tries to deny everything that the past has producedor to present it as inferior and worthless. Any renovation which isreally beneficial to human progress will always have to begin itsconstructive work at the level where the last stones of thestructure have been laid. It need not blush to utilize those truthswhich have already been established; for all human culture, as wellas man himself, is only the result of one long line of development,where each generation has contributed but one stone to the buildingof the whole structure. The meaning and purpose of revolutionscannot be to tear down the whole building but to take away what hasnot been well fitted into it or is unsuitable, and to rebuild thefree space thus caused, after which the main construction of thebuilding will be carried on.
Thus alone will it be possible to talk of human progress; forotherwise the world would never be free of chaos, since eachgeneration would feel entitled to reject the past and to destroyall the work of the past, as the necessary preliminary to any newwork of its own.
The saddest feature of the condition in which our wholecivilization found itself before the War was the fact that it wasnot only barren of any creative force to produce its own works ofart and civilization but that it hated, defiled and tried to effacethe memory of the superior works produced in the past. About theend of the last century people were less interested in producingnew significant works of their own'--particularly in the fieldsof dramatic art and literature'--than in defaming the bestworks of the past and in presenting them as inferior andantiquated. As if this period of disgraceful decadence had theslightest capacity to produce anything of superior quality! Theefforts made to conceal the past from the eyes of the presentafforded clear evidence of the fact that these apostles of thefuture acted from an evil intent. These symptoms should have madeit clear to all that it was not a question of new, though wrong,cultural ideas but of a process which was undermining the veryfoundations of civilization. It threw the artistic feeling whichhad hitherto been quite sane into utter confusion, thus spirituallypreparing the way for political Bolshevism. If the creative spiritof the Periclean age be manifested in the Parthenon, then theBolshevist era is manifested through its cubist grimace.
In this connection attention must be drawn once again to thewant of courage displayed by one section of our people, namely, bythose who, in virtue of their education and position, ought to havefelt themselves obliged to take up a firm stand against thisoutrage on our culture. But they refrained from offering seriousresistance and surrendered to what they considered the inevitable.This abdication of theirs was due, however, to sheer funk lest theapostles of Bolshevist art might raise a rumpus; for those apostlesalways violently attacked everyone who was not ready to recognizethem as the choice spirits of artistic creation, and they tried tostrangle all opposition by saying that it was the product ofphilistine and backwater minds. People trembled in fear lest theymight be accused by these yahoos and swindlers of lacking artisticappreciation, as if it would have been a disgrace not to be able tounderstand and appreciate the effusions of those mental degeneratesor arrant rogues. Those cultural disciples, however, had a verysimple way of presenting their own effusions as works of thehighest quality. They offered incomprehensible and manifestly crazyproductions to their amazed contemporaries as what they called 'aninner experience'. Thus they forestalled all adverse criticism atvery little cost indeed. Of course nobody ever doubted that therecould have been inner experiences like that, but some doubt oughtto have arisen as to whether or not there was any justification forexposing these hallucinations of psychopaths or criminals to thesane portion of human society. The works produced by a Moritz vonSchwind or a B¶cklin were also externalizations of an innerexperience, but these were the experiences of divinely giftedartists and not of buffoons.
This situation afforded a good opportunity of studying themiserable cowardliness of our so-called intellectuals who shirkedthe duty of offering serious resistance to the poisoning of thesound instincts of our people. They left it to the peoplethemselves to formulate their own attitude towards his impudentnonsense. Lest they might be considered as understanding nothing ofart, they accepted every caricature of art, until they finally lostthe power of judging what is really good or bad.
Taken all in all, there were superabundant symptoms to show thata diseased epoch had begun.
Still another critical symptom has to be considered. In thecourse of the nineteenth century our towns and cities began moreand more to lose their character as centres of civilization andbecame more and more centres of habitation. In our great moderncities the proletariat does not show much attachment to the placewhere it lives. This feeling results from the fact that theirdwelling-place is nothing but an accidental abode, and that feelingis also partly due to the frequent change of residence which isforced upon them by social conditions. There is no time for thegrowth of any attachment to the town in which they live. Butanother reason lies in the cultural barrenness and superficialityof our modern cities. At the time of the German Wars of Liberationour German towns and cities were not only small in number but alsovery modest in size. The few that could really be called greatcities were mostly the residential cities of princes; as such theyhad almost always a definite cultural value and also a definitecultural aspect. Those few towns which had more than fifty thousandinhabitants were, in comparison with modern cities of the samesize, rich in scientific and artistic treasures. At the time whenMunich had not more than sixty thousand souls it was already wellon the way to become one of the first German centres of art.Nowadays almost every industrial town has a population at least aslarge as that, without having anything of real value to call itsown. They are agglomerations of tenement houses and congesteddwelling barracks, and nothing else. It would be a miracle ifanybody should grow sentimentally attached to such a meaninglessplace. Nobody can grow attached to a place which offers only justas much or as little as any other place would offer, which has nocharacter of its own and where obviously pains have been taken toavoid everything that might have any resemblance to an artisticappearance.
But this is not all. Even the great cities become more barren ofreal works of art the more they increase in population. They assumemore and more a neutral atmosphere and present the same aspect,though on a larger scale, as the wretched little factory towns.Everything that our modern age has contributed to the civilizationof our great cities is absolutely deficient. All our towns areliving on the glory and the treasures of the past. If we take awayfrom the Munich of to-day everything that was created under LudwigII we should be horror-stricken to see how meagre has been theoutput of important artistic creations since that time. One mightsay much the same of Berlin and most of our other great towns.
But the following is the essential thing to be noticed: Ourgreat modern cities have no outstanding monuments that dominate thegeneral aspect of the city and could be pointed to as the symbolsof a whole epoch. Yet almost every ancient town had a monumenterected to its glory. It was not in private dwellings that thecharacteristic art of ancient cities was displayed but in thepublic monuments, which were not meant to have a transitoryinterest but an enduring one. And this was because they did notrepresent the wealth of some individual citizen but the greatnessand importance of the community. It was under this inspiration thatthose monuments arose which bound the individual inhabitants totheir own town in a manner that is often almost incomprehensible tous to-day. What struck the eye of the individual citizen was not anumber of mediocre private buildings, but imposing structures thatbelonged to the whole community. In contradistinction to these,private dwellings were of only very secondary importanceindeed.
When we compare the size of those ancient public buildings withthat of the private dwellings belonging to the same epoch then wecan understand the great importance which was given to theprinciple that those works which reflected and affected the life ofthe community should take precedence of all others.
Among the broken arches and vast spaces that are covered withruins from the ancient world the colossal riches that still arouseour wonder have not been left to us from the commercial palaces ofthese days but from the temples of the Gods and the public edificesthat belonged to the State. The community itself was the owner ofthose great edifices. Even in the pomp of Rome during the decadenceit was not the villas and palaces of some citizens that filled themost prominent place but rather the temples and the baths, thestadia, the circuses, the aqueducts, the basilicas, etc., whichbelonged to the State and therefore to the people as a whole.
In medieval Germany also the same principle held sway, althoughthe artistic outlook was quite different. In ancient times thetheme that found its expression in the Acropolis or the Pantheonwas now clothed in the forms of the Gothic Cathedral. In themedieval cities these monumental structures towered giganticallyabove the swarm of smaller buildings with their framework walls ofwood and brick. And they remain the dominant feature of thesecities even to our own day, although they are becoming more andmore obscured by the apartment barracks. They determine thecharacter and appearance of the locality. Cathedrals, city-halls,corn exchanges, defence towers, are the outward expression of anidea which has its counterpart only in the ancient world.
The dimensions and quality of our public buildings to-day are indeplorable contrast to the edifices that represent privateinterests. If a similar fate should befall Berlin as befell Romefuture generations might gaze upon the ruins of some Jewishdepartment stores or joint-stock hotels and think that these werethe characteristic expressions of the culture of our time. InBerlin itself, compare the shameful disproportion between thebuildings which belong to the Reich and those which have beenerected for the accommodation of trade and finance.
The credits that are voted for public buildings are in mostcases inadequate and really ridiculous. They are not built asstructures that were meant to last but mostly for the purpose ofanswering the need of the moment. No higher idea influenced thosewho commissioned such buildings. At the time the Berlin Schloss wasbuilt it had a quite different significance from what the newlibrary has for our time, seeing that one battleship alonerepresents an expenditure of about sixty million marks, whereasless than half that sum was allotted for the building of theReichstag, which is the most imposing structure erected for theReich and which should have been built to last for ages. Yet, indeciding the question of internal decoration, the Upper House votedagainst the use of stone and ordered that the walls should becovered with stucco. For once, however, the parliamentarians madean appropriate decision on that occasion; for plaster heads wouldbe out of place between stone walls.
The community as such is not the dominant characteristic of ourcontemporary cities, and therefore it is not to be wondered at ifthe community does not find itself architecturally represented.Thus we must eventually arrive at a veritable civic desert whichwill at last be reflected in the total indifference of theindividual citizen towards his own country.
This is also a sign of our cultural decay and general break-up.Our era is entirely preoccupied with little things which are to nopurpose, or rather it is entirely preoccupied in the service ofmoney. Therefore it is not to be wondered at if, with the worshipof such an idol, the sense of heroism should entirely disappear.But the present is only reaping what the past has sown.
All these symptoms which preceded the final collapse of theSecond Empire must be attributed to the lack of a definite anduniformly accepted Weltanschauung and the generaluncertainty of outlook consequent on that lack. This uncertaintyshowed itself when the great questions of the time had to beconsidered one after another and a decisive policy adopted towardsthem. This lack is also accountable for the habit of doingeverything by halves, beginning with the educational system, theshilly-shally, the reluctance to undertake responsibilites and,finally, the cowardly tolerance of evils that were even admitted tobe destructive. Visionary humanitarianisms became the fashion. Inweakly submitting to these aberrations and sparing the feelings ofthe individual, the future of millions of human beings wassacrificed.
An examination of the religious situation before the War showsthat the general process of disruption had extended to this spherealso. A great part of the nation itself had for a long time alreadyceased to have any convictions of a uniform and practical characterin their ideological outlook on life. In this matter the point ofprimary importance was by no means the number of people whorenounced their church membership but rather the widespreadindifference. While the two Christian denominations maintainedmissions in Asia and Africa, for the purpose of securing newadherents to the Faith, these same denominations were losingmillions and millions of their adherents at home in Europe. Theseformer adherents either gave up religion wholly as a directiveforce in their lives or they adopted their own interpretation ofit. The consequences of this were specially felt in the moral lifeof the country. In parenthesis it may be remarked that the progressmade by the missions in spreading the Christian Faith abroad wasonly quite modest in comparison with the spread ofMohammedanism.
It must be noted too that the attack on the dogmatic principlesunderlying ecclesiastical teaching increased steadily in violence.And yet this human world of ours would be inconceivable without thepractical existence of a religious belief. The great masses of anation are not composed of philosophers. For the masses of thepeople, especially faith is absolutely the only basis of a moraloutlook on life. The various substitutes that have been offeredhave not shown any results that might warrant us in thinking thatthey might usefully replace the existing denominations. But ifreligious teaching and religious faith were once accepted by thebroad masses as active forces in their lives, then the absoluteauthority of the doctrines of faith would be the foundation of allpractical effort. There may be a few hundreds of thousands ofsuperior men who can live wisely and intelligently withoutdepending on the general standards that prevail in everyday life,but the millions of others cannot do so. Now the place whichgeneral custom fills in everyday life corresponds to that ofgeneral laws in the State and dogma in religion. The purelyspiritual idea is of itself a changeable thing that may besubjected to endless interpretations. It is only through dogma thatit is given a precise and concrete form without which it could notbecome a living faith. Otherwise the spiritual idea would neverbecome anything more than a mere metaphysical concept, or rather aphilosophical opinion. Accordingly the attack against dogma iscomparable to an attack against the general laws on which the Stateis founded. And so this attack would finally lead to completepolitical anarchy if it were successful, just as the attack onreligion would lead to a worthless religious nihilism.
The political leader should not estimate the worth of a religionby taking some of its shortcomings into account, but he should askhimself whether there be any practical substitute in a view whichis demonstrably better. Until such a substitute be available onlyfools and criminals would think of abolishing the existingreligion.
Undoubtedly no small amount of blame for the presentunsatisfactory religious situation must be attributed to those whohave encumbered the ideal of religion with purely materialaccessories and have thus given rise to an utterly futile conflictbetween religion and science. In this conflict victory will nearlyalways be on the side of science, even though after a bitterstruggle, while religion will suffer heavily in the eyes of thosewho cannot penetrate beneath the mere superficial aspects ofscience.
But the greatest damage of all has come from the practice ofdebasing religion as a means that can be exploited to servepolitical interests, or rather commercial interests. The impudentand loud-mouthed liars who do this make their profession of faithbefore the whole world in stentorian tones so that all poor mortalsmay hear'--not that they are ready to die for it if necessarybut rather that they may live all the better. They are ready tosell their faith for any political quid pro quo. For tenparliamentary mandates they would ally themselves with theMarxists, who are the mortal foes of all religion. And for a seatin the Cabinet they would go the length of wedlock with the devil,if the latter had not still retained some traces of decency.
If religious life in pre-war Germany had a disagreeable savourfor the mouths of many people this was because Christianity hadbeen lowered to base uses by political parties that calledthemselves Christian and because of the shameful way in which theytried to identify the Catholic Faith with a political party.
This substitution was fatal. It procured some worthlessparliamentary mandates for the party in question, but the Churchsuffered damage thereby.
The consequences of that situation had to be borne by the wholenation; for the laxity that resulted in religious life set in at ajuncture when everything was beginning to lose hold and vacillateand the traditional foundations of custom and of morality werethreatening to fall asunder.
Yet all those cracks and clefts in the social organism might nothave been dangerous if no grave burdens had been laid upon it; butthey became disastrous when the internal solidarity of the nationwas the most important factor in withstanding the storm of bigevents.
In the political field also observant eyes might have noticedcertain anomalies of the Reich which foretold disaster unless somealteration and correction took place in time. The lack oforientation in German policy, both domestic and foreign, wasobvious to everyone who was not purposely blind. The best thingthat could be said about the practice of making compromises is thatit seemed outwardly to be in harmony with Bismarck's axiom that'politics is the art of the possible'. But Bismarck was a slightlydifferent man from the Chancellors who followed him. Thisdifference allowed the former to apply that formula to the veryessence of his policy, while in the mouths of the others it took onan utterly different significance. When he uttered that phraseBismarck meant to say that in order to attain a definite politicalend all possible means should be employed or at least that allpossibilities should be tried. But his successors see in thatphrase only a solemn declaration that one is not necessarily boundto have political principles or any definite political aims at all.And the political leaders of the Reich at that time had nofar-seeing policy. Here, again, the necessary foundation waslacking, namely, a definite Weltanschauung, and theseleaders also lacked that clear insight into the laws of politicalevolution which is a necessary quality in political leadership.
Many people who took a gloomy view of things at that timecondemned the lack of ideas and lack of orientation which wereevident in directing the policy of the Reich. They recognized theinner weakness and futility of this policy. But such people playedonly a secondary role in politics. Those who had the Government ofthe country in their hands were quite as indifferent to principlesof civil wisdom laid down by thinkers like Houston StewartChamberlain as our political leaders now are. These people are toostupid to think for themselves, and they have too much self-conceitto take from others the instruction which they need. Oxenstierna(Note 14a) gave expression to a truth which has lasted since timeimmemorial, when he said that the world is governed by only aparticle of wisdom. Almost every civil servant of councillor rankmight naturally be supposed to possess only an atom or so belongingto this particle. But since Germany became a Republic even thismodicum is wanting. And that is why they had to promulgate the Lawfor the Defence of the Republic, which prohibits the holding ofsuch views or expressing them. It was fortunate for Oxenstiernathat he lived at that time and not in this wise Republic of ourtime.
Already before the War that institution which should haverepresented the strength of the Reich'--the Parliament, theReichstag'--was widely recognized as its weakest feature.Cowardliness and fear of shouldering responsibilities wereassociated together there in a perfect fashion.
One of the silliest notions that one hears expressed to-day isthat in Germany the parliamentary institution has ceased tofunction since the Revolution. This might easily be taken to implythat the case was different before the Revolution. But in realitythe parliamentary institution never functioned except to thedetriment of the country. And it functioned thus in those days whenpeople saw nothing or did not wish to see anything. The Germandownfall is to be attributed in no small degree to thisinstitution. But that the catastrophe did not take place sooner isnot to be credited to the Parliament but rather to those whoopposed the influence of this institution which, during peacetimes, was digging the grave of the German Nation and the GermanReich.
From the immense mass of devastating evils that were due eitherdirectly or indirectly to the Parliament I shall select one themost intimately typical of this institution which was the mostirresponsible of all time. The evil I speak of was seen in theappalling shilly-shally and weakness in conducting the internal andexternal affairs of the Reich. It was attributable in the firstplace to the action of the Reichstag and was one of the principalcauses of the political collapse.
Everything subject to the influence of Parliament was done byhalves, no matter from what aspect you may regard it.
The foreign policy of the Reich in the matter of alliances wasan example of shilly-shally. They wished to maintain peace, but indoing so they steered straight. into war.
Their Polish policy was also carried out by half-measures. Itresulted neither in a German triumph nor Polish conciliation, andit made enemies of the Russians.
They tried to solve the Alsace-Lorraine question throughhalf-measures. Instead of crushing the head of the French hydraonce and for all with the mailed fist and granting Alsace-Lorraineequal rights with the other German States, they did neither the onenor the other. Anyhow, it was impossible for them to do otherwise,for they had among their ranks the greatest traitors to thecountry, such as Herr Wetterl(C) of the Centre Party.
But still the country might have been able to bear with all thisprovided the half-measure policy had not victimized that force inwhich, as the last resort, the existence of the Empire depended:namely, the Army.
The crime committed by the so-called German Reichstag in thisregard was sufficient of itself to draw down upon it the curses ofthe German Nation for all time. On the most miserable of pretextsthese parliamentary party henchmen filched from the hands of thenation and threw away the weapons which were needed to maintain itsexistence and therewith defend the liberty and independence of ourpeople. If the graves on the plains of Flanders were to open to-daythe bloodstained accusers would arise, hundreds of thousands of ourbest German youth who were driven into the arms of death by thoseconscienceless parliamentary ruffians who were either wronglyeducated for their task or only half-educated. Those youths, andother millions of the killed and mutilated, were lost to theFatherland simply and solely in order that a few hundred deceiversof the people might carry out their political manoeuvres and theirexactions or even treasonably pursue their doctrinairetheories.
By means of the Marxist and democratic Press, the Jews spreadthe colossal falsehood about 'German Militarism' throughout theworld and tried to inculpate Germany by every possible means, whileat the same time the Marxist and democratic parties refused toassent to the measures that were necessary for the adequatetraining of our national defence forces. The appalling crime thuscommitted by these people ought to have been obvious to everybodywho foresaw that in case of war the whole nation would have to becalled to arms and that, because of the mean huckstering of thesenoble 'representatives of the people', as they called themselves,millions of Germans would have to face the enemy ill-equipped andinsufficiently trained. But even apart from the consequences of thecrude and brutal lack of conscience which these parliamentarianrascals displayed, it was quite clear that the lack of properlytrained soldiers at the beginning of a war would most probably leadto the loss of such a war; and this probability was confirmed in amost terrible way during the course of the world war.
Therefore the German people lost the struggle for the freedomand independence of their country because of the half-hearted anddefective policy employed during times of peace in the organizationand training of the defensive strength of the nation.
The number of recruits trained for the land forces was toosmall; but the same half-heartedness was shown in regard to thenavy and made this weapon of national self-preservation more orless ineffective. Unfortunately, even the naval authoritiesthemselves were contaminated with this spirit of half-heartedness.The tendency to build the ship on the stocks somewhat smaller thanthat just launched by the British did not show much foresight andless genius. A fleet which cannot be brought to the same numericalstrength as that of the probable enemy ought to compensate for thisinferiority by the superior fighting power of the individual ship.It is the weight of the fighting power that counts and not any sortof traditional quality. As a matter of fact, modern technicaldevelopment is so advanced and so well proportioned among thevarious civilized States that it must be looked on as practicallyimpossible for one Power to build vessels which would have asuperior fighting quality to that of the vessels of equal sizebuilt by the other Powers. But it is even less feasible to buildvessels of smaller displacement which will be superior in action tothose of larger displacement.
As a matter of fact, the smaller proportions of the Germanvessels could be maintained only at the expense of speed andarmament. The phrase used to justify this policy was in itself anevidence of the lack of logical thinking on the part of the navalauthorities who were in charge of these matters in times of peace.They declared that the German guns were definitely superior to theBritish 30.5 cm. as regards striking efficiency.
But that was just why they should have adopted the policy ofbuilding 30.5 cm. guns also; for it ought to have been their objectnot to achieve equality but superiority in fighting strength. Ifthat were not so then it would have been superfluous to equip theland forces with 42 cm. mortars; for the German 21 cm. mortar couldbe far superior to any high-angle guns which the French possessedat that time and since the fortresses could probably have beentaken by means of 30.5 cm. mortars. The army authoritiesunfortunately failed to do so. If they refrained from assuringsuperior efficiency in the artillery as in the velocity, this wasbecause of the fundamentally false 'principle of risk' which theyadopted. The naval authorities, already in times of peace,renounced the principle of attack and thus had to follow adefensive policy from the very beginning of the War. But by thisattitude they renounced also the chances of final success, whichcan be achieved only by an offensive policy.
A vessel with slower speed and weaker armament will be crippledand battered by an adversary that is faster and stronger and canfrequently shoot from a favourable distance. A large number ofcruisers have been through bitter experiences in this matter. Howwrong were the ideas prevalent among the naval authorities in timesof peace was proved during the War. They were compelled to modifythe armament of the old vessels and to equip the new ones withbetter armament whenever there was a chance to do so. If the Germanvessels in the Battle of the Skagerrak had been of equal size, thesame armament and the same speed as the English, the British Fleetwould have gone down under the tempest of the German 38 centimetershells, which hit their aims more accurately and were moreeffective.
Japan had followed a different kind of naval policy. There, carewas principally taken to create with every single new vessel afighting force that would be superior to those of the eventualadversaries. But, because of this policy, it was afterwardspossible to use the fleet for the offensive.
While the army authorities refused to adopt such fundamentallyerroneous principles, the navy'--which unfortunately had morerepresentatives in Parliament'--succumbed to the spirit thatruled there. The navy was not organized on a strong basis, and itwas later used in an unsystematic and irresolute way. The immortalglory which the navy won, in spite of these drawbacks, must beentirely credited to the good work and the efficiency andincomparable heroism of officers and crews. If the formercommanders-in-chief had been inspired with the same kind of geniusall the sacrifices would not have been in vain.
It was probably the very parliamentarian skill displayed by thechief of the navy during the years of peace which later became thecause of the fatal collapse, since parliamentarian considerationshad begun to play a more important role in the construction of thenavy than fighting considerations. The irresolution, the weaknessand the failure to adopt a logically consistent policy, which istypical of the parliamentary system, contaminated the navalauthorities.
As I have already emphasized, the military authorities did notallow themselves to be led astray by such fundamentally erroneousideas. Ludendorff, who was then a Colonel in the General Staff, leda desperate struggle against the criminal vacillations with whichthe Reichstag treated the most vital problems of the nation and inmost cases voted against them. If the fight which this officer thenwaged remained unsuccessful this must be debited to the Parliamentand partly also to the wretched and weak attitude of theChancellor, Bethmann-Hollweg.
Yet those who are responsible for Germany's collapse do nothesitate now to lay all the blame on the shoulders of the one manwho took a firm stand against the neglectful manner in which theinterests of the nation were managed. But one falsehood more orless makes no difference to these congenital tricksters.
Anybody who thinks of all the sacrifices which this nation hashad to bear, as a result of the criminal neglect of thoseirresponsible individuals; anybody who thinks of the number ofthose who died or were maimed unnecessarily; anybody who thinks ofthe deplorable shame and dishonour which has been heaped upon usand of the illimitable distress into which our people are nowplunged'--anybody who realizes that in order to prepare the wayto a few seats in Parliament for some unscrupulous place-huntersand arrivists will understand that such hirelings can be called byno other name than that of rascal and criminal; for otherwise thosewords could have no meaning. In comparison with traitors whobetrayed the nation's trust every other kind of twister may belooked upon as an honourable man.
It was a peculiar feature of the situation that all the realfaults of the old Germany were exposed to the public gaze only whenthe inner solidarity of the nation could be injured by doing so.Then, indeed, unpleasant truths were openly proclaimed in the earsof the broad masses, while many other things were at other timesshamefully hushed up or their existence simply denied, especiallyat times when an open discussion of such problems might have led toan improvement in their regard. The higher government authoritiesknew little or nothing of the nature and use of propaganda in suchmatters. Only the Jew knew that by an able and persistent use ofpropaganda heaven itself can be presented to the people as if itwere hell and, vice versa, the most miserable kind of life can bepresented as if it were paradise. The Jew knew this and actedaccordingly. But the German, or rather his Government, did not havethe slightest suspicion of it. During the War the heaviest ofpenalties had to be paid for that ignorance.
Over against the innumerable drawbacks which I have mentionedhere and which affected German life before the War there were manyoutstanding features on the positive side. If we take an impartialsurvey we must admit that most of our drawbacks were in greatmeasure prevalent also in other countries and among the othernations, and very often in a worse form than with us; whereas amongus there were many real advantages which the other did nothave.
The leading phase of Germany's superiority arose from the factthat, almost alone among all the other European nations, the Germannation had made the strongest effort to preserve the nationalcharacter of its economic structure and for this reason was lesssubject than other countries to the power of international finance,though indeed there were many untoward symptoms in this regardalso.
And yet this superiority was a perilous one and turned out laterto be one of the chief causes of the world war.
But even if we disregard this advantage of national independencein economic matters there were certain other positive features ofour social and political life which were of outstanding excellence.These features were represented by three institutions which wereconstant sources of regeneration. In their respective spheres theywere models of perfection and were partly unrivalled.
The first of these was the statal form as such and the manner inwhich it had been developed for Germany in modern times. Of coursewe must except those monarchs who, as human beings, were subject tothe failings which afflict this life and its children. If we werenot so tolerant in these matters, then the case of the presentgeneration would be hopeless; for if we take into consideration thepersonal capabilities and character of the representative figuresin our present regime it would be difficult to imagine a moremodest level of intelligence and moral character. If we measure the'value' of the German Revolution by the personal worth and calibreof the individuals whom this revolution has presented to the Germanpeople since November 1918 then we may feel ashamed indeed inthinking of the judgment which posterity will pass on these people,when the Law for the Protection of the Republic can no longersilence public opinion. Coming generations will surely decide thatthe intelligence and integrity of our new German leaders were inadverse ratio to their boasting and their vices.
It must be admitted that the monarchy had become alien in spiritto many citizens and especially the broad masses. This resultedfrom the fact that the monarchs were not always surrounded by thehighest intelligence'--so to say'--and certainly not alwaysby persons of the most upright character. Unfortunately many ofthem preferred flatterers to honest-spoken men and hence receivedtheir 'information' from the former. This was a source of gravedanger at a time when the world was passing through a period inwhich many of the old conditions were changing and when this changewas affecting even the traditions of the Court.
The average man or woman could not have felt a wave ofenthusiasm surging within the breast when, for example, at the turnof the century, a princess in uniform and on horseback had thesoldiers file past her on parade. Those high circles had apparentlyno idea of the impression which such a parade made on the minds ofordinary people; else such unfortunate occurrences would not havetaken place. The sentimental humanitarianism'--not always verysincere'--which was professed in those high circles was oftenmore repulsive than attractive. When, for instance, the Princess Xcondescended to taste the products of a soup kitchen and found themexcellent, as usual, such a gesture might have made an excellentimpression in times long past, but on this occasion it had theopposite effect to what was intended. For even if we take it forgranted that Her Highness did not have the slightest idea, that onthe day she sampled it, the food was not quite the same as on otherdays, it sufficed that the people knew it. Even the best ofintentions thus became an object of ridicule or a cause ofexasperation.
Descriptions of the proverbial frugality practised by themonarch, his much too early rise in the morning and the drudgery hehad to go through all day long until late at night, and especiallythe constantly expressed fears lest he might becomeundernourished'--all this gave rise to ominous expression onthe part of the people. Nobody was keen to know what and how muchthe monarch ate or drank. Nobody grudged him a full meal, or thenecessary amount of sleep. Everybody was pleased when the monarch,as a man and a personality, brought honour on his family and hiscountry and fulfilled his duties as a sovereign. All the legendswhich were circulated about him helped little and did muchdamage.
These and such things, however, are only mere bagatelle. Whatwas much worse was the feeling, which spread throughout largesections of the nation, that the affairs of the individual werebeing taken care of from above and that he did not need to botherhimself with them. As long as the Government was really good, or atleast moved by goodwill, no serious objections could be raised.
But the country was destined to disaster when the oldGovernment, which had at least striven for the best, becamereplaced by a new regime which was not of the same quality. Thenthe docile obedience and infantile credulity which formerly offeredno resistance was bound to be one of the most fatal evils that canbe imagined.
But against these and other defects there were certain qualitieswhich undoubtedly had a positive effect.
First of all the monarchical form of government guaranteesstability in the direction of public affairs and safeguards publicoffices from the speculative turmoil of ambitious politicians.Furthermore, the venerable tradition which this institutionpossesses arouses a feeling which gives weight to the monarchicalauthority. Beyond this there is the fact that the whole corps ofofficials, and the army in particular, are raised above the levelof political party obligations. And still another positive featurewas that the supreme rulership of the State was embodied in themonarch, as an individual person, who could serve as the symbol ofresponsibility, which a monarch has to bear more seriously than anyanonymous parliamentary majority. Indeed, the proverbial honestyand integrity of the German administration must be attributedchiefly to this fact. Finally, the monarchy fulfilled a highcultural function among the German people, which made amends formany of its defects. The German residential cities have remained,even to our time, centres of that artistic spirit which nowthreatens to disappear and is becoming more and more materialistic.The German princes gave a great deal of excellent and practicalencouragement to art and science, especially during the nineteenthcentury. Our present age certainly has nothing of equal worth.
During that process of disintegration which was slowly extendingthroughout the social order the most positive force of resistancewas that offered by the army. This was the strongest source ofeducation which the German people possessed. For that reason allthe hatred of our enemies was directed against the paladin of ournational self-preservation and our liberty. The strongest testimonyin favour of this unique institution is the fact that it wasderided, hated and fought against, but also feared, by worthlesselements all round. The fact that the international profiteers whogathered at Versailles, further to exploit and plunder the nationsdirected their enmity specially against the old German army provedonce again that it deserved to be regarded as the institution whichprotected the liberties of our people against the forces of theinternational stock-exchange. If the army had not been there tosound the alarm and stand on guard, the purposes of the Versaillesrepresentatives would have been carried out much sooner. There isonly one word to express what the German people owe to thisarmy'--Everything!
It was the army that still inculcated a sense of responsibilityamong the people when this quality had become very rare and whenthe habit of shirking every kind of responsibility was steadilyspreading. This habit had grown up under the evil influences ofParliament, which was itself the very model of irresponsibility.The army trained the people to personal courage at a time when thevirtue of timidity threatened to become an epidemic and when thespirit of sacrificing one's personal interests for the good of thecommunity was considered as something that amounted almost toweak-mindedness. At a time when only those were estimated asintelligent who knew how to safeguard and promote their ownegotistic interests, the army was the school through whichindividual Germans were taught not to seek the salvation of theirnation in the false ideology of international fraternizationbetween negroes, Germans, Chinese, French and English, etc., but inthe strength and unity of their own national being.
The army developed the individual's powers of resolute decision,and this at a time when a spirit of indecision and scepticismgoverned human conduct. At a time when the wiseacres wereeverywhere setting the fashion it needed courage to uphold theprinciple that any command is better than none. This one principlerepresents a robust and sound style of thought, of which not atrace would have been left in the other branches of life if thearmy had not furnished a constant rejuvenation of this fundamentalforce. A sufficient proof of this may be found in the appallinglack of decision which our present government authorities display.They cannot shake off their mental and moral lethargy and decide onsome definite line of action except when they are forced to signsome new dictate for the exploitation of the German people. In thatcase they decline all responsibility while at the same time theysign everything which the other side places before them; and theysign with the readiness of an official stenographer. Their conductis here explicable on the ground that in this case they are notunder the necessity of coming to a decision; for the decision isdictated to them.
The army imbued its members with a spirit of idealism anddeveloped their readiness to sacrifice themselves for their countryand its honour, while greed and materialism dominated in all theother branches of life. The army united a people who were split upinto classes: and in this respect had only one defect, which wasthe One Year Military Service, a privilege granted to those who hadpassed through the high schools. It was a defect, because theprinciple of absolute equality was thereby violated; and those whohad a better education were thus placed outside the cadres to whichthe rest of their comrades belonged. The reverse would have beenbetter. Since our upper classes were really ignorant of what wasgoing on in the body corporate of the nation and were becoming moreand more estranged from the life of the people, the army would haveaccomplished a very beneficial mission if it had refused todiscriminate in favour of the so-called intellectuals, especiallywithin its own ranks. It was a mistake that this was not done; butin this world of ours can we find any institution that has not atleast one defect? And in the army the good features were soabsolutely predominant that the few defects it had were far belowthe average that generally rises from human weakness.
But the greatest credit which the army of the old Empiredeserves is that, at a time when the person of the individualcounted for nothing and the majority was everything, it placedindividual personal values above majority values. By insisting onits faith in personality, the army opposed that typically Jewishand democratic apotheosis of the power of numbers. The army trainedwhat at that time was most surely needed: namely, real men. In aperiod when men were falling a prey to effeminacy and laxity,350,000 vigorously trained young men went from the ranks of thearmy each year to mingle with their fellow-men. In the course oftheir two years' training they had lost the softness of their youngdays and had developed bodies as tough as steel. The young man whohad been taught obedience for two years was now fitted to command.The trained soldier could be recognized already by his walk.
This was the great school of the German nation; and it was notwithout reason that it drew upon its head all the bitter hatred ofthose who wanted the Empire to be weak and defenceless, becausethey were jealous of its greatness and were themselves possessed bya spirit of rapacity and greed. The rest of the world recognized afact which many Germans did not wish to see, either because theywere blind to facts or because out of malice they did not wish tosee it. This fact was that the German Army was the most powerfulweapon for the defence and freedom of the German nation and thebest guarantee for the livelihood of its citizens.
There was a third institution of positive worth, which has to beplaced beside that of the monarchy and the army. This was the civilservice.
German administration was better organized and better carriedout than the administration of other countries. There may have beenobjections to the bureaucratic routine of the officials, but fromthis point of view the state of affairs was similar, if not worse,in the other countries. But the other States did not have thewonderful solidarity which this organization possessed in Germany,nor were their civil servants of that same high level of scrupuloushonesty. It is certainly better to be a trifle over-bureaucraticand honest and loyal than to be over-sophisticated and modern, thelatter often implying an inferior type of character and alsoignorance and inefficiency. For if it be insinuated to-day that theGerman administration of the pre-War period may have been excellentso far as bureaucratic technique goes, but that from the practicalbusiness point of view it was incompetent, I can only give thefollowing reply: What other country in the world possessed abetter-organized and administered business enterprise than theGerman State Railways, for instance? It was left to the Revolutionto destroy this standard organization, until a time came when itwas taken out of the hands of the nation and socialized, in thesense which the founders of the Republic had given to that word,namely, making it subservient to the international stock-exchangecapitalists, who were the wire-pullers of the GermanRevolution.
The most outstanding trait in the civil service and the wholebody of the civil administration was its independence of thevicissitudes of government, the political mentality of which couldexercise no influence on the attitude of the German Stateofficials. Since the Revolution this situation has been completelychanged. Efficiency and capability have been replaced by the testof party-adherence; and independence of character and initiativeare no longer appreciated as positive qualities in a publicofficial. They rather tell against him.
The wonderful might and power of the old Empire was based on themonarchical form of government, the army and the civil service. Onthese three foundations rested that great strength which is nowentirely lacking; namely, the authority of the State. For theauthority of the State cannot be based on the babbling that goes onin Parliament or in the provincial diets and not upon laws made toprotect the State, or upon sentences passed by the law courts tofrighten those who have had the hardihood to deny the authority ofthe State, but only on the general confidence which the managementand administration of the community establishes among the people.This confidence is in its turn, nothing else than the result of anunshakable inner conviction that the government and administrationof a country is inspired by disinterested and honest goodwill andon the feeling that the spirit of the law is in complete harmonywith the moral convictions of the people. In the long run, systemsof government are not maintained by terrorism but on the belief ofthe people in the merits and sincerity of those who administer andpromote the public interests.
Though it be true that in the period preceding the War certaingrave evils tended to infect and corrode the inner strength of thenation, it must be remembered that the other States suffered evenmore than Germany from these drawbacks and yet those other Statesdid not fail and break down when the time of crisis came. If weremember further that those defects in pre-War Germany wereoutweighed by great positive qualities we shall have to lookelsewhere for the effective cause of the collapse. And elsewhere itlay.
The ultimate and most profound reason of the German downfall isto be found in the fact that the racial problem was ignored andthat its importance in the historical development of nations wasnot grasped. For the events that take place in the life of nationsare not due to chance but are the natural results of the effort toconserve and multiply the species and the race, even though men maynot be able consciously to picture to their minds the profoundmotives of their conduct.
CHAPTER XI. RACE ANDPEOPLEThere are certain truths which stand out so openly on theroadsides of life, as it were, that every passer-by may see them.Yet, because of their very obviousness, the general run of peopledisregard such truths or at least they do not make them the objectof any conscious knowledge. People are so blind to some of thesimplest facts in every-day life that they are highly surprisedwhen somebody calls attention to what everybody ought to know.Examples of The Columbus Egg lie around us in hundreds ofthousands; but observers like Columbus are rare.
Walking about in the garden of Nature, most men have theself-conceit to think that they know everything; yet almost all areblind to one of the outstanding principles that Nature employs inher work. This principle may be called the inner isolation whichcharacterizes each and every living species on this earth.
Even a superficial glance is sufficient to show that all theinnumerable forms in which the life-urge of Nature manifests itselfare subject to a fundamental law'--one may call it an iron lawof Nature'--which compels the various species to keep withinthe definite limits of their own life-forms when propagating andmultiplying their kind. Each animal mates only with one of its ownspecies. The titmouse cohabits only with the titmouse, the finchwith the finch, the stork with the stork, the field-mouse with thefield-mouse, the house-mouse with the house-mouse, the wolf withthe she-wolf, etc.
Deviations from this law take place only in exceptionalcircumstances. This happens especially under the compulsion ofcaptivity, or when some other obstacle makes procreativeintercourse impossible between individuals of the same species. Butthen Nature abhors such intercourse with all her might; and herprotest is most clearly demonstrated by the fact that the hybrid iseither sterile or the fecundity of its descendants is limited. Inmost cases hybrids and their progeny are denied the ordinary powersof resistance to disease or the natural means of defence againstouter attack.
Such a dispensation of Nature is quite logical. Every crossingbetween two breeds which are not quite equal results in a productwhich holds an intermediate place between the levels of the twoparents. This means that the offspring will indeed be superior tothe parent which stands in the biologically lower order of being,but not so high as the higher parent. For this reason it musteventually succumb in any struggle against the higher species. Suchmating contradicts the will of Nature towards the selectiveimprovements of life in general. The favourable preliminary to thisimprovement is not to mate individuals of higher and lower ordersof being but rather to allow the complete triumph of the higherorder. The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker,which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Onlythe born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if hedoes so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrowermind; for if such a law did not direct the process of evolutionthen the higher development of organic life would not beconceivable at all.
This urge for the maintenance of the unmixed breed, which is aphenomenon that prevails throughout the whole of the natural world,results not only in the sharply defined outward distinction betweenone species and another but also in the internal similarity ofcharacteristic qualities which are peculiar to each breed orspecies. The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose,and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. The onlydifference that can exist within the species must be in the variousdegrees of structural strength and active power, in theintelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with which theindividual specimens are endowed. It would be impossible to find afox which has a kindly and protective disposition towards geese,just as no cat exists which has a friendly disposition towardsmice.
That is why the struggle between the various species does notarise from a feeling of mutual antipathy but rather from hunger andlove. In both cases Nature looks on calmly and is even pleased withwhat happens. The struggle for the daily livelihood leaves behindin the ruck everything that is weak or diseased or wavering; whilethe fight of the male to possess the female gives to the strongestthe right, or at least, the possibility to propagate its kind. Andthis struggle is a means of furthering the health and powers ofresistance in the species. Thus it is one of the causes underlyingthe process of development towards a higher quality of being.
If the case were different the progressive process would cease,and even retrogression might set in. Since the inferior alwaysoutnumber the superior, the former would always increase morerapidly if they possessed the same capacities for survival and forthe procreation of their kind; and the final consequence would bethat the best in quality would be forced to recede into thebackground. Therefore a corrective measure in favour of the betterquality must intervene. Nature supplies this by establishingrigorous conditions of life to which the weaker will have to submitand will thereby be numerically restricted; but even that portionwhich survives cannot indiscriminately multiply, for here a new andrigorous selection takes place, according to strength andhealth.
If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate withthe stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race shouldintermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all herefforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish anevolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be renderedfutile.
History furnishes us with innumerable instances that prove thislaw. It shows, with a startling clarity, that whenever Aryans havemingled their blood with that of an inferior race the result hasbeen the downfall of the people who were the standard-bearers of ahigher culture. In North America, where the population isprevalently Teutonic, and where those elements intermingled withthe inferior race only to a very small degree, we have a quality ofmankind and a civilization which are different from those ofCentral and South America. In these latter countries theimmigrants'--who mainly belonged to the Latin races'--matedwith the aborigines, sometimes to a very large extent indeed. Inthis case we have a clear and decisive example of the effectproduced by the mixture of races. But in North America the Teutonicelement, which has kept its racial stock pure and did not mix itwith any other racial stock, has come to dominate the AmericanContinent and will remain master of it as long as that element doesnot fall a victim to the habit of adulterating its blood.
In short, the results of miscegenation are always thefollowing:
(a) The level of the superior race becomes lowered;
(b) physical and mental degeneration sets in, thus leadingslowly but steadily towards a progressive drying up of the vitalsap.
The act which brings about such a development is a sin againstthe will of the Eternal Creator. And as a sin this act will beavenged.
Man's effort to build up something that contradicts the ironlogic of Nature brings him into conflict with those principles towhich he himself exclusively owes his own existence. By actingagainst the laws of Nature he prepares the way that leads to hisruin.
Here we meet the insolent objection, which is Jewish in itsinspiration and is typical of the modern pacifist. It says: "Mancan control even Nature."
There are millions who repeat by rote that piece of Jewishbabble and end up by imagining that somehow they themselves are theconquerors of Nature. And yet their only weapon is just a mereidea, and a very preposterous idea into the bargain; because if oneaccepted it, then it would be impossible even to imagine theexistence of the world.
The real truth is that, not only has man failed to overcomeNature in any sphere whatsoever but that at best he has merelysucceeded in getting hold of and lifting a tiny corner of theenormous veil which she has spread over her eternal mysteries andsecret. He never creates anything. All he can do is to discoversomething. He does not master Nature but has only come to be themaster of those living beings who have not gained the knowledge hehas arrived at by penetrating into some of Nature's laws andmysteries. Apart from all this, an idea can never subject to itsown sway those conditions which are necessary for the existence anddevelopment of mankind; for the idea itself has come only from man.Without man there would be no human idea in this world. The idea assuch is therefore always dependent on the existence of man andconsequently is dependent on those laws which furnish theconditions of his existence.
And not only that. Certain ideas are even confined to certainpeople. This holds true with regard to those ideas in particularwhich have not their roots in objective scientific truth but in theworld of feeling. In other words, to use a phrase which is currentto-day and which well and clearly expresses this truth: theyreflect an inner experience. All such ideas, which have nothingto do with cold logic as such but represent mere manifestations offeeling, such as ethical and moral conceptions, etc., areinextricably bound up with man's existence. It is to the creativepowers of man's imagination that such ideas owe theirexistence.
Now, then, a necessary condition for the maintenance of suchideas is the existence of certain races and certain types of men.For example, anyone who sincerely wishes that the pacifist ideashould prevail in this world ought to do all he is capable of doingto help the Germans conquer the world; for in case the reverseshould happen it may easily be that the last pacifist woulddisappear with the last German. I say this because, unfortunately,only our people, and no other people in the world, fell a prey tothis idea. Whether you like it or not, you would have to make upyour mind to forget wars if you would achieve the pacifist ideal.Nothing less than this was the plan of the American world-redeemer,Woodrow Wilson. Anyhow that was what our visionaries believed, andthey thought that through his plans their ideals would beattained.
The pacifist-humanitarian idea may indeed become an excellentone when the most superior type of manhood will have succeeded insubjugating the world to such an extent that this type is then solemaster of the earth. This idea could have an injurious effect onlyin the measure according to which its application would becomedifficult and finally impossible. So, first of all, the fight andthen pacifism. If the case were different it would mean thatmankind has already passed the zenith of its development, andaccordingly the end would not be the supremacy of some moral idealbut degeneration into barbarism and consequent chaos. People maylaugh at this statement; but our planet has been moving through thespaces of ether for millions and millions of years, uninhabited bymen, and at some future date may easily begin to do soagain'--if men should forget that wherever they have reached asuperior level of existence, it was not the result of following theideas of crazy visionaries but by acknowledging and rigorouslyobserving the iron laws of Nature.
All that we admire in the world to-day, its science, its art,its technical developments and discoveries, are the products of thecreative activities of a few peoples, and it may be true that theirfirst beginnings must be attributed to one race. The maintenance ofcivilization is wholly dependent on such peoples. Should theyperish, all that makes this earth beautiful will descend with theminto the grave.
However great, for example, be the influence which the soilexerts on men, this influence will always vary according to therace in which it produces its effect. Dearth of soil may stimulateone race to the most strenuous efforts and highest achievement;while, for another race, the poverty of the soil may be the causeof misery and finally of undernourishment, with all itsconsequences. The internal characteristics of a people are alwaysthe causes which determine the nature of the effect that outercircumstances have on them. What reduces one race to starvationtrains another race to harder work.
All the great civilizations of the past became decadent becausethe originally creative race died out, as a result of contaminationof the blood.
The most profound cause of such a decline is to be found in thefact that the people ignored the principle that all culture dependson men, and not the reverse. In other words, in order to preserve acertain culture, the type of manhood that creates such a culturemust be preserved. But such a preservation goes hand-in-hand withthe inexorable law that it is the strongest and the best who musttriumph and that they have the right to endure.
He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight inthis world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has notthe right to exist.
Such a saying may sound hard; but, after all, that is how thematter really stands. Yet far harder is the lot of him who believesthat he can overcome Nature and thus in reality insults her.Distress, misery, and disease are her rejoinders.
Whoever ignores or despises the laws of race really depriveshimself of the happiness to which he believes he can attain. For heplaces an obstacle in the victorious path of the superior race and,by so doing, he interferes with a prerequisite condition of allhuman progress. Loaded with the burden of humanitarian sentiment,he falls back to the level of those who are unable to raisethemselves in the scale of being.
It would be futile to attempt to discuss the question as to whatrace or races were the original standard-bearers of human cultureand were thereby the real founders of all that we understand by theword humanity. It is much simpler to deal with this question in sofar as it relates to the present time. Here the answer is simpleand clear. Every manifestation of human culture, every product ofart, science and technical skill, which we see before our eyesto-day, is almost exclusively the product of the Aryan creativepower. This very fact fully justifies the conclusion that it wasthe Aryan alone who founded a superior type of humanity; thereforehe represents the architype of what we understand by the term:man. He is the Prometheus of mankind, from whose shiningbrow the divine spark of genius has at all times flashed forth,always kindling anew that fire which, in the form of knowledge,illuminated the dark night by drawing aside the veil of mystery andthus showing man how to rise and become master over all the otherbeings on the earth. Should he be forced to disappear, a profounddarkness will descend on the earth; within a few thousand yearshuman culture will vanish and the world will become a desert.
If we divide mankind into three categories'--founders ofculture, bearers of culture, and destroyers of culture'--theAryan alone can be considered as representing the first category.It was he who laid the groundwork and erected the walls of everygreat structure in human culture. Only the shape and colour of suchstructures are to be attributed to the individual characteristicsof the various nations. It is the Aryan who has furnished the greatbuilding-stones and plans for the edifices of all human progress;only the way in which these plans have been executed is to beattributed to the qualities of each individual race. Within a fewdecades the whole of Eastern Asia, for instance, appropriated aculture and called such a culture its own, whereas the basis ofthat culture was the Greek mind and Teutonic skill as we know it.Only the external form'--at least to a certaindegree'--shows the traits of an Asiatic inspiration. It is nottrue, as some believe, that Japan adds European technique to aculture of her own. The truth rather is that European science andtechnics are just decked out with the peculiar characteristics ofJapanese civilization. The foundations of actual life in Japanto-day are not those of the native Japanese culture, although thischaracterizes the external features of the country, which featuresstrike the eye of European observers on account of theirfundamental difference from us; but the real foundations ofcontemporary Japanese life are the enormous scientific andtechnical achievements of Europe and America, that is to say, ofAryan peoples. Only by adopting these achievements as thefoundations of their own progress can the various nations of theOrient take a place in contemporary world progress. The scientificand technical achievements of Europe and America provide the basison which the struggle for daily livelihood is carried on in theOrient. They provide the necessary arms and instruments for thisstruggle, and only the outer forms of these instruments have becomegradually adapted to Japanese ways of life.
If, from to-day onwards, the Aryan influence on Japan wouldcease'--and if we suppose that Europe and America wouldcollapse'--then the present progress of Japan in science andtechnique might still last for a short duration; but within a fewdecades the inspiration would dry up, and native Japanese characterwould triumph, while the present civilization would becomefossilized and fall back into the sleep from which it was arousedabout seventy years ago by the impact of Aryan culture. We maytherefore draw the conclusion that, just as the present Japanesedevelopment has been due to Aryan influence, so in the immemorialpast an outside influence and an outside culture brought intoexistence the Japanese culture of that day. This opinion is verystrongly supported by the fact that the ancient civilization ofJapan actually became fossilizied and petrified. Such a process ofsenility can happen only if a people loses the racial cell whichoriginally had been creative or if the outside influence should bewithdrawn after having awakened and maintained the first culturaldevelopments in that region. If it be shown that a people owes thefundamental elements of its culture to foreign races, assimilatingand elaborating such elements, and if subsequently that culturebecomes fossilized whenever the external influence ceases, thensuch a race may be called the depository but never the creator of aculture.
If we subject the different peoples to a strict test from thisstandpoint we shall find that scarcely any one of them hasoriginally created a culture, but almost all have been merely therecipients of a culture created elsewhere.
This development may be depicted as always happening somewhat inthe following way:
Aryan tribes, often almost ridiculously small in number,subjugated foreign peoples and, stimulated by the conditions oflife which their new country offered them (fertility, the nature ofthe climate, etc.), and profiting also by the abundance of manuallabour furnished them by the inferior race, they developedintellectual and organizing faculties which had hitherto beendormant in these conquering tribes. Within the course of a fewthousand years, or even centuries, they gave life to cultures whoseprimitive traits completely corresponded to the character of thefounders, though modified by adaptation to the peculiarities of thesoil and the characteristics of the subjugated people. But finallythe conquering race offended against the principles which theyfirst had observed, namely, the maintenance of their racial stockunmixed, and they began to intermingle with the subjugated people.Thus they put an end to their own separate existence; for theoriginal sin committed in Paradise has always been followed by theexpulsion of the guilty parties.
After a thousand years or more the last visible traces of thoseformer masters may then be found in a lighter tint of the skinwhich the Aryan blood had bequeathed to the subjugated race, and ina fossilized culture of which those Aryans had been the originalcreators. For just as the blood. of the conqueror, who was aconqueror not only in body but also in spirit, got submerged in theblood of the subject race, so the substance disappeared out ofwhich the torch of human culture and progress was kindled. In sofar as the blood of the former ruling race has left a light nuanceof colour in the blood of its descendants, as a token and a memory,the night of cultural life is rendered less dim and dark by a mildlight radiated from the products of those who were the bearers ofthe original fire. Their radiance shines across the barbarism towhich the subjected race has reverted and might often lead thesuperficial observer to believe that he sees before him an image ofthe present race when he is really looking into a mirror whereinonly the past is reflected.
It may happen that in the course of its history such a peoplewill come into contact a second time, and even oftener, with theoriginal founders of their culture and may not even remember thatdistant association. Instinctively the remnants of blood left fromthat old ruling race will be drawn towards this new phenomenon andwhat had formerly been possible only under compulsion can now besuccessfully achieved in a voluntary way. A new cultural wave flowsin and lasts until the blood of its standard-bearers becomes onceagain adulterated by intermixture with the originally conqueredrace.
It will be the task of those who set themselves to the study ofa universal history of civilization to investigate history fromthis point of view instead of allowing themselves to be smotheredunder the mass of external data, as is only too often the case withour present historical science.
This short sketch of the changes that take place among thoseraces that are only the depositories of a culture also furnishes apicture of the development and the activity and the disappearanceof those who are the true founders of culture on this earth, namelythe Aryans themselves.
Just as in our daily life the so-called man of genius needs aparticular occasion, and sometimes indeed a special stimulus, tobring his genius to light, so too in the life of the peoples therace that has genius in it needs the occasion and stimulus to bringthat genius to expression. In the monotony and routine of everydaylife even persons of significance seem just like the others and donot rise beyond the average level of their fellow-men. But as soonas such men find themselves in a special situation whichdisconcerts and unbalances the others, the humble person ofapparently common qualities reveals traits of genius, often to theamazement of those who have hitherto known him in the small thingsof everyday life. That is the reason why a prophet only seldomcounts for something in his own country. War offers an excellentoccasion for observing this phenomenon. In times of distress, whenthe others despair, apparently harmless boys suddenly spring up andbecome heroes, full of determination, undaunted in the presence ofDeath and manifesting wonderful powers of calm reflection undersuch circumstances. If such an hour of trial did not come nobodywould have thought that the soul of a hero lurked in the body ofthat beardless youth. A special impulse is almost always necessaryto bring a man of genius into the foreground. The sledge-hammer ofFate which strikes down the one so easily suddenly finds thecounter-impact of steel when it strikes at the other. And, afterthe common shell of everyday life is broken, the core that layhidden in it is displayed to the eyes of an astonished world. Thissurrounding world then grows obstinate and will not believe thatwhat had seemed so like itself is really of that different qualityso suddenly displayed. This is a process which is repeated probablyevery time a man of outstanding significance appears.
Though an inventor, for example, does not establish his fameuntil the very day that he carries through his invention, it wouldbe a mistake to believe that the creative genius did not becomealive in him until that moment. From the very hour of his birth thespark of genius is living within the man who has been endowed withthe real creative faculty. True genius is an innate quality. It cannever be the result of education or training.
As I have stated already, this holds good not merely of theindividual but also of the race. Those peoples who manifestcreative abilities in certain periods of their history have alwaysbeen fundamentally creative. It belongs to their very nature, eventhough this fact may escape the eyes of the superficial observer.Here also recognition from outside is only the consequence ofpractical achievement. Since the rest of the world is incapable ofrecognizing genius as such, it can only see the visiblemanifestations of genius in the form of inventions, discoveries,buildings, painting, etc.; but even here a long time passes beforerecognition is given. Just as the individual person who has beenendowed with the gift of genius, or at least talent of a very highorder, cannot bring that endowment to realization until he comesunder the urge of special circumstances, so in the life of thenations the creative capacities and powers frequently have to waituntil certain conditions stimulate them to action.
The most obvious example of this truth is furnished by that racewhich has been, and still is, the standard-bearer of humanprogress: I mean the Aryan race. As soon as Fate brings them faceto face with special circumstances their powers begin to developprogressively and to be manifested in tangible form. Thecharacteristic cultures which they create under such circumstancesare almost always conditioned by the soil, the climate and thepeople they subjugate. The last factor'--that of the characterof the people'--is the most decisive one. The more primitivethe technical conditions under which the civilizing activity takesplace, the more necessary is the existence of manual labour whichcan be organized and employed so as to take the place of mechanicalpower. Had it not been possible for them to employ members of theinferior race which they conquered, the Aryans would never havebeen in a position to take the first steps on the road which ledthem to a later type of culture; just as, without the help ofcertain suitable animals which they were able to tame, they wouldnever have come to the invention of mechanical power which hassubsequently enabled them to do without these beasts. The phrase,'The Moor has accomplished his function, so let him now depart',has, unfortunately, a profound application. For thousands of yearsthe horse has been the faithful servant of man and has helped himto lay the foundations of human progress, but now motor power hasdispensed with the use of the horse. In a few years to come the useof the horse will cease entirely; and yet without its collaborationman could scarcely have come to the stage of development which hehas now created.
For the establishment of superior types of civilization themembers of inferior races formed one of the most essentialpre-requisites. They alone could supply the lack of mechanicalmeans without which no progress is possible. It is certain that thefirst stages of human civilization were not based so much on theuse of tame animals as on the employment of human beings who weremembers of an inferior race.
Only after subjugated races were employed as slaves was asimilar fate allotted to animals, and not vice versa, as somepeople would have us believe. At first it was the conquered enemywho had to draw the plough and only afterwards did the ox and horsetake his place. Nobody else but puling pacifists can consider thisfact as a sign of human degradation. Such people fail to recognizethat this evolution had to take place in order that man might reachthat degree of civilization which these apostles now exploit in anattempt to make the world pay attention to their rigmarole.
The progress of mankind may be compared to the process ofascending an infinite ladder. One does not reach the higher levelwithout first having climbed the lower rungs. The Aryan thereforehad to take that road which his sense of reality pointed out to himand not that which the modern pacifist dreams of. The path ofreality is, however, difficult and hard to tread; yet it is theonly one which finally leads to the goal where the others envisagemankind in their dreams. But the real truth is that those dreamershelp only to lead man away from his goal rather than towardsit.
It was not by mere chance that the first forms of civilizationarose there where the Aryan came into contact with inferior races,subjugated them and forced them to obey his command. The members ofthe inferior race became the first mechanical tools in the serviceof a growing civilization.
Thereby the way was clearly indicated which the Aryan had tofollow. As a conqueror, he subjugated inferior races and turnedtheir physical powers into organized channels under his ownleadership, forcing them to follow his will and purpose. Byimposing on them a useful, though hard, manner of employing theirpowers he not only spared the lives of those whom he had conqueredbut probably made their lives easier than these had been in theformer state of so-called 'freedom'. While he ruthlessly maintainedhis position as their master, he not only remained master but healso maintained and advanced civilization. For this dependedexclusively on his inborn abilities and, therefore, on thepreservation of the Aryan race as such. As soon, however, as hissubject began to rise and approach the level of their conqueror, aphase of which ascension was probably the use of his language, thebarriers that had distinguished master from servant broke down. TheAryan neglected to maintain his own racial stock unmixed andtherewith lost the right to live in the paradise which he himselfhad created. He became submerged in the racial mixture andgradually lost his cultural creativeness, until he finally grew,not only mentally but also physically, more like the aborigineswhom he had subjected rather than his own ancestors. For some timehe could continue to live on the capital of that culture whichstill remained; but a condition of fossilization soon set in and hesank into oblivion.
That is how cultures and empires decline and yield their placesto new formations.
The adulteration of the blood and racial deteriorationconditioned thereby are the only causes that account for thedecline of ancient civilizations; for it is never by war thatnations are ruined, but by the loss of their powers of resistance,which are exclusively a characteristic of pure racial blood. Inthis world everything that is not of sound racial stock is likechaff. Every historical event in the world is nothing more nor lessthan a manifestation of the instinct of racial self-preservation,whether for weal or woe.
The question as to the ground reasons for the predominantimportance of Aryanism can be answered by pointing out that it isnot so much that the Aryans are endowed with a stronger instinctfor self-preservation, but rather that this manifests itself in away which is peculiar to themselves. Considered from the subjectivestandpoint, the will-to-live is of course equally strong all roundand only the forms in which it is expressed are different. Amongthe most primitive organisms the instinct for self-preservationdoes not extend beyond the care of the individual ego. Egotism, aswe call this passion, is so predominant that it includes even thetime element; which means that the present moment is deemed themost important and that nothing is left to the future. The animallives only for itself, searching for food only when it feels hungerand fighting only for the preservation of its own life. As long asthe instinct for self-preservation manifests itself exclusively insuch a way, there is no basis for the establishment of a community;not even the most primitive form of all, that is to say the family.The society formed by the male with the female, where it goesbeyond the mere conditions of mating, calls for the extension ofthe instinct of self-preservation, since the readiness to fight forone's own ego has to be extended also to the mate. The malesometimes provides food for the female, but in most cases bothparents provide food for the offspring. Almost always they areready to protect and defend each other; so that here we find thefirst, though infinitely simple, manifestation of the spirit ofsacrifice. As soon as this spirit extends beyond the narrow limitsof the family, we have the conditions under which largerassociations and finally even States can be formed.
The lowest species of human beings give evidence of this qualityonly to a very small degree, so that often they do not go beyondthe formation of the family society. With an increasing readinessto place their immediate personal interests in the background, thecapacity for organizing more extensive communities develops.
The readiness to sacrifice one's personal work and, ifnecessary, even one's life for others shows its most highlydeveloped form in the Aryan race. The greatness of the Aryan is notbased on his intellectual powers, but rather on his willingness todevote all his faculties to the service of the community. Here theinstinct for self-preservation has reached its noblest form; forthe Aryan willingly subordinates his own ego to the common weal andwhen necessity calls he will even sacrifice his own life for thecommunity.
The constructive powers of the Aryan and that peculiar abilityhe has for the building up of a culture are not grounded in hisintellectual gifts alone. If that were so they might only bedestructive and could never have the ability to organize; for thelatter essentially depends on the readiness of the individual torenounce his own personal opinions and interests and to lay both atthe service of the human group. By serving the common weal hereceives his reward in return. For example, he does not workdirectly for himself but makes his productive work a part of theactivity of the group to which he belongs, not only for his ownbenefit but for the general. The spirit underlying this attitude isexpressed by the word: work, which to him does not at allsignify a means of earning one's daily livelihood but rather aproductive activity which cannot clash with the interests of thecommunity. Whenever human activity is directed exclusively to theservice of the instinct for self-preservation it is called theft orusury, robbery or burglary, etc.
This mental attitude, which forces self-interest to recede intothe background in favour of the common weal, is the firstprerequisite for any kind of really human civilization. It is outof this spirit alone that great human achievements have sprung forwhich the original doers have scarcely ever received any recompensebut which turns out to be the source of abundant benefit for theirdescendants. It is this spirit alone which can explain why it sooften happens that people can endure a harsh but honest existencewhich offers them no returns for their toil except a poor andmodest livelihood. But such a livelihood helps to consolidate thefoundations on which the community exists. Every worker and everypeasant, every inventor, state official, etc., who works withoutever achieving fortune or prosperity for himself, is arepresentative of this sublime idea, even though he may neverbecome conscious of the profound meaning of his own activity.
Everything that may be said of that kind of work which is thefundamental condition of providing food and the basic means ofhuman progress is true even in a higher sense of work that is donefor the protection of man and his civilization. The renunciation ofone's own life for the sake of the community is the crowningsignificance of the idea of all sacrifice. In this way only is itpossible to protect what has been built up by man and to assurethat this will not be destroyed by the hand of man or ofnature.
In the German language we have a word which admirably expressesthis underlying spirit of all work: It is Pflichterf¼llung, whichmeans the service of the common weal before the consideration ofone's own interests. The fundamental spirit out of which this kindof activity springs is the contradistinction of 'Egotism' and wecall it 'Idealism'. By this we mean to signify the willingness ofthe individual to make sacrifices for the community and hisfellow-men.
It is of the utmost importance to insist again and again thatidealism is not merely a superfluous manifestation of sentiment butrather something which has been, is and always will be, a necessaryprecondition of human civilization; it is even out of this that thevery idea of the word 'Human' arises. To this kind of mentality theAryan owes his position in the world. And the world is indebted tothe Aryan mind for having developed the concept of 'mankind'; forit is out of this spirit alone that the creative force has comewhich in a unique way combined robust muscular power with afirst-class intellect and thus created the monuments of humancivilization.
Were it not for idealism all the faculties of the intellect,even the most brilliant, would be nothing but intellect itself, amere external phenomenon without inner value and never a creativeforce.
Since true idealism, however, is essentially the subordinationof the interests and life of the individual to the interests andlife of the community, and since the community on its partrepresents the pre-requisite condition of every form oforganization, this idealism accords in its innermost essence withthe final purpose of Nature. This feeling alone makes menvoluntarily acknowledge that strength and power are entitled totake the lead and thus makes them a constituent particle in thatorder out of which the whole universe is shaped and formed.
Without being conscious of it, the purest idealism is alwaysassociated with the most profound knowledge. How true this is andhow little genuine idealism has to do with fantasticself-dramatization will become clear the moment we ask an unspoiltchild, a healthy boy for example, to give his opinion. The verysame boy who listens to the rantings of an 'idealistic' pacifistwithout understanding them, and even rejects them, would readilysacrifice his young life for the ideal of his people.
Unconsciously his instinct will submit to the knowledge that thepreservation of the species, even at the cost of the individuallife, is a primal necessity and he will protest against thefantasies of pacifist ranters, who in reality are nothing betterthan cowardly egoists, even though camouflaged, who contradict thelaws of human development. For it is a necessity of human evolutionthat the individual should be imbued with the spirit of sacrificein favour of the common weal, and that he should not be influencedby the morbid notions of those knaves who pretend to know betterthan Nature and who have the impudencc to criticize herdecrees.
It is just at those junctures when the idealistic attitudethreatens to disappear that we notice a weakening of this forcewhich is a necessary constituent in the founding and maintenance ofthe community and is thereby a necessary condition of civilization.As soon as the spirit of egotism begins to prevail among a peoplethen the bonds of the social order break and man, by seeking hisown personal happiness, veritably tumbles out of heaven and fallsinto hell.
Posterity will not remember those who pursued only their ownindividual interests, but it will praise those heroes who renouncedtheir own happiness.
The Jew offers the most striking contrast to the Aryan. There isprobably no other people in the world who have so developed theinstinct of self-preservation as the so-called 'chosen' people. Thebest proof of this statement is found in the simple fact that thisrace still exists. Where can another people be found that in thecourse of the last two thousand years has undergone so few changesin mental outlook and character as the Jewish people? And yet whatother people has taken such a constant part in the greatrevolutions? But even after having passed through the most giganticcatastrophes that have overwhelmed mankind, the Jews remain thesame as ever. What an infinitely tenacious will-to-live, topreserve one's kind, is demonstrated by that fact!
The intellectual faculties of the Jew have been trained throughthousands of years. To-day the Jew is looked upon as specially'cunning'; and in a certain sense he has been so throughout theages. His intellectual powers, however, are not the result of aninner evolution but rather have been shaped by the object-lessonswhich the Jew has received from others. The human spirit cannotclimb upwards without taking successive steps. For every stepupwards it needs the foundation of what has been constructedbefore'--the past'--which in, the comprehensive sense hereemployed, can have been laid only in a general civilization. Allthinking originates only to a very small degree in personalexperience. The largest part is based on the accumulatedexperiences of the past. The general level of civilization providesthe individual, who in most cases is not consciously aware of thefact, with such an abundance of preliminary knowledge that withthis equipment he can more easily take further steps on the road ofprogress. The boy of to-day, for example, grows up among such anoverwhelming mass of technical achievement which has accumulatedduring the last century that he takes as granted many things whicha hundred years ago were still mysteries even to the greatest mindsof those times. Yet these things that are not so much a matter ofcourse are of enormous importance to those who would understand theprogress we have made in these matters and would carry on thatprogress a step farther. If a man of genius belonging to the'twenties of the last century were to arise from his grave to-dayhe would find it more difficult to understand our present age thanthe contemporary boy of fifteen years of age who may even have onlyan average intelligence. The man of genius, thus come back from thepast, would need to provide himself with an extraordinary amount ofpreliminary information which our contemporary youth receiveautomatically, so to speak, during the time they are growing upamong the products of our modern civilization.
Since the Jew'--for reasons that I shall deal withimmediately'--never had a civilization of his own, he hasalways been furnished by others with a basis for his: intellectualwork. His intellect has always developed by the use of thosecultural achievements which he has found ready-to-hand aroundhim.
The process has never been the reverse.
For, though among the Jews the instinct of self-preservation hasnot been weaker but has been much stronger than among otherpeoples, and though the impression may easily be created that theintellectual powers of the Jew are at least equal to those of otherraces, the Jews completely lack the most essential pre-requisite ofa cultural people, namely the idealistic spirit. With the Jewishpeople the readiness for sacrifice does not extend beyond thesimple instinct of individual preservation. In their case thefeeling of racial solidarity which they apparently manifest isnothing but a very primitive gregarious instinct, similar to thatwhich may be found among other organisms in this world. It is aremarkable fact that this herd instinct brings individuals togetherfor mutual protection only as long as there is a common dangerwhich makes mutual assistance expedient or inevitable. The samepack of wolves which a moment ago joined together in a commonattack on their victim will dissolve into individual wolves as soonas their hunger has been satisfied. This is also sure of horses,which unite to defend themselves against any aggressor but separatethe moment the danger is over.
It is much the same with the Jew. His spirit of sacrifice isonly apparent. It manifests itself only so long as the existence ofthe individual makes this a matter of absolute necessity. But assoon as the common foe is conquered and the danger which threatenedthe individual Jews is overcome and the prey secured, then theapparent harmony disappears and the original conditions set inagain. Jews act in concord only when a common danger threatens themor a common prey attracts them. Where these two motives no longerexist then the most brutal egotism appears and these people whobefore had lived together in unity will turn into a swarm of ratsthat bitterly fight against each other.
If the Jews were the only people in the world they would bewallowing in filth and mire and would exploit one another and tryto exterminate one another in a bitter struggle, except in so faras their utter lack of the ideal of sacrifice, which shows itselfin their cowardly spirit, would prevent this struggle fromdeveloping.
Therefore it would be a complete mistake to interpret the mutualhelp which the Jews render one another when they have tofight'--or, to put it more accurately, to exploit'--theirfellow being, as the expression of a certain idealistic spirit ofsacrifice.
Here again the Jew merely follows the call of his individualegotism. That is why the Jewish State, which ought to be a vitalorganization to serve the purpose of preserving or increasing therace, has absolutely no territorial boundaries. For the territorialdelimitation of a State always demands a certain idealism of spiriton the part of the race which forms that State and especially aproper acceptance of the idea of work. A State which isterritorially delimited cannot be established or maintained unlessthe general attitude towards work be a positive one. If thisattitude be lacking, then the necessary basis of a civilization isalso lacking.
That is why the Jewish people, despite the intellectual powerswith which they are apparently endowed, have not aculture'--certainly not a culture of their own. The culturewhich the Jew enjoys to-day is the product of the work of othersand this product is debased in the hands of the Jew.
In order to form a correct judgment of the place which the Jewholds in relation to the whole problem of human civilization, wemust bear in mind the essential fact that there never has been anyJewish art and consequently that nothing of this kind existsto-day. We must realize that especially in those two royal domainsof art, namely architecture and music, the Jew has done no originalcreative work. When the Jew comes to producing something in thefield of art he merely bowdler-izes something already in existenceor simply steals the intellectual word, of others. The Jewessentially lacks those qualities which are characteristic of thosecreative races that are the founders of civilization.
To what extent the Jew appropriates the civilization built up byothers'--or rather corrupts it, to speak moreaccurately'--is indicated by the fact that he cultivateschiefly the art which calls for the smallest amount of originalinvention, namely the dramatic art. And even here he is nothingbetter than a kind of juggler or, perhaps more correctly speaking,a kind of monkey imitator; for in this domain also he lacks thecreative elan which is necessary for the production of all reallygreat work. Even here, therefore, he is not a creative genius butrather a superficial imitator who, in spite of all his retouchingand tricks, cannot disguise the fact that there is no innervitality in the shape he gives his products. At this juncture theJewish Press comes in and renders friendly assistance by shoutinghosannas over the head of even the most ordinary bungler of a Jew,until the rest of the world is stampeded into thinking that theobject of so much praise must really be an artist, whereas inreality he may be nothing more than a low-class mimic.
No; the Jews have not the creative abilities which are necessaryto the founding of a civilization; for in them there is not, andnever has been, that spirit of idealism which is an absolutelynecessary element in the higher development of mankind. Thereforethe Jewish intellect will never be constructive but alwaysdestructive. At best it may serve as a stimulus in rare cases butonly within the meaning of the poet's lines: 'The Power whichalways wills the Bad, and always works the Good' (Kraft, diestets das B¶se will und stets das Gute schafft). (Note 15) Itis not through his help but in spite of his help that mankind makesany progress.
Since the Jew has never had a State which was based onterritorial delimitations, and therefore never a civilization ofhis own, the idea arose that here we were dealing with a people whohad to be considered as Nomads. That is a great and mischievousmistake. The true nomad does actually possess a definite delimitedterritory where he lives. It is merely that he does not cultivateit, as the settled farmer does, but that he lives on the productsof his herds, with which he wanders over his domain. The naturalreason for this mode of existence is to be found in the fact thatthe soil is not fertile and that it does not give the steadyproduce which makes a fixed abode possible. Outside of this naturalcause, however, there is a more profound cause: namely, that nomechanical civilization is at hand to make up for the naturalpoverty of the region in question. There are territories where theAryan can establish fixed settlements by means of the technicalskill which he has developed in the course of more than a thousandyears, even though these territories would otherwise have to beabandoned, unless the Aryan were willing to wander about them innomadic fashion; but his technical tradition and his age-longexperience of the use of technical means would probably make thenomadic life unbearable for him. We ought to remember that duringthe first period of American colonization numerous Aryans earnedtheir daily livelihood as trappers and hunters, etc., frequentlywandering about in large groups with their women and children,their mode of existence very much resembling that of ordinarynomads. The moment, however, that they grew more numerous and wereable to accumulate larger resources, they cleared the land anddrove out the aborigines, at the same time establishing settlementswhich rapidly increased all over the country.
The Aryan himself was probably at first a nomad and became asettler in the course of ages. But yet he was never of the Jewishkind. The Jew is not a nomad; for the nomad has already a definiteattitude towards the concept of 'work', and this attitude served asthe basis of a later cultural development, when the necessaryintellectual conditions were at hand. There is a certain amount ofidealism in the general attitude of the nomad, even though it berather primitive. His whole character may, therefore, be foreign toAryan feeling but it will never be repulsive. But not even theslightest trace of idealism exists in the Jewish character. The Jewhas never been a nomad, but always a parasite, battening on thesubstance of others. If he occasionally abandoned regions where hehad hitherto lived he did not do it voluntarily. He did it becausefrom time to time he was driven out by people who were tired ofhaving their hospitality abused by such guests. Jewishself-expansion is a parasitic phenomenon'--since the Jew isalways looking for new pastures for his race.
But this has nothing to do with nomadic life as such; becausethe Jew does not ever think of leaving a territory which he hasonce occupied. He sticks where he is with such tenacity that he canhardly be driven out even by superior physical force. He expandsinto new territories only when certain conditions for his existenceare provided therein; but even then'--unlike the nomad'--hewill not change his former abode. He is and remains a parasite, asponger who, like a pernicious bacillus, spreads over wider andwider areas according as some favourable area attracts him. Theeffect produced by his presence is also like that of the vampire;for wherever he establishes himself the people who grant himhospitality are bound to be bled to death sooner or later. Thus theJew has at all times lived in States that have belonged to otherraces and within the organization of those States he had formed aState of his own, which is, however, hidden behind the mask of a'religious community', as long as external circumstances do notmake it advisable for this community to declare its true nature. Assoon as the Jew feels himself sufficiently established in hisposition to be able to hold it without a disguise, he lifts themask and suddenly appears in the character which so many did notformerly believe or wish to see: namely that of the Jew.
The life which the Jew lives as a parasite thriving on thesubstance of other nations and States has resulted in developingthat specific character which Schopenhauer once described when hespoke of the Jew as 'The Great Master of Lies'. The kind ofexistence which he leads forces the Jew to the systematic use offalsehood, just as naturally as the inhabitants of northernclimates are forced to wear warm clothes.
He can live among other nations and States only as long as hesucceeds in persuading them that the Jews are not a distinct peoplebut the representatives of a religious faith who thus constitute a'religious community', though this be of a peculiar character.
As a matter of fact, however, this is the first of his greatfalsehoods.
He is obliged to conceal his own particular character and modeof life that he may be allowed to continue his existence as aparasite among the nations. The greater the intelligence of theindividual Jew, the better will he succeed in deceiving others. Hissuccess in this line may even go so far that the people who granthim hospitality may be led to believe that the Jew among them is agenuine Frenchman, for instance, or Englishman or German orItalian, who just happens to belong to a religious denominationwhich is different from that prevailing in these countries.Especially in circles concerned with the executive administrationof the State, where the officials generally have only a minimum ofhistorical sense, the Jew is able to impose his infamous deceptionwith comparative ease. In these circles independent thinking isconsidered a sin against the sacred rules according to whichofficial promotion takes place. It is therefore not surprising thateven to-day in the Bavarian government offices, for example, thereis not the slightest suspicion that the Jews form a distinct nationthemselves and are not merely the adherents of a 'Confession',though one glance at the Press which belongs to the Jews ought tofurnish sufficient evidence to the contrary even for those whopossess only the smallest degree of intelligence. The JewishEcho, however, is not an official gazette and therefore notauthoritative in the eyes of those government potentates.
Jewry has always been a nation of a definite racial characterand never differentiated merely by the fact of belonging to acertain religion. At a very early date, urged on by the desire tomake their way in the world, the Jews began to cast about for ameans whereby they might distract such attention as might proveinconvenient for them. What could be more effective and at the sametime more above suspicion than to borrow and utilize the idea ofthe religious community? Here also everything is copied, or ratherstolen; for the Jew could not possess any religious institutionwhich had developed out of his own consciousness, seeing that helacks every kind of idealism; which means that belief in a lifebeyond this terrestrial existence is foreign to him. In the Aryanmind no religion can ever be imagined unless it embodies theconviction that life in some form or other will continue afterdeath. As a matter of fact, the Talmud is not a book that lays downprinciples according to which the individual should prepare for thelife to come. It only furnishes rules for a practical andconvenient life in this world.
The religious teaching of the Jews is principally a collectionof instructions for maintaining the Jewish blood pure and forregulating intercourse between Jews and the rest of the world: thatis to say, their relation with non-Jews. But the Jewish religiousteaching is not concerned with moral problems. It is ratherconcerned with economic problems, and very petty ones at that. Inregard to the moral value of the religious teaching of the Jewsthere exist and always have existed quite exhaustive studies (notfrom the Jewish side; for whatever the Jews have written on thisquestion has naturally always been of a tendentious character)which show up the kind of religion that the Jews have in a lightthat makes it look very uncanny to the Aryan mind. The Jew himselfis the best example of the kind of product which this religioustraining evolves. His life is of this world only and his mentalityis as foreign to the true spirit of Christianity as his characterwas foreign to the great Founder of this new creed two thousandyears ago. And the Founder of Christianity made no secret indeed ofHis estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary Hedrove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God;because then, as always, they used religion as a means of advancingtheir commercial interests. But at that time Christ was nailed tothe Cross for his attitude towards the Jews; whereas our modernChristians enter into party politics and when elections are beingheld they debase themselves to beg for Jewish votes. They evenenter into political intrigues with the atheistic Jewish partiesagainst the interests of their own Christian nation.
On this first and fundamental lie, the purpose of which is tomake people believe that Jewry is not a nation but a religion,other lies are subsequently based. One of those further lies, forexample, is in connection with the language spoken by the Jew. Forhim language is not an instrument for the expression of his innerthoughts but rather a means of cloaking them. When talking Frenchhis thoughts are Jewish and when writing German rhymes he onlygives expression to the character of his own race.
As long as the Jew has not succeeded in mastering other peopleshe is forced to speak their language whether he likes it or not.But the moment that the world would become the slave of the Jew itwould have to learn some other language (Esperanto, for example) sothat by this means the Jew could dominate all the more easily.
How much the whole existence of this people is based on apermanent falsehood is proved in a unique way by 'The Protocols ofthe Elders of Zion', which are so violently repudiated by the Jews.With groans and moans, the Frankfurter Zeitung repeats againand again that these are forgeries. This alone is evidence infavour of their authenticity. What many Jews unconsciously wish todo is here clearly set forth. It is not necessary to ask out ofwhat Jewish brain these revelations sprang; but what is of vitalinterest is that they disclose, with an almost terrifyingprecision, the mentality and methods of action characteristic ofthe Jewish people and these writings expound in all their variousdirections the final aims towards which the Jews are striving. Thestudy of real happenings, however, is the best way of judging theauthenticity of those documents. If the historical developmentswhich have taken place within the last few centuries be studied inthe light of this book we shall understand why the Jewish Pressincessantly repudiates and denounces it. For the Jewish peril willbe stamped out the moment the general public come into possessionof that book and understand it.
In order to get to know the Jew properly it is necessary tostudy the road which he has been following among the other peoplesduring the last few centuries. One example will suffice to give aclear insight here. Since his career has been the same at allepochs'--just as the people at whose expense he has lived haveremained the same'--for the purposes of making the requisiteanalysis it will be best to mark his progress by stages. For thesake of simplicity we shall indicate these stages by letters of thealphabet.
The first Jews came into what was then called Germania duringthe period of the Roman invasion; and, as usual, they came asmerchants. During the turmoil caused by the great migrations of theGerman tribes the Jews seem to have disappeared. We may thereforeconsider the period when the Germans formed the first politicalcommunities as the beginning of that process whereby Central andNorthern Europe was again, and this time permanently, Judaized. Adevelopment began which has always been the same or similarwherever and whenever Jews came into contact with Aryanpeoples.
(a) As soon as the first permanent settlements had beenestablished the Jew was suddenly 'there'. He arrived as a merchantand in the beginning did not trouble to disguise his nationality.He still remained openly a Jew, partly it may be because he knewtoo little of the language. It may also be that people of otherraces refused to mix with him, so that he could not very well adoptany other appearance than that of a foreign merchant. Because ofhis subtlety and cunning and the lack of experience on the part ofthe people whose guest he became, it was not to his disadvantageopenly to retain his Jewish character. This may even have beenadvantageous to him; for the foreigner was received kindly.
(b) Slowly but steadily he began to take part in the economiclife around him; not as a producer, however, but only as amiddleman. His commercial cunning, acquired through thousands ofyears of negotiation as an intermediary, made him superior in thisfield to the Aryans, who were still quite ingenuous and indeedclumsy and whose honesty was unlimited; so that after a short whilecommerce seemed destined to become a Jewish monopoly. The Jew beganby lending out money at usurious interest, which is a permanenttrade of his. It was he who first introduced the payment ofinterest on borrowed money. The danger which this innovationinvolved was not at first recognized; indeed the innovation waswelcomed, because it offered momentary advantages.
(c) At this stage the Jew had become firmly settled down; thatis to say, he inhabited special sections of the cities and townsand had his own quarter in the market-places. Thus he graduallycame to form a State within a State. He came to look upon thecommercial domain and all money transactions as a privilegebelonging exclusively to himself and he exploited itruthlessly.
(d) At this stage finance and trade had become his completemonopoly. Finally, his usurious rate of interest aroused oppositionand the increasing impudence which the Jew began to manifest allround stirred up popular indignation, while his display of wealthgave rise to popular envy. The cup of his iniquity became full tothe brim when he included landed property among his commercialwares and degraded the soil to the level of a market commodity.Since he himself never cultivated the soil but considered it as anobject to be exploited, on which the peasant may still remain butonly on condition that he submits to the most heartless exactionsof his new master, public antipathy against the Jew steadilyincreased and finally turned into open animosity. His extortionatetyranny became so unbearable that people rebelled against hiscontrol and used physical violence against him. They began toscrutinize this foreigner somewhat more closely, and then began todiscover the repulsive traits and characteristics inherent in him,until finally an abyss opened between the Jews and their hosts,across which abyss there could be no further contact.
In times of distress a wave of public anger has usually arisenagainst the Jew; the masses have taken the law into their ownhands; they have seized Jewish property and ruined the Jew in theirurge to protect themselves against what they consider to be ascourge of God. Having come to know the Jew intimately through thecourse of centuries, in times of distress they looked upon hispresence among them as a public danger comparable only to theplague.
(e) But then the Jew began to reveal his true character. He paidcourt to governments, with servile flattery, used his money toingratiate himself further and thus regularly secured for himselfonce again the privilege of exploiting his victim. Although publicwrath flared up against this eternal profiteer and drove him out,after a few years he reappeared in those same places and carried onas before. No persecution could force him to give up his trade ofexploiting other people and no amount of harrying succeeded indriving him out permanently. He always returned after a short timeand it was always the old story with him.
In an effort to save at least the worst from happening,legislation was passed which debarred the Jew from obtainingpossession of the land.
(f) In proportion as the powers of kings and princes increased,the Jew sidled up to them. He begged for 'charters' and'privileges' which those gentlemen, who were generally in financialstraits, gladly granted if they received adequate payment inreturn. However high the price he has to pay, the Jew will succeedin getting it back within a few years from operating the privilegehe has acquired, even with interest and compound interest. He is areal leech who clings to the body of his unfortunate victims andcannot be removed; so that when the princes found themselves inneed once again they took the blood from his swollen veins withtheir own hands.
This game was repeated unendingly. In the case of those who werecalled 'German Princes', the part they played was quite ascontemptible as that played by the Jew. They were a real scourgefor their people. Their compeers may be found in some of thegovernment ministers of our time.
It was due to the German princes that the German nation couldnot succeed in definitely freeing itself from the Jewish peril.Unfortunately the situation did not change at a later period. Theprinces finally received the reward which they had a thousand-folddeserved for all the crimes committed by them against their ownpeople. They had allied themselves with Satan and later on theydiscovered that they were in Satan's embrace.
(g) By permitting themselves to be entangled in the toils of theJew, the princes prepared their own downfall. The position whichthey held among their people was slowly but steadily undermined notonly by their continued failure to guard the interests of theirsubjects but by the positive exploitation of them. The Jewcalculated exactly the time when the downfall of the princes wasapproaching and did his best to hasten it. He intensified theirfinancial difficulties by hindering them in the exercise of theirduty towards their people, by inveigling them through the mostservile flatteries into further personal display, whereby he madehimself more and more indispensable to them. His astuteness, orrather his utter unscrupulousness, in money affairs enabled him toexact new income from the princes, to squeeze the money out of themand then have it spent as quickly as possible. Every Court had its'Court Jews', as this plague was called, who tortured the innocentvictims until they were driven to despair; while at the same timethis Jew provided the means which the princes squandered on theirown pleasures. It is not to be wondered at that these ornaments ofthe human race became the recipients of official honours and evenwere admitted into the ranks of the hereditary nobility, thuscontributing not only to expose that social institution to ridiculebut also to contaminate it from the inside.
Naturally the Jew could now exploit the position to which he hadattained and push himself forward even more rapidly than before.Finally he became baptized and thus entitled to all the rights andprivileges which belonged to the children of the nation on which hepreyed. This was a high-class stroke of business for him, and heoften availed himself of it, to the great joy of the Church, whichwas proud of having gained a new child in the Faith, and also tothe joy of Israel, which was happy at seeing the trick pulled offsuccessfully.
(h) At this stage a transformation began to take place in theworld of Jewry. Up to now they had been Jews'--that is to say,they did not hitherto set any great value on pretending to besomething else; and anyhow the distinctive characteristics whichseparated them from other races could not be easily overcome. Evenas late as the time of Frederick the Great nobody looked upon theJews as other than a 'foreign' people, and Goethe rose up in revoltagainst the failure legally to prohibit marriage between Christiansand Jews. Goethe was certainly no reactionary and no time-server.What he said came from the voice of the blood and the voice ofreason. Notwithstanding the disgraceful happenings taking place inCourt circles, the people recognized instinctively that the Jew wasthe foreign body in their own flesh and their attitude towards himwas directed by recognition of that fact.
But a change was now destined to take place. In the course ofmore than a thousand years the Jew had learned to master thelanguage of his hosts so thoroughly that he considered he might nowlay stress on his Jewish character and emphasize the 'Germanism' abit more. Though it must have appeared ridiculous and absurd atfirst sight, he was impudent enough to call himself a 'Teuton',which in this case meant a German. In that way began one of themost infamous impositions that can be imagined. The Jew did notpossess the slightest traces of the German character. He had onlyacquired the art of twisting the German language to his own uses,and that in a disgusting way, without having assimilated any otherfeature of the German character. Therefore his command of thelanguage was the sole ground on which he could pretend to be aGerman. It is not however by the tie of language, but exclusivelyby the tie of blood that the members of a race are bound together.And the Jew himself knows this better than any other, seeing thathe attaches so little importance to the preservation of his ownlanguage while at the same time he strives his utmost to maintainhis blood free from intermixture with that of other races. A manmay acquire and use a new language without much trouble; but it isonly his old ideas that he expresses through the new language. Hisinner nature is not modified thereby. The best proof of this isfurnished by the Jew himself. He may speak a thousand tongues andyet his Jewish nature will remain always one and the same. Hisdistinguishing characteristics were the same when he spoke theLatin language at Ostia two thousand years ago as a merchant ingrain, as they are to-day when he tries to sell adulterated flourwith the aid of his German gibberish. He is always the same Jew.That so obvious a fact is not recognized by the average head-clerkin a German government department, or by an officer in the policeadministration, is also a self-evident and natural fact; since itwould be difficult to find another class of people who are solacking in instinct and intelligence as the civil servants employedby our modern German State authorities.
The reason why, at the stage I am dealing with, the Jew sosuddenly decided to transform himself into a German is notdifficult to discover. He felt the power of the princes slowlycrumbling and therefore looked about to find a new social plank onwhich he might stand. Furthermore, his financial domination overall the spheres of economic life had become so powerful that hefelt he could no longer sustain that enormous structure or add toit unless he were admitted to the full enjoyment of the 'rights ofcitizenship.' He aimed at both, preservation and expansion; for thehigher he could climb the more alluring became the prospect ofreaching the old goal, which was promised to him in ancient times,namely world-rulership, and which he now looked forward to withfeverish eyes, as he thought he saw it visibly approaching.Therefore all his efforts were now directed to becoming afully-fledged citizen, endowed with all civil and politicalrights.
That was the reason for his emancipation from the Ghetto.
(i) And thus the Court Jew slowly developed into the nationalJew. But naturally he still remained associated with persons inhigher quarters and he even attempted to push his way further intothe inner circles of the ruling set. But at the same time someother representatives of his race were currying favour with thepeople. If we remember the crimes the Jew had committed against themasses of the people in the course of so many centuries, howrepeatedly and ruthlessly he exploited them and how he sucked outeven the very marrow of their substance, and when we furtherremember how they gradually came to hate him and finally consideredhim as a public scourge'--then we may well understand howdifficult the Jew must have found this final transformation. Yes,indeed, it must tax all their powers to be able to presentthemselves as 'friends of humanity' to the poor victims whom theyhave skinned raw.
Therefore the Jew began by making public amends for the crimeswhich he had committed against the people in the past. He startedhis metamorphosis by first appearing as the 'benefactor' ofhumanity. Since his new philanthropic policy had a very concreteaim in view, he could not very well apply to himself the biblicalcounsel, not to allow the left hand to know what the right hand isgiving. He felt obliged to let as many people as possible know howdeeply the sufferings of the masses grieved him and to whatexcesses of personal sacrifice he was ready to go in order to helpthem. With this manifestation of innate modesty, so typical of theJew, he trumpeted his virtues before the world until finally theworld actually began to believe him. Those who refused to sharethis belief were considered to be doing him an injustice. Thusafter a little while he began to twist things around, so as to makeit appear that it was he who had always been wronged, and viceversa. There were really some particularly foolish people who couldnot help pitying this poor unfortunate creature of a Jew.
Attention may be called to the fact that, in spite of hisproclaimed readiness to make personal sacrifices, the Jew neverbecomes poor thereby. He has a happy knack of always making bothends meet. Occasionally his benevolence might be compared to themanure which is not spread over the field merely for the purpose ofgetting rid of it, but rather with a view to future produce.Anyhow, after a comparatively short period of time, the world wasgiven to know that the Jew had become a general benefactor andphilanthropist. What a transformation!
