Difference between revisions of "Template:Purge"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Reverted edit 300411 by 172.71.151.39 to 290724)
Line 1: Line 1:
Mein Kampf
+
<span class="noprint plainlinks purgelink">[{{fullurl:{{{page|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|action=purge}} {{{1|Purge}}}]</span>
Adolf Hitler (1889-1945)
 
Translated into English by James Murphy (died 1946).
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
INTRODUCTION
 
 
 
VOLUME I: A RETROSPECT
 
 
 
CHAPTER I    IN THE HOME OF MY PARENTS
 
CHAPTER II  YEARS OF STUDY AND SUFFERING IN VIENNA
 
CHAPTER III  POLITICAL REFLECTIONS ARISING OUT OF MY SOJOURN IN VIENNA
 
CHAPTER IV  MUNICH
 
CHAPTER V    THE WORLD WAR
 
CHAPTER VI  WAR PROPAGANDA
 
CHAPTER VII  THE REVOLUTION
 
CHAPTER VIII THE BEGINNING OF MY POLITICAL ACTIVITIES
 
CHAPTER IX  THE GERMAN LABOUR PARTY
 
CHAPTER X    WHY THE SECOND REICH COLLAPSED
 
CHAPTER XI  RACE AND PEOPLE
 
CHAPTER XII  THE FIRST STAGE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GERMAN NATIONAL SOCIALIST LABOUR PARTY
 
 
 
VOLUME II: THE NATIONAL SOCIALIST MOVEMENT
 
 
 
CHAPTER I    WELTANSCHAUUNG AND PARTY
 
CHAPTER II  THE STATE
 
CHAPTER III  CITIZENS AND SUBJECTS OF THE STATE
 
CHAPTER IV  PERSONALITY AND THE IDEAL OF THE PEOPLE'S STATE
 
CHAPTER V    WELTANSCHAUUNG AND ORGANIZATION
 
CHAPTER VI  THE FIRST PERIOD OF OUR STRUGGLE
 
CHAPTER VII  THE CONFLICT WITH THE RED FORCES
 
CHAPTER VIII THE STRONG IS STRONGEST WHEN ALONE
 
CHAPTER IX  FUNDAMENTAL IDEAS REGARDING THE NATURE AND ORGANIZATION OF THE STORM TROOPS
 
CHAPTER X    THE MASK OF FEDERALISM
 
CHAPTER XI  PROPAGANDA AND ORGANIZATION
 
CHAPTER XII  THE PROBLEM OF THE TRADE UNIONS
 
CHAPTER XIII THE GERMAN POST-WAR POLICY OF ALLIANCES
 
CHAPTER XIV  GERMANY'S POLICY IN EASTERN EUROPE
 
CHAPTER XV  THE RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENCE
 
EPILOGUE
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
INTRODUCTION
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AUTHOR'S PREFACE
 
 
 
On April 1st, 1924, I began to serve my sentence of detention in the
 
Fortress of Landsberg am Lech, following the verdict of the Munich
 
People's Court of that time.
 
 
 
After years of uninterrupted labour it was now possible for the first
 
time to begin a work which many had asked for and which I myself felt
 
would be profitable for the Movement. So I decided to devote two volumes
 
to a description not only of the aims of our Movement but also of its
 
development. There is more to be learned from this than from any purely
 
doctrinaire treatise.
 
 
 
This has also given me the opportunity of describing my own development
 
in so far as such a description is necessary to the understanding of the
 
first as well as the second volume and to destroy the legendary
 
fabrications which the Jewish Press have circulated about me.
 
 
 
In this work I turn not to strangers but to those followers of the
 
Movement whose hearts belong to it and who wish to study it more
 
profoundly. I know that fewer people are won over by the written word
 
than by the spoken word and that every great movement on this earth owes
 
its growth to great speakers and not to great writers.
 
 
 
Nevertheless, in order to produce more equality and uniformity in the
 
defence of any doctrine, its fundamental principles must be committed to
 
writing. May these two volumes therefore serve as the building stones
 
which I contribute to the joint work.
 
 
 
The Fortress, Landsberg am Lech.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
At half-past twelve in the afternoon of November 9th, 1923, those whose
 
names are given below fell in front of the FELDHERRNHALLE and in the
 
forecourt of the former War Ministry in Munich for their loyal faith in
 
the resurrection of their people:
 
 
 
Alfarth, Felix, Merchant, born July 5th, 1901
 
Bauriedl, Andreas, Hatmaker, born May 4th, 1879
 
Casella, Theodor, Bank Official, born August 8th, 1900
 
Ehrlich, Wilhelm, Bank Official, born August 19th, 1894
 
Faust, Martin, Bank Official, born January 27th, 1901
 
Hechenberger, 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, born October 28th, 1904
 
Neubauer, Kurt, Waiter, born March 27th, 1899
 
Pape, Claus von, Merchant, born August 16th, 1904
 
Pfordten, Theodor von der, Councillor to the Superior Provincial Court,
 
born May 14th, 1873
 
Rickmers, Johann, retired Cavalry Captain, born May 7th, 1881
 
Scheubner-Richter, Max Erwin von, Dr. of Engineering, born January 9th,
 
1884
 
Stransky, Lorenz Ritter von, Engineer, born March 14th, 1899
 
Wolf, Wilhelm, Merchant, born October 19th, 1898
 
 
 
So-called national officials refused to allow the dead heroes a common
 
burial. So I dedicate the first volume of this work to them as a common
 
memorial, that the memory of those martyrs may be a permanent source of
 
light for the followers of our Movement.
 
 
 
The Fortress, Landsberg a/L.,
 
 
 
October 16th, 1924
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TRANSLATOR'S INTRODUCTION
 
 
 
In placing before the reader this unabridged translation of Adolf
 
Hitler's book, MEIN KAMPF, I feel it my duty to call attention to
 
certain historical facts which must be borne in mind if the reader would
 
form a fair judgment of what is written in this extraordinary work.
 
 
 
The first volume of MEIN KAMPF was written while the author was
 
imprisoned in a Bavarian fortress. How did he get there and why? The
 
answer to that question is important, because the book deals with the
 
events which brought the author into this plight and because he wrote
 
under the emotional stress caused by the historical happenings of the
 
time. It was the hour of Germany's deepest humiliation, somewhat
 
parallel to that of a little over a century before, when Napoleon had
 
dismembered the old German Empire and French soldiers occupied almost
 
the whole of Germany.
 
 
 
In the beginning of 1923 the French invaded Germany, occupied the Ruhr
 
district and seized several German towns in the Rhineland. This was a
 
flagrant breach of international law and was protested against by every
 
section of British political opinion at that time. The Germans could not
 
effectively defend themselves, as they had been already disarmed under
 
the provisions of the Versailles Treaty. To make the situation more
 
fraught with disaster for Germany, and therefore more appalling in its
 
prospect, the French carried on an intensive propaganda for the
 
separation of the Rhineland from the German Republic and the
 
establishment of an independent Rhenania. Money was poured out lavishly
 
to bribe agitators to carry on this work, and some of the most insidious
 
elements of the German population became active in the pay of the
 
invader. At the same time a vigorous movement was being carried on in
 
Bavaria for the secession of that country and the establishment of an
 
independent Catholic monarchy there, under vassalage to France, as
 
Napoleon had done when he made Maximilian the first King of Bavaria in
 
1805.
 
 
 
The separatist movement in the Rhineland went so far that some leading
 
German politicians came out in favour of it, suggesting that if the
 
Rhineland were thus ceded it might be possible for the German Republic
 
to strike a bargain with the French in regard to Reparations. But in
 
Bavaria the movement went even farther. And it was more far-reaching in
 
its implications; for, if an independent Catholic monarchy could be set
 
up in Bavaria, the next move would have been a union with Catholic
 
German-Austria. possibly under a Habsburg King. Thus a Catholic BLOC
 
would have been created which would extend from the Rhineland through
 
Bavaria and Austria into the Danube Valley and would have been at least
 
under the moral and military, if not the full political, hegemony of
 
France. The dream seems fantastic now, but it was considered quite a
 
practical thing in those fantastic times. The effect of putting such a
 
plan into action would have meant the complete dismemberment of Germany;
 
and that is what French diplomacy aimed at. Of course such an aim no
 
longer exists. And I should not recall what must now seem "old, unhappy,
 
far-off things" to the modern generation, were it not that they were
 
very near and actual at the time MEIN KAMPF was written and were more
 
unhappy then than we can even imagine now.
 
 
 
By the autumn of 1923 the separatist movement in Bavaria was on the
 
point of becoming an accomplished fact. General von Lossow, the Bavarian
 
chief of the REICHSWEHR no longer took orders from Berlin. The flag of
 
the German Republic was rarely to be seen, Finally, the Bavarian Prime
 
Minister decided to proclaim an independent Bavaria and its secession
 
from the German Republic. This was to have taken place on the eve of the
 
Fifth Anniversary of the establishment of the German Republic (November
 
9th, 1918.)
 
 
 
Hitler staged a counter-stroke. For several days he had been mobilizing
 
his storm battalions in the neighbourhood of Munich, intending to make a
 
national demonstration and hoping that the REICHSWEHR would stand by him
 
to prevent secession. Ludendorff was with him. And he thought that the
 
prestige of the great German Commander in the World War would be
 
sufficient to win the allegiance of the professional army.
 
 
 
A meeting had been announced to take place in the Bürgerbräu Keller on
 
the night of November 8th. The Bavarian patriotic societies were
 
gathered there, and the Prime Minister, Dr. von Kahr, started to read
 
his official PRONUNCIAMENTO, which practically amounted to a
 
proclamation of Bavarian independence and secession from the Republic.
 
While von Kahr was speaking Hitler entered the hall, followed by
 
Ludendorff. And the meeting was broken up.
 
 
 
Next day the Nazi battalions took the street for the purpose of making a
 
mass demonstration in favour of national union. They marched in massed
 
formation, led by Hitler and Ludendorff. As they reached one of the
 
central squares of the city the army opened fire on them. Sixteen of the
 
marchers were instantly killed, and two died of their wounds in the
 
local barracks of the REICHSWEHR. Several others were wounded also.
 
Hitler fell on the pavement and broke a collar-bone. Ludendorff marched
 
straight up to the soldiers who were firing from the barricade, but not
 
a man dared draw a trigger on his old Commander.
 
 
 
Hitler was arrested with several of his comrades and imprisoned in the
 
fortress of Landsberg on the River Lech. On February 26th, 1924, he was
 
brought to trial before the VOLKSGERICHT, or People's Court in Munich.
 
He was sentenced to detention in a fortress for five years. With several
 
companions, who had been also sentenced to various periods of
 
imprisonment, he returned to Landsberg am Lech and remained there until
 
the 20th of the following December, when he was released. In all he
 
spent about thirteen months in prison. It was during this period that he
 
wrote the first volume of MEIN KAMPF.
 
 
 
If we bear all this in mind we can account for the emotional stress
 
under which MEIN KAMPF was written. Hitler was naturally incensed
 
against the Bavarian government authorities, against the footling
 
patriotic societies who were pawns in the French game, though often
 
unconsciously so, and of course against the French. That he should write
 
harshly of the French was only natural in the circumstances. At that
 
time there was no exaggeration whatsoever in calling France the
 
implacable and mortal enemy of Germany. Such language was being used by
 
even the pacifists themselves, not only in Germany but abroad. And even
 
though the second volume of MEIN KAMPF was written after Hitler's
 
release from prison and was published after the French had left the
 
Ruhr, the tramp of the invading armies still echoed in German ears, and
 
the terrible ravages that had been wrought in the industrial and
 
financial life of Germany, as a consequence of the French invasion, had
 
plunged the country into a state of social and economic chaos. In France
 
itself the franc fell to fifty per cent of its previous value. Indeed,
 
the whole of Europe had been brought to the brink of ruin, following the
 
French invasion of the Ruhr and Rhineland.
 
 
 
But, as those things belong to the limbo of a dead past that nobody
 
wishes to have remembered now, it is often asked: Why doesn't Hitler
 
revise MEIN KAMPF? The answer, as I think, which would immediately come
 
into the mind of an impartial critic is that MEIN KAMPF is an historical
 
document which bears the imprint of its own time. To revise it would
 
involve taking it out of its historical context. Moreover Hitler has
 
declared that his acts and public statements constitute a partial
 
revision of his book and are to be taken as such. This refers especially
 
to the statements in MEIN KAMPF regarding France and those German
 
kinsfolk that have not yet been incorporated in the REICH. On behalf of
 
Germany he has definitely acknowledged the German portion of South Tyrol
 
as permanently belonging to Italy and, in regard to France, he has again
 
and again declared that no grounds now exist for a conflict of political
 
interests between Germany and France and that Germany has no territorial
 
claims against France. Finally, I may note here that Hitler has also
 
declared that, as he was only a political leader and not yet a statesman
 
in a position of official responsibility, when he wrote this book, what
 
he stated in MEIN KAMPF does not implicate him as Chancellor of the
 
REICH.
 
 
 
I now come to some references in the text which are frequently recurring
 
and which may not always be clear to every reader. For instance, Hitler
 
speaks indiscriminately of the German REICH. Sometimes he means to refer
 
to the first REICH, or Empire, and sometimes to the German Empire as
 
founded under William I in 1871. Incidentally the regime which he
 
inaugurated in 1933 is generally known as the THIRD REICH, though this
 
expression is not used in MEIN KAMPF. Hitler also speaks of the Austrian
 
REICH and the East Mark, without always explicitly distinguishing
 
between the Habsburg Empire and Austria proper. If the reader will bear
 
the following historical outline in mind, he will understand the
 
references as they occur.
 
 
 
The word REICH, which is a German form of the Latin word REGNUM, does
 
not mean Kingdom or Empire or Republic. It is a sort of basic word that
 
may apply to any form of Constitution. Perhaps our word, Realm, would be
 
the best translation, though the word Empire can be used when the REICH
 
was actually an Empire. The forerunner of the first German Empire was
 
the Holy Roman Empire which Charlemagne founded in A.D. 800. Charlemagne
 
was King of the Franks, a group of Germanic tribes that subsequently
 
became Romanized. In the tenth century Charlemagne's Empire passed into
 
German hands when Otto I (936-973) became Emperor. As the Holy Roman
 
Empire of the German Nation, its formal appellation, it continued to
 
exist under German Emperors until Napoleon overran and dismembered
 
Germany during the first decade of the last century. On August 6th,
 
1806, the last Emperor, Francis II, formally resigned the German crown.
 
In the following October Napoleon entered Berlin in triumph, after the
 
Battle of Jena.
 
 
 
After the fall of Napoleon a movement set in for the reunion of the
 
German states in one Empire. But the first decisive step towards that
 
end was the foundation of the Second German Empire in 1871, after the
 
Franco-Prussian War. This Empire, however, did not include the German
 
lands which remained under the Habsburg Crown. These were known as
 
German Austria. It was Bismarck's dream to unite German Austria with the
 
German Empire; but it remained only a dream until Hitler turned it into
 
a reality in 1938'. It is well to bear that point in mind, because this
 
dream of reuniting all the German states in one REICH has been a
 
dominant feature of German patriotism and statesmanship for over a
 
century and has been one of Hitler's ideals since his childhood.
 
 
 
In MEIN KAMPF Hitler often speaks of the East Mark. This East Mark--i.e.
 
eastern frontier land--was founded by Charlemagne as the eastern bulwark
 
of the Empire. It was inhabited principally by Germano-Celtic tribes
 
called Bajuvari and stood for centuries as the firm bulwark of Western
 
Christendom against invasion 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 this introductory
 
note. For instance, I have let the word WELTANSCHAUUNG stand in its
 
original form very often. We have no one English word to convey the same
 
meaning as the German word, and it would have burdened the text too much
 
if I were to use a circumlocution each time the word occurs.
 
WELTANSCHAUUNG literally means "Outlook-on-the World". But as generally
 
used in German this outlook on the world means a whole system of ideas
 
associated 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. Thus Christianity could be
 
called a WELTANSCHAUUNG, and Mohammedanism could be called a
 
WELTANSCHAUUNG, and Socialism could be called a WELTANSCHAUUNG,
 
especially as preached in Russia. National Socialism claims definitely
 
to be a WELTANSCHAUUNG.
 
 
 
Another word I have often left standing in the original is VÖLKISCH. The
 
basic word here is VOLK, which is sometimes translated as PEOPLE; but
 
the German word, VOLK, means the whole body of the PEOPLE without any
 
distinction of class or caste. It is a primary word also that suggests
 
what might be called the basic national stock. Now, after the defeat in
 
1918, the downfall of the Monarchy and the destruction of the
 
aristocracy and the upper classes, the concept of DAS VOLK came into
 
prominence as the unifying co-efficient which would embrace the whole
 
German people. Hence the large number of VÖLKISCH societies that arose
 
after the war and hence also the National Socialist concept of
 
unification which is expressed by the word VOLKSGEMEINSCHAFT, or folk
 
community. This is used in contradistinction to the Socialist concept of
 
the nation as being divided into classes. Hitler's ideal is the
 
VÖLKISCHER STAAT, which I have translated as the People's State.
 
 
 
Finally, I would point out that the term Social Democracy may be
 
misleading in English, as it has not a democratic connotation in our
 
sense. It was the name given to the Socialist Party in Germany. And that
 
Party was purely Marxist; but it adopted the name Social Democrat in
 
order to appeal to the democratic sections of the German people.
 
 
 
JAMES MURPHY.
 
 
 
Abbots Langley, February, 1939
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
VOLUME I: A RETROSPECT
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER I
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IN THE HOME OF MY PARENTS
 
 
 
 
 
It has turned out fortunate for me to-day that destiny appointed
 
Braunau-on-the-Inn to be my birthplace. For that little town is situated
 
just on the frontier between those two States the reunion of which
 
seems, at least to us of the younger generation, a task to which we
 
should devote our lives and in the pursuit of which every possible 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 economic standpoint, still it ought to
 
take place. People of the same blood should be in the same REICH. The
 
German people will have no right to engage in a colonial policy until
 
they shall have brought all their children together in the one State.
 
When the territory of the REICH embraces all the Germans and finds
 
itself unable to assure them a livelihood, only then can the moral right
 
arise, from the need of the people to acquire foreign territory. The
 
plough is then the sword; and the tears of war will produce the daily
 
bread for the generations to come.
 
 
 
And so this little frontier town appeared to me as the symbol of a great
 
task. But in another regard also it points to a lesson that is
 
applicable to our day. Over a hundred years ago this sequestered spot
 
was the scene of a tragic calamity which affected the whole German
 
nation and will be remembered for ever, at least in the annals of German
 
history. At the time of our Fatherland's deepest humiliation a
 
bookseller, Johannes Palm, uncompromising nationalist and enemy of the
 
French, was put to death here because he had the misfortune to have
 
loved Germany well. He obstinately refused to disclose the names of his
 
associates, or rather the principals who were chiefly responsible for
 
the affair. Just as it happened with Leo Schlageter. The former, like
 
the latter, was denounced to the French by a Government agent. It was a
 
director of police from Augsburg who won an ignoble renown on that
 
occasion and set the example which was to be copied at a later date by
 
the neo-German officials of the REICH under Herr Severing's
 
regime (Note 1).
 
 
 
[Note 1. In order to understand the reference here, and similar
 
references in later portions of MEIN KAMPF, the following must be borne
 
in mind:
 
 
 
From 1792 to 1814 the French Revolutionary Armies overran Germany. In
 
1800 Bavaria shared in the Austrian defeat at Hohenlinden and the French
 
occupied Munich. In 1805 the Bavarian Elector was made King of Bavaria by
 
Napoleon and stipulated to back up Napoleon in all his wars with a force
 
of 30,000 men. Thus Bavaria became the absolute vassal of the French.
 
This was 'TheTime of Germany's Deepest Humiliation', Which is referred
 
to again and again by Hitler.
 
 
 
In 1806 a pamphlet entitled 'Germany's Deepest Humiliation' was
 
published in South Germany. Amnng those who helped to circulate the
 
pamphlet was the Nürnberg bookseller, Johannes Philipp Palm. He was
 
denounced to the French by a Bavarian police agent. At his trial he
 
refused to disclose thename of the author. By Napoleon's orders, he was
 
shot at Braunau-on-the-Innon August 26th, 1806. A monument erected to
 
him on the site of the executionwas one of the first public objects that
 
made an impression on Hitler asa little boy.
 
 
 
Leo Schlageter's case was in many respects parallel to that of Johannes
 
Palm. Schlageter was a German theological student who volunteered for
 
service in 1914. He became an artillery officer and won the Iron Cross of
 
both classes. When the French occupied the Ruhr in 1923 Schlageter helped
 
to organize the passive resistance on the German side. He and his
 
companions blew up a railway bridge for the purpose of making the
 
transport of coal to France more difficult.
 
 
 
Those who took part in the affair were denounced to the French by a
 
German informer. Schlageter took the whole responsibility on his own
 
shoulders and was condemned to death, his companions being sentenced to
 
various terms of imprisonment and penal servitude by the French Court.
 
Schlageter refused to disclose the identity of those who issued the order
 
to blow up the railway bridge and he would not plead for mercy before a
 
French Court. He was shot by a French firing-squad on May 26th, 1923.
 
Severing was at that time German Minister of the Interior. It is said
 
that representations were made, to himon Schlageter's behalf and that he
 
refused to interfere.
 
 
 
Schlageter has become the chief martyr of the German resistancc to the
 
French occupation of the Ruhr and also one of the great heroes of the
 
National Socialist Movement. He had joined the Movement at a very early
 
stage, his card of membership bearing the number 61.]
 
 
 
In this little town on the Inn, haloed by the memory of a German martyr,
 
a town that was Bavarian by blood but under the rule of the Austrian
 
State, my parents were domiciled towards the end of the last century. My
 
father was a civil servant who fulfilled his duties very
 
conscientiously. My mother looked after the household and lovingly
 
devoted herself to the care of her children. From that period I have not
 
retained very much in my memory; because after a few years my father had
 
to leave that frontier town which I had come to love so much and take up
 
a new post farther down the Inn valley, at Passau, therefore actually in
 
Germany itself.
 
 
 
In those days it was the usual lot of an Austrian civil servant to be
 
transferred periodically from one post to another. Not long after coming
 
to Passau my father was transferred to Linz, and while there he retired
 
finally to live on his pension. But this did not mean that the old
 
gentleman would now rest from his labours.
 
 
 
He was the son of a poor cottager, and while still a boy he grew
 
restless and left home. When he was barely thirteen years old he buckled
 
on his satchel and set forth from his native woodland parish. Despite
 
the dissuasion of villagers who could speak from 'experience,' he went
 
to Vienna to learn a trade there. This was in the fiftieth year of the
 
last century. It was a sore trial, that of deciding to leave home and
 
face the unknown, with three gulden in his pocket. By when the boy of
 
thirteen was a lad of seventeen and had passed his apprenticeship
 
examination as a craftsman he was not content. Quite the contrary. The
 
persistent economic depression of that period and the constant want and
 
misery strengthened his resolution to give up working at a trade and
 
strive for 'something higher.' As a boy it had seemed to him that the
 
position of the parish priest in his native village was the highest in
 
the scale of human attainment; but now that the big city had enlarged
 
his outlook the young man looked up to the dignity of a State official
 
as the highest of all. With the tenacity of one whom misery and trouble
 
had already made old when only half-way through his youth the young man
 
of seventeen obstinately set out on his new project and stuck to it
 
until he won through. He became a civil servant. He was about
 
twenty-three years old, I think, when he succeeded in making himself
 
what he had resolved to become. Thus he was able to fulfil the promise
 
he had made as a poor boy not to return to his native village until he
 
was 'somebody.'
 
 
 
He had gained his end. But in the village there was nobody who had
 
remembered him as a little boy, and the village itself had become
 
strange to him.
 
 
 
Now at last, when he was fifty-six years old, he gave up his active
 
career; but he could not bear to be idle for a single day. On the
 
outskirts of the small market town of Lambach in Upper Austria he bought
 
a farm and tilled it himself. Thus, at the end of a long and
 
hard-working career, he came back to the life which his father had led.
 
 
 
It was at this period that I first began to have ideals of my own. I
 
spent a good deal of time scampering about in the open, on the long road
 
from school, and mixing up with some of the roughest of the boys, which
 
caused my mother many anxious moments. All this tended to make me
 
something quite the reverse of a stay-at-home. I gave scarcely any
 
serious thought to the question of choosing a vocation in life; but I
 
was certainly quite out of sympathy with the kind of career which my
 
father had followed. I think that an inborn talent for speaking now
 
began to develop and take shape during the more or less strenuous
 
arguments which I used to have with my comrades. I had become a juvenile
 
ringleader who learned well and easily at school but was rather
 
difficult to manage. In my freetime I practised singing in the choir of
 
the monastery church at Lambach, and thus it happened that I was placed
 
in a very favourable position to be emotionally impressed again and
 
again by the magnificent splendour of ecclesiastical ceremonial. What
 
could be more natural for me than to look upon the Abbot as representing
 
the highest human ideal worth striving for, just as the position of the
 
humble village priest had appeared to my father in his own boyhood days?
 
At least, that was my idea for a while. But the juvenile disputes I had
 
with my father did not lead him to appreciate his son's oratorical gifts
 
in such a way as to see in them a favourable promise for such a career,
 
and so he naturally could not understand the boyish ideas I had in my
 
head at that time. This contradiction in my character made him feel
 
somewhat anxious.
 
 
 
As a matter of fact, that transitory yearning after such a vocation soon
 
gave way to hopes that were better suited to my temperament. Browsing
 
through my father's books, I chanced to come across some publications
 
that dealt with military subjects. One of these publications was a
 
popular history of the Franco-German War of 1870-71. It consisted of two
 
volumes of an illustrated periodical dating from those years. These
 
became my favourite reading. In a little while that great and heroic
 
conflict began to take first place in my mind. And from that time
 
onwards I became more and more enthusiastic about everything that was in
 
any way connected with war or military affairs.
 
 
 
But this story of the Franco-German War had a special significance for
 
me on other grounds also. For the first time, and as yet only in quite a
 
vague way, the question began to present itself: Is there a
 
difference--and if there be, what is it--between the Germans who fought
 
that war and the other Germans? Why did not Austria also take part in
 
it? Why did not my father and all the others fight in that struggle? Are
 
we not the same as the other Germans? Do we not all belong together?
 
 
 
That was the first time that this problem began to agitate my small
 
brain. And from the replies that were given to the questions which I
 
asked very tentatively, I was forced to accept the fact, though with a
 
secret envy, that not all Germans had the good luck to belong to
 
Bismarck's Empire. This was something that I could not understand.
 
 
 
It was decided that I should study. Considering my character as a whole,
 
and especially my temperament, my father decided that the classical
 
subjects studied at the Lyceum were not suited to my natural talents. He
 
thought that the REALSCHULE (Note 2) would suit me better. My obvious
 
talent for drawing confirmed him in that view; for in his opinion drawing
 
was a subject too much neglected in the Austrian GYMNASIUM. Probably also
 
the memory of the hard road which he himself had travelled contributed to
 
make him look upon classical studies as unpractical and accordingly to
 
set little value on them. At the back of his mind he had the idea that
 
his son also should become an official of the Government. Indeed he had
 
decided on that career for me. The difficulties through which he had to
 
struggle in making his own career led him to overestimate what he had
 
achieved, because this was exclusively the result of his own
 
indefatigable industry and energy. The characteristic pride of the
 
self-made man urged him towards the idea that his son should follow the
 
same calling and if possible rise to a higher position in it. Moreover,
 
this idea was strengthened by the consideration that the results of his
 
own life's industry had placed him in a position to facilitate his son's
 
advancement in the same career.
 
 
 
[Note 2. Non-classical secondary school. The Lyceum and GYMNASIUM were
 
classical or semi-classical secondary schools.]
 
 
 
He was simply incapable of imagining that I might reject what had meant
 
everything in life to him. My father's decision was simple, definite,
 
clear and, in his eyes, it was something to be taken for granted. A man
 
of such a nature who had become an autocrat by reason of his own hard
 
struggle for existence, could not think of allowing 'inexperienced' and
 
irresponsible young fellows to choose their own careers. To act in such
 
a way, where the future of his own son was concerned, would have been a
 
grave and reprehensible weakness in the exercise of parental authority
 
and responsibility, something utterly incompatible with his
 
characteristic sense of duty.
 
 
 
And yet it had to be otherwise.
 
 
 
For the first time in my life--I was then eleven years old--I felt
 
myself forced into open opposition. No matter how hard and determined my
 
father might be about putting his own plans and opinions into action,
 
his son was no less obstinate in refusing to 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 could break
 
down that opposition. I would not become a State official, not on any
 
account. All the attempts which my father made to arouse in me a love or
 
liking for that profession, by picturing his own career for me, had only
 
the opposite effect. It nauseated me to think that one day I might be
 
fettered to an office stool, that I could not dispose of my own time but
 
would be forced to spend the whole of my life filling out forms.
 
 
 
One can imagine what kind of thoughts such a prospect awakened in 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 easy school tasks
 
which we were given made it possible for me to spend far more time in
 
the open air than at home. To-day, when my political opponents pry into
 
my life with diligent scrutiny, as far back as the days of my boyhood,
 
so as finally to be able to prove what disreputable tricks this Hitler
 
was accustomed to in his young days, I thank heaven that I can look back
 
to those happy days and find the memory of them helpful. The fields and
 
the woods were then the terrain on which all disputes were fought out.
 
 
 
Even attendance at the REALSCHULE could not alter my way of spending my
 
time. But I had now another battle to fight.
 
 
 
So long as the paternal plan to make a State functionary contradicted my
 
own inclinations only in the abstract, the conflict was easy to bear. I
 
could be discreet about expressing my personal views and thus avoid
 
constantly recurrent disputes. My own resolution not to become a
 
Government official was sufficient for the time being to put my mind
 
completely at rest. I held on to that resolution inexorably. But the
 
situation became more difficult once I had a positive plan of my own
 
which I might present to my father as a counter-suggestion. This
 
happened when I was twelve years old. How it came about I cannot exactly
 
say now; but one day it became clear to me that I would be a painter--I
 
mean an artist. That I had an aptitude for drawing was an admitted fact.
 
It was even one of the reasons why my father had sent me to the
 
REALSCHULE; but he had never thought of having that talent developed in
 
such a way that I could take up painting as a professional career. Quite
 
the contrary. When, as a result of my renewed refusal to adopt his
 
favourite plan, my father asked me for the first time what I myself
 
really wished to be, the resolution that I had already formed expressed
 
itself almost automatically. For a while my father was speechless. "A
 
painter? An artist-painter?" he exclaimed.
 
 
 
He wondered whether I was in a sound state of mind. He thought that he
 
might not have caught my words rightly, or that he had misunderstood
 
what I meant. But when I had explained my ideas to him and he saw how
 
seriously I took them, he opposed them with that full determination
 
which was characteristic of him. His decision was exceedingly simple and
 
could not be deflected from its course by any consideration of what my
 
own natural qualifications really were.
 
 
 
"Artist! Not as long as I live, never." As the son had inherited some of
 
the father's obstinacy, besides having other qualities of his own, my
 
reply was equally energetic. But it stated something quite the contrary.
 
 
 
At that our struggle became stalemate. The father would not abandon his
 
'Never', and I became all the more consolidated in my 'Nevertheless'.
 
 
 
Naturally the resulting situation was not pleasant. The old gentleman
 
was bitterly annoyed; and indeed so was I, although I really loved him.
 
My father forbade me to entertain any hopes of taking up the art of
 
painting as a profession. I went a step further and declared that I
 
would not study anything else. With such declarations the situation
 
became still more strained, so that the old gentleman irrevocably
 
decided to assert his parental authority at all costs. That led me to
 
adopt an attitude of circumspect silence, but I put my threat into
 
execution. I thought that, once it became clear to my father that I was
 
making no progress at the REALSCHULE, for weal or for woe, he would be
 
forced to allow me to follow the happy career I had dreamed of.
 
 
 
I do not know whether I calculated rightly or not. Certainly my failure
 
to make progress became quite visible in the school. I studied just the
 
subjects that appealed to me, especially those which 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 completely sabotaged. My school reports of that time
 
were always in the extremes of good or bad, according to the subject and
 
the interest it 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,
 
general history. These were my two favourite subjects, and I led the
 
class in them.
 
 
 
When I look back over so many years and try to judge the results of that
 
experience I find two very significant facts standing out clearly before
 
my mind.
 
 
 
First, I became a nationalist.
 
 
 
Second, I learned to understand and grasp the true meaning of history.
 
 
 
The old Austria was a multi-national State. In those days at least the
 
citizens of the German Empire, taken through and through, could not
 
understand what that fact meant in the everyday life of the individuals
 
within such a State. After the magnificent triumphant march of the
 
victorious armies in the Franco-German War the Germans in the REICH
 
became steadily more and more estranged from the Germans beyond their
 
frontiers, partly because they did not deign to appreciate those other
 
Germans at their true value or simply because they were incapable of
 
doing so.
 
 
 
The Germans of the REICH did not realize that if the Germans in Austria
 
had not been of the best racial stock they could never have given the
 
stamp of their own character to an Empire of 52 millions, so definitely
 
that in Germany itself the idea arose--though quite an erroneous
 
one--that Austria was a German State. That was an error which led to
 
dire consequences; but all the same it was a magnificent testimony to
 
the character of the ten million Germans in that East Mark. (Note 3)
 
Only very few of the Germans in the REICH itself had an idea of the bitter
 
struggle which those Eastern Germans had to carry on daily for the
 
preservation of their German language, their German schools and their
 
German character. Only to-day, when a tragic fate has torn several
 
millions of our kinsfolk away from the REICH and has forced them to live
 
under the rule of the stranger, dreaming of that common fatherland
 
towards which all their yearnings are directed and struggling to uphold
 
at least the sacred right of using their mother tongue--only now have
 
the wider circles of the German population come to realize what 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 can assess the greatness of
 
that German spirit which animated the old East Mark and enabled those
 
people, left entirely dependent on their own resources, to defend the
 
Empire against the Orient for several centuries and subsequently to hold
 
fast the frontiers of the German language through a guerilla warfare of
 
attrition, at a time when the German Empire was sedulously cultivating
 
an interest for colonies but not for its own flesh and blood before the
 
threshold of its own door.
 
 
 
[Note 3. See Translator's Introduction.]
 
 
 
What has happened always and everywhere, in every kind of struggle,
 
happened also in the language fight which was carried on in the old
 
Austria. There were three groups--the fighters, the hedgers and the
 
traitors. Even in the schools this sifting already began to take place.
 
And it is worth noting that the struggle for the language was waged
 
perhaps in its bitterest form around the school; because this was the
 
nursery where the seeds had to be watered which were to spring up and
 
form the future generation. The tactical objective of the fight was the
 
winning over of the child, and it was to the child that the first
 
rallying cry was addressed:
 
 
 
"German youth, do not forget that you are a German," and "Remember,
 
little girl, that one day you must be a German mother."
 
 
 
Those who know something of the juvenile spirit can understand how youth
 
will always lend a glad ear to such a rallying cry. Under many forms the
 
young people led the struggle, fighting in their own way and with their
 
own weapons. They refused to sing non-German songs. The greater the
 
efforts made to win them away from their German allegiance, the more
 
they exalted the glory of their German heroes. They stinted themselves
 
in buying things to eat, so that they might spare their pennies to help
 
the war chest of their elders. They were incredibly alert in the
 
significance of what the non-German teachers said and they contradicted
 
in unison. They wore the forbidden emblems of their own kinsfolk and
 
were happy when penalised for doing so, or even physically punished. In
 
miniature they were mirrors of loyalty from which the older people might
 
learn a lesson.
 
 
 
And thus it was that at a comparatively early age I took part in the
 
struggle which the nationalities were waging against one another in the
 
old Austria. When meetings were held for the South Mark German League
 
and the School League we wore cornflowers and black-red-gold colours to
 
express our loyalty. We greeted one another with HEIL! and instead of
 
the Austrian anthem we sang our own DEUTSCHLAND ÜBER ALLES, despite
 
warnings and penalties. Thus the youth were educated politically at a
 
time when the citizens of a so-called national State for the most part
 
knew little of their own nationality except the language. Of course, I
 
did not belong to the hedgers. Within a little while I had become an
 
ardent 'German National', which has a different meaning from the party
 
significance attached to that phrase to-day.
 
 
 
I developed very rapidly in the nationalist direction, and by the time I
 
was 15 years old I had come to understand the distinction between
 
dynastic patriotism and nationalism based on the concept of folk, or
 
people, my inclination being entirely in favour of the latter.
 
 
 
Such a preference may not perhaps be clearly intelligible to those who
 
have never taken the trouble to study the internal conditions that
 
prevailed under the Habsburg Monarchy.
 
 
 
Among historical studies universal history was the subject almost
 
exclusively taught in the Austrian schools, for of specific Austrian
 
history there was only very little. The fate of this State was closely
 
bound up with the existence and development of Germany as a whole; so a
 
division of history into German history and Austrian history would be
 
practically inconceivable. And indeed it was only when the German people
 
came to be divided between two States that this division of German
 
history began to take place.
 
 
 
The insignia (Note 4) of a former imperial sovereignty which were still
 
preserved in Vienna appeared to act as magical relics rather than as the
 
visible guarantee of an everlasting bond of union.
 
 
 
[Note 4. When Francis II had laid down his title as Emperor of the Holy
 
Roman Empireof the German Nation, which he did at the command of Napoleon,
 
the Crownand Mace, as the Imperial Insignia, were kept in Vienna. After
 
the German Empire was refounded, in 1871, under William I, there were many
 
demands tohave the Insignia transferred to Berlin. But these went
 
unheeded. Hitler had them brought to Germany after the Austrian Anschluss
 
and displayed at Nuremberg during the Party Congress in September 1938.]
 
 
 
When the Habsburg State crumbled to pieces in 1918 the Austrian Germans
 
instinctively raised an outcry for union with their German fatherland.
 
That was the voice of a unanimous yearning in the hearts of the whole
 
people for a return to the unforgotten home of their fathers. But such a
 
general yearning could not be explained except by attributing the cause
 
of it to the historical training through which the individual Austrian
 
Germans had passed. Therein lay a spring that never dried up. Especially
 
in times of distraction and forgetfulness its quiet voice was a reminder
 
of the past, bidding the people to look out beyond the mere welfare of
 
the moment to a new future.
 
 
 
The teaching of universal history in what are called the middle schools
 
is still very unsatisfactory. Few teachers realize that the purpose of
 
teaching history is not the memorizing of some dates and facts, that the
 
student is not interested in knowing the exact date of a battle or the
 
birthday of some marshal or other, and not at all--or at least only very
 
insignificantly--interested in knowing when the crown of his fathers was
 
placed on the brow of some monarch. These are certainly not looked upon
 
as important matters.
 
 
 
To study history means to search for and discover the forces that are
 
the causes of those results which appear before our eyes as historical
 
events. The art of reading and studying consists in remembering the
 
essentials and forgetting what is not essential.
 
 
 
Probably my whole future life was determined by the fact that I had a
 
professor of history who understood, as few others understand, how to
 
make this viewpoint prevail in teaching and in examining. This teacher
 
was Dr. Leopold Poetsch, of the REALSCHULE at Linz. He was the ideal
 
personification of the qualities necessary to a teacher of history in
 
the sense I have mentioned above. An elderly gentleman with a decisive
 
manner but a kindly heart, he was a very attractive speaker and was able
 
to inspire us with his own enthusiasm. Even to-day I cannot recall
 
without emotion that venerable personality whose enthusiastic exposition
 
of history so often made us entirely forget the present and allow
 
ourselves to be transported as if by magic into the past. He penetrated
 
through the dim mist of thousands of years and transformed the
 
historical memory of the dead past into a living reality. When we
 
listened to him we became afire with enthusiasm and we were sometimes
 
moved even to tears.
 
 
 
It was still more fortunate that this professor was able not only to
 
illustrate the past by examples from the present but from the past he
 
was also able to draw a lesson for the present. He understood better
 
than any other the everyday problems that were then agitating our minds.
 
The national fervour which we felt in our own small way was utilized by
 
him as an instrument of our education, inasmuch as he often appealed to
 
our national sense of honour; for in that way he maintained order and
 
held our attention much more easily than he could have done by any other
 
means. It was because I had such a professor that history became my
 
favourite subject. As a natural consequence, but without the conscious
 
connivance of my professor, I then and there became a young rebel. But
 
who could have studied German history under such a teacher and not
 
become an enemy of that State whose rulers exercised such a disastrous
 
influence on the destinies of the German nation? Finally, how could one
 
remain the faithful subject of the House of Habsburg, whose past history
 
and present conduct proved it to be ready ever and always to betray the
 
interests of the German people for the sake of paltry personal
 
interests? Did not we as youngsters fully 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 of
 
Habsburg was corroborated by our own everyday experiences. In the north
 
and in the south the poison of foreign races was eating into the body of
 
our people, and even Vienna was steadily becoming more and more a
 
non-German city. The 'Imperial House' favoured the Czechs on every
 
possible occasion. Indeed it was the hand of the goddess of eternal
 
justice and inexorable retribution that caused the most deadly enemy of
 
Germanism in Austria, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, to fall by the very
 
bullets which he himself had helped to cast. Working from above
 
downwards, he was the chief patron of the movement to make Austria a
 
Slav State.
 
 
 
The burdens laid on the shoulders of the German people were enormous and
 
the sacrifices of money and blood which they had to make were incredibly
 
heavy.
 
 
 
Yet anybody who was not quite blind must have seen that it was all in
 
vain. What affected us most bitterly was the consciousness of the fact
 
that this whole system was morally shielded by the alliance with
 
Germany, whereby the slow extirpation of Germanism in the old Austrian
 
Monarchy seemed in some way to be more or less sanctioned by Germany
 
herself. Habsburg hypocrisy, which endeavoured outwardly to make the
 
people believe that Austria still remained a German State, increased the
 
feeling of hatred against the Imperial House and at the same time
 
aroused a spirit of rebellion and contempt.
 
 
 
But in the German Empire itself those who were then its rulers saw
 
nothing of what all this meant. As if struck blind, they stood beside a
 
corpse and in the very symptoms of decomposition they believed that they
 
recognized the signs of a renewed vitality. In that unhappy alliance
 
between the young German Empire and the illusory Austrian State lay the
 
germ of the World War and also of the final collapse.
 
 
 
In the subsequent pages of this book I shall go to the root of the
 
problem. Suffice it to say here that in the very early years of my youth
 
I came to certain conclusions which I have never abandoned. Indeed I
 
became more profoundly convinced of them as the years passed. They were:
 
That the dissolution of the Austrian Empire is a preliminary condition
 
for the defence of Germany; further, that national feeling is by no
 
means identical with dynastic patriotism; finally, and above all, that
 
the House of Habsburg was destined to bring misfortune to the German
 
nation.
 
 
 
As a logical consequence of these convictions, there arose in me a
 
feeling of intense love for my German-Austrian home and a profound
 
hatred for the Austrian State.
 
 
 
That kind of historical thinking which was developed in me through my
 
study of history at school never left me afterwards. World history
 
became more and more an inexhaustible source for the understanding of
 
contemporary historical events, which means politics. Therefore I will
 
not "learn" politics but let politics teach me.
 
 
 
A precocious revolutionary in politics I was no less a precocious
 
revolutionary in art. At that time the provincial capital of Upper
 
Austria had a theatre which, relatively speaking, was not bad. Almost
 
everything was played there. When I was twelve years old I saw William
 
Tell performed. That was my first experience of the theatre. Some months
 
later I attended a performance of LOHENGRIN, the first opera I had ever
 
heard. I was fascinated at once. My youthful enthusiasm for the Bayreuth
 
Master knew no limits. Again and again I was drawn to hear his operas;
 
and to-day I consider it a great piece of luck that these modest
 
productions in the little provincial city prepared the way and made it
 
possible for me to appreciate the better productions later on.
 
 
 
But all this helped to intensify my profound aversion for the career
 
that my father had chosen for me; and this dislike became especially
 
strong as the rough corners of youthful boorishness became worn off, a
 
process which in my case caused a good deal of pain. I became more and
 
more convinced that I should never be happy as a State official. And now
 
that the REALSCHULE had recognized and acknowledged my aptitude for
 
drawing, my own resolution became all the stronger. Imprecations and
 
threats had no longer any chance of changing it. I wanted to become a
 
painter and no power in the world could force me to become a civil
 
servant. The only peculiar feature of the situation now was that as I
 
grew bigger I became more and more interested in architecture. I
 
considered this fact as a natural development of my flair for painting
 
and I rejoiced inwardly that the sphere of my artistic interests was
 
thus enlarged. I had no notion that one day it would have to be
 
otherwise.
 
 
 
The question of my career was decided much sooner than I could have
 
expected.
 
 
 
When I was in my thirteenth year my father was suddenly taken from us.
 
He was still in robust health when a stroke of apoplexy painlessly ended
 
his earthly wanderings and left us all deeply bereaved. His most ardent
 
longing was to be able to help his son to advance in a career and thus
 
save me from the harsh ordeal that he himself had to go through. But it
 
appeared to him then as if that longing were all in vain. And yet,
 
though he himself was not conscious of it, he had sown the seeds of a
 
future which neither of us foresaw at that time.
 
 
 
At first nothing changed outwardly.
 
 
 
My mother felt it her duty to continue my education in accordance with
 
my father's wishes, which meant that she would have me study for the
 
civil service. For my own part I was even more firmly determined than
 
ever before that under no circumstances would I become an official of
 
the State. The curriculum and teaching methods followed in the middle
 
school were so far removed from my ideals that I became profoundly
 
indifferent. Illness suddenly came to my assistance. Within a few weeks
 
it decided my future and put an end to the long-standing family
 
conflict. My lungs became so seriously affected that the doctor advised
 
my mother very strongly not under any circumstances to allow me to take
 
up a career which would necessitate working in an office. He ordered
 
that I should give up attendance at the REALSCHULE for a year at least.
 
What I had secretly desired for such a long time, and had persistently
 
fought for, now became a reality almost at one stroke.
 
 
 
Influenced by my illness, my mother agreed that I should leave the
 
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 my mother's death put
 
a brutal end to all my fine projects. She succumbed to a long and
 
painful illness which from the very beginning permitted little hope of
 
recovery. Though expected, her death came as a terrible blow to me. I
 
respected my father, but I loved my mother.
 
 
 
Poverty and stern reality forced me to decide promptly.
 
 
 
The meagre resources of the family had been almost entirely used up
 
through my mother's severe illness. The allowance which came to me 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 an indomitable
 
resolution in my heart, I left for Vienna. I hoped to forestall fate, as
 
my father had done fifty years before. I was determined to become
 
'something'--but certainly not a civil servant.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER II
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
YEARS OF STUDY AND SUFFERING IN VIENNA
 
 
 
 
 
When my mother died my fate had already been decided in one respect.
 
During the last months of her illness I went to Vienna to take the
 
entrance examination for the Academy of Fine Arts. Armed with a bulky
 
packet of sketches, I felt convinced that I should pass the examination
 
quite easily. At the REALSCHULE I was by far the best student in the
 
drawing class, and since that time I had made more than ordinary
 
progress in the practice of drawing. Therefore I was pleased with myself
 
and was proud and happy at the prospect of what I considered an assured
 
success.
 
 
 
But there was one misgiving: It seemed to me that I was better qualified
 
for drawing than for painting, especially in the various branches of
 
architectural drawing. At the same time my interest in architecture was
 
constantly increasing. And I advanced in this direction at a still more
 
rapid pace after my first visit to Vienna, which lasted two weeks. I was
 
not yet sixteen years old. I went to the Hof Museum to study the
 
paintings in the art gallery there; but the building itself captured
 
almost all my interest, from early morning until late at night I spent
 
all my time visiting the various public buildings. And it was the
 
buildings themselves that were always the principal attraction for me.
 
For hours and hours I could stand in wonderment before the Opera and the
 
Parliament. The whole Ring Strasse had a magic effect upon me, as if 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 examination but
 
proudly confident that I had got through. I was so convinced of my
 
success that when the news that I had failed to pass was brought to me
 
it struck me like a bolt from the skies. Yet the fact was that I had
 
failed. I went to see the Rector and asked him to explain the reasons
 
why they refused to accept me as a student in the general School of
 
Painting, which was part of the Academy. He said that the sketches which
 
I had brought with me unquestionably showed that painting was not what I
 
was suited for but that the same sketches gave clear indications of my
 
aptitude for architectural designing. Therefore the School of Painting
 
did not come into question for me but rather the School of Architecture,
 
which also formed part of the Academy. At first it was impossible to
 
understand how this could be so, seeing that I had never been to a
 
school for architecture and had never received any instruction in
 
architectural designing.
 
 
 
When I left the Hansen Palace, on the SCHILLER PLATZ, I was quite
 
crestfallen. I felt out of sorts with myself for the first time in my
 
young life. For what I had heard about my capabilities now appeared to
 
me as a lightning flash which clearly revealed a dualism under which I
 
had been suffering for a long time, but hitherto I could give no clear
 
account whatsoever of the why and wherefore.
 
 
 
Within a few days I myself also knew that I ought to become an
 
architect. But of course the way was very difficult. I was now forced
 
bitterly to rue my former conduct in neglecting and despising certain
 
subjects at the REALSCHULE. Before taking up the courses at the School
 
of Architecture in the Academy it was necessary to attend the Technical
 
Building School; but a necessary qualification for entrance into this
 
school was a Leaving Certificate from the Middle School. And this I
 
simply did not have. According to the human measure of things my dream
 
of following an artistic calling seemed beyond the limits of
 
possibility.
 
 
 
After the death of my mother I came to Vienna for the third time. This
 
visit was destined to last several years. Since I had been there before
 
I had recovered my old calm and resoluteness. The former self-assurance
 
had come back, and I had my eyes steadily fixed on the goal. I would be
 
an architect. Obstacles are placed across our path in life, not to be
 
boggled at but to be surmounted. And I was fully determined to surmount
 
these obstacles, having the picture of my father constantly before my
 
mind, who had raised himself by his own efforts to the position of a
 
civil servant though he was the poor son of a village shoemaker. I had a
 
better start, and the possibilities of struggling through were better.
 
At that time my lot in life seemed to me a harsh one; but to-day I see
 
in it the wise workings of Providence. The Goddess of Fate clutched me
 
in her hands and often threatened to smash me; but the will grew
 
stronger as the obstacles increased, and finally the will triumphed.
 
 
 
I am thankful for that period of my life, because it hardened me and
 
enabled me to be as tough as I now am. And I am even more thankful
 
because I appreciate the fact that I was thus saved from the emptiness
 
of a life of ease and that a mother's darling was taken from tender arms
 
and handed over to Adversity as to a new mother. Though I then rebelled
 
against it as too hard a fate, I am grateful that I was thrown into a
 
world of misery and poverty and thus came to know the people for whom I
 
was afterwards to fight.
 
 
 
It was during this period that my eyes were opened to two perils, the
 
names of which I scarcely knew hitherto and had no notion whatsoever of
 
their terrible significance for the existence of the German people.
 
These two perils were Marxism and Judaism.
 
 
 
For many people the name of Vienna signifies innocent jollity, a festive
 
place for happy mortals. For me, alas, it is a living memory of the
 
saddest period in my life. Even to-day the mention of that city arouses
 
only gloomy thoughts in my mind. Five years of poverty in that Phaecian
 
(Note 5) town. Five years in which, first as a casual labourer and then as
 
a painter of little trifles, I had to earn my daily bread. And a meagre
 
morsel indeed it was, not even sufficient to still the hunger which I
 
constantly felt. That hunger was the faithful guardian which never left
 
me but took part in everything I did. Every book that I bought meant
 
renewed hunger, and every visit I paid to the opera meant the intrusion
 
of that inalienabl companion during the following days. I was always
 
struggling with my unsympathic friend. And yet during that time I
 
learned more than I had ever learned before. Outside my architectural
 
studies and rare visits to the opera, for which I had to deny myself
 
food, I had no other pleasure in life except my books.
 
 
 
[Note 5. The Phaecians were a legendary people, mentioned in Homer's
 
Odyssey. They were supposed to live on some unknown island in the Eastern
 
Mediterranean, sometimes suggested to be Corcyra, the modern Corfu. They
 
loved good living more than work, and so the name Phaecian has come to be
 
a synonym for parasite.]
 
 
 
I read a great deal then, and I pondered deeply over what I read. All
 
the free time after work was devoted exclusively to study. Thus within a
 
few years I was able to acquire a stock of knowledge which I find useful
 
even to-day.
 
 
 
But more than that. During those years a view of life and a definite
 
outlook on the world took shape in my mind. These became the granite
 
basis of my conduct at that time. Since then I have extended that
 
foundation only very little, and I have changed nothing in it.
 
 
 
On the contrary: I am firmly convinced to-day that, generally speaking,
 
it is in youth that men lay the essential groundwork of their creative
 
thought, wherever that creative thought exists. I make a distinction
 
between the wisdom of age--which can only arise from the greater
 
profundity and foresight that are based on the experiences of a long
 
life--and the creative genius of youth, which blossoms out in thought
 
and ideas with inexhaustible fertility, without being able to put these
 
into practice immediately, because of their very superabundance. These
 
furnish the building materials and plans for the future; and it is from
 
them that age takes the stones and builds the edifice, unless the
 
so-called wisdom of the years may have smothered the creative genius of
 
youth.
 
 
 
The life which I had hitherto led at home with my parents differed in
 
little or nothing from that of all the others. I looked forward without
 
apprehension to the morrow, and there was no such thing as a social
 
problem to be faced. Those among whom I passed my young days belonged to
 
the small bourgeois class. Therefore it was a world that had very little
 
contact with the world of genuine manual labourers. For, though at first
 
this may appear astonishing, the ditch which separates that class, which
 
is by no means economically well-off; from the manual labouring class is
 
often deeper than people think. The reason for this division, which we
 
may almost call enmity, lies in the fear that dominates a social group
 
which has only just risen above the level of the manual labourer--a fear
 
lest it may fall back into its old condition or at least be classed with
 
the labourers. Moreover, there is something repulsive in remembering the
 
cultural indigence of that lower class and their rough manners with one
 
another; so that people who are only on the first rung of the social
 
ladder find it unbearable to be forced to have any contact with the
 
cultural level and standard of living out of which they have passed.
 
 
 
And so it happens that very often those who belong to what can really be
 
called the upper classes find it much easier than do the upstarts to
 
descend to and intermingle with their fellow beings on the lowest social
 
level. For by the word upstart I mean everyone who has raised himself
 
through his own efforts to a social level higher than that to which he
 
formerly belonged. In the case of such a person the hard struggle
 
through which he passes often destroys his normal human sympathy. His
 
own fight for existence kills his sensibility for the misery of those
 
who have been left behind.
 
 
 
From this point of view fate had been kind to me. Circumstances forced
 
me to return to that world of poverty and economic insecurity above
 
which my father had raised himself in his early days; and thus the
 
blinkers of a narrow PETIT BOURGEOIS education were torn from my eyes.
 
Now for the first time I learned to know men and I learned to
 
distinguish between empty appearances or brutal manners and the real
 
inner nature of the people who outwardly appeared thus.
 
 
 
At the beginning of the century Vienna had already taken rank among
 
those cities where social conditions are iniquitous. Dazzling riches and
 
loathsome destitution were intermingled in violent contrast. In the
 
centre and in the Inner City one felt the pulse-beat of an Empire which
 
had a population of fifty-two millions, with all the perilous charm of a
 
State made up of multiple nationalities. The dazzling splendour of the
 
Court acted like a magnet on the wealth and intelligence of the whole
 
Empire. And this attraction was further strengthened by the dynastic
 
policy of the Habsburg Monarchy in centralizing everything in itself and
 
for itself.
 
 
 
This centralizing policy was necessary in order to hold together that
 
hotchpotch of heterogeneous nationalities. But the result of it was an
 
extraordinary concentration of higher officials in the city, which was
 
at one and the same time the metropolis and imperial residence.
 
 
 
But Vienna was not merely the political and intellectual centre of the
 
Danubian Monarchy; it was also the commercial centre. Besides the horde
 
of military officers of high rank, State officials, artists and
 
scientists, there was the still vaster horde of workers. Abject poverty
 
confronted the wealth of the aristocracy and the merchant class face to
 
face. Thousands of unemployed loitered in front of the palaces on the
 
Ring Strasse; and below that VIA TRIUMPHALIS of the old Austria the
 
homeless huddled together in the murk and filth of the canals.
 
 
 
There was hardly any other German city in which the social problem could
 
be studied better than in Vienna. But here I must utter a warning
 
against the illusion that this problem can be 'studied' from above
 
downwards. The man who has never been in the clutches of that crushing
 
viper can never know what its poison is. An attempt to study it in any
 
other way will result only in superficial talk and sentimental
 
delusions. Both are harmful. The first because it can never go to the
 
root of the question, the second because it evades the question
 
entirely. I do not know which is the more nefarious: to ignore social
 
distress, as do the majority of those who have been favoured by fortune
 
and those who have risen in the social scale through their own routine
 
labour, or the equally supercilious and often tactless but always
 
genteel condescension displayed by people who make a fad of being
 
charitable and who plume themselves on 'sympathising with the people.'
 
Of course such persons sin more than they can imagine from lack of
 
instinctive understanding. And thus they are astonished to find that the
 
'social conscience' on which they pride themselves never produces any
 
results, but often causes their good intentions to be resented; and then
 
they talk of the ingratitude of the people.
 
 
 
Such persons are slow to learn that here there is no place for merely
 
social activities and that there can be no expectation of gratitude; for
 
in this connection there is no question at all of distributing favours
 
but essentially a matter of retributive justice. I was protected against
 
the temptation to study the social question in the way just mentioned,
 
for the simple reason that I was forced to live in the midst of
 
poverty-stricken people. Therefore it was not a question of studying the
 
problem objectively, but rather one of testing its effects on myself.
 
Though the rabbit came through the ordeal of the experiment, this must
 
not be taken as evidence of its harmlessness.
 
 
 
When I try to-day to recall the succession of impressions received
 
during that time I find that I can do so only with approximate
 
completeness. Here I shall describe only the more essential impressions
 
and those which personally affected me and often staggered me. And I
 
shall mention the few lessons I then learned from this experience.
 
 
 
At that time it was for the most part not very difficult to find work,
 
because I had to seek work not as a skilled tradesman but as a so-called
 
extra-hand ready to take any job that turned up by chance, just for the
 
sake of earning my daily bread.
 
 
 
Thus I found myself in the same situation as all those emigrants who
 
shake the dust of Europe from their feet, with the cast-iron
 
determination to lay the foundations of a new existence in the New World
 
and acquire for themselves a new home. Liberated from all the paralysing
 
prejudices of class and calling, environment and tradition, they enter
 
any service that opens its doors to them, accepting any work that comes
 
their way, filled more and more with the idea that honest work never
 
disgraced anybody, no matter what kind it may be. And so I was resolved
 
to set both feet in what was for me a new world and push forward on my
 
own road.
 
 
 
I soon found out that there was some kind of work always to be got, but
 
I also learned that it could just as quickly and easily be lost. The
 
uncertainty of being able to earn a regular daily livelihood soon
 
appeared to me as the gloomiest feature in this new life that I had
 
entered.
 
 
 
Although the skilled worker was not so frequently thrown idle on the
 
streets as the unskilled worker, yet the former was by no means
 
protected against the same fate; because though he may not have to face
 
hunger as a result of unemployment due to the lack of demand in the
 
labour market, the lock-out and the strike deprived the skilled worker
 
of the chance to earn his bread. Here the element of uncertainty in
 
steadily earning one's daily bread was the bitterest feature of the
 
whole social-economic system itself.
 
 
 
The country lad who migrates to the big city feels attracted by what has
 
been described as easy work--which it may be in reality--and few working
 
hours. He is especially entranced by the magic glimmer spread over the
 
big cities. Accustomed in the country to earn a steady wage, he has been
 
taught not to quit his former post until a new one is at least in sight.
 
As there is a great scarcity of agricultural labour, the probability of
 
long unemployment in the country has been very small. It is a mistake to
 
presume that the lad who leaves the countryside for the town is not made
 
of such sound material as those who remain at home to work on the land.
 
On the contrary, experience shows that it is the more healthy and more
 
vigorous that emigrate, and not the reverse. Among these emigrants I
 
include not merely those who emigrate to America, but also the servant
 
boy in the country who decides to leave his native village and migrate
 
to the big city where he will be a stranger. He is ready to take the
 
risk of an uncertain fate. In most cases he comes to town with a little
 
money in his pocket and for the first few days he is not discouraged if
 
he should not have the good fortune to find work. But if he finds a job
 
and then loses it in a little while, the case is much worse. To find
 
work anew, especially in winter, is often difficult and indeed sometimes
 
impossible. For the first few weeks life is still bearable He receives
 
his out-of-work money from his trade union and is thus enabled to carry
 
on. But when the last of his own money is gone and his trade union
 
ceases to pay out because of the prolonged unemployment, then comes the
 
real distress. He now loiters about and is hungry. Often he pawns or
 
sells the last of his belongings. His clothes begin to get shabby and
 
with the increasing poverty of his outward appearance he descends to a
 
lower social level and mixes up with a class of human beings through
 
whom his mind is now poisoned, in addition to his physical misery. Then
 
he has nowhere to sleep and if that happens in winter, which is very
 
often the case, he is in dire distress. Finally he gets work. But the
 
old story repeats itself. A second time the same thing happens. Then a
 
third time; and now it is probably much worse. Little by little he
 
becomes indifferent to this everlasting insecurity. Finally he grows
 
used to the repetition. Thus even a man who is normally of industrious
 
habits grows careless in his whole attitude towards life and gradually
 
becomes an instrument in the hands of unscrupulous people who exploit
 
him for the sake of their own ignoble aims. He has been so often thrown
 
out of employment through no fault of his own that he is now more or
 
less indifferent whether the strike in which he takes part be for the
 
purpose of securing his economic rights or be aimed at the destruction
 
of the State, the whole social order and even civilization itself.
 
Though the idea of going on strike may not be to his natural liking, yet
 
he joins in it out of sheer indifference.
 
 
 
I saw this process exemplified before my eyes in thousands of cases. And
 
the longer I observed it the greater became my dislike for that mammoth
 
city which greedily attracts men to its bosom, in order to break them
 
mercilessly in the end. When they came they still 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 I
 
experienced the workings of this fate in my own person and felt the
 
effects of it in my own soul. One thing stood out clearly before my
 
eyes: It was the sudden changes from work to idleness and vice versa; so
 
that the constant fluctuations thus caused by earnings and expenditure
 
finally destroyed the 'sense of thrift for many people and also the
 
habit of regulating expenditure in an intelligent way. The body appeared
 
to grow accustomed to the vicissitudes of food and hunger, eating
 
heartily in good times and going hungry in bad. Indeed hunger shatters
 
all plans for rationing expenditure on a regular scale in better times
 
when employment is again found. The reason for this is that the
 
deprivations which the unemployed worker has to endure must be
 
compensated for psychologically by a persistent mental mirage in which
 
he imagines himself eating heartily once again. And this dream develops
 
into such a longing that it turns into a morbid impulse to cast off all
 
self-restraint when work and wages turn up again. Therefore the moment
 
work is found anew he forgets to regulate the expenditure of his
 
earnings but spends them to the full without thinking of to-morrow. This
 
leads to confusion in the little weekly housekeeping budget, because the
 
expenditure is not rationally planned. When the phenomenon which I have
 
mentioned first happens, the earnings will last perhaps for five days
 
instead of seven; on subsequent occasions they will last only for three
 
days; as the habit recurs, the earnings will last scarcely for a day;
 
and finally they will disappear in one night of feasting.
 
 
 
Often there are wife and children at home. And in many cases it happens
 
that these become infected by such a way of living, especially if the
 
husband is good to them and wants to do the best he can for them and
 
loves them in his own way and according to his own lights. Then the
 
week's earnings are spent in common at home within two or three days.
 
The family eat and drink together as long as the money lasts and at the
 
end of the week they hunger together. Then the wife wanders about
 
furtively in the neighbourhood, borrows a little, and runs up small
 
debts with the shopkeepers in an effort to pull through the lean days
 
towards the end of the week. They sit down together to the midday meal
 
with only meagre fare on the table, and often even nothing to eat. They
 
wait for the coming payday, talking of it and making plans; and while
 
they are thus hungry they dream of the plenty that is to come. And so
 
the little children become acquainted with misery in their early years.
 
 
 
But the evil culminates when the husband goes his own way from the
 
beginning of the week and the wife protests, simply out of love for the
 
children. Then there are quarrels and bad feeling and the husband takes
 
to drink according as he becomes estranged from his wife. He now becomes
 
drunk every Saturday. Fighting for her own existence and that of the
 
children, the wife has to hound him along the road from the factory to
 
the tavern in order to get a few shillings from him on payday. Then when
 
he finally comes home, maybe on the Sunday or the Monday, having parted
 
with his last shillings and pence, pitiable scenes follow, scenes that
 
cry out for 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 to recognize the
 
whole tragedy of their misfortune and to understand the profound causes
 
of it. They were the unhappy victims of evil circumstances.
 
 
 
Housing conditions were very bad at that time. The Vienna manual
 
labourers lived in surroundings of appalling misery. I shudder even
 
to-day when I think of the woeful dens in which people dwelt, the night
 
shelters and the slums, and all the tenebrous spectacles of ordure,
 
loathsome filth and wickedness.
 
 
 
What will happen one day when hordes of emancipated slaves come forth
 
from these dens of misery to swoop down on their unsuspecting fellow
 
men? For this other world does not think about such a possibility. They
 
have allowed these things to go on without caring and even without
 
suspecting--in their total lack of instinctive understanding--that
 
sooner or later destiny will take its vengeance unless it will have been
 
appeased in time.
 
 
 
To-day I fervidly thank Providence for having sent me to such a school.
 
There I could not refuse to take an interest in matters that did not
 
please me. This school soon taught me a profound lesson.
 
 
 
In order not to despair completely of the people among whom I then lived
 
I had to set on one side the outward appearances of their lives and on
 
the other the reasons why they had developed in that way. Then I could
 
hear everything without discouragement; for those who emerged from all
 
this misfortune and misery, from this filth and outward degradation,
 
were not human beings as such but rather lamentable results of
 
lamentable laws. In my own life similar hardships prevented me from
 
giving way to a pitying sentimentality at the sight of these degraded
 
products which had finally resulted from the pressure of circumstances.
 
No, the sentimental attitude would be the wrong one to adopt.
 
 
 
Even in those days I already saw that there was a two-fold method by
 
which alone it would be possible to bring about an amelioration of these
 
conditions. This method is: first, to create better fundamental
 
conditions of social development by establishing a profound feeling for
 
social responsibilities among the public; second, to combine this
 
feeling for social responsibilities with a ruthless determination to
 
prune away all excrescences which are incapable of being improved.
 
 
 
Just as Nature concentrates its greatest attention, not to the
 
maintenance of what already exists but on the selective breeding of
 
offspring in order to carry on the species, so in human life also it is
 
less a matter of artificially improving the existing generation--which,
 
owing to human characteristics, is impossible in ninety-nine cases out
 
of a hundred--and more a matter of securing from the very start a better
 
road for future development.
 
 
 
During my struggle for existence in Vienna I perceived very clearly that
 
the aim of all social activity must never be merely charitable relief,
 
which is ridiculous and useless, but it must rather be a means to find a
 
way of eliminating the fundamental deficiencies in our economic and
 
cultural life--deficiencies which necessarily bring about the
 
degradation of the individual or at least lead him towards such
 
degradation. The difficulty of employing every means, even the most
 
drastic, to eradicate the hostility prevailing among the working classes
 
towards the State is largely due to an attitude of uncertainty in
 
deciding upon the inner motives and causes of this contemporary
 
phenomenon. The grounds of this uncertainty are to be found exclusively
 
in the sense of guilt which each individual feels for having permitted
 
this tragedy of degradation. For that feeling paralyses every effort at
 
making a serious and firm decision to act. And thus because the people
 
whom it concerns are vacillating they are timid and half-hearted in
 
putting into effect even the measures which are indispensable for
 
self-preservation. When the individual is no longer burdened with his
 
own consciousness of blame in this regard, then and only then will he
 
have that inner tranquillity and outer force to cut off drastically and
 
ruthlessly all the parasite growth and root out the weeds.
 
 
 
But because the Austrian State had almost no sense of social rights or
 
social legislation its inability to abolish those evil excrescences 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, their crude
 
customs and morals, or the low level of their intellectual culture.
 
 
 
How often our bourgeoisie rises up in moral indignation on hearing from
 
the mouth of some pitiable tramp that it is all the same to him whether
 
he be a German or not and that he will find himself at home wherever he
 
can get enough to keep body and soul together. They protest sternly
 
against such a lack of 'national pride' and strongly express their
 
horror at such sentiments.
 
 
 
But how many people really ask themselves why it is that their own
 
sentiments are better? How many of them understand that their natural
 
pride in being members of so favoured a nation arises from the
 
innumerable succession of instances they have encountered which remind
 
them of the greatness of the Fatherland and the Nation in all spheres of
 
artistic and cultural life? How many of them realize that pride in the
 
Fatherland is largely dependent on knowledge of its greatness in all
 
those spheres? Do our bourgeois circles ever think what a ridiculously
 
meagre share the people have in that knowledge which is a necessary
 
prerequisite for the feeling of pride in one's fatherland?
 
 
 
It cannot be objected here that in other countries similar conditions
 
exist and that nevertheless the working classes in those countries have
 
remained patriotic. Even if that were so, it would be no excuse for our
 
negligent attitude. But it is not so. What we call chauvinistic
 
education--in the case of the French people, for example--is only the
 
excessive exaltation of the greatness of France in all spheres of
 
culture or, as the French say, civilization. The French boy is not
 
educated on purely objective principles. Wherever the importance of the
 
political and cultural greatness of his country is concerned he is
 
taught in the most subjective way that one can imagine.
 
 
 
This education will always have to be confined to general ideas in a
 
large perspective and these ought to be deeply engraven, by constant
 
repetition if necessary, on the memories and feelings of the people.
 
 
 
In our case, however, we are not merely guilty of negative sins of
 
omission but also of positively perverting the little which some
 
individuals had the luck to learn at school. The rats that poison our
 
body-politic gnaw from the hearts and memories of the broad masses 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 two damp
 
rooms. In these rooms a workman and his family live--seven people in
 
all. Let us assume that one of the children is a boy of three years.
 
That is the age at which children first become conscious of the
 
impressions which they receive. In the case of highly gifted people
 
traces of the impressions received in those early years last in the
 
memory up to an advanced age. Now the narrowness and congestion of those
 
living quarters do not conduce to pleasant inter-relations. Thus
 
quarrels and fits of mutual anger arise. These people can hardly be said
 
to live with one another, but rather down on top of one another. The
 
small misunderstandings which disappear of themselves in a home where
 
there is enough space for people to go apart from one another for a
 
while, here become the source of chronic disputes. As far as the
 
children are concerned the situation is tolerable from this point of
 
view. In such conditions they are constantly quarrelling with one
 
another, but the quarrels are quickly and entirely forgotten. But when
 
the parents fall out with one another these daily bickerings often
 
descend to rudeness such as cannot be adequately imagined. The results
 
of such experiences must become apparent later on in the children. One
 
must have practical experience of such a MILIEU so as to be able to
 
picture the state of affairs that arises from these mutual
 
recriminations when the father physically assaults the mother and
 
maltreats her in a fit of drunken rage. At the age of six the child can
 
no longer ignore those sordid details which even an adult would find
 
revolting. Infected with moral poison, bodily undernourished, and the
 
poor little head filled with vermin, the young 'citizen' goes to the
 
primary school. With difficulty he barely learns to read and write.
 
There is no possibility of learning any lessons at home. Quite the
 
contrary. The father and mother themselves talk before the children in
 
the most disparaging way about the teacher and the school and they are
 
much more inclined to insult the teachers than to put their offspring
 
across the knee and knock sound reason into him. What the little fellow
 
hears at home does not tend to increase respect for his human
 
surroundings. Here nothing good is said of human nature as a whole and
 
every institution, from the school to the government, is reviled.
 
Whether religion and morals are concerned or the State and the social
 
order, it is all the same; they are all scoffed at. When the young lad
 
leaves school, at the age of fourteen, it would be difficult to say what
 
are the most striking features of his character, incredible ignorance in
 
so far as real knowledge is concerned or cynical impudence combined with
 
an attitude towards morality which is really startling at so young an
 
age.
 
 
 
What station in life can such a person fill, to whom nothing is sacred,
 
who has never experienced anything noble but, on the contrary, has been
 
intimately acquainted with the lowest kind of human existence? This
 
child of three has got into the habit of reviling all authority by the
 
time he is fifteen. He has been acquainted only with moral filth and
 
vileness, everything being excluded that might stimulate his thought
 
towards higher things. And now this young specimen of humanity enters
 
the school of life.
 
 
 
He leads the same kind of life which was exemplified for him by his
 
father during his childhood. He loiters about and comes home at all
 
hours. He now even black-guards that broken-hearted being who gave him
 
birth. He curses God and the world and finally ends up in a House of
 
Correction for young people. There he gets the final polish.
 
 
 
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 the phenomenon of
 
spreading poison among the people through the instrumentality of the
 
theatre and the cinema, gutter journalism and obscene books; and yet
 
they are astonished at the deplorable 'moral standards' and 'national
 
indifference' of the masses. As if the cinema bilge and the gutter press
 
and suchlike could inculcate knowledge of the greatness of one's
 
country, apart entirely from the earlier education of the individual.
 
 
 
I then came to understand, quickly and thoroughly, what I had never been
 
aware of before. It was the following:
 
 
 
The question of 'nationalizing' a people is first and foremost one of
 
establishing healthy social conditions which will furnish the grounds
 
that are necessary for the education of the individual. For only when
 
family upbringing and school education have inculcated in the individual
 
a knowledge of the cultural and economic and, above all, the political
 
greatness of his own country--then, and then only, will it be possible
 
for him to feel proud of being a citizen of such a country. I can fight
 
only for something that I love. I can love only what I respect. And in
 
order to respect a thing I must at least have some knowledge of it.
 
 
 
As soon as my interest in social questions was once awakened I began to
 
study them in a fundamental way. A new and hitherto unknown world was
 
thus revealed to me.
 
 
 
In the years 1909-10 I had so far improved my, position that I no longer
 
had to earn my daily bread as a manual labourer. I was now working
 
independently as draughtsman, and painter in water colours. This MÉTIER
 
was a poor one indeed as far as earnings were concerned; for these were
 
only sufficient to meet the bare exigencies of life. Yet it had an
 
interest for me in view of the profession to which I aspired. Moreover,
 
when I came home in the evenings I was now no longer dead-tired as
 
formerly, when I used to be unable to look into a book without falling
 
asleep almost immediately. My present occupation therefore was in line
 
with the profession I aimed at for the future. Moreover, I was master of
 
my own time and could distribute my working-hours now better than
 
formerly. I painted in order to earn my bread, and I studied because I
 
liked it.
 
 
 
Thus I was able to acquire that theoretical knowledge of the social
 
problem which was a necessary complement to what I was learning through
 
actual experience. I studied all the books which I could find that dealt
 
with this question and I thought deeply on what I read. I think that the
 
MILIEU in which I then lived considered me an eccentric person.
 
 
 
Besides my interest in the social question I naturally devoted myself
 
with enthusiasm to the study of architecture. Side by side with music, I
 
considered it queen of the arts. To study it was for me not work but
 
pleasure. I could read or draw until the small hours of the morning
 
without ever getting tired. And I became more and more confident that my
 
dream of a brilliant future would become true, even though I should have
 
to wait long years for its fulfilment. I was firmly convinced that one
 
day I should make a name for myself as an architect.
 
 
 
The fact that, side by side with my professional studies, I took the
 
greatest interest in everything that had to do with politics did not
 
seem to me to signify anything of great importance. On the contrary: I
 
looked upon this practical interest in politics merely as part of an
 
elementary obligation that devolves on every thinking man. Those who
 
have no understanding of the political world around them have no right
 
to criticize or complain. On political questions therefore I still
 
continued to read and study a great deal. But reading had probably a
 
different significance for me from that which it has for the average run
 
of our so-called 'intellectuals'.
 
 
 
I know people who read interminably, book after book, from page to page,
 
and yet I should not call them 'well-read people'. Of course they 'know'
 
an immense amount; but their brain seems incapable of assorting and
 
classifying the material which they have gathered from books. They have
 
not the faculty of distinguishing between what is useful and useless in
 
a book; so that they may retain the former in their minds and if
 
possible skip over the latter while reading it, if that be not possible,
 
then--when once read--throw it overboard as useless ballast. Reading is
 
not an end in itself, but a means to an end. Its chief purpose is to
 
help towards filling in the framework which is made up of the talents
 
and capabilities that each individual possesses. Thus each one procures
 
for himself the implements and materials necessary for the fulfilment of
 
his calling in life, no matter whether this be the elementary task of
 
earning one's daily bread or a calling that responds to higher human
 
aspirations. Such is the first purpose of reading. And the second
 
purpose is to give a general knowledge of the world in which we live. In
 
both cases, however, the material which one has acquired through reading
 
must not be stored up in the memory on a plan that corresponds to the
 
successive chapters of the book; but each little piece of knowledge thus
 
gained must be treated 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
 
and particles that help to form a general world-picture in the brain of
 
the reader. Otherwise only a confused jumble of chaotic notions will
 
result from all this reading. That jumble is not merely useless, but it
 
also tends to make the unfortunate possessor of it conceited. For he
 
seriously considers himself a well-educated person and thinks that he
 
understands something of life. He believes that he has acquired
 
knowledge, whereas the truth is that every increase in such 'knowledge'
 
draws him more and more away from real life, until he finally ends up in
 
some sanatorium or takes to politics and becomes a parliamentary deputy.
 
 
 
Such a person never succeeds in turning his knowledge to practical
 
account when the opportune moment arrives; for his mental equipment is
 
not ordered with a view to meeting the demands of everyday life. His
 
knowledge is stored in his brain as a literal transcript of the books he
 
has read and the order of succession in which he has read them. And if
 
Fate should one day call upon him to use some of his book-knowledge for
 
certain practical ends in life that very call will have to name the book
 
and give the number of the page; for the poor noodle himself would never
 
be able to find the spot where he gathered the information now called
 
for. But if the page is not mentioned at the critical moment the
 
widely-read intellectual will find himself in a state of hopeless
 
embarrassment. In a high state of agitation he searches for analogous
 
cases and it is almost a dead certainty that he will finally deliver the
 
wrong prescription.
 
 
 
If that is not a correct description, then how can we explain the
 
political achievements of our Parliamentary heroes who hold the highest
 
positions in the government of the country? Otherwise we should have to
 
attribute the doings of such political leaders, not to pathological
 
conditions but simply to malice and chicanery.
 
 
 
On the other hand, one who has cultivated the art of reading will
 
instantly discern, in a book or journal or pamphlet, what ought to be
 
remembered because it meets one's personal needs or is of value as
 
general knowledge. What he thus learns is incorporated in his mental
 
analogue of this or that problem or thing, further correcting the mental
 
picture or enlarging it so that it becomes more exact and precise.
 
Should some practical problem suddenly demand examination or solution,
 
memory will immediately select the opportune information from the mass
 
that has been acquired through years of reading and will place this
 
information at the service of one's powers of judgment so as to get a
 
new and clearer view of the problem 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 information ready
 
to hand which are necessary to a proper treatment of his subject is
 
unable to defend his opinions against an opponent, even though those
 
opinions be perfectly sound and true. In every discussion his memory
 
will leave him shamefully in the lurch. He cannot summon up arguments to
 
support his statements or to refute his opponent. So long as the speaker
 
has only to defend himself on his own personal account, the situation is
 
not serious; but the evil comes when Chance places at the head of public
 
affairs such a soi-disant know-it-all, who in reality knows nothing.
 
 
 
From early youth I endeavoured to read books in the right way and I was
 
fortunate in having a good memory and intelligence to assist me. From
 
that point of view my sojourn in Vienna was particularly useful and
 
profitable. My experiences of everyday life there were a constant
 
stimulus to study the most diverse problems from new angles. Inasmuch as
 
I was in a position to put theory to the test of reality and reality to
 
the test of theory, I was safe from the danger of pedantic theorizing on
 
the one hand and, on the other, from being too impressed by the
 
superficial aspects of reality.
 
 
 
The experience of everyday life at that time determined me to make a
 
fundamental theoretical study of two most important questions outside of
 
the social question.
 
 
 
It is impossible to say when I might have started to make a thorough
 
study of the doctrine and characteristics of Marxism were it not for the
 
fact that I then literally ran head foremost into the problem.
 
 
 
What I knew of Social Democracy in my youth was precious little and that
 
little was for the most part wrong. The fact that it led the struggle
 
for universal suffrage and the secret ballot gave me an inner
 
satisfaction; for my reason then told me that this would weaken the
 
Habsburg regime, which I so thoroughly detested. I was convinced that
 
even if it should sacrifice the German element the Danubian State could
 
not continue to exist. Even at the price of a long and slow Slaviz-ation
 
of the Austrian Germans the State would secure no guarantee of a really
 
durable Empire; because it was very questionable if and how far the
 
Slavs possessed the necessary capacity for constructive politics.
 
Therefore I welcomed every movement that might lead towards the final
 
disruption of that impossible State which had decreed that it would
 
stamp out the German character in ten millions of people. The more this
 
babel of tongues wrought discord and disruption, even in the Parliament,
 
the nearer the hour approached for the dissolution of this Babylonian
 
Empire. That would mean the liberation of my German Austrian people, and
 
only then would it become possible for them to be re-united to the
 
Motherland.
 
 
 
Accordingly I had no feelings of antipathy towards the actual policy of
 
the Social Democrats. That its avowed purpose was to raise the level of
 
the working classes--which in my ignorance I then foolishly
 
believed--was a further reason why I should speak in favour of Social
 
Democracy rather than against it. But the features that contributed most
 
to estrange me from the Social Democratic movement was its hostile
 
attitude towards the struggle for the conservation of Germanism in
 
Austria, its lamentable cocotting with the Slav 'comrades', who received
 
these approaches favourably as long as any practical advantages were
 
forthcoming but otherwise maintained a haughty reserve, thus giving the
 
importunate mendicants the sort of answer their behaviour deserved.
 
 
 
And so at the age of seventeen the word 'Marxism' was very little known
 
to me, while I looked on 'Social Democracy' and 'Socialism' as
 
synonymous expressions. It was only as the result of a sudden blow from
 
the rough hand of Fate that my eyes were opened to the nature of this
 
unparalleled system for duping the public.
 
 
 
Hitherto my acquaintance with the Social Democratic Party was only that
 
of a mere spectator at some of their mass meetings. I had not the
 
slightest idea of the social-democratic teaching or the mentality of its
 
partisans. All of a sudden I was brought face to face with the products
 
of their teaching and what they called their WELTANSCHAUUNG. In this
 
way a few months sufficed for me to learn something which under other
 
circumstances might have necessitated decades of study--namely, that
 
under the cloak of social virtue and love of one's neighbour a veritable
 
pestilence was spreading abroad and that if this pestilence be not
 
stamped out of the world without delay it may eventually succeed in
 
exterminating the human race.
 
 
 
I first came into contact with the Social Democrats while working in the
 
building trade.
 
 
 
From the very time that I started work the situation was not very
 
pleasant for me. My clothes were still rather decent. I was careful of
 
my speech and I was reserved in manner. I was so occupied with thinking
 
of my own present lot and future possibilities that I did not take much
 
of an interest in my immediate surroundings. I had sought work so that I
 
shouldn't starve and at the same time so as to be able to make further
 
headway with my studies, though this headway might be slow. Possibly I
 
should not have bothered to be interested in my companions were it not
 
that on the third or fourth day an event occurred which forced me to
 
take a definite stand. I was ordered to join the trade union.
 
 
 
At that time I knew nothing about the trades unions. I had had no
 
opportunity of forming an opinion on their utility or inutility, as the
 
case might be. But when I was told that I must join the union I refused.
 
The grounds which I gave for my refusal were simply that I knew nothing
 
about the matter and that anyhow I would not allow myself to be forced
 
into anything. Probably the former reason saved me from being thrown out
 
right away. They probably thought that within a few days I might be
 
converted' and become more docile. But if they thought that they were
 
profoundly mistaken. After two weeks I found it utterly impossible for
 
me to take 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 an organization whose
 
representatives had meanwhile shown themselves in 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 the nearest
 
tavern, while the others remained on the building premises and there ate
 
their midday meal, which in most cases was a very scanty one. These were
 
married men. Their wives brought them the midday soup in dilapidated
 
vessels. Towards the end of the week there was a gradual increase in the
 
number of those who remained to eat their midday meal on the building
 
premises. I understood the reason for this afterwards. They now talked
 
politics.
 
 
 
I drank my bottle of milk and ate my morsel of bread somewhere on the
 
outskirts, while I circumspectly studied my environment or else fell to
 
meditating on my own harsh lot. Yet I heard more than enough. And I
 
often thought that some of what they said was meant for my ears, in the
 
hope of bringing me to a decision. But all that I heard had the effect
 
of arousing the strongest antagonism in me. Everything was
 
disparaged--the nation, because it was held to be an invention of the
 
'capitalist' class (how often I had to listen to that phrase!); the
 
Fatherland, because it was held to be an instrument in the hands of the
 
bourgeoisie for the exploitation of' the working masses; the authority
 
of the law, because that was a means of holding down the proletariat;
 
religion, as a means of doping the people, so as to exploit them
 
afterwards; morality, as a badge of stupid and sheepish docility. There
 
was nothing that they did 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 their statements. I
 
had to recognize, however, that this was bound to be entirely fruitless,
 
as long as I did not have at least a certain amount of definite
 
information about the questions that were discussed. So I decided to
 
consult the source from which my interlocutors claimed to have drawn
 
their so-called wisdom. I devoured 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 companions in the subjects
 
on which they claimed to be experts. Then a day came when the more
 
redoubtable of my adversaries resorted to the most effective weapon they
 
had to replace the force of reason. This was intimidation and physical
 
force. Some of the leaders among my adversaries ordered me to leave the
 
building or else get flung down from the scaffolding. As I was quite
 
alone I could not put up any physical 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 deeply moved that
 
it was quite impossible for me to turn my back on the whole situation
 
and think no more about it. When my anger began to calm down the spirit
 
of obstinacy got the upper hand and I decided that at all costs I would
 
get back to work again in the building trade. This decision became all
 
the stronger a few weeks later, when my little savings had entirely run
 
out and hunger clutched me once again in its merciless arms. No
 
alternative was left to me. I got work again and had to leave it for the
 
same reasons as before.
 
 
 
Then I asked myself: Are these men worthy of belonging to a great
 
people? The question was profoundly disturbing; for if the answer were
 
'Yes', then the struggle to defend one's nationality is no longer worth
 
all the trouble and sacrifice we demand of our best elements if it be in
 
the interests of such a rabble. On the other hand, if the answer had to
 
be 'No--these men are not worthy of the nation', then our nation is poor
 
indeed in men. During those days of mental anguish and deep meditation I
 
saw before my mind the ever-increasing and menacing army of people who
 
could no longer be reckoned as belonging to their own nation.
 
 
 
It was with quite a different feeling, some days later, that I gazed on
 
the interminable ranks, four abreast, of Viennese workmen parading at a
 
mass demonstration. I stood dumbfounded for almost two hours, watching
 
that enormous human dragon which slowly uncoiled itself there before me.
 
When I finally left the square and wandered in the direction of my
 
lodgings I felt dismayed and depressed. On my way I noticed the
 
ARBEITERZEITUNG (The Workman's Journal) in a tobacco shop. This was the
 
chief press-organ of the old Austrian Social Democracy. In a cheap café,
 
where the common people used to foregather and where I often went to
 
read the papers, the ARBEITERZEITUNG was also displayed. But hitherto I
 
could not bring myself to do more than glance at the wretched thing for
 
a couple of minutes: for its whole tone was a sort of mental vitriol to
 
me. Under the depressing influence of the demonstration I had witnessed,
 
some interior voice urged me to buy the paper in that tobacco shop and
 
read it through. So I brought it home with me and spent the whole
 
evening reading it, despite the steadily mounting rage provoked by this
 
ceaseless outpouring of falsehoods.
 
 
 
I now found that in the social democratic daily papers I could study the
 
inner character of this politico-philosophic system much better than in
 
all their theoretical literature.
 
 
 
For there was a striking discrepancy between the two. In the literary
 
effusions which dealt with the theory of Social Democracy there was a
 
display of high-sounding phraseology about liberty and human dignity and
 
beauty, all promulgated with an air of profound wisdom and serene
 
prophetic assurance; a meticulously-woven glitter of words to dazzle and
 
mislead the reader. On the other hand, the daily Press inculcated this
 
new doctrine of human redemption in the most brutal fashion. No means
 
were too base, provided they could be exploited in the campaign of
 
slander. These journalists were real virtuosos in the art of twisting
 
facts and presenting them in a deceptive form. The theoretical
 
literature was intended for the simpletons of the soi-disant
 
intellectuals belonging to the middle and, naturally, the upper classes.
 
The newspaper propaganda was intended for the masses.
 
 
 
This probing into books and newspapers and studying the teachings of
 
Social Democracy reawakened my love for my own people. And thus what at
 
first seemed an impassable chasm became the occasion of a closer
 
affection.
 
 
 
Having once understood the working of the colossal system for poisoning
 
the popular mind, only a fool could blame the victims of it. During the
 
years that followed I became more independent and, as I did so, I became
 
better able to understand the inner cause of the success achieved by
 
this Social Democratic gospel. I now realized the meaning and purpose of
 
those brutal orders which prohibited the reading of all books and
 
newspapers that were not 'red' and at the same time demanded that only
 
the 'red' meetings should be attended. In the clear light of brutal
 
reality I was able to see what must have been the inevitable
 
consequences of that intolerant teaching.
 
 
 
The PSYCHE of the broad masses is accessible only to what is strong and
 
uncompromising. Like a woman whose inner sensibilities are not so much
 
under the sway of abstract reasoning but are always subject to the
 
influence of a vague emotional longing for the strength that completes
 
her being, and who would rather bow to the strong man than dominate the
 
weakling--in like manner the masses of the people prefer the ruler to
 
the suppliant and are filled with a stronger sense of mental security by
 
a teaching that brooks no rival than by a teaching which offers them a
 
liberal choice. They have very little idea of how to make such a choice
 
and thus they are prone to feel that they have been abandoned. They feel
 
very little shame at being terrorized intellectually and they are
 
scarcely conscious of the fact that their freedom as human beings is
 
impudently abused; and thus they have not the slightest suspicion of the
 
intrinsic fallacy of the whole doctrine. They see only the ruthless
 
force and brutality of its determined utterances, to which they always
 
submit.
 
 
 
IF SOCIAL DEMOCRACY SHOULD BE OPPOSED BY A MORE TRUTHFUL TEACHING, THEN
 
EVEN, THOUGH THE STRUGGLE BE OF THE BITTEREST KIND, THIS TRUTHFUL
 
TEACHING WILL FINALLY PREVAIL PROVIDED IT BE ENFORCED WITH EQUAL
 
RUTHLESSNESS.
 
 
 
Within less than two years I had gained a clear understanding of Social
 
Democracy, in its teaching and the technique of its operations.
 
 
 
I recognized the infamy of that technique whereby the movement carried
 
on a campaign of mental terrorism against the bourgeoisie, who are
 
neither morally nor spiritually equipped to withstand such attacks. The
 
tactics of Social Democracy consisted in opening, at a given signal, a
 
veritable drum-fire of lies and calumnies against the man whom they
 
believed to be the most redoubtable of their adversaries, until the
 
nerves of the latter gave way and they sacrificed the man who was
 
attacked, simply in the hope of being allowed to live in peace. But the
 
hope proved always to be a foolish one, for they were never left in
 
peace.
 
 
 
The same tactics are repeated again and again, until fear of these mad
 
dogs exercises, through suggestion, a paralysing effect on their
 
Victims.
 
 
 
Through its own experience Social Democracy learned the value of
 
strength, and for that reason it attacks mostly those in whom it scents
 
stuff of the more stalwart kind, which is indeed a very rare possession.
 
On the other hand it praises every weakling among its adversaries, more
 
or less cautiously, according to the measure of his mental qualities
 
known or presumed. They have less fear of a man of genius who lacks
 
will-power than of a vigorous character with mediocre intelligence and
 
at the same time they highly commend those who are devoid of
 
intelligence and will-power.
 
 
 
The Social Democrats know how to create the impression that they alone
 
are the protectors of peace. In this way, acting very circumspectly but
 
never losing sight of their ultimate goal, they conquer one position
 
after another, at one time by methods of quiet intimidation and at
 
another time by sheer daylight robbery, employing these latter tactics
 
at those moments when public attention is turned towards other matters
 
from which it does not wish to be diverted, or when the public considers
 
an incident too trivial to create a scandal about it and thus provoke
 
the anger of a malignant opponent.
 
 
 
These tactics are based on an accurate estimation of human frailties and
 
must lead to success, with almost mathematical certainty, unless the
 
other side also learns how to fight poison gas with poison gas. The
 
weaker natures must be told that here it is a case of to be or not to
 
be.
 
 
 
I also came to understand that physical intimidation has its
 
significance for the mass as well as for the individual. Here again the
 
Socialists had calculated accurately on the psychological effect.
 
 
 
Intimidation in workshops and in factories, in assembly halls and at
 
mass demonstrations, will always meet with success as long as it does
 
not have to encounter the same kind of terror in a stronger form.
 
 
 
Then of course the Party will raise a horrified outcry, yelling blue
 
murder and appealing to the authority of the State, which they have just
 
repudiated. In doing this their aim generally is to add to the general
 
confusion, so that they may have a better opportunity of reaching their
 
own goal unobserved. Their idea is to find among the higher government
 
officials some bovine creature who, in the stupid hope that he may win
 
the good graces of these awe-inspiring opponents so that they may
 
remember him in case of future eventualities, will help them now to
 
break all those who may oppose this world pest.
 
 
 
The impression which such successful tactics make on the minds of the
 
broad masses, whether they be adherents or opponents, can be estimated
 
only by one who knows the popular mind, not from books but from
 
practical life. For the successes which are thus obtained are taken by
 
the adherents of Social Democracy as a triumphant symbol of the
 
righteousness of their own cause; on the other hand the beaten opponent
 
very often loses faith in the effectiveness of any further resistance.
 
 
 
The more I understood the methods of physical intimidation that were
 
employed, the more sympathy I had for the multitude that had succumbed
 
to it.
 
 
 
I am thankful now for the ordeal which I had to go through at that time;
 
for it was the means of bringing me to think kindly again of my own
 
people, inasmuch as the experience enabled me to distinguish between the
 
false leaders and the victims who have been led astray.
 
 
 
We must look upon the latter simply as victims. I have just now tried to
 
depict a few traits which express the mentality of those on the lowest
 
rung of the social ladder; but my picture would be disproportionate if I
 
do not add that amid the social depths I still found light; for I
 
experienced a rare spirit of self-sacrifice and loyal comradeship among
 
those men, who demanded little from life and were content amid their
 
modest surroundings. This was true especially of the older generation of
 
workmen. And although these qualities were disappearing more and more in
 
the younger generation, owing to the all-pervading influence of the big
 
city, yet among the younger generation also there were many who were
 
sound at the core and who were able to maintain themselves
 
uncontaminated amid the sordid surroundings of their everyday existence.
 
If these men, who in many cases meant well and were upright in
 
themselves, gave the support to the political activities carried on by
 
the common enemies of our people, that was because those decent
 
workpeople did not and could not grasp the downright infamy of the
 
doctrine taught by the socialist agitators. Furthermore, it was because
 
no other section of the community bothered itself about the lot of the
 
working classes. Finally, the social conditions became such that men who
 
otherwise would have acted differently were forced to submit to them,
 
even though unwillingly at first. A day came when poverty gained the
 
upper hand and drove those workmen into the Social Democratic ranks.
 
 
 
On innumerable occasions the bourgeoisie took a definite stand against
 
even the most legitimate human demands of the working classes. That
 
conduct was ill-judged and indeed immoral and could bring no gain
 
whatsoever to the bourgeois class. The result was that the honest
 
workman abandoned the original concept of the trades union organization
 
and was dragged into politics.
 
 
 
There were millions and millions of workmen who began by being hostile
 
to the Social Democratic Party; but their defences were repeatedly
 
stormed and finally they had to surrender. Yet this defeat was due to
 
the stupidity of the bourgeois parties, who had opposed every social
 
demand put forward by the working class. The short-sighted refusal to
 
make an effort towards improving labour conditions, the refusal to adopt
 
measures which would insure the workman in case of accidents in the
 
factories, the refusal to forbid child labour, the refusal to consider
 
protective measures for female workers, especially expectant
 
mothers--all this was of assistance to the Social Democratic leaders,
 
who were thankful for every opportunity which they could exploit for
 
forcing the masses into their net. Our bourgeois parties can never
 
repair the damage that resulted from the mistake they then made. For
 
they sowed the seeds of hatred when they opposed all efforts at social
 
reform. And thus they gave, at least, apparent grounds to justify the
 
claim put forward by the Social Democrats--namely, that they alone stand
 
up for the interests of the working class.
 
 
 
And this became the principal ground for the moral justification of the
 
actual existence of the Trades Unions, so that the labour organization
 
became from that time onwards the chief political recruiting ground to
 
swell the ranks of the Social Democratic Party.
 
 
 
While thus studying the social conditions around me I was forced,
 
whether I liked it or not, to decide on the attitude I should take
 
towards the Trades Unions. Because I looked upon them as inseparable
 
from the Social Democratic Party, my decision was hasty--and mistaken. I
 
repudiated them as a matter of course. But on this essential question
 
also Fate intervened and gave me a lesson, with the result that I
 
changed the opinion which I had first formed.
 
 
 
When I was twenty years old I had learned to distinguish between the
 
Trades Union as a means of defending the social rights of the employees
 
and fighting for better living conditions for them and, on the other
 
hand, the Trades Union as a political instrument used by the Party in
 
the class struggle.
 
 
 
The Social Democrats understood the enormous importance of the Trades
 
Union movement. They appropriated it as an instrument and used it with
 
success, while the bourgeois parties failed to understand it and thus
 
lost their political prestige. They thought that their own arrogant VETO
 
would arrest the logical development of the movement and force it into
 
an illogical position. But it is absurd and also untrue to say that the
 
Trades Union movement is in itself hostile to the nation. The opposite
 
is the more correct view. If the activities of the Trades Union are
 
directed towards improving the condition of a class, and succeed in
 
doing so, such activities are not against the Fatherland or the State
 
but are, in the truest sense of the word, national. In that way the
 
trades union organization helps to create the social conditions which
 
are indispensable in a general system of national education. It deserves
 
high recognition when it destroys the psychological and physical germs
 
of social disease and thus fosters the general welfare of the nation.
 
 
 
It is superfluous to ask whether the Trades Union is indispensable.
 
 
 
So long as there are employers who attack social understanding and have
 
wrong ideas of justice and fair play it is not only the right but also
 
the duty of their employees--who are, after all, an integral part of our
 
people--to protect the general interests against the greed and unreason
 
of the individual. For to safeguard the loyalty and confidence of the
 
people is as much in the interests of the nation as to safeguard public
 
health.
 
 
 
Both are seriously menaced by dishonourable employers who are not
 
conscious of their duty as members of the national community. Their
 
personal avidity or irresponsibility sows the seeds of future trouble.
 
To eliminate the causes of such a development is an action that surely
 
deserves well of the country.
 
 
 
It must not be answered here that the individual workman is free at any
 
time to escape from the consequences of an injustice which he has
 
actually suffered at the hands of an employer, or which he thinks he has
 
suffered--in other words, he can leave. No. That argument is only a ruse
 
to detract attention from the question at issue. Is it, or is it not, in
 
the interests of the nation to remove the causes of social unrest? If it
 
is, then the fight must be carried on with the only weapons that promise
 
success. But the individual workman is never in a position to stand up
 
against the might of the big employer; for the question here is not one
 
that concerns the triumph of right. If in such a relation right had been
 
recognized as the guiding principle, then the conflict could not have
 
arisen at all. But here it is a question of who is the stronger. If the
 
case were otherwise, the sentiment of justice alone would solve the
 
dispute in an honourable way; or, to put the case more correctly,
 
matters would not have come to such a dispute at all.
 
 
 
No. If unsocial and dishonourable treatment of men provokes resistance,
 
then the stronger party can impose its decision in the conflict until
 
the constitutional legislative authorities do away with the evil through
 
legislation. Therefore it is evident that if the individual workman is
 
to have any chance at all of winning through in the struggle he must be
 
grouped with his fellow workmen and present a united front before the
 
individual employer, who incorporates in his own person the massed
 
strength of the vested interests in the industrial or commercial
 
undertaking which he conducts.
 
 
 
Thus the trades unions can hope to inculcate and strengthen a sense of
 
social responsibility in workaday life and open the road to practical
 
results. In doing this they tend to remove those causes of friction
 
which are a continual source of discontent and complaint.
 
 
 
Blame for the fact that the trades unions do not fulfil this
 
much-desired function must be laid at the doors of those who barred the
 
road to legislative social reform, or rendered such a reform ineffective
 
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 trades union movement. The
 
Social Democrats accordingly seized the advantage offered them by this
 
mistaken policy and took the labour movement under their exclusive
 
protection, without any protest from the other side. In this way they
 
established for themselves a solid bulwark behind which they could
 
safely retire whenever the struggle assumed a critical aspect. Thus the
 
genuine purpose of the movement gradually fell into oblivion, and was
 
replaced by new objectives. For the Social Democrats never troubled
 
themselves to respect and uphold the original purpose for which the
 
trade unionist movement was founded. They simply took over the Movement,
 
lock, stock and barrel, 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 which had been
 
originally fashioned for the defence of human rights into an instrument
 
for the destruction of the national economic structure. The interests of
 
the working class were not allowed for a moment to cross the path of
 
this purpose; for in politics the application of economic pressure is
 
always possible if the one side be sufficiently unscrupulous and the
 
other sufficiently inert and docile. In this case both conditions were
 
fulfilled.
 
 
 
By the beginning of the present century the Trades Unionist Movement had
 
already ceased to recognize the purpose for which it had been founded.
 
From year to year it fell more and more under the political control of
 
the Social Democrats, until it finally came to be used as a
 
battering-ram in the class struggle. The plan was to shatter, by means
 
of constantly repeated blows, the economic edifice in the building of
 
which so much time and care had been expended. Once this objective had
 
been reached, the destruction of the State would become a matter of
 
course, because the State would already have been deprived of its
 
economic foundations. Attention to the real interests of the
 
working-classes, on the part of the Social Democrats, steadily decreased
 
until the cunning leaders saw that it would be in their immediate
 
political interests if the social and cultural demands of the broad
 
masses remained unheeded; for there was a danger that if these masses
 
once felt content they could no longer be employed as mere passive
 
material in the political struggle.
 
 
 
The gloomy prospect which presented itself to the eyes of the
 
CONDOTTIERI of the class warfare, if the discontent of the masses were
 
no longer available as a war weapon, created so much anxiety among them
 
that they suppressed and opposed even the most elementary measures of
 
social reform. And conditions were such that those leaders did not have
 
to trouble about attempting to justify such an illogical policy.
 
 
 
As the masses were taught to increase and heighten their demands the
 
possibility of satisfying them dwindled and whatever ameliorative
 
measures were taken became less and less significant; so that it was at
 
that time possible to persuade the masses that this ridiculous measure
 
in which the most sacred claims of the working-classes were being
 
granted represented a diabolical plan to weaken their fighting power in
 
this easy way and, if possible, to paralyse it. One will not be
 
astonished at the success of these allegations if one remembers what a
 
small measure of thinking power the broad masses possess.
 
 
 
In the bourgeois camp there was high indignation over the bad faith of
 
the Social Democratic tactics; but nothing was done to draw a practical
 
conclusion and organize a counter attack from the bourgeois side. The
 
fear of the Social Democrats, to improve the miserable conditions of the
 
working-classes ought to have induced the bourgeois parties to make the
 
most energetic efforts in this direction and thus snatch from the hands
 
of the class-warfare leaders their most important weapon; but nothing of
 
this kind happened.
 
 
 
Instead of attacking the position of their adversaries the bourgeoisie
 
allowed itself to be pressed and harried. Finally it adopted means that
 
were so tardy and so insignificant that they were ineffective and were
 
repudiated. So the whole situation remained just as it had been before
 
the bourgeois intervention; but the discontent had thereby become more
 
serious.
 
 
 
Like a threatening storm, the 'Free Trades Union' hovered above the
 
political horizon and above the life of each individual. It was one of
 
the most frightful instruments of terror that threatened the security
 
and independence of the national economic structure, the foundations of
 
the State and the liberty of the individual. Above all, it was the 'Free
 
Trades Union' that turned democracy into a ridiculous and scorned
 
phrase, insulted the ideal of liberty and stigmatized that of fraternity
 
with the slogan 'If you will not become 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 and deeper; but I
 
have never changed anything in that regard.
 
 
 
The more I became acquainted with the external forms of Social
 
Democracy, the greater became my desire to understand the inner nature
 
of its doctrines.
 