What is looked upon as more or less natural when done by otherpeople here became an object of astonishment, and even sometimes ofadmiration, because it was considered so unusual in a Jew. That iswhy he has received more credit for his acts of benevolence thanordinary mortals.
And something more: The Jew became liberal all of a sudden andbegan to talk enthusiastically of how human progress must beencouraged. Gradually he assumed the air of being the herald of anew age.
Yet at the same time he continued to undermine the ground-workof that part of the economic system in which the people have themost practical interest. He bought up stock in the various nationalundertakings and thus pushed his influence into the circuit ofnational production, making this latter an object of buying andselling on the stock exchange, or rather what might be called thepawn in a financial game of chess, and thus ruining the basis onwhich personal proprietorship alone is possible. Only with theentrance of the Jew did that feeling of estrangement, betweenemployers and employees begin which led at a later date to thepolitical class-struggle.
Finally the Jew gained an increasing influence in all economicundertakings by means of his predominance in the stock-exchange. Ifnot the ownership, at least he secured control of the working powerof the nation.
In order to strengthen his political position, he directed hisefforts towards removing the barrier of racial and civicdiscrimination which had hitherto hindered his advance at everyturn. With characteristic tenacity he championed the cause ofreligious tolerance for this purpose; and in the freemasonorganization, which had fallen completely into his hands, he founda magnificent weapon which helped him to achieve his ends.Government circles, as well as the higher sections of the politicaland commercial bourgeoisie, fell a prey to his plans through hismanipulation of the masonic net, though they themselves did noteven suspect what was happening.
Only the people as such, or rather the masses which were justbecoming conscious of their own power and were beginning to use itin the fight for their rights and liberties, had hitherto escapedthe grip of the Jew. At least his influence had not yet penetratedto the deeper and wider sections of the people. This wasunsatisfactory to him. The most important phase of his policy wastherefore to secure control over the people. The Jew realized thatin his efforts to reach the position of public despot he would needa 'peace-maker.' And he thought he could find a peace-maker if hecould whip-in sufficient extensive sections of the bourgeois. Butthe freemasons failed to catch the glove-manufacturers and thelinen-weavers in the frail meshes of their net. And so it becamenecessary to find a grosser and withal a more effective means. Thusanother weapon beside that of freemasonry would have to be secured.This was the Press. The Jew exercised all his skill and tenacity ingetting hold of it. By means of the Press he began gradually tocontrol public life in its entirety. He began to drive it along theroad which he had chosen to reach his own ends; for he was now in aposition to create and direct that force which, under the name of'public opinion' is better known to-day than it was some decadesago.
Simultaneously the Jew gave himself the air of thirsting afterknowledge. He lauded every phase of progress, particularly thosephases which led to the ruin of others; for he judges all progressand development from the standpoint of the advantages which thesebring to his own people. When it brings him no such advantages heis the deadly enemy of enlightenment and hates all culture which isreal culture as such. All the knowledge which he acquires in theschools of others is exploited by him exclusively in the service ofhis own race.
Even more watchfully than ever before, he now stood guard overhis Jewish nationality. Though bubbling over with 'enlightenment','progress', 'liberty', 'humanity', etc., his first care was topreserve the racial integrity of his own people. He occasionallybestowed one of his female members on an influential Christian; butthe racial stock of his male descendants was always preservedunmixed fundamentally. He poisons the blood of others but preserveshis own blood unadulterated. The Jew scarcely ever marries aChristian girl, but the Christian takes a Jewess to wife. Themongrels that are a result of this latter union always declarethemselves on the Jewish side. Thus a part of the higher nobilityin particular became completely degenerate. The Jew was well awareof this fact and systematically used this means of disarming theintellectual leaders of the opposite race. To mask his tactics andfool his victims, he talks of the equality of all men, no matterwhat their race or colour may be. And the simpletons begin tobelieve him.
Since his whole nature still retains too foreign an odour forthe broad masses of the people to allow themselves to be caught inhis snare, he uses the Press to put before the public a picture ofhimself which is entirely untrue to life but well designed to servehis purpose. In the comic papers special efforts are made torepresent the Jews as an inoffensive little race which, like allothers, has its peculiarities. In spite of their manners, which mayseem a bit strange, the comic papers present the Jews asfundamentally good-hearted and honourable. Attempts are generallymade to make them appear insignificant rather than dangerous.
During this phase of his progress the chief goal of the Jew wasthe victory of democracy, or rather the supreme hegemony of theparliamentary system, which embodies his concept of democracy. Thisinstitution harmonises best with his purposes; for thus thepersonal element is eliminated and in its place we have thedunder-headed majority, inefficiency and, last but by no meansleast, knavery.
The final result must necessarily have been the overthrow of themonarchy, which had to happen sooner or later.
(j) A tremendous economic development transformed the socialstructure of the nation. The small artisan class slowly disappearedand the factory worker, who took its place, had scarcely any chanceof establishing an independent existence of his own but sank moreand more to the level of a proletariat. An essential characteristicof the factory worker is that he is scarcely ever able to providefor an independent source of livelihood which will support him inlater life. In the true sense of the word, he is 'disinherited'.His old age is a misery to him and can hardly be called life atall.
In earlier times a similar situation had been created, which hadimperatively demanded a solution and for which a solution wasfound. Side by side with the peasant and the artisan, a new classwas gradually developed, namely that of officials and employees,especially those employed in the various services of the State.They also were a 'disinherited' class, in the true sense of theword. But the State found a remedy for this unhealthy situation bytaking upon itself the duty of providing for the State official whocould establish nothing that would be an independent means oflivelihood for himself in his old age. Thus the system of pensionsand retiring allowances was introduced. Private enterprises slowlyfollowed this example in increasing numbers; so that to-day everypermanent non-manual worker receives a pension in his later years,if the firm which he has served is one that has reached or gonebeyond a certain size. It was only by virtue of the assurance givenof State officials, that they would be cared for in their old age.that such a high degree of unselfish devotion to duty wasdeveloped, which in pre-war times was one of the distinguisingcharacteristics of German officials.
Thus a whole class which had no personal property was saved fromdestitution by an intelligent system of provision, and found aplace in the social structure of the national community.
The problem is now put before the State and nation, but thistime in a much larger form. When the new industries sprang up anddeveloped, millions of people left the countryside and the villagesto take up employment in the big factories. The conditions underwhich this new class found itself forced to live were worse thanmiserable. The more or less mechanical transformation of themethods of work hitherto in vogue among the artisans and peasantsdid not fit in well with the habits or mentality of this newworking-class. The way in which the peasants and artisans hadformerly worked had nothing comparable to the intensive labour ofthe new factory worker. In the old trades time did not play ahighly important role, but it became an essential element in thenew industrial system. The formal taking over of the old workinghours into the mammoth industrial enterprises had fatal results.The actual amount of work hitherto accomplished within a certaintime was comparatively small, because the modern methods ofintensive production were then unknown. Therefore, though in theolder system a working day of fourteen or even fifteen hours wasnot unendurable, now it was beyond the possibilities of humanendurance because in the new system every minute was utilized tothe extreme. This absurd transference of the old working hours tothe new industrial system proved fatal in two directions. First, itruined the health of the workers; secondly, it destroyed theirfaith in a superior law of justice. Finally, on the one hand amiserable wage was received and, on the other, the employer held amuch more lucrative position than before. Hence a strikingdifference between the ways of life on the one side and on theother.
In the open country there could be no social problem, becausethe master and the farm-hand were doing the same kind of work anddoing it together. They ate their food in common, and sometimeseven out of the same dish. But in this sphere also the new systemintroduced an entirely different set of conditions between mastersand men.
The division created between employer and employees seems not tohave extended to all branches of life. How far this Judaizingprocess has been allowed to take effect among our people isillustrated by the fact that manual labour not only receivespractically no recognition but is even considered degrading. Thatis not a natural German attitude. It is due to the introduction ofa foreign element into our lives, and that foreign element is theJewish spirit, one of the effects of which has been to transformthe high esteem in which our handicrafts once were held into adefinite feeling that all physical labour is something base andunworthy.
Thus a new social class has grown up which stands in low esteem;and the day must come when we shall have to face the question ofwhether the nation will be able to make this class an integral partof the social community or whether the difference of status nowexisting will become a permanent gulf separating this class fromthe others.
One thing, however, is certain: This class does not include theworst elements of the community in its ranks. Rather the contraryis the truth: it includes the most energetic parts of the nation.The sophistication which is the result of a so-called civilizationhas not yet exercised its disintegrating and degenerating influenceon this class. The broad masses of this new lower class,constituted by the manual labourers, have not yet fallen a prey tothe morbid weakness of pacifism. These are still robust and, ifnecessary, they can be brutal.
While our bourgeoisie middle class paid no attention at all tothis momentous problem and indifferently allowed events to taketheir course, the Jew seized upon the manifold possibilities whichthe situation offered him for the future. While on the one hand heorganized capitalistic methods of exploitation to their ultimatedegree of efficiency, he curried favour with the victims of hispolicy and his power and in a short while became the leader oftheir struggle against himself. 'Against himself' is here only afigurative way of speaking; for this 'Great Master of Lies' knowshow to appear in the guise of the innocent and throw the guilt onothers. Since he had the impudence to take a personal lead amongthe masses, they never for a moment suspected that they werefalling a prey to one of the most infamous deceits ever practised.And yet that is what it actually was.
The moment this new class had arisen out of the general economicsituation and taken shape as a definite body in the social order,the Jew saw clearly where he would find the necessary pacemaker forhis own progressive march. At first he had used the bourgeois classas a battering-ram against the feudal order; and now he used theworker against the bourgeois world. Just as he succeeded inobtaining civic rights by intrigues carried on under the protectionof the bourgeois class, he now hoped that by joining in thestruggle which the workers were waging for their own existence hewould be able to obtain full control over them.
When that moment arrives, then the only objective the workerswill have to fight for will be the future of the Jewish people.Without knowing it, the worker is placing himself at the service ofthe very power against which he believes he is fighting. Apparentlyhe is made to fight against capital and thus he is all the moreeasily brought to fight for capitalist interests. Outcries aresystematically raised against international capital but in realityit is against the structure of national economics that theseslogans are directed. The idea is to demolish this structure and onits ruins triumphantly erect the structure of the InternationalStock Exchange.
In this line of action the procedure of the Jew was asfollows:
He kowtowed to the worker, hypocritically pretended to feel pityfor him and his lot, and even to be indignant at the misery andpoverty which the worker had to endure. That is the way in whichthe Jew endeavoured to gain the confidence of the working class. Heshowed himself eager to study their various hardships, whether realor imaginary, and strove to awaken a yearning on the part of theworkers to change the conditions under which they lived. The Jewartfully enkindled that innate yearning for social justice which isa typical Aryan characteristic. Once that yearning became alive itwas transformed into hatred against those in more fortunatecircumstances of life. The next stage was to give a precisephilosophical aspect to the struggle for the elimination of socialwrongs. And thus the Marxist doctrine was invented.
By presenting his doctrine as part and parcel of a justrevindication of social rights, the Jew propagated the doctrine allthe more effectively. But at the same time he provoked theopposition of decent people who refused to admit these demandswhich, because of the form and pseudo-philosophical trimmings inwhich they are presented, seemed fundamentally unjust andimpossible for realization. For, under the cloak of purely socialconcepts there are hidden aims which are of a Satanic character.These aims are even expounded in the open with the clarity ofunlimited impudence. This Marxist doctrine is an individual mixtureof human reason and human absurdity; but the combination isarranged in such a way that only the absurd part of it could everbe put into practice, but never the reasonable part of it. Bycategorically repudiating the personal worth of the individual andalso the nation and its racial constituent, this doctrine destroysthe fundamental basis of all civilization; for civilizationessentially depends on these very factors. Such is the true essenceof the Marxist Weltanschauung, so far as the wordWeltanschauung can be applied at all to this phantom arisingfrom a criminal brain. The destruction of the concept ofpersonality and of race removes the chief obstacle which barred theway to domination of the social body by its inferior elements,which are the Jews.
The very absurdity of the economic and political theories ofMarxism gives the doctrine its peculiar significance. Because ofits pseudo-logic, intelligent people refuse to support it, whileall those who are less accustomed to use their intellectualfaculties, or who have only a rudimentary notion of economicprinciples, join the Marxist cause with flying banners. Theintelligence behind the movement'--for even this movement needsintelligence if it is to subsist'--is supplied by the Jewsthemselves, naturally of course as a gratuitous service which is atthe same time a sacrifice on their part.
Thus arose a movement which was composed exclusively of manualworkers under the leadership of Jews. To all external appearances,this movement strives to ameliorate the conditions under which theworkers live; but in reality its aim is to enslave and therebyannihilate the non-Jewish races.
The propaganda which the freemasons had carried on among theso-called intelligentsia, whereby their pacifist teaching paralysedthe instinct for national self-preservation, was now extended tothe broad masses of the workers and bourgeoisie by means of thePress, which was almost everywhere in Jewish hands. To those twoinstruments of disintegration a third and still more ruthless onewas added, namely, the organization of brute physical force amongthe masses. As massed columns of attacks, the Marxist troopsstormed those parts of the social order which had been leftstanding after the two former undermining operations had done theirwork.
The combined activity of all these forces has been marvellouslymanaged. And it will not be surprising if it turns out that thoseinstitutions which have always appeared as the organs of the moreor less traditional authority of the State should now fall beforethe Marxist attack. Among our higher and highest State officials,with very few exceptions, the Jew has found the cost complacentbackers in his work of destruction. An attitude of sneakingservility towards 'superiors' and supercilious arrogance towards'inferiors' are the characteristics of this class of people, aswell as a grade of stupidity which is really frightening and at thesame time a towering self-conceit, which has been so consistentlydeveloped to make it amusing.
But these qualities are of the greatest utility to the Jew inhis dealings with our authorities. Therefore they are qualitieswhich he appreciates most in the officials.
If I were to sketch roughly the actual struggle which is nowbeginning I should describe it somewhat thus:
Not satisfied with the economic conquest of the world, but alsodemanding that it must come under his political control, the Jewsubdivides the organized Marxist power into two parts, whichcorrespond to the ultimate objectives that are to be fought for inthis struggle which is carried on under the direction of the Jew.To outward appearance, these seem to be two independent movements,but in reality they constitute an indivisible unity. The twodivisions are: The political movement and the trades unionmovement.
The trades union movement has to gather in the recruits. Itoffers assistance and protection to the workers in the hardstruggle which they have to wage for the bare means of existence, astruggle which has been occasioned by the greediness andnarrow-mindedness of many of the industrialists. Unless the workersbe ready to surrender all claims to an existence which the dignityof human nature itself demands, and unless they are ready to submittheir fate to the will of employers who in many cases have no senseof human responsibilities and are utterly callous to human wants,then the worker must necessarily take matters into his own hands,seeing that the organized social community'--that is to say,the State'--pays no attention to his needs.
The so-called national-minded bourgeoisie, blinded by its ownmaterial interests, opposes this life-or-death struggle of theworkers and places the most difficult obstacles in their way. Notonly does this bourgeoisie hinder all efforts to enact legislationwhich would shorten the inhumanly long hours of work, prohibitchild-labour, grant security and protection to women and improvethe hygienic conditions of the workshops and the dwellings of theworking-class, but while the bourgeoisie hinders all this theshrewd Jew takes the cause of the oppressed into his own hands. Hegradually becomes the leader of the trades union movements, whichis an easy task for him, because he does not genuinely intend tofind remedies for the social wrong: he pursues only one objective,namely, to gather and consolidate a body of followers who will actunder his commands as an armed weapon in the economic war for thedestruction of national economic independence. For, while a soundsocial policy has to move between the two poles of securing adecent level of public health and welfare on the one hand and, onthe other, that of safeguarding the independence of the economiclife of the nation, the Jew does not take these poles into accountat all. The destruction of both is one of his main objects. Hewould ruin, rather than safeguard, the independence of the nationaleconomic system. Therefore, as the leader of the trades unionmovement, he has no scruples about putting forward demands whichnot only go beyond the declared purpose of the movement but couldnot be carried into effect without ruining the national economicstructure. On the other hand, he has no interest in seeing ahealthy and sturdy population develop; he would be more content tosee the people degenerate into an unthinking herd which could bereduced to total subjection. Because these are his finalobjectives, he can afford to put forward the most absurd claims. Heknows very well that these claims can never be realized and thattherefore nothing in the actual state of affairs could be alteredby them, but that the most they can do is to arouse the spirit ofunrest among the masses. That is exactly the purpose which hewishes such propaganda to serve and not a real and honestimprovement of the social conditions.
The Jews will therefore remain the unquestioned leaders of thetrades union movement so long as a campaign is not undertaken,which must be carried out on gigantic lines, for the enlightenmentof the masses; so that they will be enabled better to understandthe causes of their misery. Or the same end might be achieved ifthe government authorities would get rid of the Jew and his work.For as long as the masses remain so ill-informed as they actuallyare to-day, and as long as the State remains as indifferent totheir lot as it now is, the masses will follow whatever leadermakes them the most extravagant promises in regard to economicmatters. The Jew is a past master at this art and his activitiesare not hampered by moral considerations of any kind.
Naturally it takes him only a short time to defeat all hiscompetitors in this field and drive them from the scene of action.In accordance with the general brutality and rapacity of hisnature, he turns the trades union movement into an organization forthe exercise of physical violence. The resistance of those whosecommon sense has hitherto saved them from surrendering to theJewish dictatorship is now broken down by terrorization. Thesuccess of that kind of activity is enormous.
Parallel with this, the political organization advances. Itoperates hand-in-hand with the trades union movement, inasmuch asthe latter prepares the masses for the political organization andeven forces them into it. This is also the source that provides themoney which the political organization needs to keep its enormousapparatus in action. The trades union organization is the organ ofcontrol for the political activity of its members and whips in themasses for all great political demonstrations. In the end it ceasesto struggle for economic interests but places its chief weapon, therefusal to continue work'--which takes the form of a generalstrike'--at the disposal of the political movement.
By means of a Press whose contents are adapted to the level ofthe most ignorant readers, the political and trades unionorganizations are provided with an instrument which prepares thelowest stratum of the nation for a campaign of ruthlessdestruction. It is not considered part of the purpose of this Pressto inspire its readers with ideals which might help them to lifttheir minds above the sordid conditions of their daily lives; but,on the contrary, it panders to their lowest instincts. Among thelazy-minded and self-seeking sections of the masses this kind ofspeculation turns out lucrative.
It is this Press above all which carries on a fanatical campaignof calumny, strives to tear down everything that might beconsidered as a mainstay of national independence and to sabotageall cultural values as well as to destroy the autonomy of thenational economic system.
It aims its attack especially against all men of character whorefuse to fall into line with the Jewish efforts to obtain controlover the State or who appear dangerous to the Jews merely becauseof their superior intelligence. For in order to incur the enmity ofthe Jew it is not necessary to show any open hostility towards him.It is quite sufficient if one be considered capable of opposing theJew some time in the future or using his abilities and character toenhance the power and position of a nation which the Jew findshostile to himself.
The Jewish instinct, which never fails where these problems haveto be dealt with, readily discerns the true mentality of those whomthe Jew meets in everyday life; and those who are not of a kindredspirit with him may be sure of being listed among his enemies.Since the Jew is not the object of aggression but the aggressorhimself, he considers as his enemies not only those who attack himbut also those who may be capable of resisting him. The means whichhe employs to break people of this kind, who may show themselvesdecent and upright, are not the open means generally used inhonourable conflict, but falsehood and calumny.
He will stop at nothing. His utterly low-down conduct is soappalling that one really cannot be surprised if in the imaginationof our people the Jew is pictured as the incarnation of Satan andthe symbol of evil.
The ignorance of the broad masses as regards the inner characterof the Jew, and the lack of instinct and insight that our upperclasses display, are some of the reasons which explain how it isthat so many people fall an easy prey to the systematic campaign offalsehood which the Jew carries on.
While the upper classes, with their innate cowardliness, turnaway from anyone whom the Jew thus attacks with lies and calumny,the common people are credulous of everything, whether because oftheir ignorance or their simple-mindedness. Government authoritieswrap themselves up in a robe of silence, but more frequently theypersecute the victims of Jewish attacks in order to stop thecampaign in the Jewish Press. To the fatuous mind of the governmentofficial such a line of conduct appears to belong to the policy ofupholding the authority of the State and preserving public order.Gradually the Marxist weapon in the hands of the Jew becomes aconstant bogy to decent people. Sometimes the fear of it sticks inthe brain or weighs upon them as a kind of nightmare. People beginto quail before this fearful foe and therewith become hisvictims.
(k) The Jewish domination in the State seems now so fullyassured that not only can he now afford to call himself a Jew onceagain, but he even acknowledges freely and openly what his ideasare on racial and political questions. A section of the Jews avowsitself quite openly as an alien people, but even here there isanother falsehood. When the Zionists try to make the rest of theworld believe that the new national consciousness of the Jews willbe satisfied by the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine,the Jews thereby adopt another means to dupe the simple-mindedGentile. They have not the slightest intention of building up aJewish State in Palestine so as to live in it. What they really areaiming at is to establish a central organization for theirinternational swindling and cheating. As a sovereign State, thiscannot be controlled by any of the other States. Therefore it canserve as a refuge for swindlers who have been found out and at thesame time a high-school for the training of other swindlers.
As a sign of their growing presumption and sense of security, acertain section of them openly and impudently proclaim their Jewishnationality while another section hypocritically pretend that theyare German, French or English as the case may be. Their blatantbehaviour in their relations with other people shows how clearlythey envisage their day of triumph in the near future.
The black-haired Jewish youth lies in wait for hours on end,satanically glaring at and spying on the unsuspicious girl whom heplans to seduce, adulterating her blood and removing her from thebosom of her own people. The Jew uses every possible means toundermine the racial foundations of a subjugated people. In hissystematic efforts to ruin girls and women he strives to break downthe last barriers of discrimination between him and other peoples.The Jews were responsible for bringing negroes into the Rhineland,with the ultimate idea of bastardizing the white race which theyhate and thus lowering its cultural and political level so that theJew might dominate. For as long as a people remain racially pureand are conscious of the treasure of their blood, they can never beovercome by the Jew. Never in this world can the Jew become masterof any people except a bastardized people.
That is why the Jew systematically endeavours to lower theracial quality of a people by permanently adulterating the blood ofthe individuals who make up that people.
In the field of politics he now begins to replace the idea ofdemocracy by introducing the dictatorship of the proletariat. Inthe masses organized under the Marxist banners he has found aweapon which makes it possible for him to discard democracy, so asto subjugate and rule in a dictatorial fashion by the aid of bruteforce. He is systematically working in two ways to bring about thisrevolution. These ways are the economic and the politicalrespectively.
Aided by international influences, he forms a ring of enemiesaround those nations which have proved themselves too sturdy forhim in withstanding attacks from within. He would like to forcethem into war and then, if it should be necessary to his plans, hewill unfurl the banners of revolt even while the troops areactually fighting at the front.
Economically he brings about the destruction of the State by asystematic method of sabotaging social enterprises until thesebecome so costly that they are taken out of the hands of the Stateand then submitted to the control of Jewish finance. Politically heworks to withdraw from the State its means of susbsistence,inasmuch as he undermines the foundations of national resistanceand defence, destroys the confidence which the people have in theirGovernment, reviles the past and its history and drags everythingnational down into the gutter.
Culturally his activity consists in bowdlerizing art, literatureand the theatre, holding the expressions of national sentiment upto scorn, overturning all concepts of the sublime and beautiful,the worthy and the good, finally dragging the people to the levelof his own low mentality.
Of religion he makes a mockery. Morality and decency aredescribed as antiquated prejudices and thus a systematic attack ismade to undermine those last foundations on which the nationalbeing must rest if the nation is to struggle for its existence inthis world.
(l) Now begins the great and final revolution. As soon as theJew is in possession of political power he drops the last few veilswhich have hitherto helped to conceal his features. Out of thedemocratic Jew, the Jew of the People, arises the 'Jew of theBlood', the tyrant of the peoples. In the course of a few years heendeavours to exterminate all those who represent the nationalintelligence. And by thus depriving the peoples of their naturalintellectual leaders he fits them for their fate as slaves under alasting despotism.
Russia furnishes the most terrible example of such a slavery. Inthat country the Jew killed or starved thirty millions of thepeople, in a bout of savage fanaticism and partly by the employmentof inhuman torture. And he did this so that a gang of Jewishliterati and financial bandits should dominate over a greatpeople.
But the final consequence is not merely that the people lose alltheir freedom under the domination of the Jews, but that in the endthese parasites themselves disappear. The death of the victim isfollowed sooner or later by that of the vampire.
If we review all the causes which contributed to bring about thedownfall of the German people we shall find that the most profoundand decisive cause must be attributed to the lack of insight intothe racial problem and especially in the failure to recognize theJewish danger.
It would have been easy enough to endure the defeats suffered onthe battlefields in August 1918. They were nothing when comparedwith the military victories which our nation had achieved. Ourdownfall was not the result of those defeats; but we wereoverthrown by that force which had prepared those defeats bysystematically operating for several decades to destroy thosepolitical instincts and that moral stamina which alone enable apeople to struggle for its existence and therewith secure the rightto exist.
By neglecting the problem of preserving the racial foundationsof our national life, the old Empire abrogated the sole right whichentitles a people to live on this planet. Nations that makemongrels of their people, or allow their people to be turned intomongrels, sin against the Will of Eternal Providence. And thustheir overthrow at the hands of a stronger opponent cannot belooked upon as a wrong but, on the contrary, as a restoration ofjustice. If a people refuses to guard and uphold the qualities withwhich it has been endowed by Nature and which have their roots inthe racial blood, then such a people has no right to complain overthe loss of its earthly existence.
Everything on this earth can be made into something better.Every defeat may be made the foundation of a future victory. Everylost war may be the cause of a later resurgence. Every visitationof distress can give a new impetus to human energy. And out ofevery oppression those forces can develop which bring about a newre-birth of the national soul'--provided always that the racialblood is kept pure.
But the loss of racial purity will wreck inner happiness forever. It degrades men for all time to come. And the physical andmoral consequences can never be wiped out.
If this unique problem be studied and compared with the otherproblems of life we shall easily recognize how small is theirimportance in comparison with this. They are all limited to time;but the problem of the maintenance or loss of the purity of theracial blood will last as long as man himself lasts.
All the symptoms of decline which manifested themselves alreadyin pre-war times can be traced back to the racial problem.
Whether one is dealing with questions of general law, ormonstrous excrescences in economic life, of phenomena which pointto a cultural decline or political degeneration, whether it be aquestion of defects in the school-system or of the evil influencewhich the Press exerts over the adult population'--always andeverywhere these phenomena are at bottom caused by a lack ofconsideration for the interests of the race to which one's ownnation belongs, or by the failure to recognize the danger thatcomes from allowing a foreign race to exist within the nationalbody.
That is why all attempts at reform, all institutions for socialrelief, all political striving, all economic progress and allapparent increase in the general stock of knowledge, were doomed tobe unproductive of any significant results. The nation, as well asthe organization which enables it to exist'--namely, theState'--were not developing in inner strength and stability,but, on the contrary, were visibly losing their vitality. The falsebrilliance of the Second Empire could not disguise the innerweakness. And every attempt to invigorate it anew failed becausethe main and most important problem was left out ofconsideration.
It would be a mistake to think that the followers of the variouspolitical parties which tried to doctor the condition of the Germanpeople, or even all their leaders, were bad in themselves or meantwrong. Their activity even at best was doomed to fail, merelybecause of the fact that they saw nothing but the symptoms of ourgeneral malady and they tried to doctor the symptoms while theyoverlooked the real cause of the disease. If one makes a methodicalstudy of the lines along which the old Empire developed one cannothelp seeing, after a careful political analysis, that a process ofinner degeneration had already set in even at the time when theunited Empire was formed and the German nation began to make rapidexternal progress. The general situation was declining, in spite ofthe apparent political success and in spite of the increasingeconomic wealth. At the elections to the Reichstag the growingnumber of Marxist votes indicated that the internal breakdown andthe political collapse were then rapidly approaching. All thevictories of the so-called bourgeois parties were fruitless, notonly because they could not prevent the numerical increase in thegrowing mass of Marxist votes, even when the bourgeois partiestriumphed at the polls, but mainly because they themselves werealready infected with the germs of decay. Though quite unaware ofit, the bourgeois world was infected from within with the deadlyvirus of Marxist ideas. The fact that they sometimes openlyresisted was to be explained by the competitive strife amongambitious political leaders, rather than by attributing it to anyopposition in principle between adversaries who were determined tofight one another to the bitter end. During all those years onlyone protagonist was fighting with steadfast perseverance. This wasthe Jew. The Star of David steadily ascended as the will tonational self-preservation declined.
Therefore it was not a solid national phalanx that, of itselfand out of its own feeling of solidarity, rushed to thebattlefields in August 1914. But it was rather the manifestation ofthe last flicker from the instinct of national self-preservationagainst the progress of the paralysis with which the pacifist andMarxist doctrine threatened our people. Even in those days when thedestinies of the nation were in the balance the internal enemy wasnot recognized; therefore all efforts to resist the external enemywere bound to be in vain. Providence did not grant the reward tothe victorious sword, but followed the eternal law of retributivejustice. A profound recognition of all this was the source of thoseprinciples and tendencies which inspire our new movement. We wereconvinced that only by recognizing such truths could we stop thenational decline in Germany and lay a granite foundation on whichthe State could again be built up, a State which would not be apiece of mechanism alien to our people, constituted for economicpurposes and interests, but an organism created from the soul ofthe people themselves.
A GERMAN STATE IN A GERMAN NATION
CHAPTER XII. THE FIRST STAGEIN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GERMAN NATIONAL SOCIALIST LABOURPARTYHere at the close of the volume I shall describe the first stagein the progress of our movement and shall give a brief account ofthe problems we had to deal with during that period. In doing thisI have no intention of expounding the ideals which we have set upas the goal of our movement; for these ideals are so momentous intheir significance that an exposition of them will need a wholevolume. Therefore I shall devote the second volume of this book toa detailed survey of the principles which form the programme of ourmovement and I shall attempt to draw a picture of what we mean bythe word 'State'. When I say 'we' in this connection I mean toinclude all those hundreds of thousands who have fundamentally thesame longing, though in the individual cases they cannot findadequate words to describe the vision that hovers before theireyes. It is a characteristic feature of all great reforms that inthe beginning there is only one single protagonist to come forwardon behalf of several millions of people. The final goal of a greatreformation has often been the object of profound longing on theparts of hundreds of thousands for many centuries before, untilfinally one among them comes forward as a herald to announce thewill of that multitude and become the standard-bearer of the oldyearning, which he now leads to a realization in a new idea.
The fact that millions of our people yearn at heart for aradical change in our present conditions is proved by the profounddiscontent which exists among them. This feeling is manifested in athousand ways. Some express it in a form of discouragement anddespair. Others show it in resentment and anger and indignation.Among some the profound discontent calls forth an attitude ofindifference, while it urges others to violent manifestations ofwrath. Another indication of this feeling may be seen on the onehand in the attitude of those who abstain from voting at electionsand, on the other, in the large numbers of those who side with thefanatical extremists of the left wing.
To these latter people our young movement had to appeal first ofall. It was not meant to be an organization for contented andsatisfied people, but was meant to gather in all those who weresuffering from profound anxiety and could find no peace, those whowere unhappy and discontented. It was not meant to float on thesurface of the nation but rather to push its roots deep among themasses.
Looked at from the purely political point of view, the situationin 1918 was as follows: A nation had been torn into two parts. Onepart, which was by far the smaller of the two, contained theintellectual classes of the nation from which all those employed inphysical labour were excluded. On the surface these intellectualclasses appeared to be national-minded, but that word meant nothingelse to them except a very vague and feeble concept of the duty todefend what they called the interests of the State, which in turnseemed identical with those of the dynastic regime. This classtried to defend its ideas and reach its aims by carrying on thefight with the aid of intellectual weapons, which could be usedonly here and there and which had only a superficial effect againstthe brutal measures employed by the adversaries, in the face ofwhich the intellectual weapons were of their very nature bound tofail. With one violent blow the class which had hitherto governedwas now struck down. It trembled with fear and accepted everyhumiliation imposed on it by the merciless victor.
Over against this class stood the broad masses of manuallabourers who were organized in movements with a more or lessradically Marxist tendency. These organized masses were firmlydetermined to break any kind of intellectual resistance by the useof brute force. They had no nationalist tendencies whatsoever anddeliberately repudiated the idea of advancing the interests of thenation as such. On the contrary, they promoted the interests of theforeign oppressor. Numerically this class embraced the majority ofthe population and, what is more important, included all thoseelements of the nation without whose collaboration a nationalresurgence was not only a practical impossibility but was eveninconceivable.
For already in 1918 one thing had to be clearly recognized;namely, that no resurgence of the German nation could take placeuntil we had first restored our national strength to face theoutside world. For this purpose arms are not the preliminarynecessity, though our bourgeois 'statesmen' always blathered aboutit being so; what was wanted was will-power. At one time the Germanpeople had more than sufficient military armament. And yet theywere not able to defend their liberty because they lacked thoseenergies which spring from the instinct of nationalself-preservation and the will to hold on to one's own. The bestarmament is only dead and worthless material as long as the spiritis wanting which makes men willing and determined to availthemselves of such weapons. Germany was rendered defenceless notbecause she lacked arms, but because she lacked the will to keepher arms for the maintenance of her people.
To-day our Left-wing politicians in particular are constantlyinsisting that their craven-hearted and obsequious foreign policynecessarily results from the disarmament of Germany, whereas thetruth is that this is the policy of traitors. To all that kind oftalk the answer ought to be: No, the contrary is the truth. Youraction in delivering up the arms was dictated by your anti-nationaland criminal policy of abandoning the interests of the nation. Andnow you try to make people believe that your miserable whining isfundamentally due to the fact that you have no arms. Just likeeverything else in your conduct, this is a lie and a falsificationof the true reason.
But the politicians of the Right deserve exactly the samereproach. It was through their miserable cowardice that thoseruffians of Jews who came into power in 1918 were able to rob thenation of its arms. The conservative politicians have neither rightnor reason on their side when they appeal to disarmament as thecause which compelled them to adopt a policy of prudence (that isto say, cowardice). Here, again, the contrary is the truth.Disarmament is the result of their lack of spirit.
Therefore the problem of restoring Germany's power is not aquestion of how can we manufacture arms but rather a question ofhow we can produce that spirit which enables a people to bear arms.Once this spirit prevails among a people then it will find athousand ways, each of which leads to the necessary armament. But acoward will not fire even a single shot when attacked though he maybe armed with ten pistols. For him they are of less value than ablackthorn in the hands of a man of courage.
The problem of re-establishing the political power of our nationis first of all a problem of restoring the instinct of nationalself-preservation for if no other reason than that everypreparatory step in foreign policy and every foreign judgment onthe worth of a State has been proved by experience to be groundednot on the material size of the armament such a State may possessbut rather on the moral capacity for resistance which such a Statehas or is believed to have. The question whether or not a nation bedesirable as an ally is not so much determined by the inert mass ofarms which it has at hand but by the obvious presence of a sturdywill to national self-preservation and a heroic courage which willfight through to the last breath. For an alliance is not madebetween arms but between men.
The British nation will therefore be considered as the mostvaluable ally in the world as long as it can be counted upon toshow that brutality and tenacity in its government, as well as inthe spirit of the broad masses, which enables it to carry throughto victory any struggle that it once enters upon, no matter howlong such a struggle may last, or however great the sacrifice thatmay be necessary or whatever the means that have to be employed;and all this even though the actual military equipment at hand maybe utterly inadequate when compared with that of other nations.
Once it is understood that the restoration of Germany is aquestion of reawakening the will to political self-preservation weshall see quite clearly that it will not be enough to win overthose elements that are already national-minded but that thedeliberately anti-national masses must be converted to believe inthe national ideals.
A young movement that aims at re-establishing a German Statewith full sovereign powers will therefore have to make the task ofwinning over the broad masses a special objective of its plan ofcampaign. Our so-called 'national bourgeoisie' are so lamentablysupine, generally speaking, and their national spirit appears sofeckless, that we may feel sure they will offer no seriousresistance against a vigorous national foreign'--or domesticpolicy. Even though the narrow-minded German bourgeoisie shouldkeep up a passive resistance when the hour of deliverance is athand, as they did in Bismarck's time, we shall never have to fearany active resistance on their part, because of their recognizedproverbial cowardice.
It is quite different with the masses of our population, who areimbued with ideas of internationalism. Through the primitiveroughness of their natures they are disposed to accept thepreaching of violence, while at the same time their Jewish leadersare more brutal and ruthless. They will crush any attempt at aGerman revival, just as they smashed the German Army by striking atit from the rear. Above all, these organized masses will use theirnumerical majority in this Parliamentarian State not only to hinderany national foreign policy, but also to prevent Germany fromrestoring her political power and therewith her prestige abroad.Thus she becomes excluded from the ranks of desirable allies. Forit is not we ourselves alone who are aware of the handicap thatresults from the existence of fifteen million Marxists, democrats,pacifists and followers of the Centre, in our midst, but foreignnations also recognize this internal burden which we have to bearand take it into their calculations when estimating the value of apossible alliance with us. Nobody would wish to form an alliancewith a State where the active portion of the population is at leastpassively opposed to any resolute foreign policy.
The situation is made still worse by reason of the fact that theleaders of those parties which were responsible for the nationalbetrayal are ready to oppose any and every attempt at a revival,simply because they want to retain the positions they now hold.According to the laws that govern human history it is inconceivablethat the German people could resume the place they formerly heldwithout retaliating on those who were both cause and occasion ofthe collapse that involved the ruin of our State. Before thejudgment seat of posterity November 1918 will not be regarded as asimple rebellion but as high treason against the country.
Therefore it is not possible to think of re-establishing Germansovereignty and political independence without at the same timereconstructing a united front within the nation, by a peacefulconversion of the popular will.
Looked at from the standpoint of practical ways and means, itseems absurd to think of liberating Germany from foreign bondage aslong as the masses of the people are not willing to support such anideal of freedom. After carefully considering this problem from thepurely military point of view, everybody, and in particular everyofficer, will agree that a war cannot be waged against an outsideenemy by battalions of students; but that, together with the brainsof the nation, the physical strength of the nation is alsonecessary. Furthermore it must be remembered that the nation wouldbe robbed of its irreplaceable assets by a national defence inwhich only the intellectual circles, as they are called, wereengaged. The young German intellectuals who joined the volunteerregiments and fell on the battlefields of Flanders in the autumn of1914 were bitterly missed later on. They were the dearest treasurewhich the nation possessed and their loss could not be made good inthe course of the war. And it is not only the struggle itself whichcould not be waged if the working masses of the nation did not jointhe storm battalions, but the necessary technical preparationscould not be made without a unified will and a common front withinthe nation itself. Our nation which has to exist disarmed, underthe thousand eyes appointed by the Versailles Peace Treaty, cannotmake any technical preparations for the recovery of its freedom andhuman independence until the whole army of spies employed withinthe country is cut down to those few whose inborn baseness wouldlead them to betray anything and everything for the proverbialthirty pieces of silver. But we can deal with such people. Themillions, however, who are opposed to every kind of nationalrevival simply because of their political opinions, constitute aninsurmountable obstacle. At least the obstacle will remaininsurmountable as long as the cause of their opposition, which isinternational Marxism, is not overcome and its teachings banishedfrom both their hearts and heads.
From whatever point of view we may examine the possibility ofrecovering our independence as a State and a people, whether weconsider the problem from the standpoint of technical rearmament orfrom that of the actual struggle itself, the necessarypre-requisite always remains the same. This pre-requisite is thatthe broad masses of the people must first be won over to accept theprinciple of our national independence.
If we do not regain our external freedom every step forward indomestic reform will at best be an augmentation of our productivepowers for the benefit of those nations that look upon us as acolony to be exploited. The surplus produced by any so-calledimprovement would only go into the hands of our internationalcontrollers and any social betterment would at best increase theproduct of our labour in favour of those people. No culturalprogress can be made by the German nation, because such progress istoo much bound up with the political independence and dignity of apeople.
Therefore, as we can find a satisfactory solution for theproblem of Germany's future only by winning over the broad massesof our people for the support of the national idea, this work ofeducation must be considered the highest and most important task tobe accomplished by a movement which does not strive merely tosatisfy the needs of the moment but considers itself bound toexamine in the light of future results everything it decides to door refrain from doing.
As early as 1919 we were convinced that the nationalization ofthe masses would have to constitute the first and paramount aim ofthe new movement. From the tactical standpoint, this decision laida certain number of obligations on our shoulders.
(1) No social sacrifice could be considered too great in thiseffort to win over the masses for the national revival.
In the field of national economics, whatever concessions aregranted to-day to the employees are negligible when compared withthe benefit to be reaped by the whole nation if such concessionscontribute to bring back the masses of the people once more to thebosom of their own nation. Nothing but meanness andshortsightedness, which are characteristics that unfortunately areonly too prevalent among our employers, could prevent people fromrecognizing that in the long run no economic improvement andtherefore no rise in profits are possible unless internalsolidarity be restored among the bulk of the people who make up ournation.
If the German trades unions had defended the interests of theworking-classes uncompromisingly during the War; if even during theWar they had used the weapon of the strike to force theindustrialists'--who were greedy for higher dividends'--togrant the demands of the workers for whom the unions acted; if atthe same time they had stood up as good Germans for the defence ofthe nation as stoutly as for their own claims, and if they hadgiven to their country what was their country's due'--then theWar would never have been lost. How ludicrously insignificant wouldall, and even the greatest, economic concession have been in faceof the tremendous importance of such a victory.
For a movement which would restore the German worker to theGerman people it is therefore absolutely necessary to understandclearly that economic sacrifices must be considered light in suchcases, provided of course that they do not go the length ofendangering the independence and stability of the national economicsystem.
(2) The education of the masses along national lines can becarried out only indirectly, by improving their social conditions;for only by such a process can the economic conditions be createdwhich enable everybody to share in the cultural life of thenation.
(3) The nationalization of the broad masses can never beachieved by half-measures'--that is to say, by feebly insistingon what is called the objective side of the question'--but onlyby a ruthless and devoted insistence on the one aim which must beachieved. This means that a people cannot be made 'national'according to the signification attached to that word by ourbourgeois class to-day'--that is to say, nationalism with manyreservations'--but national in the vehement and extreme sense.Poison can be overcome only by a counter-poison, and only thesupine bourgeois mind could think that the Kingdom of Heaven can beattained by a compromise.
The broad masses of a nation are not made up of professors anddiplomats. Since these masses have only a poor acquaintance withabstract ideas, their reactions lie more in the domain of thefeelings, where the roots of their positive as well as theirnegative attitudes are implanted. They are susceptible only to amanifestation of strength which comes definitely either from thepositive or negative side, but they are never susceptible to anyhalf-hearted attitude that wavers between one pole and the other.The emotional grounds of their attitude furnish the reason fortheir extraordinary stability. It is always more difficult to fightsuccessfully against Faith than against knowledge. Love is lesssubject to change than respect. Hatred is more lasting than mereaversion. And the driving force which has brought about the mosttremendous revolutions on this earth has never been a body ofscientific teaching which has gained power over the masses, butalways a devotion which has inspired them, and often a kind ofhysteria which has urged them to action.
Whoever wishes to win over the masses must know the key thatwill open the door to their hearts. It is not objectivity, which isa feckless attitude, but a determined will, backed up by force,when necessary.
(4) The soul of the masses can be won only if those who lead themovement for that purpose are determined not merely to carrythrough the positive struggle for their own aims but are alsodetermined to destroy the enemy that opposes them.
When they see an uncompromising onslaught against an adversarythe people have at all times taken this as a proof that right is onthe side of the active aggressor; but if the aggressor should goonly half-way and fail to push home his success by driving hisopponent entirely from the scene of action, the people will lookupon this as a sign that the aggressor is uncertain of the justiceof his own cause and his half-way policy may even be anacknowledgment that his cause is unjust.
The masses are but a part of Nature herself. Their feeling issuch that they cannot understand mutual hand-shakings between menwho are declared enemies. Their wish is to see the stronger sidewin and the weaker wiped out or subjected unconditionally to thewill of the stronger.
The nationalization of the masses can be successfully achievedonly if, in the positive struggle to win the soul of the people,those who spread the international poison among them areexterminated.
(5) All the great problems of our time are problems of themoment and are only the results of certain definite causes. Andamong all those there is only one that has a profoundly causalsignificance. This is the problem of preserving the pure racialstock among the people. Human vigour or decline depends on theblood. Nations that are not aware of the importance of their racialstock, or which neglect to preserve it, are like men who would tryto educate the pug-dog to do the work of the greyhound, notunderstanding that neither the speed of the greyhound nor theimitative faculties of the poodle are inborn qualities which cannotbe drilled into the one or the other by any form of training. Apeople that fails to preserve the purity of its racial bloodthereby destroys the unity of the soul of the nation in all itsmanifestations. A disintegrated national character is theinevitable consequence of a process of disintegration in the blood.And the change which takes place in the spiritual and creativefaculties of a people is only an effect of the change that hasmodified its racial substance.
If we are to free the German people from all those failings andways of acting which do not spring from their original character,we must first get rid of those foreign germs in the national bodywhich are the cause of its failings and false ways.
The German nation will never revive unless the racial problem istaken into account and dealt with. The racial problem furnishes thekey not only to the understanding of human history but also to theunderstanding of every kind of human culture.
(6) By incorporating in the national community the masses of ourpeople who are now in the international camp we do not thereby meanto renounce the principle that the interests of the various tradesand professions must be safeguarded. Divergent interests in thevarious branches of labour and in the trades and professions arenot the same as a division between the various classes, but rathera feature inherent in the economic situation. Vocational groupingdoes not clash in the least with the idea of a national community,for this means national unity in regard to all those problems thataffect the life of the nation as such.
To incorporate in the national community, or simply the State, astratum of the people which has now formed a social class thestanding of the higher classes must not be lowered but that of thelower classes must be raised. The class which carries through thisprocess is never the higher class but rather the lower one which isfighting for equality of rights. The bourgeoisie of to-day was notincorporated in the State through measures enacted by the feudalnobility but only through its own energy and a leadership that hadsprung from its own ranks.
The German worker cannot be raised from his present standing andincorporated in the German folk-community by means of goody-goodymeetings where people talk about the brotherhood of the people, butrather by a systematic improvement in the social and cultural lifeof the worker until the yawning abyss between him and the otherclasses can be filled in. A movement which has this for its aimmust try to recruit its followers mainly from the ranks of theworking class. It must include members of the intellectual classesonly in so far as such members have rightly understood and acceptedwithout reserve the ideal towards which the movement is striving.This process of transformation and reunion cannot be completedwithin ten or twenty years. It will take several generations, asthe history of such movements has shown.
The most difficult obstacle to the reunion of our contemporaryworker in the national folk-community does not consist so much inthe fact that he fights for the interests of his fellow-workers,but rather in the international ideas with which he is imbued andwhich are of their nature at variance with the ideas of nationhoodand fatherland. This hostile attitude to nation and fatherland hasbeen inculcated by the leaders of the working class. If they wereinspired by the principle of devotion to the nation in all thatconcerns its political and social welfare, the trades unions wouldmake those millions of workers most valuable members of thenational community, without thereby affecting their own constantstruggle for their economic demands.
A movement which sincerely endeavours to bring the German workerback into his folk-community, and rescue him from the folly ofinternationalism, must wage a vigorous campaign against certainnotions that are prevalent among the industrialists. One of thesenotions is that according to the concept of the folk-community, theemployee is obliged to surrender all his economic rights to theemployer and, further, that the workers would come into conflictwith the folk-community if they should attempt to defend their ownjust and vital interests. Those who try to propagate such a notionare deliberate liars. The idea of a folk-community does not imposeany obligations on the one side that are not imposed on theother.
A worker certainly does something which is contrary to thespirit of folk-community if he acts entirely on his own initiativeand puts forward exaggerated demands without taking the common goodinto consideration or the maintenance of the national economicstructure. But an industrialist also acts against the spirit of thefolk-community if he adopts inhuman methods of exploitation andmisuses the working forces of the nation to make millions unjustlyfor himself from the sweat of the workers. He has no right to callhimself 'national' and no right to talk of a folk-community, for heis only an unscrupulous egoist who sows the seeds of socialdiscontent and provokes a spirit of conflict which sooner or latermust be injurious to the interests of the country.
The reservoir from which the young movement has to draw itsmembers will first of all be the working masses. Those masses mustbe delivered from the clutches of the international mania. Theirsocial distress must be eliminated. They must be raised above theirpresent cultural level, which is deplorable, and transformed into aresolute and valuable factor in the folk-community, inspired bynational ideas and national sentiment.
If among those intellectual circles that are nationalist intheir outlook men can be found who genuinely love the people andlook forward eagerly to the future of Germany, and at the same timehave a sound grasp of the importance of a struggle whose aim is towin over the soul of the masses, such men are cordially welcomed inthe ranks of our movement, because they can serve as a valuableintellectual force in the work that has to be done. But thismovement can never aim at recruiting its membership from theunthinking herd of bourgeois voters. If it did so the movementwould be burdened with a mass of people whose whole mentality wouldonly help to paralyse the effort of our campaign to win the mass ofthe people. In theory it may be very fine to say that the broadmasses ought to be influenced by a combined leadership of the upperand lower social strata within the framework of the one movement;but, notwithstanding all this, the fact remains that though it maybe possible to exercise a psychological influence on the bourgeoisclasses and to arouse some enthusiasm or even awaken someunderstanding among them by our public demonstrations, theirtraditional characteristics cannot be changed. In other words, wecould not eliminate from the bourgeois classes the inefficiency andsupineness which are part of a tradition that has developed throughcenturies. The difference between the cultural levels of the twogroups and between their respective attitudes towardssocial-economic questions is still so great that it would turn outa hindrance to the movement the moment the first enthusiasm arousedby our demonstrations calmed down.
Finally, it is not part of our programme to transform thenationalist camp itself, but rather to win over those who areanti-national in their outlook. It is from this viewpoint that thestrategy of the whole movement must finally be decided.
(7) This one-sided but accordingly clear and definite attitudemust be manifested in the propaganda of the movement; and, on theother hand, this is absolutely necessary to make the propagandaitself effective.
If propaganda is to be of service to the movement it must beaddressed to one side alone; for if it should vary the direction ofits appeal it will not be understood in the one camp or may berejected by the other, as merely insisting on obvious anduninteresting truisms; for the intellectual training of the twocamps that come into question here has been very different.
Even the manner in which something is presented and the tone inwhich particular details are emphasized cannot have the same effectin those two strata that belong respectively to the oppositeextremes of the social structure. If the propaganda should refrainfrom using primitive forms of expression it will not appeal to thesentiments of the masses. If, on the other hand, it conforms to thecrude sentiments of the masses in its words and gestures theintellectual circles will be averse to it because of its roughnessand vulgarity. Among a hundred men who call themselves oratorsthere are scarcely ten who are capable of speaking with effectbefore an audience of street-sweepers, locksmiths and navvies,etc., to-day and expound the same subject with equal effectto-morrow before an audience of university professors and students.Among a thousand public speakers there may be only one who canspeak before a composite audience of locksmiths and professors inthe same hall in such a way that his statements can be fullycomprehended by each group while at the same time he effectivelyinfluences both and awakens enthusiasm, on the one side as well ason the other, to hearty applause. But it must be remembered that inmost cases even the most beautiful idea embodied in a sublimetheory can be brought home to the public only through the medium ofsmaller minds. The thing that matters here is not the vision of theman of genius who created the great idea but rather the successwhich his apostles achieve in shaping the expression of this ideaso as to bring it home to the minds of the masses.
Social-Democracy and the whole Marxist movement wereparticularly qualified to attract the great masses of the nation,because of the uniformity of the public to which they addressedtheir appeal. The more limited and narrow their ideas andarguments, the easier it was for the masses to grasp and assimilatethem; for those ideas and arguments were well adapted to a lowlevel of intelligence.
These considerations led the new movement to adopt a clear andsimple line of policy, which was as follows:
In its message as well as in its forms of expression thepropaganda must be kept on a level with the intelligence of themasses, and its value must be measured only by the actual successit achieves.
At a public meeting where the great masses are gathered togetherthe best speaker is not he whose way of approaching a subject ismost akin to the spirit of those intellectuals who may happen to bepresent, but the speaker who knows how to win the hearts of themasses.
An educated man who is present and who finds fault with anaddress because he considers it to be on an intellectual plane thatis too low, though he himself has witnessed its effect on the lowerintellectual groups whose adherence has to be won, only showshimself completely incapable of rightly judging the situation andtherewith proves that he can be of no use in the new movement. Onlyintellectuals can be of use to a movement who understand itsmission and its aims so well that they have learned to judge ourmethods of propaganda exclusively by the success obtained and neverby the impression which those methods made on the intellectualsthemselves. For our propaganda is not meant to serve as anentertainment for those people who already have a nationalistoutlook, but its purpose is to win the adhesion of those who havehitherto been hostile to national ideas and who are nevertheless ofour own blood and race.
In general, those considerations of which I have given a briefsummary in the chapter on 'War Propaganda' became the guiding rulesand principles which determined the kind of propaganda we were toadopt in our campaign and the manner in which we were to put itinto practice. The success that has been obtained proves that ourdecision was right.
(8) The ends which any political reform movement sets out toattain can never be reached by trying to educate the public orinfluence those in power but only by getting political power intoits hands. Every idea that is meant to move the world has not onlythe right but also the obligation of securing control of thosemeans which will enable the idea to be carried into effect. In thisworld success is the only rule of judgment whereby we can decidewhether such an undertaking was right or wrong. And by the word'success' in this connection I do not mean such a success as themere conquest of power in 1918 but the successful issue whereby thecommon interests of the nation have been served. A coupd'etat cannot be considered successful if, as many empty-headedgovernment lawyers in Germany now believe, the revolutionariessucceeded in getting control of the State into their hands but onlyif, in comparison with the state of affairs under the old regime,the lot of the nation has been improved when the aims andintentions on which the revolution was based have been put intopractice. This certainly does not apply to the German Revolution,as that movement was called, which brought a gang of bandits intopower in the autumn of 1918.
But if the conquest of political power be a requisitepreliminary for the practical realization of the ideals thatinspire a reform movement, then any movement which aims at reformmust, from the very first day of its activity, be considered by itsleaders as a movement of the masses and not as a literary tea clubor an association of philistines who meet to play ninepins.
(9) The nature and internal organization of the new movementmake it anti-parliamentarian. That is to say, it rejects in generaland in its own structure all those principles according to whichdecisions are to be taken on the vote of the majority and accordingto which the leader is only the executor of the will and opinion ofothers. The movement lays down the principle that, in the smallestas well as in the greatest problems, one person must have absoluteauthority and bear all responsibility.
In our movement the practical consequences of this principle arethe following:
The president of a large group is appointed by the head of thegroup immediately above his in authority. He is then theresponsible leader of his group. All the committees are subject tohis authority and not he to theirs. There is no such thing ascommittees that vote but only committees that work. This work isallotted by the responsible leader, who is the president of thegroup. The same principle applies to the higherorganizations'--the Bezirk (district), the Kreis (urbancircuit) and the Gau (the region). In each case thepresident is appointed from above and is invested with fullauthority and executive power. Only the leader of the whole partyis elected at the general meeting of the members. But he is thesole leader of the movement. All the committees are responsible tohim, but he is not responsible to the committees. His decision isfinal, but he bears the whole responsibility of it. The members ofthe movement are entitled to call him to account by means of a newelection, or to remove him from office if he has violated theprinciples of the movement or has not served its interestsadequately. He is then replaced by a more capable man. who isinvested with the same authority and obliged to bear the sameresponsibility.
One of the highest duties of the movement is to make thisprinciple imperative not only within its own ranks but also for thewhole State.
The man who becomes leader is invested with the highest andunlimited authority, but he also has to bear the last and gravestresponsibility.
The man who has not the courage to shoulder responsibility forhis actions is not fitted to be a leader. Only a man of heroicmould can have the vocation for such a task.
Human progress and human cultures are not founded by themultitude. They are exclusively the work of personal genius andpersonal efficiency.
Because of this principle, our movement must necessarily beanti-parliamentarian, and if it takes part in the parliamentaryinstitution it is only for the purpose of destroying thisinstitution from within; in other words, we wish to do away with aninstitution which we must look upon as one of the gravest symptomsof human decline.
(10) The movement steadfastly refuses to take up any stand inregard to those problems which are either outside of its sphere ofpolitical work or seem to have no fundamental importance for us. Itdoes not aim at bringing about a religious reformation, but rathera political reorganization of our people. It looks upon the tworeligious denominations as equally valuable mainstays for theexistence of our people, and therefore it makes war on all thoseparties which would degrade this foundation, on which the religiousand moral stability of our people is based, to an instrument in theservice of party interests.
Finally, the movement does not aim at establishing any one formof State or trying to destroy another, but rather to make thosefundamental principles prevail without which no republic and nomonarchy can exist for any length of time. The movement does notconsider its mission to be the establishment of a monarchy or thepreservation of the Republic but rather to create a GermanState.
The problem concerning the outer form of this State, that is tosay, its final shape, is not of fundamental importance. It is aproblem which must be solved in the light of what seems practicaland opportune at the moment.
Once a nation has understood and appreciated the great problemsthat affect its inner existence, the question of outer formalitieswill never lead to any internal conflict.
(11) The problem of the inner organization of the movement isnot one of principle but of expediency.
The best kind of organization is not that which places a largeintermediary apparatus between the leadership of the movement andthe individual followers but rather that which works successfullywith the smallest possible intermediary apparatus. For it is thetask of such an organization to transmit a certain idea whichoriginated in the brain of one individual to a multitude of peopleand to supervise the manner in which this idea is being put intopractice.
Therefore, from any and every viewpoint, the organization isonly a necessary evil. At best it is only a means of reachingcertain ends. The worst happens when it becomes an end initself.
Since the world produces more mechanical than intelligentbeings, it will always be easier to develop the form of anorganization than its substance; that is to say, the ideas which itis meant to serve.
The march of any idea which strives towards practicalfulfilment, and in particular those ideas which are of areformatory character, may be roughly sketched as follows:
A creative idea takes shape in the mind of somebody whothereupon feels himself called upon to transmit this idea to theworld. He propounds his faith before others and thereby graduallywins a certain number of followers. This direct and personal way ofpromulgating one's ideas among one's contemporaries is the mostnatural and the most ideal. But as the movement develops andsecures a large number of followers it gradually becomes impossiblefor the original founder of the doctrine on which the movement isbased to carry on his propaganda personally among his innumerablefollowers and at the same time guide the course of themovement.
According as the community of followers increases, directcommunication between the head and the individual followers becomesimpossible. This intercourse must then take place through anintermediary apparatus introduced into the framework of themovement. Thus ideal conditions of inter-communication cease, andorganization has to be introduced as a necessary evil. Smallsubsidiary groups come into existence, as in the politicalmovement, for example, where the local groups represent thegerm-cells out of which the organization develops later on.
But such sub-divisions must not be introduced into the movementuntil the authority of the spiritual founder and of the school hehas created are accepted without reservation. Otherwise themovement would run the risk of becoming split up by divergentdoctrines. In this connection too much emphasis cannot be laid onthe importance of having one geographic centre as the chief seat ofthe movement. Only the existence of such a seat or centre, aroundwhich a magic charm such as that of Mecca or Rome is woven, cansupply a movement with that permanent driving force which has itssources in the internal unity of the movement and the recognitionof one head as representing this unity.
When the first germinal cells of the organization are beingformed care must always be taken to insist on the importance of theplace where the idea originated. The creative, moral and practicalgreatness of the place whence the movement went forth and fromwhich it is governed must be exalted to a supreme symbol, and thismust be honoured all the more according as the original cells ofthe movement become so numerous that they have to be regrouped intolarger units in the structure of the organization.
When the number of individual followers became so large thatdirect personal contact with the head of the movement was out ofthe question, then we had to form those first local groups. Asthose groups multiplied to an extraordinary number it was necessaryto establish higher cadres into which the local groups weredistributed. Examples of such cadres in the political organizationare those of the region (Gau) and the district(Bezirk).
Though it may be easy enough to maintain the original centralauthority over the lowest groups, it is much more difficult to doso in relation to the higher units of organization which have nowdeveloped. And yet we must succeed in doing this, for this is anindispensable condition if the unity of the movement is to beguaranteed and the idea of it carried into effect.
Finally, when those larger intermediary organizations have to becombined in new and still higher units it becomes increasinglydifficult to maintain over them the absolute supremacy of theoriginal seat of the movement and the school attached to it.
Consequently the mechanical forms of an organization must onlybe introduced if and in so far as the spiritual authority and theideals of the central seat of the organization are shown to befirmly established. In the political sphere it may often happenthat this supremacy can be maintained only when the movement hastaken over supreme political control of the nation.
Having taken all these considerations into account, thefollowing principles were laid down for the inner structure of themovement:
(a) That at the beginning all activity should be concentrated inone town: namely, Munich. That a band of absolutely reliablefollowers should be trained and a school founded which wouldsubsequently help to propagate the idea of the movement. That theprestige of the movement, for the sake of its subsequent extension,should first be established here through gaining as many successfuland visible results as possible in this one place. To secure nameand fame for the movement and its leader it was necessary, not onlyto give in this one town a striking example to shatter the beliefthat the Marxist doctrine was invincible but also to show that acounter-doctrine was possible.
(b) That local groups should not be established before thesupremacy of the central authority in Munich was definitelyestablished and acknowledged.
(c) That District, Regional, and Provincial groups should beformed only after the need for them has become evident and onlyafter the supremacy of the central authority has beensatisfactorily guaranteed.
Further, that the creation of subordinate organisms must dependon whether or not those persons can be found who are qualified toundertake the leadership of them.
Here there were only two solutions:
(a) That the movement should acquire the necessary funds toattract and train intelligent people who would be capable ofbecoming leaders. The personnel thus obtained could then besystematically employed according as the tactical situation and thenecessity for efficiency demanded.
This solution was the easier and the more expedite. But itdemanded large financial resources; for this group of leaders couldwork in the movement only if they could be paid a salary.
(b) Because the movement is not in a position to employ paidofficials it must begin by depending on honorary helpers. Naturallythis solution is slower and more difficult.
It means that the leaders of the movement have to allow vastterritories to lie fallow unless in these respective districts oneof the members comes forward who is capable and willing to placehimself at the service of the central authority for the purpose oforganizing and directing the movement in the region concerned.
It may happen that in extensive regions no such leader can befound, but that at the same time in other regions two or three oreven more persons appear whose capabilities are almost on a level.The difficulty which this situation involves is very great and canbe overcome only with the passing of the years.
For the establishment of any branch of the organization thedecisive condition must always be that a person can be found who iscapable of fulfilling the functions of a leader.
Just as the army and all its various units of organization areuseless if there are no officers, so any political organization isworthless if it has not the right kind of leaders.
If an inspiring personality who has the gift of leadershipcannot be found for the organization and direction of a local groupit is better for the movement to refrain from establishing such agroup than to run the risk of failure after the group has beenfounded.
The will to be a leader is not a sufficient qualification forleadership. For the leader must have the other necessary qualities.Among these qualities will-power and energy must be considered asmore serviceable than the intellect of a genius. The most valuableassociation of qualities is to be found in a combination of talent,determination and perseverance.
(12) The future of a movement is determined by the devotion, andeven intolerance, with which its members fight for their cause.They must feel convinced that their cause alone is just, and theymust carry it through to success, as against other similarorganizations in the same field.
It is quite erroneous to believe that the strength of a movementmust increase if it be combined with other movements of a similarkind. Any expansion resulting from such a combination will ofcourse mean an increase in external development, which superficialobservers might consider as also an increase of power; but inreality the movement thus admits outside elements which willsubsequently weaken its constitutional vigour.
Though it may be said that one movement is identical incharacter with another, in reality no such identity exists. If itdid exist then practically there would not be two movements butonly one. And whatever the difference may be, even if it consistonly of the measure in which the capabilities of the one set ofleaders differ from those of the other, there it is. It is againstthe natural law of all development to couple dissimilar organisms,or the law is that the stronger must overcome the weaker and,through the struggle necessary for such a conquest, increase theconstitutional vigour and effective strength of the victor.
By amalgamating political organizations that are approximatelyalike, certain immediate advantages may be gained, but advantagesthus gained are bound in the long run to become the cause ofinternal weaknesses which will make their appearance later on.
A movement can become great only if the unhampered developmentof its internal strength be safeguarded and steadfastly augmented,until victory over all its competitors be secured.
One may safely say that the strength of a movement and its rightto existence can be developed only as long as it remains true tothe principle that struggle is a necessary condition of itsprogress and that its maximum strength will be reached only as soonas complete victory has been won.
Therefore a movement must not strive to obtain successes thatwill be only immediate and transitory, but it must show a spirit ofuncompromising perseverance in carrying through a long strugglewhich will secure for it a long period of inner growth.
All those movements which owe their expansion to a so-calledcombination of similar organisms, which means that their externalstrength is due to a policy of compromise, are like plants whosegrowth is forced in a hothouse. They shoot up externally but theylack that inner strength which enables the natural plant to growinto a tree that will withstand the storms of centuries.
The greatness of every powerful organization which embodies acreative idea lies in the spirit of religious devotion andintolerance with which it stands out against all others, because ithas an ardent faith in its own right. If an idea is right in itselfand, furnished with the fighting weapons I have mentioned, wageswar on this earth, then it is invincible and persecution will onlyadd to its internal strength.
The greatness of Christianity did not arise from attempts tomake compromises with those philosophical opinions of the ancientworld which had some resemblance to its own doctrine, but in theunrelenting and fanatical proclamation and defence of its ownteaching.
The apparent advance that a movement makes by associating itselfwith other movements will be easily reached and surpassed by thesteady increase of strength which a doctrine and its organizationacquires if it remains independent and fights its own causealone.
(13) The movement ought to educate its adherents to theprinciple that struggle must not be considered a necessary evil butas something to be desired in itself. Therefore they must not beafraid of the hostility which their adversaries manifest towardsthem but they must take it as a necessary condition on which theirwhole right to existence is based. They must not try to avoid beinghated by those who are the enemies of our people and our philosophyof life, but must welcome such hatred. Lies and calumnies are partof the method which the enemy employs to express his chagrin.
The man who is not opposed and vilified and slandered in theJewish Press is not a staunch German and not a true NationalSocialist. The best rule whereby the sincerity of his convictions,his character and strength of will, can be measured is thehostility which his name arouses among the mortal enemies of ourpeople.
The followers of the movement, and indeed the whole nation, mustbe reminded again and again of the fact that, through the medium ofhis newspapers, the Jew is always spreading falsehood and that ifhe tells the truth on some occasions it is only for the purpose ofmasking some greater deceit, which turns the apparent truth into adeliberate falsehood. The Jew is the Great Master of Lies.Falsehood and duplicity are the weapons with which he fights.
Every calumny and falsehood published by the Jews are tokens ofhonour which can be worn by our comrades. He whom they decry mostis nearest to our hearts and he whom they mortally hate is our bestfriend.
If a comrade of ours opens a Jewish newspaper in the morning anddoes not find himself vilified there, then he has spent yesterdayto no account. For if he had achieved something he would bepersecuted, slandered, derided and abused. Those who effectivelycombat this mortal enemy of our people, who is at the same time theenemy of all Aryan peoples and all culture, can only expect toarouse opposition on the part of this race and become the object ofits slanderous attacks.
When these truths become part of the flesh and blood, as itwere, of our members, then the movement will be impregnable andinvincible.
(14) The movement must use all possible means to cultivaterespect for the individual personality. It must never forget thatall human values are based on personal values, and that every ideaand achievement is the fruit of the creative power of one man. Wemust never forget that admiration for everything that is great isnot only a tribute to one creative personality but that all thosewho feel such admiration become thereby united under onecovenant.
Nothing can take the place of the individual, especially if theindividual embodies in himself not the mechanical element but theelement of cultural creativeness. No pupil can take the place ofthe master in completing a great picture which he has leftunfinished; and just in the same way no substitute can take theplace of the great poet or thinker, or the great statesman ormilitary general. For the source of their power is in the realm ofartistic creativeness. It can never be mechanically acquired,because it is an innate product of divine grace.
The greatest revolutions and the greatest achievements of thisworld, its greatest cultural works and the immortal creations ofgreat statesmen, are inseparably bound up with one name whichstands as a symbol for them in each respective case. The failure topay tribute to one of those great spirits signifies a neglect ofthat enormous source of power which lies in the remembrance of allgreat men and women.
The Jew himself knows this best. He, whose great men have alwaysbeen great only in their efforts to destroy mankind and itscivilization, takes good care that they are worshipped as idols.But the Jew tries to degrade the honour in which nations hold theirgreat men and women. He stigmatizes this honour as 'the cult ofpersonality'.
As soon as a nation has so far lost its courage as to submit tothis impudent defamation on the part of the Jews it renounces themost important source of its own inner strength. This inner forcecannot arise from a policy of pandering to the masses but only fromthe worship of men of genius, whose lives have uplifted andennobled the nation itself.
When men's hearts are breaking and their souls are plunged intothe depths of despair, their great forebears turn their eyestowards them from the dim shadows of the past'--those forebearswho knew how to triumph over anxiety and affliction, mentalservitude and physical bondage'--and extend their eternal handsin a gesture of encouragement to despairing souls. Woe to thenation that is ashamed to clasp those hands.
During the initial phase of our movement our greatest handicapwas the fact that none of us were known and our names meantnothing, a fact which then seemed to some of us to make the chancesof final success problematical. Our most difficult task then was tomake our members firmly believe that there was a tremendous futurein store for the movement and to maintain this belief as a livingfaith; for at that time only six, seven or eight persons came tohear one of our speakers.
Consider that only six or seven poor devils who were entirelyunknown came together to found a movement which should succeed indoing what the great mass-parties had failed to do: namely, toreconstruct the German Reich, even in greater power and glory thanbefore. We should have been very pleased if we were attacked oreven ridiculed. But the most depressing fact was that nobody paidany attention to us whatever. This utter lack of interest in uscaused me great mental pain at that time.
When I entered the circle of those men there was not yet anyquestion of a party or a movement. I have already described theimpression which was made on me when I first came into contact withthat small organization. Subsequently I had time, and also theoccasion, to study the form of this so-called party which at firsthad made such a woeful impression. The picture was indeed quitedepressing and discouraging. There was nothing, absolutely nothingat all. There was only the name of a party. And the committeeconsisted of all the party members. Somehow or other it seemed justthe kind of thing we were about to fight against'--a miniatureparliament. The voting system was employed. When the greatparliament cried until they were hoarse'--at least they shoutedover problems of importance'--here this small circle engaged ininterminable discussions as to the form in which they might answerthe letters which they were delighted to have received.
Needless to say, the public knew nothing of all this. In Munichnobody knew of the existence of such a party, not even by name,except our few members and their small circle of acquaintances.
Every Wednesday what was called a committee meeting was held inone of the caf(C)s, and a debate was arranged for one evening eachweek. In the beginning all the members of the movement were alsomembers of the committee, therefore the same persons always turnedup at both meetings. The first step that had to be taken was toextend the narrow limits of this small circle and get new members,but the principal necessity was to utilize all the means at ourcommand for the purpose of making the movement known.
We chose the following methods: We decided to hold a monthlymeeting to which the public would be invited. Some of theinvitations were typewritten, and some were written by hand. Forthe first few meetings we distributed them in the streets anddelivered them personally at certain houses. Each one canvassedamong his own acquaintances and tried to persuade some of them toattend our meetings. The result was lamentable.
I still remember once how I personally delivered eighty of theseinvitations and how we waited in the evening for the crowds tocome. After waiting in vain for a whole hour the chairman finallyhad to open the meeting. Again there were only seven peoplepresent, the old familiar seven.
We then changed our methods. We had the invitations written witha typewriter in a Munich stationer's shop and then multigraphedthem.
The result was that a few more people attended our next meeting.The number increased gradually from eleven to thirteen toseventeen, to twenty-three and finally to thirty-four. We collectedsome money within our own circle, each poor devil giving a smallcontribution, and in that way we raised sufficient funds to be ableto advertise one of our meetings in the Munich Observer,which was still an independent paper.
This time we had an astonishing success. We had chosen theMunich Hofbr¤u Haus Keller (which must not be confoundedwith the Munich Hofbr¤u Haus Festsaal) as our meeting-place.It was a small hall and would accommodate scarcely more than 130people. To me, however, the hall seemed enormous, and we were alltrembling lest this tremendous edifice would remain partly empty onthe night of the meeting.
At seven o'clock 111 persons were present, and the meeting wasopened. A Munich professor delivered the principal address, and Ispoke after him. That was my first appearance in the role of publicorator. The whole thing seemed a very daring adventure to HerrHarrer, who was then chairman of the party. He was a very decentfellow; but he had an a priori conviction that, although Imight have quite a number of good qualities, I certainly did nothave a talent for public speaking. Even later he could not bepersuaded to change his opinion. But he was mistaken. Twentyminutes had been allotted to me for my speech on this occasion,which might be looked upon as our first public meeting.
I talked for thirty minutes, and what I always had felt deepdown in my heart, without being able to put it to the test, washere proved to be true: I could make a good speech. At the end ofthe thirty minutes it was quite clear that all the people in thelittle hall had been profoundly impressed. The enthusiasm arousedamong them found its first expression in the fact that my appeal tothose present brought us donations which amounted to three hundredmarks. That was a great relief for us. Our finances were at thattime so meagre that we could not afford to have our partyprospectus printed, or even leaflets. Now we possessed at least thenucleus of a fund from which we could pay the most urgent andnecessary expenses.
But the success of this first larger meeting was also importantfrom another point of view. I had already begun to introduce someyoung and fresh members into the committee. During the long periodof my military service I had come to know a large number of goodcomrades whom I was now able to persuade to join our party. All ofthem were energetic and disciplined young men who, through theiryears of military service, had been imbued with the principle thatnothing is impossible and that where there's a will there's away.
The need for this fresh blood supply became evident to me aftera few weeks of collaboration with the new members. Herr Harrer, whowas then chairman of the party, was a journalist by profession, andas such he was a man of general knowledge. But as leader of theparty he had one very serious handicap: he could not speak to thecrowd. Though he did his work conscientiously, it lacked thenecessary driving force, probably for the reason that he had nooratorical gifts whatsoever. Herr Drexler, at that time chairman ofthe Munich local group, was a simple working man. He, too, was notof any great importance as a speaker. Moreover, he was not asoldier. He had never done military service, even during the War.So that this man who was feeble and diffident by nature had missedthe only school which knows how to transform diffident and weaklynatures into real men. Therefore neither of those two men were ofthe stuff that would have enabled them to stir up an ardent andindomitable faith in the ultimate triumph of the movement and tobrush aside, with obstinate force and if necessary with brutalruthlessness, all obstacles that stood in the path of the new idea.Such a task could be carried out only by men who had been trained,body and soul, in those military virtues which make a man, so tospeak, agile as a greyhound, tough as leather, and hard as Kruppsteel.
At that time I was still a soldier. Physically and mentally Ihad the polish of six years of service, so that in the beginningthis circle must have looked on me as quite a stranger. In commonwith my army comrades, I had forgotten such phrases as: "That willnot go", or "That is not possible", or "We ought not to take such arisk; it is too dangerous".
The whole undertaking was of its very nature dangerous. At thattime there were many parts of Germany where it would have beenabsolutely impossible openly to invite people to a national meetingthat dared to make a direct appeal to the masses. Those whoattended such meetings were usually dispersed and driven away withbroken heads. It certainly did not call for any great qualities tobe able to do things in that way. The largest so-called bourgeoismass meetings were accustomed to dissolve, and those in attendancewould run away like rabbits when frightened by a dog as soon as adozen communists appeared on the scene. The Reds used to pay littleattention to those bourgeois organizations where only babblerstalked. They recognized the inner triviality of such associationsmuch better than the members themselves and therefore felt thatthey need not be afraid of them. On the contrary, however, theywere all the more determined to use every possible means ofannihilating once and for all any movement that appeared to them tobe a danger to their own interests. The most effective means whichthey always employed in such cases were terror and brute force.
The Marxist leaders, whose business consisted in deceiving andmisleading the public, naturally hated most of all a movement whosedeclared aim was to win over those masses which hitherto had beenexclusively at the service of international Marxism in the Jewishand Stock Exchange parties. The title alone, 'German Labour party',irritated them. It could easily be foreseen that at the firstopportune moment we should have to face the opposition of theMarxist despots, who were still intoxicated with their triumph in1918.
People in the small circles of our own movement at that timeshowed a certain amount of anxiety at the prospect of such aconflict. They wanted to refrain as much as possible from comingout into the open, because they feared that they might be attackedand beaten. In their minds they saw our first public meetingsbroken up and feared that the movement might thus be ruined forever. I found it difficult to defend my own position, which wasthat the conflict should not be evaded but that it should be facedopenly and that we should be armed with those weapons which are theonly protection against brute force. Terror cannot be overcome bythe weapons of the mind but only by counter-terror. The success ofour first public meeting strengthened my own position. The membersfelt encouraged to arrange for a second meeting, even on a largerscale.
Some time in October 1919 the second larger meeting took placein the Eberlbr¤u Keller. The theme of our speeches was'Brest-Litowsk and Versailles'. There were four speakers. I talkedfor almost an hour, and the success was even more striking than atour first meeting. The number of people who attended had grown tomore than 130. An attempt to disturb the proceedings wasimmediately frustrated by my comrades. The would-be disturbers werethrown down the stairs, bearing imprints of violence on theirheads.
A fortnight later another meeting took place in the same hall.The number in attendance had now increased to more than 170, whichmeant that the room was fairly well filled. I spoke again, and oncemore the success obtained was greater than at the previousmeeting.
Then I proposed that a larger hall should be found. Afterlooking around for some time we discovered one at the other end ofthe town, in the 'Deutschen Reich' in the Dachauer Strasse. Thefirst meeting at this new rendezvous had a smaller attendance thanthe previous meeting. There were just less than 140 present. Themembers of the committee began to be discouraged, and those who hadalways been sceptical were now convinced that this falling-off inthe attendance was due to the fact that we were holding themeetings at too short intervals. There were lively discussions, inwhich I upheld my own opinion that a city with 700,000 inhabitantsought to be able not only to stand one meeting every fortnight butten meetings every week. I held that we should not be discouragedby one comparative setback, that the tactics we had chosen werecorrect, and that sooner or later success would be ours if we onlycontinued with determined perseverance to push forward on our road.This whole winter of 1919-20 was one continual struggle tostrengthen confidence in our ability to carry the movement throughto success and to intensify this confidence until it became aburning faith that could move mountains.
Our next meeting in the small hall proved the truth of mycontention. Our audience had increased to more than 200. Thepublicity effect and the financial success were splendid. Iimmediately urged that a further meeting should be held. It tookplace in less than a fortnight, and there were more than 270 peoplepresent. Two weeks later we invited our followers and theirfriends, for the seventh time, to attend our meeting. The same hallwas scarcely large enough for the number that came. They amountedto more than four hundred.
During this phase the young movement developed its inner form.Sometimes we had more or less hefty discussions within our smallcircle. From various sides'--it was then just the same as it isto-day'--objections were made against the idea of calling theyoung movement a party. I have always considered such criticism asa demonstration of practical incapability and narrow-mindedness onthe part of the critic. Those objections have always been raised bymen who could not differentiate between external appearances andinner strength, but tried to judge the movement by thehigh-sounding character of the name attached to it. To this endthey ransacked the vocabulary of our ancestors, with unfortunateresults.
At that time it was very difficult to make the people understandthat every movement is a party as long as it has not brought itsideals to final triumph and thus achieved its purpose. It is aparty even if it give itself a thousand difterent names.
Any person who tries to carry into practice an original ideawhose realization would be for the benefit of his fellow men willfirst have to look for disciples who are ready to fight for theends he has in view. And if these ends did not go beyond thedestruction of the party system and therewith put a stop to theprocess of disintegration, then all those who come forward asprotagonists and apostles of such an ideal are a party inthemselves as long as their final goal is reached. It is onlyhair-splitting and playing with words when these antiquatedtheorists, whose practical success is in reverse ratio to theirwisdom, presume to think they can change the character of amovement which is at the same time a party, by merely changing itsname.
On the contrary, it is entirely out of harmony with the spiritof the nation to keep harping on that far-off and forgottennomenclature which belongs to the ancient Germanic times and doesnot awaken any distinct association in our age. This habit ofborrowing words from the dead past tends to mislead the people intothinking that the external trappings of its vocabulary are theimportant feature of a movement. It is really a mischievous habit;but it is quite prevalent nowadays.
At that time, and subsequently, I had to warn followersrepeatedly against these wandering scholars who were peddlingGermanic folk-lore and who never accomplished anything positive orpractical, except to cultivate their own superabundantself-conceit. The new movement must guard itself against an influxof people whose only recommendation is their own statement thatthey have been fighting for these very same ideals during the lastthirty or forty years.
Now if somebody has fought for forty years to carry into effectwhat he calls an idea, and if these alleged efforts not only showno positive results but have not even been able to hinder thesuccess of the opposing party, then the story of those forty yearsof futile effort furnishes sufficient proof for the incompetence ofsuch a protagonist. People of that kind are specially dangerousbecause they do not want to participate in the movement as ordinarymembers. They talk rather of the leading positions which would bethe only fitting posts for them, in view of their past work andalso so that they might be enabled to carry on that work further.But woe to a young movement if the conduct of it should fall intothe hands of such people. A business man who has been in charge ofa great firm for forty years and who has completely ruined itthrough his mismanagement is not the kind of person one wouldrecommend for the founding of a new firm. And it is just the samewith a new national movement. Nobody of common sense would appointto a leading post in such a movement some Teutonic Methuselah whohad been ineffectively preaching some idea for a period of fortyyears, until himself and his idea had entered the stage of seniledecay.
Furthermore, only a very small percentage of such people join anew movement with the intention of serving its end unselfishly andhelping in the spread of its principles. In most cases they comebecause they think that, under the aegis of the new movement, itwill be possible for them to promulgate their old ideas to themisfortune of their new listeners. Anyhow, nobody ever seems ableto describe what exactly these ideas are.
It is typical of such persons that they rant about ancientTeutonic heroes of the dim and distant ages, stone axes, battlespears and shields, whereas in reality they themselves are thewoefullest poltroons imaginable. For those very same people whobrandish Teutonic tin swords that have been fashioned carefullyaccording to ancient models and wear padded bear-skins, with thehorns of oxen mounted over their bearded faces, proclaim that allcontemporary conflicts must be decided by the weapons of the mindalone. And thus they skedaddle when the first communist cudgelappears. Posterity will have little occasion to write a new epic onthese heroic gladiators.
I have seen too much of that kind of people not to feel aprofound contempt for their miserable play-acting. To the masses ofthe nation they are just an object of ridicule; but the Jew findsit to his own interest to treat these folk-lore comedians withrespect and to prefer them to real men who are fighting toestablish a German State. And yet these comedians are extremelyproud of themselves. Notwithstanding their complete fecklessness,which is an established fact, they pretend to know everythingbetter than other people; so much so that they make themselves averitable nuisance to all sincere and honest patriots, to whom notonly the heroism of the past is worthy of honour but who also feelbound to leave examples of their own work for the inspiration ofthe coming generation.
Among those people there were some whose conduct can beexplained by their innate stupidity and incompetence; but there areothers who have a definite ulterior purpose in view. Often it isdifficult to distinguish between the two classes. The impressionwhich I often get, especially of those so-called religiousreformers whose creed is grounded on ancient Germanic customs, isthat they are the missionaries and prot(C)g(C)s of those forces whichdo not wish to see a national revival taking place in Germany. Alltheir activities tend to turn the attention of the people away fromthe necessity of fighting together in a common cause against thecommon enemy, namely the Jew. Moreover, that kind of preachinginduces the people to use up their energies, not in fighting forthe common cause, but in absurd and ruinous religious controversieswithin their own ranks. There are definite grounds that make itabsolutely necessary for the movement to be dominated by a strongcentral force which is embodied in the authoritative leadership. Inthis way alone is it possible to counteract the activity of suchfatal elements. And that is just the reason why these folk-loreAhasueruses are vigorously hostile to any movement whose membersare firmly united under one leader and one discipline. Those peopleof whom I have spoken hate such a movement because it is capable ofputting a stop to their mischief.
It was not without good reason that when we laid down a clearlydefined programme for the new movement we excluded the wordv¶lkisch from it. The concept underlying the termv¶lkisch cannot serve as the basis of a movement, because itis too indefinite and general in its application. Therefore, ifsomebody called himself v¶lkisch such a designation couldnot be taken as the hall-mark of some definite, partyaffiliation.
Because this concept is so indefinite from the practicalviewpoint, it gives rise to various interpretations and thus peoplecan appeal to it all the more easily as a sort of personalrecommendation. Whenever such a vague concept, which is subject toso many interpretations, is admitted into a political movement ittends to break up the disciplined solidarity of the fightingforces. No such solidarity can be maintained if each individualmember be allowed to define for himself what he believes and whathe is willing to do.
One feels it a disgrace when one notices the kind of people whofloat about nowadays with the v¶lkisch symbol stuck in theirbuttonholes, and at the same time to notice how many people havevarious ideas of their own as to the significance of that symbol. Awell-known professor in Bavaria, a famous combatant who fights onlywith the weapons of the mind and who boasts of having marchedagainst Berlin'--by shouldering the weapons of the mind, ofcourse'--believes that the word v¶lkisch is synonymouswith 'monarchical'. But this learned authority has hithertoneglected to explain how our German monarchs of the past can beidentified with what we generally mean by the word v¶lkischto-day. I am afraid he will find himself at a loss if he is askedto give a precise answer. For it would be very difficult indeed toimagine anything less v¶lkisch than most of those Germanmonarchical States were. Had they been otherwise they would nothave disappeared; or if they were v¶lkisch, then the fact oftheir downfall may be taken as evidence that the v¶lkischoutlook on the world (Weltanschauung) is a falseoutlook.
Everybody interprets this concept in his own way. But suchmultifarious opinions cannot be adopted as the basis of a militantpolitical movement. I need not call attention to the absolute lackof worldly wisdom, and especially the failure to understand thesoul of the nation, which is displayed by these MessianicPrecursors of the Twentieth Century. Sufficient attention has beencalled to those people by the ridicule which the left-wing partieshave bestowed on them. They allow them to babble on and sneer atthem.
I do not set much value on the friendship of people who do notsucceed in getting disliked by their enemies. Therefore, weconsidered the friendship of such people as not only worthless buteven dangerous to our young movement. That was the principal reasonwhy we first called ourselves a party. We hoped that bygiving ourselves such a name we might scare away a whole host ofv¶lkisch dreamers. And that was the reason also why we namedour Party, The National Socialist German Labour Party.
The first term, Party, kept away all those dreamers who live inthe past and all the lovers of bombastic nomenclature, as well asthose who went around beating the big drum for the v¶lkischidea. The full name of the Party kept away all those heroes whoseweapon is the sword of the spirit and all those whining poltroonswho take refuge behind their so-called 'intelligence' as if it werea kind of shield.
It was only to be expected that this latter class would launch amassed attack against us after our movement had started; but, ofcourse, it was only a pen-and-ink attack, for the goose-quill isthe only weapon which these v¶lkisch lancers wield. We haddeclared one of our principles thus: "We shall meet violence withviolence in our own defence". Naturally that principle disturbedthe equanimity of the knights of the pen. They reproached usbitterly not only for what they called our crude worship of thecudgel but also because, according to them, we had no intellectualforces on our side. These charlatans did not think for a momentthat a Demosthenes could be reduced to silence at a mass-meeting byfifty idiots who had come there to shout him down and use theirfists against his supporters. The innate cowardice of thepen-and-ink charlatan prevents him from exposing himself to such adanger, for he always works in safe retirement and never dares tomake a noise or come forward in public.
Even to-day I must warn the members of our young movement in thestrongest possible terms to guard against the danger of fallinginto the snare of those who call themselves 'silent workers'. These'silent workers' are not only a whitelivered lot but are also, andalways will be, ignorant do-nothings. A man who is aware of certainhappenings and knows that a certain danger threatens, and at thesame time sees a certain remedy which can be employed against it,is in duty bound not to work in silence but to come into the openand publicly fight for the destruction of the evil and theacceptance of his own remedy. If he does not do so, then he isneglecting his duty and shows that he is weak in character and thathe fails to act either because of his timidity, or indolence orincompetence. Most of these 'silent workers' generally pretend toknow God knows what. Not one of them is capable of any realachievement, but they keep on trying to fool the world with theirantics. Though quite indolent, they try to create the impressionthat their 'silent work' keeps them very busy. To put it briefly,they are sheer swindlers, political jobbers who feel chagrined bythe honest work which others are doing. When you find one of thesev¶lkisch moths buzzing over the value of his 'silent work'you may be sure that you are dealing with a fellow who does noproductive work at all but steals from others the fruits of theirhonest labour.
In addition to all this one ought to note the arrogance andconceited impudence with which these obscurantist idlers try totear to pieces the work of other people, criticizing it with an airof superiority, and thus playing into the hands of the mortal enemyof our people.
Even the simplest follower who has the courage to stand on thetable in some beer-hall where his enemies are gathered, andmanfully and openly defend his position against them, achieves athousand times more than these slinking hypocrites. He at leastwill convert one or two people to believe in the movement. One canexamine his work and test its effectiveness by its actual results.But those knavish swindlers'--who praise their own 'silentwork' and shelter themselves under the cloak of anonymity, are justworthless drones, in the truest sense of the term, and are utterlyuseless for the purpose of our national reconstruction.
In the beginning of 1920 I put forward the idea of holding ourfirst mass meeting. On this proposal there were differences ofopinion amongst us. Some leading members of our party thought thatthe time was not ripe for such a meeting and that the result mightbe detrimental. The Press of the Left had begun to take notice ofus and we were lucky enough in being able gradually to arouse theirwrath. We had begun to appear at other meetings and to askquestions or contradict the speakers, with the natural result thatwe were shouted down forthwith. But still we thereby gained some ofour ends. People began to know of our existence and the better theyunderstood us, the stronger became their aversion and their enmity.Therefore we might expect that a large contingent of our friendsfrom the Red Camp would attend our first mass meeting.
I fully realized that our meeting would probably be broken up.But we had to face the fight; if not now, then some months later.Since the first day of our foundation we were resolved to securethe future of the movement by fighting our way forward in a spiritof blind faith and ruthless determination. I was well acquaintedwith the mentality of all those who belonged to the Red Camp, and Iknew quite well that if we opposed them tooth and nail not onlywould we make an impression on them but that we even might win newfollowers for ourselves. Therefore I felt that we must decide on apolicy of active opposition.
Herr Harrer was then chairman of our party. He did not see eyeto eye with me as to the opportune time for our first mass meeting.Accordingly he felt himself obliged to resign from the leadershipof the movement, as an upright and honest man. Herr Anton Drexlertook his place. I kept the work of organizing the propaganda in myown hands and I listened to no compromise in carrying it out.
We decided on February 24th 1920 as the date for the first greatpopular meeting to be held under the aegis of this movement whichwas hitherto unknown.
I made all the preparatory arrangements personally. They did nottake very long. The whole apparatus of our organization was set inmotion for the purpose of being able to secure a rapid decision asto our policy. Within twenty-four hours we had to decide on theattitude we should take in regard to the questions of the day whichwould be put forward at the mass meeting. The notices whichadvertised the meeting had to bring these points before the public.In this direction we were forced to depend on the use of postersand leaflets, the contents of which and the manner in which theywere displayed were decided upon in accordance with the principleswhich I have already laid down in dealing with propaganda ingeneral. They were produced in a form which would appeal to thecrowd. They concentrated on a few points which were repeated againand again. The text was concise and definite, an absolutelydogmatic form of expression being used. We distributed theseposters and leaflets with a dogged energy and then we patientlywaited for the effect they would produce.
For our principal colour we chose red, as it has an excitingeffect on the eye and was therefore calculated to arouse theattention of our opponents and irritate them. Thus they would haveto take notice of us'--whether they liked it or not'--andwould not forget us.
One result of our tactics was to show up clearly the closepolitical fraternization that existed also here in Bavaria betweenthe Marxists and the Centre Party. The political party that heldpower in Bavaria, which was the Bavarian People's Party (affiliatedwith the Centre Party) did its best to counteract the effect whichour placards were having on the 'Red' masses. Thus they made adefinite step to fetter our activities. If the police could find noother grounds for prohibiting our placards, then they might claimthat we were disturbing the traffic in the streets. And thus theso-called German National People's Party calmed the anxieties oftheir 'Red' allies by completely prohibiting those placards whichproclaimed a message that was bringing back to the bosom of theirown people hundreds of thousands of workers who had been misled byinternational agitators and incensed against their own nation.These placards bear witness to the bitterness of the struggle inwhich the young movement was then engaged. Future generations willfind in these placards a documentary proof of our determination andthe justice of our own cause. And these placards will also provehow the so-called national officials took arbitrary action tostrangle a movement that did not please them, because it wasnationalizing the broad masses of the people and winning them backto their own racial stock.
These placards will also help to refute the theory that therewas then a national government in Bavaria and they will afforddocumentary confirmation of the fact that if Bavaria remainednationally-minded during the years 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922 and 1923,this was not due to a national government but it was because thenational spirit gradually gained a deeper hold on the people andthe Government was forced to follow public feeling. The Governmentauthorities themselves did everything in their power to hamper thisprocess of recovery and make it impossible. But in this connectiontwo officials must be mentioned as outstanding exceptions.
Ernst P¶hner was Chief of Police at the time. He had a loyalcounsellor in Dr. Frick, who was his chief executive official.These were the only men among the higher officials who had thecourage to place the interests of their country before their owninterests in holding on to their jobs. Of those in responsiblepositions Ernst P¶hner was the only one who did not pay court tothe mob but felt that his duty was towards the nation as such andwas ready to risk and sacrifice everything, even his personallivelihood, to help in the restoration of the German people, whomhe dearly loved. For that reason he was a bitter thorn in the sideof the venal group of Government officials. It was not theinterests of the nation or the necessity of a national revival thatinspired or directed their conduct. They simply truckled to thewishes of the Government, so as to secure their daily bread forthemselves, but they had no thought whatsoever for the nationalwelfare that had been entrusted to their care.
Above all, P¶hner was one of those people who, incontradistinction to the majority of our so-called defenders of theauthority of the State, did not fear to incur the enmity of thetraitors to the country and the nation but rather courted it as amark of honour and honesty. For such men the hatred of the Jews andMarxists and the lies and calumnies they spread, were their onlysource of happiness in the midst of the national misery. P¶hner wasa man of granite loyalty. He was like one of the ascetic charactersof the classical era and was at the same time that kind ofstraightforward German for whom the saying 'Better dead than aslave' is not an empty phrase but a veritable heart's cry.
In my opinion he and his collaborator, Dr. Frick, are the onlymen holding positions then in Bavaria who have the right to beconsidered as having taken active part in the creation of anational Bavaria.
Before holding our first great mass meeting it was necessary notonly to have our propaganda material ready but also to have themain items of our programme printed.
In the second volume of this book I shall give a detailedaccount of the guiding principles which we then followed in drawingup our programme. Here I will only say that the programme wasarranged not merely to set forth the form and content of the youngmovement but also with an eye to making it understood among thebroad masses. The so-called intellectual circles made jokes andsneered at it and then tried to criticize it. But the effect of ourprogramme proved that the ideas which we then held were right.
During those years I saw dozens of new movements arise anddisappear without leaving a trace behind. Only one movement hassurvived. It is the National Socialist German Labour Party. To-dayI am more convinced than ever before that, though they may combatus and try to paralyse our movement, and though pettifogging partyministers may forbid us the right of free speech, they cannotprevent the triumph of our ideas. When the present system of stataladministration and even the names of the political parties thatrepresent it will be forgotten, the programmatic basis of theNational Socialist movement will supply the groundwork on which thefuture State will be built.
The meetings which we held before January 1920 had enabled us tocollect the financial means that were necessary to have our firstpamphlets and posters and programmes printed.
I shall bring the first part of this book to a close byreferring to our first great mass meeting, because that meetingmarked the occasion on which our framework as a small party had tobe broken up and we started to become the most powerful factor ofthis epoch in the influence we exercised on public opinion. At thattime my chief anxiety was that we might not fill the hall and thatwe might have to face empty benches. I myself was firmly convincedthat if only the people would come this day would turn out a greatsuccess for the young movement. That was my feeling as I waitedimpatiently for the hour to come.
It had been announced that the meeting would begin at 7.30. Aquarter-of-an-hour before the opening time I walked through thechief hall of the Hofbr¤uhaus on the Platz in Munich and myheart was nearly bursting with joy. The great hall'--for atthat time it seemed very big to me'--was filled to overflowing.Nearly 2,000 people were present. And, above all, those people hadcome whom we had always wished to reach. More than half theaudience consisted of persons who seemed to be communists orindependents. Our first great demonstration was destined, in theirview, to come to an abrupt end.
But things happened otherwise. When the first speaker hadfinished I got up to speak. After a few minutes I was met with ahailstorm of interruptions and violent encounters broke out in thebody of the hall. A handful of my loyal war comrades and some otherfollowers grappled with the disturbers and restored order in alittle while. I was able to continue my speech. After half an hourthe applause began to drown the interruptions and the hootings.Then interruptions gradually ceased and applause took their place.When I finally came to explain the twenty-five points and laidthem, point after point, before the masses gathered there and askedthem to pass their own judgment on each point, one point afteranother was accepted with increasing enthusiasm. When the lastpoint was reached I had before me a hall full of people united by anew conviction, a new faith and a new will.
Nearly four hours had passed when the hall began to clear. Asthe masses streamed towards the exits, crammed shoulder toshoulder, shoving and pushing, I knew that a movement was now setafoot among the German people which would never pass intooblivion.
A fire was enkindled from whose glowing heat the sword would befashioned which would restore freedom to the German Siegfried andbring back life to the German nation.
Beside the revival which I then foresaw, I also felt that theGoddess of Vengeance was now getting ready to redress the treasonof the 9th of November, 1918. The hall was emptied. The movementwas on the march.
VOLUME II: THE NATIONALSOCIALIST MOVEMENTCHAPTER I. WELTANSCHAUUNG ANDPARTYOn February 24th, 1920, the first great mass meeting under theauspices of the new movement took place. In the Banquet Hall of theHofbr¤uhaus in Munich the twenty-five theses which constituted theprogramme of our new party were expounded to an audience of nearlytwo thousand people and each thesis was enthusiasticallyreceived.
Thus we brought to the knowledge of the public those firstprinciples and lines of action along which the new struggle was tobe conducted for the abolition of a confused mass of obsolete ideasand opinions which had obscure and often pernicious tendencies. Anew force was to make its appearance among the timid and fecklessbourgeoisie. This force was destined to impede the triumphantadvance of the Marxists and bring the Chariot of Fate to astandstill just as it seemed about to reach its goal.
It was evident that this new movement could gain the publicsignificance and support which are necessary pre-requisites in sucha gigantic struggle only if it succeeded from the very outset inawakening a sacrosanct conviction in the hearts of its followers,that here it was not a case of introducing a new electoral sloganinto the political field but that an entirely newWeltanschauung, which was of a radical significance, had tobe promoted.
One must try to recall the miserable jumble of opinions thatused to be arrayed side by side to form the usual Party Programme,as it was called, and one must remember how these opinions used tobe brushed up or dressed in a new form from time to time. If wewould properly understand these programmatic monstrosities we mustcarefully investigate the motives which inspired the averagebourgeois 'programme committee'.
Those people are always influenced by one and the samepreoccupation when they introduce something new into theirprogramme or modify something already contained in it. Thatpreoccupation is directed towards the results of the next election.The moment these artists in parliamentary government have the firstglimmering of a suspicion that their darling public may be ready tokick up its heels and escape from the harness of the old partywagon they begin to paint the shafts with new colours. On suchoccasions the party astrologists and horoscope readers, theso-called 'experienced men' and 'experts', come forward. For themost part they are old parliamentary hands whose politicalschooling has furnished them with ample experience. They canremember former occasions when the masses showed signs of losingpatience and they now diagnose the menace of a similar situationarising. Resorting to their old prescription, they form a'committee'. They go around among the darling public and listen towhat is being said. They dip their noses into the newspapers andgradually begin to scent what it is that their darlings, the broadmasses, are wishing for, what they reject and what they are hopingfor. The groups that belong to each trade or business, and evenoffice employees, are carefully studied and their innermost desiresare investigated. The 'malicious slogans' of the opposition fromwhich danger is threatened are now suddenly looked upon as worthyof reconsideration, and it often happens that these slogans, to thegreat astonishment of those who originally coined and circulatedthem, now appear to be quite harmless and indeed are to be foundamong the dogmas of the old parties.
So the committees meet to revise the old programme and draw up anew one.
For these people change their convictions just as the soldierchanges his shirt in war'--when the old one is bug-eaten. Inthe new programme everyone gets everything he wants. The farmer isassured that the interests of agriculture will be safeguarded. Theindustrialist is assured of protection for his products. Theconsumer is assured that his interests will be protected in themarket prices. Teachers are given higher salaries and civilservants will have better pensions. Widows and orphans will receivegenerous assistance from the State. Trade will be promoted. Thetariff will be lowered and even the taxes, though they cannot beentirely abolished, will be almost abolished. It sometimes happensthat one section of the public is forgotten or that one of thedemands mooted among the public has not reached the ears of theparty. This is also hurriedly patched on to the whole, should therebe any space available for it: until finally it is felt that thereare good grounds for hoping that the whole normal host ofphilistines, including their wives, will have their anxieties laidto rest and will beam with satisfaction once again. And so,internally armed with faith in the goodness of God and theimpenetrable stupidity of the electorate, the struggle for what iscalled 'the reconstruction of the Reich' can now begin.
When the election day is over and the parliamentarians have heldtheir last public meeting for the next five years, when they canleave their job of getting the populace to toe the line and can nowdevote themselves to higher and more pleasing tasks'--then theprogramme committee is dissolved and the struggle for theprogressive reorganization of public affairs becomes once again abusiness of earning one's daily bread, which for theparliamentarians means merely the attendance that is required inorder to be able to draw their daily remunerations. Morning aftermorning the honourable deputy wends his way to the House, andthough he may not enter the Chamber itself he gets at least as faras the front hall, where he will find the register on which thenames of the deputies in attendance have to be inscribed. As a partof his onerous service to his constituents he enters his name, andin return receives a small indemnity as a well-earned reward forhis unceasing and exhausting labours.
When four years have passed, or in the meantime if there shouldbe some critical weeks during which the parliamentary corporationshave to face the danger of being dissolved, these honourablegentlemen become suddenly seized by an irresistible desire to act.Just as the grub-worm cannot help growing into a cock-chafer, theseparliamentarian worms leave the great House of Puppets and flutteron new wings out among the beloved public. They address theelectors once again, give an account of the enormous labours theyhave accomplished and emphasize the malicious obstinacy of theiropponents. They do not always meet with grateful applause; foroccasionally the unintelligent masses throw rude and unfriendlyremarks in their faces. When this spirit of public ingratitudereaches a certain pitch there is only one way of saving thesituation. The prestige of the party must be burnished up again.The programme has to be amended. The committee is called intoexistence once again. And the swindle begins anew. Once weunderstand the impenetrable stupidity of our public we cannot besurprised that such tactics turn out successful. Led by the Pressand blinded once again by the alluring appearance of the newprogramme, the bourgeois as well as the proletarian herds of votersfaithfully return to the common stall and re-elect their olddeceivers. The 'people's man' and labour candidate now change backagain into the parliamentarian grub and become fat and rotund asthey batten on the leaves that grow on the tree of publiclife'--to be retransformed into the glittering butterfly afteranother four years have passed.
Scarcely anything else can be so depressing as to watch thisprocess in sober reality and to be the eyewitness of thisrepeatedly recurring fraud. On a spiritual training ground of thatkind it is not possible for the bourgeois forces to develop thestrength which is necessary to carry on the fight against theorganized might of Marxism. Indeed they have never seriouslythought of doing so. Though these parliamentary quacks whorepresent the white race are generally recognized as persons ofquite inferior mental capacity, they are shrewd enough to know thatthey could not seriously entertain the hope of being able to usethe weapon of Western Democracy to fight a doctrine for the advanceof which Western Democracy, with all its accessories, is employedas a means to an end. Democracy is exploited by the Marxists forthe purpose of paralysing their opponents and gaining forthemselves a free hand to put their own methods into action. Whencertain groups of Marxists use all their ingenuity for the timebeing to make it be believed that they are inseparably attached tothe principles of democracy, it may be well to recall the fact thatwhen critical occasions arose these same gentlemen snapped theirfingers at the principle of decision by majority vote, as thatprinciple is understood by Western Democracy. Such was the case inthose days when the bourgeois parliamentarians, in their monumentalshortsightedness, believed that the security of the Reich wasguaranteed because it had an overwhelming numerical majority in itsfavour, and the Marxists did not hesitate suddenly to grasp supremepower in their own hands, backed by a mob of loafers, deserters,political place-hunters and Jewish dilettanti. That was a blow inthe face for that democracy in which so many parliamentariansbelieved. Only those credulous parliamentary wizards whorepresented bourgeois democracy could have believed that the brutaldetermination of those whose interest it is to spread the Marxistworld-pest, of which they are the carriers, could for a moment, nowor in the future, be held in check by the magical formulas ofWestern Parliamentarianism. Marxism will march shoulder to shoulderwith democracy until it succeeds indirectly in securing for its owncriminal purposes even the support of those whose minds arenationally orientated and whom Marxism strives to exterminate. Butif the Marxists should one day come to believe that there was adanger that from this witch's cauldron of our parliamentarydemocracy a majority vote might be concocted, which by reason ofits numerical majority would be empowered to enact legislation andmight use that power seriously to combat Marxism, then the wholeparliamentarian hocus-pocus would be at an end. Instead ofappealing to the democratic conscience, the standard bearers of theRed International would immediately send forth a furiousrallying-cry among the proletarian masses and the ensuing fightwould not take place in the sedate atmosphere of Parliament but inthe factories and the streets. Then democracy would be annihilatedforthwith. And what the intellectual prowess of the apostles whorepresented the people in Parliament had failed to accomplish wouldnow be successfully carried out by the crow-bar and thesledge-hammer of the exasperated proletarian masses'--just asin the autumn of 1918. At a blow they would awaken the bourgeoisworld to see the madness of thinking that the Jewish drive towardsworld-conquest can be effectually opposed by means of WesternDemocracy.
As I have said, only a very credulous soul could think ofbinding himself to observe the rules of the game when he has toface a player for whom those rules are nothing but a mere bluff ora means of serving his own interests, which means he will discardthem when they prove no longer useful for his purpose.
All the parties that profess so-called bourgeois principles lookupon political life as in reality a struggle for seats inParliament. The moment their principles and convictions are of nofurther use in that struggle they are thrown overboard, as if theywere sand ballast. And the programmes are constructed in such a waythat they can be dealt with in like manner. But such practice has acorrespondingly weakening effect on the strength of those parties.They lack the great magnetic force which alone attracts the broadmasses; for these masses always respond to the compelling forcewhich 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 fightingpower that springs from a systematic conception of life'--eventhough it be criminal in a thousand ways'--makes an attackagainst the established order the other side will be able to resistwhen it draws its strength from a new faith, which in our case is apolitical faith. This faith must supersede the weak and cowardlycommand to defend. In its stead we must raise the battle-cry of acourageous and ruthless attack. Our present movement is accused,especially by the so-called national bourgeois cabinetministers'--the Bavarian representatives of the Centre, forexample'--of heading towards a revolution. We have one answerto give to those political pigmies. We say to them: We are tryingto make up for that which you, in your criminal stupidity, havefailed to carry out. By your parliamentarian jobbing you havehelped to drag the nation into ruin. But we, by our aggressivepolicy, are setting up a new Weltanschauung which we shalldefend with indomitable devotion. Thus we are building the steps onwhich our nation once again may ascend to the temple offreedom.
And so during the first stages of founding our movement we hadto take special care that our militant group which fought for theestablishment of a new and exalted political faith should notdegenerate into a society for the promotion of parliamentarianinterests.
The first preventive measure was to lay down a programme whichof itself would tend towards developing a certain moral greatnessthat would scare away all the petty and weakling spirits who makeup the bulk of our present party politicians.
Those fatal defects which finally led to Germany's downfallafford the clearest proof of how right we were in considering itabsolutely necessary to set up programmatic aims which were sharplyand distinctly defined.
Because we recognized the defects above mentioned, we realizedthat a new conception of the State had to be formed, which initself became a part of our new conception of life in general.
In the first volume of this book I have already dealt with theterm v¶lkisch, and I said then that this term has not asufficiently precise meaning to furnish the kernel around which aclosely consolidated militant community could be formed. All kindsof people, with all kinds of divergent opinions, are parading aboutat the present moment under the device v¶lkisch on theirbanners. Before I come to deal with the purposes and aims of theNational Socialist Labour Party I want to establish a clearunderstanding of what is meant by the concept v¶lkisch andherewith explain its relation to our party movement. The wordv¶lkisch does not express any clearly specified idea. It maybe interpreted in several ways and in practical application it isjust as general as the word 'religious', for instance. It isdifficult to attach any precise meaning to this latter word, eitheras a theoretical concept or as a guiding principle in practicallife. The word 'religious' acquires a precise meaning only when itis associated with a distinct and definite form through which theconcept is put into practice. To say that a person is 'deeplyreligious' may be very fine phraseology; but, generally speaking,it tells us little or nothing. There may be some few people who arecontent with such a vague description and there may even be some towhom the word conveys a more or less definite picture of the innerquality of a person thus described. But, since the masses of thepeople are not composed of philosophers or saints, such a vaguereligious idea will mean for them nothing else than to justify eachindividual in thinking and acting according to his own bent. Itwill not lead to that practical faith into which the innerreligious yearning is transformed only when it leaves the sphere ofgeneral metaphysical ideas and is moulded to a definite dogmaticbelief. Such a belief is certainly not an end in itself, but themeans to an end. Yet it is a means without which the end couldnever be reached at all. This end, however, is not merely somethingideal; for at the bottom it is eminently practical. We must alwaysbear in mind the fact that, generally speaking, the highest idealsare always the outcome of some profound vital need, just as themost sublime beauty owes its nobility of shape, in the lastanalysis, to the fact that the most beautiful form is the form thatis best suited to the purpose it is meant to serve.
By helping to lift the human being above the level of mereanimal existence, Faith really contributes to consolidate andsafeguard its own existence. Taking humanity as it exists to-dayand taking into consideration the fact that the religious beliefswhich it generally holds and which have been consolidated throughour education, so that they serve as moral standards in practicallife, if we should now abolish religious teaching and not replaceit by anything of equal value the result would be that thefoundations of human existence would be seriously shaken. We maysafely say that man does not live merely to serve higher ideals,but that these ideals, in their turn, furnish the necessaryconditions of his existence as a human being. And thus the circleis closed.
Of course, the word 'religious' implies some ideas and beliefsthat are fundamental. Among these we may reckon the belief in theimmortality of the soul, its future existence in eternity, thebelief in the existence of a Higher Being, and so on. But all theseideas, no matter how firmly the individual believes in them, may becritically analysed by any person and accepted or rejectedaccordingly, until the emotional concept or yearning has beentransformed into an active service that is governed by a clearlydefined doctrinal faith. Such a faith furnishes the practicaloutlet for religious feeling to express itself and thus opens theway through which it can be put into practice.
Without a clearly defined belief, the religious feeling wouldnot only be worthless for the purposes of human existence but evenmight contribute towards a general disorganization, on account ofits vague and multifarious tendencies.
What I have said about the word 'religious' can also be appliedto the term v¶lkisch. This word also implies certainfundamental ideas. Though these ideas are very important indeed,they assume such vague and indefinite forms that they cannot beestimated as having a greater value than mere opinions, until theybecome constituent elements in the structure of a political party.For in order to give practical force to the ideals that grow out ofa Weltanschauung and to answer the demands which are alogical consequence of such ideals, mere sentiment and innerlonging are of no practical assistance, just as freedom cannot bewon by a universal yearning for it. No. Only when the idealisticlonging for independence is organized in such a way that it canfight for its ideal with military force, only then can the urgentwish of a people be transformed into a potent reality.
Any Weltanschauung, though a thousandfold right andsupremely beneficial to humanity, will be of no practical servicefor the maintenance of a people as long as its principles have notyet become the rallying point of a militant movement. And, on itsown side, this movement will remain a mere party until is hasbrought its ideals to victory and transformed its party doctrinesinto the new foundations of a State which gives the nationalcommunity its final shape.
If an abstract conception of a general nature is to serve as thebasis of a future development, then the first prerequisite is toform a clear understanding of the nature and character and scope ofthis conception. For only on such a basis can a movement he foundedwhich will be able to draw the necessary fighting strength from theinternal cohesion of its principles and convictions. From generalideas a political programme must be constructed and a generalWeltanschauung must receive the stamp of a definitepolitical faith. Since this faith must be directed towards endsthat have to be attained in the world of practical reality, notonly must it serve the general ideal as such but it must also takeinto consideration the means that have to be employed for thetriumph of the ideal. Here the practical wisdom of the statesmanmust come to the assistance of the abstract idea, which is correctin itself. In that way an eternal ideal, which has everlastingsignificance as a guiding star to mankind, must be adapted to theexigencies of human frailty so that its practical effect may not befrustrated at the very outset through those shortcomings which aregeneral to mankind. The exponent of truth must here go hand in handwith him who has a practical knowledge of the soul of the people,so that from the realm of eternal verities and ideals what issuited to the capacities of human nature may be selected and givenpractical form. To take abstract and general principles, derivedfrom a Weltanschauung which is based on a solid foundationof truth, and transform them into a militant community whosemembers have the same political faith'--a community which isprecisely defined, rigidly organized, of one mind and onewill'--such a transformation is the most important task of all;for the possibility of successfully carrying out the idea isdependent on the successful fulfilment of that task. Out of thearmy of millions who feel the truth of these ideas, and even mayunderstand them to some extent, one man must arise. This man musthave the gift of being able to expound general ideas in a clear anddefinite form, and, from the world of vague ideas shimmering beforethe minds of the masses, he must formulate principles that will beas clear-cut and firm as granite. He must fight for theseprinciples as the only true ones, until a solid rock of commonfaith and common will emerges above the troubled waves of vagrantideas. The general justification of such action is to be sought inthe necessity for it and the individual will be justified by hissuccess.
If we try to penetrate to the inner meaning of the wordv¶lkisch 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 upcivilizations, has nothing in common with the concept of race asthe foundation of the State. The State is considered rather assomething 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 withall its logical consequences, not only ignores the primordialracial forces that underlie the State, but it also leads to apolicy in which the importance of the individual is minimized. Ifit be denied that races differ from one another in their powers ofcultural creativeness, then this same erroneous notion mustnecessarily influence our estimation of the value of theindividual. The assumption that all races are alike leads to theassumption that nations and individuals are equal to one another.And international Marxism is nothing but theapplication'--effected by the Jew, Karl Marx'--of a generalconception of life to a definite profession of political faith; butin reality that general concept had existed long before the time ofKarl Marx. If it had not already existed as a widely diffusedinfection the amazing political progress of the Marxist teachingwould never have been possible. In reality what distinguished KarlMarx from the millions who were affected in the same way was that,in a world already in a state of gradual decomposition, he used hiskeen powers of prognosis to detect the essential poisons, so as toextract them and concentrate them, with the art of a necromancer,in a solution which would bring about the rapid destruction of theindependent nations on the globe. But all this was done in theservice of his race.
Thus the Marxist doctrine is the concentrated extract of thementality which underlies the general concept of life to-day. Forthis reason alone it is out of the question and even ridiculous tothink that what is called our bourgeois world can put up anyeffective fight against Marxism. For this bourgeois world ispermeated with all those same poisons and its conception of life ingeneral differs from Marxism only in degree and in the character ofthe persons who hold it. The bourgeois world is Marxist butbelieves in the possibility of a certain group of people'--thatis to say, the bourgeoisie'--being able to dominate the world,while Marxism itself systematically aims at delivering the worldinto the hands of the Jews.
Over against all this, the v¶lkisch concept of the worldrecognizes that the primordial racial elements are of the greatestsignificance for mankind. In principle, the State is looked upononly as a means to an end and this end is the conservation of theracial characteristics of mankind. Therefore on the v¶lkischprinciple we cannot admit that one race is equal to another. Byrecognizing that they are different, the v¶lkisch conceptseparates mankind into races of superior and inferior quality. Onthe basis of this recognition it feels bound in conformity with theeternal Will that dominates the universe, to postulate the victoryof the better and stronger and the subordination of the inferiorand weaker. And so it pays homage to the truth that the principleunderlying all Nature's operations is the aristocratic principleand it believes that this law holds good even down to the lastindividual organism. It selects individual values from the mass andthus operates as an organizing principle, whereas Marxism acts as adisintegrating solvent. The v¶lkisch belief holds thathumanity must have its ideals, because ideals are a necessarycondition of human existence itself. But, on the other hand, itdenies that an ethical ideal has the right to prevail if itendangers the existence of a race that is the standard-bearer of ahigher ethical ideal. For in a world which would be composed ofmongrels and negroids all ideals of human beauty and nobility andall hopes of an idealized future for our humanity would be lostforever.
On this planet of ours human culture and civilization areindissolubly bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he shouldbe exterminated or subjugated, then the dark shroud of a newbarbarian era would enfold the earth.
To undermine the existence of human culture by exterminating itsfounders and custodians would be an execrable crime in the eyes ofthose who believe that the folk-idea lies at the basis of humanexistence. Whoever would dare to raise a profane hand against thathighest image of God among His creatures would sin against thebountiful Creator of this marvel and would collaborate in theexpulsion from Paradise.
Hence the folk concept of the world is in profound accord withNature's will; because it restores the free play of the forceswhich will lead the race through stages of sustained reciprocaleducation towards a higher type, until finally the best portion ofmankind will possess the earth and will be free to work in everydomain all over the world and even reach spheres that lie outsidethe earth.
We all feel that in the distant future many may be faced withproblems which can be solved only by a superior race of humanbeings, a race destined to become master of all the other peoplesand which will have at its disposal the means and resources of thewhole world.
It is evident that such a general sketch of the ideas implied inthe folk concept of the world may easily be interpreted in athousand different ways. As a matter of fact there is scarcely oneof our recent political movements that does not refer at some pointto this conception of the world. But the fact that this conceptionof the world still maintains its independent existence in face ofall the others proves that their ways of looking at life are quitedifierent from this. Thus the Marxist conception, directed by acentral organization endowed with supreme authority, is opposed bya motley crew of opinions which is not very impressive in face ofthe solid phalanx presented by the enemy. Victory cannot beachieved 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 wellled'--only then will the fighting energy in the one camp beable to meet that of the other on an equal footing; and victorywill be found on the side of eternal truth.
But a general conception of life can never be given an organicembodiment until it is precisely and definitely formulated. Thefunction which dogma fulfils in religious belief is parallel to thefunction which party principles fulfil for a political party whichis in the process of being built up. Therefore, for the conceptionof life that is based on the folk idea it is necessary that aninstrument be forged which can be used in fighting for this ideal,similar to the Marxist party organization which clears the way forinternationalism.
And this is the aim which the German National Socialist LabourMovement pursues.
The folk conception must therefore be definitely formulated sothat it may be organically incorporated in the party. That is anecessary prerequisite for the success of this idea. And that it isso is very clearly proved even by the indirect acknowledgment ofthose who oppose such an amalgamation of the folk idea with partyprinciples. The very people who never tire of insisting again andagain that the conception of life based on the folk idea can neverbe the exclusive property of a single group, because it liesdormant or 'lives' in myriads of hearts, only confirm by their ownstatements the simple fact that the general presence of such ideasin the hearts of millions of men has not proved sufficient toimpede the victory of the opposing ideas, which are championed by apolitical party organized on the principle of class conflict. Ifthat were not so, the German people ought already to have gained agigantic victory instead of finding themselves on the brink of theabyss. The international ideology achieved success because it wasorganized in a militant political party which was always ready totake the offensive. If hitherto the ideas opposed to theinternational concept have had to give way before the latter thereason is that they lacked a united front to fight for their cause.A doctrine which forms a definite outlook on life cannot struggleand triumph by allowing the right of free interpretation of itsgeneral teaching, but only by defining that teaching in certainarticles of faith that have to be accepted and incorporating it ina political organization.
Therefore I considered it my special duty to extract from theextensive but vague contents of a general Weltanschauung theideas which were essential and give them a more or less dogmaticform. Because of their precise and clear meaning, these ideas aresuited to the purpose of uniting in a common front all those whoare ready to accept them as principles. In other words: The GermanNational Socialist Labour Party extracts the essential principlesfrom the general conception of the world which is based on the folkidea. On these principles it establishes a political doctrine whichtakes into account the practical realities of the day, the natureof the times, the available human material and all itsdeficiencies. Through this political doctrine it is possible tobring great masses of the people into an organization which isconstructed as rigidly as it could be. Such an organization is themain preliminary that is necessary for the final triumph of thisideal.
CHAPTER II. THE STATEAlready in 1920-1921 certain circles belonging to the effetebourgeois class accused our movement again and again of taking up anegative attitude towards the modern State. For that reason themotley gang of camp followers attached to the various politicalparties, representing a heterogeneous conglomeration of politicalviews, assumed the right of utilizing all available means tosuppress the protagonists of this young movement which waspreaching a new political gospel. Our opponents deliberatelyignored the fact that the bourgeois class itself stood for nouniform opinion as to what the State really meant and that thebourgeoisie did not and could not give any coherent definition ofthis institution. Those whose duty it is to explain what is meantwhen we speak of the State, hold chairs in State universities,often in the department of constitutional law, and consider ittheir highest duty to find explanations and justifications for themore or less fortunate existence of that particular form of Statewhich provides them with their daily bread. The more absurd such aform of State is the more obscure and artificial andincomprehensible are the definitions which are advanced to explainthe purpose of its existence. What, for instance, could a royal andimperial university professor write about the meaning and purposeof a State in a country whose statal form represented the greatestmonstrosity of the twentieth century? That would be a difficultundertaking indeed, in view of the fact that the contemporaryprofessor of constitutional law is obliged not so much to serve thecause of truth but rather to serve a certain definite purpose. Andthis purpose is to defend at all costs the existence of thatmonstrous human mechanism which we now call the State. Nobody canbe surprised if concrete facts are evaded as far as possible whenthe problem of the State is under discussion and if professorsadopt the tactics of concealing themselves in morass of abstractvalues and duties and purposes which are described as 'ethical' and'moral'.
Generally speaking, these various theorists may be classed inthree groups:
1. Those who hold that the State is a more or less voluntaryassociation of men who have agreed to set up and obey a rulingauthority.
This is numerically the largest group. In its ranks are to befound those who worship our present principle of legalizedauthority. In their eyes the will of the people has no partwhatever in the whole affair. For them the fact that the Stateexists is sufficient reason to consider it sacred and inviolable.To accept this aberration of the human brain one would have to havea sort of canine adoration for what is called the authority of theState. In the minds of these people the means is substituted forthe end, by a sort of sleight-of-hand movement. The State no longerexists for the purpose of serving men but men exist for the purposeof adoring the authority of the State, which is vested in itsfunctionaries, even down to the smallest official. So as to preventthis placid and ecstatic adoration from changing into somethingthat might become in any way disturbing, the authority of the Stateis limited simply to the task of preserving order and tranquillity.Therewith it is no longer either a means or an end. The State mustsee that public peace and order are preserved and, in their turn,order and peace must make the existence of the State possible. Alllife must move between these two poles. In Bavaria this view isupheld by the artful politicians of the Bavarian Centre, which iscalled the 'Bavarian Populist Party'. In Austria theBlack-and-Yellow legitimists adopt a similar attitude. In theReich, unfortunately, the so-called conservative elements followthe same line of thought.
2. The second group is somewhat smaller in numbers. It includesthose who would make the existence of the State dependent on someconditions at least. They insist that not only should there be auniform system of government but also, if possible, that only onelanguage should be used, though solely for technical reasons ofadministration. In this view the authority of the State is nolonger the sole and exclusive end for which the State exists. Itmust 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 ofthis group. The form of government is no longer consideredinviolable simply because it exists. It must submit to the test ofpractical efficiency. Its venerable age no longer protects it frombeing criticized in the light of modern exigencies. Moreover, inthis view the first duty laid upon the State is to guarantee theeconomic well-being of the individual citizens. Hence it is judgedfrom the practical standpoint and according to general principlesbased on the idea of economic returns. The chief representatives ofthis theory of the State are to be found among the average Germanbourgeoisie, especially our liberal democrats.
3. The third group is numerically the smallest. In the Statethey discover a means for the realization of tendencies that arisefrom a policy of power, on the part of a people who are ethnicallyhomogeneous and speak the same language. But those who hold thisview are not clear about what they mean by 'tendencies arising froma policy of power'. A common language is postulated not onlybecause they hope that thereby the State would be furnished with asolid basis for the extension of its power outside its ownfrontiers, but also because they think'--though falling into afundamental error by doing so'--that such a common languagewould enable them to carry out a process of nationalization in adefinite direction.
During the last century it was lamentable for those who had towitness it, to notice how in these circles I have just mentionedthe word 'Germanization' was frivolously played with, though thepractice was often well intended. I well remember how in the daysof my youth this very term used to give rise to notions which werefalse to an incredible degree. Even in Pan-German circles one heardthe opinion expressed that the Austrian Germans might very wellsucceed in Germanizing the Austrian Slavs, if only the Governmentwould be ready to co-operate. Those people did not understand thata policy of Germanization can be carried out only as regards humanbeings. What they mostly meant by Germanization was a process offorcing other people to speak the German language. But it is almostinconceivable how such a mistake could be made as to think that aNigger or a Chinaman will become a German because he has learnedthe German language and is willing to speak German for the future,and even to cast his vote for a German political party. Ourbourgeois nationalists could never clearly see that such a processof Germanization is in reality de-Germanization; for even if allthe outstanding and visible differences between the various peoplescould be bridged over and finally wiped out by the use of a commonlanguage, that would produce a process of bastardization which inthis case would not signify Germanization but the annihilation ofthe German element. In the course of history it has happened onlytoo often that a conquering race succeeded by external force incompelling the people whom they subjected to speak the tongue ofthe conqueror and that after a thousand years their language wasspoken by another people and that thus the conqueror finally turnedout to be the conquered.
What makes a people or, to be more correct, a race, is notlanguage but blood. Therefore it would be justifiable to speak ofGermanization only if that process could change the blood of thepeople who would be subjected to it, which is obviously impossible.A change would be possible only by a mixture of blood, but in thiscase the quality of the superior race would be debased. The finalresult of such a mixture would be that precisely those qualitieswould be destroyed which had enabled the conquering race to achievevictory over an inferior people. It is especially the culturalcreativeness which disappears when a superior race intermixes withan inferior one, even though the resultant mongrel race shouldexcel a thousandfold in speaking the language of the race that oncehad been superior. For a certain time there will be a conflictbetween the different mentalities, and it may be that a nationwhich is in a state of progressive degeneration will at the lastmoment rally its cultural creative power and once again producestriking examples of that power. But these results are due only tothe activity of elements that have remained over from the superiorrace or hybrids of the first crossing in whom the superior bloodhas remained dominant and seeks to assert itself. But this willnever happen with the final descendants of such hybrids. These arealways in a state of cultural retrogression.
We must consider it as fortunate that a Germanization of Austriaaccording to the plan of Joseph II did not succeed. Probably theresult would have been that the Austrian State would have been ableto survive, but at the same time participation in the use of acommon language would have debased the racial quality of the Germanelement. In the course of centuries a certain herd instinct mighthave been developed but the herd itself would have deteriorated inquality. A national State might have arisen, but a people who hadbeen culturally creative would have disappeared.
For the German nation it was better that this process ofintermixture did not take place, although it was not renounced forany high-minded reasons but simply through the short-sightedpettiness of the Habsburgs. If it had taken place the German peoplecould not now be looked upon as a cultural factor.
Not only in Austria, however, but also in the Reich, theseso-called national circles were, and still are, under the influenceof similar erroneous ideas. Unfortunately, a policy towards Poland,whereby the East was to be Germanized, was demanded by many and wasbased on the same false reasoning. Here again it was believed thatthe Polish people could be Germanized by being compelled to use theGerman language. The result would have been fatal. A people offoreign race would have had to use the German language to expressmodes of thought that were foreign to the German, thus compromisingby its own inferiority the dignity and nobility of our nation.
It is revolting to think how much damage is indirectly done toGerman prestige to-day through the fact that the German patois ofthe Jews when they enter the United States enables them to beclassed as Germans, because many Americans are quite ignorant ofGerman conditions. Among us, nobody would think of taking theseunhygienic immigrants from the East for members of the German raceand nation merely because they mostly speak German.
What has been beneficially Germanized in the course of historywas the land which our ancestors conquered with the sword andcolonized with German tillers of the soil. To the extent that theyintroduced foreign blood into our national body in thiscolonization, they have helped to disintegrate our racialcharacter, a process which has resulted in our Germanhyper-individualism, though this latter characteristic is even nowfrequently praised.
In this third group also there are people who, to a certaindegree, consider the State as an end in itself. Hence they considerits preservation as one of the highest aims of human existence. Ouranalysis may be summed up as follows:
All these opinions have this common feature and failing: thatthey are not grounded in a recognition of the profound truth thatthe capacity for creating cultural values is essentially based onthe racial element and that, in accordance with this fact, theparamount purpose of the State is to preserve and improve the race;for this is an indispensable condition of all progress in humancivilization.
Thus the Jew, Karl Marx, was able to draw the final conclusionsfrom these false concepts and ideas on the nature and purpose ofthe State. By eliminating from the concept of the State all thoughtof the obligation which the State bears towards the race, withoutfinding any other formula that might be universally accepted, thebourgeois teaching prepared the way for that doctrine which rejectsthe State as such.
That is why the bourgeois struggle against Marxistinternationalism is absolutely doomed to fail in this field. Thebourgeois classes have already sacrificed the basic principleswhich alone could furnish a solid footing for their ideas. Theircrafty opponent has perceived the defects in their structure andadvances to the assault on it with those weapons which theythemselves have placed in his hands though not meaning to doso.
Therefore any new movement which is based on the racial conceptof the world will first of all have to put forward a clear andlogical doctrine of the nature and purpose of the State.
The fundamental principle is that the State is not an end initself but the means to an end. It is the preliminary conditionunder which alone a higher form of human civilization can bedeveloped, but it is not the source of such a development. This isto be sought exclusively in the actual existence of a race which isendowed with the gift of cultural creativeness. There may behundreds 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 needsof the superior nations to-day would also disappear. We may gostill further and say that the fact that States have been createdby human beings does not in the least exclude the possiblity thatthe human race may become extinct, because the superiorintellectual faculties and powers of adaptation would be lost whenthe racial bearer of these faculties and powers disappeared.
If, for instance, the surface of the globe should be shakento-day by some seismic convulsion and if a new Himalaya wouldemerge from the waves of the sea, this one catastrophe alone mightannihilate human civilization. No State could exist any longer. Allorder would be shattered. And all vestiges of cultural productswhich had been evolved through thousands of years would disappear.Nothing would be left but one tremendous field of death anddestruction submerged in floods of water and mud. If, however, justa few people would survive this terrible havoc, and if these peoplebelonged to a definite race that had the innate powers to build upa civilization, when the commotion had passed, the earth wouldagain bear witness to the creative power of the human spirit, eventhough a span of a thousand years might intervene. Only with theextermination of the last race that possesses the gift of culturalcreativeness, and indeed only if all the individuals of that racehad disappeared, would the earth definitely be turned into adesert. On the other hand, modern history furnishes examples toshow that statal institutions which owe their beginnings to membersof a race which lacks creative genius are not made of stuff thatwill endure. Just as many varieties of prehistoric animals had togive way to others and leave no trace behind them, so man will alsohave to give way, if he loses that definite faculty which enableshim to find the weapons that are necessary for him to maintain hisown existence.
It is not the State as such that brings about a certain definiteadvance in cultural progress. The State can only protect the racethat is the cause of such progress. The State as such may wellexist without undergoing any change for hundreds of years, thoughthe cultural faculties and the general life of the people, which isshaped by these faculties, may have suffered profound changes byreason of the fact that the State did not prevent a process ofracial mixture from taking place. The present State, for instance,may continue to exist in a mere mechanical form, but the poison ofmiscegenation permeating the national body brings about a culturaldecadence which manifests itself already in various symptoms thatare of a detrimental character.
Thus the indispensable prerequisite for the existence of asuperior 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 unlessexternal circumstances awaken it to action. Nations, or ratherraces, which are endowed with the faculty of cultural creativenesspossess this faculty in a latent form during periods when theexternal circumstances are unfavourable for the time being andtherefore do not allow the faculty to express itself effectively.It is therefore outrageously unjust to speak of the pre-ChristianGermans as barbarians who had no civilization. They never have beensuch. But the severity of the climate that prevailed in thenorthern regions which they inhabited imposed conditions of lifewhich hampered a free development of their creative faculties. Ifthey had come to the fairer climate of the South, with no previousculture whatsoever, and if they acquired the necessary humanmaterial'--that is to say, men of an inferior race'--toserve them as working implements, the cultural faculty dormant inthem would have splendidly blossomed forth, as happened in the caseof the Greeks, for example. But this primordial creative faculty incultural things was not solely due to their northern climate. Forthe Laplanders or the Eskimos would not have become creators of aculture if they were transplanted to the South. No, this wonderfulcreative faculty is a special gift bestowed on the Aryan, whetherit lies dormant in him or becomes active, according as the adverseconditions of nature prevent the active expression of that facultyor 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 isto preserve and promote a community of human beings who arephysically as well as spiritually kindred. Above all, it mustpreserve the existence of the race, thereby providing theindispensable condition for the free development of all the forcesdormant in this race. A great part of these faculties will alwayshave to be employed in the first place to maintain the physicalexistence of the race, and only a small portion will be free towork in the field of intellectual progress. But, as a matter offact, the one is always the necessary counterpart of the other.
Those States which do not serve this purpose have nojustification for their existence. They are monstrosities. The factthat they do exist is no more of a justification than thesuccessful raids carried out by a band of pirates can be considereda justification of piracy.
We National Socialists, who are fighting for a newWeltanschauung, must never take our stand on the famous'basis of facts', and especially not on mistaken facts. If we didso, we should cease to be the protagonists of a new and great ideaand would become slaves in the service of the fallacy which isdominant to-day. We must make a clear-cut distinction between thevessel and its contents. The State is only the vessel and the raceis what it contains. The vessel can have a meaning only if itpreserves and safeguards the contents. Otherwise it isworthless.
Hence the supreme purpose of the ethnical State is to guard andpreserve those racial elements which, through their work in thecultural field, create that beauty and dignity which arecharacteristic of a higher mankind. As Aryans, we can consider theState only as the living organism of a people, an organism whichdoes not merely maintain the existence of a people, but functionsin such a way as to lead its people to a position of supremeliberty by the progressive development of the intellectual andcultural faculties.
What they want to impose upon us as a State to-day is in mostcases nothing but a monstrosity, the product of a profound humanaberration which brings untold suffering in its train.
We National Socialists know that in holding these views we takeup a revolutionary stand in the world of to-day and that we arebranded as revolutionaries. But our views and our conduct will notbe determined by the approbation or disapprobation of ourcontemporaries, but only by our duty to follow a truth which wehave acknowledged. In doing this we have reason to believe thatposterity will have a clearer insight, and will not only understandthe work we are doing to-day, but will also ratify it as the rightwork and will exalt it accordingly.
On these principles we National Socialists base our standards ofvalue in appraising a State. This value will be relative whenviewed from the particular standpoint of the individual nation, butit will be absolute when considered from the standpoint of humanityas a whole. In other words, this means:
That the excellence of a State can never be judged by the levelof its culture or the degree of importance which the outside worldattaches to its power, but that its excellence must be judged bythe degree to which its institutions serve the racial stock whichbelongs to it.
A State may be considered as a model example if it adequatelyserves not only the vital needs of the racial stock it representsbut if it actually assures by its own existence the preservation ofthis same racial stock, no matter what general culturalsignificance this statal institution may have in the eyes of therest of the world. For it is not the task of the State to createhuman capabilities, but only to assure free scope for the exerciseof capabilities that already exist. On the other hand, a State maybe called bad if, in spite of the existence of a high culturallevel, it dooms to destruction the bearers of that culture bybreaking up their racial uniformity. For the practical effect ofsuch a policy would be to destroy those conditions that areindispensable for the ulterior existence of that culture, which theState did not create but which is the fruit of the creative powerinherent in the racial stock whose existence is assured by beingunited in the living organism of the State. Once again let meemphasize the fact that the State itself is not the substance butthe form. Therefore, the cultural level is not the standard bywhich we can judge the value of the State in which that peoplelives. It is evident that a people which is endowed with highcreative powers in the cultural sphere is of more worth than atribe of negroes. And yet the statal organization of the former, ifjudged from the standpoint of efficiency, may be worse than that ofthe negroes. Not even the best of States and statal institutionscan evolve faculties from a people which they lack and which theynever possessed, but a bad State may gradually destroy thefaculties which once existed. This it can do by allowing orfavouring the suppression of those who are the bearers of a racialculture.
Therefore, the worth of a State can be determined only by askinghow far it actually succeeds in promoting the well-being of adefinite race and not by the role which it plays in the world atlarge. Its relative worth can be estimated readily and accurately;but it is difficult to judge its absolute worth, because the latteris conditioned not only by the State but also by the quality andcultural level of the people that belong to the individual State inquestion.
Therefore, when we speak of the high mission of the State wemust not forget that the high mission belongs to the people andthat the business of the State is to use its organizing powers forthe purpose of furnishing the necessary conditions which allow thispeople freely to unfold its creative faculties. And if we ask whatkind of statal institution we Germans need, we must first have aclear notion as to the people which that State must embrace andwhat purpose it must serve.
Unfortunately the German national being is not based on auniform racial type. The process of welding the original elementstogether has not gone so far as to warrant us in saying that a newrace has emerged. On the contrary, the poison which has invaded thenational body, especially since the Thirty Years' War, hasdestroyed the uniform constitution not only of our blood but alsoof our national soul. The open frontiers of our native country, theassociation with non-German foreign elements in the territoriesthat lie all along those frontiers, and especially the stronginflux of foreign blood into the interior of the Reich itself, hasprevented any complete assimilation of those various elements,because the influx has continued steadily. Out of this melting-potno new race arose. The heterogeneous elements continue to existside by side. And the result is that, especially in times ofcrisis, when the herd usually flocks together, the Germans dispersein all directions. The fundamental racial elements are not onlydifferent in different districts, but there are also variouselements in the single districts. Beside the Nordic type we findthe East-European type, beside the Eastern there is the Dinaric,the Western type intermingling with both, and hybrids among themall. That is a grave drawback for us. Through it the Germans lackthat strong herd instinct which arises from unity of blood andsaves nations from ruin in dangerous and critical times; because onsuch occasions small differences disappear, so that a united herdfaces the enemy. What we understand by the word hyper-individualismarises from the fact that our primordial racial elements haveexisted side by side without ever consolidating. During times ofpeace such a situation may offer some advantages, but, taken all inall, it has prevented us from gaining a mastery in the world. If inits historical development the German people had possessed theunity of herd instinct by which other peoples have so muchbenefited, then the German Reich would probably be mistress of theglobe to-day. World history would have taken another course and inthis case no man can tell if what many blinded pacifists hope toattain by petitioning, whining and crying, may not have beenreached in this way: namely, a peace which would not be based uponthe waving of olive branches and tearful misery-mongering ofpacifist old women, but a peace that would be guaranteed by thetriumphant sword of a people endowed with the power to master theworld and administer it in the service of a highercivilization.
The fact that our people did not have a national being based ona unity of blood has been the source of untold misery for us. Tomany petty German potentates it gave residential capital cities,but the German people as a whole was deprived of its right torulership.
Even to-day our nation still suffers from this lack of innerunity; but what has been the cause of our past and presentmisfortunes may turn out a blessing for us in the future. Though onthe one hand it may be a drawback that our racial elements were notwelded together, so that no homogeneous national body coulddevelop, on the other hand, it was fortunate that, since at least apart of our best blood was thus kept pure, its racial quality wasnot debased.
A complete assimilation of all our racial elements wouldcertainly have brought about a homogeneous national organism; but,as has been proved in the case of every racial mixture, it wouldhave been less capable of creating a civilization than by keepingintact its best original elements. A benefit which results from thefact that there was no all-round assimilation is to be seen in thateven now we have large groups of German Nordic people within ournational organization, and that their blood has not been mixed withthe blood of other races. We must look upon this as our mostvaluable treasure for the sake of the future. During that darkperiod of absolute ignorance in regard to all racial laws, wheneach individual was considered to be on a par with every other,there could be no clear appreciation of the difference between thevarious fundamental racial characteristics. We know to-day that acomplete assimilation of all the various elements which constitutethe national being might have resulted in giving us a larger shareof external power: but, on the other hand, the highest of humanaims would not have been attained, because the only kind of peoplewhich fate has obviously chosen to bring about this perfectionwould have been lost in such a general mixture of races which wouldconstitute such a racial amalgamation.
But what has been prevented by a friendly Destiny, without anyassistance on our part, must now be reconsidered and utilized inthe light of our new knowledge.
He who talks of the German people as having a mission to fulfilon this earth must know that this cannot be fulfilled except by thebuilding up of a State whose highest purpose is to preserve andpromote those nobler elements of our race and of the whole ofmankind which have remained unimpaired.
Thus for the first time a high inner purpose is accredited tothe State. In face of the ridiculous phrase that the State shoulddo no more than act as the guardian of public order andtranquillity, so that everybody can peacefully dupe everybody else,it is given a very high mission indeed to preserve and encouragethe highest type of humanity which a beneficent Creator hasbestowed on this earth. Out of a dead mechanism which claims to bean end in itself a living organism shall arise which has to serveone purpose exclusively: and that, indeed, a purpose which belongsto a higher order of ideas.
As a State the German Reich shall include all Germans. Its taskis not only to gather in and foster the most valuable sections ofour people but to lead them slowly and surely to a dominantposition 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 torest is to rust; and furthermore the proverb that victory willalways be won by him who attacks. The higher the final goal whichwe strive to reach, and the less it be understood at the time bythe broad masses, the more magnificent will be its success. That iswhat the lesson of history teaches. And the achievement will be allthe more significant if the end is conceived in the right way andthe fight carried through with unswerving persistence. Many of theofficials who direct the affairs of State nowadays may find iteasier to work for the maintenance of the present order than tofight for a new one. They will find it more comfortable to lookupon the State as a mechanism, whose purpose is its ownpreservation, and to say that 'their lives belong to the State,' asif anything that grew from the inner life of the nation canlogically serve anything but the national being, and as if mancould be made for anything else than for his fellow beings.Naturally, it is easier, as I have said, to consider the authorityof the State as nothing but the formal mechanism of anorganization, rather than as the sovereign incarnation of apeople's instinct for self-preservation on this earth. For theseweak minds the State and the authority of the State is nothing butan aim in itself, while for us it is an effective weapon in theservice of the great and eternal struggle for existence, a weaponwhich everyone must adopt, not because it is a mere formalmechanism, but because it is the main expression of our common willto exist.
Therefore, in the fight for our new idea, which conformscompletely to the primal meaning of life, we shall find only asmall number of comrades in a social order which has becomedecrepit not only physically but mentally also. From these strataof our population only a few exceptional people will join ourranks, only those few old people whose hearts have remained youngand whose courage is still vigorous, but not those who consider ittheir duty to maintain the state of affairs that exists.
Against us we have the innumerable army of all those who arelazy-minded and indifferent rather than evil, and those whoseself-interest leads them to uphold the present state of affairs. Onthe apparent hopelessness of our great struggle is based themagnitude of our task and the possibilities of success. Abattle-cry which from the very start will scare off all the pettyspirits, or at least discourage them, will become the signal for arally of all those temperaments that are of the real fightingmetal. And it must be clearly recognized that if a highly energeticand active body of men emerge from a nation and unite in the fightfor one goal, thereby ultimately rising above the inert masses ofthe people, this small percentage will become masters of the whole.World history is made by minorities if these numerical minoritiesrepresent in themselves the will and energy and initiative of thepeople as a whole.
What seems an obstacle to many persons is really a preliminarycondition of our victory. Just because our task is so great andbecause so many difficulties have to be overcome, the highestprobability is that only the best kind of protagonists will joinour ranks. This selection is the guarantee of our success. Naturegenerally takes certain measures to correct the effect which racialmixture 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 arethey deprived of the higher qualities that belonged to the parentswho participated in the first mixture, but they also lack definitewill-power and vigorous vital energies owing to the lack of harmonyin the quality of their blood. At all critical moments in which aperson of pure racial blood makes correct decisions, that is tosay, decisions that are coherent and uniform, the person of mixedblood will become confused and take measures that are incoherent.Hence we see that a person of mixed blood is not only relativelyinferior to a person of pure blood, but is also doomed to becomeextinct more rapidly. In innumerable cases wherein the pure raceholds its ground the mongrel breaks down. Therein we witness thecorrective provision which Nature adopts. She restricts thepossibilities of procreation, thus impeding the fertility ofcross-breeds and bringing them to extinction.
For instance, if an individual member of a race should minglehis blood with the member of a superior race the first result wouldbe a lowering of the racial level, and furthermore the descendantsof this cross-breeding would be weaker than those of the peoplearound them who had maintained their blood unadulterated. Where nonew blood from the superior race enters the racial stream of themongrels, and where those mongrels continue to cross-breed amongthemselves, the latter will either die out because they haveinsufficient powers of resistance, which is Nature's wiseprovision, or in the course of many thousands of years they willform a new mongrel race in which the original elements will becomeso wholly mixed through this millennial crossing that traces of theoriginal elements will be no longer recognizable. And thus a newpeople would be developed which possessed a certain resistancecapacity of the herd type, but its intellectual value and itscultural significance would be essentially inferior to those whichthe first cross-breeds possessed. But even in this last case themongrel product would succumb in the mutual struggle for existencewith a higher racial group that had maintained its blood unmixed.The herd solidarity which this mongrel race had developed throughthousands of years will not be equal to the struggle. And this isbecause it would lack elasticity and constructive capacity toprevail over a race of homogeneous blood that was mentally andculturally superior.
Therewith we may lay down the following principle as valid:every racial mixture leads, of necessity, sooner or later to thedownfall of the mongrel product, provided the higher racial strataof this cross-breed has not retained within itself some sort ofracial homogeneity. The danger to the mongrels ceases only whenthis higher stratum, which has maintained certain standards ofhomogeneous breeding, ceases to be true to its pedigree andintermingles with the mongrels.
This principle is the source of a slow but constant regenerationwhereby all the poison which has invaded the racial body isgradually eliminated so long as there still remains a fundamentalstock of pure racial elements which resists furthercrossbreeding.
Such a process may set in automatically among those people wherea strong racial instinct has remained. Among such people we maycount those elements which, for some particular cause such ascoercion, have been thrown out of the normal way of reproductionalong strict racial lines. As soon as this compulsion ceases, thatpart of the race which has remained intact will tend to marry withits own kind and thus impede further intermingling. Then themongrels recede quite naturally into the background unless theirnumbers had increased so much as to be able to withstand allserious resistance from those elements which had preserved thepurity of their race.
When men have lost their natural instincts and ignore theobligations imposed on them by Nature, then there is no hope thatNature will correct the loss that has been caused, untilrecognition of the lost instincts has been restored. Then the taskof bringing back what has been lost will have to be accomplished.But there is serious danger that those who have become blind oncein this respect will continue more and more to break down racialbarriers and finally lose the last remnants of what is best inthem. What then remains is nothing but a uniform mish-mash, whichseems to be the dream of our fine Utopians. But that mish-mashwould soon banish all ideals from the world. Certainly a great herdcould thus be formed. One can breed a herd of animals; but from amixture of this kind men such as have created and foundedcivilizations would not be produced. The mission of humanity mightthen be considered at an end.
Those who do not wish that the earth should fall into such acondition must realize that it is the task of the German State inparticular to see to it that the process of bastardization isbrought to a stop.
Our contemporary generation of weaklings will naturally decrysuch a policy and whine and complain about it as an encroachment onthe most sacred of human rights. But there is only one right thatis sacrosanct and this right is at the same time a most sacredduty. This right and obligation are: that the purity of the racialblood should be guarded, so that the best types of human beings maybe preserved and that thus we should render possible a more nobledevelopment of humanity itself.
A folk-State should in the first place raise matrimony from thelevel of being a constant scandal to the race. The State shouldconsecrate it as an institution which is called upon to producecreatures made in the likeness of the Lord and not create monstersthat are a mixture of man and ape. The protest which is put forwardin the name of humanity does not fit the mouth of a generation thatmakes it possible for the most depraved degenerates to propagatethemselves, thereby imposing unspeakable suffering on their ownproducts and their contemporaries, while on the other handcontraceptives are permitted and sold in every drug store and evenby street hawkers, so that babies should not be born even among thehealthiest of our people. In this present State of ours, whosefunction it is to be the guardian of peace and good order, ournational bourgeoisie look upon it as a crime to make procreationimpossible for syphilitics and those who suffer from tuberculosisor other hereditary diseases, also cripples and imbeciles. But thepractical prevention of procreation among millions of our very bestpeople is not considered as an evil, nor does it offend against thenoble morality of this social class but rather encourages theirshort-sightedness and mental lethargy. For otherwise they would atleast stir their brains to find an answer to the question of how tocreate conditions for the feeding and maintaining of those futurebeings who will be the healthy representatives of our nation andmust also provide the conditions on which the generation that is tofollow them will have to support itself and live.
How devoid of ideals and how ignoble is the whole contemporarysystem! The fact that the churches join in committing this sinagainst the image of God, even though they continue to emphasizethe dignity of that image, is quite in keeping with their presentactivities. They talk about the Spirit, but they allow man, as theembodiment of the Spirit, to degenerate to the proletarian level.Then they look on with amazement when they realize how small is theinfluence of the Christian Faith in their own country and howdepraved and ungodly is this riff-raff which is physicallydegenerate and therefore morally degenerate also. To balance thisstate of affairs they try to convert the Hottentots and the Zulusand the Kaffirs and to bestow on them the blessings of the Church.While our European people, God be praised and thanked, are left tobecome the victims of moral depravity, the pious missionary goesout to Central Africa and establishes missionary stations fornegroes. Finally, sound and healthy'--though primitive andbackward'--people will be transformed, under the name of our'higher civilization', into a motley of lazy and brutalizedmongrels.
It would better accord with noble human aspirations if our twoChristian denominations would cease to bother the negroes withtheir preaching, which the negroes do not want and do notunderstand. It would be better if they left this work alone, andif, in its stead, they tried to teach people in Europe, kindly andseriously, that it is much more pleasing to God if a couple that isnot of healthy stock were to show loving kindness to some poororphan and become a father and mother to him, rather than give lifeto a sickly child that will be a cause of suffering and unhappinessto all.
In this field the People's State will have to repair the damagethat arises from the fact that the problem is at present neglectedby all the various parties concerned. It will be the task of thePeople's State to make the race the centre of the life of thecommunity. It must make sure that the purity of the racial strainwill be preserved. It must proclaim the truth that the child is themost valuable possession a people can have. It must see to it thatonly those who are healthy shall beget children; that there is onlyone infamy, namely, for parents that are ill or show hereditarydefects to bring children into the world and that in such cases itis a high honour to refrain from doing so. But, on the other hand,it must be considered as reprehensible conduct to refrain fromgiving healthy children to the nation. In this matter the Statemust assert itself as the trustee of a millennial future, in faceof which the egotistic desires of the individual count for nothingand will have to give way before the ruling of the State. In orderto fulfil this duty in a practical manner the State will have toavail itself of modern medical discoveries. It must proclaim asunfit for procreation all those who are inflicted with some visiblehereditary disease or are the carriers of it; and practicalmeasures must be adopted to have such people rendered sterile. Onthe other hand, provision must be made for the normally fertilewoman so that she will not be restricted in child-bearing throughthe financial and economic system operating in a political regimethat looks upon the blessing of having children as a curse to theirparents. The State will have to abolish the cowardly and evencriminal indifference with which the problem of social amenitiesfor large families is treated, and it will have to be the supremeprotector of this greatest blessing that a people can boast of. Itsattention and care must be directed towards the child rather thanthe adult.
Those who are physically and mentally unhealthy and unfit mustnot perpetuate their own suffering in the bodies of their children.From the educational point of view there is here a huge task forthe People's State to accomplish. But in a future era this workwill appear greater and more significant than the victorious warsof our present bourgeois epoch. Through educational means the Statemust teach individuals that illness is not a disgrace but anunfortunate accident which has to be pitied, yet that it is a crimeand a disgrace to make this affliction all the worse by passing ondisease and defects to innocent creatures out of mere egotism.
And the State must also teach the people that it is anexpression of a really noble nature and that it is a humanitarianact worthy of admiration if a person who innocently suffers fromhereditary disease refrains from having a child of his own butgives his love and affection to some unknown child who, through itshealth, promises to become a robust member of a healthy community.In accomplishing such an educational task the State integrates itsfunction by this activity in the moral sphere. It must act on thisprinciple without paying any attention to the question of whetherits conduct will be understood or misconstrued, blamed orpraised.
If for a period of only 600 years those individuals would besterilized who are physically degenerate or mentally diseased,humanity would not only be delivered from an immense misfortune butalso restored to a state of general health such as we at presentcan hardly imagine. If the fecundity of the healthy portion of thenation should be made a practical matter in a conscientious andmethodical way, we should have at least the beginnings of a racefrom which all those germs would be eliminated which are to-day thecause of our moral and physical decadence. If a people and a Statetake this course to develop that nucleus of the nation which ismost valuable from the racial standpoint and thus increase itsfecundity, the people as a whole will subsequently enjoy that mostprecious of gifts which consists in a racial quality fashioned ontruly noble lines.
To achieve this the State should first of all not leave thecolonization of newly acquired territory to a haphazard policy butshould have it carried out under the guidance of definiteprinciples. Specially competent committees ought to issuecertificates to individuals entitling them to engage incolonization work, and these certificates should guarantee theracial purity of the individuals in question. In this way frontiercolonies could gradually be founded whose inhabitants would be ofthe purest racial stock, and hence would possess the best qualitiesof the race. Such colonies would be a valuable asset to the wholenation. Their development would be a source of joy and confidenceand pride to each citizen of the nation, because they would containthe pure germ which would ultimately bring about a greatdevelopment of the nation and indeed of mankind itself.
The Weltanschauung which bases the State on the racialidea must finally succeed in bringing about a nobler era, in whichmen will no longer pay exclusive attention to breeding and rearingpedigree dogs and horses and cats, but will endeavour to improvethe breed of the human race itself. That will be an era of silenceand renunciation for one class of people, while the others willgive their gifts and make their sacrifices joyfully.
That such a mentality may be possible cannot be denied in aworld where hundreds and thousands accept the principle of celibacyfrom their own choice, without being obliged or pledged to do so byanything except an ecclesiastical precept. Why should it not bepossible to induce people to make this sacrifice if, instead ofsuch a precept, they were simply told that they ought to put an endto this truly original sin of racial corruption which is steadilybeing passed on from one generation to another. And, further, theyought to be brought to realize that it is their bounden duty togive to the Almighty Creator beings such as He himself made to Hisown image.
Naturally, our wretched army of contemporary philistines willnot understand these things. They will ridicule them or shrug theirround shoulders and groan out their everlasting excuses: "Of courseit 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 isincapable of such an idea. You know only one anxiety and that isfor your own personal existence. You have one God, and that is yourmoney. We do not turn to you, however, for help, but to the greatarmy of those who are too poor to consider their personal existenceas the highest good on earth. They do not place their trust inmoney but in other gods, into whose hands they confide their lives.Above all we turn to the vast army of our German youth. They arecoming to maturity in a great epoch, and they will fight againstthe evils which were due to the laziness and indifference of theirfathers." Either the German youth will one day create a new Statefounded on the racial idea or they will be the last witnesses ofthe complete breakdown and death of the bourgeois world.
For if a generation suffers from defects which it recognizes andeven admits and is nevertheless quite pleased with itself, as thebourgeois world is to-day, resorting to the cheap excuse thatnothing can be done to remedy the situation, then such a generationis doomed to disaster. A marked characteristic of our bourgeoisworld is that they no longer can deny the evil conditions thatexist. They have to admit that there is much which is foul andwrong; but they are not able to make up their minds to fightagainst that evil, which would mean putting forth the energy tomobilize the forces of 60 or 70 million people and thus oppose thismenace. They do just the opposite. When such an effort is madeelsewhere they only indulge in silly comment and try from a safedistance to show that such an enterprise is theoreticallyimpossible and doomed to failure. No arguments are too stupid to beemployed in the service of their own pettifogging opinions andtheir knavish moral attitude. If, for instance, a whole continentwages war against alcoholic intoxication, so as to free a wholepeople from this devastating vice, our bourgeois European does notknow better than to look sideways stupidly, shake the head in doubtand ridicule the movement with a superior sneer'--a state ofmind which is effective in a society that is so ridiculous. Butwhen all these stupidities miss their aim and in that part of theworld this sublime and intangible attitude is treated effectivelyand success attends the movement, then such success is called intoquestion or its importance minimized. Even moral principles areused in this slanderous campaign against a movement which aims atsuppressing a great source of immorality.
No. We must not permit ourselves to be deceived by any illusionson this point. Our contemporary bourgeois world has become uselessfor any such noble human task because it has lost all high qualityand is evil, not so much'--as I think'--because evil iswished but rather because these people are too indolent to rise upagainst it. That is why those political societies which callthemselves 'bourgeois parties' are nothing but associations topromote the interests of certain professional groups and classes.Their highest aim is to defend their own egoistic interests as bestthey can. It is obvious that such a guild, consisting of bourgeoispoliticians, may be considered fit for anything rather than astruggle, especially when the adversaries are not cautiousshopkeepers but the proletarian masses, goaded on to extremitiesand determined not to hesitate before deeds of violence.
If we consider it the first duty of the State to serve andpromote the general welfare of the people, by preserving andencouraging the development of the best racial elements, thelogical consequence is that this task cannot be limited to measuresconcerning the birth of the infant members of the race and nationbut that the State will also have to adopt educational means formaking each citizen a worthy factor in the further propagation ofthe racial stock.
Just as, in general, the racial quality is the preliminarycondition for the mental efficiency of any given human material,the training of the individual will first of all have to bedirected towards the development of sound bodily health. For thegeneral rule is that a strong and healthy mind is found only in astrong and healthy body. The fact that men of genius are sometimesnot robust in health and stature, or even of a sickly constitution,is no proof against the principle I have enunciated. These casesare only exceptions which, as everywhere else, prove the rule. Butwhen the bulk of a nation is composed of physical degenerates it israre for a great spirit to arise from such a miserable motley. Andin any case his activities would never meet with great success. Adegenerate mob will either be incapable of understanding him at allor their will-power is so feeble that they cannot follow thesoaring of such an eagle.
The State that is grounded on the racial principle and is aliveto the significance of this truth will first of all have to baseits educational work not on the mere imparting of knowledge butrather on physical training and development of healthy bodies. Thecultivation of the intellectual facilities comes only in the secondplace. And here again it is character which has to be developedfirst of all, strength of will and decision. And the educationalsystem ought to foster the spirit of readiness to acceptresponsibilities gladly. Formal instruction in the sciences must beconsidered last in importance. Accordingly the State which isgrounded on the racial idea must start with the principle that aperson whose formal education in the sciences is relatively smallbut who is physically sound and robust, of a steadfast and honestcharacter, ready and able to make decisions and endowed withstrength of will, is a more useful member of the national communitythan a weakling who is scholarly and refined. A nation composed oflearned men who are physical weaklings, hesitant about decisions ofthe will, and timid pacifists, is not capable of assuring even itsown existence on this earth. In the bitter struggle which decidesthe destiny of man it is very rare that an individual has succumbedbecause he lacked learning. Those who fail are they who try toignore these consequences and are too faint-hearted about puttingthem into effect. There must be a certain balance between mind andbody. An ill-kept body is not made a more beautiful sight by theindwelling of a radiant spirit. We should not be acting justly ifwe were to bestow the highest intellectual training on those whoare physically deformed and crippled, who lack decision and areweak-willed and cowardly. What has made the Greek ideal of beautyimmortal is the wonderful union of a splendid physical beauty withnobility of mind and spirit.
Moltke's saying, that in the long run fortune favours only theefficient, is certainly valid for the relationship between body andspirit. A mind which is sound will generally maintain its dwellingin a body that is sound.
Accordingly, in the People's State physical training is not amatter for the individual alone. Nor is it a duty which firstdevolves on the parents and only secondly or thirdly a publicinterest; but it is necessary for the preservation of the people,who are represented and protected by the State. As regards purelyformal education the State even now interferes with theindividual's right of self-determination and insists upon the rightof the community by submitting the child to an obligatory system oftraining, without paying attention to the approval or disapprovalof the parents. In a similar way and to a higher degree the newPeople's State will one day make its authority prevail over theignorance and incomprehension of individuals in problemsappertaining to the safety of the nation. It must organize itseducational work in such a way that the bodies of the young will besystematically trained from infancy onwards, so as to be temperedand hardened for the demands to be made on them in later years.Above all, the State must see to it that a generation ofstay-at-homes is not developed.
The work of education and hygiene has to begin with the youngmother. The painstaking efforts carried on for several decades havesucceeded in abolishing septic infection at childbirth and reducingpuerperal fever to a relatively small number of cases. And so itought to be possible by means of instructing sisters and mothers inan opportune way, to institute a system of training the child fromearly infancy onwards so that this may serve as an excellent basisfor future development.
The People's State ought to allow much more time for physicaltraining in the school. It is nonsense to burden young brains witha load of material of which, as experience shows, they retain onlya small part, and mostly not the essentials, but only the secondaryand useless portion; because the young mind is incapable of siftingthe right kind of learning out of all the stuff that is pumped intoit. To-day, even in the curriculum of the high schools, only twoshort hours in the week are reserved for gymnastics; and worsestill, it is left to the pupils to decide whether or not they wantto take part. This shows a grave disproportion between this branchof education and purely intellectual instruction. Not a single dayshould be allowed to pass in which the young pupil does not haveone hour of physical training in the morning and one in theevening; 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 v¶lkisch considerit brutal and vulgar, and that is boxing. It is incredible how manyfalse notions prevail among the 'cultivated' classes. The fact thatthe young man learns how to fence and then spends his time in duelsis considered quite natural and respectable. But boxing'--thatis brutal. Why? There is no other sport which equals this indeveloping the militant spirit, none that demands such a power ofrapid decision or which gives the body the flexibility of goodsteel. It is no more vulgar when two young people settle theirdifferences with their fists than with sharp-pointed pieces ofsteel. One who is attacked and defends himself with his fistssurely does not act less manly than one who runs off and yells forthe assistance of a policeman. But, above all, a healthy youth hasto learn to endure hard knocks. This principle may appear savage toour contemporary champions who fight only with the weapons of theintellect. But it is not the purpose of the People's State toeducate a colony of aesthetic pacifists and physical degenerates.This State does not consider that the human ideal is to be found inthe honourable philistine or the maidenly spinster, but in adareful personification of manly force and in women capable ofbringing men into the world.
Generally speaking, the function of sport is not only to makethe individual strong, alert and daring, but also to harden thebody and train it to endure an adverse environment.
If our superior class had not received such a distinguishededucation, and if, on the contrary, they had learned boxing, itwould never have been possible for bullies and deserters and othersuch canaille to carry through a German revolution. For thesuccess of this revolution was not due to the courageous, energeticand audacious activities of its authors but to the lamentablecowardice and irresolution of those who ruled the German State atthat time and were responsible for it. But our educated leaders hadreceived only an 'intellectual' training and thus found themselvesdefenceless when their adversaries used iron bars instead ofintellectual weapons. All this could happen only because oursuperior scholastic system did not train men to be real men butmerely to be civil servants, engineers, technicians, chemists,litterateurs, jurists and, finally, professors; so thatintellectualism should not die out.
Our leadership in the purely intellectual sphere has always beenbrilliant, but as regards will-power in practical affairs ourleadership has been beneath criticism.
Of course education cannot make a courageous man out of one whois temperamentally a coward. But a man who naturally possesses acertain degree of courage will not be able to develop that qualityif his defective education has made him inferior to others from thevery start as regards physical strength and prowess. The armyoffers the best example of the fact that the knowledge of one'sphysical ability develops a man's courage and militant spirit.Outstanding heroes are not the rule in the army, but the averagerepresents men of high courage. The excellent schooling which theGerman soldiers received before the War imbued the members of thewhole gigantic organism with a degree of confidence in their ownsuperiority such as even our opponents never thought possible. Allthe immortal examples of dauntless courage and daring which theGerman armies gave during the late summer and autumn of 1914, asthey advanced from triumph to triumph, were the result of thateducation which had been pursued systematically. During those longyears of peace before the last War men who were almost physicalweaklings were made capable of incredible deeds, and thus aself-confidence was developed which did not fail even in the mostterrible battles.
It is our German people, which broke down and were deliveredover to be kicked by the rest of the world, that had need of thepower that comes by suggestion from self-confidence. But thisconfidence in one's self must be instilled into our children fromtheir very early years. The whole system of education and trainingmust be directed towards fostering in the child the conviction thathe is unquestionably a match for any- and everybody. The individualhas to regain his own physical strength and prowess in order tobelieve in the invincibility of the nation to which he belongs.What has formerly led the German armies to victory was the sumtotal of the confidence which each individual had in himself, andwhich all of them had in those who held the positions of command.What will restore the national strength of the German people is theconviction that they will be able to reconquer their liberty. Butthis conviction can only be the final product of an equal feelingin the millions of individuals. And here again we must have noillusions.
The collapse of our people was overwhelming, and the efforts toput an end to so much misery must also be overwhelming. It would bea bitter and grave error to believe that our people could be madestrong again simply by means of our present bourgeois training ingood order and obedience. That will not suffice if we are to breakup the present order of things, which now sanctions theacknowledgment of our defeat and cast the broken chains of ourslavery in the face of our opponents. Only by a superabundance ofnational energy and a passionate thirst for liberty can we recoverwhat has been lost.
Also the manner of clothing the young should be such asharmonizes with this purpose. It is really lamentable to see howour young people have fallen victims to a fashion mania whichperverts the meaning of the old adage that clothes make theman.
Especially in regard to young people clothes should take theirplace in the service of education. The boy who walks about insummer-time wearing long baggy trousers and clad up to the neck ishampered even by his clothes in feeling any inclination towardsstrenuous physical exercise. Ambition and, to speak quite frankly,even vanity must be appealed to. I do not mean such vanity as leadspeople to want to wear fine clothes, which not everybody canafford, but rather the vanity which inclines a person towardsdeveloping a fine bodily physique. And this is something whicheverybody can help to do.
This will come in useful also for later years. The young girlmust become acquainted with her sweetheart. If the beauty of thebody were not completely forced into the background to-day throughour stupid manner of dressing, it would not be possible forthousands of our girls to be led astray by Jewish mongrels, withtheir repulsive crooked waddle. It is also in the interests of thenation that those who have a beautiful physique should be broughtinto the foreground, so that they might encourage the developmentof a beautiful bodily form among the people in general.
Military training is excluded among us to-day, and therewith theonly institution which in peace-times at least partly made up forthe lack of physical training in our education. Therefore what Ihave suggested is all the more necessary in our time. The successof our old military training not only showed itself in theeducation of the individual but also in the influence which itexercised over the mutual relationship between the sexes. The younggirl preferred the soldier to one who was not a soldier. ThePeople's State must not confine its control of physical training tothe official school period, but it must demand that, after leavingschool and while the adolescent body is still developing, the boycontinues this training. For on such proper physical developmentsuccess in after-life largely depends. It is stupid to think thatthe right of the State to supervise the education of its youngcitizens suddenly comes to an end the moment they leave school andrecommences only with military service. This right is a duty, andas such it must continue uninterruptedly. The present State, whichdoes not interest itself in developing healthy men, has criminallyneglected this duty. It leaves our contemporary youth to becorrupted on the streets and in the brothels, instead of keepinghold of the reins and continuing the physical training of theseyouths up to the time when they are grown into healthy young menand women.
For the present it is a matter of indifference what form theState chooses for carrying on this training. The essential matteris that it should be developed and that the most suitable ways ofdoing so should be investigated. The People's State will have toconsider the physical training of the youth after the school periodjust as much a public duty as their intellectual training; and thistraining will have to be carried out through public institutions.Its general lines can be a preparation for subsequent service inthe army. And then it will no longer be the task of the army toteach the young recruit the most elementary drill regulations. Infact the army will no longer have to deal with recruits in thepresent sense of the word, but it will rather have to transforminto a soldier the youth whose bodily prowess has been alreadyfully trained.
In the People's State the army will no longer be obliged toteach boys how to walk and stand erect, but it will be the finaland supreme school of patriotic education. In the army the youngrecruit will learn the art of bearing arms, but at the same time hewill be equipped for his other duties in later life. And thesupreme aim of military education must always be to achieve thatwhich was attributed to the old army as its highest merit: namely,that through his military schooling the boy must be transformedinto a man, that he must not only learn to obey but also acquirethe fundamentals that will enable him one day to command. He mustlearn to remain silent not only when he is rightly rebuked but alsowhen he is wrongly rebuked.
Furthermore, on the self-consciousness of his own strength andon the basis of that esprit de corps which inspires him andhis comrades, he must become convinced that he belongs to a peoplewho are invincible.
After he has completed his military training two certificatesshall be handed to the soldier. The one will be his diploma as acitizen of the State, a juridical document which will enable him totake part in public affairs. The second will be an attestation ofhis physical health, which guarantees his fitness for marriage.
The People's State will have to direct the education of girlsjust as that of boys and according to the same fundamentalprinciples. Here again special importance must be given to physicaltraining, and only after that must the importance of spiritual andmental training be taken into account. In the education of the girlthe final goal always to be kept in mind is that she is one day tobe a mother.
It is only in the second place that the People's State must busyitself with the training of character, using all the means adaptedto that purpose.
Of course the essential traits of the individual character arealready there fundamentally before any education takes place. Aperson who is fundamentally egoistic will always remainfundamentally egoistic, and the idealist will always remainfundamentally an idealist. Besides those, however, who alreadypossess a definite stamp of character there are millions of peoplewith characters that are indefinite and vague. The born delinquentwill always remain a delinquent, but numerous people who show onlya certain tendency to commit criminal acts may become usefulmembers of the community if rightly trained; whereas, on the otherhand, weak and unstable characters may easily become evil elementsif the system of education has been bad.
During the War it was often lamented that our people could be solittle reticent. This failing made it very difficult to keep evenhighly important secrets from the knowledge of the enemy. But letus ask this question: What did the German educational system do inpre-War times to teach the Germans to be discreet? Did it not veryoften happen in schooldays that the little tell-tale was preferredto his companions who kept their mouths shut? Is it not true thatthen, as well as now, complaining about others was consideredpraiseworthy 'candour', while silent discretion was taken asobstinacy? Has any attempt ever been made to teach that discretionis a precious and manly virtue? No, for such matters are trifles inthe eyes of our educators. But these trifles cost our Stateinnumerable millions in legal expenses; for 90 per cent of all theprocesses for defamation and such like charges arise only from alack of discretion. Remarks that are made without any sense ofresponsibility are thoughtlessly repeated from mouth to mouth; andour economic welfare is continually damaged because importantmethods of production are thus disclosed. Secret preparations forour national defence are rendered illusory because our people havenever learned the duty of silence. They repeat everything theyhappen to hear. In times of war such talkative habits may evencause the loss of battles and therefore may contribute essentiallyto the unsuccessful outcome of a campaign. Here, as in othermatters, we may rest assured that adults cannot do what they havenot learnt to do in youth. A teacher must not try to discover thewild tricks of the boys by encouraging the evil practice oftale-bearing. Young people form a sort of State among themselvesand face adults with a certain solidarity. That is quite natural.The ties which unite the ten-year boys to one another are strongerand more natural than their relationship to adults. A boy who tellson his comrades commits an act of treason and shows a bent ofcharacter which is, to speak bluntly, similar to that of a man whocommits high treason. Such a boy must not be classed as 'good','reliable', and so on, but rather as one with undesirable traits ofcharacter. It may be rather convenient for the teacher to make useof such unworthy tendencies in order to help his own work, but bysuch an attitude the germ of a moral habit is sown in young heartsand may one day show fatal consequences. It has happened more oftenthan once that a young informer developed into a big scoundrel.
This is only one example among many. The deliberate training offine and noble traits of character in our schools to-day is almostnegative. In the future much more emphasis will have to be laid onthis side of our educational work. Loyalty, self-sacrifice anddiscretion are virtues which a great nation must possess. And theteaching and development of these in the school is a more importantmatter than many others things now included in the curriculum. Tomake the children give up habits of complaining and whining andhowling when they are hurt, etc., also belongs to this part oftheir training. If the educational system fails to teach the childat an early age to endure pain and injury without complaining wecannot be surprised if at a later age, when the boy has grown to bethe man and is, for example, in the trenches, the postal service isused for nothing else than to send home letters of weeping andcomplaint. If our youths, during their years in the primaryschools, had had their minds crammed with a little less knowledge,and if instead they had been better taught how to be masters ofthemselves, it would have served us well during the years1914-1918.
In its educational system the People's State will have to attachthe highest importance to the development of character,hand-in-hand with physical training. Many more defects which ournational 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 ofwill-power and the habit of making firm decisions, also the habitof being always ready to accept responsibilities.
In the training of our old army the principle was in vogue thatany order is always better than no order. Applied to our youth thisprinciple ought to take the form that any answer is better than noanswer. The fear of replying, because one fears to be wrong, oughtto be considered more humiliating than giving the wrong reply. Onthis simple and primitive basis our youth should be trained to havethe courage to act.
It has been often lamented that in November and December 1918all the authorities lost their heads and that, from the monarchdown to the last divisional commander, nobody had sufficient mettleto make a decision on his own responsibility. That terrible factconstitutes a grave rebuke to our educational system; because whatwas then revealed on a colossal scale at that moment of catastrophewas only what happens on a smaller scale everywhere among us. It isthe lack of will-power, and not the lack of arms, which renders usincapable of offering any serious resistance to-day. This defect isfound everywhere among our people and prevents decisive actionwherever risks have to be taken, as if any great action can betaken without also taking the risk. Quite unsuspectingly, a GermanGeneral found a formula for this lamentable lack of the will-to-actwhen he said: "I act only when I can count on a 51 per centprobability of success." In that '51 per cent probability' we findthe very root of the German collapse. The man who demands from Fatea guarantee of his success deliberately denies the significance ofan heroic act. For this significance consists in the very factthat, in the definite knowledge that the situation in question isfraught with mortal danger, an action is undertaken which may leadto success. A patient suffering from cancer and who knows that hisdeath is certain if he does not undergo an operation, needs no 51per cent probability of a cure before facing the operation. And ifthe operation promises only half of one per cent probability ofsuccess a man of courage will risk it and would not whine if itturned out unsuccessful.
All in all, the cowardly lack of will-power and the incapacityfor making decisions are chiefly results of the erroneous educationgiven us in our youth. The disastrous effects of this are nowwidespread among us. The crowning examples of that tragic chain ofconsequences are shown in the lack of civil courage which ourleading statesmen display.
The cowardice which leads nowadays to the shirking of every kindof responsibility springs from the same roots. Here again it is thefault of the education given our young people. This drawbackpermeates all sections of public life and finds its immortalconsummation in the institutions of government that function underthe parliamentary regime.
Already in the school, unfortunately, more value is placed on'confession and full repentance' and 'contrite renouncement', onthe part of little sinners, than on a simple and frank avowal. Butthis latter seems to-day, in the eyes of many an educator, tosavour of a spirit of utter incorrigibility and depravation. And,though it may seem incredible, many a boy is told that the gallowstree is waiting for him because he has shown certain traits whichmight be of inestimable value in the nation as a whole.
Just as the People's State must one day give its attention totraining the will-power and capacity for decision among the youth,so too it must inculcate in the hearts of the young generation fromearly childhood onwards a readiness to accept responsibilities, andthe courage of open and frank avowal. If it recognizes the fullsignificance of this necessity, finally'--after a century ofeducative work'--it will succeed in building up a nation whichwill no longer be subject to those defeats that have contributed sodisastrously to bring about our present overthrow.
The formal imparting of knowledge, which constitutes the chiefwork of our educational system to-day, will be taken over by thePeople's State with only few modifications. These modificationsmust be made in three branches.
First of all, the brains of the young people must not generallybe burdened with subjects of which ninety-five per cent are uselessto them and are therefore forgotten again. The curriculum of theprimary and secondary schools presents an odd mixture at thepresent time. In many branches of study the subject matter to belearned has become so enormous that only a very small fraction ofit can be remembered later on, and indeed only a very smallfraction of this whole mass of knowledge can be used. On the otherhand, what is learned is insufficient for anybody who wishes tospecialize in any certain branch for the purpose of earning hisdaily bread. Take, for example, the average civil servant who haspassed through the Gymnasium or High School, and ask him atthe age of thirty or forty how much he has retained of theknowledge 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 thentaught, it was not for the sole purpose of supplying the studentwith a great stock of knowledge from which he could draw in lateryears, but it served to develop the understanding, the memory, andabove all it helped to strengthen the thinking powers of thebrain." That is partly true. And yet it is somewhat dangerous tosubmerge a young brain in a flood of impressions which it canhardly master and the single elements of which it cannot discern orappreciate at their just value. It is mostly the essential part ofthis knowledge, and not the accidental, that is forgotten andsacrificed. Thus the principal purpose of this copious instructionis frustrated, for that purpose cannot be to make the brain capableof learning by simply offering it an enormous and varied amount ofsubjects for acquisition, but rather to furnish the individual withthat stock of knowledge which he will need in later life and whichhe can use for the good of the community. This aim, however, isrendered illusory if, because of the superabundance of subjectsthat have been crammed into his head in childhood, a person is ableto remember nothing, or at least not the essential portion, of allthis in later life. There is no reason why millions of peopleshould learn two or three languages during the school years, whenonly a very small fraction will have the opportunity to use theselanguages in later life and when most of them will therefore forgetthose languages completely. To take an instance: Out of 100,000students who learn French there are probably not 2,000 who will bein a position to make use of this accomplishment in later life,while 98,000 will never have a chance to utilize in practice whatthey have learned in youth. They have spent thousands of hours on asubject which will afterwards be without any value or importance tothem. The argument that these matters form part of the generalprocess of educating the mind is invalid. It would be sound if allthese people were able to use this learning in after life. But, asthe situation stands, 98,000 are tortured to no purpose and wastetheir valuable time, only for the sake of the 2,000 to whom thelanguage will be of any use.
In the case of that language which I have chosen as an exampleit cannot be said that the learning of it educates the student inlogical thinking or sharpens his mental acumen, as the learning ofLatin, for instance, might be said to do. It would therefore bemuch better to teach young students only the general outline, or,better, the inner structure of such a language: that is to say, toallow them to discern the characteristic features of the language,or perhaps to make them acquainted with the rudiments of itsgrammar, its pronunciation, its syntax, style, etc. That would besufficient for average students, because it would provide a clearerview of the whole and could be more easily remembered. And it wouldbe more practical than the present-day attempt to cram into theirheads a detailed knowledge of the whole language, which they cannever master and which they will readily forget. If this methodwere adopted, then we should avoid the danger that, out of thesuperabundance of matter taught, only some fragments will remain inthe memory; for the youth would then have to learn what is worthwhile, and the selection between the useful and the useless wouldthus have been made beforehand.
As regards the majority of students the knowledge andunderstanding of the rudiments of a language would be quitesufficient for the rest of their lives. And those who really doneed this language subsequently would thus have a foundation onwhich to start, should they choose to make a more thorough study ofit.
By adopting such a curriculum the necessary amount of time wouldbe gained for physical exercises as well as for a more intensetraining in the various educational fields that have already beenmentioned.
A reform of particular importance is that which ought to takeplace in the present methods of teaching history. Scarcely anyother people are made to study as much of history as the Germans,and scarcely any other people make such a bad use of theirhistorical knowledge. If politics means history in the making, thenour way of teaching history stands condemned by the way we haveconducted our politics. But there would be no point in bewailingthe lamentable results of our political conduct unless one is nowdetermined to give our people a better political education. In 99out of 100 cases the results of our present teaching of history aredeplorable. Usually only a few dates, years of birth and names,remain in the memory, while a knowledge of the main and clearlydefined lines of historical development is completely lacking. Theessential features which are of real significance are not taught.It is left to the more or less bright intelligence of theindividual to discover the inner motivating urge amid the mass ofdates and chronological succession of events.
You may object as strongly as you like to this unpleasantstatement. But read with attention the speeches which ourparliamentarians make during one session alone on politicalproblems and on questions of foreign policy in particular. Rememberthat those gentlemen are, or claim to be, the elite of the Germannation and that at least a great number of them have sat on thebenches of our secondary schools and that many of them have passedthrough our universities. Then you will realize how defective thehistorical education of these people has been. If these gentlemenhad never studied history at all but had possessed a sound instinctfor public affairs, things would have gone better, and the nationwould 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 ofhistorical development understood. The more our historical teachingis limited to this task, the more we may hope that it will turn outsubsequently to be of advantage to the individual and, through theindividual, to the community as a whole. For history must not bestudied merely with a view to knowing what happened in the past butas a guide for the future, and to teach us what policy would be thebest to follow for the preservation of our own people. That is thereal end; and the teaching of history is only a means to attainthis end. But here again the means has superseded the end in ourcontemporary education. The goal is completely forgotten. Do notreply that a profound study of history demands a detailed knowledgeof all these dates because otherwise we could not fix the greatlines of development. That task belongs to the professionalhistorians. But the average man is not a professor of history. Forhim history has only one mission and that is to provide him withsuch an amount of historical knowledge as is necessary in order toenable him to form an independent opinion on the political affairsof his own country. The man who wants to become a professor ofhistory can devote himself to all the details later on. Naturallyhe will have to occupy himself even with the smallest details. Ofcourse our present teaching of history is not adequate to all this.Its scope is too vast for the average student and too limited forthe student who wishes to be an historical expert.
Finally, it is the business of the People's State to arrange forthe writing of a world history in which the race problem willoccupy a dominant position.
To sum up: The People's State must reconstruct our system ofgeneral instruction in such a way that it will embrace only what isessential. Beyond this it will have to make provision for a moreadvanced teaching in the various subjects for those who want tospecialize in them. It will suffice for the average individual tobe acquainted with the fundamentals of the various subjects toserve as the basis of what may be called an all-round education. Heought to study exhaustively and in detail only that subject inwhich he intends to work during the rest of his life. A generalinstruction in all subjects should be obligatory, andspecialization should be left to the choice of the individual.
In this way the scholastic programme would be shortened, andthus several school hours would be gained which could be utilizedfor physical training and character training, in will-power, thecapacity 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 tobe followed in after life is demonstrated by the fact that men whoare destined for the same calling in life are educated in threedifferent kinds of schools. What is of decisive importance isgeneral education only and not the special teaching. When specialknowledge is needed it cannot be given in the curriculum of oursecondary schools as they stand to-day.
Therefore the People's State will one day have to abolish suchhalf-measures.
The second modification in the curriculum which the People'sState will have to make is the following:
It is a characteristic of our materialistic epoch that ourscientific education shows a growing emphasis on what is real andpractical: such subjects, for instance, as applied mathematics,physics, chemistry, etc. Of course they are necessary in an agethat is dominated by industrial technology and chemistry, and whereeveryday life shows at least the external manifestations of these.But it is a perilous thing to base the general culture of a nationon the knowledge of these subjects. On the contrary, that generalculture ought always to be directed towards ideals. It ought to befounded on the humanist disciplines and should aim at giving onlythe ground work of further specialized instruction in the variouspractical sciences. Otherwise we should sacrifice those forces thatare more important for the preservation of the nation than anytechnical knowledge. In the historical department the study ofancient history should not be omitted. Roman history, along generallines, is and will remain the best teacher, not only for our owntime but also for the future. And the ideal of Hellenic cultureshould be preserved for us in all its marvellous beauty. Thedifferences between the various peoples should not prevent us fromrecognizing the community of race which unites them on a higherplane. The conflict of our times is one that is being waged aroundgreat objectives. A civilization is fighting for its existence. Itis a civilization that is the product of thousands of years ofhistorical development, and the Greek as well as the German formspart of it.