 
 
For this purpose the official literature of the Party could not help
 
very much. In discussing economic questions its statements were false
 
and its proofs unsound. In treating of political aims its attitude was
 
insincere. Furthermore, its modern methods of chicanery in the
 
presentation of its arguments were profoundly repugnant to me. Its
 
flamboyant sentences, its obscure and incomprehensible phrases,
 
pretended to contain great thoughts, but they were devoid of thought,
 
and meaningless. One would have to be a decadent Bohemian in one of our
 
modern cities in order to feel at home in that labyrinth of mental
 
aberration, so that he might discover 'intimate experiences' amid the
 
stinking fumes of this literary Dadism. These writers were obviously
 
counting on the proverbial humility of a certain section of our people,
 
who believe that a person who is incomprehensible must be profoundly
 
wise.
 
 
 
In confronting the theoretical falsity and absurdity of that doctrine
 
with the reality of its external manifestations, I gradually came to
 
have a clear idea of the ends at which it aimed.
 
 
 
During such moments I had dark presentiments and feared something evil.
 
I had before me a teaching inspired by egoism and hatred, mathematically
 
calculated to win its victory, but the triumph of which would be a
 
mortal blow to humanity.
 
 
 
Meanwhile I had discovered the relations existing between this
 
destructive teaching and the specific character of a people, who up to
 
that time had been to me almost unknown.
 
 
 
Knowledge of the Jews is the only key whereby one may understand the
 
inner nature and therefore the real aims of Social Democracy.
 
 
 
The man who has come to know this race has succeeded in removing from
 
his eyes the veil through which he had seen the aims and meaning of his
 
Party in a false light; and then, out of the murk and fog of social
 
phrases rises the grimacing figure of Marxism.
 
 
 
To-day it is hard and almost impossible for me to say when the word
 
'Jew' first began to raise any particular thought in my mind. I do not
 
remember even having heard the word at home during my father's lifetime.
 
If this name were mentioned in a derogatory sense I think the old
 
gentleman would just have considered those who used it in this way as
 
being uneducated reactionaries. In the course of his career he had come
 
to be more or less a cosmopolitan, with strong views on nationalism,
 
which had its effect on me as well. In school, too, I found no reason to
 
alter the picture of things I had formed at home.
 
 
 
At the REALSCHULE I knew one Jewish boy. We were all on our guard in our
 
relations with him, but only because his reticence and certain actions
 
of his warned us to be discreet. Beyond that my companions and myself
 
formed no particular opinions in regard to him.
 
 
 
It was not until I was fourteen or fifteen years old that I frequently
 
ran up against the word 'Jew', partly in connection with political
 
controversies. These references aroused a slight aversion in me, and I
 
could not avoid an uncomfortable feeling which always came over me when
 
I had to listen to religious disputes. But at that time I had no other
 
feelings about the Jewish question.
 
 
 
There were very few Jews in Linz. In the course of centuries the Jews
 
who lived there had become Europeanized in external appearance and were
 
so much like other human beings that I even looked upon them as Germans.
 
The reason why I did not then perceive the absurdity of such an illusion
 
was that the only external mark which I recognized as distinguishing
 
them from us was the practice of their strange religion. As I thought
 
that they were persecuted on account of their Faith my aversion to
 
hearing remarks against them grew almost into a feeling of abhorrence. I
 
did not in the least suspect that there could be such a thing as a
 
systematic anti-Semitism.
 
 
 
Then I came to Vienna.
 
 
 
Confused by the mass of impressions I received from the architectural
 
surroundings and depressed by my own troubles, I did not at first
 
distinguish between the different social strata of which the population
 
of that mammoth city was composed. Although Vienna then had about two
 
hundred thousand Jews among its population of two millions, I did not
 
notice them. During the first weeks of my sojourn my eyes and my mind
 
were unable to cope with the onrush of new ideas and values. Not until I
 
gradually settled down to my surroundings, and the confused picture
 
began to grow clearer, 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 became acquainted with
 
it was particularly unpleasant for me. In the Jew I still saw only a man
 
who was of a different religion, and therefore, on grounds of human
 
tolerance, I was against the idea that he should be attacked because he
 
had a different faith. And so I considered that the tone adopted by the
 
anti-Semitic Press in Vienna was unworthy of the cultural traditions of
 
a great people. The memory of certain events which happened in the
 
middle ages came into my mind, and I felt that I should not like to see
 
them repeated. Generally speaking, these anti-Semitic newspapers did not
 
belong to the first rank--but I did not then understand the reason of
 
this--and so I regarded them more as the products of jealousy and envy
 
rather than the expression of a sincere, though wrong-headed, feeling.
 
 
 
My own opinions were confirmed by what I considered to be the infinitely
 
more dignified manner in which the really great Press replied to those
 
attacks or simply ignored them, which latter seemed to me the most
 
respectable way.
 
 
 
I diligently read what was generally called the World Press--NEUE FREIE
 
PRESSE, WIENER TAGEBLATT, etc.--and I was astonished by the abundance of
 
information they gave their readers and the impartial way in which they
 
presented particular problems. I appreciated their dignified tone; but
 
sometimes the flamboyancy of the style was unconvincing, and I did not
 
like it. But I attributed all this to the overpowering influence of the
 
world metropolis.
 
 
 
Since I considered Vienna at that time as such a world metropolis, I
 
thought this constituted sufficient grounds to excuse these shortcomings
 
of the Press. But I was frequently disgusted by the grovelling way in
 
which the Vienna Press played lackey to the Court. Scarcely a move took
 
place at the Hofburg which was not presented in glorified colours to the
 
readers. It was a foolish practice, which, especially when it had to do
 
with 'The Wisest Monarch of all Times', reminded one almost of the dance
 
which the mountain cock performs at pairing time to woo his mate. It was
 
all empty nonsense. And I thought that such a policy was a stain on the
 
ideal of liberal democracy. I thought that this way of currying favour
 
at the Court was unworthy of the people. And that was the first blot
 
that fell on my appreciation of the great Vienna Press.
 
 
 
While in Vienna I continued to follow with a vivid interest all the
 
events that were taking place in Germany, whether connected with
 
political or cultural question. I had a feeling of pride and admiration
 
when I compared the rise of the young German Empire with the decline of
 
the Austrian State. But, although the foreign policy of that Empire was
 
a source of real pleasure on the whole, the internal political
 
happenings were not always so satisfactory. I did not approve of the
 
campaign which at that time was being carried on against William II. I
 
looked upon him not only as the German Emperor but, above all, as the
 
creator of the German Navy. The fact that the Emperor was prohibited
 
from speaking in the Reichstag made me very angry, because the
 
prohibition came from a side which in my eyes had no authority to make
 
it. For at a single sitting those same parliamentary ganders did more
 
cackling together than 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 any
 
half-witted fellow could claim for himself the right to criticize and
 
might even be let loose on the people as a 'Legislator' in the
 
Reichstag, the bearer of the Imperial Crown could be the subject of a
 
'reprimand' on the part of the most miserable assembly of drivellers
 
that had ever existed.
 
 
 
I was even more disgusted at the way in which this same Vienna Press
 
salaamed obsequiously before the meanest steed belonging to the Habsburg
 
royal equipage and went off into wild ecstacies of delight if the nag
 
wagged its tail in response. And at the same time these newspapers took
 
up an attitude of anxiety in matters that concerned the German Emperor,
 
trying to cloak their enmity by the serious air they gave themselves.
 
But in my eyes that enmity appeared to be only poorly cloaked. Naturally
 
they protested that they had no intention of mixing in Germany's
 
internal affairs--God forbid! They pretended that by touching a delicate
 
spot in such a friendly way they were fulfilling a duty that devolved
 
upon them by reason of the mutual alliance between the two countries and
 
at the same time discharging their obligations of journalistic
 
truthfulness. Having thus excused themselves about tenderly touching a
 
sore spot, they bored with the finger ruthlessly into the wound.
 
 
 
That sort of thing made my blood boil. And now I began to be more and
 
more on my guard when reading the great Vienna Press.
 
 
 
I had to acknowledge, however, that on such subjects one of the
 
anti-Semitic papers--the DEUTSCHE VOLKSBLATT--acted more decently.
 
 
 
What got still more on my nerves was the repugnant manner in which the
 
big newspapers cultivated admiration for France. One really had to feel
 
ashamed of being a German when confronted by those mellifluous hymns of
 
praise for 'the great culture-nation'. This wretched Gallomania more
 
often than once made me throw away one of those 'world newspapers'. I
 
now often turned to the VOLKSBLATT, which was much smaller in size but
 
which treated such subjects more decently. I was not in accord with its
 
sharp anti-Semitic tone; but again and again I found that its arguments
 
gave me grounds for serious thought.
 
 
 
Anyhow, it was as a result of such reading that I came to know the man
 
and the movement which then determined the fate of Vienna. These were
 
Dr. Karl Lueger and the Christian Socialist Movement. At the time I came
 
to Vienna I felt opposed to both. I looked on the man and the movement
 
as 'reactionary'.
 
 
 
But even an elementary sense of justice enforced me to change my opinion
 
when I had the opportunity of knowing the man and his work, and slowly
 
that opinion grew into outspoken admiration when I had better grounds
 
for forming a judgment. To-day, as well as then, I hold Dr. Karl Lueger
 
as the most eminent type of German Burgermeister. How many prejudices
 
were thrown over through such a change 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 a greater
 
internal conflict with myself, and it was only after a struggle between
 
reason and sentiment that victory began to be decided in favour of the
 
former. Two years later sentiment rallied to the side of reasons and
 
became a faithful guardian and counsellor.
 
 
 
At the time of this bitter struggle, between calm reason and the
 
sentiments in which I had been brought up, the lessons that I learned on
 
the streets of Vienna rendered me invaluable assistance. A time came
 
when I no longer passed blindly along the street of the mighty city, as
 
I had done in the early days, but now with my eyes open not only to
 
study the buildings but also the human beings.
 
 
 
Once, when passing through the inner City, I suddenly encountered a
 
phenomenon in a long caftan and wearing black side-locks. My first
 
thought was: Is this a Jew? They certainly did not have this appearance
 
in Linz. I watched the man stealthily and cautiously; but the longer I
 
gazed at the strange countenance and examined it feature by feature, the
 
more the question shaped itself in my brain: Is this a German?
 
 
 
As was always my habit with such experiences, I turned to books for help
 
in removing my doubts. For the first time in my life I bought myself
 
some anti-Semitic pamphlets for a few pence. But unfortunately they all
 
began with the assumption that in principle the reader had at least a
 
certain degree of information on the Jewish question or was even
 
familiar with it. Moreover, the tone of most of these pamphlets was such
 
that I became doubtful again, because the statements made were partly
 
superficial and the proofs extraordinarily unscientific. For weeks, and
 
indeed for months, I returned to my old way of thinking. The subject
 
appeared so enormous and the accusations were so far-reaching that I was
 
afraid of dealing with it unjustly and so I became again anxious and
 
uncertain.
 
 
 
Naturally I could no longer doubt that here there was not a question of
 
Germans who happened to be of a different religion but rather that there
 
was question of an entirely different people. For as soon as I began to
 
investigate the matter and observe the Jews, then Vienna appeared to me
 
in a different light. Wherever I now went I saw Jews, and the more I saw
 
of them the more strikingly and clearly they stood out as a different
 
people from the other citizens. Especially the Inner City and the
 
district northwards from the Danube Canal swarmed with a people who,
 
even in outer appearance, bore no similarity to the Germans.
 
 
 
But any indecision which I may still have felt about that point was
 
finally removed by the activities of a certain section of the Jews
 
themselves. A great movement, called Zionism, arose among them. Its aim
 
was to assert the national character of Judaism, and the movement was
 
strongly represented in Vienna.
 
 
 
To outward appearances it seemed as if only one group of Jews championed
 
this movement, while the great majority disapproved of it, or even
 
repudiated it. But an investigation of the situation showed that those
 
outward appearances were purposely misleading. These outward appearances
 
emerged from a mist of theories which had been produced for reasons of
 
expediency, if not for purposes of downright deception. For that part of
 
Jewry which was styled Liberal did not disown the Zionists as if they
 
were not members of their race but rather as brother Jews who publicly
 
professed their faith in an unpractical way, so as to create a danger
 
for Jewry itself.
 
 
 
Thus there was no real rift in their internal solidarity.
 
 
 
This fictitious conflict between the Zionists and the Liberal Jews soon
 
disgusted me; for it was false through and through and in direct
 
contradiction to the moral dignity and immaculate character on which
 
that race had always prided itself.
 
 
 
Cleanliness, whether moral or of another kind, had its own peculiar
 
meaning for these people. That they were water-shy was obvious on
 
looking at them and, unfortunately, very often also when not looking at
 
them at all. The odour of those people in caftans often used to make me
 
feel ill. Beyond that there were the unkempt clothes and the ignoble
 
exterior.
 
 
 
All these details were certainly not attractive; but the revolting
 
feature was that beneath their unclean exterior one suddenly perceived
 
the moral mildew of the chosen race.
 
 
 
What soon gave me cause for very serious consideration were the
 
activities of the Jews in certain branches of life, into the mystery of
 
which I penetrated little by little. Was there any shady undertaking,
 
any form of foulness, especially in cultural life, in which at least one
 
Jew did not participate? On putting the probing knife carefully to that
 
kind of abscess one immediately discovered, like a maggot in a
 
putrescent body, a little Jew who was often blinded by the sudden light.
 
 
 
In my eyes the charge against Judaism became a grave one the moment I
 
discovered the Jewish activities in the Press, in art, in literature and
 
the theatre. All unctuous protests were now more or less futile. One
 
needed only to look at the posters announcing the hideous productions of
 
the cinema and theatre, and study the names of the authors who were
 
highly lauded there in order to become permanently adamant on Jewish
 
questions. Here was a pestilence, a moral pestilence, with which the
 
public was being infected. It was worse than the Black Plague of long
 
ago. And in what mighty doses this poison was manufactured and
 
distributed. Naturally, the lower the moral and intellectual level of
 
such an author of artistic products the more inexhaustible his
 
fecundity. Sometimes it went so far that one of these fellows, acting
 
like a sewage pump, would shoot his filth directly in the face of other
 
members of the human race. In this connection we must remember there is
 
no limit to the number of such people. One ought to realize that for
 
one, Goethe, Nature may bring into existence ten thousand such
 
despoilers who act as the worst kind of germ-carriers in poisoning human
 
souls. It was a terrible thought, and yet it could not be avoided, that
 
the greater number of the Jews seemed specially destined by Nature to
 
play this shameful part.
 
 
 
And is it for this reason that they can be called the chosen people?
 
 
 
I began then to investigate carefully the names of all the fabricators
 
of these unclean products in public cultural life. The result of that
 
inquiry was still more disfavourable to the attitude which I had
 
hitherto held in regard to the Jews. Though my feelings might rebel a
 
thousand time, reason now had to draw its own conclusions.
 
 
 
The fact that nine-tenths of all the smutty literature, artistic tripe
 
and theatrical banalities, had to be charged to the account of people
 
who formed scarcely one per cent. of the nation--that fact could not be
 
gainsaid. It was there, and had to 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 that Press
 
which I formerly admired. Its style became still more repellent and I
 
was forced to reject its ideas as entirely shallow and superficial. To
 
claim that in the presentation of facts and views its attitude was
 
impartial seemed to me to contain more falsehood than truth. The writers
 
were--Jews.
 
 
 
Thousands of details that I had scarcely noticed before seemed to me now
 
to deserve attention. I began to grasp and understand things which I had
 
formerly looked at in a different light.
 
 
 
I saw the Liberal policy of that Press in another light. Its dignified
 
tone in replying to the attacks of its adversaries and its dead silence
 
in other cases now became clear to me as part of a cunning and
 
despicable way of deceiving the readers. Its brilliant theatrical
 
criticisms always praised the Jewish authors and its adverse, criticism
 
was reserved exclusively for the Germans.
 
 
 
The light pin-pricks against William II showed the persistency of its
 
policy, just as did its systematic commendation of French culture and
 
civilization. The subject matter of the feuilletons was trivial and
 
often pornographic. The language of this Press as a whole had the accent
 
of a foreign people. The general tone was openly derogatory to the
 
Germans and this must have been definitely intentional.
 
 
 
What were the interests that urged the Vienna Press to adopt such a
 
policy? Or did they do so merely by chance? In attempting to find an
 
answer to those questions I gradually became more and more dubious.
 
 
 
Then something happened which helped me to come to an early decision. I
 
began to see through the meaning of a whole series of events that were
 
taking place in other branches of Viennese life. All these were inspired
 
by a general concept of manners and morals which was openly put into
 
practice by a large section of the Jews and could be established as
 
attributable to them. Here, again, the life which I observed on the
 
streets taught me what evil really is.
 
 
 
The part which the Jews played in the social phenomenon of prostitution,
 
and more especially in the white slave traffic, could be studied here
 
better than in any other West-European city, with the possible exception
 
of certain ports in Southern France. Walking by night along the streets
 
of the Leopoldstadt, almost at every turn whether one wished it or not,
 
one witnessed certain happenings of whose existence the Germans knew
 
nothing until the War made it possible and indeed inevitable for the
 
soldiers to see such things on the Eastern front.
 
 
 
A cold shiver ran down my spine when I first ascertained that it was the
 
same kind of cold-blooded, thick-skinned and shameless Jew who showed
 
his consummate skill in conducting that revolting exploitation of the
 
dregs of the big city. Then I became fired with wrath.
 
 
 
I had now no more hesitation about bringing the Jewish problem to light
 
in all its details. No. Henceforth I was determined to do so. But as I
 
learned to track down the Jew in all the different spheres of cultural
 
and artistic life, and in the various manifestations of this life
 
everywhere, I suddenly came upon him in a position where I had least
 
expected to find him. I now realized that the Jews were the leaders of
 
Social Democracy. In face of that revelation the scales fell from my
 
eyes. My long inner struggle was at an end.
 
 
 
In my relations with my fellow workmen I was often astonished to find
 
how easily and often they changed their opinions on the same questions,
 
sometimes within a few days and sometimes even within the course of a
 
few hours. I found it difficult to understand how men who always had
 
reasonable ideas when they spoke as individuals with one another
 
suddenly lost this reasonableness the moment they acted in the mass.
 
That phenomenon often tempted one almost to despair. I used to dispute
 
with them for hours and when I succeeded in bringing them to what I
 
considered a reasonable way of thinking I rejoiced at my success. But
 
next day I would find that it had been all in vain. It was saddening to
 
think I had to begin it all over again. Like a pendulum in its eternal
 
sway, they would fall back into their absurd opinions.
 
 
 
I was able to understand their position fully. They were dissatisfied
 
with their lot and cursed the fate which had hit them so hard. They
 
hated their employers, whom they looked upon as the heartless
 
administrators of their cruel destiny. Often they used abusive language
 
against the public officials, whom they accused of having no sympathy
 
with the situation of the working people. They made public protests
 
against the cost of living and paraded through the streets in defence of
 
their claims. At least all this could be explained on reasonable
 
grounds. But what was impossible to understand was the boundless hatred
 
they expressed against their own fellow citizens, how they disparaged
 
their own nation, mocked at its greatness, reviled its history and
 
dragged the names of its most illustrious men in the gutter.
 
 
 
This hostility towards their own kith and kin, their own native land and
 
home was as irrational as it was incomprehensible. It was against
 
Nature.
 
 
 
One could cure that malady temporarily, but only for some days or at
 
least some weeks. But on meeting those whom one believed to have been
 
converted one found that they had become as they were before. That
 
malady against Nature held them once again in its clutches.
 
 
 
I gradually discovered that the Social Democratic Press was
 
predominantly controlled by Jews. But I did not attach special
 
importance to this circumstance, for the same state of affairs existed
 
also in other newspapers. But there was one striking fact in this
 
connection. It was that there was not a single newspaper with which Jews
 
were connected that could be spoken of as National, in the meaning that
 
my education and convictions attached to that word.
 
 
 
Making an effort to overcome my natural reluctance, I tried to read
 
articles of this nature published in the Marxist Press; but in doing so
 
my aversion increased all the more. And then I set about learning
 
something of the people who wrote and published this mischievous stuff.
 
From the publisher downwards, all of them were Jews. I recalled to mind
 
the names of the public leaders of Marxism, and then I realized that
 
most of them belonged to the Chosen Race--the Social Democratic
 
representatives in the Imperial Cabinet as well as the secretaries of
 
the Trades Unions and the street agitators. Everywhere the same sinister
 
picture presented itself. I shall never forget the row of
 
names--Austerlitz, David, Adler, Ellenbogen, and others. One fact became
 
quite evident to me. It was that this alien race held in its hands the
 
leadership of that Social Democratic Party with whose minor
 
representatives I had been disputing for months past. I was happy at
 
last to know for certain that the Jew is not a German.
 
 
 
Thus I finally discovered who were the evil spirits leading our people
 
astray. The sojourn in Vienna for one year had proved long enough to
 
convince me that no worker is so rooted in his preconceived notions that
 
he will not surrender them in face of better and clearer arguments and
 
explanations. Gradually I became an expert in the doctrine of the
 
Marxists and used this knowledge as an instrument to drive home my own
 
firm convictions. I was successful in nearly every case. The great
 
masses can be rescued, but a lot of time and a large share of human
 
patience must be devoted 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 absurdity of their
 
teaching. Within my small circle I talked to them until my throat ached
 
and my voice grew hoarse. I believed that I could finally convince them
 
of the danger inherent in the Marxist follies. But I only achieved the
 
contrary result. It seemed to me that immediately the disastrous effects
 
of the Marxist Theory and its application in practice became evident,
 
the stronger became their obstinacy.
 
 
 
The more I debated with them the more familiar I became with their
 
argumentative tactics. At the outset they counted upon the stupidity of
 
their opponents, but when they got so entangled that they could not find
 
a way out they played the trick of acting as innocent simpletons. Should
 
they fail, in spite of their tricks of logic, they acted as if they
 
could not understand the counter arguments and bolted away to another
 
field of discussion. They would lay down truisms and platitudes; and, if
 
you accepted these, then they were applied to other problems and matters
 
of an essentially different nature from the original theme. If you faced
 
them with this point they would escape again, and you could not bring
 
them to make any precise statement. Whenever one tried to get a firm
 
grip on any of these apostles one's hand grasped only jelly and slime
 
which slipped through the fingers and combined again into a solid mass a
 
moment afterwards. If your adversary felt forced to give in to your
 
argument, on account of the observers present, and if you then thought
 
that at last you had gained ground, a surprise was in store for you on
 
the following day. The Jew would be utterly oblivious to what had
 
happened the day before, and he would start once again by repeating his
 
former absurdities, as if nothing had happened. Should you become
 
indignant and remind him of yesterday's defeat, he pretended
 
astonishment and could not remember anything, except that on the
 
previous day he had proved that his statements were correct. Sometimes I
 
was dumbfounded. I do not know what amazed me the more--the abundance of
 
their verbiage or the artful way in which they dressed up their
 
falsehoods. I gradually came to hate them.
 
 
 
Yet all this had its good side; because the more I came to know the
 
individual leaders, or at least the propagandists, of Social Democracy,
 
my love for my own people increased correspondingly. Considering the
 
Satanic skill which these evil counsellors displayed, how could their
 
unfortunate victims be blamed? Indeed, I found it extremely difficult
 
myself to be a match for the dialectical perfidy of that race. How
 
futile it was to try to win over such people with argument, seeing that
 
their very mouths distorted the truth, disowning the very words they had
 
just used and adopting them again a few moments afterwards to serve
 
their own ends in the argument! No. The more I came to know the Jew, the
 
easier it was to excuse the workers.
 
 
 
In my opinion the most culpable were not to be found among the workers
 
but rather among those who did not think it worth while to take the
 
trouble to sympathize with their own kinsfolk and give to the
 
hard-working son of the national family what was his by the iron logic
 
of justice, while at the same time placing his seducer and corrupter
 
against the wall.
 
 
 
Urged by my own daily experiences, I now began to investigate more
 
thoroughly the sources of the Marxist teaching itself. Its effects were
 
well known to me in detail. As a result of careful observation, its
 
daily progress had become obvious to me. And one needed only a little
 
imagination in order to be able to forecast the consequences which must
 
result from it. The only question now was: Did the founders foresee the
 
effects of their work in the form which those effects have shown
 
themselves to-day, or were the founders themselves the victims of an
 
error? To my mind both alternatives were possible.
 
 
 
If the second question must be answered in the affirmative, then it was
 
the duty of every thinking person to oppose this sinister movement with
 
a view to preventing it from producing its worst results. But if the
 
first question must be answered in the affirmative, then it must be
 
admitted that the original authors of this evil which has infected the
 
nations were devils incarnate. For only in the brain of a monster, and
 
not that of a man, could the plan of this organization take shape whose
 
workings must finally bring about the collapse of human civilization and
 
turn this world into a desert waste.
 
 
 
Such being the case the only alternative left was to fight, and in that
 
fight to employ all the weapons which the human spirit and intellect and
 
will could furnish leaving it to Fate to decide in whose favour the
 
balance should fall.
 
 
 
And so I began to gather information about the authors of this teaching,
 
with a view to studying the principles of the movement. The fact that I
 
attained my object sooner than I could have anticipated was due to the
 
deeper insight into the Jewish question which I then gained, my
 
knowledge of this question being hitherto rather superficial. This newly
 
acquired knowledge alone enabled me to make a practical comparison
 
between the real content and the theoretical pretentiousness of the
 
teaching laid down by the apostolic founders of Social Democracy;
 
because I now understood the language of the Jew. I realized that the
 
Jew uses language for the purpose of dissimulating his thought or at
 
least veiling it, so that his real aim cannot be discovered by what he
 
says but rather by reading between the lines. This knowledge was the
 
occasion of the greatest inner revolution that I had yet experienced.
 
From being a soft-hearted cosmopolitan I became an out-and-out
 
anti-Semite.
 
 
 
Only on one further occasion, and that for the last time, did I give way
 
to oppressing thoughts which caused me some moments of profound anxiety.
 
 
 
As I critically reviewed the activities of the Jewish people throughout
 
long periods of history I became anxious and asked myself whether for
 
some inscrutable reasons beyond the comprehension of poor mortals such
 
as ourselves, Destiny may not have irrevocably decreed that the final
 
victory must go to this small nation? May it not be that this people
 
which has lived only for the earth has been promised the earth as a
 
recompense? is our right to struggle for our own self-preservation based
 
on reality, or is it a merely subjective thing? Fate answered the
 
question for me inasmuch as it led me to make a detached and exhaustive
 
inquiry into the Marxist teaching and the activities of the Jewish
 
people in connection with it.
 
 
 
The Jewish doctrine of Marxism repudiates the aristocratic principle of
 
Nature and substitutes for it the eternal privilege of force and energy,
 
numerical mass and its dead weight. Thus it denies the individual worth
 
of the human personality, impugns the teaching that nationhood and race
 
have a primary significance, and by doing this it takes away the very
 
foundations of human existence and human civilization. If the Marxist
 
teaching were to be accepted as the foundation of the life of the
 
universe, it would lead to the disappearance of all order that is
 
conceivable to the human mind. And thus the adoption of such a law would
 
provoke chaos in the structure of the greatest organism that we know,
 
with the result that the inhabitants of this earthly planet would
 
finally disappear.
 
 
 
Should the Jew, with the aid of his Marxist creed, triumph over the
 
people of this world, his Crown will be the funeral wreath of mankind,
 
and this planet will once again follow its orbit through ether, without
 
any human life on its surface, as it did millions of years ago.
 
 
 
And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will
 
of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am
 
defending the handiwork of the Lord.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER III
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
POLITICAL REFLECTIONS ARISING OUT OF MY SOJOURN IN VIENNA
 
 
 
 
 
Generally speaking a man should not publicly take part in politics
 
before he has reached the age of thirty, though, of course, exceptions
 
must be made in the case of those who are naturally gifted with
 
extraordinary political abilities. That at least is my opinion to-day.
 
And the reason for it is that until he reaches his thirtieth year or
 
thereabouts a man's mental development will mostly consist in acquiring
 
and sifting such knowledge as is necessary for the groundwork of a
 
general platform from which he can examine the different political
 
problems that arise from day to day and be able to adopt a definite
 
attitude towards each. A man must first acquire a fund of general ideas
 
and fit them together so as to form an organic structure of personal
 
thought or outlook on life--a WELTANSCHAUUNG. Then he will have that
 
mental equipment without which he cannot form his own judgments on
 
particular questions of the day, and he will have acquired those
 
qualities that are necessary for consistency and steadfastness in the
 
formation of political opinions. Such a man is now qualified, at least
 
subjectively, to take his part in the political conduct of public
 
affairs.
 
 
 
If these pre-requisite conditions are not fulfilled, and if a man should
 
enter political life without this equipment, he will run a twofold risk.
 
In the first place, he may find during the course of events that the
 
stand which he originally took in regard to some essential question was
 
wrong. He will now have to abandon his former position or else stick to
 
it against his better knowledge and riper wisdom and after his reason
 
and convictions have already proved it untenable. If he adopt the former
 
line of action he will find himself in a difficult personal situation;
 
because in giving up a position hitherto maintained he will appear
 
inconsistent and will have no right to expect his followers to remain as
 
loyal to his leadership as they were before. And, as regards the
 
followers themselves, they may easily look upon their leader's change of
 
policy as showing a lack of judgment inherent in his character.
 
Moreover, the change must cause in them a certain feeling of
 
discomfiture VIS-À-VIS those whom the leader formerly opposed.
 
 
 
If he adopts the second alternative--which so very frequently happens
 
to-day--then public pronouncements of the leader have no longer his
 
personal persuasion to support them. And the more that is the case the
 
defence of his cause will be all the more hollow and superficial. He now
 
descends to the adoption of vulgar means in his defence. While he
 
himself no longer dreams seriously of standing by his political
 
protestations to the last--for no man will die in defence of something
 
in which he does not believe--he makes increasing demands on his
 
followers. Indeed, the greater be the measure of his own insincerity,
 
the more unfortunate and inconsiderate become his claims on his party
 
adherents. Finally, he throws aside the last vestiges of true leadership
 
and begins to play politics. This means that he becomes one of those
 
whose only consistency is their inconsistency, associated with
 
overbearing insolence and oftentimes an 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 from the outset that
 
for him the essence of political activity consists in a heroic struggle
 
to keep permanent hold on this milk-bottle as a source of livelihood for
 
himself and his family. The more his wife and children are dependent on
 
him, the more stubbornly will he fight to maintain for himself the
 
representation of his parliamentary constituency. For that reason any
 
other person who gives evidence of political capacity is his personal
 
enemy. In every new movement he will apprehend the possible beginning of
 
his own downfall. And everyone who is a better man than himself will
 
appear to him in the light of a menace.
 
 
 
I shall subsequently deal more fully with the problem to which this kind
 
of parliamentary vermin give rise.
 
 
 
When a man has reached his thirtieth year he has still a great deal to
 
learn. That is obvious. But henceforward what he learns will principally
 
be an amplification of his basic ideas; it will be fitted in with them
 
organically so as to fill up the framework of the fundamental
 
WELTANSCHAUUNG which he already possesses. What he learns anew will not
 
imply the abandonment of principles already held, but rather a deeper
 
knowledge of those principles. And thus his colleagues will never have
 
the discomforting feeling that they have been hitherto falsely led by
 
him. On the contrary, their confidence is increased when they perceive
 
that their leader's qualities are steadily developing along the lines of
 
an organic growth which results from the constant assimilation of new
 
ideas; so that the followers look upon this process as signifying an
 
enrichment of the doctrines in which they themselves believe, in their
 
eyes every such development is a new witness to the correctness of that
 
whole body of opinion which has hitherto been held.
 
 
 
A leader who has to abandon the platform founded on his general
 
principles, because he recognizes the foundation as false, can act with
 
honour only when he declares his readiness to accept the final
 
consequences of his erroneous views. In such a case he ought to refrain
 
from taking public part in any further political activity. Having once
 
gone astray on essential things he may possibly go astray a second time.
 
But, anyhow, he has no right whatsoever to expect or demand that his
 
fellow citizens should continue to give him their support.
 
 
 
How little such a line of conduct commends itself to our public leaders
 
nowadays is proved by the general corruption prevalent among the cabal
 
which at the present moment feels itself called to political leadership.
 
In the whole cabal there is scarcely one who is properly equipped for
 
this task.
 
 
 
Although in those days I used to give more time than most others to the
 
consideration of political question, yet I carefully refrained from
 
taking an open part in politics. Only to a small circle did I speak of
 
those things which agitated my mind or were the cause of constant
 
preoccupation for me. The habit of discussing matters within such a
 
restricted group had many advantages in itself. Rather than talk at
 
them, I learned to feel my way into the modes of thought and views of
 
those men around me. Oftentimes such ways of thinking and such views
 
were quite primitive. Thus I took every possible occasion to increase my
 
knowledge of men.
 
 
 
Nowhere among the German people was the opportunity for making such a
 
study so favourable as in Vienna.
 
 
 
In the old Danubian Monarchy political thought was wider in its range
 
and had a richer variety of interests than in the Germany of that
 
epoch--excepting certain parts of Prussia, Hamburg and the districts
 
bordering on the North Sea. When I speak of Austria here I mean that
 
part of the great Habsburg Empire which, by reason of its German
 
population, furnished not only the historic basis for the formation of
 
this State but whose population was for several centuries also the
 
exclusive source of cultural life in that political system whose
 
structure was so artificial. As time went on the stability of the
 
Austrian State and the guarantee of its continued existence depended
 
more and more on the maintenance of this germ-cell of that Habsburg
 
Empire.
 
 
 
The hereditary imperial provinces constituted the heart of the Empire.
 
And it was this heart that constantly sent the blood of life pulsating
 
through the whole political and cultural system. Corresponding to the
 
heart of the Empire, Vienna signified the brain and the will. At that
 
time Vienna presented an appearance which made one think of her as an
 
enthroned queen whose authoritative sway united the conglomeration of
 
heterogenous nationalities that lived under the Habsburg sceptre. The
 
radiant beauty of the capital city made one forget the sad symptoms of
 
senile decay which the State manifested as a whole.
 
 
 
Though the Empire was internally rickety because of the terrific
 
conflict going on between the various nationalities, the outside
 
world--and Germany in particular--saw only that lovely picture of the
 
city. The illusion was all the greater because at that time Vienna
 
seemed to have risen to its highest pitch of splendour. Under a Mayor,
 
who had the true stamp of administrative genius, the venerable
 
residential City of the Emperors of the old Empire seemed to have the
 
glory of its youth renewed. The last great German who sprang from the
 
ranks of the people that had colonized the East Mark was not a
 
'statesman', in the official sense. This Dr. Luegar, however, in his
 
rôle as Mayor of 'the Imperial Capital and Residential City', had
 
achieved so much in almost all spheres of municipal activity, whether
 
economic or cultural, that the heart of the whole Empire throbbed with
 
renewed vigour. He thus proved himself a much greater statesman than the
 
so-called 'diplomats' of that period.
 
 
 
The fact that this political system of heterogeneous races called
 
AUSTRIA, finally broke down is no evidence whatsoever of political
 
incapacity on the part of the German element in the old East Mark. The
 
collapse was the inevitable result of an impossible situation. Ten
 
million people cannot permanently hold together a State of fifty
 
millions, composed of different and convicting nationalities, unless
 
certain definite pre-requisite conditions are at hand while there is
 
still time to avail of them.
 
 
 
The German-Austrian had very big ways of thinking. Accustomed to live in
 
a great Empire, he had a keen sense of the obligations incumbent on him
 
in such a situation. He was the only member of the Austrian State who
 
looked beyond the borders of the narrow lands belonging to the Crown and
 
took in all the frontiers of the Empire in the sweep of his mind. Indeed
 
when destiny severed him from the common Fatherland he tried to master
 
the tremendous task which was set before him as a consequence. This task
 
was to maintain for the German-Austrians that patrimony which, through
 
innumerable struggles, their ancestors had originally wrested from the
 
East. It must be remembered that the German-Austrians could not put
 
their undivided strength into this effort, because the hearts and minds
 
of the best among them were constantly turning back towards their
 
kinsfolk in the Motherland, so that only a fraction of their energy
 
remained to be employed at home.
 
 
 
The mental horizon of the German-Austrian was comparatively broad. His
 
commercial interests comprised almost every section of the heterogeneous
 
Empire. The conduct of almost all important undertakings was in his
 
hands. He provided the State, for the most part, with its leading
 
technical experts and civil servants. He was responsible for carrying on
 
the foreign trade of the country, as far as that sphere of activity was
 
not under Jewish control, The German-Austrian exclusively represented
 
the political cement that held the State together. His military duties
 
carried him far beyond the narrow frontiers of his homeland. Though the
 
recruit might join a regiment made up of the German element, the
 
regiment itself might be stationed in Herzegovina as well as in Vienna
 
or Galicia. The officers in the Habsburg armies were still Germans and
 
so was the predominating element in the higher branches of the civil
 
service. Art and science were in German hands. Apart from the new
 
artistic trash, which might easily have been produced by a negro tribe,
 
all genuine artistic inspiration came from the German section of the
 
population. In music, architecture, sculpture and painting, Vienna
 
abundantly supplied the entire Dual Monarchy. And the source never
 
seemed to show signs of a possible exhaustion. Finally, it was the
 
German element that determined the conduct of foreign policy, though a
 
small number of Hungarians were also active in that field.
 
 
 
All efforts, however, to save the unity of the State were doomed to end
 
in failure, because the essential pre-requisites were missing.
 
 
 
There was only one possible way to control and hold in check the
 
centrifugal forces of the different and differing nationalities. This
 
way was: to govern the Austrian State and organize it internally on the
 
principle of centralization. In no other way imaginable could the
 
existence of that State be assured.
 
 
 
Now and again there were lucid intervals in the higher ruling quarters
 
when this truth was recognized. But it was soon forgotten again, or else
 
deliberately ignored, because of the difficulties to be overcome in
 
putting it into practice. Every project which aimed at giving the Empire
 
a more federal shape was bound to be ineffective because there was no
 
strong central authority which could exercise sufficient power within
 
the State to hold the federal elements together. It must be remembered
 
in this connection that conditions in Austria were quite different from
 
those which characterized the German State as founded by Bismarck.
 
Germany was faced with only one difficulty, which was that of
 
transforming the purely political traditions, because throughout the
 
whole of Bismarck's Germany there was a common cultural basis. The
 
German Empire contained only members of one and the same racial or
 
national stock, with the exception of a few minor foreign fragments.
 
 
 
Demographic conditions in Austria were quite the reverse. With the
 
exception of Hungary there was no political tradition, coming down from
 
a great past, in any of the various affiliated countries. If there had
 
been, time had either wiped out all traces of it, or at least, rendered
 
them obscure. Moreover, this was the epoch when the principle of
 
nationality began to be in ascendant; and that phenomenon awakened the
 
national instincts in the various countries affiliated under the
 
Habsburg sceptre. It was difficult to control the action of these newly
 
awakened national forces; because, adjacent to the frontiers of the Dual
 
Monarchy, new national States were springing up whose people were of the
 
same or kindred racial stock as the respective nationalities that
 
constituted the Habsburg Empire. These new States were able to exercise
 
a greater influence than the German element.
 
 
 
Even Vienna could not hold out for a lengthy period in this conflict.
 
When Budapest had developed into a metropolis a rival had grown up whose
 
mission was, not to help in holding together the various divergent parts
 
of the Empire, but rather to strengthen one part. Within a short time
 
Prague followed the example of Budapest; and later on came Lemberg,
 
Laibach and others. By raising these places which had formerly been
 
provincial towns to the rank of national cities, rallying centres were
 
provided for an independent cultural life. Through this the local
 
national instincts acquired a spiritual foundation and therewith gained
 
a more profound hold on the people. The time was bound to come when the
 
particularist interests of those various countries would become stronger
 
than their common imperial interests. Once that stage had been reached,
 
Austria's doom was sealed.
 
 
 
The course of this development was clearly perceptible since the death
 
of Joseph II. Its rapidity depended on a number of factors, some of
 
which had their source in the Monarchy itself; while others resulted
 
from the position which the Empire had taken in foreign politics.
 
 
 
It was impossible to make anything like a successful effort for the
 
permanent consolidation of the Austrian State unless a firm and
 
persistent policy of centralization were put into force. Before
 
everything else the principle should have been adopted that only one
 
common language could be used as the official language of the State.
 
Thus it would be possible to emphasize the formal unity of that imperial
 
commonwealth. And thus the administration would have in its hands a
 
technical instrument without which the State could not endure as a
 
political unity. In the same way the school and other forms of education
 
should have been used to inculcate a feeling of common citizenship. Such
 
an objective could not be reached within ten or twenty years. The effort
 
would have to be envisaged in terms of centuries; just as in all
 
problems of colonization, steady perseverance is a far more important
 
element than the output of energetic effort at the moment.
 
 
 
It goes without saying that in such circumstances the country must be
 
governed and administered by strictly adhering to the principle of
 
uniformity.
 
 
 
For me it was quite instructive to discover why this did not take place,
 
or rather why it was not done. Those who were guilty of the omission
 
must be held responsible for the break-up of the Habsburg Empire.
 
 
 
More than any other State, the existence of the old Austria depended on
 
a strong and capable Government. The Habsburg Empire lacked ethnical
 
uniformity, which constitutes the fundamental basis of a national State
 
and will preserve the existence of such a State even though the ruling
 
power should be grossly inefficient. When a State is composed of a
 
homogeneous population, the natural inertia of such a population will
 
hold the Stage together and maintain its existence through astonishingly
 
long periods of misgovernment and maladministration. It may often seem
 
as if the principle of life had died out in such a body-politic; but a
 
time comes when the apparent corpse rises up and displays before the
 
world an astonishing manifestation of its indestructible vitality.
 
 
 
But the situation is utterly different in a country where the population
 
is not homogeneous, where there is no bond of common blood but only that
 
of one ruling hand. Should the ruling hand show signs of weakness in
 
such a State the result will not be to cause a kind of hibernation of
 
the State but rather to awaken the individualist instincts which are
 
slumbering in the ethnological groups. These instincts do not make
 
themselves felt as long as these groups are dominated by a strong
 
central will-to-govern. The danger which exists in these slumbering
 
separatist instincts can be rendered more or less innocuous only through
 
centuries of common education, common traditions and common interests.
 
The younger such States are, the more their existence will depend on the
 
ability and strength of the central government. If their foundation was
 
due only to the work of a strong personality or a leader who is a man of
 
genius, in many cases they will break up as soon as the founder
 
disappears; because, though great, he stood alone. But even after
 
centuries of a common education and experiences these separatist
 
instincts I have spoken of are not always completely overcome. They may
 
be only dormant and may suddenly awaken when the central government
 
shows weakness and the force of a common education as well as the
 
prestige of a common tradition prove unable to withstand the vital
 
energies of separatist nationalities forging ahead towards the shaping
 
of their own individual existence.
 
 
 
The failure to see the truth of all this constituted what may be called
 
the tragic crime of the Habsburg rulers.
 
 
 
Only before the eyes of one Habsburg ruler, and that for the last time,
 
did the hand of Destiny hold aloft the torch that threw light on the
 
future of his country. But the torch was then extinguished for ever.
 
 
 
Joseph II, Roman Emperor of the German nation, was filled with a growing
 
anxiety when he realized the fact that his House was removed to an
 
outlying frontier of his Empire and that the time would soon be at hand
 
when it would be overturned and engulfed in the whirlpool caused by that
 
Babylon of nationalities, unless something was done at the eleventh hour
 
to overcome the dire consequences resulting from the negligence of his
 
ancestors. With superhuman energy this 'Friend of Mankind' made every
 
possible effort to counteract the effects of the carelessness and
 
thoughtlessness of his predecessors. Within one decade he strove to
 
repair the damage that had been done through centuries. If Destiny had
 
only granted him forty years for his labours, and if only two
 
generations had carried on the work which he had started, the miracle
 
might have been performed. But when he died, broken in body and spirit
 
after ten years of rulership, his work sank with him into the grave and
 
rests with him there in the Capucin Crypt, sleeping its eternal sleep,
 
having never again showed signs of awakening.
 
 
 
His successors had neither the ability nor the will-power necessary for
 
the task they had to face.
 
 
 
When the first signs of a new revolutionary epoch appeared in Europe
 
they gradually scattered the fire throughout Austria. And when the fire
 
began to glow steadily it was fed and fanned not by the social or
 
political conditions but by forces that had their origin in the
 
nationalist yearnings of the various ethnic groups.
 
 
 
The European revolutionary movement of 1848 primarily took the form of a
 
class conflict in almost every other country, but in Austria it took the
 
form of a new racial struggle. In so far as the German-Austrians there
 
forgot the origins of the movement, or perhaps had failed to recognize
 
them at the start and consequently took part in the revolutionary
 
uprising, they sealed their own fate. For they thus helped to awaken the
 
spirit of Western Democracy which, within a short while, shattered the
 
foundations of their own existence.
 
 
 
The setting up of a representative parliamentary body, without insisting
 
on the preliminary that only one language should be used in all public
 
intercourse under the State, was the first great blow to the
 
predominance of the German element in the Dual Monarchy. From that
 
moment the State was also doomed to collapse sooner or later. All that
 
followed was nothing but the historical liquidation of an Empire.
 
 
 
To watch that process of progressive disintegration was a tragic and at
 
the same time an instructive experience. The execution of history's
 
decree was carried out in thousands of details. The fact that great
 
numbers of people went about blindfolded amid the manifest signs of
 
dissolution only proves that the gods had decreed the destruction of
 
Austria.
 
 
 
I do not wish to dwell on details because that would lie outside the
 
scope of this book. I want to treat in detail only those events which
 
are typical among the causes that lead to the decline of nations and
 
States and which are therefore of importance to our present age.
 
Moreover, the study of these events helped to furnish the basis of my
 
own political outlook.
 
 
 
Among the institutions which most clearly manifested unmistakable signs
 
of decay, even to the weak-sighted Philistine, was that which, of all
 
the institutions of State, ought to have been the most firmly founded--I
 
mean the Parliament, or the Reichsrat (Imperial Council) as it was
 
called in Austria.
 
 
 
The pattern for this corporate body was obviously that which existed in
 
England, the land of classic democracy. The whole of that excellent
 
organization was bodily transferred to Austria with as little alteration
 
as possible.
 
 
 
As the Austrian counterpart to the British two-chamber system a Chamber
 
of Deputies and a House of Lords (HERRENHAUS) were established in
 
Vienna. The Houses themselves, considered as buildings 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 the inspiration of his work. In that history he
 
found sufficient material to fill and decorate the 1,200 niches,
 
brackets, and pillars of his magnificent edifice. His statues and
 
paintings made the House of Lords and the House of Commons temples
 
dedicated to the glory of the nation.
 
 
 
There it was that Vienna encountered the first difficulty. When Hansen,
 
the Danish architect, had completed the last gable of the marble palace
 
in which the new body of popular representatives was to be housed he had
 
to turn to the ancient classical world for subjects to fill out his
 
decorative plan. This theatrical shrine of 'Western Democracy' was
 
adorned with the statues and portraits of Greek and Roman statesmen and
 
philosophers. As if it were meant for a symbol of irony, the horses of
 
the quadriga that surmounts the two Houses are pulling apart from one
 
another towards all four quarters of the globe. There could be no better
 
symbol for the kind of activity going on within the walls of that same
 
building.
 
 
 
The 'nationalities' were opposed to any kind of glorification of
 
Austrian history in the decoration of this building, insisting that such
 
would constitute an offence to them and a provocation. Much the same
 
happened in Germany, where the Reich-stag, built by Wallot, was not
 
dedicated to the German people until the cannons were thundering in the
 
World War. And then it was dedicated by an inscription.
 
 
 
I was not yet twenty years of age when I first entered the Palace on the
 
Franzens-ring to watch and listen in the Chamber of Deputies. That first
 
experience aroused in me a profound feeling of repugnance.
 
 
 
I had always hated the Parliament, but not as an institution in itself.
 
Quite the contrary. As one who cherished ideals of political freedom I
 
could not even imagine any other form of government. In the light of my
 
attitude towards the House of Habsburg I should then have considered it
 
a crime against liberty and reason to think of any kind of dictatorship
 
as a possible form of government.
 
 
 
A certain admiration which I had for the British Parliament contributed
 
towards the formation of this opinion. I became imbued with that feeling
 
of admiration almost without my being conscious of the effect of it
 
through so much reading of newspapers while I was yet quite young. I
 
could not discard that admiration all in a moment. The dignified way in
 
which the British House of Commons fulfilled its function impressed me
 
greatly, thanks largely to the glowing terms in which the Austrian Press
 
reported these events. I used to ask myself whether there could be any
 
nobler form of government than self-government by the people.
 
 
 
But these considerations furnished the very motives of my hostility to
 
the Austrian Parliament. The form in which parliamentary government was
 
here represented seemed unworthy of its great prototype. The following
 
considerations also influenced my attitude:
 
 
 
The fate of the German element in the Austrian State depended on its
 
position in Parliament. Up to the time that universal suffrage by secret
 
ballot was introduced the German representatives had a majority in the
 
Parliament, though that majority was not a very substantial one. This
 
situation gave cause for anxiety because the Social-Democratic fraction
 
of the German element could not be relied upon when national questions
 
were at stake. In matters that were of critical concern for the German
 
element, the Social-Democrats always took up an anti-German stand
 
because they were afraid of losing their followers among the other
 
national groups. Already at that time--before the introduction of
 
universal suffrage--the Social-Democratic Party could no longer be
 
considered as a German Party. The introduction of universal suffrage put
 
an end even to the purely numerical predominance of the German element.
 
The way was now clear for the further 'de-Germanization' of the Austrian
 
State.
 
 
 
The national instinct of self-preservation made it impossible for me to
 
welcome a representative system in which the German element was not
 
really represented as such, but always betrayed by the Social-Democratic
 
fraction. Yet all these, and many others, were defects which could not
 
be attributed to the parliamentary system as such, but rather to the
 
Austrian State in particular. I still believed that if the German
 
majority could be restored in the representative body there would be no
 
occasion to oppose such a system as long as the old Austrian State
 
continued to exist.
 
 
 
Such was my general attitude at the time when I first entered those
 
sacred and contentious halls. For me they were sacred only because of
 
the radiant beauty of that majestic edifice. A Greek wonder on German
 
soil.
 
 
 
But I soon became enraged by the hideous spectacle that met my eyes.
 
Several hundred representatives were there to discuss a problem of great
 
economical importance and each representative had the right to have his
 
say.
 
 
 
That experience of a day was enough to supply me with food for thought
 
during several weeks afterwards.
 
 
 
The intellectual level of the debate was quite low. Some times the
 
debaters did not make themselves intelligible at all. Several of those
 
present did not speak German but only their Slav vernaculars or
 
dialects. Thus I had the opportunity of hearing with my own ears what I
 
had been hitherto acquainted with only through reading the newspapers. A
 
turbulent mass of people, all gesticulating and bawling against one
 
another, with a pathetic old man shaking his bell and making frantic
 
efforts to call the House to a sense of its dignity by friendly appeals,
 
exhortations, and grave warnings.
 
 
 
I could not refrain from laughing.
 
 
 
Several weeks later I paid a second visit. This time the House presented
 
an entirely different picture, so much so that one could hardly
 
recognize it as the same place. The hall was practically empty. They
 
were sleeping in the other rooms below. Only a few deputies were in
 
their places, yawning in each other's faces. One was speechifying. A
 
deputy speaker was in the chair. When he looked round it was quite plain
 
that he felt bored.
 
 
 
Then I began to reflect seriously on the whole thing. I went to the
 
Parliament whenever I had any time to spare and watched the spectacle
 
silently but attentively. I listened to the debates, as far as they
 
could be understood, and I studied the more or less intelligent features
 
of those 'elect' representatives of the various nationalities which
 
composed that motley State. Gradually I formed my own ideas about what I
 
saw.
 
 
 
A year of such quiet observation was sufficient to transform or
 
completely destroy my former convictions as to the character of this
 
parliamentary institution. I no longer opposed merely the perverted form
 
which the principle of parliamentary representation had assumed in
 
Austria. No. It had become impossible for me to accept the system in
 
itself. Up to that time I had believed that the disastrous deficiencies
 
of the Austrian Parliament were due to the lack of a German majority,
 
but now I recognized that the institution itself was wrong in its very
 
essence and form.
 
 
 
A number of problems presented themselves before my mind. I studied more
 
closely the democratic principle of 'decision by the majority vote', and
 
I scrutinized no less carefully the intellectual and moral worth of the
 
gentlemen who, as the chosen representatives of the nation, were
 
entrusted with the task of making this institution function.
 
 
 
Thus it happened that at one and the same time I came to know the
 
institution itself and those of whom it was composed. And it was thus
 
that, within the course of a few years, I came to form a clear and vivid
 
picture of the average type of that most lightly worshipped phenomenon
 
of our time--the parliamentary deputy. The picture of him which I then
 
formed became deeply engraved on my mind and I have never altered it
 
since, at least as far as essentials go.
 
 
 
Once again these object-lessons taken from real life saved me from
 
getting firmly entangled by a theory which at first sight seems so
 
alluring to many people, though that theory itself is a symptom of human
 
decadence.
 
 
 
Democracy, as practised in Western Europe to-day, is the fore-runner of
 
Marxism. In fact, the latter would not be conceivable without the
 
former. Democracy is the breeding-ground in which the bacilli of the
 
Marxist world pest can grow and spread. By the introduction of
 
parliamentarianism, democracy produced an abortion of filth and fire
 
(Note 6), the creative fire of which, however, seems to have died out.
 
 
 
[Note 6. SPOTTGEBURT VON DRECK UND FEUER. This is the epithet that Faust
 
hurls at Mephistopheles as the latter intrudes on the conversation
 
between Faust and Martha in the garden:
 
 
 
Mephistopheles: Thou, full of sensual, super-sensual desire,
 
                A girl by the nose is leading thee.
 
Faust: Abortion, thou of filth and fire.]
 
 
 
I am more than grateful to Fate that this problem came to my notice when
 
I was still in Vienna; for if I had been in Germany at that time I might
 
easily have found only a superficial solution. If I had been in Berlin
 
when I first discovered what an illogical thing this institution is
 
which we call Parliament, I might easily have gone to the other extreme
 
and believed--as many people believed, and apparently not without good
 
reason--that the salvation of the people and the Empire could be secured
 
only by restrengthening the principle of imperial authority. Those who
 
had this belief did not discern the tendencies of their time and were
 
blind to the aspirations of the people.
 
 
 
In Austria one could not be so easily misled. There it was impossible to
 
fall from one error into another. If the Parliament were worthless, the
 
Habsburgs were worse; or at least not in the slightest degree better.
 
The problem was not solved by rejecting the parliamentary system.
 
Immediately the question arose: What then? To repudiate and abolish the
 
Vienna Parliament would have resulted in leaving all power in the hands
 
of the Habsburgs. For me, 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 of the whole
 
question more thoroughly than I otherwise should have done.
 
 
 
The aspect of the situation that first made the most striking impression
 
on me and gave me grounds for serious reflection was the manifest lack
 
of any individual responsibility in the representative body.
 
 
 
The parliament passes some acts or decree which may have the most
 
devastating consequences, yet nobody bears the responsibility for it.
 
Nobody can be called to account. For surely one cannot say that a
 
Cabinet discharges its responsibility when it retires after having
 
brought about a catastrophe. Or can we say that the responsibility is
 
fully discharged when a new coalition is formed or parliament dissolved?
 
Can the principle of responsibility mean anything else than the
 
responsibility of a definite person?
 
 
 
Is it at all possible actually to call to account the leaders of a
 
parliamentary government for any kind of action which originated in the
 
wishes of the whole multitude of deputies and was carried out under
 
their orders or sanction? Instead of developing constructive ideas and
 
plans, does the business of a statesman consist in the art of making a
 
whole pack of blockheads understand his projects? Is it his business to
 
entreat and coach them so that they will grant him their generous
 
consent?
 
 
 
Is it an indispensable quality in a statesman that he should possess a
 
gift of persuasion commensurate with the statesman's ability to conceive
 
great political measures and carry them through into practice?
 
 
 
Does it really prove that a statesman is incompetent if he should fail
 
to win over a majority of votes to support his policy in an assembly
 
which has been called together as the chance result of an electoral
 
system that is not always honestly administered.
 
 
 
Has there ever been a case where such an assembly has worthily appraised
 
a great political concept before that concept was put into practice and
 
its greatness openly demonstrated through its success?
 
 
 
In this world is not the creative act of the genius always a protest
 
against the inertia of the mass?
 
 
 
What shall the statesman do if he does not succeed in coaxing the
 
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 fellow citizens,
 
should he then refrain from pushing forward the measures which 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 himself face to
 
face with an insoluble contradiction between his own political insight
 
on the one hand and, on the other, his moral integrity, or, better
 
still, his sense of honesty?
 
 
 
Where can we draw the line between public duty and personal honour?
 
 
 
Must not every genuine leader renounce the idea of degrading himself 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 never rest with him
 
personally but with an anonymous mass which can never be called to
 
account for their deeds?
 
 
 
Must not our parliamentary principle of government by numerical majority
 
necessarily lead to the destruction of the principle of leadership?
 
 
 
Does anybody honestly believe that human progress originates in the
 
composite brain of the majority and not in the brain of the individual
 
personality?
 
 
 
Or may it be presumed that for the future human civilization will be
 
able to dispense with this as a condition of its existence?
 
 
 
But may it not be that, to-day, more than ever before, the creative
 
brain of the individual is indispensable?
 
 
 
The parliamentary principle of vesting legislative power in the decision
 
of the majority rejects the authority of the individual and puts a
 
numerical quota of anonymous heads in its place. In doing so it
 
contradicts the aristrocratic principle, which is a fundamental law of
 
nature; but, of course, we must remember that in this decadent era of
 
ours the aristrocratic principle need not be thought of as incorporated
 
in the upper ten thousand.
 
 
 
The devastating influence of this parliamentary institution might not
 
easily be recognized by those who read the Jewish Press, unless the
 
reader has learned how to think independently and examine the facts for
 
himself. This institution is primarily responsible for the crowded
 
inrush of mediocre people into the field of politics. Confronted with
 
such a phenomenon, a man who is endowed with real qualities of
 
leadership will be tempted to refrain from taking part in political
 
life; because under these circumstances the situation does not call for
 
a man who has a capacity for constructive statesmanship but rather for a
 
man who is capable of bargaining for the favour of the majority. Thus
 
the situation will appeal to small minds and will attract them
 
accordingly.
 
 
 
The narrower the mental outlook and the more meagre the amount of
 
knowledge in a political jobber, the more accurate is his estimate of
 
his own political stock, and thus he will be all the more inclined to
 
appreciate a system which does not demand creative genius or even
 
high-class talent; but rather that crafty kind of sagacity which makes
 
an efficient town clerk. Indeed, he values this kind of small craftiness
 
more than the political genius of a Pericles. Such a mediocrity does not
 
even have to worry about responsibility for what he does. From the
 
beginning he knows that whatever be the results of his 'statesmanship'
 
his end is already prescribed by the stars; he will one day have to
 
clear out and make room for another who is of similar mental calibre.
 
For it is another sign of our decadent times that the number of eminent
 
statesmen grows according as the calibre of individual personality
 
dwindles. That calibre will become smaller and smaller the more the
 
individual politician has to depend upon parliamentary majorities. A man
 
of real political ability will refuse to be the beadle for a bevy of
 
footling cacklers; and they in their turn, being the representatives of
 
the majority--which means the dunder-headed multitude--hate nothing so
 
much as a superior brain.
 
 
 
For footling deputies it is always quite a consolation to be led by a
 
person whose intellectual stature is on a level with their own. Thus
 
each one may have the opportunity to shine in debate among such compeers
 
and, above all, each one feels that he may one day rise to the top. If
 
Peter be boss to-day, then why not Paul tomorrow?
 
 
 
This new invention of democracy is very closely connected with a
 
peculiar phenomenon which has recently spread to a pernicious extent,
 
namely the cowardice of a large section of our so-called political
 
leaders. Whenever important decisions have to be made they always find
 
themselves fortunate in being able to hide behind the backs of what they
 
call the majority.
 
 
 
In observing one of these political manipulators one notices how he
 
wheedles the majority in order to get their sanction for whatever action
 
he takes. He has to have accomplices in order to be able to shift
 
responsibility to other shoulders whenever it is opportune to do so.
 
That is the main reason why this kind of political activity is abhorrent
 
to men of character and courage, while at the same time it attracts
 
inferior types; for a person who is not willing to accept responsibility
 
for his own actions, but is always seeking to be covered by something,
 
must be classed among the knaves and the rascals. If a national leader
 
should come from that lower class of politicians the evil consequences
 
will soon manifest themselves. Nobody will then have the courage to take
 
a decisive step. They will submit to abuse and defamation rather than
 
pluck up courage to take a definite stand. And thus nobody is left who
 
is willing to risk his position and his career, if needs be, in support
 
of a determined line of policy.
 
 
 
One truth which must always be borne in mind is that the majority can
 
never replace the man. The majority represents not only ignorance but
 
also cowardice. And just as a hundred blockheads do not equal one man of
 
wisdom, so a hundred poltroons are incapable of any political line of
 
action that requires moral strength and fortitude.
 
 
 
The lighter the burden of responsibility on each individual leader, the
 
greater will be the number of those who, in spite of their sorry
 
mediocrity, will feel the call to place their immortal energies at the
 
disposal of the nation. They are so much on the tip-toe of expectation
 
that they find it hard to wait their turn. They stand in a long queue,
 
painfully and sadly counting the number of those ahead of them and
 
calculating the hours until they may eventually come forward. They watch
 
every change that takes place in the personnel of the office towards
 
which their hopes are directed, and they are grateful for every scandal
 
which removes one of the aspirants waiting ahead of them in the queue.
 
If somebody sticks too long to his office stool they consider this as
 
almost a breach of a sacred understanding based on their mutual
 
solidarity. They grow furious and give no peace until that inconsiderate
 
person is finally driven out and forced to hand over his cosy berth for
 
public disposal. After that he will have little chance of getting
 
another opportunity. Usually those placemen who have been forced to give
 
up their posts push themselves again into the waiting queue unless they
 
are hounded away by the protestations of the other aspirants.
 
 
 
The result of all this is that, in such a State, the succession of
 
sudden changes in public positions and public offices has a very
 
disquieting effect in general, which may easily lead to disaster when an
 
adverse crisis arises. It is not only the ignorant and the incompetent
 
person who may fall victim to those parliamentary conditions, for the
 
genuine leader may be affected just as much as the others, if not more
 
so, whenever Fate has chanced to place a capable man in the position of
 
leader. Let the superior quality of such a leader be once recognized and
 
the result will be that a joint front will be organized against him,
 
particularly if that leader, though not coming from their ranks, should
 
fall into the habit of intermingling with these illustrious nincompoops
 
on their own level. They want to have only their own company and will
 
quickly take a hostile attitude towards any man who might show himself
 
obviously above and beyond them when he mingles in their ranks. Their
 
instinct, which is so blind in other directions, is very sharp in this
 
particular.
 
 
 
The inevitable result is that the intellectual level of the ruling class
 
sinks steadily. One can easily forecast how much the nation and State
 
are bound to suffer from such a condition of affairs, provided one does
 
not belong to that same class of 'leaders'.
 
 
 
The parliamentary régime in the old Austria was the very archetype of
 
the institution as I have described it.
 
 
 
Though the Austrian Prime Minister was appointed by the King-Emperor,
 
this act of appointment merely gave practical effect to the will of the
 
parliament. The huckstering and bargaining that went on in regard to
 
every ministerial position showed all the typical marks of Western
 
Democracy. The results that followed were in keeping with the principles
 
applied. The intervals between the replacement of one person by another
 
gradually became shorter, finally ending up in a wild relay chase. With
 
each change the quality of the 'statesman' in question deteriorated,
 
until finally only the petty type of political huckster remained. In
 
such people the qualities of statesmanship were measured and valued
 
according to the adroitness with which they pieced together one
 
coalition after another; in other words, their craftiness in
 
manipulating the pettiest political transactions, which is the only kind
 
of practical activity suited to the aptitudes of these representatives.
 
 
 
In this sphere Vienna was the school which offered the most impressive
 
examples.
 
 
 
Another feature that engaged my attention quite as much as the features
 
I have already spoken of was the contrast between the talents and
 
knowledge of these representatives of the people on the one hand and, on
 
the other, the nature of the tasks they had to face. Willingly or
 
unwillingly, one could not help thinking seriously of the narrow
 
intellectual outlook of these chosen representatives of the various
 
constituent nationalities, and one could not avoid pondering on the
 
methods through which these noble figures in our public life were first
 
discovered.
 
 
 
It was worth while to make a thorough study and examination of the way
 
in which the real talents of these gentlemen were devoted to the service
 
of their country; in other words, to analyse thoroughly the technical
 
procedure of their activities.
 
 
 
The whole spectacle of parliamentary life became more and more desolate
 
the more one penetrated into its intimate structure and studied the
 
persons and principles of the system in a spirit of ruthless
 
objectivity. Indeed, it is very necessary to be strictly objective in
 
the study of the institution whose sponsors talk of 'objectivity' in
 
every other sentence as the only fair basis of examination and judgment.
 
If one studied these gentlemen and the laws of their strenuous existence
 
the results were surprising.
 
 
 
There is no other principle which turns out to be quite so ill-conceived
 
as the parliamentary principle, if we examine it objectively.
 
 
 
In our examination of it we may pass over the methods according to which
 
the election of the representatives takes place, as well as the ways
 
which bring them into office and bestow new titles on them. It is quite
 
evident that only to a tiny degree are public wishes or public
 
necessities satisfied by the manner in which an election takes place;
 
for everybody who properly estimates the political intelligence of the
 
masses can easily see that this is not sufficiently developed to enable
 
them to form general political judgments on their own account, or to
 
select the men who might be competent 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 or individual
 
insight. The greater portion of it results from the manner in which
 
public matters have been presented to the people through an
 
overwhelmingly impressive and persistent system of 'information'.
 
 
 
In the religious sphere the profession of a denominational belief is
 
largely the result of education, while the religious yearning itself
 
slumbers in the soul; so too the political opinions of the masses are
 
the final result of influences systematically operating on human
 
sentiment and intelligence in virtue of a method which is applied
 
sometimes with almost-incredible thoroughness and perseverance.
 
 
 
By far the most effective branch of political education, which in this
 
connection is best expressed by the word 'propaganda', is carried on by
 
the Press. The Press is the chief means employed in the process of
 
political 'enlightenment'. It represents a kind of school for adults.
 
This educational activity, however, is not in the hands of the State but
 
in the clutches of powers which are partly of a very inferior character.
 
While still a young man in Vienna I had excellent opportunities for
 
coming to know the men who owned this machine for mass instruction, as
 
well as those who supplied it with the ideas it distributed. At first I
 
was quite surprised when I realized how little time was necessary for
 
this dangerous Great Power within the State to produce a certain belief
 
among the public; and in doing so the genuine will and convictions of
 
the public were often completely misconstrued. It took the Press only a
 
few days to transform some ridiculously trivial matter into an issue of
 
national importance, while vital problems were completely ignored or
 
filched and hidden away from public attention.
 
 
 
The Press succeeded in the magical art of producing names from nowhere
 
within the course of a few weeks. They made it appear that the great
 
hopes of the masses were bound up with those names. And so they made
 
those names more popular than any man of real ability could ever hope to
 
be in a long lifetime. All this was done, despite the fact that such
 
names were utterly unknown and indeed had never been heard of even up to
 
a month before the Press publicly emblazoned them. At the same time old
 
and tried figures in the political and other spheres of life quickly
 
faded from the public memory and were forgotten as if they were dead,
 
though still healthy and in the enjoyment of their full viguour. Or
 
sometimes such men were so vilely abused that it looked as if their
 
names would soon stand as permanent symbols of the worst kind of
 
baseness. In order to estimate properly the really pernicious influence
 
which the Press can exercise one had to study this infamous Jewish
 
method whereby honourable and decent people were besmirched with mud and
 
filth, in the form of low abuse and slander, from hundreds and hundreds
 
of quarters simultaneously, as if commanded by some magic formula.
 
 
 
These highway robbers would grab at anything which might serve their
 
evil ends.
 
 
 
They would poke their noses into the most intimate family affairs and
 
would not rest until they had sniffed out some petty item which could be
 
used to destroy the reputation of their victim. But if the result of all
 
this sniffing should be that nothing derogatory was discovered in the
 
private or public life of the victim, they continued to hurl abuse at
 
him, in the belief that some of their animadversions would stick even
 
though refuted a thousand times. In most cases it finally turned out
 
impossible for the victim to continue his defence, because the accuser
 
worked together with so many accomplices that his slanders were
 
re-echoed interminably. But these slanderers would never own that they
 
were acting from motives which influence the common run of humanity or
 
are understood by them. Oh, no. The scoundrel who defamed his
 
contemporaries in this villainous way would crown himself with a halo of
 
heroic probity fashioned of unctuous phraseology and twaddle about his
 
'duties as a journalist' and other mouldy nonsense of that kind. When
 
these cuttle-fishes gathered together in large shoals at meetings and
 
congresses they would give out a lot of slimy talk about a special kind
 
of honour which they called the professional honour of the journalist.
 
Then the assembled species would bow their respects to one another.
 
 
 
These are the kind of beings that fabricate more than two-thirds of what
 
is called public opinion, from the foam of which the parliamentary
 
Aphrodite eventually arises.
 
 
 
Several volumes would be needed if one were to give an adequate account
 
of the whole procedure and fully describe all its hollow fallacies. But
 
if we pass over the details and look at the product itself while it is
 
in operation I think this alone will be sufficient to open the eyes of
 
even the most innocent and credulous person, so that he may recognize
 
the absurdity of this institution by looking at it objectively.
 
 
 
In order to realize how this human aberration is as harmful as it is
 
absurd, the test and easiest method is to compare democratic
 
parliamentarianism with a genuine German democracy.
 
 
 
The remarkable characteristic of the parliamentary form of democracy is
 
the fact that a number of persons, let us say five hundred--including,
 
in recent time, women also--are elected to parliament and invested with
 
authority to give final judgment on anything and everything. In practice
 
they alone are the governing body; for although they may appoint a
 
Cabinet, which seems outwardly to direct the affairs of state, this
 
Cabinet has not a real existence of its own. In reality the so-called
 
Government cannot do anything against the will of the assembly. It can
 
never be called to account for anything, since the right of decision is
 
not vested in the Cabinet but in the parliamentary majority. The Cabinet
 
always functions only as the executor of the will of the majority. Its
 
political ability can be judged only according to how far it succeeds in
 
adjusting itself to the will of the majority or in persuading the
 
majority to agree to its proposals. But this means that it must descend
 
from the level of a real governing power to that of a mendicant who has
 
to beg the approval of a majority that may be got together for the time
 
being. Indeed, the chief preoccupation of the Cabinet must be to secure
 
for itself, in the case of' each individual measure, the favour of the
 
majority then in power or, failing that, to form a new majority that
 
will be more favourably disposed. If it should succeed in either of
 
these efforts it may go on 'governing' for a little while. If it should
 
fail to win or form a majority it must retire. The question whether its
 
policy as such has been right or wrong does not matter at all.
 
 
 
Thereby all responsibility is abolished in practice. To what
 
consequences such a state of affairs can lead may easily be understood
 
from the following simple considerations:
 
 
 
Those five hundred deputies who have been elected by the people come
 
from various dissimilar callings in life and show very varying degrees
 
of political capacity, with the result that the whole combination is
 
disjointed and sometimes presents quite a sorry picture. Surely nobody
 
believes that these chosen representatives of the nation are the choice
 
spirits or first-class intellects. Nobody, I hope, is foolish enough to
 
pretend that hundreds of statesmen can emerge from papers placed in the
 
ballot box by electors who are anything else but averagely intelligent.
 
The absurd notion that men of genius are born out of universal suffrage
 
cannot be too strongly repudiated. In the first place, those times may
 
be really called blessed when one genuine statesman makes his appearance
 
among a people. Such statesmen do not appear all at once in hundreds or
 
more. Secondly, among the broad masses there is instinctively a definite
 
antipathy towards every outstanding genius. There is a better chance of
 
seeing a camel pass through the eye of a needle than of seeing a really
 
great man 'discovered' through an election.
 
 
 
Whatever has happened in history above the level of the average of the
 
broad public has mostly been due to the driving force of an individual
 
personality.
 
 
 
But here five hundred persons of less than modest intellectual qualities
 
pass judgment on the most important problems affecting the nation. They
 
form governments which in turn learn to win the approval of the
 
illustrious assembly for every legislative step that may be taken, which
 
means that the policy to be carried out is actually the policy of the
 
five hundred.
 
 
 
And indeed, generally speaking, the policy bears the stamp of its
 
origin.
 
 
 
But let us pass over the intellectual qualities of these representatives
 
and ask what is the nature of the task set before them. If we consider
 
the fact that the problems which have to be discussed and solved belong
 
to the most varied and diverse fields we can very well realize how
 
inefficient a governing system must be which entrusts the right of
 
decision to a mass assembly in which only very few possess the knowledge
 
and experience such as would qualify them to deal with the matters that
 
have to be settled. The most important economic measures are submitted
 
to a tribunal in which not more than one-tenth of the members have
 
studied the elements of economics. This means that final authority is
 
vested in men who are utterly devoid of any preparatory training which
 
might make them competent to decide on the questions at issue.
 
 
 
The same holds true of every other problem. It is always a majority of
 
ignorant and incompetent people who decide on each measure; for the
 
composition of the institution does not vary, while the problems to be
 
dealt with come from the most varied spheres of public life. An
 
intelligent judgment would be possible only if different deputies had
 
the authority to deal with different issues. It is out of the question
 
to think that the same people are fitted to decide on transport
 
questions as well as, let us say, on questions of foreign policy, unless
 
each of them be a universal genius. But scarcely more than one genius
 
appears in a century. Here we are scarcely ever dealing with real
 
brains, but only with dilettanti who are as narrow-minded as they are
 
conceited and arrogant, intellectual DEMI-MONDES of the worst kind. This
 
is why these honourable gentlemen show such astonishing levity in
 
discussing and deciding on matters that would demand the most
 
painstaking consideration even from great minds. Measures of momentous
 
importance for the future existence of the State are framed and
 
discussed in an atmosphere more suited to the card-table. Indeed the
 
latter suggests a much more fitting occupation for these gentlemen than
 
that of deciding the destinies of a people.
 
 
 
Of course it would be unfair to assume that each member in such a
 
parliament was endowed by nature with such a small sense of
 
responsibility. That is out of the question.
 
 
 
But this system, by forcing the individual to pass judgment on questions
 
for which he is not competent gradually debases his moral character.
 
Nobody will have the courage to say: "Gentlemen, I am afraid we know
 
nothing about what we are talking about. I for one have no competency in
 
the matter at all." Anyhow if such a declaration were made it would not
 
change matters very much; for such outspoken honesty would not be
 
understood. The person who made the declaration would be deemed an
 
honourable ass who ought not to be allowed to spoil the game. Those who
 
have a knowledge of human nature know that nobody likes to be considered
 
a fool among his associates; and in certain circles honesty is taken as
 
an index of stupidity.
 
 
 
Thus it happens that a naturally upright man, once he finds himself
 
elected to parliament, may eventually be induced by the force of
 
circumstances to acquiesce in a general line of conduct which is base in
 
itself and amounts to a betrayal of the public trust. That feeling that
 
if the individual refrained from taking part in a certain decision his
 
attitude would not alter the situation in the least, destroys every real
 
sense of honour which might occasionally arouse the conscience of one
 
person or another. Finally, the otherwise upright deputy will succeed in
 
persuading himself that he is by no means the worst of the lot and that
 
by taking part in a certain line of action he may prevent something
 
worse from happening.
 
 
 
A counter argument may be put forward here. It may be said that of
 
course the individual member may not have the knowledge which is
 
requisite for the treatment of this or that question, yet his attitude
 
towards it is taken on the advice of his Party as the guiding authority
 
in each political matter; and it may further be said that the Party sets
 
up special committees of experts who have even more than the requisite
 
knowledge for dealing with the questions placed before them.
 
 
 
At first sight, that argument seems sound. But then another question
 
arises--namely, why are five hundred persons elected if only a few have
 
the wisdom which is required to deal with the more important problems?
 
 
 
It is not the aim of our modern democratic parliamentary system to bring
 
together an assembly of intelligent and well-informed deputies. Not at
 
all. The aim rather is to bring together a group of nonentities who are
 
dependent on others for their views and who can be all the more easily
 
led, the narrower the mental outlook of each individual is. That is the
 
only way in which a party policy, according to the evil meaning it has
 
to-day, can be put into effect. And by this method alone it is possible
 
for the wirepuller, who exercises the real control, to remain in the
 
dark, so that personally he can never be brought to account for his
 
actions. For under such circumstances none of the decisions taken, no
 
matter how disastrous they may turn out for the nation as a whole, can
 
be laid at the door of the individual whom everybody knows to be the
 
evil genius responsible for the whole affair. All responsibility is
 
shifted to the shoulders of the Party as a whole.
 
 
 
In practice no actual responsibility remains. For responsibility arises
 
only from personal duty and not from the obligations that rest with a
 
parliamentary assembly of empty talkers.
 
 
 
The parliamentary institution attracts people of the badger type, who do
 
not like the open light. No upright man, who is ready to accept personal
 
responsibility for his acts, will be attracted to such an institution.
 
 
 
That is the reason why this brand of democracy has become a tool in the
 
hand of that race which, because of the inner purposes it wishes to
 
attain, must shun the open light, as it has always done and always will
 
do. Only a Jew can praise an institution which is as corrupt and false
 
as himself.
 
 
 
As a contrast to this kind of democracy we have the German democracy,
 
which is a true democracy; for here the leader is freely chosen and is
 
obliged to accept full responsibility for all his actions and omissions.
 
The problems to be dealt with are not put to the vote of the majority;
 
but they are decided upon by the individual, and as a guarantee of
 
responsibility for those decisions he pledges all he has in the world
 
and even his life.
 
 
 
The objection may be raised here that under such conditions it would be
 
very difficult to find a man who would be ready to devote himself to so
 
fateful a task. The answer to that objection is as follows:
 
 
 
We thank God that the inner spirit of our German democracy will of
 
itself prevent the chance careerist, who may be intellectually worthless
 
and a moral twister, from coming by devious ways to a position in which
 
he may govern his fellow-citizens. The fear of undertaking such
 
far-reaching responsibilities, under German democracy, will scare off
 
the ignorant and the feckless.
 
 
 
But should it happen that such a person might creep in surreptitiously
 
it will be easy enough to identify him and apostrophize him ruthlessly.
 
somewhat thus: "Be off, you scoundrel. Don't soil these steps with your
 
feet; because these are the steps that lead to the portals of the
 
Pantheon of History, and they are not meant for place-hunters but for
 
men of noble character."
 
 
 
Such were the views I formed after two years of attendance at the
 
sessions of the Viennese Parliament. Then I went there no more.
 
 
 
The parliamentary regime became one of the causes why the strength of
 
the Habsburg State steadily declined during the last years of its
 
existence. The more the predominance of the German element was whittled
 
away through parliamentary procedure, the more prominent became the
 
system of playing off one of the various constituent nationalities
 
against the other. In the Imperial Parliament it was always the German
 
element that suffered through the system, which meant that the results
 
were detrimental to the Empire as a whole; for at the close of the
 
century even the most simple-minded people could recognize that the
 
cohesive forces within the Dual Monarchy no longer sufficed to
 
counterbalance the separatist tendencies of the provincial
 
nationalities. On the contrary!
 
 
 
The measures which the State adopted for its own maintenance became more
 
and more mean spirited and in a like degree the general disrespect for
 
the State increased. Not only Hungary but also the various Slav
 
provinces gradually ceased to identify themselves with the monarchy
 
which embraced them all, and accordingly they did not feel its weakness
 
as in any way detrimental to themselves. They rather welcomed those
 
manifestations of senile decay. They looked forward to the final
 
dissolution of the State, and not to its recovery.
 
 
 
The complete collapse was still forestalled in Parliament by the
 
humiliating concessions that were made to every kind of importunate
 
demands, at the cost of the German element. Throughout the country the
 
defence of the State rested on playing off the various nationalities
 
against one another. But the general trend of this development was
 
directed against the Germans. Especially since the right of succession
 
to the throne conferred certain influence on the Archduke Franz
 
Ferdinand, the policy of increasing the power of the Czechs was carried
 
out systematically from the upper grades of the administration down to
 
the lower. With all the means at his command the heir to the Dual
 
Monarchy personally furthered the policy that aimed at eliminating the
 
influence of the German element, or at least he acted as protector of
 
that policy. By the use of State officials as tools, purely German
 
districts were gradually but decisively brought within the danger zone
 
of the mixed languages. Even in Lower Austria this process began to make
 
headway with a constantly increasing tempo and Vienna was looked upon by
 
the Czechs as their biggest city.
 
 
 
In the family circle of this new Habsburger the Czech language was
 
favoured. The wife of the Archduke had formerly been a Czech Countess
 
and was wedded to the Prince by a morganatic marriage. She came from an
 
environment where hostility to the Germans had been traditional. The
 
leading idea in the mind of the Archduke was to establish a Slav State
 
in Central Europe, which was to be constructed on a purely Catholic
 
basis, so as to serve as a bulwark against Orthodox Russia.
 
 
 
As had happened often in Habsburg history, religion was thus exploited
 
to serve a purely political policy, and in this case a fatal 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 received the
 
reward which they expected. Habsburg lost the throne and the Church lost
 
a great State. By employing religious motives in the service of
 
politics, a spirit was aroused which the instigators of that policy had
 
never thought possible.
 
 
 
From the attempt to exterminate Germanism in the old monarchy by every
 
available means arose the Pan-German Movement in Austria, as a response.
 
 
 
In the 'eighties of the last century Manchester Liberalism, which was
 
Jewish in its fundamental ideas, had reached the zenith of its influence
 
in the Dual Monarchy, or had already passed that point. The reaction
 
which set in did not arise from social but from nationalistic
 
tendencies, as was always the case in the old Austria. The instinct of
 
self-preservation drove the German element to defend itself
 
energetically. Economic considerations only slowly began to gain an
 
important influence; but they were of secondary concern. But of the
 
general political chaos two party organizations emerged. The one was
 
more of a national, and the other more of a social, character; but both
 
were highly interesting and instructive for the future.
 
 
 
After the war of 1866, which had resulted in the humiliation of Austria,
 
the House of Habsburg contemplated a REVANCHE on the battlefield. Only
 
the tragic end of the Emperor Maximilian of Mexico prevented a still
 
closer collaboration with France. The chief blame for Maximilian's
 
disastrous expedition was attributed to Napoleon III and the fact that
 
the Frenchman left him in the lurch aroused a general feeling of
 
indignation. Yet the Habsburgs were still lying in wait for their
 
opportunity. If the war of 1870-71 had not been such a singular triumph,
 
the Viennese Court might have chanced the game of blood in order to get
 
its revenge for Sadowa. But when the first reports arrived from the
 
Franco-German battlefield, which, though true, seemed miraculous and
 
almost incredible, the 'most wise' of all monarchs recognized that the
 
moment was inopportune and tried to accept the unfavourable situation
 
with as good a grace as possible.
 
 
 
The heroic conflict of those two years (1870-71) produced a still
 
greater miracle; for with the Habsburgs the change of attitude never
 
came from an inner heartfelt urge but only from the pressure of
 
circumstances. The German people of the East Mark, however, were
 
entranced by the triumphant glory of the newly established German Empire
 
and were profoundly moved when they saw the dream of their fathers
 
resurgent in a magnificent reality.
 
 
 
For--let us make no mistake about it--the true German-Austrian realized
 
from this time onward, that Königgrätz was the tragic, though necessary,
 
pre-condition for the re-establishment of an Empire which should no
 
longer be burdened with the palsy of the old alliance and which indeed
 
had no share in that morbid decay. Above all, the German-Austrian had
 
come to feel in the very depths of his own being that the historical
 
mission of the House of Habsburg had come to an end and that the new
 
Empire could choose only an Emperor who was of heroic mould and was
 
therefore worthy to wear the 'Crown of the Rhine'. It was right and just
 
that Destiny should be praised for having chosen a scion of that House
 
of which Frederick the Great had in past times given the nation an
 
elevated and resplendent symbol for all time to come.
 
 
 
After the great war of 1870-71 the House of Habsburg set to work with
 
all its determination to exterminate the dangerous German element--about
 
whose inner feelings and attitude there could be no doubt--slowly but
 
deliberately. I use the word exterminate, because that alone expresses
 
what must have been the final result of the Slavophile policy. Then it
 
was that the fire of rebellion blazed up among the people whose
 
extermination had been decreed. That fire was such as had never been
 
witnessed in modern German history.
 
 
 
For the first time nationalists and patriots were transformed into
 
rebels.
 
 
 
Not rebels against the nation or the State as such but rebels against
 
that form of government which they were convinced, would inevitably
 
bring about the ruin of their own people. For the first time in modern
 
history the traditional dynastic patriotism and national love of
 
fatherland and people were in open conflict.
 
 
 
It was to the merit of the Pan-German movement in Austria during the
 
closing decade of the last century that it pointed out clearly and
 
unequivocally that a State is entitled to demand respect and protection
 
for its authority only when such authority is administered in accordance
 
with the interests of the nation, or at least 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 and sacred.
 
 
 
If a government uses the instruments of power in its hands for the
 
purpose of leading a people to ruin, then rebellion is not only the
 
right but also the duty of every individual citizen.
 
 
 
The question of whether and when such a situation exists cannot be
 
answered by theoretical dissertations but only by the exercise of force,
 
and it is success that decides the issue.
 
 
 
Every government, even though it may be the worst possible and even
 
though it may have betrayed the nation's trust in thousands of ways,
 
will claim that its duty is to uphold the authority of the State. Its
 
adversaries, who are fighting for national self-preservation, must use
 
the same weapons which the government uses if they are to prevail
 
against such a rule and secure their own freedom and independence.
 
Therefore the conflict will be fought out with 'legal' means as long as
 
the power which is to be overthrown uses them; but the insurgents will
 
not hesitate to apply illegal means if the oppressor himself employs
 
them.
 
 
 
Generally speaking, we must not forget that the highest aim of human
 
existence is not the maintenance of a State of Government but rather the
 
conservation of the race.
 
 
 
If the race is in danger of being oppressed or even exterminated the
 
question of legality is only of secondary importance. The established
 
power may in such a case employ only those means which are recognized as
 
'legal'. yet the instinct of self-preservation on the part of the
 
oppressed will always justify, to the highest degree, the employment of
 
all possible resources.
 
 
 
Only on the recognition of this principle was it possible for those
 
struggles to be carried through, of which history furnishes magnificent
 
examples in abundance, against foreign bondage or oppression at home.
 
 
 
Human rights are above the rights of the State. But if a people be
 
defeated in the struggle for its human rights this means that its weight
 
has proved too light in the scale of Destiny to have the luck of being
 
able to endure in this terrestrial world.
 
 
 
The world is not there to be possessed by the faint-hearted races.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Austria affords a very clear and striking example of how easy it is 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 based on the
 
anti-German attitude of the parliament, with its non-German majorities,
 
and on the dynastic House, which was also hostile to the German element.
 
The whole authority of the State was incorporated in these two factors.
 
To attempt to alter the lot of the German element through these two
 
factors would have been senseless. Those who advised the 'legal' way as
 
the only possible way, and also obedience to the State authority, could
 
offer no resistance; because a policy of resistance could not have been
 
put into effect through legal measures. To follow the advice of the
 
legalist counsellors would have meant the inevitable ruin of the German
 
element within the Monarchy, and this disaster would not have taken long
 
to come. The German element has actually been saved only because the
 
State as such collapsed.
 
 
 
The spectacled theorist would have given his life for his doctrine
 
rather than for his people.
 
 
 
Because man has made laws he subsequently comes to think that he exists
 
for the sake of the laws.
 
 
 
A great service rendered by the pan-German movement then was that it
 
abolished all such nonsense, though the doctrinaire theorists and other
 
fetish worshippers were shocked.
 
 
 
When the Habsburgs attempted to come to close quarters with the German
 
element, by the employment of all the means of attack which they had at
 
their command, the Pan-German Party hit out ruthlessly against the
 
'illustrious' dynasty. This Party was the first to probe into and expose
 
the corrupt condition of the State; and in doing so they opened the eyes
 
of hundreds of thousands. To have liberated the high ideal of love for
 
one's country from the embrace of this deplorable dynasty was one of the
 
great services rendered by the Pan-German movement.
 
 
 
When that Party first made its appearance it secured a large
 
following--indeed, the movement threatened to become almost an
 
avalanche. But the first successes were not maintained. At the time I
 
came to Vienna the pan-German Party had been eclipsed by the
 
Christian-Socialist Party, which had come into power in the meantime.
 
Indeed, the Pan-German Party had sunk to a level of almost complete
 
insignificance.
 
 
 
The rise and decline of the Pan-German movement on the one hand and the
 
marvellous progress of the Christian-Socialist Party on the other,
 
became a classic object of study for me, and as such they played an
 
important part in the development of my own views.
 
 
 
When I came to Vienna all my sympathies were exclusively with the
 
Pan-German Movement.
 
 
 
I was just as much impressed by the fact that they had the courage to
 
shout HEIL HOHENZOLLERN as I rejoiced at their determination to consider
 
themselves an integral part of the German Empire, from which they were
 
separated only provisionally. They never missed an opportunity to
 
explain their attitude in public, which raised my enthusiasm and
 
confidence. To avow one's principles publicly on every problem that
 
concerned Germanism, and never to make any compromises, seemed to me the
 
only way of saving our people. What I could not understand was how this
 
movement broke down so soon after such a magnificent start; and it was
 
no less incomprehensible that the Christian-Socialists should gain such
 
tremendous power within such a short time. They had just reached the
 
pinnacle of their popularity.
 
 
 
When I began to compare those two movements Fate placed before me the
 
best means of understanding the causes of this puzzling problem. The
 
action of Fate in this case was hastened by my own straitened
 
circumstances.
 
 
 
I shall begin my analysis with an account of the two men who must be
 
regarded as the founders and leaders of the two movements. These were
 
George von Schönerer and Dr. Karl Lueger.
 
 
 
As far as personality goes, both were far above the level and stature of
 
the so-called parliamentary figures. They lived lives of immaculate and
 
irreproachable probity amidst the miasma of all-round political
 
corruption. Personally I first liked the Pan-German representative,
 
Schönerer, and it was only afterwards and gradually that I felt an equal
 
liking for the Christian-Socialist leader.
 
 
 
When I compared their respective abilities Schönerer seemed to me a
 
better and more profound thinker on fundamental problems. He foresaw the
 
inevitable downfall of the Austrian State more clearly and accurately
 
than anyone else. If this warning in regard to the Habsburg Empire had
 
been heeded in Germany the disastrous world war, which involved Germany
 
against the whole of Europe, would never have taken place.
 
 
 
But though Schönerer succeeded in penetrating to the essentials of a
 
problem he was very often much mistaken in his judgment of men.
 
 
 
And herein lay Dr. Lueger's special talent. He had a rare gift of
 
insight into human nature and he was very careful not to take men as
 
something better than they were in reality. He based his plans on the
 
practical possibilities which human life offered him, whereas Schönerer
 
had only little discrimination in that respect. All ideas that this
 
Pan-German had were right in the abstract, but he did not have the
 
forcefulness or understanding necessary to put his ideas across to the
 
broad masses. He was not able to formulate them so that they could be
 
easily grasped by the masses, whose powers of comprehension are limited
 
and will always remain so. Therefore all Schönerer's knowledge was only
 
the wisdom of a prophet and he never could succeed in having it put into
 
practice.
 
 
 
This lack of insight into human nature led him to form a wrong estimate
 
of the forces behind certain movements and the inherent strength of old
 
institutions.
 
 
 
Schönerer indeed realized that the problems he had to deal with were in
 
the nature of a WELTANSCHAUUNG; but he did not understand that only the
 
broad masses of a nation can make such convictions prevail, which are
 
almost of a religious nature.
 
 
 
Unfortunately he understood only very imperfectly how feeble is the
 
fighting spirit of the so-called bourgeoisie. That weakness is due to
 
their business interests, which individuals are too much afraid of
 
risking and which therefore deter them from taking action. And,
 
generally speaking, a WELTANSCHAUUNG can have no prospect of success
 
unless the broad masses declare themselves ready to act as its
 
standard-bearers and to fight on its behalf wherever and to whatever
 
extent that may be necessary.
 
 
 
This failure to understand the importance of the lower strata of the
 
population resulted in a very inadequate concept of the social problem.
 
 
 
In all this Dr. Lueger was the opposite of Schönerer. His profound
 
knowledge of human nature enabled him to form a correct estimate of the
 
various social forces and it saved him from under-rating the power of
 
existing institutions. And it was perhaps this very quality which
 
enabled him to utilize those institutions as a means to serve the
 
purposes of his policy.
 
 
 
He saw only too clearly that, in our epoch, the political fighting power
 
of the upper classes is quite insignificant and not at all capable of
 
fighting for a great new movement until the triumph of that movement be
 
secured. Thus he devoted the greatest part of his political activity to
 
the task of winning over those sections of the population whose
 
existence was in danger and fostering the militant spirit in them rather
 
than attempting to paralyse it. He was also quick to adopt all available
 
means for winning the support of long-established institutions, so as to
 
be able to derive the greatest possible advantage for his movement from
 
those old sources of power.
 
 
 
Thus it was that, first of all, he chose as the social basis of his new
 
Party that middle class which was threatened with extinction. In this
 
way he secured a solid following which was willing to make great
 
sacrifices and had good fighting stamina. His extremely wise attitude
 
towards the Catholic Church rapidly won over the younger clergy in such
 
large numbers that the old Clerical Party was forced to retire from the
 
field of action or else, which was the wiser course, join the new Party,
 
in the hope of gradually winning back one position after another.
 
 
 
But it would be a serious injustice to the man if we were to regard this
 
as his essential characteristic. For he possessed the qualities of an
 
able tactician, and had the true genius of a great reformer; but all
 
these were limited by his exact perception of the possibilities at hand
 
and also of his own capabilities.
 
 
 
The aims which this really eminent man decided to pursue were intensely
 
practical. He wished to conquer Vienna, the heart of the Monarchy. It
 
was from Vienna that the last pulses of life beat through the diseased
 
and worn-out body of the decrepit Empire. If the heart could be made
 
healthier the others parts of the body were bound to revive. That idea
 
was correct in principle; but the time within 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 are immortal, in
 
the best sense of the word. But all that could not save the Monarchy. It
 
came too late.
 
 
 
His rival, Schönerer, saw this more clearly. What Dr. Lueger undertook
 
to put into practice turned out marvellously successful. But the results
 
which he expected to follow these achievements did not come. Schönerer
 
did not attain the ends he had proposed to himself; 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
 
Schönerer could not prevent the downfall of the German people in
 
Austria.
 
 
 
To study the causes of failure in the case of these two parties is to
 
learn a lesson that is highly instructive for our own epoch. This is
 
specially useful for my friends, because in many points the
 
circumstances of our own day are similar to those of that time.
 
Therefore such a lesson may help us to guard against the mistakes which
 
brought one of those movements to an end and rendered the other barren
 
of results.
 
 
 
In my opinion, the wreck of the Pan-German Movement in Austria must be
 
attributed to three causes.
 
 
 
The first of these consisted in the fact that the leaders did not have a
 
clear concept of the importance of the social problem, particularly for
 
a new movement which had an essentially revolutionary character.
 
Schönerer and his followers directed their attention principally to the
 
bourgeois classes. For that reason their movement was bound to turn out
 
mediocre and tame. The German bourgeoisie, especially in its upper
 
circles, is pacifist even to the point of complete
 
self-abnegation--though the individual may not be aware of
 
this--wherever the internal affairs of the nation or State are
 
concerned. In good times, which in this case means times of good
 
government, such a psychological attitude makes this social layer
 
extraordinarily valuable to the State. But when there is a bad
 
government, such a quality has a destructive effect. In order to assure
 
the possibility of carrying through a really strenuous struggle, the
 
Pan-German Movement should have devoted its efforts to winning over the
 
masses. The failure to do this left the movement from the very beginning
 
without the elementary impulse which such a wave needs if it is not to
 
ebb within a short while.
 
 
 
In failing to see the truth of this principle clearly at the very outset
 
of the movement and in neglecting to put it into practice the new Party
 
made an initial mistake which could not possibly be rectified
 
afterwards. For the numerous moderate bourgeois elements admitted into
 
the movements increasingly determined its internal orientation and thus
 
forestalled all further prospects of gaining any appreciable support
 
among the masses of the people. Under such conditions such a movement
 
could not get beyond mere discussion and criticism. Quasi-religious
 
faith and the spirit of sacrifice were not to be found in the movement
 
any more. Their place was taken by the effort towards 'positive'
 
collaboration, which in this case meant the acknowledgment of the
 
existing state of affairs, gradually whittling away the rough corners of
 
the questions in dispute, and ending up with the making of a
 
dishonourable peace.
 
 
 
Such was the fate of the Pan-German Movement, because at the start the
 
leaders did not realize that the most important condition of success was
 
that they should recruit their following from the broad masses of the
 
people. The Movement thus became bourgeois and respectable and radical
 
only in moderation.
 
 
 
From this failure resulted the second cause of its rapid decline.
 
 
 
The position of the Germans in Austria was already desperate when
 
Pan-Germanism arose. Year after year Parliament was being used more and
 
more as an instrument for the gradual extinction of the German-Austrian
 
population. The only hope for any eleventh-hour effort 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 question of
 
primary importance.
 
 
 
To overthrow the Parliament, should the Pan-Germanists have entered it
 
'to undermine it from within', as the current phrase was? Or should they
 
have assailed the institution as such from the outside?
 
 
 
They entered the Parliament and came out defeated. But they had found
 
themselves obliged to enter.
 
 
 
For in order to wage an effective war against such a power from the
 
outside, indomitable courage and a ready spirit of sacrifice were
 
necessary weapons. In such cases the bull must be seized by the horns.
 
Furious drives may bring the assailant to the ground again and again;
 
but if he has a stout heart he will stand up, even though some bones may
 
be broken, and only after a long and tough struggle will he achieve his
 
triumph. New champions are attracted to 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 the great
 
masses are necessary. They alone have the requisite determination and
 
tenacity to fight a sanguinary issue through to the end. But the
 
Pan-German Movement did not have these broad masses as its champions,
 
and so no other means of solution could be tried out except that of
 
entering Parliamcnt.
 
 
 
It would be a mistake to think that this decision resulted from a long
 
series of internal hesitations of a moral kind, or that it was the
 
outcome of careful calculation. No. They did not even think of another
 
solution. Those who participated in this blunder were actuated by
 
general considerations and vague notions as to what would be the
 
significance and effect of taking part in such a special way in that
 
institution which they had condemned on principle. In general they hoped
 
that they would thus have the means of expounding their cause to the
 
great masses of the people, because they would be able to speak before
 
'the forum of the whole nation'. Also, it seemed reasonable to believe
 
that by attacking the evil in the root they would be more effective than
 
if the attack came from outside. They believed that, if protected by the
 
immunity of Parliament, the position of the individual protagonists
 
would be strengthened and that thus the force of their attacks would be
 
enhanced.
 
 
 
In reality everything turned out quite otherwise.
 
 
 
The Forum before which the Pan-German representatives spoke had not
 
grown greater, but had actually become smaller; for each spoke only to
 
the circle that was ready to listen to him or could read the report of
 
his speech in the newspapers.
 
 
 
But the greater forum of immediate listeners is not the parliamentary
 
auditorium: it is the large public meeting. For here alone will there be
 
thousands of men who have come simply to hear what a speaker has to say,
 
whereas in the parliamentary sittings only a few hundred are present;
 
and for the most part these are there only to earn their daily allowance
 
for attendance and not to be enlightened by the wisdom of one or other
 
of the 'representatives of the people'.
 
 
 
The most important consideration is that the same public is always
 
present and that this public does not wish to learn anything new;
 
because, setting aside the question of its intelligence, it lacks even
 
that modest quantum of will-power which is necessary for the effort of
 
learning.
 
 
 
Not one of the representatives of the people will pay homage to a
 
superior truth and devote himself to its service. No. Not one of these
 
gentry will act thus, except he has grounds for hoping that by such a
 
conversion he may be able to retain the representation of his
 
constituency in the coming legislature. Therefore, only when it becomes
 
quite clear that the old party is likely to have a bad time of it at the
 
forthcoming elections--only then will those models of manly virtue set
 
out in search of a new party or a new policy which may have better
 
electoral prospects; but of course this change of position will be
 
accompanied by a veritable deluge of high moral motives to justify it.
 
And thus it always happens that when an existing Party has incurred such
 
general disfavour among the public that it is threatened with the
 
probability of a crushing defeat, then a great migration commences. The
 
parliamentary rats leave the Party ship.
 
 
 
All this happens not because the individuals in the case have become
 
better informed on the questions at issue and have resolved to act
 
accordingly. These changes of front are evidence only of that gift of
 
clairvoyance which warns the parliamentary flea at the right moment and
 
enables him to hop into another warm Party bed.
 
 
 
To speak before such a forum signifies casting pearls before certain
 
animals.
 
 
 
Verily it does not repay the pains taken; for the result must always be
 
negative.
 
 
 
And that is actually what happened. The Pan-German representatives might
 
have talked themselves hoarse, but to no effect whatsoever.
 
 
 
The Press either ignored them totally or so mutilated their speeches
 
that the logical consistency was destroyed or the meaning twisted round
 
in such a way that the public got only a very wrong impression regarding
 
the aims of the new movement. What the individual members said was not
 
of importance. The important matter was what people read as coming from
 
them. This consisted of mere extracts which had been torn out of the
 
context of the speeches and gave an impression of incoherent nonsense,
 
which indeed was purposely meant. Thus the only public before which they
 
really spoke consisted merely of five hundred parliamentarians; and that
 
says enough.
 
 
 
The worst was the following:
 
 
 
The Pan-German Movement could hope for success only if the leaders
 
realized from the very first moment that here there was no question so
 
much of a new Party as of a new WELTANSCHAUUNG. This alone could arouse
 
the inner moral forces that were necessary for such a gigantic struggle.
 
And for this struggle the leaders must be men of first-class brains and
 
indomitable courage. If the struggle on behalf of a WELTANSCHAUUNG is
 
not conducted by men of heroic spirit who are ready to sacrifice,
 
everything, within a short while it will become impossible to find real
 
fighting followers who are ready to lay down their lives for the cause.
 
A man who fights only for his own existence has not much left over for
 
the service of the community.
 
 
 
In order to secure the conditions that are necessary for success,
 
everybody concerned must be made to understand that the new movement
 
looks to posterity for its honour and glory but that it has no
 
recompense to offer to the present-day members. If a movement should
 
offer a large number of positions and offices that are easily accessible
 
the number of unworthy candidates admitted to membership will be
 
constantly on the increase and eventually a day will come when there
 
will be such a preponderance of political profiteers among the
 
membership of a successful Party that the combatants who bore the brunt
 
of the battle in the earlier stages of the movement can now scarcely
 
recognize their own Party and may be ejected by the later arrivals as
 
unwanted ballast. Therewith the movement will no longer have a mission
 
to fulfil.
 
 
 
Once the Pan-Germanists decided to collaborate with Parliament they were
 
no longer leaders and combatants in a popular movement, but merely
 
parliamentarians. Thus the Movement sank to the common political party
 
level of the day and no longer had the strength to face a hostile fate
 
and defy the risk of martyrdom. Instead of fighting, the Pan-German
 
leaders fell into the habit of talking and negotiating. The new
 
parliamentarians soon found that it was a more satisfactory, because
 
less risky, way of fulfilling their task if they would defend the new
 
WELTANSCHAUUNG with the spiritual weapon of parliamentary rhetoric
 
rather than take up a fight in which they placed their lives in danger,
 
the outcome of which also was uncertain and even at the best could offer
 
no prospect of personal gain for themselves.
 
 
 
When they had taken their seats in Parliament their adherents outside
 
hoped and waited for miracles to happen. Naturally no such miracles
 
happened or could happen. Whereupon the adherents of the movement soon
 
grew impatient, because reports they read about their own deputies did
 
not in the least come up to what had been expected when they voted for
 
these deputies at the elections. The reason for this was not far to
 
seek. It was due to the fact that an unfriendly Press refrained from
 
giving a true account of what the Pan-German representatives 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 diets they
 
gradually became reluctant to resume the more hazardous work of
 
expounding the principles of the movement before the broad masses of the
 
people.
 
 
 
Mass meetings in public became more and more rare, though these are the
 
only means of exercising a really effective influence on the people;
 
because here the influence comes from direct personal contact and in
 
this way the support of large sections of the people can be obtained.
 
 
 
When the tables on which the speakers used to stand in the great
 
beer-halls, addressing an assembly of thousands, were deserted for the
 
parliamentary tribune and the speeches were no longer addressed to the
 
people directly but to the so-called 'chosen' representatives, the
 
Pan-German Movement lost its popular character and in a little while
 
degenerated to the level of a more or less serious club where problems
 
of the day are discussed academically.
 
 
 
The wrong impression created by the Press was no longer corrected by
 
personal contact with the people through public meetings, whereby the
 
individual representatives might have given a true account of their
 
activities. The final result of this neglect was that the word
 
'Pan-German' came to have an unpleasant sound in the ears of the masses.
 