A clear-cut division must be made between general culture andthe special branches. To-day the latter threaten more and more todevote themselves exclusively to the service of Mammon. Tocounterbalance this tendency, general culture should be preserved,at least in its ideal forms. The principle should be repeatedlyemphasized, that industrial and technical progress, trade andcommerce, can flourish only so long as a folk community existswhose general system of thought is inspired by ideals, since thatis the preliminary condition for a flourishing development of theenterprises I have spoken of. That condition is not created by aspirit of materialist egotism but by a spirit of self-denial andthe joy of giving one's self in the service of others.
The system of education which prevails to-day sees its principalobject in pumping into young people that knowledge which will helpthem to make their way in life. This principle is expressed in thefollowing terms: "The young man must one day become a useful memberof human society." By that phrase they mean the ability to gain anhonest daily livelihood. The superficial training in the duties ofgood citizenship, which he acquires merely as an accidental thing,has very weak foundations. For in itself the State represents onlya form, and therefore it is difficult to train people to look uponthis form as the ideal which they will have to serve and towardswhich they must feel responsible. A form can be too easily broken.But, as we have seen, the idea which people have of the Stateto-day does not represent anything clearly defined. Therefore,there is nothing but the usual stereotyped 'patriotic' training. Inthe old Germany the greatest emphasis was placed on the divineright of the small and even the smallest potentates. The way inwhich this divine right was formulated and presented was never veryclever and often very stupid. Because of the large numbers of thosesmall potentates, it was impossible to give adequate biographicalaccounts of the really great personalities that shed their lustreon the history of the German people. The result was that the broadmasses 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 enthusiasmcould be aroused. Our educational system proved incapable ofselecting from the general mass of our historical personages thenames of a few personalities which the German people could be proudto look upon as their own. Thus the whole nation might have beenunited by the ties of a common knowledge of this common heritage.The really important figures in German history were not presentedto the present generation. The attention of the whole nation wasnot concentrated on them for the purpose of awakening a commonnational spirit. From the various subjects that were taught, thosewho had charge of our training seemed incapable of selecting whatredounded most to the national honour and lifting that above thecommon objective level, in order to inflame the national pride inthe light of such brilliant examples. At that time such a coursewould have been looked upon as rank chauvinism, which did not thenhave a very pleasant savour. Pettifogging dynastic patriotism wasmore acceptable and more easily tolerated than the glowing fire ofa supreme national pride. The former could be always pressed intoservice, whereas the latter might one day become a dominatingforce. Monarchist patriotism terminated in Associations ofVeterans, whereas passionate national patriotism might have openeda road which would be difficult to determine. This national passionis like a highly tempered thoroughbred who is discriminate aboutthe sort of rider he will tolerate in the saddle. No wonder thatmost people preferred to shirk such a danger. Nobody seemed tothink it possible that one day a war might come which would put themettle of this kind of patriotism to the test, in artillerybombardment and waves of attacks with poison gas. But when it didcome our lack of this patriotic passion was avenged in a terribleway. None were very enthusiastic about dying for their imperial androyal sovereigns; while on the other hand the 'Nation' was notrecognized by the greater number of the soldiers.
Since the revolution broke out in Germany and the monarchistpatriotism was therefore extinguished, the purpose of teachinghistory was nothing more than to add to the stock of objectiveknowledge. The present State has no use for patriotic enthusiasm;but it will never obtain what it really desires. For if dynasticpatriotism failed to produce a supreme power of resistance at atime when the principle of nationalism dominated, it will be stillless possible to arouse republican enthusiasm. There can be nodoubt that the German people would not have stood on the field ofbattle for four and a half years to fight under the battle slogan'For the Republic,' and least of all those who created this grandinstitution.
In reality this Republic has been allowed to exist undisturbedonly by grace of its readiness and its promise to all and sundry,to pay tribute and reparations to the stranger and to put itssignature to any kind of territorial renunciation. The rest of theworld finds it sympathetic, just as a weakling is always morepleasing to those who want to bend him to their own uses than is aman who is made of harder metal. But the fact that the enemy likesthis form of government is the worst kind of condemnation. Theylove the German Republic and tolerate its existence because nobetter instrument could be found which would help them to keep ourpeople in slavery. It is to this fact alone that this magnanimousinstitution owes its survival. And that is why it can renounce anyreal system of national education and can feel satisfiedwhen the heroes of the Reich banner shout their hurrahs, but inreality these same heroes would scamper away like rabbits if calledupon to defend that banner with their blood.
The People's State will have to fight for its existence. It willnot gain or secure this existence by signing documents like that ofthe Dawes Plan. But for its existence and defence it will needprecisely those things which our present system believes can berepudiated. The more worthy its form and its inner national being.the greater will be the envy and opposition of its adversaries. Thebest defence will not be in the arms it possesses but in itscitizens. Bastions of fortresses will not save it, but the livingwall of its men and women, filled with an ardent love for theircountry and a passionate spirit of national patriotism.
Therefore the third point which will have to be considered inrelation to our educational system is the following:
The People's State must realize that the sciences may also bemade a means of promoting a spirit of pride in the nation. Not onlythe history of the world but the history of civilization as a wholemust be taught in the light of this principle. An inventor mustappear great not only as an inventor but also, and even more so, asa member of the nation. The admiration aroused by the contemplationof a great achievement must be transformed into a feeling of prideand satisfaction that a man of one's own race has been chosen toaccomplish it. But out of the abundance of great names in Germanhistory the greatest will have to be selected and presented to ouryoung generation in such a way as to become solid pillars ofstrength to support the national spirit.
The subject matter ought to be systematically organized from thestandpoint of this principle. And the teaching should be soorientated that the boy or girl, after leaving school, will not bea semi-pacifist, a democrat or of something else of that kind, buta whole-hearted German. So that this national feeling be sincerefrom the very beginning, and not a mere pretence, the followingfundamental and inflexible principle should be impressed on theyoung brain while it is yet malleable: The man who loves his nationcan prove the sincerity of this sentiment only by being ready tomake sacrifices for the nation's welfare. There is no such thing asa national sentiment which is directed towards personal interests.And there is no such thing as a nationalism that embraces onlycertain classes. Hurrahing proves nothing and does not confer theright to call oneself national if behind that shout there is nosincere preoccupation for the conservation of the nation'swell-being. One can be proud of one's people only if there is noclass left of which one need to be ashamed. When one half of anation is sunk in misery and worn out by hard distress, or evendepraved or degenerate, that nation presents such an unattractivepicture that nobody can feel proud to belong to it. It is only whena nation is sound in all its members, physically and morally, thatthe joy of belonging to it can properly be intensified to thesupreme feeling which we call national pride. But this pride, inits highest form, can be felt only by those who know the greatnessof their nation.
The spirit of nationalism and a feeling for social justice mustbe fused into one sentiment in the hearts of the youth. Then a daywill come when a nation of citizens will arise which will be weldedtogether through a common love and a common pride that shall beinvincible and indestructible for ever.
The dread of chauvinism, which is a symptom of our time, is asign of its impotence. Since our epoch not only lacks everything inthe nature of exuberant energy but even finds such a manifestationdisagreeable, fate will never elect it for the accomplishment ofany great deeds. For the greatest changes that have taken place onthis earth would have been inconceivable if they had not beeninspired by ardent and even hysterical passions, but only by thebourgeois 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 theAryan portion of mankind or whether the everlasting Jew will profitby it.
By educating the young generation along the right lines, thePeople's State will have to see to it that a generation of mankindis formed which will be adequate to this supreme combat that willdecide the destinies of the world.
That nation will conquer which will be the first to take thisroad.
The whole organization of education and training which thePeople's State is to build up must take as its crowning task thework of instilling into the hearts and brains of the youthentrusted to it the racial instinct and understanding of the racialidea. No boy or girl must leave school without having attained aclear insight into the meaning of racial purity and the importanceof maintaining the racial blood unadulterated. Thus the firstindispensable condition for the preservation of our race will havebeen established and thus the future cultural progress of ourpeople will be assured.
For in the last analysis all physical and mental training wouldbe in vain unless it served an entity which is ready and determinedto carry on its own existence and maintain its own characteristicqualities.
If it were otherwise, something would result which we Germanshave cause to regret already, without perhaps having hithertorecognized the extent of the tragic calamity. We should be doomedto remain also in the future only manure for civilization. And thatnot in the banal sense of the contemporary bourgeois mind, whichsees in a lost fellow member of our people only a lost citizen, butin a sense which we should have painfully to recognize: namely,that our racial blood would be destined to disappear. Bycontinually mixing with other races we might lift them from theirformer lower level of civilization to a higher grade; but weourselves should descend for ever from the heights we hadreached.
Finally, from the racial standpoint this training also must findits culmination in the military service. The term of militaryservice is to be a final stage of the normal training which theaverage German receives.
While the People's State attaches the greatest importance tophysical and mental training, it has also to consider, and no lessimportantly, the task of selecting men for the service of the Stateitself. This important matter is passed over lightly at the presenttime. Generally the children of parents who are for the time beingin higher situations are in their turn considered worthy of ahigher education. Here talent plays a subordinate part. But talentcan be estimated only relatively. Though in general culture he maybe inferior to the city child, a peasant boy may be more talentedthan the son of a family that has occupied high positions throughmany generations. But the superior culture of the city child has initself nothing to do with a greater or lesser degree of talent; forthis culture has its roots in the more copious mass of impressionswhich arise from the more varied education and the surroundingsamong which this child lives. If the intelligent son of peasantparents were educated from childhood in similar surroundings hisintellectual accomplishments would be quite otherwise. In our daythere is only one sphere where the family in which a person hasbeen born means less than his innate gifts. That is the sphere ofart. Here, where a person cannot just 'learn,' but must have innategifts 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 proofthat genius is not necessarily connected with the higher socialstrata or with wealth. Not rarely the greatest artists come frompoor families. And many a boy from the country village haseventually become a celebrated master.
It does not say much for the mental acumen of our time thatadvantage is not taken of this truth for the sake of our wholeintellectual life. The opinion is advanced that this principle,though undoubtedly valid in the field of art, has not the samevalidity in regard to what are called the applied sciences. It istrue that a man can be trained to a certain amount of mechanicaldexterity, just as a poodle can be taught incredible tricks by aclever master. But such training does not bring the animal to usehis intelligence in order to carry out those tricks. And the sameholds good in regard to man. It is possible to teach men,irrespective of talent or no talent, to go through certainscientific exercises, but in such cases the results are quite asinanimate and mechanical as in the case of the animal. It wouldeven be possible to force a person of mediocre intelligence, bymeans of a severe course of intellectual drilling, to acquire morethan the average amount of knowledge; but that knowledge wouldremain sterile. The result would be a man who might be a walkingdictionary of knowledge but who will fail miserably on everycritical occasion in life and at every juncture where vitaldecisions have to be taken. Such people need to be drilledspecially for every new and even most insignificant task and willnever be capable of contributing in the least to the generalprogress of mankind. Knowledge that is merely drilled into peoplecan at best qualify them to fill government positions under ourpresent regime.
It goes without saying that, among the sum total of individualswho make up a nation, gifted people are always to be found in everysphere of life. It is also quite natural that the value ofknowledge will be all the greater the more vitally the dead mass oflearning is animated by the innate talent of the individual whopossesses it. Creative work in this field can be done only throughthe marriage of knowledge and talent.
One example will suffice to show how much our contemporary worldis at fault in this matter. From time to time our illustratedpapers publish, for the edification of the German philistine, thenews that in some quarter or other of the globe, and for the firsttime in that locality, a Negro has become a lawyer, a teacher, apastor, even a grand opera tenor or something else of that kind.While the bourgeois blockhead stares with amazed admiration at thenotice that tells him how marvellous are the achievements of ourmodern educational technique, the more cunning Jew sees in thisfact a new proof to be utilized for the theory with which he wantsto infect the public, namely that all men are equal. It does notdawn on the murky bourgeois mind that the fact which is publishedfor him is a sin against reason itself, that it is an act ofcriminal insanity to train a being who is only an anthropoid bybirth until the pretence can be made that he has been turned into alawyer; while, on the other hand, millions who belong to the mostcivilized races have to remain in positions which are unworthy oftheir cultural level. The bourgeois mind does not realize that itis a sin against the will of the eternal Creator to allow hundredsof thousands of highly gifted people to remain floundering in theswamp of proletarian misery while Hottentots and Zulus are drilledto fill positions in the intellectual professions. For here we havethe product only of a drilling technique, just as in the case ofthe performing dog. If the same amount of care and effort wereapplied among intelligent races each individual would become athousand times more capable in such matters.
This state of affairs would become intolerable if a day shouldarrive when it no longer refers to exceptional cases. But thesituation is already intolerable where talent and natural gifts arenot taken as decisive factors in qualifying for the right to ahigher education. It is indeed intolerable to think that year afteryear hundreds of thousands of young people without a single vestigeof talent are deemed worthy of a higher education, while otherhundreds of thousands who possess high natural gifts have to gowithout any sort of higher schooling at all. The practical lossthus caused to the nation is incalculable. If the number ofimportant discoveries which have been made in America has grownconsiderably in recent years one of the reasons is that the numberof gifted persons belonging to the lowest social classes who weregiven a higher education in that country is proportionately muchlarger than in Europe.
A stock of knowledge packed into the brain will not suffice forthe making of discoveries. What counts here is only that knowledgewhich is illuminated by natural talent. But with us at the presenttime no value is placed on such gifts. Only good school reportscount.
Here is another educative work that is waiting for the People'sState to do. It will not be its task to assure a dominant influenceto a certain social class already existing, but it will be its dutyto attract the most competent brains in the total mass of thenation and promote them to place and honour. It is not merely theduty of the State to give to the average child a certain definiteeducation in the primary school, but it is also its duty to openthe road to talent in the proper direction. And above all, it mustopen the doors of the higher schools under the State to talent ofevery sort, no matter in what social class it may appear. This isan imperative necessity; for thus alone will it be possible todevelop a talented body of public leaders from the class whichrepresents learning that in itself is only a dead mass.
There is still another reason why the State should provide forthis situation. Our intellectual class, particularly in Germany, isso shut up in itself and fossilized that it lacks living contactwith the classes beneath it. Two evil consequences result fromthis: First, the intellectual class neither understands norsympathizes with the broad masses. It has been so long cut off fromall connection with them that it cannot now have the necessarypsychological ties that would enable it to understand them. It hasbecome estranged from the people. Secondly, the intellectual classlacks the necessary will-power; for this faculty is always weakerin cultivated circles, which live in seclusion, than among theprimitive masses of the people. God knows we Germans have neverbeen lacking in abundant scientific culture, but we have always hada considerable lack of will-power and the capacity for makingdecisions. For example, the more 'intellectual' our statesmen havebeen the more lacking they have been, for the most part, inpractical achievement. Our political preparation and our technicalequipment for the world war were defective, certainly not becausethe brains governing the nation were too little educated, butbecause the men who directed our public affairs were over-educated,filled to over-flowing with knowledge and intelligence, yet withoutany sound instinct and simply without energy, or any spirit ofdaring. It was our nation's tragedy to have to fight for itsexistence under a Chancellor who was a dillydallying philosopher.If instead of a Bethmann von Hollweg we had had a rough man of thepeople as our leader the heroic blood of the common grenadier wouldnot have been shed in vain. The exaggeratedly intellectual materialout of which our leaders were made proved to be the best ally ofthe scoundrels who carried out the November revolution. Theseintellectuals safeguarded the national wealth in a miserly fashion,instead of launching it forth and risking it, and thus they set theconditions on which the others won success.
Here the Catholic Church presents an instructive example.Clerical celibacy forces the Church to recruit its priests not fromtheir own ranks but progressively from the masses of the people.Yet there are not many who recognize the significance of celibacyin this relation. But therein lies the cause of the inexhaustiblevigour which characterizes that ancient institution. For by thusunceasingly recruiting the ecclesiastical dignitaries from thelower classes of the people, the Church is enabled not only tomaintain the contact of instinctive understanding with the massesof the population but also to assure itself of always being able todraw upon that fund of energy which is present in this form onlyamong the popular masses. Hence the surprising youthfulness of thatgigantic organism, its mental flexibility and its ironwill-power.
It will be the task of the Peoples' State so to organize andadminister its educational system that the existing intellectualclass will be constantly furnished with a supply of fresh bloodfrom beneath. From the bulk of the nation the State must sift outwith careful scrutiny those persons who are endowed with naturaltalents and see that they are employed in the service of thecommunity. For neither the State itself nor the various departmentsof 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 theseoffices. Such individuals must have the necessary fundamentalcapabilities and will-power. The principle does not hold true onlyin regard to the civil service but also in regard to all those whoare to take part in the intellectual and moral leadership of thepeople, no matter in what sphere they may be employed. Thegreatness of a people is partly dependent on the condition that itmust succeed in training the best brains for those branches of thepublic service for which they show a special natural aptitude andin placing them in the offices where they can do their best workfor the good of the community. If two nations of equal strength andquality engage in a mutual conflict that nation will come outvictorious which has entrusted its intellectual and moralleadership to its best talents and that nation will go under whosegovernment represents only a common food trough for privilegedgroups or classes and where the inner talents of its individualmembers are not availed of.
Of course such a reform seems impossible in the world as it isto-day. The objection will at once be raised, that it is too muchto expect from the favourite son of a highly-placed civil servant,for instance, that he shall work with his hands simply becausesomebody else whose parents belong to the working-class seems morecapable for a job in the civil service. That argument may be validas long as manual work is looked upon in the same way as it islooked upon to-day. Hence the Peoples' State will have to take upan attitude towards the appreciation of manual labour which will befundamentally different from that which now exists. If necessary,it will have to organize a persistent system of teaching which willaim at abolishing the present-day stupid habit of looking down onphysical labour as an occupation to be ashamed of.
The individual will have to be valued, not by the class of workhe does but by the way in which he does it and by its usefulness tothe community. This statement may sound monstrous in an epoch whenthe most brainless columnist on a newspaper staff is more esteemedthan the most expert mechanic, merely because the former pushes apen. But, as I have said, this false valuation does not correspondto the nature of things. It has been artificially introduced, andthere was a time when it did not exist at all. The presentunnatural state of affairs is one of those general morbid phenomenathat have arisen from our materialistic epoch. Fundamentally everykind of work has a double value; the one material, the other ideal.The material value depends on the practical importance of the workto the life of the community. The greater the number of thepopulation who benefit from the work, directly or indirectly, thehigher will be its material value. This evaluation is expressed inthe material recompense which the individual receives for hislabour. In contradistinction to this purely material value there isthe ideal value. Here the work performed is not judged by itsmaterial importance but by the degree to which it answers anecessity. Certainly the material utility of an invention may begreater than that of the service rendered by an everyday workman;but it is also certain that the community needs each of those smalldaily services just as much as the greater services. From thematerial point of view a distinction can be made in the evaluationof different kinds of work according to their utility to thecommunity, and this distinction is expressed by the differentiationin the scale of recompense; but on the ideal or abstract plans allworkmen become equal the moment each strives to do his best in hisown field, no matter what that field may be. It is on this that aman's value must be estimated, and not on the amount of recompensereceived.
In a reasonably directed State care must be taken that eachindividual is given the kind of work which corresponds to hiscapabilities. In other words, people will be trained for thepositions indicated by their natural endowments; but theseendowments or faculties are innate and cannot be acquired by anyamount of training, being a gift from Nature and not merited bymen. Therefore, the way in which men are generally esteemed bytheir fellow-citizens must not be according to the kind of workthey do, because that has been more or less assigned to theindividual. Seeing that the kind of work in which the individual isemployed is to be accounted to his inborn gifts and the resultanttraining which he has received from the community, he will have tobe judged by the way in which he performs this work entrusted tohim by the community. For the work which the individual performs isnot the purpose of his existence, but only a means. His realpurpose in life is to better himself and raise himself to a higherlevel as a human being; but this he can only do in and through thecommunity whose cultural life he shares. And this community mustalways exist on the foundations on which the State is based. Heought to contribute to the conservation of those foundations.Nature determines the form of this contribution. It is the duty ofthe individual to return to the community, zealously and honestly,what the community has given him. He who does this deserves thehighest respect and esteem. Material remuneration may be given tohim whose work has a corresponding utility for the community; butthe ideal recompense must lie in the esteem to which everybody hasa claim who serves his people with whatever powers Nature hasbestowed upon him and which have been developed by the training hehas received from the national community. Then it will no longer bedishonourable to be an honest craftsman; but it will be a cause ofdisgrace to be an inefficient State official, wasting God's day andfilching daily bread from an honest public. Then it will be lookedupon as quite natural that positions should not be given to personswho of their very nature are incapable of filling them.
Furthermore, this personal efficiency will be the sole criterionof the right to take part on an equal juridical footing in generalcivil affairs.
The present epoch is working out its own ruin. It introducesuniversal suffrage, chatters about equal rights but can find nofoundation for this equality. It considers the material wage as theexpression of a man's value and thus destroys the basis of thenoblest kind of equality that can exist. For equality cannot anddoes not depend on the work a man does, but only on the manner inwhich each one does the particular work allotted to him. Thus alonewill mere natural chance be set aside in determining the work of aman and thus only does the individual become the artificer of hisown social worth.
At the present time, when whole groups of people estimate eachother's value only by the size of the salaries which theyrespectively 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 anddecaying anyone who would heal it must have the courage first tolay bare the real roots of the disease. And the National SocialistMovement must take that duty on its shoulders. It will have to liftits voice above the heads of the small bourgeoisie and rallytogether and co-ordinate all those popular forces which are readyto become the protagonists of a new Weltanschauung.
Of course the objection will be made that in general it isdifficult to differentiate between the material and ideal values ofwork and that the lower prestige which is attached to physicallabour is due to the fact that smaller wages are paid for that kindof work. It will be said that the lower wage is in its turn thereason why the manual worker has less chance to participate in theculture of the nation; so that the ideal side of human culture isless open to him because it has nothing to do with his dailyactivities. It may be added that the reluctance to do physical workis justified by the fact that, on account of the small income, thecultural level of manual labourers must naturally be low, and thatthis in turn is a justification for the lower estimation in whichmanual labour is generally held.
There is quite a good deal of truth in all this. But that is thevery reason why we ought to see that in the future there should notbe such a wide difference in the scale of remuneration. Don't saythat under such conditions poorer work would be done. It would bethe saddest symptom of decadence if finer intellectual work couldbe obtained only through the stimulus of higher payment. If thatpoint of view had ruled the world up to now humanity would neverhave acquired its greatest scientific and cultural heritage. Forall the greatest inventions, the greatest discoveries, the mostprofoundly revolutionary scientific work, and the most magnificentmonuments of human culture, were never given to the world under theimpulse or compulsion of money. Quite the contrary: not rarely wastheir origin associated with a renunciation of the worldlypleasures that wealth can purchase.
It may be that money has become the one power that governs lifeto-day. Yet a time will come when men will again bow to highergods. Much that we have to-day owes its existence to the desire formoney and property; but there is very little among all this whichwould leave the world poorer by its lack.
It is also one of the aims before our movement to hold out theprospect of a time when the individual will be given what he needsfor the purposes of his life and it will be a time in which, on theother hand, the principle will be upheld that man does not live formaterial enjoyment alone. This principle will find expression in awiser scale of wages and salaries which will enable everyone,including the humblest workman who fulfils his dutiesconscientiously, to live an honourable and decent life both as aman and as a citizen. Let it not be said that this is merely avisionary ideal, that this world would never tolerate it inpractice and that of itself it is impossible to attain.
Even we are not so simple as to believe that there will ever bean age in which there will be no drawbacks. But that does notrelease us from the obligation to fight for the removal of thedefects which we have recognized, to overcome the shortcomings andto strive towards the ideal. In any case the hard reality of thefacts to be faced will always place only too many limits to ouraspirations. But that is precisely why man must strive again andagain to serve the ultimate aim and no failures must induce him torenounce his intentions, just as we cannot spurn the sway ofjustice because mistakes creep into the administration of the law,and just as we cannot despise medical science because, in spite ofit, there will always be diseases.
Man should take care not to have too low an estimate of thepower of an ideal. If there are some who may feel disheartened overthe present conditions, and if they happen to have served assoldiers, I would remind them of the time when their heroism wasthe most convincing example of the power inherent in ideal motives.It was not preoccupation about their daily bread that led men tosacrifice their lives, but the love of their country, the faithwhich they had in its greatness, and an all round feeling for thehonour of the nation. Only after the German people had becomeestranged from these ideals, to follow the material promisesoffered by the Revolution, only after they threw away their arms totake up the rucksack, only then'--instead of entering anearthly paradise'--did they sink into the purgatory ofuniversal contempt and at the same time universal want.
That is why we must face the calculators of the materialistRepublic with faith in an idealist Reich.
CHAPTER III. CITIZENS ANDSUBJECTS OF THE STATEThe institution that is now erroneously called the Stategenerally classifies people only into two groups: citizens andaliens. 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 resemblea sort of meteoric phenomena. They are people who have nocitizenship in any State and consequently no civic rightsanywhere.
In most cases nowadays a person acquires civic rights by beingborn within the frontiers of a State. The race or nationality towhich he may belong plays no role whatsoever. The child of a Negrowho once lived in one of the German protectorates and now takes uphis 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 GermanCitizen.
Besides naturalization that is acquired through the fact ofhaving been born within the confines of a State there existsanother kind of naturalization which can be acquired later. Thisprocess is subject to various preliminary requirements. For exampleone condition is that, if possible, the applicant must not be aburglar or a common street thug. It is required of him that hispolitical attitude is not such as to give cause for uneasiness; inother words he must be a harmless simpleton in politics. It isrequired that he shall not be a burden to the State of which hewishes to become a citizen. In this realistic epoch of ours thislast condition naturally only means that he must not be a financialburden. If the affairs of the candidate are such that it appearslikely he will turn out to be a good taxpayer, that is a veryimportant consideration and will help him to obtain civic rightsall the more rapidly.
The question of race plays no part at all.
The whole process of acquiring civic rights is not verydifferent from that of being admitted to membership of anautomobile club, for instance. A person files his application. Itis examined. It is sanctioned. And one day the man receives a cardwhich informs him that he has become a citizen. The information isgiven in an amusing way. An applicant who has hitherto been a Zuluor Kaffir is told: "By these presents you are now become a GermanCitizen."
The President of the State can perform this piece of magic. WhatGod Himself could not do is achieved by some TheophrastusParacelsus (Note 16) of a civil servant through a mere twirl of thehand. Nothing but a stroke of the pen, and a Mongolian slave isforthwith turned into a real German. Not only is no question askedregarding the race to which the new citizen belongs; even thematter of his physical health is not inquired into. His flesh maybe corrupted with syphilis; but he will still be welcome in theState as it exists to-day so long as he may not become a financialburden or a political danger.
In this way, year after year, those organisms which we callStates take up poisonous matter which they can hardly everovercome.
Another point of distinction between a citizen and an alien isthat the former is admitted to all public offices, that he maypossibly have to do military service and that in return he ispermitted to take a passive or active part at public elections.Those are his chief privileges. For in regard to personal rightsand personal liberty the alien enjoys the same amount of protectionas the citizen, and frequently even more. Anyhow that is how ithappens in our present German Republic.
I realize fully that nobody likes to hear these things. But itwould be difficult to find anything more illogical or more insanethan our contemporary laws in regard to State citizenship.
At present there exists one State which manifests at least somemodest attempts that show a better appreciation of how things oughtto be done in this matter. It is not, however, in our model GermanRepublic but in the U.S.A. that efforts are made to conform atleast partly to the counsels of commonsense. By refusing immigrantsto enter there if they are in a bad state of health, and byexcluding certain races from the right to become naturalized ascitizens, they have begun to introduce principles similar to thoseon 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 Stategives only the status of a subject. It does not carry with it theright to fill any position under the State or to participate inpolitical life, such as taking an active or passive part inelections. Another principle is that the race and nationality ofevery subject of the State will have to be proved. A subject is atany time free to cease being a subject and to become a citizen ofthat country to which he belongs in virtue of his nationality. Theonly difference between an alien and a subject of the State is thatthe former is a citizen of another country.
The young boy or girl who is of German nationality and is asubject of the German State is bound to complete the period ofschool education which is obligatory for every German. Thereby hesubmits to the system of training which will make him conscious ofhis race and a member of the folk-community. Then he has to fulfilall those requirements laid down by the State in regard to physicaltraining 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 toeach individual German and will render him competent to fulfil thephysical and mental requirements of military service. The rights ofcitizenship shall be conferred on every young man whose health andcharacter have been certified as good, after having completed hisperiod of military service. This act of inauguration in citizenshipshall be a solemn ceremony. And the diploma conferring the rightsof citizenship will be preserved by the young man as the mostprecious testimonial of his whole life. It entitles him to exerciseall the rights of a citizen and to enjoy all the privilegesattached thereto. For the State must draw a sharp line ofdistinction between those who, as members of the nation, are thefoundation and the support of its existence and greatness, andthose who are domiciled in the State simply as earners of theirlivelihood there.
On the occasion of conferring a diploma of citizenship the newcitizen must take a solemn oath of loyalty to the nationalcommunity and the State. This diploma must be a bond which unitestogether all the various classes and sections of the nation. Itshall be a greater honour to be a citizen of this Reich, even as astreet-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 itsobligations. Those who show themselves without personal honour orcharacter, or common criminals, or traitors to the fatherland, canat any time be deprived of the rights of citizenship. Therewiththey become merely subjects of the State.
The German girl is a subject of the State but will become acitizen when she marries. At the same time those women who earntheir livelihood independently have the right to acquirecitizenship if they are German subjects.
CHAPTER IV. PERSONALITY ANDTHE IDEAL OF THE PEOPLE'S STATEIf the principal duty of the National Socialist People's Statebe to educate and promote the existence of those who are thematerial out of which the State is formed, it will not besufficient to promote those racial elements as such, educate themand finally train them for practical life, but the State must alsoadapt its own organization to meet the demands of this task.
It would be absurd to appraise a man's worth by the race towhich he belongs and at the same time to make war against theMarxist principle, that all men are equal, without being determinedto pursue our own principle to its ultimate consequences. If weadmit the significance of blood, that is to say, if we recognizethe race as the fundamental element on which all life is based, weshall have to apply to the individual the logical consequences ofthis principle. In general I must estimate the worth of nationsdifferently, on the basis of the different races from which theyspring, and I must also differentiate in estimating the worth ofthe individual within his own race. The principle, that one peopleis not the same as another, applies also to the individual membersof a national community. No one brain, for instance, is equal toanother; because the constituent elements belonging to the sameblood vary in a thousand subtle details, though they arefundamentally of the same quality.
The first consequence of this fact is comparatively simple. Itdemands that those elements within the folk-community which showthe best racial qualities ought to be encouraged more than theothers and especially they should be encouraged to increase andmultiply.
This task is comparatively simple because it can be recognizedand carried out almost mechanically. It is much more difficult toselect from among a whole multitude of people all those whoactually possess the highest intellectual and spiritualcharacteristics and assign them to that sphere of influence whichnot only corresponds to their outstanding talents but in whichtheir activities will above all things be of benefit to the nation.This selection according to capacity and efficiency cannot beeffected in a mechanical way. It is a work which can beaccomplished only through the permanent struggle of everyday lifeitself.
A Weltanschauung which repudiates the democraticprinciple of the rule of the masses and aims at giving this worldto the best people'--that is, to the highest quality ofmankind'--must also apply that same aristocratic postulate tothe individuals within the folk-community. It must take care thatthe positions of leadership and highest influence are given to thebest men. Hence it is not based on the idea of the majority, but onthat of personality.
Anyone who believes that the People's National Socialist Stateshould distinguish itself from the other States only mechanically,as it were, through the better construction of its economiclife'--thanks to a better equilibrium between poverty andriches, or to the extension to broader masses of the power todetermine the economic process, or to a fairer wage, or to theelimination of vast differences in the scale ofsalaries'--anyone who thinks this understands only thesuperficial features of our movement and has not the least idea ofwhat we mean when we speak of our Weltanschauung. All thesefeatures just mentioned could not in the least guarantee us alasting existence and certainly would be no warranty of greatness.A nation that could content itself with external reforms would nothave the slightest chance of success in the general struggle forlife among the nations of the world. A movement that would confineits mission to such adjustments, which are certainly right andequitable, would effect no far-reaching or profound reform in theexisting order. The whole effect of such measures would be limitedto externals. They would not furnish the nation with that moralarmament which alone will enable it effectively to overcome theweaknesses from which we are suffering to-day.
In order to elucidate this point of view it may be worth whileto glance once again at the real origins and causes of the culturalevolution of mankind.
The first step which visibly brought mankind away from theanimal world was that which led to the first invention. Theinvention itself owes its origin to the ruses and stratagems whichman employed to assist him in the struggle with other creatures forhis existence and often to provide him with the only means he couldadopt to achieve success in the struggle. Those first very crudeinventions cannot be attributed to the individual; for thesubsequent observer, that is to say the modern observer, recognizesthem only as collective phenomena. Certain tricks and skilfultactics which can be observed in use among the animals strike theeye of the observer as established facts which may be seeneverywhere; and man is no longer in a position to discover orexplain their primary cause and so he contents himself with callingsuch phenomena 'instinctive.'
In our case this term has no meaning. Because everyone whobelieves in the higher evolution of living organisms must admitthat every manifestation of the vital urge and struggle to livemust have had a definite beginning in time and that one subjectalone must have manifested it for the first time. It was thenrepeated again and again; and the practice of it spread over awidening area, until finally it passed into the subconscience ofevery member of the species, where it manifested itself as'instinct.'
This is more easily understood and more easy to believe in thecase of man. His first skilled tactics in the struggle with therest of the animals undoubtedly originated in his management ofcreatures which possessed special capabilities.
There can be no doubt that personality was then the sole factorin all decisions and achievements, which were afterwards taken overby the whole of humanity as a matter of course. An exactexemplification of this may be found in those fundamental militaryprinciples which have now become the basis of all strategy in war.Originally they sprang from the brain of a single individual and inthe course of many years, maybe even thousands of years, they wereaccepted all round as a matter of course and this gained universalvalidity.
Man completed his first discovery by making a second. Amongother things he learned how to master other living beings and makethem serve him in his struggle for existence. And thus began thereal inventive activity of mankind, as it is now visible before oureyes. Those material inventions, beginning with the use of stonesas weapons, which led to the domestication of animals, theproduction of fire by artificial means, down to the marvellousinventions of our own days, show clearly that an individual was theoriginator in each case. The nearer we come to our own time and themore important and revolutionary the inventions become, the moreclearly do we recognize the truth of that statement. All thematerial inventions which we see around us have been produced bythe creative powers and capabilities of individuals. And all theseinventions help man to raise himself higher and higher above theanimal world and to separate himself from that world in anabsolutely definite way. Hence they serve to elevate the humanspecies and continually to promote its progress. And what the mostprimitive artifice once did for man in his struggle for existence,as he went hunting through the primeval forest, that same sort ofassistance is rendered him to-day in the form of marvellousscientific inventions which help him in the present day strugglefor life and to forge weapons for future struggles. In their finalconsequences all human thought and invention help man in hislife-struggle on this planet, even though the so-called practicalutility of an invention, a discovery or a profound scientifictheory, may not be evident at first sight. Everything contributesto raise man higher and higher above the level of all the othercreatures that surround him, thereby strengthening andconsolidating his position; so that he develops more and more inevery direction as the ruling being on this earth.
Hence all inventions are the result of the creative faculty ofthe individual. And all such individuals, whether they have willedit or not, are the benefactors of mankind, both great and small.Through their work millions and indeed billions of human beingshave been provided with means and resources which facilitate theirstruggle for existence.
Thus at the origin of the material civilization which flourishesto-day we always see individual persons. They supplement oneanother and one of them bases his work on that of the other. Thesame is true in regard to the practical application of thoseinventions and discoveries. For all the various methods ofproduction are in their turn inventions also and consequentlydependent on the creative faculty of the individual. Even thepurely theoretical work, which cannot be measured by a definiterule and is preliminary to all subsequent technical discoveries, isexclusively the product of the individual brain. The broad massesdo not invent, nor does the majority organize or think; but alwaysand in every case the individual man, the person.
Accordingly a human community is well organized only when itfacilitates to the highest possible degree individual creativeforces and utilizes their work for the benefit of the community.The most valuable factor of an invention, whether it be in theworld of material realities or in the world of abstract ideas, isthe personality of the inventor himself. The first and supreme dutyof an organized folk community is to place the inventor in aposition where he can be of the greatest benefit to all. Indeed thevery purpose of the organization is to put this principle intopractice. Only by so doing can it ward off the curse ofmechanization and remain a living thing. In itself it mustpersonify the effort to place men of brains above the multitude andto make the latter obey the former.
Therefore not only does the organization possess no right toprevent men of brains from rising above the multitude but, on thecontrary, it must use its organizing powers to enable and promotethat ascension as far as it possibly can. It must start out fromthe principle that the blessings of mankind never came from themasses but from the creative brains of individuals, who aretherefore the real benefactors of humanity. It is in the interestof all to assure men of creative brains a decisive influence andfacilitate their work. This common interest is surely not served byallowing the multitude to rule, for they are not capable ofthinking nor are they efficient and in no case whatsoever can theybe said to be gifted. Only those should rule who have the naturaltemperament 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 strugglethere are many who break down and collapse and thereby show thatthey are not called by Destiny to fill the highest positions; andonly very few are left who can be classed among the elect. In therealm of thought and of artistic creation, and even in the economicfield, this same process of selection takes place,although'--especially in the economic field'--its operationis heavily handicapped. This same principle of selection rules inthe administration of the State and in that department of powerwhich personifies the organized military defence of the nation. Theidea of personality rules everywhere, the authority of theindividual over his subordinates and the responsibility of theindividual towards the persons who are placed over him. It is onlyin political life that this very natural principle has beencompletely excluded. Though all human civilization has resultedexclusively from the creative activity of the individual, theprinciple that it is the mass which counts'--through thedecision of the majority'--makes its appearance only in theadministration of the national community especially in the highergrades; and from there downwards the poison gradually filters intoall branches of national life, thus causing a veritabledecomposition. The destructive workings of Judaism in differentparts of the national body can be ascribed fundamentally to thepersistent Jewish efforts at undermining the importance ofpersonality among the nations that are their hosts and, in place ofpersonality, substituting the domination of the masses. Theconstructive principle of Aryan humanity is thus displaced by thedestructive principle of the Jews, They become the 'ferment ofdecomposition' among nations and races and, in a broad sense, thewreckers of human civilization.
Marxism represents the most striking phase of the Jewishendeavour to eliminate the dominant significance of personality inevery sphere of human life and replace it by the numerical power ofthe masses. In politics the parliamentary form of government is theexpression of this effort. We can observe the fatal effects of iteverywhere, from the smallest parish council upwards to the highestgoverning circles of the nation. In the field of economics we seethe trade union movement, which does not serve the real interestsof the employees but the destructive aims of international Jewry.Just to the same degree in which the principle of personality isexcluded from the economic life of the nation, and the influenceand activities of the masses substituted in its stead, nationaleconomy, which should be for the service and benefit of thecommunity as a whole, will gradually deteriorate in its creativecapacity. The shop committees which, instead of caring for theinterests of the employees, strive to influence the process ofproduction, serve the same destructive purpose. They damage thegeneral productive system and consequently injure the individualengaged in industry. For in the long run it is impossible tosatisfy popular demands merely by high-sounding theoreticalphrases. These can be satisfied only by supplying goods to meet theindividual needs of daily life and by so doing create theconviction that, through the productive collaboration of itsmembers, the folk community serves the interests of theindividual.
Even if, on the basis of its mass-theory, Marxism should proveitself capable of taking over and developing the present economicsystem, that would not signify anything. The question as to whetherthe Marxist doctrine be right or wrong cannot be decided by anytest which would show that it can administer for the future whatalready exists to-day, but only by asking whether it has thecreative power to build up according to its own principles acivilization which would be a counterpart of what already exists.Even if Marxism were a thousandfold capable of taking over theeconomic life as we now have it and maintaining it in operationunder Marxist direction, such an achievement would prove nothing;because, on the basis of its own principles, Marxism would never beable to create something which could supplant what existsto-day.
And Marxism itself has furnished the proof that it cannot dothis. Not only has it been unable anywhere to create a cultural oreconomic system of its own; but it was not even able to develop,according to its own principles, the civilization and economicsystem it found ready at hand. It has had to make compromises, byway of a return to the principle of personality, just as it cannotdispense with that principle in its own organization.
The racial Weltanschauung is fundamentally distinguishedfrom the Marxist by reason of the fact that the former recognizesthe significance of race and therefore also personal worth and hasmade these the pillars of its structure. These are the mostimportant factors of its Weltanschauung.
If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand thefundamental importance of this essential principle, if it shouldmerely varnish the external appearance of the present State andadopt the majority principle, it would really do nothing more thancompete with Marxism on its own ground. For that reason it wouldnot have the right to call itself a Weltanschauung. If thesocial programme of the movement consisted in eliminatingpersonality and putting the multitude in its place, then NationalSocialism would be corrupted with the poison of Marxism, just asour national-bourgeois parties are.
The People's State must assure the welfare of its citizens byrecognizing the importance of personal values under allcircumstances and by preparing the way for the maximum ofproductive efficiency in all the various branches of economic life,thus securing to the individual the highest possible share in thegeneral output.
Hence the People's State must mercilessly expurgate from all theleading circles in the government of the country theparliamentarian principle, according to which decisive powerthrough the majority vote is invested in the multitude. Personalresponsibility must be substituted in its stead.
From this the following conclusion results:
The best constitution and the best form of government is thatwhich makes it quite natural for the best brains to reach aposition of dominant importance and influence in the community.
Just as in the field of economics men of outstanding abilitycannot be designated from above but must come forward in virtue oftheir own efforts, and just as there is an unceasing educativeprocess that leads from the smallest shop to the largestundertaking, and just as life itself is the school in which thoselessons are taught, so in the political field it is not possible to'discover' political talent all in a moment. Genius of anextraordinary stamp is not to be judged by normal standards wherebywe judge other men.
In its organization the State must be established on theprinciple of personality, starting from the smallest cell andascending up to the supreme government of the country.
There are no decisions made by the majority vote, but only byresponsible persons. And the word 'council' is once more restoredto its original meaning. Every man in a position of responsibilitywill have councillors at his side, but the decision is made by thatindividual person alone.
The principle which made the former Prussian Army an admirableinstrument of the German nation will have to become the basis ofour statal constitution, that is to say, full authority over hissubordinates must be invested in each leader and he must beresponsible to those above him.
Even then we shall not be able to do without those corporationswhich at present we call parliaments. But they will be realcouncils, in the sense that they will have to give advice. Theresponsibility can and must be borne by one individual, who alonewill be vested with authority and the right to command.
Parliaments as such are necessary because they alone furnish theopportunity for leaders to rise gradually who will be entrustedsubsequently with positions of special responsibility.
The following is an outline of the picture which theorganization will present:
From the municipal administration up to the government of theReich, the People's State will not have any body of representativeswhich makes its decisions through the majority vote. It will haveonly advisory bodies to assist the chosen leader for the time beingand he will distribute among them the various duties they are toperform. In certain fields they may, if necessary, have to assumefull responsibility, such as the leader or president of eachcorporation possesses on a larger scale.
In principle the People's State must forbid the custom of takingadvice on certain political problems'--economics, forinstance'--from persons who are entirely incompetent becausethey lack special training and practical experience in suchmatters. Consequently the State must divide its representativebodies into a political chamber and a corporative chamber thatrepresents the respective trades and professions.
To assure an effective co-operation between those two bodies, aselected body will be placed over them. This will be a specialsenate.
No vote will be taken in the chambers or senate. They are to beorganizations for work and not voting machines. The individualmembers will have consultive votes but no right of decision will beattached thereto. The right of decision belongs exclusively to thepresident, who must be entirely responsible for the matter underdiscussion.
This principle of combining absolute authority with absoluteresponsibility will gradually cause a selected group of leaders toemerge; which is not even thinkable in our present epoch ofirresponsible parliamentarianism.
The political construction of the nation will thereby be broughtinto harmony with those laws to which the nation already owes itsgreatness in the economic and cultural spheres.
Regarding the possibility of putting these principles intopractice, I should like to call attention to the fact that theprinciple of parliamentarian democracy, whereby decisions areenacted through the majority vote, has not always ruled the world.On the contrary, we find it prevalent only during short periods ofhistory, and those have always been periods of decline in nationsand States.
One must not believe, however, that such a radical change couldbe effected by measures of a purely theoretical character,operating from above downwards; for the change I have beendescribing could not be limited to transforming the constitution ofa State but would have to include the various fields of legislationand civic existence as a whole. Such a revolution can be broughtabout only by means of a movement which is itself organized underthe inspiration of these principles and thus bears the germ of thefuture State in its own organism.
Therefore it is well for the National Socialist Movement to makeitself completely familiar with those principles to-day andactually to put them into practice within its own organization, sothat not only will it be in a position to serve as a guide for thefuture State but will have its own organization such that it cansubsequently be placed at the disposal of the State itself.
CHAPTER V. WELTANSCHAUUNG ANDORGANIZATIONThe People's State, which I have tried to sketch in generaloutline, will not become a reality in virtue of the simple factthat we know the indispensable conditions of its existence. It doesnot suffice to know what aspect such a State would present. Theproblem of its foundation is far more important. The parties whichexist at present and which draw their profits from the State as itnow is cannot be expected to bring about a radical change in theregime or to change their attitude on their own initiative. This isrendered all the more impossible because the forces which now havethe direction of affairs in their hands are Jews here and Jewsthere and Jews everywhere. The trend of development which we arenow experiencing would, if allowed to go on unhampered, lead to therealization of the Pan-Jewish prophecy that the Jews will one daydevour 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 andkeeps his eye always fixed on his future goal. Any party that isled by him can fight for no other interests than his, and hisinterests certainly have nothing in common with those of the Aryannations.
If we would transform our ideal picture of the People's Stateinto a reality we shall have to keep independent of the forces thatnow control public life and seek for new forces that will be readyand capable of taking up the fight for such an ideal. For a fightit will have to be, since the first objective will not be to buildup the idea of the People's State but rather to wipe out the JewishState which is now in existence. As so often happens in the courseof history, the main difficulty is not to establish a new order ofthings but to clear the ground for its establishment. Prejudicesand egotistic interests join together in forming a common frontagainst the new idea and in trying by every means to prevent itstriumph, because it is disagreeable to them or threatens theirexistence.
That is why the protagonist of the new idea is unfortunately, inspite of his desire for constructive work, compelled to wage adestructive battle first, in order to abolish the existing state ofaffairs.
A doctrine whose principles are radically new and of essentialimportance must adopt the sharp probe of criticism as its weapon,though this may show itself disagreeable to the individualfollowers.
It is evidence of a very superficial insight into historicaldevelopments if the so-called folkists emphasize again and againthat they will adopt the use of negative criticism under nocircumstances but will engage only in constructive work. That isnothing but puerile chatter and is typical of the whole lot offolkists. It is another proof that the history of our own times hasmade no impression on these minds. Marxism too has had its aims topursue and it also recognizes constructive work, though by this itunderstands only the establishment of despotic rule in the hands ofinternational Jewish finance. Nevertheless for seventy years itsprincipal work still remains in the field of criticism. And whatdisruptive and destructive criticism it has been! Criticismrepeated again and again, until the corrosive acid ate into the oldState so thoroughly that it finally crumbled to pieces. Only thendid the so-called 'constructive' critical work of Marxism begin.And that was natural, right and logical. An existing order ofthings is not abolished by merely proclaiming and insisting on anew one. It must not be hoped that those who are the partisans ofthe existing order and have their interests bound up with it willbe converted and won over to the new movement simply by being shownthat something new is necessary. On the contrary, what may easilyhappen is that two different situations will exist side by side andthat a Weltanschauung is transformed into a party, abovewhich level it will not be able to raise itself afterwards. For aWeltanschauung is intolerant and cannot permit another toexist side by side with it. It imperiously demands its ownrecognition as unique and exclusive and a complete transformationin accordance with its views throughout all the branches of publiclife. It can never allow the previous state of affairs to continuein 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 ofthis passionate intolerance that an apodictic faith could grow up.And intolerance is an indispensable condition for the growth ofsuch a faith.
It may be objected here that in these phenomena which we findthroughout the history of the world we have to recognize mostly aspecifically Jewish mode of thought and that such fanaticism andintolerance are typical symptoms of Jewish mentality. That may be athousandfold true; and it is a fact deeply to be regretted. Theappearance of intolerance and fanaticism in the history of mankindmay be deeply regrettable, and it may be looked upon as foreign tohuman nature, but the fact does not change conditions as they existto-day. The men who wish to liberate our German nation from theconditions in which it now exists cannot cudgel their brains withthinking how excellent it would be if this or that had neverarisen. They must strive to find ways and means of abolishing whatactually exists. A philosophy of life which is inspired by aninfernal spirit of intolerance can only be set aside by a doctrinethat is advanced in an equally ardent spirit and fought for with asdetermined a will and which is itself a new idea, pure andabsolutely true.
Each one of us to-day may regret the fact that the advent ofChristianity was the first occasion on which spiritual terror wasintroduced into the much freer ancient world, but the fact cannotbe denied that ever since then the world is pervaded and dominatedby this kind of coercion and that violence is broken only byviolence and terror by terror. Only then can a new regime becreated by means of constructive work. Political parties are proneto enter compromises; but a Weltanschauung never does this.A political party is inclined to adjust its teachings with a viewto meeting those of its opponents, but a Weltanschauungproclaims its own infallibility.
In the beginning, political parties have also and nearly alwaysthe intention of securing an exclusive and despotic domination forthemselves. They always show a slight tendency to becomeWeltanschauungen. But the limited nature of their programmeis in itself enough to rob them of that heroic spirit which aWeltanschauung demands. The spirit of conciliation whichanimates their will attracts those petty and chicken-hearted peoplewho are not fit to be protagonists in any crusade. That is thereason why they mostly become struck in their miserable pettinessvery early on the march. They give up fighting for their ideologyand, by way of what they call 'positive collaboration,' they try asquickly as possible to wedge themselves into some tiny place at thetrough of the existent regime and to stick there as long aspossible. Their whole effort ends at that. And if they should getshouldered away from the common manger by a competition of morebrutal manners then their only idea is to force themselves inagain, by force or chicanery, among the herd of all the others whohave similar appetites, in order to get back into the front row,and finally'--even at the expense of their most sacredconvictions'--participate anew in that beloved spot where theyfind their fodder. They are the jackals of politics.
But a general Weltanschauung will never share its placewith something else. Therefore it can never agree to collaborate inany order of things that it condemns. On the contrary it feelsobliged to employ every means in fighting against the old order andthe whole world of ideas belonging to that order and prepare theway for its destruction.
These purely destructive tactics, the danger of which is soreadily perceived by the enemy that he forms a united front againstthem for his common defence, and also the constructive tactics,which must be aggressive in order to carry the new world of ideasto success'--both these phases of the struggle call for a bodyof resolute fighters. Any new philosophy of life will bring itsideas to victory only if the most courageous and active elements ofits epoch and its people are enrolled under its standards andgrouped firmly together in a powerful fighting organization. Toachieve this purpose it is absolutely necessary to select from thegeneral system of doctrine a certain number of ideas which willappeal to such individuals and which, once they are expressed in aprecise and clear-cut form, will serve as articles of faith for anew association of men. While the programme of the ordinarypolitical party is nothing but the recipe for cooking up favourableresults out of the next general elections, the programme of aWeltanschauung represents a declaration of war against anexisting order of things, against present conditions, in short,against the established Weltanschauung.
It is not necessary, however, that every individual fighter forsuch a new doctrine need have a full grasp of the ultimate ideasand plans of those who are the leaders of the movement. It is onlynecessary that each should have a clear notion of the fundamentalideas and that he should thoroughly assimilate a few of the mostfundamental principles, so that he will be convinced of thenecessity of carrying the movement and its doctrines to success.The individual soldier is not initiated in the knowledge of highstrategical plans. But he is trained to submit to a rigiddiscipline, to be passionately convinced of the justice and innerworth of his cause and that he must devote himself to it withoutreserve. So, too, the individual follower of a movement must bemade acquainted with its far-reaching purpose, how it is inspiredby a powerful will and has a great future before it.
Supposing that each soldier in an army were a general, and hadthe training and capacity for generalship, that army would not bean efficient fighting instrument. Similarly a political movementwould not be very efficient in fighting for a Weltanschauungif it were made up exclusively of intellectuals. No, we need thesimple soldier also. Without him no discipline can beestablished.
By its very nature, an organization can exist only if leaders ofhigh intellectual ability are served by a large mass of men who areemotionally devoted to the cause. To maintain discipline in acompany of two hundred men who are equally intelligent and capablewould turn out more difficult in the long run than in a company ofone hundred and ninety less gifted men and ten who have had ahigher education.
The Social-Democrats have profited very much by recognizing thistruth. They took the broad masses of our people who had justcompleted military service and learned to submit to discipline, andthey subjected this mass of men to the discipline of theSocial-Democratic organization, which was no less rigid than thediscipline through which the young men had passed in their militarytraining. The Social-Democratic organization consisted of an armydivided into officers and men. The German worker who had passedthrough his military service became the private soldier in thatarmy, and the Jewish intellectual was the officer. The German tradeunion functionaries may be compared to the non-commissionedofficers. The fact, which was always looked upon with indifferenceby our middle-classes, that only the so-called uneducated classesjoined Marxism was the very ground on which this party achieved itssuccess. For while the bourgeois parties, because they mostlyconsisted of intellectuals, were only a feckless band ofundisciplined individuals, out of much less intelligent humanmaterial the Marxist leaders formed an army of party combatants whoobey their Jewish masters just as blindly as they formerly obeyedtheir German officers. The German middle-classes, who never;bothered their heads about psychological problems because they feltthemselves superior to such matters, did not think it necessary toreflect on the profound significance of this fact and the secretdanger involved in it. Indeed they believed. that a politicalmovement which draws its followers exclusively from intellectualcircles must, for that very reason, be of greater importance andhave better grounds. for its chances of success, and even a greaterprobability of taking over the government of the country than aparty made up of the ignorant masses. They completely failed torealize the fact that the strength of a political party neverconsists in the intelligence and independent spirit of therank-and-file of its members but rather in the spirit of willingobedience with which they follow their intellectual leaders. Whatis of decisive importance is the leadership itself. When two bodiesof troops are arrayed in mutual combat victory will not fall tothat side in which every soldier has an expert knowledge of therules of strategy, but rather to that side which has the bestleaders and at the same time the best disciplined, most blindlyobedient and best drilled troops.
That is a fundamental piece of knowledge which we must alwaysbear in mind when we examine the possibility of transforming aWeltanschauung into a practical reality.
If we agree that in order to carry a Weltanschauung intopractical effect it must be incorporated in a fighting movement,then the logical consequence is that the programme of such amovement must take account of the human material at its disposal.Just as the ultimate aims and fundamental principles must beabsolutely definite and unmistakable, so the propagandist programmemust be well drawn up and must be inspired by a keen sense of itspsychological appeals to the minds of those without whose help thenoblest ideas will be doomed to remain in the eternal, realm ofideas.
If the idea of the People's State, which is at present anobscure wish, is one day to attain a clear and definite success,from its vague and vast mass of thought it will have to put forwardcertain definite principles which of their very nature and contentare calculated to attract a broad mass of adherents; in otherwords, such a group of people as can guarantee that theseprinciples will be fought for. That group of people are the Germanworkers.
That is why the programme of the new movement was condensed intoa few fundamental postulates, twenty-five in all. They are meantfirst of all to give the ordinary man a rough sketch of what themovement is aiming at. They are, so to say, a profession of faithwhich on the one hand is meant to win adherents to the movementand, on the other, they are meant to unite such adherents togetherin a covenant to which all have subscribed.
In these matters we must never lose sight of the following: Whatwe call the programme of the movement is absolutely right as far asits ultimate aims are concerned, but as regards the manner in whichthat programme is formulated, certain psychological considerationshad to be taken into account. Hence, in the course of time, theopinion may well arise that certain principles should be expresseddifferently and might be better formulated. But any attempt at adifferent formulation has a fatal effect in most cases. Forsomething that ought to be fixed and unshakable thereby becomes thesubject of discussion. As soon as one point alone is removed fromthe sphere of dogmatic certainty, the discussion will not simplyresult in a new and better formulation which will have greaterconsistency but may easily lead to endless debates and generalconfusion. In such cases the question must always be carefullyconsidered as to whether a new and more adequate formulation is tobe preferred, though it may cause a controversy within themovement, or whether it may not be better to retain the old formulawhich, though probably not the best, represents an organismenclosed in itself, solid and internally homogeneous. Allexperience shows that the second of these alternatives ispreferable. For since in these changes one is dealing only withexternal forms such corrections will always appear desirable andpossible. But in the last analysis the generality of people thinksuperficially and therefore the great danger is that in what ismerely an external formulation of the programme people will see anessential aim of the movement. In that way the will and thecombative force at the service of the ideas are weakened and theenergies that ought to be directed towards the outer world aredissipated in programmatic discussions within the ranks of themovement.
For a doctrine that is actually right in its main features it isless dangerous to retain a formulation which may no longer be quiteadequate instead of trying to improve it and thereby allowing afundamental principle of the movement, which had hitherto beenconsidered as solid as granite, to become the subject of a generaldiscussion which may have unfortunate consequences. This isparticularly to be avoided as long as a movement is still fightingfor victory. For would it be possible to inspire people with blindfaith in the truth of a doctrine if doubt and uncertainty areencouraged by continual alterations in its externalformulation?
The essentials of a teaching must never be looked for in itsexternal formulas, but always in its inner meaning. And thismeaning is unchangeable. And in its interest one can only wish thata movement should exclude everything that tends towardsdisintegration and uncertainty in order to preserve the unifiedforce that is necessary for its triumph.
Here again the Catholic Church has a lesson to teach us. Thoughsometimes, and often quite unnecessarily, its dogmatic system is inconflict with the exact sciences and with scientific discoveries,it is not disposed to sacrifice a syllable of its teachings. It hasrightly recognized that its powers of resistance would be weakenedby introducing greater or less doctrinal adaptations to meet thetemporary conclusions of science, which in reality are alwaysvacillating. And thus it holds fast to its fixed and establisheddogmas which alone can give to the whole system the character of afaith. And that is the reason why it stands firmer to-day than everbefore. We may prophesy that, as a fixed pole amid fleetingphenomena, it will continue to attract increasing numbers of peoplewho will be blindly attached to it the more rapid the rhythm ofchanging phenomena around it.
Therefore whoever really and seriously desires that the idea ofthe People's State should triumph must realize that this triumphcan be assured only through a militant movement and that thismovement must ground its strength only on the granite firmness ofan impregnable and firmly coherent programme. In regard to itsformulas it must never make concessions to the spirit of the timebut must maintain the form that has once and for all been decidedupon as the right one; in any case until victory has crowned itsefforts. Before this goal has been reached any attempt to open adiscussion on the opportuneness of this or that point in theprogramme might tend to disintegrate the solidity and fightingstrength of the movement, according to the measures in which itsfollowers might take part in such an internal dispute. Some'improvements' introduced to-day might be subjected to a criticalexamination to-morrow, in order to substitute it with somethingbetter the day after. Once the barrier has been taken down the roadis opened and we know only the beginning, but we do not know towhat shoreless sea it may lead.
This important principle had to be acknowledged in practice bythe members of the National Socialist Movement at its verybeginning. In its programme of twenty-five points the NationalSocialist German Labour Party has been furnished with a basis thatmust remain unshakable. The members of the movement, both presentand future, must never feel themselves called upon to undertake acritical revision of these leading postulates, but rather feelthemselves obliged to put them into practice as they stand.Otherwise the next generation would, in its turn and with equalright, expend its energy in such purely formal work within theparty, instead of winning new adherents to the movement and thusadding to its power. For the majority of our followers the essenceof the movement will consist not so much in the letter of ourtheses but in the meaning that we attribute to them.
The new movement owes its name to these considerations, andlater on its programme was drawn up in conformity with them. Theyare the basis of our propaganda. In order to carry the idea of thePeople's State to victory, a popular party had to be founded, aparty that did not consist of intellectual leaders only but also ofmanual labourers. Any attempt to carry these theories into effectwithout the aid of a militant organization would be doomed tofailure to-day, as it has failed in the past and must fail in thefuture. That is why the movement is not only justified but it isalso obliged to consider itself as the champion and representativeof these ideas. Just as the fundamental principles of the NationalSocialist Movement are based on the folk idea, folk ideas areNational Socialist. If National Socialism would triumph it willhave to hold firm to this fact unreservedly, and here again it hasnot only the right but also the duty to emphasize most rigidly thatany attempt to represent the folk idea outside of the NationalSocialist German Labour Party is futile and in most casesfraudulent.
If the reproach should be launched against our movement that ithas 'monopolized' the folk idea, there is only one answer togive.
Not only have we monopolized the folk idea but, to all practicalintents and purposes, we have created it.
For what hitherto existed under this name was not in the leastcapable of influencing the destiny of our people, since all thoseideas lacked a political and coherent formulation. In most casesthey are nothing but isolated and incoherent notions which are moreor less right. Quite frequently these were in open contradiction toone another and in no case was there any internal cohesion amongthem. And even if this internal cohesion existed it would have beenmuch too weak to form the basis of any movement.
Only the National Socialist Movement proved capable offulfilling this task.
All kinds of associations and groups, big as well as little, nowclaim the title v¶lkisch. This is one result of the workwhich National Socialism has done. Without this work, not one ofall these parties would have thought of adopting the wordv¶lkisch at all. That expression would have meant nothing tothem and especially their directors would never have had anythingto do with such an idea. Not until the work of the German NationalSocialist Labour Party had given this idea a pregnant meaning didit appear in the mouths of all kinds of people. Our party aboveall, by the success of its propaganda, has shown the force of thefolk idea; so much so that the others, in an effort to gainproselytes, find themselves forced to copy our example, at least inwords.
Just as heretofore they exploited everything to serve theirpetty electoral purposes, to-day they use the word v¶lkischonly as an external and hollow-sounding phrase for the purpose ofcounteracting the force of the impression which the NationalSocialist Party makes on the members of those other parties. Onlythe desire to maintain their existence and the fear that ourmovement may prevail, because it is based on aWeltanschauung that is of universal importance, and becausethey feel that the exclusive character of our movement betokensdanger for them'--only for these reasons do they use wordswhich they repudiated eight years ago, derided seven years ago,branded as stupid six years ago, combated five years ago, hatedfour years ago, and finally, two years ago, annexed andincorporated them in their present political vocabulary, employingthem as war slogans in their struggle.
And so it is necessary even now not to cease calling attentionto the fact that not one of those parties has the slightest idea ofwhat the German nation needs. The most striking proof of this isrepresented by the superficial way in which they use the wordv¶lkisch.
Not less dangerous are those who run about as semi-folkistsformulating fantastic schemes which are mostly based on nothingelse than a fixed idea which in itself might be right but which,because it is an isolated notion, is of no use whatsoever for theformation of a great homogeneous fighting association and could byno means serve as the basis of its organization. Those people whoconcoct a programme which consists partly of their own ideas andpartly of ideas taken from others, about which they have readsomewhere, are often more dangerous than the outspoken enemies ofthe v¶lkisch idea. At best they are sterile theorists butmore frequently they are mischievous agitators of the public mind.They believe that they can mask their intellectual vanity, thefutility of their efforts, and their lack of stability, by sportingflowing beards and indulging in ancient German gestures.
In face of all those futile attempts, it is therefore worthwhile to recall the time when the new National Socialist Movementbegan its fight.
CHAPTER VI. THE FIRST PERIODOF OUR STRUGGLEThe echoes of our first great meeting, in the banquet hall ofthe Hofbr¤uhaus on February 24th, 1920, had not yet died away whenwe began preparations for our next meeting. Up to that time we hadto consider carefully the venture of holding a small meeting everymonth or at most every fortnight in a city like Munich; but now itwas decided that we should hold a mass meeting every week. I neednot say that we anxiously asked ourselves on each occasion againand again: Will the people come and will they listen? Personally Iwas firmly convinced that if once they came they would remain andlisten.
During that period the hall of the Hofbrau Haus in Munichacquired for us, National Socialists, a sort of mysticsignificance. Every week there was a meeting, almost always in thathall, and each time the hall was better filled than on the formeroccasion, and our public more attentive.
Starting with the theme, 'Responsibility for the War,' whichnobody at that time cared about, and passing on to the discussionof the peace treaties, we dealt with almost everything that servedto stimulate the minds of our audience and make them interested inour ideas. We drew attention to the peace treaties. What the newmovement prophesied again and again before those great masses ofpeople has been fulfilled almost in every detail. To-day it is easyto talk and write about these things. But in those days a publicmass meeting which was attended not by the small bourgeoisie but byproletarians who had been aroused by agitators, to criticize thePeace Treaty of Versailles meant an attack on the Republic and anevidence of reaction, if not of monarchist tendencies. The momentone uttered the first criticism of the Versailles Treaty one couldexpect an immediate reply, which became almost stereotyped: 'AndBrest-Litowsk?' 'Brest-Litowsk!' And then the crowd would murmurand the murmur would gradually swell into a roar, until the speakerwould have to give up his attempt to persuade them. It would belike knocking one's head against a wall, so desperate were thesepeople. They would not listen nor understand that Versailles was ascandal and a disgrace and that the dictate signified an act ofhighway robbery against our people. The disruptive work done by theMarxists and the poisonous propaganda of the external enemy hadrobbed these people of their reason. And one had no right tocomplain. For the guilt on this side was enormous. What had theGerman bourgeoisie done to call a halt to this terrible campaign ofdisintegration, to oppose it and open a way to a recognition of thetruth by giving a better and more thorough explanation of thesituation than that of the Marxists? Nothing, nothing. At that timeI never saw those who are now the great apostles of the people.Perhaps they spoke to select groups, at tea parties of their ownlittle coteries; but there where they should have been, where thewolves were at work, they never risked their appearance, unless itgave them the opportunity of yelling in concert with thewolves.
As for myself, I then saw clearly that for the small group whichfirst composed our movement the question of war guilt had to becleared up, and cleared up in the light of historical truth. Apreliminary condition for the future success of our movement wasthat it should bring knowledge of the meaning of the peace treatiesto 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 intothe minds of the people as the enemies of the peace treaties; sothat later on, when the naked truth of this despicable swindlewould be disclosed in all its hideousness, the people would recallthe position which we then took and would give us theirconfidence.
Already at that time I took up my stand on those importantfundamental questions where public opinion had gone wrong as awhole. I opposed these wrong notions without regard either forpopularity or for hatred, and I was ready to face the fight. TheNational Socialist German Labour Party ought not to be the beadlebut rather the master of public opinion. It must not serve themasses but rather dominate them.
In the case of every movement, especially during its strugglingstages, there is naturally a temptation to conform to the tacticsof an opponent and use the same battle-cries, when his tactics havesucceeded in leading the people to crazy conclusions or to adoptmistaken attitudes towards the questions at issue. This temptationis particularly strong when motives can be found, though they areentirely illusory, that seem to point towards the same ends whichthe young movement is aiming at. Human poltroonery will then allthe more readily adopt those arguments which give it a semblance ofjustification, 'from its own point of view,' in participating inthe criminal policy which the adversary is following.
On several occasions I have experienced such cases, in which thegreatest energy had to be employed to prevent the ship of ourmovement from being drawn into a general current which had beenstarted artificially, and indeed from sailing with it. The lastoccasion was when our German Press, the Hecuba of the existence ofthe German nation, succeeded in bringing the question of SouthTyrol into a position of importance which was seriously damaging tothe interests of the German people. Without considering whatinterests they were serving, several so-called 'national' men,parties and leagues, joined in the general cry, simply for fear ofpublic opinion which had been excited by the Jews, and foolishlycontributed to help in the struggle against a system which weGermans ought, particularly in those days, to consider as the oneray of light in this distracted world. While the internationalWorld-Jew is slowly but surely strangling us, our so-calledpatriots vociferate against a man and his system which have had thecourage to liberate themselves from the shackles of JewishFreemasonry at least in one quarter of the globe and to set theforces of national resistance against the internationalworld-poison. But weak characters were tempted to set their sailsaccording to the direction of the wind and capitulate before theshout of public opinion. For it was veritably a capitulation. Theyare so much in the habit of lying and so morally base that men maynot admit this even to themselves, but the truth remains that onlycowardice and fear of the public feeling aroused by the Jewsinduced certain people to join in the hue and cry. All the otherreasons put forward were only miserable excuses of paltry culpritswho were conscious of their own crime.
There it was necessary to grasp the rudder with an iron hand andturn the movement about, so as to save it from a course that wouldhave led it on the rocks. Certainly to attempt such a change ofcourse was not a popular manoeuvre at that time, because all theleading forces of public opinion had been active and a great flameof public feeling illuminated only one direction. Such a decisionalmost always brings disfavour on those who dare to take it. In thecourse of history not a few men have been stoned for an act forwhich posterity has afterwards thanked them on its knees.
But a movement must count on posterity and not on the plauditsof the movement. It may well be that at such moments certainindividuals have to endure hours of anguish; but they should notforget that the moment of liberation will come and that a movementwhich purposes to reshape the world must serve the future and notthe passing hour.
On this point it may be asserted that the greatest and mostenduring successes in history are mostly those which were leastunderstood at the beginning, because they were in strong contrastto public opinion and the views and wishes of the time.
We had experience of this when we made our own first publicappearance. In all truth it can be said that we did not courtpublic favour but made an onslaught on the follies of our people.In those days the following happened almost always: I presentedmyself before an assembly of men who believed the opposite of whatI 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 threethousand people to give up the opinions they had first held, indestroying the foundations of their views with one blow afteranother and finally in leading them over to take their stand on thegrounds of our own convictions and our Weltanschauung.
I learned something that was important at that time, namely, tosnatch from the hands of the enemy the weapons which he was usingin his reply. I soon noticed that our adversaries, especially inthe persons of those who led the discussion against us, werefurnished with a definite repertoire of arguments out of which theytook points against our claims which were being constantlyrepeated. The uniform character of this mode of procedure pointedto a systematic and unified training. And so we were able torecognize the incredible way in which the enemy's propagandists hadbeen disciplined, and I am proud to-day that I discovered a meansnot only of making this propaganda ineffective but of beating theartificers of it at their own work. Two years later I was master ofthat art.
In every speech which I made it was important to get a clearidea beforehand of the probable form and matter of thecounter-arguments we had to expect in the discussion, so that inthe course of my own speech these could be dealt with and refuted.To this end it was necessary to mention all the possible objectionsand show their inconsistency; it was all the easier to win over anhonest listener by expunging from his memory the arguments whichhad been impressed upon it, so that we anticipated our replies.What he had learned was refuted without having been mentioned byhim and that made him all the more attentive to what I had tosay.
That was the reason why, after my first lecture on the 'PeaceTreaty of Versailles,' which I delivered to the troops while I wasstill a political instructor in my regiment, I made an alterationin the title and subject and henceforth spoke on 'The Treaties ofBrest-Litowsk and Versailles.' For after the discussion whichfollowed my first lecture I quickly ascertained that in realitypeople knew nothing about the Treaty of Brest-Litowsk and that ableparty propaganda had succeeded in presenting that Treaty as one ofthe most scandalous acts of violence in the history of theworld.
As a result of the persistency with which this falsehood wasrepeated again and again before the masses of the people, millionsof Germans saw in the Treaty of Versailles a just castigation forthe crime we had committed at Brest-Litowsk. Thus they consideredall opposition to Versailles as unjust and in many cases there wasan honest moral dislike to such a proceeding. And this was also thereason why the shameless and monstrous word 'Reparations' came intocommon use in Germany. This hypocritical falsehood appeared tomillions of our exasperated fellow countrymen as the fulfilment ofa higher justice. It is a terrible thought, but the fact was so.The best proof of this was the propaganda which I initiated againstVersailles by explaining the Treaty of Brest-Litowsk. I comparedthe two treaties with one another, point by point, and showed howin truth the one treaty was immensely humane, in contradistinctionto the inhuman barbarity of the other. The effect was verystriking. Then I spoke on this theme before an assembly of twothousand persons, during which I often saw three thousand sixhundred hostile eyes fixed on me. And three hours later I had infront of me a swaying mass of righteous indignation and fury. Agreat lie had been uprooted from the hearts and brains of a crowdcomposed of thousands of individuals and a truth had been implantedin 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 newintonation; until at least on those points a definitely clear andunanimous opinion reigned among those from whom our movementrecruited its first members.
Furthermore, these gatherings brought me the advantage that Islowly became a platform orator at mass meetings, and gave mepractice in the pathos and gesture required in large halls thatheld thousands of people.
Outside of the small circles which I have mentioned, at thattime I found no party engaged in explaining things to the people inthis way. Not one of these parties was then active which talkto-day as if it was they who had brought about the change in publicopinion. If a political leader, calling himself a nationalist,pronounced a discourse somewhere or other on this theme it was onlybefore circles which for the most part were already of his ownconviction and among whom the most that was done was to confirmthem in their opinions. But that was not what was needed then. Whatwas needed was to win over through propaganda and explanation thosewhose opinions and mental attitudes held them bound to the enemy'scamp.
The one-page circular was also adopted by us to help in thispropaganda. While still a soldier I had written a circular in whichI contrasted the Treaty of Brest-Litowsk with that of Versailles.That circular was printed and distributed in large numbers. Lateron I used it for the party, and also with good success. Our firstmeetings were distinguished by the fact that there were tablescovered with leaflets, papers, and pamphlets of every kind. But werelied principally on the spoken word. And, in fact, this is theonly means capable of producing really great revolutions, which canbe explained on general psychological grounds.
In the first volume I have already stated that all theformidable events which have changed the aspect of the world werecarried through, not by the written but by the spoken word. On thatpoint there was a long discussion in a certain section of the Pressduring the course of which our shrewd bourgeois people stronglyopposed my thesis. But the reason for this attitude confounded thesceptics. The bourgeois intellectuals protested against my attitudesimply because they themselves did not have the force or ability toinfluence the masses through the spoken word; for they alwaysrelied exclusively on the help of writers and did not enter thearena themselves as orators for the purpose of arousing the people.The development of events necessarily led to that condition ofaffairs which is characteristic of the bourgeoisie to-day, namely,the loss of the psychological instinct to act upon and influencethe masses.
An orator receives continuous guidance from the people beforewhom he speaks. This helps him to correct the direction of hisspeech; for he can always gauge, by the faces of his hearers, howfar they follow and understand him, and whether his words areproducing the desired effect. But the writer does not know hisreader at all. Therefore, from the outset he does not addresshimself to a definite human group of persons which he has beforehis eyes but must write in a general way. Hence, up to a certainextent he must fail in psychological finesse and flexibility.Therefore, in general it may be said that a brilliant orator writesbetter than a brilliant writer can speak, unless the latter hascontinual practice in public speaking. One must also remember thatof itself the multitude is mentally inert, that it remains attachedto its old habits and that it is not naturally prone to readsomething which does not conform with its own pre-establishedbeliefs when such writing does not contain what the multitude hopesto find there. Therefore, some piece of writing which has aparticular tendency is for the most part read only by those who arein sympathy with it. Only a leaflet or a placard, on account of itsbrevity, can hope to arouse a momentary interest in those whoseopinions differ from it. The picture, in all its forms, includingthe film, has better prospects. Here there is less need ofelaborating the appeal to the intelligence. It is sufficient if onebe careful to have quite short texts, because many people are moreready to accept a pictorial presentation than to read a longwritten description. In a much shorter time, at one stroke I mightsay, people will understand a pictorial presentation of somethingwhich it would take them a long and laborious effort of reading tounderstand.
The most important consideration, however, is that one neverknows into what hands a piece of written material comes and yet theform in which its subject is presented must remain the same. Ingeneral the effect is greater when the form of treatmentcorresponds to the mental level of the reader and suits his nature.Therefore, a book which is meant for the broad masses of the peoplemust try from the very start to gain its effects through a styleand level of ideas which would be quite different from a bookintended to be read by the higher intellectual classes.
Only through his capacity for adaptability does the force of thewritten word approach that of oral speech. The orator may deal withthe same subject as a book deals with; but if he has the genius ofa great and popular orator he will scarcely ever repeat the sameargument or the same material in the same form on two consecutiveoccasions. He will always follow the lead of the great mass in sucha way that from the living emotion of his hearers the apt wordwhich he needs will be suggested to him and in its turn this willgo straight to the hearts of his hearers. Should he make even aslight mistake he has the living correction before him. As I havealready said, he can read the play of expression on the faces ofhis hearers, first to see if they understand what he says, secondlyto see if they take in the whole of his argument, and, thirdly, inhow far they are convinced of the justice of what has been placedbefore them. Should he observe, first, that his hearers do notunderstand him he will make his explanation so elementary and clearthat they will be able to grasp it, even to the last individual.Secondly, if he feels that they are not capable of following him hewill make one idea follow another carefully and slowly until themost slow-witted hearer no longer lags behind. Thirdly, as soon ashe has the feeling that they do not seem convinced that he is rightin the way he has put things to them he will repeat his argumentover and over again, always giving fresh illustrations, and hehimself will state their unspoken objection. He will repeat theseobjections, dissecting them and refuting them, until the last groupof the opposition show him by their behaviour and play ofexpression that they have capitulated before his exposition of thecase.
Not infrequently it is a case of overcoming ingrained prejudiceswhich are mostly unconscious and are supported by sentiment ratherthan reason. It is a thousand times more difficult to overcome thisbarrier of instinctive aversion, emotional hatred and preventivedissent than to correct opinions which are founded on defective orerroneous knowledge. False ideas and ignorance may be set aside bymeans of instruction, but emotional resistance never can. Nothingbut an appeal to these hidden forces will be effective here. Andthat appeal can be made by scarcely any writer. Only the orator canhope to make it.
A very striking proof of this is found in the fact that, thoughwe had a bourgeois Press which in many cases was well written andproduced and had a circulation of millions among the people, itcould not prevent the broad masses from becoming the implacableenemies of the bourgeois class. The deluge of papers and bookspublished by the intellectual circles year after year passed overthe millions of the lower social strata like water over glazedleather. This proves that one of two things must be true: eitherthat the matter offered in the bourgeois Press was worthless orthat it is impossible to reach the hearts of the broad masses bymeans of the written word alone. Of course, the latter would bespecially true where the written material shows such littlepsychological insight as has hitherto been the case.
It is useless to object here, as certain big Berlin papers ofGerman-National tendencies have attempted to do, that thisstatement is refuted by the fact that the Marxists have exercisedtheir greatest influence through their writings, and especiallythrough their principal book, published by Karl Marx. Seldom has amore superficial argument been based on a false assumption. Whatgave Marxism its amazing influence over the broad masses was notthat formal printed work which sets forth the Jewish system ofideas, but the tremendous oral propaganda carried on for yearsamong the masses. Out of one hundred thousand German workersscarcely one hundred know of Marx's book. It has been studied muchmore in intellectual circles and especially by the Jews than by thegenuine followers of the movement who come from the lower classes.That work was not written for the masses, but exclusively for theintellectual leaders of the Jewish machine for conquering theworld. The engine was heated with quite different stuff: namely,the journalistic Press. What differentiates the bourgeois Pressfrom the Marxist Press is that the latter is written by agitators,whereas the bourgeois Press would like to carry on agitation bymeans of professional writers. The Social-Democrat sub-editor, whoalmost always came directly from the meeting to the editorialoffices of his paper, felt his job on his finger-tips. But thebourgeois writer who left his desk to appear before the massesalready felt ill when he smelled the very odour of the crowd andfound that what he had written was useless to him.
What won over millions of workpeople to the Marxist cause wasnot the ex cathedra style of the Marxist writers but theformidable propagandist work done by tens of thousands ofindefatigable agitators, commencing with the leading fiery agitatordown to the smallest official in the syndicate, the trusteddelegate and the platform orator. Furthermore, there were thehundreds of thousands of meetings where these orators, standing ontables in smoky taverns, hammered their ideas into the heads of themasses, thus acquiring an admirable psychological knowledge of thehuman material they had to deal with. And in this way they wereenabled to select the best weapons for their assault on the citadelof public opinion. In addition to all this there were the giganticmass-demonstrations with processions in which a hundred thousandmen took part. All this was calculated to impress on thepetty-hearted individual the proud conviction that, though a smallworm, he was at the same time a cell of the great dragon beforewhose devastating breath the hated bourgeois world would one day beconsumed in fire and flame, and the dictatorship of the proletariatwould celebrate its conclusive victory.
This kind of propaganda influenced men in such a way as to givethem a taste for reading the Social Democratic Press and preparetheir minds for its teaching. That Press, in its turn, was avehicle of the spoken word rather than of the written word. Whereasin the bourgeois camp professors and learned writers, theorists andauthors of all kinds, made attempts at talking, in the Marxist campreal speakers often made attempts at writing. And it was preciselythe Jew who was most prominent here. In general and because of hisshrewd dialectical skill and his knack of twisting the truth tosuit his own purposes, he was an effective writer but in realityhis m(C)tier was that of a revolutionary orator rather than awriter.
For this reason the journalistic bourgeois world, setting asidethe fact that here also the Jew held the whip hand and thattherefore this press did not really interest itself in theinstructtion of the broad masses, was not able to exercise even theleast influence over the opinions held by the great masses of ourpeople.
It is difficult to remove emotional prejudices, psychologicalbias, feelings, etc., and to put others in their place. Successdepends here on imponderable conditions and influences. Only theorator who is gifted with the most sensitive insight can estimateall this. Even the time of day at which the speech is delivered hasa decisive influence on its results. The same speech, made by thesame orator and on the same theme, will have very different resultsaccording as it is delivered at ten o'clock in the forenoon, atthree in the afternoon, or in the evening. When I first engaged inpublic speaking I arranged for meetings to take place in theforenoon and I remember particularly a demonstration that we heldin the Munich Kindl Keller 'Against the Oppression of GermanDistricts.' That was the biggest hall then in Munich and theaudacity of our undertaking was great. In order to make the hour ofthe meeting attractive for all the members of our movement and theother people who might come, I fixed it for ten o'clock on a Sundaymorning. The result was depressing. But it was very instructive.The hall was filled. The impression was profound, but the generalfeeling was cold as ice. Nobody got warmed up, and I myself, as thespeaker of the occasion, felt profoundly unhappy at the thoughtthat I could not establish the slightest contact with my audience.I do not think I spoke worse than before, but the effect seemedabsolutely negative. I left the hall very discontented, but alsofeeling that I had gained a new experience. Later on I tried thesame kind of experiment, but always with the same results.
That was nothing to be wondered at. If one goes to a theatre tosee a matin(C)e performance and then attends an evening performanceof the same play one is astounded at the difference in theimpressions created. A sensitive person recognizes for himself thefact that these two states of mind caused by the matinee and theevening performance respectively are quite different in themselves.The same is true of cinema productions. This latter point isimportant; for one may say of the theatre that perhaps in theafternoon the actor does not make the same effort as in theevening. But surely it cannot be said that the cinema is differentin the afternoon from what it is at nine o'clock in the evening.No, here the time exercises a distinct influence, just as a roomexercises a distinct influence on a person. There are rooms whichleave one cold, for reasons which are difficult to explain. Thereare rooms which refuse steadfastly to allow any favourableatmosphere to be created in them. Moreover, certain memories andtraditions which are present as pictures in the human mind may havea determining influence on the impression produced. Thus, arepresentation of Parsifal at Bayreuth will have an effect quitedifferent from that which the same opera produces in any other partof the world. The mysterious charm of the House on the 'FestivalHeights' in the old city of The Margrave cannot be equalled orsubstituted anywhere else.
In all these cases one deals with the problem of influencing thefreedom of the human will. And that is true especially of meetingswhere there are men whose wills are opposed to the speaker and whomust be brought around to a new way of thinking. In the morning andduring the day it seems that the power of the human will rebelswith its strongest energy against any attempt to impose upon it thewill or opinion of another. On the other hand, in the evening iteasily succumbs to the domination of a stronger will. Becausereally in such assemblies there is a contest between two oppositeforces. The superior oratorical art of a man who has the compellingcharacter of an apostle will succeed better in bringing around to anew way of thinking those who have naturally been subjected to aweakening of their forces of resistance rather than in convertingthose who are in full possession of their volitional andintellectual energies.
The mysterious artificial dimness of the Catholic churches alsoserves this purpose, the burning candles, the incense, thethurible, etc.
In this struggle between the orator and the opponent whom hemust convert to his cause this marvellous sensibility towards thepsychological influences of propaganda can hardly ever be availedof by an author. Generally speaking, the effect of the writer'swork helps rather to conserve, reinforce and deepen the foundationsof a mentality already existing. All really great historicalrevolutions were not produced by the written word. At most, theywere accompanied by it.
It is out of the question to think that the French Revolutioncould have been carried into effect by philosophizing theories ifthey had not found an army of agitators led by demagogues of thegrand style. These demagogues inflamed popular passion that hadbeen already aroused, until that volcanic eruption finally brokeout and convulsed the whole of Europe. And the same happened in thecase of the gigantic Bolshevik revolution which recently took placein Russia. It was not due to the writers on Lenin's side but to theoratorical activities of those who preached the doctrine of hatredand that of the innumerable small and great orators who took partin the agitation.
The masses of illiterate Russians were not fired to Communistrevolutionary enthusiasm by reading the theories of Karl Marx butby the promises of paradise made to the people by thousands ofagitators 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 liveapart from the practical world, to think that a writer must ofnecessity be superior to an orator in intelligence. This point ofview was once exquisitely illustrated by a critique, published in acertain National paper which I have already mentioned, where it wasstated that one is often disillusioned by reading the speech of anacknowledged great orator in print. That reminded me of anotherarticle which came into my hands during the War. It dealt with thespeeches of Lloyd George, who was then Minister of Munitions, andexamined them in a painstaking way under the microscope ofcriticism. The writer made the brilliant statement that thesespeeches showed inferior intelligence and learning and that,moreover, they were banal and commonplace productions. I myselfprocured some of these speeches, published in pamphlet form, andhad to laugh at the fact that a normal German quill-driver did notin the least understand these psychological masterpieces in the artof influencing the masses. This man criticized these speechesexclusively according to the impression they made on his own blas(C)mind, whereas the great British Demagogue had produced an immenseeffect on his audience through them, and in the widest sense on thewhole 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 soulof the broad masses of the people. For that reason their effect wasreally penetrating. Compare with them the futile stammerings of aBethmann-Hollweg. On the surface his speeches were undoubtedly moreintellectual, but they just proved this man's inability to speak tothe people, which he really could not do. Nevertheless, to theaverage stupid brain of the German writer, who is, of course,endowed with a lot of scientific learning, it came quite natural tojudge the speeches of the English Minister'--which were madefor the purpose of influencing the masses'--by the impressionwhich they made on his own mind, fossilized in its abstractlearning. And it was more natural for him to compare them in thelight of that impression with the brilliant but futile talk of theGerman statesman, which of course appealed to the writer's mindmuch more favourably. That the genius of Lloyd George was not onlyequal but a thousandfold superior to that of a Bethmann-Hollweg isproved by the fact that he found for his speeches that form andexpression which opened the hearts of his people to him and madethese people carry out his will absolutely. The primitive qualityitself of those speeches, the originality of his expressions, hischoice of clear and simple illustration, are examples which provethe superior political capacity of this Englishman. For one mustnever judge the speech of a statesman to his people by theimpression which it leaves on the mind of a university professorbut by the effect it produces on the people. And this is the solecriterion of the orator's genius.
The astonishing development of our movement, which was createdfrom nothing a few years ago and is to-day singled out forpersecution by all the internal and external enemies of our nation,must be attributed to the constant recognition and practicalapplication 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 equaland uniform education to the directors of the movement, in theupper as well as in the lower grades, rather than to convert themasses of our adversaries. It was only in very rare cases that aconvinced and devoted Social Democrat or Communist was induced toacquire an understanding of our Weltanschauung or to study acriticism of his own by procuring and reading one of our pamphletsor even one of our books. Even a newspaper is rarely read if itdoes not bear the stamp of a party affiliation. Moreover, thereading of newspapers helps little; because the general picturegiven by a single number of a newspaper is so confused and producessuch a fragmentary impression that it really does not influence theoccasional reader. And where a man has to count his pennies itcannot be assumed that, exclusively for the purpose of beingobjectively informed, he will become a regular reader or subscriberto a paper which opposes his views. Only one who has already joineda movement will regularly read the party organ of that movement,and especially for the purpose of keeping himself informed of whatis happening in the movement.
It is quite different with the 'spoken' leaflet. Especially ifit be distributed gratis it will be taken up by one person oranother, all the more willingly if its display title refers to aquestion about which everybody is talking at the moment. Perhapsthe reader, after having read through such a leaflet more or lessthoughtfully, will have new viewpoints and mental attitudes and maygive his attention to a new movement. But with these, even in thebest of cases, only a small impulse will be given, but no definiteconviction will be created; because the leaflet can do nothing morethan draw attention to something and can become effective only bybringing the reader subsequently into a situation where he is morefundamentally informed and instructed. Such instruction must alwaysbe given at the mass assembly.
Mass assemblies are also necessary for the reason that, inattending them, the individual who felt himself formerly only onthe point of joining the new movement, now begins to feel isolatedand in fear of being left alone as he acquires for the first timethe picture of a great community which has a strengthening andencouraging effect on most people. Brigaded in a company orbattalion, surrounded by his companions, he will march with alighter heart to the attack than if he had to march alone. In thecrowd he feels himself in some way thus sheltered, though inreality there are a thousand arguments against such a feeling.
Mass demonstrations on the grand scale not only reinforce thewill of the individual but they draw him still closer to themovement and help to create an esprit de corps. The man whoappears first as the representative of a new doctrine in his placeof business or in his factory is bound to feel himself embarrassedand has need of that reinforcement which comes from theconsciousness that he is a member of a great community. And only amass demonstration can impress upon him the greatness of thiscommunity. If, on leaving the shop or mammoth factory, in which hefeels very small indeed, he should enter a vast assembly for thefirst time and see around him thousands and thousands of men whohold the same opinions; if, while still seeking his way, he isgripped by the force of mass-suggestion which comes from theexcitement and enthusiasm of three or four thousand other men inwhose midst he finds himself; if the manifest success and theconcensus of thousands confirm the truth and justice of the newteaching and for the first time raise doubt in his mind as to thetruth of the opinions held by himself up to now'--then hesubmits himself to the fascination of what we call mass-suggestion.The will, the yearning and indeed the strength of thousands ofpeople are in each individual. A man who enters such a meeting indoubt and hesitation leaves it inwardly fortified; he has become amember of a community.
The National Socialist Movement should never forget this, and itshould never allow itself to be influenced by these bourgeoisduffers who think they know everything but who have foolishlygambled away a great State, together with their own existence andthe supremacy of their own class. They are overflowing withability; they can do everything, and they know everything. Butthere is one thing they have not known how to do, and that is howto save the German people from falling into the arms of Marxism. Inthat they have shown themselves most pitiably and miserablyimpotent. So that the present opinion they have of themselves isonly equal to their conceit. Their pride and stupidity are fruitsof the same tree.
If these people try to disparage the importance of the spokenword to-day, they do it only because they realize'--God bepraised and thanked'--how futile all their own speechifying hasbeen.
CHAPTER VII. THE CONFLICT WITHTHE RED FORCESIn 1919-20 and also in 1921 I attended some of the bourgeoismeetings. Invariably I had the same feeling towards these astowards the compulsory dose of castor oil in my boyhood days. Itjust had to be taken because it was good for one: but it certainlytasted unpleasant. If it were possible to tie ropes round theGerman people and forcibly drag them to these bourgeois meetings,keeping them there behind barred doors and allowing nobody toescape until the meeting closed, then this procedure might provesuccessful in the course of a few hundred years. For my own part, Imust frankly admit that, under such circumstances, I could not findlife worth living; and indeed I should no longer wish to be aGerman. But, thank God, all this is impossible. And so it is notsurprising that the sane and unspoilt masses shun these 'bourgeoismass meetings' as the devil shuns holy water.
I came to know the prophets of the bourgeoisWeltanschauung, 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 GermanNationalists, the German People's Party and the Bavarian People'sParty (the Centre Party of Bavaria). What struck me at once was thehomogeneous uniformity of the audiences. Nearly always they weremade up exclusively of party members. The whole affair was morelike a yawning card party than an assembly of people who had justpassed through a great revolution. The speakers did all they couldto maintain this tranquil atmosphere. They declaimed, or ratherread out, their speeches in the style of an intellectual newspaperarticle 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 themselvesobliged to laugh'--not loudly but encouragingly and withwell-bred reserve.
And there were always those people at the speaker's table. Ionce attended a meeting in the Wagner Hall in Munich. It was ademonstration to celebrate the anniversary of the Battle ofLeipzig. (Note 17) The speech was delivered or rather read out by avenerable old professor from one or other of the universities. Thecommittee sat on the platform: one monocle on the right, anothermonocle on the left, and in the centre a gentleman with no monocle.All three of them were punctiliously attired in morning coats, andI had the impression of being present before a judge's bench justas the death sentence was about to be pronounced or at achristening or some more solemn religious ceremony. The so-calledspeech, which in printed form may have read quite well, had adisastrous effect. After three quarters of an hour the audiencefell into a sort of hypnotic trance, which was interrupted onlywhen some man or woman left the hall, or by the clatter which thewaitresses made, or by the increasing yawns of slumberingindividuals. I had posted myself behind three workmen who werepresent either out of curiosity or because they were sent there bytheir parties. From time to time they glanced at one another withan ill-concealed grin, nudged one another with the elbow, and thensilently left the hall. One could see that they had no intentionwhatsoever of interrupting the proceedings, nor indeed was itnecessary to interrupt them. At long last the celebration showedsigns of drawing to a close. After the professor, whose voice hadmeanwhile become more and more inaudible, finally ended his speech,the gentleman without the monocle delivered a rousing peroration tothe assembled 'German sisters and brothers.' On behalf of theaudience and himself he expressed gratitude for the magnificentlecture which they had just heard from Professor X and emphasizedhow deeply the Professor's words had moved them all. If a generaldiscussion on the lecture were to take place it would be tantamountto profanity, and he thought he was voicing the opinion of allpresent in suggesting that such a discussion should not be held.Therefore, he would ask the assembly to rise from their seats andjoin in singing the patriotic song, Wir sind ein einig Volk vonBr¼dern. The proceedings finally closed with the anthem,Deutschland ¼ber Alles.
And then they all sang. It appeared to me that when the secondverse was reached the voices were fewer and that only when therefrain came on they swelled loudly. When we reached the thirdverse my belief was confirmed that a good many of those presentwere not very familiar with the text.
But what has all this to do with the matter when such a song issung wholeheartedly and fervidly by an assembly of Germannationals?
After this the meeting broke up and everyone hurried to getoutside, one to his glass of beer, one to a cafe, and others simplyinto the fresh air.
Out into the fresh air! That was also my feeling. And was thisthe way to honour an heroic struggle in which hundreds of thousandsof Prussians and Germans had fought? To the devil with it all!
That sort of thing might find favour with the Government, itbeing merely a 'peaceful' meeting. The Minister responsible for lawand order need not fear that enthusiasm might suddenly get thebetter of public decorum and induce these people to pour out of theroom and, instead of dispersing to beer halls and cafes, march inrows of four through the town singing Deutschland hoch inEhren and causing some unpleasantness to a police force in needof rest.
No. That type of citizen is of no use to anyone.
On the other hand the National Socialist meetings were by nomeans 'peaceable' affairs. Two distinct Weltanschhauungenraged in bitter opposition to one another, and these meetings didnot close with the mechanical rendering of a dull patriotic songbut rather with a passionate outbreak of popular nationalfeeling.
It was imperative from the start to introduce rigid disciplineinto our meetings and establish the authority of the chairmanabsolutely. Our purpose was not to pour out a mixture of soft-soapbourgeois talk; what we had to say was meant to arouse theopponents at our meetings! How often did they not turn up in masseswith a few individual agitators among them and, judging by theexpression on all their faces, ready to finish us off there andthen.
Yes, how often did they not turn up in huge numbers, thosesupporters of the Red Flag, all previously instructed to smash upeverything once and for all and put an end to these meetings. Moreoften than not everything hung on a mere thread, and only thechairman's ruthless determination and the rough handling by ourushers baffled our adversaries' intentions. And indeed they hadevery reason for being irritated.
The fact that we had chosen red as the colour for our posterssufficed to attract them to our meetings. The ordinary bourgeoisiewere very shocked to see that, we had also chosen the symbolic redof Bolshevism and they regarded this as something ambiguouslysignificant. The suspicion was whispered in German Nationalistcircles that we also were merely another variety of Marxism,perhaps even Marxists suitably disguised, or better still,Socialists. The actual difference between Socialism and Marxismstill remains a mystery to these people up to this day. The chargeof Marxism was conclusively proved when it was discovered that atour meetings we deliberately substituted the words'Fellow-countrymen and Women' for 'Ladies and Gentlemen' andaddressed each other as 'Party Comrade'. We used to roar withlaughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeoisie and their effortsto puzzle out our origin, our intentions and our aims.
We chose red for our posters after particular and carefuldeliberation, our intention being to irritate the Left, so as toarouse their attention and tempt them to come to ourmeetings'--if only in order to break them up'--so that inthis way we got a chance of talking to the people.
In those years' it was indeed a delightful experience to followthe constantly changing tactics of our perplexed and helplessadversaries. First of all they appealed to their followers toignore us and keep away from our meetings. Generally speaking thisappeal was heeded. But, as time went on, more and more of theirfollowers gradually found their way to us and accepted ourteaching. Then the leaders became nervous and uneasy. They clung totheir belief that such a development should not be ignored forever, and that terror must be applied in order to put an end toit.
Appeals were then made to the 'class-conscious proletariat' toattend our meetings in masses and strike with the clenched hand ofthe proletarian at the representatives of a 'monarchist andreactionary agitation'.
Our meetings suddenly became packed with work-people fullythree-quarters of an hour before the proceedings were scheduled tobegin. These gatherings resembled a powder cask ready to explode atany moment; and the fuse was conveniently at hand. But mattersalways turned out differently. People came as enemies and left, notperhaps prepared to join us, yet in a reflective mood and disposedcritically to examine the correctness of their own doctrine.Gradually as time went on my three-hour lectures resulted insupporters and opponents becoming united in one single enthusiasticgroup of people. Every signal for the breaking-up of the meetingfailed. The result was that the opposition leaders becamefrightened and once again looked for help to those quarters thathad formerly discountenanced these tactics and, with some show ofright, had been of the opinion that on principle the workers shouldbe forbidden to attend our meetings.
Then they did not come any more, or only in small numbers. Butafter a short time the whole game started all over again. Theinstructions to keep away from us were ignored; the comrades camein steadily increasing numbers, until finally the advocates of theradical tactics won the day. We were to be broken up.
Yet when, after two, three and even eight meetings, it wasrealized that to break up these gatherings was easier said thandone and that every meeting resulted in a decisive weakening of thered fighting forces, then suddenly the other password wasintroduced: 'Proletarians, comrades and comradesses, avoid meetingsof the National Socialist agitators'.
The same eternally alternating tactics were also to be observedin the Red Press. Soon they tried to silence us but discovered theuselessness of such an attempt. After that they swung round to theopposite tactics. Daily 'reference' was made to us solely for thepurpose of absolutely ridiculing us in the eyes of theworking-classes. After a time these gentlemen must have felt thatno harm was being done to us, but that, on the contrary, we werereaping an advantage in that people were asking themselves why somuch space was being devoted to a subject which was supposed to beso ludicrous. People became curious. Suddenly there was a change oftactics and for a time we were treated as veritable criminalsagainst mankind. One article followed the other, in which ourcriminal intentions were explained and new proofs brought forwardto support what was said. Scandalous tales, all of them fabricatedfrom start to finish, were published in order to help to poison thepublic mind. But in a short time even these attacks also provedfutile; and in fact they assisted materially because they attractedpublic attention to us.
In those days I took up the standpoint that it was immaterialwhether they laughed at us or reviled us, whether they depicted usas fools or criminals; the important point was that they tooknotice of us and that in the eyes of the working-classes we came tobe regarded as the only force capable of putting up a fight. I saidto myself that the followers of the Jewish Press would come to knowall about us and our real aims.
One reason why they never got so far as breaking up our meetingswas undoubtedly the incredible cowardice displayed by the leadersof the opposition. On every critical occasion they left the dirtywork to the smaller fry whilst they waited outside the halls forthe results of the break up.
We were exceptionally well informed in regard to our opponents'intentions, not only because we allowed several of our partycolleagues to remain members of the Red organizations for reasonsof expediency, but also because the Red wire-pullers, fortunatelyfor us, were afflicted with a degree of talkativeness that is stillunfortunately very prevalent among Germans. They could not keeptheir own counsel, and more often than not they started cacklingbefore the proverbial egg was laid. Hence, time and again ourprecautions were such that Red agitators had no inkling of how nearthey were to being thrown out of the meetings.
This state of affairs compelled us to take the work ofsafeguarding our meetings into our own hands. No reliance could beplaced on official protection. On the contrary; experience showedthat such protection always favoured only the disturbers. The onlyreal outcome of police intervention would be that the meeting wouldbe dissolved, that is to say, closed. And that is precisely whatour opponents granted.
Generally speaking, this led the police to adopt a procedurewhich, to say the least, was a most infamous sample of officialmalpractice. The moment they received information of a threat thatthe one or other meeting was to be broken up, instead of arrestingthe would-be disturbers, they promptly advised the innocent partiesthat the meeting was forbidden. This step the police proclaimed asa 'precautionary measure in the interests of law and order'.
The political work and activities of decent people couldtherefore always be hindered by desperate ruffians who had themeans at their disposal. In the name of peace and order Stateauthority bowed down to these ruffians and demanded that othersshould not provoke them. When National Socialism desired to holdmeetings in certain parts and the labour unions declared that theirmembers would resist, then it was not these blackmailers that werearrested and gaoled. No. Our meetings were forbidden by the police.Yes, this organ of the law had the unspeakable impudence to adviseus in writing to this effect in innumerable instances. To avoidsuch eventualities, it was necessary to see to it that everyattempt to disturb a meeting was nipped in the bud. Another featureto be taken into account in this respect is that all meetings whichrely on police protection must necessarily bring discredit to theirpromoters in the eyes of the general public. Meetings that are onlypossible with the protective assistance of a strong force of policeconvert nobody; because in order to win over the lower strata ofthe people there must be a visible show of strength on one's ownside. In the same way that a man of courage will win a woman'saffection more easily than a coward, so a heroic movement will bemore successful in winning over the hearts of a people than a weakmovement which relies on police support for its very existence.
It is for this latter reason in particular that our youngmovement was to be charged with the responsibility of assuring itsown existence, defending itself; and conducting its own work ofsmashing the Red opposition.
The work of organizing the protective measures for our meetingswas based on the following:
(1) An energetic and psychologically judicious way of conductingthe meeting.
(2) An organized squad of troops to maintain order.
In those days we and no one else were masters of the situationat our meetings and on no occasion did we fail to emphasize this.Our opponents fully realized that any provocation would be theoccasion of throwing them out of the hall at once, whatever theodds against us. At meetings, particularly outside Munich, we hadin those days from five to eight hundred opponents against fifteento sixteen National Socialists; yet we brooked no interference, forwe were ready to be killed rather than capitulate. More than once ahandful of party colleagues offered a heroic resistance to a ragingand violent mob of Reds. Those fifteen or twenty men wouldcertainly have been overwhelmed in the end had not the opponentsknown that three or four times as many of themselves would firstget their skulls cracked. Arid that risk they were not willing torun. We had done our best to study Marxist and bourgeois methods ofconducting meetings, and we had certainly learnt something.
The Marxists had always exercised a most rigid discipline sothat the question of breaking up their meetings could never haveoriginated in bourgeois quarters. This gave the Reds all the morereason for acting on this plan. In time they not only becamepast-masters in this art but in certain large districts of theReich they went so far as to declare that non-Marxist meetings werenothing less than a cause of' provocation against the proletariat.This was particularly the case when the wire-pullers suspected thata meeting might call attention to their own transgressions and thusexpose their own treachery and chicanery. Therefore the moment sucha meeting was announced to be held a howl of rage went up from theRed Press. These detractors of the law nearly always turned firstto the authorities and requested in imperative and threateninglanguage that this 'provocation of the proletariat' be stoppedforthwith in the 'interests of law and order'. Their language waschosen according to the importance of the official blockhead theywere dealing with and thus success was assured. If by chance theofficial happened to be a true German'--and not a merefigurehead'--and he declined the impudent request, then thetime-honoured appeal to stop 'provocation of the proletariat' wasissued together with instructions to attend such and such a meetingon a certain date in full strength for the purpose of 'putting astop to the disgraceful machinations of the bourgeoisie by means ofthe proletarian fist'.
The pitiful and frightened manner in which these bourgeoismeetings are conducted must be seen in order to be believed. Veryfrequently these threats were sufficient to call off such a meetingat once. The feeling of fear was so marked that the meeting,instead of commencing at eight o'clock, very seldom was openedbefore a quarter to nine or nine o'clock. The Chairman thereupondid his best, by showering compliments on the 'gentleman of theopposition' to prove how he and all others present were pleased (apalpable lie) to welcome a visit from men who as yet were not insympathy with them for the reason that only by mutual discussion(immediately agreed to) could they be brought closer together inmutual understanding. Apart from this the Chairman also assuredthem that the meeting had no intention whatsoever of interferingwith the professed convictions of anybody. Indeed no. Everyone hadthe right to form and hold his own political views, but othersshould be allowed to do likewise. He therefore requested that thespeaker be allowed to deliver his speech withoutinterruption'--the speech in any case not being a long affair.People abroad, he continued, would thus not come to regard thismeeting as another shameful example of the bitter fraternal strifethat is raging in Germany. And so on and so forth
The brothers of the Left had little if any appreciation for thatsort of talk; the speaker had hardly commenced when he was shouteddown. One gathered the impression at times that these speakers weregraceful for being peremptorily cut short in their martyr-likediscourse. These bourgeois toreadors left the arena in the midst ofa vast uproar, that is to say, provided that they were not throwndown the stairs with cracked skulls, which was very often thecase.
Therefore, our methods of organization at National Socialistmeetings were something quite strange to the Marxists. They came toour meetings in the belief that the little game which they had sooften 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 outto each other on entering the meeting hall, only to be thrown outwith lightning speed before they had time to repeat it.
In the first place our method of conducting a meeting wasentirely different. We did not beg and pray to be allowed to speak,and we did not straightway give everybody the right to hold endlessdiscussions. We curtly gave everyone to understand that we weremasters of the meeting and that we would do as it pleased us andthat everyone who dared to interrupt would be unceremoniouslythrown out. We stated clearly our refusal to accept responsibilityfor anyone treated in this manner. If time permitted and if itsuited us, a discussion would be allowed to take place. Our partycolleague would now make his speech.... That kind of talk wassufficient in itself to astonish the Marxists.
Secondly, we had at our disposal a well-trained and organizedbody of men for maintaining order at our meetings. On the otherhand the bourgeois parties protected their meetings with a body ofmen better classified as ushers who by virtue of their age thoughtthey were entitled to-authority and respect. But as Marxism haslittle or no respect for these things, the question of suitableself-protection at these bourgeois meetings was, so to speak, inpractice non-existent.
When our political meetings first started I made it a specialpoint to organize a suitable defensive squad'--a squad composedchiefly of young men. Some of them were comrades who had seenactive service with me; others were young party members who, rightfrom the start, had been trained and brought up to realize thatonly terror is capable of smashing terror'--that onlycourageous and determined people had made a success of things inthis world and that, finally, we were fighting for an idea so loftythat it was worth the last drop of our blood. These young men hadbeen brought up to realize that where force replaced common sensein the solution of a problem, the best means of defence was attackand that the reputation of our hall-guard squads should stamp us asa political fighting force and not as a debating society.
And it was extraordinary how eagerly these boys of the Wargeneration responded to this order. They had indeed good reason forbeing bitterly disappointed and indignant at the miserable milksopmethods employed by the bourgeoise.
Thus it became clear to everyone that the Revolution had onlybeen possible thanks to the dastardly methods of a bourgeoisgovernment. At that time there was certainly no lack of man-powerto suppress the revolution, but unfortunately there was an entirelack of directive brain power. How often did the eyes of my youngmen light up with enthusiasm when I explained to them the vitalfunctions connected with their task and assured them time and againthat all earthly wisdom is useless unless it be supported by ameasure of strength, that the gentle goddess of Peace can only walkin company with the god of War, and that every great act of peacemust be protected and assisted by force. In this way the idea ofmilitary service came to them in a far more realisticform'--not in the fossilized sense of the souls of decrepitofficials serving the dead authority of a dead State, but in theliving realization of the duty of each man to sacrifice his life atall 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 towounds and bloodshed, inspired with the great idea of blazing atrail for the sacred mission of our movement.
As early as the summer of 1920 the organization of squads of menas hall guards for maintaining order at our meetings was graduallyassuming definite shape. By the spring of 1921 this body of menwere sectioned off into squads of one hundred, which in turn weresub-divided into smaller groups.
The urgency for this was apparent, as meanwhile the number ofour meetings had steadily increased. We still frequently met in theMunich Hofbr¤uhaus but more frequently in the large meeting hallsthroughout the city itself. In the autumn and winter of 1920-1921our meetings in the B¼rgerbr¤u and Munich Kindlbr¤u had assumedvast proportions and it was always the same picture that presenteditself; namely, meetings of the NSDAP (The German NationalSocialist Labour Party) were always crowded out so that the policewere compelled to close and bar the doors long before proceedingscommenced.
The organization of defence guards for keeping order at ourmeetings cleared up a very difficult question. Up till then themovement had possessed no party badge and no party flag. The lackof these tokens was not only a disadvantage at that time but wouldprove intolerable in the future. The disadvantages were chieflythat members of the party possessed no outward broken of membershipwhich linked them together, and it was absolutely unthinkable thatfor the future they should remain without some token which would bea symbol of the movement and could be set against that of theInternational.
More than once in my youth the psychological importance of sucha symbol had become clearly evident to me and from a sentimentalpoint of view also it was advisable. In Berlin, after the War, Iwas present at a mass-demonstration of Marxists in front of theRoyal Palace and in the Lustgarten. A sea of red flags, red armletsand red flowers was in itself sufficient to give that huge assemblyof about 120,000 persons an outward appearance of strength. I wasnow able to feel and understand how easily the man in the streetsuccumbs to the hypnotic magic of such a grandiose piece oftheatrical presentation.
The bourgeoisie, which as a party neither possesses or standsfor any Weltanschauung, had therefore not a single banner.Their party was composed of 'patriots' who went about in thecolours of the Reich. If these colours were the symbol of adefinite Weltanschauung then one could understand the rulersof the State regarding this flag as expressive of their ownWeltanschauung, seeing that through their efforts theofficial Reich flag was expressive of their ownWeltanschauung.
But in reality the position was otherwise.
The Reich was morticed together without the aid of the Germanbourgeoisie and the flag itself was born of the War and thereforemerely a State flag possessing no importance in the sense of anyparticular ideological mission.
Only in one part of the German-speaking territory'--inGerman-Austria'--was there anything like a bourgeois party flagin evidence. Here a section of the national bourgeoisie selectedthe 1848 colours (black, red and gold) as their party flag andtherewith created a symbol which, though of no importance from aweltanschauliche viewpoint, had, nevertheless, a revolutionarycharacter from a national point of view. The most bitter opponentsof this flag at that time, and this should not be forgotten to-day,were the Social Democrats and the Christian Socialists orclericals. They, in particular, were the ones who degraded andbesmirched these colours in the same way as in 1918 they draggedblack, white and red into the gutter. Of course, the black, red andgold of the German parties in the old Austria were the colours ofthe year 1848: that is to say, of a period likely to be regarded assomewhat visionary, but it was a period that had honest Germansouls as its representatives, although the Jews were lurking unseenas wire-pullers in the background. It was high treason and theshameful enslavement of the German territory that first of all madethese colours so attractive to the Marxists of the Centre Party; somuch so that to-day they revere them as their most cherishedpossession and use them as their own banners for the protection ofthe flag they once foully besmirched.
It is a fact, therefore, that, up till 1920, in opposition tothe Marxists there was no flag that would have stood for aconsolidated resistance to them. For even if the better politicalelements of the German bourgeoisie were loath to accept thesuddenly discovered black, red and gold colours as their symbolafter the year 1918, they nevertheless were incapable ofcounteracting this with a future programme of their own that wouldcorrespond to the new trend of affairs. At the most, they had areconstruction of the old Reich in mind.
And it is to this way of thinking that the black, white and redcolours of the old Reich are indebted for their resurrection as theflag of our so-called national bourgeois parties.
It was obvious that the symbol of a r(C)gime which had beenoverthrown by the Marxists under inglorious circumstances was notnow worthy to serve as a banner under which the same Marxism was tobe crushed in its turn. However much any decent German may love andrevere those old colours, glorious when placed side by side intheir youthful freshness, when he had fought under them and seenthe sacrifice of so many lives, that flag had little value for thestruggle of the future.
In our Movement I have always adopted the standpoint that it wasa really lucky thing for the German nation that it had lost its oldflag (Note 18). This standpoint of mine was in strong contrast tothat of the bourgeois politicians. It may be immaterial to us whatthe Republic does under its flag. But let us be deeply grateful tofate for having so graciously spared the most glorious war flag forall time from becoming an ignominious rag. The Reich of to-day,which sells itself and its people, must never be allowed to adoptthe honourable and heroic black, white and red colours.
As long as the November outrage endures, that outrage maycontinue to bear its own external sign and not steal that of anhonourable past. Our bourgeois politicians should awaken theirconsciences to the fact that whoever desires this State to have theblack, white and red colours is pilfering from the past. The oldflag was suitable only for the old Reich and, thank Heaven, theRepublic chose the colours best suited to itself.
This was also the reason why we National Socialists recognizedthat hoisting the old colours would be no symbol of our specialaims; for we had no wish to resurrect from the dead the old Reichwhich had been ruined through its own blunders, but to build up anew State.
The Movement which is fighting Marxism to-day along these linesmust display on its banner the symbol of the new State.
The question of the new flag, that is to say the form andappearance it must take, kept us very busy in those days.Suggestions poured in from all quarters, which although well meantwere more or less impossible in practice. The new flag had not onlyto become a symbol expressing our own struggle but on the otherhand it was necessary that it should prove effective as a largeposter. All those who busy themselves with the tastes of the publicwill recognize and appreciate the great importance of theseapparently petty matters. In hundreds of thousands of cases areally striking emblem may be the first cause of awakening interestin a movement.
For this reason we declined all suggestions from variousquarters for identifying our movement by means of a white flag withthe old State or rather with those decrepit parties whose solepolitical objective is the restoration of past conditions. And,apart from this, white is not a colour capable of attracting andfocusing public attention. It is a colour suitable only for youngwomen's associations and not for a movement that stands for reformin a revolutionary period.
Black was also suggested'--certainly well-suited to thetimes, but embodying no significance to empress the will behind ourmovement. And, finally, black is incapable of attractingattention.
White and blue was discarded, despite its admirable aestheticappeal'--as being the colours of an individual German FederalState'--a State that, unfortunately, through its politicalattitude of particularist narrow-mindedness did not enjoy a goodreputation. And, generally speaking, with these colours it wouldhave been difficult to attract attention to our movement. The sameapplies 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 reasonsalready stated. At least, not in the form hitherto in use. But theeffectiveness of these three colours is far superior to all theothers and they are certainly the most strikingly harmoniouscombination to be found.
I myself was always for keeping the old colours, not onlybecause I, as a soldier, regarded them as my most sacredpossession, but because in their aesthetic effect, they conformedmore than anything else to my personal taste. Accordingly I had todiscard all the innumerable suggestions and designs which had beenproposed for the new movement, among which were many that hadincorporated the swastika into the old colours. I, as leader, wasunwilling to make public my own design, as it was possible thatsomeone else could come forward with a design just as good, if notbetter, than my own. As a matter of fact, a dental surgeon fromStarnberg submitted a good design very similar to mine, with onlyone mistake, in that his swastika with curved corners was set upona white background.
After innumerable trials I decided upon a final form'--aflag of red material with a white disc bearing in its centre ablack swastika. After many trials I obtained the correctproportions between the dimensions of the flag and of the whitecentral disc, as well as that of the swastika. And this is how ithas remained ever since.
At the same time we immediately ordered the correspondingarmlets for our squad of men who kept order at meetings, armlets ofred material, a central white disc with the black swastika upon it.Herr F¼ss, a Munich goldsmith, supplied the first practical andpermanent design.
The new flag appeared in public in the midsummer of 1920. Itsuited our movement admirably, both being new and young. Not a soulhad seen this flag before; its effect at that time was somethingakin to that of a blazing torch. We ourselves experienced almost aboyish delight when one of the ladies of the party who had beenentrusted 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 ofsix of these flags. The steadily increasing strength of our hallguards was a main factor in popularizing the symbol.
And indeed a symbol it proved to be.
Not only because it incorporated those revered coloursexpressive of our homage to the glorious past and which oncebrought so much honour to the German nation, but this symbol wasalso an eloquent expression of the will behind the movement. WeNational Socialists regarded our flag as being the embodiment ofour party programme. The red expressed the social thoughtunderlying the movement. White the national thought. And theswastika signified the mission allotted to us'--the strugglefor the victory of Aryan mankind and at the same time the triumphof the ideal of creative work which is in itself and always will beanti-Semitic.
Two years later, when our squad of hall guards had long sincegrown into storm detachments, it seemed necessary to give thisdefensive organization of a young Weltanschauung aparticular symbol of victory, namely a Standard. I also designedthis and entrusted the execution of it to an old party comrade,Herr Gahr, who was a goldsmith. Ever since that time this Standardhas been the distinctive token of the National Socialiststruggle.
The increasing interest taken in our meetings, particularlyduring 1920, compelled us at times to hold two meetings a week.Crowds gathered round our posters; the large meeting halls in thetown were always filled and tens of thousands of people, who hadbeen led astray by the teachings of Marxism, found their way to usand assisted in the work of fighting for the liberation of theReich. The public in Munich had got to know us. We were beingspoken about. The words 'National Socialist' had become commonproperty to many and signified for them a definite party programme.Our circle of supporters and even of members was constantlyincreasing, so that in the winter of 1920-21 we were able to appearas a strong party in Munich.
At that time there was no party in Munich with the exception ofthe Marxist parties'--certainly no nationalistparty'--which was able to hold such mass demonstrations asours. The Munich Kindl Hall, which held 5,000 people, was more thanonce 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 foranxiety in Germany. The Paris Agreement, by which Germany pledgedherself 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 v¶lkisch groups, deemed itadvisable to call for a public meeting of protest. I became nervousand restless when I saw that a lot of time was being wasted andnothing undertaken. At first a meeting was suggested in the K¶nigPlatz; on second thoughts this was turned down, as someone fearedthe proceedings might be wrecked by Red elements. Anothersuggestion was a demonstration in front of the Feldherrn Hall, butthis also came to nothing. Finally a combined meeting in the MunichKindl Hall was suggested. Meanwhile, day after day had gone by; thebig parties had entirely ignored the terrible event, and theworking committee could not decide on a definite date for holdingthe demonstration.
On Tuesday, February 1st, I put forward an urgent demand for afinal decision. I was put off until Wednesday. On that day Idemanded to be told clearly if and when the meeting was to takeplace. The reply was again uncertain and evasive, it being statedthat it was 'intended' to arrange a demonstration that dayweek.
At that I lost all patience and decided to conduct ademonstration of protest on my own. At noon on Wednesday I dictatedin ten minutes the text of the poster and at the same time hiredthe Krone Circus Hall for the next day, February 3rd.
In those days this was a tremendous venture. Not only because ofthe uncertainty of filling that vast hall, but also because of therisk of the meeting being wrecked.
Numerically our squad of hall guards was not strong enough forthis vast hall. I was also uncertain about what to do in case themeeting was broken up'--a huge circus building being adifferent proposition from an ordinary meeting hall. But eventsshowed that my fears were misplaced, the opposite being the case.In that vast building a squad of wreckers could be tackled andsubdued more easily than in a cramped hall.
One thing was certain: A failure would throw us back for a longtime to come. If one meeting was wrecked our prestige would beseriously injured and our opponents would be encouraged to repeattheir success. That would lead to sabotage of our work inconnection with further meetings and months of difficult strugglewould 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 wasreason to fear that many people would prefer to remain at homerather than hurry to a meeting through rain and snow, especiallywhen there was likely to be violence and bloodshed.
And indeed on that Thursday morning I was suddenly struck withfear that the hall might never be filled to capacity, which wouldhave made me ridiculous in the eyes of the working committee. Itherefore immediately dictated various leaflets, had them printedand distributed in the afternoon. Of course they contained aninvitation to attend the meeting.
Two lorries which I hired were draped as much as possible inred, each had our new flag hoisted on it and was then filled withfifteen or twenty members of our party. Orders were given themembers to canvas the streets thoroughly, distribute leaflets andconduct propaganda for the mass meeting to be held that evening. Itwas the first time that lorries had driven through the streetsbearing flags and not manned by Marxists. The public staredopen-mouthed at these red-draped cars, and in the outlyingdistricts clenched fists were angrily raised at this new evidenceof 'provocation of the proletariat'. Were not the Marxists the onlyones entitled to hold meetings and drive about in motorlorries?
At seven o'clock in the evening only a few had gathered in thecircus hall. I was being kept informed by telephone every tenminutes and was becoming uneasy. Usually at seven or a quarter pastour meeting halls were already half filled; sometimes even packed.But I soon found out the reason why I was uneasy. I had entirelyforgotten to take into account the huge dimensions of this newmeeting place. A thousand people in the Hofbr¤uhaus was quite animpressive sight, but the same number in the Circus building wasswallowed up in its dimensions and was hardly noticeable. Shortlyafterwards I received more hopeful reports and at a quarter toeight I was informed that the hall was three-quarters filled, withhuge crowds still lined up at the pay boxes. I then left for themeeting.
I arrived at the Circus building at two minutes past eight.There was still a crowd of people outside, partly inquisitivepeople and many opponents who preferred to wait outside fordevelopments.
When I entered the great hall I felt the same joy I had felt ayear previously at the first meeting in the Munich Hofbr¤u BanquetHall; but it was not until I had forced my way through the solidwall of people and reached the platform that I perceived the fullmeasure of our success. The hall was before me, like a huge shell,packed with thousands and thousands of people. Even the arena wasdensely crowded. More than 5,600 tickets had been sold and,allowing for the unemployed, poor students and our own detachmentsof men for keeping order, a crowd of about 6,500 must have beenpresent.
My theme was 'Future or Downfall' and I was filled with joy atthe conviction that the future was represented by the crowds that Iwas addressing.
I began, and spoke for about two and a half hours. I had thefeeling after the first half-hour that the meeting was going to bea big success. Contact had been at once established with all thosethousands of individuals. After the first hour the speech wasalready being received by spontaneous outbreaks of applause, butafter the second hour this died down to a solemn stillness which Iwas to experience so often later on in this same hall, and whichwill for ever be remembered by all those present. Nothing brokethis impressive silence and only when the last word had been spokendid the meeting give vent to its feelings by singing the nationalanthem.
I watched the scene during the next twenty minutes, as the vasthall 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 CircusHall in Munich. They are more eloquent than words to demonstratethe success of this demonstration. The bourgeois papers reproducedphotographs and reported the meeting as having been merely'nationalist' in character; in their usual modest fashion theyomitted all mention of its promoters.
Thus for the first time we had developed far beyond thedimensions of an ordinary party. We could no longer be ignored. Andto dispel all doubt that the meeting was merely an isolatedsuccess, I immediately arranged for another at the Circus Hall inthe following week, and again we had the same success. Once morethe vast hall was overflowing with people; so much so that Idecided to hold a third meeting during the following week, whichalso proved a similar success.
After these initial successes early in 1921 I increased ouractivity in Munich still further. I not only held meetings once aweek, but during some weeks even two were regularly held and veryoften during midsummer and autumn this increased to three. We metregularly at the Circus Hall and it gave us great satisfaction tosee that every meeting brought us the same measure of success.
The result was shown in an ever-increasing number of supportersand members into our party.
Naturally, such success did not allow our opponents to sleepsoundly. At first their tactics fluctuated between the use ofterror and silence in our regard. Then they recognized that neitherterror nor silence could hinder the progress of our movement. Sothey had recourse to a supreme act of terror which was intended toput a definite end to our activities in the holding ofmeetings.
As a pretext for action along this line they availed themselvesof a very mysterious attack on one of the Landtag deputies, namedErhard Auer. It was declared that someone had fired several shotsat this man one evening. This meant that he was not shot but thatan attempt had been made to shoot him. A fabulous presence of mindand heroic courage on the part of Social Democratic leaders notonly prevented the sacrilegious intention from taking effect butalso put the crazy would-be assassins to flight, like the cowardsthat they were. They were so quick and fled so far thatsubsequently the police could not find even the slightest traces ofthem. This mysterious episode was used by the organ of the SocialDemocratic Party to arouse public feeling against the movement, andwhile doing this it delivered its old rigmarole about the tacticsthat were to be employed the next time. Their purpose was to see toit that our movement should not grow but should be immediately hewndown root and branch by the hefty arm of the proletariat.
A few days later the real attack came. It was decided finally tointerrupt one of our meetings which was billed to take place in theMunich Hofbr¤uhaus, and at which I myself was to speak.
On November 4th, 1921, in the evening between six and seveno'clock I received the first precise news that the meeting wouldpositively be broken up and that to carry out this action ouradversaries had decided to send to the meeting great masses ofworkmen employed in certain 'Red' factories.
It was due to an unfortunate accident that we did not receivethis news sooner. On that day we had given up our old businessoffice in the Sternecker Gasse in Munich and moved into otherquarters; or rather we had given up the old offices and our newquarters were not yet in functioning order. The telephonearrangements had been cut off by the former tenants and had not yetbeen reinstalled. Hence it happened that several attempts made thatday to inform us by telephone of the break-up which had beenplanned for the evening did not reach us.
Consequently our order troops were not present in strong forceat that meeting. There was only one squad present, which did notconsist of the usual one hundred men, but only of about forty-six.And our telephone connections were not yet sufficiently organizedto be able to give the alarm in the course of an hour or so, sothat a sufficiently powerful number of order troops to deal withthe situation could be called. It must also be added that onseveral previous occasions we had been forewarned, but nothingspecial happened. The old proverb, 'Revolutions which wereannounced have scarcely ever come off', had hitherto been provedtrue in our regard.
Possibly for this reason also sufficiently strong precautionshad not been taken on that day to cope with the brutaldetermination of our opponents to break up our meeting.
Finally, we did not believe that the Hofbr¤uhaus in Munich wassuitable for the interruptive tactics of our adversaries. We hadfeared such a thing far more in the bigger halls, especially thatof the Krone Circus. But on this point we learned a veryserviceable lesson that evening. Later, we studied this wholequestion according to a scientific system and arrived at results,both interesting and incredible, and which subsequently were anessential factor in the direction of our organization and in thetactics of our Storm Troops.
When I arrived in the entrance halt of the Hofbr¤uhaus at 7.45that evening I realizcd that there could be no doubt as to what the'Reds' intended. The hall was filled, and for that reason thepolice had barred the entrances. Our adversaries, who had arrivedvery early, were in the hall, and our followers were for the mostpart outside. The small bodyguard awaited me at the entrance. I hadthe doors leading to the principal hall closed and then asked thebodyguard of forty-five or forty-six men to come forward. I made itclear to the boys that perhaps on that evening for the first timethey would have to show their unbending and unbreakable loyalty tothe movement and that not one of us should leave the hall unlesscarried out dead. I added that I would remain in the hall and thatI did not believe that one of them would abandon me, and that if Isaw any one of them act the coward I myself would personally tearoff his armlet and his badge. I demanded of them that they shouldcome forward if the slightest attempt to sabotage the meeting weremade and that they must remember that the best defence is alwaysattack.
I was greeted with a triple 'Heil' which sounded more hoarse andviolent than usual.
Then I advanced through the hall and could take in the situationwith my own eyes. Our opponents sat closely huddled together andtried to pierce me through with their looks. Innumerable facesglowing with hatred and rage were fixed on me, while others withsneering grimaces shouted at me together. Now they would 'Finishwith us. We must look out for our entrails. To-day they would smashin our faces once and for all.' And there were other expressions ofan equally elegant character. They knew that they were there insuperior numbers and they acted accordingly.
Yet we were able to open the meeting; and I began to speak. Inthe Hall of the Hofbr¤uhaus I stood always at the side, away fromthe entry and on top of a beer table. Therefore I was always rightin the midst of the audience. Perhaps this circumstance wasresponsible for creating a certain feeling and a sense of agreementwhich I never found elsewhere.
Before me, and especially towards my left, there were onlyopponents, seated or standing. They were mostly robust youths andmen from the Maffei Factory, from Kustermann's, and from thefactories on the Isar, etc. Along the right-hand wall of the hallthey were thickly massed quite close to my table. They now began toorder litre mugs of beer, one after the other, and to throw theempty mugs under the table. In this way whole batteries werecollected. I should have been surprised had this meeting endedpeacefully.
In spite of all the interruptions, I was able to speak for aboutan 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 ofthis; 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 aninterruption, and the mistake of which I myself was conscious themoment the words had left my mouth, gave the sign for theoutbreak.
There were a few furious outbursts and all in a moment a manjumped on a seat and shouted "Liberty". At that signal thechampions of liberty began their work.
In a few moments the hall was filled with a yelling andshrieking mob. Numerous beer-mugs flew like howitzers above theirheads. Amid this uproar one heard the crash of chair legs, thecrashing of mugs, groans and yells and screams.
It was a mad spectacle. I stood where I was and could observe myboys doing their duty, every one of them.
There I had the chance of seeing what a bourgeois meeting couldbe.
The dance had hardly begun when my Storm Troops, as they werecalled from that day onwards, launched their attack. Like wolvesthey threw themselves on the enemy again and again in parties ofeight or ten and began steadily to thrash them out of the hall.After five minutes I could see hardly one of them that was notstreaming with blood. Then I realized what kind of men many of themwere, above all my brave Maurice Hess, who is my private secretaryto-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 thehall 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 menand put up a bitter fight. Then two pistol shots rang out from theentrance to the hall in the direction of the platform and now awild din of shooting broke out from all sides. One's heart almostrejoiced at this spectacle which recalled memories of the War.
At that moment it was not possible to identify the person whohad fired the shots. But at any rate I could see that my boysrenewed the attack with increased fury until finally the lastdisturbers were overcome and flung out of the hall.
About twenty-five minutes had passed since it all began. Thehall looked as if a bomb had exploded there. Many of my comradeshad to be bandaged and others taken away. But we remained mastersof 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 excitedpolice officer rushed in, waved his hands and declared: "Themeeting is dissolved."
Without wishing to do so I had to laugh at this example of thelaw'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 neverforgot the lesson they had received.
Up to the autumn of 1923 the M¼nchener post did not againmention the clenched fists of the Proletariat.
CHAPTER VIII. THE STRONG ISSTRONGEST WHEN ALONEIn the preceding chapter I mentioned the existence of aco-operative union between the German patriotic associations. HereI shall deal briefly with this question.
In speaking of a co-operative union we generally mean a group ofassociations which, for the purpose of facilitating their work,establish mutual relations for collaborating with one another alongcertain lines, appointing a common directorate with varying powersand thenceforth carrying out a common line of action. The averagecitizen is pleased and reassured when he hears that theseassociations, by establishing a co-operative union among oneanother, have at long last discovered a common platform on whichthey can stand united and have eliminated all grounds of mutualdifference. Therewith a general conviction arises, to the effectthat such a union is an immense gain in strength and that smallgroups which were weak as long as they stood alone have nowsuddenly become strong. Yet this conviction is for the most part amistaken one.
It will be interesting and, in my opinion, important for thebetter understanding of this question if we try to get a clearnotion of how it comes about that these associations, unions, etc.,are established, when all of them declare that they have the sameends in view. In itself it would be logical to expect that one aimshould be fought for by a single association and it would be morereasonable if there were not a number of associations fighting forthe same aim. In the beginning there was undoubtedly only oneassociation which had this one fixed aim in view. One manproclaimed a truth somewhere and, calling for the solution of adefinite question, fixed his aim and founded a movement for thepurpose of carrying his views into effect.
That is how an association or a party is founded, the scope ofwhose programme is either the abolition of existing evils or thepositive establishment of a certain order of things in thefuture.
Once such a movement has come into existence it may laypractical claim to certain priority rights. The natural course ofthings would now be that all those who wish to fight for the sameobjective as this movement is striving for should identifythemselves with it and thus increase its strength, so that thecommon purpose in view may be all the better served. Especially menof superior intelligence must feel, one and all, that by joiningthe movement they are establishing precisely those conditions whichare 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 ofvery great importance'--that only one movement should befounded for the purpose of attaining the one aim.
The fact that this does not happen must be attributed to twocauses. The first may almost be described as tragic. The second isa matter for pity, because it has its foundation in the weaknessesof human nature. But, on going to the bottom of things, I see inboth causes only facts which give still another ground forstrengthening our will, our energy and intensity of purpose; sothat finally, through the higher development of the humanfaculties, the solution of the problem in question may be renderedpossible.
The tragic reason why it so often happens that the pursuit ofone definite task is not left to one association alone is asfollows: Generally speaking, every action carried out on the grandstyle in this world is the expression of a desire that has alreadyexisted for a long time in millions of human hearts, a longingwhich may have been nourished in silence. Yes, it may happen thatthroughout centuries men may have been yearning for the solution ofa definite problem, because they have been suffering under anunendurable order of affairs, without seeing on the far horizon thecoming fulfilment of the universal longing. Nations which are nolonger capable of finding an heroic deliverance from such asorrowful fate may be looked upon as effete. But, on the otherhand, nothing gives better proof of the vital forces of a peopleand the consequent guarantee of its right to exist than that oneday, through a happy decree of Destiny, a man arises who is capableof liberating his people from some great oppression, or of wipingout some bitter distress, or of calming the national soul which hadbeen tormented through its sense of insecurity, and thus fulfillingwhat had long been the universal yearning of the people.
An essential characteristic of what are called the greatquestions of the time is that thousands undertake the task ofsolving them and that many feel themselves called to this task:yea, even that Destiny itself has proposed many for the choice, sothat through the free play of forces the stronger and bolder shallfinally be victorious and to him shall be entrusted the task ofsolving the problem.
Thus it may happen that for centuries many are discontented withthe form in which their religious life expresses itself and yearnfor a renovation of it; and so it may happen that through thisimpulse of the soul some dozens of men may arise who believe that,by virtue of their understanding and their knowledge, they arecalled to solve the religious difficulties of the time andaccordingly present themselves as the prophets of a new teaching orat least as declared adversaries of the standing beliefs.
Here also it is certain that the natural law will take itscourse, inasmuch as the strongest will be destined to fulfil thegreat mission. But usually the others are slow to acknowledge thatonly one man is called. On the contrary, they all believe that theyhave an equal right to engage in the solution of the diffculties inquestion and that they are equally called to that task. Theircontemporary world is generally quite unable to decide which of allthese possesses the highest gifts and accordingly merits thesupport of all.
So in the course of centuries, or indeed often within the sameepoch, different men establish different movements to struggletowards the same end. At least the end is declared by the foundersof the movements to be the same, or may be looked upon as such bythe masses of the people. The populace nourishes vague desires andhas only general opinions, without having any precise notion oftheir own ideals and desires or of the question whether and how itis impossible for these ideals and desires to be fulfilled.
The tragedy lies in the fact that many men struggle to reach thesame objective by different roads, each one genuinely believing inhis own mission and holding himself in duty bound to follow his ownroad without any regard for the others.
These movements, parties, religious groups, etc., originateentirely independently of one another out of the general urge ofthe time, and all with a view to working towards the same goal. Itmay seem a tragic thing, at least at first sight, that this shouldbe so, because people are too often inclined to think that forceswhich are dispersed in different directions would attain their endsfar more quickly and more surely if they were united in one commoneffort. But that is not so. For Nature herself decides according tothe rules of her inexorable logic. She leaves these diverse groupsto compete with one another and dispute the palm of victory andthus she chooses the clearest, shortest and surest way along whichshe leads the movement to its final goal.
How could one decide from outside which is the best way, if theforces at hand were not allowed free play, if the final decisionwere to rest with the doctrinaire judgment of men who are soinfatuated with their own superior knowledge that their minds arenot open to accept the indisputable proof presented by manifestsuccess, which in the last analysis always gives the finalconfirmation of the justice of a course of action.
Hence, though diverse groups march along different routestowards the same objective, as soon as they come to know thatanalogous efforts are being made around them, they will have tostudy all the more carefully whether they have chosen the best wayand whether a shorter way may not be found and how their effortscan best be employed to reach the objective more quickly.
Through this rivalry each individual protagonist develops hisfaculties to a still higher pitch of perfection and the human racehas frequently owed its progress to the lessons learned from themisfortunes of former attempts which have come to grief. Thereforewe may conclude that we come to know the better ways of reachingfinal results through a state of things which at first sightappeared tragic; namely, the initial dispersion of individualefforts, wherein each group was unconsciously responsible for suchdispersion.
In studying the lessons of history with a view to finding a wayfor the solution of the German problem, the prevailing opinion atone time was that there were two possible paths along which thatproblem might be solved and that these two paths should have unitedfrom the very beginning. The chief representatives and champions ofthese two paths were Austria and Prussia respectively, Habsburg andHohenzollern. All the rest, according to this prevalent opinion,ought to have entrusted their united forces to the one or the otherparty. But at that time the path of the most prominentrepresentative, the Habsburg, would have been taken, though theAustrian policy would never have led to the foundation of a unitedGerman Reich.
Finally, a strong and united German Reich arose out of thatwhich many millions of Germans deplored in their hearts as the lastand most terrible manifestation of our fratricidal strife. Thetruth is that the German Imperial Crown was retrieved on the battlefield of K¶niggr¤tz and not in the fights that were waged beforeParis, as was commonly asserted afterwards.
Thus the foundation of the German Reich was not the consequenceof any common will working along common lines, but it was much morethe outcome of a deliberate struggle for hegemony, though theprotagonists were often hardly conscious of this. And from thisstruggle Prussia finally came out victorious. Anybody who is not soblinded by partisan politics as to deny this truth will have toagree that the so-called wisdom of men would never have come to thesame wise decision as the wisdom of Life itself, that is to say,the free play of forces, finally brought to realization. For in theGerman lands of two hundred years before who would seriously havebelieved that Hohenzollern Prussia, and not Habsburg, would becomethe germ cell, the founder and the tutor of the new Reich? And, onthe other hand, who would deny to-day that Destiny thus acted wiserthan human wisdom. Who could now imagine a German Reich based onthe foundations of an effete and degenerate dynasty?
No. The general evolution of things, even though it took acentury of struggle, placed the best in the position that it hadmerited.
And that will always be so. Therefore it is not to be regrettedif different men set out to attain the same objective. In this waythe strongest and swiftest becomes recognized and turns out to bethe victor.
Now there is a second cause for the fact that often in the livesof nations several movements which show the same characteristicsstrive along different ways to reach what appears to be the samegoal. This second cause is not at all tragic, but just somethingthat rightly calls forth pity. It arises from a sad mixture ofenvy, jealousy, ambition, and the itch for taking what belongs toothers. Unfortunately these failings are often found united insingle specimens of the human species.
The moment a man arises who profoundly understands the distressof his people and, having diagnosed the evil with perfect accuracy,takes measures to cure it; the moment he fixes his aim and choosesthe means to reach it'--then paltry and pettifogging peoplebecome all attention and eagerly follow the doings of this man whohas thus come before the public gaze. Just like sparrows who areapparently indifferent, but in reality are firmly intent on themovements of the fortunate companion with the morsel of bread sothat they may snatch it from him if he should momentarily relax hishold on it, so it is also with the human species. All that isneeded is that one man should strike out on a new road and then acrowd of poltroons will prick up their ears and begin to sniff forwhatever little booty may possibly lie at the end of that road. Themoment they think they have discovered where the booty is to begathered they hurry to find another way which may prove to bequicker in reaching that goal.
As soon as a new movement is founded and has formulated adefinite programme, people of that kind come forward and proclaimthat they are fighting for the same cause. This does not imply thatthey are ready honestly to join the ranks of such a movement andthus recognize its right of priority. It implies rather that theyintend to steal the programme and found a new party on it. In doingthis they are shameless enough to assure the unthinking public thatfor a long time they had intended to take the same line of actionas the other has now taken, and frequently they succeed in thusplacing themselves in a favourable light, instead of arousing thegeneral disapprobation which they justly deserve. For it is a pieceof gross impudence to take what has already been inscribed onanother's flag and display it on one's own, to steal the programmeof another, and then to form a separate group as if all had beencreated by the new founder of this group. The impudence of suchconduct is particularly demonstrated when the individuals who firstcaused dispersion and disruption by their new foundation are thosewho'--as experience has shown'--are most emphatic inproclaiming the necessity of union and unity the moment they findthey cannot catch up with their adversary's advance.
It is to that kind of conduct that the so-called 'patrioticdisintegration' is to be attributed.
Certainly in the years 1918'--1919 the founding of amultitude of new groups, parties, etc., calling themselves'Patriotic,' was a natural phenomenon of the time, for which thefounders were not at all responsible. By 1920 the NationalSocialist German Labour Party had slowly crystallized from allthese parties and had become supreme. There could be no betterproof of the sterling honesty of certain individual founders thanthe fact that many of them decided, in a really admirable manner,to sacrifice their manifestly less successful movements to thestronger movement, by joining it unconditionally and dissolvingtheir own.
This is specially true in regard to Julius Streicher, who was atthat time the protagonist of the German Socialist party inN¼rnberg. The National Socialist German Labour Party had beenfounded with similar aims in view, but quite independently of theother. I have already said that Streicher, then a teacher inN¼rnberg, was the chief protagonist of the German Socialist Party.He had a sacred conviction of the mission and future of his ownmovement. As soon, however, as the superior strength and strongergrowth of the National Socialist Party became clear andunquestionable to his mind, he gave up his work in the GermanSocialist Party and called upon his followers to fall into linewith the National Socialist German Labour Party, which had come outvictorious from the mutual contest, and carry on the fight withinits ranks for the common cause. The decision was personally adifficult one for him, but it showed a profound sense ofhonesty.
When that first period of the movement was over there remainedno further dispersion of forces: for their honest intentions hadled the men of that time to the same honourable, straightforwardand just conclusion. What we now call the 'patrioticdisintegration' owes its existence exclusively to the second of thetwo causes which I have mentioned. Ambitious men who at first hadno ideas of their own, and still less any concept of aims to bepursued, felt themselves 'called' exactly at that moment in whichthe success of the National Socialist German Labour Party becameunquestionable.
Suddenly programmes appeared which were mere transcripts ofours. Ideas were proclaimed which had been taken from us. Aims wereset up on behalf of which we had been fighting for several years,and ways were mapped out which the National Socialists had for along time trodden. All kinds of means were resorted to for thepurpose of trying to convince the public that, although theNational Socialist German Labour Party had now been for a long timein existence, it was found necessary to establish these newparties. But all these phrases were just as insincere as themotives 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 wishedto play a part in which their own pigmy talents could contributenothing original except the gross effrontery which they displayedin appropriating the ideas of others, a mode of conduct which inordinary life is looked upon as thieving.
At that time there was not an idea or concept launched by otherpeople which these political kleptomaniacs did not seize upon atonce for the purpose of applying to their own base uses. Those whodid all this were the same people who subsequently, with tears intheir eyes, profoundly deplored the 'patriotic disintegration' andspoke unceasingly about the 'necessity of unity'. In doing thisthey nurtured the secret hope that they might be able to cry downthe others, who would tire of hearing these loud-mouthedaccusations and would end up by abandoning all claim to the ideasthat had been stolen from them and would abandon to the thieves notonly the task of carrying these ideas into effect but also the taskof carrying on the movements of which they themselves were theoriginal founders.
When that did not succeed, and the new enterprises, thanks tothe paltry mentality of their promoters, did not show thefavourable results which had been promised beforehand, then theybecame more modest in their pretences and were happy if they couldland themselves in one of the so-called 'co-operative unions'.
At that period everything which could not stand on its own feetjoined one of those co-operative unions, believing that eight lamepeople hanging on to one another could force a gladiator tosurrender to them.
But if among all these cripples there was one who was sound oflimb he had to use all his strength to sustain the others and thushe himself was practically paralysed.
We ought to look upon the question of joining these workingcoalitions as a tactical problem, but, in coming to a decision, wemust never forget the following fundamental principle:
Through the formation of a working coalition associations whichare weak in themselves can never be made strong, whereas it can anddoes happen not infrequently that a strong association loses itsstrength by joining in a coalition with weaker ones. It is amistake to believe that a factor of strength will result from thecoalition of weak groups; because experience shows that under allforms and all conditions the majority represents the duffers andpoltroons. Hence a multiplicity of associations, under adirectorate of many heads, elected by these same associations, isabandoned to the control of poltroons and weaklings. Through such acoalition the free play of forces is paralysed, the struggle forthe selection of the best is abolished and therewith the necessaryand final victory of the healthier and stronger is impeded.Coalitions of that kind are inimical to the process of naturaldevelopment, because for the most part they hinder rather thanadvance the solution of the problem which is being fought for.
It may happen that, from considerations of a purely tacticalkind, the supreme command of a movement whose goal is set in thefuture will enter into a coalition with such associations for thetreatment of special questions and may also stand on a commonplatform with them, but this can be only for a short and limitedperiod. Such a coalition must not be permanent, if the movementdoes not wish to renounce its liberating mission. Because if itshould become indissolubly tied up in such a combination it wouldlose the capacity and the right to allow its own forces to workfreely in following out a natural development, so as to overcomerivals and attain its own objective triumphantly.
It must never be forgotten that nothing really great in thisworld has ever been achieved through coalitions, but that suchachievements have always been due to the triumph of the individual.Successes achieved through coalitions, owing to the very nature oftheir source, carry the germs of future disintegration in them fromthe very start; so much so that they have already forfeited whathas been achieved. The great revolutions which have taken place inhuman thought and have veritably transformed the aspect of theworld would have been inconceivable and impossible to carry outexcept 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 createdby the desire for compromise inherent in a patriotic coalition, butonly by the iron will of a single movement which has successfullycome through in the struggle with all the others.
CHAPTER IX. FUNDAMENTAL IDEASREGARDING THE NATURE AND ORGANIZATION OF THE STORM TROOPSThe strength of the old state rested on three pillars: themonarchical form of government, the civil service, and the army.The Revolution of 1918 abolished the form of government, dissolvedthe army and abandoned the civil service to the corruption of partypolitics. Thus the essential supports of what is called theAuthority of the State were shattered. This authority nearly alwaysdepends on three elements, which are the essential foundations ofall authority.
Popular support is the first element which is necessary for thecreation of authority. But an authority resting on that foundationalone is still quite frail, uncertain and vacillating. Henceeveryone who finds himself vested with an authority that is basedonly on popular support must take measures to improve andconsolidate the foundations of that authority by the creation offorce. Accordingly we must look upon power, that is to say, thecapacity to use force, as the second foundation on which allauthority is based. This foundation is more stable and secure, butnot always stronger, than the first. If popular support and powerare united together and can endure for a certain time, then anauthority may arise which is based on a still stronger foundation,namely, the authority of tradition. And, finally, if popularsupport, power, and tradition are united together, then theauthority based on them may be looked upon as invincible.
In Germany the Revolution abolished this last foundation. Therewas no longer even a traditional authority. With the collapse ofthe old Reich, the suppression of the monarchical form ofgovernment, the destruction of all the old insignia of greatnessand the imperial symbols, tradition was shattered at a blow. Theresult was that the authority of the State was shaken to itsfoundations.
The second pillar of statal authority, namely power, alsoceased to exist. In order to carry through the Revolution it wasnecessary to dissolve that body which had hitherto incorporated theorganized force and power of the State, namely, the Army. Indeed,some detached fragments of the Army itself had to be employed asfighting elements in the Revolution. The Armies at the front werenot subjected in the same measure to this process of disruption;but as they gradually left farther behind them the fields of gloryon which they had fought heroically for four-and-half years, theywere attacked by the solvent acid that had permeated theFatherland; and when they arrived at the demobilizing centres theyfell into that state of confusion which was styled voluntaryobedience in the time of the Soldiers' Councils.
Of course it was out of the question to think of founding anykind of authority on this crowd of mutineering soldiers, who lookedupon military service as a work of eight hours per day. Thereforethe second element, that which guarantees the stability ofauthority, was also abolished and the Revolution had only theoriginal element, popular support, on which to build up itsauthority. But this basis was extraordinarily insecure. By means ofa few violent thrusts the Revolution had shattered the old stataledifice to its deepest foundations, but only because the normalequilibrium within the social structure of the nation had alreadybeen destroyed by the war.
Every national body is made up of three main classes. At oneextreme we have the best of the people, taking the word 'best' hereto indicate those who are highly endowed with the civic virtues andare noted for their courage and their readiness to sacrifice theirprivate interests. At the other extreme are the worst dregs ofhumanity, in whom vice and egotistic interests prevail. Betweenthese two extremes stands the third class, which is made up of thebroad middle stratum, who do not represent radiant heroism orvulgar vice.
The stages of a nation's rise are accomplished exclusively underthe leadership of the best extreme.
Times of normal and symmetrical development, or of stableconditions, owe their existence and outwardly visiblecharacteristics to the preponderating influence of the middlestratum. In this stage the two extreme classes are balanced againstone another; in other words, they are relatively cancelled out.
Times of national collapse are determined by the preponderatinginfluence of the worst elements.
It must be noted here, however, that the broad masses, whichconstitute what I have called the middle section, come forward andmake their influence felt only when the two extreme sections areengaged in mutual strife. In case one of the extreme sections comesout victorious the middle section will readily submit to itsdomination. If the best dominate, the broad masses will follow it.Should the worst extreme turn out triumphant, then the middlesection will at least offer no opposition to it; for the massesthat constitute the middle class never fight their own battles.
The outpouring of blood for four-and-a-half years during the wardestroyed the inner equilibrium between these three sections in sofar as it can be said'--though admitting the sacrifices made bythe middle section'--that the class which consisted of the besthuman elements almost completely disappeared through the loss of somuch of its blood in the war, because it was impossible to replacethe truly enormous quantity of heroic German blood which had beenshed during those four-and-a-half years. In hundreds of thousandsof cases it was always a matter of 'volunteers to thefront', volunteers for patrol and duty, volunteerdispatch carriers, volunteers for establishing and workingtelephonic communications, volunteers for bridge-building,volunteers for the submarines, volunteers for the airservice, volunteers for the storm battalions, and so on, andso 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 orfully developed men, all filled with an ardent love for theircountry, urged on by their own courageous spirit or by a loftysense of their duty'--it was always such men who answered thecall for volunteers. Tens of thousands, indeed hundreds ofthousands, of such men came forward, so that that kind of humanmaterial steadily grew scarcer and scarcer. What did not actuallyfall was maimed in the fight or gradually had to join the ranks ofthe crippled because of the wounds they were constantly receiving,and thus they had to carry on interminably owing to the steadydecrease in the supply of such men. In 1914 whole armies werecomposed of volunteers who, owing to a criminal lack of conscienceon the part of our feckless parliamentarians, had not received anyproper training in times of peace, and so were thrown asdefenceless cannon-fodder to the enemy. The four hundred thousandwho thus fell or were permanently maimed on the battlefields ofFlanders could not be replaced any more. Their loss was somethingfar more than merely numerical. With their death the scales, whichwere already too lightly weighed at that end of the socialstructure which represented our best human quality, now movedupwards rapidly, becoming heavier on the other end with thosevulgar elements of infamy and cowardice'--in short, there wasan increase in the elements that constituted the worst extreme ofour population.
And there was something more: While for four-and-a-half yearsour best human material was being thinned to an exceptional degreeon the battlefields, our worst people wonderfully succeeded insaving themselves. For each hero who made the supreme sacrifice andascended the steps of Valhalla, there was a shirker who cunninglydodged death on the plea of being engaged in business that was moreor less useful at home.
And so the picture which presented itself at the end of the warwas this: The great middle stratum of the nation had fulfilled itsduty and paid its toll of blood. One extreme of the population,which was constituted of the best elements, had given a typicalexample of its heroism and had sacrificed itself almost to a man.The other extreme, which was constituted of the worst elements ofthe population, had preserved itself almost intact, through takingadvantage of absurd laws and also because the authorities failed toenforce certain articles of the military code.
This carefully preserved scum of our nation then made theRevolution. And the reason why it could do so was that the extremesection composed of the best elements was no longer there to opposeit. It no longer existed.
Hence the German Revolution, from the very beginning, dependedon only one section of the population. This act of Cain was notcommitted by the German people as such, but by an obscurecanaille of deserters, hooligans, etc.
The man at the front gladly welcomed the end of the strife inwhich so much blood had been shed. He was happy to be able toreturn home and see his wife and children once again. But he had nomoral connection with the Revolution. He did not like it, nor didhe like those who had provoked and organized it. During thefour-and-a-half years of that bitter struggle at the front he hadcome to forget the party hyenas at home and all their wrangling hadbecome foreign to him.
The Revolution was really popular only with a small section ofthe German people: namely, that class and their accomplices who hadselected the rucksack as the hall-mark of all honourable citizensin this new State. They did not like the Revolution for its ownsake, 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 onthe popular support given to these Marxist freebooters. And yet theyoung Republic stood in need of authority at any cost, unless itwas ready to agree to be overthrown after a short period of chaosby an elementary force assembled from those last elements thatstill remained among the best extreme of the population.
The danger which those who were responsible for the Revolutionfeared most at that time was that, in the turmoil of the confusionwhich they themselves had created, the ground would suddenly betaken from under their feet, that they might be suddenly seized andtransported to another terrain by an iron grip, such as has oftenappeared at these junctures in the history of nations. The Republicmust be consolidated at all costs.
Hence it was forced almost immediately after its foundation toerect another pillar beside that wavering pillar of popularity.They found that power must be organized once again in order toprocure a firmer foundation for their authority.
When those who had been the matadors of the Revolution inDecember 1918, and January and February 1919, felt the groundtrembling beneath their feet they looked around them for men whowould be ready to reinforce them with military support; for theirfeeble position was dependent only on whatever popular favour theyenjoyed. The 'anti-militarist' Republic had need of soldiers. Butthe first and only pillar on which the authority of the Staterested, namely, its popularity, was grounded only on aconglomeration of rowdies and thieves, burglars, deserters,shirkers, etc. Therefore in that section of the nation which wehave called the evil extreme it was useless to look for men whowould be willing to sacrifice their lives on behalf of a new ideal.The section which had nourished the revolutionary idea and carriedout the Revolution was neither able nor willing to call on thesoldiers to protect it. For that section had no wish whatsoever toorganize a republican State, but to disorganize what alreadyexisted and thus satisfy its own instincts all the better. Theirpassword was not the organization and construction of the GermanRepublic, 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 responseamong this class of people, but rather provoked a feeling ofbitterness and repudiation. For they looked upon this step as thebeginning of a breach of faith and trust, and in the building up ofan authority which was no longer based on popular support but alsoon force they saw the beginning of a hostile move against what theRevolution meant essentially for those elements. They feared thatmeasures might be taken against the right to robbery and absolutedomination on the part of a horde of thieves andplunderers'--in short, the worst rabble'--who had brokenout of the convict prisons and left their chains behind.
The representatives of the people might cry out as much as theyliked, but they could get no help from that rabble. The cries forhelp were met with the counter-cry 'traitors' by those very peopleon whose support the popularity of the regime was founded.
Then for the first time large numbers of young Germans werefound who were ready to button on the military uniform once againin the service of 'Peace and Order', as they believed, shoulderingthe carbine and rifle and donning the steel helmet to defend thewreckers of the Fatherland. Volunteer corps were assembled and,although hating the Revolution, they began to defend it. Thepractical effect of their action was to render the Revolution firmand stable. In doing this they acted in perfect good faith.
The real organizer of the Revolution and the actual wire-pullerbehind it, the international Jew, had sized up the situationcorrectly. The German people were not yet ripe to be drawn into theblood swamp of Bolshevism, as the Russian people had been drawn.And that was because there was a closer racial union between theintellectual classes in Germany and the manual workers, and alsobecause 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 thatcountry the intellectual classes were mostly not of Russiannationality, or at least they did not have the racialcharacteristics of the Slav. The thin upper layer of intellectualswhich then existed in Russia might be abolished at any time,because there was no intermediate stratum connecting it organicallywith the great mass of the people. There the mental and moral levelof the great mass of the people was frightfully low.
In Russia the moment the agitators were successful in incitingbroad masses of the people, who could not read or write, againstthe upper layer of intellectuals who were not in contact with themasses or permanently linked with them in any way'--at thatmoment the destiny of Russia was decided, the success of theRevolution was assured. Thereupon the analphabetic Russian becamethe slave of his Jewish dictators who, on their side, were shrewdenough to name their dictatorship 'The Dictatorship of thePeople'.
In the case of Germany an additional factor must be taken intoaccount. Here the Revolution could be carried into effect only ifthe Army could first be gradually dismembered. But the real authorof the Revolution and of the process of disintegration in the Armywas not the soldier who had fought at the front but thecanaille which more or less shunned the light and which wereeither quartered in the home garrisons or were officiating as'indispensables' somewhere in the business world at home. This armywas reinforced by ten thousand deserters who, without running anyparticular risk, could turn their backs on the Front. At all timesthe real poltroon fears nothing so much as death. But at the Fronthe had death before his eyes every day in a thousand differentshapes. There has always been one possible way, and one only, ofmaking weak or wavering men, or even downright poltroons, facetheir duty steadfastly. This means that the deserter must be givento understand that his desertion will bring upon him just the verything he is flying from. At the Front a man may die, but thedeserter must die. Only this draconian threat against everyattempt to desert the flag can have a terrifying effect, not merelyon the individual but also on the mass. Therein lay the meaning andpurpose of the military penal code.
It was a fine belief to think that the great struggle for thelife of a nation could be carried through if it were based solelyon voluntary fidelity arising from and sustained by the knowledgethat such a struggle was necessary. The voluntary fulfilment ofone's duty is a motive that determines the actions of only the bestmen, but not of the average type of men. Hence special laws arenecessary; just as, for instance, the law against stealing, whichwas not made for men who are honest on principle but for the weakand unstable elements. Such laws are meant to hinder the evil-doerthrough their deterrent effect and thus prevent a state of affairsfrom 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 sharein the robbery than to stand by with empty hands or allow oneselfto be robbed.
It was a mistake to believe that in a struggle which, accordingto all human foresight, might last for several years it would bepossible to dispense with those expedients which the experience ofhundreds and even of thousands of years had proved to be effectivein making weak and unstable men face and fulfil their duty indifficult times and at moments of great nervous stress.
For the voluntary war hero it is, of course, not necessary tohave the death penalty in the military code, but it is necessaryfor the cowardly egoists who value their own lives more than theexistence of the community in the hour of national need. Such weakand characterless people can be held back from surrendering totheir cowardice only by the application of the heaviest penalties.When men have to struggle with death every day and remain for weeksin trenches of mire, often very badly supplied with food, the manwho is unsure of himself and begins to waver cannot be made tostick to his post by threats of imprisonment or even penalservitude. Only by a ruthless enforcement of the death penalty canthis be effected. For experience shows that at such a time therecruit considers prison a thousand times more preferable than thebattlefield. In prison at least his precious life is not in danger.The practical abolition of the death penalty during the war was amistake for which we had to pay dearly. Such omission really meantthat the military penal code was no longer recognized as valid. Anarmy of deserters poured into the stations at the rear or returnedhome, especially in 1918, and there began to form that hugecriminal organization with which we were suddenly faced, afterNovember 7th, 1918, and which perpetrated the Revolution.
The Front had nothing to do with all this. Naturally, thesoldiers at the Front were yearning for peace. But it was preciselythat fact which represented a special danger for the Revolution.For when the German soldiers began to draw near home, after theArmistice, the revolutionaries were in trepidation and asked thesame question again and again: What will the troops from the Frontdo? Will the field-greys stand for it?
During those weeks the Revolution was forced to give itself atleast an external appearance of moderation, if it were not to runthe risk of being wrecked in a moment by a few German divisions.For at that time, even if the commander of one division alone hadmade up his mind to rally the soldiers of his division, who hadalways remained faithful to him, in an onslaught to tear down thered flag and put the 'councils' up against the wall, or, if therewas any resistance, to break it with trench-mortars and handgrenades, that division would have grown into an army of sixtydivisions in less than four weeks. The Jew wire-pullers wereterrified by this prospect more than by anything else; and toforestall this particular danger they found it necessary to givethe Revolution a certain aspect of moderation. They dared not allowit to degenerate into Bolshevism, so they had to face the existingconditions by putting up the hypocritical picture of 'order andtranquillity'. Hence many important concessions, the appeal to theold civil service and to the heads of the old Army. They would beneeded at least for a certain time, and only when they had servedthe purpose of Turks' Heads could the deserved kick-out beadministered with impunity. Then the Republic would be takenentirely out of the hands of the old servants of the State anddelivered into the claws of the revolutionaries.
They thought that this was the only plan which would succeed induping the old generals and civil servants and disarm any eventualopposition beforehand through the apparently harmless and mildcharacter of the new regime.
Practical experience has shown to what extent the plansucceeded.
The Revolution, however, was not made by the peaceful andorderly elements of the nation but rather by rioters, thieves androbbers. And the way in which the Revolution was developing did notaccord with the intentions of these latter elements; still, ontactical grounds, it was not possible to explain to them thereasons for the course things were taking and make that courseacceptable.
As Social Democracy gradually gained power it lost more and morethe character of a crude revolutionary party. Of course in theirinner hearts the Social Democrats wanted a revolution; and theirleaders had no other end in view. Certainly not. But what finallyresulted was only a revolutionary programme; but not a body of menwho would be able to carry it out. A revolution cannot be carriedthrough by a party of ten million members. If such a movement wereattempted the leaders would find that it was not an extreme sectionof the population on which they had to depend butrather the broadmasses of the middle stratum; hence the inert masses.
Recognizing all this, already during the war, the Jews causedthe famous split in the Social Democratic Party. While the SocialDemocratic Party, conforming to the inertia of its mass following,clung like a leaden weight on the neck of the national defence, theactively radical elements were extracted from it and formed intonew aggressive columns for purposes of attack. The IndependentSocialist Party and the Spartacist League were the storm battalionsof revolutionary Marxism. The objective assigned to them was tocreate a fait accompli, on the grounds of which the massesof the Social Democratic Party could take their stand, having beenprepared for this event long beforehand. The feckless bourgeoisiehad been estimated at its just value by the Marxists and treateden canaille. Nobody bothered about it, knowing well that intheir canine servility the representatives of an old and worn-outgeneration would not be able to offer any serious resistance.
When the Revolution had succeeded and its artificers believedthat the main pillars of the old State had been broken down, theArmy returning from the Front began to appear in the light of asinister sphinx and thus made it necessary to slow down thenational course of the Revolution. The main body of the SocialDemocratic horde occupied the conquered positions, and theIndependent Socialist and Spartacist storm battalions wereside-tracked.
But that did not happen without a struggle.
The activist assault formations that had started the Revolutionwere dissatisfied and felt that they had been betrayed. They nowwanted to continue the fight on their own account. But theirillimitable racketeering became odious even to the wire-pullers ofthe Revolution. For the Revolution itself had scarcely beenaccomplished when two camps appeared. In the one camp were theelements of peace and order; in the other were those of blood andterror. Was it not perfectly natural that our bourgeoisie shouldrush with flying colours to the camp of peace and order? For oncein their lives their piteous political organizations found itpossible to act, inasmuch as the ground had been prepared for themon which they were glad to get a new footing; and thus to a certainextent they found themselves in coalition with that power whichthey hated but feared. The German political bourgeoisie achievedthe high honour of being able to associate itself with the accursedMarxist leaders for the purpose of combating Bolshevism.
Thus the following state of affairs took shape as early asDecember 1918 and January 1919:
A minority constituted of the worst elements had made theRevolution. And behind this minority all the Marxist partiesimmediately fell into step. The Revolution itself had an outwardappearance of moderation, which aroused against it the enmity ofthe fanatical extremists. These began to launch hand-grenades andfire machine-guns, occupying public buildings, thus threatening todestroy the moderate appearance of the Revolution. To prevent thisterror from developing further a truce was concluded between therepresentatives of the new regime and the adherents of the oldorder, so as to be able to wage a common fight against theextremists. The result was that the enemies of the Republic ceasedto oppose the Republic as such and helped to subjugate those whowere also enemies of the Republic, though for quite differentreasons. But a further result was that all danger of the adherentsof the old State putting up a fight against the new was nowdefinitely averted.
This fact must always be clearly kept in mind. Only byremembering it can we understand how it was possible that a nationin which nine-tenths of the people had not joined in a revolution,where seven-tenths repudiated it and six-tenths detestedit'--how this nation allowed the Revolution to be imposed uponit by the remaining one-tenth of the population.
Gradually the barricade heroes in the Spartacist camp peteredout, and so did the nationalist patriots and idealists on the otherside. As these two groups steadily dwindled, the masses of themiddle stratum, as always happens, triumphed. The Bourgeoisie andthe Marxists met together on the grounds of accomplished facts, andthe Republic began to be consolidated. At first, however, that didnot prevent the bourgeois parties from propounding their monarchistideas for some time further, especially at the elections, wherebythey endeavoured to conjure up the spirits of the dead past toencourage their own feeble-hearted followers. It was not an honestproceeding. In their hearts they had broken with the monarchy longago; but the foulness of the new regime had begun to extend itscorruptive action and make itself felt in the camp of the bourgeoisparties. The common bourgeois politician now felt better in theslime of republican corruption than in the severe decency of thedefunct State, which still lived in his memory.
As I have already pointed out, after the destruction of the oldArmy the revolutionary leaders were forced to strengthen statalauthority by creating a new factor of power. In the conditions thatexisted they could do this only by winning over to their side theadherents of a Weltanschauung which was a directcontradiction of their own. From those elements alone it waspossible slowly to create a new army which, limited numerically bythe peace treaties, had to be subsequently transformed in spirit soas to become an instrument of the new regime.
Setting aside the defects of the old State, which really becamethe cause of the Revolution, if we ask how it was possible to carrythe Revolution to a successful issue as a political act, we arriveat the following conclusions:
l. It was due to a process of dry rot in our conceptions of dutyand obedience.
2. It was due also to the passive timidity of the Parties whowere supposed to uphold the State.
To this the following must be added: The dry rot which attackedour concepts of duty and obedience was fundamentally due to ourwholly non-national and purely State education. From this came thehabit of confusing means and ends. Consciousness of duty,fulfilment of duty, and obedience, are not ends in themselves nomore than the State is an end in itself; but they all ought to beemployed as means to facilitate and assure the existence of acommunity of people who are kindred both physically andspiritually. At a moment when a nation is manifestly collapsing andwhen all outward signs show that it is on the point of becoming thevictim of ruthless oppression, thanks to the conduct of a fewmiscreants, to obey these people and fulfil one's duty towards themis merely doctrinaire formalism, and indeed pure folly; whereas, onthe other hand, the refusal of obedience and fulfilment of duty insuch a case might save the nation from collapse. According to ourcurrent bourgeois idea of the State, if a divisional generalreceived from above the order not to shoot he fulfilled his dutyand therefore acted rightly in not shooting, because to thebourgeois mind blind formal obedience is a more valuable thing thanthe life of a nation. But according to the National Socialistconcept it is not obedience to weak superiors that should prevailat such moments, in such an hour the duty of assuming personalresponsibility towards the whole nation makes its appearance.
The Revolution succeeded because that concept had ceased to be avital force with our people, or rather with our governments, anddied down to something that was merely formal and doctrinaire.
As regards the second point, it may be said that the moreprofound cause of the fecklessness of the bourgeois parties must beattributed to the fact that the most active and upright section ofour people had lost their lives in the war. Apart from that, thebourgeois parties, which may be considered as the only politicalformations that stood by the old State, were convinced that theyought to defend their principles only by intellectual ways andmeans, since the use of physical force was permitted only to theState. That outlook was a sign of the weakness and decadence whichhad been gradually developing. And it was also senseless at aperiod when there was a political adversary who had long agoabandoned that standpoint and, instead of this, had openly declaredthat he meant to attain his political ends by force whenever thatbecame possible. When Marxism emerged in the world of bourgeoisdemocracy, as a consequence of that democracy itself, the appealsent out by the bourgeois democracy to fight Marxism withintellectual weapons was a piece of folly for which a terribleexpiation had to be made later on. For Marxism always professed thedoctrine that the use of arms was a matter which had to be judgedfrom the standpoint of expediency and that success justified theuse of arms.
This idea was proved correct during the days from November 7 to10, 1918. The Marxists did not then bother themselves in the leastabout parliament or democracy, but they gave the death blow to bothby turning loose their horde of criminals to shoot and raisehell.
When the Revolution was over the bourgeois parties changed thetitle of their firm and suddenly reappeared, the heroic leadersemerging from dark cellars or more lightsome storehouses where theyhad sought refuge. But, just as happens in the case of allrepresentatives of antiquated institutions, they had not forgottentheir errors or learned anything new. Their political programme wasgrounded in the past, even though they themselves had becomereconciled to the new regime. Their aim was to secure a share inthe new establishment, and so they continued the use of words astheir sole weapon.
Therefore after the Revolution the bourgeois parties alsocapitulated to the street in a miserable fashion.
When the law for the Protection of the Republic was introducedthe majority was not at first in favour of it. But, confronted withtwo hundred thousand Marxists demonstrating in the streets, thebourgeois 'statesmen' were so terror-stricken that they voted forthe Law against their wills, for the edifying reason that otherwisethey feared they might get their heads smashed by the enragedmasses on leaving the Reichstag.
And so the new State developed along its own course, as if therehad been no national opposition at all.
The only organizations which at that time had the strength andcourage to face Marxism and its enraged masses were first of allthe volunteer corps (Note 19), and subsequently the organizationsfor self-defence, the civic guards and finally the associationsformed by the demobilized soldiers of the old Army.
But the existence of these bodies did not appreciably change thecourse 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 inthe street, the Leagues of Defence could not exercise any influencebecause they had no political idea and especially because they hadno definite political aim in view.
The success which Marxism once attained was due to perfectco-operation between political purposes and ruthless force. Whatdeprived nationalist Germany of all practical hopes of shapingGerman development was the lack of a determined co-operationbetween 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 theseaspirations, least of all in the streets.
The Defence Leagues had force at their disposal. They weremasters of the street and of the State, but they lacked politicalideas and aims on behalf of which their forces might have been orcould have been employed in the interests of the German nation. Thecunning Jew was able in both cases, by his astute powers ofpersuasion, in reinforcing an already existing tendency to makethis unfortunate state of affairs permanent and at the same time todrive the roots of it still deeper.
The Jew succeeded brilliantly in using his Press for the purposeof spreading abroad the idea that the defence associations were ofa 'non-political' character just as in politics he was alwaysastute enough to praise the purely intellectual character of thestruggle and demand that it must always be kept on that plane
Millions of German imbeciles then repeated this folly withouthaving the slightest suspicion that by so doing they were, for allpractical purposes, disarming themselves and delivering themselvesdefenceless into the hands of the Jew.
But there is a natural explanation of this also. The lack of agreat idea which would re-shape things anew has always meant alimitation in fighting power. The conviction of the right to employeven the most brutal weapons is always associated with an ardentfaith in the necessity for a new and revolutionary transformationof the world.
A movement which does not fight for such high aims and idealswill never have recourse to extreme means.
The appearance of a new and great idea was the secret of successin the French Revolution. The Russian Revolution owes its triumphto an idea. And it was only the idea that enabled Fascismtriumphantly to subject a whole nation to a process of completerenovation.
Bourgeois parties are not capable of such an achievement. And itwas not the bourgeois parties alone that fixed their aim in arestoration of the past. The defence associations also did so, inso far as they concerned themselves with political aims at all. Thespirit of the old war legions and Kyffauser tendencies lived inthem and therewith helped politically to blunt the sharpest weaponswhich the German nation then possessed and allow them to rust inthe hands of republican serfs. The fact that these associationswere inspired by the best of intentions in so doing, and certainlyacted in good faith, does not alter in the slightest degree thefoolishness of the course they adopted.
In the consolidated Reichswehr Marxism gradually acquiredthe support of force, which it needed for its authority. As alogical consequence it proceeded to abolish those defenceassociations which it considered dangerous, declaring that theywere now no longer necessary. Some rash leaders who defied theMarxist orders were summoned to court and sent to prison. But theyall got what they had deserved.
The founding of the National Socialist German Labour Partyincited a movement which was the first to fix its aim, not in amechanical restoration of the past'--as the bourgeois partiesdid'--but in the substitution of an organic People's State forthe present absurd statal mechanism.
From the first day of its foundation the new movement took itsstand on the principle that its ideas had to be propagated byintellectual means but that, wherever necessary, muscular forcemust be employed to support this propaganda. In accordance withtheir conviction of the paramount importance of the new doctrine,the leaders of the new movement naturally believe that no sacrificecan be considered too great when it is a question of carryingthrough the purpose of the movement.
I have emphasized that in certain circumstances a movement whichis meant to win over the hearts of the people must be ready todefend itself with its own forces against terrorist attempts on thepart of its adversaries. It has invariably happened in the historyof the world that formal State authority has failed to break areign of terror which was inspired by a Weltanschauung. Itcan only be conquered by a new and different Weltanschauungwhose representatives are quite as audacious and determined. Theacknowledgment of this fact has always been very unpleasant for thebureaucrats who are the protectors of the State, but the factremains nevertheless. The rulers of the State can guaranteetranquillity and order only in case the State embodies aWeltanschauung which is shared in by the people as a whole;so that elements of disturbance can be treated as isolatedcriminals, instead of being considered as the champions of an ideawhich is diametrically opposed to official opinions. If such shouldbe the case the State may employ the most violent measures forcenturies long against the terror that threatens it; but in the endall these measures will prove futile, and the State will have tosuccumb.
The German State is intensely overrun by Marxism. In a strugglethat went on for seventy years the State was not able to preventthe triumph of the Marxist idea. Even though the sentences to penalservitude and imprisonment amounted in all to thousands of years,and even though the most sanguinary methods of repression were ininnumerable instances threatened against the champions of theMarxist Weltanschauung, in the end the State was forced tocapitulate almost completely. The ordinary bourgeois politicalleaders will deny all this, but their protests are futile.
Seeing that the State capitulated unconditionally to Marxism onNovember 9th, 1918, it will not suddenly rise up tomorrow as theconqueror of Marxism. On the contrary. Bourgeois simpletons sittingon office stools in the various ministries babble about thenecessity of not governing against the wishes of the workers, andby the word 'workers' they mean the Marxists. By identifying theGerman worker with Marxism not only are they guilty of a vilefalsification of the truth, but they thus try to hide their owncollapse before the Marxist idea and the Marxist organization.
In view of the complete subordination of the present State toMarxism, the National Socialist Movement feels all the more boundnot only to prepare the way for the triumph of its idea byappealing to the reason and understanding of the public but also totake upon itself the responsibility of organizing its own defenceagainst the terror of the International, which is intoxicated withits own victory.
I have already described how practical experience in our youngmovement led us slowly to organize a system of defence for ourmeetings. This gradually assumed the character of a military bodyspecially trained for the maintenance of order, and tended todevelop into a service which would have its properly organizedcadres.
This new formation might resemble the defence associationsexternally, but in reality there were no grounds of comparisonbetween the one and the other.
As I have already said, the German defence organizations did nothave any definite political ideas of their own. They really wereonly associations for mutual protection, and they were trained andorganized accordingly, so that they were an illegal complement orauxiliary to the legal forces of the State. Their character as freecorps arose only from the way in which they were constructed andthe situation in which the State found itself at that time. Butthey certainly could not claim to be free corps on the grounds thatthey were associations formed freely and privately for the purposeof fighting for their own freely formed political convictions. Suchthey were not, despite the fact that some of their leaders and someassociations as such were definitely opposed to the Republic. Forbefore we can speak of political convictions in the higher sense wemust be something more than merely convinced that the existingregime is defective. Political convictions in the higher sense meanthat one has the picture of a new regime clearly before one's mind,feels that the establishment of this regime is an absolutenecessity and sets himself to carry out that purpose as the highesttask to which his life can be devoted.
The troops for the preservation of order, which were then formedunder the National Socialist Movement, were fundamentally differentfrom all the other defence associations by reason of the fact thatour formations were not meant in any way to defend the state ofthings created by the Revolution, but rather that they were meantexclusively to support our struggle for the creation of a newGermany.
In the beginning this body was merely a guard to maintain orderat our meetings. Its first task was limited to making it possiblefor us to hold our meetings, which otherwise would have beencompletely prevented by our opponents. These men were at that timetrained merely for purposes of attack, but they were not taught toadore the big stick exclusively, as was then pretended in stupidGerman patriotic circles. They used the cudgel because they knewthat it can be made impossible for high ideals to be put forward ifthe man who endeavours to propagate them can be struck down withthe cudgel. As a matter of fact, it has happened in history notinfrequently that some of the greatest minds have perished underthe blows of the most insignificant helots. Our bodyguards did notlook upon violence as an end in itself, but they protected theexpositors of ideal aims and purposes against hostile coercion byviolence. They also understood that there was no obligation toundertake the defence of a State which did not guarantee thedefence of the nation, but that, on the contrary, they had todefend the nation against those who were threatening to destroynation and State.
After the fight which took place at the meeting in the MunichHofbr¤uhaus, where the small number of our guards who were presentwon everlasting fame for themselves by the heroic manner in whichthey stormed the adversaries; these guards were called The StormDetachment. As the name itself indicates, they represent only adetachment of the Movement. They are one constituent elementof it, just as is the Press, the propaganda, educationalinstitutes, and other sections of the Party.
We learned how necessary was the formation of such a body, notonly from our experience on the occasion of that memorable meetingbut also when we sought gradually to carry the Movement beyondMunich and extend it to the other parts of Germany. Once we hadbegun to appear as a danger to Marxism the Marxists lost noopportunity of trying to crush beforehand all preparations for theholding of National Socialist meetings. When they did not succeedin this they tried to break up the meeting itself. It goes withoutsaying that all the Marxist organizations, no matter of what gradeor view, blindly supported the policy and activities of theirrepresentations in every case. But what is to be said of thebourgeois parties who, when they were reduced to silence by thesesame Marxists and in many places did not dare to send theirspeakers to appear before the public, yet showed themselvespleased, in a stupid and incomprehensible manner, every time wereceived any kind of set-back in our fight against Marxism. Thebourgeois parties were happy to think that those whom theythemselves could not stand up against, but had to knuckle down to,could not be broken by us. What must be said of those Stateofficials, chiefs of police, and even cabinet ministers, who showeda scandalous lack of principle in presenting themselves externallyto the public as 'national' and yet shamelessly acted as thehenchmen of the Marxists in the disputes which we, NationalSocialists, had with the latter. What can be said of persons whodebased themselves so far, for the sake of a little abject praisein the Jewish Press, that they persecuted those men to whose heroiccourage and intervention, regardless of risk, they were partlyindebted for not having been torn to pieces by the Red mob a fewyears previously and strung up to the lamp-posts?
One day these lamentable phenomena fired the late butunforgotten Prefect P¶hner'--a man whose unbendingstraightforwardness forced him to hate all twisters and to hatethem as only a man with an honest heart can hate'--to say: "Inall my life I wished to be first a German and then an official, andI never wanted to mix up with these creatures who, as if they werekept officials, prostituted themselves before anybody who couldplay lord and master for the time being."
It was a specially sad thing that gradually tens of thousands ofhonest and loyal servants of the State did not only come under thepower of such people but were also slowly contaminated by theirunprincipled morals. Moreover, these kind of men pursued honestofficials with a furious hatred, degrading them and driving themfrom 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 onlyin very rare instances was it given. Only by building up its owndefence could our movement become secure and attract that amount ofpublic attention and general respect which is given to those whocan defend themselves when attacked.
As an underlying principle in the internal development of theStorm Detachment, we came to the decision that not only should itbe perfectly trained in bodily efficiency but that the men shouldbe so instructed as to make them indomitably convinced champions ofthe National Socialist ideas and, finally, that they should beschooled to observe the strictest discipline. This body was to havenothing to do with the defence organizations of the bourgeois typeand especially not with any secret organization.
My reasons at that time for guarding strictly against lettingthe Storm Detachment of the German National Socialist Labour Partyappear as a defence association were as follows:
On purely practical grounds it is impossible to build up anational defence organization by means of private associations,unless the State makes an enormous contribution to it. Whoeverthinks otherwise overestimates his own powers. Now it is entirelyout of the question to form organizations of any military value fora definite purpose on the principle of so-called 'voluntarydiscipline'. Here the chief support for enforcing orders, namely,the power of inflicting punishment, is lacking. In the autumn, orrather in the spring, of 1919 it was still possible to raise'volunteer corps', not only because most of the men who cameforward at that time had been through the school of the old Army,but also because the kind of duty imposed there constrained theindividual to absolute obedience at least for a definite period oftime.
That spirit is entirely lacking in the volunteer defenceorganizations of to-day. The more the defence association grows,the weaker its discipline becomes and so much the less can onedemand from the individual members. Thus the whole organizationwill more and more assume the character of the old non-politicalassociations of war comrades and veterans.
It is impossible to carry through a voluntary training inmilitary service for larger masses unless one is assured absolutepower of command. There will always be few men who will voluntarilyand spontaneously submit to that kind of obedience which isconsidered natural and necessary in the Army.
Moreover, a proper system of military training cannot bedeveloped where there are such ridiculously scanty means as thoseat the disposal of the defence associations. The principal task ofsuch an institution must be to impart the best and most reliablekind of instruction. Eight years have passed since the end of theWar, and during that time none of our German youth, at an age whenformerly they would have had to do military service, have receivedany systematic training at all. The aim of a defence associationcannot be to enlist here and now all those who have alreadyreceived a military training; for in that case it could be reckonedwith mathematical accuracy when the last member would leave theassociation. Even the younger soldier from 1918 will no longer befit for front-line service twenty years later, and we areapproaching that state of things with a rapidity that gives causefor anxiety. Thus the defence associations must assume more andmore the aspect of the old ex-service men's societies. But thatcannot be the meaning and purpose of an institution which callsitself, not an association of ex-service men but a defenceassociation, indicating by this title that it considers its task tobe, not only to preserve the tradition of the old soldiers and holdthem together but also to propagate the idea of national defenceand be able to carry this idea into practical effect, which meansthe creation of a body of men who are fit and trained for militarydefence.
But this implies that those elements will receive a militarytraining which up to now have received none. This is something thatin practice is impossible for the defence associations. Realsoldiers cannot be made by a training of one or two hours per week.In view of the enormously increasing demands which modern warfareimposes on each individual soldier to-day, a military service oftwo years is barely sufficient to transform a raw recruit into atrained soldier. At the Front during the War we all saw the fearfulconsequences which our young recruits had to suffer from their lackof a thorough military training. Volunteer formations which hadbeen drilled for fifteen or twenty weeks under an iron disciplineand shown unlimited self-denial proved nevertheless to be no betterthan cannon fodder at the Front. Only when distributed among theranks of the old and experienced soldiers could the young recruits,who had been trained for four or six months, become useful membersof a regiment. Guided by the 'old men', they adapted themselvesgradually to their task.
In the light of all this, how hopeless must the attempt be tocreate a body of fighting troops by a so-called training of one ortwo hours in the week, without any definite power of command andwithout any considerable means. In that way perhaps one couldrefresh military training in old soldiers, but raw recruits cannotthus be transformed into expert soldiers.