 
 
The knights of the pen and the literary snobs of to-day should be made
 
to realize that the great transformations which have taken place in this
 
world were never conducted by a goosequill. No. The task of the pen must
 
always be that of presenting the theoretical concepts which motivate
 
such changes. The force which has ever and always set in motion great
 
historical avalanches of religious and political movements is the magic
 
power of the spoken word.
 
 
 
The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of
 
rhetoric than to any other force. All great movements are popular
 
movements. They are the volcanic eruptions of human passions and
 
emotions, stirred into activity by the ruthless Goddess of Distress or
 
by the torch of the spoken word cast into the midst of the people. In no
 
case have great movements been set afoot by the syrupy effusions of
 
aesthetic littérateurs and drawing-room heroes.
 
 
 
The doom of a nation can be averted only by a storm of glowing passion;
 
but only those who are passionate themselves can arouse passion in
 
others. It is only through the capacity for passionate feeling that
 
chosen leaders can wield the power of the word which, like hammer blows,
 
will open the door to the hearts of the people.
 
 
 
He who is not capable of passionate feeling and speech was never chosen
 
by Providence to be the herald of its will. Therefore a writer should
 
stick to his ink-bottle and busy himself with theoretical questions if
 
he has the requisite ability and knowledge. He has not been born or
 
chosen to be a leader.
 
 
 
A movement which has great ends to achieve must carefully guard against
 
the danger of losing contact with the masses of the people. Every
 
problem encountered must be examined from this viewpoint first of all
 
and the decision to be made must always be in harmony with this
 
principle.
 
 
 
The movement must avoid everything which might lessen or weaken its
 
power of influencing the masses; not from demagogical motives but
 
because of the simple fact that no great idea, no matter how sublime and
 
exalted it may appear, can be realized in practice without the effective
 
power which resides in the popular masses. Stern reality alone must mark
 
the way to the goal. To be unwilling to walk the road of hardship means,
 
only too often in this world, the total renunciation of our aims and
 
purposes, whether that renunciation be consciously willed or not.
 
 
 
The moment the Pan-German leaders, in virtue of their acceptance of the
 
parliamentary principle, moved the centre of their activities away from
 
the people and into Parliament, in that moment they sacrificed the
 
future for the sake of a cheap momentary success. They chose the easier
 
way in the struggle and in doing so rendered themselves unworthy of the
 
final victory.
 
 
 
While in Vienna I used to ponder seriously over these two questions, and
 
I saw that the main reason for the collapse of the Pan-German Movement
 
lay in the fact that these very questions were not rightly appreciated.
 
To my mind at that time the Movement seemed chosen to take in its hands
 
the leadership of the German element in Austria.
 
 
 
These first two blunders which led to the downfall of the Pan-German
 
Movement were very closely connected with one another. Faulty
 
recognition of the inner driving forces that urge great movements
 
forward led to an inadequate appreciation of the part which the broad
 
masses play in bringing about such changes. The result was that too
 
little attention was given to the social problem and that the attempts
 
made by the movement to capture the minds of the lower classes were too
 
few and too weak. Another result was the acceptance of the parliamentary
 
policy, which had a similar effect in regard to the importance of the
 
masses.
 
 
 
If there had been a proper appreciation of the tremendous powers of
 
endurance always shown by the masses in revolutionary movements a
 
different attitude towards the social problem would have been taken, and
 
also a different policy in the matter of propaganda. Then the centre of
 
gravity of the movement would not have been transferred to the
 
Parliament but would have remained in the workshops and in the streets.
 
 
 
There was a third mistake, which also had its roots in the failure to
 
understand the worth of the masses. The masses are first set in motion,
 
along a definite direction, by men of superior talents; but then these
 
masses once in motion are like a flywheel inasmuch as they sustain the
 
momentum and steady balance of the offensive.
 
 
 
The policy of the Pan-German leaders in deciding to carry through a
 
difficult fight against the Catholic Church can be explained only by
 
attributing it to an inadequate understanding of the spiritual character
 
of the people.
 
 
 
The reasons why the new Party engaged in a violent campaign against Rome
 
were as follows:
 
 
 
As soon as the House of Habsburg had definitely decided to transform
 
Austria into a Slav State all sorts of means were adopted which seemed
 
in any way serviceable for that purpose. The Habsburg rulers had no
 
scruples of conscience about exploiting even religious institutions in
 
the service of this new 'State Idea'. One of the many methods thus
 
employed was the use of Czech parishes and their clergy as instruments
 
for spreading Slav hegemony throughout Austria. This proceeding was
 
carried out as follows:
 
 
 
Parish priests of Czech nationality were appointed in purely German
 
districts. Gradually but steadily pushing forward the interests of the
 
Czech people before those of the Church, the parishes and their priests
 
became generative cells in the process of de-Germanization.
 
 
 
Unfortunately the German-Austrian clergy completely failed to counter
 
this procedure. Not only were they incapable of taking a similar
 
initiative on the German side, but they showed themselves unable to meet
 
the Czech offensive with adequate resistance. The German element was
 
accordingly pushed backwards, slowly but steadily, through the
 
perversion of religious belief for political ends on the one side, and
 
the Jack of proper resistance on the other side. Such were the tactics
 
used in dealing with the smaller problems; but those used in dealing
 
with the larger problems were not very different.
 
 
 
The anti-German aims pursued by the Habsburgs, especially through the
 
instrumentality of the higher clergy, did not meet with any vigorous
 
resistance, while the clerical representatives of the German interests
 
withdrew completely to the rear. The general impression created could
 
not be other than that the Catholic clergy as such were grossly
 
neglecting the rights of the German population.
 
 
 
Therefore it looked as if the Catholic Church was not in sympathy with
 
the German people but that it unjustly supported their adversaries. The
 
root of the whole evil, especially according to Schönerer's opinion, lay
 
in the fact that the leadership of the Catholic Church was not in
 
Germany, and that this fact alone was sufficient reason for the hostile
 
attitude of the Church towards the demands of our people.
 
 
 
The so-called cultural problem receded almost completely into the
 
background, as was generally the case everywhere throughout Austria at
 
that time. In assuming a hostile attitude towards the Catholic Church,
 
the Pan-German leaders were influenced not so much by the Church's
 
position in questions of science but principally by the fact that the
 
Church did not defend German rights, as it should have done, but always
 
supported those who encroached on these rights, especially then Slavs.
 
 
 
George Schönerer was not a man who did things by halves. He went into
 
battle against the Church because he was convinced that this was the
 
only way in which the German people could be saved. The LOS-VON-ROM
 
(Away from Rome) Movement seemed the most formidable, but at the same
 
time most difficult, method of attacking and destroying the adversary's
 
citadel. Schönerer believed that if this movement could be carried
 
through successfully the unfortunate division between the two great
 
religious denominations in Germany would be wiped out and that the inner
 
forces of the German Empire and Nation would be enormously enhanced by
 
such a victory.
 
 
 
But the premises as well as the conclusions in this case were both
 
erroneous.
 
 
 
It was undoubtedly true that the national powers of resistance, in
 
everything concerning Germanism as such, were much weaker among the
 
German Catholic clergy than among their non-German confrères, especially
 
the Czechs. And only an ignorant person could be unaware of the fact
 
that it scarcely ever entered the mind of the German clergy to take the
 
offensive on behalf of German interests.
 
 
 
But at the same time everybody who is not blind to facts must admit that
 
all this should be attributed to a characteristic under which we Germans
 
have all been doomed to suffer. This characteristic shows itself in our
 
objective way of regarding our own nationality, as if it were something
 
that lay outside of us.
 
 
 
While the Czech priest adopted a subjective attitude towards his own
 
people and only an objective attitude towards the Church, the German
 
parish priest showed a subjective devotion to his Church and remained
 
objective in regard to his nation. It is a phenomenon which,
 
unfortunately for us, can be observed occurring in exactly the same way
 
in thousands of other cases.
 
 
 
It is by no means a peculiar inheritance from Catholicism; but it is
 
something in us which does not take long to gnaw the vitals of almost
 
every institution, especially institutions of State and those which have
 
ideal aims. Take, for example, the attitude of our State officials in
 
regard to the efforts made for bringing about a national resurgence and
 
compare that attitude with the stand which the public officials of any
 
other nation would have taken in such a case. Or is it to be believed
 
that the military officers of any other country in the world would
 
refuse to come forward on behalf of the national aspirations, but would
 
rather hide behind the phrase 'Authority of the State', as has been the
 
case in our country during the last five years and has even been deemed
 
a meritorious attitude? Or let us take another example. In regard to the
 
Jewish problem, do not the two Christian denominations take up a
 
standpoint to-day which does not respond to the national exigencies or
 
even the interests of religion? Consider the attitude of a Jewish Rabbi
 
towards any question, even one of quite insignificant importance,
 
concerning the Jews as a race, and compare his attitude with that of the
 
majority of our clergy, whether Catholic or Protestant.
 
 
 
We observe the same phenomenon wherever it is a matter of standing 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 general necessities of the nation, the more
 
will they be judged exclusively in the light of those concepts.
 
 
 
This unfortunate habit of looking at all national demands from the
 
viewpoint of a pre-conceived notion makes it impossible for us to see
 
the subjective side of a thing which objectively contradicts one's own
 
doctrine. It finally leads to a complete reversion in the relation of
 
means to an end. Any attempt at a national revival will be opposed if
 
the preliminary condition of such a revival be that a bad and pernicious
 
regime must first of all be overthrown; because such an action will be
 
considered as a violation of the 'Authority of 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 an end but rather, to the mind of the
 
dogmatic believer in objectivity, it is an end in itself; and he looks
 
upon that as sufficient apology for his own miserable existence. Such
 
people would raise an outcry, if, for instance, anyone should attempt to
 
set up a dictatorship, even though the man responsible for it were
 
Frederick the Great and even though the politicians for the time being,
 
who constituted the parliamentary majority, were small and incompetent
 
men or maybe even on a lower grade of inferiority; because to such
 
sticklers for abstract principles the law of democracy is more sacred
 
than the welfare of the nation. In accordance with his principles, one
 
of these gentry will defend the worst kind of tyranny, though it may be
 
leading a people to ruin, because it is the fleeting embodiment of the
 
'Authority of the State', and another will reject even a highly
 
beneficent government if it should happen not to be in accord with his
 
notion of 'democracy'.
 
 
 
In the same way our German pacifist will remain silent while the nation
 
is groaning under an oppression which is being exercised by a sanguinary
 
military power, when this state of affairs gives rise to active
 
resistance; because such resistance means the employment of physical
 
force, which is against the spirit of the pacifist associations. The
 
German International Socialist may be rooked and plundered by his
 
comrades in all the other countries of the world in the name of
 
'solidarity', but he responds with fraternal kindness and never thinks
 
of trying to get his own back, or even of defending himself. And why?
 
Because he is a--German.
 
 
 
It may be unpleasant to dwell on such truths, but if something is to be
 
changed we must start by diagnosing the disease.
 
 
 
The phenomenon which I have just described also accounts for the feeble
 
manner in which German interests are promoted and defended by a section
 
of the clergy.
 
 
 
Such conduct is not the manifestation of a malicious intent, nor is it
 
the outcome of orders given from 'above', as we say; but such a lack of
 
national grit and determination is due to defects in our educational
 
system. For, instead of inculcating in the youth a lively sense of their
 
German nationality, the aim of the educational system is to make the
 
youth prostrate themselves in homage to the idea, as if the idea were an
 
idol.
 
 
 
The education which makes them the devotees of such abstract notions as
 
'Democracy', 'International Socialism', 'Pacifism', etc., is so
 
hard-and-fast and exclusive and, operating as it does from within
 
outwards, is so purely subjective that in forming their general picture
 
of outside life as a whole they are fundamentally influenced by these
 
A PRIORI notions. But, on the other hand, the attitude towards their own
 
German nationality has been very objective from youth upwards. The
 
Pacifist--in so far as he is a German--who surrenders himself
 
subjectively, body and soul, to the dictates of his dogmatic principles,
 
will always first consider the objective right or wrong of a situation
 
when danger threatens his own people, even though that danger be grave
 
and unjustly wrought from outside. But he will never take his stand in
 
the ranks of his own people and fight for and with them from the sheer
 
instinct of self-preservation.
 
 
 
Another example may further illustrate how far this applies to the
 
different religious denominations. In so far as its origin and tradition
 
are based on German ideals, Protestantism of itself defends those ideals
 
better. But it fails the moment it is called upon to defend national
 
interests which do not belong to the sphere of its ideals and
 
traditional development, or which, for some reason or other, may be
 
rejected by that sphere.
 
 
 
Therefore Protestantism will always take its part in promoting German
 
ideals as far as concerns moral integrity or national education, when
 
the German spiritual being or language or spiritual freedom are to be
 
defended: because these represent the principles on which Protestantism
 
itself is grounded. But this same Protestantism violently opposes every
 
attempt to rescue the nation from the clutches of its mortal enemy;
 
because the Protestant attitude towards the Jews is more or less rigidly
 
and dogmatically fixed. And yet this is the first problem which has to
 
be solved, unless all attempts to bring about a German resurgence or to
 
raise the level of the nation's standing are doomed to turn out
 
nonsensical and impossible.
 
 
 
During my sojourn in Vienna I had ample leisure and opportunity to study
 
this problem without allowing any prejudices to intervene; and in my
 
daily intercourse with people I was able to establish the correctness of
 
the opinion I formed by the test of thousands of instances.
 
 
 
In this focus where the greatest varieties of nationality had converged
 
it was quite clear and open to everybody to see that the German pacifist
 
was always and exclusively the one who tried to consider the interests
 
of his own nation objectively; but you could never 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 to demand justice for his own people in any other
 
manner than by whining and wailing to his international comrades. Nobody
 
could ever reproach Czechs or Poles or other nations with such conduct.
 
In short, even at that time, already I recognized that this evil is only
 
partly a result of the doctrines taught by Socialism, Pacifism, etc.,
 
but mainly the result of our totally inadequate system of education, the
 
defects of which are responsible for the lack of devotion to our own
 
national ideals.
 
 
 
Therefore the first theoretical argument advanced by the Pan-German
 
leaders as the basis of their offensive against Catholicism was quite
 
entenable.
 
 
 
The only way to remedy the evil I have been speaking of is to train the
 
Germans from youth upwards to an absolute recognition of the 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 of our own existence. The result
 
of this would be that the Catholic in Germany, just as in Ireland,
 
Poland or France, will be a German first and foremost. But all this
 
presupposes a radical change in the national government.
 
 
 
The strongest proof in support of my contention is furnished by what
 
took place at that historical juncture when our people were called for
 
the last time before the tribunal of History to defend their own
 
existence, in a life-or-death struggle.
 
 
 
As long as there was no lack of leadership in the higher circles, the
 
people fulfilled their duty and obligations to an overwhelming extent.
 
Whether Protestant pastor or Catholic priest, each did his very utmost
 
in helping our powers of resistance to hold out, not only in the
 
trenches but also, and even more so, at home. During those years, and
 
especially during the first outburst of enthusiasm, in both religious
 
camps there was one undivided and sacred German Empire for whose
 
preservation and future existence they all prayed to Heaven.
 
 
 
The Pan-German Movement in Austria ought to have asked itself this one
 
question: Is the maintenance of the German element in Austria possible
 
or not, as long as that element remains within the fold of the Catholic
 
Faith? If that question should have been answered in the affirmative,
 
then the political Party should not have meddled in religious and
 
denominational questions. But if the question had to be answered in the
 
negative, then a religious reformation should have been started and not
 
a political party movement.
 
 
 
Anyone who believes that a religious reformation can be achieved through
 
the agency of a political organization shows that he has no idea of the
 
development of religious conceptions and doctrines of faith and how
 
these are given practical effect by the Church.
 
 
 
No man can serve two masters. And I hold that the foundation or
 
overthrow of a religion has far greater consequences than the foundation
 
or overthrow of a State, to say nothing of a Party.
 
 
 
It is no argument to the contrary to say that the attacks were only
 
defensive measures against attacks from the other side.
 
 
 
Undoubtedly there have always been unscrupulous rogues who did not
 
hesitate to degrade religion to the base uses of politics. Nearly always
 
such a people had nothing else in their minds except to make a business
 
of religions and politics. But on the other hand it would be wrong to
 
hold religion itself, or a religious denomination, responsible for a
 
number of rascals who exploit the Church for their own base interests
 
just as they would exploit anything else in which they had a part.
 
 
 
Nothing could be more to the taste of one of these parliamentary
 
loungers and tricksters than to be able to find a scapegoat for his
 
political sharp-practice--after the event, of course. The moment
 
religion or a religious denomination is attacked and made responsible
 
for his personal misdeeds this shrewd fellow will raise a row at once
 
and call the world to witness how justified he was in acting as he did,
 
proclaiming that he and his eloquence alone have saved religion and the
 
Church. The public, which is mostly stupid and has a very short memory,
 
is not capable of recognizing the real instigator of the quarrel in the
 
midst of the turmoil that has been raised. Frequently it does not
 
remember the beginning of the fight and so the rogue gets by with his
 
stunt.
 
 
 
A cunning fellow of that sort is quite well aware that his misdeeds have
 
nothing to do with religion. And so he will laugh up his sleeve all the
 
more heartily when his honest but artless adversary 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 make religion, or
 
the Church as such, responsible for the misdeeds of individuals. If one
 
compares the magnitude of the organization, as it stands visible to
 
every eye, with the average weakness of human nature we shall have to
 
admit that the proportion of good to bad is more favourable here than
 
anywhere else. Among the priests there may, of course, be some who use
 
their sacred calling to further their political ambitions. There are
 
clergy who unfortunately forget that in the political mêlée they ought
 
to be the paladins of the more sublime truths and not the abettors of
 
falsehood and slander. But for each one of these unworthy specimens we
 
can find a thousand or more who fulfil their mission nobly as the
 
trustworthy guardians of souls and who tower above the level of our
 
corrupt epoch, as little islands above the seaswamp.
 
 
 
I cannot condemn the Church as such, and I should feel quite as little
 
justified in doing so if some depraved person in the robe of a priest
 
commits some offence against the moral law. Nor should I for a moment
 
think of blaming the Church if one of its innumerable members betrays
 
and besmirches his compatriots, especially not in epochs when such
 
conduct is quite common. We must not forget, particularly in our day,
 
that for one such Ephialtes (Note 7) there are a thousand whose hearts
 
bleed in sympathy with their people during these years of misfortune and
 
who, together with the best of our nation, yearn for the hour when fortune
 
will smile on us again.
 
 
 
[Note 7. Herodotus (Book VII, 213-218) tells the story of how a Greek
 
traitor, Ephialtes, helped the Persian invaders at the Battle of
 
Thermopylae (480 B.C.) When the Persian King, Xerxes, had begun to
 
despair of being able tobreak through the Greek defence, Ephialtes came
 
to him and, on being promiseda definite payment, told the King of a
 
pathway over the shoulder of the mountainto the Greek end of the Pass.
 
The bargain being clinched, Ephialtes led adetachment of the Persian
 
troops under General Hydarnes over the mountainpathway. Thus taken in
 
the rear, the Greek defenders, under Leonidas, King of Sparta, had to
 
fight in two opposite directions within the narrow pass. Terrible
 
slaughter ensued and Leonidas fell in the thick of the fighting.
 
 
 
The bravery of Leonidas and the treason of Ephialtes impressed Hitler,
 
asit does almost every schoolboy. The incident is referred to again in
 
MEIN KAMPF (Chap. VIII, Vol. I), where Hitler compares the German troops
 
thatfell in France and Flanders to the Greeks at Thermopylae, the
 
treachery of Ephialtes being suggested as the prototype of the defeatist
 
policy of the German politicians towards the end of the Great War.]
 
 
 
If it be objected that here we are concerned not with the petty problems
 
of everyday life but principally with fundamental truths and questions
 
of dogma, the only way of answering that objection is to ask a question:
 
 
 
Do you feel that Providence has called you to proclaim the Truth to the
 
world? If so, then go and do it. But you ought to have the courage to do
 
it directly and not use some political party as your mouthpiece; for in
 
this way you shirk your vocation. In the place of something that now
 
exists and is bad put something else that is better and will last into
 
the future.
 
 
 
If you lack the requisite courage or if you yourself do not know clearly
 
what your better substitute ought to be, leave the whole thing alone.
 
But, whatever happens, do not try to reach the goal by the roundabout
 
way of a political party if you are not brave enough to fight with your
 
visor lifted.
 
 
 
Political parties have no right to meddle in religious questions except
 
when these relate to something that is alien to the national well-being
 
and thus calculated to undermine racial customs and morals.
 
 
 
If some ecclesiastical dignitaries should misuse religious ceremonies or
 
religious teaching to injure their own nation their opponents ought
 
never to take the same road and fight them with the same weapons.
 
 
 
To a political leader the religious teachings and practices of his
 
people should be sacred and inviolable. Otherwise he should not be a
 
statesman but a reformer, if he has the necessary qualities for such a
 
mission.
 
 
 
Any other line of conduct will lead to disaster, especially in Germany.
 
 
 
In studying the Pan-German Movement and its conflict with Rome I was
 
then firmly persuaded, and especially in the course of later years, that
 
by their failure to understand the importance of the social problem the
 
Pan-Germanists lost the support of the broad masses, who are the
 
indispensable combatants in such a movement. By entering Parliament the
 
Pan-German leaders deprived themselves of the great driving force which
 
resides in the masses and at the same time they laid on their own
 
shoulders all the defects of the parliamentary institution. Their
 
struggle against the Church made their position impossible in numerous
 
circles of the lower and middle class, while at the same time it robbed
 
them of innumerable high-class elements--some of the best indeed that
 
the nation possessed. The practical outcome of the Austrian Kulturkampf
 
was negative.
 
 
 
Although they succeeded in winning 100,000 members away from the Church,
 
that did not do much harm to the latter. The Church did not really need
 
to shed any tears over these lost sheep, for it lost only those who had
 
for a long time ceased to belong to it in their inner hearts. The
 
difference between this new reformation and the great Reformation was
 
that in the historic epoch of the great Reformation some of the best
 
members left the Church because of religious convictions, whereas in
 
this new reformation only those left who had been indifferent before and
 
who were now influenced by political considerations. From the political
 
point of view alone the result was as ridiculous as it was deplorable.
 
 
 
Once again a political movement which had promised so much for the
 
German nation collapsed, because it was not conducted in a spirit of
 
unflinching adherence to naked reality, but lost itself in fields where
 
it was bound to get broken up.
 
 
 
The Pan-German Movement would never have made this mistake if it had
 
properly understood the PSYCHE of the broad masses. If the leaders had
 
known that, for psychological reasons alone, it is not expedient to
 
place two or more sets of adversaries before the masses--since that
 
leads to a complete splitting up of their fighting strength--they would
 
have concentrated the full and undivided force of their attack against a
 
single adversary. Nothing in the policy of a political party is so
 
fraught with danger as to allow its decisions to be directed by people
 
who want to have their fingers in every pie though they do not know how
 
to cook the simplest dish.
 
 
 
But even though there is much that can really be said against the
 
various religious denominations, political leaders must not forget that
 
the experience of history teaches us that no purely political party in
 
similar circumstances ever succeeded in bringing about a religious
 
reformation. One does not study history for the purpose of forgetting or
 
mistrusting its lessons afterwards, when the time comes to apply these
 
lessons in practice. It would be a mistake to believe that in this
 
particular case things were different, so that the eternal truths of
 
history were no longer applicable. One learns history in order to be
 
able to apply its lessons to the present time and whoever fails to do
 
this cannot pretend to be a political leader. In reality he is quite a
 
superficial person or, as is mostly the case, a conceited simpleton
 
whose good intentions cannot make up for his incompetence in practical
 
affairs.
 
 
 
The art of leadership, as displayed by really great popular leaders in
 
all ages, consists in consolidating the attention of the people against
 
a single adversary and taking care that nothing will split up that
 
attention into sections. The more the militant energies of the people
 
are directed towards one objective the more will new recruits join the
 
movement, attracted by the magnetism of its unified action, and thus the
 
striking power will be all the more enhanced. The leader of genius must
 
have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged
 
to the one category; for weak and wavering natures among a leader's
 
following may easily begin to be dubious about the justice of their own
 
cause if they have to face different enemies.
 
 
 
As soon as the vacillating masses find themselves facing an opposition
 
that is made up of different groups of enemies their sense of
 
objectivity will be aroused and they will ask how is it that all the
 
others can be in the wrong and they themselves, and their movement,
 
alone in the right.
 
 
 
Such a feeling would be the first step towards a paralysis of their
 
fighting vigour. Where there are various enemies who are split up into
 
divergent groups it will be necessary to block them all together as
 
forming one solid front, so that the mass of followers in a popular
 
movement may see only one common enemy against whom they have to fight.
 
Such uniformity intensifies their belief in the justice of their own
 
cause and strengthens their feeling of hostility towards the opponent.
 
 
 
The Pan-German Movement was unsuccessful because the leaders did not
 
grasp the significance of that truth. They saw the goal clearly and
 
their intentions were right; but they took the wrong road. Their action
 
may be compared to that of an Alpine climber who never loses sight of
 
the peak he wants to reach, who has set out with the greatest
 
determination and energy, but pays no attention to the road beneath his
 
feet. With his eye always fixed firmly on the goal he does not think
 
over or notice the nature of the ascent and finally he fails.
 
 
 
The manner in which the great rival of the Pan-German Party set out to
 
attain its goal was quite different. The way it took was well and
 
shrewdly chosen; but it did not have a clear vision of the goal. In
 
almost all the questions where the Pan-German Movement failed, the
 
policy of the Christian-Socialist Party was correct and systematic.
 
 
 
They assessed the importance of the masses correctly, and thus they
 
gained the support of large numbers of the popular masses by emphasizing
 
the social character of the Movement from the very start. By directing
 
their appeal especially to the lower middle class and the artisans, they
 
gained adherents who were faithful, persevering and self-sacrificing.
 
The Christian-Socialist leaders took care to avoid all controversy with
 
the institutions of religion and thus they secured the support of that
 
mighty organization, the Catholic Church. Those leaders recognized the
 
value of propaganda on a large scale and they were veritable virtuosos
 
in working up the spiritual instincts of the broad masses of their
 
adherents.
 
 
 
The failure of this Party to carry into effect the dream of saving
 
Austria from dissolution must be attributed to two main defects in the
 
means they employed and also the lack of a clear perception of the ends
 
they wished to reach.
 
 
 
The anti-Semitism of the Christian-Socialists was based on religious
 
instead of racial principles. The reason for this mistake gave rise to
 
the second error also.
 
 
 
The founders of the Christian-Socialist Party were of the opinion that
 
they could not base their position on the racial principle if they
 
wished to save Austria, because they felt that a general disintegration
 
of the State might quickly result from the adoption of such a policy. In
 
the opinion of the Party chiefs the situation in Vienna demanded that
 
all factors which tended to estrange the nationalities from one another
 
should be carefully avoided and that all factors making for unity should
 
be encouraged.
 
 
 
At that time Vienna was so honeycombed with foreign elements, especially
 
the Czechs, that the greatest amount of tolerance was necessary if these
 
elements were to be enlisted in the ranks of any party that was not
 
anti-German on principle. If Austria was to be saved those elements were
 
indispensable. And so attempts were made to win the support of the small
 
traders, a great number of whom were Czechs, by combating the liberalism
 
of the Manchester School; and they believed that by adopting this
 
attitude they had found a slogan against Jewry which, because of its
 
religious implications, would unite all the different nationalities
 
which made up the population of the old Austria.
 
 
 
It was obvious, however, that this kind of anti-Semitism did not upset
 
the Jews very much, simply because it had a purely religious foundation.
 
If the worst came to the worst a few drops of baptismal water would
 
settle the matter, hereupon the Jew could still carry on his business
 
safely and at the same time retain his Jewish nationality.
 
 
 
On such superficial grounds it was impossible to deal with the whole
 
problem in an earnest and rational way. The consequence was that many
 
people could not understand this kind of anti-Semitism and therefore
 
refused to take part in it.
 
 
 
The attractive force of the idea was thus restricted exclusively to
 
narrow-minded circles, because the leaders failed to go beyond the mere
 
emotional appeal and did not ground their position on a truly rational
 
basis. The intellectuals were opposed to such a policy on principle. It
 
looked more and more as if the whole movement was a new attempt to
 
proselytize the Jews, or, on the other hand, as if it were merely
 
organized from the wish to compete with other contemporary movements.
 
Thus the struggle lost all traces of having been organized for a
 
spiritual and sublime mission. Indeed, it seemed to some people--and
 
these were by no means worthless elements--to be immoral and
 
reprehensible. The movement failed to awaken a belief that here there
 
was a problem of vital importance for the whole of humanity and on the
 
solution of which the destiny of the whole Gentile world depended.
 
 
 
Through this shilly-shally way of dealing with the problem the
 
anti-Semitism of the Christian-Socialists turned out to be quite
 
ineffective.
 
 
 
It was anti-Semitic only in outward appearance. And this was worse than
 
if it had made no pretences at all to anti-Semitism; for the pretence
 
gave rise to a false sense of security among people who believed that
 
the enemy had been taken by the ears; but, as a matter of fact, the
 
people themselves were being led by the nose.
 
 
 
The Jew readily adjusted himself to this form of anti-Semitism and found
 
its continuance more profitable to him than its abolition would be.
 
 
 
This whole movement led to great sacrifices being made for the sake of
 
that State which was composed of many heterogeneous nationalities; but
 
much greater sacrifices had to be made by the trustees of the German
 
element.
 
 
 
One did not dare to be 'nationalist', even in Vienna, lest the ground
 
should fall away from under one's feet. It was hoped that the Habsburg
 
State might be saved by a silent evasion of the nationalist question;
 
but this policy led that State to ruin. The same policy also led to the
 
collapse of Christian Socialism, for thus the Movement was deprived of
 
the only source of energy from which a political party can draw the
 
necessary driving force.
 
 
 
During those years I carefully followed the two movements and observed
 
how they developed, one because my heart was with it and the other
 
because of my admiration for that remarkable man who then appeared to me
 
as a bitter symbol of the whole German population in Austria.
 
 
 
When the imposing funeral CORTÈGE of the dead Burgomaster wound its way
 
from the City Hall towards the Ring Strasse I stood among the hundreds
 
of thousands who watched the solemn procession pass by. As I stood there
 
I felt deeply moved, and my instinct clearly told me that the work of
 
this man was all in vain, because a sinister Fate was inexorably leading
 
this State to its downfall. If Dr. Karl Lueger had lived in Germany he
 
would have been ranked among the great leaders of our people. It was a
 
misfortune for his work and for himseif that he had to live in this
 
impossible State.
 
 
 
When he died the fire had already been enkindled in the Balkans and was
 
spreading month by month. Fate had been merciful in sparing him the
 
sight of what, even to the last, he had hoped to prevent.
 
 
 
I endeavoured to analyse the cause which rendered one of those movements
 
futile and wrecked the progress of the other. The result of this
 
investigation was the profound conviction that, apart from the inherent
 
impossibility of consolidating the position of the State in the old
 
Austria, the two parties made the following fatal mistake:
 
 
 
The Pan-German Party was perfectly right in its fundamental ideas
 
regarding the aim of the Movement, which was to bring about a German
 
restoration, but it was unfortunate in its choice of means. It was
 
nationalist, but unfortunately it paid too little heed to the social
 
problem, and thus it failed to gain the support of the masses. Its
 
anti-Jewish policy, however, was grounded on a correct perception of the
 
significance of the racial problem and not on religious principles. But
 
it was mistaken in its assessment of facts and adopted the wrong tactics
 
when it made war against one of the religious denominations.
 
 
 
The Christian-Socialist Movement had only a vague concept of a German
 
revival as part of its object, but it was intelligent and fortunate in
 
the choice of means to carry out its policy as a Party. The
 
Christian-Socialists grasped the significance of the social question;
 
but they adopted the wrong principles in their struggle against Jewry,
 
and they utterly failed to appreciate the value of the national idea as
 
a source of political energy.
 
 
 
If the Christian-Socialist Party, together with its shrewd judgment in
 
regard to the worth of the popular masses, had only judged rightly also
 
on the importance of the racial problem--which was properly grasped by
 
the Pan-German Movement--and if this party had been really nationalist;
 
or if the Pan-German leaders, on the other hand, in addition to their
 
correct 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 a movement would
 
have developed which, in my opinion, might at that time have
 
successfully altered the course of German destiny.
 
 
 
If things did not turn out thus, the fault lay for the most part in the
 
inherent nature of the Austrian State.
 
 
 
I did not find my own convictions upheld by any party then in existence,
 
and so I could not bring myself to enlist as a member in any of the
 
existing organizations or even lend a hand in their struggle. Even at
 
that time all those organizations seemed to me to be already jaded in
 
their energies and were therefore incapable of bringing about a national
 
revival of the German people in a really profound way, not merely
 
outwardly.
 
 
 
My inner aversion to the Habsburg State was increasing daily.
 
 
 
The more I paid special attention to questions of foreign policy, the
 
more the conviction grew upon me that this phantom State would surely
 
bring misfortune on the Germans. I realized more and more that the
 
destiny of the German nation could not be decisively influenced from
 
here but only in the German Empire itself. And this was true not only in
 
regard to general political questions but also--and in no less a
 
degree--in regard to the whole sphere of cultural life.
 
 
 
Here, also, in all matters affecting the national culture and art, the
 
Austrian State showed all the signs of senile decrepitude, or at least
 
it was ceasing to be of any consequence to the German nation, as far as
 
these matters were concerned. This was especially true of its
 
architecture. Modern architecture could not produce any great results in
 
Austria because, since the building of the Ring Strasse--at least in
 
Vienna--architectural activities had become insignificant when compared
 
with the progressive plans which were being thought out in Germany.
 
 
 
And so I came more and more to lead what may be called a twofold
 
existence. Reason and reality forced me to continue my harsh
 
apprenticeship in Austria, though I must now say that this
 
apprenticeship turned out fortunate in the end. But my heart was
 
elsewhere.
 
 
 
A feeling of discontent grew upon me and made me depressed the more I
 
came to realize the inside hollowness of this State and the
 
impossibility of saving it from collapse. At the same time I felt
 
perfectly certain that it would bring all kinds of misfortune to the
 
German people.
 
 
 
I was convinced that the Habsburg State would balk and hinder every
 
German who might show signs of real greatness, while at the same time it
 
would aid and abet every non-German activity.
 
 
 
This conglomerate spectacle of heterogeneous races which the capital of
 
the Dual Monarchy presented, this motley of Czechs, Poles, Hungarians,
 
Ruthenians, Serbs and Croats, etc., and always that bacillus which is
 
the solvent of human society, the Jew, here and there and
 
everywhere--the whole spectacle was repugnant to me. The gigantic city
 
seemed to be the incarnation of mongrel depravity.
 
 
 
The German language, which I had spoken from the time of my boyhood, was
 
the vernacular idiom of Lower Bavaria. I never forgot that particular
 
style of speech, and I could never learn the Viennese dialect. The
 
longer I lived in that city the stronger became my hatred for the
 
promiscuous swarm of foreign peoples which had begun to batten on that
 
old nursery ground of German culture. The idea that this State could
 
maintain its further existence for any considerable time was quite
 
absurd.
 
 
 
Austria was then like a piece of ancient mosaic in which the cohesive
 
cement had dried up and become old and friable. As long as such a work
 
of art remains untouched it may hold together and continue to exist; but
 
the moment some blow is struck on it then it breaks up into thousands of
 
fragments. Therefore it was now only a question of when the blow would
 
come.
 
 
 
Because my heart was always with the German Empire and not with the
 
Austrian Monarchy, the hour of Austria's dissolution as a State appeared
 
to me only as the first step towards the emancipation of the German
 
nation.
 
 
 
All these considerations intensified my yearning to depart for that
 
country for which my heart had been secretly longing since the days of
 
my youth.
 
 
 
I hoped that one day I might be able to make my mark as an architect and
 
that I could devote my talents to the service of my country on a large
 
or small scale, according to the will of Fate.
 
 
 
A final reason was that I longed to be among those who lived and worked
 
in that land from which the movement should be launched, the object of
 
which would be the fulfilment of what my heart had always longed for,
 
namely, the union of the country in which I was born with our common
 
fatherland, the German Empire.
 
 
 
There are many who may not understand how such a yearning can be so
 
strong; but I appeal especially to two groups of people. The first
 
includes all those who are still denied the happiness I have spoken of,
 
and the second embraces those who once enjoyed that happiness but had it
 
torn from them by a harsh fate. I turn to all those who have been torn
 
from their motherland and who have to struggle for the preservation of
 
their most sacred patrimony, their native language, persecuted and
 
harried because of their loyalty and love for the homeland, yearning
 
sadly for the hour when they will be allowed to return to the bosom of
 
their father's household. To these I address my words, and I know that
 
they will understand.
 
 
 
Only he who has experienced in his own inner life what it means to be
 
German and yet to be denied the right of belonging to his fatherland can
 
appreciate the profound nostalgia which that enforced exile causes. It
 
is a perpetual heartache, and there is no place for joy and contentment
 
until the doors of paternal home are thrown open and all those through
 
whose veins kindred blood is flowing will find peace and rest in their
 
common REICH.
 
 
 
Vienna was a hard school for me; but it taught me the most profound
 
lessons of my life. I was scarcely more than a boy when I came to live
 
there, and when I left it I had grown to be a man of a grave and pensive
 
nature. In Vienna I acquired the foundations of a WELTANSCHAUUNG in
 
general and developed a faculty for analysing political questions in
 
particular. That WELTANSCHAUUNG and the political ideas then formed
 
have never been abandoned, though they were expanded later on in some
 
directions. It is only now that I can fully appreciate how valuable
 
those 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 form the fundamental
 
principles of the Party which within the course of five years has grown
 
from modest beginnings to a great mass movement. I do not know what my
 
attitude towards Jewry, Social-Democracy, or rather Marxism in general,
 
to the social problem, etc., would be to-day if I had not acquired a
 
stock of personal beliefs at such an early age, by dint of hard study
 
and under the duress of Fate.
 
 
 
For, although the misfortunes of the Fatherland may have stimulated
 
thousands and thousands to ponder over the inner causes of the collapse,
 
that could not lead to such a thorough knowledge and deep insight as a
 
man may develop who has fought a hard struggle for many years so that he
 
might be master of his own fate.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER IV
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MUNICH
 
 
 
 
 
At last I came to Munich, in the spring of 1912.
 
 
 
The city itself was as familiar to me as if I had lived for years within
 
its walls.
 
 
 
This was because my studies in architecture had been constantly turning
 
my attention to the metropolis of German art. One must know Munich if
 
one would know Germany, and it is impossible to acquire a knowledge of
 
German art without seeing Munich.
 
 
 
All things considered, this pre-war sojourn was by far the happiest and
 
most contented time of my life. My earnings were very slender; but after
 
all I did not live for the sake of painting. I painted in order to get
 
the bare necessities of existence while I continued my studies. I was
 
firmly convinced that I should finally succeed in reaching the goal I
 
had marked out for myself. And this conviction alone was strong enough
 
to enable me to bear the petty hardships of everyday life without
 
worrying very much about them.
 
 
 
Moreover, almost from the very first moment of my sojourn there I came
 
to love that city more than any other place known to me. A German city!
 
I said to myself. How different to Vienna. It was with a feeling of
 
disgust that my imagination reverted to that Babylon of races. Another
 
pleasant feature here was the way the people spoke German, which was
 
much nearer my own way of speaking than the Viennese idiom. The Munich
 
idiom recalled the days of my youth, especially when I spoke with those
 
who had come to Munich from Lower Bavaria. There were a thousand or more
 
things which I inwardly loved or which I came to love during the course
 
of my stay. But what attracted me most was the marvellous wedlock of
 
native folk-energy with the fine artistic spirit of the city, that
 
unique harmony from the Hofbräuhaus to the Odeon, from the October
 
Festival to the PINAKOTHEK, etc. The reason why my heart's strings are
 
entwined around this city as around no other spot in this world is
 
probably because Munich is and will remain inseparably connected with
 
the development of my own career; and the fact that from the beginning
 
of my visit I felt inwardly happy and contented is to be attributed to
 
the charm of the marvellous Wittelsbach Capital, which has attracted
 
probably everybody who is blessed with a feeling for beauty instead of
 
commercial instincts.
 
 
 
Apart from my professional work, I was most interested in the study of
 
current political events, particularly those which were connected with
 
foreign relations. I approached these by way of the German policy of
 
alliances which, ever since my Austrian days, I had considered to be an
 
utterly mistaken one. But in Vienna I had not yet seen quite clearly how
 
far the German Empire had gone in the process of' self-delusion. In
 
Vienna I was inclined to assume, or probably I persuaded myself to do so
 
in order to excuse the German mistake, that possibly the authorities in
 
Berlin knew how weak and unreliable their ally would prove to be when
 
brought face to face with realities, but that, for more or less
 
mysterious reasons, they refrained from allowing their opinions on this
 
point to be known in public. Their idea was that they should support the
 
policy of alliances which Bismarck had initiated and the sudden
 
discontinuance of which might be undesirable, if for no other reason
 
than that it might arouse those foreign countries which were lying in
 
wait for their chance or might alarm the Philistines at home.
 
 
 
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 the slightest intimation of the
 
real character of the Habsburg Monarchy. Among the common people in
 
particular there was a prevalent illusion that the Austrian ally was a
 
Power which would have to be seriously reckoned with and would rally its
 
man-power in the hour of need. The mass of the people continued to look
 
upon the Dual Monarchy as a 'German State' and believed that it could be
 
relied upon. They assumed that its strength could be measured by the
 
millions of its subjects, as was the case in Germany. First of all, they
 
did not realize that Austria had ceased to be a German State and,
 
secondly, that the conditions prevailing within the Austrian Empire were
 
steadily pushing it headlong to the brink of disaster.
 
 
 
At that time I knew the condition of affairs in the Austrian State
 
better than the professional diplomats. Blindfolded, as nearly always,
 
these diplomats stumbled along on their way to disaster. The opinions
 
prevailing among the bulk of the people reflected only what had been
 
drummed into them from official quarters 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 might balance the lack of honesty on the other side. Thus
 
they took every declaration at its full face value.
 
 
 
Even while in Vienna I used to be annoyed again and again by the
 
discrepancy between the speeches of the official statesmen and the
 
contents of the Viennese Press. And yet Vienna was still a German city,
 
at least as far as appearances went. But one encountered an utterly
 
different state of things on leaving Vienna, or rather German-Austria,
 
and coming into the Slav provinces. It needed only a glance at the
 
Prague newspapers in order to see how the whole exalted hocus-pocus of
 
the Triple Alliance was judged from there. In Prague there was nothing
 
but gibes and sneers for that masterpiece of statesmanship. Even in the
 
piping times of peace, when the two emperors kissed each other on the
 
brow in token of friendship, those papers did not cloak their belief
 
that the alliance would be liquidated the moment a first attempt was
 
made to bring it down from the shimmering glory of a Nibelungen ideal to
 
the plane of practical affairs.
 
 
 
Great indignation was aroused a few years later, when the alliances were
 
put to the first practical test. Italy not only withdrew from the Triple
 
Alliance, leaving the other two members to march by themselves. but she
 
even joined their enemies. That anybody should believe even for a moment
 
in the possibility of such a miracle as that of Italy fighting on the
 
same side as Austria would be simply incredible to anyone who did not
 
suffer from the blindness of official diplomacy. And that was just how
 
people felt in Austria also.
 
 
 
In Austria only the Habsburgs and the German-Austrians supported the
 
alliance. The Habsburgs did so from shrewd calculation of their own
 
interests and from necessity. The Germans did it out of good faith and
 
political ignorance. They acted in good faith inasmuch as they believed
 
that by establishing the Triple Alliance they were doing a great service
 
to the German Empire and were thus helping to strengthen it and
 
consolidate its defence. They showed their political ignorance, however,
 
in holding such ideas, because, instead of helping the German Empire
 
they really chained it to a moribund State which might bring its
 
associate into the grave with itself; and, above all, by championing
 
this alliance they fell more and more a prey to the Habsburg policy of
 
de-Germanization. For the alliance gave the Habsburgs good grounds for
 
believing that the German Empire would not interfere in their domestic
 
affairs and thus they were in a position to carry into effect, with more
 
ease and less risk, their domestic policy of gradually eliminating the
 
German element. Not only could the 'objectiveness' of the German
 
Government be counted upon, and thus there need be no fear of protest
 
from that quarter, but one could always remind the German-Austrians of
 
the alliance and thus silence them in case they should ever object to
 
the reprehensible means that were being employed to establish a Slav
 
hegemony in the Dual Monarchy.
 
 
 
What could the German-Austrians do, when the people of the German Empire
 
itself had openly proclaimed their trust and confidence in the Habsburg
 
régime?
 
 
 
Should they resist, and thus be branded openly before their kinsfolk in
 
the REICH as traitors to their own national interests? They, who for so
 
many decades had sacrificed so much for the sake of 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 Triple Alliance were to
 
be advantageous to Germany, was it not a necessary condition that the
 
predominance of the German element in Austria should be maintained? Or
 
did anyone really believe that Germany could continue to be the ally of
 
a Habsburg Empire under the hegemony of the Slavs?
 
 
 
The official attitude of German diplomacy, as well as that of the
 
general public towards internal problems affecting the Austrian
 
nationalities was not merely stupid, it was insane. On the alliance, as
 
on a solid foundation, they grounded the security and future existence
 
of a nation of seventy millions, while at the same time they allowed
 
their partner to continue his policy of undermining the sole foundation
 
of that alliance methodically and resolutely, from year to year. A day
 
must come when nothing but a formal contract with Viennese diplomats
 
would be left. The alliance itself, as an effective support, would be
 
lost to Germany.
 
 
 
As far as concerned Italy, such had been the case from the outset.
 
 
 
If people in Germany had studied history and the psychology of nations a
 
little more carefully not one of them could have believed for a single
 
hour that the Quirinal and the Viennese Hofburg could ever stand
 
shoulder to shoulder on a common battle front. Italy would have exploded
 
like a volcano if any Italian government had dared to send a single
 
Italian soldier to fight for the Habsburg State. So fanatically hated
 
was this State that the Italians could stand in no other relation to it
 
on a battle front except as enemies. More than once in Vienna I have
 
witnessed explosions of the contempt and profound hatred which 'allied'
 
the Italian to the Austrian State. The crimes which the House of
 
Habsburg committed against Italian freedom and independence during
 
several centuries were too grave to be forgiven, even with the best of
 
goodwill. But this goodwill did not exist, either among the rank and
 
file of the population or in the government. Therefore for Italy there
 
were only two ways of co-existing with Austria--alliance or war. By
 
choosing the first it was possible to prepare leisurely for the second.
 
 
 
Especially since relations between Russia and Austria tended more and
 
more towards the arbitrament of war, the German policy of alliances was
 
as senseless as it was dangerous. Here was a classical instance which
 
demonstrated the lack of any broad or logical lines of thought.
 
 
 
But what was the reason for forming the alliance at all? It could not
 
have been other than the wish to secure the future of the REICH better
 
than if it were to depend exclusively on its own resources. But the
 
future of the REICH could not have meant anything else than the problem
 
of securing the means of existence for the German people.
 
 
 
The only questions therefore were the following: What form shall the
 
life of the nation assume in the near future--that is to say within such
 
a period as we can forecast? And by what means can the necessary
 
foundation and security be guaranteed for this development within the
 
framework of the general distribution of power among the European
 
nations? A clear analysis of the principles on which the foreign policy
 
of German statecraft were to be based should have led to the following
 
conclusions:
 
 
 
The annual increase of population in Germany amounts to almost 900,000
 
souls. The difficulties of providing for this army of new citizens must
 
grow from year to year and must finally lead to a catastrophe, unless
 
ways and means are found which will forestall the danger of misery and
 
hunger. There were four ways of providing against this terrible
 
calamity:
 
 
 
(1) It was possible to adopt the French example and artificially
 
restrict the number of births, thus avoiding an excess of population.
 
 
 
Under certain circumstances, in periods of distress or under bad
 
climatic condition, or if the soil yields too poor a return, Nature
 
herself tends to check the increase of population in some countries and
 
among some races, but by a method which is quite as ruthless as it is
 
wise. It does not impede the procreative faculty as such; but it does
 
impede the further existence of the offspring by submitting it to such
 
tests and privations that everything which is less strong or less
 
healthy is forced to retreat into the bosom of tile unknown. Whatever
 
survives these hardships of existence has been tested and tried a
 
thousandfold, hardened and renders fit to continue the process of
 
procreation; so that the same thorough selection will begin all over
 
again. By thus dealing brutally with the individual and recalling him
 
the very moment he shows that he is not fitted for the trials of life,
 
Nature preserves the strength of the race and the species and raises it
 
to the highest degree of efficiency.
 
 
 
The decrease in numbers therefore implies an increase of strength, as
 
far as the individual is concerned, and this finally means the
 
invigoration of the species.
 
 
 
But the case is different when man himself starts the process of
 
numerical restriction. Man is not carved from Nature's wood. He is made
 
of 'human' material. He knows more than the ruthless Queen of Wisdom. He
 
does not impede the preservation of the individual but prevents
 
procreation itself. To the individual, who always sees only himself and
 
not the race, this line of action seems more humane and just than the
 
opposite way. But, unfortunately, the consequences are also the
 
opposite.
 
 
 
By leaving the process of procreation unchecked and by submitting the
 
individual to the hardest preparatory tests in life, Nature selects the
 
best from an abundance of single elements and stamps them as fit to live
 
and carry on the conservation of the species. But man restricts the
 
procreative faculty and strives obstinately to keep alive at any cost
 
whatever has once been born. This correction of the Divine Will seems to
 
him to be wise and humane, and he rejoices at having trumped Nature's
 
card in one game at least and thus proved that she is not entirely
 
reliable. The dear little ape of an all-mighty father is delighted to
 
see and hear 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 the number of
 
births diminished, the natural struggle for existence which allows only
 
healthy and strong individuals to survive is replaced by a sheer craze
 
to 'save' feeble and even diseased creatures at any cost. And thus the
 
seeds are sown for a human progeny which will become more and more
 
miserable from one generation to another, as long as Nature's will is
 
scorned.
 
 
 
But if that policy be carried out the final results must be that such a
 
nation will eventually terminate its own existence on this earth; for
 
though man may defy the eternal laws of procreation during a certain
 
period, vengeance will follow sooner or later. A stronger race will oust
 
that which has grown weak; for the vital urge, in its ultimate form,
 
will burst asunder all the absurd chains of this so-called humane
 
consideration for the individual and will replace it with the humanity
 
of Nature, which wipes out what is weak in order to give place to the
 
strong.
 
 
 
Any policy which aims at securing the existence of a nation by
 
restricting the birth-rate robs that nation of its future.
 
 
 
(2) A second solution is that of internal colonization. This is a
 
proposal which is frequently made in our own time and one hears it
 
lauded a good deal. It is a suggestion that is well-meant but it is
 
misunderstood by most people, so that it is the source of more mischief
 
than can be imagined.
 
 
 
It is certainly true that the productivity of the soil can be increased
 
within certain limits; but only within defined limits and not
 
indefinitely. By increasing the productive powers of the soil it will be
 
possible to balance the effect of a surplus birth-rate in Germany for a
 
certain period of time, without running any danger of hunger. But we
 
have to face the fact that the general standard of living is rising more
 
quickly than even the birth rate. The requirements of food and clothing
 
are becoming greater from year to year and are out of proportion to
 
those of our ancestors of, let us say, a hundred years ago. It would,
 
therefore, be a mistaken view that every increase in the productive
 
powers of the soil will supply the requisite conditions for an increase
 
in the population. No. That is true up to a certain point only, for at
 
least a portion of the increased produce of the soil will be consumed by
 
the margin of increased demands caused by the steady rise in the
 
standard of living. But even if these demands were to be curtailed to
 
the narrowest limits possible and if at the same time we were to use all
 
our available energies in the intenser cultivation, we should here reach
 
a definite limit which is conditioned by the inherent nature of the soil
 
itself. No matter how industriously we may labour we cannot increase
 
agricultural production beyond this limit. Therefore, though we may
 
postpone the evil hour of distress for a certain time, it will arrive at
 
last. The first phenomenon will be the recurrence of famine periods from
 
time to time, after bad harvests, etc. The intervals between these
 
famines will become shorter and shorter the more the population
 
increases; and, finally, the famine times will disappear only in those
 
rare years of plenty when the granaries are full. And a time will
 
ultimately come when even in those years of plenty there will not be
 
enough to go round; so that hunger will dog the footsteps of the nation.
 
Nature must now step in once more and select those who are to survive,
 
or else man will help himself by artificially preventing his own
 
increase, with all the fatal consequences for the race and the species
 
which have been already mentioned.
 
 
 
It may be objected here that, in one form or another, this future is in
 
store for all mankind and that the individual nation or race cannot
 
escape the general fate.
 
 
 
At first glance, that objection seems logical enough; but we have to
 
take the following into account:
 
 
 
The day will certainly come when the whole of mankind will be forced to
 
check the augmentation of the human species, because there will be no
 
further possibility of adjusting the productivity of the soil to the
 
perpetual increase in the population. Nature must then be allowed to use
 
her own methods or man may possibly take the task of regulation into his
 
own hands and establish the necessary equilibrium by the application of
 
better means than we have at our disposal to-day. But then it will be a
 
problem for mankind as a whole, whereas now only those races have to
 
suffer from want which no longer have the strength and daring to acquire
 
sufficient soil to fulfil their needs. For, as things stand to-day, vast
 
spaces still lie uncultivated all over the surface of the globe. Those
 
spaces are only waiting for the ploughshare. And it is quite certain
 
that Nature did not set those territories apart as the exclusive
 
pastures of any one nation or race to be held unutilized in reserve for
 
the future. Such land awaits the people who have the strength to acquire
 
it and the diligence to cultivate it.
 
 
 
Nature knows no political frontiers. She begins by establishing life on
 
this globe and then watches the free play of forces. Those who show the
 
greatest courage and industry are the children nearest to her heart and
 
they will be granted the sovereign right of existence.
 
 
 
If a nation confines itself to 'internal colonization' while other races
 
are perpetually increasing their territorial annexations all over the
 
globe, that nation will be forced to restrict the numerical growth of
 
its population at a time when the other nations are increasing theirs.
 
This situation must eventually arrive. It will arrive soon if the
 
territory which the nation has at its disposal be small. Now it is
 
unfortunately true that only too often the best nations--or, to speak
 
more exactly, the only really cultured nations, who at the same time are
 
the chief bearers of human progress--have decided, in their blind
 
pacifism, to refrain from the acquisition of new territory and to be
 
content with 'internal colonization.' But at the same time nations of
 
inferior quality succeed in getting hold of large spaces for
 
colonization all over the globe. The state of affairs which must result
 
from this contrast is the following:
 
 
 
Races which are culturally superior but less ruthless would be forced to
 
restrict their increase, because of insufficient territory to support
 
the population, while less civilized races could increase indefinitely,
 
owing to the vast territories at their disposal. In other words: should
 
that state of affairs continue, then the world will one day be possessed
 
by that portion of mankind which is culturally inferior but more active
 
and energetic.
 
 
 
A time will come, even though in the distant future, when there can be
 
only two alternatives: Either the world will be ruled according to our
 
modern concept of democracy, and then every decision will be in favour
 
of the numerically stronger races; or the world will be governed by the
 
law of natural distribution of power, and then those nations will be
 
victorious who are of more brutal will and are not the nations who have
 
practised self-denial.
 
 
 
Nobody can doubt that this world will one day be the scene of dreadful
 
struggles for existence on the part of mankind. In the end the instinct
 
of self-preservation alone will triumph. Before its consuming fire this
 
so-called humanitarianism, which connotes only a mixture of fatuous
 
timidity and self-conceit, will melt away as under the March sunshine.
 
Man has become great through perpetual struggle. 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 means which is in
 
accordance with our innate pacifism and which will enable us to work for
 
our livelihood in a half slumbering existence. Such a teaching, once it
 
were taken seriously by our people, would mean the end of all effort to
 
acquire for ourselves that place in the world which we deserve. If. the
 
average German were once convinced that by this measure he has the
 
chance of ensuring his livelihood and guaranteeing his future, any
 
attempt to take an active and profitable part in sustaining the vital
 
demands of his country would be out of the question. Should the nation
 
agree to such an attitude then any really useful foreign policy might be
 
looked upon as dead and buried, together with all hope for the future of
 
the German people.
 
 
 
Once we know what the consequences of this 'internal colonization'
 
theory would be we can no longer consider as a mere accident the fact
 
that among those who inculcate this quite pernicious mentality among our
 
people the Jew is always in the first line. He knows his softies only
 
too well not to know that they are ready to be the grateful victims of
 
every swindle which promises them a gold-block in the shape of a
 
discovery that will enable them to outwit Nature and thus render
 
superfluous the hard and inexorable struggle for existence; so that
 
finally they may become lords of the planet partly by sheer DOLCE FAR
 
NIENTE and partly by working when a pleasing opportunity arises.
 
 
 
It cannot be too strongly emphasised that any German 'internal
 
colonization' must first of all be considered as suited only for the
 
relief of social grievances. To carry out a system of internal
 
colonization, the most important preliminary measure would be to free
 
the soil from the grip of the speculator and assure that freedom. But
 
such a system could never suffice to assure the future of the nation
 
without the acquisition of new territory.
 
 
 
If we adopt a different plan we shall soon reach a point beyond which
 
the resources of our soil can no longer be exploited, and at the same
 
time we shall reach a point beyond which our man-power cannot develop.
 
 
 
In conclusion, the following must be said:
 
 
 
The fact that only up to a limited extent can internal colonization be
 
practised in a national territory which is of definitely small area and
 
the restriction of the procreative faculty which follows as a result of
 
such conditions--these two factors have a very unfavourable effect on
 
the military and political standing of a nation.
 
 
 
The extent of the national territory is a determining factor in the
 
external security of the nation. The larger the territory which a people
 
has at its disposal the stronger are the national defences of that
 
people. Military decisions are more quickly, more easily, more
 
completely and more effectively gained against a people occupying a
 
national territory which is restricted in area, than against States
 
which have extensive territories. Moreover, the magnitude of a national
 
territory is in itself a certain assurance that an outside Power will
 
not hastily risk the adventure of an invasion; for in that case the
 
struggle would have to be long and exhausting before victory could be
 
hoped for. The risk being so great. there would have to be extraordinary
 
reasons for such an aggressive adventure. Hence it is that the
 
territorial magnitude of a State furnishes a basis whereon national
 
liberty and independence can be maintained with relative ease; while, on
 
the contrary, a State whose territory is small offers a natural
 
temptation to the invader.
 
 
 
As a matter of fact, so-called national circles in the German REICH
 
rejected those first two possibilities of establishing a balance between
 
the constant numerical increase in the population and a national
 
territory which could not expand proportionately. But the reasons given
 
for that rejection were different from those which I have just
 
expounded. It was mainly on the basis of certain moral sentiments that
 
restriction of the birth-rate was objected to. Proposals for internal
 
colonization were rejected indignantly because it was suspected that
 
such a policy might mean an attack on the big landowners, and that this
 
attack might be the forerunner of a general assault against the
 
principle of private property as a whole. The form in which the latter
 
solution--internal colonization--was recommended justified the
 
misgivings of the big landowners.
 
 
 
But the form in which the colonization proposal was rejected was not
 
very clever, as regards the impression which such rejection might be
 
calculated to make on the mass of the people, and anyhow it did not go
 
to the root of the problem at all.
 
 
 
Only two further ways were left open in which work and bread could be
 
secured for the increasing population.
 
 
 
(3) It was possible to think of acquiring new territory on which a
 
certain portion of' the increasing population could be settled each
 
year; or else
 
 
 
(4) Our industry and commerce had to be organized in such a manner as to
 
secure an increase in the exports and thus be able to support our people
 
by the increased purchasing power accruing from the profits made on
 
foreign markets.
 
 
 
Therefore the problem was: A policy of territorial expansion or a
 
colonial and commercial policy. Both policies were taken into
 
consideration, examined, recommended and rejected, from various
 
standpoints, with the result that the second alternative was finally
 
adopted. The sounder alternative, however, was undoubtedly the first.
 
 
 
The principle of acquiring new territory, on which the surplus
 
population could be settled, has many advantages to recommend it,
 
especially if we take the future as well as the present into account.
 
 
 
In the first place, too much importance cannot be placed on the
 
necessity for adopting a policy which will make it possible to maintain
 
a healthy peasant class as the basis of the national community. Many of
 
our present evils have their origin exclusively in the disproportion
 
between the urban and rural portions of the population. A solid stock of
 
small and medium farmers has at all times been the best protection which
 
a nation could have against the social diseases that are prevalent
 
to-day. Moreover, that is the only solution which guarantees the daily
 
bread of a nation within the framework of its domestic national economy.
 
With this condition once guaranteed, industry and commerce would retire
 
from the unhealthy position of foremost importance which they hold
 
to-day and would take their due place within the general scheme of
 
national economy, adjusting the balance between demand and supply. Thus
 
industry and commerce would no longer constitute the basis of the
 
national subsistence, but would be auxiliary institutions. By fulfilling
 
their proper function, which is to adjust the balance between national
 
production and national consumption, they render the national
 
subsistence more or less independent of foreign countries and thus
 
assure the freedom and independence of the nation, especially at
 
critical junctures in its history.
 
 
 
Such a territorial policy, however, cannot find its fulfilment in the
 
Cameroons but almost exclusively here in Europe. One must calmly and
 
squarely face the truth that it certainly cannot be part of the
 
dispensation of Divine Providence to give a fifty times larger share of
 
the soil of this world to one nation than to another. In considering
 
this state of affairs to-day, one must not allow existing political
 
frontiers to distract attention from what ought to exist on principles
 
of strict justice. If this earth has sufficient room for all, then we
 
ought to have that share of the soil 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. And when
 
attempts to settle the difficulty in an amicable way are rejected the
 
clenched hand must take by force that which was refused to the open hand
 
of friendship. If in the past our ancestors had based their political
 
decisions on similar pacifist nonsense as our present generation does,
 
we should not possess more than one-third of the national territory that
 
we possess to-day and probably there would be no German nation to worry
 
about its future in Europe. No. We owe the two Eastern Marks (Note 8) of
 
the Empire to the natural determination of our forefathers in their
 
struggle for existence, and thus it is to the same determined policy that
 
we owe the inner strength which is based on the extent of our political
 
and racial territories and which alone has made it possible for us to
 
exist up to now.
 
 
 
[Note 8. German Austria was the East Mark on the South and East Prussia
 
was the East Mark on the North.]
 
 
 
And there is still another reason why that solution would have been the
 
correct one:
 
 
 
Many contemporary European States are like pyramids standing on their
 
apexes. The European territory which these States possess is
 
ridiculously small when compared with the enormous overhead weight of
 
their colonies, foreign trade, etc. It may be said that they have the
 
apex in Europe and the base of the pyramid all over the world; quite
 
different from the United States of America, which has its base on the
 
American Continent and is in contact with the rest of the world only
 
through its apex. Out of that situation arises the incomparable inner
 
strength of the U.S.A. and the contrary situation is responsible for the
 
weakness of most of the colonial European Powers.
 
 
 
England cannot be suggested as an argument against this assertion,
 
though in glancing casually over the map of the British Empire one is
 
inclined easily to overlook the existence of a whole Anglo-Saxon world.
 
England's position cannot be compared with that of any other State in
 
Europe, since it forms a vast community of language and culture together
 
with the U.S.A.
 
 
 
Therefore the only possibility which Germany had of carrying a sound
 
territorial policy into effect was that of acquiring new territory in
 
Europe itself. Colonies cannot serve this purpose as long as they are
 
not suited for settlement by Europeans on a large scale. In the
 
nineteenth century it was no longer possible to acquire such colonies by
 
peaceful means. Therefore any attempt at such a colonial expansion would
 
have meant an enormous military struggle. Consequently it would have
 
been more practical to undertake that military struggle for new
 
territory in Europe rather than to wage war for the acquisition of
 
possessions abroad.
 
 
 
Such a decision naturally demanded that the nation's undivided energies
 
should be devoted to it. A policy of that kind which requires for its
 
fulfilment every ounce of available energy on the part of everybody
 
concerned, cannot be carried into effect by half-measures or in a
 
hesitating manner. The political leadership of the German Empire should
 
then have been directed exclusively to this goal. No political step
 
should have been taken in response to other considerations than this
 
task and the means of accomplishing it. Germany should have been alive
 
to the fact that such a goal could have been reached only by war, and
 
the prospect of war should have been faced with calm and collected
 
determination.
 
 
 
The whole system of alliances should have been envisaged and valued from
 
that standpoint. If new territory were to be acquired in Europe it must
 
have been mainly at Russia's cost, and once again the new German Empire
 
should have set out on its march along the same road as was formerly
 
trodden by the Teutonic Knights, this time to acquire soil for the
 
German plough by means of the German sword and thus provide the nation
 
with its daily bread.
 
 
 
For such a policy, however, there was only one possible ally in Europe.
 
That was England.
 
 
 
Only by alliance with England was it possible to safeguard the rear of
 
the new German crusade. The justification for undertaking such an
 
expedition was stronger than the justification which our forefathers had
 
for setting out on theirs. Not one of our pacifists refuses to eat the
 
bread made from the grain grown in the East; and yet the first plough
 
here was that called the 'Sword'.
 
 
 
No sacrifice should have been considered too great if it was a necessary
 
means of gaining England's friendship. Colonial and naval ambitions
 
should have been abandoned and attempts should not have been made to
 
compete against British industries.
 
 
 
Only a clear and definite policy could lead to such an achievement. Such
 
a policy would have demanded a renunciation of the endeavour to conquer
 
the world's markets, also a renunciation of colonial intentions and
 
naval power. All the means of power at the disposal of the State should
 
have been concentrated in the military forces on land. This policy would
 
have involved a period of temporary self-denial, for the sake of a great
 
and powerful future.
 
 
 
There was a time when England might have entered into negotiations with
 
us, on the grounds of that proposal. For England would have well
 
understood that the problems arising from the steady increase in
 
population were forcing Germany to look for a solution either in Europe
 
with the help of England or, without England, in some other part of the
 
world.
 
 
 
This outlook was probably the chief reason why London tried to draw
 
nearer to Germany about the turn of the century. For the first time in
 
Germany an attitude was then manifested which afterwards displayed
 
itself in a most tragic way. People then gave expression to an
 
unpleasant feeling that we might thus find ourselves obliged to pull
 
England's chestnuts out of the fire. As if an alliance could be based on
 
anything else than mutual give-and-take! And England would have become a
 
party to such a mutual bargain. British diplomats were still wise enough
 
to know that an equivalent must be forthcoming as a consideration for
 
any services rendered.
 
 
 
Let us suppose that in 1904 our German foreign policy was managed
 
astutely enough to enable us to take the part which Japan played. It is
 
not easy to measure the greatness of the results that might have accrued
 
to Germany from such a policy.
 
 
 
There would have been no world war. The blood which would have been shed
 
in 1904 would not have been a tenth of that shed from 1914 to 1918. And
 
what a position Germany would hold in the world to-day?
 
 
 
In any case the alliance with Austria was then an absurdity.
 
 
 
For this mummy of a State did not attach itself to Germany for the
 
purpose of carrying through a war, but rather to maintain a perpetual
 
state of peace which was meant to be exploited for the purpose of slowly
 
but persistently exterminating the German element in the Dual Monarchy.
 
 
 
Another reason for the impossible character of this alliance was that
 
nobody could expect such a State to take an active part in defending
 
German national interests, seeing that it did not have sufficient
 
strength and determination to put an end to the policy of
 
de-Germanization within its own frontiers. If Germany herself was not
 
moved by a sufficiently powerful national sentiment and was not
 
sufficiently ruthless to take away from that absurd Habsburg State the
 
right to decide the destinies of ten million inhabitants who were of the
 
same nationality as the Germans themselves, surely it was out of the
 
question to expect the Habsburg State to be a collaborating party in any
 
great and courageous German undertaking. The attitude of the old REICH
 
towards the Austrian question might have been taken as a test of its
 
stamina for the struggle where the destinies of the whole nation were at
 
stake.
 
 
 
In any case, the policy of oppression against the German population in
 
Austria should not have been allowed to be carried on and to grow
 
stronger from year to year; for the value of Austria as an ally could be
 
assured only by upholding the German element there. But that course was
 
not followed.
 
 
 
Nothing was dreaded so much as the possibility of an armed conflict; but
 
finally, and at a most unfavourable moment, the conflict had to be faced
 
and accepted. They thought to cut loose from the cords of destiny, but
 
destiny held them fast.
 
 
 
They dreamt of maintaining a world peace and woke up to find themselves
 
in a world war.
 
 
 
And that dream of peace was a most significant reason why the
 
above-mentioned third alternative for the future development of Germany
 
was not even taken into consideration. The fact was recognized that new
 
territory could be gained only in the East; but this meant that there
 
would be fighting ahead, whereas they wanted peace at any cost. The
 
slogan of German foreign policy at one time used to be: The use of all
 
possible means for the maintenance of the German nation. Now it was
 
changed to: Maintenance of world peace by all possible means. We know
 
what the result was. I shall resume the discussion of this point in
 
detail later on.
 
 
 
There remained still another alternative, which we may call the fourth.
 
This was: Industry and world trade, naval power and colonies.
 
 
 
Such a development might certainly have been attained more easily and
 
more rapidly. To colonize a territory is a slow process, often extending
 
over centuries. Yet this fact is the source of its inner strength, for
 
it is not through a sudden burst of enthusiasm that it can be put into
 
effect, but rather through a gradual and enduring process of growth
 
quite different from industrial progress, which can be urged on by
 
advertisement within a few years. The result thus achieved, however, is
 
not of lasting quality but something frail, like a soap-bubble. It is
 
much easier to build quickly than to carry through the tough task of
 
settling a territory with farmers and establishing farmsteads. But the
 
former is more quickly destroyed than the latter.
 
 
 
In adopting such a course Germany must have known that to follow it out
 
would necessarily mean war sooner or later. Only children could believe
 
that sweet and unctuous expressions of goodness and persistent avowals
 
of peaceful intentions could get them their bananas 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 our enemy at
 
some time or other to come. Of course it fitted in nicely with our
 
innocent assumptions, but still it was absurd to grow indignant at the
 
fact that a day came when the English took the liberty of opposing our
 
peaceful penetration with the brutality of violent egoists.
 
 
 
Naturally, we on our side would never have done such a thing.
 
 
 
If a European territorial policy against Russia could have been put into
 
practice only in case we had England as our ally, on the other hand a
 
colonial and world-trade policy could have been carried into effect only
 
against English interests and with the support of Russia. But then this
 
policy should have been adopted in full consciousness of all the
 
consequences it involved and, above all things, Austria should have been
 
discarded as quickly as possible.
 
 
 
At the turn of the century the alliance with Austria had become a
 
veritable absurdity from all points of view.
 
 
 
But nobody thought of forming an alliance with Russia against England,
 
just as nobody thought of making England an ally against Russia; for in
 
either case the final result would inevitably have meant war. And to
 
avoid war was the very reason why a commercial and industrial policy was
 
decided upon. It was believed that the peaceful conquest of the world by
 
commercial means provided a method which would permanently supplant the
 
policy of force. Occasionally, however, there were doubts about the
 
efficiency of this principle, especially when some quite
 
incomprehensible warnings came from England now and again. That was the
 
reason why the fleet was built. It was not for the purpose of attacking
 
or annihilating England but merely to defend the concept of world-peace,
 
mentioned above, and also to protect the principle of conquering the
 
world by 'peaceful' means. Therefore this fleet was kept within modest
 
limits, not only as regards the number and tonnage of the vessels but
 
also in regard to their armament, the idea being to furnish new proofs
 
of peaceful intentions.
 
 
 
The chatter about the peaceful conquest of the world by commercial means
 
was probably the most completely nonsensical stuff ever raised to the
 
dignity of a guiding principle in the policy of a State, This nonsense
 
became even more foolish when England was pointed out as a typical
 
example to prove how the thing could be put into practice. Our doctrinal
 
way of regarding history and our professorial ideas in that domain have
 
done irreparable harm and offer a striking 'proof' of how people 'learn'
 
history without understanding anything of it. As a matter of fact,
 
England ought to have been looked upon as a convincing argument against
 
the theory of the pacific conquest of the world by commercial means. No
 
nation prepared the way for its commercial conquests more brutally than
 
England did by means of the sword, and no other nation has defended such
 
conquests more ruthlessly. Is it not a characteristic quality of British
 
statecraft that it knows how to use political power in order to gain
 
economic advantages and, inversely, to turn economic conquests into
 
political power? What an astounding error it was to believe that England
 
would not have the courage to give its own blood for the purposes of its
 
own economic expansion! The fact that England did not possess a national
 
army proved nothing; for it is not the actual military structure of the
 
moment that matters but rather the will and determination to use
 
whatever military strength is available. England has always had the
 
armament which she needed. She always fought with those weapons which
 
were necessary for success. She sent mercenary troops, to fight as long
 
as mercenaries sufficed; but she never hesitated to draw heavily and
 
deeply from the best blood of the whole nation when victory could be
 
obtained only by such a sacrifice. And in every case the fighting
 
spirit, dogged determination, and use of brutal means in conducting
 
military operations have always remained the same.
 
 
 
But in Germany, through the medium of the schools, the Press and the
 
comic papers, an idea of the Englishman was gradually formed which was
 
bound eventually to lead to the worst kind of self-deception. This
 
absurdity slowly but persistently spread into every quarter of German
 
life. The result was an undervaluation for which we have had to pay a
 
heavy penalty. The delusion was so profound that the Englishman was
 
looked upon as a shrewd business man, but personally a coward even to an
 
incredible degree. Unfortunately our lofty teachers of professorial
 
history did not bring home to the minds of their pupils the truth that
 
it is not possible to build up such a mighty organization as the British
 
Empire by mere swindle and fraud. The few who called attention to that
 
truth were either ignored or silenced. I can vividly recall to mind the
 
astonished looks of my comrades when they found themselves personally
 
face to face for the first time with the Tommies in Flanders. After a
 
few days of fighting the consciousness slowly dawned on our soldiers
 
that those Scotsmen were not like the ones we had seen described and
 
caricatured in the comic papers and mentioned in the communiqués.
 
 
 
It was then that I formed my first ideas of the efficiency of various
 
forms of propaganda.
 
 
 
Such a falsification, however, served the purpose of those who had
 
fabricated it. This caricature of the Englishman, though false, could be
 
used to prove the possibility of conquering the world peacefully by
 
commercial means. Where the Englishman succeeded we should also succeed.
 
Our far greater honesty and our freedom from that specifically English
 
'perfidy' would be assets on our side. Thereby it was hoped that the
 
sympathy of the smaller nations and the confidence of the greater
 
nations could be gained more easily.
 
 
 
We did not realize that our honesty was an object of profound aversion
 
for other people because we ourselves believed in it. The rest of the
 
world looked on our behaviour as the manifestation of a shrewd
 
deceitfulness; but when the revolution came, then they were amazed 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 of conquering
 
the world by peaceful commercial means we can clearly understand how
 
that other absurdity, the Triple Alliance, came to exist. With what
 
State then could an alliance have been made? In alliance with Austria we
 
could not acquire new territory by military means, even in Europe. And
 
this very fact was the real reason for the inner weakness of the Triple
 
Alliance. A Bismarck could permit himself such a makeshift for the
 
necessities of the moment, but certainly not any of his bungling
 
successors, and least of all when the foundations no longer existed on
 
which Bismarck had formed the Triple Alliance. In Bismarck's time
 
Austria could still be looked upon as a German State; but the gradual
 
introduction of universal 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 Austria was
 
simply disastrous. A new Slavic Great Power was allowed to grow up close
 
to the frontiers of the German Empire. Later on this Power was bound to
 
adopt towards Germany an attitude different from that of Russia, for
 
example. The Alliance was thus bound to become more empty and more
 
feeble, because the only supporters of it were losing their influence
 
and were being systematically pushed out of the more important public
 
offices.
 
 
 
About the year 1900 the Alliance with Austria had already entered the
 
same phase as the Alliance between Austria and Italy.
 
 
 
Here also only one alternative was possible: Either to take the side of
 
the Habsburg Monarchy or to raise a protest against the oppression of
 
the German element in Austria. But, generally speaking, when one takes
 
such a course it is bound eventually to lead to open conflict.
 
 
 
From the psychological point of view also, the Triple decreases
 
according as such an alliance limits its object to the defence of the
 
STATUS QUO. But, on the other hand, an alliance will increase its
 
cohesive strength the more the parties concerned in it may hope to use
 
it as a means of reaching some practical goal of expansion. Here, as
 
everywhere else, strength does not lie in defence but in attack.
 
 
 
This truth was recognized in various quarters but, unfortunately, not by
 
the so-called elected representatives of the people. As early as 1912
 
Ludendorff, who was then Colonel and an Officer of the General Staff,
 
pointed out these weak features of the Alliance in a memorandum which he
 
then drew up. But of course the 'statesmen' did not attach any
 
importance or value to that document. In general it would seem as if
 
reason were a faculty that is active only in the case of ordinary
 
mortals but that it is entirely absent when we come to deal with that
 
branch of the species known as 'diplomats'.
 
 
 
It was lucky for Germany that the war of 1914 broke out with Austria as
 
its direct cause, for thus the Habsburgs were compelled to participate.
 
Had the origin of the War been otherwise, Germany would have been left
 
to her own resources. The Habsburg State would never have been ready or
 
willing to take part in a war for the origin of which Germany was
 
responsible. What was the object of so much obloquy later in the case of
 
Italy's decision would have taken place, only earlier, in the case of
 
Austria. In other words, if Germany had been forced to go to war for
 
some reason of its own, Austria would have remained 'neutral' in order
 
to safeguard the State against a revolution which might begin
 
immediately after the war had started. The Slav element would have
 
preferred to smash up the Dual Monarchy in 1914 rather than permit it to
 
come to the assistance of Germany. But at that time there were only a
 
few who understood all the dangers and aggravations which resulted from
 
the alliance with the Danubian Monarchy.
 
 
 
In the first place, Austria had too many enemies who were eagerly
 
looking forward to obtain the heritage of that decrepit State, so that
 
these people gradually developed a certain animosity against Germany,
 
because Germany was an obstacle to their desires inasmuch as it kept the
 
Dual Monarchy from falling to pieces, a consummation that was hoped for
 
and yearned for on all sides. The conviction developed that Vienna could
 
be reached only by passing through Berlin.
 
 
 
In the second place, by adopting this policy Germany lost its best and
 
most promising chances of other alliances. In place of these
 
possibilities one now observed a growing tension in the relations with
 
Russia and even with Italy. And this in spite of the fact that the
 
general attitude in Rome was just as favourable to Germany as it was
 
hostile to Austria, a hostility which lay dormant in the individual
 
Italian and broke out violently on occasion.
 
 
 
Since a commercial and industrial policy had been adopted, no motive was
 
left for waging war against Russia. Only the enemies of the two
 
countries, Germany and Russia, could have an active interest in such a
 
war under these circumstances. As a matter of fact, it was only the Jews
 
and the Marxists who tried to stir up bad blood between the two States.
 
 
 
In the third place, the Alliance constituted a permanent danger to
 
German security; for any great Power that was hostile to Bismarck's
 
Empire could mobilize a whole lot of other States in a war against
 
Germany by promising them tempting spoils at the expense of the Austrian
 
ally.
 
 
 
It was possible to arouse the whole of Eastern Europe against Austria,
 
especially Russia, and Italy also. The world coalition which had
 
developed under the leadership of King Edward could never have become a
 
reality if Germany's ally, Austria, had not offered such an alluring
 
prospect of booty. It was this fact alone which made it possible to
 
combine so many heterogeneous States with divergent interests into one
 
common phalanx of attack. Every member could hope to enrich himself at
 
the expense of Austria if he joined in the general attack against
 
Germany. The fact that Turkey was also a tacit party to the unfortunate
 
alliance with Austria augmented Germany's peril to an extraordinary
 
degree.
 
 
 
Jewish international finance needed this bait of the Austrian heritage
 
in order to carry out its plans of ruining Germany; for Germany had not
 
yet surrendered to the general control which the international captains
 
of finance and trade exercised over the other States. Thus it was
 
possible to consolidate that coalition and make it strong enough and
 
brave enough, through the sheer weight of numbers, to join in bodily
 
conflict with the 'horned' Siegfried. (Note 9)
 
 
 
[Note 9. Carlyle explains the epithet thus: "First then, let no one from
 
the title GEHOERNTE (Horned, Behorned), fancy that our brave Siegfried,
 
who was the loveliest as well as the bravest of men, was actually
 
cornuted, and had hornson his brow, though like Michael Angelo's Moses; or
 
even that his skin, to which the epithet BEHORNED refers, was hard like a
 
crocodile's, and not softer than the softest shamey, for the truth is,
 
his Hornedness means only an Invulnerability, like that of Achilles..."]
 
 
 
The alliance with the Habsburg Monarchy, which I loathed while still in
 
Austria, was the subject of grave concern on my part and caused me to
 
meditate on it so persistently that finally I came to the conclusions
 
which I have mentioned above.
 
 
 
In the small circles which I frequented at that time I did not conceal
 
my conviction that this sinister agreement with a State doomed to
 
collapse would also bring catastrophe to Germany if she did not free
 
herself from it in time. I never for a moment wavered in that firm
 
conviction, even when the tempest of the World War seemed to have made
 
shipwreck of the reasoning faculty itself and had put blind enthusiasm
 
in its place, even among those circles where the coolest and hardest
 
objective thinking ought to have held sway. In the trenches I voiced and
 
upheld my own opinion whenever these problems came under discussion. I
 
held that to abandon the Habsburg Monarchy would involve no sacrifice if
 
Germany could thereby reduce the number of her own enemies; for the
 
millions of Germans who had donned the steel helmet had done so not to
 
fight for the maintenance of a corrupt dynasty but rather for the
 
salvation of the German people.
 
 
 
Before the War there were occasions on which it seemed that at least one
 
section of the German public had some slight misgivings about the
 
political wisdom of the alliance with Austria. From time to time German
 
conservative circles issued warnings against being over-confident about
 
the worth of that alliance; but, like every other reasonable suggestion
 
made at that time, it was thrown to the winds. The general conviction
 
was that the right measures had been adopted to 'conquer' the world,
 
that the success of these measures would be enormous and the sacrifices
 
negligible.
 
 
 
Once again the 'uninitiated' layman could do nothing but observe how the
 
'elect' were marching straight ahead towards disaster and enticing their
 
beloved people to follow them, as the rats followed the Pied Piper of
 
Hamelin.
 
 
 
If we would look for the deeper grounds which made it possible to foist
 
on the people this absurd notion of peacefully conquering the world
 
through commercial penetration, and how it was possible to put forward
 
the maintenance of world-peace as a national aim, we shall find that
 
these grounds lay in a general morbid condition that had pervaded the
 
whole body of German political thought.
 
 
 
The triumphant progress of technical science in Germany and the
 
marvellous development of German industries and commerce led us to
 
forget that a powerful State had been the necessary pre-requisite of
 
that success. On the contrary, certain circles went even so far as to
 
give vent to the theory that the State owed its very existence to these
 
phenomena; that it was, above all, an economic institution and should be
 
constituted in accordance with economic interests. Therefore, it was
 
held, the State was dependent on the economic structure. This condition
 
of things was looked upon and glorified as the soundest and most normal
 
arrangement.
 
 
 
Now, the truth is that the State in itself has nothing whatsoever to do
 
with any definite economic concept or a definite economic development.
 
It does not arise from a compact made between contracting parties,
 
within a certain delimited territory, for the purpose of serving
 
economic ends. The State is a community of living beings who have
 
kindred physical and spiritual natures, organized for the purpose of
 
assuring the conservation of their own kind and to help towards
 
fulfilling those ends which Providence has assigned to that particular
 
race or racial branch. Therein, and therein alone, lie the purpose and
 
meaning of a State. Economic activity is one of the many auxiliary means
 
which are necessary for the attainment of those aims. But economic
 
activity is never the origin or purpose of a State, except where a State
 
has been originally founded on a false and unnatural basis. And this
 
alone explains why a State as such does not necessarily need a certain
 
delimited territory as a condition of its establishment. This condition
 
becomes a necessary pre-requisite only among those people who would
 
provide and assure subsistence for their kinsfolk through their own
 
industry, which means that they are ready to carry on the struggle for
 
existence by means of their own work. People who can sneak their way,
 
like parasites, into the human body politic and make others work for
 
them under various pretences can form a State without possessing any
 
definite delimited territory. This is chiefly applicable to that
 
parasitic nation which, particularly at the present time preys upon the
 
honest portion of mankind; I mean the Jews.
 
 
 
The Jewish State has never been delimited in space. It has been spread
 
all over the world, without any frontiers whatsoever, and has always
 
been constituted from the membership of one race exclusively. That is
 
why the Jews have always formed a State within the State. One of the
 
most ingenious tricks ever devised has been that of sailing the Jewish
 
ship-of-state under the flag of Religion and thus securing that
 
tolerance which Aryans are always ready to grant to different religious
 
faiths. But the Mosaic Law is really nothing else than the doctrine of
 
the preservation of the Jewish race. Therefore this Law takes in all
 
spheres of sociological, political and economic science which have a
 
bearing on the main end in view.
 
 
 
The instinct for the preservation of one's own species is the primary
 
cause that leads to the formation of human communities. Hence the State
 
is a racial organism, and not an economic organization. The difference
 
between the two is so great as to be incomprehensible to our
 
contemporary so-called 'statesmen'. That is why they like to believe
 
that the State may be constituted as an economic structure, whereas the
 
truth is that it has always resulted from the exercise of those
 
qualities which are part of the will to preserve the species and the
 
race. But these qualities always exist and operate through the heroic
 
virtues and have nothing to do with commercial egoism; for the
 
conservation of the species always presupposes that the individual is
 
ready to sacrifice himself. Such is the meaning of the poet's lines:
 
 
 
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.)
 
 
 
[Note 10. Lines quoted from the Song of the Curassiers in Schiller's
 
WALLENSTEIN.]
 
 
 
The sacrifice of the individual existence is necessary in order to
 
assure the conservation of the race. Hence it is that the most essential
 
condition for the establishment and maintenance of a State is a certain
 
feeling of solidarity, wounded in an identity of character and race and
 
in a resolute readiness to defend these at all costs. With people who
 
live on their own territory this will result in a development of the
 
heroic virtues; with a parasitic people it will develop the arts of
 
subterfuge and gross perfidy unless we admit that these characteristics
 
are innate and that the varying political forms through which the
 
parasitic race expresses itself are only the outward manifestations of
 
innate characteristics. At least in the beginning, the formation of a
 
State can result only from a manifestation of the heroic qualities I
 
have spoken of. And the people who fail in the struggle for existence,
 
that is to say those, who become vassals and are thereby condemned to
 
disappear entirely sooner or later, are those who do not display the
 
heroic virtues in the struggle, or those who fall victims to the perfidy
 
of the parasites. And even in this latter case the failure is not so
 
much due to lack of intellectual powers, but rather to a lack of courage
 
and determination. An attempt is made to conceal the real nature of this
 
failing by saying that it is the humane feeling.
 
 
 
The qualities which are employed for the foundation and preservation of
 
a State have accordingly little or nothing to do with the economic
 
situation. And this is conspicuously demonstrated by the fact that the
 
inner strength of a State only very rarely coincides with what is called
 
its economic expansion. On the contrary, there are numerous examples to
 
show that a period of economic prosperity indicates the approaching
 
decline of a State. If it were correct to attribute the foundation of
 
human communities to economic forces, then the power of the State as
 
such would be at its highest pitch during periods of economic
 
prosperity, and not vice versa.
 
 
 
It is specially difficult to understand how the belief that the State is
 
brought into being and preserved by economic forces could gain currency
 
in a country which has given proof of the opposite in every phase of its
 
history. The history of Prussia shows in a manner particularly clear and
 
distinct, that it is out of the moral virtues of the people and not from
 
their economic circumstances that a State is formed. It is only under
 
the protection of those virtues that economic activities can be
 
developed and the latter will continue to flourish until a time comes
 
when the creative political capacity declines. Therewith the economic
 
structure will also break down, a phenomenon which is now happening in
 
an alarming manner before our eyes. The material interest of mankind can
 
prosper only in the shade of the heroic virtues. The moment they become
 
the primary considerations of life they wreck the basis of their own
 
existence.
 
 
 
Whenever the political power of Germany was specially strong the
 
economic situation also improved. But whenever economic interests alone
 
occupied the foremost place in the life of the people, and thrust
 
transcendent ideals into the back.-ground, the State collapsed and
 
economic ruin followed readily.
 
 
 
If we consider the question of what those forces actually are which are
 
necessary to the creation and preservation of a State, we shall find
 
that they are: The capacity and readiness to sacrifice the individual to
 
the common welfare. That these qualities have nothing at all to do with
 
economics can be proved by referring to the simple fact that man does
 
not sacrifice himself for material interests. In other words, he will
 
die for an ideal but not for a business. The marvellous gift for public
 
psychology which the English have was never shown better than the way in
 
which they presented their case in the World War. We were fighting for
 
our bread; but the English declared that they were fighting for
 
'freedom', and not at all for their own freedom. Oh, no, but for the
 
freedom of the small nations. German people laughed at that effrontery
 
and were angered by it; but in doing so they showed how political
 
thought had declined among our so-called diplomats in Germany even
 
before the War. These diplomatists did not have the slightest notion of
 
what that force was which brought men to face death of their own free
 
will and determination.
 
 
 
As long as the German people, in the War of 1914, continued to believe
 
that they were fighting for ideals they stood firm. As soon as they were
 
told that they were fighting only for their daily bread they began to
 
give up the struggle.
 
 
 
Our clever 'statesmen' were greatly amazed at this change of feeling.
 
They never understood that as soon as man is called upon to struggle for
 
purely material causes he will avoid death as best he can; for death and
 
the enjoyment of the material fruits of a victory are quite incompatible
 
concepts. The frailest woman will become a heroine when the life of her
 
own child is at stake. And only the will to save the race and native
 
land or the State, which offers protection to the race, has in all ages
 
been the urge which has forced men to face the weapons of their enemies.
 
 
 
The following may be proclaimed as a truth that always holds good:
 
 
 
A State has never arisen from commercial causes for the purpose of
 
peacefully serving commercial ends; but States have always arisen from
 
the instinct to maintain the racial group, whether this instinct
 
manifest itself in the heroic sphere or in the sphere of cunning and
 
chicanery. In the first case we have the Aryan States, based on the
 
principles of work and cultural development. In the second case we have
 
the Jewish parasitic colonies. But as soon as economic interests begin
 
to predominate over the racial and cultural instincts in a people or a
 
State, these economic interests unloose the causes that lead to
 
subjugation and oppression.
 
 
 
The belief, which prevailed in Germany before the War, that the world
 
could be opened up and even conquered for Germany through a system of
 
peaceful commercial penetration and a colonial policy was a typical
 
symptom which indicated the decline of those real qualities whereby
 
States are created and preserved, and indicated also the decline of that
 
insight, will-power and practical determination which belong to those
 
qualities. The World War with its consequences, was the natural
 
liquidation of that decline.
 
 
 
To anyone who had not thought over the matter deeply, this attitude of
 
the German people--which was quite general--must have seemed an
 
insoluble enigma. After all, Germany herself was a magnificent example
 
of an empire that had been built up purely by a policy of power.
 
Prussia, which was the generative cell of the German Empire, had been
 
created by brilliant heroic deeds and not by a financial or commercial
 
compact. And the Empire itself was but the magnificent recompense for a
 
leadership that had been conducted on a policy of power and military
 
valour.
 
 
 
How then did it happen that the political instincts of this very same
 
German people became so degenerate? For it was not merely one isolated
 
phenomenon which pointed to this decadence, but morbid symptoms which
 
appeared in alarming numbers, now all over the body politic, or eating
 
into the body of the nation like a gangrenous ulcer. It seemed as if
 
some all-pervading poisonous fluid had been injected by some mysterious
 
hand into the bloodstream of this once heroic body, bringing about a
 
creeping paralysis that affected the reason and the elementary instinct
 
of self-preservation.
 
 
 
During the years 1912-1914 I used to ponder perpetually on those
 
problems which related to the policy of the Triple Alliance and the
 
economic policy then being pursued by the German Empire. Once again I
 
came to the conclusion that the only explanation of this enigma lay in
 
the operation of that force which I had already become acquainted with
 
in Vienna, though from a different angle of vision. The force to which I
 
refer was the Marxist teaching and WELTANSCHAUUNG and its organized
 
action throughout the nation.
 
 
 
For the second time in my life I plunged deep into the study of that
 
destructive teaching. This time, however, I was not urged by the study
 
of the question by the impressions and influences of my daily
 
environment, but directed rather by the observation of general phenomena
 
in the political life of Germany. In delving again into the theoretical
 
literature of this new world and endeavouring to get a clear view of the
 
possible consequences of its teaching, I compared the theoretical
 
principles of Marxism with the phenomena and happenings brought about by
 
its activities in the political, cultural, and economic spheres.
 
 
 
For the first time in my life I now turned my attention to the efforts
 
that were being made to subdue this universal pest.
 
 
 
I studied Bismarck's exceptional legislation in its original concept,
 
its operation and its results. Gradually I formed a basis for my own
 
opinions, which has proved as solid as a rock, so that never since have
 
I had to change my attitude towards the general problem. I also made a
 
further and more thorough analysis of the relations between Marxism and
 
Jewry.
 
 
 
During my sojourn in Vienna I used to look upon Germany as an
 
imperturbable colossus; but even then serious doubts and misgivings
 
would often disturb me. In my own mind and in my conversation with my
 
small circle of acquaintances I used to criticize Germany's foreign
 
policy and the incredibly superficial way, according to my thinking, in
 
which Marxism was dealt with, though it was then the most important
 
problem in Germany. I could not understand how they could stumble
 
blindfolded into the midst of this peril, the effects of which would be
 
momentous if the openly declared aims of Marxism could be put into
 
practice. Even as early as that time I warned people 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 had already destroyed a mighty empire. Can Germany escape the
 
operation of those laws to which all other human communities are
 
subject?
 
 
 
In the years 1913 and 1914 I expressed my opinion for the first time in
 
various circles, some of which are now members of the National Socialist
 
Movement, that the problem of how the future of the German nation can be
 
secured is the problem of how Marxism can be exterminated.
 
 
 
I considered the disastrous policy of the Triple Alliance as one of the
 
consequences resulting from the disintegrating effects of the Marxist
 
teaching; for the alarming feature was that this teaching was invisibly
 
corrupting the foundations of a healthy political and economic outlook.
 
Those who had been themselves contaminated frequently did not realise
 
that their aims and actions sprang from this WELTANSCHAUUNG, which they
 
otherwise openly repudiated.
 
 
 
Long before then the spiritual and moral decline of the German people
 
had set in, though those who were affected by the morbid decadence were
 
frequently unaware--as often happens--of the forces which were breaking
 
up their very existence. Sometimes they tried to cure the disease by
 
doctoring the symptoms, which were taken as the cause. But since nobody
 
recognized, or wanted to recognize, the real cause of the disease this
 
way of combating Marxism was no more effective than the application of
 
some quack's ointment.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER V
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE WORLD WAR
 
 
 
 
 
During the boisterous years of my youth nothing used to damp my wild
 
spirits so much as to think that I was born at a time when the world had
 
manifestly decided not to erect any more temples of fame except in
 
honour of business people and State officials. The tempest of historical
 
achievements seemed to have permanently subsided, so much so that the
 
future appeared to be irrevocably delivered over to what was called
 
peaceful competition between the nations. This simply meant a system of
 
mutual exploitation by fraudulent means, the principle of resorting to
 
the use of force in self-defence being formally excluded. Individual
 
countries increasingly assumed the appearance of commercial
 
undertakings, grabbing territory and clients and concessions from each
 
other under any and every kind of pretext. And it was all staged to an
 
accompaniment of loud but innocuous shouting. This trend of affairs
 
seemed destined to develop steadily and permanently. Having the support
 
of public approbation, it seemed bound eventually to transform the world
 
into a mammoth department store. In the vestibule of this emporium there
 
would be rows of monumental busts which would confer immortality on
 
those profiteers who had proved themselves the shrewdest at their trade
 
and those administrative officials who had shown themselves the most
 
innocuous. The salesmen could be represented by the English and the
 
administrative functionaries by the Germans; whereas the Jews would be
 
sacrificed to the unprofitable calling of proprietorship, for they are
 
constantly avowing that they make no profits and are always being called
 
upon to 'pay out'. Moreover they have the advantage of being versed in
 
the foreign languages.
 
 
 
Why could I not have been born a hundred years ago? I used to ask
 
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 that I had
 
arrived too late on this terrestrial globe, and I felt chagrined at the
 
idea that my life would have to run its course along peaceful and
 
orderly lines. As a boy I was anything but a pacifist and all attempts
 
to make me so turned out futile.
 
 
 
Then the Boer War came, like a glow of lightning on the far horizon. Day
 
after day I used to gaze intently at the newspapers and I almost
 
'devoured' the telegrams and COMMUNIQUES, overjoyed to think that I
 
could witness that heroic struggle, even though from so great a
 
distance.
 
 
 
When the Russo-Japanese War came I was older and better able to judge
 
for myself. For national reasons I then took the side of the Japanese in
 
our discussions. I looked upon the defeat of the Russians as a blow to
 
Austrian Slavism.
 
 
 
Many years had passed between that time and my arrival in Munich. I now
 
realized that what I formerly believed to be a morbid decadence was only
 
the lull before the storm. During my Vienna days the Balkans were
 
already in the grip of that sultry pause which presages the violent
 
storm. Here and there a flash of lightning could be occasionally seen;
 
but it rapidly disappeared in sinister gloom. Then the Balkan War broke
 
out; and therewith the first gusts of the forthcoming tornado swept
 
across a highly-strung Europe. In the supervening calm men felt the
 
atmosphere oppressive and foreboding, so much so that the sense of an
 
impending catastrophe became transformed into a feeling of impatient
 
expectance. They wished that Heaven would give free rein to the fate
 
which could now no longer be curbed. Then the first great bolt of
 
lightning struck the earth. The storm broke and the thunder of the
 
heavens intermingled with the roar of the cannons in the World War.
 
 
 
When the news came to Munich that the Archduke Franz Ferdinand had been
 
murdered, I had been at home all day and did not get the particulars of
 
how it happened. At first I feared that the shots may have been fired by
 
some German-Austrian students who had been aroused to a state of furious
 
indignation by the persistent pro-Slav activities of the Heir to the
 
Habsburg Throne and therefore wished to liberate the German population
 
from this internal enemy. It was quite easy to imagine what the result
 
of such a mistake would have been. It would have brought on a new wave
 
of persecution, the motives of which would have been 'justified' before
 
the whole world. But soon afterwards I heard the names of the presumed
 
assassins and also that they were known to be Serbs. I felt somewhat
 
dumbfounded in face of the inexorable vengeance which Destiny had
 
wrought. The greatest friend of the Slavs had fallen a victim to the
 
bullets of Slav patriots.
 
 
 
It is unjust to the Vienna government of that time to blame it now for
 
the form and tenor of the ultimatum which was then presented. In a
 
similar position and under similar circumstances, no other Power in the
 
world would have acted otherwise. On her southern frontiers Austria had
 
a relentless mortal foe who indulged in acts of provocation against the
 
Dual Monarchy at intervals which were becoming more and more frequent.
 
This persistent line of conduct would not have been relaxed until the
 
arrival of the opportune moment for the destruction of the Empire. In
 
Austria there was good reason to fear that, at the latest, this moment
 
would come with the death of the old Emperor. Once that had taken place,
 
it was quite possible that the Monarchy would not be able to offer any
 
serious resistance. For some years past the State had been so completely
 
identified with the personality of Francis Joseph that, in the eyes of
 
the great mass of the people, the death of this venerable
 
personification of the Empire would be tantamount to the death of the
 
Empire itself. Indeed it was one of the clever artifices of Slav policy
 
to foster the impression that the Austrian State owed its very existence
 
exclusively to the prodigies and rare talents of that monarch. This kind
 
of flattery was particularly welcomed at the Hofburg, all the more
 
because it had no relation whatsoever to the services actually rendered
 
by the Emperor. No effort whatsoever was made to locate the carefully
 
prepared sting which lay hidden in this glorifying praise. One fact
 
which was entirely overlooked, perhaps intentionally, was that the more
 
the Empire remained dependent on the so-called administrative talents of
 
'the wisest Monarch of all times', the more catastrophic would be the
 
situation when Fate came to knock at the door and demand its tribute.
 
 
 
Was it possible even to imagine the Austrian Empire without its
 
venerable ruler? Would not the tragedy which befell Maria Theresa be
 
repeated at once?
 
 
 
It is really unjust to the Vienna governmental circles to reproach them
 
with having instigated a war which might have been prevented. The war
 
was bound to come. Perhaps it might have been postponed for a year or
 
two at the most. But it had always been the misfortune of German, as
 
well as Austrian, diplomats that they endeavoured to put off the
 
inevitable day of reckoning, with the result that they were finally
 
compelled to deliver their blow at a most inopportune moment.
 
 
 
No. Those who did not wish this war ought to have had the courage to
 
take the consequences of the refusal upon themselves. Those consequences
 
must necessarily have meant the sacrifice of Austria. And even then war
 
would have come, not as a war in which all the nations would have been
 
banded against us but in the form of a dismemberment of the Habsburg
 
Monarchy. In that case we should have had to decide whether we should
 
come to the assistance of the Habsburg or stand aside as spectators,
 
with our arms folded, and thus allow Fate to run its course.
 
 
 
Just those who are loudest in their imprecations to-day and make a great
 
parade of wisdom in judging the causes of the war are the very same
 
people whose collaboration was the most fatal factor in steering towards
 
the war.
 
 
 
For several decades previously the German Social-Democrats had been
 
agitating in an underhand and knavish way for war against Russia;
 
whereas the German Centre Party, with religious ends in view, had worked
 
to make the Austrian State the chief centre and turning-point of German
 
policy. The consequences of this folly had now to be borne. What came
 
was bound to come and under no circumstances could it have been avoided.
 
The fault of the German Government lay in the fact that, merely for the
 
sake of preserving peace at all costs, it continued to miss the
 
occasions that were favourable for action, got entangled in an alliance
 
for the purpose of preserving the peace of the world, and thus finally
 
became the victim of a world coalition which opposed the German effort
 
for the maintenance of peace and was determined to bring about the world
 
war.
 
 
 
Had the Vienna Government of that time formulated its ultimatum in less
 
drastic terms, that would not have altered the situation at all: but
 
such a course might have aroused public indignation. For, in the eyes of
 
the great masses, the ultimatum was too moderate and certainly not
 
excessive or brutal. Those who would deny this to-day are either
 
simpletons with feeble memories or else deliberate falsehood-mongers.
 
 
 
The War of 1914 was certainly not forced on the masses; it was even
 
desired by the whole people.
 
 
 
There was a desire to bring the general feeling of uncertainty to an end
 
once and for all. And it is only in the light of this fact that we can
 
understand how more than two million German men and youths voluntarily
 
joined the colours, ready to shed the last drop of their blood for the
 
cause.
 
 
 
For me these hours came as a deliverance from the distress that had
 
weighed upon me during the days of my youth. I am not ashamed to
 
acknowledge to-day that I was carried away by the enthusiasm of the
 
moment and that I sank down upon my knees and thanked Heaven out of the
 
fullness of my heart for the favour of having been permitted to live in
 
such a time.
 
 
 
The fight for freedom had broken out on an unparalleled scale in the
 
history of the world. From the moment that Fate took the helm in hand
 
the conviction grew among the mass of the people that now it was not a
 
question of deciding the destinies of Austria or Serbia but that the
 
very existence of the German nation itself was at stake.
 
 
 
At last, after many years of blindness, the people saw clearly into the
 
future. Therefore, almost immediately after the gigantic struggle had
 
begun, an excessive enthusiasm was replaced by a more earnest and more
 
fitting undertone, because the exaltation of the popular spirit was not
 
a mere passing frenzy. It was only too necessary that the gravity of the
 
situation should be recognized. At that time there was, generally
 
speaking, not the slightest presentiment or conception of how long the
 
war might last. People dreamed of the soldiers being home by Christmas
 
and that then they would 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 weary of the
 
perpetual insecurity in the general condition of public affairs. Hence
 
it was only natural that no one believed that the Austro-Serbian
 
conflict could be shelved. Therefore they looked forward to a radical
 
settlement of accounts. I also belonged to the millions that desired
 
this.
 
 
 
The moment the news of the Sarajevo outrage reached Munich two ideas
 
came into my mind: First, that war was absolutely inevitable and,
 
second, that the Habsburg State would now be forced to honour its
 
signature to the alliance. For what I had feared most was that one day
 
Germany herself, perhaps as a result of the Alliance, would become
 
involved in a conflict the first direct cause of which did not affect
 
Austria. In such a contingency, I feared that the Austrian State, for
 
domestic political reasons, would find itself unable to decide in favour
 
of its ally. But now this danger was removed. The old State was
 
compelled to fight, whether it wished to do so or not.
 