How such a proceeding produces utterly worthless results mayalso be demonstrated by the fact that at the same time as theseso-called volunteer defence associations, with great effort andoutcry and under difficulties and lack of necessities, try toeducate and train a few thousand men of goodwill (the others neednot be taken into account) for purposes of national defence, theState teaches our young men democratic and pacifist ideas and thusdeprives millions and millions of their national instincts, poisonstheir logical sense of patriotism and gradually turns them into aherd of sheep who will patiently follow any arbitrary command. Thusthey render ridiculous all those attempts made by the defenceassociations to inculcate their ideas in the minds of the Germanyouth.
Almost more important is the following consideration, which hasalways made me take up a stand against all attempts at a so-calledmilitary 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 numberof Germans every year to be efficient soldiers, not only as regardstheir mental outlook but also as regards bodily efficiency and theexpert handling of arms, the result must necessarily be null andvoid in a State whose whole tendency makes it not only look uponsuch a defensive formation as undesirable but even positively hateit, because such an association would completely contradict theintimate aims of the political leaders, who are the corrupters ofthis State.
But anyhow, such a result would be worthless under governmentswhich have demonstrated by their own acts that they do not lay theslightest importance on the military power of the nation and arenot disposed to permit an appeal to that power only in case that itwere necessary for the protection of their own malignantexistence.
And that is the state of affairs to-day. It is not ridiculous tothink of training some ten thousand men in the use of arms, andcarry on that training surreptitiously, when a few years previouslythe State, having shamefully sacrificed eight-and-a-half millionhighly trained soldiers, not merely did not require their servicesany more, but, as a mark of gratitude for their sacrifices, heldthem up to public contumely. Shall we train soldiers for a regimewhich besmirched and spat upon our most glorious soldiers, tore themedals and badges from their breasts, trampled on their flags andderided their achievements? Has the present regime taken one steptowards restoring the honour of the old army and bringing those whodestroyed and outraged it to answer for their deeds? Not in theleast. On the contrary, the people I have just referred to may beseen enthroned in the highest positions under the State to-day. Andyet it was said at Leipzig: "Right goes with might." Since,however, in our Republic to-day might is in the hands of the verymen who arranged for the Revolution, and since that Revolutionrepresents a most despicable act of high treason against thenation'--yea, the vilest act in German history'--there cansurely be no grounds for saying that might of this character shouldbe enhanced by the formation of a new young army. It is against allsound reason.
The importance which this State attached, after the Revolutionof 1918, to the reinforcement of its position from the militarypoint of view is clearly and unmistakably demonstrated by itsattitude towards the large self-defence organizations which existedin that period. They were not unwelcome as long as they were of usefor the personal protection of the miserable creatures cast up bythe Revolution.
But the danger to these creatures seemed to disappear as thedebasement of our people gradually increased. As the existence ofthe defence associations no longer implied a reinforcement of thenational policy they became superfluous. Hence every effort wasmade to disarm them and suppress them wherever that waspossible.
History records only a few examples of gratitude on the part ofprinces. But there is not one patriot among the new bourgeoisie whocan count on the gratitude of revolutionary incendiaries andassassins, persons who have enriched themselves from the publicspoil and betrayed the nation. In examining the problem as to thewisdom of forming these defence associations I have never ceased toask: 'For whom shall I train these young men? For what purpose willthey be employed when they will have to be called out?' The answerto these questions lays down at the same time the best rule for usto follow.
If the present State should one day have to call upon trainedtroops of this kind it would never be for the purpose of defendingthe interests of the nation vis- -vis those of the strangerbut rather to protect the oppressors of the nation inside thecountry against the danger of a general outbreak of wrath on thepart of a nation which has been deceived and betrayed and whoseinterests have been bartered away.
For this reason it was decided that the Storm Detachment of theGerman National Socialist Labour Party ought not to be in thenature of a military organization. It had to be an instrument ofprotection and education for the National Socialist Movement andits duties should be in quite a different sphere from that of themilitary defence association.
And, of course, the Storm Detachment should not be in the natureof a secret organization. Secret organizations are established onlyfor purposes that are against the law. Therewith the purpose ofsuch an organization is limited by its very nature. Considering theloquacious propensities of the German people, it is not possible tobuild up any vast organization, keeping it secret at the same timeand cloaking its purpose. Every attempt of that kind is destined toturn out absolutely futile. It is not merely that our policeofficials to-day have at their disposal a staff of eaves-droppersand other such rabble who are ready to play traitor, like Judas,for thirty pieces of silver and will betray whatever secrets theycan discover and will invent what they would like to reveal. Inorder to forestall such eventualities, it is never possible to bindone's own followers to the silence that is necessary. Only smallgroups can become really secret societies, and that only after longyears of filtration. But the very smallness of such groups woulddeprive them of all value for the National Socialist Movement. Whatwe needed then and need now is not one or two hundred dare-devilconspirators but a hundred thousand devoted champions of ourWeltanschauung. The work must not be done through secretconventicles but through formidable mass demonstrations in public.Dagger and pistol and poison-vial cannot clear the way for theprogress of the movement. That can be done only by winning over theman in the street. We must overthrow Marxism, so that for thefuture National Socialism will be master of the street, just as itwill one day become master of the State.
There is another danger connected with secret societies. It liesin the fact that their members often completely misunderstand thegreatness of the task in hand and are apt to believe that afavourable destiny can be assured for the nation all at once bymeans of a single murder. Such a belief may find historicaljustification by appealing to cases where a nation had beensuffering under the tyranny of some oppressor who at the same timewas a man of genius and whose extraordinary personality guaranteedthe internal solidity of his position and enabled him to maintainhis fearful oppression. In such cases a man may suddenly arise fromthe ranks of the people who is ready to sacrifice himself andplunge the deadly steel into the heart of the hated individual. Inorder to look upon such a deed as abhorrent one must have therepublican mentality of that petty canaille who areconscious of their own crime. But the greatest champion (Note 20)of liberty that the German people have ever had has glorified sucha deed in William Tell.
During 1919 and 1920 there was danger that the members of secretorganizations, under the influence of great historical examples andovercome by the immensity of the nation's misfortunes, mightattempt 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 Marxisttriumph was not due to the superior genius of one remarkable personbut rather to immeasurable incompetence and cowardly shirking onthe part of the bourgeoisie. The hardest criticism that can beuttered against our bourgeoisie is simply to state the fact that itsubmitted to the Revolution, even though the Revolution did notproduce one single man of eminent worth. One can always understandhow it was possible to capitulate before a Robespierre, a Danton,or a Marat; but it was utterly scandalous to go down on all foursbefore the withered Scheidemann, the obese Herr Erzberger,Frederick Ebert, and the innumerable other political pigmies of theRevolution. There was not a single man of parts in whom one couldsee the revolutionary man of genius. Therein lay the country'smisfortune; for they were only revolutionary bugs, Spartacistswholesale and retail. To suppress one of them would be an act of noconsequence. The only result would be that another pair ofbloodsuckers, equally fat and thirsty, would be ready to take hisplace.
During those years we had to take up a determined stand againstan idea which owed its origin and foundation to historical episodesthat were really great, but to which our own despicable epoch didnot bear the slightest similarity.
The same reply may be given when there is question of puttingsomebody 'on the spot' who has acted as a traitor to his country.It would be ridiculous and illogical to shoot a poor wretch (Note21) who had betrayed the position of a howitzer to the enemy whilethe highest positions of the government are occupied by a rabblewho bartered away a whole empire, who have on their consciences thedeaths of two million men who were sacrificed in vain, fellows whowere responsible for the millions maimed in the war and who make athriving business out of the republican regime without allowingtheir souls to be disturbed in any way. It would be absurd to doaway with small traitors in a State whose government has absolvedthe great traitors from all punishment. For it might easily happenthat one day an honest idealist, who, out of love for his country,had removed from circulation some miserable informer that had giveninformation about secret stores of arms might now be called toanswer for his act before the chief traitors of the country. Andthere is still an important question: Shall some small traitorouscreature be suppressed by another small traitor, or by an idealist?In the former case the result would be doubtful and the deed wouldalmost surely be revealed later on. In the second case a pettyrascal is put out of the way and the life of an idealist who may beirreplaceable is in jeopardy.
For myself, I believe that small thieves should not be hangedwhile big thieves are allowed to go free. One day a nationaltribunal will have to judge and sentence some tens of thousands oforganizers who were responsible for the criminal November betrayaland all the consequences that followed on it. Such an example willteach the necessary lesson, once and for ever, to those paltrytraitors who revealed to the enemy the places where arms werehidden.
On the grounds of these considerations I steadfastly forbade allparticipation in secret societies, and I took care that the StormDetachment should not assume such a character. During those years Ikept the National Socialist Movement away from those experimentswhich were being undertaken by young Germans who for the most partwere inspired with a sublime idealism but who became the victims oftheir own deeds, because they could not ameliorate the lot of theirfatherland to the slightest degree.
If then the Storm Detachment must not be either a militarydefence organization or a secret society, the following conclusionsmust result:
1. Its training must not be organized from the militarystandpoint but from the standpoint of what is most practical forparty purposes. Seeing that its members must undergo a goodphysical training, the place of chief importance must not be givento military drill but rather to the practice of sports. I havealways considered boxing and ju-jitsu more important than some kindof bad, because mediocre, training in rifle-shooting. If the Germannation were presented with a body of young men who had beenperfectly trained in athletic sports, who were imbued with anardent love for their country and a readiness to take theinitiative in a fight, then the national State could make an armyout of that body within less than two years if it were necessary,provided the cadres already existed. In the actual state of affairsonly the Reichswehr could furnish the cadres and not adefence organization that was neither one thing nor the other.Bodily efficiency would develop in the individual a conviction ofhis superiority and would give him that confidence which is alwaysbased only on the consciousness of one's own powers. They must alsodevelop that athletic agility which can be employed as a defensiveweapon in the service of the Movement.
2. In order to safeguard the Storm Detachment against anytendency towards secrecy, not only must the uniform be such that itcan immediately be recognized by everybody, but the large number ofits effectives show the direction in which the Movement is goingand which must be known to the whole public. The members of theStorm Detachment must not hold secret gatherings but must march inthe open and thus, by their actions, put an end to all legendsabout a secret organization. In order to keep them away from alltemptations towards finding an outlet for their activities in smallconspiracies, from the very beginning we had to inculcate in theirminds the great idea of the Movement and educate them so thoroughlyto the task of defending this idea that their horizon becameenlarged and that the individual no longer considered it hismission to remove from circulation some rascal or other, whetherbig or small, but to devote himself entirely to the task ofbringing about the establishment of a new National SocialistPeople's State. In this way the struggle against the present Statewas placed on a higher plane than that of petty revenge and smallconspiracies. It was elevated to the level of a spiritual struggleon behalf of a Weltanschauung, for the destruction ofMarxism in all its shapes and forms.
3. The form of organization adopted for the Storm Detachment, aswell as its uniform and equipment, had to follow different modelsfrom those of the old Army. They had to be specially suited to therequirements of the task that was assigned to the StormDetachment.
These were the ideas I followed in 1920 and 1921. I endeavouredto instil them gradually into the members of the youngorganization. And the result was that by the midsummer of 1922 wehad a goodly number of formations which consisted of a hundred meneach. By the late autumn of that year these formations receivedtheir distinctive uniforms. There were three events which turnedout to be of supreme importance for the subsequent development ofthe Storm Detachment.
1. The great mass demonstration against the Law for theProtection of the Republic. This demonstration was held in the latesummer of 1922 on the K¶nigsplatz in Munich, by all thepatriotic societies. The National Socialist Movement alsoparticipated in it. The march-past of our party, in serried ranks,was led by six Munich companies of a hundred men each, followed bythe political sections of the Party. Two bands marched with us andabout fifteen flags were carried. When the National Socialistsarrived at the great square it was already half full, but no flagwas flying. Our entry aroused unbounded enthusiasm. I myself hadthe honour of being one of the speakers who addressed that mass ofabout sixty thousand people.
The demonstration was an overwhelming success; especiallybecause it was proved for the first time that nationalist Munichcould march on the streets, in spite of all threats from the Reds.Members of the organization for the defence of the Red Republicendeavoured to hinder the marching columns by their terroristactivities, but they were scattered by the companies of the StormDetachment within a few minutes and sent off with bleeding skulls.The National Socialist Movement had then shown for the first timethat in future it was determined to exercise the right to march onthe streets and thus take this monopoly away from the internationaltraitors and enemies of the country.
The result of that day was an incontestable proof that our ideasfor the creation of the Storm Detachment were right, both from thepsychological viewpoint and as to the manner in which this body wasorganized.
On the basis of this success the enlistment progressed sorapidly that within a few weeks the number of Munich companies of ahundred men each became doubled.
2. The expedition to Coburg in October 1922.
Certain People's Societies had decided to hold a German Day atCoburg. I was invited to take part, with the intimation that theywished me to bring a following along. This invitation, which Ireceived at eleven o'clock in the morning, arrived just in time.Within an hour the arrangements for our participation in the GermanCongress were ready. I picked eight hundred men of the StormDetachment to accompany me. These were divided into about fourteencompanies and had to be brought by special train from Munich toCoburg, which had just voted by plebiscite to be annexed toBavaria. Corresponding orders were given to other groups of theNational Socialist Storm Detachment which had meanwhile been formedin various other localities.
This was the first time that such a special train ran inGermany. At all the places where the new members of the StormDetachment joined us our train caused a sensation. Many of thepeople had never seen our flag. And it made a very greatimpression.
As we arrived at the station in Coburg we were received by adeputation of the organizing committee of the German Day. Theyannounced that it had been 'arranged' at the orders of local tradesunions'--that is to say, the Independent and CommunistParties'--that we should not enter the town with our flagsunfurled and our band playing (we had a band consisting offorty-two musicians with us) and that we should not march withclosed ranks.
I immediately rejected these unmilitary conditions and did notfail to declare before the gentlemen who had arranged this 'day'how astonished I was at the idea of their negotiating with suchpeople and coming to an agreement with them. Then I announced thatthe Storm Troops would immediately march into the town in companyformation, 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 growlingand yelling mob of several thousand, that shouted at us:'Assassins', 'Bandits', 'Robbers', 'Criminals'. These were thechoice names which these exemplary founders of the German Republicshowered on us. The young Storm Detachment gave a model example oforder. The companies fell into formation on the square in front ofthe station and at first took no notice of the insults hurled atthem by the mob. The police were anxious. They did not pilot us tothe quarters assigned to us on the outskirts of Coburg, a cityquite unknown to us, but to the Hofbr¤uhaus Keller in the centre ofthe town. Right and left of our march the tumult raised by theaccompanying mob steadily increased. Scarcely had the last companyentered the courtyard of the Hofbr¤uhaus when the huge mass made arush to get in after them, shouting madly. In order to preventthis, the police closed the gates. Seeing the position wasuntenable I called the Storm Detachment to attention and then askedthe police to open the gates immediately. After a good deal ofhesitation, they consented.
We now marched back along the same route as we had come, in thedirection of our quarters, and there we had to make a stand againstthe crowd. As their cries and yells all along the route had failedto disturb the equanimity of our companies, the champions of trueSocialism, Equality, and Fraternity now took to throwing stones.That brought our patience to an end. For ten minutes long, blowsfell right and left, like a devastating shower of hail. Fifteenminutes later there were no more Reds to be seen in the street.
The collisions which took place when the night came on were moreserious. Patrols of the Storm Detachment had discovered NationalSocialists who had been attacked singly and were in an atrociousstate. Thereupon we made short work of the opponents. By thefollowing morning the Red terror, under which Coburg had beensuffering for years, was definitely smashed.
Adopting the typically Marxist and Jewish method of spreadingfalsehoods, leaflets were distributed by hand on the streets,bearing the caption: "Comrades and Comradesses of the InternationalProletariat." These leaflets were meant to arouse the wrath of thepopulace. Twisting the facts completely around, they declared thatour 'bands of assasins' had commenced 'a war of exterminationagainst the peaceful workers of Coburg'. At half-past one that daythere was to be a 'great popular demonstration', at which it washoped that the workers of the whole district would turn up. I wasdetermined finally to crush this Red terror and so I summoned theStorm Detachment to meet at midday. Their number had now increasedto 1,500. I decided to march with these men to the Coburg Festivaland to cross the big square where the Red demonstration was to takeplace. I wanted to see if they would attempt to assault us again.When we entered the square we found that instead of the tenthousand that had been advertised, there were only a few hundredpeople present. As we approached they remained silent for the mostpart, and some ran away. Only at certain points along the routesome bodies of Reds, who had arrived from outside the city and hadnot yet come to know us, attempted to start a row. But a fewfisticuffs put them to flight. And now one could see how thepopulation, which had for such a long time been so wretchedlyintimidated, slowly woke up and recovered their courage. Theywelcomed us openly, and in the evening, on our return march,spontaneous shouts of jubilation broke out at several points alongthe route.
At the station the railway employees informed us all of a suddenthat our train would not move. Thereupon I had some of theringleaders told that if this were the case I would have all theRed Party heroes arrested that fell into our hands, that we woulddrive the train ourselves, but that we would take away with us, inthe locomotive and tender and in some of the carriages, a few dozenmembers of this brotherhood of international solidarity. I did notomit to let those gentry know that if we had to conduct the trainthe journey would undoubtedly be a very risky adventure and that wemight all break our necks. It would be a consolation, however, toknow that we should not go to Eternity alone, but in equality andfraternity with the Red gentry.
Thereupon the train departed punctually and we arrived nextmorning in Munich safe and sound.
Thus at Coburg, for the first time since 1914, the equality ofall citizens before the law was re-established. For even if somecoxcomb of a higher official should assert to-day that the Stateprotects the lives of its citizens, at least in those days it wasnot so. For at that time the citizens had to defend themselvesagainst the representatives of the present State.
At first it was not possible fully to estimate the importance ofthe consequences which resulted from that day. The victorious StormTroops had their confidence in themselves considerably reinforcedand also their faith in the sagacity of their leaders. Ourcontemporaries began to pay us special attention and for the firsttime many recognized the National Socialist Movement as anorganization that in all probability was destined to bring theMarxist folly to a deserving end.
Only the democrats lamented the fact that we had not thecomplaisance to allow our skulls to be cracked and that we haddared, in a democratic Republic, to hit back with fists and sticksat a brutal assault, rather than with pacifist chants.
Generally speaking, the bourgeois Press was partly distressedand partly vulgar, as always. Only a few decent newspapersexpressed their satisfaction that at least in one locality theMarxist street bullies had been effectively dealt with.
And in Coburg itself at least a part of the Marxist workers whomust be looked upon as misled, learned from the blows of NationalSocialist fists that these workers were also fighting for ideals,because experience teaches that the human being fights only forsomething in which he believes and which he loves.
The Storm Detachment itself benefited most from the Coburgevents. It grew so quickly in numbers that at the Party Congress inJanuary 1923 six thousand men participated in the ceremony ofconsecrating the flags and the first companies were fully clad intheir new uniform.
Our experience in Coburg proved how essential it is to introduceone distinctive uniform for the Storm Detachment, not only for thepurpose of strengthening the esprit de corps but also toavoid confusion and the danger of not recognizing the opponent in asquabble. Up to that time they had merely worn the armlet, but nowthe tunic and the well-known cap were added.
But the Coburg experience had also another important result. Wenow determined to break the Red Terror in all those localitieswhere for many years it had prevented men of other views fromholding their meetings. We were determined to restore the right offree assembly. From that time onwards we brought our battalionstogether in such places and little by little the red citadels ofBavaria, one after another, fell before the National Socialistpropaganda. The Storm Troops became more and more adept at theirjob. They increasingly lost all semblance of an aimless andlifeless defence movement and came out into the light as an activemilitant organization, fighting for the establishment of a newGerman State.
This logical development continued until March 1923. Then anevent occurred which made me divert the Movement from the coursehitherto followed and introduce some changes in its outerformation.
In the first months of 1923 the French occupied the Ruhrdistrict. The consequence of this was of great importance in thedevelopment of the Storm Detachment.
It is not yet possible, nor would it be in the interest of thenation, to write or speak openly and freely on the subject. I shallspeak of it only as far as the matter has been dealt with in publicdiscussions and thus brought to the knowledge of everybody.
The occupation of the Ruhr district, which did not come as asurprise to us, gave grounds for hoping that Germany would at lastabandon its cowardly policy of submission and therewith give thedefensive associations a definite task to fulfil. The StormDetachment also, which now numbered several thousand of robust andvigorous young men, should not be excluded from this nationalservice. During the spring and summer of 1923 it was transformedinto a fighting military organization. It is to this reorganizationthat we must in great part attribute the later developments thattook place during 1923, in so far as it affected our Movement.
Elsewhere I shall deal in broad outline with the development ofevents in 1923. Here I wish only to state that the transformationof the Storm Detachment at that time must have been detrimental tothe interests of the Movement if the conditions that had motivatedthe change were not to be carried into effect, namely, the adoptionof a policy of active resistance against France.
The events which took place at the close of 1923, terrible asthey may appear at first sight, were almost a necessity if lookedat from a higher standpoint; because, in view of the attitude takenby the Government of the German Reich, conversion of the StormTroops into a military force would be meaningless and thus atransformation which would also be harmful to the Movement wasended at one stroke. At the same time it was made possible for usto reconstruct at the point where we had been diverted from theproper course.
In the year 1925 the German National Socialist Labour Party wasre-founded and had to organize and train its Storm Detachment onceagain according to the principles I have laid down. It must returnto the original idea and once more it must consider its mostessential task to function as the instrument of defence andreinforcement in the spiritual struggle to establish the ideals ofthe Movement.
The Storm Detachment must not be allowed to sink to the level ofsomething in the nature of a defence organization or a secretsociety. Steps must be taken rather to make it a vanguard of100,000 men in the struggle for the National Socialist ideal whichis based on the profound principle of a People's State.
CHAPTER X. THE MASK OFFEDERALISMIn the winter of 1919, and still more in the spring and summerof 1920, the young Party felt bound to take up a definite stand ona question which already had become quite serious during the War.In the first volume of this book I have briefly recorded certainfacts which I had personally witnessed and which foreboded thebreak-up of Germany. In describing these facts I made reference tothe special nature of the propaganda which was directed by theEnglish as well as the French towards reopening the breach that hadexisted between North and South in Germany. In the spring of 1915there appeared the first of a series of leaflets which wassystematically followed up and the aim of which was to arousefeeling against Prussia as being solely responsible for the war. Upto 1916 this system had been developed and perfected in a cunningand shameless manner. Appealing to the basest of human instincts,this propaganda endeavoured to arouse the wrath of the SouthGermans against the North Germans and after a short time it borefruit. Persons who were then in high positions under the Governmentand in the Army, especially those attached to headquarters in theBavarian Army, merited the just reproof of having blindly neglectedtheir duty and failed to take the necessary steps to counter suchpropaganda. But nothing was done. On the contrary, in some quartersit did not appear to be quite unwelcome and probably they wereshort-sighted enough to think that such propaganda might help alongthe development of unification in Germany but even that it mightautomatically bring about consolidation of the federative forces.Scarcely ever in history was such a wicked neglect more wickedlyavenged. The weakening of Prussia, which they believed would resultfrom this propaganda, affected the whole of Germany. It resulted inhastening the collapse which not only wrecked Germany as a wholebut even more particularly the federal states.
In that town where the artificially created hatred againstPrussia raged most violently the revolt against the reigning Housewas the beginning of the Revolution.
It would be a mistake to think that the enemy propaganda wasexclusively responsible for creating an anti-Prussian feeling andthat there were no reasons which might excuse the people for havinglistened to this propaganda. The incredible fashion in which thenational economic interests were organized during the War, theabsolutely crazy system of centralization which made the wholeReich its ward and exploited the Reich, furnished the principalgrounds for the growth of that anti-Prussian feeling. The averagecitizen looked upon the companies for the placing of war contracts,all of which had their headquarters in Berlin, as identical withBerlin and Berlin itself as identical with Prussia. The averagecitizen did not know that the organization of these robbercompanies, which were called War Companies, was not in the hands ofBerlin or Prussia and not even in German hands at all. Peoplerecognized only the gross irregularities and the continualencroachments of that hated institution in the Metropolis of theReich and directed their anger towards Berlin and Prussia, all themore because in certain quarters (the Bavarian Government) nothingwas done to correct this attitude, but it was even welcomed withsilent rubbing of hands.
The Jew was far too shrewd not to understand that the infamouscampaign which he had organized, under the cloak of War Companies,for plundering the German nation would and must eventually arouseopposition. As long as that opposition did not spring directly athis own throat he had no reason to be afraid. Hence he decided thatthe best way of forestalling an outbreak on the part of the enragedand desperate masses would be to inflame their wrath and at thesame time give it another outlet.
Let Bavaria quarrel as much as it liked with Prussia and Prussiawith Bavaria. The more, the merrier. This bitter strife between thetwo states assured peace to the Jew. Thus public attention wascompletely diverted from the international maggot in the body ofthe nation; indeed, he seemed to have been forgotten. Then whenthere came a danger that level-headed people, of whom there aremany to be found also in Bavaria, would advise a little morereserve and a more judicious evaluation of things, thus calming therage against Prussia, all the Jew had to do in Berlin was to stagea new provocation and await results. Every time that was done allthose who had profiteered out of the conflict between North andSouth filled their lungs and again fanned the flame of indignationuntil it became a blaze.
It was a shrewd and expert manoeuvre on the part of the Jew, toset the different branches of the German people quarrelling withone another, so that their attention would be turned away fromhimself 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 lowermiddle-class and the workers, did not rightly understand what washappening and did not realize what must be the inevitableconsequences, especially for Bavaria, of this internecine strifebetween the branches of the German people; but at least thosesections which called themselves 'National' ought to have clearlyperceived these consequences on the day that the Revolution brokeout. For the moment the coup d'(C)tat had succeeded, theleader and organizer of the Revolution in Bavaria put himselfforward as the defender of 'Bavarian' interests. The internationalJew, Kurt Eisner, began to play off Bavaria against Prussia. ThisOriental was just about the last person in the world that could bepointed to as the logical defender of Bavarian interests. In histrade as newspaper reporter he had wandered from place to place allover Germany and to him it was a matter of sheer indifferencewhether Bavaria or any other particular part of God's whole worldcontinued to exist.
In deliberately giving the revolutionary rising in Bavaria thecharacter of an offensive against Prussia, Kurt Eisner was notacting in the slightest degree from the standpoint of Bavarianinterests, but merely as the commissioned representative of Jewry.He exploited existing instincts and antipathies in Bavaria as ameans which would help to make the dismemberment of Germany all themore easy. When once dismembered, the Reich would fall an easy preyto Bolshevism.
The tactics employed by him were continued for a time after hisdeath. The Marxists, who had always derided and exploited theindividual German states and their princes, now suddenly appealed,as an 'Independent Party' to those sentiments and instincts whichhad their strongest roots in the families of the reigning princesand the individual states.
The fight waged by the Bavarian Soviet Republic against themilitary contingents that were sent to free Bavaria from its graspwas 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 SovietRepublic in Munich did not have the same effect there as in theother German districts. Instead of recalling the masses to a senseof reason, it led to increased bitterness and anger againstPrussia.
The art of the Bolshevik agitators, in representing thesuppression 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 theoccasion of the elections to the Bavarian Legislative Diet, KurtEisner did not have ten thousand followers in Munich and theCommunist party less than three thousand, after the fall of theBavarian Republic the votes given to the two parties togetheramounted to nearly one hundred thousand.
It was then that I personally began to combat that crazyincitement of some branches of the German people against otherbranches.
I believe that never in my life did I undertake a more unpopulartask than I did when I took my stand against the anti-Prussianincitement. During the Soviet regime in Munich great publicmeetings were held at which hatred against the rest of Germany, butparticularly against Prussia, was roused up to such a pitch that aNorth German would have risked his life in attending one of thosemeetings. These meetings often ended in wild shouts: "Away fromPrussia", "Down with the Prussians", "War against Prussia", and soon. This feeling was openly expressed in the Reichstag by aparticularly brilliant defender of Bavarian sovereign rights whenhe said: "Rather die as a Bavarian than rot as a Prussian".
One should have attended some of the meetings held at that timein order to understand what it meant for one when, for the firsttime and surrounded by only a handful of friends, I raised my voiceagainst this folly at a meeting held in the Munich L¶wenbr¤uKeller. Some of my War comrades stood by me then. And it is easy toimagine how we felt when that raging crowd, which had lost allcontrol of its reason, roared at us and threatened to kill us.During the time that we were fighting for the country the samecrowd were for the most part safely ensconced in the rear positionsor were peacefully circulating at home as deserters and shirkers.It is true that that scene turned out to be of advantage to me. Mysmall band of comrades felt for the first time absolutely unitedwith me and readily swore to stick by me through life anddeath.
These conflicts, which were constantly repeated in 1919, seemedto become more violent soon after the beginning of 1920. There weremeetings'--I remember especially one in the Wagner Hall in theSonnenstrasse in Munich'--during the course of which my group,now grown much larger, had to defend themselves against assaults ofthe most violent character. It happened more than once that dozensof my followers were mishandled, thrown to the floor and stampedupon by the attackers and were finally thrown out of the hall moredead than alive.
The struggle which I had undertaken, first by myself alone andafterwards with the support of my war comrades, was now continuedby the young movement, I might say almost as a sacred mission.
I am proud of being able to say to-day that we'--dependingalmost exclusively on our followers in Bavaria'--wereresponsible for putting an end, slowly but surely, to the coalitionof folly and treason. I say folly and treason because, althoughconvinced that the masses who joined in it meant well but werestupid, I cannot attribute such simplicity as an extenuatingcircumstance in the case of the organizers and their abetters. Ithen looked upon them, and still look upon them to-day, as traitorsin the payment of France. In one case, that of Dorten, history hasalready pronounced its judgment.
The situation became specially dangerous at that time by reasonof the fact that they were very astute in their ability to cloaktheir real tendencies, by insisting primarily on their federativeintentions and claiming that those were the sole motives of theagitation. Of course it is quite obvious that the agitation againstPrussia had nothing to do with federalism. Surely 'FederalActivities' is not the phrase with which to describe an effort todissolve and dismember another federal state. For an honestfederalist, for whom the formula used by Bismarck to define hisidea of the Reich is not a counterfeit phrase, could not in thesame breath express the desire to cut off portions of the PrussianState, which was created or at least completed by Bismarck. Norcould he publicly support such a separatist attempt.
What an outcry would be raised in Munich if some prussianconservative party declared itself in favour of detaching Franconiafrom Bavaria or took public action in demanding and promoting sucha separatist policy. Nevertheless, one can only have sympathy forall those real and honest federalists who did not see through thisinfamous swindle, for they were its principal victims. Bydistorting the federalist idea in such a way its own championsprepared its grave. One cannot make propaganda for a federalistconfiguration of the Reich by debasing and abusing and besmirchingthe essential element of such a political structure, namelyPrussia, and thus making such a Confederation impossible, if itever had been possible. It is all the more incredible by reason ofthe fact that the fight carried on by those so-called federalistswas directed against that section of the Prussian people which wasthe last that could be looked upon as connected with the Novemberdemocracy. For the abuse and attacks of these so-called federalistswere not levelled against the fathers of the WeimarConstitution'--the majority of whom were South Germans orJews'--but against those who represented the old conservativePrussia, which was the antipodes of the Weimar Constitution. Thefact that the directors of this campaign were careful not to touchthe Jews is not to be wondered at and perhaps gives the key to thewhole riddle.
Before the Revolution the Jew was successful in distractingattention from himself and his War Companies by inciting themasses, and especially the Bavarians, against Prussia. Similarly hefelt obliged, after the Revolution, to find some way ofcamouflaging his new plunder campaign which was nine or ten timesgreater. And again he succeeded, in this case by provoking theso-called 'national' elements against one another: the conservativeBavarians against the Prussians, who were just as conservative. Heacted again with extreme cunning, inasmuch as he who held the reinsof Prussia's destiny in his hands provoked such crude and tactlessaggressions that again and again they set the blood boiling inthose who were being continually duped. Never against the Jew,however, but always the German against his own brother. TheBavarian did not see the Berlin of four million industrious andefficient working people, but only the lazy and decadent Berlinwhich is to be found in the worst quarters of the West End. And hisantipathy was not directed against this West End of Berlin butagainst the 'Prussian' city.
In many cases it tempted one to despair.
The ability which the Jew has displayed in turning publicattention away from himself and giving it another direction may bestudied also in what is happening to-day.
In 1918 there was nothing like an organized anti-Semiticfeeling. I still remember the difficulties we encountered themoment we mentioned the Jew. We were either confronted withdumb-struck faces or else a lively and hefty antagonism. Theefforts we made at the time to point out the real enemy to thepublic seemed to be doomed to failure. But then things began tochange for the better, though only very slowly. The 'League forDefence and Offence' was defectively organized but at least it hadthe great merit of opening up the Jewish question once again. Inthe winter of 1918-1919 a kind of anti-semitism began slowly totake root. Later on the National Socialist Movement presented theJewish problem in a new light. Taking the question beyond therestricted circles of the upper classes and small bourgeoisie wesucceeded in transforming it into the driving motive of a greatpopular movement. But the moment we were successful in placing thisproblem before the German people in the light of an idea that wouldunite them in one struggle the Jew reacted. He resorted to his oldtactics. With amazing alacrity he hurled the torch of discord intothe patriotic movement and opened a rift there. In bringing forwardthe ultramontane question and in the mutual quarrels that it gaverise to between Catholicism and Protestantism lay the solepossibility, as conditions then were, of occupying public attentionwith other problems and thus ward off the attack which had beenconcentrated against Jewry. The men who dragged our people intothis controversy can never make amends for the crime they thencommitted against the nation. Anyhow, the Jew has attained the endshe desired. Catholics and Protestants are fighting with one anotherto their hearts' content, while the enemy of Aryan humanity and allChristendom is laughing up his sleeve.
Once it was possible to occupy the attention of the public forseveral years with the struggle between federalism and unification,wearing out their energies in this mutual friction while the Jewtrafficked in the freedom of the nation and sold our country to themasters of international high finance. So in our day he hassucceeded again, this time by raising ructions between the twoGerman religious denominations while the foundations on which bothrest are being eaten away and destroyed through the poison injectedby the international and cosmopolitan Jew.
Look at the ravages from which our people are suffering daily asa result of being contaminated with Jewish blood. Bear in mind thefact that this poisonous contamination can be eliminated from thenational body only after centuries, or perhaps never. Think furtherof how the process of racial decomposition is debasing and in somecases even destroying the fundamental Aryan qualities of our Germanpeople, so that our cultural creativeness as a nation is graduallybecoming impotent and we are running the danger, at least in ourgreat cities, of falling to the level where Southern Italy isto-day. This pestilential adulteration of the blood, of whichhundreds of thousands of our people take no account, is beingsystematically practised by the Jew to-day. Systematically thesenegroid parasites in our national body corrupt our innocentfair-haired girls and thus destroy something which can no longer bereplaced in this world.
The two Christian denominations look on with indifference at theprofanation and destruction of a noble and unique creature who wasgiven to the world as a gift of God's grace. For the future of theworld, however, it does not matter which of the two triumphs overthe other, the Catholic or the Protestant. But it does matterwhether Aryan humanity survives or perishes. And yet the twoChristian denominations are not contending against the destroyer ofAryan humanity but are trying to destroy one another. Everybody whohas the right kind of feeling for his country is solemnly bound,each within his own denomination, to see to it that he is notconstantly talking about the Will of God merely from the lips butthat in actual fact he fulfils the Will of God and does not allowGod's handiwork to be debased. For it was by the Will of God thatmen were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their naturesand their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war againstGod's Creation and God's Will. Therefore everyone should endeavour,each in his own denomination of course, and should consider it ashis first and most solemn duty to hinder any and everyone whoseconduct tends, either by word or deed, to go outside his ownreligious body and pick a quarrel with those of anotherdenomination. For, in view of the religious schism that exists inGermany, to attack the essential characteristics of onedenomination must necessarily lead to a war of exterminationbetween the two Christian denominations. Here there can be nocomparison between our position and that of France, or Spain orItaly. In those three countries one may, for instance, makepropaganda for the side that is fighting against ultramontanismwithout thereby incurring the danger of a national rift among theFrench, or Spanish or Italian people. In Germany, however, thatcannot be so, for here the Protestants would also take part in suchpropaganda. And thus the defence which elsewhere only Catholicsorganize against clerical aggression in political matters wouldassume with us the character of a Protestant attack againstCatholicism. What may be tolerated by the faithful in onedenomination even when it seems unjust to them, will at once beindignantly rejected and opposed on a priori grounds if itshould come from the militant leaders of another denomination. Thisis so true that even men who would be ready and willing to fightfor the removal of manifest grievances within their own religiousdenomination will drop their own fight and turn their activitiesagainst the outsider the moment the abolition of such grievances iscounselled or demanded by one who is not of the same faith. Theyconsider it unjustified and inadmissible and incorrect foroutsiders to meddle in matters which do not affect them at all.Such attempts are not excused even when they are inspired by afeeling for the supreme interests of the national community;because even in our day religious feelings still have deeper rootsthan all feeling for political and national expediency. That cannotbe changed by setting one denomination against another in bitterconflict. It can be changed only if, through a spirit of mutualtolerance, the nation can be assured of a future the greatness ofwhich will gradually operate as a conciliating factor in the sphereof religion also. I have no hesitation in saying that in those menwho seek to-day to embroil the patriotic movement in religiousquarrels I see worse enemies of my country than the internationalcommunists are. For the National Socialist Movement has set itselfto the task of converting those communists. But anyone who goesoutside the ranks of his own Movement and tends to turn it awayfrom the fulfilment of its mission is acting in a manner thatdeserves the severest condemnation. He is acting as a champion ofJewish interests, whether consciously or unconsciously does notmatter. For it is in the interests of the Jews to-day that theenergies of the patriotic movement should be squandered in areligious conflict, because it is beginning to be dangerous for theJews. I have purposely used the phrase about squandering theenergies of the Movement, because nobody but some person who isentirely ignorant of history could imagine that this movement cansolve a question which the greatest statesmen have tried forcenturies to solve, and tried in vain.
Anyhow the facts speak for themselves. The men who suddenlydiscovered, in 1924, that the highest mission of the patrioticmovement was to fight ultramontanism, have not succeeded insmashing ultramontanism, but they succeeded in splitting thepatriotic movement. I have to guard against the possibility of someimmature brain arising in the patriotic movement which thinks thatit can do what even a Bismarck failed to do. It will be always oneof the first duties of those who are directing the NationalSocialist Movement to oppose unconditionally any attempt to placethe National Socialist Movement at the service of such a conflict.And anybody who conducts a propaganda with that end in view must beexpelled forthwith from its ranks.
As a matter of fact we succeeded until the autumn of 1923 inkeeping our movement away from such controversies. The most devotedProtestant could stand side by side with the most devoted Catholicin our ranks without having his conscience disturbed in theslightest as far as concerned his religious convictions. The bitterstruggle which both waged in common against the wrecker of Aryanhumanity taught them natural respect and esteem. And it was just inthose years that our movement had to engage in a bitter strife withthe Centre Party not for religious ends but for national, racial,political and economic ends. The success we then achieved showedthat we were right, but it does not speak to-day in favour of thosewho thought they knew better.
In recent years things have gone so far that patriotic circles,in god-forsaken blindness of their religious strife, could notrecognize the folly of their conduct even from the fact thatatheist Marxist newspapers advocated the cause of one religiousdenomination or the other, according as it suited Marxistinterests, so as to create confusion through slogans anddeclarations which were often immeasurably stupid, now molestingthe one party and again the other, and thus poking the fire to keepthe blaze at its highest.
But in the case of a people like the Germans, whose history hasso often shown them capable of fighting for phantoms to the pointof complete exhaustion, every war-cry is a mortal danger. By theseslogans our people have often been drawn away from the realproblems of their existence. While we were exhausting our energiesin religious wars the others were acquiring their share of theworld. And while the patriotic movement is debating with itselfwhether the ultramontane danger be greater than the Jewish, or viceversa, the Jew is destroying the racial basis of our existence andthereby annihilating our people. As far as regards that kind of'patriotic' warrior, on behalf of the National Socialist Movementand therefore of the German people I pray with all my heart: "Lord,preserve us from such friends, and then we can easily deal with ourenemies."
The controversy over federation and unification, so cunninglypropagandized by the Jews in 1919-1920 and onwards, forced NationalSocialism, which repudiated the quarrel, to take up a definitestand in relation to the essential problem concerned in it. OughtGermany to be a confederacy or a military State? What is thepractical significance of these terms? To me it seems that thesecond question is more important than the first, because it isfundamental to the understanding of the whole problem and alsobecause the answer to it may help to clear up confusion andtherewith have a conciliating effect.
What is a Confederacy? (Note 22)
By a Confederacy we mean a union of sovereign states which oftheir own free will and in virtue of their sovereignty cometogether and create a collective unit, ceding to that unit as muchof their own sovereign rights as will render the existence of theunion possible and will guarantee it.
But the theoretical formula is not wholly put into practice byany confederacy that exists to-day. And least of all by theAmerican Union, where it is impossible to speak of originalsovereignty in regard to the majority of the states. Many of themwere not included in the federal complex until long after it hadbeen established. The states that make up the American Union aremostly in the nature of territories, more or less, formed fortechnical administrative purposes, their boundaries having in manycases been fixed in the mapping office. Originally these states didnot and could not possess sovereign rights of their own. Because itwas the Union that created most of the so-called states. Thereforethe sovereign rights, often very comprehensive, which were left, orrather granted, to the various territories correspond not only tothe whole character of the Confederation but also to its vastspace, which is equivalent to the size of a Continent.Consequently, in speaking of the United States of America one mustnot consider them as sovereign states but as enjoying rights or,better perhaps, autarchic powers, granted to them and guaranteed bythe Constitution.
Nor does our definition adequately express the condition ofaffairs in Germany. It is true that in Germany the individualstates existed as states before the Reich and that the Reich wasformed from them. The Reich, however, was not formed by thevoluntary and equal co-operation of the individual states, butrather because the state of Prussia gradually acquired a positionof hegemony over the others. The difference in the territorial areaalone between the German states prevents any comparison with theAmerican Union. The great difference in territorial area betweenthe very small German states that then existed and the larger, oreven still more the largest, demonstrates the inequality of theirachievements and shows that they could not take an equal part infounding and shaping the federal Empire. In the case of most ofthese individual states it cannot be maintained that they everenjoyed real sovereignty; and the term 'State Sovereignty' wasreally nothing more than an administrative formula which had noinner meaning. As a matter of fact, not only developments in thepast but also in our own time wiped out several of these so-called'Sovereign States' and thus proved in the most definite way howfrail these 'sovereign' state formations were.
I cannot deal here with the historical question of how theseindividual states came to be established, but I must call attentionto the fact that hardly in any case did their frontiers coincidewith ethical frontiers of the inhabitants. They were purelypolitical phenomena which for the most part emerged during the sadepoch when the German Empire was in a state of exhaustion and wasdismembered. They represented both cause and effect in the processof exhaustion and partition of our fatherland.
The Constitution of the old Reich took all this into account, atleast up to a certain degree, in so far as the individual stateswere not accorded equal representation in the Reichstag, but arepresentation proportionate to their respective areas, theiractual importance and the role which they played in the formationof the Reich.
The sovereign rights which the individual states renounced inorder to form the Reich were voluntarily ceded only to a very smalldegree. For the most part they had no practical existence or theywere simply taken by Prussia under the pressure of her preponderantpower. The principle followed by Bismarck was not to give the Reichwhat he could take from the individual states but to demand fromthe individual states only what was absolutely necessary for theReich. A moderate and wise policy. On the one side Bismarck showedthe greatest regard for customs and traditions; on the other sidehis policy secured for the new Reich from its foundation onwards agreat measure of love and willing co-operation. But it would be afundamental error to attribute Bismarck's decision to anyconviction on his part that the Reich was thus acquiring all therights of sovereignty which would suflice for all time. That wasfar from Bismarck's idea. On the contrary, he wished to leave overfor the future what it would be difficult to carry through at themoment and might not have been readily agreed to by the individualstates. He trusted to the levelling effect of time and to thepressure exercised by the process of evolution, the steady actionof which appeared more effective than an attempt to break theresistance which the individual states offered at the moment. Bythis policy he showed his great ability in the art ofstatesmanship. And, as a matter of fact, the sovereignty of theReich has continually increased at the cost of the sovereignty ofthe individual states. The passing of time has achieved whatBismarck hoped it would.
The German collapse and the abolition of the monarchical form ofgovernment necessarily hastened this development. The Germanfederal states, which had not been grounded on ethnical foundationsbut arose rather out of political conditions, were bound to losetheir importance the moment the monarchical form of government andthe dynasties connected with it were abolished, for it was to thespirit inherent in these that the individual states owned theirpolitical origin and development. Thus deprived of their internalraison d'ªtre, they renounced all right to survival and wereinduced by purely practical reasons to fuse with their neighboursor else they joined the more powerful states out of their own freewill. That proved in a striking manner how extraordinarily frailwas the actual sovereignty these small phantom states enjoyed, andit proved too how lightly they were estimated by their owncitizens.
Though the abolition of the monarchical regime and itsrepresentatives had dealt a hard blow to the federal character ofthe 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 shouldlose all sovereign control over the finances the moment the Reich,in consequence of a lost war, was subjected to financialobligations which could never be guaranteed through separatetreaties with the individual states. The subsequent steps which ledthe Reich to take over the posts and railways were an enforcedadvance in the process of enslaving our people, a process which thepeace treaties gradually developed. The Reich was forced to securepossession of resources which had to be constantly increased inorder to satisfy the demands made by further extortions.
The form in which the powers of the Reich were thus extended toembrace the federal states was often ridiculously stupid, but initself the procedure was logical and natural. The blame for it mustbe laid at the door of these men and those parties that failed inthe hour of need to concentrate all their energies in an effort tobring the war to a victorious issue. The guilt lies on thoseparties which, especially in Bavaria, catered for their ownegotistic interests during the war and refused to the Reich whatthe Reich had to requisition to a tenfold greater measure when thewar was lost. The retribution of History! Rarely has the vengeanceof Heaven followed so closely on the crime as it did in this case.Those same parties which, a few years previously, placed theinterests of their own states'--especially inBavaria'--before those of the Reich had now to look onpassively while the pressure of events forced the Reich, in its owninterests, to abolish the existence of the individual states. Theywere the victims of their own defaults.
It was an unparalleled example of hypocrisy to raise the cry oflamentation over the loss which the federal states suffered inbeing deprived of their sovereign rights. This cry was raisedbefore the electorate, for it is only to the electorate that ourcontemporary parties address themselves. But these parties, withoutexception, outbid one another in accepting a policy of fulfilmentwhich, by the sheer force of circumstances and in its ultimateconsequences, could not but lead to a profound alteration in theinternal structure of the Reich. Bismarck's Reich was free andunhampered by any obligations towards the outside world.
Bismarck's Reich never had to shoulder such heavy and entirelyunproductive obligations as those to which Germany was subjectedunder the Dawes Plan. Also in domestic affairs Bismarck's Reich wasable to limit its powers to a few matters that were absolutelynecessary for its existence. Therefore it could dispense with thenecessity of a financial control over these states and could livefrom their contributions. On the other side the relatively smallfinancial tribute which the federal states had to pay to the Reichinduced them to welcome its existence. But it is untrue and unjustto state now, as certain propagandists do, that the federal statesare displeased with the Reich merely because of their financialsubjection to it. No, that is not how the matter really stands. Thelack of sympathy for the political idea embodied in the Reich isnot due to the loss of sovereign rights on the part of theindividual states. It is much more the result of the deplorablefashion in which the present r(C)gime cares for the interests of theGerman people. Despite all the celebrations in honour of thenational flag and the Constitution, every section of the Germanpeople feels that the present Reich is not in accordance with itsheart's desire. And the Law for the Protection of the Republic mayprevent outrages against republican institutions, but it will notgain the love of one single German. In its constant anxiety toprotect itself against its own citizens by means of laws andsentences of imprisonment, the Republic has aroused sharp andhumiliating criticism of all republican institutions as such.
For another reason also it is untrue to say, as certain partiesaffirm to-day, that the Reich has ceased to be popular on accountof its overbearing conduct in regard to certain sovereign rightswhich the individual states had heretofore enjoyed. Supposing theReich had not extended its authority over the individual states,there is no reason to believe that it would find more favour amongthose states if the general obligations remained so heavy as theynow are. On the contrary, if the individual states had to pay theirrespective shares of the highly increased tribute which the Reichhas to meet to-day in order to fulfil the provisions of theVersailles Dictate, the hostility towards the Reich would beinfinitely greater. For then not only would it prove difficult tocollect the respective contributions due to the Reich from thefederal states, but coercive methods would have to be employed inmaking the collections. The Republic stands on the footing of thepeace treaties and has neither the courage nor the intention tobreak them. That being so, it must observe the obligations whichthe peace treaties have imposed on it. The responsibility for thissituation is to be attributed solely to those parties who preachunceasingly to the patient electoral masses on the necessity ofmaintaining the autonomy of the federal states, while at the sametime they champion and demand of the Reich a policy which mustnecessarily lead to the suppression of even the very last of thoseso-called 'sovereign' rights.
I say necessarily because the present Reich has no otherpossible means of bearing the burden of charges which an insanedomestic and foreign policy has laid on it. Here still anotherwedge is placed on the former, to drive it in still deeper. Everynew debt which the Reich contracts, through the criminal way inwhich the interests of Germany are represented vis- -visforeign countries, necessitates a new and stronger blow whichdrives the under wedges still deeper, That blow demands anotherstep in the progressive abolition of the sovereign rights of theindividual states, so as not to allow the germs of opposition torise up into activity or even to exist.
The chief characteristic difference between the policy of thepresent Reich and that of former times lies in this: The old Reichgave freedom to its people at home and showed itself strong towardsthe outside world, whereas the Republic shows itself weak towardsthe stranger and oppresses its own citizens at home. In both casesone attitude determines the other. A vigorous national State doesnot need to make many laws for the interior, because of theaffection and attachment of its citizens. The international servileState can live only by coercing its citizens to render it theservices it demands. And it is a piece of impudent falsehood forthe present regime to speak of 'Free citizens'. Only the oldGermany could speak in that manner. The present Republic is acolony of slaves at the service of the stranger. At best it hassubjects, but not citizens. Hence it does not possess a nationalflag but only a trade mark, introduced and protected by officialdecree and legislative measures. This symbol, which is theGessler's cap of German Democracy, will always remain alien to thespirit of our people. On its side, the Republic having no sense oftradition or respect for past greatness, dragged the symbol of thepast in the mud, but it will be surprised one day to discover howsuperficial is the devotion of its citizens to its own symbol. TheRepublic has given to itself the character of an intermezzo inGerman history. And so this State is bound constantly to restrictmore and more the sovereign rights of the individual states, notonly for general reasons of a financial character but also onprinciple. For by enforcing a policy of financial blackmail, tosqueeze the last ounce of substance out of its people, it is forcedalso to take their last rights away from them, lest the generaldiscontent may one day flame up into open rebellion.
We, National Socialists, would reverse this formula and wouldadopt the following axiom: A strong national Reich which recognizesand protects to the largest possible measure the rights of itscitizens both within and outside its frontiers can allow freedom toreign at home without trembling for the safety of the State. On theother hand, a strong national Government can intervene to aconsiderable degree in the liberties of the individual subject aswell as in the liberties of the constituent states without therebyweakening the ideal of the Reich; and it can do this whilerecognizing its responsibility for the ideal of the Reich, becausein these particular acts and measures the individual citizenrecognizes a means of promoting the prestige of the nation as awhole.
Of course, every State in the world has to face the question ofunification in its internal organization. And Germany is noexception in this matter. Nowadays it is absurd to speak of 'statalsovereignty' for the constituent states of the Reich, because thathas already become impossible on account of the ridiculously smallsize of so many of these states. In the sphere of commerce as wellas that of administration the importance of the individual stateshas been steadily decreasing. Modern means of communication andmechanical progress have been increasingly restricting distance andspace. What was once a State is to-day only a province and theterritory covered by a modern State had once the importance of acontinent. The purely technical difficulty of administering a Statelike Germany is not greater than that of governing a province likeBrandenburg a hundred years ago. And to-day it is easier to coverthe distance from Munich to Berlin than it was to cover thedistance from Munich to Starnberg a hundred years ago. In view ofthe modern means of transport, the whole territory of the Reichto-day is smaller than that of certain German federal states at thetime of the Napoleonic wars. To close one's eyes to theconsequences of these facts means to live in the past. There alwayswere, there are and always will be, men who do this. They mayretard but they cannot stop the revolutions of history.
We, National Socialists, must not allow the consequences of thattruth to pass by us unnoticed. In these matters also we must notpermit ourselves to be misled by the phrases of our so-callednational bourgeois parties. I say 'phrases', because these sameparodies do not seriously believe that it is possible for them tocarry out their proposals, and because they themselves are thechief culprits and also the accomplices responsible for the presentstate of affairs. Especially in Bavaria, the demands for a halt inthe process of centralization can be no more than a party movebehind which there is no serious idea. If these parties ever had topass from the realm of phrase-making into that of practical deedsthey would present a sorry spectacle. Every so-called 'Robbery ofSovereign Rights' from Bavaria by the Reich has met with nopractical resistance, except for some fatuous barking by way ofprotest. Indeed, when anyone seriously opposed the madness that wasshown in carrying out this system of centralization he was told bythose same parties that he understood nothing of the nature andneeds of the State to-day. They slandered him and pronounced himanathema and persecuted him until he was either shut up in prisonor illegally deprived of the right of public speech. In the lightof these facts our followers should become all the more convincedof the profound hypocrisy which characterizes these so-calledfederalist circles. To a certain extent they use the federalistdoctrine just as they use the name of religion, merely as a meansof 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 tooppose with all our might such a development in the modern State,especially when the measures proposed are solely for the purpose ofscreening a disastrous foreign policy and making it possible. Andjust because the present Reich has threatened to take over therailways, the posts, the finances, etc., not from the highstandpoint of a national policy, but in order to have in its handsthe means and pledges for an unlimited policy offulfilment'--for that reason we, National Socialists, must takeevery step that seems suitable to obstruct and, if possible,definitely to prevent such a policy. We must fight against thepresent system of amalgamating institutions that are vitallyimportant for the existence of our people, because this system isbeing adopted solely to facilitate the payment of milliards and thetransference of pledges to the stranger, under the post-Warprovisions which our politicians have accepted.
For these reasons also the National Socialist Movement has totake up a stand against such tendencies.
Moreover, we must oppose such centralization because in domesticaffairs it helps to reinforce a system of government which in allits manifestations has brought the greatest misfortunes on theGerman nation. The present Jewish-Democratic Reich, which hasbecome a veritable curse for the German people, is seeking tonegative the force of the criticism offered by all the federalstates which have not yet become imbued with the spirit of the age,and is trying to carry out this policy by crushing them to thepoint of annihilation. In face of this we National Socialists musttry to ground the opposition of the individual states on such abasis that it will be able to operate with a good promise ofsuccess. We must do this by transforming the struggle againstcentralization into something that will be an expression of thehigher interests of the German nation as such. Therefore, while theBavarian Populist Party, acting from its own narrow andparticularist standpoint, fights to maintain the 'special rights'of the Bavarian State, we ought to stand on quite a differentground in fighting for the same rights. Our grounds ought to bethose of the higher national interests in opposition to theNovember Democracy.
A still further reason for opposing a centralizing process ofthat kind arises from the certain conviction that in great partthis so-called nationalization does not make for unification at alland still less for simplification. In many cases it is adoptedsimply as a means of removing from the sovereign control of theindividual states certain institutions which they wish to place inthe hands of the revolutionary parties. In German Historyfavouritism has never been of so base a character as in thedemocratic republic. A great portion of this centralization to-dayis the work of parties which once promised that they would open theway for the promotion of talent, meaning thereby that they wouldfill those posts and offices entirely with their own partisans.Since the foundation of the Republic the Jews especially have beenobtaining positions in the economic institutions taken over by theReich and also positions in the national administration, so thatthe one and the other have become preserves of Jewry.
For tactical reasons, this last consideration obliges us towatch with the greatest attention every further attempt atcentralization and fight it at each step. But in doing this ourstandpoint must always be that of a lofty national policy and nevera pettifogging particularism.
This last observation is necessary, lest an opinion might ariseamong our own followers that we do not accredit to the Reich theright of incorporating in itself a sovereignty which is superior tothat of the constituent states. As regards this right we cannot andmust not entertain the slightest doubt. Because for us the State isnothing but a form. Its substance, or content, is the essentialthing. And that is the nation, the people. It is clear thereforethat every other interest must be subordinated to the supremeinterests of the nation. In particular we cannot accredit to anyother state a sovereign power and sovereign rights within theconfines 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 willcease. Until this happens we cannot be surprised if certain foreigncountries are dubious about the political unity of the Reich andact accordingly. The absurdity of these 'representations' is allthe greater because they do harm and do not bring the slightestadvantage. If the interests of a German abroad cannot be protectedby the ambassador of the Reich, much less can they be protected bythe minister from some small federal state which appears ridiculousin the framework of the present world order. The real truth is thatthese small federal states are envisaged as points of attack forattempts at secession, which prospect is always pleasing to acertain foreign State. We, National Socialists, must not allow somenoble caste which has become effete with age to occupy anambassadorial post abroad, with the idea that by engrafting one ofits withered branches in new soil the green leaves may sproutagain. Already in the time of the old Reich our diplomaticrepresentatives abroad were such a sorry lot that a further trialof that experience would be out of the question.
It is certain that in the future the importance of theindividual states will be transferred to the sphere of our culturalpolicy. The monarch who did most to make Bavaria an importantcentre was not an obstinate particularist with anti-Germantendencies, but Ludwig I who was as much devoted to the ideal ofGerman greatness as he was to that of art. His first considerationwas to use the powers of the state to develop the cultural positionof Bavaria and not its political power. And in doing this heproduced better and more durable results than if he had followedany other line of conduct. Up to this time Munich was a provincialresidence town of only small importance, but he transformed it intothe metropolis of German art and by doing so he made it anintellectual centre which even to-day holds Franconia to Bavaria,though the Franconians are of quite a different temperament. IfMunich had remained as it had been earlier, what has happened inSaxony would have been repeated in Bavaria, with the differencethat Leipzig and Bavarian N¼rnberg would have become, not Bavarianbut Franconian cities. It was not the cry of "Down with Prussia"that made Munich great. What made this a city of importance was theKing who wished to present it to the German nation as an artisticjewel that would have to be seen and appreciated, and so it hasturned out in fact. Therein lies a lesson for the future. Theimportance of the individual states in the future will no longerlie in their political or statal power. I look to them rather asimportant ethnical and cultural centres. But even in this respecttime will do its levelling work. Modern travelling facilitiesshuffle people among one another in such a way that tribalboundaries will fade out and even the cultural picture willgradually become more of a uniform pattern.
The army must definitely be kept clear of the influence of theindividual states. The coming National Socialist State must notfall back into the error of the past by imposing on the army a taskwhich is not within its sphere and never should have been assignedto it. The German army does not exist for the purpose of being aschool in which tribal particularisms are to be cultivated andpreserved, but rather as a school for teaching all the Germans tounderstand and adapt their habits to one another. Whatever tends tohave a separating influence in the life of the nation ought to bemade a unifying influence in the army. The army must raise theGerman boy above the narrow horizon of his own little nativeprovince and set him within the broad picture of the nation. Theyouth must learn to know, not the confines of his own region butthose of the fatherland, because it is the latter that he will haveto defend one day. It is therefore absurd to have the German youthdo his military training in his own native region. During thatperiod he ought to learn to know Germany. This is all the moreimportant to-day, since young Germans no longer travel on their ownaccount as they once used to do and thus enlarge their horizon. Inview of this, is it not absurd to leave the young Bavarian recruitat Munich, the recruit from Baden at Baden itself and theW¼rttemberger at Stuttgart and so on? And would it not be morereasonable to show the Rhine and the North Sea to the Bavarian, theAlps to the native of Hamburg and the mountains of Central Germanyto the boy from East Prussia? The character proper to each regionought to be maintained in the troops but not in the traininggarrisons. We may disapprove of every attempt at unification butnot that of unifying the army. On the contrary, even though weshould wish to welcome no other kind of unification, this must begreeted with joy. In view of the size of the present army of theReich, it would be absurd to maintain the federal divisions amongthe troops. Moreover, in the unification of the German army whichhas actually been effected we see a fact which we must not renouncebut restore in the future national army.
Finally a new and triumphant idea should burst every chain whichtends to paralyse its efforts to push forward. National Socialismmust claim the right to impose its principles on the whole Germannation, without regard to what were hitherto the confines offederal states. And we must educate the German nation in our ideasand principles. As the Churches do not feel themselves bound orlimited by political confines, so the National Socialist Ideacannot feel itself limited to the territories of the individualfederal states that belong to our Fatherland.
The National Socialist doctrine is not handmaid to the politicalinterests of the single federal states. One day it must becometeacher to the whole German nation. It must determine the life ofthe whole people and shape that life anew. For this reason we mustimperatively demand the right to overstep boundaries that have beentraced by a political development which we repudiate.
The more completely our ideas triumph, the more liberty can weconcede in particular affairs to our citizens at home.
CHAPTER XI. PROPAGANDA ANDORGANIZATIONThe year 1921 was specially important for me from many points ofview.
When I entered the German Labour Party I at once took charge ofthe propaganda, believing this branch to be far the most importantfor the time being. Just then it was not a matter of pressingnecessity to cudgel one's brains over problems of organization. Thefirst necessity was to spread our ideas among as many people aspossible. Propaganda should go well ahead of organization andgather together the human material for the latter to work up. Ihave never been in favour of hasty and pedantic methods oforganization, because in most cases the result is merely a piece ofdead mechanism and only rarely a living organization. Organizationis a thing that derives its existence from organic life, organicevolution. When the same set of ideas have found a lodgement in theminds of a certain number of people they tend of themselves to forma certain degree of order among those people and out of this innerformation something that is very valuable arises. Of course here,as everywhere else, one must take account of those human weaknesseswhich make men hesitate, especially at the beginning, to submit tothe control of a superior mind. If an organization is imposed fromabove downwards in a mechanical fashion, there is always the dangerthat some individual may push himself forward who is not known forwhat he is and who, out of jealousy, will try to hinder ablerpersons from taking a leading place in the movement. The damagethat 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 publiclyexpound the ideas on which the movement is founded. This work ofpropaganda should continue for a certain time and should bedirected from one centre. When the ideas have gradually won over anumber of people this human material should be carefully sifted forthe purpose of selecting those who have ability in leadership andputting that ability to the test. It will often be found thatapparently insignificant persons will nevertheless turn out to beborn leaders.
Of course, it is quite a mistake to suppose that those who showa very intelligent grasp of the theory underlying a movement arefor that reason qualified to fill responsible positions on thedirectorate. The contrary is very frequently the case.
Great masters of theory are only very rarely great organizersalso. And this is because the greatness of the theorist and founderof a system consists in being able to discover and lay down thoselaws that are right in the abstract, whereas the organizer mustfirst of all be a man of psychological insight. He must take men asthey are, and for that reason he must know them, not having toohigh or too low an estimate of human nature. He must take accountof their weaknesses, their baseness and all the other variouscharacteristics, so as to form something out of them which will bea living organism, endowed with strong powers of resistance, fittedto be the carrier of an idea and strong enough to ensure thetriumph of that idea.
But it is still more rare to find a great theorist who is at thesame time a great leader. For the latter must be more of anagitator, a truth that will not be readily accepted by many ofthose who deal with problems only from the scientific standpoint.And yet what I say is only natural. For an agitator who showshimself capable of expounding ideas to the great masses must alwaysbe a psychologist, even though he may be only a demagogue.Therefore he will always be a much more capable leader than thecontemplative theorist who meditates on his ideas, far from thehuman throng and the world. For to be a leader means to be able tomove the masses. The gift of formulating ideas has nothingwhatsoever to do with the capacity for leadership. It would beentirely futile to discuss the question as to which is the moreimportant: the faculty of conceiving ideals and human aims or thatof being able to have them put into practice. Here, as so oftenhappens in life, the one would be entirely meaningless without theother. The noblest conceptions of the human understanding remainwithout purpose or value if the leader cannot move the massestowards them. And, conversely, what would it avail to have all thegenius and elan of a leader if the intellectual theorist does notfix the aims for which mankind must struggle. But when theabilities of theorist and organizer and leader are united in theone person, then we have the rarest phenomenon on this earth. Andit is that union which produces the great man.
As I have already said, during my first period in the Party Idevoted myself to the work of propaganda. I had to succeed ingradually gathering together a small nucleus of men who wouldaccept the new teaching and be inspired by it. And in this way weshould provide the human material which subsequently would form theconstituent elements of the organization. Thus the goal of thepropagandist is nearly always fixed far beyond that of theorganizer.
If a movement proposes to overthrow a certain order of thingsand construct a new one in its place, then the following principlesmust be clearly understood and must dominate in the ranks of itsleadership: Every movement which has gained its human material mustfirst divide this material into two groups: namely, followers andmembers.
It is the task of the propagandist to recruit the followers andit is the task of the organizer to select the members.
The follower of a movement is he who understands and accepts itsaims; the member is he who fights for them.
The follower is one whom the propaganda has converted to thedoctrine of the movement. The member is he who will be charged bythe organization to collaborate in winning over new followers fromwhich 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. Fromten followers one can have scarcely more than two members. To be afollower simply implies that a man has accepted the teaching of themovement; whereas to be a member means that a man has the courageto participate actively in diffusing that teaching in which he hascome to believe.
Because of its passive character, the simple effort of believingin a political doctrine is enough for the majority, for themajority of mankind is mentally lazy and timid. To be a member onemust be intellectually active, and therefore this applies only tothe minority.
Such being the case, the propagandist must seek untiringly toacquire new followers for the movement, whereas the organizer mustdiligently look out for the best elements among such followers, sothat these elements may be transformed into members. Thepropagandist need not trouble too much about the personal worth ofthe individual proselytes he has won for the movement. He need notinquire into their abilities, their intelligence or character. Fromthese proselytes, however, the organizer will have to select thoseindividuals who are most capable of actively helping to bring themovement to victory.
The propagandist aims at inducing the whole people to accept histeaching. The organizer includes in his body of membership onlythose who, on psychological grounds, will not be an impediment tothe further diffusion of the doctrines of the movement.
The propagandist inculcates his doctrine among the masses, withthe idea of preparing them for the time when this doctrine willtriumph, through the body of combatant members which he has formedfrom those followers who have given proof of the necessary abilityand will-power to carry the struggle to victory.
The final triumph of a doctrine will be made all the more easyif the propagandist has effectively converted large bodies of mento the belief in that doctrine and if the organization thatactively conducts the fight be exclusive, vigorous and solid.
When the propaganda work has converted a whole people to believein a doctrine, the organization can turn the results of this intopractical effect through the work of a mere handful of men.Propaganda and organization, therefore follower and member, thenstand towards one another in a definite mutual relationship. Thebetter the propaganda has worked, the smaller will the organizationbe. The greater the number of followers, so much the smaller can bethe number of members. And conversely. If the propaganda be bad,the organization must be large. And if there be only a small numberof followers, the membership must be all the larger'--if themovement really counts on being successful.
The first duty of the propagandist is to win over people who cansubsequently be taken into the organization. And the first duty ofthe organization is to select and train men who will be capable ofcarrying on the propaganda. The second duty of the organization isto disrupt the existing order of things and thus make room for thepenetration of the new teaching which it represents, while the dutyof the organizer must be to fight for the purpose of securingpower, so that the doctrine may finally triumph.
A revolutionary conception of the world and human existence willalways achieve decisive success when the new Weltanschauunghas been taught to a whole people, or subsequently forced upon themif necessary, and when, on the other hand, the centralorganization, the movement itself, is in the hands of only thosefew men who are absolutely indispensable to form the nerve-centresof the coming State.
Put in another way, this means that in every great revolutionarymovement that is of world importance the idea of this movement mustalways be spread abroad through the operation of propaganda. Thepropagandist must never tire in his efforts to make the new ideasclearly understood, inculcating them among others, or at least hemust place himself in the position of those others and endeavour toupset their confidence in the convictions they have hitherto held.In order that such propaganda should have backbone to it, it mustbe based on an organization. The organization chooses its membersfrom among those followers whom the propaganda has won. Thatorganization will become all the more vigorous if the work ofpropaganda be pushed forward intensively. And the propaganda willwork all the better when the organization back of it is vigorousand strong in itself.
Hence the supreme task of the organizer is to see to it that anydiscord or differences which may arise among the members of themovement will not lead to a split and thereby cramp the work withinthe movement. Moreover, it is the duty of the organization to seethat the fighting spirit of the movement does not flag or die outbut that it is constantly reinvigorated and restrengthened. It isnot necessary the number of members should increase indefinitely.Quite the contrary would be better. In view of the fact that only afraction of humanity has energy and courage, a movement whichincreases its own organization indefinitely must of necessity oneday become plethoric and inactive. Organizations, that is to say,groups of members, which increase their size beyond certaindimensions gradually lose their fighting force and are no longer inform to back up the propagation of a doctrine with aggressive elanand determination.
Now the greater and more revolutionary a doctrine is, so muchthe more active will be the spirit inspiring its body of members,because the subversive energy of such a doctrine will frighten waythe chicken-hearted and small-minded bourgeoisie. In their heartsthey may believe in the doctrine but they are afraid to acknowledgetheir belief openly. By reason of this very fact, however, anorganization inspired by a veritable revolutionary idea willattract into the body of its membership only the most active ofthose believers who have been won for it by its propaganda. It isin this activity on the part of the membership body, guaranteed bythe process of natural selection, that we are to seek theprerequisite conditions for the continuation of an active andspirited propaganda and also the victorious struggle for thesuccess of the idea on which the movement is based.
The greatest danger that can threaten a movement is an abnormalincrease in the number of its members, owing to its too rapidsuccess. So long as a movement has to carry on a hard and bitterfight, people of weak and fundamentally egotistic temperament willsteer very clear of it; but these will try to be accepted asmembers the moment the party achieves a manifest success in thecourse of its development.
It is on these grounds that we are to explain why so manymovements which were at first successful slowed down beforereaching the fulfilment of their purpose and, from an innerweakness which could not otherwise be explained, gave up thestruggle and finally disappeared from the field. As a result of theearly successes achieved, so many undesirable, unworthy andespecially timid individuals became members of the movement thatthey finally secured the majority and stifled the fighting spiritof the others. These inferior elements then turned the movement tothe service of their personal interests and, debasing it to thelevel of their own miserable heroism, no longer struggled for thetriumph of the original idea. The fire of the first fervour diedout, the fighting spirit flagged and, as the bourgeois world isaccustomed to say very justly in such cases, the party mixed waterwith its wine.
For this reason it is necessary that a movement should, from thesheer instinct of self-preservation, close its lists to newmembership the moment it becomes successful. And any furtherincrease in its organization should be allowed to take place onlywith the most careful foresight and after a painstaking sifting ofthose who apply for membership. Only thus will it be possible tokeep the kernel of the movement intact and fresh and sound. Caremust be taken that the conduct of the movement is maintainedexclusively in the hands of this original nucleus. This means thatthe nucleus must direct the propaganda which aims at securinggeneral recognition for the movement. And the movement itself, whenit has secured power in its hands, must carry out all those actsand measures which are necessary in order that its ideas should befinally established in practice.
With those elements that originally made the movement, theorganization should occupy all the important positions that havebeen conquered and from those elements the whole directorate shouldbe formed. This should continue until the maxims and doctrines ofthe party have become the foundation and policy of the new State.Only then will it be permissible gradually to give the reins intothe hands of the Constitution of that State which the spirit of themovement has created. But this usually happens through a process ofmutual rivalry, for here it is less a question of humanintelligence than of the play and effect of the forces whosedevelopment may indeed be foreseen from the start but notperpetually controlled.
All great movements, whether of a political or religious nature,owe their imposing success to the recognition and adoption of thoseprinciples. And no durable success is conceivable if these laws arenot observed.
As director of propaganda for the party, I took care not merelyto prepare the ground for the greatness of the movement in itssubsequent stages, but I also adopted the most radical measuresagainst allowing into the organization any other than the bestmaterial. For the more radical and exciting my propaganda was, themore did it frighten weak and wavering characters away, thuspreventing them from entering the first nucleus of ourorganization. Perhaps they remained followers, but they did notraise their voices. On the contrary, they maintained a discreetsilence on the fact. Many thousands of persons then assured me thatthey were in full agreement with us but they could not on anyaccount become members of our party. They said that the movementwas so radical that to take part in it as members would expose themto grave censures and grave dangers, so that they would rathercontinue to be looked upon as honest and peaceful citizens andremain aside, for the time being at least, though devoted to ourcause with all their hearts.
And that was all to the good. If all these men who in theirhearts did not approve of revolutionary ideas came into ourmovement as members at that time, we should be looked upon as apious confraternity to-day and not as a young movement inspiredwith the spirit of combat.
The lively and combative form which I gave to all our propagandafortified and guaranteed the radical tendency of our movement, andthe result was that, with a few exceptions, only men of radicalviews were disposed to become members.
It was due to the effect of our propaganda that within a shortperiod of time hundreds of thousands of citizens became convincedin their hearts that we were right and wished us victory, althoughpersonally they were too timid to make sacrifices for our cause oreven participate in it.
Up to the middle of 1921 this simple activity of gathering infollowers was sufficient and was of value to the movement. But inthe summer of that year certain events happened which made it seemopportune for us to bring our organization into line with themanifest successes which the propaganda had achieved.
An attempt made by a group of patriotic visionaries, supportedby the chairman of the party at that time, to take over thedirection of the party led to the break up of this little intrigueand, by a unanimous vote at a general meeting, entrusted the entiredirection of the party to my own hands. At the same time a newstatute was passed which invested sole responsibility in thechairman of the movement, abolished the system of resolutions incommittee and in its stead introduced the principle of division oflabour which since that time has worked excellently.
From August 1st, 1921, onwards I undertook this internalreorganization of the party and was supported by a number ofexcellent men. I shall mention them and their work individuallylater on.
In my endeavour to turn the results gained by the propaganda tothe advantage of the organization and thus stabilize them, I had toabolish completely a number of old customs and introduceregulations which none of the other parties possessed or hadadopted.
In the years 1920-21 the movement was controlled by a committeeelected by the members at a general meeting. The committee wascomposed of a first and second treasurer, a first and secondsecretary, and a first and second chairman at the head of it. Inaddition to these there was a representative of the members, thedirector of propaganda, and various assessors.
Comically enough, the committee embodied the very principleagainst which the movement itself wanted to fight with all itsenergy, namely, the principle of parliamentarianism. Here was aprinciple which personified everything that was being opposed bythe movement, from the smallest local groups to the district andregional groups, the state groups and finally the nationaldirectorate itself. It was a system under which we all suffered andare still suffering.
It was imperative to change this state of affairs forthwith, ifthis bad foundation in the internal organization was not to keepthe movement insecure and render the fulfilment of its high missionimpossible.
The sessions of the committee, which were ruled by a protocol,and in which decisions were made according to the vote of themajority, presented the picture of a miniature parliament. Herealso there was no such thing as personal responsibility. And herereigned the same absurdities and illogical state of affairs asflourish in our great representative bodies of the State. Nameswere 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 actedin common on every particular question and decided it by vote.Accordingly, the director of propaganda voted on a question thatconcerned the man who had to do with the finances and the latter inhis turn voted on a question that concerned only the organizationas such, the organizer voting on a subject that had to do with thesecretarial department, and so on.
Why select a special man for propaganda if treasurers andscribes and commissaries, etc., had to deliver judgment onquestions concerning it? To a person of commonsense that sort ofthing seemed as incomprehensible as it would be if in a greatmanufacturing concern the board of directors were to decide ontechnical questions of production or if, inversely, the engineerswere to decide on questions of administration.
I refused to countenance that kind of folly and after a shorttime I ceased to appear at the meetings of the committee. I didnothing else except attend to my own department of propaganda and Idid not permit any of the others to poke their heads into myactivities. Conversely, I did not interfere in the affairs ofothers.
When the new statute was approved and I was appointed aspresident, I had the necessary authority in my hands and also thecorresponding right to make short shrift of all that nonsense. Inthe place of decisions by the majority vote of the committee, theprinciple of absolute responsibility was introduced.
The chairman is responsible for the whole control of themovement. He apportions the work among the members of the committeesubordinate to him and for special work he selects otherindividuals. Each of these gentlemen must bear sole responsibilityfor the task assigned to him. He is subordinate only to thechairman, whose duty is to supervise the general collaboration,selecting the personnel and giving general directions for theco-ordination of the common work.
This principle of absolute responsibility is being adoptedlittle by little throughout the movement. In the small local groupsand perhaps also in the regional and district groups it will takeyet 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 actopens up an unpleasant prospect. They would like to hide behind theshoulders of the majority in the so-called committee, having theiracts covered by decisions passed in that way. But it seems to me amatter of absolute necessity to take a decisive stand against thatview, to make no concessions whatsoever to this fear ofresponsibility, even though it takes some time before we can putfully into effect this concept of duty and ability in leadership,which will finally bring forward leaders who have the requisiteabilities to occupy the chief posts.
In any case, a movement which must fight against the absurdityof parliamentary institutions must be immune from this sort ofthing. Only thus will it have the requisite strength to carry onthe struggle.
At a time when the majority dominates everywhere else a movementwhich is based on the principle of one leader who has to bearpersonal responsibility for the direction of the official acts ofthe movement itself will one day overthrow the present situationand triumph over the existing regime. That is a mathematicalcertainty.
This idea made it necessary to reorganize our movementinternally. The logical development of this reorganization broughtabout a clear-cut distinction between the economic section of themovement and the general political direction. The principle ofpersonal responsibility was extended to all the administrativebranches of the party and it brought about a healthy renovation, byliberating them from political influences and allowing them tooperate solely on economic principles.
In the autumn of 1921, when the party was founded, there wereonly six members. The party did not have any headquarters, norofficials, nor formularies, nor a stamp, nor printed material ofany sort. The committee first held its sittings in a restaurant onthe Herrengasse and then in a caf(C) at Gasteig. This state ofaffairs could not last. So I at once took action in the matter. Iwent around to several restaurants and hotels in Munich, with theidea of renting a room in one of them for the use of the Party. Inthe old Sterneckerbr¤u im Tal, there was a small room with archedroof, which in earlier times was used as a sort of festive tavernwhere the Bavarian Counsellors of the Holy Roman Empireforegathered. It was dark and dismal and accordingly well suited toits ancient uses, though less suited to the new purpose it was nowdestined to serve. The little street on which its one window lookedout was so narrow that even on the brightest summer day the roomremained dim and sombre. Here we took up our first fixed abode. Therent came to fifty marks per month, which was then an enormous sumfor us. But our exigencies had to be very modest. We dared notcomplain even when they removed the wooden wainscoting a few daysafter we had taken possession. This panelling had been speciallyput up for the Imperial Counsellors. The place began to look morelike a grotto than an office.
Still it marked an important step forward. Slowly we hadelectric light installed and later on a telephone. A table and someborrowed chairs were brought, an open paper-stand and later on acupboard. Two sideboards, which belonged to the landlord, served tostore our leaflets, placards, etc.
As time went on it turned out impossible to direct the course ofthe movement merely by holding a committee meeting once a week. Thecurrent business administration of the movement could not beregularly attended to except we had a salaried official.
But that was then very difficult for us. The movement had stillso few members that it was hard to find among them a suitableperson for the job who would be content with very little forhimself and at the same time would be ready to meet the manifolddemands which the movement would make on his time and energy.
After long searching we discovered a soldier who consented tobecome our first administrator. His name was Sch¼ssler, an old warcomrade of mine. At first he came to our new office every daybetween six and eight o'clock in the evening. Later on he came fromfive to eight and subsequently for the whole afternoon. Finally itbecame a full-time job and he worked in the office from morninguntil late at night. He was an industrious, upright and thoroughlyhonest man, faithful and devoted to the movement. He brought withhim a small Adler typewriter of his own. It was the first machineto be used in the service of the party. Subsequently the partybought it by paying for it in installments. We needed a small safein order to keep our papers and register of membership from dangerof being stolen'--not to guard our funds, which did not thenexist. On the contrary, our financial position was so miserablethat I often had to dip my hand into my own personal savings.
After eighteen months our business quarters had become toosmall, so we moved to a new place in the Cornelius Strasse. Againour office was in a restaurant, but instead of one room we now hadthree smaller rooms and one large room with great windows. At thattime this appeared a wonderful thing to us. We remained there untilthe end of November 1923.
In December 1920, we acquired the V¶lkischer Beobachter.This newspaper which, as its name implies, championed the claims ofthe people, was now to become the organ of the German NationalSocialist Labour Party. At first it appeared twice weekly; but atthe beginning of 1928 it became a daily paper, and at the end ofAugust in the same year it began to appear in the large formatwhich is now well known.
As a complete novice in journalism I then learned many a lessonfor which I had to pay dearly.
In contradistinction to the enormous number of papers in Jewishhands, there was at that time only one important newspaper thatdefended the cause of the people. This was a matter for graveconsideration. As I have often learned by experience, the reasonfor that state of things must be attributed to the incompetent wayin which the business side of the so-called popular newspapers wasmanaged. These were conducted too much according to the rule thatopinion should prevail over action that produces results. Quite awrong standpoint, for opinion is of itself something internal andfinds its best expression in productive activity. The man who doesvaluable work for his people expresses thereby his excellentsentiments, whereas another who merely talks about his opinions anddoes nothing that is of real value or use to the people is a personwho perverts all right thinking. And that attitude of his is alsopernicious for the community.
The V¶lkische Beobachter was a so-called 'popular' organ,as its name indicated. It had all the good qualities, but stillmore the errors and weaknesses, inherent in all popularinstitutions. Though its contents were excellent, its management asa business concern was simply impossible. Here also the underlyingidea was that popular newspapers ought to be subsidized by popularcontributions, without recognizing that it had to make its way incompetition with the others and that it was dishonest to expect thesubscriptions of good patriots to make up for the mistakenmanagement of the undertaking.
I took care to alter those conditions promptly, for I recognizedthe danger lurking in them. Luck was on my side here, inasmuch asit brought me the man who since that time has rendered innumerableservices to the movement, not only as business manager of thenewspaper but also as business manager of the party. In 1914, inthe War, I made the acquaintance of Max Amann, who was then mysuperior and is to-day general business Director of the Party.During four years in the War I had occasion to observe almostcontinually the unusual ability, the diligence and the rigorousconscientiousness 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 businessmanager of the movement. At that time the movement was passingthrough a grave crisis and I had reason to be dissatisfied withseveral of our officials, with one of whom I had had a very bitterexperience. Amann then held a good situation in which there werealso good prospects for him.
After long hesitation he agreed to my request, but only oncondition that he must not be at the mercy of incompetentcommittees. He must be responsible to one master, and only one.
It is to the inestimable credit of this first business managerof the party, whose commercial knowledge is extensive and profound,that he brought order and probity into the various offices of theparty. Since that time these have remained exemplary and cannot beequalled or excelled in this by any other branches of the movement.But, as often happens in life, great ability provokes envy anddisfavour. That had also to be expected in this case and bornepatiently.
Since 1922 rigorous regulations have been in force, not only forthe commercial construction of the movement but also in theorganization of it as such. There exists now a central filingsystem, where the names and particulars of all the members areenrolled. The financing of the party has been placed on soundlines. The current expenditure must be covered by the currentreceipts and special receipts can be used only for specialexpenditures. Thus, notwithstanding the difficulties of the timethe movement remained practically without any debts, except for afew small current accounts. Indeed, there was a permanent increasein the funds. Things are managed as in a private business. Theemployed personnel hold their jobs in virtue of their practicalefficiency and could not in any manner take cover behind theirprofessed loyalty to the party. A good National Socialist proveshis soundness by the readiness, diligence and capability with whichhe discharges whatever duties are assigned to him in whateversituation he holds within the national community. The man who doesnot fulfil his duty in the job he holds cannot boast of a loyaltyagainst which he himself really sins.
Adamant against all kinds of outer influence, the new businessdirector of the party firmly maintained the standpoint that therewere no sinecure posts in the party administration for followersand members of the movement whose pleasure is not work. A movementwhich fights so energetically against the corruption introducedinto our civil service by the various political parties must beimmune from that vice in its own administrative department. Ithappened that some men were taken on the staff of the paper who hadformerly been adherents of the Bavarian People's Party, but theirwork showed that they were excellently qualified for the job. Theresult of this experiment was generally excellent. It was owing tothis honest and frank recognition of individual efficiency that themovement won the hearts of its employees more swiftly and moreprofoundly than had ever been the case before. Subsequently theybecame good National Socialists and remained so. Not in word only,but they proved it by the steady and honest and conscientious workwhich they performed in the service of the new movement. Naturallya well qualified party member was preferred to another who hadequal qualifications but did not belong to the party. The rigiddetermination with which our new business chief applied theseprinciples and gradually put them into force, despite allmisunderstandings, turned out to be of great advantage to themovement. To this we owe the fact that it was possible forus'--during the difficult period of the inflation, whenthousands of businesses failed and thousands of newspapers had tocease publication'--not only to keep the commercial departmentof the movement going and meet all its obligations but also to makesteady progress with the V¶lkische Beobachter. At that timeit came to be ranked among the great newspapers.
The year 1921 was of further importance for me by reason of thefact that in my position as chairman of the party I slowly butsteadily succeeded in putting a stop to the criticisms and theintrusions of some members of the committee in regard to thedetailed activities of the party administration. This wasimportant, because we could not get a capable man to take on a jobif nincompoops were constantly allowed to butt in, pretending thatthey knew everything much better; whereas in reality they had leftonly general chaos behind them. Then these wise-acres retired, forthe most part quite modestly, to seek another field for theiractivities where they could supervise and tell how things ought tobe done. Some men seemed to have a mania for sniffing behindeverything and were, so to say, always in a permanent state ofpregnancy with magnificent plans and ideas and projects andmethods. Naturally their noble aim and ideal were always theformation of a committee which could pretend to be an organ ofcontrol in order to be able to sniff as experts into the regularwork done by others. But it is offensive and contrary to the spiritof National Socialism when incompetent people constantly interferein the work of capable persons. But these makers of committees donot take that very much into account. In those years I felt it myduty to safeguard against such annoyance all those who wereentrusted with regular and responsible work, so that there shouldbe no spying over the shoulder and they would be guaranteed a freehand in their day's work.
The best means of making committees innocuous, which either didnothing or cooked up impracticable decisions, was to give them somereal work to do. It was then amusing to see how the members wouldsilently fade away and were soon nowhere to be found. It made methink of that great institution of the same kind, the Reichstag.How quickly they would evanesce if they were put to some real workinstead of talking, especially if each member were made personallyresponsible for the work assigned to him.
I always demanded that, just as in private life so also in themovement, one should not tire of seeking until the best andhonestest and manifestly the most competent person could be foundfor the position of leader or administrator in each section of themovement. Once installed in his position he was given absoluteauthority and full freedom of action towards his subordinates andfull responsibility towards his superiors. Nobody was placed in aposition of authority towards his subordinates unless he himselfwas competent in the work entrusted to them. In the course of twoyears I brought my views more and more into practice; so thatto-day, at least as far as the higher direction of the movement isconcerned, 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 didnot have even a rubber stamp. On November 9th, 1923, the party wasdissolved and its property confiscated. The total sum realized byall the objects of value and the paper amounted to more than170,000 gold marks.
CHAPTER XII. THE PROBLEM OFTHE TRADE UNIONSOwing to the rapid growth of the movement, in 1922 we feltcompelled to take a definite stand on a question which has not beenfully solved even yet.
In our efforts to discover the quickest and easiest way for themovement to reach the heart of the broad masses we were alwaysconfronted with the objection that the worker could nevercompletely belong to us while his interests in the purelyvocational and economic sphere were cared for by a politicalorganization conducted by men whose principles were quite differentfrom ours.
That was quite a serious objection. The general belief was thata workman engaged in some trade or other could not exist if he didnot belong to a trade union. Not only were his professionalinterests thus protected but a guarantee of permanent employmentwas simply inconceivable without membership in a trade union. Themajority of the workers were in the trades unions. Generallyspeaking, the unions had successfully conducted the battle for theestablishment of a definite scale of wages and had concludedagreements which guaranteed the worker a steady income. Undoubtedlythe workers in the various trades benefited by the results of thatcampaign and, for honest men especially, conflicts of consciencemust have arisen if they took the wages which had been assuredthrough the struggle fought by the trades unions and if at the sametime the men themselves withdrew from the fight.
It was difficult to discuss this problem with the averagebourgeois employer. He had no understanding (or did not wish tohave any) for either the material or moral side of the question.Finally he declared that his own economic interests were inprinciple opposed to every kind of organization which joinedtogether the workmen that were dependent on him. Hence it was forthe most part impossible to bring these bourgeois employers to takean impartial view of the situation. Here, therefore, as in so manyother cases, it was necessary to appeal to disinterested outsiderswho would not be subject to the temptation of fixing theirattention on the trees and failing to see the forest. With a littlegood will on their part, they could much more easily understand astate of affairs which is of the highest importance for our presentand future existence.
In the first volume of this book I have already expressed myviews on the nature and purpose and necessity of trade unions.There I took up the standpoint that unless measures are undertakenby the State (usually futile in such cases) or a new ideal isintroduced in our education, which would change the attitude of theemployer towards the worker, no other course would be open to thelatter except to defend his own interests himself by appealing tohis equal rights as a contracting party within the economic sphereof the nation's existence. I stated further that this would conformto the interests of the national community if thereby socialinjustices could be redressed which otherwise would cause seriousdamage to the whole social structure. I stated, moreover, that theworker would always find it necessary to undertake this protectiveaction as long as there were men among the employers who had nosense of their social obligations nor even of the most elementaryhuman rights. And I concluded by saying that if such self-defencebe considered necessary its form ought to be that of an associationmade up of the workers themselves on the basis of tradesunions.
This was my general idea and it remained the same in 1922. But aclear and precise formula was still to be discovered. We could notbe satisfied with merely understanding the problem. It wasnecessary to come to some conclusions that could be put intopractice. The following questions had to be answered:
(1) Are trade unions necessary?
(2) Should the German National Socialist Labour Party itselfoperate on a trade unionist basis or have its members take part intrade 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 toattain?
(4) How can we establish trade unions for such tasks andaims?
I think that I have already answered the first questionadequately. In the present state of affairs I am convinced that wecannot possibly dispense with the trades unions. On the contrary,they are among the most important institutions in the economic lifeof the nation. Not only are they important in the sphere of socialpolicy but also, and even more so, in the national politicalsphere. For when the great masses of a nation see their vital needssatisfied through a just trade unionist movement the stamina of thewhole nation in its struggle for existence will be enormouslyreinforced thereby.
Before everything else, the trades unions are necessary asbuilding stones for the future economic parliament, which will bemade up of chambers representing the various professions andoccupations.
The second question is also easy to answer. If the tradeunionist movement is important, then it is clear that NationalSocialism ought to take a definite stand on that question, not onlytheoretically but also in practice. But how? That is more difficultto see clearly.
The National Socialist Movement, which aims at establishing theNational Socialist People's State, must always bear steadfastly inmind the principle that every future institution under that Statemust be rooted in the movement itself. It is a great mistake tobelieve that by acquiring possession of supreme political power wecan bring about a definite reorganization, suddenly starting fromnothing, without the help of a certain reserve stock of men whohave been trained beforehand, especially in the spirit of themovement. Here also the principle holds good that the spirit isalways more important than the external form which it animates;since this form can be created mechanically and quickly. Forinstance, the leadership principle may be imposed on an organizedpolitical community in a dictatorial way. But this principle canbecome a living reality only by passing through the stages that arenecessary for its own evolution. These stages lead from thesmallest cell of the State organism upwards. As its bearers andrepresentatives, the leadership principle must have a body of menwho have passed through a process of selection lasting over severalyears, who have been tempered by the hard realities of life andthus rendered capable of carrying the principle into practicaleffect.