 
 
My own attitude towards the conflict was equally simple and clear. I
 
believed that it was not a case of Austria fighting to get satisfaction
 
from Serbia but rather a case of Germany fighting for her own
 
existence--the German nation for its own to-be-or-not-to-be, for its
 
freedom and for its future. The work of Bismarck must now be carried on.
 
Young Germany must show itself worthy of the blood shed by our fathers
 
on so many heroic fields of battle, from Weissenburg to Sedan and Paris.
 
And if this struggle should bring us victory our people will again rank
 
foremost among the great nations. Only then could the German Empire
 
assert itself as the mighty champion of peace, without the necessity of
 
restricting the daily bread of its children for the sake of maintaining
 
the peace.
 
 
 
As a boy and as a young man, I often longed for the occasion to prove
 
that my national enthusiasm was not mere vapouring. Hurrahing sometimes
 
seemed to me to be a kind of sinful indulgence, though I could not give
 
any justification for that feeling; for, after all, who has the right to
 
shout that triumphant word if he has not won the right to it there where
 
there is no play-acting and where the hand of the Goddess of Destiny
 
puts the truth and sincerity of nations and men through her inexorable
 
test? Just as millions of others, I felt a proud joy in being permitted
 
to go through this test. I had so often sung DEUTSCHLAND ÜBER ALLES and
 
so often roared 'HEIL' that I now thought it was as a kind of
 
retro-active grace that I was granted the right of appearing before the
 
Court of Eternal Justice to testify to the truth of those sentiments.
 
 
 
One thing was clear to me from the very beginning, namely, that in the
 
event of war, which now seemed inevitable, my books would have to be
 
thrown aside forthwith. I also realized that my place would have to be
 
there where the inner voice of conscience called me.
 
 
 
I had left Austria principally for political reasons. What therefore
 
could be more rational than that I should put into practice the logical
 
consequences of my political opinions, now that the war had begun. I had
 
no desire to fight for the Habsburg cause, but I was prepared to die at
 
any time for my own kinsfolk and the Empire to which they really
 
belonged.
 
 
 
On August 3rd, 1914, I presented an urgent petition to His Majesty, King
 
Ludwig III, requesting to be allowed to serve in a Bavarian regiment. In
 
those days the Chancellery had its hands quite full and therefore I was
 
all the more pleased when I received the answer a day later, that my
 
request had been granted. I opened the document with trembling hands;
 
and no words of mine could now describe the satisfaction I felt on
 
reading that I was instructed to report to a Bavarian regiment. Within a
 
few days I was wearing that uniform which I was not to put oft again for
 
nearly six years.
 
 
 
For me, as for every German, the most memorable period of my life now
 
began. Face to face with that mighty struggle, all the past fell away
 
into oblivion. With a wistful pride I look back on those days,
 
especially because we are now approaching the tenth anniversary of that
 
memorable happening. I recall those early weeks of war when kind fortune
 
permitted me to take my place in that heroic struggle among the nations.
 
 
 
As the scene unfolds itself before my mind, it seems only like
 
yesterday. I see myself among my young comrades on our first parade
 
drill, and so on until at last the day came on which we were to leave
 
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 at the front. Time
 
and again that thought disturbed me and every announcement of a
 
victorious engagement left a bitter taste, which increased 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 journeyed westwards to
 
stand guard before that historic German river against its traditional
 
and grasping enemy. As the first soft rays of the morning sun broke
 
through the light mist and disclosed to us the Niederwald Statue, with
 
one accord the whole troop train broke into the strains of DIE WACHT AM
 
RHEIN. I then felt as if my heart could not contain its spirit.
 
 
 
And then followed a damp, cold night in Flanders. We marched in silence
 
throughout the night and as the morning sun came through the mist an
 
iron greeting suddenly burst above our heads. Shrapnel exploded in our
 
midst and spluttered in the damp ground. But before the smoke of the
 
explosion disappeared a wild 'Hurrah' was shouted from two hundred
 
throats, in response to this first greeting of Death. Then began the
 
whistling of bullets and the booming of cannons, the shouting and
 
singing of the combatants. With eyes straining feverishly, we pressed
 
forward, quicker and quicker, until we finally came to close-quarter
 
fighting, there beyond the beet-fields and the meadows. Soon the strains
 
of a song reached us from afar. Nearer and nearer, from company to
 
company, it came. And while Death began to make havoc in our ranks we
 
passed the song on to those beside us: DEUTSCHLAND, DEUTSCHLAND ÜBER
 
ALLES, ÜBER ALLES IN DER WELT.
 
 
 
After four days in the trenches we came back. Even our step was no
 
longer what it had been. Boys of seventeen looked now like grown men.
 
The rank and file of the List Regiment (Note 11) had not been properly
 
trained in the art of warfare, but they knew how to die like old soldiers.
 
 
 
[Note 11. The Second Infantry Bavarian Regiment, in which Hitler served
 
as a volunteer.]
 
 
 
That was the beginning. And thus we carried on from year to year. A
 
feeling of horror replaced the romantic fighting spirit. Enthusiasm
 
cooled down gradually and exuberant spirits were quelled by the fear of
 
the ever-present Death. A time came when there arose within each one of
 
us a conflict between the urge to self-preservation and the call of
 
duty. And I had to go through that conflict too. As Death sought its
 
prey everywhere and unrelentingly a nameless Something rebelled within
 
the weak body and tried to introduce itself under the name of Common
 
Sense; but in reality it was Fear, which had taken on this cloak in
 
order to impose itself on the individual. But the more the voice which
 
advised prudence increased its efforts and the more clear and persuasive
 
became its appeal, resistance became all the stronger; until finally the
 
internal strife was over and the call of duty was triumphant. Already in
 
the winter of 1915-16 I had come through that inner struggle. The will
 
had asserted its incontestable mastery. Whereas in the early days I went
 
into the fight with a cheer and a laugh, I was now habitually calm and
 
resolute. And that frame of mind endured. Fate might now put me through
 
the final test without my nerves or reason giving way. The young
 
volunteer had become an old soldier.
 
 
 
This same transformation took place throughout the whole army. Constant
 
fighting had aged and toughened it and hardened it, so that it stood
 
firm and dauntless against every assault.
 
 
 
Only now was it possible to judge that army. After two and three years
 
of continuous fighting, having been thrown into one battle after
 
another, standing up stoutly against superior numbers and superior
 
armament, suffering hunger and privation, the time had come when one
 
could assess the value of that singular fighting force.
 
 
 
For a thousand years to come nobody will dare to speak of heroism
 
without recalling the German Army of the World War. And then from the
 
dim past will emerge the immortal vision of those solid ranks of steel
 
helmets that never flinched and never faltered. And as long as Germans
 
live they will be proud to remember that these men were the sons of
 
their forefathers.
 
 
 
I was then a soldier and did not wish to meddle in politics, all the
 
more so because the time was inopportune. I still believe that the most
 
modest stable-boy of those days served his country better than the best
 
of, let us say, the 'parliamentary deputies'. My hatred for those
 
footlers was never greater than in those days when all decent men who
 
had anything to say said it point-blank in the enemy's face; or, failing
 
this, kept their mouths shut and did their duty elsewhere. I despised
 
those political fellows and if I had had my way I would have formed them
 
into a Labour Battalion and given them the opportunity of babbling
 
amongst themselves to their hearts' content, without offence or harm to
 
decent people.
 
 
 
In those days I cared nothing for politics; but I could not help forming
 
an opinion on certain manifestations which affected not only the whole
 
nation but also us soldiers in particular. There were two things which
 
caused me the greatest anxiety at that time and which I had come to
 
regard as detrimental to our interests.
 
 
 
Shortly after our first series of victories a certain section of the
 
Press already began to throw cold water, drip by drip, on the enthusiasm
 
of the public. At first this was not obvious to many people. It was done
 
under the mask of good intentions and a spirit of anxious care. The
 
public was told that big celebrations of victories were somewhat out of
 
place and were not worthy expressions of the spirit of a great nation.
 
The fortitude and valour of German soldiers were accepted facts which
 
did not necessarily call for outbursts of celebration. Furthermore, it
 
was asked, what would foreign opinion have to say about these
 
manifestations? Would not foreign opinion react more favourably to a
 
quiet and sober form of celebration rather than to all this wild
 
jubilation? Surely the time had come--so the Press declared--for us
 
Germans to remember that this war was not our work and that hence there
 
need be no feeling of shame in declaring our willingness to do our share
 
towards effecting an understanding among the nations. For this reason it
 
would not be wise to sully the radiant deeds of our army with unbecoming
 
jubilation; for the rest of the world would never understand this.
 
Furthermore, nothing is more appreciated than the modesty with which a
 
true hero quietly and unassumingly carries on and forgets. Such was the
 
gist of their warning.
 
 
 
Instead of catching these fellows by their long ears and dragging them
 
to some ditch and looping a cord around their necks, so that the
 
victorious enthusiasm of the nation should no longer offend the
 
aesthetic sensibilities of these knights of the pen, a general Press
 
campaign was now allowed to go on against what was called 'unbecoming'
 
and 'undignified' forms of victorious celebration.
 
 
 
No one seemed to have the faintest idea that when public enthusiasm is
 
once damped, nothing can enkindle it again, when the necessity arises.
 
This enthusiasm is an intoxication and must be kept up in that form.
 
Without the support of this enthusiastic spirit how would it be possible
 
to endure in a struggle which, according to human standards, made such
 
immense demands on the spiritual stamina of the nation?
 
 
 
I was only too well acquainted with the psychology of the broad masses
 
not to know that in such cases a magnaminous 'aestheticism' cannot fan
 
the fire which is needed to keep the iron hot. In my eyes it was even a
 
mistake not to have tried to raise the pitch of public enthusiasm still
 
higher. Therefore I could not at all understand why the contrary policy
 
was adopted, that is to say, the policy of damping the public spirit.
 
 
 
Another thing which irritated me was the manner in which Marxism was
 
regarded and accepted. I thought that all this proved how little they
 
knew about the Marxist plague. It was believed in all seriousness that
 
the abolition of party distinctions during the War had made Marxism a
 
mild and moderate thing.
 
 
 
But here there was no question of party. There was question of a
 
doctrine which was being expounded for the express purpose of leading
 
humanity to its destruction. The purport of this doctrine was not
 
understood because nothing was said about that side of the question in
 
our Jew-ridden universities and because our supercilious bureaucratic
 
officials did not think it worth while to read up a subject which had
 
not been prescribed in their university course. This mighty
 
revolutionary trend was going on beside them; but those 'intellectuals'
 
would not deign to give it their attention. That is why State enterprise
 
nearly always lags behind private enterprise. Of these gentry once can
 
truly say that their maxim is: What we don't know won't bother us. In
 
the August of 1914 the German worker was looked upon as an adherent of
 
Marxist socialism. That was a gross error. When those fateful hours
 
dawned the German worker shook off the poisonous clutches of that
 
plague; otherwise he would not have been so willing and ready to fight.
 
And people were stupid enough to imagine that Marxism had now become
 
'national', another apt illustration of the fact that those in authority
 
had never taken the trouble to study the real tenor of the Marxist
 
teaching. If they had done so, such foolish errors would not have been
 
committed.
 
 
 
Marxism, whose final objective was and is and will continue to be the
 
destruction of all non-Jewish national States, had to witness in those
 
days of July 1914 how the German working classes, which it had been
 
inveigling, were aroused by the national spirit and rapidly ranged
 
themselves on the side of the Fatherland. Within a few days the
 
deceptive smoke-screen of that infamous national betrayal had vanished
 
into thin air and the Jewish bosses suddenly found themselves alone and
 
deserted. It was as if not a vestige had been left of that folly and
 
madness with which the masses of the German people had been inoculated
 
for sixty years. That was indeed an evil day for the betrayers of German
 
Labour. The moment, however, that the leaders realized the danger which
 
threatened them they pulled the magic cap of deceit over their ears and,
 
without being identified, played the part of mimes in the national
 
reawakening.
 
 
 
The time seemed to have arrived for proceeding against the whole Jewish
 
gang of public pests. Then it was that action should have been taken
 
regardless of any consequent whining or protestation. At one stroke, in
 
the August of 1914, all the empty nonsense about international
 
solidarity was knocked out of the heads of the German working classes. A
 
few weeks later, instead of this stupid talk sounding in their ears,
 
they heard the noise of American-manufactured shrapnel bursting above
 
the heads of the marching columns, as a symbol of international
 
comradeship. Now that the German worker had rediscovered the road to
 
nationhood, it ought to have been the duty of any Government which had
 
the care of the people in its keeping, to take this opportunity of
 
mercilessly rooting 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 hand to these
 
hoary criminals, thus assuring them his protection and allowing 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. While honest people
 
dreamt of reconciliation these perjured criminals were making
 
preparations for a revolution.
 
 
 
Naturally I was distressed at the half-measures which were adopted at
 
that time; but I never thought it possible that the final consequences
 
could have been so disastrous?
 
 
 
But what should have been done then? Throw the ringleaders into gaol,
 
prosecute them and rid the nation of them? Uncompromising military
 
measures should have been adopted to root out the evil. Parties should
 
have been abolished and the Reichstag brought to its senses at the point
 
of the bayonet, if necessary. It would have been 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 applying that measure, seeing that the very
 
existence of the nation was at stake. Of course this suggestion would
 
give rise to the question: Is it possible to eradicate ideas by force of
 
arms? Could a WELTANSCHAUUNG be attacked by means of physical force?
 
 
 
At that time I turned these questions over and over again in my mind. By
 
studying analogous cases, exemplified in history, particularly those
 
which had arisen from religious circumstances, I came to the following
 
fundamental conclusion:
 
 
 
Ideas and philosophical systems as well as movements grounded on a
 
definite spiritual foundation, whether true or not, can never be broken
 
by the use of force after a certain stage, except on one condition:
 
namely, that this use of force is in the service of a new idea or
 
WELTANSCHAUUNG which burns with a new flame.
 
 
 
The application of force alone, without moral support based on a
 
spiritual concept, can never bring about the destruction of an idea or
 
arrest the propagation of it, unless one is ready and able ruthlessly to
 
exterminate the last upholders of that idea even to a man, and also wipe
 
out any tradition which it may tend to leave behind. Now in the majority
 
of cases the result of such a course has been to exclude such a State,
 
either temporarily or for ever, from the comity of States that are of
 
political significance; but experience has also shown that such a
 
sanguinary method of extirpation arouses the better section of the
 
population under the persecuting power. As a matter of fact, every
 
persecution which has no spiritual motives to support it is morally
 
unjust and raises opposition among the best elements of the population;
 
so much so that these are driven more and more to champion the ideas
 
that are unjustly persecuted. With many individuals this arises from the
 
sheer spirit of opposition to every attempt at suppressing spiritual
 
things by brute force.
 
 
 
In this way the number of convinced adherents of the persecuted doctrine
 
increases as the persecution progresses. Hence the total destruction of
 
a new doctrine can be accomplished only by a vast plan of extermination;
 
but this, in the final analysis, means the loss of some of the best
 
blood in a nation or State. And that blood is then avenged, because such
 
an internal and total clean-up brings about the collapse of the nation's
 
strength. And such a procedure is always condemned to futility from the
 
very start if the attacked doctrine should happen to have spread beyond
 
a small circle.
 
 
 
That is why in this case, as with all other growths, the doctrine can be
 
exterminated in its earliest stages. As time goes on its powers of
 
resistance increase, until at the approach of age it gives way to
 
younger elements, but under another form and from other motives.
 
 
 
The fact remains that nearly all attempts to exterminate a doctrine,
 
without having some spiritual basis of attack against it, and also to
 
wipe out all the organizations it has created, have led in many cases to
 
the very opposite being achieved; and that for the following 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 a doctrine lie only in the
 
persistent and uniform application of the methods chosen. The moment
 
hesitation is shown, and periods of tolerance alternate with the
 
application of force, the doctrine against which these measures are
 
directed will not only recover strength but every successive persecution
 
will bring to its support new adherents who have been shocked by the
 
oppressive methods employed. The old adherents will become more
 
embittered and their allegiance will thereby be strengthened. Therefore
 
when force is employed success is dependent on the consistent manner in
 
which it is used. This persistence, however, is nothing less than the
 
product of definite spiritual convictions. Every form of force that is
 
not supported by a spiritual backing will be always indecisive and
 
uncertain. Such a force lacks the stability that can be found only in a
 
WELTANSCHAUUNG which has devoted champions. Such a force is the
 
expression of the individual energies; therefore it is from time to time
 
dependent on the change of persons in whose hands it is employed and
 
also on their characters and capacities.
 
 
 
But there is something else to be said: Every WELTANSCHAUUNG, whether
 
religious or political--and it is sometimes difficult to say where the
 
one ends and the other begins--fights not so much for the negative
 
destruction of the opposing world of ideas as for the positive
 
realization of its own ideas. Thus its struggle lies in attack rather
 
than in defence. It has the advantage of knowing where its objective
 
lies, as this objective represents the realization of its own ideas.
 
Inversely, it is difficult to say when the negative aim for the
 
destruction of a hostile doctrine is reached and secured. For this
 
reason alone a WELTANSCHAUUNG which is of an aggressive character is
 
more definite in plan and more powerful and decisive in action than a
 
WELTANSCHAUUNG which takes up a merely defensive attitude. If force be
 
used to combat a spiritual power, that force remains a defensive measure
 
only so long as the wielders of it are not the standard-bearers and
 
apostles of a new spiritual doctrine.
 
 
 
To sum up, the following must be borne in mind: That every attempt to
 
combat a WELTANSCHAUUNG by means of force will turn out futile in the
 
end if the struggle fails to take the form of an offensive for the
 
establishment of an entirely new spiritual order of' things. It is only
 
in the struggle between two Weltan-schauungen that physical force,
 
consistently and ruthlessly applied, will eventually turn the scales in
 
its own favour. It was here that the fight against Marxism had hitherto
 
failed.
 
 
 
This was also the reason why Bismarck's anti-socialist legislation
 
failed and was bound to fail in the long run, despite everything. It
 
lacked the basis of a new WELTANSCHAUUNG for whose development and
 
extension the struggle might have been taken up. To say that the serving
 
up of drivel about a so-called 'State-Authority' or 'Law-and-Order' was
 
an adequate foundation for the spiritual driving force in a
 
life-or-death struggle is only what one would expect to hear from the
 
wiseacres in high official positions.
 
 
 
It was because there were no adequate spiritual motives back of this
 
offensive that Bismarck was compelled to hand over the administration of
 
his socialist legislative measures to the judgment and approval of those
 
circles which were themselves the product of the Marxist teaching. Thus
 
a very ludicrous state of affairs prevailed when the Iron Chancellor
 
surrendered the fate of his struggle against Marxism to the goodwill of
 
the bourgeois democracy. He left the goat to take care of the garden.
 
But this was only the necessary result of the failure to find a
 
fundamentally new WELTANSCHAUUNG which would attract devoted champions
 
to its cause and could be established on the ground from which Marxism
 
had been driven out. And thus the result of the Bismarckian campaign was
 
deplorable.
 
 
 
During the World War, or at the beginning of it, were the conditions any
 
different? Unfortunately, they were not.
 
 
 
The more I then pondered over the necessity for a change in the attitude
 
of the executive government towards Social-Democracy, as the
 
incorporation of contemporary Marxism, the more I realized the want of a
 
practical substitute for this doctrine. Supposing Social-Democracy were
 
overthrown, what had one to offer the masses in its stead? Not a single
 
movement existed which promised any success in attracting vast numbers
 
of workers who would be now more or less without leaders, and holding
 
these workers in its train. It is nonsensical to imagine that the
 
international fanatic who has just severed his connection with a class
 
party would forthwith join a bourgeois party, or, in other words,
 
another class organization. For however unsatisfactory these various
 
organizations may appear to be, it cannot be denied that bourgeois
 
politicians look on the distinction between classes as a very important
 
factor in social life, provided it does not turn out politically
 
disadvantageous to them. If they deny this fact they show themselves not
 
only impudent but also mendacious.
 
 
 
Generally speaking, one should guard against considering the broad
 
masses more stupid than they really are. In political matters it
 
frequently happens that feeling judges more correctly than intellect.
 
But the opinion that this feeling on the part of the masses is
 
sufficient proof of their stupid international attitude can be
 
immediately and definitely refuted by the simple fact that pacifist
 
democracy is no less fatuous, though it draws its supporters almost
 
exclusively from bourgeois circles. As long as millions of citizens
 
daily gulp down what the social-democratic Press tells them, it ill
 
becomes the 'Masters' to joke at the expense of the 'Comrades'; for in
 
the long run they all swallow the same hash, even though it be dished up
 
with different spices. In both cases the cook is one and the same--the
 
Jew.
 
 
 
One should be careful about contradicting established facts. It is an
 
undeniable fact that the class question has nothing to do with questions
 
concerning ideals, though that dope is administered at election time.
 
Class arrogance among a large section of our people, as well as a
 
prevailing tendency to look down on the manual labourer, are obvious
 
facts and not the fancies of some day-dreamer. Nevertheless it only
 
illustrates the mentality of our so-called intellectual circles, that
 
they have not yet grasped the fact that circumstances which are
 
incapable of preventing the growth of such a plague as Marxism are
 
certainly not capable of restoring what has been lost.
 
 
 
The bourgeois' parties--a name coined by themselves--will never again be
 
able to win over and hold the proletarian masses in their train. That is
 
because two worlds stand opposed to one another here, in part naturally
 
and in part artificially divided. These two camps have one leading
 
thought, and that is that they must fight one another. But in such a
 
fight the younger will come off victorious; and that is Marxism.
 
 
 
In 1914 a fight against Social-Democracy was indeed quite conceivable.
 
But the lack of any practical substitute made it doubtful how long the
 
fight could be kept up. In this respect there was a gaping void.
 
 
 
Long before the War I was of the same opinion and that was the reason
 
why I could not decide to join any of the parties then existing. During
 
the course of the World War my conviction was still further confirmed by
 
the manifest impossibility of fighting Social-Democracy in anything like
 
a thorough way: because for that purpose there should have been a
 
movement that was something more than a mere 'parliamentary' party, and
 
there was none such.
 
 
 
I frequently discussed that want with my intimate comrades. And it was
 
then that I first conceived the idea of taking up political work later
 
on. As I have often assured my friends, it was just this that induced me
 
to become active on the public hustings after the War, in addition to my
 
professional work. And I am sure that this decision was arrived at after
 
much earnest thought.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER VI
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WAR PROPAGANDA
 
 
 
 
 
In watching the course of political events I was always struck by the
 
active part which propaganda played in them. I saw that it was an
 
instrument, which the Marxist Socialists knew how to handle in a
 
masterly way and how to put it to practical uses. Thus I soon came to
 
realize that the right use of propaganda was an art in itself and that
 
this art was practically unknown to our bourgeois parties. The
 
Christian-Socialist Party alone, especially in Lueger's time, showed a
 
certain efficiency in the employment of this instrument and owed much of
 
their success to it.
 
 
 
It was during the War, however, that we had the best chance of
 
estimating the tremendous results which could be obtained by a
 
propagandist system properly carried out. Here again, unfortunately,
 
everything was left to the other side, the work done on our side being
 
worse than insignificant. It was the total failure of the whole German
 
system of information--a failure which was perfectly obvious to every
 
soldier--that urged me to consider the problem of propaganda in a
 
comprehensive way. I had ample opportunity to learn a practical lesson
 
in this matter; for unfortunately it was only too well taught us by the
 
enemy. The lack on our side was exploited by the enemy in such an
 
efficient manner that one could say it showed itself as a real work of
 
genius. In that propaganda carried on by the enemy I found admirable
 
sources of instruction. The lesson to be learned from this had
 
unfortunately no attraction for the geniuses on our own side. They were
 
simply above all such things, too clever to accept any teaching. Anyhow
 
they did not honestly wish to learn anything.
 
 
 
Had we any propaganda at all? Alas, I can reply only in the negative.
 
All that was undertaken in this direction was so utterly inadequate and
 
misconceived from the very beginning that not only did it prove useless
 
but at times harmful. In substance it was insufficient. Psychologically
 
it was all wrong. Anybody who had carefully investigated the German
 
propaganda must have formed that judgment of it. Our people did not seem
 
to be clear even about the primary question itself: Whether propaganda
 
is a means or an end?
 
 
 
Propaganda is a means and must, therefore, be judged in relation to the
 
end it is intended to serve. It must be organized in such a way as to be
 
capable of attaining its objective. And, as it is quite clear that the
 
importance of the objective may vary from the standpoint of general
 
necessity, the essential internal character of the propaganda must vary
 
accordingly. The cause for which we fought during the War was the
 
noblest and highest that man could strive for. We were fighting for the
 
freedom and independence of our country, for the security of our future
 
welfare and the honour of the nation. Despite all views to the contrary,
 
this honour does actually exist, or rather it will have to exist; for a
 
nation without honour will sooner or later lose its freedom and
 
independence. This is in accordance with the ruling of a higher justice,
 
for a generation of poltroons is not entitled to freedom. He who would
 
be a slave cannot have honour; for such honour would soon become an
 
object of general scorn.
 
 
 
Germany was waging war for its very existence. The purpose of its war
 
propaganda should have been to strengthen the fighting spirit 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, then all humane
 
and aesthetic considerations must be set aside; for these ideals do not
 
exist of themselves somewhere in the air but are the product of man's
 
creative imagination and disappear when he disappears. Nature knows
 
nothing of them. Moreover, they are characteristic of only a small
 
number of nations, or rather of races, and their value depends on the
 
measure in which they spring from the racial feeling of the latter.
 
Humane and aesthetic ideals will disappear from the inhabited earth when
 
those races disappear which are the creators and standard-bearers of
 
them.
 
 
 
All such ideals are only of secondary importance when a nation is
 
struggling for its existence. They must be prevented from entering into
 
the struggle the moment they threaten to weaken the stamina of the
 
nation that is waging war. That is always the only visible effect
 
whereby their place in the struggle is to be judged.
 
 
 
In regard to the part played by humane feeling, Moltke stated that in
 
time of war the essential thing is to get a decision as quickly as
 
possible and that the most ruthless methods of fighting are at the same
 
time the most humane. When people attempt to answer this reasoning by
 
highfalutin talk about aesthetics, etc., only one answer can be given. It
 
is that the vital questions involved in the struggle of a nation for its
 
existence must not be subordinated to any aesthetic considerations. The
 
yoke of slavery is and always will remain the most unpleasant experience
 
that mankind can endure. Do the Schwabing (Note 12) decadents look upon
 
Germany's lot to-day as 'aesthetic'? Of course, one doesn't discuss such
 
a question with the Jews, because they are the modern inventors of this
 
cultural perfume. Their very existence is an incarnate denial of the
 
beauty of God's image in His creation.
 
 
 
[Note 12. Schwabing is the artistic quarter in Munich where artists have
 
their studios and litterateurs, especially of the Bohemian class,
 
foregather.]
 
 
 
Since these ideas of what is beautiful and humane have no place in
 
warfare, they are not to be used as standards of war propaganda.
 
 
 
During the War, propaganda was a means to an end. And this end was the
 
struggle for existence of the German nation. Propaganda, therefore,
 
should have been regarded from the standpoint of its utility for that
 
purpose. The most cruel weapons were then the most humane, provided they
 
helped towards a speedier decision; and only those methods were good and
 
beautiful which helped towards securing the dignity and freedom of the
 
nation. Such was the only possible attitude to adopt towards war
 
propaganda in the life-or-death struggle.
 
 
 
If those in what are called positions of authority had realized this
 
there would have been no uncertainty about the form and employment of
 
war propaganda as a weapon; for it is nothing but a weapon, and indeed a
 
most terrifying weapon in the hands of those who know how to use it.
 
 
 
The second question of decisive importance is this: To whom should
 
propaganda be made to appeal? To the educated intellectual classes? Or
 
to the less intellectual?
 
 
 
Propaganda must always address itself to the broad masses of the people.
 
For the intellectual classes, or what are called the intellectual
 
classes to-day, propaganda is not suited, but only scientific
 
exposition. Propaganda has as little to do with science as an
 
advertisement poster has to do with art, as far as concerns the form in
 
which it presents its message. The art of the advertisement poster
 
consists in the ability of the designer to attract the attention of the
 
crowd through the form and colours he chooses. The advertisement poster
 
announcing an exhibition of art has no other aim than to convince the
 
public of the importance of the exhibition. The better it does that, the
 
better is the art of the poster as such. Being meant accordingly to
 
impress upon the public the meaning of the exposition, the poster can
 
never take the place of the artistic objects displayed in the exposition
 
hall. They are something entirely different. Therefore. those who wish
 
to study the artistic display must study something that is quite
 
different from the poster; indeed for that purpose a mere wandering
 
through the exhibition galleries is of no use. The student of art must
 
carefully and thoroughly study each exhibit in order slowly to form a
 
judicious opinion about it.
 
 
 
The situation is the same in regard to what we understand by the word,
 
propaganda. The purpose of propaganda is not the personal instruction of
 
the individual, but rather to attract public attention to certain
 
things, the importance of which can be brought home to the masses only
 
by this means.
 
 
 
Here the art of propaganda consists in putting a matter so clearly and
 
forcibly before the minds of the people as to create a general
 
conviction regarding the reality of a certain fact, the necessity of
 
certain things and the just character of something that is essential.
 
But as this art is not an end in itself and because its purpose must be
 
exactly that of the advertisement poster, to attract the attention of
 
the masses and not by any means to dispense individual instructions to
 
those who already have an educated opinion on things or who wish to form
 
such an opinion on grounds of objective study--because that is not the
 
purpose of propaganda, it must appeal to the feelings of the public
 
rather than to their reasoning powers.
 
 
 
All propaganda must be presented in a popular form and must fix its
 
intellectual level so as not to be above the heads of the least
 
intellectual of those to whom it is directed. Thus its purely
 
intellectual level will have to be that of the lowest mental common
 
denominator among the public it is desired to reach. When there is
 
question of bringing a whole nation within the circle of its influence,
 
as happens in the case of war propaganda, then too much attention cannot
 
be paid to the necessity of avoiding a high level, which presupposes a
 
relatively high degree of intelligence among the public.
 
 
 
The more modest the scientific tenor of this propaganda and the more it
 
is addressed exclusively to public sentiment, the more decisive will be
 
its success. This is the best test of the value of a propaganda, and not
 
the approbation of a small group of intellectuals or artistic people.
 
 
 
The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the
 
imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in
 
finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the
 
attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses. That this is
 
not understood by those among us whose wits are supposed to have been
 
sharpened to the highest pitch is only another proof of their vanity or
 
mental inertia.
 
 
 
Once we have understood how necessary it is to concentrate the
 
persuasive 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 it were a
 
manifold system of scientific instruction.
 
 
 
The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their
 
understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such
 
being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare
 
essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped
 
formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very
 
last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. If
 
this principle be forgotten and if an attempt be made to be abstract and
 
general, the propaganda will turn out ineffective; for the public will
 
not be able to digest or retain what is offered to them in this way.
 
Therefore, the greater the scope of the message that has to be
 
presented, the more necessary it is for the propaganda to discover that
 
plan of action which is psychologically the most efficient.
 
 
 
It was, for example, a fundamental mistake to ridicule the worth of the
 
enemy as the Austrian and German comic papers made a chief point of
 
doing in their propaganda. The very principle here is a mistaken one;
 
for, when they came face to face with the enemy, our soldiers had quite
 
a different impression. Therefore, the mistake had disastrous results.
 
Once the German soldier realised what a tough enemy he had to fight he
 
felt that he had been deceived by the manufacturers of the information
 
which had been given him. Therefore, instead of strengthening and
 
stimulating his fighting spirit, this information had quite the contrary
 
effect. Finally he lost heart.
 
 
 
On the other hand, British and American war propaganda was
 
psychologically efficient. By picturing the Germans to their own people
 
as Barbarians and Huns, they were preparing their soldiers for the
 
horrors of war and safeguarding them against illusions. The most
 
terrific weapons which those soldiers encountered in the field merely
 
confirmed the information that they had already received and their
 
belief in the truth of the assertions made by their respective
 
governments was accordingly reinforced. Thus their rage and hatred
 
against the infamous foe was increased. The terrible havoc caused by the
 
German weapons of war was only another illustration of the Hunnish
 
brutality of those barbarians; whereas on the side of the Entente no
 
time was left the soldiers to meditate on the similar havoc which their
 
own weapons were capable of. Thus the British soldier was never allowed
 
to feel that the information which he received at home was untrue.
 
Unfortunately the opposite was the case with the Germans, who finally
 
wound up by rejecting everything from home as pure swindle and humbug.
 
This result was made possible because at home they thought that the work
 
of propaganda could be entrusted to the first ass that came along,
 
braying of his own special talents, and they had no conception of the
 
fact that propaganda demands the most skilled brains that can be found.
 
 
 
Thus the German war propaganda afforded us an incomparable example of
 
how the work of 'enlightenment' should not be done and how such an
 
example was the result of an entire failure to take any psychological
 
considerations whatsoever into account.
 
 
 
From the enemy, however, a fund of valuable knowledge could be gained by
 
those who kept their eyes open, whose powers of perception had not yet
 
become sclerotic, and who during four-and-a-half years had to experience
 
the perpetual flood of enemy propaganda.
 
 
 
The worst of all was that our people did not understand the very first
 
condition which has to be fulfilled in every kind of propaganda; namely,
 
a systematically one-sided attitude towards every problem that has to be
 
dealt with. In this regard so many errors were committed, even from the
 
very beginning of the war, that it was justifiable to doubt whether so
 
much folly could be attributed solely to the stupidity of people in
 
higher quarters.
 
 
 
What, for example, should we say of a poster which purported to
 
advertise some new brand of soap by insisting on the excellent qualities
 
of the competitive brands? We should naturally shake our heads. And it
 
ought to be just the same in a similar kind of political advertisement.
 
The aim of propaganda is not to try to pass judgment on conflicting
 
rights, giving each its due, but exclusively to emphasize the right
 
which we are asserting. Propaganda must not investigate the truth
 
objectively and, in so far as it is favourable to the other side,
 
present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must
 
present only that aspect of the truth which is favourable to its own
 
side.
 
 
 
It was a fundamental mistake to discuss the question of who was
 
responsible for the outbreak of the war and declare that the sole
 
responsibility could not be attributed to Germany. The sole
 
responsibility should have been laid on the shoulders of the enemy,
 
without any discussion whatsoever.
 
 
 
And what was the consequence of these half-measures? The broad masses of
 
the people are not made up of diplomats or professors of public
 
jurisprudence nor simply of persons who are able to form reasoned
 
judgment in given cases, but a vacillating crowd of human children who
 
are constantly wavering between one idea and another. As soon as our own
 
propaganda made the slightest suggestion that the enemy had a certain
 
amount of justice on his side, then we laid down the basis on which the
 
justice of our own cause could be questioned. The masses are not in a
 
position to discern where the enemy's fault ends and where our own
 
begins. In such a case they become hesitant and distrustful, especially
 
when the enemy does not make the same mistake but heaps all the blame on
 
his adversary. Could there be any clearer proof of this than the fact
 
that finally our own people believed what was said by the enemy's
 
propaganda, which was uniform and consistent in its assertions, rather
 
than what our own propaganda said? And that, of course, was increased by
 
the mania for objectivity which addicts our people. Everybody began to
 
be careful about doing an injustice to the enemy, even at the cost of
 
seriously injuring, and even ruining his own people and State.
 
 
 
Naturally the masses were not conscious of the fact that those in
 
authority had failed to study the subject from this angle.
 
 
 
The great majority of a nation is so feminine in its character and
 
outlook that its thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather than
 
by sober reasoning. This sentiment, however, is not complex, but simple
 
and consistent. It is not highly differentiated, but has only the
 
negative and positive notions of love and hatred, right and wrong, truth
 
and falsehood. Its notions are never partly this and partly that.
 
English propaganda especially understood this in a marvellous way and
 
put what they understood into practice. They allowed no half-measures
 
which might have given rise to some doubt.
 
 
 
Proof of how brilliantly they understood that the feeling of the masses
 
is something primitive was shown in their policy of publishing tales of
 
horror and outrages which fitted in with the real horrors of the time,
 
thereby cleverly and ruthlessly preparing the ground for moral
 
solidarity at the front, even in times of great defeats. Further, the
 
way in which they pilloried the German enemy as solely responsible for
 
the war--which was a brutal and absolute falsehood--and the way in which
 
they proclaimed his guilt was excellently calculated to reach the
 
masses, realizing that these are always extremist in their feelings. And
 
thus it was that this atrocious lie was positively believed.
 
 
 
The effectiveness of this kind of propaganda is well illustrated by the
 
fact that after four-and-a-half years, not only was the enemy still
 
carrying on his propagandist work, but it was already undermining the
 
stamina of our people at home.
 
 
 
That our propaganda did not achieve similar results is not to be
 
wondered at, because it had the germs of inefficiency lodged in its very
 
being by reason of its ambiguity. And because of the very nature of its
 
content one could not expect it to make the necessary impression on the
 
masses. Only our feckless 'statesmen' could have imagined that on
 
pacifists slops of such a kind the enthusiasm could be nourished which
 
is necessary to enkindle that spirit which leads men to die for their
 
country.
 
 
 
And so this product of ours was not only worthless but detrimental.
 
 
 
No matter what an amount of talent employed in the organization of
 
propaganda, it will have no result if due account is not taken of these
 
fundamental principles. Propaganda must be limited to a few simple
 
themes and these must be represented again and again. Here, as in
 
innumerable other cases, perseverance is the first and most important
 
condition of success.
 
 
 
Particularly in the field of propaganda, placid aesthetes and blase
 
intellectuals should never be allowed to take the lead. The former would
 
readily transform the impressive character of real propaganda into
 
something suitable only for literary tea parties. As to the second class
 
of people, one must always beware of this pest; for, in consequence of
 
their insensibility to normal impressions, they are constantly seeking
 
new excitements.
 
 
 
Such people grow sick and tired of everything. They always long for
 
change and will always be incapable of putting themselves in the
 
position of picturing the wants of their less callous fellow-creatures
 
in their immediate neighbourhood, let alone trying to understand them.
 
The blase intellectuals are always the first to criticize propaganda, or
 
rather its message, because this appears to them to be outmoded and
 
trivial. They are always looking for something new, always yearning for
 
change; and thus they become the mortal enemies of every effort that may
 
be made to influence the masses in an effective way. The moment the
 
organization and message of a propagandist movement begins to be
 
orientated according to their tastes it becomes incoherent and
 
scattered.
 
 
 
It is not the purpose of propaganda to create a series of alterations in
 
sentiment with a view to pleasing these blase gentry. Its chief function
 
is to convince the masses, whose slowness of understanding needs to be
 
given time in order that they may absorb information; and only constant
 
repetition will finally succeed in imprinting an idea on the memory of
 
the crowd.
 
 
 
Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must
 
always emphasize the same conclusion. The leading slogan must of course
 
be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one
 
must always return to the assertion of the same formula. In this way
 
alone can propaganda be consistent and dynamic in its effects.
 
 
 
Only by following these general lines and sticking to them steadfastly,
 
with uniform and concise emphasis, can final success be reached. Then
 
one will be rewarded by the surprising and almost incredible results
 
that such a persistent policy secures.
 
 
 
The success of any advertisement, whether of a business or political
 
nature, depends on the consistency and perseverance with which it is
 
employed.
 
 
 
In this respect also the propaganda organized by our enemies set us an
 
excellent example. It confined itself to a few themes, which were meant
 
exclusively for mass consumption, and it repeated these themes with
 
untiring perseverance. Once these fundamental themes and the manner of
 
placing them before the world were recognized as effective, they adhered
 
to them without the slightest alteration for the whole duration of the
 
War. At first all of it appeared to be idiotic in its impudent
 
assertiveness. Later on it was looked upon 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 this spiritual weapon consists
 
in the mass employment of it, and that when employed in this way it
 
brings full returns for the large expenses incurred.
 
 
 
In England propaganda was regarded as a weapon of the first order,
 
whereas with us it represented the last hope of a livelihood for our
 
unemployed politicians and a snug job for shirkers of the modest hero
 
type.
 
 
 
Taken all in all, its results were negative.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER VII
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE REVOLUTION
 
 
 
 
 
In 1915 the enemy started his propaganda among our soldiers. From 1916
 
onwards it steadily became more intensive, and at the beginning of 1918
 
it had swollen into a storm flood. One could now judge the effects of
 
this proselytizing movement step by step. Gradually our soldiers began
 
to think just in the way the enemy wished them to think. On the German
 
side there was no counter-propaganda.
 
 
 
At that time the army authorities, under our able and resolute
 
Commander, were willing and ready to take up the fight in the propaganda
 
domain also, but unfortunately they did not have the necessary means to
 
carry that intention into effect. Moreover, the army authorities would
 
have made a psychological mistake had they undertaken this task of
 
mental training. To be efficacious it had come from the home front. For
 
only thus could it be successful among men who for nearly four years now
 
had been performing immortal deeds of heroism and undergoing all sorts
 
of privations for the sake of that home. But what were the people at
 
home doing? Was their failure to act merely due to unintelligence or bad
 
faith?
 
 
 
In the midsummer of 1918, after the evacuation of the southern bank of
 
the hearne, the German Press adopted a policy which was so woefully
 
inopportune, and even criminally stupid, that I used to ask myself a
 
question which made me more and more furious day after day: Is it really
 
true that we have nobody who will dare to put an end to this process of
 
spiritual sabotage which is being carried on among our heroic troops?
 
 
 
What happened in France during those days of 1914, when our armies
 
invaded that country and were marching in triumph from one victory to
 
another? What happened in Italy when their armies collapsed on the
 
Isonzo front? What happened in France again during the spring of 1918,
 
when German divisions took the main French positions by storm and heavy
 
long-distance artillery bombarded Paris?
 
 
 
How they whipped up the flagging courage of those troops who were
 
retreating and fanned the fires of national enthusiasm among them! How
 
their propaganda and their marvellous aptitude in the exercise of
 
mass-influence reawakened the fighting spirit in that broken front and
 
hammered into the heads of the soldiers a, firm belief in final victory!
 
 
 
Meanwhile, what were our people doing in this sphere? Nothing, or even
 
worse than nothing. Again and again I used to become enraged and
 
indignant as I read the latest papers and realized the nature of the
 
mass-murder they were committing: through their influence on the minds
 
of the people and the soldiers. More than once I was tormented by the
 
thought that if Providence had put the conduct of German propaganda into
 
my hands, instead of into the hands of those incompetent and even
 
criminal ignoramuses and weaklings, the outcome of the struggle might
 
have been different.
 
 
 
During those months I felt for the first time that Fate was dealing
 
adversely with me in keeping me on the fighting front and in a position
 
where any chance bullet from some nigger or other might finish me,
 
whereas I could have done the Fatherland a real service in another
 
sphere. For I was then presumptuous enough to believe that I would have
 
been successful in managing the propaganda 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 as well as I could in
 
the position to which I had been assigned.
 
 
 
In the summer of 1915 the first enemy leaflets were dropped on our
 
trenches. They all told more or less the same story, with some
 
variations in the form of it. The story was that distress was steadily
 
on the increase in Germany; that the War would last indefinitely; that
 
the prospect of victory for us was becoming fainter day after day; that
 
the people at home were yearning for peace, but that 'Militarism' and
 
the 'Kaiser' would not permit it; that the world--which knew this very
 
well--was not waging war against the German people but only against the
 
man who was exclusively responsible, the Kaiser; that until this enemy
 
of world-peace was removed there could be no end to the conflict; but
 
that when the War was over the liberal and democratic nations would
 
receive the Germans as colleagues in the League for World Peace. This
 
would be done the moment 'Prussian Militarism' had been finally
 
destroyed.
 
 
 
To illustrate and substantiate all these statements, the leaflets very
 
often contained 'Letters from Home', the contents of which appeared to
 
confirm the enemy's propagandist message.
 
 
 
Generally speaking, we only laughed at all these efforts. The leaflets
 
were read, sent to base headquarters, then forgotten until a favourable
 
wind once again blew a fresh contingent into the trenches. These were
 
mostly dropped from aeroplanes which were used specially for that
 
purpose.
 
 
 
One feature of this propaganda was very striking. It was that in
 
sections where Bavarian troops were stationed every effort was made by
 
the enemy propagandists to stir up feeling against the Prussians,
 
assuring the soldiers that Prussia and Prussia alone was the guilty
 
party who was responsible for bringing on and continuing the War, and
 
that there was no hostility whatsoever towards the Bavarians; but that
 
there could be no possibility of coming to their assistance so long as
 
they continued to serve Prussian interests and helped to pull the
 
Prussian chestnuts out of the fire.
 
 
 
This persistent propaganda began to have a real influence on our
 
soldiers in 1915. The feeling against Prussia grew quite noticeable
 
among the Bavarian troops, but those in authority did nothing to
 
counteract it. This was something more than a mere crime of omission;
 
for sooner or later not only the Prussians were bound to have to atone
 
severely for it but the whole German nation and consequently the
 
Bavarians themselves also.
 
 
 
In this direction the enemy propaganda began to achieve undoubted
 
success from 1916 onwards.
 
 
 
In a similar way letters coming directly from home had long since been
 
exercising their effect. There was now no further necessity for the
 
enemy to broadcast such letters in leaflet form. And also against this
 
influence from home nothing was done except a few supremely stupid
 
'warnings' uttered by the executive government. The whole front was
 
drenched in this poison which thoughtless women at home sent out,
 
without suspecting for a moment that the enemy's chances of final
 
victory were thus strengthened or that the sufferings of their own men
 
at the front were thus being prolonged and rendered more severe. These
 
stupid letters written by German women eventually cost the lives of
 
hundreds of thousands of our men.
 
 
 
Thus in 1916 several distressing phenomena were already manifest. The
 
whole front was complaining and grousing, discontented over many things
 
and often justifiably so. While they were hungry and yet patient, and
 
their relatives at home were in distress, in other quarters there was
 
feasting and revelry. Yes; even on the front itself everything was not
 
as it ought to have been in this regard.
 
 
 
Even in the early stages of the war the soldiers were sometimes prone to
 
complain; but such criticism was confined to 'internal affairs'. The man
 
who at one moment groused and grumbled ceased his murmur after a few
 
moments and went about his duty silently, as if everything were in
 
order. The company which had given signs of discontent a moment earlier
 
hung on now to its bit of trench, defending it tooth and nail, as if
 
Germany's fate depended on these few hundred yards of mud and
 
shell-holes. The glorious old army was still at its post. A sudden
 
change in my own fortunes soon placed me in a position where I had
 
first-hand experience of the contrast between this old army and the home
 
front. At the end of September 1916 my division was sent into the Battle
 
of the Somme. For us this was the first of a series of heavy
 
engagements, and the impression created was that of a veritable inferno,
 
rather than war. Through weeks of incessant artillery bombardment we
 
stood firm, at times ceding a little ground but then taking it back
 
again, and never giving way. On October 7th, 1916, I was wounded but had
 
the luck of being able to get back to our lines and was then ordered to
 
be sent by ambulance train to Germany.
 
 
 
Two years had passed since I had left home, an almost endless period in
 
such circumstances. I could hardly imagine what Germans looked like
 
without uniforms. In the clearing hospital at Hermies I was startled
 
when I suddenly heard the voice of a German woman who was acting as
 
nursing sister and talking with one of the wounded men lying near me.
 
Two years! And then this voice for the first time!
 
 
 
The nearer our ambulance train approached the German frontier the more
 
restless each one of us became. En route we recognised all these places
 
through which we passed two years before as young volunteers--Brussels,
 
Louvain, Liège--and finally we thought we recognized the first German
 
homestead, with its familiar high gables and picturesque
 
window-shutters. Home!
 
 
 
What a change! From the mud of the Somme battlefields to the spotless
 
white beds in this wonderful building. One hesitated at first before
 
entering them. It was only by slow stages that one could grow accustomed
 
to this new world again. But unfortunately there were certain other
 
aspects also in which this new world was different.
 
 
 
The spirit of the army at the front appeared to be out of place here.
 
For the first time I encountered something which up to then was unknown
 
at the front: namely, boasting of one's own cowardice. For, though we
 
certainly heard complaining and grousing at the front, this was never in
 
the spirit of any agitation to insubordination and certainly not an
 
attempt to glorify one's fear. No; there at the front a coward was a
 
coward and nothing else, And the contempt which his weakness aroused in
 
the others was quite general, just as the real hero was admired all
 
round. But here in hospital the spirit was quite different in some
 
respects. Loudmouthed agitators were busy here in heaping ridicule on
 
the good soldier and painting the weak-kneed poltroon in glorious
 
colours. A couple of miserable human specimens were the ringleaders in
 
this process of defamation. One of them boasted of having intentionally
 
injured his hand in barbed-wire entanglements in order to get sent to
 
hospital. Although his wound was only a slight one, it appeared that he
 
had been here for a very long time and would be here interminably. Some
 
arrangement for him seemed to be worked by some sort of swindle, just as
 
he got sent here in the ambulance train through a swindle. This
 
pestilential specimen actually had the audacity to parade his knavery as
 
the manifestation of a courage which was superior to that of the brave
 
soldier who dies a hero's death. There were many who heard this talk in
 
silence; but there were others who expressed their assent to what the
 
fellow said.
 
 
 
Personally I was disgusted at the thought that a seditious agitator of
 
this kind should be allowed to remain in such an institution. What could
 
be done? The hospital authorities here must have known who and what he
 
was; and actually they did know. But still they did nothing about it.
 
 
 
As soon as I was able to walk once again I obtained leave to visit
 
Berlin.
 
 
 
Bitter want was in evidence everywhere. The metropolis, with its teeming
 
millions, was suffering from hunger. The talk that was current in the
 
various places of refreshment and hospices visited by the soldiers was
 
much the same as that in our hospital. The impression given was that
 
these agitators purposely singled out such places in order to spread
 
their views.
 
 
 
But in Munich conditions were far worse. After my discharge from
 
hospital, I was sent to a reserve battalion there. I felt as in some
 
strange town. Anger, discontent, complaints met one's ears wherever one
 
went. To a certain extent this was due to the infinitely maladroit
 
manner in which the soldiers who had returned from the front were
 
treated by the non-commissioned officers who had never seen a day's
 
active service and who on that account were partly incapable of adopting
 
the proper attitude towards the old soldiers. Naturally those old
 
soldiers displayed certain characteristics which had been developed from
 
the experiences in the trenches. The officers of the reserve units could
 
not understand these peculiarities, whereas the officer home from active
 
service was at least in a position to understand them for himself. As a
 
result he received more respect from the men than officers at the home
 
headquarters. But, apart from all this, the general spirit was
 
deplorable. The art of shirking was looked upon as almost a proof of
 
higher intelligence, and devotion to duty was considered a sign of
 
weakness or bigotry. Government offices were staffed by Jews. Almost
 
every clerk was a Jew and every Jew was a clerk. I was amazed at this
 
multitude of combatants who belonged to the chosen people and could not
 
help comparing it with their slender numbers in the fighting lines.
 
 
 
In the business world the situation was even worse. Here the Jews had
 
actually become 'indispensable'. Like leeches, they were slowly sucking
 
the blood from the pores of the national body. By means of newly floated
 
War Companies an instrument had been discovered whereby all national
 
trade was throttled so that no business could be carried on freely
 
 
 
Special emphasis was laid on the necessity for unhampered
 
centralization. Hence as early as 1916-17 practically all production was
 
under the control of Jewish finance.
 
 
 
But against whom was the anger of the people directed? It was then that
 
I already saw the fateful day approaching which must finally bring the
 
DEBACLE, unless timely preventive measures were taken.
 
 
 
While Jewry was busy despoiling the nation and tightening the screws of
 
its despotism, the work of inciting the people against the Prussians
 
increased. And just as nothing was done at the front to put a stop to
 
the venomous propaganda, so here at home no official steps were taken
 
against it. Nobody seemed capable of understanding that the collapse of
 
Prussia could never bring about the rise of Bavaria. On the contrary,
 
the collapse of the one must necessarily drag the other down with it.
 
 
 
This kind of behaviour affected me very deeply. In it I could see only a
 
clever Jewish trick for diverting public attention from themselves to
 
others. While Prussians and Bavarians were squabbling, the Jews were
 
taking away the sustenance of both from under their very noses. While
 
Prussians were being abused in Bavaria the Jews organized the revolution
 
and with one stroke smashed both Prussia and Bavaria.
 
 
 
I could not tolerate this execrable squabbling among people of the same
 
German stock and preferred to be at the front once again. Therefore,
 
just after my arrival in Munich I reported myself for service again. At
 
the beginning of March 1917 I rejoined my old regiment at the front.
 
 
 
Towards the end of 1917 it seemed as if we had got over the worst phases
 
of moral depression at the front. After the Russian collapse the whole
 
army recovered its courage and hope, and all were gradually becoming
 
more and more convinced that the struggle would end in our favour. We
 
could sing once again. The ravens were ceasing to croak. Faith in the
 
future of the Fatherland was once more in the ascendant.
 
 
 
The Italian collapse in the autumn of 1917 had a wonderful effect; for
 
this victory proved that it was possible to break through another front
 
besides the Russian. This inspiring thought now became dominant in the
 
minds of millions at the front and encouraged them to look forward with
 
confidence to the spring of 1918. It was quite obvious that the enemy
 
was in a state of depression. During this winter the front was somewhat
 
quieter than usual. But that was the calm before the storm.
 
 
 
Just when preparations were being made to launch a final offensive which
 
would bring this seemingly eternal struggle to an end, while endless
 
columns of transports were bringing men and munitions to the front, and
 
while the men were being trained for that final onslaught, then it was
 
that the greatest act of treachery during the whole War was accomplished
 
in Germany.
 
 
 
Germany must not win the War. At that moment when victory seemed ready
 
to alight on the German standards, a conspiracy was arranged for the
 
purpose of striking at the heart of the German spring offensive with one
 
blow from the rear and thus making victory impossible. A general strike
 
in the munition factories was organized.
 
 
 
If this conspiracy could achieve its purpose the German front would have
 
collapsed and the wishes of the VORWÄRTS (the organ of the
 
Social-Democratic Party) that this time victory should not take the side
 
of the German banners, would have been fulfilled. For want of munitions
 
the front would be broken through within a few weeks, the offensive
 
would be effectively stopped and the Entente saved. Then International
 
Finance would assume control over Germany and the internal objective of
 
the Marxist national betrayal would be achieved. That objective was the
 
destruction of the national economic system and the establishment of
 
international capitalistic domination in its stead. And this goal has
 
really been reached, thanks to the stupid credulity of the one side and
 
the unspeakable treachery of the other.
 
 
 
The munition strike, however, did not bring the final success that had
 
been hoped for: namely, to starve the front of ammunition. It lasted too
 
short a time for the lack of ammunitions as such to bring disaster to
 
the army, as was originally planned. But the moral damage was much more
 
terrible.
 
 
 
In the first place. what was the army fighting for if the people at home
 
did not wish it to be victorious? For whom then were these enormous
 
sacrifices and privations being made and endured? Must the soldiers
 
fight for victory while the home front goes on strike against it?
 
 
 
In the second place, what effect did this move have on the enemy?
 
 
 
In the winter of 1917-18 dark clouds hovered in the firmament of the
 
Entente. For nearly four years onslaught after onslaught has been made
 
against the German giant, but they failed to bring him to the ground. He
 
had to keep them at bay with one arm that held the defensive shield
 
because his other arm had to be free to wield the sword against his
 
enemies, now in the East and now in the South. But at last these enemies
 
were overcome and his rear was now free for the conflict in the West.
 
Rivers of blood had been shed for the accomplishment of that task; but
 
now the sword was free to combine in battle with the shield on the
 
Western Front. And since the enemy had hitherto failed to break the
 
German defence here, the Germans themselves had now to launch the
 
attack. The enemy feared and trembled before the prospect of this German
 
victory.
 
 
 
At Paris and London conferences followed one another in unending series.
 
Even the enemy propaganda encountered difficulties. It was no longer so
 
easy to demonstrate that the prospect of a German victory was hopeless.
 
A prudent silence reigned at the front, even among the troops of the
 
Entente. The insolence of their masters had suddenly subsided. A
 
disturbing truth began to dawn on them. Their opinion of the German
 
soldier had changed. Hitherto they were able to picture him as a kind of
 
fool whose end would be destruction; but now they found themselves face
 
to face with the soldier who had overcome their Russian ally. The policy
 
of restricting the offensive to the East, which had been imposed on the
 
German military authorities by the necessities of the situation, now
 
seemed to the Entente as a tactical stroke of genius. For three years
 
these Germans had been battering away at the Russian front without any
 
apparent success at first. Those fruitless efforts were almost sneered
 
at; for it was thought that in the long run the Russian giant would
 
triumph through sheer force of numbers. Germany would be worn out
 
through shedding so much blood. And facts appeared to confirm this hope.
 
 
 
Since the September days of 1914, when for the first time interminable
 
columns of Russian war prisoners poured into Germany after the Battle of
 
Tannenberg, it seemed as if the stream would never end but that as soon
 
as one army was defeated and routed another would take its place. The
 
supply of soldiers which the gigantic Empire placed at the disposal of
 
the Czar seemed inexhaustible; new victims were always at hand for the
 
holocaust of war. How long could Germany hold out in this competition?
 
Would not the day finally have to come when, after the last victory
 
which the Germans would achieve, there would still remain reserve armies
 
in Russia to be mustered for the final battle? And what then? According
 
to human standards a Russian victory over Germany might be delayed but
 
it would have to come in the long run.
 
 
 
All the hopes that had been based on Russia were now lost. The Ally who
 
had sacrificed the most blood on the altar of their mutual interests had
 
come to the end of his resources and lay prostrate before his
 
unrelenting foe. A feeling of terror and dismay came over the Entente
 
soldiers who had hitherto been buoyed up by blind faith. They feared the
 
coming spring. For, seeing that hitherto they had failed to break the
 
Germans when the latter could concentrate only part of the fighting
 
strength on the Western Front, how could they count on victory now that
 
the undivided forces of that amazing land of heroes appeared to be
 
gathered for a massed 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 in the
 
gloomy faces of the Entente troops in Flanders. Faith in victory gave
 
way to fear of defeat to come.
 
 
 
Then, on those cold nights, when one almost heard the tread of the
 
German armies advancing to the great assault, and the decision was being
 
awaited in fear and trembling, suddenly a lurid light was set aglow in
 
Germany and sent its rays into the last shell-hole on the enemy's front.
 
At the very moment when the German divisions were receiving their final
 
orders for the great offensive a general strike broke out in Germany.
 
 
 
At first the world was dumbfounded. Then the enemy propaganda began
 
activities once again and pounced on this theme at the eleventh hour.
 
All of a sudden a means had come which could be utilized to revive the
 
sinking confidence of the Entente soldiers. The probabilities of victory
 
could now be presented as certain, and the anxious foreboding in regard
 
to coming events could now be transformed into a feeling of resolute
 
assurance. The regiments that had to bear the brunt of the Greatest
 
German onslaught in history could now be inspired with the conviction
 
that the final decision in this war would not be won by the audacity of
 
the German assault but rather by the powers of endurance on the side of
 
the defence. Let the Germans now have whatever victories they liked, the
 
revolution and not the victorious army was welcomed in the Fatherland.
 
 
 
British, French and American newspapers began to spread this belief
 
among their readers while a very ably managed propaganda encouraged the
 
morale of their troops at the front.
 
 
 
'Germany Facing Revolution! An Allied Victory Inevitable!' That was the
 
best medicine to set the staggering Poilu and Tommy on their feet once
 
again. Our rifles and machine-guns could now open fire once again; but
 
instead of effecting a panic-stricken retreat they were now met with a
 
determined resistance that was full of confidence.
 
 
 
That was the result of the strike in the munitions factories. Throughout
 
the enemy countries faith in victory was thus revived and strengthened,
 
and that paralysing feeling of despair which had hitherto made itself
 
felt on the Entente front was banished. Consequently the strike cost the
 
lives of thousands of German soldiers. But the despicable instigators of
 
that dastardly strike were candidates for the highest public positions
 
in the Germany of the Revolution.
 
 
 
At first it was apparently possible to overcome the repercussion of
 
these events on the German soldiers, but on the enemy's side they had a
 
lasting effect. Here the resistance had lost all the character of an
 
army fighting for a lost cause. In its place there was now a grim
 
determination to struggle through to victory. For, according to all
 
human rules of judgment, victory would now be assured if the Western
 
front could hold out against the German offensive even for only a few
 
months. The Allied parliaments recognized the possibilities of a better
 
future and voted huge sums of money for the continuation of the
 
propaganda which was employed for the purpose of breaking up the
 
internal cohesion of Germany.
 
 
 
It was my luck that I was able to take part in the first two offensives
 
and in the final offensive. These have left on me the most stupendous
 
impressions of my life--stupendous, because now for the last time the
 
struggle lost its defensive character and assumed the character of an
 
offensive, just as it was in 1914. A sigh of relief went up from the
 
German trenches and dug-outs when finally, after three years of
 
endurance in that inferno, the day for the settling of accounts had
 
come. Once again the lusty cheering of victorious battalions was heard,
 
as they hung the last crowns of the immortal laurel on the standards
 
which they consecrated to Victory. Once again the strains of patriotic
 
songs soared upwards to the heavens above the endless columns of
 
marching troops, and for the last time the Lord smiled on his ungrateful
 
children.
 
 
 
In the midsummer of 1918 a feeling of sultry oppression hung over the
 
front. At home they were quarrelling. About what? We heard a great deal
 
among various units at the front. The War was now a hopeless affair, and
 
only the foolhardy could think of victory. It was not the people but the
 
capitalists and the Monarchy who were interested in carrying on. Such
 
were the ideas that came from home and were discussed at the front.
 
 
 
At first this gave rise to only very slight reaction. What did universal
 
suffrage matter to us? Is this what we had been fighting for during four
 
years? It was a dastardly piece of robbery thus to filch from the graves
 
of our heroes the ideals for which they had fallen. It was not to the
 
slogan, 'Long Live Universal Suffrage,' that our troops in Flanders once
 
faced certain death but with the cry, 'DEUTSCHLAND ÜBER ALLES IN DER
 
WELT'. A small but by no means an unimportant difference. And the
 
majority of those who were shouting for this suffrage were absent when
 
it came to fighting for it. All this political rabble were strangers to
 
us at the front. During those days only a fraction of these
 
parliamentarian gentry were to be seen where honest Germans
 
foregathered.
 
 
 
The old soldiers who had fought at the front had little liking for those
 
new war aims of Messrs. Ebert, Scheidemann, Barth, Liebknecht and
 
others. We could not understand why, all of a sudden, the shirkers
 
should abrogate all executive powers to themselves, without having any
 
regard to the army.
 
 
 
From the very beginning I had my own definite personal views. I
 
intensely loathed the whole gang of miserable party politicians who had
 
betrayed the people. I had long ago realized that the interests of the
 
nation played only a very small part with this disreputable crew and
 
that what counted with them was the possibility of filling their own
 
empty pockets. My opinion was that those people thoroughly deserved to
 
be hanged, because they were ready to sacrifice the peace and if
 
necessary allow Germany to be defeated just to serve their own ends. To
 
consider their wishes would mean to sacrifice the interests of the
 
working classes for the benefit of a gang of thieves. To meet their
 
wishes meant that one should agree to sacrifice Germany.
 
 
 
Such, too, was the opinion still held by the majority of the army. But
 
the reinforcements which came from home were fast becoming worse and
 
worse; so much so that their arrival was a source 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 same nation that sent its youth into
 
the battles that were fought round Ypres.
 
 
 
In August and September the symptoms of moral disintegration increased
 
more and more rapidly, although the enemy's offensive was not at all
 
comparable to the frightfulness of our own former defensive battles. In
 
comparison with this offensive the battles fought on the Somme and in
 
Flanders remained in our memories as the most terrible of all horrors.
 
 
 
At the end of September my division occupied, for the third time, those
 
positions which we had once taken by storm as young volunteers. What a
 
memory!
 
 
 
Here we had received our baptism of fire, in October and November 1914.
 
With a burning love of the homeland in their hearts and a song on their
 
lips, our young regiment went into action as if going to a dance. The
 
dearest blood was given freely here in the belief that it was shed to
 
protect the freedom and independence of the Fatherland.
 
 
 
In July 1917 we set foot for the second time on what we regarded as
 
sacred soil. Were not our best comrades at rest here, some of them
 
little more than boys--the soldiers who had rushed into death for their
 
country's sake, their eyes glowing with enthusiastic love.
 
 
 
The older ones among us, who had been with the regiment from the
 
beginning, were deeply moved as we stood on this sacred spot where we
 
had sworn 'Loyalty and Duty unto Death'. Three years ago the regiment
 
had taken this position by storm; now it was called upon to defend it in
 
a gruelling struggle.
 
 
 
With an artillery bombardment that lasted three weeks the English
 
prepared for their great offensive in Flanders. There the spirits of the
 
dead seemed to live again. The regiment dug itself into the mud, clung
 
to its shell-holes and craters, neither flinching nor wavering, but
 
growing smaller in numbers day after day. Finally the British launched
 
their attack on July 31st, 1917.
 
 
 
We were relieved in the beginning of August. The regiment had dwindled
 
down to a few companies, who staggered back, mud-crusted, more like
 
phantoms than human beings. Besides a few hundred yards of shell-holes,
 
death was the only reward which the English gained.
 
 
 
Now in the autumn of 1918 we stood for the third time on the ground we
 
had stormed in 1914. The village of Comines, which formerly had served
 
us as a base, was now within the fighting zone. Although little had
 
changed in the surrounding district itself, yet the men had become
 
different, somehow or other. They now talked politics. Like everywhere
 
else, the poison from home was having its effect here also. The young
 
drafts succumbed to it completely. They had come directly from home.
 
 
 
During the night of October 13th-14th, the British opened an attack with
 
gas on the front south of Ypres. They used the yellow gas whose effect
 
was unknown to us, at least from personal experience. I was destined to
 
experience it that very night. On a hill south of Werwick, in the
 
evening of October 13th, we were subjected 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 for ever. Towards morning I also began to feel pain. It
 
increased with every quarter of an hour; and about seven o'clock my eyes
 
were scorching as I staggered back and delivered the last dispatch I was
 
destined to carry in this war. A few hours later my eyes were like
 
glowing coals and all was darkness around me.
 
 
 
I was sent into hospital at Pasewalk in Pomerania, and there it was that
 
I had to hear of the Revolution.
 
 
 
For a long time there had been something in the air which was
 
indefinable and repulsive. People were saying that something was bound
 
to happen within the next few weeks, although I could not imagine what
 
this meant. In the first instance I thought of a strike similar to the
 
one which had taken place in spring. Unfavourable rumours were
 
constantly coming from the Navy, which was said to be in a state of
 
ferment. But this seemed to be a fanciful creation of a few isolated
 
young people. It is true that at the hospital they were all talking abut
 
the end of the war and hoping that this was not far off, but nobody
 
thought that the decision would come immediately. I was not able to read
 
the newspapers.
 
 
 
In November the general tension increased. Then one day disaster broke
 
in upon us suddenly and without warning. Sailors came in motor-lorries
 
and called on us to rise in revolt. A few Jew-boys were the leaders in
 
that combat for the 'Liberty, Beauty, and Dignity' of our National
 
Being. Not one of them had seen active service at the front. Through the
 
medium of a hospital for venereal diseases these three Orientals had
 
been sent back home. Now their red 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 my immediate surroundings.
 
And it was permissible to hope that at least I would recover my sight
 
sufficiently to be able to take up some profession later on. That I
 
would ever be able to draw or design once again was naturally out of the
 
question. Thus I was on the way to recovery when the frightful hour
 
came.
 
 
 
My first thought was that this outbreak of high treason was only a 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 not imagine this
 
madness breaking out in Munich; for it seemed to me that loyalty to the
 
House of Wittelsbach was, after all, stronger than the will of a few
 
Jews. And so I could not help believing that this was merely a revolt in
 
the Navy and that it would be suppressed within the next few days.
 
 
 
With the next few days came the most astounding information of my life.
 
The rumours grew more and more persistent. I was told that what I had
 
considered to be a local affair was in reality a general revolution. In
 
addition to this, from the front came the shameful news that they wished
 
to capitulate! What! Was such a thing possible?
 
 
 
On November 10th the local pastor visited the hospital for the purpose
 
of delivering a short address. And that was how we came to know the
 
whole story.
 
 
 
I was in a fever of excitement as I listened to the address. The
 
reverend old gentleman seemed to be trembling when he informed us that
 
the House of Hohen-zollern should no longer wear the Imperial Crown,
 
that the Fatherland had become a 'Republic', that we should pray to the
 
Almighty not to withhold His blessing from the new order of things and
 
not to abandon our people in the days to come. In delivering this
 
message he could not do more than briefly express 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 fell on the people in that assembly, and I do not think
 
there was a single eye that withheld its tears. As for myself, I broke
 
down completely when the old gentleman tried to resume his story by
 
informing us that we must now end this long war, because the war was
 
lost, he said, and we were at the mercy of the victor. The Fatherland
 
would have to bear heavy burdens in the future. We were to accept the
 
terms of the Armistice and trust to the magnanimity of our former
 
enemies. It was impossible for me to stay and listen any longer.
 
Darkness surrounded me as I staggered and stumbled back to my ward and
 
buried my aching head between the blankets and pillow.
 
 
 
I had not cried since the day that I stood beside my mother's grave.
 
Whenever Fate dealt cruelly with me in my young days the spirit of
 
determination within me grew stronger and stronger. During all those
 
long years of war, when Death claimed many a true friend and comrade
 
from our ranks, to me it would have appeared sinful to have uttered a
 
word of complaint. Did they not die for Germany? And, finally, almost in
 
the last few days of that titanic struggle, when the waves of poison gas
 
enveloped me and began to penetrate my eyes, the thought of becoming
 
permanently blind unnerved me; but the voice of conscience cried out
 
immediately: Poor miserable fellow, will you start howling when there
 
are thousands of others whose lot is a hundred times worse than yours?
 
And so I accepted my misfortune in silence, realizing that this was the
 
only thing to be done and that personal suffering was nothing when
 
compared with the misfortune of one's country.
 
 
 
So all had been in vain. In vain all the sacrifices and privations, in
 
vain the hunger and thirst for endless months, in vain those hours that
 
we stuck to our posts though the fear of death gripped our souls, and in
 
vain the deaths of two millions who fell in discharging this duty. Think
 
of those hundreds of thousands who set out with hearts full of faith in
 
their fatherland, and never returned; ought not their graves to open, so
 
that the spirits of those heroes bespattered with mud and blood should
 
come home and take vengeance on those who had so despicably betrayed the
 
greatest sacrifice which a human being can make for his country? Was it
 
for this that the soldiers died in August and September 1914, for this
 
that the volunteer regiments followed the old comrades in the autumn of
 
the same year? Was it for this that those boys of seventeen years of age
 
were mingled with the earth of Flanders? Was this meant to be the fruits
 
of the sacrifice which German mothers made for their Fatherland when,
 
with heavy hearts, they said good-bye to their sons who never returned?
 
Has all this been done in order to enable a gang of despicable criminals
 
to lay hands on the Fatherland?
 
 
 
Was this then what the German soldier struggled for through sweltering
 
heat and blinding snowstorm, enduring hunger and thirst and cold,
 
fatigued from sleepless nights and endless marches? Was it for this that
 
he lived through an inferno of artillery bombardments, lay gasping and
 
choking during gas attacks, neither flinching nor faltering, but
 
remaining staunch to the thought of defending the Fatherland against the
 
enemy? Certainly these heroes also deserved the epitaph:
 
 
 
  Traveller, when you come to Germany, tell the Homeland that we lie
 
  here, true to the Fatherland and faithful to our duty. (Note 13)
 
 
 
[Note 13. Here again we have the defenders of Thermopylae recalled as the
 
prototype of German valour in the Great War. Hitler's quotation is a
 
German variant of the couplet inscribed on the monument erected at
 
Thermopylae to the memory of Leonidas and his Spartan soldiers who fell
 
defending the Pass. As given by Herodotus, who claims that he saw the
 
inscription himself, the original text may be literally translated thus:
 
 
 
  Go, tell the Spartans, thou who passeth by,
 
  That here, obedient to their laws, we lie.]
 
 
 
And at Home? But--was this the only sacrifice that we had to 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 still worthy to partake in the
 
glory of the past? How could we justify this act to future generations?
 
 
 
What a gang of despicable and depraved criminals!
 
 
 
The more I tried then to glean some definite information of the terrible
 
events that had happened the more my head became afire with rage and
 
shame. What was all the pain I suffered in my eyes compared with this
 
tragedy?
 
 
 
The following days were terrible to bear, and the nights still worse. To
 
depend on the mercy of the enemy was a precept which only fools or
 
criminal liars could recommend. During those nights my hatred
 
increased--hatred for the orignators of this dastardly crime.
 
 
 
During the following days my own fate became clear to me. I was forced
 
now to scoff at the thought of my personal future, which hitherto had
 
been the cause of so much worry to me. Was it not ludicrous to think of
 
building up anything on such a foundation? Finally, it also became clear
 
to me that it was the inevitable that had happened, something which I
 
had feared for a long time, though I really did not have the heart to
 
believe it.
 
 
 
Emperor William II was the first German Emperor to offer the hand of
 
friendship to the Marxist leaders, not suspecting that they were
 
scoundrels without any sense of honour. While they held the imperial
 
hand in theirs, the other hand was already feeling for the dagger.
 
 
 
There is no such thing as coming to an understanding with the Jews. It
 
must be the hard-and-fast 'Either-Or.'
 
 
 
For my part I then decided that I would take up political work.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER VIII
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE BEGINNING OF MY POLITICAL ACTIVITIES
 
 
 
 
 
Towards the end of November I returned to Munich. I went to the depot of
 
my regiment, which was now in the hands of the 'Soldiers' Councils'. As
 
the whole administration was quite repulsive to me, I decided to leave
 
it as soon as I possibly could. With my faithful war-comrade,
 
Ernst-Schmidt, I came to Traunstein and remained there until the camp
 
was broken up. In March 1919 we were back again in Munich.
 
 
 
The situation there could not last as it was. It tended irresistibly to
 
a further extension of the Revolution. Eisner's death served only to
 
hasten this development and finally led to the dictatorship of the
 
Councils--or, to put it more correctly, to a Jewish hegemony, which
 
turned out to be transitory but which was the original aim of those who
 
had contrived the Revolution.
 
 
 
At that juncture innumerable plans took shape in my mind. I spent whole
 
days pondering on the problem of what could be done, but unfortunately
 
every project had to give way before the hard fact that I was quite
 
unknown and therefore did not have even the first pre-requisite
 
necessary for effective action. Later on I shall explain the reasons why
 
I could not decide to join any of the parties then in existence.
 
 
 
As the new Soviet Revolution began to run its course in Munich my first
 
activities drew upon me the ill-will of the Central Council. In the
 
early morning of April 27th, 1919, I was to have been arrested; but the
 
three fellows who came to arrest me did not have the courage to face my
 
rifle and withdrew just as they had arrived.
 
 
 
A few days after the liberation of Munich I was ordered to appear before
 
the Inquiry Commission which had been set up in the 2nd Infantry
 
Regiment for the purpose of watching revolutionary activities. That was
 
my first incursion into the more or less political field.
 
 
 
After another few weeks I received orders to attend a course of lectures
 
which were being given to members of the army. This course was meant to
 
inculcate certain fundamental principles on which the soldier could base
 
his political ideas. For me the advantage of this organization was that
 
it gave me a chance of meeting fellow soldiers who were of the same way
 
of thinking and with whom I could discuss the actual situation. We were
 
all more or less firmly convinced that Germany could not be saved from
 
imminent disaster by those who had participated in the November
 
treachery--that is to say, the Centre and the Social-Democrats; and also
 
that the so-called Bourgeois-National group could not make good the
 
damage that had been done, even if they had the best intentions. They
 
lacked a number of requisites without which such a task could never be
 
successfully undertaken. The years that followed have justified the
 
opinions which we held at that time.
 
 
 
In our small circle we discussed the project of forming a new party. The
 
leading ideas which we then proposed were the same as those which were
 
carried into effect afterwards, when the German Labour Party was
 
founded. The name of the new movement which was to be founded should be
 
such that of itself, it would appeal to the mass of the people; for all
 
our efforts would turn out vain and useless if this condition were
 
lacking. And that was the reason why we chose the name
 
'Social-Revolutionary Party', particularly because the social principles
 
of our new organization were indeed revolutionary.
 
 
 
But there was also a more fundamental reason. The attention which I had
 
given to economic problems during my earlier years was more or less
 
confined to considerations arising directly out of the social problem.
 
Subsequently this outlook broadened as I came to study the German policy
 
of the Triple Alliance. This policy was very largely the result of an
 
erroneous valuation of the economic situation, together with a confused
 
notion as to the basis on which the future subsistence of the German
 
people could be guaranteed. All these ideas were based on the principle
 
that capital is exclusively the product of labour and that, just like
 
labour, it was subject to all the factors which can hinder or promote
 
human activity. Hence, from the national standpoint, the significance of
 
capital depended on the greatness and freedom and power of the State,
 
that is to say, of the nation, and that it is this dependence alone
 
which leads capital to promote the interests of the State and the
 
nation, from the instinct of self-preservation and for the sake of its
 
own development.
 
 
 
On such principles the attitude of the State towards capital would be
 
comparatively simple and clear. Its only object would be to make sure
 
that capital remained subservient to the State and did not allocate to
 
itself the right to dominate national interests. Thus it could confine
 
its activities within the two following limits: on the one side, to
 
assure a vital and independent system of national economy and, on the
 
other, to safeguard the social rights of the workers.
 
 
 
Previously I did not recognize with adequate clearness the difference
 
between capital which is purely the product of creative labour and the
 
existence and nature of capital which is exclusively the result of
 
financial speculation. Here I needed an impulse to set my mind thinking
 
in this direction; but that impulse had hitherto been lacking.
 
 
 
The requisite impulse now came from one of the men who delivered
 
lectures in the course I have already mentioned. This was Gottfried
 
Feder.
 
 
 
For the first time in my life I heard a discussion which dealt with the
 
principles of stock-exchange capital and capital which was used for loan
 
activities. After hearing the first lecture delivered by Feder, the idea
 
immediately came into my head that I had now found a way to one of the
 
most essential pre-requisites for the founding of a new party.
 
 
 
To my mind, Feder's merit consisted in the ruthless and trenchant way in
 
which he described the double character of the capital engaged in
 
stock-exchange and loan transaction, laying bare the fact that this
 
capital is ever and always dependent on the payment of interest. In
 
fundamental questions his statements were so full of common sense that
 
those who criticized him did not deny that AU FOND his ideas were sound
 
but they doubted whether it be possible to put these ideas into
 
practice. To me this seemed the strongest point in Feder's teaching,
 
though others considered it a weak point.
 
 
 
It is not the business of him who lays down a theoretical programme to
 
explain the various ways in which something can be put into practice.
 
His task is to deal with the problem as such; and, therefore, he has to
 
look to the end rather than the means. The important question is whether
 
an idea is fundamentally right or not. The question of whether or not it
 
may be difficult to carry it out in practice is quite another matter.
 
When a man whose task it is to lay down the principles of a programme or
 
policy begins to busy himself with the question as to whether it is
 
expedient and practical, instead of confining himself to the statement
 
of the absolute truth, his work will cease to be a guiding star to those
 
who are looking about for light and leading and will become merely a
 
recipe for every-day iife. The man who lays down the programme of a
 
movement must consider only the goal. It is for the political leader to
 
point out the way in which that goal may be reached. The thought of the
 
former will, therefore, be determined by those truths that are
 
everlasting, whereas the activity of the latter must always be guided by
 
taking practical account of the circumstances under which those truths
 
have to be carried into effect.
 
 
 
The greatness of the one will depend on the absolute truth of his idea,
 
considered in the abstract; whereas that of the other will depend on
 
whether or not he correctly judges the given realities and how they may
 
be utilized under the guidance of the truths established by the former.
 
The test of greatness as applied to a political leader is the success of
 
his plans and his enterprises, which means his ability to reach the goal
 
for which he sets out; whereas the final goal set up by the political
 
philosopher can never be reached; for human thought may grasp truths and
 
picture ends which it sees like clear crystal, though such ends can
 
never be completely fulfilled because human nature is weak and
 
imperfect. The more an idea is correct in the abstract, and, therefore,
 
all the more powerful, the smaller is the possibility of putting it into
 
practice, at least as far as this latter depends on human beings. The
 
significance of a political philosopher does not depend on the practical
 
success of the plans he lays down but rather on their absolute truth and
 
the influence they exert on the progress of mankind. If it were
 
otherwise, the founders of religions could not be considered as the
 
greatest men who have ever lived, because their moral aims will never be
 
completely or even approximately carried out in practice. Even that
 
religion which is called the Religion of Love is really no more than a
 
faint reflex of the will of its sublime Founder. But its significance
 
lies in the orientation which it endeavoured to give to human
 
civilization, and human virtue and morals.
 
 
 
This very wide difference between the functions of a political
 
philosopher and a practical political leader is the reason why the
 
qualifications necessary for both functions are scarcely ever found
 
associated in the same person. This applies especially to the so-called
 
successful politician of the smaller kind, whose activity is indeed
 
hardly more than practising the art of doing the possible, as Bismarck
 
modestly defined the art of politics in general. If such a politician
 
resolutely avoids great ideas his success will be all the easier to
 
attain; it will be attained more expeditely and frequently will be more
 
tangible. By reason of this very fact, however, such success is doomed
 
to futility and sometimes does not even survive the death of its author.
 
Generally speaking, the work of politicians is without significance for
 
the following generation, because their temporary success was based on
 
the expediency of avoiding all really great decisive problems and ideas
 
which would be valid also for future generations.
 
 
 
To pursue ideals which will still be of value and significance for the
 
future is generally not a very profitable undertaking and he who follows
 
such a course is only very rarely understood by the mass of the people,
 
who find beer and milk a more persuasive index of political values than
 
far-sighted plans for the future, the realization of which can only take
 
place later on and the advantages of which can be reaped only by
 
posterity.
 
 
 
Because of a certain vanity, which is always one of the blood-relations
 
of unintelligence, the general run of politicians will always eschew
 
those schemes for the future which are really difficult to put into
 
practice; and they will practise this avoidance so that they may not
 
lose the immediate favour of the mob. The importance and the success of
 
such politicians belong exclusively to the present and will be of no
 
consequence for the future. But that does not worry small-minded people;
 
they are quite content with momentary results.
 
 
 
The position of the constructive political philosopher is quite
 
different. The importance of his work must always be judged from the
 
standpoint of the future; and he is frequently described by the word
 
WELTFREMD, or dreamer. While the ability of the politician consists in
 
mastering the art of the possible, the founder of a political system
 
belongs to those who are said to please the gods only because they wish
 
for and demand the impossible. They will always have to renounce
 
contemporary fame; but if their ideas be immortal, posterity will grant
 
them its acknowledgment.
 
 
 
Within long spans of human progress it may occasionally happen that the
 
practical politician and political philosopher are one. The more
 
intimate this union is, the greater will be the obstacles which the
 
activity of the politician will have to encounter. Such a man does not
 
labour for the purpose of satisfying demands that are obvious to every
 
philistine, but he reaches out towards ends which can be understood only
 
by the few. His life is torn asunder by hatred and love. The protest of
 
his contemporaries, who do not understand the man, is in conflict with
 
the recognition of posterity, for whom he also works.
 
 
 
For the greater the work which a man does for the future, the less will
 
he be appreciated by his contemporaries. His struggle will accordingly
 
be all the more severe, and his success all the rarer. When, in the
 
course of centuries, such a man appears who is blessed with success
 
then, towards the end of his days, he may have a faint prevision of his
 
future fame. But such great men are only the Marathon runners of
 
history. The laurels of contemporary fame are only for the brow of the
 
dying hero.
 
 
 
The great protagonists are those who fight for their ideas and ideals
 
despite the fact that they receive no recognition at the hands of their
 
contemporaries. They are the men whose memories will be enshrined in the
 
hearts of the future generations. It seems then as if each individual
 
felt it his duty to make retroactive atonement for the wrong which great
 
men have suffered at the hands of their contemporaries. Their lives and
 
their work are then studied with touching and grateful admiration.
 
Especially in dark days of distress, such men have the power of healing
 
broken hearts and elevating the despairing spirit of a people.
 
 
 
To this group belong not only the genuinely great statesmen but all the
 
great reformers as well. Beside Frederick the Great we have such men as
 
Martin Luther and Richard Wagner.
 
 
 
When I heard Gottfried Feder's first lecture on 'The Abolition of the
 
Interest-Servitude', I understood immediately that here was a truth of
 
transcendental importance for the future of the German people. The
 
absolute separation of stock-exchange capital from the economic life of
 
the nation would make it possible to oppose the process of
 
internationalization in German business without at the same time
 
attacking capital as such, for to do this would jeopardize the
 
foundations of our national independence. I clearly saw what was
 
developing in Germany and I realized then that the stiffest fight we
 
would have to wage would not be against the enemy nations but against
 
international capital. In Feder's speech I found an effective
 
rallying-cry for our coming struggle.
 
 
 
Here, again, later events proved how correct was the impression we then
 
had. The fools among our bourgeois politicians do not mock at us on this
 
point any more; for even those politicians now see--if they would speak
 
the truth--that international stock-exchange capital was not only the
 
chief instigating factor in bringing on the War but that now when the
 
War is over it turns the peace into a hell.
 
 
 
The struggle against international finance capital and loan-capital has
 
become one of the most important points in the programme on which the
 
German nation has based its fight for economic freedom and independence.
 
 
 
Regarding the objections raised by so-called practical people, the
 
following answer must suffice: All apprehensions concerning the fearful
 
economic consequences that would follow the abolition of the servitude
 
that results from interest-capital are ill-timed; for, in the first
 
place, the economic principles hitherto followed have proved quite fatal
 
to the interests of the German people. The attitude adopted when the
 
question of maintaining our national existence arose vividly recalls
 
similar advice once given by experts--the Bavarian Medical College, for
 
example--on the question of introducing railroads. The fears expressed
 
by that august body of experts were not realized. Those who travelled in
 
the coaches of the new 'Steam-horse' did not suffer from vertigo. Those
 
who looked on did not become ill and the hoardings which had been
 
erected to conceal the new invention were eventually taken down. 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: Any idea may
 
be a source of danger if it be looked upon as an end in itself, when
 
really it is only the means to an end. For me and for all genuine
 
National-Socialists there is only one doctrine. PEOPLE AND FATHERLAND.
 
 
 
What we have to fight for is the necessary security for the existence
 
and increase of our race and people, the subsistence of its children and
 
the maintenance of our racial stock unmixed, the freedom and
 
independence of the Fatherland; so that our people may be enabled to
 
fulfil the mission assigned to it by the Creator.
 
 
 
All ideas and ideals, all teaching and all knowledge, must serve these
 
ends. It is from this standpoint that everything must be examined and
 
turned to practical uses or else discarded. Thus a theory can never
 
become a mere dead dogma since everything will have to serve the
 
practical ends of everyday life.
 
 
 
Thus the judgment arrived at by Gottfried Feder determined me to make a
 
fundamental study of a question with which I had hitherto not been very
 
familiar.
 
 
 
I began to study again and thus it was that I first came to understand
 
perfectly what was the substance and purpose of the life-work of the
 
Jew, Karl Marx. His CAPITAL became intelligible to me now for the first
 
time. And in the light of it I now exactly understood the fight of the
 
Social-Democrats against national economics, a fight which was to
 
prepare the ground for the hegemony of a real international and
 
stock-exchange capital.
 
 
 
In another direction also this course of lectures had important
 
consequences for me.
 
 
 
One day I put my name down as wishing to take part in the discussion.
 
Another of the participants thought that he would break a lance for the
 
Jews and entered into a lengthy defence of them. This aroused my
 
opposition. An overwhelming number of those who attended the lecture
 
course supported my views. The consequence of it all was that, a few
 
days later, I was assigned to a regiment then stationed at Munich and
 
given a position there as 'instruction officer'.
 
 
 
At that time the spirit of discipline was rather weak among those
 
troops. It was still suffering from the after-effects of the period when
 
the Soldiers' Councils were in control. Only gradually and carefully
 
could a new spirit of military discipline and obedience be introduced in
 
place of 'voluntary obedience', a term which had been used to express
 
the ideal of military discipline under Kurt Eisner's higgledy-piggledy
 
regime. The soldiers had to be taught to think and feel in a national
 
and patriotic way. In these two directions lay my future line of action.
 
 
 
I took up my work with the greatest delight and devotion. Here I was
 
presented with an opportunity of speaking before quite a large audience.
 
I was now able to confirm what I had hitherto merely felt, namely, that
 
I had a talent for public speaking. My voice had become so much better
 
that I could be well understood, at least in all parts of the small hall
 
where the soldiers assembled.
 
 
 
No task could have been more pleasing to me than this one; for now,
 
before being demobilized, I was in a position to render useful service
 
to an institution which had been infinitely dear to my heart: namely,
 
the army.
 
 
 
I am able to state that my talks were successful. During the course of
 
my lectures I have led back hundreds and even thousands of my fellow
 
countrymen to their people and their fatherland. I 'nationalized' these
 
troops and by so doing I helped to restore general discipline.
 
 
 
Here again I made the acquaintance of several comrades whose thought ran
 
along the same lines as my own and who later became members of the first
 
group out of which the new movement developed.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER IX
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE GERMAN LABOUR PARTY
 
 
 
 
 
One day I received an order from my superiors to investigate the nature
 
of an association which was apparently political. It called itself 'The
 
German Labour Party' and was soon to hold a meeting at which Gottfried
 
Feder would speak. I was ordered to attend this meeting and report on
 
the situation.
 
 
 
The spirit of curiosity in which the army authorities then regarded
 
political parties can be very well understood. The Revolution had
 
granted the soldiers the right to take an active part in politics and it
 
was particularly those with the smallest experience who had availed
 
themselves of this right. But not until the Centre and the
 
Social-Democratic parties were reluctantly forced to recognize that the
 
sympathies of the soldiers had turned away from the revolutionary
 
parties towards the national movement and the national reawakening, did
 
they feel obliged to withdraw from the army the right to vote and to
 
forbid it all political activity.
 
 
 
The fact that the Centre and Marxism had adopted this policy was
 
instructive, because if they had not thus curtailed the 'rights of the
 
citizen'--as they described the political rights of the soldiers after
 
the Revolution--the government which had been established in November
 
1918 would have been overthrown within a few years and the dishonour and
 
disgrace of the nation would not have been further prolonged. At that
 
time the soldiers were on the point of taking the best way to rid the
 
nation of the vampires and valets who served the cause of the Entente in
 
the interior of the country. But the fact that the so-called 'national'
 
parties voted enthusiastically for the doctrinaire policy of the
 
criminals who organized the Revolution in November (1918) helped also to
 
render the army ineffective as an instrument of national restoration and
 
thus showed once again where men might be led by the purely abstract
 
notions accepted by these most gullible people.
 
 
 
The minds of the bourgeois middle classes had become so fossilized that
 
they sincerely believed the army could once again become what it had
 
previously been, namely, a rampart of German valour; while the Centre
 
Party and the Marxists intended only to extract the poisonous tooth of
 
nationalism, without which an army must always remain just a police
 
force but can never be in the position of a military organization
 
capable of fighting against the outside enemy. This truth was
 
sufficiently proved by subsequent events.
 
 
 
Or did our 'national' politicians believe, after all, that the
 
development of our army could be other than national? This belief might
 
be possible and could be explained by the fact that during the War they
 
were not soldiers but merely talkers. In other words, they were
 
parliamentarians, and, as such, they did not have the slightest idea of
 
what was passing in the hearts of those men who remembered the greatness
 
of their own past and also remembered that they had once been the first
 
soldiers in the world.
 
 
 
I decided to attend the meeting of this Party, which had hitherto been
 
entirely unknown to me. When I arrived that evening in the guest room of
 
the former Sternecker Brewery--which has now become a place of
 
historical significance for us--I found approximately 20-25 persons
 
present, most of them belonging to the lower classes.
 
 
 
The theme of Feder's lecture was already familiar to me; for I had heard
 
it in the lecture course I have spoken of. Therefore, I could
 
concentrate my attention on studying the society itself.
 
 
 
The impression it made upon me was neither good nor bad. I felt that
 
here was just another one of these many new societies which were being
 
formed at that time. In those days everybody felt called upon to found a
 
new Party whenever he felt displeased with the course of events and had
 
lost confidence in all the parties already existing. Thus it was that
 
new associations sprouted up all round, to disappear just as quickly,
 
without exercising any effect or making any noise whatsoever. Generally
 
speaking, the founders of such associations did not have the slightest
 
idea of what it means to bring together a number of people for the
 
foundations of a party or a movement. Therefore these associations
 
disappeared because of their woeful lack of anything like an adequate
 
grasp of the necessities of the situation.
 
 
 
My opinion of the 'German Labour Party' was not very different after I
 
had listened to their proceedings for about two hours. I was glad when
 
Feder finally came to a close. I had observed enough and was just about
 
to leave when it was announced that anybody who wished was free to open
 
a discussion. Thereupon, I decided to remain. But the discussion seemed
 
to proceed without anything of vital importance being mentioned, when
 
suddenly a 'professor' commenced to speak. He opened by throwing doubt
 
on the accuracy of what Feder had said, and then. after Feder had
 
replied very effectively, the professor suddenly took up his position on
 
what he called 'the basis of facts,' but before this he recommended the
 
young party most urgently to introduce the secession of Bavaria from
 
Prussia as one of the leading proposals in its programme. In the most
 
self-assured way, this man kept on insisting that German-Austria would
 
join Bavaria and that the peace would then function much better. He made
 
other similarly extravagant statements. At this juncture I felt bound to
 
ask for permission to speak and to tell the learned gentleman what I
 
thought. The result was that the honourable gentleman who had last
 
spoken slipped out of his place, like a whipped cur, without uttering a
 
sound. While I was speaking the audience listened with an expression of
 
surprise on their faces. When I was just about to say good-night to the
 
assembly and to leave, a man came after me quickly and introduced
 
himself. I did not grasp the name correctly; but he placed a little book
 
in my hand, which was obviously a political pamphlet, and asked me very
 
earnestly to read it.
 
 
 
I was quite pleased; because in this way, I could come to know about
 
this association without having to attend its tiresome meetings.
 
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 2nd Infantry
 
Regiment. I had a little room which still bore the unmistakable traces
 
of the Revolution. During the day I was mostly out, at the quarters of
 
Light Infantry No. 41 or else attending meetings or lectures, held at
 
some other branch of the army. I spent only the night at the quarters
 
where I lodged. Since I usually woke up about five o'clock every morning
 
I got into the habit of amusing myself with watching little mice which
 
played around in my small room. I used to place a few pieces of hard
 
bread or crust on the floor and watch the funny little beasts playing
 
around and enjoying themselves with these delicacies. I had suffered so
 
many privations in my own life that I well knew what hunger was and
 
could only too well picture to myself the pleasure these little
 
creatures were experiencing.
 
 
 
So on the morning after the meeting I have mentioned, it happened that
 
about five o'clock I lay fully awake in bed, watching the mice playing
 
and vying with each other. As I was not able to go to sleep again, I
 
suddenly remembered the pamphlet that one of the workers had given me at
 
the meeting. It was a small pamphlet of which this worker was the
 
author. In his little book he described how his mind had thrown off the
 
shackles of the Marxist and trades-union phraseology, and that he had
 
come back to the nationalist ideals. That was the reason why he had
 
entitled his little book: "My Political Awakening". The pamphlet secured
 
my attention the moment I began to read, and I read it with interest to
 
the end. The process here described was similar to that which I had
 
experienced in my own case ten years previously. Unconsciously my own
 
experiences began to stir again in my mind. During that day my thoughts
 
returned several times to what I had read; but I finally decided to give
 
the matter no further attention. A week or so later, however, I received
 
a postcard which informed me, to my astonishment, that I had been
 
admitted into the German Labour Party. I was asked to answer this
 
communication and to attend a meeting of the Party Committee on
 
Wednesday next.
 
 
 
This manner of getting members rather amazed me, and I did not know
 
whether to be angry or laugh at it. Hitherto I had not any idea of
 
entering a party already in existence but wanted to found one of my own.
 
Such an invitation as I now had received I looked upon as entirely out
 
of the question for me.
 
 
 
I was about to send a written reply when my curiosity got the better of
 
me, and I decided to attend the gathering at the date assigned, so that
 
I might expound my principles to these gentlemen in person.
 
 
 
Wednesday came. The tavern in which the meeting was to take place was
 
the 'Alte Rosenbad' in the Herrnstrasse, into which apparently only an
 
occasional guest wandered. This was not very surprising in the year
 
1919, when the bills of fare even at the larger restaurants were only
 
very modest and scanty in their pretensions and thus not very attractive
 
to clients. But I had never before heard of this restaurant.
 
 
 
I went through the badly-lighted guest-room, where not a single guest
 
was to be seen, and searched for the door which led to the side room;
 
and there I was face-to-face with the 'Congress'. Under the dim light
 
shed by a grimy gas-lamp I could see four young people sitting around a
 
table, one of them the author of the pamphlet. He greeted me cordially
 
and welcomed me as a new member of the German Labour Party.
 
 
 
I was taken somewhat aback on being informed that actually the National
 
President of the Party had not yet come; so I decided that I would keep
 
back my own exposition for the time being. Finally the President
 
appeared. He was the man who had been chairman of the meeting held in
 
the Sternecker Brewery, when Feder spoke.
 
 
 
My curiosity was stimulated anew and I sat waiting for what was going to
 
happen. Now I got at least as far as learning the names of the gentlemen
 
who had been parties to the whole affair. The REICH National President
 
of the Association was a certain Herr Harrer and the President for the
 
Munich district was Anton Drexler.
 
 
 
The minutes of the previous meeting were read out and a vote of
 
confidence in the secretary was passed. Then came the treasurer's
 
report. The Society possessed a total fund of seven marks and fifty
 
pfennigs (a sum corresponding to 7s. 6d. in English money at par),
 
whereupon the treasurer was assured that he had the confidence of the
 
members. This was now inserted in the minutes. Then letters of reply
 
which had been written by the Chairman were read; first, to a letter
 
received from Kiel, then to one from Düsseldorf and finally to one from
 
Berlin. All three replies received the approval of all present. Then the
 
incoming letters were read--one from Berlin, one from Düsseldorf and one
 
from Kiel. The reception of these letters seemed to cause great
 
satisfaction. This increasing bulk of correspondence was taken as the
 
best and most obvious sign of the growing importance of the German
 
Labour Party. And then? Well, there followed a long discussion of the
 
replies which would be given to these newly-received letters.
 
 
 
It was all very awful. This was the worst kind of parish-pump clubbism.
 
And was I supposed to become a member of such a club?
 
 
 
The question of new members was next discussed--that is to say, the
 
question of catching myself in the trap.
 
 
 
I now began to ask questions. But I found that, apart from a few general
 
principles, there was nothing--no programme, no pamphlet, nothing at all
 
in print, no card of membership, not even a party stamp, nothing but
 
obvious good faith and good intentions.
 
 
 
I no longer felt inclined to laugh; for what else was all this but a
 
typical sign of the most complete perplexity and deepest despair in
 
regard to all political parties, their programmes and views and
 
activities? The feeling which had induced those few young people to join
 
in what seemed such a ridiculous enterprise was nothing but the call of
 
the inner voice which told them--though more intuitively than
 
consciously--that the whole party system as it had hitherto existed was
 
not the kind of force that could restore the German nation or repair the
 
damages that had been done to the German people by those who hitherto
 
controlled the internal affairs of the nation. I quickly read through
 
the list of principles that formed the platform of the party. These
 
principles were stated on typewritten sheets. Here again I found
 
evidence of the spirit of longing and searching, but no sign whatever of
 
a knowledge of the conflict that had to be fought. I myself had
 
experienced the feelings which inspired those people. It was the longing
 
for a movement which should be more than a party, in the hitherto
 
accepted meaning of that word.
 
 
 
When I returned to my room in the barracks that evening I had formed a
 
definite opinion on this association and I was facing the most difficult
 
problem of my life. Should I join this party or refuse?
 
 
 
From the side of the intellect alone, every consideration urged me to
 
refuse; but my feelings troubled me. The more I tried to prove to myself
 
how senseless this club was, on the whole, the more did my feelings
 
incline me to favour it. During the following days I was restless.
 
 
 
I began to consider all the pros and cons. I had long ago decided to
 
take an active part in politics. The fact that I could do so only
 
through a new movement was quite clear to me; but I had hitherto lacked
 
the impulse to take concrete action. I am not one of those people who
 
will begin something to-day and just give it up the next day for the
 
sake of something new. That was the main reason which made it so
 
difficult for me to decide in joining something newly founded; for this
 
must become the real fulfilment of everything I dreamt, or else it had
 
better not be started at all. I knew that such a decision should bind me
 
for ever and that there could be no turning back. For me there could be
 
no idle dallying but only a cause to be championed ardently. I had
 
already an instinctive feeling against people who took up everything,
 
but never carried anything through to the end. I loathed these
 
Jacks-of-all-Trades, and considered the activities of such people to be
 
worse than if they were to remain entirely quiescent.
 
 
 
Fate herself now seemed to supply the finger-post that pointed out the
 
way. I should never have entered one of the big parties already in
 
existence and shall explain my reasons for this later on. This ludicrous
 
little formation, with its handful of members, seemed to have the unique
 
advantage of not yet being fossilized into an 'organization' and still
 
offered a chance for real personal activity on the part of the
 
individual. Here it might still be possible to do some effective work;
 
and, as the movement was still small, one could all the easier give it
 
the required shape. Here it was still possible to determine the
 
character of the movement, the aims to be achieved and the road to be
 
taken, which would have been impossible in the case of the big parties
 
already existing.
 
 
 
The longer I reflected on the problem, the more my opinion developed
 
that just such a small movement would best serve as an instrument to
 
prepare the way for the national resurgence, but that this could never
 
be done by the political parliamentary parties which were too firmly
 
attached to obsolete ideas or had an interest in supporting the new
 
regime. What had to be proclaimed here was a new WELTANSCHAUUNG and not
 
a new election cry.
 
 
 
It was, however, infinitely difficult to decide on putting the intention
 
into practice. What were the qualifications which I could bring to the
 
accomplishment of such a task?
 
 
 
The fact that I was poor and without resources could, in my opinion, be
 
the easiest to bear. But the fact that I was utterly unknown raised a
 
more difficult problem. I was only one of the millions which Chance
 
allows to exist or cease to exist, whom even their next-door neighbours
 
will not consent to know. Another difficulty arose from the fact that I
 
had not gone through the regular school curriculum.
 
 
 
The so-called 'intellectuals' still look down with infinite
 
superciliousness on anyone who has not been through the prescribed
 
schools and allowed them to pump the necessary knowledge into him. The
 
question of what a man can do is never asked but rather, what has he
 
learned? 'Educated' people look upon any imbecile who is plastered with
 
a number of academic certificates as superior to the ablest young fellow
 
who lacks these precious documents. I could therefore easily imagine how
 
this 'educated' world would receive me and I was wrong only in so far as
 
I then believed men to be for the most part better than they proved to
 
be in the cold light of reality. Because of their being as they are, the
 
few exceptions stand out all the more conspicuously. I learned more and
 
more to distinguish between those who will always be at school and those
 
who will one day come to know something in reality.
 
 
 
After two days of careful brooding and reflection I became convinced
 
that I must take the contemplated step.
 
 
 
It was the most fateful decision of my life. No retreat was possible.
 
 
 
Thus I declared myself ready to accept the membership tendered me by the
 
German Labour Party and received a provisional certificate of
 
membership. I was numbered SEVEN.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER X
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WHY THE SECOND REICH COLLAPSED
 
 
 
 
 
The depth of a fall is always measured by the difference between the
 
level of the original position from which a body has fallen and that in
 
which it is now found. The same holds good for Nations and States. The
 
matter of greatest importance here is the height of the original level,
 
or rather the greatest height that had been attained before the descent
 
began.
 
 
 
For only the profound decline or collapse of that which was capable of
 
reaching extraordinary heights can make a striking impression on the eye
 
of the beholder. The collapse of the Second REICH was all the more
 
bewildering for those who could ponder over it and feel the effect of it
 
in their hearts, because the REICH had fallen from a height which can
 
hardly be imagined in these days of misery and humiliation.
 
 
 
The Second REICH was founded in circumstances of such dazzling splendour
 
that the whole nation had become entranced and exalted by it. Following
 
an unparalleled series of victories, that Empire was handed over as the
 
guerdon of immortal heroism to the children and grandchildren of the
 
heroes. Whether they were fully conscious of it or not does not matter;
 
anyhow, the Germans felt that this Empire had not been brought into
 
existence by a series of able political negotiations through
 
parliamentary channels, but that it was different from political
 
institutions founded elsewhere by reason of the nobler circumstances
 
that had accompanied its establishment. When its foundations were laid
 
the accompanying music was not the chatter of parliamentary debates but
 
the thunder and boom of war along the battle front that encircled Paris.
 
It was thus that an act of statesmanship was accomplished whereby the
 
Germans, princes as well as people, established the future REICH and
 
restored the symbol of the Imperial Crown. Bismarck's State was not
 
founded on treason and assassination by deserters and shirkers but by
 
the regiments that had fought at the front. This unique birth and
 
baptism of fire sufficed of themselves to surround the Second Empire
 
with an aureole of historical splendour such as few of the older States
 
could lay claim to.
 
 
 
And what an ascension then began! A position of independence in regard
 
to the outside world guaranteed the means of livelihood at home. The
 
nation increased in numbers and in worldly wealth. The honour of the
 
State and therewith the honour of the people as a whole were secured and
 
protected by an army which was the most striking witness of the
 
difference between this new REICH and the old German Confederation.
 
 
 
But the downfall of the Second Empire and the German people has been so
 
profound that they all seem to have been struck dumbfounded and rendered
 
incapable of feeling the significance of this downfall or reflecting on
 
it. It seems as if people were utterly unable to picture in their minds
 
the heights to which the Empire formerly attained, so visionary and
 
unreal appears the greatness and splendour of those days in contrast to
 
the misery of the present. Bearing this in mind we can understand why
 
and how people become so dazed when they try to look back to the sublime
 
past that they forget to look for the symptoms of the great collapse
 
which must certainly have been present in some form or other. Naturally
 
this applies only to those for whom Germany was more than merely a place
 
of abode and a source of livelihood. These are the only people who have
 
been able to feel the present conditions as really catastrophic, whereas
 
others have considered these conditions as the fulfilment of what they
 
had looked forward to and hitherto silently wished.
 
 
 
The symptoms of future collapse were definitely to be perceived in those
 
earlier days, although very few made any attempt to draw a practical
 
lesson from their significance. But this is now a greater necessity than
 
it ever was before. For just as bodily ailments can be cured only when
 
their origin has been diagnosed, so also political disease can be
 
treated only when it has been diagnosed. It is obvious of course that
 
the external symptoms of any disease can be more readily detected than
 
its internal causes, for these symptoms strike the eye more easily. This
 
is also the reason why so many people recognize only external effects
 
and mistake them for causes. Indeed they will sometimes try to deny the
 
existence of such causes. And that is why the majority of people among
 
us recognize the German collapse only in the prevailing economic
 
distress and the results that have followed therefrom. Almost everyone
 
has to carry his share of this burden, and that is why each one looks on
 
the economic catastrophe as the cause of the present deplorable state of
 
affairs. The broad masses of the people see little of the cultural,
 
political, and moral background of this collapse. Many of them
 
completely lack both the necessary feeling and powers of understanding
 
for it.
 
 
 
That the masses of the people should thus estimate the causes of
 
Germany's downfall is quite understandable. But the fact that
 
intelligent sections of the community regard the German collapse
 
primarily as an economic catastrophe, and consequently think that a cure
 
for it may be found in an economic solution, seems to me to be the
 
reason why hitherto no improvement has been brought about. No
 
improvement can be brought about until it be understood that economics
 
play only a second or third role, while the main part is played by
 
political, moral and racial factors. Only when this is understood will
 
it be possible to understand the causes of the present evil and
 
consequently to find the ways and means of remedying them.
 
 
 
Therefore the question of why Germany really collapsed is one of the
 
most urgent significance, especially for a political movement which aims
 
at overcoming this disaster.
 
 
 
In scrutinizing the past with a view to discovering the causes of the
 
German break-up, it is necessary to be careful lest we may be unduly
 
impressed by external results that readily strike the eye and thus
 
ignore the less manifest causes of these results.
 
 
 
The most facile, and therefore the most generally accepted, way of
 
accounting for the present misfortune is to say that it is the result of
 
a lost war, and that this is the real cause of the present misfortune.
 
Probably there are many who honestly believe in this absurd explanation
 
but there are many more in whose mouths it is a deliberate and conscious
 
falsehood. This applies to all those who are now feeding at the
 
Government troughs. For the prophets of the Revolution again and again
 
declared to the people that it would be immaterial to the great masses
 
what the result of the War might be. On the contrary, they solemnly
 
assured the public that it was High Finance which was principally
 
interested in a victorious outcome of this gigantic struggle among the
 
nations but that the German people and the German workers had no
 
interest whatsoever in such an outcome. Indeed the apostles of world
 
conciliation habitually asserted that, far from any German downfall, the
 
opposite was bound to take place--namely, the resurgence of the German
 
people--once 'militarism' had been crushed. Did not these self-same
 
circles sing the praises of the Entente and did they not also lay the
 
whole blame for the sanguinary struggle on the shoulders of Germany?
 
Without this explanation, would they have been able to put forward the
 
theory that a military defeat would have no political consequences for
 
the German people? Was not the whole Revolution dressed up in gala
 
colours as blocking the victorious advance of the German banners and
 
that thus the German people 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 was necessary in
 
order to proclaim the defeat of the army as the cause of the German
 
collapse. Indeed the Berlin VORWÄRTS, that organ and mouthpiece of
 
sedition then wrote on this occasion that the German nation should not
 
be permitted to bring home its banners triumphantly.
 
 
 
And yet they attribute our collapse to the military defeat.
 
 
 
Of course it would be out of the question to enter into an argument with
 
these liars who deny at one moment what they said the moment before. I
 
should waste no further words on them were it not for the fact that
 
there are many thoughtless people who repeat all this in parrot fashion,
 
without being necessarily inspired by any evil motives. But the
 
observations I am making here are also meant for our fighting followers,
 
seeing that nowadays one's spoken words are often forgotten and twisted
 
in their meaning.
 
 
 
The assertion that the loss of the War was the cause of the German
 
collapse can best be answered as follows:
 
 
 
It is admittedly a fact that the loss of the War was of tragic
 
importance for the future of our country. But that loss was not in
 
itself a cause. It was rather the consequence of other causes. That a
 
disastrous ending to this life-or-death conflict must have involved
 
catastrophes in its train was clearly seen by everyone of insight who
 
could think in a straightforward manner. But unfortunately there were
 
also people whose powers of understanding seemed to fail them at that
 
critical moment. And there were other people who had first questioned
 
that truth and then altogether denied it. And there were people who,
 
after their secret desire had been fulfilled, were suddenly faced with
 
the subsequent facts that resulted from their own collaboration. Such
 
people are responsible for the collapse, and not the lost war, though
 
they now want to attribute everything to this. As a matter of fact the
 
loss of the War was a result of their activities and not the result of
 
bad leadership as they now would like to maintain. Our enemies were not
 
cowards. They also know how to die. From the very first day of the War
 
they outnumbered the German Army, and the arsenals and armament
 
factories of the whole world were at their disposal for the
 
replenishment of military equipment. Indeed it is universally admitted
 
that the German victories, which had been steadily won during four years
 
of warfare against the whole world, were due to superior leadership,
 
apart of course from the heroism of the troops. And the organization was
 
solely due to the German military leadership. That organization and
 
leadership of the German Army was the most mighty thing that the world
 
has ever seen. Any shortcomings which became evident were humanly
 
unavoidable. The collapse of that army was not the cause of our present
 
distress. It was itself the consequence of other faults. But this
 
consequence in its 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 complete overthrow of
 
the State and Nation? Whenever has this been the result of an unlucky
 
war? As a matter of fact, are nations ever ruined by a lost war and by
 
that alone? The answer to this question can be briefly stated by
 
referring to the fact that military defeats are the result of internal
 
decay, cowardice, want of character, and are a retribution for such
 
things. If such were not the causes then a military defeat would lead to
 
a national resurgence and bring the nation to a higher pitch of effort.
 
A military defeat is not the tombstone of national life. History affords
 
innumerable examples to confirm the truth of that statement.
 
 
 
Unfortunately Germany's military overthrow was not an undeserved
 
catastrophe, but a well-merited punishment which was in the nature of an
 
eternal retribution. This defeat was more than deserved by us; for it
 
represented the greatest external phenomenon of decomposition among a
 
series of internal phenomena, which, although they were visible, were
 
not recognized by the majority of the people, who follow the tactics of
 
the ostrich and see only what they want to see.
 
 
 
Let us examine the symptoms that were evident in Germany at the time
 
that the German people accepted this defeat. Is it not true that in
 
several circles the misfortunes of the Fatherland were even joyfully
 
welcomed in the most shameful manner? Who could act in such a way
 
without thereby meriting vengeance for his attitude? Were there not
 
people who even went further and boasted that they had gone to the
 
extent of weakening the front and causing a collapse? Therefore it was
 
not the enemy who brought this disgrace upon our shoulders but rather
 
our own countrymen. If they suffered misfortune for it afterwards, was
 
that misfortune undeserved? Was there ever a case in history where a
 
people declared itself guilty of a war, and that even against its better
 
conscience and its better knowledge?
 
 
 
No, and again no. In the manner in which the German nation reacted to
 
its defeat we can see that the real cause of our collapse must be looked
 
for elsewhere and not in the purely military loss of a few positions or
 
the failure of an offensive. For if the front as such had given way and
 
thus brought about a national disaster, then the German nation would
 
have accepted the defeat in quite another spirit. They would have borne
 
the subsequent misfortune with clenched teeth, or they would have been
 
overwhelmed by sorrow. Regret and fury would have filled their hearts
 
against an enemy into whose hands victory had been given by a chance
 
event or the decree of Fate; and in that case the nation, following the
 
example of the Roman Senate (Note 14), would have faced the defeated
 
legions on their return and expressed their thanks for the sacrifices that
 
had been made and would have requested them not to lose faith in the
 
Empire. Even the capitulation would have been signed under the sway of
 
calm reason, while the heart would have beaten in the hope of the coming
 
REVANCHE.
 
 
 
[Note 14. Probably the author has two separate incidents in mind. The
 
first happened in 390 B.C., when, as the victorious Gauls descended on
 
Rome, the Senators ordered their ivory chairs to be placed in the Forum
 
before the Temples ofthe Gods. There, clad in their robes of state, they
 
awaited the invader, hoping to save the city by sacrificing themselves.
 
This noble gesture failed for the time being; but it had an inspiring
 
influence on subsequent generations. The second incident, which has more
 
historical authenticity, occurred after the Roman defeat at Cannae in 216
 
B.C. On that occasion Varro, the Roman commander, who, though in great
 
part responsible for the disaster, made an effort to carry on the
 
struggle, was, on his return to Rome, met by the citizens of all ranks
 
and publicly thanked because he had not despaired of the Republic. The
 
consequence was that the Republic refused to make peace with the
 
victorious Carthagenians.]
 
 
 
That is the reception that would have been given to a military defeat
 
which had to be attributed only to the adverse decree of Fortune. There
 
would have been neither joy-making nor dancing. Cowardice would not have
 
been boasted of, and the defeat would not have been honoured. On
 
returning from the Front, the troops would not have been mocked at, and
 
the colours would not have been dragged in the dust. But above all, that
 
disgraceful state of affairs could never have arisen which induced a
 
British officer, Colonel Repington, to declare with scorn: Every third
 
German is a traitor! No, in such a case this plague would never have
 
assumed the proportions of a veritable flood which, for the past five
 
years, has smothered every vestige of respect for the German nation in
 
the outside world.
 
 
 
This shows only too clearly how false it is to say that the loss of the
 
War was the cause of the German break-up. No. The military defeat was
 
itself but the consequence of a whole series of morbid symptoms and
 
their causes which had become active in the German nation before the War
 
broke out. The War was the first catastrophal consequence, visible to
 
all, of how traditions and national morale had been poisoned and how the
 
instinct of self-preservation had degenerated. These were the
 
preliminary causes which for many years had been undermining the
 
foundations of the nation and the Empire.
 
 
 
But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity for
 
falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute
 
responsibility for the downfall precisely to the man who alone had shown
 
a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the catastrophe
 
which he had foreseen and to save the nation from that hour of complete
 
overthrow and shame. By placing responsibility for the loss of the world
 
war on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took away the weapon of moral
 
right from the only adversary dangerous enough to be likely to succeed
 
in bringing the betrayers of the Fatherland to Justice. All this was
 
inspired by the principle--which is quite true in itself--that in the
 
big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the
 
broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper
 
strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and
 
thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall
 
victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often
 
tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to
 
large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to
 
fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others
 
could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though
 
the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their
 
minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that
 
there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always
 
leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact
 
which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire
 
together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use
 
falsehood for the basest purposes.
 
 
 
From time immemorial. however, the Jews have known better than any
 
others how falsehood and calumny can be exploited. Is not their very
 
existence founded on one great lie, namely, that they are a religious
 
community, whereas in reality they are a race? And what a race! One of
 
the greatest thinkers that mankind has produced has branded the Jews for
 
all time with a statement which is profoundly and exactly true. He
 
(Schopenhauer) called the Jew "The Great Master of Lies". Those who do
 
not realize the truth of that statement, or do not wish to believe it,
 
will never be able to lend a hand in helping Truth to prevail.
 
 
 
We may regard it as a great stroke of fortune for the German nation that
 
its period of lingering suffering was so suddenly curtailed and
 
transformed into such a terrible catastrophe. For if things had gone on
 
as they were the nation would have more slowly, but more surely, gone to
 
ruin. The disease would have become chronic; whereas, in the acute form
 
of the disaster, it at least showed itself clearly to the eyes of a
 
considerable number of observers. It was not by accident that man
 
conquered the black plague more easily than he conquered tuberculosis.
 
The first appeared in terrifying waves of death that shook the whole of
 
mankind, the other advances insidiously; the first induces terror, the
 
other gradual indifference. The result is, however, that men opposed the
 
first with all the energy they were capable of, whilst they try to
 
arrest tuberculosis by feeble means. Thus man has mastered the black
 
plague, while tuberculosis still gets the better of him.
 
 
 
The same applies to diseases in nations. So long as these diseases are
 
not of a catastrophic character, the population will slowly accustom
 
itself to them and later succumb. It is then a stroke of luck--although
 
a bitter one--when Fate decides to interfere in this slow process of
 
decay and suddenly brings the victim face to face with the final stage
 
of the disease. More often than not the result of a catastrophe is that
 
a cure is at once undertaken and carried through with rigid
 
determination.
 
 
 
But even in such a case the essential preliminary condition is always
 
the recognition of the internal causes which have given rise to the
 
disease in question.
 
 
 
The important question here is the differentiation of the root causes
 
from the circumstances developing out of them. This becomes all the more
 
difficult the longer the germs of disease remain in the national body
 
and the longer they are allowed to become an integral part of that body.
 
It may easily happen that, as time goes on, it will become so difficult
 
to recognize certain definite virulent poisons as such that they are
 
accepted as belonging to the national being; or they are merely
 
tolerated as a necessary evil, so that drastic attempts to locate those
 
alien germs are not held to be necessary.
 
 
 
During the long period of peace prior to the last war certain evils were
 
apparent here and there although, with one or two exceptions, very
 
little effort was made to discover their origin. Here again these
 
exceptions were first and foremost those phenomena in the economic life
 
of the nation which were more apparent to the individual than the evil
 
conditions existing in a good many other spheres.
 
 
 
There were many signs of decay which ought to have been given serious
 
thought. As far as economics were concerned, the following may be
 
said:--
 
 
 
The amazing increase of population in Germany before the war brought the
 
question of providing daily bread into a more and more prominent
 
position in all spheres of political and economic thought and action.
 
But unfortunately those responsible could not make up their minds to
 
arrive at the only correct solution and preferred to reach their
 
objective by cheaper methods. Repudiation of the idea of acquiring fresh
 
territory and the substitution for it of the mad desire for the
 
commercial conquest of the world was bound to lead eventually to
 
unlimited and injurious industrialization.
 
 
 
The first and most fatal result brought about in this way was the
 
weakening of the agricultural classes, whose decline was proportionate
 
to the increase in the proletariat of the urban areas, 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 the consequences were bound to
 
be deplorable. Want and frequent unemployment began to play havoc with
 
the people and left discontent and embitterment behind them. The result
 
of this was to divide the population into political classes. Discontent
 
increased in spite of commercial prosperity. Matters finally reached
 
that stage which brought about the general conviction that 'things
 
cannot go on as they are', although no one seemed able to visualize what
 
was really going to happen.
 
 
 
These were typical and visible signs of the depths which the prevailing
 
discontent had reached. Far worse than these, however, were other
 
consequences which became apparent as a result of the industrialization
 
of the nation.
 
 
 
In proportion to the extent that commerce assumed definite control of
 
the State, money became more and more of a God whom all had to serve and
 
bow down to. Heavenly Gods became more and more old-fashioned and were
 
laid away in the corners to make room for the worship of mammon. And
 
thus began a period of utter degeneration which became specially
 
pernicious because it set in at a time when the nation was more than
 
ever in need of an exalted idea, for a critical hour was threatening.
 
Germany should have been prepared to protect with the sword her efforts
 
to win her own daily bread in a peaceful way.
 
 
 
Unfortunately, the predominance of money received support and sanction
 
in the very quarter which ought to have been opposed to it. His Majesty,
 
the Kaiser, made a mistake when he raised representatives of the new
 
finance capital to the ranks of the nobility. Admittedly, it may be
 
offered as an excuse that even Bismarck failed to realize the
 
threatening danger in this respect. In practice, however, all ideal
 
virtues became secondary considerations to those of money, for it was
 
clear that having once taken this road, the nobility of the sword would
 
very soon rank second to that of finance.
 
 
 
Financial operations succeed easier than war operations. Hence it was no
 
longer any great attraction for a true hero or even a statesman to be
 
brought into touch with the nearest Jew banker. Real merit was not
 
interested in receiving cheap decorations and therefore declined them
 
with thanks. But from the standpoint of good breeding such a development
 
was deeply regrettable. The nobility began to lose more and more of the
 
racial qualities that were a condition of its very existence, with the
 
result that in many cases the term 'plebeian' would have been more
 
appropriate.
 
 
 
A serious state of economic disruption was being brought about by the
 
slow elimination of the personal control of vested interests and the
 
gradual transference of the whole economic structure into the hands of
 
joint stock companies.
 
 
 
In this way labour became degraded into an object of speculation in the
 
hands of unscrupulous exploiters.
 
 
 
The de-personalization of property ownership increased on a vast scale.
 
Financial exchange circles began to triumph and made slow but sure
 
progress in assuming control of the whole of national life.
 
 
 
Before the War the internationalization of the German economic structure
 
had already begun by the roundabout way of share issues. It is true that
 
a section of the German industrialists made a determined attempt to
 
avert the danger, but in the end they gave way before the united attacks
 
of money-grabbing capitalism, which was assisted in this fight by its
 
faithful henchmen in the Marxist movement.
 
 
 
The persistent war against German 'heavy industries' was the visible
 
start of the internationalization of German economic life as envisaged
 
by the Marxists. This, however, could only be brought to a successful
 
conclusion by the victory which Marxism was able to gain in the
 
Revolution. As I write these words, success is attending the general
 
attack on the German State Railways which are now to be turned over to
 
international capitalists. Thus 'International Social-Democracy' has
 
once again attained one of its main objectives.
 
 
 
The best evidence of how far this 'commercialization' of the German
 
nation was able to go can be plainly seen in the fact that when the War
 
was over one of the leading captains of German industry and commerce
 
gave it as his opinion that commerce as such was the only force which
 
could put Germany on its feet again.
 
 
 
This sort of nonsense was uttered just at the time when France was
 
restoring public education on a humanitarian basis, thus doing away with
 
the idea that national life is dependent on commerce rather than ideal
 
values. The statement which Stinnes broadcasted to the world at that
 
time caused incredible confusion. It was immediately taken up and has
 
become the leading motto of all those humbugs and babblers--the
 
'statesmen' whom Fate let loose on Germany after the Revolution.
 
 
 
One of the worst evidences of decadence in Germany before the War was
 
the ever increasing habit of doing things by halves. This was one of the
 
consequences of the insecurity that was felt all round. And it is to be
 
attributed also to a certain timidity which resulted from one cause or
 
another. And the latter malady was aggravated by the educational system.
 
 
 
German education in pre-War times had an extraordinary number of weak
 
features. It was simply and exclusively limited to the production of
 
pure knowledge and paid little attention to the development of practical
 
ability. Still less attention was given to the development of individual
 
character, in so far as this is ever possible. And hardly any attention
 
at all was paid to the development of a sense of responsibility, to
 
strengthening the will and the powers of decision. The result of this
 
method was to produce 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;
 
but there was little esteem for him personally, on account of this
 
weakness of character. For those who can read its significance aright,
 
there is much instruction in the fact that among all nationalities
 
Germans were the first to part with their national citizenship when they
 
found themselves in a foreign country. And there is a world of meaning
 
in the saying that was then prevalent: 'With the hat in the hand one can
 
go through the whole country'.
 
 
 
This kind of social etiquette turned out disastrous when it prescribed
 
the exclusive forms that had to be observed in the presence of His
 
Majesty. These forms insisted that there should be no contradiction
 
whatsoever, but that everything should be praised which His Majesty
 
condescended to like.
 
 
 
It was just here that the frank expression of manly dignity, and not
 
subservience, was most needed. Servility in the presence of monarchs may
 
be good enough for the professional lackey and place-hunter, in fact for
 
all those decadent beings who are more pleased to be found moving in the
 
high circles of royalty than among honest citizens. These exceedingly
 
'humble' creatures however, though they grovel before their lord and
 
bread-giver, invariably put on airs of boundless superciliousness
 
towards other mortals, which was particularly impudent when they posed
 
as the only people who had the right to be called 'monarchists'. This
 
was a gross piece of impertinence such as only despicable specimens
 
among the newly-ennobled or yet-to-be-ennobled could be capable of.
 
 
 
And these have always been just the people who have prepared the way for
 
the downfall of monarchy and the monarchical principle. It could not be
 
otherwise. For when a man is prepared to stand up for a cause, come what
 
may, he never grovels before its representative. A man who is serious
 
about the maintenance and welfare of an institution will not allow
 
himself to be discouraged when the representatives of that institution
 
show certain faults and failings. And he certainly will not run around
 
to tell the world about it, as certain false democratic 'friends' of the
 
monarchy have done; but he will approach His Majesty, the bearer of the
 
Crown himself, to warn him of the seriousness of a situation and
 
persuade the monarch to act. Furthermore, he will not take up the
 
standpoint that it must be left to His Majesty to act as the latter
 
thinks fit, even though the course which he would take must plainly lead
 
to disaster. But the man I am thinking of will deem it his duty to
 
protect the monarchy against the monarch himself, no matter what
 
personal risk he may run in doing so. If the worth of the monarchical
 
institution be dependent on the person of the monarch himself, then it
 
would be the worst institution imaginable; for only in rare cases are
 
kings found to be models of wisdom and understanding, and integrity of
 
character, though we might like to think otherwise. But this fact is
 
unpalatable to the professional knaves and lackeys. Yet all upright men,
 
and they are the backbone of the nation, repudiate the nonsensical
 
fiction that all monarchs are wise, etc. For such men history is history
 
and truth is truth, even where monarchs are concerned. But if a nation
 
should have the good luck to possess a great king or a great man it
 
ought to consider itself as specially favoured above all the other
 
nations, and these may be thankful if an adverse fortune has not
 
allotted the worst to them.
 
 
 
It is clear that the worth and significance of the monarchical principle
 
cannot rest in the person of the monarch alone, unless Heaven decrees
 
that the crown should be set on the head of a brilliant hero like
 
Frederick the Great, or a sagacious person like William I. This may
 
happen once in several centuries, but hardly oftener than that. The
 
ideal of the monarchy takes precedence of the person of the monarch,
 
inasmuch as the meaning of the institution must lie in the institution
 
it self. Thus the monarchy may 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 obliged to do his duty towards it. He has to adapt himself
 
for the fulfilment of high aims. If, therefore, there were no
 
significance attached to the idea itself and everything merely centred
 
around the 'sacred' person, then it would never be possible to depose a
 
ruler 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 no small
 
measure responsible for the collapse of the monarchy. With a certain
 
amount of native impudence these persons once again talk about 'their
 
King'--that is to say, the man whom they shamefully deserted a few years
 
ago at a most critical hour. Those who refrain from participating in
 
this chorus of lies are summarily classified as 'bad Germans'. They who
 
make the charge are the same class of quitters who ran away in 1918 and
 
took to wearing red badges. They thought that discretion was the better
 
part of valour. They were indifferent about what happened to the Kaiser.
 
They camouflaged themselves as 'peaceful citizens' but more often than
 
not they vanished altogether. All of a sudden these champions of royalty
 
were nowhere to be found at that time. Circumspectly, one by one, these
 
'servants and counsellors' of the Crown reappeared, to resume their
 
lip-service to royalty but only after others had borne the brunt of the
 
anti-royalist attack and suppressed the Revolution for them. Once again
 
they were all there. remembering wistfully the flesh-pots of Egypt and
 
almost bursting with devotion for the royal cause. This went on until
 
the day came when red badges were again in the ascendant. Then this
 
whole ramshackle assembly of royal worshippers scuttled anew like mice
 
from the cats.
 
 
 
If monarchs were not themselves responsible for such things one could
 
not help sympathizing with them. But they must realize that with such
 
champions thrones can be lost but certainly never gained.
 
 
 
All this devotion was a mistake and was the result of our whole system
 
of education, which in this case brought about a particularly severe
 
retribution. Such lamentable trumpery was kept up at the various courts
 
that the monarchy was slowly becoming under mined. When finally it did
 
begin to totter, everything was swept away. Naturally, grovellers and
 
lick-spittles are never willing 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 of
 
shouldering responsibility and the resultant weakness in dealing with
 
obvious vital problems of existence.
 
 
 
The starting point of this epidemic, however, was in our parliamentary
 
institution where the shirking of responsibility is particularly
 
fostered. Unfortunately the disease slowly spread to all branches of
 
everyday life but particularly affected the sphere of public affairs.
 
Responsibility was being shirked everywhere and this led to insufficient
 
or half-hearted measures being taken, personal responsibility for each
 
act being reduced to a minimum.
 
 
 
If we consider the attitude of various Governments towards a whole
 
series of really pernicious phenomena in public life, we shall at once
 
recognize the fearful significance of this policy of half-measures and
 
the lack of courage to undertake responsibilities. I shall single out
 
only a few from the large numbers of instances known to me.
 
 
 
In journalistic circles it is a pleasing custom to speak of the Press as
 
a 'Great Power' within the State. As a matter of fact its importance is
 
immense. One cannot easily overestimate it, for the Press continues the
 
work of education even in adult life. Generally, readers of the Press
 
can be classified into three groups:
 
 
 
First, those who believe everything they read;
 
 
 
Second, those who no longer believe anything;
 
 
 
Third, those who critically examine what they read and form their
 
judgments accordingly.
 
 
 
Numerically, the first group is by far the strongest, being composed of
 
the broad masses of the people. Intellectually, it forms the simplest
 
portion of the nation. It cannot be classified according to occupation
 
but only into grades of intelligence. Under this category come all those
 
who have not been born to think for themselves or who have not learnt to
 
do so and who, partly through incompetence and partly through ignorance,
 
believe everything that is set before them in print. To these we must
 
add that type of lazy individual who, although capable of thinking for
 
himself out of sheer laziness gratefully absorbs everything that others
 
had thought over, modestly believing this to have been thoroughly done.
 
The influence which the Press has on all these people is therefore
 
enormous; for after all they constitute the broad masses of a nation.
 
But, somehow they are not in a position or are not willing personally to
 
sift what is being served up to them; so that their whole attitude
 
towards daily problems is almost solely the result of extraneous
 
influence. All this can be advantageous where public enlightenment is of
 
a serious and truthful character, but great harm is done when scoundrels
 
and liars take a hand at this work.
 
 
 
The second group is numerically smaller, being partly composed of those
 
who were formerly in the first group and after a series of bitter
 
disappointments are now prepared to believe nothing of what they see in
 
print. They hate all newspapers. Either they do not read them at all or
 
they become exceptionally annoyed at their contents, which they hold to
 
be nothing but a congeries of lies and misstatements. These people are
 
difficult to handle; for they will always be sceptical of the truth.
 
Consequently, they are useless for any form of positive work.
 
 
 
The third group is easily the smallest, being composed of real
 
intellectuals whom natural aptitude and education have taught to think
 
for themselves and who in all things try to form their own judgments,
 
while at the same time carefully sifting what they read. They will not
 
read any newspaper without using their own intelligence to collaborate
 
with that of the writer and naturally this does not set writers an easy
 
task. Journalists appreciate this type of reader only with a certain
 
amount of reservation.
 
 
 
Hence the trash that newspapers are capable of serving up is of little
 
danger--much less of importance--to the members of the third group of
 
readers. In the majority of cases these readers have learnt to regard
 
every journalist as fundamentally a rogue who sometimes speaks the
 
truth. Most unfortunately, the value of these readers lies in their
 
intelligence and not in their numerical strength, an unhappy state of
 
affairs in a period where wisdom counts for nothing and majorities for
 
everything. Nowadays when the voting papers of the masses are the
 
deciding factor; the decision lies in the hands of the numerically
 
strongest group; that is to say the first group, the crowd of simpletons
 
and the credulous.
 
 
 
It is an all-important interest of the State and a national duty to
 
prevent these people from falling into the hands of false, ignorant or
 
even evil-minded teachers. Therefore it is the duty of the State to
 
supervise their education and prevent every form of offence in this
 
respect. Particular attention should be paid to the Press; for its
 
influence on these people is by far the strongest and most penetrating
 
of all; since its effect is not transitory but continual. Its immense
 
significance lies in the uniform and persistent repetition of its
 
teaching. Here, if anywhere, the State should never forget that all
 
means should converge towards the same end. 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, and withholding from the nation that which is
 
good and which does good. With ruthless determination the State must
 
keep control of this instrument of popular education and place it at the
 
service of the State and the Nation.
 
 
 
But what sort of pabulum was it that the German Press served up for the
 
consumption of its readers in pre-War days? Was it not the worst
 
virulent poison imaginable? Was not pacifism in its worst form
 
inoculated into our people at a time when others were preparing slowly
 
but surely to pounce upon Germany? Did not this self-same Press of ours
 
in peace time already instil into the public mind a doubt as to the
 
sovereign rights of the State itself, thereby already handicapping the
 
State in choosing its means of defence? Was it not the German Press that
 
under stood how to make all the nonsensical talk about 'Western
 
democracy' palatable to our people, until an exuberant public was
 
eventually prepared to entrust its future to the League of Nations? Was
 
not this Press instrumental in bringing in a state of moral degradation
 
among our people? Were not morals and public decency made to look
 
ridiculous and classed as out-of-date and banal, until finally our
 
people also became modernized? By means of persistent attacks, did not
 
the Press keep on undermining the authority of the State, until one blow
 
sufficed to bring this institution tottering to the ground? Did not the
 
Press oppose with all its might every movement to give the State that
 
which belongs to the State, and by means of constant criticism, injure
 
the reputation of the army, sabotage general conscription 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 grave for the
 
German people and REICH. No mention need be made of the lying Marxist
 
Press. To them the spreading of falsehood is as much a vital necessity
 
as the mouse is to a cat. Their sole task is to break the national
 
backbone of the people, thus preparing the nation to become the slaves
 
of international finance and its masters, the Jews.
 
 
 
And what measures did the State take to counteract this wholesale
 
poisoning of the public mind? None, absolutely nothing at all. By this
 
policy it was hoped to win the favour of this pest--by means of
 
flattery, by a recognition of the 'value' of the Press, its
 
'importance', its 'educative mission' and similar nonsense. The Jews
 
acknowledged all this with a knowing smile and returned thanks.
 
 
 
The reason for this ignominious failure on the part of the State lay not
 
so much in its refusal to realize the danger as in the out-and-out
 
cowardly way of meeting the situation by the adoption of faulty and
 
ineffective measures. No one had the courage to employ any energetic and
 
radical methods. Everyone temporised in some way or other; and instead
 
of striking at its heart, the viper was only further irritated. The
 
result was that not only did everything remain as it was, but the power
 
of this institution which should have been combated grew greater from
 
year to year.
 
 
 
The defence put up by the Government in those days against a mainly
 
Jew-controlled Press that was slowly corrupting the nation, followed no
 
definite line of action, it had no determination behind it and above
 
all, no fixed objective whatsoever in view. This is where official
 
understanding of the situation completely failed both in estimating the
 
importance of the struggle, choosing the means and deciding on a
 
definite plan. They merely tinkered with the problem. Occasionally, when
 
bitten, they imprisoned one or another journalistic viper for a few
 
weeks or months, but the whole poisonous brood was allowed to carry on
 
in peace.
 
 
 
It must be admitted that all this was partly the result of extraordinary
 
crafty tactics on the part of Jewry on the one hand, and obvious
 
official stupidity or naïveté on the other hand. The Jews were too
 
clever to allow a simultaneous attack to be made on the whole of their
 
Press. No one section functioned as cover for the other. While the
 
Marxist newspaper, in the most despicable manner possible, reviled
 
everything that was sacred, furiously attacked the State and Government
 
and incited certain classes of the community against each other, the
 
bourgeois-democratic papers, also in Jewish hands, knew how to
 
camouflage themselves as model examples of objectivity. They studiously
 
avoided harsh language, knowing well that block-heads are capable of
 
judging only by external appearances and never able to penetrate to the
 
real depth and meaning of anything. They measure the worth of an object
 
by its exterior and not by its content. This form of human frailty was
 
carefully studied and understood by the Press.
 
 
 
For this class of blockheads the FRANKFURTER ZEITUNG would be
 
acknowledged as the essence of respectability. It always carefully
 
avoided calling a spade a spade. It deprecated the use of every form of
 
physical force and persistently appealed to the nobility of fighting
 
with 'intellectual' weapons. But this fight, curiously enough, was most
 
popular with the least intellectual classes. 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 being able to bring them to what is the
 
supreme act of knowing. To this end diligence and goodwill are of no
 
avail, if innate understanding fail. This final knowledge at which man
 
must aim is the understanding of causes which are instinctively
 
perceived.
 
 
 
Let me explain: Man must not fall into the error of thinking that he was
 
ever meant to become lord and master of Nature. A lopsided education has
 
helped to encourage that illusion. Man must realize that a fundamental
 
law of necessity reigns throughout the whole realm of Nature and that
 
his existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife. He
 
will then feel that there cannot be a separate law for mankind in a
 
world in which planets and suns follow their orbits, where moons and
 
planets trace their destined paths, where the strong are always the
 
masters of the weak and where those subject to such laws must obey them
 
or be destroyed. Man must also submit to the eternal principles of this
 
supreme wisdom. He may try to understand them but he can never free
 
himself from their sway.
 
 
 
It is just for intellectual DEMI-MONDE that the Jew writes those papers
 
which he calls his 'intellectual' Press. For them the FRANKFURTER
 
ZEITUNG and BERLINER TAGEBLATT are written, the tone being adapted to
 
them, and it is over these people that such papers have an influence.
 
While studiously avoiding all forms of expression that might strike the
 
reader as crude, the poison is injected from other vials into the hearts
 
of the clientele. The effervescent tone and the fine phraseology lug the
 
readers into believing that a love for knowledge and moral principle is
 
the sole driving force that determines the policy of such papers,
 
whereas in reality these features represent a cunning way of disarming
 
any opposition that might be directed against the Jews and their Press.
 
 
 
They make such a parade of respectability that the imbecile readers are
 
all the more ready to believe that the excesses which other papers
 
indulge in are only of a mild nature and not such as to warrant legal
 
action being taken against them. Indeed such action might trespass on
 
the freedom of the Press, that expression being a euphemism under which
 
such papers escape legal punishment for deceiving the public and
 
poisoning the public mind. Hence the authorities are very slow indeed to
 
take any steps against these journalistic bandits for fear of
 
immediately alienating the sympathy of the so-called respectable Press.
 
A fear that is only too well founded, for the moment any attempt is made
 
to proceed against any member of the gutter press all the others rush to
 
its assistance at once, not indeed to support its policy but simply and
 
solely to defend the principle of freedom of the Press and liberty of
 
public opinion. This outcry will succeed in cowering the most stalwart;
 
for it comes from the mouth of what is called decent journalism.
 
 
 
And so this poison was allowed to enter the national bloodstream and
 
infect public life without the Government taking any effectual measures
 
to master the course of the disease. The ridiculous half-measures that
 
were taken were in themselves an indication of the process of
 
disintegration that was already threatening to break up the Empire. For
 
an institution practically surrenders its existence when it is no longer
 
determined to defend itself with all the weapons at its command. Every
 
half-measure is the outward expression of an internal process of decay
 
which must lead to an external collapse sooner or later.
 
 
 
I believe that our present generation would easily master this danger if
 
they were rightly led. For this generation has gone through certain
 
experiences which must have strengthened the nerves of all those who did
 
not become nervously broken by them. Certainly in days to come the Jews
 
will raise a tremendous cry throughout their newspapers once a hand is
 
laid on their favourite nest, once a move is made to put an end to this
 
scandalous Press and once this instrument which shapes public opinion is
 
brought under State control and no longer left in the hands of aliens
 
and enemies of the people. I am certain that this will be easier for us
 
than it was for our fathers. The scream of the twelve-inch shrapnel is
 
more penetrating 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 vital national
 
problems were dealt with in pre-War Germany is the following: Hand in
 
hand with the political and moral process of infecting the nation, for
 
many years an equally virulent process of infection had been attacking
 
the public health of the people. In large cities, particularly, syphilis
 
steadily increased and tuberculosis kept pace with it in reaping its
 
harvest of death almost in every part of the country.
 
 
 
Although in both cases the effect on the nation was alarming, it seemed
 
as if nobody was in a position to undertake any decisive measures
 
against these scourges.
 
 
 
In the case of syphilis especially the attitude of the State and public
 
bodies was one of absolute capitulation. To combat this state of affairs
 
something of far wider sweep should have been undertaken than was really
 
done. The discovery of a remedy which is of a questionable nature and
 
the excellent way in which it was placed on the market were only of
 
little assistance in fighting such a scourge. Here again the only course
 
to adopt is to attack the disease in its causes rather than in its
 
symptoms. But in this case the primary cause is to be found in the
 
manner in which love has been prostituted. Even though this did not
 
directly bring about the fearful disease itself, the nation must still
 
suffer serious damage thereby, for the moral havoc resulting from this
 
prostitution would be sufficient to bring about the destruction of the
 
nation, slowly but surely. This Judaizing of our spiritual life and
 
mammonizing of our natural instinct for procreation will sooner or later
 
work havoc with our whole posterity. For instead of strong, healthy
 
children, blessed with natural feelings, we shall see miserable
 
specimens of humanity resulting from economic calculation. For economic
 
considerations are becoming more and more the foundations of marriage
 
and the sole preliminary condition of it. And love looks for an outlet
 
elsewhere.
 
 
 
Here, as elsewhere, one may defy Nature for a certain period of time;
 
but sooner or later she will take her inexorable revenge. And when man
 
realizes this truth it is often too late.
 
 
 
Our own nobility furnishes an example of the devastating consequences
 
that follow from a persistent refusal to recognize the primary
 
conditions necessary for normal wedlock. Here we are openly brought face
 
to face with the results of those reproductive habits which on the one
 
hand are determined by social pressure and, on the other, by financial
 
considerations. The one leads to inherited debility and the other to
 
adulteration of the blood-strain; for all the Jewish daughters of the
 
department store proprietors are looked upon as eligible mates to
 
co-operate in propagating His Lordship's stock. And the stock certainly
 
looks it. All this leads to absolute degeneration. Nowadays our
 
bourgeoise are making efforts to follow in the same path, They will come
 
to the same journey's end.
 
 
 
These unpleasant truths are hastily and nonchalantly brushed aside, as
 
if by so doing the real state of affairs could also be abolished. But
 
no. It cannot be denied that the population of our great towns and
 
cities is tending more and more to avail of prostitution in the exercise
 
of its amorous instincts and is thus becoming more and more contaminated
 
by the scourge of venereal disease. On the one hand, the visible effects
 
of this mass-infection can be observed in our insane asylums and, on the
 
other hand, alas! among the children at home. These are the doleful and
 
tragic witnesses to the steadily increasing scourge that is poisoning
 
our sexual life. Their sufferings are the visible results of parental
 
vice.
 
 
 
There are many ways of becoming resigned to this unpleasant and terrible
 
fact. Many people go about seeing nothing or, to be more correct, not
 
wanting to see anything. This is by far the simplest and cheapest
 
attitude to adopt. Others cover themselves in the sacred mantle of
 
prudery, as ridiculous as it is false. They describe the whole condition
 
of affairs as sinful and are profoundly indignant when brought face to
 
face with a victim. They close their eyes in reverend abhorrence to this
 
godless scourge and pray to the Almighty that He--if possible after
 
their own death--may rain down fire and brimstone as on Sodom and
 
Gomorrah and so once again make an out standing example of this
 
shameless section of humanity. Finally, there are those who are well
 
aware of the terrible results which this scourge will and must bring
 
about, but they merely shrug their shoulders, fully convinced of their
 
inability to undertake anything against this peril. Hence matters are
 
allowed to take their own course.
 
 
 
Undoubtedly all this is very convenient and simple, only it must not be
 
overlooked that this convenient way of approaching things can have fatal
 
consequences for our national life. The excuse that other nations are
 
also not faring any better does not alter the fact of our own
 
deterioration, except that the feeling of sympathy for other stricken
 
nations makes our own suffering easier to bear. But the important
 
question that arises here is: Which nation will be the first to take the
 
initiative in mastering this scourge, and which nations will succumb to
 
it? This will be the final upshot of the whole situation. The present is
 
a period of probation for racial values. The race that fails to come
 
through the test will simply die out and its place will be taken by the
 
healthier and stronger races, which will be able to endure greater
 
hardships. As this problem primarily concerns posterity, it belongs to
 
that category of which it is said with terrible justification that the
 
sins of the fathers are visited on their offspring unto the tenth
 
generation. This is a consequence which follows on an infringement of
 
the laws of blood and race.
 
 
 
The sin against blood and race is the hereditary sin in this world and
 
it brings disaster on every nation that commits it.
 
 
 
The attitude towards this one vital problem in pre-War Germany was most
 
regrettable. What measures were undertaken to arrest the infection of
 
our youth in the large cities? What was done to put an end to the
 
contamination and mammonization of sexual life among us? What was done
 
to fight the resultant spreading of syphilis throughout the whole of our
 
national life? The reply to this question can best be illustrated by
 
showing what should have been done.
 
 
 
Instead of tackling this problem in a haphazard way, the authorities
 
should have realized that the fortunes or misfortunes of future
 
generations depended on its solution. But to admit this would have
 
demanded that active measures be carried out in a ruthless manner. The
 
primary condition would have been that the enlightened attention of the
 
whole country should be concentrated on this terrible danger, so that
 
every individual would realize the importance of fighting against it. It
 
would be futile to impose obligations of a definite character--which are
 
often difficult to bear--and expect them to become generally effective,
 
unless the public be thoroughly instructed on the necessity of imposing
 
and accepting such obligations. This demands a widespread and systematic
 
method of enlightenment and all other daily problems that might distract
 
public attention from this great central problem should be relegated to
 
the background.
 
 
 
In every case where there are exigencies or tasks that seem impossible
 
to deal with successfully public opinion must be concentrated on the one
 
problem, under the conviction that the solution of this problem alone is
 
a matter of life or death. Only in this way can public interest be
 
aroused to such a pitch as will urge people to combine in a great
 
voluntary effort and achieve important results.
 
 
 
This fundamental truth applies also to the individual, provided he is
 
desirous of attaining some great end. He must always concentrate his
 
efforts to one definitely limited stage of his progress which has to be
 
completed before the next step be attempted. Those who do not endeavour
 
to realize their aims step by step and who do not concentrate their
 
energy in reaching the individual stages, will never attain the final
 
objective. At some stage or other they will falter and fail. This
 
systematic way of approaching an objective is an art in itself, and
 
always calls for the expenditure of every ounce of energy in order to
 
conquer step after step of the road.
 
 
 
Therefore the most essential preliminary condition necessary for an
 
attack on such a difficult stage of the human road is that the
 
authorities should succeed in convincing the masses that the immediate
 
objective which is now being fought for is the only one that deserves to
 
be considered and the only one on which everything depends. The broad
 
masses are never able clearly to see the whole stretch of the road lying
 
in front of them without becoming tired and thus losing faith in their
 
ability to complete the task. To a certain extent they will keep the
 
objective in mind, but they are only able to survey the whole road in
 
small stages, as in the case of the traveller who knows where his
 
journey is going to end but who masters the endless stretch far better
 
by attacking it in degrees. Only in this way can he keep up his
 
determination to reach the final objective.
 
 
 
It is in this way, with the assistance of every form of propaganda, that
 
the problem of fighting venereal disease should be placed before the
 
public--not as a task for the nation but as THE main task. Every
 
possible means should be employed to bring the truth about this scourge
 
home to the minds of the people, until the whole nation has been
 
convinced that everything depends on the solution of this problem; that
 
is to say, a healthy future or national decay.
 
 
 
Only after such preparatory measures--if necessary spread over a period
 
of many years--will public attention and public resolution be fully
 
aroused, and only then can serious and definite measures be undertaken
 
without running the risk of not being fully understood or of being
 
suddenly faced with a slackening of the public will. It must be made
 
clear to all that a serious fight against this scourge calls for vast
 
sacrifices and an enormous amount of work.
 
 
 
To wage war against syphilis means fighting against prostitution,
 
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 State can
 
claim a moral right to fight against all these things is that the young
 
generation should be afforded facilities for contracting early
 
marriages. Late marriages have the sanction of a custom which, from
 
whatever angle we view it, is and will remain a disgrace to humanity.
 
 
 
Prostitution is a disgrace to humanity and cannot be removed simply by
 
charitable or academic methods. Its restriction and final extermination
 
presupposes the removal of a whole series of contributory circumstances.
 
The first remedy must always be to establish such conditions as will
 
make early marriages possible, especially for young men--for women are,
 
after all, only passive subjects in this matter.
 
 
 
An illustration of the extent to which people have so often been led
 
astray nowadays is afforded by the fact that not infrequently one hears
 
mothers in so-called 'better' circles openly expressing their
 
satisfaction at having found as a husband for their daughter a man who
 
has already sown his wild oats, etc. As there is usually so little
 
shortage in men of this type, the poor girl finds no difficulty in
 
getting a mate of this description, and the children of this marriage
 
are a visible result of such supposedly sensible unions.
 
 
 
When one realizes, apart from this, that every possible effort is being
 
made to hinder the process of procreation and that Nature is being
 
wilfully cheated of her rights, there remains really only one question:
 
Why is such an institution as marriage still in existence, and what are
 
its functions? Is it really nothing better than prostitution? Does our
 
duty to posterity no longer play any part? Or do people not realize the
 
nature of the curse they are inflicting on themselves and their
 
offspring by such criminally foolish neglect of one of the primary laws
 
of Nature? This is how civilized 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 and the race.
 
This is its only meaning and purpose.
 
 
 
This being admitted, then it is clear that the institution of marriage
 
must be judged by the manner in which its allotted function is
 
fulfilled. Therefore early marriages should be the rule, because thus
 
the young couple will still have that pristine force which is the
 
fountain head of a healthy posterity with unimpaired powers of
 
resistance. Of course early marriages cannot be made the rule unless a
 
whole series of social measures are first undertaken without which early
 
marriages cannot be even thought of. In other words, a solution of this
 
question, which seems a small problem in itself, cannot be brought about
 
without adopting radical measures to alter the social background. The
 
importance of such measures ought to be studied and properly estimated,
 
especially at a time when the so-called 'social' Republic has shown
 
itself unable to solve the housing problem and thus has made it
 
impossible for innumerable couples to get married. That sort of policy
 
prepares the way for the further advance of prostitution.
 
 
 
Another reason why early marriages are impossible is our nonsensical
 
method of regulating the scale of salaries, which pays far 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 easier than hitherto. This is the first
 
preliminary necessity for the solution of this problem.
 
 
 
Secondly, a whole series of false notions must be eradicated from our
 
system of bringing up and educating children--things which hitherto no
 
one seems to have worried about. In our present educational system a
 
balance will have to be established, first and foremost, between mental
 
instruction and physical training.
 
 
 
What is known as GYMNASIUM (Grammar School) to-day is a positive insult
 
to the Greek institution. Our system of education entirely loses sight
 
of the fact that in the long run a healthy mind can exist only in a
 
healthy body. This statement, with few exceptions, applies particularly
 
to the broad masses of the nation.
 
 
 
In the pre-War Germany there was a time when no one took the trouble to
 
think over this truth. Training of the body was criminally neglected,
 
the one-sided training of the mind being regarded as a sufficient
 
guarantee for the nation's greatness. This mistake was destined to show
 
its effects sooner than had been anticipated. It is not pure chance that
 
the Bolshevic teaching flourishes in those regions whose degenerate
 
population has been brought to the verge of starvation, as, for example,
 
in the case of Central Germany, Saxony, and the Ruhr Valley. In all
 
these districts there is a marked absence of any serious resistance,
 
even by the so-called intellectual classes, against this Jewish
 
contagion. And the simple reason is that the intellectual classes are
 
themselves physically degenerate, not through privation but through
 
education. The exclusive intellectualism of the education in vogue among
 
our upper classes makes them unfit for life's struggle at an epoch in
 
which physical force and not mind is the dominating factor. Thus they
 
are neither capable of maintaining themselves nor of making their way in
 
life. In nearly every case physical disability is the forerunner of
 
personal cowardice.
 
 
 
The extravagant emphasis laid on purely intellectual education and the
 
consequent neglect of physical training must necessarily lead to sexual
 
thoughts in early youth. Those boys whose constitutions have been
 
trained and hardened by sports and gymnastics are less prone to sexual
 
indulgence than those stay-at-homes who have been fed exclusively with
 
mental pabulum. Sound methods of education cannot, however, afford to
 
disregard this, and we must not forget that the expectations of a
 
healthy young man from a woman will differ from those of a weakling who
 
has been prematurely corrupted.
 
 
 
Thus in every branch of our education the day's curriculum must be
 
arranged so as to occupy a boy's free time in profitable development of
 
his physical powers. He has no right in those years to loaf about,
 
becoming a nuisance in public streets and in cinemas; but when his day's
 
work is done he ought to harden his young body so that his strength may
 
not be found wanting when the occasion arises. To prepare for this and
 
to carry it out should be the function of our educational system and not
 
exclusively to pump in knowledge or wisdom. Our school system must also
 
rid itself of the notion that the training of the body is a task that
 
should be left to the individual himself. There is no such thing as
 
allowing freedom of choice to sin against posterity and thus against the
 
race.
 
 
 
The fight against pollution of the mind must be waged simultaneously
 
with the training of the body. To-day the whole of our public life may
 
be compared to a hot-house for the forced growth of sexual notions and
 
incitements. A glance at the bill-of-fare provided by our cinemas,
 
playhouses, and theatres suffices to prove that this is not the right
 
food, especially for our young people. Hoardings and advertisements
 
kiosks combine to attract the public in the most vulgar manner. Anyone
 
who has not altogether lost contact with adolescent yearnings will
 
realize that all this must have very grave consequences. This seductive
 
and sensuous atmosphere puts notions into the heads of our youth which,
 
at their age, ought still to be unknown to them. Unfortunately, the
 
results of this kind of education can best be seen in our contemporary
 
youth who are prematurely grown up and therefore old before their time.
 
The law courts from time to time throw a distressing light on the
 
spiritual life of our 14- and 15-year old children. Who, therefore, will
 
be surprised to learn that venereal disease claims its victims at this
 
age? And is it not a frightful shame to see the number of physically
 
weak and intellectually spoiled young men who have been introduced to
 
the mysteries of marriage by the whores of the big cities?
 
 
 
No; those who want seriously to combat prostitution must first of all
 
assist in removing the spiritual conditions on which it thrives. They
 
will have to clean up the moral pollution of our city 'culture'
 
fearlessly and without regard for the outcry that will follow. If we do
 
not drag our youth out of the morass of their present environment they
 
will be engulfed by it. Those people who do not want to see these things
 
are deliberately encouraging them and are guilty of spreading the
 
effects of prostitution to the future--for the future belongs to our
 
young generation. This process of cleansing our 'Kultur' will have to be
 
applied in practically all spheres. The stage, art, literature, the
 
cinema, the Press and advertisement posters, all must have the stains of
 
pollution removed and be placed in the service of a national and
 
cultural idea. The life of the people must be freed from the
 
asphyxiating perfume of our modern eroticism and also from every unmanly
 
and prudish form of insincerity. In all these things the aim and the
 
method must be determined by thoughtful consideration for the
 
preservation of our national well-being in body and soul. The right to
 
personal freedom comes second in importance to the duty of maintaining
 
the race.
 
 
 
Only after such measures have been put into practice can a medical
 
campaign against this scourge begin with some hope of success. But, here
 
again, half-measures will be valueless. Far-reaching and important
 
decisions will have to be made. It would be doing things by halves if
 
incurables were given the opportunity of infecting one healthy person
 
after another. This would be that kind of humanitarianism which would
 
allow hundreds to perish in order to save the suffering of one
 
individual. The demand that it should be made impossible for defective
 
people to continue to propagate defective offspring is a demand that is
 
based on most reasonable grounds, and its proper fulfilment is the most
 
humane task that mankind has to face. Unhappy and undeserved suffering
 
in millions of cases will be spared, with the result that there will be
 
a gradual improvement in national health. A determined decision to act
 
in this manner will at the same time provide an obstacle against the
 
further spread of venereal disease. It would then be a case, where
 
necessary, of mercilessly isolating all incurables--perhaps a barbaric
 
measure for those unfortunates--but a blessing for the present
 
generation and for posterity. The temporary pain thus experienced in
 
this century can and will spare future thousands of generations from
 
suffering.
 
 
 
The fight against syphilis and its pace-maker, prostitution, is one of
 
the gigantic tasks of mankind; gigantic, because it is not merely a case
 
of solving a single problem but the removal of a whole series of evils
 
which are the contributory causes of this scourge. Disease of the body
 
in this case is merely the result of a diseased condition of the moral,
 
social, and racial instincts.
 
 
 
But if for reasons of indolence or cowardice this fight is not fought to
 
a finish we may imagine what conditions will be like 500 years 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? If we
 
think calmly over the answer we shall find it distressing. It is true
 
that in governmental circles the terrible and injurious effects of this
 
disease were well known, but the counter-measures which were officially
 
adopted were ineffective and a hopeless failure. They tinkered with
 
cures for the symptoms, wholly regardless of the cause of the disease.
 
Prostitutes were medically examined and controlled as far as possible,
 
and when signs of infection were apparent they were sent to hospital.
 
When outwardly cured, they were once more let loose on humanity.
 
 
 
It is true that 'protective legislation' was introduced which made
 
sexual intercourse a punishable offence for all those not completely
 
cured, or those suffering from venereal disease. This legislation was
 
correct in theory, but in practice it failed completely. In the first
 
place, in the majority of cases women will decline to appear in court as
 
witnesses against men who have robbed them of their health. Women would
 
be exposed far more than men to uncharitable remarks in such cases, and
 
one can imagine what their position 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 he frequently
 
is unfortunate enough to run up against this danger when he is under the
 
influence of alcohol. His condition makes it impossible for him to
 
assess the qualities of his 'amorous beauty,' a fact which is well known
 
to every diseased prostitute and makes them single out men in this ideal
 
condition for preference. The result is that the unfortunate man is not
 
able to recollect later on who his compassionate benefactress was, which
 
is not surprising in cities like Berlin and Munich. Many of such cases
 
are visitors from the provinces who, held speechless and enthralled by
 
the magic charm of city life, become an easy prey for prostitutes.
 
 
 
In the final analysis who is able to say whether he has been infected or
 
not?
 
 
 
Are there not innumerable cases on record where an apparently cured
 
person has a relapse and does untold harm without knowing it?
 
 
 
Therefore in practice the results of these legislative measures are
 
negative. The same applies to the control of prostitution, and, finally,
 
even medical treatment and cure are nowadays unsafe and doubtful. One
 
thing only is certain. The scourge has spread further and further in
 
spite of all measures, and this alone suffices definitely to stamp and
 
substantiate their inefficiency.
 
 
 
Everything else that was undertaken was just as inefficient as it was
 
absurd. The spiritual prostitution of the people was neither arrested
 
nor was anything whatsoever undertaken in this direction.
 
 
 
Those, however, who do not regard this subject as a serious one would do
 
well to examine the statistical data of the spread of this disease,
 
study its growth in the last century and contemplate the possibilities
 
of its further development. The ordinary observer, unless he were
 
particularly stupid, would experience a cold shudder if the position
 
were made clear to him.
 
 
 
The half-hearted and wavering attitude adopted in pre-War Germany
 
towards this iniquitous condition can assuredly be taken as a visible
 
sign of national decay. When the courage to fight for one's own health
 
is no longer in evidence, then the right to live in this world of
 
struggle also ceases.
 
 
 
One of the visible signs of decay in the old REICH was the slow setback
 
which the general cultural level experienced. But by 'Kultur' I do not
 
mean that which we nowadays style as civilization, which on the contrary
 
may rather be regarded as inimical to the spiritual elevation of life.
 
 
 
At the turn of the last century a new element began to make its
 
appearance in our world. It was an element which had been hitherto
 
absolutely unknown and foreign to us. In former times there had
 
certainly been offences against good taste; but these were mostly
 
departures from the orthodox canons of art, and posterity could
 
recognize a certain historical value in them. But the new products
 
showed signs, not only of artistic aberration but of spiritual
 
degeneration. Here, in the cultural sphere, the signs of the coming
 
collapse first became manifest.
 
 
 
The Bolshevization of art is the only cultural form of life and the only
 
spiritual manifestation of which Bolshevism is capable.
 
 
 
Anyone to whom this statement may appear strange need only take a glance
 
at those lucky States which have become Bolshevized and, to his horror,
 
he will there recognize those morbid monstrosities which have been
 
produced by insane and degenerate people. All those artistic aberrations
 
which are classified under the names of cubism and dadism, since the
 
opening of the present century, are manifestations of art which have
 
come to be officially recognized by the State itself. This phenomenon
 
made its appearance even during the short-lived period of the Soviet
 
Republic in Bavaria. At that time one might easily have recognized how
 
all the official posters, propagandist pictures and newspapers, etc.,
 
showed signs not only of political but also of cultural decadence.
 
 
 
About sixty years ago a political collapse such as we are experiencing
 
to-day would have been just as inconceivable as the cultural decline
 
which has been manifested in cubist and futurist pictures ever since
 
1900. Sixty years ago an exhibition of so-called dadistic 'experiences'
 
would have been an absolutely preposterous idea. The organizers of such
 
an exhibition would then have been certified for the lunatic asylum,
 
whereas, to-day they are appointed presidents of art societies. At that
 
time such an epidemic would never have been allowed to spread. Public
 
opinion would not have tolerated it, and the Government would not have
 
remained silent; for it is the duty of a Government to save its people
 
from being stampeded into such intellectual madness. But intellectual
 
madness would have resulted from a development that followed the
 
acceptance of this kind of art. It would have marked one of the worst
 
changes in human history; for it would have meant that a retrogressive
 
process had begun to take place in the human brain, the final stages of
 
which would be unthinkable.
 
 
 
If we study the course of our cultural life during the last twenty-five
 
years we shall be astonished to note how far we have already gone in
 
this process of retrogression. Everywhere we find the presence of those
 
germs which give rise to protuberant growths that must sooner or later
 
bring about the ruin of our culture. Here we find undoubted symptoms of
 
slow corruption; and woe to the nations that are no longer able to bring
 
that morbid process to a halt.
 
 
 
In almost all the various fields of German art and culture those morbid
 
phenomena may be observed. Here everything seems to have passed the
 
culminating point of its excellence and to have entered the curve of a
 
hasty decline. At the beginning of the century the theatres seemed
 
already degenerating and ceasing to be cultural factors, except the
 
Court theatres, which opposed this prostitution of the national art.
 
With these exceptions, and also a few other decent institutions, the
 
plays produced on the stage were of such a nature that the people would
 
have benefited by not visiting them at all. A sad symptom of decline was
 
manifested by the fact that in the case of many 'art centres' the sign
 
was posted on the entrance doors: FOR ADULTS ONLY.
 
 
 
Let it be borne in mind that these precautions had to be taken in regard
 
to institutions whose main purpose should have been to promote the
 
education of the youth and not merely to provide amusement for
 
sophisticated adults. What would the great dramatists of other times
 
have said of such measures and, above all, of the conditions which made
 
these measures necessary? How exasperated Schiller would have been, and
 
how Goethe would have turned away in disgust!
 
 
 
But what are Schiller, Goethe and Shakespeare when confronted with the
 
heroes of our modern German literature? Old and frowsy and outmoded and
 
finished. For it was typical of this epoch that not only were its own
 
products bad but that the authors of such products and their backers
 
reviled everything that had really been great in the past. This is a
 
phenomenon that is very characteristic of such epochs. The more vile and
 
miserable are the men and products of an epoch, the more they will hate
 
and denigrate the ideal achievements of former generations. What these
 
people would like best would be completely to destroy every vestige of
 
the past, in order to do away with that sole standard of comparison
 
which prevents their own daubs from being looked upon as art. Therefore
 
the 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 can always face
 
comparison with the best of what has gone before; and frequently it
 
happens that those monuments of the past guarantee the acceptance of
 
those modern productions. There is no fear that modern productions of
 
real worth will look pale and worthless beside the monuments of the
 
past. What is contributed to the general treasury of human culture often
 
fulfils a part that is necessary in order to keep the memory of old
 
achievements alive, because this memory alone is the standard whereby
 
our own works are properly appreciated. Only those who have nothing of
 
value to give to the world will oppose everything that already exists
 
and would have it destroyed at all costs.
 
 
 
And this holds good not only for new phenomena in the cultural domain
 
but also in politics. The more inferior new revolutionary movements are,
 
the more will they try to denigrate the old forms. Here again the desire
 
to pawn off their shoddy products as great and original achievements
 
leads them into a blind hatred against everything which belongs to the
 
past and which is superior to their own work. As long as the historical
 
memory of Frederick the Great, for instance, still lives, Frederick
 
Ebert can arouse only a problematic admiration. The relation of the hero
 
of Sans Souci to the former republican of Bremen may be compared to that
 
of the sun to the moon; for the moon can shine only after the direct
 
rays of the sun have left the earth. Thus we can readily understand why
 
it is that all the new moons in human history have hated the fixed
 
stars. In the field of politics, if Fate should happen temporarily to
 
place the ruling power in the hands of those nonentities they are not
 
only eager to defile and revile the past but at the same time they will
 
use all means to evade criticism of their own acts. The Law for the
 
Protection of the Republic, which the new German State 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 economical movement, which
 
tries to deny everything that the past has produced or to present it as
 
inferior and worthless. Any renovation which is really beneficial to
 
human progress will always have to begin its constructive work at the
 
level where the last stones of the structure have been laid. It need not
 
blush to utilize those truths which have already been established; for
 
all human culture, as well as man himself, is only the result of one
 
long line of development, where each generation has contributed but one
 
stone to the building of the whole structure. The meaning and purpose of
 
revolutions cannot be to tear down the whole building but to take away
 
what has not been well fitted into it or is unsuitable, and to rebuild
 
the free space thus caused, after which the main construction of the
 
building will be carried on.
 
 
 
Thus alone will it be possible to talk of human progress; for otherwise
 
the world would never be free of chaos, since each generation would feel
 
entitled to reject the past and to destroy all the work of the past, as
 
the necessary preliminary to any new work of its own.
 
 
 
The saddest feature of the condition in which our whole civilization
 
found itself before the War was the fact that it was not only barren of
 
any creative force to produce its own works of art and civilization but
 
that it hated, defiled and tried to efface the memory of the superior
 
works produced in the past. About the end of the last century people
 
were less interested in producing new significant works of their
 
own--particularly in the fields of dramatic art and literature--than in
 
defaming the best works of the past and in presenting them as inferior
 
and antiquated. As if this period of disgraceful decadence had the
 
slightest capacity to produce anything of superior quality! The efforts
 
made to conceal the past from the eyes of the present afforded clear
 
evidence of the fact that these apostles of the future acted from an
 
evil intent. These symptoms should have made it clear to all that it was
 
not a question of new, though wrong, cultural ideas but of a process
 
which was undermining the very foundations of civilization. It threw the
 
artistic feeling which had hitherto been quite sane into utter
 
confusion, thus spiritually preparing the way for political Bolshevism.
 
If the creative spirit of the Periclean age be manifested in the
 
Parthenon, then the Bolshevist era is manifested through its cubist
 
grimace.
 
 
 
In this connection attention must be drawn once again to the want of
 
courage displayed by one section of our people, namely, by those who, in
 
virtue of their education and position, ought to have felt themselves
 
obliged to take up a firm stand against this outrage on our culture. But
 
they refrained from offering serious resistance and surrendered to what
 
they considered the inevitable. This abdication of theirs was due,
 
however, to sheer funk lest the apostles of Bolshevist art might raise a
 
rumpus; for those apostles always violently attacked everyone who was
 
not ready to recognize them as the choice spirits of artistic creation,
 
and they tried to strangle all opposition by saying that it was the
 
product of philistine and backwater minds. People trembled in fear lest
 
they might be accused by these yahoos and swindlers of lacking artistic
 
appreciation, as if it would have been a disgrace not to be able to
 
understand and appreciate the effusions of those mental degenerates or
 
arrant rogues. Those cultural disciples, however, had a very simple way
 
of presenting their own effusions as works of the highest quality. They
 
offered incomprehensible and manifestly crazy productions to their
 
amazed contemporaries as what they called 'an inner experience'. Thus
 
they forestalled all adverse criticism at very little cost indeed. Of
 
course nobody ever doubted that there could have been inner experiences
 
like that, but some doubt ought to have arisen as to whether or not
 
there was any justification for exposing these hallucinations of
 
psychopaths or criminals to the sane portion of human society. The works
 
produced by a Moritz von Schwind or a Böcklin were also externalizations
 
of an inner experience, but these were the experiences of divinely
 
gifted artists and not of buffoons.
 
 
 
This situation afforded a good opportunity of studying the miserable
 
cowardliness of our so-called intellectuals who shirked the duty of
 
offering serious resistance to the poisoning of the sound instincts of
 
our people. They left it to the people themselves to formulate their own
 
attitude towards his impudent nonsense. Lest they might be considered as
 
understanding nothing of art, they accepted every caricature of art,
 
until they finally lost the power of judging what is really good or bad.
 
 
 
Taken all in all, there were superabundant symptoms to show that a
 
diseased epoch had begun.
 
 
 
Still another critical symptom has to be considered. In the course of
 
the nineteenth century our towns and cities began more and more to lose
 
their character as centres of civilization and became more and more
 
centres of habitation. In our great modern cities the proletariat does
 
not show much attachment to the place where it lives. This feeling
 
results from the fact that their dwelling-place is nothing but an
 
accidental abode, and that feeling is also partly due to the frequent
 
change of residence which is forced upon them by social conditions.
 
There is no time for the growth of any attachment to the town in which
 
they live. But another reason lies in the cultural barrenness and
 
superficiality of our modern cities. At the time of the German Wars of
 
Liberation our German towns and cities were not only small in number but
 
also very modest in size. The few that could really be called great
 
cities were mostly the residential cities of princes; as such they had
 
almost always a definite cultural value and also a definite cultural
 
aspect. Those few towns which had more than fifty thousand inhabitants
 
were, in comparison with modern cities of the same size, rich in
 
scientific and artistic treasures. At the time when Munich had not more
 
than sixty thousand souls it was already well on the way to become one
 
of the first German centres of art. Nowadays almost every industrial
 
town has a population at least as large as that, without having anything
 
of real value to call its own. They are agglomerations of tenement
 
houses and congested dwelling barracks, and nothing else. It would be a
 
miracle if anybody should grow sentimentally attached to such a
 
meaningless place. Nobody can grow attached to a place which offers only
 
just as much or as little as any other place would offer, which has no
 
character of its own and where obviously pains have been taken to avoid
 
everything that might have any resemblance to an artistic appearance.
 
 
 
But this is not all. Even the great cities become more barren of real
 
works of art the more they increase in population. They assume more 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 civilization of our great cities is
 
absolutely deficient. All our towns are living on the glory and the
 
treasures of the past. If we take away from the Munich of to-day
 
everything that was created under Ludwig II we should be horror-stricken
 
to see how meagre has been the output of important artistic creations
 
since that time. One might say much the same of Berlin and most of our
 
other great towns.
 
 
 
But the following is the essential thing to be noticed: Our great modern
 
cities have no outstanding monuments that dominate the general aspect of
 
the city and could be pointed to as the symbols of a whole epoch. Yet
 
almost every ancient town had a monument erected to its glory. It was
 
not in private dwellings that the characteristic art of ancient cities
 
was displayed but in the public monuments, which were not meant to have
 
a transitory interest but an enduring one. And this was because they did
 
not represent the wealth of some individual citizen but the greatness
 
and importance of the community. It was under this inspiration that
 
those monuments arose which bound the individual inhabitants to their
 
own town in a manner that is often almost incomprehensible to us to-day.
 
What struck the eye of the individual citizen was not a number of
 
mediocre private buildings, but imposing structures that belonged to the
 
whole community. In contradistinction to these, private dwellings were
 
of only very secondary importance indeed.
 
 
 
When we compare the size of those ancient public buildings with that of
 
the private dwellings belonging to the same epoch then we can understand
 
the great importance which was given to the principle that those works
 
which reflected and affected the life of the community should take
 
precedence of all others.
 
 
 
Among the broken arches and vast spaces that are covered with ruins from
 
the ancient world the colossal riches that still arouse our wonder have
 
not been left to us from the commercial palaces of these days but from
 
the temples of the Gods and the public edifices that belonged to the
 
State. The community itself was the owner of those great edifices. Even
 
in the pomp of Rome during the decadence it was not the villas and
 
palaces of some citizens that filled the most prominent place but rather
 
the temples and the baths, the stadia, the circuses, the aqueducts, the
 
basilicas, etc., which belonged to the State and therefore to the people
 
as a whole.
 
 
 
In medieval Germany also the same principle held sway, although the
 
artistic outlook was quite different. In ancient times the theme that
 
found its expression in the Acropolis or the Pantheon was now clothed in
 
the forms of the Gothic Cathedral. In the medieval cities these
 
monumental structures towered gigantically above the swarm of smaller
 
buildings with their framework walls of wood and brick. And they remain
 
the dominant feature of these cities even to our own day, although they
 
are becoming more and more obscured by the apartment barracks. They
 
determine the character and appearance of the locality. Cathedrals,
 
city-halls, corn exchanges, defence towers, are the outward expression
 
of an idea which has its counterpart only in the ancient world.
 
 
 
The dimensions and quality of our public buildings to-day are in
 
deplorable contrast to the edifices that represent private interests. If
 
a similar fate should befall Berlin as befell Rome future generations
 
might gaze upon the ruins of some Jewish department stores or
 
joint-stock hotels and think that these were the characteristic
 
expressions of the culture of our time. In Berlin itself, compare the
 
shameful disproportion between the buildings which belong to the REICH
 
and those which have been erected for the accommodation of trade and
 
finance.
 
 
 
The credits that are voted for public buildings are in most cases
 
inadequate and really ridiculous. They are not built as structures that
 
were meant to last but mostly for the purpose of answering the need of
 
the moment. No higher idea influenced those who commissioned such
 
buildings. At the time the Berlin Schloss was built it had a quite
 
different significance from what the new library has for our time,
 
seeing that one battleship alone represents an expenditure of about
 
sixty million marks, whereas less than half that sum was allotted for
 
the building of the Reichstag, which is the most imposing structure
 
erected for the REICH and which should have been built to last for ages.
 
Yet, in deciding the question of internal decoration, the Upper House
 
voted against the use of stone and ordered that the walls should be
 
covered with stucco. For once, however, the parliamentarians made an
 
appropriate decision on that occasion; for plaster heads would be out of
 
place between stone walls.
 
 
 
The community as such is not the dominant characteristic of our
 
contemporary cities, and therefore it is not to be wondered at if the
 
community does not find itself architecturally represented. Thus we must
 
eventually arrive at a veritable civic desert which will at last be
 
reflected in the total indifference of the individual 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 no purpose, or
 
rather it is entirely preoccupied in the service of money. Therefore it
 
is not to be wondered at if, with the worship of 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 the Second
 
Empire must be attributed to the lack of a definite and uniformly
 
accepted WELTANSCHAUUNG and the general uncertainty of outlook
 
consequent on that lack. This uncertainty showed itself when the great
 
questions of the time had to be considered one after another and a
 
decisive policy adopted towards them. This lack is also accountable for
 
the habit of doing everything by halves, beginning with the educational
 
system, the shilly-shally, the reluctance to undertake responsibilites
 
and, finally, the cowardly tolerance of evils that were even admitted to
 
be destructive. Visionary humanitarianisms became the fashion. In weakly
 
submitting to these aberrations and sparing the feelings of the
 
individual, the future of millions of human beings was sacrificed.
 
 
 
An examination of the religious situation before the War shows that the
 
general process of disruption had extended to this sphere also. A great
 
part of the nation itself had for a long time already ceased to have any
 
convictions of a uniform and practical character in their ideological
 
outlook on life. In this matter the point of primary importance was by
 
no means the number of people who renounced their church membership but
 
rather the widespread indifference. While the two Christian
 
denominations maintained missions in Asia and Africa, for the purpose of
 
securing new adherents to the Faith, these same denominations were
 
losing millions and millions of their adherents at home in Europe. These
 
former adherents either gave up religion wholly as a directive force in
 
their lives or they adopted their own interpretation of it. The
 
consequences of this were specially felt in the moral life of the
 
country. In parenthesis it may be remarked that the progress made by the
 
missions in spreading the Christian Faith abroad was only quite modest
 
in comparison with the spread of Mohammedanism.
 
 
 
It must be noted too that the attack on the dogmatic principles
 
underlying ecclesiastical teaching increased steadily in violence. And
 
yet this human world of ours would be inconceivable without the
 
practical existence of a religious belief. The great masses of a nation
 
are not composed of philosophers. For the masses of the people,
 
especially faith is absolutely the only basis of a moral outlook on
 
life. The various substitutes that have been offered have not shown any
 
results that might warrant us in thinking that they might usefully
 
replace the existing denominations. But if religious teaching and
 
religious faith were once accepted by the broad masses as active forces
 
in their lives, then the absolute authority of the doctrines of faith
 
would be the foundation of all practical effort. There may be a few
 
hundreds of thousands of superior men who can live wisely and
 
intelligently without depending on the general standards that prevail in
 
everyday life, but the millions of others cannot do so. Now the place
 
which general custom fills in everyday life corresponds to that of
 
general laws in the State and dogma in religion. The purely spiritual
 
idea is of itself a changeable thing that may be subjected to endless
 
interpretations. It is only through dogma that it is given a precise and
 
concrete form without which it could not become a living faith.
 
Otherwise the spiritual idea would never become anything more than a
 
mere metaphysical concept, or rather a philosophical opinion.
 
Accordingly the attack against dogma is comparable to an attack against
 
the general laws on which the State is founded. And so this attack would
 
finally lead to complete political anarchy if it were successful, just
 
as the attack on religion would lead to a worthless religious nihilism.
 
 
 
The political leader should not estimate the worth of a religion by
 
taking some of its shortcomings into account, but he should ask himself
 
whether there be any practical substitute in a view which is
 
demonstrably better. Until such a substitute be available only fools and
 
criminals would think of abolishing the existing religion.
 
 
 
Undoubtedly no small amount of blame for the present unsatisfactory
 
religious situation must be attributed to those who have encumbered the
 
ideal of religion with purely material accessories and have thus given
 
rise to an utterly futile conflict between religion and science. In this
 
conflict victory will nearly always be on the side of science, even
 
though after a bitter struggle, while religion will suffer heavily in
 
the eyes of those who cannot penetrate beneath the mere superficial
 
aspects of science.
 
 
 
But the greatest damage of all has come from the practice of debasing
 
religion as a means that can be exploited to serve political interests,
 
or rather commercial interests. The impudent and loud-mouthed liars who
 
do this make their profession of faith before the whole world in
 
stentorian tones so that all poor mortals may hear--not that they are
 
ready to die for it if necessary but rather that they may live all the
 
better. They are ready to sell their faith for any political QUID PRO
 
QUO. For ten parliamentary mandates they would ally themselves with the
 
Marxists, who are the mortal foes of all religion. And for a seat in 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 savour for the
 
mouths of many people this was because Christianity had been lowered to
 
base uses by political parties that called themselves Christian and
 
because of the shameful way in which they tried to identify the Catholic
 
Faith with a political party.
 
 
 
This substitution was fatal. It procured some worthless parliamentary
 
mandates for the party in question, but the Church suffered damage
 
thereby.
 
 
 
The consequences of that situation had to be borne by the whole nation;
 
for the laxity that resulted in religious life set in at a juncture when
 
everything was beginning to lose hold and vacillate and the traditional
 
foundations of custom and of morality were threatening to fall asunder.
 
 
 
Yet all those cracks and clefts in the social organism might not have
 
been dangerous if no grave burdens had been laid upon it; but they
 
became disastrous when the internal solidarity of the nation was the
 
most important factor in withstanding the storm of big events.
 
 
 
In the political field also observant eyes might have noticed certain
 
anomalies of the REICH which foretold disaster unless some alteration
 
and correction took place in time. The lack of orientation in German
 
policy, both domestic and foreign, was obvious to everyone who was not
 
purposely blind. The best thing that could be said about the practice of
 
making compromises is that it seemed outwardly to be in harmony with
 
Bismarck's axiom that 'politics is the art of the possible'. But
 
Bismarck was a slightly different man from the Chancellors who followed
 
him. This difference allowed the former to apply that formula to the
 
very essence of his policy, while in the mouths of the others it took on
 
an utterly different significance. When he uttered that phrase Bismarck
 
meant to say that in order to attain a definite political end all
 
possible means should be employed or at least that all possibilities
 
should be tried. But his successors see in that phrase only a solemn
 
declaration that one is not necessarily bound to have political
 
principles or any definite political aims at all. And the political
 
leaders of the REICH at that time had no far-seeing policy. Here, again,
 
the necessary foundation was lacking, namely, a definite
 
WELTANSCHAUUNG, and these leaders also lacked that clear insight into
 
the laws of political evolution which is a necessary quality in
 
political leadership.
 
 
 
Many people who took a gloomy view of things at that time condemned the
 
lack of ideas and lack of orientation which were evident in directing
 
the policy of the REICH. They recognized the inner weakness and futility
 
of this policy. But such people played only a secondary role in
 
politics. Those who had the Government of the country in their hands
 
were quite as indifferent to principles of civil wisdom laid down by
 
thinkers like Houston Stewart Chamberlain as our political leaders now
 
are. These people are too stupid to think for themselves, and they have
 
too much self-conceit to take from others the instruction which they
 
need. Oxenstierna (Note 14a) gave expression to a truth which has lasted
 
since time immemorial, when he said that the world is governed by only a
 
particle of wisdom. Almost every civil servant of councillor rank might
 
naturally be supposed to possess only an atom or so belonging to this
 
particle. But since Germany became a Republic even this modicum is
 
wanting. And that is why they had to promulgate the Law for the Defence
 
of the Republic, which prohibits the holding of such views or expressing
 
them. It was fortunate for Oxenstierna that he lived at that time and
 
not in this wise Republic of our time.
 
 
 
[Note 14a. Swedish Chancellor who took over the reins of Government after
 
the death of Gustavus Adolphus]
 
 
 
Already before the War that institution which should have represented
 
the strength of the Reich--the Parliament, the Reichstag--was widely
 
recognized as its weakest feature. Cowardliness and fear of shouldering
 
responsibilities were associated together there in a perfect fashion.
 
 
 
One of the silliest notions that one hears expressed to-day is that in
 
Germany the parliamentary institution has ceased to function since the
 
Revolution. This might easily be taken to imply that the case was
 
different before the Revolution. But in reality the parliamentary
 
institution never functioned except to the detriment of the country. And
 
it functioned thus in those days when people saw nothing or did not wish
 
to see anything. The German downfall is to be attributed in no small
 
degree to this institution. But that the catastrophe did not take place
 
sooner is not to be credited to the Parliament but rather to those who
 
opposed the influence of this institution which, during peace times, was
 
digging the grave of the German Nation and the German REICH.
 
 
 
From the immense mass of devastating evils that were due either directly
 
or indirectly to the Parliament I shall select one the most intimately
 
typical of this institution which was the most irresponsible of all
 
time. The evil I speak of was seen in the appalling shilly-shally and
 
weakness in conducting the internal and external affairs of the REICH.
 
It was attributable in the first place to the action of the Reichstag
 
and was one of the principal causes of the political collapse.
 
 
 
Everything subject to the influence of Parliament was done by halves, no
 
matter from what aspect you may regard it.
 
 
 
The foreign policy of the REICH in the matter of alliances was an
 
example of shilly-shally. They wished to maintain peace, but in doing so
 
they steered straight. into war.
 
 
 
Their Polish policy was also carried out by half-measures. It resulted
 
neither in a German triumph nor Polish conciliation, and it made enemies
 
of the Russians.
 
 
 
They tried to solve the Alsace-Lorraine question through half-measures.
 
Instead of crushing the head of the French hydra once and for all with
 
the mailed fist and granting Alsace-Lorraine equal rights with the other
 
German States, they did neither the one nor the other. Anyhow, it was
 
impossible for them to do otherwise, for they had among their ranks the
 
greatest traitors to the country, such as Herr Wetterlé of the Centre
 
Party.
 
 
 
But still the country might have been able to bear with all this
 
provided the half-measure policy had not victimized that force in which,
 
as the last resort, the existence of the Empire depended: namely, the
 
Army.
 
 
 
The crime committed by the so-called German Reichstag in this regard was
 
sufficient of itself to draw down upon it the curses of the German
 
Nation for all time. On the most miserable of pretexts these
 
parliamentary party henchmen filched from the hands of the nation and
 
threw away the weapons which were needed to maintain its existence and
 
therewith defend the liberty and independence of our people. If the
 
graves on the plains of Flanders were to open to-day the bloodstained
 
accusers would arise, hundreds of thousands of our best German youth who
 
were driven into the arms of death by those conscienceless parliamentary
 
ruffians who were either wrongly educated for their task or only
 
half-educated. Those youths, and other millions of the killed and
 
mutilated, were lost to the Fatherland simply and solely in order that a
 
few hundred deceivers of the people might carry out their political
 
manoeuvres and their exactions or even treasonably pursue their
 
doctrinaire theories.
 
 
 
By means of the Marxist and democratic Press, the Jews spread the
 
colossal falsehood about 'German Militarism' throughout the world and
 
tried to inculpate Germany by every possible means, while at the same
 
time the Marxist and democratic parties refused to assent to the
 
measures that were necessary for the adequate training of our national
 
defence forces. The appalling crime thus committed by these people ought
 
to have been obvious to everybody who foresaw that in case of war the
 
whole nation would have to be called to arms and that, because of the
 
mean huckstering of these noble 'representatives of the people', as they
 
called themselves, millions of Germans would have to face the enemy
 
ill-equipped and insufficiently trained. But even apart from the
 
consequences of the crude and brutal lack of conscience which these
 
parliamentarian rascals displayed, it was quite clear that the lack of
 
properly trained soldiers at the beginning of a war would most probably
 
lead to the loss of such a war; and this probability was confirmed in a
 
most terrible way during the course of the world war.
 
 
 
Therefore the German people lost the struggle for the freedom and
 
independence of their country because of the half-hearted and defective
 
policy employed during times of peace in the organization and training
 
of the defensive strength of the nation.
 
 
 
The number of recruits trained for the land forces was too small; but
 
the same half-heartedness was shown in regard to the navy and made this
 
weapon of national self-preservation more or less ineffective.
 
Unfortunately, even the naval authorities themselves were contaminated
 
with this spirit of half-heartedness. The tendency to build the ship on
 
the stocks somewhat smaller than that just launched by the British did
 
not show much foresight and less genius. A fleet which cannot be brought
 
to the same numerical strength as that of the probable enemy ought to
 
compensate for this inferiority by the superior fighting power of the
 
individual ship. It is the weight of the fighting power that counts and
 
not any sort of traditional quality. As a matter of fact, modern
 
technical development is so advanced and so well proportioned among the
 
various civilized States that it must be looked on as practically
 
impossible for one Power to build vessels which would have a superior
 
fighting quality to that of the vessels of equal size built by the other
 
Powers. But it is even less feasible to build vessels of smaller
 
displacement which will be superior in action to those of larger
 
displacement.
 
 
 
As a matter of fact, the smaller proportions of the German vessels could
 
be maintained only at the expense of speed and armament. The phrase used
 
to justify this policy was in itself an evidence of the lack of logical
 
thinking on the part of the naval authorities who were in charge of
 
these matters in times of peace. They declared that the German guns were
 
definitely superior to the British 30.5 cm. as regards striking
 
efficiency.
 
 
 
But that was just why they should have adopted the policy of building
 
30.5 cm. guns also; for it ought to have been their object not to
 
achieve equality but superiority in fighting strength. If that were not
 
so then it would have been superfluous to equip the land forces with 42
 
cm. mortars; for the German 21 cm. mortar could be far superior to any
 
high-angle guns which the French possessed at that time and since the
 
fortresses could probably have been taken by means of 30.5 cm. mortars.
 
The army authorities unfortunately failed to do so. If they refrained
 
from assuring superior efficiency in the artillery as in the velocity,
 
this was because of the fundamentally false 'principle of risk' which
 
they adopted. The naval authorities, already in times of peace,
 
renounced the principle of attack and thus had to follow a defensive
 
policy from the very beginning of the War. But by this attitude they
 
renounced also the chances of final success, which can be achieved only
 
by an offensive policy.
 
 
 
A vessel with slower speed and weaker armament will be crippled and
 
battered by an adversary that is faster and stronger and can frequently
 
shoot from a favourable distance. A large number of cruisers have been
 
through bitter experiences in this matter. How wrong were the ideas
 
prevalent among the naval authorities in times of peace was proved
 
during the War. They were compelled to modify the armament of the old
 
vessels and to equip the new ones with better armament whenever there
 
was a chance to do so. If the German vessels in the Battle of the
 
Skagerrak had been of equal size, the same armament and the same speed
 
as the English, the British Fleet would have gone down under the tempest
 
of the German 38 centimeter shells, which hit their aims more accurately
 
and were more effective.
 
 
 
Japan had followed a different kind of naval policy. There, care was
 
principally taken to create with every single new vessel a fighting
 
force that would be superior to those of the eventual adversaries. But,
 
because of this policy, it was afterwards possible to use the fleet for
 
the offensive.
 
 
 
While the army authorities refused to adopt such fundamentally erroneous
 
principles, the navy--which unfortunately had more representatives in
 
Parliament--succumbed to the spirit that ruled there. The navy was not
 
organized on a strong basis, and it was later used in an unsystematic
 
and irresolute way. The immortal glory which the navy won, in spite of
 
these drawbacks, must be entirely credited to the good work and the
 
efficiency and incomparable heroism of officers and crews. If the former
 
commanders-in-chief had been inspired with the same kind of genius all
 
the sacrifices would not have been in vain.
 
 
 
It was probably the very parliamentarian skill displayed by the chief of
 
the navy during the years of peace which later became the cause of the
 
fatal collapse, since parliamentarian considerations had begun to play a
 
more important role in the construction of the navy than fighting
 
considerations. The irresolution, the weakness and the failure to adopt
 
a logically consistent policy, which is typical of the parliamentary
 
system, contaminated the naval authorities.
 
 
 
As I have already emphasized, the military authorities did not allow
 
themselves to be led astray by such fundamentally erroneous ideas.
 
Ludendorff, who was then a Colonel in the General Staff, led a desperate
 
struggle against the criminal vacillations with which the Reichstag
 
treated the most vital problems of the nation and in most cases voted
 
against them. If the fight which this officer then waged remained
 
unsuccessful this must be debited to the Parliament and partly also to
 
the wretched and weak attitude of the Chancellor, Bethmann-Hollweg.
 
 
 
Yet those who are responsible for Germany's collapse do not hesitate now
 
to lay all the blame on the shoulders of the one man who took a firm
 
stand against the neglectful manner in which the interests of the nation
 
were managed. But one falsehood more or less makes no difference to
 
these congenital tricksters.
 
 
 
Anybody who thinks of all the sacrifices which this nation has had to
 
bear, as a result of the criminal neglect of those irresponsible
 
individuals; anybody who thinks of the number of those who died or were
 
maimed unnecessarily; anybody who thinks of the deplorable shame and
 
dishonour which has been heaped upon us and of the illimitable distress
 
into which our people are now plunged--anybody who realizes that in
 
order to prepare the way to a few seats in Parliament for some
 
unscrupulous place-hunters and arrivists will understand that such
 
hirelings can be called by no other name than that of rascal and
 
criminal; for otherwise those words could have no meaning. In comparison
 
with traitors who betrayed the nation's trust every other kind of
 
twister may be looked upon as an honourable man.
 
 
 
It was a peculiar feature of the situation that all the real faults of
 
the old Germany were exposed to the public gaze only when the inner
 
solidarity of the nation could be injured by doing so. Then, indeed,
 
unpleasant truths were openly proclaimed in the ears of the broad
 
masses, while many other things were at other times shamefully hushed up
 
or their existence simply denied, especially at times when an open
 
discussion of such problems might have led to an improvement in their
 
regard. The higher government authorities knew little or nothing of the
 
nature and use of propaganda in such matters. Only the Jew knew that by
 
an able and persistent use of propaganda heaven itself can be presented
 
to the people as if it were hell and, vice versa, the most miserable
 
kind of life can be presented as if it were paradise. The Jew knew this
 
and acted accordingly. But the German, or rather his Government, did not
 
have the slightest suspicion of it. During the War the heaviest of
 
penalties had to be paid for that ignorance.
 
 
 
Over against the innumerable drawbacks which I have mentioned here and
 
which affected German life before the War there were many outstanding
 
features on the positive side. If we take an impartial survey we must
 
admit that most of our drawbacks were in great measure prevalent also in
 
other countries and among the other nations, and very often in a worse
 
form than with us; whereas among us there were many real advantages
 
which the other did not have.
 
 
 
The leading phase of Germany's superiority arose from the fact that,
 
almost alone among all the other European nations, the German nation had
 
made the strongest effort to preserve the national character of its
 
economic structure and for this reason was less subject than other
 
countries to the power of international finance, though indeed there
 
were many untoward symptoms in this regard also.
 
 
 
And yet this superiority was a perilous one and turned out later to be
 
one of the chief causes of the world war.
 
 
 
But even if we disregard this advantage of national independence in
 
economic matters there were certain other positive features of our
 
social and political life which were of outstanding excellence. These
 
features were represented by three institutions which were constant
 
sources of regeneration. In their respective spheres they were models of
 
perfection and were partly unrivalled.
 
 
 
The first of these was the statal form as such and the manner in which
 
it had been developed for Germany in modern times. Of course we must
 
except those monarchs who, as human beings, were subject to the failings
 
which afflict this life and its children. If we were not so tolerant in
 
these matters, then the case of the present generation would be
 
hopeless; for if we take into consideration the personal capabilities
 
and character of the representative figures in our present regime it
 
would be difficult to imagine a more modest level of intelligence and
 
moral character. If we measure the 'value' of the German Revolution by
 
the personal worth and calibre of the individuals whom this revolution
 
has presented to the German people since November 1918 then we may feel
 
ashamed indeed in thinking of the judgment which posterity will pass on
 
these people, when the Law for the Protection of the Republic can no
 
longer silence public opinion. Coming generations will surely decide
 
that the intelligence and integrity of our new German leaders were in
 
adverse ratio to their boasting and their vices.
 
 
 
It must be admitted that the monarchy had become alien in spirit to many
 
citizens and especially the broad masses. This resulted from the fact
 
that the monarchs were not always surrounded by the highest
 
intelligence--so to say--and certainly not always by persons of the most
 
upright character. Unfortunately many of them preferred flatterers to
 
honest-spoken men and hence received their 'information' from the
 
former. This was a source of grave danger at a time when the world was
 
passing through a period in which many of the old conditions were
 
changing and when this change was affecting even the traditions of the
 
Court.
 
 
 
The average man or woman could not have felt a wave of enthusiasm
 
surging within the breast when, for example, at the turn of the century,
 
a princess in uniform and on horseback had the soldiers file past her on
 
parade. Those high circles had apparently no idea of the impression
 
which such a parade made on the minds of ordinary people; else such
 
unfortunate occurrences would not have taken place. The sentimental
 
humanitarianism--not always very sincere--which was professed in those
 
high circles was often more repulsive than attractive. When, for
 
instance, the Princess X condescended to taste the products of a soup
 
kitchen and found them excellent, as usual, such a gesture might have
 
made an excellent impression in times long past, but on this occasion it
 
had the opposite effect to what was intended. For even if we take it for
 
granted that Her Highness did not have the slightest idea, that on the
 
day she sampled it, the food was not quite the same as on other days, it
 
sufficed that the people knew it. Even the best of intentions thus
 
became an object of ridicule or a cause of exasperation.
 
 
 
Descriptions of the proverbial frugality practised by the monarch, his
 
much too early rise in the morning and the drudgery he had to go through
 
all day long until late at night, and especially the constantly
 
expressed fears lest he might become undernourished--all this gave rise
 
to ominous expression on the part of the people. Nobody was keen to know
 
what and how much the monarch ate or drank. Nobody grudged him a full
 
meal, or the necessary amount of sleep. Everybody was pleased when the
 
monarch, as a man and a personality, brought honour on his family and
 
his country and fulfilled his duties as a sovereign. All the legends
 
which were circulated about him helped little and did much damage.
 
 
 
These and such things, however, are only mere bagatelle. What was much
 
worse was the feeling, which spread throughout large sections of the
 
nation, that the affairs of the individual were being taken care of from
 
above and that he did not need to bother himself with them. As long as
 
the Government was really good, or at least moved by goodwill, no
 
serious objections could be raised.
 
 
 
But the country was destined to disaster when the old Government, which
 
had at least striven for the best, became replaced by a new regime which
 
was not of the same quality. Then the docile obedience and infantile
 
credulity which formerly offered no resistance was bound to be one of
 
the most fatal evils that can be imagined.
 
 
 
But against these and other defects there were certain qualities which
 
undoubtedly had a positive effect.
 
 
 
First of all the monarchical form of government guarantees stability in
 
the direction of public affairs and safeguards public offices from the
 
speculative turmoil of ambitious politicians. Furthermore, the venerable
 
tradition which this institution possesses arouses a feeling which gives
 
weight to the monarchical authority. Beyond this there is the fact that
 
the whole corps of officials, and the army in particular, are raised
 
above the level of political party obligations. And still another
 
positive feature was that the supreme rulership of the State was
 
embodied in the monarch, as an individual person, who could serve as the
 
symbol of responsibility, which a monarch has to bear more seriously
 
than any anonymous parliamentary majority. Indeed, the proverbial
 
honesty and integrity of the German administration must be attributed
 
chiefly to this fact. Finally, the monarchy fulfilled a high cultural
 
function among the German people, which made amends for many of its
 
defects. The German residential cities have remained, even to our time,
 
centres of that artistic spirit which now threatens to disappear and is
 
becoming more and more materialistic. The German princes gave a great
 
deal of excellent and practical encouragement to art and science,
 
especially during the nineteenth century. Our present age certainly has
 
nothing of equal worth.
 
 
 
During that process of disintegration which was slowly extending
 
throughout the social order the most positive force of resistance was
 
that offered by the army. This was the strongest source of education
 
which the German people possessed. For that reason all the hatred of our
 
enemies was directed against the paladin of our national
 
self-preservation and our liberty. The strongest testimony in favour of
 
this unique institution is the fact that it was derided, hated and
 
fought against, but also feared, by worthless elements all round. The
 
fact that the international profiteers who gathered at Versailles,
 
further to exploit and plunder the nations directed their enmity
 
specially against the old German army proved once again that it deserved
 
to be regarded as the institution which protected the liberties of our
 
people against the forces of the international stock-exchange. If the
 
army had not been there to sound the alarm and stand on guard, the
 
purposes of the Versailles representatives would have been carried out
 
much sooner. There is only one word to express what the German people
 
owe to this army--Everything!
 
 
 
It was the army that still inculcated a sense of responsibility among
 
the people when this quality had become very rare and when the habit of
 
shirking every kind of responsibility was steadily spreading. This habit
 
had grown up under the evil influences of Parliament, which was itself
 
the very model of irresponsibility. The army trained the people to
 
personal courage at a time when the virtue of timidity threatened to
 
become an epidemic and when the spirit of sacrificing one's personal
 
interests for the good of the community was considered as something that
 
amounted almost to weak-mindedness. At a time when only those were
 
estimated as intelligent who knew how to safeguard and promote their own
 
egotistic interests, the army was the school through which individual
 
Germans were taught not to seek the salvation of their nation in the
 
false ideology of international fraternization between negroes, Germans,
 
Chinese, French and English, etc., but in the 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 scepticism governed human
 
conduct. At a time when the wiseacres were everywhere setting the
 
fashion it needed courage to uphold the principle that any command is
 
better than none. This one principle represents a robust and sound style
 
of thought, of which not a trace would have been left in the other
 
branches of life if the army had not furnished a constant rejuvenation
 
of this fundamental force. A sufficient proof of this may be found in
 
the appalling lack of decision which our present government authorities
 
display. They cannot shake off their mental and moral lethargy and
 
decide on some definite line of action except when they are forced to
 
sign some new dictate for the exploitation of the German people. In that
 
case they decline all responsibility while at the same time they sign
 
everything which the other side places before them; and they sign with
 
the readiness of an official stenographer. Their conduct is here
 
explicable on the ground that in this case they are not under the
 
necessity of coming to a decision; for the decision is dictated to them.
 
 
 
The army imbued its members with a spirit of idealism and developed
 
their readiness to sacrifice themselves for their country and its
 
honour, while greed and materialism dominated in all the other branches
 
of life. The army united a people who were split up into classes: and in
 
this respect had only one defect, which was the One Year Military
 
Service, a privilege granted to those who had passed through the high
 
schools. It was a defect, because the principle of absolute equality was
 
thereby violated; and those who had a better education were thus placed
 
outside the cadres to which the rest of their comrades belonged. The
 
reverse would have been better. Since our upper classes were really
 
ignorant of what was going on in the body corporate of the nation and
 
were becoming more and more estranged from the life of the people, the
 
army would have accomplished a very beneficial mission if it had refused
 
to discriminate in favour of the so-called intellectuals, especially
 
within its own ranks. It was a mistake that this was not done; but in
 
this world of ours can we find any institution that has not at least one
 
defect? And in the army the good features were so absolutely predominant
 
that the few defects it had were far below the average that generally
 
rises from human weakness.
 
 
 
But the greatest credit which the army of the old Empire deserves is
 
that, at a time when the person of the individual counted for nothing
 
and the majority was everything, it placed individual personal values
 
above majority values. By insisting on its faith in personality, the
 
army opposed that typically Jewish and democratic apotheosis of the
 
power of numbers. The army trained what at that time was most surely
 
needed: namely, real men. In a period when men were falling a prey to
 
effeminacy and laxity, 350,000 vigorously trained young men went from
 
the ranks of the army each year to mingle with their fellow-men. In the
 
course of their two years' training they had lost the softness of their
 
young days and had developed bodies as tough as steel. The young man who
 
had 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 not without
 
reason that it drew upon its head all the bitter hatred of those who
 
wanted the Empire to be weak and defenceless, because they were jealous
 
of its greatness and were themselves possessed by a spirit of rapacity
 
and greed. The rest of the world recognized a fact which many Germans
 
did not wish to see, either because they were blind to facts or because
 
out of malice they did not wish to see it. This fact was that the German
 
Army was the most powerful weapon for the defence and freedom of the
 
German nation and the best guarantee for the livelihood of its citizens.
 
 
 
There was a third institution of positive worth, which has to be placed
 
beside that of the monarchy and the army. This was the civil service.
 
 
 
German administration was better organized and better carried out than
 
the administration of other countries. There may have been objections to
 
the bureaucratic routine of the officials, but from this point of view
 
the state of affairs was similar, if not worse, in the other countries.
 
But the other States did not have the wonderful solidarity which this
 
organization possessed in Germany, nor were their civil servants of that
 
same high level of scrupulous honesty. It is certainly better to be a
 
trifle over-bureaucratic and honest and loyal than to be
 
over-sophisticated and modern, the latter often implying an inferior
 
type of character and also ignorance and inefficiency. For if it be
 
insinuated to-day that the German administration of the pre-War period
 
may have been excellent so far as bureaucratic technique goes, but that
 
from the practical business point of view it was incompetent, I can only
 
give the following reply: What other country in the world possessed a
 
better-organized and administered business enterprise than the German
 
State Railways, for instance? It was left to the Revolution to destroy
 
this standard organization, until a time came when it was taken out of
 
the hands of the nation and socialized, in the sense which the founders
 
of the Republic had given to that word, namely, making it subservient to
 
the international stock-exchange capitalists, who were the wire-pullers
 
of the German Revolution.
 
 
 
The most outstanding trait in the civil service and the whole body of
 
the civil administration was its independence of the vicissitudes of
 
government, the political mentality of which could exercise no influence
 
on the attitude of the German State officials. Since the Revolution this
 
situation has been completely changed. Efficiency and capability have
 
been replaced by the test of party-adherence; and independence of
 
character and initiative are no longer appreciated as positive qualities
 
in a public official. They rather tell against him.
 
 
 
The wonderful might and power of the old Empire was based on the
 
monarchical form of government, the army and the civil service. On these
 
three foundations rested that great strength which is now entirely
 
lacking; namely, the authority of the State. For the authority of the
 
State cannot be based on the babbling that goes on in Parliament or in
 
the provincial diets and not upon laws made to protect the State, or
 
upon sentences passed by the law courts to frighten those who have had
 
the hardihood to deny the authority of the State, but only on the
 
general confidence which the management and administration of the
 
community establishes among the people. This confidence is in its turn,
 
nothing else than the result of an unshakable inner conviction that the
 
government and administration of a country is inspired by disinterested
 
and honest goodwill and on the feeling that the spirit of the law is in
 
complete harmony with the moral convictions of the people. In the long
 
run, systems of government are not maintained by terrorism but on the
 
belief of the people in the merits and sincerity of those who administer
 
and promote the public interests.
 
 
 
Though it be true that in the period preceding the War certain grave
 
evils tended to infect and corrode the inner strength of the nation, it
 
must be remembered that the other States suffered even more than Germany
 
from these drawbacks and yet those other States did not fail and break
 
down when the time of crisis came. If we remember further that those
 
defects in pre-War Germany were outweighed by great positive qualities
 
we shall have to look elsewhere for the effective cause of the collapse.
 
And elsewhere it lay.
 
 
 
The ultimate and most profound reason of the German downfall is to be
 
found in the fact that the racial problem was ignored and that its
 
importance in the historical development of nations was not grasped. For
 
the events that take place in the life of nations are not due to chance
 
but are the natural results of the effort to conserve and multiply the
 
species and the race, even though men may not be able consciously to
 
picture to their minds the profound motives of their conduct.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER XI
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RACE AND PEOPLE
 
 
 
 
 
There are certain truths which stand out so openly on the roadsides of
 
life, as it were, that every passer-by may see them. Yet, because of
 
their very obviousness, the general run of people disregard such truths
 
or at least they do not make them the object of any conscious knowledge.
 
People are so blind to some of the simplest facts in every-day life that
 
they are highly surprised when somebody calls attention to what
 
everybody ought to know. Examples of The Columbus Egg lie around us in
 
hundreds of thousands; but observers like Columbus are rare.
 
 
 
Walking about in the garden of Nature, most men have the self-conceit to
 
think that they know everything; yet almost all are blind to one of the
 
outstanding principles that Nature employs in her work. This principle
 
may be called the inner isolation which characterizes each and every
 
living species on this earth.
 
 
 
Even a superficial glance is sufficient to show that all the innumerable
 
forms in which the life-urge of Nature manifests itself are subject to a
 
fundamental law--one may call it an iron law of Nature--which compels
 
the various species to keep within the definite limits of their own
 
life-forms when propagating and multiplying their kind. Each animal
 
mates only with one of its own species. The titmouse cohabits only with
 
the titmouse, the finch with the finch, the stork with the stork, the
 
field-mouse with the field-mouse, the house-mouse with the house-mouse,
 
the wolf with the she-wolf, etc.
 
 
 
Deviations from this law take place only in exceptional circumstances.
 
This happens especially under the compulsion of captivity, or when some
 
other obstacle makes procreative intercourse impossible between
 
individuals of the same species. But then Nature abhors such intercourse
 
with all her might; and her protest is most clearly demonstrated by the
 
fact that the hybrid is either sterile or the fecundity of its
 
descendants is limited. In most cases hybrids and their progeny are
 
denied the ordinary powers of resistance to disease or the natural means
 
of defence against outer attack.
 
 
 
Such a dispensation of Nature is quite logical. Every crossing between
 
two breeds which are not quite equal results in a product which holds an
 
intermediate place between the levels of the two parents. This means
 
that the offspring will indeed be superior to the parent which stands in
 
the biologically lower order of being, but not so high as the higher
 
parent. For this reason it must eventually succumb in any struggle
 
against the higher species. Such mating contradicts the will of Nature
 
towards the selective improvements of life in general. The favourable
 
preliminary to this improvement is not to mate individuals of higher and
 
lower orders of being but rather to allow the complete triumph of the
 
higher order. The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker,
 
which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the
 
born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so
 
it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if
 
such a law did not direct the process of evolution then the higher
 
development of organic life would not be conceivable at all.
 