It is out of the question to think that a scheme for theConstitution of a State can be pulled out of a portfolio at amoment's notice and 'introduced' by imperative orders from above.One may try that kind of thing but the result will always besomething that has not sufficient vitality to endure. It will belike a stillborn infant. The idea of it calls to mind the origin ofthe Weimar Constitution and the attempt to impose on the Germanpeople a new Constitution and a new flag, neither of which had anyinner relation to the vicissitudes of our people's history duringthe last half century.
The National Socialist State must guard against all suchexperiments. It must grow out of an organization which has alreadyexisted for a long time. This organization must possess NationalSocialist life in itself, so that finally it may be able toestablish a National Socialist State that will be a livingreality.
As I have already said, the germ cells of this State must lie inthe administrative chambers which will represent the variousoccupations and professions, therefore first of all in the tradesunions. If this subsequent vocational representation and theCentral Economic Parliament are to be National Socialistinstitutions, these important germ cells must be vehicles of theNational Socialist concept of life. The institutions of themovement are to be brought over into the State; for the Statecannot call into existence all of a sudden and as if by magic thoseinstitutions which are necessary to its existence, unless it wishesto have institutions that are bound to remain completelylifeless.
Looking at the matter from the highest standpoint, the NationalSocialist Movement will have to recognize the necessity of adoptingits own trade-unionist policy.
It must do this for a further reason, namely because a realNational Socialist education for the employer as well as for theemployee, in the spirit of a mutual co-operation within the commonframework of the national community, cannot be secured bytheoretical instruction, appeals and exhortations, but through thestruggles of daily life. In this spirit and through this spirit themovement must educate the several large economic groups and bringthem closer to one another under a wider outlook. Without thispreparatory work it would be sheer illusion to hope that a realnational community can be brought into existence. The great idealrepresented by its philosophy of life and for which the movementfights can alone form a general style of thought steadily andslowly. And this style will show that the new state of things restson foundations that are internally sound and not merely an externalfa§ade.
Hence the movement must adopt a positive attitude towards thetrade-unionist idea. But it must go further than this. For theenormous number of members and followers of the trade-unionistmovement it must provide a practical education which will meet theexigencies of the coming National Socialist State.
The answer to the third question follows from what has beenalready said.
The National Socialist Trades Union is not an instrument forclass warfare, but a representative organ of the variousoccupations and callings. The National Socialist State recognizesno 'classes'. But, under the political aspect, it recognizes onlycitizens with absolutely equal rights and equal obligationscorresponding thereto. And, side by side with these, it recognizessubjects of the State who have no political rights whatsoever.
According to the National Socialist concept, it is not the taskof the trades union to band together certain men within thenational community and thus gradually transform these men into aclass, so as to use them in a conflict against other groupssimilarly organized within the national community. We certainlycannot assign this task to the trades union as such. This was thetask assigned to it the moment it became a fighting weapon in thehands of the Marxists. The trades union is not naturally aninstrument of class warfare; but the Marxists transformed it intoan instrument for use in their own class struggle. They created theeconomic weapon which the international Jew uses for the purpose ofdestroying the economic foundations of free and independentnational States, for ruining their national industry and trade andthereby enslaving free nations to serve Jewish world-finance, whichtranscends all State boundaries.
In contradistinction to this, the National Socialist TradesUnion must organize definite groups and those who participate inthe economic life of the nation and thus enhance the security ofthe national economic system itself, reinforcing it by theelimination of all those anomalies which ultimately exercise adestructive influence on the social body of the nation, damagingthe vital forces of the national community, prejudicing the welfareof the State and, by no means as a last consequence, bringing eviland destruction on economic life itself.
Therefore in the hands of the National Socialist Trades Unionthe strike is not an instrument for disturbing and dislocating thenational production, but for increasing it and making it runsmoothly, by fighting against all those annoyances which by reasonof their unsocial character hinder efficiency in business andthereby hamper the existence of the whole nation. For individualefficiency stands always in casual relation to the general socialand juridical position of the individual in the economic process.Individual efficiency is also the sole root of the conviction thatthe economic prosperity of the nation must necessarily redound tothe benefit of the individual citizen.
The National Socialist employee will have to recognize the factthat the economic prosperity of the nation brings with it his ownmaterial happiness.
The National Socialist employer must recognize that thehappiness and contentment of his employees are necessarypre-requisites for the existence and development of his owneconomic prosperity.
National Socialist workers and employers are both together thedelegates and mandatories of the whole national community. Thelarge measure of personal freedom which is accorded to them fortheir activities must be explained by the fact that experience hasshown that the productive powers of the individual are moreenhanced by being accorded a generous measure of freedom than bycoercion from above. Moreover, by according this freedom we givefree play to the natural process of selection which brings forwardthe ablest and most capable and most industrious. For the NationalSocialist Trades Union, therefore, the strike is a means that may,and indeed must, be resorted to as long as there is not a NationalSocialist State yet. But when that State is established it will, asa matter of course, abolish the mass struggle between the two greatgroups made up of employers and employees respectively, a strugglewhich has always resulted in lessening the national production andinjuring the national community. In place of this struggle, theNational Socialist State will take over the task of caring for anddefending the rights of all parties concerned. It will be the dutyof the Economic Chamber itself to keep the national economic systemin smooth working order and to remove whatever defects or errors itmay suffer from. Questions that are now fought over through aquarrel that involves millions of people will then be settled inthe Representative Chambers of Trades and Professions and in theCentral Economic Parliament. Thus employers and employees will nolonger find themselves drawn into a mutual conflict over wages andhours 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 willbe as a shining ideal to throw light on all their negotiations.
Here again, as everywhere else, the inflexible principle must beobserved, that the interests of the country must come before partyinterests.
The task of the National Socialist Trades Union will be toeducate and prepare its members to conform to these ideals. Thattask may be stated as follows: All must work together for themaintenance and security of our people and the People's State, eachone according to the abilities and powers with which Nature hasendowed him and which have been developed and trained by thenational community.
Our fourth question was: How shall we establish trades unionsfor such tasks and aims? That is far more difficult to answer.
Generally speaking, it is easier to establish something in newterritory than in old territory which already has its establishedinstitutions. In a district where there is no existing business ofa special character one can easily establish a new business of thischaracter. But it is more difficult if the same kind of enterprisealready exists and it is most difficult of all when the conditionsare such that only one enterprise of this kind can prosper. Forhere the promoters of the new enterprise find themselves confrontednot only with the problem of introducing their own business butalso that of how to bring about the destruction of the otherbusiness already existing in the district, so that the newenterprise may be able to exist.
It would be senseless to have a National Socialist Trades Unionside by side with other trades unions. For this Trades Union mustbe thoroughly imbued with a feeling for the ideological nature ofits task and of the resulting obligation not to tolerate othersimilar or hostile institutions. It must also insist that itselfalone is necessary, to the exclusion of all the rest. It can cometo no arrangement and no compromise with kindred tendencies butmust 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 takeup the fight against the Marxist International Trades Union.
(2) Or we could enter the Marxist Trades Union and inculcate anew spirit in it, with the idea of transforming it into aninstrument in the service of the new ideal.
The first way was not advisable, by reason of the fact that ourfinancial situation was still the cause of much worry to us at thattime and our resources were quite slender. The effects of theinflation were steadily spreading and made the particular situationstill more difficult for us, because in those years one couldscarcely speak of any material help which the trades unions couldextend to their members. From this point of view, there was noreason why the individual worker should pay his dues to the union.Even the Marxist unions then existing were already on the point ofcollapse until, as the result of Herr Cuno's enlightened Ruhrpolicy, millions were suddenly poured into their coffers. Thisso-called 'national' Chancellor of the Reich should go down inhistory as the Redeemer of the Marxist trades unions.
We could not count on similar financial facilities. And nobodycould be induced to enter a new Trades Union which, on account ofits financial weakness, could not offer him the slightest materialbenefit. On the other hand, I felt bound absolutely to guardagainst the creation of such an organization which would only be ashelter for shirkers of the more or less intellectual type.
At that time the question of personnel played the most importantrole. I did not have a single man whom I might call upon to carryout this important task. Whoever could have succeeded at that timein overthrowing the Marxist unions to make way for the triumph ofthe National Socialist corporative idea, which would then take theplace of the ruinous class warfare'--such a person would be fitto rank with the very greatest men our nation has produced and hisbust should be installed in the Valhalla at Regensburg for theadmiration of posterity.
But I knew of no person who could qualify for such apedestal.
In this connection we must not be led astray by the fact thatthe international trades unions are conducted by men of onlymediocre significance, for when those unions were founded there wasnothing else of a similar kind already in existence. To-day theNational Socialist Movement must fight against a monsterorganization which has existed for a long time, rests on giganticfoundations and is carefully constructed even in the smallestdetails. An assailant must always exercise more intelligence thanthe defender, if he is to overthrow the latter. The Marxisttrade-unionist citadel may be governed to-day by mediocre leaders,but it cannot be taken by assault except through the dauntlessenergy and genius of a superior leader on the other side. If such aleader cannot be found it is futile to struggle with Fate and evenmore foolish to try to overthrow the existing state of thingswithout being able to construct a better in its place.
Here one must apply the maxim that in life it is often better toallow something to go by the board rather than try to half do it ordo it badly, owing to a lack of suitable means.
To this we must add another consideration, which is not at allof a demagogic character. At that time I had, and I still haveto-day, a firmly rooted conviction that when one is engaged in agreat ideological struggle in the political field it would be agrave mistake to mix up economic questions with this struggle inits earlier stages. This applies particularly to our German people.For if such were to happen in their case the economic strugglewould immediately distract the energy necessary for the politicalfight. Once the people are brought to believe that they can buy alittle house with their savings they will devote themselves to thetask of increasing their savings and no spare time will be left tothem for the political struggle against those who, in one way oranother, will one day secure possession of the pennies that havebeen saved. Instead of participating in the political conflict onbehalf of the opinions and convictions which they have been broughtto accept they will now go further with their 'settlement' idea andin the end they will find themselves for the most part sitting onthe ground amidst all the stools.
To-day the National Socialist Movement is at the beginning ofits struggle. In great part it must first of all shape and developits ideals. It must employ every ounce of its energy in thestruggle to have its great ideal accepted, and the success of thiseffort is not conceivable unless the combined energies of themovement be entirely at the service of this struggle.
To-day we have a classical example of how the active strength ofa people becomes paralysed when that people is too much taken upwith purely economic problems.
The Revolution which took place in November 1918 was not made bythe trades unions, but it was carried out in spite of them. And thepeople of Germany did not wage any political fight for the futureof their country because they thought that the future could besufficiently secured by constructive work in the economicfield.
We must learn a lesson from this experience, because in our casethe same thing must happen under the same circumstances. The morethe combined strength of our movement is concentrated in thepolitical struggle, the more confidently may we count on beingsuccessful along our whole front. But if we busy ourselvesprematurely with trade unionist problems, settlement problems,etc., it will be to the disadvantage of our own cause, taken as awhole. For, though these problems may be important, they cannot besolved in an adequate manner until we have political power in ourhand and are able to use it in the service of this idea. Until thatday comes these problems can have only a paralysing effect on themovement. And if it takes them up too soon they will only be ahindrance in the effort to attain its own ideological aims. It maythen easily happen that trade unionist considerations will controlthe political direction of the movement, instead of the ideologicalaims of the movement directing the way that the trades unions areto take.
The movement and the nation can derive advantage from a NationalSocialist trade unionist organization only if the latter be sothoroughly inspired by National Socialist ideas that it runs nodanger of falling into step behind the Marxist movement. For aNational Socialist Trades Union which would consider itself only asa competitor against the Marxist unions would be worse than none.It must declare war against the Marxist Trades Union, not only asan organization but, above all, as an idea. It must declare itselfhostile to the idea of class and class warfare and, in place ofthis, it must declare itself as the defender of the variousoccupational and professional interests of the German people.
Considered from all these points of view it was not thenadvisable, nor is it yet advisable, to think of founding our ownTrades Union. That seemed clear to me, at least until somebodyappeared who was obviously called by fate to solve this particularproblem.
Therefore there remained only two possible ways. Either torecommend our own party members to leave the trades unions in whichthey were enrolled or to remain in them for the moment, with theidea 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 whichmight be reaped from a trades union organization would benegligible, because we could expect to enroll only a few membersowing to the undeveloped condition of our movement. The damagewhich might result from such a policy was all the greater becauseits bitterest critics and opponents were to be found among thefollowers of the National Socialist Party.
I had already entirely discountenanced all experiments whichwere destined from the very beginning to be unsuccessful. I wouldhave considered it criminal to run the risk of depriving a workerof his scant earnings in order to help an organization which,according to my inner conviction, could not promise real advantagesto its members.
Should a new political party fade out of existence one daynobody would be injured thereby and some would have profited, butnone would have a right to complain. For what each individualcontributes to a political movement is given with the idea that itmay ultimately come to nothing. But the man who pays his dues to atrade union has the right to expect some guarantee in return. Ifthis is not done, then the directors of such a trade union areswindlers or at least careless people who ought to be brought to asense of their responsibilities.
We took all these viewpoints into consideration before makingour decision in 1922. Others thought otherwise and founded tradesunions. They upbraided us for being short-sighted and failing tosee into the future. But it did not take long for theseorganizations to disappear and the result was what would havehappened in our own case. But the difference was that we shouldhave deceived neither ourselves nor those who believed in us.
CHAPTER XIII. THE GERMANPOST-WAR POLICY OF ALLIANCESThe erratic manner in which the foreign affairs of the Reichwere conducted was due to a lack of sound guiding principles forthe formation of practical and useful alliances. Not only was thisstate of affairs continued after the Revolution, but it became evenworse.
For the confused state of our political ideas in general beforethe War may be looked upon as the chief cause of our defectivestatesmanship; but in the post-War period this cause must beattributed to a lack of honest intentions. It was natural thatthose parties who had fully achieved their destructive purpose bymeans of the Revolution should feel that it would not serve theirinterests if a policy of alliances were adopted which mustultimately result in the restoration of a free German State. Adevelopment in this direction would not be in conformity with thepurposes of the November crime. It would have interrupted andindeed put an end to the internationalization of German nationaleconomy and German Labour. But what was feared most of all was thata successful effort to make the Reich independent of foreigncountries might have an influence in domestic politics which oneday would turn out disastrous for those who now hold supreme powerin the government of the Reich. One cannot imagine the revival of anation unless that revival be preceded by a process ofnationalization. Conversely, every important success in the fieldof foreign politics must call forth a favourable reaction at home.Experience proves that every struggle for liberty increases thenational sentiment and national self-consciousness and therewithgives rise to a keener sensibility towards anti-national elementsand tendencies. A state of things, and persons also, that may betolerated and even pass unnoticed in times of peace will not onlybecome the object of aversion when national enthusiasm is arousedbut will even provoke positive opposition, which frequently turnsout disastrous for them. In this connection we may recall thespy-scare that became prevalent when the war broke out, when humanpassion suddenly manifested itself to such a heightened degree asto lead to the most brutal persecutions, often without anyjustifiable grounds, although everybody knew that the dangerresulting from spies is greater during the long periods of peace;but, for obvious reasons, they do not then attract a similar amountof public attention. For this reason the subtle instinct of theState parasites who came to the surface of the national bodythrough the November happenings makes them feel at once that apolicy of alliances which would restore the freedom of our peopleand awaken national sentiment might possibly ruin their owncriminal existence.
Thus we may explain the fact that since 1918 the men who haveheld the reins of government adopted an entirely negative attitudetowards foreign affairs and that the business of the State has beenalmost constantly conducted in a systematic way against theinterests of the German nation. For that which at first sightseemed a matter of chance proved, on closer examination, to be alogical advance along the road which was first publicly enteredupon by the November Revolution of 1918.
Undoubtedly a distinction ought to be made between (1) theresponsible administrators of our affairs of State, or rather thosewho ought to be responsible; (2) the average run of ourparliamentary politicasters, and (3) the masses of our people,whose sheepish docility corresponds to their want ofintelligence.
The first know what they want. The second fall into line withthem, either because they have been already schooled in what isafoot or because they have not the courage to take anuncompromising stand against a course which they know and feel tobe detrimental. The third just submit to it because they are toostupid to understand.
While the German National Socialist Labour Party was only asmall and practically unknown society, problems of foreign policycould have only a secondary importance in the eyes of many of itsmembers. This was the case especially because our movement hasalways proclaimed the principle, and must proclaim it, that thefreedom of the country in its foreign relations is not a gift thatwill be bestowed upon us by Heaven or by any earthly Powers, butcan only be the fruit of a development of our inner forces. We mustfirst root out the causes which led to our collapse and we musteliminate all those who are profiting by that collapse. Then weshall be in a position to take up the fight for the restoration ofour freedom in the management of our foreign relations.
It will be easily understood therefore why we did not attach somuch importance to foreign affairs during the early stages of ouryoung movement, but preferred to concentrate on the problem ofinternal reform.
But when the small and insignificant society expanded andfinally grew too large for its first framework, the youngorganization assumed the importance of a great association and wethen felt it incumbent on us to take a definite stand on problemsregarding the development of a foreign policy. It was necessary tolay down the main lines of action which would not only be in accordwith the fundamental ideas of our Weltanschauung but wouldactually be an expansion of it in the practical world of foreignaffairs.
Just because our people have had no political education inmatters concerning our relations abroad, it was necessary to teachthe leaders in the various sections of our movement, and also themasses of the people, the chief principles which ought to guide thedevelopment of our foreign relations. That was one of the firsttasks to be accomplished in order to prepare the ground for thepractical carrying out of a foreign policy which would win back theindependence of the nation in managing its external affairs andthus restore the real sovereignty of the Reich.
The fundamental and guiding principles which we must always bearin mind when studying this question is that foreign policy is onlya means to an end and that the sole end to be pursued is thewelfare of our own people. Every problem in foreign politics mustbe considered from this point of view, and this point of viewalone. Shall such and such a solution prove advantageous to ourpeople 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 indealing with a question. Party politics, religious considerations,humanitarian ideals'--all such and all other preoccupationsmust absolutely give way to this.
Before the War the purpose to which German foreign policy shouldhave been devoted was to assure the supply of material necessitiesfor the maintenance of our people and their children. And the wayshould have been prepared which would lead to this goal. Alliancesshould have been established which would have proved beneficial tous from this point of view and would have brought us the necessaryauxiliary support. The task to be accomplished is the same to-day,but with this difference: In pre-War times it was a question ofcaring for the maintenance of the German people, backed up by thepower which a strong and independent State then possessed, but ourtask to-day is to make our nation powerful once again byre-establishing a strong and independent State. There-establishment of such a State is the prerequisite and necessarycondition which must be fulfilled in order that we may be ablesubsequently to put into practice a foreign policy which will serveto guarantee the existence of our people in the future, fulfillingtheir needs and furnishing them with those necessities of lifewhich they lack. In other words, the aim which Germany ought topursue to-day in her foreign policy is to prepare the way for therecovery of her liberty to-morrow. In this connection there is afundamental principle which we must keep steadily before our minds.It is this: The possibility of winning back the independence of anation is not absolutely bound up with the question of territorialreintegration but it will suffice if a small remnant, no matter howsmall, of this nation and State will exist, provided it possessesthe necessary independence to become not only the vehicle of' thecommon spirit of the whole people but also to prepare the way forthe military fight to reconquer the nation's liberty.
When a people who amount to a hundred million souls tolerate theyoke of common slavery in order to prevent the territory belongingto their State from being broken up and divided, that is worse thanif such a State and such a people were dismembered while onefragment still retained its complete independence. Of course, thenatural proviso here is that this fragment must be inspired with aconsciousness of the solemn duty that devolves upon it, not only toproclaim persistently the inviolable unity of its spiritual andcultural life with that of its detached members but also to preparethe means that are necessary for the military conflict which willfinally liberate and re-unite the fragments that are sufferingunder oppression.
One must also bear in mind the fact that the restoration of lostdistricts which were formerly parts of the State, both ethnicallyand politically, must in the first instance be a question ofwinning back political power and independence for the motherlanditself, and that in such cases the special interests of the lostdistricts must be uncompromisingly regarded as a matter ofsecondary importance in the face of the one main task, which is towin back the freedom of the central territory. For the detached andoppressed fragments of a nation or an imperial province cannotachieve their liberation through the expression of yearnings andprotests on the part of the oppressed and abandoned, but only whenthe portion which has more or less retained its sovereignindependence can resort to the use of force for the purpose ofreconquering those territories that once belonged to the commonfatherland.
Therefore, in order to reconquer lost territories the firstcondition to be fulfilled is to work energetically for theincreased welfare and reinforcement of the strength of that portionof the State which has remained over after the partition. Thus theunquenchable yearning which slumbers in the hearts of the peoplemust be awakened and restrengthened by bringing new forces to itsaid, so that when the hour comes all will be devoted to the onepurpose of liberating and uniting the whole people. Therefore, theinterests of the separated territories must be subordinated to theone purpose. That one purpose must aim at obtaining for the centralremaining portion such a measure of power and might that willenable it to enforce its will on the hostile will of the victor andthus redress the wrong. For flaming protests will not restore theoppressed territories to the bosom of a common Reich. That can bedone only through the might of the sword.
The forging of this sword is a work that has to be done throughthe domestic policy which must be adopted by a national government.To see that the work of forging these arms is assured, and torecruit the men who will bear them, that is the task of the foreignpolicy.
In the first volume of this book I discussed the inadequacy ofour policy of alliances before the War. There were four possibleways to secure the necessary foodstuffs for the maintenance of ourpeople. Of these ways the fourth, which was the most unfavourable,was chosen. Instead of a sound policy of territorial expansion inEurope, our rulers embarked on a policy of colonial and tradeexpansion. That policy was all the more mistaken inasmuch as theypresumed that in this way the danger of an armed conflict would beaverted. The result of the attempt to sit on many stools at thesame time might have been foreseen. It let us fall to the ground inthe midst of them all. And the World War was only the lastreckoning presented to the Reich to pay for the failure of itsforeign policy.
The right way that should have been taken in those days was thethird way I indicated: namely, to increase the strength of theReich as a Continental Power by the acquisition of new territory inEurope. And at the same time a further expansion, through thesubsequent acquisition of colonial territory, might thus be broughtwithin the range of practical politics. Of course, this policycould not have been carried through except in alliance withEngland, or by devoting such abnormal efforts to the increase ofmilitary force and armament that, for forty or fifty years, allcultural undertakings would have to be completely relegated to thebackground. This responsibility might very well have beenundertaken. The cultural importance of a nation is almost alwaysdependent on its political freedom and independence. Politicalfreedom is a prerequisite condition for the existence, or ratherthe creation, of great cultural undertakings. Accordingly nosacrifice can be too great when there is question of securing thepolitical freedom of a nation. What might have to be deducted fromthe budget expenses for cultural purposes, in order to meetabnormal demands for increasing the military power of the State,can be generously paid back later on. Indeed, it may be said thatafter a State has concentrated all its resources in one effort forthe purpose of securing its political independence a certain periodof ease and renewed equilibrium sets in. And it often happens thatthe cultural spirit of the nation, which had been heretoforecramped and confined, now suddenly blooms forth. Thus Greeceexperienced the great Periclean era after the miseries it hadsuffered during the Persian Wars. And the Roman Republic turned itsenergies to the cultivation of a higher civilization when it wasfreed from the stress and worry of the Punic Wars.
Of course, it could not be expected that a parliamentarymajority of feckless and stupid people would be capable of decidingon such a resolute policy for the absolute subordination of allother national interests to the one sole task of preparing for afuture conflict of arms which would result in establishing thesecurity of the State. The father of Frederick the Great sacrificedeverything in order to be ready for that conflict; but the fathersof our absurd parliamentarian democracy, with the Jewish hall-mark,could not do it.
That is why, in pre-War times, the military preparationnecessary to enable us to conquer new territory in Europe was onlyvery mediocre, so that it was difficult to obtain the support ofreally helpful allies.
Those who directed our foreign affairs would not entertain eventhe idea of systematically preparing for war. They rejected everyplan for the acquisition of territory in Europe. And by preferringa policy of colonial and trade expansion, they sacrificed thealliance with England, which was then possible. At the same timethey neglected to seek the support of Russia, which would have beena 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 itfollows no discernible or even intelligible lines of action.Whereas before the War a mistake was made in taking the fourth waythat I have mentioned, and this was pursued only in a halfheartedmanner, since the Revolution not even the sharpest eye can detectany way that is being followed. Even more than before the War,there is absolutely no such thing as a systematic plan, except thesystematic attempts that are made to destroy the last possibilityof a national revival.
If we make an impartial examination of the situation existing inEurope to-day as far as concerns the relation of the various Powersto one another, we shall arrive at the following results:
For the past three hundred years the history of our Continenthas been definitely determined by England's efforts to keep theEuropean States opposed to one another in an equilibrium of forces,thus assuring the necessary protection of her own rear while shepursued the great aims of British world-policy.
The traditional tendency of British diplomacy ever since thereign of Queen Elizabeth has been to employ systematically everypossible means to prevent any one Power from attaining apreponderant position over the other European Powers and, ifnecessary, to break that preponderance by means of armedintervention. The only parallel to this has been the tradition ofthe Prussian Army. England has made use of various forces to carryout its purpose, choosing them according to the actual situation orthe task to be faced; but the will and determination to use themhas always been the same. The more difficult England's positionbecame in the course of history the more the British ImperialGovernment considered it necessary to maintain a condition ofpolitical paralysis among the various European States, as a resultof their mutual rivalries. When the North American coloniesobtained their political independence it became still morenecessary for England to use every effort to establish and maintainthe defence of her flank in Europe. In accordance with this policyshe reduced Spain and the Netherlands to the position of inferiornaval Powers. Having accomplished this, England concentrated allher forces against the increasing strength of France, until shebrought about the downfall of Napoleon Bonaparte and therewithdestroyed the military hegemony of France, which was the mostdangerous rival that England had to fear.
The change of attitude in British statesmanship towards Germanytook place only very slowly, not only because the German nation didnot represent an obvious danger for England as long as it lackednational unification, but also because public opinion in England,which had been directed to other quarters by a system of propagandathat had been carried out for a long time, could be turned to a newdirection only by slow degrees. In order to reach the proposed endsthe calmly reflecting statesman had to bow to popular sentiment,which is the most powerful motive-force and is at the same time themost lasting in its energy. When the statesman has attained one ofhis ends, he must immediately turn his thoughts to others; but onlyby degrees and the slow work of propaganda can the sentiment of themasses be shaped into an instrument for the attainment of the newaims which their leaders have decided on.
As early as 1870-71 England had decided on the new stand itwould take. On certain occasions minor oscillations in that policywere caused by the growing influence of America in the commercialmarkets of the world and also by the increasing political power ofRussia; but, unfortunately, Germany did not take advantage of theseand, therefore, the original tendency of British diplomacy was onlyreinforced.
England looked upon Germany as a Power which was of worldimportance commercially and politically and which, partly becauseof its enormous industrial development, assumed such threateningproportions that the two countries already contended against oneanother in the same sphere and with equal energy. The so-calledpeaceful conquest of the world by commercial enterprise, which, inthe eyes of those who governed our public affairs at that time,represented the highest peak of human wisdom, was just the thingthat led English statesmen to adopt a policy of resistance. Thatthis resistance assumed the form of an organized aggression on avast scale was in full conformity with a type of statesmanshipwhich did not aim at the maintenance of a dubious world peace butaimed at the consolidation of British world-hegemony. In carryingout this policy, England allied herself with those countries whichhad a definite military importance. And that was in keeping withher traditional caution in estimating the power of her adversaryand also in recognizing her own temporary weakness. That line ofconduct cannot be called unscrupulous; because such a comprehensiveorganization for war purposes must not be judged from the heroicpoint of view but from that of expediency. The object of adiplomatic policy must not be to see that a nation goes downheroically but rather that it survives in a practical way. Henceevery road that leads to this goal is opportune and the failure totake it must be looked upon as a criminal neglect of duty.
When the German Revolution took place England's fears of aGerman world hegemony came to a satisfactory end.
From that time it was not an English interest to see Germanytotally cancelled from the geographic map of Europe. On thecontrary, the astounding collapse which took place in November 1918found British diplomacy confronted with a situation which at firstappeared untenable.
For four-and-a-half years the British Empire had fought to breakthe presumed preponderance of a Continental Power. A suddencollapse now happened which removed this Power from the foregroundof European affairs. That collapse disclosed itself finally in thelack of even the primordial instinct of self-preservation, so thatEuropean equilibrium was destroyed within forty-eight hours.Germany was annihilated and France became the first political Poweron the Continent of Europe.
The tremendous propaganda which was carried on during this warfor the purpose of encouraging the British public to stick it outto the end aroused all the primitive instincts and passions of thepopulace and was bound eventually to hang as a leaden weight on thedecisions of British statesmen. With the colonial, economical andcommercial destruction of Germany, England's war aims wereattained. Whatever went beyond those aims was an obstacle to thefurtherance of British interests. Only the enemies of England couldprofit by the disappearance of Germany as a Great Continental Powerin 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 everdone before, to the feelings of the populace. In view of thefeeling prevalent among its own people, England could not changeits foreign policy; and another reason which made that impossiblewas the military strength to which other European Powers had nowattained. France had taken the direction of peace negotiations intoher own hands and could impose her law upon the others. Duringthose months of negotiations and bargaining the only Power thatcould have altered the course which things were taking was Germanyherself; but Germany was torn asunder by a civil war, and herso-called statesmen had declared themselves ready to accept any andevery dictate imposed on them.
Now, in the comity of nations, when one nation loses itsinstinct for self-preservation and ceases to be an active member itsinks to the level of an enslaved nation and its territory willhave to suffer the fate of a colony.
To prevent the power of France from becoming too great, the onlyform which English negotiations could take was that ofparticipating in France's lust for aggrandizement.
As a matter of fact, England did not attain the ends for whichshe went to war. Not only did it turn out impossible to prevent aContinental Power from obtaining a preponderance over the ratio ofstrength in the Continental State system of Europe, but a largemeasure of preponderance had been obtained and firmlyestablished.
In 1914 Germany, considered as a military State, was wedged inbetween two countries, one of which had equal military forces atits disposal and the other had greater military resources. Thenthere was England's overwhelming supremacy at sea. France andRussia alone hindered and opposed the excessive aggrandizement ofGermany. The unfavourable geographical situation of the Reich, fromthe military point of view, might be looked upon as anothercoefficient of security against an exaggerated increase of Germanpower. From the naval point of view, the configuration of thecoast-line was unfavourable in case of a conflict with England. Andthough the maritime frontier was short and cramped, the landfrontier was widely extended and open.
France's position is different to-day. It is the first militaryPower without a serious rival on the Continent. It is almostentirely protected by its southern frontier against Spain andItaly. Against Germany it is safeguarded by the prostrate conditionof our country. A long stretch of its coast-line faces the vitalnervous system of the British Empire. Not only could Frenchaeroplanes and long-range batteries attack the vital centres of theBritish system, but submarines can threaten the great Britishcommercial routes. A submarine campaign based on France's longAtlantic coast and on the European and North African coasts of theMediterranean would have disastrous consequences for England.
Thus the political results of the war to prevent the developmentof German power was the creation of a French hegemony on theContinent. The military result was the consolidation of France asthe first Continental Power and the recognition of Americanequality on the sea. The economic result was the cession of greatspheres of British interests to her former allies andassociates.
The Balkanization of Europe, up to a certain degree, wasdesirable and indeed necessary in the light of the traditionalpolicy of Great Britain, just as France desired the Balkanizationof Germany.
What England has always desired, and will continue to desire, isto prevent any one Continental Power in Europe from attaining aposition of world importance. Therefore England wishes to maintaina definite equilibrium of forces among the EuropeanStates'--for this equilibrium seems a necessary condition ofEngland's world-hegemony.
What France has always desired, and will continue to desire, isto prevent Germany from becoming a homogeneous Power. ThereforeFrance wants to maintain a system of small German States whoseforces would balance one another and over which there should be nocentral government. Then, by acquiring possession of the left bankof the Rhine, she would have fulfilled the pre-requisite conditionsfor the establishment and security of her hegemony in Europe.
The final aims of French diplomacy must be in perpetualopposition to the final tendencies of British statesmanship.
Taking these considerations as a starting-point, anyone whoinvestigates the possibilities that exist for Germany to findallies must come to the conclusion that there remains no other wayof forming an alliance except to approach England. The consequencesof England's war policy were and are disastrous for Germany.However, we cannot close our eyes to the fact that, as things standto-day, the necessary interests of England no longer demand thedestruction of Germany. On the contrary, British diplomacy musttend more and more, from year to year, towards curbing France'sunbridled lust after hegemony. Now, a policy of alliances cannot bepursued by bearing past grievances in mind, but it can be renderedfruitful by taking account of past experiences. Experience shouldhave taught us that alliances formed for negative purposes sufferfrom intrinsic weakness. The destinies of nations can be weldedtogether only under the prospect of a common success, of commongain and conquest, in short, a common extension of power for bothcontracting parties.
The ignorance of our people on questions of foreign politics isclearly demonstrated by the reports in the daily Press which talkabout "friendship towards Germany" on the part of one or the otherforeign statesman, whereby this professed friendship is taken as aspecial guarantee that such persons will champion a policy thatwill be advantageous to our people. That kind of talk is absurd toan incredible degree. It means speculating on the unparalleledsimplicity of the average German philistine when he comes totalking politics. There is not any British, American, or Italianstatesman who could ever be described as 'pro-German'. EveryEnglishman must naturally be British first of all. The same is trueof every American. And no Italian statesman would be prepared toadopt a policy that was not pro-Italian. Therefore, anyone whoexpects to form alliances with foreign nations on the basis of apro-German feeling among the statesmen of other countries is eitheran ass or a deceiver. The necessary condition for linking togetherthe destinies of nations is never mutual esteem or mutual sympathy,but rather the prospect of advantages accruing to the contractingparties. It is true that a British statesman will always follow apro-British and not a pro-German policy; but it is also true thatcertain definite interests involved in this pro-British policy maycoincide on various grounds with German interests. Naturally thatcan be so only to a certain degree and the situation may one day becompletely reversed. But the art of statesmanship is shown when atcertain periods there is question of reaching a certain end andwhen allies are found who must take the same road in order todefend their own interests.
The practical application of these principles at the presenttime must depend on the answer given to the following questions:What States are not vitally interested in the fact that, by thecomplete abolition of a German Central Europe, the economic andmilitary power of France has reached a position of absolutehegemony? Which are the States that, in consideration of theconditions which are essential to their own existence and in viewof the tradition that has hitherto been followed in conductingtheir foreign policy, envisage such a development as a menace totheir own future?
Finally, we must be quite clear on the following point: Franceis and will remain the implacable enemy of Germany. It does notmatter what Governments have ruled or will rule in France, whetherBourbon or Jacobin, Napoleonic or Bourgeois-Democratic, ClericalRepublican or Red Bolshevik, their foreign policy will always bedirected towards acquiring possession of the Rhine frontier andconsolidating France's position on this river by disuniting anddismembering Germany.
England did not want Germany to be a world Power. France desiredthat there should be no Power called Germany. Therefore there was avery essential difference. To-day we are not fighting for ourposition as a World-Power but only for the existence of ourcountry, for national unity and the daily bread of our children.Taking this point of view into consideration, only two Statesremain to us as possible allies in Europe'--England andItaly.
England is not pleased to see a France on whose military powerthere is no check in Europe, so that one day she might undertakethe support of a policy which in some way or other might come intoconflict with British interests. Nor can England be pleased to seeFrance in possession of such enormous coal and iron mines inWestern Europe as would make it possible for her one day to play arole in world-commerce which might threaten danger to Britishinterests. Moreover, England can never be pleased to see a Francewhose political position on the Continent, owing to thedismemberment of the rest of Europe, seems so absolutely assuredthat she is not only able to resume a French world-policy on greatlines but would even find herself compelled to do so. The bombswhich were once dropped by the Zeppelins might be multiplied by thethousand every night. The military predominance of France is aweight that presses heavily on the hearts of the World Empire overwhich Great Britain rules.
Nor can Italy desire, nor will she desire, any furtherstrengthening of France's power in Europe. The future of Italy willbe conditioned by the development of events in the Mediterraneanand by the political situation in the area surrounding that sea.The reason that led Italy into the War was not a desire tocontribute towards the aggrandizement of France but rather to dealher hated Adriatic rival a mortal blow. Any further increase ofFrance's power on the Continent would hamper the development ofItaly's future, and Italy does not deceive herself by thinking thatracial kindred between the nations will in any way eliminaterivalries.
Serious and impartial consideration proves that it is these twoStates, Great Britain and Italy, whose natural interests not onlydo not contrast with the conditions essential to the existence ofthe German nation but are identical with them, to a certainextent.
But when we consider the possibilities of alliances we must becareful not to lose sight of three factors. The first factorconcerns ourselves; the other two concern the two States I havementioned.
Is it at all possible to conclude an alliance with Germany as itis to-day? Can a Power which would enter into an alliance for thepurpose of securing assistance in an effort to carry out its ownoffensive aims'--can such a Power form an alliance witha State whose rulers have for years long presented a spectacle ofdeplorable incompetence and pacifist cowardice and where themajority of the people, blinded by democratic and Marxistteachings, betray the interests of their own people and country ina manner that cries to Heaven for vengeance? As things standto-day, can any Power hope to establish useful relations and hopeto fight together for the furtherance of their common interestswith this State which manifestly has neither the will nor thecourage 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 morethan a pact to guarantee a state of slow decomposition, such ashappened with the old and disastrous Triple Alliance. Can such aPower associate itself for life or death with a State whose mostcharacteristic signs of activity consist of a rampant servility inexternal relations and a scandalous repression of the nationalspirit at home? Can such a Power be associated with a State inwhich there is nothing of greatness, because its whole policy doesnot deserve it? Or can alliances be made with Governments which arein the hands of men who are despised by their own fellow-citizensand consequently are not respected abroad?
No. A self-respecting Power which expects something more fromalliances than commissions for greedy Parliamentarians will not andcannot enter into an alliance with our present-day Germany. Ourpresent inability to form alliances furnishes the principle andmost solid basis for the combined action of the enemies who arerobbing us. Because Germany does not defend itself in any other wayexcept by the flamboyant protests of our parliamentarian elect,there is no reason why the rest of the world should take up thefight in our defence. And God does not follow the principle ofgranting freedom to a nation of cowards, despite all theimplications of our 'patriotic' associations. Therefore, for thoseStates which have not a direct interest in our annihilation noother course remains open except to participate in France'scampaign of plunder, at least to make it impossible for thestrength of France to be exclusively aggrandized thereby.
In the second place, we must not forget that among the nationswhich were formerly our enemies mass-propaganda has turned theopinions and feelings of large sections of the population in afixed direction. When for years long a foreign nation has beenpresented to the public as a horde of 'Huns', 'Robbers', 'Vandals',etc., they cannot suddenly be presented as something different, andthe enemy of yesterday cannot be recommended as the ally oftomorrow.
But the third factor deserves greater attention, since it is ofessential importance for establishing future alliances inEurope.
From the political point of view it is not in the interests ofGreat Britain that Germany should be ruined even still more, butsuch a proceeding would be very much in the interests of theinternational money-markets manipulated by the Jew. The cleavagebetween the official, or rather traditional, British statesmanshipand the controlling influence of the Jew on the money-markets isnowhere so clearly manifested as in the various attitudes takentowards problems of British foreign policy. Contrary to theinterests and welfare of the British State, Jewish finance demandsnot only the absolute economic destruction of Germany but itscomplete political enslavement. The internationalization of ourGerman economic system, that is to say, the transference of ourproductive forces to the control of Jewish international finance,can be completely carried out only in a State that has beenpolitically Bolshevized. But the Marxist fighting forces, commandedby international and Jewish stock-exchange capital, cannot finallysmash the national resistance in Germany without friendly help fromoutside. For this purpose French armies would first have to invadeand overcome the territory of the German Reich until a state ofinternational chaos would set in, and then the country would haveto succumb to Bolshevik storm troops in the service of Jewishinternational finance.
Hence it is that at the present time the Jew is the greatagitator for the complete destruction of Germany. Whenever we readof attacks against Germany taking place in any part of the worldthe Jew is always the instigator. In peace-time, as well as duringthe War, the Jewish-Marxist stock-exchange Press systematicallystirred up hatred against Germany, until one State after anotherabandoned its neutrality and placed itself at the service of theworld coalition, even against the real interests of its ownpeople.
The Jewish way of reasoning thus becomes quite clear. TheBolshevization of Germany, that is to say, the extermination of thepatriotic and national German intellectuals, thus making itpossible to force German Labour to bear the yoke of internationalJewish finance'--that is only the overture to the movement forexpanding Jewish power on a wider scale and finally subjugating theworld to its rule. As has so often happened in history, Germany isthe chief pivot of this formidable struggle. If our people and ourState should fall victims to these oppressors of the nations,lusting after blood and money, the whole earth would become theprey of that hydra. Should Germany be freed from its grip, a greatmenace for the nations of the world would thereby beeliminated.
It is certain that Jewry uses all its subterranean activitiesnot only for the purpose of keeping alive old national enmitiesagainst Germany but even to spread them farther and render themmore acute wherever possible. It is no less certain that theseactivities are only very partially in keeping with the trueinterests of the nations among whose people the poison is spread.As a general principle, Jewry carries on its campaign in thevarious countries by the use of arguments that are best calculatedto appeal to the mentality of the respective nations and are mostlikely to produce the desired results; for Jewry knows what thepublic feeling is in each country. Our national stock has been somuch adulterated by the mixture of alien elements that, in itsfight for power, Jewry can make use of the more or less'cosmopolitan' circles which exist among us, inspired by thepacifist and international ideologies. In France they exploit thewell-known and accurately estimated chauvinistic spirit. In Englandthey exploit the commercial and world-political outlook. In short,they always work upon the essential characteristics that belong tothe mentality of each nation. When they have in this way achieved adecisive influence in the political and economic spheres they candrop the limitations which their former tactics necessitated, nowdisclosing their real intentions and the ends for which they arefighting. Their work of destruction now goes ahead more quickly,reducing one State after another to a mass of ruins on which theywill erect the everlasting and sovereign Jewish Empire.
In England, and in Italy, the contrast between the better kindof solid statesmanship and the policy of the Jewish stock-exchangeoften becomes strikingly evident.
Only in France there exists to-day more than ever before aprofound accord between the views of the stock-exchange, controlledby the Jews, and the chauvinistic policy pursued by Frenchstatesmen. This identity of views constitutes an immense, dangerfor Germany. And it is just for this reason that France is and willremain by far the most dangerous enemy. The French people, who arebecoming more and more obsessed by negroid ideas, represent athreatening menace to the existence of the white race in Europe,because they are bound up with the Jewish campaign forworld-domination. For the contamination caused by the influx ofnegroid blood on the Rhine, in the very heart of Europe, is inaccord with the sadist and perverse lust for vengeance on the partof the hereditary enemy of our people, just as it suits the purposeof the cool calculating Jew who would use this means of introducinga process of bastardization in the very centre of the EuropeanContinent and, by infecting the white race with the blood of aninferior stock, would destroy the foundations of its independentexistence.
France's activities in Europe to-day, spurred on by the Frenchlust for vengeance and systematically directed by the Jew, are acriminal attack against the life of the white race and will one dayarouse against the French people a spirit of vengeance among ageneration which will have recognized the original sin of mankindin this racial pollution.
As far as concerns Germany, the danger which France representsinvolves the duty of relegating all sentiment to a subordinateplace and extending the hand to those who are threatened with thesame menace and who are not willing to suffer or tolerate France'slust for hegemony.
For a long time yet to come there will be only two Powers inEurope with which it may be possible for Germany to conclude analliance. These Powers are Great Britain and Italy.
If we take the trouble to cast a glance backwards on the way inwhich German foreign policy has been conducted since the Revolutionwe must, in view of the constant and incomprehensible acts ofsubmission on the part. of our governments, either lose heart orbecome fired with rage and take up the cudgels against such aregime. Their way of acting cannot be attributed to a want ofunderstanding, because what seemed to every thinking man to beinconceivable was accomplished by the leaders of the Novemberparties with their Cyclopean intellects. They bowed to France andbegged her favour. Yes, during all these recent years, with thetouching simplicity of incorrigible visionaries, they went on theirknees to France again and again. They perpetuaily wagged theirtails before the Grande Nation. And in eachtrick-o'-the-loop which the French hangmen performed with his ropethey recognized a visible change of feeling. Our real politicalwire-pullers never shared in this absurd credulity. The idea ofestablishing a friendship with France was for them only a means ofthwarting every attempt on Germany's part to adopt a practicalpolicy of alliances. They had no illusions about French aims orthose of the men behind the scenes in France. What induced them totake up such an attitude and to act as if they honestly believedthat the fate of Germany could possibly be changed in this way wasthe cool calculation that if this did not happen our people mighttake the reins into their own hands and choose another road.
Of course it is difficult for us to propose England as ourpossible ally in the future. Our Jewish Press has always been adeptin concentrating hatred against England particularly. And many ofour good German simpletons perch on these branches which the Jewshave limed to capture them. They babble about a restoration ofGerman sea power and protest against the robbery of our colonies.Thus they furnish material which the contriving Jew transmits tohis clansmen in England, so that it can be used there for purposesof practical propaganda. For our simple-minded bourgeoisie whoindulge in politics can take in only little by little the idea thatto-day we have not to fight for 'sea-power' and such things. Evenbefore the War it was absurd to direct the national energies ofGermany towards this end without first having secured our positionin Europe. Such a hope to-day reaches that peak of absurdity whichmay be called criminal in the domain of politics.
Often one becomes really desperate on seeing how the Jewishwire-pullers succeeded in concentrating the attention of the peopleon things which are only of secondary importance to-day, Theyincited the people to demonstrations and protests while at the sametime France was tearing our nation asunder bit by bit andsystematically removing the very foundations of our nationalindependence.
In this connection I have to think of the Wooden Horse in theriding of which the Jew showed extraordinary skill during theseyears. I mean South Tyrol.
Yes, South Tyrol. The reason why I take up this question here isjust because I want to call to account that shamefulcanaille who relied on the ignorance and short memories oflarge sections of our people and stimulated a national indignationwhich is as foreign to the real character of our parliamentaryimpostors as the idea of respect for private property is to amagpie.
I should like to state here that I was one of those who, at thetime when the fate of South Tyrol was being decided'--that isto say, from August 1914 to November 1918'--took my place wherethat country also could have been effectively defended, namely, inthe Army. I did my share in the fighting during those years, notmerely to save South Tyrol from being lost but also to save everyother German province for the Fatherland.
The parliamentary sharpers did not take part in that combat. Thewhole canaille played party politics. On the other hand, wecarried on the fight in the belief that a victorious issue of theWar would enable the German nation to keep South Tyrol also; butthe loud-mouthed traitor carried on a seditious agitation againstsuch a victorious issue, until the fighting Siegfried succumbed tothe dagger plunged in his back. It was only natural that theinflammatory and hypocritical speeches of the elegantly dressedparliamentarians on the Vienna Rathaus Platz or in front ofthe Feldherrnhalle in Munich could not save South Tyrol forGermany. That could be done only by the fighting battalions at theFront. 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 solvedto-day by protests and manifestations and processions organized byvarious associations is either a humbug or merely a Germanphilistine.
In this regard it must be quite clearly understood that wecannot get back the territories we have lost if we depend on solemnimprecations before the throne of the Almighty God or on pioushopes in a League of Nations, but only by the force of arms.
Therefore the only remaining question is: Who is ready to takeup arms for the restoration of the lost territories?
As far as concerns myself personally, I can state with a goodconscience that I would have courage enough to take part in acampaign for the reconquest of South Tyrol, at the head ofparliamentarian storm battalions consisting of parliamentariangasconaders and all the party leaders, also the various Councillorsof State. Only the Devil knows whether I might have the luck ofseeing a few shells suddenly burst over this 'burning'demonstration of protest. I think that if a fox were to break intoa poultry yard his presence would not provoke such a helter-skelterand rush to cover as we should witness in the band of'protesters'.
The vilest part of it all is that these talkers themselves donot believe that anything can be achieved in this way. Each one ofthem knows very well how harmless and ineffective their wholepretence is. They do it only because it is easier now to babbleabout the restoration of South Tyrol than to fight for itspreservation in days gone by.
Each one plays the part that he is best capable of playing inlife. In those days we offered our blood. To-day these people areengaged in whetting their tusks.
It is particularly interesting to note to-day how legitimistcircles in Vienna preen themselves on their work for therestoration of South Tyrol. Seven years ago their august andillustrious Dynasty helped, by an act of perjury and treason, tomake it possible for the victorious world-coalition to take awaySouth Tyrol. At that time these circles supported the perfidiouspolicy adopted by their Dynasty and did not trouble themselves inthe least about the fate of South Tyrol or any other province.Naturally it is easier to-day to take up the fight for thisterritory, since the present struggle is waged with 'the weapons ofthe mind'. Anyhow, it is easier to join in a 'meeting ofprotestation' and talk yourself hoarse in giving vent to the nobleindignation that fills your breast, or stain your finger with thewriting of a newspaper article, than to blow up a bridge, forinstance, during the occupation of the Ruhr.
The reason why certain circles have made the question of SouthTyrol the pivot of German-Italian relations during the past fewyears is quite evident. Jews and Habsburg legitimists are greatlyinterested in preventing Germany from pursuing a policy of alliancewhich might lead one day to the resurgence of a free Germanfatherland. It is not out of love for South Tyrol that they playthis role to-day'--for their policy would turn out detrimentalrather than helpful to the interests of that province'--butthrough fear of an agreement being established between Germany andItaly.
A tendency towards lying and calumny lies in the nature of thesepeople, and that explains how they can calmly and brazenly attemptto 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 everyGerman who was sound in limb and body and did not offer himself forservice at the Front during 1914-1918 to do his duty towards hiscountry.
In the second place, Tyrol was betrayed by every man who, duringthose years did not help to reinforce the national spirit and thenational powers of resistance, so as to enable the country to carrythrough the War and keep up the fight to the very end.
In the third place, South Tyrol was betrayed by everyone whotook part in the November Revolution, either directly by his act orindirectly by a cowardly toleration of it, and thus broke the soleweapon that could have saved South Tyrol.
In the fourth place, South Tyrol was betrayed by those partiesand their adherents who put their signatures to the disgracefultreaties of Versailles and St. Germain.
And so the matter stands, my brave gentlemen, who make yourprotests only with words.
To-day I am guided by a calm and cool recognition of the factthat the lost territories cannot be won back by the whetted tonguesof parliamentary spouters but only by the whetted sword; in otherwords, through a fight where blood will have to be shed.
Now, I have no hesitations in saying that to-day, once the diehas been cast, it is not only impossible to win back South Tyrolthrough a war but I should definitely take my stand against such amovement, because I am convinced that it would not be possible toarouse the national enthusiasm of the German people and maintain itin such a way as would be necessary in order to carry through sucha war to a successful issue. On the contrary, I believe that if wehave to shed German blood once again it would be criminal to do sofor the sake of liberating 200,000 Germans, when more than sevenmillion neighbouring Germans are suffering under foreign dominationand a vital artery of the German nation has become a playground forhordes of African niggers.
If the German nation is to put an end to a state of things whichthreatens to wipe it off the map of Europe it must not fall intothe errors of the pre-War period and make the whole world itsenemy. But it must ascertain who is its most dangerous enemy sothat 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 generationswill not condemn us for that. They will take account of themiseries and anxieties which led us to make such a bitter decision,and in the light of that consideration they will more clearlyrecognize the brilliancy of our success.
Again I must say here that we must always be guided by thefundamental principle that, as a preliminary to winning back lostprovinces, the political independence and strength of themotherland must first be restored.
The first task which has to be accomplished is to make thatindependence possible and to secure it by a wise policy ofalliances, which presupposes an energetic management of our publicaffairs.
But it is just on this point that we, National Socialists, haveto guard against being dragged into the tow of our rantingbourgeois patriots who take their cue from the Jew. It would be adisaster if, instead of preparing for the coming struggle, ourMovement also were to busy itself with mere protests by word ofmouth.
It was the fantastic idea of a Nibelungen alliance with thedecomposed body of the Habsburg State that brought about Germany'sruin. Fantastic sentimentality in dealing with the possibilities offoreign policy to-day would be the best means of preventing ourrevival for innumerable years to come.
Here I must briefly answer the objections which may be raised inregard to the three questions I have put.
1. Is it possible at all to form an alliance with the presentGermany, whose weakness is so visible to all eyes?
2. Can the ex-enemy nations change their attitude towardsGermany?
3. In other nations is not the influence of Jewry stronger thanthe recognition of their own interests, and does not this influencethwart all their good intentions and render all their plansfutile?
I think that I have already dealt adequately with one of the twoaspects of the first point. Of course nobody will enter into analliance with the present Germany. No Power in the world would linkits fortunes with a State whose government does not afford groundsfor the slightest confidence. As regards the attempt which has beenmade by many of our compatriots to explain the conduct of theGovernment by referring to the woeful state of public feeling andthus excuse such conduct, I must strongly object to that way oflooking at things.
The lack of character which our people have shown during thelast six years is deeply distressing. The indifference with whichthey have treated the most urgent necessities of our nation mightveritably lead one to despair. Their cowardice is such that itoften cries to heaven for vengeance. But one must never forget thatwe are dealing with a people who gave to the world, a few yearspreviously, an admirable example of the highest human qualities.From the first days of August 1914 to the end of the tremendousstruggle between the nations, no people in the world gave a betterproof of manly courage, tenacity and patient endurance, than thispeople gave who are so cast down and dispirited to-day. Nobody willdare to assert that the lack of character among our people to-dayis typical of them. What we have to endure to-day, among us andaround us, is due only to the influence of the sad and distressingeffects that followed the high treason committed on November 9th,1918. More than ever before the word of the poet is true: that evilcan only give rise to evil. But even in this epoch those qualitiesamong our people which are fundamentally sound are not entirelylost. They slumber in the depths of the national conscience, andsometimes in the clouded firmament we see certain qualities likeshining lights which Germany will one day remember as the firstsymptoms of a revival. We often see young Germans assembling andforming determined resolutions, as they did in 1914, freely andwillingly to offer themselves as a sacrifice on the altar of theirbeloved Fatherland. Millions of men have resumed work,whole-heartedly and zealously, as if no revolution had everaffected them. The smith is at his anvil once again. And the farmerdrives his plough. The scientist is in his laboratory. Andeverybody is once again attending to his duty with the same zealand devotion as formerly.
The oppression which we suffer from at the hands of our enemiesis no longer taken, as it formerly was, as a matter for laughter;but it is resented with bitterness and anger. There can be no doubtthat a great change of attitude has taken place.
This evolution has not yet taken the shape of a consciousintention and movement to restore the political power andindependence of our nation; but the blame for this must beattributed to those utterly incompetent people who have no naturalendowments to qualify them for statesmanship and yet have beengoverning 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 poorsupport which the people give to any measures introduced by theGovernment? Is it not true that such a thing as a Government hardlyexists at all? And must we consider the poor support which itreceives as a sign of a lack of vitality in the nation itself; oris it not rather a proof of the complete failure of the methodsemployed in the management of this valuable trust? What have ourGovernments done to re-awaken in the nation a proud spirit ofself-assertion, up-standing manliness, and a spirit of righteousdefiance towards its enemies?
In 1919, when the Peace Treaty was imposed on the German nation,there were grounds for hoping that this instrument of unrestrictedoppression would help to reinforce the outcry for the freedom ofGermany. Peace treaties which make demands that fall like awhip-lash on the people turn out not infrequently to be the signalof a future revival.
To what purpose could the Treaty of Versailles have beenexploited?
In the hands of a willing Government, how could this instrumentof unlimited blackmail and shameful humiliation have been appliedfor the purpose of arousing national sentiment to its highestpitch? How could a well-directed system of propaganda have utilizedthe sadist cruelty of that treaty so as to change the indifferenceof the people to a feeling of indignation and transform thatindignation into a spirit of dauntless resistance?
Each point of that Treaty could have been engraved on the mindsand hearts of the German people and burned into them until sixtymillion men and women would find their souls aflame with a feelingof rage and shame; and a torrent of fire would burst forth as froma furnace, and one common will would be forged from it, like asword of steel. Then the people would join in the common cry: "Toarms again!"
Yes. A treaty of that kind can be used for such a purpose. Itsunbounded oppression and its impudent demands were an excellentpropaganda weapon to arouse the sluggish spirit of the nation andrestore its vitality.
Then, from the child's story-book to the last newspaper in thecountry, and every theatre and cinema, every pillar where placardsare posted and every free space on the hoardings should be utilizedin the service of this one great mission, until the faint-heartedcry, "Lord, deliver us," which our patriotic associations send upto Heaven to-day would be transformed into an ardent prayer:"Almighty God, bless our arms when the hour comes. Be just, as Thouhast 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 theyshould be or might be? The rest of the world looks upon us only asits valet, or as a kindly dog that will lick its master's handafter he has been whipped.
Of course the possibilities of forming alliances with othernations are hampered by the indifference of our own people, butmuch more by our Governments. They have been and are so corruptthat now, after eight years of indescribable oppression, thereexists only a faint desire for liberty.
In order that our nation may undertake a policy of alliances, itmust restore its prestige among other nations, and it must have anauthoritative Government that is not a drudge in the service offoreign States and the taskmaster of its own people, but rather theherald of the national will.
If our people had a government which would look upon this as itsmission, six years would not have passed before a courageousforeign policy on the part of the Reich would find a correspondingsupport among the people, whose desire for freedom would beencouraged and intensified thereby.
The third objection referred to the difficulty of changing theex-enemy nations into friendly allies. That objection may beanswered as follows:
The general anti-German psychosis which has developed in othercountries through the war propaganda must of necessity continue toexist as long as there is not a renaissance of the nationalconscience among the German people, so that the German Reich mayonce again become a State which is able to play its part on thechess-board of European politics and with whom the others feel thatthey can play. Only when the Government and the people feelabsolutely certain of being able to undertake a policy of alliancescan one Power or another, whose interests coincide with ours, thinkof instituting a system of propaganda for the purpose of changingpublic opinion among its own people. Naturally it will take severalyears of persevering and ably directed work to reach such a result.Just because a long period is needed in order to change the publicopinion of a country, it is necessary to reflect calmly before suchan enterprise be undertaken. This means that one must not enterupon this kind of work unless one is absolutely convinced that itis worth the trouble and that it will bring results which will bevaluable in the future. One must not try to change the opinions andfeelings of a people by basing one's actions on the vain cajoleryof a more or less brilliant Foreign Minister, but only if there bea tangible guarantee that the new orientation will be reallyuseful. Otherwise public opinion in the country dealt with may bejust thrown into a state of complete confusion. The most reliableguarantee that can be given for the possibility of subsequentlyentering into an alliance with a certain State cannot be found inthe loquacious suavity of some individual member of the Government,but in the manifest stability of a definite and practical policy onthe part of the Government as a whole, and in the support which isgiven to that policy by the public opinion of the country. Thefaith of the public in this policy will be strengthened all themore if the Government organize one active propaganda to explainits efforts and secure public support for them, and if publicopinion favourably responds to the Government's policy.
Therefore a nation in such a position as ours will be lookedupon as a possible ally if public opinion supports the Government'spolicy and if both are united in the same enthusiasticdetermination to carry through the fight for national freedom. Thatcondition of affairs must be firmly established before any attemptcan be made to change public opinion in other countries which, forthe sake of defending their most elementary interests, are disposedto take the road shoulder-to-shoulder with a companion who seemsable 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 thatthe task of bringing about a radical change in the public opinionof a country calls for hard work, and many do not at firstunderstand what it means, it would be both foolish and criminal tocommit mistakes which could be used as weapons in the hands ofthose who are opposed to such a change.
One must recognize the fact that it takes a long time for apeople to understand completely the inner purposes which aGovernment has in view, because it is not possible to explain theultimate aims of the preparations that are being made to carrythrough a certain policy. In such cases the Government has to counton the blind faith of the masses or the intuitive instinct of theruling caste that is more developed intellectually. But since manypeople lack this insight, this political acumen and faculty forseeing into the trend of affairs, and since politicalconsiderations forbid a public explanation of why such and such acourse is being followed, a certain number of leaders inintellectual circles will always oppose new tendencies which,because they are not easily grasped, can be pointed to as mereexperiments. And that attitude arouses opposition amongconservative circles regarding the measures in question.
For this reason a strict duty devolves upon everybody not toallow any weapon to fall into the hands of those who wouldinterfere with the work of bringing about a mutual understandingwith other nations. This is specially so in our case, where we haveto deal with the pretentions and fantastic talk of our patrioticassociations and our small bourgeoisie who talk politics in thecafes. That the cry for a new war fleet, the restoration of ourcolonies, etc., has no chance of ever being carried out in practicewill not be denied by anyone who thinks over the matter calmly andseriously. These harmless and sometimes half-crazy spouters in thewar of protests are serving the interests of our mortal enemy,while the manner in which their vapourings are exploited forpolitical purposes in England cannot be considered as advantageousto Germany.
They squander their energies in futile demonstrations againstthe whole world. These demonstrations are harmful to our interestsand those who indulge in them forget the fundamental principlewhich is a preliminary condition of all success. What thou doest,do it thoroughly. Because we keep on howling against five or tenStates we fail to concentrate all the forces of our national willand our physical strength for a blow at the heart of our bitterestenemy. And in this way we sacrifice the possibility of securing analliance which would reinforce our strength for that decisiveconflict.
Here, too, there is a mission for National Socialism to fulfil.It must teach our people not to fix their attention on the littlethings but rather on the great things, not to exhaust theirenergies on secondary objects, and not to forget that the object weshall have to fight for one day is the bare existence of our peopleand that the sole enemy we shall have to strike at is that Powerwhich is robbing us of this existence.
It may be that we shall have many a heavy burden to bear. Butthis is by no means an excuse for refusing to listen to reason andraise nonsensical outcries against the rest of the world, insteadof concentrating all our forces against the most deadly enemy.
Moreover, the German people will have no moral right to complainof the manner in which the rest of the world acts towards them, aslong as they themselves have not called to account those criminalswho sold and betrayed their own country. We cannot hope to be takenvery seriously if we indulge in long-range abuse and protestsagainst England and Italy and then allow those scoundrels tocirculate undisturbed in our own country who were in the pay of theenemy war propaganda, took the weapons out of our hands, broke thebackbone of our resistance and bartered away the Reich for thirtypieces of silver.
The enemy did only what was expected. And we ought to learn fromthe stand he took and the way he acted.
Anyone who cannot rise to the level of this outlook must reflectthat otherwise there would remain nothing else than to renounce theidea of adopting any policy of alliances for the future. For if wecannot form an alliance with England because she has robbed us ofour colonies, or with Italy because she has taken possession ofSouth Tyrol, or with Poland or Czechoslovakia, then there remainsno other possibility of an alliance in Europe except with Francewhich, inter alia, has robbed us of Alsace and Lorraine.
There can scarcely be any doubt as to whether this lastalternative would be advantageous to the interests of the Germanpeople. But if it be defended by somebody one is always doubtfulwhether that person be merely a simpleton or an astute rogue.
As far as concerns the leaders in these activities, I think thelatter hypothesis is true.
A change in public feeling among those nations which havehitherto been enemies and whose true interests will correspond inthe future with ours could be effected, as far as human calculationgoes, if the internal strength of our State and our manifestdetermination to secure our own existence made it clear that weshould be valuable allies. Moreover, it is necessary that ourincompetent way of doing things and our criminal conduct in somematters should not furnish grounds which may be utilized forpurposes of propaganda by those who would oppose our projects ofestablishing an alliance with one or other of our formerenemies.
The answer to the third question is still more difficult: Is itconceivable that they who represent the true interests of thosenations which may possibly form an alliance with us could put theirviews into practice against the will of the Jew, who is the mortalenemy of national and independent popular States?
For instance, could the motive-forces of Great Britain'straditional statesmanship smash the disastrous influence of theJew, or could they not?
This question, as I have already said, is very difficult toanswer. The answer depends on so many factors that it is impossibleto form a conclusive judgment. Anyhow, one thing is certain: Thepower of the Government in a given State and at a definite periodmay be so firmly established in the public estimation and soabsolutely at the service of the country's interests that theforces of international Jewry could not possibly organize a realand effective obstruction against measures considered to bepolitically necessary.
The fight which Fascist Italy waged against Jewry's threeprincipal weapons, the profound reasons for which may not have beenconsciously understood (though I do not believe this myself)furnishes the best proof that the poison fangs of that Power whichtranscends all State boundaries are being drawn, even though in anindirect way. The prohibition of Freemasonry and secret societies,the suppression of the supernational Press and the definiteabolition of Marxism, together with the steadily increasingconsolidation of the Fascist concept of the State'--all thiswill enable the Italian Government, in the course of some years, toadvance more and more the interests of the Italian people withoutpaying any attention to the hissing of the Jewish world-hydra.
The English situation is not so favourable. In that countrywhich has 'the freest democracy' the Jew dictates his will, almostunrestrained but indirectly, through his influence on publicopinion. And yet there is a perpetual struggle in England betweenthose who are entrusted with the defence of State interests and theprotagonists of Jewish world-dictatorship.
After the War it became clear for the first time how sharp thiscontrast is, when British statesmanship took one stand on theJapanese problem and the Press took a different stand.
Just after the War had ceased the old mutual antipathy betweenAmerica and Japan began to reappear. Naturally the great EuropeanPowers could not remain indifferent to this new war menace. InEngland, despite the ties of kinship, there was a certain amount ofjealousy and anxiety over the growing importance of the UnitedStates in all spheres of international economics and politics. Whatwas formerly a colonial territory, the daughter of a great mother,seemed about to become the new mistress of the world. It is quiteunderstandable that to-day England should re-examine her oldalliances and that British statesmanship should look anxiously tothe danger of a coming moment when the cry would no longer be:"Britain rules the waves", but rather: "The Seas belong to theUnited States".
The gigantic North American State, with the enormous resourcesof its virgin soil, is much more invulnerable than the encircledGerman Reich. Should a day come when the die which will finallydecide the destinies of the nations will have to be cast in thatcountry, England would be doomed if she stood alone. Therefore sheeagerly reaches out her hand to a member of the yellow race andenters an alliance which, from the racial point of view is perhapsunpardonable; but from the political viewpoint it represents thesole possibility of reinforcing Britain's world position in face ofthe strenuous developments taking place on the Americancontinent.
Despite the fact that they fought side by side on the Europeanbattlefields, the British Government did not decide to conclude analliance with the Asiatic partner, yet the whole Jewish Pressopposed the idea of a Japanese alliance.
How can we explain the fact that up to 1918 the Jewish Presschampioned the policy of the British Government against the GermanReich and then suddenly began to take its own way and showed itselfdisloyal to the Government?
It was not in the interests of Great Britain to have Germanyannihilated, but primarily a Jewish interest. And to-day thedestruction of Japan would serve British political interests lessthan it would serve the far-reaching intentions of those who areleading the movement that hopes to establish a Jewish world-empire.While England is using all her endeavours to maintain her positionin the world, the Jew is organizing his aggressive plans for theconquest of it.
He already sees the present European States as pliantinstruments in his hands, whether indirectly through the power ofso-called Western Democracy or in the form of a direct dominationthrough Russian Bolshevism. But it is not only the old world thathe 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 of120 million souls. But a very small section still remains quiteindependent and is thus the cause of chagrin to the Jew.
The Jews show consummate skill in manipulating public opinionand using it as an instrument in fighting for their own future.
The great leaders of Jewry are confident that the day is near athand when the command given in the Old Testament will be carriedout and the Jews will devour the other nations of the earth.
Among this great mass of denationalized countries which havebecome Jewish colonies one independent State could bring about theruin of the whole structure at the last moment. The reason fordoing this would be that Bolshevism as a world-system cannotcontinue to exist unless it encompasses the whole earth. Should oneState preserve its national strength and its national greatness theempire of the Jewish satrapy, like every other tyranny, would haveto succumb to the force of the national idea.
As a result of his millennial experience in accommodatinghimself to surrounding circumstances, the Jew knows very well thathe can undermine the existence of European nations by a process ofracial bastardization, but that he could hardly do the same to anational Asiatic State like Japan. To-day he can ape the ways ofthe German and the Englishman, the American and the Frenchman, buthe has no means of approach to the yellow Asiatic. Therefore heseeks to destroy the Japanese national State by using othernational States as his instruments, so that he may rid himself of adangerous opponent before he takes over supreme control of the lastnational State and transforms that control into a tyranny for theoppression of the defenceless.
He does not want to see a national Japanese State in existencewhen he founds his millennial empire of the future, and thereforehe wants to destroy it before establishing his owndictatorship.
And so he is busy to-day in stirring up antipathy towards Japanamong the other nations, as he stirred it up against Germany. Thusit may happen that while British statesmanship is stillendeavouring to ground its policy in the alliance with Japan, theJewish Press in Great Britain may be at the same time leading ahostile movement against that ally and preparing for a war ofdestruction by pretending that it is for the triumph of democracyand at the same time raising the war-cry: Down with Japanesemilitarism 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-dangerwill one day begin also in that country.
And here again the National Socialist Movement has a tremendoustask before it.
It must open the eyes of our people in regard to foreign nationsand it must continually remind them of the real enemy who menacesthe world to-day. In place of preaching hatred against Aryans fromwhom we may be separated on almost every other ground but with whomthe bond of kindred blood and the main features of a commoncivilization unite us, we must devote ourselves to arousing generalindignation against the maleficent enemy of humanity and the realauthor of all our sufferings.
The National Socialist Movement must see to it that at least inour own country the mortal enemy is recognized and that the fightagainst him may be a beacon light pointing to a new and betterperiod for other nations as well as showing the way of salvationfor 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 pointedout give us perseverance and tenacity; and may our faith be oursupreme protection.
CHAPTER XIV. GERMANY'S POLICYIN EASTERN EUROPEThere are two considerations which induce me to make a specialanalysis of Germany's position in regard to Russia. These are:
(1) This may prove to be the most decisive point in determiningGermany's foreign policy.
(2) The problem which has to be solved in this connection isalso a touchstone to test the political capacity of the youngNational Socialist Movement for clear thinking and acting along theright lines.
I must confess that the second consideration has often been asource of great anxiety to me. The members of our movement are notrecruited from circles which are habitually indifferent to publicaffairs, but mostly from among men who hold more or less extremeviews. Such being the case, it is only natural that theirunderstanding of foreign politics should suffer from the prejudiceand inadequate knowledge of those circles to which they wereformerly attached by political and ideological ties. And this istrue not merely of the men who come to us from the Left. On thecontrary, however subversive may have been the kind of teachingthey formerly received in regard to these problems, in very manycases this was at least partly counterbalanced by the residue ofsound and natural instincts which remained. In such cases it isonly necessary to substitute a better teaching in place of theearlier influences, in order to transform the instinct ofself-preservation and other sound instincts into valuableassets.
On the other hand, it is much more difficult to impress definitepolitical ideas on the minds of men whose earlier politicaleducation was not less nonsensical and illogical than that given tothe partisans of the Left. These men have sacrificed the lastresidue of their natural instincts to the worship of some abstractand entirely objective theory. It is particularly difficult toinduce these representatives of our so-called intellectual circlesto take a realistic and logical view of their own interests and theinterests of their nation in its relations with foreign countries.Their minds are overladen with a huge burden of prejudices andabsurd ideas and they have lost or renounced every instinct ofself-preservation. With those men also the National SocialistMovement has to fight a hard battle. And the struggle is all theharder because, though very often they are utterly incompetent,they are so self-conceited that, without the slightestjustification, they look down with disdain on ordinary commonsensepeople. These arrogant snobs who pretend to know better than otherpeople, are wholly incapable of calmly and coolly analysing aproblem and weighing its pros and cons, which are the necessarypreliminaries of any decision or action in the field of foreignpolitics.
It is just this circle which is beginning to-day to divert ourforeign policy into most disastrous directions and turn it awayfrom the task of promoting the real interests of the nation. Seeingthat they do this in order to serve their own fantastic ideologies,I feel myself obliged to take the greatest pains in laying beforemy own colleagues a clear exposition of the most important problemin our foreign policy, namely, our position in relation to Russia.I shall deal with it, as thoroughly as may be necessary to make itgenerally 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 ofgovernment which has set before it the task of managing the affairsof a nation in its relations with the rest of the world. Now theguiding principles which must be followed in managing these affairsmust be based on the definite facts that are at hand. Moreover, asNational Socialists, we must lay down the following axiom regardingthe manner in which the foreign policy of a People's State shouldbe conducted:
The foreign policy of a People's State must first of all bear inmind the duty of securing the existence of the race which isincorporated in this State. And this must be done by establishing ahealthy and natural proportion between the number and growth of thepopulation on the one hand and the extent and resources of theterritory they inhabit, on the other. That balance must be suchthat it accords with the vital necessities of the people.
What I call a healthy proportion is that in which thesupport of a people is guaranteed by the resources of its own soiland sub-soil. Any situation which falls short of this condition isnone the less unhealthy even though it may endure for centuries oreven a thousand years. Sooner or later, this lack of proportionmust of necessity lead to the decline or even annihilation of thepeople concerned.
Only a sufficiently large space on this earth can assure theindependent existence of a people.
The extent of the territorial expansion that may be necessaryfor the settlement of the national population must not be estimatedby present exigencies nor even by the magnitude of its agriculturalproductivity in relation to the number of the population. In thefirst volume of this book, under the heading "Germany's Policy ofAlliances before the War," I have already explained that thegeometrical dimensions of a State are of importance not only as thesource of the nation's foodstuffs and raw materials, but also fromthe political and military standpoints. Once a people is assured ofbeing able to maintain itself from the resources of the nationalterritory, it must think of how this national territory can bedefended. National security depends on the political strength of aState, and this strength, in its turn, depends on the militarypossibilities inherent in the geographical situation.
Thus the German nation could assure its own future only by beinga World Power. For nearly two thousand years the defence of ournational interests was a matter of world history, as can be seenfrom our more or less successful activities in the field of foreignpolitics. We ourselves have been witnesses to this, seeing that thegigantic struggle that went on from 1914 to 1918 was only thestruggle of the German people for their existence on this earth,and it was carried out in such a way that it has become known inhistory as the World War.
When Germany entered this struggle it was presumed that she wasa World Power. I say presumed, because in reality she was nosuch thing. In 1914, if there had been a different proportionbetween the German population and its territorial area, Germanywould have been really a World Power and, if we leave other factorsout of count, the War would have ended in our favour.
It is not my task nor my intention here to discuss what wouldhave happened if certain conditions had been fulfilled. But I feelit absolutely incumbent on me to show the present conditions intheir bare and unadorned reality, insisting on the weaknessinherent in them, so that at least in the ranks of the NationalSocialist Movement they should receive the necessaryrecognition.
Germany is not at all a World Power to-day. Even though ourpresent military weakness could be overcome, we still would have noclaim to be called a World Power. What importance on earth has aState in which the proportion between the size of the populationand the territorial area is so miserable as in the present GermanReich? At an epoch in which the world is being gradually portionedout among States many of whom almost embrace whole continents onecannot speak of a World Power in the case of a State whosepolitical motherland is confined to a territorial area of barelyfive-hundred-thousand square kilometres.
Looked at purely from the territorial point of view, the areacomprised in the German Reich is insignificant in comparison withthe other States that are called World Powers. England must not becited here as an example to contradict this statement; for theEnglish motherland is in reality the great metropolis of theBritish World Empire, which owns almost a fourth of the earth'ssurface. Next to this we must consider the American Union as one ofthe foremost among the colossal States, also Russia and China.These are enormous spaces, some of which are more than ten timesgreater in territorial extent than the present German Reich. Francemust also be ranked among these colossal States. Not only becauseshe is adding to the strength of her army in a constantlyincreasing measure by recruiting coloured troops from thepopulation of her gigantic empire, but also because France isracially becoming more and more negroid, so much so that now onecan actually speak of the creation of an African State on Europeansoil. The contemporary colonial policy of France cannot be comparedwith that of Germany in the past. If France develops along thelines it has taken in our day, and should that development continuefor the next three hundred years, all traces of French blood willfinally be submerged in the formation of a Euro-African MulattoState. This would represent a formidable and compact colonialterritory stretching from the Rhine to the Congo, inhabited by aninferior race which had developed through a slow and steady processof bastardization.
That process distinguishes French colonial policy from thepolicy followed by the old Germany.
The former German colonial policy was carried out byhalf-measures, as was almost everything they did at that time. Theydid not gain an expanse of territory for the settlement of Germannationals nor did they attempt to reinforce the power of the Reichthrough the enlistment of black troops, which would have been acriminal undertaking. The Askari in German East Africa representeda small and hesitant step along this road; but in reality theyserved only for the defence of the colony itself. The idea ofimporting black troops to a European theatre of war'--apartentirely from the practical impossibility of this in the WorldWar'--was never entertained as a proposal to be carried outunder favourable circumstances; whereas, on the contrary, theFrench always looked on such an idea as fundamental in theircolonial activities.
Thus we find in the world to-day not only a number of Statesthat are much greater than the German in the mere numerical size oftheir populations, but also possess a greater support for theirpolitical power. The proportion between the territorial dimensionsof the German Reich and the numerical size of its population wasnever so unfavourable in comparison with the other world States asat the beginning of our history two thousand years ago and againto-day. At the former juncture we were a young people and westormed a world which was made up of great States that were alreadyin a decadent condition, of which the last giant was Rome, to whoseoverthrow we contributed. To-day we find ourselves in a world ofgreat and powerful States, among which the importance of our ownReich 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 inrelation to the other States and compare them down through thecenturies. Then we shall find that, as I have said, Germany is nota World Power whether its military strength be great or not.
There is no proportion between our position and that of theother States throughout the world. And this lack of proportion isto be attributed to the fact that our foreign policy never had adefinite aim to attain, and also to the fact that we lost everysound impulse and instinct for self-preservation.
If the historians who are to write our national history at somefuture date are to give the National Socialist Movement the creditof having devoted itself to a sacred duty in the service of ourpeople, this movement will have to recognize the real truth of oursituation in regard to the rest of the world. However painful thisrecognition may be, the movement must draw courage from it and asense of practical realities in fighting against the aimlessnessand incompetence which has hitherto been shown by our people in theconduct of their foreign policy. Without respect for 'tradition,'and without any preconceived notions, the movement must find thecourage to organize our national forces and set them on the pathwhich will lead them away from that territorial restriction whichis the bane of our national life to-day, and win new territory forthem. Thus the movement will save the German people from the dangerof perishing or of being slaves in the service of any otherpeople.
Our movement must seek to abolish the present disastrousproportion between our population and the area of our nationalterritory, considering national territory as the source of ourmaintenance or as a basis of political power. And it ought tostrive to abolish the contrast between past history and thehopelessly powerless situation in which we are to-day. In strivingfor this it must bear in mind the fact that we are members of thehighest species of humanity on this earth, that we have acorrespondingly high duty, and that we shall fulfil this duty onlyif we inspire the German people with the racial idea, so that theywill occupy themselves not merely with the breeding of good dogsand horses and cats, but also care for the purity of their ownblood.
When I say that the foreign policy hitherto followed by Germanyhas been without aim and ineffectual, the proof of my statementwill be found in the actual failures of this policy. Were ourpeople intellectually backward, or if they lacked courage, thefinal results of their efforts could not have been worse than whatwe see to-day. What happened during the last decades before the Wardoes not permit of any illusions on this point; because we must notmeasure the strength of a State taken by itself, but in comparisonwith other States. Now, this comparison shows that the other Statesincreased their strength in such a measure that not only did itbalance that of Germany but turned out in the end to be greater; sothat, contrary to appearances, when compared with the other StatesGermany declined more and more in power until there was a largemargin in her disfavour. Yes, even in the size of our population weremained far behind, and kept on losing ground. Though it is truethat the courage of our people was not surpassed by that of anyother in the world and that they poured out more blood than anyother nation in defence of their existence, their failure was dueonly to the erroneous way in which that courage was turned topractical purposes.
In this connection, if we examine the chain of politicalvicissitudes through which our people have passed during more thana thousand years, recalling the innumerable struggles and wars andscrutinizing it all in the light of the results that are before oureyes to-day, we must confess that from the ocean of blood onlythree phenomena have emerged which we must consider as lastingfruits of political happenings definitely determined by our foreignpolicy.
(1) The colonization of the Eastern Mark, which was mostly thework of the Bajuvari.
(2) The conquest and settlement of the territory east of theElbe.
(3) The organization of the Brandenburg-Prussian State, whichwas the work of the Hohenzollerns and which became the model forthe crystallization of a new Reich.
An instructive lesson for the future.
These first two great successes of our foreign policy turned outto be the most enduring. Without them our people would play no rolein the world to-day. These achievements were the first andunfortunately the only successful attempts to establish a harmonybetween our increasing population and the territory from which itdrew its livelihood. And we must look upon it as of really fatalimport that our German historians have never correctly appreciatedthese formidable facts which were so full of importance for thefollowing generations. In contradistinction to this, they wrotepanegyrics on many other things, fantastic heroism, innumerableadventures and wars, without understanding that these latter had nosignificance whatsoever for the main line of our nationaldevelopment.
The third great success achieved by our political activity wasthe establishment of the Prussian State and the development of aparticular State concept which grew out of this. To the same sourcewe are to attribute the organization of the instinct of nationalself-preservation and self-defence in the German Army, anachievement which suited the modern world. The transformation ofthe idea of self-defence on the part of the individual into theduty of national defence is derived from the Prussian State and thenew statal concept which it introduced. It would be impossible toover-estimate the importance of this historical process. Disruptedby excessive individualism, the German nation became disciplinedunder the organization of the Prussian Army and in this wayrecovered at least some of the capacity to form a nationalcommunity, which in the case of other people had originally arisenthrough the constructive urge of the herd instinct. Consequentlythe abolition of compulsory national military service'--whichmay have no meaning for dozens of other nations'--had fatalconsequences for us. Ten generations of Germans left without thecorrective and educative effect of military training and deliveredover to the evil effects of those dissensions and divisions theroots of which lie in their blood and display their force also in adisunity of world-outlook'--these ten generations would besufficient to allow our people to lose the last relics of anindependent existence on this earth.
The German spirit could then make its contribution tocivilization only through individuals living under the rule offoreign nations and the origin of those individuals would remainunknown. They would remain as the fertilizing manure ofcivilization, until the last residue of Nordic-Aryan blood wouldbecome corrupted or drained out.
It is a remarkable fact that the real political successesachieved by our people during their millennial struggles are betterappreciated and understood among our adversaries than amongourselves. Even still to-day we grow enthusiastic about a heroismwhich robbed our people of millions of their best racial stock andturned out completely fruitless in the end.
The distinction between the real political successes which ourpeople achieved in the course of their long history and the futileends for which the blood of the nation has been shed is of supremeimportance for the determination of our policy now and in thefuture.
We, National Socialists, must never allow ourselves to re-echothe hurrah patriotism of our contemporary bourgeois circles. Itwould be a fatal danger for us to look on the immediatedevelopments before the War as constituting a precedent which weshould be obliged to take into account, even though only to thevery smallest degree, in choosing our own way. We can recognize noobligation devolving on us which may have its historical roots inany part of the nineteenth century. In contradistinction to thepolicy of those who represented that period, we must take our standon the principles already mentioned in regard to foreign policy:namely, the necessity of bringing our territorial area into justproportion with the number of our population. From the past we canlearn only one lesson. And this is that the aim which is to bepursued in our political conduct must be twofold: namely (1) theacquisition of territory as the objective of our foreign policy and(2) the establishment of a new and uniform foundation as theobjective of our political activities at home, in accordance withour doctrine of nationhood.
I shall briefly deal with the question of how far ourterritorial aims are justified according to ethical and moralprinciples. This is all the more necessary here because, in ourso-called nationalist circles, there are all kinds of plausiblephrase-mongers who try to persuade the German people that the greataim of their foreign policy ought to be to right the wrongs of1918, while at the same time they consider it incumbent on them toassure the whole world of the brotherly spirit and sympathy of theGerman people towards all other nations.
In regard to this point I should like to make the followingstatement: To demand that the 1914 frontiers should be restored isa glaring political absurdity that is fraught with suchconsequences as to make the claim itself appear criminal. Theconfines of the Reich as they existed in 1914 were thoroughlyillogical; because they were not really complete, in the sense ofincluding all the members of the German nation. Nor were theyreasonable, in view of the geographical exigencies of militarydefence. They were not the consequence of a political plan whichhad been well considered and carried out. But they were temporaryfrontiers established in virtue of a political struggle that hadnot been brought to a finish; and indeed they were partly thechance result of circumstances. One would have just as good aright, and in many cases a better right, to choose some otheroutstanding year than 1914 in the course of our history and demandthat the objective of our foreign policy should be there-establishment of the conditions then existing. The demands Ihave mentioned are quite characteristic of our bourgeoiscompatriots, who in such matters take no political thought of thefuture, They live only in the past and indeed only in the immediatepast; 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. Theiropposition, however, never passes over into any kind of activedefence. It is only mere passive obstinacy. Therefore, we mustregard it as quite natural that the political horizon of suchpeople should not reach beyond 1914. In proclaiming that the aim oftheir political activities is to have the frontiers of that timerestored, they only help to close up the rifts that are alreadybecoming apparent in the league which our enemies have formedagainst us. Only on these grounds can we explain the fact thateight years after a world conflagration in which a number of Alliedbelligerents had aspirations and aims that were partly in conflictwith one another, the coalition of the victors still remains moreor less solid.
Each of those States in its turn profited by the Germancollapse. In the fear which they all felt before the proof ofstrength that we had given, the Great Powers maintained a mutualsilence about their individual feelings of envy and enmity towardsone another. They felt that the best guarantee against a resurgenceof our strength in the future would be to break up and dismemberour Reich as thoroughly as possible. A bad conscience and fear ofthe strength of our people made up the durable cement which hasheld the members of that league together, even up to the presentmoment.
And our conduct does not tend to change this state of affairs.Inasmuch as our bourgeoisie sets up the restoration of the 1914frontiers as the aim of Germany's political programme, each memberof the enemy coalition who otherwise might be inclined to withdrawfrom the combination sticks to it, out of fear lest he might beattacked by us if he isolated himself and in that case would nothave the support of his allies. Each individual State feels itselfaimed at and threatened by this programme. And the programme isabsurd, for the following two reasons:
(1) Because there are no available means of extricating it fromthe twilight atmosphere of political soirees and transforming itinto reality.
(2) Even if it could be really carried into effect the resultwould be so miserable that, surely to God, it would not be worthwhile to risk the blood of our people once again for such apurpose.
For there can be scarcely any doubt whatsoever that only throughbloodshed could we achieve the restoration of the 1914 frontiers.One must have the simple mind of a child to believe that therevision of the Versailles Treaty can be obtained by indirect meansand by beseeching the clemency of the victors; without taking intoaccount the fact that for this we should need somebody who had thecharacter of a Talleyrand, and there is no Talleyrand among us.Fifty percent of our politicians consists of artful dodgers whohave no character and are quite hostile to the sympathies of ourpeople, while the other fifty per cent is made up of well-meaning,harmless, and complaisant incompetents. Times have changed sincethe Congress of Vienna. It is no longer princes or their courtesanswho contend and bargain about State frontiers, but the inexorablecosmopolitan Jew who is fighting for his own dominion over thenations. The sword is the only means whereby a nation can thrustthat clutch from its throat. Only when national sentiment isorganized and concentrated into an effective force can it defy thatinternational menace which tends towards an enslavement of thenations. But this road is and will always be marked withbloodshed.
If we are once convinced that the future of Germany calls forthe sacrifice, in one way or another, of all that we have and are,then we must set aside considerations of political prudence anddevote ourselves wholly to the struggle for a future that will beworthy of our country.
For the future of the German nation the 1914 frontiers are of nosignificance. They did not serve to protect us in the past, nor dothey offer any guarantee for our defence in the future. With thesefrontiers the German people cannot maintain themselves as a compactunit, nor can they be assured of their maintenance. From themilitary viewpoint these frontiers are not advantageous or evensuch as not to cause anxiety. And while we are bound to suchfrontiers it will not be possible for us to improve our presentposition in relation to the other World Powers, or rather inrelation to the real World Powers. We shall not lessen thediscrepancy between our territory and that of Great Britain, norshall we reach the magnitude of the United States of America. Notonly that, but we cannot substantially lessen the importance ofFrance in international politics.
One thing alone is certain: The attempt to restore the frontiersof 1914, even if it turned out successful, would demand so muchbloodshed on the part of our people that no future sacrifice wouldbe possible to carry out effectively such measures as would benecessary to assure the future existence of the nation. On thecontrary, under the intoxication of such a superficial successfurther aims would be renounced, all the more so because theso-called 'national honour' would seem to be revindicated and newports would be opened, at least for a certain time, to ourcommercial development.
Against all this we, National Socialists, must stick firmly tothe aim that we have set for our foreign policy; namely, that theGerman people must be assured the territorial area which isnecessary for it to exist on this earth. And only for such actionas is undertaken to secure those ends can it be lawful in the eyesof God and our German posterity to allow the blood of our people tobe shed once again. Before God, because we are sent into this worldwith the commission to struggle for our daily bread, as creaturesto whom nothing is donated and who must be able to win and holdtheir position as lords of the earth only through their ownintelligence and courage. And this justification must beestablished also before our German posterity, on the grounds thatfor each one who has shed his blood the life of a thousand otherswill be guaranteed to posterity. The territory on which one day ourGerman peasants will be able to bring forth and nourish theirsturdy sons will justify the blood of the sons of the peasants thathas to be shed to-day. And the statesmen who will have decreed thissacrifice may be persecuted by their contemporaries, but posteritywill absolve them from all guilt for having demanded this offeringfrom their people.
Here I must protest as sharply as possible against thosenationalist scribes who pretend that such territorial extensionwould be a "violation of the sacred rights of man" and accordinglypour out their literary effusions against it. One never knows whatare the hidden forces behind the activities of such persons. But itis certain that the confusion which they provoke suits the game ourenemies are playing against our nation and is in accordance withtheir wishes. By taking such an attitude these scribes contributecriminally to weaken from the inside and to destroy the will of ourpeople to promote their own vital interests by the only effectivemeans that can be used for that purpose. For no nation on earthpossesses a square yard of ground and soil by decree of a higherWill and in virtue of a higher Right. The German frontiers are theoutcome of chance, and are only temporary frontiers that have beenestablished as the result of political struggles which took placeat various times. The same is also true of the frontiers whichdemarcate the territories on which other nations live. And just asonly an imbecile could look on the physical geography of the globeas fixed and unchangeable'--for in reality it represents adefinite stage in a given evolutionary epoch which is due to theformidable forces of Nature and may be altered to-morrow by morepowerful forces of destruction and change'--so, too, in thelives of the nations the confines which are necessary for theirsustenance are subject to change.
State frontiers are established by human beings and may bechanged by human beings.
The fact that a nation has acquired an enormous territorial areais no reason why it should hold that territory perpetually. Atmost, the possession of such territory is a proof of the strengthof the conqueror and the weakness of those who submit to him. Andin this strength alone lives the right of possession. If the Germanpeople are imprisoned within an impossible territorial area and forthat reason are face to face with a miserable future, this is notby the command of Destiny, and the refusal to accept such asituation is by no means a violation of Destiny's laws. For just asno Higher Power has promised more territory to other nations thanto the German, so it cannot be blamed for an unjust distribution ofthe soil. The soil on which we now live was not a gift bestowed byHeaven on our forefathers. But they had to conquer it by riskingtheir lives. So also in the future our people will not obtainterritory, and therewith the means of existence, as a favour fromany other people, but will have to win it by the power of atriumphant sword.
To-day we are all convinced of the necessity of regulating oursituation in regard to France; but our success here will beineffective in its broad results if the general aims of our foreignpolicy will have to stop at that. It can have significance for usonly if it serves to cover our flank in the struggle for thatextension of territory which is necessary for the existence of ourpeople in Europe. For colonial acquisitions will not solve thatquestion. It can be solved only by the winning of such territoryfor the settlement of our people as will extend the area of themotherland and thereby will not only keep the new settlers in theclosest communion with the land of their origin, but will guaranteeto this territorial ensemble the advantages which arise from thefact that in their expansion over greater territory the peopleremain united as a political unit.