 
 
This urge for the maintenance of the unmixed breed, which is a
 
phenomenon that prevails throughout the whole of the natural world,
 
results not only in the sharply defined outward distinction between one
 
species and another but also in the internal similarity of
 
characteristic qualities which are peculiar to each breed or species.
 
The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger
 
will retain the character of a tiger. The only difference that can exist
 
within the species must be in the various degrees of structural strength
 
and active power, in the intelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with
 
which the individual specimens are endowed. It would be impossible to
 
find a fox which has a kindly and protective disposition towards geese,
 
just as no cat exists which has a friendly disposition towards mice.
 
 
 
That is why the struggle between the various species does not arise from
 
a feeling of mutual antipathy but rather from hunger and love. In both
 
cases Nature looks on calmly and is even pleased with what happens. The
 
struggle for the daily livelihood leaves behind in the ruck everything
 
that is weak or diseased or wavering; while the fight of the male to
 
possess the female gives to the strongest the right, or at least, the
 
possibility to propagate its kind. And this struggle is a means of
 
furthering the health and powers of resistance in the species. Thus it
 
is one of the causes underlying the 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 always outnumber the
 
superior, the former would always increase more rapidly if they
 
possessed the same capacities for survival and for the procreation of
 
their kind; and the final consequence would be that the best in quality
 
would be forced to recede into the background. Therefore a corrective
 
measure in favour of the better quality must intervene. Nature supplies
 
this by establishing rigorous conditions of life to which the weaker
 
will have to submit and will thereby be numerically restricted; but even
 
that portion which survives cannot indiscriminately multiply, for here a
 
new and rigorous selection takes place, according to strength and
 
health.
 
 
 
If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the
 
stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle
 
with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout
 
hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher
 
stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.
 
 
 
History furnishes us with innumerable instances that prove this law. It
 
shows, with a startling clarity, that whenever Aryans have mingled their
 
blood with that of an inferior race the result has been the downfall of
 
the people who were the standard-bearers of a higher culture. In North
 
America, where the population is prevalently Teutonic, and where those
 
elements intermingled with the inferior race only to a very small
 
degree, we have a quality of mankind and a civilization which are
 
different from those of Central and South America. In these latter
 
countries the immigrants--who mainly belonged to the Latin races--mated
 
with the aborigines, sometimes to a very large extent indeed. In this
 
case we have a clear and decisive example of the effect produced by the
 
mixture of races. But in North America the Teutonic element, which has
 
kept its racial stock pure and did not mix it with any other racial
 
stock, has come to dominate the American Continent and will remain
 
master of it as long as that element does not fall a victim to the habit
 
of adulterating its blood.
 
 
 
In short, the results of miscegenation are always the following:
 
 
 
(a) The level of the superior race becomes lowered;
 
 
 
(b) physical and mental degeneration sets in, thus leading slowly but
 
steadily towards a progressive drying up of the vital sap.
 
 
 
The act which brings about such a development is a sin against the will
 
of the Eternal Creator. And as a sin this act will be avenged.
 
 
 
Man's effort to build up something that contradicts the iron logic of
 
Nature brings him into conflict with those principles to which he
 
himself exclusively owes his own existence. By acting against the laws
 
of Nature he prepares the way that leads to his ruin.
 
 
 
Here we meet the insolent objection, which is Jewish in its inspiration
 
and is typical of the modern pacifist. It says: "Man can control even
 
Nature."
 
 
 
There are millions who repeat by rote that piece of Jewish babble and
 
end up by imagining that somehow they themselves are the conquerors of
 
Nature. And yet their only weapon is just a mere idea, and a very
 
preposterous idea into the bargain; because if one accepted it, then it
 
would be impossible even to imagine the existence of the world.
 
 
 
The real truth is that, not only has man failed to overcome Nature in
 
any sphere whatsoever but that at best he has merely succeeded in
 
getting hold of and lifting a tiny corner of the enormous veil which she
 
has spread over her eternal mysteries and secret. He never creates
 
anything. All he can do is to discover something. He does not master
 
Nature but has only come to be the master of those living beings who
 
have not gained the knowledge he has arrived at by penetrating into some
 
of Nature's laws and mysteries. Apart from all this, an idea can never
 
subject to its own sway those conditions which are necessary for the
 
existence and development of mankind; for the idea itself has come only
 
from man. Without man there would be no human idea in this world. The
 
idea as such is therefore always dependent on the existence of man and
 
consequently is dependent on those laws which furnish the conditions of
 
his existence.
 
 
 
And not only that. Certain ideas are even confined to certain people.
 
This holds true with regard to those ideas in particular which have not
 
their roots in objective scientific truth but in the world of feeling.
 
In other words, to use a phrase which is current to-day and which well
 
and clearly expresses this truth: THEY REFLECT AN INNER EXPERIENCE. All
 
such ideas, which have nothing to do with cold logic as such but
 
represent mere manifestations of feeling, such as ethical and moral
 
conceptions, etc., are inextricably bound up with man's existence. It is
 
to the creative powers of man's imagination that such ideas owe their
 
existence.
 
 
 
Now, then, a necessary condition for the maintenance of such ideas is
 
the existence of certain races and certain types of men. For example,
 
anyone who sincerely wishes that the pacifist idea should prevail in
 
this world ought to do all he is capable of doing to help the Germans
 
conquer the world; for in case the reverse should happen it may easily
 
be that the last pacifist would disappear with the last German. I say
 
this because, unfortunately, only our people, and no other people in the
 
world, fell a prey to this idea. Whether you like it or not, you would
 
have to make up your 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, and they thought that through his plans their ideals would be
 
attained.
 
 
 
The pacifist-humanitarian idea may indeed become an excellent one when
 
the most superior type of manhood will have succeeded in subjugating the
 
world to such an extent that this type is then sole master of the earth.
 
This idea could have an injurious effect only in the measure according
 
to which its application would become difficult and finally impossible.
 
So, first of all, the fight and then pacifism. If the case were
 
different it would mean that mankind has already passed the zenith of
 
its development, and accordingly the end would not be the supremacy of
 
some moral ideal but degeneration into barbarism and consequent chaos.
 
People may laugh at this statement; but our planet has been moving
 
through the spaces of ether for millions and millions of years,
 
uninhabited by men, and at some future date may easily begin to do so
 
again--if men should forget that wherever they have reached a superior
 
level of existence, it was not the result of following the ideas of
 
crazy visionaries but by acknowledging and rigorously observing 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 the creative
 
activities of a few peoples, and it may be true that their first
 
beginnings must be attributed to one race. The maintenance of
 
civilization is wholly dependent on such peoples. Should they perish,
 
all that makes this earth beautiful will descend with them into the
 
grave.
 
 
 
However great, for example, be the influence which the soil exerts on
 
men, this influence will always vary according to the race in which it
 
produces its effect. Dearth of soil may stimulate one race to the most
 
strenuous efforts and highest achievement; while, for another race, the
 
poverty of the soil may be the cause of misery and finally of
 
undernourishment, with all its consequences. The internal
 
characteristics of a people are always the causes which determine the
 
nature of the effect that outer circumstances have on them. What reduces
 
one race to starvation trains another race to harder work.
 
 
 
All the great civilizations of the past became decadent because the
 
originally creative race died out, as a result of contamination of the
 
blood.
 
 
 
The most profound cause of such a decline is to be found in the fact
 
that the people ignored the principle that all culture depends on men,
 
and not the reverse. In other words, in order to preserve a certain
 
culture, the type of manhood that creates such a culture must be
 
preserved. But such a preservation goes hand-in-hand with the inexorable
 
law that it is the strongest and the best who must triumph and that they
 
have the right to endure.
 
 
 
He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this
 
world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to
 
exist.
 
 
 
Such a saying may sound hard; but, after all, that is how the matter
 
really stands. Yet far harder is the lot of him who believes that 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 deprives himself of
 
the happiness to which he believes he can attain. For he places an
 
obstacle in the victorious path of the superior race and, by so doing,
 
he interferes with a prerequisite condition of all human progress.
 
Loaded with the burden of humanitarian sentiment, he falls back to the
 
level of those who are unable to raise themselves in the scale of being.
 
 
 
It would be futile to attempt to discuss the question as to what race or
 
races were the original standard-bearers of human culture and were
 
thereby the real founders of all that we understand by the word
 
humanity. It is much simpler to deal with this question in so far as it
 
relates to the present time. Here the answer is simple and clear. Every
 
manifestation of human culture, every product of art, science and
 
technical skill, which we see before our eyes to-day, is almost
 
exclusively the product of the Aryan creative power. This very fact
 
fully justifies the conclusion that it was the Aryan alone who founded a
 
superior type of humanity; therefore he represents the architype of what
 
we understand by the term: MAN. He is the Prometheus of mankind, from
 
whose shining brow 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 and thus
 
showing man how to rise and become master over all the other beings on
 
the earth. Should he be forced to disappear, a profound darkness will
 
descend on the earth; within a few thousand years human culture will
 
vanish and the world will become a desert.
 
 
 
If we divide mankind into three categories--founders of culture, bearers
 
of culture, and destroyers of culture--the Aryan alone can be considered
 
as representing the first category. It was he who laid the groundwork
 
and erected the walls of every great structure in human culture. Only
 
the shape and colour of such structures are to be attributed to the
 
individual characteristics of the various nations. It is the Aryan who
 
has furnished the great building-stones and plans for the edifices of
 
all human progress; only the way in which these plans have been executed
 
is to be attributed to the qualities of each individual race. Within a
 
few decades the whole of Eastern Asia, for instance, appropriated a
 
culture and called such a culture its own, whereas the basis of that
 
culture was the Greek mind and Teutonic skill as we know it. Only the
 
external form--at least to a certain degree--shows the traits of an
 
Asiatic inspiration. It is not true, as some believe, that Japan adds
 
European technique to a culture of her own. The truth rather is that
 
European science and technics are just decked out with the peculiar
 
characteristics of Japanese civilization. The foundations of actual life
 
in Japan to-day are not those of the native Japanese culture, although
 
this characterizes the external features of the country, which features
 
strike the eye of European observers on account of their fundamental
 
difference from us; but the real foundations of contemporary Japanese
 
life are the enormous scientific and technical achievements of Europe
 
and America, that is to say, of Aryan peoples. Only by adopting these
 
achievements as the foundations of their own progress can the various
 
nations of the Orient take a place in contemporary world progress. The
 
scientific and technical achievements of Europe and America provide the
 
basis on which the struggle for daily livelihood is carried on in the
 
Orient. They provide the necessary arms and instruments for this
 
struggle, and only the outer forms of these instruments have become
 
gradually adapted to Japanese ways of life.
 
 
 
If, from to-day onwards, the Aryan influence on Japan would cease--and
 
if we suppose that Europe and America would collapse--then the present
 
progress of Japan in science and technique might still last for a short
 
duration; but within a few decades the inspiration would dry up, and
 
native Japanese character would triumph, while the present civilization
 
would become fossilized and fall back into the sleep from which it was
 
aroused about seventy years ago by the impact of Aryan culture. We may
 
therefore draw the conclusion that, just as the present Japanese
 
development has been due to Aryan influence, so in the immemorial past
 
an outside influence and an outside culture brought into existence the
 
Japanese culture of that day. This opinion is very strongly supported by
 
the fact that the ancient civilization of Japan actually became
 
fossilizied and petrified. Such a process of senility can happen only if
 
a people loses the racial cell which originally had been creative or if
 
the outside influence should be withdrawn after having awakened and
 
maintained the first cultural developments in that region. If it be
 
shown that a people owes the fundamental elements of its culture to
 
foreign races, assimilating and elaborating such elements, and if
 
subsequently that culture becomes fossilized whenever the external
 
influence ceases, then such a race may be called the depository but
 
never the creator of a culture.
 
 
 
If we subject the different peoples to a strict test from this
 
standpoint we shall find that scarcely any one of them has originally
 
created a culture, but almost all have been merely the recipients of a
 
culture created elsewhere.
 
 
 
This development may be depicted as always happening somewhat in the
 
following way:
 
 
 
Aryan tribes, often almost ridiculously small in number, subjugated
 
foreign peoples and, stimulated by the conditions of life which their
 
new country offered them (fertility, the nature of the climate, etc.),
 
and profiting also by the abundance of manual labour furnished them by
 
the inferior race, they developed intellectual and organizing faculties
 
which had hitherto been dormant in these conquering tribes. Within the
 
course of a few thousand years, or even centuries, they gave life to
 
cultures whose primitive traits completely corresponded to the character
 
of the founders, though modified by adaptation to the peculiarities of
 
the soil and the characteristics of the subjugated people. But finally
 
the conquering race offended against the principles which they first had
 
observed, namely, the maintenance of their racial stock unmixed, and
 
they began to intermingle with the subjugated people. Thus they put an
 
end to their own separate existence; for the original sin committed in
 
Paradise has always been followed by the expulsion of the guilty
 
parties.
 
 
 
After a thousand years or more the last visible traces of those former
 
masters may then be found in a lighter tint of the skin which the Aryan
 
blood had bequeathed to the subjugated race, and in a fossilized culture
 
of which those Aryans had been the original creators. For just as the
 
blood. of the conqueror, who was a conqueror not only in body but also
 
in spirit, got submerged in the blood of the subject race, so the
 
substance disappeared out of which the torch of human culture and
 
progress was kindled. In so far as the blood of the former ruling race
 
has left a light nuance of 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 mild light radiated from the products of those who were the
 
bearers of the original fire. Their radiance shines across the barbarism
 
to which the subjected race has reverted and might often lead the
 
superficial observer to believe that he sees before him an image of the
 
present race when he is really looking into a mirror wherein only the
 
past is reflected.
 
 
 
It may happen that in the course of its history such a people will come
 
into contact a second time, and even oftener, with the original founders
 
of their culture and may not even remember that distant association.
 
Instinctively the remnants of blood left from that old ruling race will
 
be drawn towards this new phenomenon and what had formerly been possible
 
only under compulsion can now be successfully achieved in a voluntary
 
way. A new cultural wave flows in and lasts until the blood of its
 
standard-bearers becomes once again adulterated by intermixture with the
 
originally conquered race.
 
 
 
It will be the task of those who set themselves to the study of a
 
universal history of civilization to investigate history from this point
 
of view instead of allowing themselves to be smothered under the mass of
 
external data, as is only too often the case with our present historical
 
science.
 
 
 
This short sketch of the changes that take place among those races that
 
are only the depositories of a culture also furnishes a picture of the
 
development and the activity and the disappearance of those who are the
 
true founders of culture on this earth, namely the Aryans themselves.
 
 
 
Just as in our daily life the so-called man of genius needs a particular
 
occasion, and sometimes indeed a special stimulus, to bring his genius
 
to light, so too in the life of the peoples the race that has genius in
 
it needs the occasion and stimulus to bring that genius to expression.
 
In the monotony and routine of everyday life even persons of
 
significance seem just like the others and do not rise beyond the
 
average level of their fellow-men. But as soon as such men find
 
themselves in a special situation which disconcerts and unbalances the
 
others, the humble person of apparently common qualities reveals traits
 
of genius, often to the amazement of those who have hitherto known him
 
in the small things of everyday life. That is the reason why a prophet
 
only seldom counts for something in his own country. War offers an
 
excellent occasion for observing this phenomenon. In times of distress,
 
when the others despair, apparently harmless boys suddenly spring up and
 
become heroes, full of determination, undaunted in the presence of Death
 
and manifesting wonderful powers of calm reflection under such
 
circumstances. If such an hour of trial did not come nobody would have
 
thought that the soul of a hero lurked in the body of that beardless
 
youth. A special impulse is almost always necessary to bring a man of
 
genius into the foreground. The sledge-hammer of Fate which strikes down
 
the one so easily suddenly finds the counter-impact of steel when it
 
strikes at the other. And, after the common shell of everyday life is
 
broken, the core that lay hidden in it is displayed to the eyes of an
 
astonished world. This surrounding world then grows obstinate and will
 
not believe that what had seemed so like itself is really of that
 
different quality so suddenly displayed. This is a process which is
 
repeated probably every time a man of outstanding significance appears.
 
 
 
Though an inventor, for example, does not establish his fame until the
 
very day that he carries through his invention, it would be a mistake to
 
believe that the creative genius did not become alive in him until that
 
moment. From the very hour of his birth the spark of genius is living
 
within the man who has been endowed with the real creative faculty. True
 
genius is an innate quality. It can never be the result of education or
 
training.
 
 
 
As I have stated already, this holds good not merely of the individual
 
but also of the race. Those peoples who manifest creative abilities in
 
certain periods of their history have always been fundamentally
 
creative. It belongs to their very nature, even though this fact may
 
escape the eyes of the superficial observer. Here also recognition from
 
outside is only the consequence of practical achievement. Since the rest
 
of the world is incapable of recognizing genius as such, it can only see
 
the visible manifestations of genius in the form of inventions,
 
discoveries, buildings, painting, etc.; but even here a long time passes
 
before recognition is given. Just as the individual person who has been
 
endowed with the gift of genius, or at least talent of a very high
 
order, cannot bring that endowment to realization until he comes under
 
the urge of special circumstances, so in the life of the nations the
 
creative capacities and powers frequently have to wait until certain
 
conditions stimulate them to action.
 
 
 
The most obvious example of this truth is furnished by that race which
 
has been, and still is, the standard-bearer of human progress: I mean
 
the Aryan race. As soon as Fate brings them face to face with special
 
circumstances their powers begin to develop progressively and to be
 
manifested in tangible form. The characteristic cultures which they
 
create under such circumstances are almost always conditioned by the
 
soil, the climate and the people they subjugate. The last factor--that
 
of the character of the people--is the most decisive one. The more
 
primitive the technical conditions under which the civilizing activity
 
takes place, the more necessary is the existence of manual labour which
 
can be organized and employed so as to take the place of mechanical
 
power. Had it not been possible for them to employ members of the
 
inferior race which they conquered, the Aryans would never have been in
 
a position to take the first steps on the road which led them to a later
 
type of culture; just as, without the help of certain suitable animals
 
which they were able to tame, they would never have come to the
 
invention of mechanical power which has subsequently 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 years the horse has been the faithful
 
servant of man and has helped him to lay the foundations of human
 
progress, but now motor power has dispensed with the use of the horse.
 
In a few years to come the use of the horse will cease entirely; and yet
 
without its collaboration man could scarcely have come to the stage of
 
development which he has now created.
 
 
 
For the establishment of superior types of civilization the members of
 
inferior races formed one of the most essential pre-requisites. They
 
alone could supply the lack of mechanical means without which no
 
progress is possible. It is certain that the first stages of human
 
civilization were not based so much on the use of tame animals as on the
 
employment of human beings who were members of an inferior race.
 
 
 
Only after subjugated races were employed as slaves was a similar fate
 
allotted to animals, and not vice versa, as some people would have us
 
believe. At first it was the conquered enemy who had to draw the plough
 
and only afterwards did the ox and horse take his place. Nobody else but
 
puling pacifists can consider this fact as a sign of human degradation.
 
Such people fail to recognize that this evolution had to take place in
 
order that man might reach that degree of civilization which these
 
apostles now exploit in an attempt to make the world pay attention to
 
their rigmarole.
 
 
 
The progress of mankind may be compared to the process of ascending an
 
infinite ladder. One does not reach the higher level without first
 
having climbed the lower rungs. The Aryan therefore had to take that
 
road which his sense of reality pointed out to him and not that which
 
the modern pacifist dreams of. The path of reality is, however,
 
difficult and hard to tread; yet it is the only one which finally leads
 
to the goal where the others envisage mankind in their dreams. But the
 
real truth is that those dreamers help only to lead man away from his
 
goal rather than towards it.
 
 
 
It was not by mere chance that the first forms of civilization arose
 
there where the Aryan came into contact with inferior races, subjugated
 
them and forced them to obey his command. The members of the inferior
 
race became the first mechanical tools in the service of a growing
 
civilization.
 
 
 
Thereby the way was clearly indicated which the Aryan had to follow. As
 
a conqueror, he subjugated inferior races and turned their physical
 
powers into organized channels under his own leadership, forcing them to
 
follow his will and purpose. By imposing on them a useful, though hard,
 
manner of employing their powers he not only spared the lives of those
 
whom he had conquered but probably made their lives easier than these
 
had been in the former state of so-called 'freedom'. While he ruthlessly
 
maintained his position as their master, he not only remained master but
 
he also maintained and advanced civilization. For this depended
 
exclusively on his inborn abilities and, therefore, on the preservation
 
of the Aryan race as such. As soon, however, as his subject began to
 
rise and approach the level of their conqueror, a phase of which
 
ascension was probably the use of his language, the barriers that had
 
distinguished master from servant broke down. The Aryan neglected to
 
maintain his own racial stock unmixed and therewith lost the right to
 
live in the paradise which he himself had created. He became submerged
 
in the racial mixture and gradually lost his cultural creativeness,
 
until he finally grew, not only mentally but also physically, more like
 
the aborigines whom he had subjected rather than his own ancestors. For
 
some time he could continue to live on the capital of that culture which
 
still remained; but a condition of fossilization soon set in and he sank
 
into oblivion.
 
 
 
That is how cultures and empires decline and yield their places to new
 
formations.
 
 
 
The adulteration of the blood and racial deterioration conditioned
 
thereby are the only causes that account for the decline of ancient
 
civilizations; for it is never by war that nations are ruined, but by
 
the loss of their powers of resistance, which are exclusively a
 
characteristic of pure racial blood. In this world everything that is
 
not of sound racial stock is like chaff. Every historical event in the
 
world is nothing more nor less than a manifestation of the instinct of
 
racial self-preservation, whether for weal or woe.
 
 
 
The question as to the ground reasons for the predominant importance of
 
Aryanism can be answered by pointing out that it is not so much that the
 
Aryans are endowed with a stronger instinct for self-preservation, but
 
rather that this manifests itself in a way which is peculiar to
 
themselves. Considered from the subjective standpoint, the will-to-live
 
is of course equally strong all round and only the forms in which it is
 
expressed are different. Among the most primitive organisms the instinct
 
for self-preservation does not extend beyond the care of the individual
 
ego. Egotism, as we call this passion, is so predominant that it
 
includes even the time element; which means that the present moment is
 
deemed the most important and that nothing is left to the future. The
 
animal lives only for itself, searching for food only when it feels
 
hunger and fighting only for the preservation of its own life. As long
 
as the instinct for self-preservation manifests itself exclusively in
 
such 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 goes beyond the
 
mere conditions of mating, calls for the extension of the instinct of
 
self-preservation, since the readiness to fight for one's own ego has to
 
be extended also to the mate. The male sometimes provides food for the
 
female, but in most cases both parents provide food for the offspring.
 
Almost always they are ready to protect and defend each other; so that
 
here we find the first, though infinitely simple, manifestation of the
 
spirit of sacrifice. As soon as this spirit extends beyond the narrow
 
limits of the family, we have the conditions under which larger
 
associations and finally even States can be formed.
 
 
 
The lowest species of human beings give evidence of this quality only to
 
a very small degree, so that often they do not go beyond the formation
 
of the family society. With an increasing readiness to place their
 
immediate personal interests in the background, the capacity for
 
organizing more extensive communities develops.
 
 
 
The readiness to sacrifice one's personal work and, if necessary, even
 
one's life for others shows its most highly developed form in the Aryan
 
race. The greatness of the Aryan is not based on his intellectual
 
powers, but rather on his willingness to devote all his faculties to the
 
service of the community. Here the instinct for self-preservation has
 
reached its noblest form; for the Aryan willingly subordinates his own
 
ego to the common weal and when necessity calls he will even sacrifice
 
his own life for the community.
 
 
 
The constructive powers of the Aryan and that peculiar ability he has
 
for the building up of a culture are not grounded in his intellectual
 
gifts alone. If that were so they might only be destructive and could
 
never have the ability to organize; for the latter essentially depends
 
on the readiness of the individual to renounce his own personal opinions
 
and interests and to lay both at the service of the human group. By
 
serving the common weal he receives his reward in return. For example,
 
he does not work directly for himself but makes his productive work a
 
part of the activity of the group to which he belongs, not only for his
 
own benefit but for the general. The spirit underlying this attitude is
 
expressed by the word: WORK, which to him does not at all signify a
 
means of earning one's daily livelihood but rather a productive activity
 
which cannot clash with the interests of the community. Whenever human
 
activity is directed exclusively to the service of the instinct for
 
self-preservation it is called theft or usury, robbery or burglary, etc.
 
 
 
This mental attitude, which forces self-interest to recede into the
 
background in favour of the common weal, is the first prerequisite for
 
any kind of really human civilization. It is out of this spirit alone
 
that great human achievements have sprung for which the original doers
 
have scarcely ever received any recompense but which turns out to be the
 
source of abundant benefit for their descendants. It is this spirit
 
alone which can explain why it so often happens that people can endure a
 
harsh but honest existence which offers them no returns for their toil
 
except a poor and modest livelihood. But such a livelihood helps to
 
consolidate the foundations on which the community exists. Every worker
 
and every peasant, every inventor, state official, etc., who works
 
without ever achieving fortune or prosperity for himself, is a
 
representative of this sublime idea, even though he may never become
 
conscious of the profound meaning of his own activity.
 
 
 
Everything that may be said of that kind of work which is the
 
fundamental condition of providing food and the basic means of human
 
progress is true even in a higher sense of work that is done for the
 
protection of man and his civilization. The renunciation of one's own
 
life for the sake of the community is the crowning significance of the
 
idea of all sacrifice. In this way only is it possible to protect what
 
has been built up by man and to assure that this will not be destroyed
 
by the hand of man or of nature.
 
 
 
In the German language we have a word which admirably expresses this
 
underlying spirit of all work: It is Pflichterfüllung, which means the
 
service of the common weal before the consideration of one's own
 
interests. The fundamental spirit out of which this kind of activity
 
springs is the contradistinction of 'Egotism' and we call it 'Idealism'.
 
By this we mean to signify the willingness of the individual to make
 
sacrifices for the community and his fellow-men.
 
 
 
It is of the utmost importance to insist again and again that idealism
 
is not merely a superfluous manifestation of sentiment but rather
 
something which has been, is and always will be, a necessary
 
precondition of human civilization; it is even out of this that the very
 
idea of the word 'Human' arises. To this kind of mentality the Aryan
 
owes his position in the world. And the world is indebted to the Aryan
 
mind for having developed the concept of 'mankind'; for it is out of
 
this spirit alone that the creative force has come which in a unique way
 
combined robust muscular power with a first-class intellect and thus
 
created the monuments of human civilization.
 
 
 
Were it not for idealism all the faculties of the intellect, even the
 
most brilliant, would be nothing but intellect itself, a mere external
 
phenomenon without inner value and never a creative force.
 
 
 
Since true idealism, however, is essentially the subordination of the
 
interests and life of the individual to the interests and life of the
 
community, and since the community on its part represents the
 
pre-requisite condition of every form of organization, this idealism
 
accords in its innermost essence with the final purpose of Nature. This
 
feeling alone makes men voluntarily acknowledge that strength and power
 
are entitled to take the lead and thus makes them a constituent particle
 
in that order out of which the whole universe is shaped and formed.
 
 
 
Without being conscious of it, the purest idealism is always associated
 
with the most profound knowledge. How true this is and how little
 
genuine idealism has to do with fantastic self-dramatization will become
 
clear the moment we ask an unspoilt child, a healthy boy for example, to
 
give his opinion. The very same boy who listens to the rantings of an
 
'idealistic' pacifist without understanding them, and even rejects them,
 
would readily sacrifice his young life for the ideal of his people.
 
 
 
Unconsciously his instinct will submit to the knowledge that the
 
preservation of the species, even at the cost of the individual life, is
 
a primal necessity and he will protest against the fantasies of pacifist
 
ranters, who in reality are nothing better than cowardly egoists, even
 
though camouflaged, who contradict the laws of human development. For it
 
is a necessity of human evolution that the individual should be imbued
 
with the spirit of sacrifice in favour of the common weal, and that he
 
should not be influenced by the morbid notions of those knaves who
 
pretend to know better than Nature and who have the impudencc to
 
criticize her decrees.
 
 
 
It is just at those junctures when the idealistic attitude threatens to
 
disappear that we notice a weakening of this force which is a necessary
 
constituent in the founding and maintenance of the community and is
 
thereby a necessary condition of civilization. As soon as the spirit of
 
egotism begins to prevail among a people then the bonds of the social
 
order break and man, by seeking his own personal happiness, veritably
 
tumbles out of heaven and falls into hell.
 
 
 
Posterity will not remember those who pursued only their own individual
 
interests, but it will praise those heroes who renounced their own
 
happiness.
 
 
 
The Jew offers the most striking contrast to the Aryan. There is
 
probably no other people in the world who have so developed the instinct
 
of self-preservation as the so-called 'chosen' people. The best proof of
 
this statement is found in the simple fact that this race still exists.
 
Where can another people be found that in the course of the last two
 
thousand years has undergone so few changes in mental outlook and
 
character as the Jewish people? And yet what other people has taken such
 
a constant part in the great revolutions? But even after having passed
 
through the most gigantic catastrophes that have overwhelmed mankind,
 
the Jews remain the same as ever. What an infinitely tenacious
 
will-to-live, to preserve one's kind, is demonstrated by that fact!
 
 
 
The intellectual faculties of the Jew have been trained through
 
thousands of years. To-day the Jew is looked upon as specially
 
'cunning'; and in a certain sense he has been so throughout the ages.
 
His intellectual powers, however, are not the result of an inner
 
evolution but rather have been shaped by the object-lessons which the
 
Jew has received from others. The human spirit cannot climb upwards
 
without taking successive steps. For every step upwards it needs the
 
foundation of what has been constructed before--the past--which in, the
 
comprehensive sense here employed, can have been laid only in a general
 
civilization. All thinking originates only to a very small degree in
 
personal experience. The largest part is based on the accumulated
 
experiences of the past. The general level of civilization provides the
 
individual, who in most cases is not consciously aware of the fact, with
 
such an abundance of preliminary knowledge that with this equipment he
 
can more easily take further steps on the road of progress. The boy of
 
to-day, for example, grows up among such an overwhelming mass of
 
technical achievement which has accumulated during the last century that
 
he takes as granted many things which a hundred years ago were still
 
mysteries even to the greatest minds of those times. Yet these things
 
that are not so much a matter of course are of enormous importance to
 
those who would understand the progress we have made in these matters
 
and would carry on that progress a step farther. If a man of genius
 
belonging to the 'twenties of the last century were to arise from his
 
grave to-day he would find it more difficult to understand our present
 
age than the contemporary boy of fifteen years of age who may even have
 
only an average intelligence. The man of genius, thus come back from the
 
past, would need to provide himself with an extraordinary amount of
 
preliminary information which our contemporary youth receive
 
automatically, so to speak, during the time they are growing up among
 
the products of our modern civilization.
 
 
 
Since the Jew--for reasons that I shall deal with immediately--never had
 
a civilization of his own, he has always been furnished by others with a
 
basis for his: intellectual work. His intellect has always developed by
 
the use of those cultural achievements which he has found ready-to-hand
 
around him.
 
 
 
The process has never been the reverse.
 
 
 
For, though among the Jews the instinct of self-preservation has not
 
been weaker but has been much stronger than among other peoples, and
 
though the impression may easily be created that the intellectual powers
 
of the Jew are at least equal to those of other races, the Jews
 
completely lack the most essential pre-requisite of a cultural people,
 
namely the idealistic spirit. With the Jewish people the readiness for
 
sacrifice does not extend beyond the simple instinct of individual
 
preservation. In their case the feeling of racial solidarity which they
 
apparently manifest is nothing but a very primitive gregarious instinct,
 
similar to that which may be found among other organisms in this world.
 
It is a remarkable fact that this herd instinct brings individuals
 
together for mutual protection only as long as there is a common danger
 
which makes mutual assistance expedient or inevitable. The same pack of
 
wolves which a moment ago joined together in a common attack on their
 
victim will dissolve into individual wolves as soon as their hunger has
 
been satisfied. This is also sure of horses, which unite to defend
 
themselves against any aggressor but separate the moment the danger is
 
over.
 
 
 
It is much the same with the Jew. His spirit of sacrifice is only
 
apparent. It manifests itself only so long as the existence of the
 
individual makes this a matter of absolute necessity. But as soon as the
 
common foe is conquered and the danger which threatened the individual
 
Jews is overcome and the prey secured, then the apparent harmony
 
disappears and the original conditions set in again. Jews act in concord
 
only when a common danger threatens them or a common prey attracts them.
 
Where these two motives no longer exist then the most brutal egotism
 
appears and these people who before had lived together in unity will
 
turn into a swarm of rats that bitterly fight against each other.
 
 
 
If the Jews were the only people in the world they would be wallowing in
 
filth and mire and would exploit one another and try to exterminate one
 
another in a bitter struggle, except in so far as their utter lack of
 
the ideal of sacrifice, which shows itself in their cowardly spirit,
 
would prevent this struggle from developing.
 
 
 
Therefore it would be a complete mistake to interpret the mutual help
 
which the Jews render one another when they have to fight--or, to put it
 
more accurately, to exploit--their fellow being, as the expression of a
 
certain idealistic spirit of sacrifice.
 
 
 
Here again the Jew merely follows the call of his individual egotism.
 
That is why the Jewish State, which ought to be a vital organization to
 
serve the purpose of preserving or increasing the race, has absolutely
 
no territorial boundaries. For the territorial delimitation of a State
 
always demands a certain idealism of spirit on the part of the race
 
which forms that State and especially a proper acceptance of the idea of
 
work. A State which is territorially delimited cannot be established or
 
maintained unless the general attitude towards work be a positive one.
 
If this attitude be lacking, then the necessary basis of a civilization
 
is also lacking.
 
 
 
That is why the Jewish people, despite the intellectual powers with
 
which they are apparently endowed, have not a culture--certainly not a
 
culture of their own. The culture which the Jew enjoys to-day is the
 
product of the work of others and this product is debased in the hands
 
of the Jew.
 
 
 
In order to form a correct judgment of the place which the Jew holds in
 
relation to the whole problem of human civilization, we must bear in
 
mind the essential fact that there never has been any Jewish art and
 
consequently that nothing of this kind exists to-day. We must realize
 
that especially in those two royal domains of art, namely architecture
 
and music, the Jew has done no original creative work. When the Jew
 
comes to producing something in the field of art he merely bowdler-izes
 
something already in existence or simply steals the intellectual word,
 
of others. The Jew essentially lacks those qualities which are
 
characteristic of those creative races that are the founders of
 
civilization.
 
 
 
To what extent the Jew appropriates the civilization built up by
 
others--or rather corrupts it, to speak more accurately--is indicated by
 
the fact that he cultivates chiefly the art which calls for the smallest
 
amount of original invention, namely the dramatic art. And even here he
 
is nothing better than a kind of juggler or, perhaps more correctly
 
speaking, a kind of monkey imitator; for in this domain also he lacks
 
the creative elan which is necessary for the production of all really
 
great work. Even here, therefore, he is not a creative genius but rather
 
a superficial imitator who, in spite of all his retouching and tricks,
 
cannot disguise the fact that there is no inner vitality in the shape he
 
gives his products. At this juncture the Jewish Press comes in and
 
renders friendly assistance by shouting hosannas over the head of even
 
the most ordinary bungler of a Jew, until the rest of the world is
 
stampeded into thinking that the object of so much praise must really be
 
an artist, whereas in reality he may be nothing more than a low-class
 
mimic.
 
 
 
No; the Jews have not the creative abilities which are necessary to the
 
founding of a civilization; for in them there is not, and never has
 
been, that spirit of idealism which is an absolutely necessary element
 
in the higher development of mankind. Therefore the Jewish intellect
 
will never be constructive but always destructive. At best it may serve
 
as a stimulus in rare cases but only within the meaning of the poet's
 
lines: 'THE POWER WHICH ALWAYS WILLS THE BAD, AND ALWAYS WORKS THE GOOD'
 
(KRAFT, DIE STETS DAS BÖSE WILL UND STETS DAS GUTE SCHAFFT). (Note 15) It
 
is not through his help but in spite of his help that mankind makes any
 
progress.
 
 
 
[Note 15. When Mephistopheles first appears to Faust, in the latter's
 
study, Faust inquires: "What is thy name?" To which Mephistopheles
 
replies: "A part ofthe Power which always wills the Bad and always works
 
the Good." And when Faust asks him what is meant by this riddle and why he
 
should call himself'a part,' the gist of Mephistopheles' reply is that he
 
is the Spirit of Negation and exists through opposition to the positive
 
Truth and Order and Beauty which proceed from the never-ending creative
 
energy of the Deity. In the Prologue to Faust the Lord declares that
 
man's active nature would grow sluggishin working the good and that
 
therefore he has to be aroused by the Spirit of Opposition. This Spirit
 
wills the Bad, but of itself it can do nothing positive, and by its
 
opposition always works the opposite of what it wills.]
 
 
 
Since the Jew has never had a State which was based on territorial
 
delimitations, and therefore never a civilization of his own, the idea
 
arose that here we were dealing with a people who had to be considered
 
as Nomads. That is a great and mischievous mistake. The true nomad does
 
actually possess a definite delimited territory where he lives. It is
 
merely that he does not cultivate it, as the settled farmer does, but
 
that he lives on the products of his herds, with which he wanders over
 
his domain. The natural reason for this mode of existence is to be found
 
in the fact that the soil is not fertile and that it does not give the
 
steady produce which makes a fixed abode possible. Outside of this
 
natural cause, however, there is a more profound cause: namely, that no
 
mechanical civilization is at hand to make up for the natural poverty of
 
the region in question. There are territories where the Aryan can
 
establish fixed settlements by means of the technical skill which he has
 
developed in the course of more than a thousand years, even though these
 
territories would otherwise have to be abandoned, unless the Aryan were
 
willing to wander about them in nomadic fashion; but his technical
 
tradition and his age-long experience of the use of technical means
 
would probably make the nomadic life unbearable for him. We ought to
 
remember that during the first period of American colonization numerous
 
Aryans earned their daily livelihood as trappers and hunters, etc.,
 
frequently wandering about in large groups with their women and
 
children, their mode of existence very much resembling that of ordinary
 
nomads. The moment, however, that they grew more numerous and were able
 
to accumulate larger resources, they cleared the land and drove out the
 
aborigines, at the same time establishing settlements which rapidly
 
increased all over the country.
 
 
 
The Aryan himself was probably at first a nomad and became a settler in
 
the course of ages. But yet he was never of the Jewish kind. The Jew is
 
not a nomad; for the nomad has already a definite attitude towards the
 
concept of 'work', and this attitude served as the basis of a later
 
cultural development, when the necessary intellectual conditions were at
 
hand. There is a certain amount of idealism in the general attitude of
 
the nomad, even though it be rather primitive. His whole character may,
 
therefore, be foreign to Aryan feeling but it will never be repulsive.
 
But not even the slightest trace of idealism exists in the Jewish
 
character. The Jew has never been a nomad, but always a parasite,
 
battening on the substance of others. If he occasionally abandoned
 
regions where he had hitherto lived he did not do it voluntarily. He did
 
it because from time to time he was driven out by people who were tired
 
of having their hospitality abused by such guests. Jewish self-expansion
 
is a parasitic phenomenon--since the Jew is always looking for new
 
pastures for his race.
 
 
 
But this has nothing to do with nomadic life as such; because the Jew
 
does not ever think of leaving a territory which he has once occupied.
 
He sticks where he is with such tenacity that he can hardly be driven
 
out even by superior physical force. He expands into new territories
 
only when certain conditions for his existence are provided therein; but
 
even then--unlike the nomad--he will not change his former abode. He is
 
and remains a parasite, a sponger who, like a pernicious bacillus,
 
spreads over wider and wider areas according as some favourable area
 
attracts him. The effect produced by his presence is also like that of
 
the vampire; for wherever he establishes himself the people who grant
 
him hospitality are bound to be bled to death sooner or later. Thus the
 
Jew has at all times lived in States that have belonged to other races
 
and within the organization of those States he had formed a State of his
 
own, which is, however, hidden behind the mask of a 'religious
 
community', as long as external circumstances do not make it advisable
 
for this community to declare its true nature. As soon as the Jew feels
 
himself sufficiently established in his position to be able to hold it
 
without a disguise, he lifts the mask and suddenly appears in the
 
character which so many did not formerly believe or wish to see: namely
 
that of the Jew.
 
 
 
The life which the Jew lives as a parasite thriving on the substance of
 
other nations and States has resulted in developing that specific
 
character which Schopenhauer once described when he spoke of the Jew as
 
'The Great Master of Lies'. The kind of existence which he leads forces
 
the Jew to the systematic use of falsehood, just as naturally as the
 
inhabitants of northern climates are forced to wear warm clothes.
 
 
 
He can live among other nations and States only as long as he succeeds
 
in persuading them that the Jews are not a distinct people but 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 great falsehoods.
 
 
 
He is obliged to conceal his own particular character and mode of life
 
that he may be allowed to continue his existence as a parasite among the
 
nations. The greater the intelligence of the individual Jew, the better
 
will he succeed in deceiving others. His success in this line may even
 
go so far that the people who grant him hospitality may be led to
 
believe that the Jew among them is a genuine Frenchman, for instance, or
 
Englishman or German or Italian, who just happens to belong to a
 
religious denomination which is different from that prevailing in these
 
countries. Especially in circles concerned with the executive
 
administration of the State, where the officials generally have only a
 
minimum of historical sense, the Jew is able to impose his infamous
 
deception with comparative ease. In these circles independent thinking
 
is considered a sin against the sacred rules according to which official
 
promotion takes place. It is therefore not surprising that even to-day
 
in the Bavarian government offices, for example, there is not the
 
slightest suspicion that the Jews form a distinct nation themselves and
 
are not merely the adherents of a 'Confession', though one glance at the
 
Press which belongs to the Jews ought to furnish sufficient evidence to
 
the contrary even for those who possess only the smallest degree of
 
intelligence. The JEWISH ECHO, however, is not an official gazette and
 
therefore not authoritative in the eyes of those government potentates.
 
 
 
Jewry has always been a nation of a definite racial character and never
 
differentiated merely by the fact of belonging to a certain religion. At
 
a very early date, urged on by the desire to make their way in the
 
world, the Jews began to cast about for a means whereby they might
 
distract such attention as might prove inconvenient for them. What could
 
be more effective and at the same time more above suspicion than to
 
borrow and utilize the idea of the religious community? Here also
 
everything is copied, or rather stolen; for the Jew could not possess
 
any religious institution which had developed out of his own
 
consciousness, seeing that he lacks every kind of idealism; which means
 
that belief in a life beyond this terrestrial existence is foreign to
 
him. In the Aryan mind no religion can ever be imagined unless it
 
embodies the conviction that life in some form or other will continue
 
after death. As a matter of fact, the Talmud is not a book that lays
 
down principles according to which the individual should prepare for the
 
life to come. It only furnishes rules for a practical and convenient
 
life in this world.
 
 
 
The religious teaching of the Jews is principally a collection of
 
instructions for maintaining the Jewish blood pure and for regulating
 
intercourse between Jews and the rest of the world: that is to say,
 
their relation with non-Jews. But the Jewish religious teaching is not
 
concerned with moral problems. It is rather concerned with economic
 
problems, and very petty ones at that. In regard to the moral value of
 
the religious teaching of the Jews there exist and always have existed
 
quite exhaustive studies (not from the Jewish side; for whatever the
 
Jews have written on this question has naturally always been of a
 
tendentious character) which show up the kind of religion that the Jews
 
have in a light that makes it look very uncanny to the Aryan mind. The
 
Jew himself is the best example of the kind of product which this
 
religious training evolves. His life is of this world only and his
 
mentality is as foreign to the true spirit of Christianity as his
 
character was foreign to the great Founder of this new creed two
 
thousand years ago. And the Founder of Christianity made no secret
 
indeed of His estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it
 
necessary He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of
 
God; because then, as always, they used religion as a means of advancing
 
their commercial interests. But at that time Christ was nailed to the
 
Cross for his attitude towards the Jews; whereas our modern Christians
 
enter into party politics and when elections are being held they debase
 
themselves to beg for Jewish votes. They even enter into political
 
intrigues with the atheistic Jewish parties against the interests of
 
their own Christian nation.
 
 
 
On this first and fundamental lie, the purpose of which is to make
 
people believe that Jewry is not a nation but a religion, other lies are
 
subsequently based. One of those further lies, for example, is in
 
connection with the language spoken by the Jew. For him language is not
 
an instrument for the expression of his inner thoughts but rather a
 
means of cloaking them. When talking French his thoughts are Jewish and
 
when writing German rhymes he only gives expression to the character of
 
his own race.
 
 
 
As long as the Jew has not succeeded in mastering other peoples he 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 it would have to
 
learn some other language (Esperanto, for example) so that by this means
 
the Jew could dominate all the more easily.
 
 
 
How much the whole existence of this people is based on a permanent
 
falsehood is proved in a unique way by 'The Protocols of the Elders of
 
Zion', which are so violently repudiated by the Jews. With groans and
 
moans, the FRANKFURTER ZEITUNG repeats again and again that these are
 
forgeries. This alone is evidence in favour of their authenticity. What
 
many Jews unconsciously wish to do is here clearly set forth. It is not
 
necessary to ask out of what Jewish brain these revelations sprang; but
 
what is of vital interest is that they disclose, with an almost
 
terrifying precision, the mentality and methods of action characteristic
 
of the Jewish people and these writings expound in all their various
 
directions the final aims towards which the Jews are striving. The study
 
of real happenings, however, is the best way of judging the authenticity
 
of those documents. If the historical developments which have taken
 
place within the last few centuries be studied in the light of this book
 
we shall understand why the Jewish Press incessantly repudiates and
 
denounces it. For the Jewish peril will be stamped out the moment the
 
general public come into possession of that book and understand it.
 
 
 
In order to get to know the Jew properly it is necessary to study the
 
road which he has been following among the other peoples during the last
 
few centuries. One example will suffice to give a clear insight here.
 
Since his career has been the same at all epochs--just as the people at
 
whose expense he has lived have remained the same--for the purposes of
 
making the requisite analysis it will be best to mark his progress by
 
stages. For the sake of simplicity we shall indicate these stages by
 
letters of the alphabet.
 
 
 
The first Jews came into what was then called Germania during the period
 
of the Roman invasion; and, as usual, they came as merchants. During the
 
turmoil caused by the great migrations of the German tribes the Jews
 
seem to have disappeared. We may therefore consider the period when the
 
Germans formed the first political communities as the beginning of that
 
process whereby Central and Northern Europe was again, and this time
 
permanently, Judaized. A development began which has always been the
 
same or similar wherever and whenever Jews came into contact with Aryan
 
peoples.
 
 
 
(a) As soon as the first permanent settlements had been established the
 
Jew was suddenly 'there'. He arrived as a merchant and in the beginning
 
did not trouble to disguise his nationality. He still remained openly a
 
Jew, partly it may be because he knew too little of the language. It may
 
also be that people of other races refused to mix with him, so that he
 
could not very well adopt any other appearance than that of a foreign
 
merchant. Because of his subtlety and cunning and the lack of experience
 
on the part of the people whose guest he became, it was not to his
 
disadvantage openly to retain his Jewish character. This may even have
 
been advantageous to him; for the foreigner was received kindly.
 
 
 
(b) Slowly but steadily he began to take part in the economic life
 
around him; not as a producer, however, but only as a middleman. His
 
commercial cunning, acquired through thousands of years of negotiation
 
as an intermediary, made him superior in this field to the Aryans, who
 
were still quite ingenuous and indeed clumsy and whose honesty was
 
unlimited; so that after a short while commerce seemed destined to
 
become a Jewish monopoly. The Jew began by lending out money at usurious
 
interest, which is a permanent trade of his. It was he who first
 
introduced the payment of interest on borrowed money. The danger which
 
this innovation involved was not at first recognized; indeed the
 
innovation was welcomed, because it offered momentary advantages.
 
 
 
(c) At this stage the Jew had become firmly settled down; that is to
 
say, he inhabited special sections of the cities and towns and had his
 
own quarter in the market-places. Thus he gradually came to form a State
 
within a State. He came to look upon the commercial domain and all money
 
transactions as a privilege belonging exclusively to himself and he
 
exploited it ruthlessly.
 
 
 
(d) At this stage finance and trade had become his complete monopoly.
 
Finally, his usurious rate of interest aroused opposition and the
 
increasing impudence which the Jew began to manifest all round stirred
 
up popular indignation, while his display of wealth gave rise to popular
 
envy. The cup of his iniquity became full to the brim when he included
 
landed property among his commercial wares and degraded the soil to the
 
level of a market commodity. Since he himself never cultivated the soil
 
but considered it as an object to be exploited, on which the peasant may
 
still remain but only on condition that he submits to the most heartless
 
exactions of his new master, public antipathy against the Jew steadily
 
increased and finally turned into open animosity. His extortionate
 
tyranny became so unbearable that people rebelled against his control
 
and used physical violence against him. They began to scrutinize this
 
foreigner somewhat more closely, and then began to discover 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 arisen against
 
the Jew; the masses have taken the law into their own hands; they have
 
seized Jewish property and ruined the Jew in their urge to protect
 
themselves against what they consider to be a scourge of God. Having
 
come to know the Jew intimately through the course of centuries, in
 
times of distress they looked upon his presence among them as a public
 
danger comparable only to the plague.
 
 
 
(e) But then the Jew began to reveal his true character. He paid court
 
to governments, with servile flattery, used his money to ingratiate
 
himself further and thus regularly secured for himself once again the
 
privilege of exploiting his victim. Although public wrath flared up
 
against this eternal profiteer and drove him out, after a few years he
 
reappeared in those same places and carried on as before. No persecution
 
could force him to give up his trade of exploiting other people and no
 
amount of harrying succeeded in driving him out permanently. He always
 
returned after a short time and 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 obtaining possession 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 financial straits, gladly granted if
 
they received adequate payment in return. However high the price he has
 
to pay, the Jew will succeed in getting it back within a few years from
 
operating the privilege he has acquired, even with interest and compound
 
interest. He is a real leech who clings to the body of his unfortunate
 
victims and cannot be removed; so that when the princes found themselves
 
in need once again they took the blood from his swollen veins with their
 
own hands.
 
 
 
This game was repeated unendingly. In the case of those who were called
 
'German Princes', the part they played was quite as contemptible as that
 
played by the Jew. They were a real scourge for their people. Their
 
compeers may be found in some of the government ministers of our time.
 
 
 
It was due to the German princes that the German nation could not
 
succeed in definitely freeing itself from the Jewish peril.
 
Unfortunately the situation did not change at a later period. The
 
princes finally received the reward which they had a thousand-fold
 
deserved for all the crimes committed by them against their own people.
 
They had allied themselves with Satan and later on they discovered that
 
they were in Satan's embrace.
 
 
 
(g) By permitting themselves to be entangled in the toils of the Jew,
 
the princes prepared their own downfall. The position which they held
 
among their people was slowly but steadily undermined not only by their
 
continued failure to guard the interests of their subjects but by the
 
positive exploitation of them. The Jew calculated exactly the time when
 
the downfall of the princes was approaching and did his best to hasten
 
it. He intensified their financial difficulties by hindering them in the
 
exercise of their duty towards their people, by inveigling them through
 
the most servile flatteries into further personal display, whereby he
 
made himself more and more indispensable to them. His astuteness, or
 
rather his utter unscrupulousness, in money affairs enabled him to exact
 
new income from the princes, to squeeze the money out of them and then
 
have it spent as quickly as possible. Every Court had its 'Court Jews',
 
as this plague was called, who tortured the innocent victims until they
 
were driven to despair; while at the same time this Jew provided the
 
means which the princes squandered on their own pleasures. It is not to
 
be wondered at that these ornaments of the human race became the
 
recipients of official honours and even were admitted into the ranks of
 
the hereditary nobility, thus contributing not only to expose that
 
social institution to ridicule but also to contaminate it from the
 
inside.
 
 
 
Naturally the Jew could now exploit the position to which he had
 
attained and push himself forward even more rapidly than before. Finally
 
he became baptized and thus entitled to all the rights and privileges
 
which belonged to the children of the nation on which he preyed. This
 
was a high-class stroke of business for him, and he often availed
 
himself of it, to the great joy of the Church, which was proud of having
 
gained a new child in the Faith, and also to the joy of Israel, which
 
was happy at seeing the trick pulled off successfully.
 
 
 
(h) At this stage a transformation began to take place in the world of
 
Jewry. Up to now they had been Jews--that is to say, they did not
 
hitherto set any great value on pretending to be something else; and
 
anyhow the distinctive characteristics which separated them from other
 
races could not be easily overcome. Even as late as the time of
 
Frederick the Great nobody looked upon the Jews as other than a
 
'foreign' people, and Goethe rose up in revolt against the failure
 
legally to prohibit marriage between Christians and Jews. Goethe was
 
certainly no reactionary and no time-server. What he said came from the
 
voice of the blood and the voice of reason. Notwithstanding the
 
disgraceful happenings taking place in Court circles, the people
 
recognized instinctively that the Jew was the foreign body in their own
 
flesh and their attitude towards him was directed by recognition of that
 
fact.
 
 
 
But a change was now destined to take place. In the course of more than
 
a thousand years the Jew had learned to master the language of his hosts
 
so thoroughly that he considered he might now lay stress on his Jewish
 
character and emphasize the 'Germanism' a bit more. Though it must have
 
appeared ridiculous and absurd at first sight, he was impudent enough to
 
call himself a 'Teuton', which in this case meant a German. In that way
 
began one of the most infamous impositions that can be imagined. The Jew
 
did not possess the slightest traces of the German character. He had
 
only acquired the art of twisting the German language to his own uses,
 
and that in a disgusting way, without having assimilated any other
 
feature of the German character. Therefore his command of the language
 
was the sole ground on which he could pretend to be a German. It is not
 
however by the tie of language, but exclusively by the tie of blood that
 
the members of a race are bound together. And the Jew himself knows this
 
better than any other, seeing that he attaches so little importance to
 
the preservation of his own language while at the same time he strives
 
his utmost to maintain his blood free from intermixture with that of
 
other races. A man may acquire and use a new language without much
 
trouble; but it is only his old ideas that he expresses through the new
 
language. His inner nature is not modified thereby. The best proof of
 
this is furnished by the Jew himself. He may speak a thousand tongues
 
and yet his Jewish nature will remain always one and the same. His
 
distinguishing characteristics were the same when he spoke the Latin
 
language at Ostia two thousand years ago as a merchant in grain, as they
 
are to-day when he tries to sell adulterated flour with the aid of his
 
German gibberish. He is always the same Jew. That so obvious a fact is
 
not recognized by the average head-clerk in a German government
 
department, or by an officer in the police administration, is also a
 
self-evident and natural fact; since it would be difficult to find
 
another class of people who are so lacking in instinct and intelligence
 
as the civil servants employed by our modern German State authorities.
 
 
 
The reason why, at the stage I am dealing with, the Jew so suddenly
 
decided to transform himself into a German is not difficult to discover.
 
He felt the power of the princes slowly crumbling and therefore looked
 
about to find a new social plank on which he might stand. Furthermore,
 
his financial domination over all the spheres of economic life had
 
become so powerful that he felt he could no longer sustain that enormous
 
structure or add to it unless he were admitted to the full enjoyment of
 
the 'rights of citizenship.' He aimed at both, preservation and
 
expansion; for the higher he could climb the more alluring became the
 
prospect of reaching the old goal, which was promised to him in ancient
 
times, namely world-rulership, and which he now looked forward to with
 
feverish eyes, as he thought he saw it visibly approaching. Therefore
 
all his efforts were now directed to becoming a fully-fledged citizen,
 
endowed with all civil and political rights.
 
 
 
That was the reason for his emancipation from the Ghetto.
 
 
 
(i) And thus the Court Jew slowly developed into the national Jew. But
 
naturally he still remained associated with persons in higher quarters
 
and he even attempted to push his way further into the inner circles of
 
the ruling set. But at the same time some other representatives of his
 
race were currying favour with the people. If we remember the crimes the
 
Jew had committed against the masses of the people in the course of so
 
many centuries, how repeatedly and ruthlessly he exploited them and how
 
he sucked out even the very marrow of their substance, and when we
 
further remember how they gradually came to hate him and finally
 
considered him as a public scourge--then we may well understand how
 
difficult the Jew must have found this final transformation. Yes,
 
indeed, it must tax all their powers to be able to present themselves as
 
'friends of humanity' to the poor victims whom they have skinned raw.
 
 
 
Therefore the Jew began by making public amends for the crimes which he
 
had committed against the people in the past. He started his
 
metamorphosis by first appearing as the 'benefactor' of humanity. Since
 
his new philanthropic policy had a very concrete aim in view, he could
 
not very well apply to himself the biblical counsel, not to allow the
 
left hand to know what the right hand is giving. He felt obliged to let
 
as many people as possible know how deeply the sufferings of the masses
 
grieved him and to what excesses of personal sacrifice he was ready to
 
go in order to help them. With this manifestation of innate modesty, so
 
typical of the Jew, he trumpeted his virtues before the world until
 
finally the world actually began to believe him. Those who refused to
 
share this belief were considered to be doing him an injustice. Thus
 
after a little while he began to twist things around, so as to make it
 
appear that it was he who had always been wronged, and vice versa. There
 
were really some particularly foolish people who could not help pitying
 
this poor unfortunate creature of a Jew.
 
 
 
Attention may be called to the fact that, in spite of his proclaimed
 
readiness to make personal sacrifices, the Jew never becomes poor
 
thereby. He has a happy knack of always making both ends meet.
 
Occasionally his benevolence might be compared to the manure which is
 
not spread over the field merely for the purpose of getting rid of it,
 
but rather with a view to future produce. Anyhow, after a comparatively
 
short period of time, the world was given to know that the Jew had
 
become a general benefactor and philanthropist. What a transformation!
 
 
 
What is looked upon as more or less natural when done by other people
 
here became an object of astonishment, and even sometimes of admiration,
 
because it was considered so unusual in a Jew. That is why he has
 
received more credit for his acts of benevolence than ordinary mortals.
 
 
 
And something more: The Jew became liberal all of a sudden and began to
 
talk enthusiastically of how human progress must be encouraged.
 
Gradually he assumed the air of being the herald of a new age.
 
 
 
Yet at the same time he continued to undermine the ground-work of that
 
part of the economic system in which the people have the most practical
 
interest. He bought up stock in the various national undertakings and
 
thus pushed his influence into the circuit of national production,
 
making this latter an object of buying and selling on the stock
 
exchange, or rather what might be called the pawn in a financial game of
 
chess, and thus ruining the basis on which personal proprietorship alone
 
is possible. Only with the entrance of the Jew did that feeling of
 
estrangement, between employers and employees begin which led at a later
 
date to the political class-struggle.
 
 
 
Finally the Jew gained an increasing influence in all economic
 
undertakings by means of his predominance in the stock-exchange. If not
 
the ownership, at least he secured control of the working power of the
 
nation.
 
 
 
In order to strengthen his political position, he directed his efforts
 
towards removing the barrier of racial and civic discrimination which
 
had hitherto hindered his advance at every turn. With characteristic
 
tenacity he championed the cause of religious tolerance for this
 
purpose; and in the freemason organization, which had fallen completely
 
into his hands, he found a magnificent weapon which helped him to
 
achieve his ends. Government circles, as well as the higher sections of
 
the political and commercial bourgeoisie, fell a prey to his plans
 
through his manipulation of the masonic net, though they themselves did
 
not even suspect what was happening.
 
 
 
Only the people as such, or rather the masses which were just becoming
 
conscious of their own power and were beginning to use it in the fight
 
for their rights and liberties, had hitherto escaped the grip of the
 
Jew. At least his influence had not yet penetrated to the deeper and
 
wider sections of the people. This was unsatisfactory to him. The most
 
important phase of his policy was therefore to secure control over the
 
people. The Jew realized that in his efforts to reach the position of
 
public despot he would need a 'peace-maker.' And he thought he could
 
find a peace-maker if he could whip-in sufficient extensive sections of
 
the bourgeois. But the freemasons failed to catch the
 
glove-manufacturers and the linen-weavers in the frail meshes of their
 
net. And so it became necessary to find a grosser and withal a more
 
effective means. Thus another weapon beside that of freemasonry would
 
have to be secured. This was the Press. The Jew exercised all his skill
 
and tenacity in getting hold of it. By means of the Press he began
 
gradually to control public life in its entirety. He began to drive it
 
along the road which he had chosen to reach his own ends; for he was now
 
in a position to create and direct that force which, under the name of
 
'public opinion' is better known to-day than it was some decades ago.
 
 
 
Simultaneously the Jew gave himself the air of thirsting after
 
knowledge. He lauded every phase of progress, particularly those phases
 
which led to the ruin of others; for he judges all progress and
 
development from the standpoint of the advantages which these bring to
 
his own people. When it brings him no such advantages he is the deadly
 
enemy of enlightenment and hates all culture which is real culture as
 
such. All the knowledge which he acquires in the schools of others is
 
exploited by him exclusively in the service of his own race.
 
 
 
Even more watchfully than ever before, he now stood guard over his
 
Jewish nationality. Though bubbling over with 'enlightenment',
 
'progress', 'liberty', 'humanity', etc., his first care was to preserve
 
the racial integrity of his own people. He occasionally bestowed one of
 
his female members on an influential Christian; but the racial stock of
 
his male descendants was always preserved unmixed fundamentally. He
 
poisons the blood of others but preserves his own blood unadulterated.
 
The Jew scarcely ever marries a Christian girl, but the Christian takes
 
a Jewess to wife. The mongrels that are a result of this latter union
 
always declare themselves on the Jewish side. Thus a part of the higher
 
nobility in particular became completely degenerate. The Jew was well
 
aware of this fact and systematically used this means of disarming the
 
intellectual leaders of the opposite race. To mask his tactics and fool
 
his victims, he talks of the equality of all men, no matter what their
 
race or colour may be. And the simpletons begin to believe him.
 
 
 
Since his whole nature still retains too foreign an odour for the broad
 
masses of the people to allow themselves to be caught in his snare, he
 
uses the Press to put before the public a picture of himself which is
 
entirely untrue to life but well designed to serve his purpose. In the
 
comic papers special efforts are made to represent the Jews as an
 
inoffensive little race which, like all others, has its peculiarities.
 
In spite of their manners, which may seem a bit strange, the comic
 
papers present the Jews as fundamentally good-hearted and honourable.
 
Attempts are generally made to make them appear insignificant rather
 
than dangerous.
 
 
 
During this phase of his progress the chief goal of the Jew was the
 
victory of democracy, or rather the supreme hegemony of the
 
parliamentary system, which embodies his concept of democracy. This
 
institution harmonises best with his purposes; for thus the personal
 
element is eliminated and in its place we have the dunder-headed
 
majority, inefficiency and, last but by no means least, knavery.
 
 
 
The final result must necessarily have been the overthrow of the
 
monarchy, which had to happen sooner or later.
 
 
 
(j) A tremendous economic development transformed the social structure
 
of the nation. The small artisan class slowly disappeared and the
 
factory worker, who took its place, had scarcely any chance of
 
establishing an independent existence of his own but sank more and more
 
to the level of a proletariat. An essential characteristic of the
 
factory worker is that he is scarcely ever able to provide for an
 
independent source of livelihood which will support him in later 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 at all.
 
 
 
In earlier times a similar situation had been created, which had
 
imperatively demanded a solution and for which a solution was found.
 
Side by side with the peasant and the artisan, a new class was 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 the word. But the State found
 
a remedy for this unhealthy situation by taking upon itself the duty of
 
providing for the State official who could establish nothing that would
 
be an independent means of livelihood for himself in his old age. Thus
 
the system of pensions and retiring allowances was introduced. Private
 
enterprises slowly followed this example in increasing numbers; so that
 
to-day every permanent non-manual worker receives a pension in his later
 
years, if the firm which he has served is one that has reached or gone
 
beyond a certain size. It was only by virtue of the assurance given of
 
State officials, that they would be cared for in their old age. that
 
such a high degree of unselfish devotion to duty was developed, which in
 
pre-war times was one of the distinguising characteristics of German
 
officials.
 
 
 
Thus a whole class which had no personal property was saved from
 
destitution by an intelligent system of provision, and found a place in
 
the social structure of the national community.
 
 
 
The problem is now put before the State and nation, but this time in a
 
much larger form. When the new industries sprang up and developed,
 
millions of people left the countryside and the villages to take up
 
employment in the big factories. The conditions under which this new
 
class found itself forced to live were worse than miserable. The more or
 
less mechanical transformation of the methods of work hitherto in vogue
 
among the artisans and peasants did not fit in well with the habits or
 
mentality of this new working-class. The way in which the peasants and
 
artisans had formerly worked had nothing comparable to the intensive
 
labour of the new factory worker. In the old trades time did not play a
 
highly important role, but it became an essential element in the new
 
industrial system. The formal taking over of the old working hours into
 
the mammoth industrial enterprises had fatal results. The actual amount
 
of work hitherto accomplished within a certain time was comparatively
 
small, because the modern methods of intensive production were then
 
unknown. Therefore, though in the older system a working day of fourteen
 
or even fifteen hours was not unendurable, now it was beyond the
 
possibilities of human endurance because in the new system every minute
 
was utilized to the extreme. This absurd transference of the old working
 
hours to the new industrial system proved fatal in two directions.
 
First, it ruined the health of the workers; secondly, it destroyed their
 
faith in a superior law of justice. Finally, on the one hand a miserable
 
wage was received and, on the other, the employer held a much more
 
lucrative position than before. Hence a striking difference between the
 
ways of life on the one side and on the other.
 
 
 
In the open country there could be no social problem, because the master
 
and the farm-hand were doing the same kind of work and doing it
 
together. They ate their food in common, and sometimes even out of the
 
same dish. But in this sphere also the new system introduced an entirely
 
different set of conditions between masters and men.
 
 
 
The division created between employer and employees seems not to have
 
extended to all branches of life. How far this Judaizing process has
 
been allowed to take effect among our people is illustrated by the fact
 
that manual labour not only receives practically no recognition but is
 
even considered degrading. That is not a natural German attitude. It is
 
due to the introduction of a foreign element into our lives, and that
 
foreign element is the Jewish spirit, one of the effects of which has
 
been to transform the high esteem in which our handicrafts once were
 
held into a definite feeling that all physical labour is something base
 
and unworthy.
 
 
 
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 of whether the
 
nation will be able to make this class an integral part of the social
 
community or whether the difference of status now existing will become a
 
permanent gulf separating this class from the others.
 
 
 
One thing, however, is certain: This class does not include the worst
 
elements of the community in its ranks. Rather the contrary is the
 
truth: it includes the most energetic parts of the nation. The
 
sophistication which is the result of a so-called civilization has not
 
yet exercised its disintegrating and degenerating influence on this
 
class. The broad masses of this new lower class, constituted by the
 
manual labourers, have not yet fallen a prey to the morbid weakness of
 
pacifism. These are still robust and, if necessary, they can be brutal.
 
 
 
While our bourgeoisie middle class paid no attention at all to this
 
momentous problem and indifferently allowed events to take their course,
 
the Jew seized upon the manifold possibilities which the situation
 
offered him for the future. While on the one hand he organized
 
capitalistic methods of exploitation to their ultimate degree of
 
efficiency, he curried favour with the victims of his policy and his
 
power and in a short while became the leader of their struggle against
 
himself. 'Against himself' is here only a figurative way of speaking;
 
for this 'Great Master of Lies' knows how to appear in the guise of the
 
innocent and throw the guilt on others. Since he had the impudence to
 
take a personal lead among the masses, they never for a moment suspected
 
that they were falling 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 economic
 
situation and taken shape as a definite body in the social order, the
 
Jew saw clearly where he would find the necessary pacemaker for his own
 
progressive march. At first he had used the bourgeois class as a
 
battering-ram against the feudal order; and now he used the worker
 
against the bourgeois world. Just as he succeeded in obtaining civic
 
rights by intrigues carried on under the protection of the bourgeois
 
class, he now hoped that by joining in the struggle which the workers
 
were waging for their own existence he would be able to obtain full
 
control over them.
 
 
 
When that moment arrives, then the only objective the workers will have
 
to fight for will be the future of the Jewish people. Without knowing
 
it, the worker is placing himself at the service of the very power
 
against which he believes he is fighting. Apparently he is made to fight
 
against capital and thus he is all the more easily brought to fight for
 
capitalist interests. Outcries are systematically raised against
 
international capital but in reality it is against the structure of
 
national economics that these slogans are directed. The idea is to
 
demolish this structure and on its ruins triumphantly erect the
 
structure of the International Stock Exchange.
 
 
 
In this line of action the procedure of the Jew was as follows:
 
 
 
He kowtowed to the worker, hypocritically pretended to feel pity for him
 
and his lot, and even to be indignant at the misery and poverty which
 
the worker had to endure. That is the way in which the Jew endeavoured
 
to gain the confidence of the working class. He showed himself eager to
 
study their various hardships, whether real or imaginary, and strove to
 
awaken a yearning on the part of the workers to change the conditions
 
under which they lived. The Jew artfully enkindled that innate yearning
 
for social justice which is a typical Aryan characteristic. Once that
 
yearning became alive it was transformed into hatred against those in
 
more fortunate circumstances of life. The next stage was to give a
 
precise philosophical aspect to the struggle for the elimination of
 
social wrongs. And thus the Marxist doctrine was invented.
 
 
 
By presenting his doctrine as part and parcel of a just revindication of
 
social rights, the Jew propagated the doctrine all the more effectively.
 
But at the same time he provoked the opposition of decent people who
 
refused to admit these demands which, because of the form and
 
pseudo-philosophical trimmings in which they are presented, seemed
 
fundamentally unjust and impossible for realization. For, under the
 
cloak of purely social concepts there are hidden aims which are of a
 
Satanic character. These aims are even expounded in the open with the
 
clarity of unlimited impudence. This Marxist doctrine is an individual
 
mixture of human reason and human absurdity; but the combination is
 
arranged in such a way that only the absurd part of it could ever be put
 
into practice, but never the reasonable part of it. By categorically
 
repudiating the personal worth of the individual and also the nation and
 
its racial constituent, this doctrine destroys the fundamental basis of
 
all civilization; for civilization essentially depends on these very
 
factors. Such is the true essence of the Marxist WELTANSCHAUUNG, so far
 
as the word WELTANSCHAUUNG can be applied at all to this phantom
 
arising from a criminal brain. The destruction of the concept of
 
personality and of race removes the chief obstacle which barred the way
 
to domination of the social body by its inferior elements, which are the
 
Jews.
 
 
 
The very absurdity of the economic and political theories of Marxism
 
gives the doctrine its peculiar significance. Because of its
 
pseudo-logic, intelligent people refuse to support it, while all those
 
who are less accustomed to use their intellectual faculties, or who have
 
only a rudimentary notion of economic principles, join the Marxist cause
 
with flying banners. The intelligence behind the movement--for even this
 
movement needs intelligence if it is to subsist--is supplied by the Jews
 
themselves, naturally of course as a gratuitous service which is at the
 
same time a sacrifice on their part.
 
 
 
Thus arose a movement which was composed exclusively of manual workers
 
under the leadership of Jews. To all external appearances, this movement
 
strives to ameliorate the conditions under which the workers live; but
 
in reality its aim is to enslave and thereby annihilate the non-Jewish
 
races.
 
 
 
The propaganda which the freemasons had carried on among the so-called
 
intelligentsia, whereby their pacifist teaching paralysed the instinct
 
for national self-preservation, was now extended to the broad masses of
 
the workers and bourgeoisie by means of the Press, which was almost
 
everywhere in Jewish hands. To those two instruments of disintegration a
 
third and still more ruthless one was added, namely, the organization of
 
brute physical force among the masses. As massed columns of attacks, the
 
Marxist troops stormed those parts of the social order which had been
 
left standing after the two former undermining operations had done their
 
work.
 
 
 
The combined activity of all these forces has been marvellously managed.
 
And it will not be surprising if it turns out that those institutions
 
which have always appeared as the organs of the more or less traditional
 
authority of the State should now fall before the Marxist attack. Among
 
our higher and highest State officials, with very few exceptions, the
 
Jew has found the cost complacent backers in his work of destruction. An
 
attitude of sneaking servility towards 'superiors' and supercilious
 
arrogance towards 'inferiors' are the characteristics of this class of
 
people, as well as a grade of stupidity which is really frightening and
 
at the same time a towering self-conceit, which has been so consistently
 
developed to make it amusing.
 
 
 
But these qualities are of the greatest utility to the Jew in his
 
dealings with our authorities. Therefore they are qualities which he
 
appreciates most in the officials.
 
 
 
If I were to sketch roughly the actual struggle which is now beginning I
 
should describe it somewhat thus:
 
 
 
Not satisfied with the economic conquest of the world, but also
 
demanding that it must come under his political control, the Jew
 
subdivides the organized Marxist power into two parts, which correspond
 
to the ultimate objectives that are to be fought for in this 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 two divisions are: The
 
political movement and the trades union movement.
 
 
 
The trades union movement has to gather in the recruits. It offers
 
assistance and protection to the workers in the hard struggle which they
 
have to wage for the bare means of existence, a struggle which has been
 
occasioned by the greediness and narrow-mindedness of many of the
 
industrialists. Unless the workers be ready to surrender all claims to
 
an existence which the dignity of human nature itself demands, and
 
unless they are ready to submit their fate to the will of employers who
 
in many cases have no sense of 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 own material
 
interests, opposes this life-or-death struggle of the workers and places
 
the most difficult obstacles in their way. Not only does this
 
bourgeoisie hinder all efforts to enact legislation which would shorten
 
the inhumanly long hours of work, prohibit child-labour, grant security
 
and protection to women and improve the hygienic conditions of the
 
workshops and the dwellings of the working-class, but while the
 
bourgeoisie hinders all this the shrewd Jew takes the cause of the
 
oppressed into his own hands. He gradually becomes the leader of the
 
trades union movements, which is an easy task for him, because he does
 
not genuinely intend to find remedies for the social wrong: he pursues
 
only one objective, namely, to gather and consolidate a body of
 
followers who will act under his commands as an armed weapon in the
 
economic war for the destruction of national economic independence. For,
 
while a sound social policy has to move between the two poles of
 
securing a decent level of public health and welfare on the one hand
 
and, on the other, that of safeguarding the independence of the economic
 
life of the nation, the Jew does not take these poles into account at
 
all. The destruction of both is one of his main objects. He would ruin,
 
rather than safeguard, the independence of the national economic system.
 
Therefore, as the leader of the trades union movement, he has no
 
scruples about putting forward demands which not only go beyond the
 
declared purpose of the movement but could not be carried into effect
 
without ruining the national economic structure. On the other hand, he
 
has no interest in seeing a healthy and sturdy population develop; he
 
would be more content to see the people degenerate into an unthinking
 
herd which could be reduced to total subjection. Because these are his
 
final objectives, he can afford to put forward the most absurd claims.
 
He knows very well that these claims can never be realized and that
 
therefore nothing in the actual state of affairs could be altered by
 
them, but that the most they can do is to arouse the spirit of unrest
 
among the masses. That is exactly the purpose which he wishes such
 
propaganda to serve and not a real and honest improvement of the social
 
conditions.
 
 
 
The Jews will therefore remain the unquestioned leaders of the trades
 
union movement so long as a campaign is not undertaken, which must be
 
carried out on gigantic lines, for the enlightenment of the masses; so
 
that they will be enabled better to understand the causes of their
 
misery. Or the same end might be achieved if the government authorities
 
would get rid of the Jew and his work. For as long as the masses remain
 
so ill-informed as they actually are to-day, and as long as the State
 
remains as indifferent to their lot as it now is, the masses will follow
 
whatever leader makes them the most extravagant promises in regard to
 
economic matters. The Jew is a past master at this art and his
 
activities are not hampered by moral considerations of any kind.
 
 
 
Naturally it takes him only a short time to defeat all his competitors
 
in this field and drive them from the scene of action. In accordance
 
with the general brutality and rapacity of his nature, he turns the
 
trades union movement into an organization for the exercise of physical
 
violence. The resistance of those whose common sense has hitherto saved
 
them from surrendering to the Jewish dictatorship is now broken down by
 
terrorization. The success of that kind of activity is enormous.
 
 
 
Parallel with this, the political organization advances. It operates
 
hand-in-hand with the trades union movement, inasmuch as the latter
 
prepares the masses for the political organization and even forces them
 
into it. This is also the source that provides the money which the
 
political organization needs to keep its enormous apparatus in action.
 
The trades union organization is the organ of control for the political
 
activity of its members and whips in the masses for all great political
 
demonstrations. In the end it ceases to struggle for economic interests
 
but places its chief weapon, the refusal to continue work--which takes
 
the form of a general strike--at the disposal of the political movement.
 
 
 
By means of a Press whose contents are adapted to the level of the most
 
ignorant readers, the political and trades union organizations are
 
provided with an instrument which prepares the lowest stratum of the
 
nation for a campaign of ruthless destruction. It is not considered part
 
of the purpose of this Press to inspire its readers with ideals which
 
might help them to lift their minds above the sordid conditions of their
 
daily lives; but, on the contrary, it panders to their lowest instincts.
 
Among the lazy-minded and self-seeking sections of the masses this kind
 
of speculation turns out lucrative.
 
 
 
It is this Press above all which carries on a fanatical campaign of
 
calumny, strives to tear down everything that might be considered as a
 
mainstay of national independence and to sabotage all cultural values as
 
well as to destroy the autonomy of the national economic system.
 
 
 
It aims its attack especially against all men of character who refuse to
 
fall into line with the Jewish efforts to obtain control over the State
 
or who appear dangerous to the Jews merely because of their superior
 
intelligence. For in order to incur the enmity of the Jew it is not
 
necessary to show any open hostility towards him. It is quite sufficient
 
if one be considered capable of opposing the Jew some time in the future
 
or using his abilities and character to enhance the power and position
 
of a nation which the Jew finds hostile to himself.
 
 
 
The Jewish instinct, which never fails where these problems have to be
 
dealt with, readily discerns the true mentality of those whom the Jew
 
meets in everyday life; and those who are not of a kindred spirit with
 
him may be sure of being listed among his enemies. Since the Jew is not
 
the object of aggression but the aggressor himself, he considers as his
 
enemies not only those who attack him but also those who may be capable
 
of resisting him. The means which he employs to break people of this
 
kind, who may show themselves decent and upright, are not the open means
 
generally used in honourable conflict, but falsehood and calumny.
 
 
 
He will stop at nothing. His utterly low-down conduct is so appalling
 
that one really cannot be surprised if in the imagination of our people
 
the Jew is pictured as the incarnation of Satan and the symbol of evil.
 
 
 
The ignorance of the broad masses as regards the inner character of the
 
Jew, and the lack of instinct and insight that our upper classes
 
display, are some of the reasons which explain how it is that so many
 
people fall an easy prey to the systematic campaign of falsehood which
 
the Jew carries on.
 
 
 
While the upper classes, with their innate cowardliness, turn away from
 
anyone whom the Jew thus attacks with lies and calumny, the common
 
people are credulous of everything, whether because of their ignorance
 
or their simple-mindedness. Government authorities wrap themselves up in
 
a robe of silence, but more frequently they persecute the victims of
 
Jewish attacks in order to stop the campaign in the Jewish Press. To the
 
fatuous mind of the government official such a line of conduct appears
 
to belong to the policy of upholding the authority of the State and
 
preserving public order. Gradually the Marxist weapon in the hands of
 
the Jew becomes a constant bogy to decent people. Sometimes the fear of
 
it sticks in the brain or weighs upon them as a kind of nightmare.
 
People begin to quail before this fearful foe and therewith become his
 
victims.
 
 
 
(k) The Jewish domination in the State seems now so fully assured that
 
not only can he now afford to call himself a Jew once again, but he even
 
acknowledges freely and openly what his ideas are on racial and
 
political questions. A section of the Jews avows itself quite openly as
 
an alien people, but even here there is another falsehood. When the
 
Zionists try to make the rest of the world believe that the new national
 
consciousness of the Jews will be satisfied by the establishment of a
 
Jewish State in Palestine, the Jews thereby adopt another means to dupe
 
the simple-minded Gentile. They have not the slightest intention of
 
building up a Jewish State in Palestine so as to live in it. What they
 
really are aiming at is to establish a central organization for their
 
international swindling and cheating. As a sovereign State, this cannot
 
be controlled by any of the other States. Therefore it can serve as a
 
refuge for swindlers who have been found out and at the same time a
 
high-school for the training of other swindlers.
 
 
 
As a sign of their growing presumption and sense of security, a certain
 
section of them openly and impudently proclaim their Jewish nationality
 
while another section hypocritically pretend that they are German,
 
French or English as the case may be. Their blatant behaviour in their
 
relations with other people shows how clearly they 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 he plans to seduce,
 
adulterating her blood and removing her from the bosom of her own
 
people. The Jew uses every possible means to undermine the racial
 
foundations of a subjugated people. In his systematic efforts to ruin
 
girls and women he strives to break down the 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 they hate and thus lowering its
 
cultural and political level so that the Jew might dominate. For as long
 
as a people remain racially pure and are conscious of the treasure of
 
their blood, they can never be overcome by the Jew. Never in this world
 
can the Jew become master of any people except a bastardized people.
 
 
 
That is why the Jew systematically endeavours to lower the racial
 
quality of a people by permanently adulterating the blood of the
 
individuals who make up that people.
 
 
 
In the field of politics he now begins to replace the idea of democracy
 
by introducing the dictatorship of the proletariat. In the masses
 
organized under the Marxist banners he has found a weapon which makes it
 
possible for him to discard democracy, so as to subjugate and rule in a
 
dictatorial fashion by the aid of brute force. He is systematically
 
working in two ways to bring about this revolution. These ways are the
 
economic and the political respectively.
 
 
 
Aided by international influences, he forms a ring of enemies around
 
those nations which have proved themselves too sturdy for him in
 
withstanding attacks from within. He would like to force them into war
 
and then, if it should be necessary to his plans, he will unfurl the
 
banners of revolt even while the troops are actually fighting at the
 
front.
 
 
 
Economically he brings about the destruction of the State by a
 
systematic method of sabotaging social enterprises until these become so
 
costly that they are taken out of the hands of the State and then
 
submitted to the control of Jewish finance. Politically he works to
 
withdraw from the State its means of susbsistence, inasmuch as he
 
undermines the foundations of national resistance and defence, destroys
 
the confidence which the people have in their Government, reviles the
 
past and its history and drags everything national down into the gutter.
 
 
 
Culturally his activity consists in bowdlerizing art, literature and the
 
theatre, holding the expressions of national sentiment up to scorn,
 
overturning all concepts of the sublime and beautiful, the worthy and
 
the good, finally dragging the people to the level of his own low
 
mentality.
 
 
 
Of religion he makes a mockery. Morality and decency are described as
 
antiquated prejudices and thus a systematic attack is made to undermine
 
those last foundations on which the national being must rest if the
 
nation is to struggle for its existence in this world.
 
 
 
(l) Now begins the great and final revolution. As soon as the Jew is in
 
possession of political power he drops the last few veils which have
 
hitherto helped to conceal his features. Out of the democratic Jew, the
 
Jew of the People, arises the 'Jew of the Blood', the tyrant of the
 
peoples. In the course of a few years he endeavours to exterminate all
 
those who represent the national intelligence. And by thus depriving the
 
peoples of their natural intellectual leaders he fits them for their
 
fate as slaves under a lasting despotism.
 
 
 
Russia furnishes the most terrible example of such a slavery. In that
 
country the Jew killed or starved thirty millions of the people, in a
 
bout of savage fanaticism and partly by the employment of inhuman
 
torture. And he did this so that a gang of Jewish literati and financial
 
bandits should dominate over a great people.
 
 
 
But the final consequence is not merely that the people lose all their
 
freedom under the domination of the Jews, but that in the end these
 
parasites themselves disappear. The death of the victim is followed
 
sooner or later by that of the vampire.
 
 
 
If we review all the causes which contributed to bring about the
 
downfall of the German people we shall find that the most profound and
 
decisive cause must be attributed to the lack of insight into the racial
 
problem and especially in the failure to recognize the Jewish danger.
 
 
 
It would have been easy enough to endure the defeats suffered on the
 
battlefields in August 1918. They were nothing when compared with the
 
military victories which our nation had achieved. Our downfall was not
 
the result of those defeats; but we were overthrown by that force which
 
had prepared those defeats by systematically operating for several
 
decades to destroy those political instincts and that moral stamina
 
which alone enable a people to struggle for its existence and therewith
 
secure the right to exist.
 
 
 
By neglecting the problem of preserving the racial foundations of our
 
national life, the old Empire abrogated the sole right which entitles a
 
people to live on this planet. Nations that make mongrels of their
 
people, or allow their people to be turned into mongrels, sin against
 
the Will of Eternal Providence. And thus their overthrow at the hands of
 
a stronger opponent cannot be looked upon as a wrong but, on the
 
contrary, as a restoration of justice. If a people refuses to guard and
 
uphold the qualities with which it has been endowed by Nature and which
 
have their roots in the racial blood, then such a people has no right to
 
complain over the 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. Every lost war may be
 
the cause of a later resurgence. Every visitation of distress can give a
 
new impetus to human energy. And out of every oppression those forces
 
can develop which bring about a new re-birth of the national
 
soul--provided always that the racial blood is kept pure.
 
 
 
But the loss of racial purity will wreck inner happiness for ever. It
 
degrades men for all time to come. And the physical and moral
 
consequences can never be wiped out.
 
 
 
If this unique problem be studied and compared with the other problems
 
of life we shall easily recognize how small is their importance in
 
comparison with this. They are all limited to time; but the problem of
 
the maintenance or loss of the purity of the racial blood will last as
 
long as man himself lasts.
 
 
 
All the symptoms of decline which manifested themselves already in
 
pre-war times can be traced back to the racial problem.
 
 
 
Whether one is dealing with questions of general law, or monstrous
 
excrescences in economic life, of phenomena which point to a cultural
 
decline or political degeneration, whether it be a question of defects
 
in the school-system or of the evil influence which the Press exerts
 
over the adult population--always and everywhere these phenomena are at
 
bottom caused by a lack of consideration for the interests of the race
 
to which one's own nation belongs, or by the failure to recognize the
 
danger that comes from allowing a foreign race to exist within the
 
national body.
 
 
 
That is why all attempts at reform, all institutions for social relief,
 
all political striving, all economic progress and all apparent increase
 
in the general stock of knowledge, were doomed to be unproductive of any
 
significant results. The nation, as well as the organization which
 
enables it to exist--namely, the State--were not developing in inner
 
strength and stability, but, on the contrary, were visibly losing their
 
vitality. The false brilliance of the Second Empire could not disguise
 
the inner weakness. And every attempt to invigorate it anew failed
 
because the main and most important problem was left out of
 
consideration.
 
 
 
It would be a mistake to think that the followers of the various
 
political parties which tried to doctor the condition of the German
 
people, or even all their leaders, were bad in themselves or meant
 
wrong. Their activity even at best was doomed to fail, merely because of
 
the fact that they saw nothing but the symptoms of our general malady
 
and they tried to doctor the symptoms while they overlooked the real
 
cause of the disease. If one makes a methodical study of the lines along
 
which the old Empire developed one cannot help seeing, after a careful
 
political analysis, that a process of inner degeneration had already set
 
in even at the time when the united Empire was formed and the German
 
nation began to make rapid external progress. The general situation was
 
declining, in spite of the apparent political success and in spite of
 
the increasing economic wealth. At the elections to the Reichstag the
 
growing number of Marxist votes indicated that the internal breakdown
 
and the political collapse were then rapidly approaching. All the
 
victories of the so-called bourgeois parties were fruitless, not only
 
because they could not prevent the numerical increase in the growing
 
mass of Marxist votes, even when the bourgeois parties triumphed at the
 
polls, but mainly because they themselves were already infected with the
 
germs of decay. Though quite unaware of it, the bourgeois world was
 
infected from within with the deadly virus of Marxist ideas. The fact
 
that they sometimes openly resisted was to be explained by the
 
competitive strife among ambitious political leaders, rather than by
 
attributing it to any opposition in principle between adversaries who
 
were determined to fight one another to the bitter end. During all those
 
years only one protagonist was fighting with steadfast perseverance.
 
This was the Jew. The Star of David steadily ascended as the will to
 
national self-preservation declined.
 
 
 
Therefore it was not a solid national phalanx that, of itself and out of
 
its own feeling of solidarity, rushed to the battlefields in August
 
1914. But it was rather the manifestation of the last flicker from the
 
instinct of national self-preservation against the progress of the
 
paralysis with which the pacifist and Marxist doctrine threatened our
 
people. Even in those days when the destinies of the nation were in the
 
balance the internal enemy was not recognized; therefore all efforts to
 
resist the external enemy were bound to be in vain. Providence did not
 
grant the reward to the victorious sword, but followed the eternal law
 
of retributive justice. A profound recognition of all this was the
 
source of those principles and tendencies which inspire our new
 
movement. We were convinced that only by recognizing such truths could
 
we stop the national decline in Germany and lay a granite foundation on
 
which the State could again be built up, a State which would not be a
 
piece of mechanism alien to our people, constituted for economic
 
purposes and interests, but an organism created from the soul of the
 
people themselves.
 
 
 
A GERMAN STATE IN A GERMAN NATION
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER XII
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE FIRST STAGE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GERMAN
 
NATIONAL SOCIALIST LABOUR PARTY
 
 
 
 
 
Here at the close of the volume I shall describe the first stage in the
 
progress of our movement and shall give a brief account of the problems
 
we had to deal with during that period. In doing this I have no
 
intention of expounding the ideals which we have set up as the goal of
 
our movement; for these ideals are so momentous in their significance
 
that an exposition of them will need a whole volume. Therefore I shall
 
devote the second volume of this book to a detailed survey of the
 
principles which form the programme of our movement and I shall attempt
 
to draw a picture of what we mean by the word 'State'. When I say 'we'
 
in this connection I mean to include all those hundreds of thousands who
 
have fundamentally the same longing, though in the individual cases they
 
cannot find adequate words to describe the vision that hovers before
 
their eyes. It is a characteristic feature of all great reforms that in
 
the beginning there is only one single protagonist to come forward on
 
behalf of several millions of people. The final goal of a great
 
reformation has often been the object of profound longing on the parts
 
of hundreds of thousands for many centuries before, until finally one
 
among them comes forward as a herald to announce the will of that
 
multitude and become the standard-bearer of the old yearning, which he
 
now leads to a realization in a new idea.
 
 
 
The fact that millions of our people yearn at heart for a radical change
 
in our present conditions is proved by the profound discontent which
 
exists among them. This feeling is manifested in a thousand ways. Some
 
express it in a form of discouragement and despair. Others show it in
 
resentment and anger and indignation. Among some the profound discontent
 
calls forth an attitude of indifference, while it urges others to
 
violent manifestations of wrath. Another indication of this feeling may
 
be seen on the one hand in the attitude of those who abstain from voting
 
at elections and, on the other, in the large numbers of those who side
 
with the fanatical extremists of the left wing.
 
 
 
To these latter people our young movement had to appeal first of all. It
 
was not meant to be an organization for contented and satisfied people,
 
but was meant to gather in all those who were suffering from profound
 
anxiety and could find no peace, those who were unhappy and
 
discontented. It was not meant to float on the surface of the nation but
 
rather to push its roots deep among the masses.
 
 
 
Looked at from the purely political point of view, the situation in 1918
 
was as follows: A nation had been torn into two parts. One part, which
 
was by far the smaller of the two, contained the intellectual classes of
 
the nation from which all those employed in physical labour were
 
excluded. On the surface these intellectual classes appeared to be
 
national-minded, but that word meant nothing else to them except a very
 
vague and feeble concept of the duty to defend what they called the
 
interests of the State, which in turn seemed identical with those of the
 
dynastic regime. This class tried to defend its ideas and reach its aims
 
by carrying on the fight with the aid of intellectual weapons, which
 
could be used only here and there and which had only a superficial
 
effect against the brutal measures employed by the adversaries, in the
 
face of which the intellectual weapons were of their very nature bound
 
to fail. With one violent blow the class which had hitherto governed was
 
now struck down. It trembled with fear and accepted every humiliation
 
imposed on it by the merciless victor.
 
 
 
Over against this class stood the broad masses of manual labourers who
 
were organized in movements with a more or less radically Marxist
 
tendency. These organized masses were firmly determined to break any
 
kind of intellectual resistance by the use of brute force. They had no
 
nationalist tendencies whatsoever and deliberately repudiated the idea
 
of advancing the interests of the nation as such. On the contrary, they
 
promoted the interests of the foreign oppressor. Numerically this class
 
embraced the majority of the population and, what is more important,
 
included all those elements of the nation without whose collaboration a
 
national resurgence was not only a practical impossibility but was even
 
inconceivable.
 
 
 
For already in 1918 one thing had to be clearly recognized; namely, that
 
no resurgence of the German nation could take place until we had first
 
restored our national strength to face the outside world. For this
 
purpose arms are not the preliminary necessity, though our bourgeois
 
'statesmen' always blathered about it being so; what was wanted was
 
will-power. At one time the German people had more than sufficient
 
military armament. And yet they were not able to defend their liberty
 
because they lacked those energies which spring from the instinct of
 
national self-preservation and the will to hold on to one's own. The
 
best armament is only dead and worthless material as long as the spirit
 
is wanting which makes men willing and determined to avail themselves of
 
such weapons. Germany was rendered defenceless not because she lacked
 
arms, but because she lacked the will to keep her arms for the
 
maintenance of her people.
 
 
 
To-day our Left-wing politicians in particular are constantly insisting
 
that their craven-hearted and obsequious foreign policy necessarily
 
results from the disarmament of Germany, whereas the truth is that this
 
is the policy of traitors. To all that kind of talk the answer ought to
 
be: No, the contrary is the truth. Your action in delivering up the arms
 
was dictated by your anti-national and criminal policy of abandoning the
 
interests of the nation. And now you try to make people believe that
 
your miserable whining is fundamentally due to the fact that you have no
 
arms. Just like everything else in your conduct, this is a lie and a
 
falsification of the true reason.
 
 
 
But the politicians of the Right deserve exactly the same reproach. It
 
was through their miserable cowardice that those ruffians of Jews who
 
came into power in 1918 were able to rob the nation of its arms. The
 
conservative politicians have neither right nor reason on their side
 
when they appeal to disarmament as the cause which compelled them to
 
adopt a policy of prudence (that is to 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 a question of
 
how can we manufacture arms but rather a question of how we can produce
 
that spirit which enables a people to bear arms. Once this spirit
 
prevails among a people then it will find a thousand ways, each of which
 
leads to the necessary armament. But a coward will not fire even a
 
single shot when attacked though he may be armed with ten pistols. For
 
him they are of less value than a blackthorn in the hands of a man of
 
courage.
 
 
 
The problem of re-establishing the political power of our nation is
 
first of all a problem of restoring the instinct of national
 
self-preservation for if no other reason than that every preparatory
 
step in foreign policy and every foreign judgment on the worth of a
 
State has been proved by experience to be grounded not on the material
 
size of the armament such a State may possess but rather on the moral
 
capacity for resistance which such a State has or is believed to have.
 
The question whether or not a nation be desirable as an ally is not so
 
much determined by the inert mass of arms which it has at hand but by
 
the obvious presence of a sturdy will to national self-preservation and
 
a heroic courage which will fight through to the last breath. For an
 
alliance is not made between arms but between men.
 
 
 
The British nation will therefore be considered as the most valuable
 
ally in the world as long as it can be counted upon to show that
 
brutality and tenacity in its government, as well as in the spirit of
 
the broad masses, which enables it to carry through to victory any
 
struggle that it once enters upon, no matter how long such a struggle
 
may last, or however great the sacrifice that may be necessary or
 
whatever the means that have to be employed; and all this even though
 
the actual military equipment at hand may be utterly inadequate when
 
compared with that of other nations.
 
 
 
Once it is understood that the restoration of Germany is a question of
 
reawakening the will to political self-preservation we shall see quite
 
clearly that it will not be enough to win over those elements that are
 
already national-minded but that the deliberately anti-national masses
 
must be converted to believe in the national ideals.
 
 
 
A young movement that aims at re-establishing a German State with full
 
sovereign powers will therefore have to make the task of winning over
 
the broad masses a special objective of its plan of campaign. Our
 
so-called 'national bourgeoisie' are so lamentably supine, generally
 
speaking, and their national spirit appears so feckless, that we may
 
feel sure they will offer no serious resistance against a vigorous
 
national foreign--or domestic policy. Even though the narrow-minded
 
German bourgeoisie should keep up a passive resistance when the hour of
 
deliverance is at hand, as they did in Bismarck's time, we shall never
 
have to fear any active resistance on their part, because of their
 
recognized proverbial cowardice.
 
 
 
It is quite different with the masses of our population, who are imbued
 
with ideas of internationalism. Through the primitive roughness of their
 
natures they are disposed to accept the preaching of violence, while at
 
the same time their Jewish leaders are more brutal and ruthless. They
 
will crush any attempt at a German revival, just as they smashed the
 
German Army by striking at it from the rear. Above all, these organized
 
masses will use their numerical majority in this Parliamentarian State
 
not only to hinder any national foreign policy, but also to prevent
 
Germany from restoring her political power and therewith her prestige
 
abroad. Thus she becomes excluded from the ranks of desirable allies.
 
For it is not we ourselves alone who are aware of the handicap that
 
results from the existence of fifteen million Marxists, democrats,
 
pacifists and followers of the Centre, in our midst, but foreign nations
 
also recognize this internal burden which we have to bear and take it
 
into their calculations when estimating the value of a possible alliance
 
with us. Nobody would wish to form an alliance with a State where the
 
active portion of the population is at least passively opposed to any
 
resolute foreign policy.
 
 
 
The situation is made still worse by reason of the fact that the leaders
 
of those parties which were responsible for the national betrayal 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 inconceivable that the German people could
 
resume the place they formerly held without retaliating on those who
 
were both cause and occasion of the collapse that involved the ruin of
 
our State. Before the judgment seat of posterity November 1918 will not
 
be regarded as a simple rebellion but as high treason against the
 
country.
 
 
 
Therefore it is not possible to think of re-establishing German
 
sovereignty and political independence without at the same time
 
reconstructing a united front within the nation, by a peaceful
 
conversion of the popular will.
 
 
 
Looked at from the standpoint of practical ways and means, it seems
 
absurd to think of liberating Germany from foreign bondage as long as
 
the masses of the people are not willing to support such an ideal of
 
freedom. After carefully considering this problem from the purely
 
military point of view, everybody, and in particular every officer, will
 
agree that a war cannot be waged against an outside enemy by battalions
 
of students; but that, together with the brains of the nation, the
 
physical strength of the nation is also necessary. Furthermore it must
 
be remembered that the nation would be robbed of its irreplaceable
 
assets by a national defence in which only the intellectual circles, as
 
they are called, were engaged. The young German intellectuals who joined
 
the volunteer regiments and fell on the battlefields of Flanders in the
 
autumn of 1914 were bitterly missed later on. They were the dearest
 
treasure which the nation possessed and their loss could not be made
 
good in the course of the war. And it is not only the struggle itself
 
which could not be waged if the working masses of the nation did not
 
join the storm battalions, but the necessary technical preparations
 
could not be made without a unified will and a common front within the
 
nation itself. Our nation which has to exist disarmed, under the
 
thousand eyes appointed by the Versailles Peace Treaty, cannot make any
 
technical preparations for the recovery of its freedom and human
 
independence until the whole army of spies employed within the country
 
is cut down to those few whose inborn baseness would lead them to betray
 
anything and everything for the proverbial thirty pieces of silver. But
 
we can deal with such people. The millions, however, who are opposed to
 
every kind of national revival simply because of their political
 
opinions, constitute an insurmountable obstacle. At least the obstacle
 
will remain insurmountable as long as the cause of their opposition,
 
which is international Marxism, is not overcome and its teachings
 
banished from both their hearts and heads.
 
 
 
From whatever point of view we may examine the possibility of recovering
 
our independence as a State and a people, whether we consider the
 
problem from the standpoint of technical rearmament or from that of the
 
actual struggle itself, the necessary pre-requisite always remains the
 
same. This pre-requisite is that the broad masses of the people must
 
first be won over to accept the principle of our national independence.
 
 
 
If we do not regain our external freedom every step forward in domestic
 
reform will at best be an augmentation of our productive powers for the
 
benefit of those nations that look upon us as a colony to be exploited.
 
The surplus produced by any so-called improvement would only go into the
 
hands of our international controllers and any social betterment would
 
at best increase the product of our labour in favour of those people. No
 
cultural progress can be made by the German nation, because such
 
progress is too much bound up with the political independence and
 
dignity of a people.
 
 
 
Therefore, as we can find a satisfactory solution for the problem of
 
Germany's future only by winning over the broad masses of our people for
 
the support of the national idea, this work of education must be
 
considered the highest and most important task to be accomplished by a
 
movement which does not strive merely to satisfy the needs of the moment
 
but considers itself bound to examine in the light of future results
 
everything it decides to do or refrain from doing.
 
 
 
As early as 1919 we were convinced that the nationalization of the
 
masses would have to constitute the first and paramount aim of the new
 
movement. From the tactical standpoint, this decision laid a certain
 
number of obligations on our shoulders.
 
 
 
(1) No social sacrifice could be considered too great in this effort to
 
win over the masses for the national revival.
 
 
 
In the field of national economics, whatever concessions are granted
 
to-day to the employees are negligible when compared with the benefit to
 
be reaped by the whole nation if such concessions contribute to bring
 
back the masses of the people once more to the bosom of their own
 
nation. Nothing but meanness and shortsightedness, which are
 
characteristics that unfortunately are only too prevalent among our
 
employers, could prevent people from recognizing that in the long run no
 
economic improvement and therefore no rise in profits are possible
 
unless internal solidarity be restored among the bulk of the people who
 
make up our nation.
 
 
 
If the German trades unions had defended the interests of the
 
working-classes uncompromisingly during the War; if even during the War
 
they had used the weapon of the strike to force the industrialists--who
 
were greedy for higher dividends--to grant the demands of the workers
 
for whom the unions acted; if at the same time they had stood up as good
 
Germans for the defence of the nation as stoutly as for their own
 
claims, and if they had given to their country what was their country's
 
due--then the War would never have been lost. How ludicrously
 
insignificant would all, and even the greatest, economic concession have
 
been in face of the tremendous importance of such a victory.
 
 
 
For a movement which would restore the German worker to the German
 
people it is therefore absolutely necessary to understand clearly that
 
economic sacrifices must be considered light in such cases, provided of
 
course that they do not go the length of endangering the independence
 
and stability of the national economic system.
 
 
 
(2) The education of the masses along national lines can be carried out
 
only indirectly, by improving their social conditions; for only by such
 
a process can the economic conditions be created which enable everybody
 
to share in the cultural life of the nation.
 
 
 
(3) The nationalization of the broad masses can never be achieved by
 
half-measures--that is to say, by feebly insisting on what is called the
 
objective side of the question--but only by a ruthless and devoted
 
insistence on the one aim which must be achieved. This means that a
 
people cannot be made 'national' according to the signification attached
 
to that word by our bourgeois class to-day--that is to say, nationalism
 
with many reservations--but national in the vehement and extreme sense.
 
Poison can be overcome only by a counter-poison, and only the supine
 
bourgeois mind could think that the Kingdom of Heaven can be attained by
 
a compromise.
 
 
 
The broad masses of a nation are not made up of professors and
 
diplomats. Since these masses have only a poor acquaintance with
 
abstract ideas, their reactions lie more in the domain of the feelings,
 
where the roots of their positive as well as their negative attitudes
 
are implanted. They are susceptible only to a manifestation of strength
 
which comes definitely either from the positive or negative side, but
 
they are never susceptible to any half-hearted attitude that wavers
 
between one pole and the other. The emotional grounds of their attitude
 
furnish the reason for their extraordinary stability. It is always more
 
difficult to fight successfully against Faith than against knowledge.
 
Love is less subject to change than respect. Hatred is more lasting than
 
mere aversion. And the driving force which has brought about the most
 
tremendous revolutions on this earth has never been a body of scientific
 
teaching which has gained power over the masses, but always a devotion
 
which has inspired them, and often a kind of hysteria which has urged
 
them to action.
 
 
 
Whoever wishes to win over the masses must know the key that will open
 
the door to their hearts. It is not objectivity, which is a 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 the
 
movement for that purpose are determined not merely to carry through the
 
positive struggle for their own aims but are also determined to destroy
 
the enemy that opposes them.
 
 
 
When they see an uncompromising onslaught against an adversary the
 
people have at all times taken this as a proof that right is on the side
 
of the active aggressor; but if the aggressor should go only half-way
 
and fail to push home his success by driving his opponent entirely from
 
the scene of action, the people will look upon this as a sign that the
 
aggressor is uncertain of the justice of his own cause and his half-way
 
policy may even be an acknowledgment that his cause is unjust.
 
 
 
The masses are but a part of Nature herself. Their feeling is such that
 
they cannot understand mutual hand-shakings between men who are declared
 
enemies. Their wish is to see the stronger side win and the weaker wiped
 
out or subjected unconditionally to the will of the stronger.
 
 
 
The nationalization of the masses can be successfully achieved only if,
 
in the positive struggle to win the soul of the people, those who spread
 
the international poison among them are exterminated.
 
 
 
(5) All the great problems of our time are problems of the moment and
 
are only the results of certain definite causes. And among all those
 
there is only one that has a profoundly causal significance. This is the
 
problem of preserving the pure racial stock among the people. Human
 
vigour or decline depends on the blood. Nations that are not aware of
 
the importance of their racial stock, or which neglect to preserve it,
 
are like men who would try to educate the pug-dog to do the work of the
 
greyhound, not understanding that neither the speed of the greyhound nor
 
the imitative faculties of the poodle are inborn qualities which cannot
 
be drilled into the one or the other by any form of training. A people
 
that fails to preserve the purity of its racial blood thereby destroys
 
the unity of the soul of the nation in all its manifestations. A
 
disintegrated national character is the inevitable consequence of a
 
process of disintegration in the blood. And the change which takes place
 
in the spiritual and creative faculties of a people is only an effect of
 
the change that has modified its racial substance.
 
 
 
If we are to free the German people from all those failings and ways of
 
acting which do not spring from their original character, we must first
 
get rid of those foreign germs in the national body which are the cause
 
of its failings and false ways.
 
 
 
The German nation will never revive unless the racial problem is taken
 
into account and dealt with. The racial problem furnishes the key not
 
only to the understanding of human history but also to the understanding
 
of every kind of human culture.
 
 
 
(6) By incorporating in the national community the masses of our people
 
who are now in the international camp we do not thereby mean to renounce
 
the principle that the interests of the various trades and professions
 
must be safeguarded. Divergent interests in the various branches of
 
labour and in the trades and professions are not the same as a division
 
between the various classes, but rather a feature inherent in the
 
economic situation. Vocational grouping does not clash in the least with
 
the idea of a national community, for this means national unity in
 
regard to all those problems that affect the life of the nation as such.
 
 
 
To incorporate in the national community, or simply the State, a stratum
 
of the people which has now formed a social class the standing of the
 
higher classes must not be lowered but that of the lower classes must be
 
raised. The class which carries through this process is never the higher
 
class but rather the lower one which is fighting for equality of rights.
 
The bourgeoisie of to-day was not incorporated in the State through
 
measures enacted by the feudal nobility but only through its own energy
 
and a leadership that had sprung from its own ranks.
 
 
 
The German worker cannot be raised from his present standing and
 
incorporated in the German folk-community by means of goody-goody
 
meetings where people talk about the brotherhood of the people, but
 
rather by a systematic improvement in the social and cultural life of
 
the worker until the yawning abyss between him and the other classes can
 
be filled in. A movement which has this for its aim must try to recruit
 
its followers mainly from the ranks of the working class. It must
 
include members of the intellectual classes only in so far as such
 
members have rightly understood and accepted without reserve the ideal
 
towards which the movement is striving. This process of transformation
 
and reunion cannot be completed within ten or twenty years. It will take
 
several generations, as the history of such movements has shown.
 
 
 
The most difficult obstacle to the reunion of our contemporary worker in
 
the national folk-community does not consist so much in the fact that he
 
fights for the interests of his fellow-workers, but rather in the
 
international ideas with which he is imbued and which are of their
 
nature at variance with the ideas of nationhood and fatherland. This
 
hostile attitude to nation and fatherland has been inculcated by the
 
leaders of the working class. If they were inspired by the principle of
 
devotion to the nation in all that concerns its political and social
 
welfare, the trades unions would make those millions of workers most
 
valuable members of the national community, without thereby affecting
 
their own constant struggle for their economic demands.
 
 
 
A movement which sincerely endeavours to bring the German worker back
 
into his folk-community, and rescue him from the folly of
 
internationalism, must wage a vigorous campaign against certain notions
 
that are prevalent among the industrialists. One of these notions is
 
that according to the concept of the folk-community, the employee is
 
obliged to surrender all his economic rights to the employer and,
 
further, that the workers would come into conflict with the
 
folk-community if they should attempt to defend their own just and vital
 
interests. Those who try to propagate such a notion are deliberate
 
liars. The idea of a folk-community does not impose any obligations on
 
the one side that are not imposed on the other.
 
 
 
A worker certainly does something which is contrary to the spirit of
 
folk-community if he acts entirely on his own initiative and puts
 
forward exaggerated demands without taking the common good into
 
consideration or the maintenance of the national economic structure. But
 
an industrialist also acts against the spirit of the folk-community if
 
he adopts inhuman methods of exploitation and misuses the working forces
 
of the nation to make millions unjustly for himself from the sweat of
 
the workers. He has no right to call himself 'national' and no right to
 
talk of a folk-community, for he is only an unscrupulous egoist who sows
 
the seeds of social discontent and provokes a spirit of conflict which
 
sooner or later must be injurious to the interests of the country.
 
 
 
The reservoir from which the young movement has to draw its members will
 
first of all be the working masses. Those masses must be delivered from
 
the clutches of the international mania. Their social distress must be
 
eliminated. They must be raised above their present cultural level,
 
which is deplorable, and transformed into a resolute and valuable factor
 
in the folk-community, inspired by national ideas and national
 
sentiment.
 
 
 
If among those intellectual circles that are nationalist in their
 
outlook men can be found who genuinely love the people and look forward
 
eagerly to the future of Germany, and at the same time have a sound
 
grasp of the importance of a struggle whose aim is to win over the soul
 
of the masses, such men are cordially welcomed in the ranks of our
 
movement, because they can serve as a valuable intellectual force in the
 
work that has to be done. But this movement can never aim at recruiting
 
its membership from the unthinking herd of bourgeois voters. If it did
 
so the movement would be burdened with a mass of people whose whole
 
mentality would only help to paralyse the effort of our campaign to win
 
the mass of the people. In theory it may be very fine to say that the
 
broad masses ought to be influenced by a combined leadership of the
 
upper and lower social strata within the framework of the one movement;
 
but, notwithstanding all this, the fact remains that though it may be
 
possible to exercise a psychological influence on the bourgeois classes
 
and to arouse some enthusiasm or even awaken some understanding among
 
them by our public demonstrations, their traditional characteristics
 
cannot be changed. In other words, we could not eliminate from the
 
bourgeois classes the inefficiency and supineness which are part of a
 
tradition that has developed through centuries. The difference between
 
the cultural levels of the two groups and between their respective
 
attitudes towards social-economic questions is still so great that it
 
would turn out a hindrance to the movement the moment the first
 
enthusiasm aroused by our demonstrations calmed down.
 
 
 
Finally, it is not part of our programme to transform the nationalist
 
camp itself, but rather to win over those who are anti-national in their
 
outlook. It is from this viewpoint that the strategy of the whole
 
movement must finally be decided.
 
 
 
(7) This one-sided but accordingly clear and definite attitude must be
 
manifested in the propaganda of the movement; and, on the other hand,
 
this is absolutely necessary to make the propaganda itself effective.
 
 
 
If propaganda is to be of service to the movement it must be addressed
 
to one side alone; for if it should vary the direction of its appeal it
 
will not be understood in the one camp or may be rejected by the other,
 
as merely insisting on obvious and uninteresting truisms; for the
 
intellectual training of the two camps that come into question here has
 
been very different.
 
 
 
Even the manner in which something is presented and the tone in which
 
particular details are emphasized cannot have the same effect in those
 
two strata that belong respectively to the opposite extremes of the
 
social structure. If the propaganda should refrain from using primitive
 
forms of expression it will not appeal to the sentiments of the masses.
 
If, on the other hand, it conforms to the crude sentiments of the masses
 
in its words and gestures the intellectual circles will be averse to it
 
because of its roughness and vulgarity. Among a hundred men who call
 
themselves orators there are scarcely ten who are capable of speaking
 
with effect before an audience of street-sweepers, locksmiths and
 
navvies, etc., to-day and expound the same subject with equal effect
 
to-morrow before an audience of university professors and students.
 
Among a thousand public speakers there may be only one who can speak
 
before a composite audience of locksmiths and professors in the same
 
hall in such a way that his statements can be fully comprehended by each
 
group while at the same time he effectively influences both and awakens
 
enthusiasm, on the one side as well as on the other, to hearty applause.
 
But it must be remembered that in most cases even the most beautiful
 
idea embodied in a sublime theory can be brought home to the public only
 
through the medium of smaller minds. The thing that matters here is not
 
the vision of the man of genius who created the great idea but rather
 
the success which his apostles achieve in shaping the expression of this
 
idea so as to bring it home to the minds of the masses.
 
 
 
Social-Democracy and the whole Marxist movement were particularly
 
qualified to attract the great masses of the nation, because of the
 
uniformity of the public to which they addressed their appeal. The more
 
limited and narrow their ideas and arguments, the easier it was for the
 
masses to grasp and assimilate them; for those ideas and arguments were
 
well adapted to a low level of intelligence.
 
 
 
These considerations led the new movement to adopt a clear and simple
 
line of policy, which was as follows:
 
 
 
In its message as well as in its forms of expression the propaganda must
 
be kept on a level with the intelligence of the masses, and its value
 
must be measured only by the actual success it achieves.
 
 
 
At a public meeting where the great masses are gathered together the
 
best speaker is not he whose way of approaching a subject is most akin
 
to the spirit of those intellectuals who may happen to be present, but
 
the speaker who knows how to win the hearts of the masses.
 
 
 
An educated man who is present and who finds fault with an address
 
because he considers it to be on an intellectual plane that is too low,
 
though he himself has witnessed its effect on the lower intellectual
 
groups whose adherence has to be won, only shows himself completely
 
incapable of rightly judging the situation and therewith proves that he
 
can be of no use in the new movement. Only intellectuals can be of use
 
to a movement who understand its mission and its aims so well that they
 
have learned to judge our methods of propaganda exclusively by the
 
success obtained and never by the impression which those methods made on
 
the intellectuals themselves. For our propaganda is not meant to serve
 
as an entertainment for those people who already have a nationalist
 
outlook, but its purpose is to win the adhesion of those who have
 
hitherto been hostile to national ideas and who are nevertheless of our
 
own blood and race.
 
 
 
In general, those considerations of which I have given a brief summary
 
in the chapter on 'War Propaganda' became the guiding rules and
 
principles which determined the kind of propaganda we were to adopt in
 
our campaign and the manner in which we were to put it into practice.
 
The success that has been obtained proves that our decision was right.
 
 
 
(8) The ends which any political reform movement sets out to attain can
 
never be reached by trying to educate the public or influence those in
 
power but only by getting political power into its hands. Every idea
 
that is meant to move the world has not only the right but also the
 
obligation of securing control of those means which will enable the idea
 
to be carried into effect. In this world success is the only rule of
 
judgment whereby we can decide whether such an undertaking was right or
 
wrong. And by the word 'success' in this connection I do not mean such a
 
success as the mere conquest of power in 1918 but the successful issue
 
whereby the common interests of the nation have been served. A COUP
 
D'ETAT cannot be considered successful if, as many empty-headed
 
government lawyers in Germany now believe, the revolutionaries succeeded
 
in getting control of the State into their hands but only if, in
 
comparison with the state of affairs under the old regime, the lot of
 
the nation has been improved when the aims and intentions on which the
 
revolution was based have been put into practice. This certainly does
 
not apply to the German Revolution, as that movement was called, which
 
brought a gang of bandits into power in the autumn of 1918.
 
 
 
But if the conquest of political power be a requisite preliminary for
 
the practical realization of the ideals that inspire a reform movement,
 
then any movement which aims at reform must, from the very first day of
 
its activity, be considered by its leaders as a movement of the masses
 
and not as a literary tea club or an association of philistines who meet
 
to play ninepins.
 
 
 
(9) The nature and internal organization of the new movement make it
 
anti-parliamentarian. That is to say, it rejects in general and in its
 
own structure all those principles according to which decisions are to
 
be taken on the vote of the majority and according to which the leader
 
is only the executor of the will and opinion of others. The movement
 
lays down the principle that, in the smallest as well as in the greatest
 
problems, one person must have absolute authority and bear all
 
responsibility.
 
 
 
In our movement the practical consequences of this principle are the
 
following:
 
 
 
The president of a large group is appointed by the head of the group
 
immediately above his in authority. He is then the responsible leader of
 
his group. All the committees are subject to his authority and not he to
 
theirs. There is no such thing as committees that vote but only
 
committees that work. This work is allotted by the responsible leader,
 
who is the president of the group. The same principle applies to the
 
higher organizations--the Bezirk (district), the KREIS (urban circuit)
 
and the GAU (the region). In each case the president is appointed from
 
above and is invested with full authority and executive power. Only the
 
leader of the whole party is elected at the general meeting of the
 
members. But he is the sole leader of the movement. All the committees
 
are responsible to him, but he is not responsible to the committees. His
 
decision is final, but he bears the whole responsibility of it. The
 
members of the movement are entitled to call him to account by means of
 
a new election, or to remove him from office if he has violated the
 
principles of the movement or has not served its interests adequately.
 
He is then replaced by a more capable man. who is invested with the same
 
authority and obliged to bear the same responsibility.
 
 
 
One of the highest duties of the movement is to make this principle
 
imperative not only within its own ranks but also for the whole State.
 
 
 
The man who becomes leader is invested with the highest and unlimited
 
authority, but he also has to bear the last and gravest responsibility.
 
 
 
The man who has not the courage to shoulder responsibility for his
 
actions is not fitted to be a leader. Only a man of heroic mould can
 
have the vocation for such a task.
 
 
 
Human progress and human cultures are not founded by the multitude. They
 
are exclusively the work of personal genius and personal efficiency.
 
 
 
Because of this principle, our movement must necessarily be
 
anti-parliamentarian, and if it takes part in the parliamentary
 
institution it is only for the purpose of destroying this institution
 
from within; in other words, we wish to do away with an institution
 
which we must look upon as one of the gravest symptoms of human decline.
 
 
 
(10) The movement steadfastly refuses to take up any stand in regard to
 
those problems which are either outside of its sphere of political work
 
or seem to have no fundamental importance for us. It does not aim at
 
bringing about a religious reformation, but rather a political
 
reorganization of our people. It looks upon the two religious
 
denominations as equally valuable mainstays for the existence of our
 
people, and therefore it makes war on all those parties which would
 
degrade this foundation, on which the religious and moral stability of
 
our people is based, to an instrument in the service of party interests.
 
 
 
Finally, the movement does not aim at establishing any one form of State
 
or trying to destroy another, but rather to make those fundamental
 
principles prevail without which no republic and no monarchy can exist
 
for any length of time. The movement does not consider its mission to be
 
the establishment of a monarchy or the preservation of the Republic but
 
rather to create a German State.
 
 
 
The problem concerning the outer form of this State, that is to say, its
 
final shape, is not of fundamental importance. It is a problem which
 
must be solved in the light of what seems practical and opportune at the
 
moment.
 
 
 
Once a nation has understood and appreciated the great problems that
 
affect its inner existence, the question of outer formalities will never
 
lead to any internal conflict.
 
 
 
(11) The problem of the inner organization of the movement is not one of
 
principle but of expediency.
 
 
 
The best kind of organization is not that which places a large
 
intermediary apparatus between the leadership of the movement and the
 
individual followers but rather that which works successfully with the
 
smallest possible intermediary apparatus. For it is the task of such an
 
organization to transmit a certain idea which originated in the brain of
 
one individual to a multitude of people and to supervise the manner in
 
which this idea is being put into practice.
 
 
 
Therefore, from any and every viewpoint, the organization is only a
 
necessary evil. At best it is only a means of reaching certain ends. The
 
worst happens when it becomes an end in itself.
 
 
 
Since the world produces more mechanical than intelligent beings, it
 
will always be easier to develop the form of an organization than its
 
substance; that is to say, the ideas which it is meant to serve.
 
 
 
The march of any idea which strives towards practical fulfilment, and in
 
particular those ideas which are of a reformatory character, may be
 
roughly sketched as follows:
 
 
 
A creative idea takes shape in the mind of somebody who thereupon feels
 
himself called upon to transmit this idea to the world. He propounds his
 
faith before others and thereby gradually wins a certain number of
 
followers. This direct and personal way of promulgating one's ideas
 
among one's contemporaries is the most natural and the most ideal. But
 
as the movement develops and secures a large number of followers it
 
gradually becomes impossible for the original founder of the doctrine on
 
which the movement is based to carry on his propaganda personally among
 
his innumerable followers and at the same time guide the course of the
 
movement.
 
 
 
According as the community of followers increases, direct communication
 
between the head and the individual followers becomes impossible. This
 
intercourse must then take place through an intermediary apparatus
 
introduced into the framework of the movement. Thus ideal conditions of
 
inter-communication cease, and organization has to be introduced as a
 
necessary evil. Small subsidiary groups come into existence, as in the
 
political movement, for example, where the local groups represent the
 
germ-cells out of which the organization develops later on.
 
 
 
But such sub-divisions must not be introduced into the movement until
 
the authority of the spiritual founder and of the school he has created
 
are accepted without reservation. Otherwise the movement would run the
 
risk of becoming split up by divergent doctrines. In this connection too
 
much emphasis cannot be laid on the importance of having one geographic
 
centre as the chief seat of the movement. Only the existence of such a
 
seat or centre, around which a magic charm such as that of Mecca or Rome
 
is woven, can supply a movement with that permanent driving force which
 
has its sources in the internal unity of the movement and the
 
recognition of one head as representing this unity.
 
 
 
When the first germinal cells of the organization are being formed care
 
must always be taken to insist on the importance of the place where the
 
idea originated. The creative, moral and practical greatness of the
 
place whence the movement went forth and from which it is governed must
 
be exalted to a supreme symbol, and this must be honoured all the more
 
according as the original cells of the movement become so numerous that
 
they have to be regrouped into larger units in the structure of the
 
organization.
 
 
 
When the number of individual followers became so large that direct
 
personal contact with the head of the movement was out of the question,
 
then we had to form those first local groups. As those groups multiplied
 
to an extraordinary number it was necessary to establish higher cadres
 
into which the local groups were distributed. Examples of such cadres in
 
the political organization are those of the region (GAU) and the
 
district (BEZIRK).
 
 
 
Though it may be easy enough to maintain the original central authority
 
over the lowest groups, it is much more difficult to do so in relation
 
to the higher units of organization which have now developed. And yet we
 
must succeed in doing this, for this is an indispensable condition if
 
the unity of the movement is to be guaranteed and the idea of it carried
 
into effect.
 
 
 
Finally, when those larger intermediary organizations have to be
 
combined in new and still higher units it becomes increasingly difficult
 
to maintain over them the absolute supremacy of the original seat of the
 
movement and the school attached to it.
 
 
 
Consequently the mechanical forms of an organization must only be
 
introduced if and in so far as the spiritual authority and the ideals of
 
the central seat of the organization are shown to be firmly established.
 
In the political sphere it may often happen that this supremacy can be
 
maintained only when the movement has taken over supreme political
 
control of the nation.
 
 
 
Having taken all these considerations into account, the following
 
principles were laid down for the inner structure of the movement:
 
 
 
(a) That at the beginning all activity should be concentrated in one
 
town: namely, Munich. That a band of absolutely reliable followers
 
should be trained and a school founded which would subsequently help to
 
propagate the idea of the movement. That the prestige of the movement,
 
for the sake of its subsequent extension, should first be established
 
here through gaining as many successful and visible results as possible
 
in this one place. To secure name and fame for the movement and its
 
leader it was necessary, not only to give in this one town a striking
 
example to shatter the belief that the Marxist doctrine was invincible
 
but also to show that a counter-doctrine was possible.
 
 
 
(b) That local groups should not be established before the supremacy of
 
the central authority in Munich was definitely established and
 
acknowledged.
 
 
 
(c) That District, Regional, and Provincial groups should be formed only
 
after the need for them has become evident and only after the supremacy
 
of the central authority has been satisfactorily guaranteed.
 
 
 
Further, that the creation of subordinate organisms must depend on
 
whether or not those persons can be found who are qualified to undertake
 
the leadership of them.
 
 
 
Here there were only two solutions:
 
 
 
(a) That the movement should acquire the necessary funds to attract and
 
train intelligent people who would be capable of becoming leaders. The
 
personnel thus obtained could then be systematically employed according
 
as the tactical situation and the necessity for efficiency demanded.
 
 
 
This solution was the easier and the more expedite. But it demanded
 
large financial resources; for this group of leaders could work in the
 
movement only if they could be paid a salary.
 
 
 
(b) Because the movement is not in a position to employ paid officials
 
it must begin by depending on honorary helpers. Naturally this solution
 
is slower and more difficult.
 
 
 
It means that the leaders of the movement have to allow vast territories
 
to lie fallow unless in these respective districts one of the members
 
comes forward who is capable and willing to place himself at the service
 
of the central authority for the purpose of organizing and directing the
 
movement in the region concerned.
 
 
 
It may happen that in extensive regions no such leader can be found, but
 
that at the same time in other regions two or three or even more persons
 
appear whose capabilities are almost on a level. The difficulty which
 
this situation involves is very great and can be overcome only with the
 
passing of the years.
 
 
 
For the establishment of any branch of the organization the decisive
 
condition must always be that a person can be found who is capable of
 
fulfilling the functions of a leader.
 
 
 
Just as the army and all its various units of organization are useless
 
if there are no officers, so any political organization is worthless if
 
it has not the right kind of leaders.
 
 
 
If an inspiring personality who has the gift of leadership cannot be
 
found for the organization and direction of a local group it is better
 
for the movement to refrain from establishing such a group than to run
 
the risk of failure after the group has been founded.
 
 
 
The will to be a leader is not a sufficient qualification for
 
leadership. For the leader must have the other necessary qualities.
 
Among these qualities will-power and energy must be considered as more
 
serviceable than the intellect of a genius. The most valuable
 
association 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, and even
 
intolerance, with which its members fight for their cause. They must
 
feel convinced that their cause alone is just, and they must carry it
 
through to success, as against other similar organizations in the same
 
field.
 
 
 
It is quite erroneous to believe that the strength of a movement must
 
increase if it be combined with other movements of a similar kind. Any
 
expansion resulting from such a combination will of course mean an
 
increase in external development, which superficial observers might
 
consider as also an increase of power; but in reality the movement thus
 
admits outside elements which will subsequently weaken its
 
constitutional vigour.
 
 
 
Though it may be said that one movement is identical in character with
 
another, in reality no such identity exists. If it did exist then
 
practically there would not be two movements but only one. And whatever
 
the difference may be, even if it consist only of the measure in which
 
the capabilities of the one set of leaders differ from those of the
 
other, there it is. It is against the 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 the constitutional vigour and effective strength of
 
the victor.
 
 
 
By amalgamating political organizations that are approximately alike,
 
certain immediate advantages may be gained, but advantages thus gained
 
are bound in the long run to become the cause of internal weaknesses
 
which will make their appearance later on.
 
 
 
A movement can become great only if the unhampered development of 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 right to
 
existence can be developed only as long as it remains true to the
 
principle that struggle is a necessary condition of its progress and
 
that its maximum strength will be reached only as soon as complete
 
victory has been won.
 
 
 
Therefore a movement must not strive to obtain successes that will be
 
only immediate and transitory, but it must show a spirit of
 
uncompromising perseverance in carrying through a long struggle which
 
will secure for it a long period of inner growth.
 
 
 
All those movements which owe their expansion to a so-called combination
 
of similar organisms, which means that their external strength is due to
 
a policy of compromise, are like plants whose growth is forced in a
 
hothouse. They shoot up externally but they lack that inner strength
 
which enables the natural plant to grow into a tree that will withstand
 
the storms of centuries.
 
 
 
The greatness of every powerful organization which embodies a creative
 
idea lies in the spirit of religious devotion and intolerance with which
 
it stands out against all others, because it has an ardent faith in its
 
own right. If an idea is right in itself and, furnished with the
 
fighting weapons I have mentioned, wages war on this earth, then it is
 
invincible and persecution will only add to its internal strength.
 
 
 
The greatness of Christianity did not arise from attempts to make
 
compromises with those philosophical opinions of the ancient world which
 
had some resemblance to its own doctrine, but in the unrelenting and
 
fanatical proclamation and defence of its own teaching.
 
 
 
The apparent advance that a movement makes by associating itself with
 
other movements will be easily reached and surpassed by the steady
 
increase of strength which a doctrine and its organization acquires if
 
it remains independent and fights its own cause alone.
 
 
 
(13) The movement ought to educate its adherents to the principle that
 
struggle must not be considered a necessary evil but as something to be
 
desired in itself. Therefore they must not be afraid of the hostility
 
which their adversaries manifest towards them but they must take it as a
 
necessary condition on which their whole right to existence is based.
 
They must not try to avoid being hated by those who are the enemies of
 
our people and our philosophy of life, but must welcome such hatred.
 
Lies and calumnies are part of the method which the enemy employs to
 
express his chagrin.
 
 
 
The man who is not opposed and vilified and slandered in the Jewish
 
Press is not a staunch German and not a true National Socialist. The
 
best rule whereby the sincerity of his convictions, his character and
 
strength of will, can be measured is the hostility which his name
 
arouses among the mortal enemies of our people.
 
 
 
The followers of the movement, and indeed the whole nation, must be
 
reminded again and again of the fact that, through the medium of his
 
newspapers, the Jew is always spreading falsehood and that if he tells
 
the truth on some occasions it is only for the purpose of masking some
 
greater deceit, which turns the apparent truth into a deliberate
 
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 of honour
 
which can be worn by our comrades. He whom they decry most is nearest to
 
our hearts and he whom they mortally hate is our best friend.
 
 
 
If a comrade of ours opens a Jewish newspaper in the morning and does
 
not find himself vilified there, then he has spent yesterday to no
 
account. For if he had achieved something he would be persecuted,
 
slandered, derided and abused. Those who effectively combat this mortal
 
enemy of our people, who is at the same time the enemy of all Aryan
 
peoples and all culture, can only expect to arouse opposition on the
 
part of this race and become the object of its slanderous attacks.
 
 
 
When these truths become part of the flesh and blood, as it were, of our
 
members, then the movement will be impregnable and invincible.
 
 
 
(14) The movement must use all possible means to cultivate respect for
 
the individual personality. It must never forget that all human values
 
are based on personal values, and that every idea and achievement is the
 
fruit of the creative power of one man. We must never forget that
 
admiration for everything that is great is not only a tribute to one
 
creative personality but that all those who feel such admiration become
 
thereby united under one covenant.
 
 
 
Nothing can take the place of the individual, especially if the
 
individual embodies in himself not the mechanical element but the
 
element of cultural creativeness. No pupil can take the place of the
 
master in completing a great picture which he has left unfinished; and
 
just in the same way no substitute can take the place of the great poet
 
or thinker, or the great statesman or military general. For the source
 
of their power is in the realm of artistic creativeness. It can never be
 
mechanically acquired, because it is an innate product of divine grace.
 
 
 
The greatest revolutions and the greatest achievements of this world,
 
its greatest cultural works and the immortal creations of great
 
statesmen, are inseparably bound up with one name which stands as a
 
symbol for them in each respective case. The failure to pay tribute to
 
one of those great spirits signifies a neglect of that enormous source
 
of power which lies in the remembrance of all great men and women.
 
 
 
The Jew himself knows this best. He, whose great men have always been
 
great only in their efforts to destroy mankind and its civilization,
 
takes good care that they are worshipped as idols. But the Jew tries to
 
degrade the honour in which nations hold their great men and women. He
 
stigmatizes this honour as 'the cult of personality'.
 
 
 
As soon as a nation has so far lost its courage as to submit to this
 
impudent defamation on the part of the Jews it renounces the most
 
important source of its own inner strength. This inner force cannot
 
arise from a policy of pandering to the masses but only from the worship
 
of men of genius, whose lives have uplifted and ennobled the nation
 
itself.
 
 
 
When men's hearts are breaking and their souls are plunged into the
 
depths of despair, their great forebears turn their eyes towards them
 
from the dim shadows of the past--those forebears who knew how to
 
triumph over anxiety and affliction, mental servitude and physical
 
bondage--and extend their eternal hands in a gesture of encouragement to
 
despairing souls. Woe to the nation that is ashamed to clasp those
 
hands.
 
 
 
During the initial phase of our movement our greatest handicap was the
 
fact that none of us were known and our names meant nothing, a fact
 
which then seemed to some of us to make the chances of final success
 
problematical. Our most difficult task then was to make our members
 
firmly believe that there was a tremendous future in store for the
 
movement and to maintain this belief as a living faith; for at that time
 
only six, seven or eight persons came to hear one of our speakers.
 
 
 
Consider that only six or seven poor devils who were entirely unknown
 
came together to found a movement which should succeed in doing what the
 
great mass-parties had failed to do: namely, to reconstruct the German
 
REICH, even in greater power and glory than before. We should have been
 
very pleased if we were attacked or even ridiculed. But the most
 
depressing fact was that nobody paid any attention to us whatever. This
 
utter lack of interest in us caused me great mental pain at that time.
 
 
 
When I entered the circle of those men there was not yet any question of
 
a party or a movement. I have already described the impression which was
 
made on me when I first came into contact with that small organization.
 
Subsequently I had time, and also the occasion, to study the form of
 
this so-called party which at first had made such a woeful impression.
 
The picture was indeed quite depressing and discouraging. There was
 
nothing, absolutely nothing at all. There was only the name of a party.
 
And the committee consisted of all the party members. Somehow or other
 
it seemed just the kind of thing we were about to fight against--a
 
miniature parliament. The voting system was employed. When the great
 
parliament cried until they were hoarse--at least they shouted over
 
problems of importance--here this small circle engaged in interminable
 
discussions as to the form in which they might answer the letters which
 
they were delighted to have received.
 
 
 
Needless to say, the public knew nothing of all this. In Munich nobody
 
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 in one of
 
the cafés, and a debate was arranged for one evening each week. In the
 
beginning all the members of the movement were also members of the
 
committee, therefore the same persons always turned up at both meetings.
 
The first step that had to be taken was to extend the narrow limits of
 
this small circle and get new members, but the principal necessity was
 
to utilize all the means at our command for the purpose of making the
 
movement known.
 
 
 
We chose the following methods: We decided to hold a monthly meeting to
 
which the public would be invited. Some of the invitations were
 
typewritten, and some were written by hand. For the first few meetings
 
we distributed them in the streets and delivered them personally at
 
certain houses. Each one canvassed among his own acquaintances and tried
 
to persuade some of them to attend our meetings. The result was
 
lamentable.
 
 
 
I still remember once how I personally delivered eighty of these
 
invitations and how we waited in the evening for the crowds to come.
 
After waiting in vain for a whole hour the chairman finally had to open
 
the meeting. Again there were only seven people present, the old
 
familiar seven.
 
 
 
We then changed our methods. We had the invitations written with a
 
typewriter in a Munich stationer's shop and then multigraphed them.
 
 
 
The result was that a few more people attended our next meeting. The
 
number increased gradually from eleven to thirteen to seventeen, to
 
twenty-three and finally to thirty-four. We collected some money within
 
our own circle, each poor devil giving a small contribution, and in that
 
way we raised sufficient funds to be able to 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 the Munich
 
HOFBRÄU HAUS KELLER (which must not be confounded with the Munich
 
HOFBRÄU HAUS FESTSAAL) as our meeting-place. It was a small hall and
 
would accommodate scarcely more than 130 people. To me, however, the
 
hall seemed enormous, and we were all trembling lest this tremendous
 
edifice would remain partly empty on the night of the meeting.
 
 
 
At seven o'clock 111 persons were present, and the meeting was opened. A
 
Munich professor delivered the principal address, and I spoke after him.
 
That was my first appearance in the role of public orator. The whole
 
thing seemed a very daring adventure to Herr Harrer, who was then
 
chairman of the party. He was a very decent fellow; but he had an
 
A PRIORI conviction that, although I might have quite a number of good
 
qualities, I certainly did not have a talent for public speaking. Even
 
later he could not be persuaded to change his opinion. But he was
 
mistaken. Twenty minutes 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 deep down in my
 
heart, without being able to put it to the test, was here proved to be
 
true: I could make a good speech. At the end of the thirty minutes it
 
was quite clear that all the people in the little hall had been
 
profoundly impressed. The enthusiasm aroused among them found its first
 
expression in the fact that my appeal to those present brought us
 
donations which amounted to three hundred marks. That was a great relief
 
for us. Our finances were at that time so meagre that we could not
 
afford to have our party prospectus printed, or even leaflets. Now we
 
possessed at least the nucleus of a fund from which we could pay the
 
most urgent and necessary expenses.
 
 
 
But the success of this first larger meeting was also important from
 
another point of view. I had already begun to introduce some young and
 
fresh members into the committee. During the long period of my military
 
service I had come to know a large number of good comrades whom I was
 
now able to persuade to join our party. All of them were energetic and
 
disciplined young men who, through their years of military service, had
 
been imbued with the principle that nothing is impossible and that where
 
there's a will there's a way.
 
 
 
The need for this fresh blood supply became evident to me after a few
 
weeks of collaboration with the new members. Herr Harrer, who was then
 
chairman of the party, was a journalist by profession, and as such he
 
was a man of general knowledge. But as leader of the party he had one
 
very serious handicap: he could not speak to the crowd. Though he did
 
his work conscientiously, it lacked the necessary driving force,
 
probably for the reason that he had no oratorical gifts whatsoever. Herr
 
Drexler, at that time chairman of the Munich local group, was a simple
 
working man. He, too, was not of any great importance as a speaker.
 
Moreover, he was not a soldier. He had never done military service, even
 
during the War. So that this man who was feeble and diffident by nature
 
had missed the only school which knows how to transform diffident and
 
weakly natures into real men. Therefore neither of those two men were of
 
the stuff that would have enabled them to stir up an ardent and
 
indomitable faith in the ultimate triumph of the movement and to brush
 
aside, with obstinate force and if necessary with brutal ruthlessness,
 
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 to speak, agile as a greyhound,
 
tough as leather, and hard as Krupp steel.
 
 
 
At that time I was still a soldier. Physically and mentally I had the
 
polish of six years of service, so that in the beginning this circle
 
must have looked on me as quite a stranger. In common with my army
 
comrades, I had forgotten such phrases as: "That will not go", or "That
 
is not possible", or "We ought not to take such a risk; it is too
 
dangerous".
 
 
 
The whole undertaking was of its very nature dangerous. At that time
 
there were many parts of Germany where it would have been absolutely
 
impossible openly to invite people to a national meeting that dared to
 
make a direct appeal to the masses. Those who attended such meetings
 
were usually dispersed and driven away with broken heads. It certainly
 
did not call for any great qualities to be able to do things in that
 
way. The largest so-called bourgeois mass meetings were accustomed to
 
dissolve, and those in attendance would run away like rabbits when
 
frightened by a dog as soon as a dozen communists appeared on the scene.
 
The Reds used to pay little attention to those bourgeois organizations
 
where only babblers talked. They recognized the inner triviality of such
 
associations much better than the members themselves and therefore felt
 
that they need not be afraid of them. On the contrary, however, they
 
were all the more determined to use every possible means of annihilating
 
once and for all any movement that appeared to them to be a danger to
 
their own interests. The most effective means which they always employed
 
in such cases were terror and brute force.
 
 
 
The Marxist leaders, whose business consisted in deceiving and
 
misleading the public, naturally hated most of all a movement whose
 
declared aim was to win over those masses which hitherto had been
 
exclusively at the service of international Marxism in the Jewish and
 
Stock Exchange parties. The title alone, 'German Labour party',
 
irritated them. It could easily be foreseen that at the first opportune
 
moment we should have to face the opposition of the Marxist despots, who
 
were still intoxicated with their triumph in 1918.
 
 
 
People in the small circles of our own movement at that time showed a
 
certain amount of anxiety at the prospect of such a conflict. They
 
wanted to refrain as much as possible from coming out into the open,
 
because they feared that they might be attacked and beaten. In their
 
minds they saw our first public meetings broken up and feared that the
 
movement might thus be ruined for ever. I found it difficult to defend
 
my own position, which was that the conflict should not be evaded but
 
that it should be faced openly and that we should be armed with those
 
weapons which are the only protection against brute force. Terror cannot
 
be overcome by the weapons of the mind but only by counter-terror. The
 
success of our first public meeting strengthened my own position. The
 
members felt encouraged to arrange for a second meeting, even on a
 
larger scale.
 
 
 
Some time in October 1919 the second larger meeting took place in the
 
EBERLBRÄU KELLER. The theme of our speeches was 'Brest-Litowsk and
 
Versailles'. There were four speakers. I talked for almost an hour, and
 
the success was even more striking than at our first meeting. The number
 
of people who attended had grown to more than 130. An attempt to disturb
 
the proceedings was immediately frustrated by my comrades. The would-be
 
disturbers were thrown down the stairs, bearing imprints of violence on
 
their heads.
 
 
 
A fortnight later another meeting took place in the same hall. The
 
number in attendance had now increased to more than 170, which meant
 
that the room was fairly well filled. I spoke again, and once more the
 
success obtained was greater than at the previous meeting.
 
 
 
Then I proposed that a larger hall should be found. After looking around
 
for some time we discovered one at the other end of the town, in the
 
'Deutschen REICH' in the Dachauer Strasse. The first meeting at this new
 
rendezvous had a smaller attendance than the previous meeting. There
 
were just less than 140 present. The members of the committee began to
 
be discouraged, and those who had always been sceptical were now
 
convinced that this falling-off in the attendance was due to the fact
 
that we were holding the meetings at too short intervals. There were
 
lively discussions, in which I upheld my own opinion that a city with
 
700,000 inhabitants ought to be able not only to stand one meeting every
 
fortnight but ten meetings every week. I held that we should not be
 
discouraged by one comparative setback, that the tactics we had chosen
 
were correct, and that sooner or later success would be ours if we only
 
continued with determined perseverance to push forward on our road. This
 
whole winter of 1919-20 was one continual struggle to strengthen
 
confidence in our ability to carry the movement through to success and
 
to intensify this confidence until it became a burning faith that could
 
move mountains.
 
 
 
Our next meeting in the small hall proved the truth of my contention.
 
Our audience had increased to more than 200. The publicity effect and
 
the financial success were splendid. I immediately urged that a further
 
meeting should be held. It took place in less than a fortnight, and
 
there were more than 270 people present. Two weeks later we invited our
 
followers and their friends, for the seventh time, to attend our
 
meeting. The same hall was scarcely large enough for the number that
 
came. They amounted to more than four hundred.
 
 
 
During this phase the young movement developed its inner form. Sometimes
 
we had more or less hefty discussions within our small circle. From
 
various sides--it was then just the same as it is to-day--objections
 
were made against the idea of calling the young movement a party. I have
 
always considered such criticism as a demonstration of practical
 
incapability and narrow-mindedness on the part of the critic. Those
 
objections have always been raised by men who could not differentiate
 
between external appearances and inner strength, but tried to judge the
 
movement by the high-sounding character of the name attached to it. To
 
this end they ransacked the vocabulary of our ancestors, with
 
unfortunate results.
 
 
 
At that time it was very difficult to make the people understand that
 
every movement is a party as long as it has not brought its ideals to
 
final triumph and thus achieved its purpose. It is a party even if it
 
give itself a thousand difterent names.
 
 
 
Any person who tries to carry into practice an original idea whose
 
realization would be for the benefit of his fellow men will first have
 
to look for disciples who are ready to fight for the ends he has in
 
view. And if these ends did not go beyond the destruction of the party
 
system and therewith put a stop to the process of disintegration, then
 
all those who come forward as protagonists and apostles of such an ideal
 
are a party in themselves as long as their final goal is reached. It is
 
only hair-splitting and playing with words when these antiquated
 
theorists, whose practical success is in reverse ratio to their wisdom,
 
presume to think they can change the character of a movement which is at
 
the same time a party, by merely changing its name.
 
 
 
On the contrary, it is entirely out of harmony with the spirit of the
 
nation to keep harping on that far-off and forgotten nomenclature which
 
belongs to the ancient Germanic times and does not awaken any distinct
 
association in our age. This habit of borrowing words from the dead past
 
tends to mislead the people into thinking that the external trappings of
 
its vocabulary are the important 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 followers repeatedly
 
against these wandering scholars who were peddling Germanic folk-lore
 
and who never accomplished anything positive or practical, except to
 
cultivate their own superabundant self-conceit. The new movement must
 
guard itself against an influx of people whose only recommendation is
 
their own statement that they have been fighting for these very same
 
ideals during the last thirty or forty years.
 
 
 
Now if somebody has fought for forty years to carry into effect what he
 
calls an idea, and if these alleged efforts not only show no positive
 
results but have not even been able to hinder the success of the
 
opposing party, then the story of those forty years of futile effort
 
furnishes sufficient proof for the incompetence of such a protagonist.
 
People of that kind are specially dangerous because they do not want to
 
participate in the movement as ordinary members. They talk rather of the
 
leading positions which would be the only fitting posts for them, in
 
view of their past work and also 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 into the hands of such people. A business man who has been
 
in charge of a great firm for forty years and who has completely ruined
 
it through his mismanagement is not the kind of person one would
 
recommend for the founding of a new firm. And it is just the same with a
 
new national movement. Nobody of common sense would appoint to a leading
 
post in such a movement some Teutonic Methuselah who had been
 
ineffectively preaching some idea for a period of forty years, until
 
himself and his idea had entered the stage of senile decay.
 
 
 
Furthermore, only a very small percentage of such people join a new
 
movement with the intention of serving its end unselfishly and helping
 
in the spread of its principles. In most cases they come because they
 
think that, under the aegis of the new movement, it will be possible for
 
them to promulgate their old ideas to the misfortune of their new
 
listeners. Anyhow, nobody ever seems able to describe what exactly these
 
ideas are.
 
 
 
It is typical of such persons that they rant about ancient Teutonic
 
heroes of the dim and distant ages, stone axes, battle spears and
 
shields, whereas in reality they themselves are the woefullest poltroons
 
imaginable. For those very same people who brandish Teutonic tin swords
 
that have been fashioned carefully according to ancient models and wear
 
padded bear-skins, with the horns of oxen mounted over their bearded
 
faces, proclaim that all contemporary conflicts must be decided by the
 
weapons of the mind alone. And thus they skedaddle when the first
 
communist cudgel appears. Posterity will have little occasion to write a
 
new epic on these heroic gladiators.
 
 
 
I have seen too much of that kind of people not to feel a profound
 
contempt for their miserable play-acting. To the masses of the nation
 
they are just an object of ridicule; but the Jew finds it to his own
 
interest to treat these folk-lore comedians with respect and to prefer
 
them to real men who are fighting to establish a German State. And yet
 
these comedians are extremely proud of themselves. Notwithstanding their
 
complete fecklessness, which is an established fact, they pretend to
 
know everything better than other people; so much so that they make
 
themselves a veritable nuisance to all sincere and honest patriots, to
 
whom not only the heroism of the past is worthy of honour but who also
 
feel bound to leave examples of their own work for the inspiration of
 
the coming generation.
 
 
 
Among those people there were some whose conduct can be explained by
 
their innate stupidity and incompetence; but there are others who have a
 
definite ulterior purpose in view. Often it is difficult to distinguish
 
between the two classes. The impression which I often get, especially of
 
those so-called religious reformers whose creed is grounded on ancient
 
Germanic customs, is that they are the missionaries and protégés of
 
those forces which do not wish to see a national revival taking place in
 
Germany. All their activities tend to turn the attention of the people
 
away from the necessity of fighting together in a common cause against
 
the common enemy, namely the Jew. Moreover, that kind of preaching
 
induces the people to use up their energies, not in fighting for the
 
common cause, but in absurd and ruinous religious controversies within
 
their own ranks. There are definite grounds that make it absolutely
 
necessary for the movement to be dominated by a strong central force
 
which is embodied in the authoritative leadership. In this way alone is
 
it possible to counteract the activity of such fatal elements. And that
 
is just the reason why these folk-lore Ahasueruses are vigorously
 
hostile to any movement whose members are firmly united under one leader
 
and one discipline. Those people of whom I have spoken hate such a
 
movement because it is capable of putting a stop to their mischief.
 
 
 
It was not without good reason that when we laid down a clearly defined
 
programme for the new movement we excluded the word VÖLKISCH from it.
 
The concept underlying the term VÖLKISCH cannot serve as the basis of a
 
movement, because it is too indefinite and general in its application.
 
Therefore, if somebody called himself VÖLKISCH such a designation could
 
not be taken as the hall-mark of some definite, party affiliation.
 
 
 
Because this concept is so indefinite from the practical viewpoint, it
 
gives rise to various interpretations and thus people can appeal to it
 
all the more easily as a sort of personal recommendation. Whenever such
 
a vague concept, which is subject to so many interpretations, is
 
admitted into a political movement it tends to break up the disciplined
 
solidarity of the fighting forces. No such solidarity can be maintained
 
if each individual member be allowed to define for himself what he
 
believes and what he is willing to do.
 
 
 
One feels it a disgrace when one notices the kind of people who float
 
about nowadays with the VÖLKISCH symbol stuck in their buttonholes, and
 
at the same time to notice how many people have various ideas of their
 
own as to the significance of that symbol. A well-known professor in
 
Bavaria, a famous combatant who fights only with the weapons of the mind
 
and who boasts of having marched against Berlin--by shouldering the
 
weapons of the mind, of course--believes that the word VÖLKISCH is
 
synonymous with 'monarchical'. But this learned authority has hitherto
 
neglected to explain how our German monarchs of the past can be
 
identified with what we generally mean by the word VÖLKISCH to-day. I am
 
afraid he will find himself at a loss if he is asked to give a precise
 
answer. For it would be very difficult indeed to imagine anything less
 
VÖLKISCH than most of those German monarchical States were. Had they
 
been otherwise they would not have disappeared; or if they were
 
VÖLKISCH, then the fact of their downfall may be taken as evidence that
 
the VÖLKISCH outlook on the world (WELTANSCHAUUNG) is a false outlook.
 
 
 
Everybody interprets this concept in his own way. But such multifarious
 
opinions cannot be adopted as the basis of a militant political
 
movement. I need not call attention to the absolute lack of worldly
 
wisdom, and especially the failure to understand the soul of the nation,
 
which is displayed by these Messianic Precursors of the Twentieth
 
Century. Sufficient attention has been called to those people by the
 
ridicule which the left-wing parties have bestowed on them. They allow
 
them to babble on and sneer at them.
 
 
 
I do not set much value on the friendship of people who do not succeed
 
in getting disliked by their enemies. Therefore, we considered the
 
friendship of such people as not only worthless but even dangerous to
 
our young movement. That was the principal reason why we first called
 
ourselves a PARTY. We hoped that by giving ourselves such a name we
 
might scare away a whole host of VÖLKISCH dreamers. And that was the
 
reason also why we named our Party, THE NATIONAL SOCIALIST GERMAN LABOUR
 
PARTY.
 
 
 
The first term, Party, kept away all those dreamers who live in the past
 
and all the lovers of bombastic nomenclature, as well as those who went
 
around beating the big drum for the VÖLKISCH idea. The full name of the
 
Party kept away all those heroes whose weapon is the sword of the spirit
 
and all those whining poltroons who take refuge behind their so-called
 
'intelligence' as if it were a kind of shield.
 
 
 
It was only to be expected that this latter class would launch a massed
 
attack against us after our movement had started; but, of course, it was
 
only a pen-and-ink attack, for the goose-quill is the only weapon which
 
these VÖLKISCH lancers wield. We had declared one of our principles
 
thus: "We shall meet violence with violence in our own defence".
 
Naturally that principle disturbed the equanimity of the knights of the
 
pen. They reproached us bitterly not only for what they called our crude
 
worship of the cudgel but also because, according to them, we had no
 
intellectual forces on our side. These charlatans did not think for a
 
moment that a Demosthenes could be reduced to silence at a mass-meeting
 
by fifty idiots who had come there to shout him down and use their fists
 
against his supporters. The innate cowardice of the pen-and-ink
 
charlatan prevents him from exposing himself to such a danger, for he
 
always works in safe retirement and never dares to make a noise or come
 
forward in public.
 
 
 
Even to-day I must warn the members of our young movement in the
 
strongest possible terms to guard against the danger of falling into the
 
snare of those who call themselves 'silent workers'. These 'silent
 
workers' are not only a whitelivered lot but are also, and always will
 
be, ignorant do-nothings. A man who is aware of certain happenings and
 
knows that a certain danger threatens, and at the same 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 open and publicly fight for the
 
destruction of the evil and the acceptance of his own remedy. If he does
 
not do so, then he is neglecting his duty and shows that he is weak in
 
character and that he fails to act either because of his timidity, or
 
indolence or incompetence. Most of these 'silent workers' generally
 
pretend to know God knows what. Not one of them is capable of any real
 
achievement, but they keep on trying to fool the world with their
 
antics. Though quite indolent, they try to create the impression that
 
their 'silent work' keeps them very busy. To put it briefly, they are
 
sheer swindlers, political jobbers who feel chagrined by the honest work
 
which others are doing. When you find one of these VÖLKISCH moths
 
buzzing over the value of his 'silent work' you may be sure that you are
 
dealing with a fellow who does no productive work at all but steals from
 
others the fruits of their honest labour.
 
 
 
In addition to all this one ought to note the arrogance and conceited
 
impudence with which these obscurantist idlers try to tear to pieces the
 
work of other people, criticizing it with an air of superiority, and
 
thus playing into the hands of the mortal enemy of our people.
 
 
 
Even the simplest follower who has the courage to stand on the table in
 
some beer-hall where his enemies are gathered, and manfully and openly
 
defend his position against them, achieves a thousand times more than
 
these slinking hypocrites. He at least will convert one or two people to
 
believe in the movement. One can examine his work and test its
 
effectiveness by its actual results. But those knavish swindlers--who
 
praise their own 'silent work' and shelter themselves under the cloak of
 
anonymity, are just worthless drones, in the truest sense of the term,
 
and are utterly useless for the purpose of our national reconstruction.
 
 
 
In the beginning of 1920 I put forward the idea of holding our first
 
mass meeting. On this proposal there were differences of opinion amongst
 
us. Some leading members of our party thought that the time was not ripe
 
for such a meeting and that the result might be detrimental. The Press
 
of the Left had begun to take notice of us and we were lucky enough in
 
being able gradually to arouse their wrath. We had begun to appear at
 
other meetings and to ask questions or contradict the speakers, with the
 
natural result that we were shouted down forthwith. But still we thereby
 
gained some of our ends. People began to know of our existence and the
 
better they understood us, the stronger became their aversion and their
 
enmity. Therefore we might expect that a large contingent of our friends
 
from 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 secure the future of the
 
movement by fighting our way forward in a spirit of blind faith and
 
ruthless determination. I was well acquainted with the mentality of all
 
those who belonged to the Red Camp, and I knew quite well that if we
 
opposed them tooth and nail not only would we make an impression on them
 
but that we even might win new followers for ourselves. Therefore I felt
 
that we must decide on a policy of active opposition.
 
 
 
Herr Harrer was then chairman of our party. He did not see eye to eye
 
with me as to the opportune time for our first mass meeting. Accordingly
 
he felt himself obliged to resign from the leadership of the movement,
 
as an upright and honest man. Herr Anton Drexler took his place. I kept
 
the work of organizing the propaganda in my own hands and I listened to
 
no compromise in carrying it out.
 
 
 
We decided on February 24th 1920 as the date for the first great popular
 
meeting to be held under the aegis of this movement which was hitherto
 
unknown.
 
 
 
I made all the preparatory arrangements personally. They did not take
 
very long. The whole apparatus of our organization was set in motion for
 
the purpose of being able to secure a rapid decision as to our policy.
 
Within twenty-four hours we had to decide on the attitude we should take
 
in regard to the questions of the day which would be put forward at the
 
mass meeting. The notices which advertised the meeting had to bring
 
these points before the public. In this direction we were forced to
 
depend on the use of posters and leaflets, the contents of which and the
 
manner in which they were displayed were decided upon in accordance with
 
the principles which I have already laid down in dealing with propaganda
 
in general. They were produced in a form which would appeal to the
 
crowd. They concentrated on a few points which were repeated again and
 
again. The text was concise and definite, an absolutely dogmatic form of
 
expression being used. We distributed these posters and leaflets with a
 
dogged energy and then we patiently waited for the effect they would
 
produce.
 
 
 
For our principal colour we chose red, as it has an exciting effect on
 
the eye and was therefore calculated to arouse the attention of our
 
opponents and irritate them. Thus they would have to take notice of
 
us--whether they liked it or not--and would not forget us.
 
 
 
One result of our tactics was to show up clearly the close political
 
fraternization that existed also here in Bavaria between the Marxists
 
and the Centre Party. The political party that held power in Bavaria,
 
which was the Bavarian People's Party (affiliated with the Centre Party)
 
did its best to counteract the effect which our placards were having on
 
the 'Red' masses. Thus they made a definite step to fetter our
 
activities. If the police could find no other grounds for prohibiting
 
our placards, then they might claim that we were disturbing the traffic
 
in the streets. And thus the so-called German National People's Party
 
calmed the anxieties of their 'Red' allies by completely prohibiting
 
those placards which proclaimed a message that was bringing back to the
 
bosom of their own people hundreds of thousands of workers who had been
 
misled by international agitators and incensed against their own nation.
 
These placards bear witness to the bitterness of the struggle in which
 
the young movement was then engaged. Future generations will find in
 
these placards a documentary proof of our determination and the justice
 
of our own cause. And these placards will also prove how the so-called
 
national officials took arbitrary action to strangle a movement that did
 
not please them, because it was nationalizing the broad masses of the
 
people and winning them back to their own racial stock.
 
 
 
These placards will also help to refute the theory that there was then a
 
national government in Bavaria and they will afford documentary
 
confirmation of the fact that if Bavaria remained nationally-minded
 
during the years 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922 and 1923, this was not due to a
 
national government but it was because the national spirit gradually
 
gained a deeper hold on the people and the Government was forced to
 
follow public feeling. The Government authorities themselves did
 
everything in their power to hamper this process of recovery and make it
 
impossible. But in this connection two officials must be mentioned as
 
outstanding exceptions.
 
 
 
Ernst Pöhner was Chief of Police at the time. He had a loyal counsellor
 
in Dr. Frick, who was his chief executive official. These were the only
 
men among the higher officials who had the courage to place the
 
interests of their country before their own interests in holding on to
 
their jobs. Of those in responsible positions Ernst Pöhner was the only
 
one who did not pay court to the mob but felt that his duty was towards
 
the nation as such and was ready to risk and sacrifice everything, even
 
his personal livelihood, to help in the restoration of the German
 
people, whom he dearly loved. For that reason he was a bitter thorn in
 
the side of the venal group of Government officials. It was not the
 
interests of the nation or the necessity of a national revival that
 
inspired or directed their conduct. They simply truckled to the wishes
 
of the Government, so as to secure their daily bread for themselves, but
 
they had no thought whatsoever for the national welfare that had been
 
entrusted to their care.
 
 
 
Above all, Pöhner was one of those people who, in contradistinction to
 
the majority of our so-called defenders of the authority of the State,
 
did not fear to incur the enmity of the traitors to the country and the
 
nation but rather courted it as a mark of honour and honesty. For such
 
men the hatred of the Jews and Marxists and the lies and calumnies they
 
spread, were their only source of happiness in the midst of the national
 
misery. Pöhner was a man of granite loyalty. He was like one of the
 
ascetic characters of the classical era and was at the same time that
 
kind of straightforward German for whom the saying 'Better dead than a
 
slave' is not an empty phrase but a veritable heart's cry.
 
 
 
In my opinion he and his collaborator, Dr. Frick, are the only men
 
holding positions then in Bavaria who have the right to be considered as
 
having taken active part in the creation of a national Bavaria.
 
 
 
Before holding our first great mass meeting it was necessary not only to
 
have our propaganda material ready but also to have the main items of
 
our programme printed.
 
 
 
In the second volume of this book I shall give a detailed account of the
 
guiding principles which we then followed in drawing up our programme.
 
Here I will only say that the programme was arranged not merely to set
 
forth the form and content of the young movement but also with an eye to
 
making it understood among the broad masses. The so-called intellectual
 
circles made jokes and sneered at it and then tried to criticize it. But
 
the effect of our programme proved that the ideas which we then held
 
were right.
 
 
 
During those years I saw dozens of new movements arise and disappear
 
without leaving a trace behind. Only one movement has survived. It is
 
the National Socialist German Labour Party. To-day I am more convinced
 
than ever before that, though they may combat us and try to paralyse our
 
movement, and though pettifogging party ministers may forbid us the
 
right of free speech, they cannot prevent the triumph of our ideas. When
 
the present system of statal administration and even the names of the
 
political parties that represent it will be forgotten, the programmatic
 
basis of the National Socialist movement will supply the groundwork on
 
which the future State will be built.
 
 
 
The meetings which we held before January 1920 had enabled us to collect
 
the financial means that were necessary to have our first pamphlets and
 
posters and programmes printed.
 
 
 
I shall bring the first part of this book to a close by referring to our
 
first great mass meeting, because that meeting marked the occasion on
 
which our framework as a small party had to be broken up and we started
 
to become the most powerful factor of this epoch in the influence we
 
exercised on public opinion. At that time my chief anxiety was that we
 
might not fill the hall and that we might have to face empty benches. I
 
myself was firmly convinced that if only the people would come this day
 
would turn out a great success for the young movement. That was my
 
feeling as I waited impatiently for the hour to come.
 
 
 
It had been announced that the meeting would begin at 7.30. A
 
quarter-of-an-hour before the opening time I walked through the chief
 
hall of the Hofbräuhaus on the PLATZ in Munich and my heart was nearly
 
bursting with joy. The great hall--for at that time it seemed very big
 
to me--was filled to overflowing. Nearly 2,000 people were present. And,
 
above all, those people had come whom we had always wished to reach.
 
More than half the audience consisted of persons who seemed to be
 
communists or independents. Our first great demonstration was destined,
 
in their view, to come to an abrupt end.
 
 
 
But things happened otherwise. When the first speaker had finished I got
 
up to speak. After a few minutes I was met with a hailstorm of
 
interruptions and violent encounters broke out in the body of the hall.
 
A handful of my loyal war comrades and some other followers grappled
 
with the disturbers and restored order in a little while. I was able to
 
continue my speech. After half an hour the 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 laid them, point after point, before the masses
 
gathered there and asked them to pass their own judgment on each point,
 
one point after another was accepted with increasing enthusiasm. When
 
the last point was reached I had before me a hall full of people united
 
by a new conviction, a new faith and a new will.
 
 
 
Nearly four hours had passed when the hall began to clear. As the masses
 
streamed towards the exits, crammed shoulder to shoulder, shoving and
 
pushing, I knew that a movement was now set afoot among the German
 
people which would never pass into oblivion.
 
 
 
A fire was enkindled from whose glowing heat the sword would be
 
fashioned which would restore freedom to the German Siegfried and bring
 
back life to the German nation.
 
 
 
Beside the revival which I then foresaw, I also felt that the Goddess of
 
Vengeance was now getting ready to redress the treason of the 9th of
 
November, 1918. The hall was emptied. The movement was on the march.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
VOLUME II: THE NATIONAL SOCIALIST MOVEMENT
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER I
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WELTANSCHAUUNG AND PARTY
 
 
 
 
 
On February 24th, 1920, the first great mass meeting under the auspices
 
of the new movement took place. In the Banquet Hall of the Hofbräuhaus
 
in Munich the twenty-five theses which constituted the programme of our
 
new party were expounded to an audience of nearly two thousand people
 
and each thesis was enthusiastically received.
 
 
 
Thus we brought to the knowledge of the public those first principles
 
and lines of action along which the new struggle was to be conducted for
 
the abolition of a confused mass of obsolete ideas and opinions which
 
had obscure and often pernicious tendencies. A new force was to make its
 
appearance among the timid and feckless bourgeoisie. This force was
 
destined to impede the triumphant advance of the Marxists and bring the
 
Chariot of Fate to a standstill just as it seemed about to reach its
 
goal.
 
 
 
It was evident that this new movement could gain the public significance
 
and support which are necessary pre-requisites in such a gigantic
 
struggle only if it succeeded from the very outset in awakening a
 
sacrosanct conviction in the hearts of its followers, that here it was
 
not a case of introducing a new electoral slogan into the political
 
field but that an entirely new WELTANSCHAUUNG, which was of a radical
 
significance, had to be promoted.
 
 
 
One must try to recall the miserable jumble of opinions that used to be
 
arrayed side by side to form the usual Party Programme, as it was
 
called, and one must remember how these opinions used to be brushed up
 
or dressed in a new form from time to time. If we would properly
 
understand these programmatic monstrosities we must carefully
 
investigate the motives which inspired the average bourgeois 'programme
 
committee'.
 
 
 
Those people are always influenced by one and the same preoccupation
 
when they introduce something new into their programme or modify
 
something already contained in it. That preoccupation is directed
 
towards the results of the next election. The moment these artists in
 
parliamentary government have the first glimmering of a suspicion that
 
their darling public may be ready to kick up its heels and escape from
 
the harness of the old party wagon they begin to paint the shafts with
 
new colours. On such occasions the party astrologists and horoscope
 
readers, the so-called 'experienced men' and 'experts', come forward.
 
For the most part they are old parliamentary hands whose political
 
schooling has furnished them with ample experience. They can remember
 
former occasions when the masses showed signs of losing patience and
 
they now diagnose the menace of a similar situation arising. Resorting
 
to their old prescription, they form a 'committee'. They go around among
 
the darling public and listen to what is being said. They dip their
 
noses into the newspapers and gradually begin to scent what it is that
 
their darlings, the broad masses, are wishing for, what they reject and
 
what they are hoping for. The groups that belong to each trade or
 
business, and even office employees, are carefully studied and their
 
innermost desires are investigated. The 'malicious slogans' of the
 
opposition from which danger is threatened are now suddenly looked upon
 
as worthy of reconsideration, and it often happens that these slogans,
 
to the great astonishment of those who originally coined and circulated
 
them, now appear to be quite harmless and indeed are to be found among
 
the dogmas of the old parties.
 
 
 
So the committees meet to revise the old programme and draw up a new
 
one.
 
 
 
For these people change their convictions just as the soldier changes
 
his shirt in war--when the old one is bug-eaten. In the new programme
 
everyone gets everything he wants. The farmer is assured that the
 
interests of agriculture will be safeguarded. The industrialist is
 
assured of protection for his products. The consumer is assured that his
 
interests will be protected in the market prices. Teachers are given
 
higher salaries and civil servants will have better pensions. Widows and
 
orphans will receive generous assistance from the State. Trade will be
 
promoted. The tariff will be lowered and even the taxes, though they
 
cannot be entirely abolished, will be almost abolished. It sometimes
 
happens that one section of the public is forgotten or that one of the
 
demands mooted among the public has not reached the ears of the party.
 
This is also hurriedly patched on to the whole, should there be any
 
space available for it: until finally it is felt that there are good
 
grounds for hoping that the whole normal host of philistines, including
 
their wives, will have their anxieties laid to rest and will beam with
 
satisfaction once again. And so, internally armed with faith in the
 
goodness of God and the impenetrable stupidity of the electorate, the
 
struggle for what is called 'the reconstruction of the REICH' can now
 
begin.
 
 
 
When the election day is over and the parliamentarians have held their
 
last public meeting for the next five years, when they can leave their
 
job of getting the populace to toe the line and can now devote
 
themselves to higher and more pleasing tasks--then the programme
 
committee is dissolved and the struggle for the progressive
 
reorganization of public affairs becomes once again a business of
 
earning one's daily bread, which for the parliamentarians means merely
 
the attendance that is required in order to be able to draw their daily
 
remunerations. Morning after morning the honourable deputy wends his way
 
to the House, and though he may not enter the Chamber itself he gets at
 
least as far as the front hall, where he will find the register on which
 
the names of the deputies in attendance have to be inscribed. As a part
 
of his onerous service to his constituents he enters his name, and in
 
return receives a small indemnity as a well-earned reward for his
 
unceasing and exhausting labours.
 
 
 
When four years have passed, or in the meantime if there should be some
 
critical weeks during which the parliamentary corporations have to face
 
the danger of being dissolved, these honourable gentlemen become
 
suddenly seized by an irresistible desire to act. Just as the grub-worm
 
cannot help growing into a cock-chafer, these parliamentarian worms
 
leave the great House of Puppets and flutter on new wings out among the
 
beloved public. They address the electors once again, give an account of
 
the enormous labours they have accomplished and emphasize the malicious
 
obstinacy of their opponents. They do not always meet with grateful
 
applause; for occasionally the unintelligent masses throw rude and
 
unfriendly remarks in their faces. When this spirit of public
 
ingratitude reaches a certain pitch there is only one way of saving the
 
situation. The prestige of the party must be burnished up again. The
 
programme has to be amended. The committee is called into existence once
 
again. And the swindle begins anew. Once we understand the impenetrable
 
stupidity of our public we cannot be surprised that such tactics turn
 
out successful. Led by the Press and blinded once again by the alluring
 
appearance of the new programme, the bourgeois as well as the
 
proletarian herds of voters faithfully return to the common stall and
 
re-elect their old deceivers. The 'people's man' and labour candidate
 
now change back again into the parliamentarian grub and become fat and
 
rotund as they batten on the leaves that grow on the tree of public
 
life--to be retransformed into the glittering butterfly after another
 
four years have passed.
 
 
 
Scarcely anything else can be so depressing as to watch this process in
 
sober reality and to be the eyewitness of this repeatedly recurring
 
fraud. On a spiritual training ground of that kind it is not possible
 
for the bourgeois forces to develop the strength which is necessary to
 
carry on the fight against the organized might of Marxism. Indeed they
 
have never seriously thought of doing so. Though these parliamentary
 
quacks who represent the white race are generally recognized as persons
 
of quite inferior mental capacity, they are shrewd enough to know that
 
they could not seriously entertain the hope of being able to use the
 
weapon of Western Democracy to fight a doctrine for the advance of which
 
Western Democracy, with all its accessories, is employed as a means to
 
an end. Democracy is exploited by the Marxists for the purpose of
 
paralysing their opponents and gaining for themselves a free hand to put
 
their own methods into action. When certain groups of Marxists use all
 
their ingenuity for the time being to make it be believed that they are
 
inseparably attached to the principles of democracy, it may be well to
 
recall the fact that when critical occasions arose these same gentlemen
 
snapped their fingers at the principle of decision by majority vote, as
 
that principle is understood by Western Democracy. Such was the case in
 
those days when the bourgeois parliamentarians, in their monumental
 
shortsightedness, believed that the security of the REICH was guaranteed
 
because it had an overwhelming numerical majority in its favour, and the
 
Marxists did not hesitate suddenly to grasp supreme power in their own
 
hands, backed by a mob of loafers, deserters, political place-hunters
 
and Jewish dilettanti. That was a blow in the face for that democracy in
 
which so many parliamentarians believed. Only those credulous
 
parliamentary wizards who represented bourgeois democracy could have
 
believed that the brutal determination of those whose interest it is to
 
spread the Marxist world-pest, of which they are the carriers, could for
 
a moment, now or in the future, be held in check by the magical formulas
 
of Western Parliamentarianism. Marxism will march shoulder to shoulder
 
with democracy until it succeeds indirectly in securing for its own
 
criminal purposes even the support of those whose minds are nationally
 
orientated and whom Marxism strives to exterminate. But if the Marxists
 
should one day come to believe that there was a danger that from this
 
witch's cauldron of our parliamentary democracy a majority vote might be
 
concocted, which by reason of its numerical majority would be empowered
 
to enact legislation and might use that power seriously to combat
 
Marxism, then the whole parliamentarian hocus-pocus would be at an end.
 
Instead of appealing to the democratic conscience, the standard bearers
 
of the Red International would immediately send forth a furious
 
rallying-cry among the proletarian masses and the ensuing fight would
 
not take place in the sedate atmosphere of Parliament but in the
 
factories and the streets. Then democracy would be annihilated
 
forthwith. And what the intellectual prowess of the apostles who
 
represented the people in Parliament had failed to accomplish would now
 
be successfully carried out by the crow-bar and the sledge-hammer of the
 
exasperated proletarian masses--just as in the autumn of 1918. At a blow
 
they would awaken the bourgeois world to see the madness of thinking
 
that the Jewish drive towards world-conquest can be effectually opposed
 
by means of Western Democracy.
 
 
 
As I have said, only a very credulous soul could think of binding
 
himself to observe the rules of the game when he has to face a player
 
for whom those rules are nothing but a mere bluff or a means of serving
 
his own interests, which means he will discard them when they prove no
 
longer useful for his purpose.
 
 
 
All the parties that profess so-called bourgeois principles look upon
 
political life as in reality a struggle for seats in Parliament. The
 
moment their principles and convictions are of no further use in that
 
struggle they are thrown overboard, as if they were sand ballast. And
 
the programmes are constructed in such a way that they can be dealt with
 
in like manner. But such practice has a correspondingly weakening effect
 
on the strength of those parties. They lack the great magnetic force
 
which alone attracts the broad masses; for these masses always respond
 
to the compelling force which emanates from absolute faith in the ideas
 
put forward, combined with an indomitable zest to fight for and defend
 
them.
 
 
 
At a time in which the one side, armed with all the fighting power that
 
springs from a systematic conception of life--even though it be criminal
 
in a thousand ways--makes an attack against the established order the
 
other side will be able to resist when it draws its strength from a new
 
faith, which in our case is a political faith. This faith must supersede
 
the weak and cowardly command to defend. In its stead we must raise the
 
battle-cry of a courageous and ruthless attack. Our present movement is
 
accused, especially by the so-called national bourgeois cabinet
 
ministers--the Bavarian representatives of the Centre, for example--of
 
heading towards a revolution. We have one answer to give to those
 
political pigmies. We say to them: We are trying to make up for that
 
which you, in your criminal stupidity, have failed to carry out. By your
 
parliamentarian jobbing you have helped to drag the nation into ruin.
 
But we, by our aggressive policy, are setting up a new WELTANSCHAUUNG
 
which we shall defend with indomitable devotion. Thus we are building
 
the steps on which our nation once again may ascend to the temple of
 
freedom.
 
 
 
And so during the first stages of founding our movement we had to take
 
special care that our militant group which fought for the establishment
 
of a new and exalted political faith should not degenerate into a
 
society for the promotion of parliamentarian interests.
 
 
 
The first preventive measure was to lay down a programme which of itself
 
would tend towards developing a certain moral greatness that would scare
 
away all the petty and weakling spirits who make up the bulk of our
 
present party politicians.
 
 
 
Those fatal defects which finally led to Germany's downfall afford the
 
clearest proof of how right we were in considering it absolutely
 
necessary to set up programmatic aims which were sharply and distinctly
 
defined.
 
 
 
Because we recognized the defects above mentioned, we realized that a
 
new conception of the State had to be formed, which in itself became a
 
part of our new conception of life in general.
 
 
 
In the first volume of this book I have already dealt with the term
 
VÖLKISCH, and I said then that this term has not a sufficiently precise
 
meaning to furnish the kernel around which a closely consolidated
 
militant community could be formed. All kinds of people, with all kinds
 
of divergent opinions, are parading about at the present moment under
 
the device VÖLKISCH on their banners. Before I come to deal with the
 
purposes and aims of the National Socialist Labour Party I want to
 
establish a clear understanding of what is meant by the concept VÖLKISCH
 
and herewith explain its relation to our party movement. The word
 
VÖLKISCH does not express any clearly specified idea. It may be
 
interpreted in several ways and in practical application it is just as
 
general as the word 'religious', for instance. It is difficult to attach
 
any precise meaning to this latter word, either as a theoretical concept
 
or as a guiding principle in practical life. The word 'religious'
 
acquires a precise meaning only when it is associated with a distinct
 
and definite form through which the concept is put into practice. To say
 
that a person is 'deeply religious' may be very fine phraseology; but,
 
generally speaking, it tells us little or nothing. There may be some few
 
people who are content with such a vague description and there may even
 
be some to whom the word conveys a more or less definite picture of the
 
inner quality of a person thus described. But, since the masses of the
 
people are not composed of philosophers or saints, such a vague
 
religious idea will mean for them nothing else than to justify each
 
individual in thinking and acting according to his own bent. It will not
 
lead to that practical faith into which the inner religious yearning is
 
transformed only when it leaves the sphere of general metaphysical ideas
 
and is moulded to a definite dogmatic belief. Such a belief is certainly
 
not an end in itself, but the means to an end. Yet it is a means without
 
which the end could never be reached at all. This end, however, is not
 
merely something ideal; for at the bottom it is eminently practical. We
 
must always bear in mind the fact that, generally speaking, the highest
 
ideals are always the outcome of some profound vital need, just as the
 
most sublime beauty owes its nobility of shape, in the last analysis, to
 
the fact that the most beautiful form is the form that is best suited to
 
the purpose it is meant to serve.
 
 
 
By helping to lift the human being above the level of mere animal
 
existence, Faith really contributes to consolidate and safeguard its own
 
existence. Taking humanity as it exists to-day and taking into
 
consideration the fact that the religious beliefs which it generally
 
holds and which have been consolidated through our education, so that
 
they serve as moral standards in practical life, if we should now
 
abolish religious teaching and not replace it by anything of equal value
 
the result would be that the foundations of human existence would be
 
seriously shaken. We may safely say that man does not live merely to
 
serve higher ideals, but that these ideals, in their turn, furnish the
 
necessary conditions of his existence as a human being. And thus the
 
circle is closed.
 
 
 
Of course, the word 'religious' implies some ideas and beliefs that are
 
fundamental. Among these we may reckon the belief in the immortality of
 
the soul, its future existence in eternity, the belief in the existence
 
of a Higher Being, and so on. But all these ideas, no matter how firmly
 
the individual believes in them, may be critically analysed by any
 
person and accepted or rejected accordingly, until the emotional concept
 
or yearning has been transformed into an active service that is governed
 
by a clearly defined doctrinal faith. Such a faith furnishes the
 
practical outlet for religious feeling to express itself and thus opens
 
the way through which it can be put into practice.
 
 
 
Without a clearly defined belief, the religious feeling would not only
 
be worthless for the purposes of human existence but even might
 
contribute towards a general disorganization, on account of its vague
 
and multifarious tendencies.
 
 
 
What I have said about the word 'religious' can also be applied to the
 
term VÖLKISCH. This word also implies certain fundamental ideas. Though
 
these ideas are very important indeed, they assume such vague and
 
indefinite forms that they cannot be estimated as having a greater value
 
than mere opinions, until they become constituent elements in the
 
structure of a political party. For in order to give practical force to
 
the ideals that grow out of a WELTANSCHAUUNG and to answer the demands
 
which are a logical consequence of such ideals, mere sentiment and inner
 
longing are of no practical assistance, just as freedom cannot be won by
 
a universal yearning for it. No. Only when the idealistic longing for
 
independence is organized in such a way that it can fight for its ideal
 
with military force, only then can the urgent wish of a people be
 
transformed into a potent reality.
 
 
 
Any WELTANSCHAUUNG, though a thousandfold right and supremely
 
beneficial to humanity, will be of no practical service for the
 
maintenance of a people as long as its principles have not yet become
 
the rallying point of a militant movement. And, on its own side, this
 
movement will remain a mere party until is has brought its ideals to
 
victory and transformed its party doctrines into the new foundations of
 
a State which gives the national community its final shape.
 
 
 
If an abstract conception of a general nature is to serve as the basis
 
of a future development, then the first prerequisite is to form a clear
 
understanding of the nature and character and scope of this conception.
 
For only on such a basis can a movement he founded which will be able to
 
draw the necessary fighting strength from the internal cohesion of its
 
principles and convictions. From general ideas a political programme
 
must be constructed and a general WELTANSCHAUUNG must receive the stamp
 
of a definite political faith. Since this faith must be directed towards
 
ends that have to be attained in the world of practical reality, not
 
only must it serve the general ideal as such but it must also take into
 
consideration the means that have to be employed for the triumph of the
 
ideal. Here the practical wisdom of the statesman must come to the
 
assistance of the abstract idea, which is correct in itself. In that way
 
an eternal ideal, which has everlasting significance as a guiding star
 
to mankind, must be adapted to the exigencies of human frailty so that
 
its practical effect may not be frustrated at the very outset through
 
those shortcomings which are general to mankind. The exponent of truth
 
must here go hand in hand with him who has a practical knowledge of the
 
soul of the people, so that from the realm of eternal verities and
 
ideals what is suited to the capacities of human nature may be selected
 
and given practical form. To take abstract and general principles,
 
derived from a WELTANSCHAUUNG which is based on a solid foundation of
 
truth, and transform them into a militant community whose members have
 
the same political faith--a community which is precisely defined,
 
rigidly organized, of one mind and one will--such a transformation is
 
the most important task of all; for the possibility of successfully
 
carrying out the idea is dependent on the successful fulfilment of that
 
task. Out of the army of millions who feel the truth of these ideas, and
 
even may understand them to some extent, one man must arise. This man
 
must have the gift of being able to expound general ideas in a clear and
 
definite form, and, from the world of vague ideas shimmering before the
 
minds of the masses, he must formulate principles that will be as
 
clear-cut and firm as granite. He must fight for these principles as the
 
only true ones, until a solid rock of common faith and common will
 
emerges above the troubled waves of vagrant ideas. The general
 
justification of such action is to be sought in the necessity for it and
 
the individual will be justified by his success.
 
 
 
If we try to penetrate to the inner meaning of the word VÖLKISCH we
 
arrive at the following conclusions:
 
 
 
The current political conception of the world is that the State, though
 
it possesses a creative force which can build up civilizations, has
 
nothing in common with the concept of race as the foundation of the
 
State. The State is considered rather as something which has resulted
 
from economic necessity, or, at best, the natural outcome of the play of
 
political forces and impulses. Such a conception of the foundations of
 
the State, together with all its logical consequences, not only ignores
 
the primordial racial forces that underlie the State, but it also leads
 
to a policy in which the importance of the individual is minimized. If
 
it be denied that races differ from one another in their powers of
 
cultural creativeness, then this same erroneous notion must necessarily
 
influence our estimation of the value of the individual. The assumption
 
that all races are alike leads to the assumption that nations and
 
individuals are equal to one another. And international Marxism is
 
nothing but the application--effected by the Jew, Karl Marx--of a
 
general conception of life to a definite profession of political faith;
 
but in reality that general concept had existed long before the time of
 
Karl Marx. If it had not already existed as a widely diffused infection
 
the amazing political progress of the Marxist teaching would never have
 
been possible. In reality what distinguished Karl Marx from the millions
 
who were affected in the same way was that, in a world already in a
 
state of gradual decomposition, he used his keen powers of prognosis to
 
detect the essential poisons, so as to extract them and concentrate
 
them, with the art of a necromancer, in a solution which would bring
 
about the rapid destruction of the independent nations on the globe. But
 
all this was done in the service of his race.
 
 
 
Thus the Marxist doctrine is the concentrated extract of the mentality
 
which underlies the general concept of life to-day. For this reason
 
alone it is out of the question and even ridiculous to think that what
 
is called our bourgeois world can put up any effective fight against
 
Marxism. For this bourgeois world is permeated with all those same
 
poisons and its conception of life in general differs from Marxism only
 
in degree and in the character of the persons who hold it. The bourgeois
 
world is Marxist but believes in the possibility of a certain group of
 
people--that is to say, the bourgeoisie--being able to dominate the
 
world, while Marxism itself systematically aims at delivering the world
 
into the hands of the Jews.
 
 
 
Over against all this, the VÖLKISCH concept of the world recognizes that
 
the primordial racial elements are of the greatest significance for
 
mankind. In principle, the State is looked upon only as a means to an
 
end and this end is the conservation of the racial characteristics of
 
mankind. Therefore on the VÖLKISCH principle we cannot admit that one
 
race is equal to another. By recognizing that they are different, the
 
VÖLKISCH concept separates mankind into races of superior and inferior
 
quality. On the basis of this recognition it feels bound in conformity
 
with the eternal Will that dominates the universe, to postulate the
 
victory of the better and stronger and the subordination of the inferior
 
and weaker. And so it pays homage to the truth that the principle
 
underlying all Nature's operations is the aristocratic principle and it
 
believes that this law holds good even down to the last individual
 
organism. It selects individual values from the mass and thus operates
 
as an organizing principle, whereas Marxism acts as a disintegrating
 
solvent. The VÖLKISCH belief holds that humanity must have its ideals,
 
because ideals are a necessary condition of human existence itself. But,
 
on the other hand, it denies that an ethical ideal has the right to
 
prevail if it endangers the existence of a race that is the
 
standard-bearer of a higher ethical ideal. For in a world which would be
 
composed of mongrels and negroids all ideals of human beauty and
 
nobility and all hopes of an idealized future for our humanity would be
 
lost forever.
 
 
 
On this planet of ours human culture and civilization are indissolubly
 
bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he should be exterminated or
 
subjugated, then the dark shroud of a new barbarian era would enfold the
 
earth.
 
 
 
To undermine the existence of human culture by exterminating its
 
founders and custodians would be an execrable crime in the eyes of those
 
who believe that the folk-idea lies at the basis of human existence.
 
Whoever would dare to raise a profane hand against that highest image of
 
God among His creatures would sin against the bountiful Creator of this
 
marvel and would collaborate in the expulsion from Paradise.
 
 
 
Hence the folk concept of the world is in profound accord with Nature's
 
will; because it restores the free play of the forces which will lead
 
the race through stages of sustained reciprocal education towards a
 
higher type, until finally the best portion of mankind will possess the
 
earth and will be free to work in every domain all over the world and
 
even reach spheres that lie outside the earth.
 
 
 
We all feel that in the distant future many may be faced with problems
 
which can be solved only by a superior race of human beings, a race
 
destined to become master of all the other peoples and which will have
 
at its disposal the means and resources of the whole world.
 
 
 
It is evident that such a general sketch of the ideas implied in the
 
folk concept of the world may easily be interpreted in a thousand
 
different ways. As a matter of fact there is scarcely one of our recent
 
political movements that does not refer at some point to this conception
 
of the world. But the fact that this conception of the world still
 
maintains its independent existence in face of all the others proves
 
that their ways of looking at life are quite difierent from this. Thus
 
the Marxist conception, directed by a central organization endowed with
 
supreme authority, is opposed by a motley crew of opinions which is not
 
very impressive in face of the solid phalanx presented by the enemy.
 
Victory cannot be achieved with such weak weapons. Only when the
 
international idea, politically organized by Marxism, is confronted by
 
the folk idea, equally well organized in a systematic way and equally
 
well led--only then will the fighting energy in the one camp be able to
 
meet that of the other on an equal footing; and victory will be found on
 
the side of eternal truth.
 
 
 
But a general conception of life can never be given an organic
 
embodiment until it is precisely and definitely formulated. The function
 
which dogma fulfils in religious belief is parallel to the function
 
which party principles fulfil for a political party which is in the
 
process of being built up. Therefore, for the conception of life that is
 
based on the folk idea it is necessary that an instrument be forged
 
which can be used in fighting for this ideal, similar to the Marxist
 
party organization which clears the way for internationalism.
 
 
 
And this is the aim which the German National Socialist Labour Movement
 
pursues.
 
 
 
The folk conception must therefore be definitely formulated so that it
 
may be organically incorporated in the party. That is a necessary
 
prerequisite for the success of this idea. And that it is so is very
 
clearly proved even by the indirect acknowledgment of those who oppose
 
such an amalgamation of the folk idea with party principles. The very
 
people who never tire of insisting again and again that the conception
 
of life based on the folk idea can never be the exclusive property of a
 
single group, because it lies dormant or 'lives' in myriads of hearts,
 
only confirm by their own statements the simple fact that the general
 
presence of such ideas in the hearts of millions of men has not proved
 
sufficient to impede the victory of the opposing ideas, which are
 
championed by a political party organized on the principle of class
 
conflict. If that were not so, the German people ought already to have
 
gained a gigantic victory instead of finding themselves on the brink of
 
the abyss. The international ideology achieved success because it was
 
organized in a militant political party which was always ready to take
 
the offensive. If hitherto the ideas opposed to the international
 
concept have had to give way before the latter the reason is that they
 
lacked a united front to fight for their cause. A doctrine which forms a
 
definite outlook on life cannot struggle and triumph by allowing the
 
right of free interpretation of its general teaching, but only by
 
defining that teaching in certain articles of faith that have to be
 
accepted and incorporating it in a political organization.
 
 
 
Therefore I considered it my special duty to extract from the extensive
 
but vague contents of a general WELTANSCHAUUNG the ideas which were
 
essential and give them a more or less dogmatic form. Because of their
 
precise and clear meaning, these ideas are suited to the purpose of
 
uniting in a common front all those who are ready to accept them as
 
principles. In other words: The German National Socialist Labour Party
 
extracts the essential principles from the general conception of the
 
world which is based on the folk idea. On these principles it
 
establishes a political doctrine which takes into account the practical
 
realities of the day, the nature of the times, the available human
 
material and all its deficiencies. Through this political doctrine it is
 
possible to bring great masses of the people into an organization which
 
is constructed as rigidly as it could be. Such an organization is the
 
main preliminary that is necessary for the final triumph of this ideal.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER II
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE STATE
 
 
 
 
 
Already in 1920-1921 certain circles belonging to the effete bourgeois
 
class accused our movement again and again of taking up a negative
 
attitude towards the modern State. For that reason the motley gang of
 
camp followers attached to the various political parties, representing a
 
heterogeneous conglomeration of political views, assumed the right of
 
utilizing all available means to suppress the protagonists of this young
 
movement which was preaching a new political gospel. Our opponents
 
deliberately ignored the fact that the bourgeois class itself stood for
 
no uniform opinion as to what the State really meant and that the
 
bourgeoisie did not and could not give any coherent definition of this
 
institution. Those whose duty it is to explain what is meant when we
 
speak of the State, hold chairs in State universities, often in the
 
department of constitutional law, and consider it their highest duty to
 
find explanations and justifications for the more or less fortunate
 
existence of that particular form of State which provides them with
 
their daily bread. The more absurd such a form of State is the more
 
obscure and artificial and incomprehensible are the definitions which
 
are advanced to explain the purpose of its existence. What, for
 
instance, could a royal and imperial university professor write about
 
the meaning and purpose of a State in a country whose statal form
 
represented the greatest monstrosity of the twentieth century? That
 
would be a difficult undertaking indeed, in view of the fact that the
 
contemporary professor of constitutional law is obliged not so much to
 
serve the cause of truth but rather to serve a certain definite purpose.
 
And this purpose is to defend at all costs the existence of that
 
monstrous human mechanism which we now call the State. Nobody can be
 
surprised if concrete facts are evaded as far as possible when the
 
problem of the State is under discussion and if professors adopt the
 
tactics of concealing themselves in morass of abstract values and duties
 
and purposes which are described as 'ethical' and 'moral'.
 
 
 
Generally speaking, these various theorists may be classed in three
 
groups:
 
 
 
1. Those who hold that the State is a more or less voluntary association
 
of men who have agreed to set up and obey a ruling authority.
 
 
 
This is numerically the largest group. In its ranks are to be found
 
those who worship our present principle of legalized authority. In their
 
eyes the will of the people has no part whatever in the whole affair.
 
For them the fact that the State exists is sufficient reason to consider
 
it sacred and inviolable. To accept this aberration of the human brain
 
one would have to have a sort of canine adoration for what is called the
 
authority of the State. In the minds of these people the means is
 
substituted for the end, by a sort of sleight-of-hand movement. The
 
State no longer exists for the purpose of serving men but men exist for
 
the purpose of adoring the authority of the State, which is vested in
 
its functionaries, even down to the smallest official. So as to prevent
 
this placid and ecstatic adoration from changing into something that
 
might become in any way disturbing, the authority of the State is
 
limited simply to the task of preserving order and tranquillity.
 
Therewith it is no longer either a means or an end. The State must see
 
that public peace and order are preserved and, in their turn, order and
 
peace must make the existence of the State possible. All life must move
 
between these two poles. In Bavaria this view is upheld by the artful
 
politicians of the Bavarian Centre, which is called the 'Bavarian
 
Populist Party'. In Austria the Black-and-Yellow legitimists adopt a
 
similar attitude. In the REICH, unfortunately, the so-called
 
conservative elements follow the same line of thought.
 
 
 
2. The second group is somewhat smaller in numbers. It includes those
 
who would make the existence of the State dependent on some conditions
 
at least. They insist that not only should there be a uniform system of
 
government but also, if possible, that only one language should be used,
 
though solely for technical reasons of administration. In this view the
 
authority of the State is no longer the sole and exclusive end for which
 
the State exists. It must also promote the good of its subjects. Ideas
 
of 'freedom', mostly based on a misunderstanding of the meaning of that
 
word, enter into the concept of the State as it exists in the minds of
 
this group. The form of government is no longer considered inviolable
 
simply because it exists. It must submit to the test of practical
 
efficiency. Its venerable age no longer protects it from being
 
criticized in the light of modern exigencies. Moreover, in this view the
 
first duty laid upon the State is to guarantee the economic well-being
 
of the individual citizens. Hence it is judged from the practical
 
standpoint and according to general principles based on the idea of
 
economic returns. The chief representatives of this theory of the State
 
are to be found among the average German bourgeoisie, especially our
 
liberal democrats.
 
 
 
3. The third group is numerically the smallest. In the State they
 
discover a means for the realization of tendencies that arise from a
 
policy of power, on the part of a people who are ethnically homogeneous
 
and speak the same language. But those who hold this view are not clear
 
about what they mean by 'tendencies arising from a policy of power'. A
 
common language is postulated not only because they hope that thereby
 
the State would be furnished with a solid basis for the extension of its
 
power outside its own frontiers, but also because they think--though
 
falling into a fundamental error by doing so--that such a common
 
language would enable them to carry out a process of nationalization in
 
a definite direction.
 
 
 
During the last century it was lamentable for those who had to witness
 
it, to notice how in these circles I have just mentioned the word
 
'Germanization' was frivolously played with, though the practice was
 
often well intended. I well remember how in the days of my youth this
 
very term used to give rise to notions which were false to an incredible
 
degree. Even in Pan-German circles one heard the opinion expressed that
 
the Austrian Germans might very well succeed in Germanizing the Austrian
 
Slavs, if only the Government would be ready to co-operate. Those people
 
did not understand that a policy of Germanization can be carried out
 
only as regards human beings. What they mostly meant by Germanization
 
was a process of forcing other people to speak the German language. But
 
it is almost inconceivable how such a mistake could be made as to think
 
that a Nigger or a Chinaman will become a German because he has learned
 
the German language and is willing to speak German for the future, and
 
even to cast his vote for a German political party. Our bourgeois
 
nationalists could never clearly see that such a process of
 
Germanization is in reality de-Germanization; for even if all the
 
outstanding and visible differences between the various peoples could be
 
bridged over and finally wiped out by the use of a common language, that
 
would produce a process of bastardization which in this case would not
 
signify Germanization but the annihilation of the German element. In the
 
course of history it has happened only too often that a conquering race
 
succeeded by external force in compelling the people whom they subjected
 
to speak the tongue of the conqueror and that after a thousand years
 
their language was spoken by another people and that thus the conqueror
 
finally turned out to be the conquered.
 
 
 
What makes a people or, to be more correct, a race, is not language but
 
blood. Therefore it would be justifiable to speak of Germanization only
 
if that process could change the blood of the people who would be
 
subjected to it, which is obviously impossible. A change would be
 
possible only by a mixture of blood, but in this case the quality of the
 
superior race would be debased. The final result of such a mixture would
 
be that precisely those qualities would be destroyed which had enabled
 
the conquering race to achieve victory over an inferior people. It is
 
especially the cultural creativeness which disappears when a superior
 
race intermixes with an inferior one, even though the resultant mongrel
 
race should excel a thousandfold in speaking the language of the race
 
that once had been superior. For a certain time there will be a conflict
 
between the different mentalities, and it may be that a nation which is
 
in a state of progressive degeneration will at the last moment rally its
 
cultural creative power and once again produce striking examples of that
 
power. But these results are due only to the activity of elements that
 
have remained over from the superior race or hybrids of the first
 
crossing in whom the superior blood has remained dominant and seeks to
 
assert itself. But this will never happen with the final descendants of
 
such hybrids. These are always in a state of cultural retrogression.
 
 
 
We must consider it as fortunate that a Germanization of Austria
 
according to the plan of Joseph II did not succeed. Probably the result
 
would have been that the Austrian State would have been able to survive,
 
but at the same time participation in the use of a common language would
 
have debased the racial quality of the German element. In the course of
 
centuries a certain herd instinct might have been developed but the herd
 
itself would have deteriorated in quality. A national State might have
 
arisen, but a people who had been culturally creative would have
 
disappeared.
 
 
 
For the German nation it was better that this process of intermixture
 
did not take place, although it was not renounced for any high-minded
 
reasons but simply through the short-sighted pettiness of the Habsburgs.
 
If it had taken place the German people could not now be looked upon as
 
a cultural factor.
 
 
 
Not only in Austria, however, but also in the REICH, these so-called
 
national circles were, and still are, under the influence of similar
 
erroneous ideas. Unfortunately, a policy towards Poland, whereby the
 
East was to be Germanized, was demanded by many and was based on the
 
same false reasoning. Here again it was believed that the Polish people
 
could be Germanized by being compelled to use the German language. The
 
result would have been fatal. A people of foreign race would have had to
 
use the German language to express modes of thought that were foreign to
 
the German, thus compromising by its own inferiority the dignity and
 
nobility of our nation.
 
 
 
It is revolting to think how much damage is indirectly done to German
 
prestige to-day through the fact that the German patois of the Jews when
 
they enter the United States enables them to be classed as Germans,
 
because many Americans are quite ignorant of German conditions. Among
 
us, nobody would think of taking these unhygienic immigrants from the
 
East for members of the German race and nation merely because they
 
mostly speak German.
 
 
 
What has been beneficially Germanized in the course of history was the
 
land which our ancestors conquered with the sword and colonized with
 
German tillers of the soil. To the extent that they introduced foreign
 
blood into our national body in this colonization, they have helped to
 
disintegrate our racial character, a process which has resulted in our
 
German hyper-individualism, though this latter characteristic is even
 
now frequently praised.
 
 
 
In this third group also there are people who, to a certain degree,
 
consider the State as an end in itself. Hence they consider its
 
preservation as one of the highest aims of human existence. Our analysis
 
may be summed up as follows:
 
 
 
All these opinions have this common feature and failing: that they are
 
not grounded in a recognition of the profound truth that the capacity
 
for creating cultural values is essentially based on the racial element
 
and that, in accordance with this fact, the paramount purpose of the
 
State is to preserve and improve the race; for this is an indispensable
 
condition of all progress in human civilization.
 
 
 
Thus the Jew, Karl Marx, was able to draw the final conclusions from
 
these false concepts and ideas on the nature and purpose of the State.
 
By eliminating from the concept of the State all thought of the
 
obligation which the State bears towards the race, without finding any
 
other formula that might be universally accepted, the bourgeois teaching
 
prepared the way for that doctrine which rejects the State as such.
 
 
 
That is why the bourgeois struggle against Marxist internationalism is
 
absolutely doomed to fail in this field. The bourgeois classes have
 
already sacrificed the basic principles which alone could furnish a
 
solid footing for their ideas. Their crafty opponent has perceived the
 
defects in their structure and advances to the assault on it with those
 
weapons which they themselves have placed in his hands though not
 
meaning to do so.
 
 
 
Therefore any new movement which is based on the racial concept of the
 
world will first of all have to put forward a clear and logical doctrine
 
of the nature and purpose of the State.
 
 
 
The fundamental principle is that the State is not an end in itself but
 
the means to an end. It is the preliminary condition under which alone a
 
higher form of human civilization can be developed, but it is not the
 
source of such a development. This is to be sought exclusively in the
 
actual existence of a race which is endowed with the gift of cultural
 
creativeness. There may be hundreds of excellent States on this earth,
 
and yet if the Aryan, who is the creator and custodian of civilization,
 
should disappear, all culture that is on an adequate level with the
 
spiritual needs of the superior nations to-day would also disappear. We
 
may go still further and say that the fact that States have been created
 
by human beings does not in the least exclude the possiblity that the
 
human race may become extinct, because the superior intellectual
 
faculties and powers of adaptation would be lost when the racial bearer
 
of these faculties and powers disappeared.
 
 
 
If, for instance, the surface of the globe should be shaken to-day by
 
some seismic convulsion and if a new Himalaya would emerge from the
 
waves of the sea, this one catastrophe alone might annihilate human
 
civilization. No State could exist any longer. All order would be
 
shattered. And all vestiges of cultural products which had been evolved
 
through thousands of years would disappear. Nothing would be left but
 
one tremendous field of death and destruction submerged in floods of
 
water and mud. If, however, just a few people would survive this
 
terrible havoc, and if these people belonged to a definite race that had
 
the innate powers to build up a civilization, when the commotion had
 
passed, the earth would again bear witness to the creative power of the
 
human spirit, even though a span of a thousand years might intervene.
 
Only with the extermination of the last race that possesses the gift of
 
cultural creativeness, and indeed only if all the individuals of that
 
race had disappeared, would the earth definitely be turned into a
 
desert. On the other hand, modern history furnishes examples to show
 
that statal institutions which owe their beginnings to members of a race
 
which lacks creative genius are not made of stuff that will endure. Just
 
as many varieties of prehistoric animals had to give way to others and
 
leave no trace behind them, so man will also have to give way, if he
 
loses that definite faculty which enables him to find the weapons that
 
are necessary for him to maintain his own existence.
 
 
 
It is not the State as such that brings about a certain definite advance
 
in cultural progress. The State can only protect the race that is the
 
cause of such progress. The State as such may well exist without
 
undergoing any change for hundreds of years, though the cultural
 
faculties and the general life of the people, which is shaped by these
 
faculties, may have suffered profound changes by reason of the fact that
 
the State did not prevent a process of racial mixture from taking place.
 
The present State, for instance, may continue to exist in a mere
 
mechanical form, but the poison of miscegenation permeating the national
 
body brings about a cultural decadence which manifests itself already in
 
various symptoms that are of a detrimental character.
 
 
 
Thus the indispensable prerequisite for the existence of a superior
 
quality of human beings is not the State but the race, which is alone
 
capable of producing that higher human quality.
 
 
 
This capacity is always there, though it will lie dormant unless
 
external circumstances awaken it to action. Nations, or rather races,
 
which are endowed with the faculty of cultural creativeness possess this
 
faculty in a latent form during periods when the external circumstances
 
are unfavourable for the time being and therefore do not allow the
 
faculty to express itself effectively. It is therefore outrageously
 
unjust to speak of the pre-Christian Germans as barbarians who had no
 
civilization. They never have been such. But the severity of the climate
 
that prevailed in the northern regions which they inhabited imposed
 
conditions of life which hampered a free development of their creative
 
faculties. If they had come to the fairer climate of the South, with no
 
previous culture whatsoever, and if they acquired the necessary human
 
material--that is to say, men of an inferior race--to serve them as
 
working implements, the cultural faculty dormant in them would have
 
splendidly blossomed forth, as happened in the case of the Greeks, for
 
example. But this primordial creative faculty in cultural things was not
 
solely due to their northern climate. For the Laplanders or the Eskimos
 
would not have become creators of a culture if they were transplanted to
 
the South. No, this wonderful creative faculty is a special gift
 
bestowed on the Aryan, whether it lies dormant in him or becomes active,
 
according as the adverse conditions of nature prevent the active
 
expression of that faculty or favourable circumstances permit it.
 
 
 
From these facts the following conclusions may be drawn:
 
 
 
The State is only a means to an end. Its end and its purpose is to
 
preserve and promote a community of human beings who are physically as
 
well as spiritually kindred. Above all, it must preserve the existence
 
of the race, thereby providing the indispensable condition for the free
 
development of all the forces dormant in this race. A great part of
 
these faculties will always have to be employed in the first place to
 
maintain the physical existence of the race, and only a small portion
 
will be free to work in the field of intellectual progress. But, as a
 
matter of fact, the one is always the necessary counterpart of the
 
other.
 
 
 
Those States which do not serve this purpose have no justification for
 
their existence. They are monstrosities. The fact that they do exist is
 
no more of a justification than the successful raids carried out by a
 
band of pirates can be considered a justification of piracy.
 
 
 
We National Socialists, who are fighting for a new WELTANSCHAUUNG, must
 
never take our stand on the famous 'basis of facts', and especially not
 
on mistaken facts. If we did so, we should cease to be the protagonists
 
of a new and great idea and would become slaves in the service of the
 
fallacy which is dominant to-day. We must make a clear-cut distinction
 
between the vessel and its contents. The State is only the vessel and
 
the race is what it contains. The vessel can have a meaning only if it
 
preserves and safeguards the contents. Otherwise it is worthless.
 
 
 
Hence the supreme purpose of the ethnical State is to guard and preserve
 
those racial elements which, through their work in the cultural field,
 
create that beauty and dignity which are characteristic of a higher
 
mankind. As Aryans, we can consider the State only as the living
 
organism of a people, an organism which does not merely maintain the
 
existence of a people, but functions in such a way as to lead its people
 
to a position of supreme liberty by the progressive development of the
 
intellectual and cultural faculties.
 
 
 
What they want to impose upon us as a State to-day is in most cases
 
nothing but a monstrosity, the product of a profound human aberration
 
which brings untold suffering in its train.
 
 
 
We National Socialists know that in holding these views we take up a
 
revolutionary stand in the world of to-day and that we are branded as
 
revolutionaries. But our views and our conduct will not be determined by
 
the approbation or disapprobation of our contemporaries, but only by our
 
duty to follow a truth which we have acknowledged. In doing this we have
 
reason to believe that posterity will have a clearer insight, and will
 
not only understand the work we are doing to-day, but will also ratify
 
it as the right work and will exalt it accordingly.
 
 
 
On these principles we National Socialists base our standards of value
 
in appraising a State. This value will be relative when viewed from the
 
particular standpoint of the individual nation, but it will be absolute
 
when considered from the standpoint of humanity as a whole. In other
 
words, this means:
 
 
 
That the excellence of a State can never be judged by the level of its
 
culture or the degree of importance which the outside world attaches to
 
its power, but that its excellence must be judged by the degree to which
 
its institutions serve the racial stock which belongs to it.
 
 
 
A State may be considered as a model example if it adequately serves not
 
only the vital needs of the racial stock it represents but if it
 
actually assures by its own existence the preservation of this same
 
racial stock, no matter what general cultural significance this statal
 
institution may have in the eyes of the rest of the world. For it is not
 
the task of the State to create human capabilities, but only to assure
 
free scope for the exercise of capabilities that already exist. On the
 
other hand, a State may be called bad if, in spite of the existence of a
 
high cultural level, it dooms to destruction the bearers of that culture
 
by breaking up their racial uniformity. For the practical effect of such
 
a policy would be to destroy those conditions that are indispensable for
 
the ulterior existence of that culture, which the State did not create
 
but which is the fruit of the creative power inherent in the racial
 
stock whose existence is assured by being united in the living organism
 
of the State. Once again let me emphasize the fact that the State itself
 
is not the substance but the form. Therefore, the cultural level is not
 
the standard by which we can judge the value of the State in which that
 
people lives. It is evident that a people which is endowed with high
 
creative powers in the cultural sphere is of more worth than a tribe of
 
negroes. And yet the statal organization of the former, if judged from
 
the standpoint of efficiency, may be worse than that of the negroes. Not
 
even the best of States and statal institutions can evolve faculties
 
from a people which they lack and which they never possessed, but a bad
 
State may gradually destroy the faculties which once existed. This it
 
can do by allowing or favouring the suppression of those who are the
 
bearers of a racial culture.
 
 
 
Therefore, the worth of a State can be determined only by asking how far
 
it actually succeeds in promoting the well-being of a definite race and
 
not by the role which it plays in the world at large. Its relative worth
 
can be estimated readily and accurately; but it is difficult to judge
 
its absolute worth, because the latter is conditioned not only by the
 
State but also by the quality and cultural level of the people that
 
belong to the individual State in question.
 
 
 
Therefore, when we speak of the high mission of the State we must not
 
forget that the high mission belongs to the people and that the business
 
of the State is to use its organizing powers for the purpose of
 
furnishing the necessary conditions which allow this people freely to
 
unfold its creative faculties. And if we ask what kind of statal
 
institution we Germans need, we must first have a clear notion as to the
 
people which that State must embrace and what purpose it must serve.
 
 
 
Unfortunately the German national being is not based on a uniform racial
 
type. The process of welding the original elements together has not gone
 
so far as to warrant us in saying that a new race has emerged. On the
 
contrary, the poison which has invaded the national body, especially
 
since the Thirty Years' War, has destroyed the uniform constitution not
 
only of our blood but also of our national soul. The open frontiers of
 
our native country, the association with non-German foreign elements in
 
the territories that lie all along those frontiers, and especially the
 
strong influx of foreign blood into the interior of the REICH itself,
 
has prevented any complete assimilation of those various elements,
 
because the influx has continued steadily. Out of this melting-pot no
 
new race arose. The heterogeneous elements continue to exist side by
 
side. And the result is that, especially in times of crisis, when the
 
herd usually flocks together, the Germans disperse in all directions.
 
The fundamental racial elements are not only different in different
 
districts, but there are also various elements in the single districts.
 