The National Movement must not be the advocate for othernations, but the protagonist for its own nation. Otherwise it wouldbe something superfluous and, above all, it would have no right toclamour against the action of the past; for then it would berepeating the action of the past. The old German policy sufferedfrom the mistake of having been determined by dynasticconsiderations. The new German policy must not follow thesentimentality of cosmopolitan patriotism. Above all, we must notform a police guard for the famous 'poor small nations'; but wemust be the soldiers of the German nation.
We National Socialists have to go still further. The right toterritory may become a duty when a great nation seems destined togo under unless its territory be extended. And that is particularlytrue when the nation in question is not some little group of negropeople but the Germanic mother of all the life which has givencultural shape to the modern world. Germany will either become aWorld Power or will not continue to exist at all. But in order tobecome a World Power it needs that territorial magnitude whichgives it the necessary importance to-day and assures the existenceof its citizens.
Therefore we National Socialists have purposely drawn a linethrough the line of conduct followed by pre-War Germany in foreignpolicy. We put an end to the perpetual Germanic march towards theSouth and West of Europe and turn our eyes towards the lands of theEast. We finally put a stop to the colonial and trade policy ofpre-War times and pass over to the territorial policy of thefuture.
But when we speak of new territory in Europe to-day we mustprincipally think of Russia and the border States subject toher.
Destiny itself seems to wish to point out the way for us here.In delivering Russia over to Bolshevism, Fate robbed the Russianpeople of that intellectual class which had once created theRussian State and were the guarantee of its existence. For theRussian State was not organized by the constructive politicaltalent of the Slav element in Russia, but was much more amarvellous exemplification of the capacity for State-buildingpossessed by the Germanic element in a race of inferior worth. Thuswere many powerful Empires created all over the earth. More oftenthan once inferior races with Germanic organizers and rulers astheir leaders became formidable States and continued to exist aslong as the racial nucleus remained which had originally createdeach respective State. For centuries Russia owed the source of itslivelihood as a State to the Germanic nucleus of its governingclass. But this nucleus is now almost wholly broken up andabolished. The Jew has taken its place. Just as it is impossiblefor the Russian to shake off the Jewish yoke by exerting his ownpowers, so, too, it is impossible for the Jew to keep thisformidable State in existence for any long period of time. Hehimself is by no means an organizing element, but rather a fermentof decomposition. This colossal Empire in the East is ripe fordissolution. And the end of the Jewish domination in Russia willalso be the end of Russia as a State. We are chosen by Destiny tobe the witnesses of a catastrophe which will afford the strongestconfirmation of the nationalist theory of race.
But it is our task, and it is the mission of the NationalSocialist Movement, to develop in our people that politicalmentality which will enable them to realize that the aim which theymust set to themselves for the fulfilment of their future must notbe some wildly enthusiastic adventure in the footsteps of Alexanderthe Great but industrious labour with the German plough, for whichthe German sword will provide the soil.
That the Jew should declare himself bitterly hostile to such apolicy is only quite natural. For the Jews know better than anyothers what the adoption of this line of conduct must mean fortheir own future. That fact alone ought to teach all genuinenationalists that this new orientation is the right and just one.But, unfortunately, the opposite is the case. Not only among themembers of the German-National Party but also in purely nationalistcircles violent opposition is raised against this Eastern policy.And in connection with that opposition, as in all such cases, theauthority of great names is appealed to. The spirit of Bismarck isevoked in defence of a policy which is as stupid as it isimpossible, and is in the highest degree detrimental to theinterests of the German people. They say that Bismarck laid greatimportance on the value of good relations with Russia. To a certainextent, that is true. But they quite forget to add that he laidequal stress on the importance of good relations with Italy, forexample. Indeed, the same Herr von Bismarck once concluded analliance with Italy so that he might more easily settle accountswith Austria. Why is not this policy now advocated? They will replythat the Italy of to-day is not the Italy of that time. Good. Butthen, honourable sirs, permit me to remind you that the Russia ofto-day is no longer the Russia of that time. Bismarck never laiddown a policy which would be permanently binding under allcircumstances and should be adhered to on principle. He was toomuch the master of the moment to burden himself with that kind ofobligation. Therefore, the question ought not to be what Bismarckthen did, but rather what he would do to-day. And that question isvery easy to answer. His political sagacity would never allow himto ally himself with a State that is doomed to disappear.
Moreover, Bismarck looked upon the colonial and trade policy ofhis time with mixed feelings, because what he most desired was toassure the best possibilities of consolidating and internallystrengthening the state system which he himself had created. Thatwas the sole ground on which he then welcomed the Russian defencein his rear, so as to give him a free hand for his activities inthe West. But what was advantageous then to Germany would now bedetrimental.
As early as 1920-21, when the young movement began slowly toappear on the political horizon and movements for the liberation ofthe German nation were formed here and there, the Party wasapproached from various quarters in an attempt to bring it intodefinite connection with the liberationist movements in othercountries. This was in line with the plans of the 'League ofOppressed Nations', which had been advertised in many quarters andwas composed principally of representatives of some of the BalkanStates and also of Egypt and India. These always impressed me ascharlatans who gave themselves big airs but had no real backgroundat all. Not a few Germans, however, especially in the nationalistcamp, allowed themselves to be taken in by these pompous Orientals,and in the person of some wandering Indian or Egyptian student theybelieved at once that they were face to face with a'representative' of India or Egypt. They did not realize that inmost cases they were dealing with persons who had no backingwhatsoever, who were not authorized by anybody to conclude any sortof agreement whatsoever; so that the practical result of everynegotiation with such individuals was negative and the time spentin such dealings had to be reckoned as utterly lost. I was alwayson my guard against these attempts. Not only that I had somethingbetter to do than to waste weeks in such sterile 'discussions', butalso because I believed that even if one were dealing with genuinerepresentatives that whole affair would be bound to turn outfutile, if not positively harmful.
In peace-time it was already lamentable enough that the policyof alliances, because it had no active and aggressive aims in view,ended in a defensive association with antiquated States that hadbeen pensioned off by the history of the world. The alliance withAustria, as well as that with Turkey, was not much to be joyfulabout. While the great military and industrial States of the earthhad come together in a league for purposes of active aggression, afew old and effete States were collected, and with this antiquebric- -brac an attempt was made to face an active world coalition.Germany had to pay dearly for that mistaken foreign policy and yetnot dearly enough to prevent our incorrigible visionaries fromfalling back into the same error again. For the attempt to makepossible the disarmament of the all-powerful victorious Statesthrough a 'League of Oppressed Nations' is not only ridiculous butdisastrous. It is disastrous because in that way the German peopleare again being diverted from real possibilities, which theyabandon for the sake of fruitless hopes and illusions. In realitythe German of to-day is like a drowning man that clutches at anystraw which may float beside him. And one finds people doing thiswho are otherwise highly educated. Wherever some will-o'-the-wispof a fantastic hope appears these people set off immediately tochase it. Let this be a League of Oppressed Nations, a League ofNations, or some other fantastic invention, thousands of ingenuoussouls will always be found to believe in it.
I remember well the childish and incomprehensible hopes whicharose suddenly in nationalist circles in the years 1920-21 to theeffect that England was just nearing its downfall in India. A fewAsiatic mountebanks, who put themselves forward as "the championsof Indian Freedom", then began to peregrinate throughout Europe andsucceeded in inspiring otherwise quite reasonable people with thefixed notion that the British World Empire, which had its pivot inIndia, was just about to collapse there. They never realized thattheir own wish was the father of all these ideas. Nor did they stopto think how absurd their wishes were. For inasmuch as theyexpected the end of the British Empire and of England's power tofollow the collapse of its dominion over India, they themselvesadmitted that India was of the most outstanding importance forEngland.
Now in all likelihood the deep mysteries of this most importantproblem must have been known not only to the German-Nationalprophets but also to those who had the direction of British historyin their hands. It is right down puerile to suppose that in Englanditself the importance of India for the British Empire was notadequately appreciated. And it is a proof of having learned nothingfrom the world war and of thoroughly misunderstanding or knowingnothing about Anglo-Saxon determination, when they imagine thatEngland could lose India without first having put forth the lastounce of her strength in the struggle to hold it. Moreover, itshows how complete is the ignorance prevailing in Germany as to themanner in which the spirit of England permeates and administers herEmpire. England will never lose India unless she admits racialdisruption in the machinery of her administration (which at presentis entirely out of the question in India) or unless she is overcomeby the sword of some powerful enemy. But Indian risings will neverbring this about. We Germans have had sufficient experience to knowhow hard it is to coerce England. And, apart from all this, I as aGerman would far rather see India under British domination thanunder 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 Germannincompoops that others are now ready to shed their blood for them.Indeed, this cowardly speculation is almost always the father ofsuch hopes. But in reality the illusion would soon be brought to anend under the fusillade from a few companies of Britishmachine-guns and a hail of British bombs.
A coalition of cripples cannot attack a powerful State which isdetermined, if necessary, to shed the last drop of its blood tomaintain its existence. To me, as a nationalist who appreciates theworth of the racial basis of humanity, I must recognize the racialinferiority of the so-called 'Oppressed Nations', and that isenough to prevent me from linking the destiny of my people with thedestiny of those inferior races.
To-day we must take up the same sort of attitude also towardsRussia. The Russia of to-day, deprived of its Germanic rulingclass, is not a possible ally in the struggle for German liberty,setting aside entirely the inner designs of its new rulers. Fromthe purely military viewpoint a Russo-German coalition waging waragainst Western Europe, and probably against the whole world onthat account, would be catastrophic for us. The struggle would haveto be fought out, not on Russian but on German territory, withoutGermany being able to receive from Russia the slightest effectivesupport. The means of power at the disposal of the present GermanReich are so miserable and so inadequate to the waging of a foreignwar that it would be impossible to defend our frontiers againstWestern Europe, England included. And the industrial area ofGermany would have to be abandoned undefended to the concentratedattack of our adversaries. It must be added that between Germanyand Russia there is the Polish State, completely in the hands ofthe French. In case Germany and Russia together should wage waragainst Western Europe, Russia would have to overthrow Polandbefore the first Russian soldier could arrive on the German front.But it is not so much a question of soldiers as of technicalequipment. In this regard we should have our situation in the worldwar repeated, but in a more terrible manner. At that time Germanindustry had to be drained to help our glorious allies, and fromthe technical side Germany had to carry on the war almost alone. Inthis new hypothetical war Russia, as a technical factor, wouldcount for nothing. We should have practically nothing to oppose tothe general motorization of the world, which in the next war willmake its appearance in an overwhelming and decisive form. In thisimportant field Germany has not only shamefully lagged behind, butwith the little it has it would have to reinforce Russia, which atthe present moment does not possess a single factory capable ofproducing a motor gun-wagon. Under such conditions the presupposedcoming struggle would assume the character of sheer slaughter. TheGerman youth would have to shed more of its blood than it did evenin the world war; for, as always, the honour of fighting will fallon us alone, and the result would be an inevitable catastrophe. Buteven admitting that a miracle were produced and that this war didnot end in the total annihilation of Germany, the final resultwould be that the German nation would be bled white, and,surrounded by great military States, its real situation would be inno way ameliorated.
It is useless to object here that in case of an alliance withRussia we should not think of an immediate war or that, anyhow, weshould have means of making thorough preparations for war. No. Analliance which is not for the purpose of waging war has no meaningand no value. Even though at the moment when an alliance isconcluded the prospect of war is a distant one, still the idea ofthe situation developing towards war is the profound reason forentering into an alliance. It is out of the question to think thatthe other Powers would be deceived as to the purpose of such analliance. A Russo-German coalition would remain either a matter ofso much paper'--and in this case it would have no meaning forus'--or the letter of the treaty would be put into practicevisibly, and in that case the rest of the world would be warned. Itwould be childish to think that in such circumstances England andFrance would wait for ten years to give the Russo-German alliancetime to complete its technical preparations. No. The storm wouldbreak over Germany immediately.
Therefore the fact of forming an alliance with Russia would bethe signal for a new war. And the result of that would be the endof Germany.
To these considerations the following must be added:
(1) Those who are in power in Russia to-day have no idea offorming an honourable alliance or of remaining true to it, if theydid.
It must never be forgotten that the present rulers of Russia areblood-stained criminals, that here we have the dregs of humanitywhich, favoured by the circumstances of a tragic moment, overran agreat State, degraded and extirpated millions of educated peopleout of sheer blood-lust, and that now for nearly ten years theyhave ruled with such a savage tyranny as was never known before. Itmust not be forgotten that these rulers belong to a people in whomthe most bestial cruelty is allied with a capacity for artfulmendacity and believes itself to-day more than ever called toimpose its sanguinary despotism on the rest of the world. It mustnot be forgotten that the international Jew, who is to-day theabsolute master of Russia, does not look upon Germany as an allybut as a State condemned to the same doom as Russia. One does notform an alliance with a partner whose only aim is the destructionof his fellow-partner. Above all, one does not enter into allianceswith people for whom no treaty is sacred; because they do not moveabout this earth as men of honour and sincerity but as therepresentatives of lies and deception, thievery and plunder androbbery. The man who thinks that he can bind himself by treaty withparasites is like the tree that believes it can form a profitablebargain with the ivy that surrounds it.
(2) The menace to which Russia once succumbed is hangingsteadily over Germany. Only a bourgeois simpleton could imaginethat Bolshevism can be tamed. In his superficial way of thinking hedoes not suspect that here we are dealing with a phenomenon that isdue to an urge of the blood: namely, the aspiration of the Jewishpeople to become the despots of the world. That aspiration is quiteas natural as the impulse of the Anglo-Saxon to sit in the seats ofrulership all over the earth. And as the Anglo-Saxon chooses hisown way of reaching those ends and fights for them with hischaracteristic weapons, so also does the Jew. The Jew wriggles hisway in among the body of the nations and bores them hollow frominside. The weapons with which he works are lies and calumny,poisonous infection and disintegration, until he has ruined hishated adversary. In Russian Bolshevism we ought to recognize thekind of attempt which is being made by the Jew in the twentiethcentury to secure dominion over the world. In other epochs heworked towards the same goal but with different, though at bottomsimilar, means. The kind of effort which the Jew puts forth springsfrom the deepest roots in the nature of his being. A people doesnot of itself renounce the impulse to increase its stock and power.Only external circumstances or senile impotence can force them torenounce this urge. In the same way the Jew will neverspontaneously give up his march towards the goal of worlddictatorship or repress his external urge. He can be thrown back onhis road only by forces that are exterior to him, for his instincttowards world domination will die out only with himself. Theimpotence of nations and their extinction through senility can comeonly when their blood has remained no longer pure. And the Jewishpeople preserve the purity of their blood better than any othernation on earth. Therefore the Jew follows his destined road untilhe is opposed by a force superior to him. And then a desperatestruggle takes place to send back to Lucifer him who would assaultthe heavens.
To-day Germany is the next battlefield for Russian Bolshevism.All the force of a fresh missionary idea is needed to raise up ournation once more, to rescue it from the coils of the internationalserpent and stop the process of corruption which is taking place inthe internal constitution of our blood; so that the forces of ournation, once liberated, may be employed to preserve our nationalityand prevent the repetition of the recent catastrophe from takingplace even in the most distant future. If this be the goal we setto ourselves it would be folly to ally ourselves with a countrywhose master is the mortal enemy of our future. How can we releaseour people from this poisonous grip if we accept the same gripourselves? How can we teach the German worker that Bolshevism is aninfamous crime against humanity if we ally ourselves with thisinfernal abortion and recognize its existence as legitimate. Withwhat right shall we condemn the members of the broad masses whosesympathies lie with a certain Weltanschauung if the rulersof our State choose the representatives of thatWeltanschauung as their allies? The struggle against theJewish Bolshevization of the world demands that we should declareour position towards Soviet Russia. We cannot cast out the Devilthrough Beelzebub. If nationalist circles to-day grow enthusiasticabout the idea of an alliance with Bolshevism, then let them lookaround only in Germany and recognize from what quarter they arebeing supported. Do these nationalists believe that a policy whichis recommended and acclaimed by the Marxist international Press canbe beneficial for the German people? Since when has the Jew actedas shield-bearer for the militant nationalist?
One special reproach which could be made against the old GermanReich with regard to its policy of alliances was that it spoiledits relations towards all others by continually swinging now thisway and now that way and by its weakness in trying to preserveworld peace at all costs. But one reproach which cannot be madeagainst it is that it did not continue to maintain good relationswith Russia.
I admit frankly that before the War I thought it would have beenbetter if Germany had abandoned her senseless colonial policy andher naval policy and had joined England in an alliance againstRussia, therewith renouncing her weak world policy for a determinedEuropean policy, with the idea of acquiring new territory on theContinent. I do not forget the constant insolent threats whichPan-Slavist Russia made against Germany. I do not forget thecontinual trial mobilizations, the sole object of which was toirritate Germany. I cannot forget the tone of public opinion inRussia which in pre-War days excelled itself in hate-inspiredoutbursts against our nation and Reich. Nor can I forget the bigRussian Press which was always more favourable to France than tous.
But, in spite of everything, there was still a second waypossible before the War. We might have won the support of Russiaand turned against England. Circumstances are entirely differentto-day. If, before the War, throwing all sentiment to the winds, wecould have marched by the side of Russia, that is no longerpossible for us to-day. Since then the hand of the world-clock hasmoved forward. The hour has struck and struck loudly, when thedestiny of our people must be decided one way or another.
The present consolidation of the great States of the world isthe last warning signal for us to look to ourselves and bring ourpeople back from their land of visions to the land of hard truthand point the way into the future, on which alone the old Reich canmarch triumphantly once again.
If, in view of this great and most important task placed beforeit, the National Socialist Movement sets aside all illusions andtakes reason as its sole effective guide the catastrophe of 1918may turn out to be an infinite blessing for the future of ournation. From the lesson of that collapse it may formulate anentirely new orientation for the conduct of its foreign policy.Internally reinforced through its new Weltanschauung, theGerman nation may reach a final stabilization of its policy towardsthe outside world. It may end by gaining what England has, whateven Russia had, and what France again and again utilized as theultimate grounds on which she was able to base correct decisionsfor her own interests: namely, A Political Testament. PoliticalTestament of the German Nation ought to lay down the followingrules, which will be always valid for its conduct towards theoutside world:
Never permit two Continental Powers to arise in Europe. Shouldany attempt be made to organize a second military Power on theGerman frontier by the creation of a State which may become aMilitary Power, with the prospect of an aggression against Germanyin view, such an event confers on Germany not only the right butthe duty to prevent by every means, including military means, thecreation of such a State and to crush it if created. See to it thatthe strength of our nation does not rest on colonial foundationsbut on those of our own native territory in Europe. Never considerthe Reich secure unless, for centuries to come, it is in a positionto give every descendant of our race a piece of ground and soilthat he can call his own. Never forget that the most sacred of allrights in this world is man's right to the earth which he wishes tocultivate for himself and that the holiest of all sacrifices isthat of the blood poured out for it.
I should not like to close this chapter without referring onceagain to the one sole possibility of alliances that exists for usin Europe at the present moment. In speaking of the German allianceproblem in the present chapter I mentioned England and Italy as theonly countries with which it would be worth while for us to striveto form a close alliance and that this alliance would beadvantageous. I should like here to underline again the militaryimportance of such an alliance.
The military consequences of forming this alliance would be thedirect opposite of the consequences of an alliance with Russia.Most important of all is the fact that a rapprochement withEngland and Italy would in no way involve a danger of war. The onlyPower that could oppose such an arrangement would be France; andFrance would not be in a position to make war. But the allianceshould allow to Germany the possibility of making thosepreparations in all tranquillity which, within the framework ofsuch a coalition, might in one way or another be requisite in viewof a regulation of accounts with France. For the full significanceof such an alliance lies in the fact that on its conclusion Germanywould no longer be subject to the threat of a sudden invasion. Thecoalition against her would disappear automatically; that is tosay, the Entente which brought such disaster to us. Thus France,the mortal enemy of our people, would be isolated. And even thoughat first this success would have only a moral effect, it would besufficient to give Germany such liberty of action as we cannot nowimagine. For the new Anglo-German-Italian alliance would hold thepolitical initiative and no longer France.
A further success would be that at one stroke Germany would bedelivered from her unfavourable strategical situation. On the oneside her flank would be strongly protected; and, on the other, theassurance of being able to import her foodstuffs and raw materialswould be a beneficial result of this new alignment of States. Butalmost of greater importance would be the fact that this new Leaguewould include States that possess technical qualities whichmutually supplement each other. For the first time Germany wouldhave allies who would not be as vampires on her economic body butwould contribute their part to complete our technical equipment.And we must not forget a final fact: namely, that in this case weshould not have allies resembling Turkey and Russia to-day. Thegreatest World Power on this earth and a young national State wouldsupply far other elements for a struggle in Europe than theputrescent carcasses of the States with which Germany was allied inthe last war.
As I have already said, great difficulties would naturally bemade to hinder the conclusion of such an alliance. But was not theformation of the Entente somewhat more difficult? Where King EdwardVII succeeded partly against interests that were of their natureopposed to his work we must and will succeed, if the recognition ofthe necessity of such a development so inspires us that we shall beable to act with skill and conquer our own feelings in carrying thepolicy through. This will be possible when, incited to action bythe miseries of our situation, we shall adopt a definite purposeand follow it out systematically instead of the defective foreignpolicy of the last decades, which never had a fixed purpose inview.
The future goal of our foreign policy ought not to involve anorientation to the East or the West, but it ought to be an Easternpolicy which will have in view the acquisition of such territory asis necessary for our German people. To carry out this policy weneed that force which the mortal enemy of our nation, France, nowdeprives us of by holding us in her grip and pitilessly robbing usof our strength. Therefore we must stop at no sacrifice in oureffort to destroy the French striving towards hegemony over Europe.As our natural ally to-day we have every Power on the Continentthat feels France's lust for hegemony in Europe unbearable. Noattempt to approach those Powers ought to appear too difficult forus, and no sacrifice should be considered too heavy, if the finaloutcome would be to make it possible for us to overthrow ourbitterest enemy. The minor wounds will be cured by the beneficentinfluence of time, once the ground wounds have been cauterized andclosed.
Naturally the internal enemies of our people will howl withrage. But this will not succeed in forcing us as NationalSocialists to cease our preaching in favour of that which our mostprofound conviction tells us to be necessary. We must oppose thecurrent of public opinion which will be driven mad by Jewishcunning in exploiting our German thoughtlessness. The waves of thispublic opinion often rage and roar against us; but the man whoswims with the current attracts less attention than he who buffetsit. To-day we are but a rock in the river. In a few years Fate mayraise us up as a dam against which the general current will bebroken, only to flow forward in a new bed. Therefore it isnecessary that in the eyes of the rest of the world our movementshould be recognized as representing a definite and determinedpolitical programme. We ought to bear on our visors thedistinguishing sign of that task which Heaven expects us tofulfil.
When we ourselves are fully aware of the ineluctable necessitywhich determines our external policy this knowledge will fill uswith the grit which we need in order to stand up with equanimityunder the bombardment launched against us by the enemy Press and tohold firm when some insinuating voice whispers that we ought togive ground here and there in order not to have all against us andthat we might sometimes howl with the wolves.
CHAPTER XV. THE RIGHT TOSELF-DEFENCEAfter we had laid down our arms, in November 1918, a policy wasadopted which in all human probability was bound to lead graduallyto our complete subjugation. Analogous examples from history showthat those nations which lay down their arms without beingabsolutely forced to do so subsequently prefer to submit to thegreatest humiliations and exactions rather than try to change theirfate by resorting to arms again.
That is intelligible on purely human grounds. A shrewd conquerorwill always enforce his exactions on the conquered only by stages,as far as that is possible. Then he may expect that a people whohave lost all strength of character'--which is always the casewith every nation that voluntarily submits to the threats of anopponent'--will not find in any of these acts of oppression, ifone be enforced apart from the other, sufficient grounds for takingup arms again. The more numerous the extortions thus passivelyaccepted so much the less will resistance appear justified in theeyes of other people, if the vanquished nation should end byrevolting against the last act of oppression in a long series. Andthat is specially so if the nation has already patiently andsilently accepted impositions which were much more exacting.
The fall of Carthage is a terrible example of the slow agony ofa people which ended in destruction and which was the fault of thepeople themselves.
In his Three Articles of Faith Clausewitz expressed thisidea admirably and gave it a definite form when he said: "Thestigma of shame incurred by a cowardly submission can never beeffaced. The drop of poison which thus enters the blood of a nationwill be transmitted to posterity. It will undermine and paralysethe strength of later generations." But, on the contrary, he added:"Even the loss of its liberty after a sanguinary and honourablestruggle assures the resurgence of the nation and is the vitalnucleus from which one day a new tree can draw firm roots."
Naturally a nation which has lost all sense of honour and allstrength 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 willcollapse. Hence those responsible for a cowardly submission cannotbe expected suddenly to take thought with themselves, for thepurpose of changing their former conduct and directing it in theway pointed out by human reason and experience. On the contrary,they will repudiate such a doctrine, until the people either becomepermanently habituated to the yoke of slavery or the betterelements of the nation push their way into the foreground andforcibly take power away from the hands of an infamous and corruptregime. In the first case those who hold power will be pleased withthe state of affairs, because the conquerors often entrust themwith the task of supervising the slaves. And these utterlycharacterless beings then exercise that power to the detriment oftheir own people, more cruelly than the most cruel-hearted strangerthat might be nominated by the enemy himself.
The events which happened subsequent to 1918 in Germany provehow the hope of securing the clemency of the victor by making avoluntary submission had the most disastrous influence on thepolitical views and conduct of the broad masses. I say the broadmasses explicitly, because I cannot persuade myself that the thingswhich were done or left undone by the leaders of the people are tobe attributed to a similar disastrous illusion. Seeing that thedirection of our historical destiny after the war was now openlycontrolled by the Jews, it is impossible to admit that a defectiveknowledge of the state of affairs was the sole cause of ourmisfortunes. On the contrary, the conclusion that must be drawnfrom the facts is that our people were intentionally driven toruin. If we examine it from this point of view we shall find thatthe direction of the nation's foreign policy was not so foolish asit appeared; for on scrutinizing the matter closely we see clearlythat this conduct was a procedure which had been calmly calculated,shrewdly defined and logically carried out in the service of theJewish idea and the Jewish endeavour to secure the mastery of theworld.
From 1806 to 1813 Prussia was in a state of collapse. But thatperiod sufficed to renew the vital energies of the nation andinspire it once more with a resolute determination to fight. Anequal period of time has passed over our heads from 1918 untilto-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 wassigned.
Thus the development which took place was what I have indicatedabove. Once the shameful Armistice had been signed our people wereunable to pluck up sufficient courage and energy to call a haltsuddenly to the conduct of our adversary as the oppressive measureswere being constantly renewed. The enemy was too shrewd to putforward all his demands at once. He confined his duress always tothose exactions which, in his opinion and that of our GermanGovernment, could be submitted to for the moment: so that in thisway they did not risk causing an explosion of public feeling. Butaccording as the single impositions were increasingly subscribed toand tolerated it appeared less justifiable to do now in the case ofone sole imposition or act of duress what had not been previouslydone in the case of so many others, namely, to oppose it. That isthe 'drop of poison' of which Clausewitz speaks. Once this lack ofcharacter is manifested the resultant condition becomes steadilyaggravated and weighs like an evil inheritance on all futuredecisions. It may become as a leaden weight around the nation'sneck, which cannot be shaken off but which forces it to drag outits existence in slavery.
Thus, in Germany, edicts for disarmament and oppression andeconomic plunder followed one after the other, making uspolitically helpless. The result of all this was to create thatmood which made so many look upon the Dawes Plan as a blessing andthe Locarno Treaty as a success. From a higher point of view we mayspeak of one sole blessing in the midst of so much misery. Thisblessing is that, though men may be fooled, Heaven can't be bribed.For Heaven withheld its blessing. Since that time Misery andAnxiety have been the constant companions of our people, andDistress is the one Ally that has remained loyal to us. In thiscase also Destiny has made no exceptions. It has given us ourdeserts. Since we did not know how to value honour any more, it hastaught us to value the liberty to seek for bread. Now that thenation has learned to cry for bread, it may one day learn to prayfor freedom.
The collapse of our nation in the years following 1918 wasbitter and manifest. And yet that was the time chosen to persecuteus in the most malicious way our enemies could devise, so that whathappened afterwards could have been foretold by anybody then. Thegovernment to which our people submitted was as hopelesslyincompetent as it was conceited, and this was especially shown inrepudiating those who gave any warning that disturbed ordispleased. Then we saw'--and to-day also'--the greatestparliamentary nincompoops, really common saddlers andglove-makers'--not merely by trade, for that would signify verylittle'--suddenly raised to the rank of statesmen andsermonizing to humble mortals from that pedestal. It did notmatter, and it still does not matter, that such a 'statesman',after having displayed his talents for six months or so as a merewindbag, is shown up for what he is and becomes the object ofpublic raillery and sarcasm. It does not matter that he has giventhe most evident proof of complete incompetency. No. That does notmatter at all. On the contrary, the less real service theparliamentary statesmen of this Republic render the country, themore savagely they persecute all who expect that parliamentarydeputies should show some positive results of their activities. Andthey persecute everybody who dares to point to the failure of theseactivities and predict similar failures for the future. If onefinally succeeds in nailing down one of these parliamentarians tohard facts, so that this political artist can no longer deny thereal failure of his whole action and its results, then he will findthousands of grounds for excuse, but will in no way admit that hehimself is the chief cause of the evil.
In the winter of 1922-23, at the latest, it ought to have beengenerally recognized that, even after the conclusion of peace,France was still endeavouring with iron consistency to attain thoseends which had been originally envisaged as the final purpose ofthe War. For nobody could think of believing that for four and ahalf years France continued to pour out the not abundant supply ofher national blood in the most decisive struggle throughout all herhistory in order subsequently to obtain compensation throughreparations for the damages sustained. Even Alsace and Lorraine,taken by themselves, would not account for the energy with whichthe French conducted the War, if Alsace-Lorraine were not alreadyconsidered as a part of the really vast programme which Frenchforeign policy had envisaged for the future. The aim of thatprogramme was: Disintegration of Germany into a collection of smallstates. It was for this that Chauvinist France waged war; and indoing so she was in reality selling her people to be the serfs ofthe international Jew.
French war aims would have been obtained through the World Warif, as was originally hoped in Paris, the struggle had been carriedout on German soil. Let us imagine the bloody battles of the WorldWar not as having taken place on the Somme, in Flanders, in Artois,in front of Warsaw, Nizhni-Novogorod, Kowno, and Riga but inGermany, in the Ruhr or on the Maine, on the Elbe, in front ofHanover, Leipzig, N¼rnberg, etc. If such happened, then we mustadmit that the destruction of Germany might have been accomplished.It is very much open to question if our young federal State couldhave borne the hard struggle for four and a half years, as it wasborne by a France that had been centralized for centuries, with thewhole national imagination focused on Paris. If this titanicconflict between the nations developed outside the frontiers of ourfatherland, not only is all the merit due to the immortal servicerendered by our old army but it was also very fortunate for thefuture of Germany. I am fully convinced that if things had taken adifferent course there would no longer be a German Reich to-day butonly 'German States'. And that is the only reason why the bloodwhich was shed by our friends and brothers in the War was at leastnot shed in vain.
The course which events took was otherwise. In November 1918Germany did indeed collapse with lightning suddenness. But when thecatastrophe took place at home the armies under theCommander-in-Chief were still deep in the enemy's country. At thattime France's first preoccupation was not the dismemberment ofGermany but the problem of how to get the German armies out ofFrance and Belgium as quickly as possible. And so, in order to putan end to the War, the first thing that had to be done by the ParisGovernment was to disarm the German armies and push them back intoGermany if possible. Until this was done the French could notdevote their attention to carrying out their own particular andoriginal war aims. As far as concerned England, the War was reallywon when Germany was destroyed as a colonial and commercial Powerand was reduced to the rank of a second-class State. It was not inEngland's interest to wipe out the German State altogether. Infact, on many grounds it was desirable for her to have a futurerival against France in Europe. Therefore French policy was forcedto carry on by peaceful means the work for which the War had openedthe way; and Clemenceau's statement, that for him Peace was merelya continuation of the War, thus acquired an enhancedsignificance.
Persistently and on every opportunity that arose, the effort todislocate the framework of the Reich was to have been carried on.By perpetually sending new notes that demanded disarmament, on theone hand, and by the imposition of economic levies which, on theother hand, could be carried out as the process of disarmamentprogressed, it was hoped in Paris that the framework of the Reichwould gradually fall to pieces. The more the Germans lost theirsense of national honour the more could economic pressure andcontinued economic distress be effective as factors of politicaldestruction. Such a policy of political oppression and economicexploitation, carried out for ten or twenty years, must in the longrun steadily ruin the most compact national body and, under certaincircumstances, dismember it. Then the French war aims would havebeen definitely attained.
By the winter of 1922-23 the intentions of the French mustalready have been known for a long time back. There remained onlytwo possible ways of confronting the situation. If the Germannational body showed itself sufficiently tough-skinned, it mightgradually blunt the will of the French or it might do'--onceand for all'--what was bound to become inevitable one day: thatis to say, under the provocation of some particularly brutal act ofoppression it could put the helm of the German ship of state toroundabout and ram the enemy. That would naturally involve alife-and-death-struggle. And the prospect of coming through thestruggle alive depended on whether France could be so far isolatedthat in this second battle Germany would not have to fight againstthe whole world but in defence of Germany against a France that waspersistently 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 andwill have to be chosen and carried out in one way or another. Ishall never believe that France will of herself alter herintentions towards us, because, in the last analysis, they are onlythe expression of the French instinct for self-preservation. Were Ia Frenchman and were the greatness of France so dear to me as thatof Germany actually is, in the final reckoning I could not andwould not act otherwise than a Clemenceau. The French nation, whichis slowly dying out, not so much through depopulation as throughthe progressive disappearance of the best elements of the race, cancontinue to play an important role in the world only if Germany bedestroyed. French policy may make a thousand detours on the marchtowards its fixed goal, but the destruction of Germany is the endwhich it always has in view as the fulfilment of the most profoundyearning and ultimate intentions of the French. Now it is a mistaketo believe that if the will on one side should remain onlypassive and intent on its own self-preservation it can holdout permanently against another will which is not less forceful butis active. As long as the eternal conflict between Franceand Germany is waged only in the form of a German defence againstthe French attack, that conflict can never be decided; and fromcentury to century Germany will lose one position after another. Ifwe study the changes that have taken place, from the twelfthcentury up to our day, in the frontiers within which the Germanlanguage is spoken, we can hardly hope for a successful issue toresult from the acceptance and development of a line of conductwhich has hitherto been so detrimental for us.
Only when the Germans have taken all this fully into accountwill they cease from allowing the national will-to-life to wearitself out in merely passive defence, but they will rally togetherfor a last decisive contest with France. And in this contest theessential objective of the German nation will be fought for. Onlythen will it be possible to put an end to the eternal Franco-Germanconflict which has hitherto proved so sterile. Of course it is herepresumed that Germany sees in the suppression of France nothingmore than a means which will make it possible for our peoplefinally to expand in another quarter. To-day there are eightymillion Germans in Europe. And our foreign policy will berecognized as rightly conducted only when, after barely a hundredyears, there will be 250 million Germans living on this Continent,not packed together as the coolies in the factories of anotherContinent but as tillers of the soil and workers whose labour willbe a mutual assurance for their existence.
In December 1922 the situation between Germany and Franceassumed a particularly threatening aspect. France had new and vastoppressive measures in view and needed sanctions for her conduct.Political pressure had to precede the economic plunder, and theFrench believed that only by making a violent attack against thecentral nervous system of German life would they be able to makeour 'recalcitrant' people bow to their galling yoke. By theoccupation of the Ruhr District, it was hoped in France that notonly would the moral backbone of Germany be broken finally but thatwe should be reduced to such a grave economic condition that weshould be forced, for weal or woe, to subscribe to the heaviestpossible obligations.
It was a question of bending and breaking Germany. At firstGermany bent and subsequently broke in pieces completely.
Through the occupation of the Ruhr, Fate once more reached outits hand to the German people and bade them arise. For what atfirst appeared as a heavy stroke of misfortune was found, on closerexamination, to contain extremely encouraging possibilities ofbringing Germany's sufferings to an end.
As regards foreign politics, the action of France in occupyingthe Ruhr really estranged England for the first time in quite aprofound way. Indeed it estranged not merely British diplomaticcircles, which had concluded the French alliance and had upheld itfrom motives of calm and objective calculation, but it alsoestranged large sections of the English nation. The Englishbusiness world in particular scarcely concealed the displeasure itfelt at this incredible forward step in strengthening the power ofFrance on the Continent. From the military standpoint alone Francenow assumed a position in Europe such as Germany herself had notheld previously. Moreover, France thus obtained control overeconomic resources which practically gave her a monopoly thatconsolidated her political and commercial strength against allcompetition. The most important iron and coal mines of Europe werenow united in the hand of one nation which, in contrast to Germany,had hitherto defended her vital interests in an active and resolutefashion and whose military efficiency in the Great War was stillfresh in the memories of the whole world. The French occupation ofthe Ruhr coal field deprived England of all the successes she hadgained in the War. And the victors were now Marshal Foch and theFrance he represented, no longer the calm and painstaking Britishstatesmen.
In Italy also the attitude towards France, which had not beenvery favourable since the end of the War, now became positivelyhostile. The great historic moment had come when the Allies ofyesterday might become the enemies of to-morrow. If things happenedotherwise and if the Allies did not suddenly come into conflictwith one another, as in the Second Balkan War, that was due to thefact that Germany had no Enver Pasha but merely a Cuno asChancellor of the Reich.
Nevertheless, the French invasion of the Ruhr opened up greatpossibilities for the future not only in Germany's foreign politicsbut also in her internal politics. A considerable section of ourpeople who, thanks to the persistent influence of a mendaciousPress, had looked upon France as the champion of progress andliberty, were suddenly cured of this illusion. In 1914 the dream ofinternational solidarity suddenly vanished from the brain of ourGerman working class. They were brought back into the world ofeverlasting struggle, where one creature feeds on the other andwhere the death of the weaker implies the life of the stronger. Thesame thing happened in the spring of 1923.
When the French put their threats into effect and penetrated, atfirst hesitatingly and cautiously, into the coal-basin of LowerGermany the hour of destiny had struck for Germany. It was a greatand decisive moment. If at that moment our people had changed notonly their frame of mind but also their conduct the German RuhrDistrict could have been made for France what Moscow turned out tobe for Napoleon. Indeed, there were only two possibilities: eitherto leave this move also to take its course and do nothing or toturn to the German people in that region of sweltering forges andflaming furnaces. An effort might have been made to set their willsafire with determination to put an end to this persistent disgraceand to face a momentary terror rather than submit to a terror thatwas endless.
Cuno, who was then Chancellor of the Reich, can claim theimmortal merit of having discovered a third way; and our Germanbourgeois political parties merit the still more glorious honour ofhaving admired him and collaborated with him.
Here I shall deal with the second way as briefly aspossible.
By occupying the Ruhr France committed a glaring violation ofthe Versailles Treaty. Her action brought her into conflict withseveral of the guarantor Powers, especially with England and Italy.She could no longer hope that those States would back her up in heregotistic act of brigandage. She could count only on her own forcesto reap anything like a positive result from that adventure, forsuch it was at the start. For a German National Government therewas only one possible way left open. And this was the way whichhonour prescribed. Certainly at the beginning we could not haveopposed France with an active armed resistance. But it should havebeen clearly recognized that any negotiations which did not havethe argument of force to back them up would turn out futile andridiculous. If it were not possible to organize an activeresistance, then it was absurd to take up the standpoint: "We shallnot enter into any negotiations." But it was still more absurdfinally to enter into negotiations without having organized thenecessary force as a support.
Not that it was possible for us by military means to prevent theoccupation of the Ruhr. Only a madman could have recommended such adecision. But under the impression produced by the action whichFrance had taken, and during the time that it was being carriedout, measures could have been, and should have been, undertakenwithout any regard to the Versailles Treaty, which France herselfhad violated, to provide those military resources which would serveas a collateral argument to back up the negotiations later on. Forit was quite clear from the beginning that the fate of thisdistrict occupied by the French would one day be decided at someconference table or other. But it also must have been quite toeverybody that even the best negotiators could have little successas long as the ground on which they themselves stood and the chairon which they sat were not under the armed protection of their ownpeople. A weak pigmy cannot contend against athletes, and anegotiator without any armed defence at his back must always bow inobeisance when a Brennus throws the sword into the scales on theenemy's side, unless an equally strong sword can be thrown into thescales at the other end and thus maintain the balance. It wasreally distressing to have to observe the comedy of negotiationswhich, ever since 1918, regularly preceded each arbitrary dictatethat the enemy imposed upon us. We offered a sorry spectacle to theeyes of the whole world when we were invited, for the sake ofderision, to attend conference tables simply to be presented withdecisions and programmes which had already been drawn up and passeda long time before, and which we were permitted to discuss, butfrom the beginning had to be considered as unalterable. It is truethat in scarcely a single instance were our negotiators men of morethan mediocre abilities. For the most part they justified only toowell the insolent observation made by Lloyd George when hesarcastically remarked, in the presence of a former Chancellor ofthe Reich, Herr Simon, that the Germans were not able to choose menof intelligence as their leaders and representatives. But in faceof the resolute determination and the power which the enemy held inhis hands, on the one side, and the lamentable impotence of Germanyon the other, even a body of geniuses could have obtained only verylittle for Germany.
In the spring of 1923, however, anyone who might have thought ofseizing the opportunity of the French invasion of the Ruhr toreconstruct the military power of Germany would first have had torestore to the nation its moral weapons, to reinforce itswill-power, and to extirpate those who had destroyed this mostvaluable element of national strength.
Just as in 1918 we had to pay with our blood for the failure tocrush the Marxist serpent underfoot once and for all in 1914 and1915, now we have to suffer retribution for the fact that in thespring of 1923 we did not seize the opportunity then offered us forfinally wiping out the handiwork done by the Marxists who betrayedtheir country and were responsible for the murder of ourpeople.
Any idea of opposing French aggression with an efficaciousresistance was only pure folly as long as the fight had not beentaken up against those forces which, five years previously, hadbroken the German resistance on the battlefields by the influenceswhich they exercised at home. Only bourgeois minds could havearrived at the incredible belief that Marxism had probably becomequite a different thing now and that the canaille ofringleaders in 1918, who callously used the bodies of our twomillion dead as stepping-stones on which they climbed into thevarious Government positions, would now, in the year 1923, suddenlyshow themselves ready to pay their tribute to the nationalconscience. It was veritably a piece of incredible folly to expectthat those traitors would suddenly appear as the champions ofGerman freedom. They had no intention of doing it. Just as a hyenawill not leave its carrion, a Marxist will not give up indulging inthe betrayal of his country. It is out of the question to putforward the stupid retort here, that so many of the workers gavetheir blood for Germany. German workers, yes, but no longerinternational Marxists. If the German working class, in 1914,consisted of real Marxists the War would have ended within threeweeks. Germany would have collapsed before the first soldier hadput a foot beyond the frontiers. No. The fact that the Germanpeople carried on the War proved that the Marxist folly had not yetbeen able to penetrate deeply. But as the War was prolonged Germansoldiers and workers gradually fell back into the hands of theMarxist leaders, and the number of those who thus relapsed becamelost to their country. At the beginning of the War, or even duringthe War, if twelve or fifteen thousand of these Jews who werecorrupting the nation had been forced to submit to poison-gas, justas hundreds of thousands of our best German workers from everysocial stratum and from every trade and calling had to face it inthe field, then the millions of sacrifices made at the front wouldnot have been in vain. On the contrary: If twelve thousand of thesemalefactors had been eliminated in proper time probably the livesof a million decent men, who would be of value to Germany in thefuture, might have been saved. But it was in accordance withbourgeois 'statesmanship' to hand over, without the twitch of aneyelid, millions of human beings to be slaughtered on thebattlefields, while they looked upon ten or twelve thousand publictraitors, profiteers, usurers and swindlers, as the dearest andmost sacred national treasure and proclaimed their persons to beinviolable. Indeed it would be hard to say what is the mostoutstanding feature of these bourgeois circles: mental debility,moral weakness and cowardice, or a mere down-at-heel mentality. Itis a class that is certainly doomed to go under but, unhappily, itdrags down the whole nation with it into the abyss.
The situation in 1923 was quite similar to that of 1918. Nomatter what form of resistance was decided upon, the firstprerequisite for taking action was the elimination of the Marxistpoison from the body of the nation. And I was convinced that thefirst task then of a really National Government was to seek andfind those forces that were determined to wage a war of destructionagainst Marxism and to give these forces a free hand. It was theirduty not to bow down before the fetish of 'order and tranquillity'at a moment when the enemy from outside was dealing the Fatherlanda death-blow and when high treason was lurking behind every streetcorner at home. No. A really National Government ought then to havewelcomed disorder and unrest if this turmoil would afford anopportunity of finally settling with the Marxists, who are themortal enemies of our people. If this precaution were neglected,then it was sheer folly to think of resisting, no matter what formthat resistance might take.
Of course, such a settlement of accounts with the Marxists aswould be of real historical importance could not be effected alonglines laid down by some secret council or according to some planconcocted by the shrivelled mind of some cabinet minister. It wouldhave to be in accordance with the eternal laws of life on thisEarth which are and will remain those of a ceaseless struggle forexistence. It must always be remembered that in many instances ahardy and healthy nation has emerged from the ordeal of the mostbloody civil wars, while from peace conditions which had beenartificially maintained there often resulted a state of nationalputrescence that reeked to the skies. The fate of a nation cannotbe changed in kid gloves. And so in the year 1923 brutal actionshould have been taken to stamp out the vipers that battened on thebody of the nation. If this were done, then the first prerequisitefor an active opposition would have been fulfilled.
At that time I often talked myself hoarse in trying to make itclear, at least to the so-called national circles, what was then atstake and that by repeating the errors committed in 1914 and thefollowing years we must necessarily come to the same kind ofcatastrophe as in 1918. I frequently implored of them to let Fatehave a free hand and to make it possible for our Movement to settlewith the Marxists. But I preached to deaf ears. They all thoughtthey knew better, including the Chief of the Defence Force, untilfinally they found themselves forced to subscribe to the vilestcapitulation that history records.
I then became profoundly convinced that the German bourgeoisiehad come to the end of its mission and was not capable offulfilling any further function. And then also I recognized thefact that all the bourgeois parties had been fighting Marxismmerely from the spirit of competition without sincerely wishing todestroy it. For a long time they had been accustomed to assist inthe destruction of their country, and their one great care was tosecure good seats at the funeral banquet. It was for this alonethat they kept on 'fighting'.
At that time'--I admit it openly'--I conceived aprofound admiration for the great man beyond the Alps, whose ardentlove for his people inspired him not to bargain with Italy'sinternal enemies but to use all possible ways and means in aneffort to wipe them out. What places Mussolini in the ranks of theworld's great men is his decision not to share Italy with theMarxists but to redeem his country from Marxism by destroyinginternationalism.
What miserable pigmies our sham statesmen in Germany appear bycomparison with him. And how nauseating it is to witness theconceit and effrontery of these nonentities in criticizing a manwho is a thousand times greater than them. And how painful it is tothink that this takes place in a country which could point to aBismarck as its leader as recently as fifty years ago.
The attitude adopted by the bourgeoisie in 1923 and the way inwhich they dealt kindly with Marxism decided from the outset thefate of any attempt at active resistance in the Ruhr. With thatdeadly enemy in our own ranks it was sheer folly to think offighting France. The most that could then be done was to stage asham fight in order to satisfy the German national element to someextent, to tranquillize the 'boiling state of the public mind', ordope it, which was what was really intended. Had they reallybelieved in what they did, they ought to have recognized that thestrength of a nation lies, first of all, not in its arms but in itswill, and that before conquering the external enemy the enemy athome would have to be eliminated. If not, then disaster must resultif victory be not achieved on the very first day of the fight. Theshadow of one defeat is sufficient to break up the resistance of anation that has not been liberated from its internal enemies, andgive the adversary a decisive victory.
In the spring of 1923 all this might have been predicted. It isuseless to ask whether it was then possible to count on a militarysuccess against France. For if the result of the German action inregard to the French invasion of the Ruhr had been only thedestruction of Marxism at home, success would have been on ourside. Once liberated from the deadly enemies of her present andfuture existence, Germany would possess forces which no power inthe world could strangle again. On the day when Marxism is brokenin Germany the chains that bind Germany will be smashed for ever.For never in our history have we been conquered by the strength ofour outside enemies but only through our own failings and the enemyin our own camp.
Since it was not able to decide on such heroic action at thattime, the Government could have chosen the first way: namely, toallow things to take their course and do nothing at all.
But at that great moment Heaven made Germany a present of agreat man. This was Herr Cuno. He was neither a statesman nor apolitician by profession, still less a politician by birth. But hebelonged to that type of politician who is merely used forliquidating some definite question. Apart from that, he hadbusiness experience. It was a curse for Germany that, in thepractice of politics, this business man looked upon politics alsoas a business undertaking and regulated his conductaccordingly.
"France occupies the Ruhr. What is there in the Ruhr? Coal. Andso France occupies the Ruhr for the sake of its coal?" What couldcome more naturally to the mind of Herr Cuno than the idea of astrike, which would prevent the French from obtaining any coal? Andtherefore, in the opinion of Herr Cuno, one day or other they wouldcertainly have to get out of the Ruhr again if the occupation didnot prove to be a paying business. Such were approximately thelines along which that outstanding national statesmanreasoned. At Stuttgart and other places he spoke to 'his people'and this people became lost in admiration for him. Of course theyneeded the Marxists for the strike, because the workers would haveto be the first to go on strike. Now, in the brain of a bourgeoisstatesman such as Cuno, a Marxist and a worker are one and the samething. Therefore it was necessary to bring the worker into linewith all the other Germans in a united front. One should have seenhow the countenances of these party politicians beamed with thelight of their moth-eaten bourgeois culture when the great geniusspoke the word of revelation to them. Here was a nationalist andalso a man of genius. At last they had discovered what they had solong sought. For now the abyss between Marxism and themselves couldbe bridged over. And thus it became possible for thepseudo-nationalist to ape the German manner and adopt nationalistphraseology in reaching out the ingenuous hand of friendship to theinternationalist traitors of their country. The traitor readilygrasped that hand, because, just as Herr Cuno had need of theMarxist chiefs for his 'united front', the Marxist chiefs neededHerr Cuno's money. So that both parties mutually benefited by thetransaction. Cuno obtained his united front, constituted ofnationalist charlatans and international swindlers. And now, withthe help of the money paid to them by the State, these people wereable to pursue their glorious mission, which was to destroy thenational economic system. It was an immortal thought, that ofsaving a nation by means of a general strike in which the strikerswere paid by the State. It was a command that could beenthusiastically obeyed by the most indifferent of loafers.
Everybody knows that prayers will not make a nation free. Butthat it is possible to liberate a nation by giving up work has yetto be proved by historical experience. Instead of promoting a paidgeneral strike at that time, and making this the basis of his'united front', if Herr Cuno had demanded two hours more work fromevery German, then the swindle of the 'united front' would havebeen disposed of within three days. Nations do not obtain theirfreedom 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 anarmy of occupation might be frightened and driven out by suchridiculous means. And yet this could have been the only purpose ofan action for which the country had to pay out milliards and whichcontributed seriously to devaluate the national currency.
Of course the French were able to make themselves almost at homein the Ruhr basin the moment they saw that such ridiculous measureswere being adopted against them. They had received the prescriptiondirectly from ourselves of the best way to bring a recalcitrantcivil population to a sense of reason if its conduct implied aserious danger for the officials which the army of occupation hadplaced in authority. Nine years previously we wiped out withlightning rapidity bands of Belgian francs-tireurs and madethe civil population clearly understand the seriousness of thesituation, when the activities of these bands threatened gravedanger for the German army. In like manner if the passiveresistance of the Ruhr became really dangerous for the French, thearmies of occupation would have needed no more than eight days tobring the whole piece of childish nonsense to a gruesome end. Forwe must always go back to the original question in all thisbusiness: What were we to do if the passive resistance came to thepoint where it really got on the nerves of our opponents and theyproceeded to suppress it with force and bloodshed? Would we stillcontinue to resist? If so, then, for weal or woe, we would have tosubmit to a severe and bloody persecution. And in that case weshould be faced with the same situation as would have faced us inthe case of an active resistance. In other words, we should have tofight. Therefore the so-called passive resistance would be logicalonly if supported by the determination to come out and wage an openfight in case of necessity or adopt a kind of guerilla warfare.Generally speaking, one undertakes such a struggle when there is apossibility of success. The moment a besieged fortress is taken byassault there is no practical alternative left to the defendersexcept to surrender, if instead of probable death they are assuredthat their lives will be spared. Let the garrison of a citadelwhich has been completely encircled by the enemy once lose all hopeof being delivered by their friends, then the strength of thedefence collapses totally.
That is why passive resistance in the Ruhr, when one considersthe final consequences which it might and must necessarily have ifit were to turn out really successful, had no practical meaningunless an active front had been organized to support it. Then onemight have demanded immense efforts from our people. If each ofthese Westphalians in the Ruhr could have been assured that thehome country had mobilized an army of eighty or a hundred divisionsto support them, the French would have found themselves treading onthorns. Surely a greater number of courageous men could be found tosacrifice themselves for a successful enterprise than for anenterprise that was manifestly futile.
This was the classic occasion that induced us NationalSocialists to take up a resolute stand against the so-callednational word of command. And that is what we did. During thosemonths I was attacked by people whose patriotism was a mixture ofstupidity and humbug and who took part in the general hue and crybecause of the pleasant sensation they felt at being suddenlyenabled to show themselves as nationalists, without running anydanger thereby. In my estimation, this despicable 'united front'was one of the most ridiculous things that could be imagined. Andevents proved that I was right.
As soon as the Trades Unions had nearly filled their treasurieswith Cuno's contributions, and the moment had come when it would benecessary to transform the passive resistance from a mere inertdefence into active aggression, the Red hyenas suddenly broke outof the national sheepfold and returned to be what they always hadbeen. Without sounding any drums or trumpets, Herr Cuno returned tohis ships. Germany was richer by one experience and poorer by theloss of one great hope.
Up to midsummer of that year several officers, who certainlywere not the least brave and honourable of their kind, had notreally believed that the course of things could take a turn thatwas so humiliating. They had all hoped that'--if not openly,then at least secretly'--the necessary measures would be takento make this insolent French invasion a turning-point in Germanhistory. In our ranks also there were many who counted at least onthe intervention of the Reichswehr. That conviction was soardent that it decisively influenced the conduct and especially thetraining of innumerable young men.
But when the disgraceful collapse set in and the mosthumiliating kind of capitulation was made, indignation against sucha betrayal of our unhappy country broke out into a blaze. Millionsof German money had been spent in vain and thousands of youngGermans had been sacrificed, who were foolish enough to trust inthe promises made by the rulers of the Reich. Millions of peoplenow became clearly convinced that Germany could be saved only ifthe whole prevailing system were destroyed root and branch.
There never had been a more propitious moment for such asolution. On the one side an act of high treason had been committedagainst the country, openly and shamelessly. On the other side anation found itself delivered over to die slowly of hunger. Sincethe State itself had trodden down all the precepts of faith andloyalty, made a mockery of the rights of its citizens, rendered thesacrifices of millions of its most loyal sons fruitless and robbedother millions of their last penny, such a State could no longerexpect anything but hatred from its subjects. This hatred againstthose who had ruined the people and the country was bound to findan outlet in one form or another. In this connection I shall quotehere the concluding sentence of a speech which I delivered at thegreat court trial that took place in the spring of 1924.
"The judges of this State may tranquilly condemn us for ourconduct at that time, but History, the goddess of a higher truthand a better legal code, will smile as she tears up this verdictand will acquit us all of the crime for which this verdict demandspunishment."
But History will then also summon before its own tribunal thosewho, invested with power to-day, have trampled on law and justice,condemning our people to misery and ruin, and who, in the hour oftheir country's misfortune, took more account of their own ego thanof the life of the community.
Here I shall not relate the course of events which led toNovember 8th, 1923, and closed with that date. I shall not do sobecause I cannot see that this would serve any beneficial purposein the future and also because no good could come of opening oldsores that have been just only closed. Moreover, it would be out ofplace to talk about the guilt of men who perhaps in the depths oftheir hearts have as much love for their people as I myself, andwho merely did not follow the same road as I took or failed torecognize it as the right one to take.
In the face of the great misfortune which has befallen ourfatherland and affects all us, I must abstain from offending andperhaps disuniting those men who must at some future date form onegreat united front which will be made up of true and loyal Germansand which will have to withstand the common front presented by theenemy of our people. For I know that a time will come when thosewho then treated us as enemies will venerate the men who trod thebitter way of death for the sake of their people.
I have dedicated the first volume of this book to our eighteenfallen heroes. Here at the end of this second volume let me againbring those men to the memory of the adherents and champions of ourideals, as heroes who, in the full consciousness of what they weredoing, sacrificed their lives for us all. We must never fail torecall those names in order to encourage the weak and waveringamong us when duty calls, that duty which they fulfilled withabsolute faith, even to its extreme consequences. Together withthose, and as one of the best of all, I should like to mention thename of a man who devoted his life to reawakening his and ourpeople, through his writing and his ideas and finally throughpositive action. I mean: Dietrich Eckart.
EPILOGUEOn November 9th, 1923, four and a half years after itsfoundation, the German National Socialist Labour Party wasdissolved 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 thanever before.
All persecutions of the Movement and the individuals at itshead, all the imputations and calumnies, have not been able toprevail against it. Thanks to the justice of its ideas, theintegrity of its intentions and the spirit of self-denial thatanimates its members, it has overcome all oppression and increasedits strength through the ordeal. If, in our contemporary world ofparliamentary corruption, our Movement remains always conscious ofthe profound nature of its struggle and feels that it personifiesthe values of individual personality and race, and orders itsaction accordingly'--then it may count with mathematicalcertainty on achieving victory some day in the future. And Germanymust necessarily win the position which belongs to it on this Earthif it is led and organized according to these principles.
A State which, in an epoch of racial adulteration, devotesitself to the duty of preserving the best elements of its racialstock 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 thesacrifices demanded of them may not be justified by thepossibilities of success.
THE ENDAPPENDIXA Review of Mein KampfbyGeorge Orwell* * *Published March 1940It is a sign of the speed at which events are moving that Hurstand Blackett's unexpurgated edition of Mein Kampf, publishedonly a year ago, is edited from a pro-Hitler angle. The obviousintention of the translator's preface and notes is to tone down thebook's ferocity and present Hitler in as kindly a light aspossible. For at that date Hitler was still respectable. He hadcrushed the German labour movement, and for that theproperty-owning classes were willing to forgive him almostanything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notionthat National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism.
Then suddenly it turned out that Hitler was not respectableafter all. As one result of this, Hurst and Blackett's edition wasreissued in a new jacket explaining that all profits would bedevoted to the Red Cross. Nevertheless, simply on the internalevidence of Mein Kampf, it is difficult to believe that anyreal change has taken place in Hitler's aims and opinions. When onecompares his utterances of a year or so ago with those made fifteenyears earlier, a thing that strikes one is the rigidity of hismind, the way in which his world-view doesn't develop. It isthe fixed vision of a monomaniac and not likely to be much affectedby the temporary manoeuvres of power politics. Probably, inHitler's own mind, the Russo-German Pact represents no more than analteration of time-table. The plan laid down in Mein Kampfwas to smash Russia first, with the implied intention of smashingEngland afterwards. Now, as it has turned out, England has got tobe dealt with first, because Russia was the more easily bribed ofthe two. But Russia's turn will come when England is out of thepicture'--that, no doubt, is how Hitler sees it. Whether itwill turn out that way is of course a different question.
Suppose that Hitler's programme could be put into effect. Whathe envisages, a hundred years hence, is a continuous state of 250million Germans with plenty of "living room" (i.e. stretching toAfghanistan or thereabouts), a horrible brainless empire in which,essentially, nothing ever happens except the training of young menfor war and the endless breeding of fresh cannon-fodder. How was itthat he was able to put this monstrous vision across? It is easy tosay that at one stage of his career he was financed by the heavyindustrialists, who saw in him the man who would smash theSocialists and Communists. They would not have backed him, however,if he had not talked a great movement into existence already.Again, the situation in Germany, with its seven million unemployed,was obviously favourable for demagogues. But Hitler could not havesucceeded against his many rivals if it had not been for theattraction of his own personality, which one can feel even in theclumsy writing of Mein Kampf, and which is no doubtoverwhelming when one hears his speeches...The fact is that thereis something deeply appealing about him. One feels it again whenone sees his photographs'--and I recommend especially thephotograph at the beginning of Hurst and Blackett's edition, whichshows Hitler in his early Brownshirt days. It is a pathetic,dog-like face, the face of a man suffering under intolerablewrongs. In a rather more manly way it reproduces the expression ofinnumerable pictures of Christ crucified, and there is little doubtthat that is how Hitler sees himself. The initial, personal causeof his grievance against the universe can only be guessed at; butat any rate the grievance is here. He is the martyr, the victim,Prometheus chained to the rock, the self-sacrificing hero whofights single-handed against impossible odds. If he were killing amouse he would know how to make it seem like a dragon. One feels,as with Napoleon, that he is fighting against destiny, that hecan't win, and yet that he somehow deserves to. Theattraction of such a pose is of course enormous; half the filmsthat one sees turn upon some such theme.
Also he has grasped the falsity of the hedonistic attitude tolife. Nearly all western thought since the last war, certainly all"progressive" thought, has assumed tacitly that human beings desirenothing beyond ease, security and avoidance of pain. In such a viewof life there is no room, for instance, for patriotism and themilitary virtues. The Socialist who finds his children playing withsoldiers is usually upset, but he is never able to think of asubstitute for the tin soldiers; tin pacifists somehow won't do.Hitler, because in his own joyless mind he feels it withexceptional strength, knows that human beings don't onlywant comfort, safety, short working-hours, hygiene, birth-controland, in general, common sense; they also, at least intermittently,want struggle and self-sacrifice, not to mention drums, flags andloyalty-parades. However they may be as economic theories, Fascismand Nazism are psychologically far sounder than any hedonisticconception of life. The same is probably true of Stalin'smilitarised version of Socialism. All three of the great dictatorshave enhanced their power by imposing intolerable burdens on theirpeoples. Whereas Socialism, and even capitalism in a more grudgingway, have said to people "I offer you a good time," Hitler has saidto them "I offer you struggle, danger and death," and as a result awhole nation flings itself at his feet. Perhaps later on they willget sick of it and change their minds, as at the end of the lastwar. After a few years of slaughter and starvation "Greatesthappiness of the greatest number" is a good slogan, but at thismoment "Better an end with horror than a horror without end" is awinner. Now that we are fighting against the man who coined it, weought not to underrate its emotional appeal.
THE END
This site is full of FREE ebooks - Project Gutenberg Australia
Migrants reject food served at NYC shelters: 'Nothing healthy'
Sun, 17 Dec 2023 12:14
Several migrants confessed to The Post Friday the meals served up at New York City asylum seeker shelters are so ''bad'' they often just trash them '-- with some opting to sneakily cook in their rooms instead.
Their claims of terrible food came a day after it was revealed thousands of uneaten, taxpayer-funded meals prepared for asylum seekers are tossed each day.
''No one likes the food,'' Jesus Alberto, 31, from Venezuela, told The Post outside the Roosevelt Hotel '-- the Big Apple's main migrant intake center.
''Without lying, it's bad, bad.''
Meals served to the migrants include pancakes and Quecas, a type of fried tortilla, for breakfast; sandwiches for lunch and dinners including chicken alfredo and chicken with spaghetti.
The number of meals being wasted is down, in part, to asylum seekers ditching the city-funded food in favor of buying their own.
Migrants staying at the Big Apple's Roosevelt Hotel mega shelter say they often trash meals because they are ''bad.'' Robert MillerThe Post spotted several migrant families hauling groceries into the Roosevelt this week '-- including strollers stacked with boxes of Cheerios and Cornflakes, as well as bags filled with chips, bread and pasta.
''There is a lot of food left over because people eat in their rooms,'' one migrant, Victor Herrera, 29, said.
''A lot of people get food on the street because it tastes better and there's better variety.''
Migrant mom, Johana Roa, 23, admitted the breakfast is varied, but not to her taste.
''The breakfast they give us is very sweet. They give us pancakes, donuts and cookies for breakfast at 6am. It is too sweet to give to my daughter, so I just take a few things.''
Some of the migrants were bringing back pasta, sauce, chips, sugar and stock cubes to the intake shelter so they could cook up meals, rather than eating those provided. Robert Miller''Nothing healthy apart from eggs and fruit, apples and oranges. No oats,'' she added.
As for the rest of the meals, she added: ''The food is very cold and they don't let us heat anything. You can't heat the food,'' migrant mom, Johana Roa, 23, said.
However, she admitted to keeping a rice cooker in the Roosevelt shelter room she shares with her 2-year-old daughter daughter which they use to make meals.
''They don't let us cook so the mothers have rice pots we cook with. We make rice and meat in the rice pot in the room,'' Roa said.
''I try to cook as much as I can in our room so my daughter doesn't eat too much food from the street. It's not healthy.''
The Post spotted several migrant families arriving back at the Roosevelt Hotel hauling Cheetos, Hawaiian punch, English muffins and bags full of of groceries this week. Robert MillerFellow mom, Alexandra Salas '-- who has been staying at the Roosevelt for seven months '-- said she, too, won't feed her kids the cold meals.
''The breakfast and lunch is so cold we can't eat it, so it gets thrown in the trash,'' she said.
''They serve sandwiches for lunch but they are freezing cold.''
It comes after internal company records obtained by the New York Times revealed one company who serves meals to migrants across the city had to trash more than 70,000 ''wasted'' migrant meals between October 22 and November 22.
DocGo '-- who do not provide food for The Roosevelt '-- were awarded a $432 million no-bid contract by the city to help with migrant services.
The Roosevelt Hotel in Manhattan has been used for migrants for over a year Robert MillerUnder its hefty million dollar contract, the COVID testing-turned-migrant-shelter firm receives up to $33 per day from the city to provide three meals for each of the 4,000 asylum seekers it looks after '-- meaning the discarded food over that 20-day stretch would have set taxpayers back roughly $776,000.
''We take the health and safety of migrants in our care very seriously, and that includes providing them with proper nutritional meals,'' a City Hall spokesperson said in response to The Post's query about migrant complaints.
''As we continue to adjust food orders to improve quality, quantity, and respond to cultural preferences, we are dedicated to providing those in our care with enough food, while at the same time being responsible stewards of public resources.''
The city's Department of Housing Preservation and Development has claimed migrant meal consumption is currently at 93% '-- despite internal logs from DocGo citing high amounts of wastage.
''DocGo continually monitors food consumption and works to proactively identify opportunities for savings on behalf of NYC,'' a DocGo spokesperson said.
''The cost of all meals is passed through directly to the City without any markup, and the majority of the meals are procured through nonprofits, minority- and woman-owned caterers, and other small businesses.''
Italy: Youths Born Abroad Commit Nearly Half of All Crime in Age Group '-- The European Conservative
Sun, 17 Dec 2023 12:11
Newly released figures published by the Italian government have revealed that nearly half of all recorded crime committed by individuals in the age range of 14 to 24 last year was carried out by foreign-born youths, even though they compose slightly over 10% of the population in this age range.
The data, published by the Italian National Institute of Statistics (ISTAT) at the beginning of this month, revealed that in the age group between 14 and 17 years old, foreign-born residents'--despite making up 9.6 percent of the population'--committed 50.2% of the thefts, 48.1% of the robberies, 47.7% of the sexual violence, and 40.4% of assaults, the Milan-based newspaper Libero Quotidiano reports.
The trend was also observed in the 18-24 age group, where foreign-born residents'--despite composing 11.2% of the population'--were found to have committed 89.7% of crimes involving exploitation of prostitution, 55.8% of sexual violence, 52.6% of robberies, 52.4% of thefts, 43.6% of malicious injury cases.
Numeri allarmanti.Orde di ragazzini stranieri invadono le citt , insultano le ''donne bianche'' e gridano ''Allah Akbar''. Dati istat sono preoccupanti: tra i 14 e 24 anni ragazzi stranieri sono 10 volte pi¹ denunciati rispetto a italiani (pur essendo solo il 10% della popolazione). pic.twitter.com/Ur1xMQr6Hj
'-- Matteo Salvini (@matteosalvinimi) July 6, 2022The figures, which merely compare crime rates between Italians and foreign-born residents'--who are in the same age group, indicate that the latter is accountable for a vastly disproportionate percentage of the overall crime rate.
In a separate report, ISTAT notes that the proportion of crimes carried out by the country's foreign-born population has been increasing considerably and consistently over the past few decades. While foreign-born individuals represented 2.5% of those accused of a crime in 1990, that number ballooned to 24% in 2009.
The same phenomenon has been observed and recorded across a number of Western European countries, including Germany, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, France, Italy, and Finland, all of which have welcomed unprecedented numbers of foreigners from alien cultures in the past several decades.
Months ago, Germany's Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) published crime figures from 2021 which revealed that foreign nationals accounted for a massively disproportionate share of the country's violent crime, making up 37.7% of suspects arrested for violent crimes such as assault, manslaughter, and murder, despite comprising 12% of the population.
Project Nimbus - Wikipedia
Sat, 16 Dec 2023 18:34
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Israeli government cloud computing project
Project Nimbus (Hebrew: פר×××§× × ××××× ) is a cloud computing project of the Israeli government and its military.[1][2][3][4] The Israeli Finance Ministry announced April 2021, that the contract is to provide "the government, the defense establishment, and others with an all-encompassing cloud solution."[1] Under the contract, the companies will establish local cloud sites that will "keep information within Israel's borders under strict security guidelines."[4]
Project Nimbus has four planned phases: the first is purchasing and constructing the cloud infrastructure, the second is crafting government policy for moving operations onto the cloud, the third is moving operations to the cloud, and the fourth is implementing and optimizing cloud operations.[5] Under a $1.2 billion contract, technology companies Google (Google Cloud Platform) and Amazon (Amazon Web Services) were selected to provide Israeli government agencies with cloud computing services, including artificial intelligence and machine learning.[6][1]
The terms Israel set for the project contractually forbid Amazon and Google from halting services due to boycott pressure.[7][8] The tech companies are also forbidden from denying service to any particular government entities.[8]
Criticism [ edit ] The contract has drawn rebuke and condemnation from the companies' shareholders as well as their employees, over concerns that the project will lead to further abuses of Palestinians' human rights in the context of the ongoing occupation and the Israeli''Palestinian conflict.[9][10][11][12] Specifically, they voice concern over how the technology will enable further surveillance of Palestinians and unlawful data collection on them as well as facilitate the expansion of Israel's illegal settlements on Palestinian land.[11]
Ariel Koren, who had worked as a marketing manager for Google's educational products and was an outspoken opponent of the project, was given the ultimatum of moving to S£o Paulo within 17 days or losing her job.[6][13] In a letter announcing her resignation to her colleagues, Koren wrote that Google "systematically silences Palestinian, Jewish, Arab and Muslim voices concerned about Google's complicity in violations of Palestinian human rights'--to the point of formally retaliating against workers and creating an environment of fear," reflecting her view that the ultimatum came in retaliation for her opposition to and organization against the project.[6][14] She filed retaliation complaints with Google's human resources department and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which dismissed her case based on lack of evidence.[6] The NLRB also found that the ultimatum predated Koren's protected activities.[15]
Organizations such as Jewish Voice for Peace and MPower Change launched a campaign called "No Tech For Apartheid" (#NoTechForApartheid) opposing the project.[15][16]
References [ edit ] ^ a b c Biddle, Sam (July 24, 2022). "Documents Reveal Advanced AI Tools Google Is Selling to Israel". The Intercept . Retrieved 2022-08-30 . ^ Ziv, Amitai. "Israel Picks Google, Amazon for Massive Official Cloud; 'Data Will Remain Here' ". Haaretz . Retrieved 2022-09-07 . ^ Ziv, Amitai. "Microsoft to Launch Much Awaited Cloud Server Farm in Israel in 2021". Haaretz . Retrieved 2022-09-07 . ^ a b Scheer, Steven (2021-04-21). "Israel picks Amazon's AWS, Google for flagship cloud project". Reuters . Retrieved 2022-08-31 . ^ Stub, Zev. "Amazon, Google to employ thousands in Israel for massive Nimbus project". The Jerusalem Post . Retrieved 2022-08-31 . ^ a b c d Grant, Nico (2022-08-30). "Google Employee Who Played Key Role in Protest of Contract With Israel Quits". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331 . Retrieved 2022-08-30 . ^ Chua, Charmaine; Alimahomed-Wilson, Jake; Potiker, Spencer Louis (2021-06-22). "Amazon's Investments in Israel Reveal Complicity in Settlements and Military Operations". ISSN 0027-8378 . Retrieved 2022-08-30 . ^ a b Swinhoe, Dan. "Israel Government says AWS and Google can't boycott Nimbus Project". www.datacenterdynamics.com . Retrieved 2022-08-30 . ^ Biddle, Sam (May 18, 2022). "Google and Amazon Face Shareholder Revolt Over Israeli Defense Work". The Intercept . Retrieved 2022-08-30 . ^ "Google, Amazon shareholders to oppose Israeli Project Nimbus". The New Arab. 2022-05-19 . Retrieved 2022-08-31 . ^ a b Anonymous (2021-10-12). "We are Google and Amazon workers. We condemn Project Nimbus". The Guardian . Retrieved 2022-08-30 . ^ " "No Tech for Apartheid": Google Workers Push for Cancellation of Secretive $1.2B Project with Israel". Democracy Now! . Retrieved 2022-09-15 . ^ "A worker objected to Google's Israel military contract. Google told her to move to Brazil". Los Angeles Times. 2022-03-15 . Retrieved 2022-08-31 . ^ Koren, Ariel (2022-08-30). "Google's Complicity in Israeli Apartheid: How Google Weaponizes "Diversity" to Silence Palestinians'...". Medium . Retrieved 2022-08-30 . ^ a b Starr, Michael (31 August 2022). "Jewish Google employee quits citing retaliation over BDS efforts". The Jerusalem Post . Retrieved 12 November 2023 . ^ Abdelnour, Samer (February 2023). "Making a Killing: Israel's Military-Innovation Ecosystem and the Globalization of Violence". Organization Studies. 44 (2): 333''337. doi:10.1177/01708406221131938 . ISSN 0170-8406.
Winter Is Here: Temperatures Approach Record Lows in Northern China
Sat, 16 Dec 2023 17:37
Residents in northern China are experiencing blizzards and plummeting temperatures as a cold wave is expected to break historical records for low temperatures in December.
Heavy snowfall hit parts of Beijing and provinces such as Jilin and Shandong on Thursday, with snow depth reaching over 15 centimeters in some places, according to the China Meteorological Administration.
Most parts of northern China saw temperatures plummet between six and 12 degrees Celsius on Thursday from the day before, with temperatures expected to fall to lows of minus 44 degrees Celsius in parts of Heilongjiang province and the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region between Thursday and Sunday.
Temperatures in some parts are expected to break historical records for this time of the year, forecasters warned Thursday. On Tuesday, the China Meteorological Administration issued a yellow alert for freezing temperatures for the first time in 10 years.
China's lowest ever recorded temperature is minus 53 degrees Celsius, recorded in Mohe, Heilongjiang province, in January 2023.
Fu Jiaolan, the chief forecaster at the National Meteorological Center, said the latest cold wave is distinctive due to the large area it covers, its long duration, extreme temperature drops, and combination of rain and snow.
Beijing, which had its first snowfall of the year on Monday, is expected to see heavy snowfall continue until Friday morning. Residents are being encouraged to reduce travel, as trains and flights have been canceled.
Major mountainous scenic spots in Beijing have been closed since Wednesday. Primary and secondary schools, kindergartens, and secondary vocational schools are operating online classes until further notice.
Schools in other provinces including Hebei and Henan have also suspended in-person classes.
The severe temperature drops have prompted state-owned energy firms to ''operate at full capacity'' to meet heating needs in northern China, where coal plays a key role.
The National Development and Reform Commission said in November that China's coal reserves exceed 200 million tons and can last 33 days, the highest level in history.
The cold wave is expected to move south in the next two days, with temperature falls of between 8 degrees Celsius and 12 degrees Celsius in some parts.
Shanghai is set to see temperatures as low as minus 2 degrees Celsius on Sunday after seeing highs of 22 degrees Celsius on Thursday.
Hangzhou authorities announced Wednesday that the city will officially enter the winter season on Saturday, the latest onset of winter for the city since records began in 1951.
Editor: Vincent Chow.
(Header image: A worker clears snow from a street after a snow storm in Beijing, Dec. 11, 2023. IC)
ALL VIDEOS
VIDEO - UAE 'gifts' bankruptcy-hit Pakistan artificial rain | WION - YouTube
VIDEO - What Happens When Patients Stop Wegovy/Ozempic? - YouTube
VIDEO - U.S. Senate rocked by sex tape scandal - YouTube
VIDEO - Senators say diabetes and obesity epidemics are harming health of millions of Americans and costing - YouTube
VIDEO - First of its kind transgender clothing drive held on Long Island - YouTube
VIDEO - Netanyahu: Israel remains committed to achieving its objective - YouTube
VIDEO - KATICA ILLNYI - STAR TREK (theremin) - YouTube
VIDEO - Biden announces increased healthcare benefits for veterans - YouTube
VIDEO - Donald Trump paraphrases ADOLF HITLER by telling rally that migrants are 'poisoning the blood of our country': Phrase first appeared in f¼hrer book Mein Kampf | Daily Mail Online
Sun, 17 Dec 2023 12:17
Trump told his MAGA groupies that migrants from 'all over the world' are 'poisoning the blood of our country' - a phrase he copied from Hitler.
At a rally in New Hampshire, former President Donald Trump stood in front of a crowd of MAGA Republicans and said that illegal immigrants 'poisoned mental institutions and prisons all over the world'.
Although he didn't elaborate on how migrants are 'poisoning' mental institutions and prisons - Trump's words resemble those of Adolf Hitler, who famously used the same phrase in his book Mein Kampf.
'All great cultures of the past perished only because the originally creative race died out from blood poisoning,' the German dictator wrote in his 1925 manifesto.
Trump told his MAGA groupies that migrants from 'all over the world' are 'poisoning the blood of our country' - a phrase he copied from Hitler
At a rally in New Hampshire, former President Donald Trump stood in front of a crowd of MAGA Republicans and said that illegal immigrants 'poisoned mental institutions and prisons all over the world'
Trump's words resemble those of Adolf Hitler, who famously used the same phrase in his book Mein Kampf: ''All great cultures of the past perished only because the originally creative race died out from blood poisoning'
Trump also told his followers: 'We've got a lot of work to do - you know, when they let, I think the real number is 15, 16 million people into our country. When they do that - we've got a lot of work to do.'
It's unclear where he got this figure from because the U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported that three million migrants have crossed the border in 2023 - not 15 or 16 million, as Trump claimed.
He elaborated that the migrants had 'poisoned' mental institutions and prisons 'all over the world' - not just in South America and not just the 'three or four countries that we think about'.
Trump said immigrants are 'pouring into our country' from Africa, Asia and all over the world. He even claimed that 'nobody is even looking at them, they just come in'.
The former President then incoherently ranted: 'The crime is going to tremendous, the terrorism is going to be, terrorism is going to be... and we built a tremendous piece of the wall and then we're going to build more and the election was rigged.
'We didn't do it but I figured they'd just throw it up - it was all built, it was all ready to be just hoisted up. The exact wall that the border patrol who are incredible, Brandon Judd and all of the people at border patrol - that's exactly what they designed.'
By the time Biden took office in January 2021 only 452 miles of wall had been constructed and only 40 miles of that wall was brand new, most of it replaced old fencing - so Trump's claims that the wall was 'all built' are not accurate.
This 458 miles is a fraction of the 1,954 mile border between the US and Mexico, POLITICO reported.
This isn't the first time Trump has been likened to the leader of the Nazis - Hillary Clinton made a direct comparison between Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler as she claimed the former president winning in 2024 would lead to 'almost unimaginable wreckage' for America.
She drew parallels between how the Nazi leader became a dictator and what she claimed were Trump's 'dictatorial, authoritarian tendencies' which would lead to the 'end of our country as we know it'.
Trump told his fans that immigrants are 'pouring into our country' from Africa, Asia and all over the world. He even claimed that 'nobody is even looking at them, they just come in'
The former President then incoherently ranted: 'The crime is going to tremendous, the terrorism is going to be, terrorism is going to be... and we built a tremendous piece of the wall and then we're going to build more and the election was rigged'
Trump used the same phrase back in October - prompting former Fox News host Geraldo Rivera to denounce the former President for claiming migrants are 'poisoning the blood of our country,' and expressing his shock at the 'extraordinary, hateful, Hitler-like quote.'
Trump drew astonished backlash from critics after making the remark in an October video interview where he repeated his prior claims that migrants are criminals, insane, terrorists and diseased.
'Nobody has any idea where these people are coming from. We know they come from mental institutions and insane asylums. We know they're terrorists,' Trump said in the interview with The National Pulse, a right-leaning website.
'It's poisoning the blood of our country. It's so bad, and people are coming in with disease. People are coming in with every possible thing that you could have,' said Trump, the frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination.
Rivera, a veteran journalist and commentator, slammed the comment as 'disgusting' in a post on X, adding: 'Not only does it harken back to the Nazi-era, it is also part of the shameful, vile, centuries old tradition of claiming falsely that immigrants carry diseases.'
VIDEO -GOOD NEWS- 4-month-old baby survives 'by the grace of God' after being picked up by tornado
Sat, 16 Dec 2023 21:45
CLARKSVILLE, Tenn. (WSMV/Gray News) - A Tennessee couple is searching for a new home with their two babies following a tornado outbreak over the weekend.
Sydney Moore, 22, said a tornado demolished her family's mobile home while they were inside last Saturday.
Moore said the tornado picked up her 4-month-old during the storm, but he somehow survived.
''Something in me just told me to run and jump on top of my son,'' she said. ''The moment I jumped on him the walls collapsed.''
Moore said her boyfriend told her that he saw the tornado funnel down on top of them.
''The roof came off first, the tip of the tornado came down and picked up the bassinet with our baby,'' Moore said. ''He was the first thing to go up.''
Moore says her boyfriend hurled himself to grab their 4-month-old baby who was asleep in the bassinet, but he got spun up and thrown out along with the baby.
''He was just holding on to the bassinet the whole time, and they went into circles,'' Moore said.
She said somehow they were able to get out of the crushed trailer.
They then frantically searched for 10 minutes for their 4-month-old which they found alive and lying in a fallen tree in the rain.
''I thought he was dead,'' Moore said. ''I was pretty sure he was dead, and we weren't going to find him. But he's here, and that's by the grace of God.''
Moore added, ''I will die for my kids. That's not even a question. And my boyfriend would do the same thing.''
The family said they have lost everything they own in the devastation. But the community has rallied around them, specifically providing diapers and formula.
Now, they are looking for a new home.
The family has since started a GoFundMe to assist them rebuild.
Copyright 2023 WSMV via Gray Media Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
VIDEO - Zelenskyy urges European and US allies to unblock aid - YouTube
VIDEO - Pope, once a victim of AI-generated imagery, calls for treaty to regulate artificial intelligence - YouTube
VIDEO - Police arrest 3 people in Denmark, 1 in the Netherlands on suspicion of planning terror attacks - YouTube
VIDEO - Congress approves bill barring any president from unilaterally withdrawing from NATO - YouTube
VIDEO - Cars have been 'weaponized': Auto expert Mike Caudill - YouTube
VIDEO - The risks of taking off-brand Ozempic for weight loss, according to a doctor - YouTube
VIDEO - Health experts warn of dangers related to weight loss drugs - YouTube
VIDEO - Poison control center calls surge amid rise in popular weight loss drugs - YouTube
VIDEO - Increase in overdose calls related to injectable weight loss drugs - YouTube
VIDEO - Politicians officially recognise 2023 as 'Taylor Swift era' in home state of Pennsylvania - YouTube
VIDEO - Illinois NAACP President Teresa Haley under fire for calling Chicago migrants 'savages' during Zoom meeting - ABC7 Chicago
Sat, 16 Dec 2023 18:00
CHICAGO (WLS) -- The president of the Illinois NAACP is coming under fire on Tuesday for disparaging comments she made about migrants.
In video provided to ABC7, Teresa Haley calls them savages. She is denying it, but is now facing a call for her resignation.
In a recent Zoom call meeting with NAACP leaders from around the state, Haley answered a question from a participant.
That's when she began talking about all the migrants coming to Chicago, saying how they are living on the streets, and that Black people have been in similar predicaments for a long time, and no one cares.
"But, these immigrants have come over here, they've been raping people, they've been breaking into homes. They're like savages as well. They don't speak the language, and they look at us like we were crazy," Haley said.
Gov. JB Pritzker denounced those comments on Tuesday.
"Reprehensible remarks, I would hope that she would apologize for the remarks. I also think that people should recognize that immigrants to this country are all around us," Pritzker said.
Haley, reached by phone while on vacation in Dubai, denied making the comments, and when confronted about them being on video, suggested it was fake, saying, "with AI, anything is possible."
Patrick Watson, who, until recently, was president of the DuPage County branch of the NAACP, said he resigned over those comments and other issues with Haley.
"I think she should absolutely resign. I think she's unfit to be the president, the state president of the NAACP, someone that has that kind of sentiment and that kind of thought against migrant communities," Watson said.
But, the new branch president, Michael Childress, said Haley suspended Watson after a run-in earlier this year, and that Watson resigned after a vote of no confidence from local branch leaders.
Childress also claims Haley's comments were taken out of context.
"These comments are not indicative of what the NAACP stands for. But again, I'm not going to speak on behalf of Teresa Haley and say she should or shouldn't resign or things like that," Childress said.
The DuPage branch president said despite this controversy, Haley has a solid record of positive work for the NAACP, and he stands fully behind her.
Copyright (C) 2023 WLS-TV. All Rights Reserved.
VIDEO - Ex-FBI counterintelligence chief Charles McGonigal sentenced to 50 months in prison for working with Russian oligarch - ABC News
Sat, 16 Dec 2023 17:56
One of the highest-ranking FBI agents to ever face criminal charges was sentenced to over four years in prison on Thursday for secretly colluding with a Russian oligarch.
Charles McGonigal, a former counterintelligence leader in the FBI's New York field office, pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge. McGonigal's lawyers had asked for no prison time, but the judge came down harshly on the former FBI bigwig.
"I committed a felony and as a former FBI special agent it causes me extreme emotional and physical pain," McGonigal told the judge prior to the imposition of the sentence. "I stand before you today with a deep sense of remorse."
Judge Jennifer Rearden paid tribute to McGonigal's "extraordinary contributions" to counterespionage operations on the country's behalf, but noted the "extraordinary seriousness" of his choosing to work for Oleg Deripaska, whom the U.S. sanctioned for enabling Russia's annexation of Crimea.
"Mr. McGongial well knew his actions violated those sanctions," Rearden said before she imposed the 50-month sentence.
Federal prosecutors had requested a five-year prison term in a sentencing memorandum after accusing him of abusing the skills and influence his country entrusted him with by secretly working with Deripaska.
McGonigal has been told to surrender to authorities for his prison sentence on Feb. 26.
He served as the special agent in charge of the Counterintelligence Division of the FBI's New York field office. In that position, McGonigal supervised and participated in investigations of Russian oligarchs, including Deripaska, to whom he provided impermissible services.
In this March8, 2023 file photo, Charles McGonigal, a former FBI official, arrives at Federal Court in New York.
Brendan Mcdermid/Reuters, FILE
"McGonigal knew full well that Deripaska was sanctioned," prosecutors said in their sentencing memorandum. "McGonigal also cannot claim that he was unaware that he was selling his services to a scoundrel working against America's interests."
Despite that knowledge, they said McGonigal sought to gather derogatory information about a rival oligarch, Vladimir Potanin, and Potanin's interest in a corporation that he and Deripaska were vying to control.
Prosecutors cast it as a serious crime that deserved a serious punishment.
"Although the first task Deripaska assigned his new recruit may not have appeared particularly nefarious, McGonigal was hoping to do millions of dollars in future work for the oligarch," prosecutors said. "McGonigal was selling something just as useful to America's enemies as military grade technology: The "erosion '... in any rule of law" that ensues when a nation's counterintelligence professionals begin 'operating at the behest of the highest bidder,' to use McGonigal's description of his own crimes," prosecutors said.
In a letter to the court earlier this month, McGonigal's attorneys said he deserved no prison time for conspiring to help Deripaska.
Defense attorneys urged the judge to balance McGonigal's "extraordinary service" to the country during his 22-year career in law enforcement and counterintelligence. The defense argued "a non-custodial sentence is sufficient to serve the ends of justice."
"[J]ust punishment may be imposed upon Mr. McGonigal without the need for a lengthy term of incarceration. His fall from grace has been precipitous, having lost his job, his reputation and the peace of his family life," defense attorney Seth DuCharme said.
Charles McGonigal, the former special agent in charge of the Counterintelligence Division of the FBI's New York field office, leaves court after being sentenced to 50 months in prison for secretly working with sanctioned Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, in New York, Dec. 14, 2023.
ABC News
McGonigal faces sentencing early next year in a separate case brought in Washington, D.C., that accused him of concealing a payment from an Albanian intelligence official while on the job.
In a pre-sentencing memorandum, defense attorneys conceded McGonigal provided impermissible services to Deripaska but argued the information McGonigal provided to Deripaska about a rival oligarch aligned with the interests of the United States.
"It was wrong, and he admits that. But it is critically important that the Court appreciate, in imposing a just punishment, that Mr. McGonigal understood that the work he agreed to do was consistent with, not in tension with, U.S. foreign policy in the sense that it was in furtherance of potentially sanctioning another Russian oligarch," DuCharme said.
VIDEO - Taylor Swift resolution - YouTube
VIDEO - Tim Pool REACTS To New CIVIL WAR Movie Trailer, 2024 Film Shows 2nd US CIVIL WAR - YouTube
VIDEO - Video shows explosion at substation after NYC experiences brief power outage - YouTube
VIDEO - THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MAGICAL NEGROES - Official Trailer [HD] - Only In Theaters March 22 - YouTube
VIDEO - Civil War | Official Trailer HD | A24 - YouTube
VIDEO - MÄori warriors SCARE Hamas supporters into retreat down under - YouTube
VIDEO - What are famous brands hiding from you? - Episode 1: Nestle Company - YouTube
VIDEO - Hungary's Orban blocks vital $54B EU aid package for Ukraine - YouTube
VIDEO - Rudy Giuliani ordered to pay $148 million to 2 election workers he defamed - YouTube
VIDEO - Dr. Bal Nandra talks Matthew Perry dying from effects of ketamine - YouTube
VIDEO - Latest Covid variant spreading fast '-- and more - YouTube
VIDEO - Washington Journal: Open Forum, Part 2 | December 16, 2023 | C-SPAN.org
Sat, 16 Dec 2023 16:53
December 16, 2023 | Part Of Washington Journal 12/16/2023 Washington Journal2023-12-16T08:50:24-05:00 https://ximage.c-spanvideo.org/eyJidWNrZXQiOiJwaWN0dXJlcy5jLXNwYW52aWRlby5vcmciLCJrZXkiOiJGaWxlc1wvMzBhXC8wMDFcLzE3MDI3MzQ5NTFfMDAxLmpwZyIsImVkaXRzIjp7InJlc2l6ZSI6eyJmaXQiOiJjb3ZlciIsImhlaWdodCI6NTA2fX19 Viewers commented on the news of the day.Viewers commented on the news of the day.
Report Video IssueGo to Live Event"; // $('div#video-embed').html(cookieMsg); // return; // } // });
*This text was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.
Related Video December 2, 2023 Open Forum, Part 2Viewers commented on the news of the day.
November 26, 2023 Open Forum, Part 2Viewers commented on the news of the day.
November 18, 2023 Open Forum, Part 1Viewers commented on their top news story of the week.
November 18, 2023 Open Forum, Part 2Viewers commented on their top news story of the week.