Beside the Nordic type we find the East-European type, beside the
 
Eastern there is the Dinaric, the Western type intermingling with both,
 
and hybrids among them all. That is a grave drawback for us. Through it
 
the Germans lack that strong herd instinct which arises from unity of
 
blood and saves nations from ruin in dangerous and critical times;
 
because on such occasions small differences disappear, so that a united
 
herd faces the enemy. What we understand by the word hyper-individualism
 
arises from the fact that our primordial racial elements have existed
 
side by side without ever consolidating. During times of peace such a
 
situation may offer some advantages, but, taken all in all, it has
 
prevented us from gaining a mastery in the world. If in its historical
 
development the German people had possessed the unity of herd instinct
 
by which other peoples have so much benefited, then the German REICH
 
would probably be mistress of the globe to-day. World history would have
 
taken another course and in this case no man can tell if what many
 
blinded pacifists hope to attain by petitioning, whining and crying, may
 
not have been reached in this way: namely, a peace which would not be
 
based upon the waving of olive branches and tearful misery-mongering of
 
pacifist old women, but a peace that would be guaranteed by the
 
triumphant sword of a people endowed with the power to master the world
 
and administer it in the service of a higher civilization.
 
 
 
The fact that our people did not have a national being based on a unity
 
of blood has been the source of untold misery for us. To many petty
 
German potentates it gave residential capital cities, but the German
 
people as a whole was deprived of its right to rulership.
 
 
 
Even to-day our nation still suffers from this lack of inner unity; but
 
what has been the cause of our past and present misfortunes may turn out
 
a blessing for us in the future. Though on the one hand it may be a
 
drawback that our racial elements were not welded together, so that no
 
homogeneous national body could develop, on the other hand, it was
 
fortunate that, since at least a part of our best blood was thus kept
 
pure, its racial quality was not debased.
 
 
 
A complete assimilation of all our racial elements would certainly have
 
brought about a homogeneous national organism; but, as has been proved
 
in the case of every racial mixture, it would have been less capable of
 
creating a civilization than by keeping intact its best original
 
elements. A benefit which results from the fact that there was no
 
all-round assimilation is to be seen in that even now we have large
 
groups of German Nordic people within our national organization, and
 
that their blood has not been mixed with the blood of other races. We
 
must look upon this as our most valuable treasure for the sake of the
 
future. During that dark period of absolute ignorance in regard to all
 
racial laws, when each individual was considered to be on a par with
 
every other, there could be no clear appreciation of the difference
 
between the various fundamental racial characteristics. We know to-day
 
that a complete assimilation of all the various elements which
 
constitute the national being might have resulted in giving us a larger
 
share of external power: but, on the other hand, the highest of human
 
aims would not have been attained, because the only kind of people which
 
fate has obviously chosen to bring about this perfection would have been
 
lost in such a general mixture of races which would constitute such a
 
racial amalgamation.
 
 
 
But what has been prevented by a friendly Destiny, without any
 
assistance on our part, must now be reconsidered and utilized in the
 
light of our new knowledge.
 
 
 
He who talks of the German people as having a mission to fulfil on this
 
earth must know that this cannot be fulfilled except by the building up
 
of a State whose highest purpose is to preserve and promote those nobler
 
elements of our race and of the whole of mankind which have remained
 
unimpaired.
 
 
 
Thus for the first time a high inner purpose is accredited to the State.
 
In face of the ridiculous phrase that the State should do no more than
 
act as the guardian of public order and tranquillity, so that everybody
 
can peacefully dupe everybody else, it is given a very high mission
 
indeed to preserve and encourage the highest type of humanity which a
 
beneficent Creator has bestowed on this earth. Out of a dead mechanism
 
which claims to be an end in itself a living organism shall arise which
 
has to serve one purpose exclusively: and that, indeed, a purpose which
 
belongs to a higher order of ideas.
 
 
 
As a State the German REICH shall include all Germans. Its task is not
 
only to gather in and foster the most valuable sections of our people
 
but to lead them slowly and surely to a dominant position in the world.
 
 
 
Thus a period of stagnation is superseded by a period of effort. And
 
here, as in every other sphere, the proverb holds good that to rest is
 
to rust; and furthermore the proverb that victory will always be won by
 
him who attacks. The higher the final goal which we strive to reach, and
 
the less it be understood at the time by the broad masses, the more
 
magnificent will be its success. That is what the lesson of history
 
teaches. And the achievement will be all the more significant if the end
 
is conceived in the right way and the fight carried through with
 
unswerving persistence. Many of the officials who direct the affairs of
 
State nowadays may find it easier to work for the maintenance of the
 
present order than to fight for a new one. They will find it more
 
comfortable to look upon the State as a mechanism, whose purpose is its
 
own preservation, and to say that 'their lives belong to the State,' as
 
if anything that grew from the inner life of the nation can logically
 
serve anything but the national being, and as if man could be made for
 
anything else than for his fellow beings. Naturally, it is easier, as I
 
have said, to consider the authority of the State as nothing but the
 
formal mechanism of an organization, rather than as the sovereign
 
incarnation of a people's instinct for self-preservation on this earth.
 
For these weak minds the State and the authority of the State is nothing
 
but an aim in itself, while for us it is an effective weapon in the
 
service of the great and eternal struggle for existence, a weapon which
 
everyone must adopt, not because it is a mere formal mechanism, but
 
because it is the main expression of our common will to exist.
 
 
 
Therefore, in the fight for our new idea, which conforms completely to
 
the primal meaning of life, we shall find only a small number of
 
comrades in a social order which has become decrepit not only physically
 
but mentally also. From these strata of our population only a few
 
exceptional people will join our ranks, only those few old people whose
 
hearts have remained young and whose courage is still vigorous, but not
 
those who consider it their duty to maintain the state of affairs that
 
exists.
 
 
 
Against us we have the innumerable army of all those who are lazy-minded
 
and indifferent rather than evil, and those whose self-interest leads
 
them to uphold the present state of affairs. On the apparent
 
hopelessness of our great struggle is based the magnitude of our task
 
and the possibilities of success. A battle-cry which from the very start
 
will scare off all the petty spirits, or at least discourage them, will
 
become the signal for a rally of all those temperaments that are of the
 
real fighting metal. And it must be clearly recognized that if a highly
 
energetic and active body of men emerge from a nation and unite in the
 
fight for one goal, thereby ultimately rising above the inert masses of
 
the people, this small percentage will become masters of the whole.
 
World history is made by minorities if these numerical minorities
 
represent in themselves the will and energy and initiative of the people
 
as a whole.
 
 
 
What seems an obstacle to many persons is really a preliminary condition
 
of our victory. Just because our task is so great and because so many
 
difficulties have to be overcome, the highest probability is that only
 
the best kind of protagonists will join our ranks. This selection is the
 
guarantee of our success. Nature generally takes certain measures to
 
correct the effect which racial mixture produces in life. She is not
 
much in favour of the mongrel. The later products of cross-breeding have
 
to suffer bitterly, especially the third, fourth and fifth generations.
 
Not only are they deprived of the higher qualities that belonged to the
 
parents who participated in the first mixture, but they also lack
 
definite will-power and vigorous vital energies owing to the lack of
 
harmony in the quality of their blood. At all critical moments in which
 
a person of pure racial blood makes correct decisions, that is to say,
 
decisions that are coherent and uniform, the person of mixed blood will
 
become confused and take measures that are incoherent. Hence we see that
 
a person of mixed blood is not only relatively inferior to a person of
 
pure blood, but is also doomed to become extinct more rapidly. In
 
innumerable cases wherein the pure race holds its ground the mongrel
 
breaks down. Therein we witness the corrective provision which Nature
 
adopts. She restricts the possibilities of procreation, thus impeding
 
the fertility of cross-breeds and bringing them to extinction.
 
 
 
For instance, if an individual member of a race should mingle his blood
 
with the member of a superior race the first result would be a lowering
 
of the racial level, and furthermore the descendants of this
 
cross-breeding would be weaker than those of the people around them who
 
had maintained their blood unadulterated. Where no new blood from the
 
superior race enters the racial stream of the mongrels, and where those
 
mongrels continue to cross-breed among themselves, the latter will
 
either die out because they have insufficient powers of resistance,
 
which is Nature's wise provision, or in the course of many thousands of
 
years they will form a new mongrel race in which the original elements
 
will become so wholly mixed through this millennial crossing that traces
 
of the original elements will be no longer recognizable. And thus a new
 
people would be developed which possessed a certain resistance capacity
 
of the herd type, but its intellectual value and its cultural
 
significance would be essentially inferior to those which the first
 
cross-breeds possessed. But even in this last case the mongrel product
 
would succumb in the mutual struggle for existence with a higher racial
 
group that had maintained its blood unmixed. The herd solidarity which
 
this mongrel race had developed through thousands of years will not be
 
equal to the struggle. And this is because it would lack elasticity and
 
constructive capacity to prevail over a race of homogeneous blood that
 
was mentally and culturally superior.
 
 
 
Therewith we may lay down the following principle as valid: every racial
 
mixture leads, of necessity, sooner or later to the downfall of the
 
mongrel product, provided the higher racial strata of this cross-breed
 
has not retained within itself some sort of racial homogeneity. The
 
danger to the mongrels ceases only when this higher stratum, which has
 
maintained certain standards of homogeneous breeding, ceases to be true
 
to its pedigree and intermingles with the mongrels.
 
 
 
This principle is the source of a slow but constant regeneration whereby
 
all the poison which has invaded the racial body is gradually eliminated
 
so long as there still remains a fundamental stock of pure racial
 
elements which resists further crossbreeding.
 
 
 
Such a process may set in automatically among those people where a
 
strong racial instinct has remained. Among such people we may count
 
those elements which, for some particular cause such as coercion, have
 
been thrown out of the normal way of reproduction along strict racial
 
lines. As soon as this compulsion ceases, that part of the race which
 
has remained intact will tend to marry with its own kind and thus impede
 
further intermingling. Then the mongrels recede quite naturally into the
 
background unless their numbers had increased so much as to be able to
 
withstand all serious resistance from those elements which had preserved
 
the purity of their race.
 
 
 
When men have lost their natural instincts and ignore the obligations
 
imposed on them by Nature, then there is no hope that Nature will
 
correct the loss that has been caused, until recognition of the lost
 
instincts has been restored. Then the task of bringing back what has
 
been lost will have to be accomplished. But there is serious danger that
 
those who have become blind once in this respect will continue more and
 
more to break down racial barriers and finally lose the last remnants of
 
what is best in them. What then remains is nothing but a uniform
 
mish-mash, which seems to be the dream of our fine Utopians. But that
 
mish-mash would soon banish all ideals from the world. Certainly a great
 
herd could thus be formed. One can breed a herd of animals; but from a
 
mixture of this kind men such as have created and founded civilizations
 
would not be produced. The mission of humanity might then be considered
 
at an end.
 
 
 
Those who do not wish that the earth should fall into such a condition
 
must realize that it is the task of the German State in particular to
 
see to it that the process of bastardization is brought to a stop.
 
 
 
Our contemporary generation of weaklings will naturally decry such a
 
policy and whine and complain about it as an encroachment on the most
 
sacred of human rights. But there is only one right that is sacrosanct
 
and this right is at the same time a most sacred duty. This right and
 
obligation are: that the purity of the racial blood should be guarded,
 
so that the best types of human beings may be preserved and that thus we
 
should render possible a more noble development of humanity itself.
 
 
 
A folk-State should in the first place raise matrimony from the level of
 
being a constant scandal to the race. The State should consecrate it as
 
an institution which is called upon to produce creatures made in the
 
likeness of the Lord and not create monsters that are a mixture of man
 
and ape. The protest which is put forward in the name of humanity does
 
not fit the mouth of a generation that makes it possible for the most
 
depraved degenerates to propagate themselves, thereby imposing
 
unspeakable suffering on their own products and their contemporaries,
 
while on the other hand contraceptives are permitted and sold in every
 
drug store and even by street hawkers, so that babies should not be born
 
even among the healthiest of our people. In this present State of ours,
 
whose function it is to be the guardian of peace and good order, our
 
national bourgeoisie look upon it as a crime to make procreation
 
impossible for syphilitics and those who suffer from tuberculosis or
 
other hereditary diseases, also cripples and imbeciles. But the
 
practical prevention of procreation among millions of our very best
 
people is not considered as an evil, nor does it offend against the
 
noble morality of this social class but rather encourages their
 
short-sightedness and mental lethargy. For otherwise they would at least
 
stir their brains to find an answer to the question of how to create
 
conditions for the feeding and maintaining of those future beings who
 
will be the healthy representatives of our nation and must also provide
 
the conditions on which the generation that is to follow them will have
 
to support itself and live.
 
 
 
How devoid of ideals and how ignoble is the whole contemporary system!
 
The fact that the churches join in committing this sin against the image
 
of God, even though they continue to emphasize the dignity of that
 
image, is quite in keeping with their present activities. They talk
 
about the Spirit, but they allow man, as the embodiment of the Spirit,
 
to degenerate to the proletarian level. Then they look on with amazement
 
when they realize how small is the influence of the Christian Faith in
 
their own country and how depraved and ungodly is this riff-raff which
 
is physically degenerate and therefore morally degenerate also. To
 
balance this state of affairs they try to convert the Hottentots and the
 
Zulus and the Kaffirs and to bestow on them the blessings of the Church.
 
While our European people, God be praised and thanked, are left to
 
become the victims of moral depravity, the pious missionary goes out to
 
Central Africa and establishes missionary stations for negroes. Finally,
 
sound and healthy--though primitive and backward--people will be
 
transformed, under the name of our 'higher civilization', into a motley
 
of lazy and brutalized mongrels.
 
 
 
It would better accord with noble human aspirations if our two Christian
 
denominations would cease to bother the negroes with their preaching,
 
which the negroes do not want and do not understand. It would be better
 
if they left this work alone, and if, in its stead, they tried to teach
 
people in Europe, kindly and seriously, that it is much more pleasing to
 
God if a couple that is not of healthy stock were to show loving
 
kindness to some poor orphan and become a father and mother to him,
 
rather than give life to a sickly child that will be a cause of
 
suffering and unhappiness to all.
 
 
 
In this field the People's State will have to repair the damage that
 
arises from the fact that the problem is at present neglected by all the
 
various parties concerned. It will be the task of the People's State to
 
make the race the centre of the life of the community. It must make sure
 
that the purity of the racial strain will be preserved. It must proclaim
 
the truth that the child is the most valuable possession a people can
 
have. It must see to it that only those who are healthy shall beget
 
children; that there is only one infamy, namely, for parents that are
 
ill or show hereditary defects to bring children into the world and that
 
in such cases it is a high honour to refrain from doing so. But, on the
 
other hand, it must be considered as reprehensible conduct to refrain
 
from giving healthy children to the nation. In this matter the State
 
must assert itself as the trustee of a millennial future, in face of
 
which the egotistic desires of the individual count for nothing and will
 
have to give way before the ruling of the State. In order to fulfil this
 
duty in a practical manner the State will have to avail itself of modern
 
medical discoveries. It must proclaim as unfit for procreation all those
 
who are inflicted with some visible hereditary disease or are the
 
carriers of it; and practical measures must be adopted to have such
 
people rendered sterile. On the other hand, provision must be made for
 
the normally fertile woman so that she will not be restricted in
 
child-bearing through the financial and economic system operating in a
 
political regime that looks upon the blessing of having children as a
 
curse to their parents. The State will have to abolish the cowardly and
 
even criminal indifference with which the problem of social amenities
 
for large families is treated, and it will have to be the supreme
 
protector of this greatest blessing that a people can boast of. Its
 
attention and care must be directed towards the child rather than the
 
adult.
 
 
 
Those who are physically and mentally unhealthy and unfit must not
 
perpetuate their own suffering in the bodies of their children. From the
 
educational point of view there is here a huge task for the People's
 
State to accomplish. But in a future era this work will appear greater
 
and more significant than the victorious wars of our present bourgeois
 
epoch. Through educational means the State must teach individuals that
 
illness is not a disgrace but an unfortunate accident which has to be
 
pitied, yet that it is a crime and a disgrace to make this affliction
 
all the worse by passing on disease and defects to innocent creatures
 
out of mere egotism.
 
 
 
And the State must also teach the people that it is an expression of a
 
really noble nature and that it is a humanitarian act worthy of
 
admiration if a person who innocently suffers from hereditary disease
 
refrains from having a child of his own but gives his love and affection
 
to some unknown child who, through its health, promises to become a
 
robust member of a healthy community. In accomplishing such an
 
educational task the State integrates its function by this activity in
 
the moral sphere. It must act on this principle without paying any
 
attention to the question of whether its conduct will be understood or
 
misconstrued, blamed or praised.
 
 
 
If for a period of only 600 years those individuals would be sterilized
 
who are physically degenerate or mentally diseased, humanity would not
 
only be delivered from an immense misfortune but also restored to a
 
state of general health such as we at present can hardly imagine. If the
 
fecundity of the healthy portion of the nation should be made a
 
practical matter in a conscientious and methodical way, we should have
 
at least the beginnings of a race from which all those germs would be
 
eliminated which are to-day the cause of our moral and physical
 
decadence. If a people and a State take this course to develop that
 
nucleus of the nation which is most valuable from the racial standpoint
 
and thus increase its fecundity, the people as a whole will subsequently
 
enjoy that most precious of gifts which consists in a racial quality
 
fashioned on truly noble lines.
 
 
 
To achieve this the State should first of all not leave the colonization
 
of newly acquired territory to a haphazard policy but should have it
 
carried out under the guidance of definite principles. Specially
 
competent committees ought to issue certificates to individuals
 
entitling them to engage in colonization work, and these certificates
 
should guarantee the racial purity of the individuals in question. In
 
this way frontier colonies could gradually be founded whose inhabitants
 
would be of the purest racial stock, and hence would possess the best
 
qualities of the race. Such colonies would be a valuable asset to the
 
whole nation. Their development would be a source of joy and confidence
 
and pride to each citizen of the nation, because they would contain the
 
pure germ which would ultimately bring about a great development of the
 
nation and indeed of mankind itself.
 
 
 
The WELTANSCHAUUNG which bases the State on the racial idea must
 
finally succeed in bringing about a nobler era, in which men will no
 
longer pay exclusive attention to breeding and rearing pedigree dogs and
 
horses and cats, but will endeavour to improve the breed of the human
 
race itself. That will be an era of silence and renunciation for one
 
class of people, while the others will give their gifts and make their
 
sacrifices joyfully.
 
 
 
That such a mentality may be possible cannot be denied in a world where
 
hundreds and thousands accept the principle of celibacy from their own
 
choice, without being obliged or pledged to do so by anything except an
 
ecclesiastical precept. Why should it not be possible to induce people
 
to make this sacrifice if, instead of such a precept, they were simply
 
told that they ought to put an end to this truly original sin of racial
 
corruption which is steadily being passed on from one generation to
 
another. And, further, they ought to be brought to realize that it is
 
their bounden duty to give to the Almighty Creator beings such as He
 
himself made to His own image.
 
 
 
Naturally, our wretched army of contemporary philistines will not
 
understand these things. They will ridicule them or shrug their round
 
shoulders and groan out their everlasting excuses: "Of course it is a
 
fine thing, but the pity is that it cannot be carried out." And we
 
reply: "With you indeed it cannot be done, for your world is incapable
 
of such an idea. You know only one anxiety and that is for your own
 
personal existence. You have one God, and that is your money. We do not
 
turn to you, however, for help, but to the great army of those who are
 
too poor to consider their personal existence as the highest good on
 
earth. They do not place their trust in money but in other gods, into
 
whose hands they confide their lives. Above all we turn to the vast army
 
of our German youth. They are coming to maturity in a great epoch, and
 
they will fight against the evils which were due to the laziness and
 
indifference of their fathers." Either the German youth will one day
 
create a new State founded on the racial idea or they will be the last
 
witnesses of the complete breakdown and death of the bourgeois world.
 
 
 
For if a generation suffers from defects which it recognizes and even
 
admits and is nevertheless quite pleased with itself, as the bourgeois
 
world is to-day, resorting to the cheap excuse that nothing can be done
 
to remedy the situation, then such a generation is doomed to disaster. A
 
marked characteristic of our bourgeois world is that they no longer can
 
deny the evil conditions that exist. They have to admit that there is
 
much which is foul and wrong; but they are not able to make up their
 
minds to fight against that evil, which would mean putting forth the
 
energy to mobilize the forces of 60 or 70 million people and thus oppose
 
this menace. They do just the opposite. When such an effort is made
 
elsewhere they only indulge in silly comment and try from a safe
 
distance to show that such an enterprise is theoretically impossible and
 
doomed to failure. No arguments are too stupid to be employed in the
 
service of their own pettifogging opinions and their knavish moral
 
attitude. If, for instance, a whole continent wages war against
 
alcoholic intoxication, so as to free a whole people from this
 
devastating vice, our bourgeois European does not know better than to
 
look sideways stupidly, shake the head in doubt and ridicule the
 
movement with a superior sneer--a state of mind which is effective in a
 
society that is so ridiculous. But when all these stupidities miss their
 
aim and in that part of the world this sublime and intangible attitude
 
is treated effectively and success attends the movement, then such
 
success is called into question or its importance minimized. Even moral
 
principles are used in this slanderous campaign against a movement which
 
aims at suppressing a great source of immorality.
 
 
 
No. We must not permit ourselves to be deceived by any illusions on this
 
point. Our contemporary bourgeois world has become useless for any such
 
noble human task because it has lost all high quality and is evil, not
 
so much--as I think--because evil is wished but rather because these
 
people are too indolent to rise up against it. That is why those
 
political societies which call themselves 'bourgeois parties' are
 
nothing but associations to promote the interests of certain
 
professional groups and classes. Their highest aim is to defend their
 
own egoistic interests as best they can. It is obvious that such a
 
guild, consisting of bourgeois politicians, may be considered fit for
 
anything rather than a struggle, especially when the adversaries are not
 
cautious shopkeepers but the proletarian masses, goaded on to
 
extremities and determined not to hesitate before deeds of violence.
 
 
 
If we consider it the first duty of the State to serve and promote the
 
general welfare of the people, by preserving and encouraging the
 
development of the best racial elements, the logical consequence is that
 
this task cannot be limited to measures concerning the birth of the
 
infant members of the race and nation but that the State will also have
 
to adopt educational means for making each citizen a worthy factor in
 
the further propagation of the racial stock.
 
 
 
Just as, in general, the racial quality is the preliminary condition for
 
the mental efficiency of any given human material, the training of the
 
individual will first of all have to be directed towards the development
 
of sound bodily health. For the general rule is that a strong and
 
healthy mind is found only in a strong and healthy body. The fact that
 
men of genius are sometimes not robust in health and stature, or even of
 
a sickly constitution, is no proof against the principle I have
 
enunciated. These cases are only exceptions which, as everywhere else,
 
prove the rule. But when the bulk of a nation is composed of physical
 
degenerates it is rare for a great spirit to arise from such a miserable
 
motley. And in any case his activities would never meet with great
 
success. A degenerate mob will either be incapable of understanding him
 
at all or their will-power is so feeble that they cannot follow the
 
soaring of such an eagle.
 
 
 
The State that is grounded on the racial principle and is alive to the
 
significance of this truth will first of all have to base its
 
educational work not on the mere imparting of knowledge but rather on
 
physical training and development of healthy bodies. The cultivation of
 
the intellectual facilities comes only in the second place. And here
 
again it is character which has to be developed first of all, strength
 
of will and decision. And the educational system ought to foster the
 
spirit of readiness to accept responsibilities gladly. Formal
 
instruction in the sciences must be considered last in importance.
 
Accordingly the State which is grounded on the racial idea must start
 
with the principle that a person whose formal education in the sciences
 
is relatively small but who is physically sound and robust, of a
 
steadfast and honest character, ready and able to make decisions and
 
endowed with strength of will, is a more useful member of the national
 
community than a weakling who is scholarly and refined. A nation
 
composed of learned men who are physical weaklings, hesitant about
 
decisions of the will, and timid pacifists, is not capable of assuring
 
even its own existence on this earth. In the bitter struggle which
 
decides the destiny of man it is very rare that an individual has
 
succumbed because he lacked learning. Those who fail are they who try to
 
ignore these consequences and are too faint-hearted about putting them
 
into effect. There must be a certain balance between mind and body. An
 
ill-kept body is not made a more beautiful sight by the indwelling of a
 
radiant spirit. We should not be acting justly if we were to bestow the
 
highest intellectual training on those who are physically deformed and
 
crippled, who lack decision and are weak-willed and cowardly. What has
 
made the Greek ideal of beauty immortal is the wonderful union of a
 
splendid physical beauty with nobility of mind and spirit.
 
 
 
Moltke's saying, that in the long run fortune favours only the
 
efficient, is certainly valid for the relationship between body and
 
spirit. A mind which is sound will generally maintain its dwelling in a
 
body that is sound.
 
 
 
Accordingly, in the People's State physical training is not a matter for
 
the individual alone. Nor is it a duty which first devolves on the
 
parents and only secondly or thirdly a public interest; but it is
 
necessary for the preservation of the people, who are represented and
 
protected by the State. As regards purely formal education the State
 
even now interferes with the individual's right of self-determination
 
and insists upon the right of the community by submitting the child to
 
an obligatory system of training, without paying attention to the
 
approval or disapproval of the parents. In a similar way and to a higher
 
degree the new People's State will one day make its authority prevail
 
over the ignorance and incomprehension of individuals in problems
 
appertaining to the safety of the nation. It must organize its
 
educational work in such a way that the bodies of the young will be
 
systematically trained from infancy onwards, so as to be tempered and
 
hardened for the demands to be made on them in later years. Above all,
 
the State must see to it that a generation of stay-at-homes is not
 
developed.
 
 
 
The work of education and hygiene has to begin with the young mother.
 
The painstaking efforts carried on for several decades have succeeded in
 
abolishing septic infection at childbirth and reducing puerperal fever
 
to a relatively small number of cases. And so it ought to be possible by
 
means of instructing sisters and mothers in an opportune way, to
 
institute a system of training the child from early infancy onwards so
 
that this may serve as an excellent basis for future development.
 
 
 
The People's State ought to allow much more time for physical training
 
in the school. It is nonsense to burden young brains with a load of
 
material of which, as experience shows, they retain only a small part,
 
and mostly not the essentials, but only the secondary and useless
 
portion; because the young mind is incapable of sifting the right kind
 
of learning out of all the stuff that is pumped into it. To-day, even in
 
the curriculum of the high schools, only two short hours in the week are
 
reserved for gymnastics; and worse still, it is left to the pupils to
 
decide whether or not they want to take part. This shows a grave
 
disproportion between this branch of education and purely intellectual
 
instruction. Not a single day should be allowed to pass in which the
 
young pupil does not have one hour of physical training in the morning
 
and one in the evening; and every kind of sport and gymnastics should be
 
included. There is one kind of sport which should be specially
 
encouraged, although many people who call themselves VÖLKISCH consider
 
it brutal and vulgar, and that is boxing. It is incredible how many
 
false notions prevail among the 'cultivated' classes. The fact that the
 
young man learns how to fence and then spends his time in duels is
 
considered quite natural and respectable. But boxing--that is brutal.
 
Why? There is no other sport which equals this in developing the
 
militant spirit, none that demands such a power of rapid decision or
 
which gives the body the flexibility of good steel. It is no more vulgar
 
when two young people settle their differences with their fists than
 
with sharp-pointed pieces of steel. One who is attacked and defends
 
himself with his fists surely does not act less manly than one who runs
 
off and yells for the assistance of a policeman. But, above all, a
 
healthy youth has to learn to endure hard knocks. This principle may
 
appear savage to our contemporary champions who fight only with the
 
weapons of the intellect. But it is not the purpose of the People's
 
State to educate a colony of aesthetic pacifists and physical
 
degenerates. This State does not consider that the human ideal is to be
 
found in the honourable philistine or the maidenly spinster, but in a
 
dareful personification of manly force and in women capable of bringing
 
men into the world.
 
 
 
Generally speaking, the function of sport is not only to make the
 
individual strong, alert and daring, but also to harden the body and
 
train it to endure an adverse environment.
 
 
 
If our superior class had not received such a distinguished education,
 
and if, on the contrary, they had learned boxing, it would never have
 
been possible for bullies and deserters and other such CANAILLE to carry
 
through a German revolution. For the success of this revolution was not
 
due to the courageous, energetic and audacious activities of its authors
 
but to the lamentable cowardice and irresolution of those who ruled the
 
German State at that time and were responsible for it. But our educated
 
leaders had received only an 'intellectual' training and thus found
 
themselves defenceless when their adversaries used iron bars instead of
 
intellectual weapons. All this could happen only because our superior
 
scholastic system did not train men to be real men but merely to be
 
civil servants, engineers, technicians, chemists, litterateurs, jurists
 
and, finally, professors; so that intellectualism should not die out.
 
 
 
Our leadership in the purely intellectual sphere has always been
 
brilliant, but as regards will-power in practical affairs our leadership
 
has been beneath criticism.
 
 
 
Of course education cannot make a courageous man out of one who is
 
temperamentally a coward. But a man who naturally possesses a certain
 
degree of courage will not be able to develop that quality if his
 
defective education has made him inferior to others from the very start
 
as regards physical strength and prowess. The army offers the best
 
example of the fact that the knowledge of one's physical ability
 
develops a man's courage and militant spirit. Outstanding heroes are not
 
the rule in the army, but the average represents men of high courage.
 
The excellent schooling which the German soldiers received before the
 
War imbued the members of the whole gigantic organism with a degree of
 
confidence in their own superiority such as even our opponents never
 
thought possible. All the immortal examples of dauntless courage and
 
daring which the German armies gave during the late summer and autumn of
 
1914, as they advanced from triumph to triumph, were the result of that
 
education which had been pursued systematically. During those long years
 
of peace before the last War men who were almost physical weaklings were
 
made capable of incredible deeds, and thus a self-confidence was
 
developed which did not fail even in the most terrible battles.
 
 
 
It is our German people, which broke down and were delivered over to be
 
kicked by the rest of the world, that had need of the power that comes
 
by suggestion from self-confidence. But this confidence in one's self
 
must be instilled into our children from their very early years. The
 
whole system of education and training must be directed towards
 
fostering in the child the conviction that he is unquestionably a match
 
for any- and everybody. The individual has to regain his own physical
 
strength and prowess in order to believe in the invincibility of the
 
nation to which he belongs. What has formerly led the German armies to
 
victory was the sum total of the confidence which each individual had in
 
himself, and which all of them had in those who held the positions of
 
command. What will restore the national strength of the German people is
 
the conviction that they will be able to reconquer their liberty. But
 
this conviction can only be the final product of an equal feeling in the
 
millions of individuals. And here again we must have no illusions.
 
 
 
The collapse of our people was overwhelming, and the efforts to put an
 
end to so much misery must also be overwhelming. It would be a bitter
 
and grave error to believe that our people could be made strong again
 
simply by means of our present bourgeois training in good order and
 
obedience. That will not suffice if we are to break up the present order
 
of things, which now sanctions the acknowledgment of our defeat and cast
 
the broken chains of our slavery in the face of our opponents. Only by a
 
superabundance of national energy and a passionate thirst for liberty
 
can we recover what has been lost.
 
 
 
Also the manner of clothing the young should be such as harmonizes with
 
this purpose. It is really lamentable to see how our young people have
 
fallen victims to a fashion mania which perverts the meaning of the old
 
adage that clothes make the man.
 
 
 
Especially in regard to young people clothes should take their place in
 
the service of education. The boy who walks about in summer-time wearing
 
long baggy trousers and clad up to the neck is hampered even by his
 
clothes in feeling any inclination towards strenuous physical exercise.
 
Ambition and, to speak quite frankly, even vanity must be appealed to. I
 
do not mean such vanity as leads people to want to wear fine clothes,
 
which not everybody can afford, but rather the vanity which inclines a
 
person towards developing a fine bodily physique. And this is something
 
which everybody can help to do.
 
 
 
This will come in useful also for later years. The young girl must
 
become acquainted with her sweetheart. If the beauty of the body were
 
not completely forced into the background to-day through our stupid
 
manner of dressing, it would not be possible for thousands of our girls
 
to be led astray by Jewish mongrels, with their repulsive crooked
 
waddle. It is also in the interests of the nation that those who have a
 
beautiful physique should be brought into the foreground, so that they
 
might encourage the development of a beautiful bodily form among the
 
people in general.
 
 
 
Military training is excluded among us to-day, and therewith the only
 
institution which in peace-times at least partly made up for the lack of
 
physical training in our education. Therefore what I have suggested is
 
all the more necessary in our time. The success of our old military
 
training not only showed itself in the education of the individual but
 
also in the influence which it exercised over the mutual relationship
 
between the sexes. The young girl preferred the soldier to one who was
 
not a soldier. The People's State must not confine its control of
 
physical training to the official school period, but it must demand
 
that, after leaving school and while the adolescent body is still
 
developing, the boy continues this training. For on such proper physical
 
development success in after-life largely depends. It is stupid to think
 
that the right of the State to supervise the education of its young
 
citizens suddenly comes to an end the moment they leave school and
 
recommences only with military service. This right is a duty, and as
 
such it must continue uninterruptedly. The present State, which does not
 
interest itself in developing healthy men, has criminally neglected this
 
duty. It leaves our contemporary youth to be corrupted on the streets
 
and in the brothels, instead of keeping hold of the reins and continuing
 
the physical training of these youths up to the time when they are grown
 
into healthy young men and women.
 
 
 
For the present it is a matter of indifference what form the State
 
chooses for carrying on this training. The essential matter is that it
 
should be developed and that the most suitable ways of doing so should
 
be investigated. The People's State will have to consider the physical
 
training of the youth after the school period just as much a public duty
 
as their intellectual training; and this training will have to be
 
carried out through public institutions. Its general lines can be a
 
preparation for subsequent service in the army. And then it will no
 
longer be the task of the army to teach the young recruit the most
 
elementary drill regulations. In fact the army will no longer have to
 
deal with recruits in the present sense of the word, but it will rather
 
have to transform into a soldier the youth whose bodily prowess has been
 
already fully trained.
 
 
 
In the People's State the army will no longer be obliged to teach boys
 
how to walk and stand erect, but it will be the final and supreme school
 
of patriotic education. In the army the young recruit will learn the art
 
of bearing arms, but at the same time he will be equipped for his other
 
duties in later life. And the supreme aim of military education must
 
always be to achieve that which was attributed to the old army as its
 
highest merit: namely, that through his military schooling the boy must
 
be transformed into a man, that he must not only learn to obey but also
 
acquire the fundamentals that will enable him one day to command. He
 
must learn to remain silent not only when he is rightly rebuked but also
 
when he is wrongly rebuked.
 
 
 
Furthermore, on the self-consciousness of his own strength and on the
 
basis of that ESPRIT DE CORPS which inspires him and his comrades, he
 
must become convinced that he belongs to a people who are invincible.
 
 
 
After he has completed his military training two certificates shall be
 
handed to the soldier. The one will be his diploma as a citizen of the
 
State, a juridical document which will enable him to take part in public
 
affairs. The second will be an attestation of his physical health, which
 
guarantees his fitness for marriage.
 
 
 
The People's State will have to direct the education of girls just as
 
that of boys and according to the same fundamental principles. Here
 
again special importance must be given to physical training, and only
 
after that must the importance of spiritual and mental training be taken
 
into account. In the education of the girl the final goal always to be
 
kept in mind is that she is one day to be a mother.
 
 
 
It is only in the second place that the People's State must busy itself
 
with the training of character, using all the means adapted to that
 
purpose.
 
 
 
Of course the essential traits of the individual character are already
 
there fundamentally before any education takes place. A person who is
 
fundamentally egoistic will always remain fundamentally egoistic, and
 
the idealist will always remain fundamentally an idealist. Besides
 
those, however, who already possess a definite stamp of character there
 
are millions of people with characters that are indefinite and vague.
 
The born delinquent will always remain a delinquent, but numerous people
 
who show only a certain tendency to commit criminal acts may become
 
useful members of the community if rightly trained; whereas, on the
 
other hand, weak and unstable characters may easily become evil elements
 
if the system of education has been bad.
 
 
 
During the War it was often lamented that our people could be so little
 
reticent. This failing made it very difficult to keep even highly
 
important secrets from the knowledge of the enemy. But let us ask this
 
question: What did the German educational system do in pre-War times to
 
teach the Germans to be discreet? Did it not very often happen in
 
schooldays that the little tell-tale was preferred to his companions who
 
kept their mouths shut? Is it not true that then, as well as now,
 
complaining about others was considered praiseworthy 'candour', while
 
silent discretion was taken as obstinacy? Has any attempt ever been made
 
to teach that discretion is a precious and manly virtue? No, for such
 
matters are trifles in the eyes of our educators. But these trifles cost
 
our State innumerable millions in legal expenses; for 90 per cent of all
 
the processes for defamation and such like charges arise only from a
 
lack of discretion. Remarks that are made without any sense of
 
responsibility are thoughtlessly repeated from mouth to mouth; and our
 
economic welfare is continually damaged because important methods of
 
production are thus disclosed. Secret preparations for our national
 
defence are rendered illusory because our people have never learned the
 
duty of silence. They repeat everything they happen to hear. In times of
 
war such talkative habits may even cause the loss of battles and
 
therefore may contribute essentially to the unsuccessful outcome of a
 
campaign. Here, as in other matters, we may rest assured that adults
 
cannot do what they have not learnt to do in youth. A teacher must not
 
try to discover the wild tricks of the boys by encouraging the evil
 
practice of tale-bearing. Young people form a sort of State among
 
themselves and face adults with a certain solidarity. That is quite
 
natural. The ties which unite the ten-year boys to one another are
 
stronger and more natural than their relationship to adults. A boy who
 
tells on his comrades commits an act of treason and shows a bent of
 
character which is, to speak bluntly, similar to that of a man who
 
commits high treason. Such a boy must not be classed as 'good',
 
'reliable', and so on, but rather as one with undesirable traits of
 
character. It may be rather convenient for the teacher to make use of
 
such unworthy tendencies in order to help his own work, but by such an
 
attitude the germ of a moral habit is sown in young hearts and may one
 
day show fatal consequences. It has happened more often than once that a
 
young informer developed into a big scoundrel.
 
 
 
This is only one example among many. The deliberate training of fine and
 
noble traits of character in our schools to-day is almost negative. In
 
the future much more emphasis will have to be laid on this side of our
 
educational work. Loyalty, self-sacrifice and discretion are virtues
 
which a great nation must possess. And the teaching and development of
 
these in the school is a more important matter than many others things
 
now included in the curriculum. To make the children give up habits of
 
complaining and whining and howling when they are hurt, etc., also
 
belongs to this part of their training. If the educational system fails
 
to teach the child at an early age to endure pain and injury without
 
complaining we cannot be surprised if at a later age, when the boy has
 
grown to be the man and is, for example, in the trenches, the postal
 
service is used for nothing else than to send home letters of weeping
 
and complaint. If our youths, during their years in the primary schools,
 
had had their minds crammed with a little less knowledge, and if instead
 
they had been better taught how to be masters of themselves, it would
 
have served us well during the years 1914-1918.
 
 
 
In its educational system the People's State will have to attach the
 
highest importance to the development of character, hand-in-hand with
 
physical training. Many more defects which our national organism shows
 
at present could be at least ameliorated, if not completely eliminated,
 
by education of the right kind.
 
 
 
Extreme importance should be attached to the training of will-power and
 
the habit of making firm decisions, also the habit of being always ready
 
to accept responsibilities.
 
 
 
In the training of our old army the principle was in vogue that any
 
order is always better than no order. Applied to our youth this
 
principle ought to take the form that any answer is better than no
 
answer. The fear of replying, because one fears to be wrong, ought to be
 
considered more humiliating than giving the wrong reply. On this simple
 
and primitive basis our youth should be trained to have the courage to
 
act.
 
 
 
It has been often lamented that in November and December 1918 all the
 
authorities lost their heads and that, from the monarch down to the last
 
divisional commander, nobody had sufficient mettle to make a decision on
 
his own responsibility. That terrible fact constitutes a grave rebuke to
 
our educational system; because what was then revealed on a colossal
 
scale at that moment of catastrophe was only what happens on a smaller
 
scale everywhere among us. It is the lack of will-power, and not the
 
lack of arms, which renders us incapable of offering any serious
 
resistance to-day. This defect is found everywhere among our people and
 
prevents decisive action wherever risks have to be taken, as if any
 
great action can be taken without also taking the risk. Quite
 
unsuspectingly, a German General found a formula for this lamentable
 
lack of the will-to-act when he said: "I act only when I can count on a
 
51 per cent probability of success." In that '51 per cent probability'
 
we find the very root of the German collapse. The man who demands from
 
Fate a guarantee of his success deliberately denies the significance of
 
an heroic act. For this significance consists in the very fact that, in
 
the definite knowledge that the situation in question is fraught with
 
mortal danger, an action is undertaken which may lead to success. A
 
patient suffering from cancer and who knows that his death is certain if
 
he does not undergo an operation, needs no 51 per cent probability of a
 
cure before facing the operation. And if the operation promises only
 
half of one per cent probability of success a man of courage will risk
 
it and would not whine if it turned out unsuccessful.
 
 
 
All in all, the cowardly lack of will-power and the incapacity for
 
making decisions are chiefly results of the erroneous education given us
 
in our youth. The disastrous effects of this are now widespread among
 
us. The crowning examples of that tragic chain of consequences are shown
 
in the lack of civil courage which our leading statesmen display.
 
 
 
The cowardice which leads nowadays to the shirking of every kind of
 
responsibility springs from the same roots. Here again it is the fault
 
of the education given our young people. This drawback permeates all
 
sections of public life and finds its immortal consummation in the
 
institutions of government that function under the parliamentary regime.
 
 
 
Already in the school, unfortunately, more value is placed on
 
'confession and full repentance' and 'contrite renouncement', on the
 
part of little sinners, than on a simple and frank avowal. But this
 
latter seems to-day, in the eyes of many an educator, to savour of a
 
spirit of utter incorrigibility and depravation. And, though it may seem
 
incredible, many a boy is told that the gallows tree is waiting for him
 
because he has shown certain traits which might be of inestimable value
 
in the nation as a whole.
 
 
 
Just as the People's State must one day give its attention to training
 
the will-power and capacity for decision among the youth, so too it must
 
inculcate in the hearts of the young generation from early childhood
 
onwards a readiness to accept responsibilities, and the courage of open
 
and frank avowal. If it recognizes the full significance of this
 
necessity, finally--after a century of educative work--it will succeed
 
in building up a nation which will no longer be subject to those defeats
 
that have contributed so disastrously to bring about our present
 
overthrow.
 
 
 
The formal imparting of knowledge, which constitutes the chief work of
 
our educational system to-day, will be taken over by the People's State
 
with only few modifications. These modifications must be made in three
 
branches.
 
 
 
First of all, the brains of the young people must not generally be
 
burdened with subjects of which ninety-five per cent are useless to them
 
and are therefore forgotten again. The curriculum of the primary and
 
secondary schools presents an odd mixture at the present time. In many
 
branches of study the subject matter to be learned has become so
 
enormous that only a very small fraction of it can be remembered later
 
on, and indeed only a very small fraction of this whole mass of
 
knowledge can be used. On the other hand, what is learned is
 
insufficient for anybody who wishes to specialize in any certain branch
 
for the purpose of earning his daily bread. Take, for example, the
 
average civil servant who has passed through the GYMNASIUM or High
 
School, and ask him at the age of thirty or forty how much he has
 
retained of the knowledge that was crammed into him with so much pains.
 
 
 
How much is retained from all that was stuffed into his brain? He will
 
certainly answer: "Well, if a mass of stuff was then taught, it was not
 
for the sole purpose of supplying the student with a great stock of
 
knowledge from which he could draw in later years, but it served to
 
develop the understanding, the memory, and above all it helped to
 
strengthen the thinking powers of the brain." That is partly true. And
 
yet it is somewhat dangerous to submerge a young brain in a flood of
 
impressions which it can hardly master and the single elements of which
 
it cannot discern or appreciate at their just value. It is mostly the
 
essential part of this knowledge, and not the accidental, that is
 
forgotten and sacrificed. Thus the principal purpose of this copious
 
instruction is frustrated, for that purpose cannot be to make the brain
 
capable of learning by simply offering it an enormous and varied amount
 
of subjects for acquisition, but rather to furnish the individual with
 
that stock of knowledge which he will need in later life and which he
 
can use for the good of the community. This aim, however, is rendered
 
illusory if, because of the superabundance of subjects that have been
 
crammed into his head in childhood, a person is able to remember
 
nothing, or at least not the essential portion, of all this in later
 
life. There is no reason why millions of people should learn two or
 
three languages during the school years, when only a very small fraction
 
will have the opportunity to use these languages in later life and when
 
most of them will therefore forget those languages completely. To take
 
an instance: Out of 100,000 students who learn French there are probably
 
not 2,000 who will be in a position to make use of this accomplishment
 
in later life, while 98,000 will never have a chance to utilize in
 
practice what they have learned in youth. They have spent thousands of
 
hours on a subject which will afterwards be without any value or
 
importance to them. The argument that these matters form part of the
 
general process of educating the mind is invalid. It would be sound if
 
all these people were able to use this learning in after life. But, as
 
the situation stands, 98,000 are tortured to no purpose and waste their
 
valuable time, only for the sake of the 2,000 to whom the language will
 
be of any use.
 
 
 
In the case of that language which I have chosen as an example it cannot
 
be said that the learning of it educates the student in logical thinking
 
or sharpens his mental acumen, as the learning of Latin, for instance,
 
might be said to do. It would therefore be much better to teach young
 
students only the general outline, or, better, the inner structure of
 
such a language: that is to say, to allow them to discern the
 
characteristic features of the language, or perhaps to make them
 
acquainted with the rudiments of its grammar, its pronunciation, its
 
syntax, style, etc. That would be sufficient for average students,
 
because it would provide a clearer view of the whole and could be more
 
easily remembered. And it would be more practical than the present-day
 
attempt to cram into their heads a detailed knowledge of the whole
 
language, which they can never master and which they will readily
 
forget. If this method were adopted, then we should avoid the danger
 
that, out of the superabundance of matter taught, only some fragments
 
will remain in the memory; for the youth would then have to learn what
 
is worth while, and the selection between the useful and the useless
 
would thus have been made beforehand.
 
 
 
As regards the majority of students the knowledge and understanding of
 
the rudiments of a language would be quite sufficient for the rest of
 
their lives. And those who really do need this language subsequently
 
would thus have a foundation on which to start, should they choose to
 
make a more thorough study of it.
 
 
 
By adopting such a curriculum the necessary amount of time would be
 
gained for physical exercises as well as for a more intense training in
 
the various educational fields that have already been mentioned.
 
 
 
A reform of particular importance is that which ought to take place in
 
the present methods of teaching history. Scarcely any other people are
 
made to study as much of history as the Germans, and scarcely any other
 
people make such a bad use of their historical knowledge. If politics
 
means history in the making, then our way of teaching history stands
 
condemned by the way we have conducted our politics. But there would be
 
no point in bewailing the lamentable results of our political conduct
 
unless one is now determined to give our people a better political
 
education. In 99 out of 100 cases the results of our present teaching of
 
history are deplorable. Usually only a few dates, years of birth and
 
names, remain in the memory, while a knowledge of the main and clearly
 
defined lines of historical development is completely lacking. The
 
essential features which are of real significance are not taught. It is
 
left to the more or less bright intelligence of the individual to
 
discover the inner motivating urge amid the mass of dates and
 
chronological succession of events.
 
 
 
You may object as strongly as you like to this unpleasant statement. But
 
read with attention the speeches which our parliamentarians make during
 
one session alone on political problems and on questions of foreign
 
policy in particular. Remember that those gentlemen are, or claim to be,
 
the elite of the German nation and that at least a great number of them
 
have sat on the benches of our secondary schools and that many of them
 
have passed through our universities. Then you will realize how
 
defective the historical education of these people has been. If these
 
gentlemen had never studied history at all but had possessed a sound
 
instinct for public affairs, things would have gone better, and the
 
nation would have benefited greatly thereby.
 
 
 
The subject matter of our historical teaching must be curtailed. The
 
chief value of that teaching is to make the principal lines of
 
historical development understood. The more our historical teaching is
 
limited to this task, the more we may hope that it will turn out
 
subsequently to be of advantage to the individual and, through the
 
individual, to the community as a whole. For history must not be studied
 
merely with a view to knowing what happened in the past but as a guide
 
for the future, and to teach us what policy would be the best to follow
 
for the preservation of our own people. That is the real end; and the
 
teaching of history is only a means to attain this end. But here again
 
the means has superseded the end in our contemporary education. The goal
 
is completely forgotten. Do not reply that a profound study of history
 
demands a detailed knowledge of all these dates because otherwise we
 
could not fix the great lines of development. That task belongs to the
 
professional historians. But the average man is not a professor of
 
history. For him history has only one mission and that is to provide him
 
with such an amount of historical knowledge as is necessary in order to
 
enable him to form an independent opinion on the political affairs of
 
his own country. The man who wants to become a professor of history can
 
devote himself to all the details later on. Naturally he will have to
 
occupy himself even with the smallest details. Of course our present
 
teaching of history is not adequate to all this. Its scope is too vast
 
for the average student and too limited for the student who wishes to be
 
an historical expert.
 
 
 
Finally, it is the business of the People's State to arrange for the
 
writing of a world history in which the race problem will occupy a
 
dominant position.
 
 
 
To sum up: The People's State must reconstruct our system of general
 
instruction in such a way that it will embrace only what is essential.
 
Beyond this it will have to make provision for a more advanced teaching
 
in the various subjects for those who want to specialize in them. It
 
will suffice for the average individual to be acquainted with the
 
fundamentals of the various subjects to serve as the basis of what may
 
be called an all-round education. He ought to study exhaustively and in
 
detail only that subject in which he intends to work during the rest of
 
his life. A general instruction in all subjects should be obligatory,
 
and specialization should be left to the choice of the individual.
 
 
 
In this way the scholastic programme would be shortened, and thus
 
several school hours would be gained which could be utilized for
 
physical training and character training, in will-power, the capacity
 
for making practical judgments, decisions, etc.
 
 
 
The little account taken by our school training to-day, especially in
 
the secondary schools, of the callings that have to be followed in after
 
life is demonstrated by the fact that men who are destined for the same
 
calling in life are educated in three different kinds of schools. What
 
is of decisive importance is general education only and not the special
 
teaching. When special knowledge is needed it cannot be given in the
 
curriculum of our secondary schools as they stand to-day.
 
 
 
Therefore the People's State will one day have to abolish such
 
half-measures.
 
 
 
The second modification in the curriculum which the People's State will
 
have to make is the following:
 
 
 
It is a characteristic of our materialistic epoch that our scientific
 
education shows a growing emphasis on what is real and practical: such
 
subjects, for instance, as applied mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc.
 
Of course they are necessary in an age that is dominated by industrial
 
technology and chemistry, and where everyday life shows at least the
 
external manifestations of these. But it is a perilous thing to base the
 
general culture of a nation on the knowledge of these subjects. On the
 
contrary, that general culture ought always to be directed towards
 
ideals. It ought to be founded on the humanist disciplines and should
 
aim at giving only the ground work of further specialized instruction in
 
the various practical sciences. Otherwise we should sacrifice those
 
forces that are more important for the preservation of the nation than
 
any technical knowledge. In the historical department the study of
 
ancient history should not be omitted. Roman history, along general
 
lines, is and will remain the best teacher, not only for our own time
 
but also for the future. And the ideal of Hellenic culture should be
 
preserved for us in all its marvellous beauty. The differences between
 
the various peoples should not prevent us from recognizing the community
 
of race which unites them on a higher plane. The conflict of our times
 
is one that is being waged around great objectives. A civilization is
 
fighting for its existence. It is a civilization that is the product of
 
thousands of years of historical development, and the Greek as well as
 
the German forms part of it.
 
 
 
A clear-cut division must be made between general culture and the
 
special branches. To-day the latter threaten more and more to devote
 
themselves exclusively to the service of Mammon. To counterbalance this
 
tendency, general culture should be preserved, at least in its ideal
 
forms. The principle should be repeatedly emphasized, that industrial
 
and technical progress, trade and commerce, can flourish only so long as
 
a folk community exists whose general system of thought is inspired by
 
ideals, since that is the preliminary condition for a flourishing
 
development of the enterprises I have spoken of. That condition is not
 
created by a spirit of materialist egotism but by a spirit of
 
self-denial and the joy of giving one's self in the service of others.
 
 
 
The system of education which prevails to-day sees its principal object
 
in pumping into young people that knowledge which will help them to make
 
their way in life. This principle is expressed in the following terms:
 
"The young man must one day become a useful member of human society." By
 
that phrase they mean the ability to gain an honest daily livelihood.
 
The superficial training in the duties of good citizenship, which he
 
acquires merely as an accidental thing, has very weak foundations. For
 
in itself the State represents only a form, and therefore it is
 
difficult to train people to look upon this form as the ideal which they
 
will have to serve and towards which they must feel responsible. A form
 
can be too easily broken. But, as we have seen, the idea which people
 
have of the State to-day does not represent anything clearly defined.
 
Therefore, there is nothing but the usual stereotyped 'patriotic'
 
training. In the old Germany the greatest emphasis was placed on the
 
divine right of the small and even the smallest potentates. The way in
 
which this divine right was formulated and presented was never very
 
clever and often very stupid. Because of the large numbers of those
 
small potentates, it was impossible to give adequate biographical
 
accounts of the really great personalities that shed their lustre on the
 
history of the German people. The result was that the broad masses
 
received a very inadequate knowledge of German history. Here, too, the
 
great lines of development were missing.
 
 
 
It is evident that in such a way no real national enthusiasm could be
 
aroused. Our educational system proved incapable of selecting from the
 
general mass of our historical personages the names of a few
 
personalities which the German people could be proud to look upon as
 
their own. Thus the whole nation might have been united by the ties of a
 
common knowledge of this common heritage. The really important figures
 
in German history were not presented to the present generation. The
 
attention of the whole nation was not concentrated on them for the
 
purpose of awakening a common national spirit. From the various subjects
 
that were taught, those who had charge of our training seemed incapable
 
of selecting what redounded most to the national honour and lifting that
 
above the common objective level, in order to inflame the national pride
 
in the light of such brilliant examples. At that time such a course
 
would have been looked upon as rank chauvinism, which did not then have
 
a very pleasant savour. Pettifogging dynastic patriotism was more
 
acceptable and more easily tolerated than the glowing fire of a supreme
 
national pride. The former could be always pressed into service, whereas
 
the latter might one day become a dominating force. Monarchist
 
patriotism terminated in Associations of Veterans, whereas passionate
 
national patriotism might have opened a road which would be difficult to
 
determine. This national passion is like a highly tempered thoroughbred
 
who is discriminate about the sort of rider he will tolerate in the
 
saddle. No wonder that most people preferred to shirk such a danger.
 
Nobody seemed to think it possible that one day a war might come which
 
would put the mettle of this kind of patriotism to the test, in
 
artillery bombardment and waves of attacks with poison gas. But when it
 
did come our lack of this patriotic passion was avenged in a terrible
 
way. None were very enthusiastic about dying for their imperial and
 
royal sovereigns; while on the other hand the 'Nation' was not
 
recognized by the greater number of the soldiers.
 
 
 
Since the revolution broke out in Germany and the monarchist patriotism
 
was therefore extinguished, the purpose of teaching history was nothing
 
more than to add to the stock of objective knowledge. The present State
 
has no use for patriotic enthusiasm; but it will never obtain what it
 
really desires. For if dynastic patriotism failed to produce a supreme
 
power of resistance at a time when the principle of nationalism
 
dominated, it will be still less possible to arouse republican
 
enthusiasm. There can be no doubt that the German people would not have
 
stood on the field of battle for four and a half years to fight under
 
the battle slogan 'For the Republic,' and least of all those who created
 
this grand institution.
 
 
 
In reality this Republic has been allowed to exist undisturbed only by
 
grace of its readiness and its promise to all and sundry, to pay tribute
 
and reparations to the stranger and to put its signature to any kind of
 
territorial renunciation. The rest of the world finds it sympathetic,
 
just as a weakling is always more pleasing to those who want to bend him
 
to their own uses than is a man who is made of harder metal. But the
 
fact that the enemy likes this form of government is the worst kind of
 
condemnation. They love the German Republic and tolerate its existence
 
because no better instrument could be found which would help them to
 
keep our people in slavery. It is to this fact alone that this
 
magnanimous institution owes its survival. And that is why it can
 
renounce any REAL system of national education and can feel satisfied
 
when the heroes of the REICH banner shout their hurrahs, but in reality
 
these same heroes would scamper away like rabbits if called upon to
 
defend that banner with their blood.
 
 
 
The People's State will have to fight for its existence. It will not
 
gain or secure this existence by signing documents like that of the
 
Dawes Plan. But for its existence and defence it will need precisely
 
those things which our present system believes can be repudiated. The
 
more worthy its form and its inner national being. the greater will be
 
the envy and opposition of its adversaries. The best defence will not be
 
in the arms it possesses but in its citizens. Bastions of fortresses
 
will not save it, but the living wall of its men and women, filled with
 
an ardent love for their country and a passionate spirit of national
 
patriotism.
 
 
 
Therefore the third point which will have to be considered in relation
 
to our educational system is the following:
 
 
 
The People's State must realize that the sciences may also be made a
 
means of promoting a spirit of pride in the nation. Not only the history
 
of the world but the history of civilization as a whole must be taught
 
in the light of this principle. An inventor must appear great not only
 
as an inventor but also, and even more so, as a member of the nation.
 
The admiration aroused by the contemplation of a great achievement must
 
be transformed into a feeling of pride and satisfaction that a man of
 
one's own race has been chosen to accomplish it. But out of the
 
abundance of great names in German history the greatest will have to be
 
selected and presented to our young generation in such a way as to
 
become solid pillars of strength to support the national spirit.
 
 
 
The subject matter ought to be systematically organized from the
 
standpoint of this principle. And the teaching should be so orientated
 
that the boy or girl, after leaving school, will not be a semi-pacifist,
 
a democrat or of something else of that kind, but a whole-hearted
 
German. So that this national feeling be sincere from the very
 
beginning, and not a mere pretence, the following fundamental and
 
inflexible principle should be impressed on the young brain while it is
 
yet malleable: The man who loves his nation can prove the sincerity of
 
this sentiment only by being ready to make sacrifices for the nation's
 
welfare. There is no such thing as a national sentiment which is
 
directed towards personal interests. And there is no such thing as a
 
nationalism that embraces only certain classes. Hurrahing proves nothing
 
and does not confer the right to call oneself national if behind that
 
shout there is no sincere preoccupation for the conservation of the
 
nation's well-being. One can be proud of one's people only if there is
 
no class left of which one need to be ashamed. When one half of a nation
 
is sunk in misery and worn out by hard distress, or even depraved or
 
degenerate, that nation presents such an unattractive picture that
 
nobody can feel proud to belong to it. It is only when a nation is sound
 
in all its members, physically and morally, that the joy of belonging to
 
it can properly be intensified to the supreme feeling which we call
 
national pride. But this pride, in its highest form, can be felt only by
 
those who know the greatness of their nation.
 
 
 
The spirit of nationalism and a feeling for social justice must be fused
 
into one sentiment in the hearts of the youth. Then a day will come when
 
a nation of citizens will arise which will be welded together through a
 
common love and a common pride that shall be invincible and
 
indestructible for ever.
 
 
 
The dread of chauvinism, which is a symptom of our time, is a sign of
 
its impotence. Since our epoch not only lacks everything in the nature
 
of exuberant energy but even finds such a manifestation disagreeable,
 
fate will never elect it for the accomplishment of any great deeds. For
 
the greatest changes that have taken place on this earth would have been
 
inconceivable if they had not been inspired by ardent and even
 
hysterical passions, but only by the bourgeois virtues of peacefulness
 
and order.
 
 
 
One thing is certain: our world is facing a great revolution. The only
 
question is whether the outcome will be propitious for the Aryan portion
 
of mankind or whether the everlasting Jew will profit by it.
 
 
 
By educating the young generation along the right lines, the People's
 
State will have to see to it that a generation of mankind is formed
 
which will be adequate to this supreme combat that will decide the
 
destinies of the world.
 
 
 
That nation will conquer which will be the first to take this road.
 
 
 
The whole organization of education and training which the People's
 
State is to build up must take as its crowning task the work of
 
instilling into the hearts and brains of the youth entrusted to it the
 
racial instinct and understanding of the racial idea. No boy or girl
 
must leave school without having attained a clear insight into the
 
meaning of racial purity and the importance of maintaining the racial
 
blood unadulterated. Thus the first indispensable condition for the
 
preservation of our race will have been established and thus the future
 
cultural progress of our people will be assured.
 
 
 
For in the last analysis all physical and mental training would be in
 
vain unless it served an entity which is ready and determined to carry
 
on its own existence and maintain its own characteristic qualities.
 
 
 
If it were otherwise, something would result which we Germans have cause
 
to regret already, without perhaps having hitherto recognized the extent
 
of the tragic calamity. We should be doomed to remain also in the future
 
only manure for civilization. And that not in the banal sense of the
 
contemporary bourgeois mind, which sees in a lost fellow member of our
 
people only a lost citizen, but in a sense which we should have
 
painfully to recognize: namely, that our racial blood would be destined
 
to disappear. By continually mixing with other races we might lift them
 
from their former lower level of civilization to a higher grade; but we
 
ourselves should descend for ever from the heights we had reached.
 
 
 
Finally, from the racial standpoint this training also must find its
 
culmination in the military service. The term of military service is to
 
be a final stage of the normal training which the average German
 
receives.
 
 
 
While the People's State attaches the greatest importance to physical
 
and mental training, it has also to consider, and no less importantly,
 
the task of selecting men for the service of the State itself. This
 
important matter is passed over lightly at the present time. Generally
 
the children of parents who are for the time being in higher situations
 
are in their turn considered worthy of a higher education. Here talent
 
plays a subordinate part. But talent can be estimated only relatively.
 
Though in general culture he may be inferior to the city child, a
 
peasant boy may be more talented than the son of a family that has
 
occupied high positions through many generations. But the superior
 
culture of the city child has in itself nothing to do with a greater or
 
lesser degree of talent; for this culture has its roots in the more
 
copious mass of impressions which arise from the more varied education
 
and the surroundings among which this child lives. If the intelligent
 
son of peasant parents were educated from childhood in similar
 
surroundings his intellectual accomplishments would be quite otherwise.
 
In our day there is only one sphere where the family in which a person
 
has been born means less than his innate gifts. That is the sphere of
 
art. Here, where a person cannot just 'learn,' but must have innate
 
gifts that later on may undergo a more or less happy development (in the
 
sense of a wise development of what is already there), money and
 
parental property are of no account. This is a good proof that genius is
 
not necessarily connected with the higher social strata or with wealth.
 
Not rarely the greatest artists come from poor families. And many a boy
 
from the country village has eventually become a celebrated master.
 
 
 
It does not say much for the mental acumen of our time that advantage is
 
not taken of this truth for the sake of our whole intellectual life. The
 
opinion is advanced that this principle, though undoubtedly valid in the
 
field of art, has not the same validity in regard to what are called the
 
applied sciences. It is true that a man can be trained to a certain
 
amount of mechanical dexterity, just as a poodle can be taught
 
incredible tricks by a clever master. But such training does not bring
 
the animal to use his intelligence in order to carry out those tricks.
 
And the same holds good in regard to man. It is possible to teach men,
 
irrespective of talent or no talent, to go through certain scientific
 
exercises, but in such cases the results are quite as inanimate and
 
mechanical as in the case of the animal. It would even be possible to
 
force a person of mediocre intelligence, by means of a severe course of
 
intellectual drilling, to acquire more than the average amount of
 
knowledge; but that knowledge would remain sterile. The result would be
 
a man who might be a walking dictionary of knowledge but who will fail
 
miserably on every critical occasion in life and at every juncture where
 
vital decisions have to be taken. Such people need to be drilled
 
specially for every new and even most insignificant task and will never
 
be capable of contributing in the least to the general progress of
 
mankind. Knowledge that is merely drilled into people can at best
 
qualify them to fill government positions under our present regime.
 
 
 
It goes without saying that, among the sum total of individuals who make
 
up a nation, gifted people are always to be found in every sphere of
 
life. It is also quite natural that the value of knowledge will be all
 
the greater the more vitally the dead mass of learning is animated by
 
the innate talent of the individual who possesses it. Creative work in
 
this field can be done only through the marriage of knowledge and
 
talent.
 
 
 
One example will suffice to show how much our contemporary world is at
 
fault in this matter. From time to time our illustrated papers publish,
 
for the edification of the German philistine, the news that in some
 
quarter or other of the globe, and for the first time in that locality,
 
a Negro has become a lawyer, a teacher, a pastor, even a grand opera
 
tenor or something else of that kind. While the bourgeois blockhead
 
stares with amazed admiration at the notice that tells him how
 
marvellous are the achievements of our modern educational technique, the
 
more cunning Jew sees in this fact a new proof to be utilized for the
 
theory with which he wants to infect the public, namely that all men are
 
equal. It does not dawn on the murky bourgeois mind that the fact which
 
is published for him is a sin against reason itself, that it is an act
 
of criminal insanity to train a being who is only an anthropoid by birth
 
until the pretence can be made that he has been turned into a lawyer;
 
while, on the other hand, millions who belong to the most civilized
 
races have to remain in positions which are unworthy of their cultural
 
level. The bourgeois mind does not realize that it is a sin against the
 
will of the eternal Creator to allow hundreds of thousands of highly
 
gifted people to remain floundering in the swamp of proletarian misery
 
while Hottentots and Zulus are drilled to fill positions in the
 
intellectual professions. For here we have the product only of a
 
drilling technique, just as in the case of the performing dog. If the
 
same amount of care and effort were applied among intelligent races each
 
individual would become a thousand times more capable in such matters.
 
 
 
This state of affairs would become intolerable if a day should arrive
 
when it no longer refers to exceptional cases. But the situation is
 
already intolerable where talent and natural gifts are not taken as
 
decisive factors in qualifying for the right to a higher education. It
 
is indeed intolerable to think that year after year hundreds of
 
thousands of young people without a single vestige of talent are deemed
 
worthy of a higher education, while other hundreds of thousands who
 
possess high natural gifts have to go without any sort of higher
 
schooling at all. The practical loss thus caused to the nation is
 
incalculable. If the number of important discoveries which have been
 
made in America has grown considerably in recent years one of the
 
reasons is that the number of gifted persons belonging to the lowest
 
social classes who were given a higher education in that country is
 
proportionately much larger than in Europe.
 
 
 
A stock of knowledge packed into the brain will not suffice for the
 
making of discoveries. What counts here is only that knowledge which is
 
illuminated by natural talent. But with us at the present time no value
 
is placed on such gifts. Only good school reports count.
 
 
 
Here is another educative work that is waiting for the People's State to
 
do. It will not be its task to assure a dominant influence to a certain
 
social class already existing, but it will be its duty to attract the
 
most competent brains in the total mass of the nation and promote them
 
to place and honour. It is not merely the duty of the State to give to
 
the average child a certain definite education in the primary school,
 
but it is also its duty to open the road to talent in the proper
 
direction. And above all, it must open the doors of the higher schools
 
under the State to talent of every sort, no matter in what social class
 
it may appear. This is an imperative necessity; for thus alone will it
 
be possible to develop a talented body of public leaders from the class
 
which represents learning that in itself is only a dead mass.
 
 
 
There is still another reason why the State should provide for this
 
situation. Our intellectual class, particularly in Germany, is so shut
 
up in itself and fossilized that it lacks living contact with the
 
classes beneath it. Two evil consequences result from this: First, the
 
intellectual class neither understands nor sympathizes with the broad
 
masses. It has been so long cut off from all connection with them that
 
it cannot now have the necessary psychological ties that would enable it
 
to understand them. It has become estranged from the people. Secondly,
 
the intellectual class lacks the necessary will-power; for this faculty
 
is always weaker in cultivated circles, which live in seclusion, than
 
among the primitive masses of the people. God knows we Germans have
 
never been lacking in abundant scientific culture, but we have always
 
had a considerable lack of will-power and the capacity for making
 
decisions. For example, the more 'intellectual' our statesmen have been
 
the more lacking they have been, for the most part, in practical
 
achievement. Our political preparation and our technical equipment for
 
the world war were defective, certainly not because the brains governing
 
the nation were too little educated, but because the men who directed
 
our public affairs were over-educated, filled to over-flowing with
 
knowledge and intelligence, yet without any sound instinct and simply
 
without energy, or any spirit of daring. It was our nation's tragedy to
 
have to fight for its existence under a Chancellor who was a
 
dillydallying philosopher. If instead of a Bethmann von Hollweg we had
 
had a rough man of the people as our leader the heroic blood of the
 
common grenadier would not have been shed in vain. The exaggeratedly
 
intellectual material out of which our leaders were made proved to be
 
the best ally of the scoundrels who carried out the November revolution.
 
These intellectuals safeguarded the national wealth in a miserly
 
fashion, instead of launching it forth and risking it, and thus they set
 
the conditions on which the others won success.
 
 
 
Here the Catholic Church presents an instructive example. Clerical
 
celibacy forces the Church to recruit its priests not from their own
 
ranks but progressively from the masses of the people. Yet there are not
 
many who recognize the significance of celibacy in this relation. But
 
therein lies the cause of the inexhaustible vigour which characterizes
 
that ancient institution. For by thus unceasingly recruiting the
 
ecclesiastical dignitaries from the lower classes of the people, the
 
Church is enabled not only to maintain the contact of instinctive
 
understanding with the masses of the population but also to assure
 
itself of always being able to draw upon that fund of energy which is
 
present in this form only among the popular masses. Hence the surprising
 
youthfulness of that gigantic organism, its mental flexibility and its
 
iron will-power.
 
 
 
It will be the task of the Peoples' State so to organize and administer
 
its educational system that the existing intellectual class will be
 
constantly furnished with a supply of fresh blood from beneath. From the
 
bulk of the nation the State must sift out with careful scrutiny those
 
persons who are endowed with natural talents and see that they are
 
employed in the service of the community. For neither the State itself
 
nor the various departments of State exist to furnish revenues for
 
members of a special class, but to fulfil the tasks allotted to them.
 
This will be possible, however, only if the State trains individuals
 
specially for these offices. Such individuals must have the necessary
 
fundamental capabilities and will-power. The principle does not hold
 
true only in regard to the civil service but also in regard to all those
 
who are to take part in the intellectual and moral leadership of the
 
people, no matter in what sphere they may be employed. The greatness of
 
a people is partly dependent on the condition that it must succeed in
 
training the best brains for those branches of the public service for
 
which they show a special natural aptitude and in placing them in the
 
offices where they can do their best work for the good of the community.
 
If two nations of equal strength and quality engage in a mutual conflict
 
that nation will come out victorious which has entrusted its
 
intellectual and moral leadership to its best talents and that nation
 
will go under whose government represents only a common food trough for
 
privileged groups or classes and where the inner talents of its
 
individual members are not availed of.
 
 
 
Of course such a reform seems impossible in the world as it is to-day.
 
The objection will at once be raised, that it is too much to expect from
 
the favourite son of a highly-placed civil servant, for instance, that
 
he shall work with his hands simply because somebody else whose parents
 
belong to the working-class seems more capable for a job in the civil
 
service. That argument may be valid as long as manual work is looked
 
upon in the same way as it is looked upon to-day. Hence the Peoples'
 
State will have to take up an attitude towards the appreciation of
 
manual labour which will be fundamentally different from that which now
 
exists. If necessary, it will have to organize a persistent system of
 
teaching which will aim at abolishing the present-day stupid habit of
 
looking down on physical labour as an occupation to be ashamed of.
 
 
 
The individual will have to be valued, not by the class of work he does
 
but by the way in which he does it and by its usefulness to the
 
community. This statement may sound monstrous in an epoch when the most
 
brainless columnist on a newspaper staff is more esteemed than the most
 
expert mechanic, merely because the former pushes a pen. But, as I have
 
said, this false valuation does not correspond to the nature of things.
 
It has been artificially introduced, and there was a time when it did
 
not exist at all. The present unnatural state of affairs is one of those
 
general morbid phenomena that have arisen from our materialistic epoch.
 
Fundamentally every kind of work has a double value; the one material,
 
the other ideal. The material value depends on the practical importance
 
of the work to the life of the community. The greater the number of the
 
population who benefit from the work, directly or indirectly, the higher
 
will be its material value. This evaluation is expressed in the material
 
recompense which the individual receives for his labour. In
 
contradistinction to this purely material value there is the ideal
 
value. Here the work performed is not judged by its material importance
 
but by the degree to which it answers a necessity. Certainly the
 
material utility of an invention may be greater than that of the service
 
rendered by an everyday workman; but it is also certain that the
 
community needs each of those small daily services just as much as the
 
greater services. From the material point of view a distinction can be
 
made in the evaluation of different kinds of work according to their
 
utility to the community, and this distinction is expressed by the
 
differentiation in the scale of recompense; but on the ideal or abstract
 
plans all workmen become equal the moment each strives to do his best in
 
his own field, no matter what that field may be. It is on this that a
 
man's value must be estimated, and not on the amount of recompense
 
received.
 
 
 
In a reasonably directed State care must be taken that each individual
 
is given the kind of work which corresponds to his capabilities. In
 
other words, people will be trained for the positions indicated by their
 
natural endowments; but these endowments or faculties are innate and
 
cannot be acquired by any amount of training, being a gift from Nature
 
and not merited by men. Therefore, the way in which men are generally
 
esteemed by their fellow-citizens must not be according to the kind of
 
work they do, because that has been more or less assigned to the
 
individual. Seeing that the kind of work in which the individual is
 
employed is to be accounted to his inborn gifts and the resultant
 
training which he has received from the community, he will have to be
 
judged by the way in which he performs this work entrusted to him by the
 
community. For the work which the individual performs is not the purpose
 
of his existence, but only a means. His real purpose in life is to
 
better himself and raise himself to a higher level as a human being; but
 
this he can only do in and through the community whose cultural life he
 
shares. And this community must always exist on the foundations on which
 
the State is based. He ought to contribute to the conservation of those
 
foundations. Nature determines the form of this contribution. It is the
 
duty of the individual to return to the community, zealously and
 
honestly, what the community has given him. He who does this deserves
 
the highest respect and esteem. Material remuneration may be given to
 
him whose work has a corresponding utility for the community; but the
 
ideal recompense must lie in the esteem to which everybody has a claim
 
who serves his people with whatever powers Nature has bestowed upon him
 
and which have been developed by the training he has received from the
 
national community. Then it will no longer be dishonourable to be an
 
honest craftsman; but it will be a cause of disgrace to be an
 
inefficient State official, wasting God's day and filching daily bread
 
from an honest public. Then it will be looked upon as quite natural that
 
positions should not be given to persons who of their very nature are
 
incapable of filling them.
 
 
 
Furthermore, this personal efficiency will be the sole criterion of the
 
right to take part on an equal juridical footing in general civil
 
affairs.
 
 
 
The present epoch is working out its own ruin. It introduces universal
 
suffrage, chatters about equal rights but can find no foundation for
 
this equality. It considers the material wage as the expression of a
 
man's value and thus destroys the basis of the noblest kind of equality
 
that can exist. For equality cannot and does not depend on the work a
 
man does, but only on the manner in which each one does the particular
 
work allotted to him. Thus alone will mere natural chance be set aside
 
in determining the work of a man and thus only does the individual
 
become the artificer of his own social worth.
 
 
 
At the present time, when whole groups of people estimate each other's
 
value only by the size of the salaries which they respectively receive,
 
there will be no understanding of all this. But that is no reason why we
 
should cease to champion those ideas. Quite the opposite: in an epoch
 
which is inwardly diseased and decaying anyone who would heal it must
 
have the courage first to lay bare the real roots of the disease. And
 
the National Socialist Movement must take that duty on its shoulders. It
 
will have to lift its voice above the heads of the small bourgeoisie and
 
rally together and co-ordinate all those popular forces which are ready
 
to become the protagonists of a new WELTANSCHAUUNG.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Of course the objection will be made that in general it is difficult to
 
differentiate between the material and ideal values of work and that the
 
lower prestige which is attached to physical labour is due to the fact
 
that smaller wages are paid for that kind of work. It will be said that
 
the lower wage is in its turn the reason why the manual worker has less
 
chance to participate in the culture of the nation; so that the ideal
 
side of human culture is less open to him because it has nothing to do
 
with his daily activities. It may be added that the reluctance to do
 
physical work is justified by the fact that, on account of the small
 
income, the cultural level of manual labourers must naturally be low,
 
and that this in turn is a justification for the lower estimation in
 
which manual labour is generally held.
 
 
 
There is quite a good deal of truth in all this. But that is the very
 
reason why we ought to see that in the future there should not be such a
 
wide difference in the scale of remuneration. Don't say that under such
 
conditions poorer work would be done. It would be the saddest symptom of
 
decadence if finer intellectual work could be obtained only through the
 
stimulus of higher payment. If that point of view had ruled the world up
 
to now humanity would never have acquired its greatest scientific and
 
cultural heritage. For all the greatest inventions, the greatest
 
discoveries, the most profoundly revolutionary scientific work, and the
 
most magnificent monuments of human culture, were never given to the
 
world under the impulse or compulsion of money. Quite the contrary: not
 
rarely was their origin associated with a renunciation of the worldly
 
pleasures that wealth can purchase.
 
 
 
It may be that money has become the one power that governs life to-day.
 
Yet a time will come when men will again bow to higher gods. Much that
 
we have to-day owes its existence to the desire for money and property;
 
but there is very little among all this which would leave the world
 
poorer by its lack.
 
 
 
It is also one of the aims before our movement to hold out the prospect
 
of a time when the individual will be given what he needs for the
 
purposes of his life and it will be a time in which, on the other hand,
 
the principle will be upheld that man does not live for material
 
enjoyment alone. This principle will find expression in a wiser scale of
 
wages and salaries which will enable everyone, including the humblest
 
workman who fulfils his duties conscientiously, to live an honourable
 
and decent life both as a man and as a citizen. Let it not be said that
 
this is merely a visionary ideal, that this world would never tolerate
 
it in practice and that of itself it is impossible to attain.
 
 
 
Even we are not so simple as to believe that there will ever be an age
 
in which there will be no drawbacks. But that does not release us from
 
the obligation to fight for the removal of the defects which we have
 
recognized, to overcome the shortcomings and to strive towards the
 
ideal. In any case the hard reality of the facts to be faced will always
 
place only too many limits to our aspirations. But that is precisely why
 
man must strive again and again to serve the ultimate aim and no
 
failures must induce him to renounce his intentions, just as we cannot
 
spurn the sway of justice because mistakes creep into the administration
 
of the law, and just as we cannot despise medical science because, in
 
spite of it, there will always be diseases.
 
 
 
Man should take care not to have too low an estimate of the power of an
 
ideal. If there are some who may feel disheartened over the present
 
conditions, and if they happen to have served as soldiers, I would
 
remind them of the time when their heroism was the most convincing
 
example of the power inherent in ideal motives. It was not preoccupation
 
about their daily bread that led men to sacrifice their lives, but the
 
love of their country, the faith which they had in its greatness, and an
 
all round feeling for the honour of the nation. Only after the German
 
people had become estranged from these ideals, to follow the material
 
promises offered by the Revolution, only after they threw away their
 
arms to take up the rucksack, only then--instead of entering an earthly
 
paradise--did they sink into the purgatory of universal contempt and at
 
the same time universal want.
 
 
 
That is why we must face the calculators of the materialist Republic
 
with faith in an idealist REICH.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER III
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CITIZENS AND SUBJECTS OF THE STATE
 
 
 
 
 
The institution that is now erroneously called the State generally
 
classifies people only into two groups: citizens and aliens. Citizens
 
are all those who possess full civic rights, either by reason of their
 
birth or by an act of naturalization. Aliens are those who enjoy the
 
same rights in some other State. Between these two categories there are
 
certain beings who resemble a sort of meteoric phenomena. They are
 
people who have no citizenship in any State and consequently no civic
 
rights anywhere.
 
 
 
In most cases nowadays a person acquires civic rights by being born
 
within the frontiers of a State. The race or nationality to which he may
 
belong plays no role whatsoever. The child of a Negro who once lived in
 
one of the German protectorates and now takes up his residence in
 
Germany automatically becomes a 'German Citizen' in the eyes of the
 
world. In the same way the child of any Jew, Pole, African or Asian may
 
automatically become a German Citizen.
 
 
 
Besides naturalization that is acquired through the fact of having been
 
born within the confines of a State there exists another kind of
 
naturalization which can be acquired later. This process is subject to
 
various preliminary requirements. For example one condition is that, if
 
possible, the applicant must not be a burglar or a common street thug.
 
It is required of him that his political attitude is not such as to give
 
cause for uneasiness; in other words he must be a harmless simpleton in
 
politics. It is required that he shall not be a burden to the State of
 
which he wishes to become a citizen. In this realistic epoch of ours
 
this last condition naturally only means that he must not be a financial
 
burden. If the affairs of the candidate are such that it appears likely
 
he will turn out to be a good taxpayer, that is a very important
 
consideration and will help him to obtain civic rights all the more
 
rapidly.
 
 
 
The question of race plays no part at all.
 
 
 
The whole process of acquiring civic rights is not very different from
 
that of being admitted to membership of an automobile club, for
 
instance. A person files his application. It is examined. It is
 
sanctioned. And one day the man receives a card which informs him that
 
he has become a citizen. The information is given in an amusing way. An
 
applicant who has hitherto been a Zulu or Kaffir is told: "By these
 
presents you are now become a German Citizen."
 
 
 
The President of the State can perform this piece of magic. What God
 
Himself could not do is achieved by some Theophrastus Paracelsus (Note 16)
 
of a civil servant through a mere twirl of the hand. Nothing but a stroke
 
of the pen, and a Mongolian slave is forthwith turned into a real
 
German. Not only is no question asked regarding the race to which the
 
new citizen belongs; even the matter of his physical health is not
 
inquired into. His flesh may be corrupted with syphilis; but he will
 
still be welcome in the State as it exists to-day so long as he may not
 
become a financial burden or a political danger.
 
 
 
[Note 16. The last and most famous of the medieval alchemists. He was born
 
at Basleabout the year 1490 and died at Salzburg in 1541. He taught that
 
all metals could be transmuted through the action of one primary element
 
common to them all. This element he called ALCAHEST. If it could be found
 
it would proveto be at once the philosopher's stone, the universal
 
medicine and their resistible solvent. There are many aspects of his
 
teaching which are now looked upon as by no means so fantastic as they
 
were considered in his own time.]
 
 
 
In this way, year after year, those organisms which we call States take
 
up poisonous matter which they can hardly ever overcome.
 
 
 
Another point of distinction between a citizen and an alien is that the
 
former is admitted to all public offices, that he may possibly have to
 
do military service and that in return he is permitted to take a passive
 
or active part at public elections. Those are his chief privileges. For
 
in regard to personal rights and personal liberty the alien enjoys the
 
same amount of protection as the citizen, and frequently even more.
 
Anyhow that is how it happens in our present German Republic.
 
 
 
I realize fully that nobody likes to hear these things. But it would be
 
difficult to find anything more illogical or more insane than our
 
contemporary laws in regard to State citizenship.
 
 
 
At present there exists one State which manifests at least some modest
 
attempts that show a better appreciation of how things ought to be done
 
in this matter. It is not, however, in our model German Republic but in
 
the U.S.A. that efforts are made to conform at least partly to the
 
counsels of commonsense. By refusing immigrants to enter there if they
 
are in a bad state of health, and by excluding certain races from the
 
right to become naturalized as citizens, they have begun to introduce
 
principles similar to those on which we wish to ground the People's
 
State.
 
 
 
The People's State will classify its population in three groups:
 
Citizens, subjects of the State, and aliens.
 
 
 
The principle is that birth within the confines of the State gives only
 
the status of a subject. It does not carry with it the right to fill any
 
position under the State or to participate in political life, such as
 
taking an active or passive part in elections. Another principle is that
 
the race and nationality of every subject of the State will have to be
 
proved. A subject is at any time free to cease being a subject and to
 
become a citizen of that country to which he belongs in virtue of his
 
nationality. The only difference between an alien and a subject of the
 
State is that the former is a citizen of another country.
 
 
 
The young boy or girl who is of German nationality and is a subject of
 
the German State is bound to complete the period of school education
 
which is obligatory for every German. Thereby he submits to the system
 
of training which will make him conscious of his race and a member of
 
the folk-community. Then he has to fulfil all those requirements laid
 
down by the State in regard to physical training after he has left
 
school; and finally he enters the army. The training in the army is of a
 
general kind. It must be given to each individual German and will render
 
him competent to fulfil the physical and mental requirements of military
 
service. The rights of citizenship shall be conferred on every young man
 
whose health and character have been certified as good, after having
 
completed his period of military service. This act of inauguration in
 
citizenship shall be a solemn ceremony. And the diploma conferring the
 
rights of citizenship will be preserved by the young man as the most
 
precious testimonial of his whole life. It entitles him to exercise all
 
the rights of a citizen and to enjoy all the privileges attached
 
thereto. For the State must draw a sharp line of distinction between
 
those who, as members of the nation, are the foundation and the support
 
of its existence and greatness, and those who are domiciled in the State
 
simply as earners of their livelihood there.
 
 
 
On the occasion of conferring a diploma of citizenship the new citizen
 
must take a solemn oath of loyalty to the national community and the
 
State. This diploma must be a bond which unites together all the various
 
classes and sections of the nation. It shall be a greater honour to be a
 
citizen of this REICH, even as a street-sweeper, than to be the King of
 
a foreign State.
 
 
 
The citizen has privileges which are not accorded to the alien. He is
 
the master in the REICH. But this high honour has also its obligations.
 
Those who show themselves without personal honour or character, or
 
common criminals, or traitors to the fatherland, can at any time be
 
deprived of the rights of citizenship. Therewith they become merely
 
subjects of the State.
 
 
 
The German girl is a subject of the State but will become a citizen when
 
she marries. At the same time those women who earn their livelihood
 
independently have the right to acquire citizenship if they are German
 
subjects.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER IV
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PERSONALITY AND THE IDEAL OF THE PEOPLE'S STATE
 
 
 
 
 
If the principal duty of the National Socialist People's State be to
 
educate and promote the existence of those who are the material out of
 
which the State is formed, it will not be sufficient to promote those
 
racial elements as such, educate them and finally train them for
 
practical life, but the State must also adapt its own organization to
 
meet the demands of this task.
 
 
 
It would be absurd to appraise a man's worth by the race to which he
 
belongs and at the same time to make war against the Marxist principle,
 
that all men are equal, without being determined to pursue our own
 
principle to its ultimate consequences. If we admit the significance of
 
blood, that is to say, if we recognize the race as the fundamental
 
element on which all life is based, we shall have to apply to the
 
individual the logical consequences of this principle. In general I must
 
estimate the worth of nations differently, on the basis of the different
 
races from which they spring, and I must also differentiate in
 
estimating the worth of the individual within his own race. The
 
principle, that one people is not the same as another, applies also to
 
the individual members of a national community. No one brain, for
 
instance, is equal to another; because the constituent elements
 
belonging to the same blood vary in a thousand subtle details, though
 
they are fundamentally of the same quality.
 
 
 
The first consequence of this fact is comparatively simple. It demands
 
that those elements within the folk-community which show the best racial
 
qualities ought to be encouraged more than the others and especially
 
they should be encouraged to increase and multiply.
 
 
 
This task is comparatively simple because it can be recognized and
 
carried out almost mechanically. It is much more difficult to select
 
from among a whole multitude of people all those who actually possess
 
the highest intellectual and spiritual characteristics and assign them
 
to that sphere of influence which not only corresponds to their
 
outstanding talents but in which their activities will above all things
 
be of benefit to the nation. This selection according to capacity and
 
efficiency cannot be effected in a mechanical way. It is a work which
 
can be accomplished only through the permanent struggle of everyday life
 
itself.
 
 
 
A WELTANSCHAUUNG which repudiates the democratic principle of the rule
 
of the masses and aims at giving this world to the best people--that
 
is, to the highest quality of mankind--must also apply that same
 
aristocratic postulate to the individuals within the folk-community. It
 
must take care that the positions of leadership and highest influence
 
are given to the best men. Hence it is not based on the idea of the
 
majority, but on that of personality.
 
 
 
Anyone who believes that the People's National Socialist State should
 
distinguish itself from the other States only mechanically, as it were,
 
through the better construction of its economic life--thanks to a
 
better equilibrium between poverty and riches, or to the extension to
 
broader masses of the power to determine the economic process, or to a
 
fairer wage, or to the elimination of vast differences in the scale of
 
salaries--anyone who thinks this understands only the superficial
 
features of our movement and has not the least idea of what we mean when
 
we speak of our WELTANSCHAUUNG. All these features just mentioned could
 
not in the least guarantee us a lasting existence and certainly would be
 
no warranty of greatness. A nation that could content itself with
 
external reforms would not have the slightest chance of success in the
 
general struggle for life among the nations of the world. A movement
 
that would confine its mission to such adjustments, which are certainly
 
right and equitable, would effect no far-reaching or profound reform in
 
the existing order. The whole effect of such measures would be limited
 
to externals. They would not furnish the nation with that moral armament
 
which alone will enable it effectively to overcome the weaknesses from
 
which we are suffering to-day.
 
 
 
In order to elucidate this point of view it may be worth while to glance
 
once again at the real origins and causes of the cultural evolution of
 
mankind.
 
 
 
The first step which visibly brought mankind away from the animal world
 
was that which led to the first invention. The invention itself owes its
 
origin to the ruses and stratagems which man employed to assist him in
 
the struggle with other creatures for his existence and often to provide
 
him with the only means he could adopt to achieve success in the
 
struggle. Those first very crude inventions cannot be attributed to the
 
individual; for the subsequent observer, that is to say the modern
 
observer, recognizes them only as collective phenomena. Certain tricks
 
and skilful tactics which can be observed in use among the animals
 
strike the eye of the observer as established facts which may be seen
 
everywhere; and man is no longer in a position to discover or explain
 
their primary cause and so he contents himself with calling such
 
phenomena 'instinctive.'
 
 
 
In our case this term has no meaning. Because everyone who believes in
 
the higher evolution of living organisms must admit that every
 
manifestation of the vital urge and struggle to live must have had a
 
definite beginning in time and that one subject alone must have
 
manifested it for the first time. It was then repeated again and again;
 
and the practice of it spread over a widening area, until finally it
 
passed into the subconscience of every member of the species, where it
 
manifested itself as 'instinct.'
 
 
 
This is more easily understood and more easy to believe in the case of
 
man. His first skilled tactics in the struggle with the rest of the
 
animals undoubtedly originated in his management of creatures which
 
possessed special capabilities.
 
 
 
There can be no doubt that personality was then the sole factor in all
 
decisions and achievements, which were afterwards taken over by the
 
whole of humanity as a matter of course. An exact exemplification of
 
this may be found in those fundamental military principles which have
 
now become the basis of all strategy in war. Originally they sprang from
 
the brain of a single individual and in the course of many years, maybe
 
even thousands of years, they were accepted all round as a matter of
 
course and this gained universal validity.
 
 
 
Man completed his first discovery by making a second. Among other things
 
he learned how to master other living beings and make them serve him in
 
his struggle for existence. And thus began the real inventive activity
 
of mankind, as it is now visible before our eyes. Those material
 
inventions, beginning with the use of stones as weapons, which led to
 
the domestication of animals, the production of fire by artificial
 
means, down to the marvellous inventions of our own days, show clearly
 
that an individual was the originator in each case. The nearer we come
 
to our own time and the more important and revolutionary the inventions
 
become, the more clearly do we recognize the truth of that statement.
 
All the material inventions which we see around us have been produced by
 
the creative powers and capabilities of individuals. And all these
 
inventions help man to raise himself higher and higher above the animal
 
world and to separate himself from that world in an absolutely definite
 
way. Hence they serve to elevate the human species and continually to
 
promote its progress. And what the most primitive artifice once did for
 
man in his struggle for existence, as he went hunting through the
 
primeval forest, that same sort of assistance is rendered him to-day in
 
the form of marvellous scientific inventions which help him in the
 
present day struggle for life and to forge weapons for future struggles.
 
In their final consequences all human thought and invention help man in
 
his life-struggle on this planet, even though the so-called practical
 
utility of an invention, a discovery or a profound scientific theory,
 
may not be evident at first sight. Everything contributes to raise man
 
higher and higher above the level of all the other creatures that
 
surround him, thereby strengthening and consolidating his position; so
 
that he develops more and more in every direction as the ruling being on
 
this earth.
 
 
 
Hence all inventions are the result of the creative faculty of the
 
individual. And all such individuals, whether they have willed it or
 
not, are the benefactors of mankind, both great and small. Through their
 
work millions and indeed billions of human beings have been provided
 
with means and resources which facilitate their struggle for existence.
 
 
 
Thus at the origin of the material civilization which flourishes to-day
 
we always see individual persons. They supplement one another and one of
 
them bases his work on that of the other. The same is true in regard to
 
the practical application of those inventions and discoveries. For all
 
the various methods of production are in their turn inventions also and
 
consequently dependent on the creative faculty of the individual. Even
 
the purely theoretical work, which cannot be measured by a definite rule
 
and is preliminary to all subsequent technical discoveries, is
 
exclusively the product of the individual brain. The broad masses do not
 
invent, nor does the majority organize or think; but always and in every
 
case the individual man, the person.
 
 
 
Accordingly a human community is well organized only when it facilitates
 
to the highest possible degree individual creative forces and utilizes
 
their work for the benefit of the community. The most valuable factor of
 
an invention, whether it be in the world of material realities or in the
 
world of abstract ideas, is the personality of the inventor himself. The
 
first and supreme duty of an organized folk community is to place the
 
inventor in a position where he can be of the greatest benefit to all.
 
Indeed the very purpose of the organization is to put this principle
 
into practice. Only by so doing can it ward off the curse of
 
mechanization and remain a living thing. In itself it must personify the
 
effort to place men of brains above the multitude and to make the latter
 
obey the former.
 
 
 
Therefore not only does the organization possess no right to prevent men
 
of brains from rising above the multitude but, on the contrary, it must
 
use its organizing powers to enable and promote that ascension as far as
 
it possibly can. It must start out from the principle that the blessings
 
of mankind never came from the masses but from the creative brains of
 
individuals, who are therefore the real benefactors of humanity. It is
 
in the interest of all to assure men of creative brains a decisive
 
influence and facilitate their work. This common interest is surely not
 
served by allowing the multitude to rule, for they are not capable of
 
thinking nor are they efficient and in no case whatsoever can they be
 
said to be gifted. Only those should rule who have the natural
 
temperament and gifts of leadership.
 
 
 
Such men of brains are selected mainly, as I have already said, through
 
the hard struggle for existence itself. In this struggle there are many
 
who break down and collapse and thereby show that they are not called by
 
Destiny to fill the highest positions; and only very few are left who
 
can be classed among the elect. In the realm of thought and of artistic
 
creation, and even in the economic field, this same process of selection
 
takes place, although--especially in the economic field--its operation
 
is heavily handicapped. This same principle of selection rules in the
 
administration of the State and in that department of power which
 
personifies the organized military defence of the nation. The idea of
 
personality rules everywhere, the authority of the individual over his
 
subordinates and the responsibility of the individual towards the
 
persons who are placed over him. It is only in political life that this
 
very natural principle has been completely excluded. Though all human
 
civilization has resulted exclusively from the creative activity of the
 
individual, the principle that it is the mass which counts--through the
 
decision of the majority--makes its appearance only in the
 
administration of the national community especially in the higher
 
grades; and from there downwards the poison gradually filters into all
 
branches of national life, thus causing a veritable decomposition. The
 
destructive workings of Judaism in different parts of the national body
 
can be ascribed fundamentally to the persistent Jewish efforts at
 
undermining the importance of personality among the nations that are
 
their hosts and, in place of personality, substituting the domination of
 
the masses. The constructive principle of Aryan humanity is thus
 
displaced by the destructive principle of the Jews, They become the
 
'ferment of decomposition' among nations and races and, in a broad
 
sense, the wreckers of human civilization.
 
 
 
Marxism represents the most striking phase of the Jewish endeavour to
 
eliminate the dominant significance of personality in every sphere of
 
human life and replace it by the numerical power of the masses. In
 
politics the parliamentary form of government is the expression of this
 
effort. We can observe the fatal effects of it everywhere, from the
 
smallest parish council upwards to the highest governing circles of the
 
nation. In the field of economics we see the trade union movement, which
 
does not serve the real interests of the employees but the destructive
 
aims of international Jewry. Just to the same degree in which the
 
principle of personality is excluded from the economic life of the
 
nation, and the influence and activities of the masses substituted in
 
its stead, national economy, which should be for the service and benefit
 
of the community as a whole, will gradually deteriorate in its creative
 
capacity. The shop committees which, instead of caring for the interests
 
of the employees, strive to influence the process of production, serve
 
the same destructive purpose. They damage the general productive system
 
and consequently injure the individual engaged in industry. For in the
 
long run it is impossible to satisfy popular demands merely by
 
high-sounding theoretical phrases. These can be satisfied only by
 
supplying goods to meet the individual needs of daily life and by so
 
doing create the conviction that, through the productive collaboration
 
of its members, the folk community serves the interests of the
 
individual.
 
 
 
Even if, on the basis of its mass-theory, Marxism should prove itself
 
capable of taking over and developing the present economic system, that
 
would not signify anything. The question as to whether the Marxist
 
doctrine be right or wrong cannot be decided by any test which would
 
show that it can administer for the future what already exists to-day,
 
but only by asking whether it has the creative power to build up
 
according to its own principles a civilization which would be a
 
counterpart of what already exists. Even if Marxism were a thousandfold
 
capable of taking over the economic life as we now have it and
 
maintaining it in operation under Marxist direction, such an achievement
 
would prove nothing; because, on the basis of its own principles,
 
Marxism would never be able to create something which could supplant
 
what exists to-day.
 
 
 
And Marxism itself has furnished the proof that it cannot do this. Not
 
only has it been unable anywhere to create a cultural or economic system
 
of its own; but it was not even able to develop, according to its own
 
principles, the civilization and economic system it found ready at hand.
 
It has had to make compromises, by way of a return to the principle of
 
personality, just as it cannot dispense with that principle in its own
 
organization.
 
 
 
The racial WELTANSCHAUUNG is fundamentally distinguished from the
 
Marxist by reason of the fact that the former recognizes the
 
significance of race and therefore also personal worth and has made
 
these the pillars of its structure. These are the most important factors
 
of its WELTANSCHAUUNG.
 
 
 
If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand the
 
fundamental importance of this essential principle, if it should merely
 
varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt the
 
majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete with
 
Marxism on its own ground. For that reason it would not have the right
 
to call itself a WELTANSCHAUUNG. If the social programme of the
 
movement consisted in eliminating personality and putting the multitude
 
in its place, then National Socialism would be corrupted with the poison
 
of Marxism, just as our national-bourgeois parties are.
 
 
 
The People's State must assure the welfare of its citizens by
 
recognizing the importance of personal values under all circumstances
 
and by preparing the way for the maximum of productive efficiency in all
 
the various branches of economic life, thus securing to the individual
 
the highest possible share in the general output.
 
 
 
Hence the People's State must mercilessly expurgate from all the leading
 
circles in the government of the country the parliamentarian principle,
 
according to which decisive power through the majority vote is invested
 
in the multitude. Personal responsibility must be substituted in its
 
stead.
 
 
 
From this the following conclusion results:
 
 
 
The best constitution and the best form of government is that which
 
makes it quite natural for the best brains to reach a position of
 
dominant importance and influence in the community.
 
 
 
Just as in the field of economics men of outstanding ability cannot be
 
designated from above but must come forward in virtue of their own
 
efforts, and just as there is an unceasing educative process that leads
 
from the smallest shop to the largest undertaking, and just as life
 
itself is the school in which those lessons are taught, so in the
 
political field it is not possible to 'discover' political talent all in
 
a moment. Genius of an extraordinary stamp is not to be judged by normal
 
standards whereby we judge other men.
 
 
 
In its organization the State must be established on the principle of
 
personality, starting from the smallest cell and ascending up to the
 
supreme government of the country.
 
 
 
There are no decisions made by the majority vote, but only by
 
responsible persons. And the word 'council' is once more restored to its
 
original meaning. Every man in a position of responsibility will have
 
councillors at his side, but the decision is made by that individual
 
person alone.
 
 
 
The principle which made the former Prussian Army an admirable
 
instrument of the German nation will have to become the basis of our
 
statal constitution, that is to say, full authority over his
 
subordinates must be invested in each leader and he must be responsible
 
to those above him.
 
 
 
Even then we shall not be able to do without those corporations which at
 
present we call parliaments. But they will be real councils, in the
 
sense that they will have to give advice. The responsibility can and
 
must be borne by one individual, who alone will be vested with authority
 
and the right to command.
 
 
 
Parliaments as such are necessary because they alone furnish the
 
opportunity for leaders to rise gradually who will be entrusted
 
subsequently with positions of special responsibility.
 
 
 
The following is an outline of the picture which the organization will
 
present:
 
 
 
From the municipal administration up to the government of the REICH, the
 
People's State will not have any body of representatives which makes its
 
decisions through the majority vote. It will have only advisory bodies
 
to assist the chosen leader for the time being and he will distribute
 
among them the various duties they are to perform. In certain fields
 
they may, if necessary, have to assume full responsibility, such as the
 
leader or president of each corporation possesses on a larger scale.
 
 
 
In principle the People's State must forbid the custom of taking advice
 
on certain political problems--economics, for instance--from persons
 
who are entirely incompetent because they lack special training and
 
practical experience in such matters. Consequently the State must divide
 
its representative bodies into a political chamber and a corporative
 
chamber that represents the respective trades and professions.
 
 
 
To assure an effective co-operation between those two bodies, a selected
 
body will be placed over them. This will be a special senate.
 
 
 
No vote will be taken in the chambers or senate. They are to be
 
organizations for work and not voting machines. The individual members
 
will have consultive votes but no right of decision will be attached
 
thereto. The right of decision belongs exclusively to the president, who
 
must be entirely responsible for the matter under discussion.
 
 
 
This principle of combining absolute authority with absolute
 
responsibility will gradually cause a selected group of leaders to
 
emerge; which is not even thinkable in our present epoch of
 
irresponsible parliamentarianism.
 
 
 
The political construction of the nation will thereby be brought into
 
harmony with those laws to which the nation already owes its greatness
 
in the economic and cultural spheres.
 
 
 
Regarding the possibility of putting these principles into practice, I
 
should like to call attention to the fact that the principle of
 
parliamentarian democracy, whereby decisions are enacted through the
 
majority vote, has not always ruled the world. On the contrary, we find
 
it prevalent only during short periods of history, and those have always
 
been periods of decline in nations and States.
 
 
 
One must not believe, however, that such a radical change could be
 
effected by measures of a purely theoretical character, operating from
 
above downwards; for the change I have been describing could not be
 
limited to transforming the constitution of a State but would have to
 
include the various fields of legislation and civic existence as a
 
whole. Such a revolution can be brought about only by means of a
 
movement which is itself organized under the inspiration of these
 
principles and thus bears the germ of the future State in its own
 
organism.
 
 
 
Therefore it is well for the National Socialist Movement to make itself
 
completely familiar with those principles to-day and actually to put
 
them into practice within its own organization, so that not only will it
 
be in a position to serve as a guide for the future State but will have
 
its own organization such that it can subsequently be placed at the
 
disposal of the State itself.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER V
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WELTANSCHAUUNG AND ORGANIZATION
 
 
 
 
 
The People's State, which I have tried to sketch in general outline,
 
will not become a reality in virtue of the simple fact that we know the
 
indispensable conditions of its existence. It does not suffice to know
 
what aspect such a State would present. The problem of its foundation is
 
far more important. The parties which exist at present and which draw
 
their profits from the State as it now is cannot be expected to bring
 
about a radical change in the regime or to change their attitude on
 
their own initiative. This is rendered all the more impossible because
 
the forces which now have the direction of affairs in their hands are
 
Jews here and Jews there and Jews everywhere. The trend of development
 
which we are now experiencing would, if allowed to go on unhampered,
 
lead to the realization of the Pan-Jewish prophecy that the Jews will
 
one day devour the other nations and become lords of the earth.
 
 
 
In contrast to the millions of 'bourgeois' and 'proletarian' Germans,
 
who are stumbling to their ruin, mostly through timidity, indolence and
 
stupidity, the Jew pursues his way persistently and keeps his eye always
 
fixed on his future goal. Any party that is led by him can fight for no
 
other interests than his, and his interests certainly have nothing in
 
common with those of the Aryan nations.
 
 
 
If we would transform our ideal picture of the People's State into a
 
reality we shall have to keep independent of the forces that now control
 
public life and seek for new forces that will be ready and capable of
 
taking up the fight for such an ideal. For a fight it will have to be,
 
since the first objective will not be to build up the idea of the
 
People's State but rather to wipe out the Jewish State which is now in
 
existence. As so often happens in the course of history, the main
 
difficulty is not to establish a new order of things but to clear the
 
ground for its establishment. Prejudices and egotistic interests join
 
together in forming a common front against the new idea and in trying by
 
every means to prevent its triumph, because it is disagreeable to them
 
or threatens their existence.
 
 
 
That is why the protagonist of the new idea is unfortunately, in spite
 
of his {254}desire for constructive work, compelled to wage a
 
destructive battle first, in order to abolish the existing state of
 
affairs.
 
 
 
A doctrine whose principles are radically new and of essential
 
importance must adopt the sharp probe of criticism as its weapon, though
 
this may show itself disagreeable to the individual followers.
 
 
 
It is evidence of a very superficial insight into historical
 
developments if the so-called folkists emphasize again and again that
 
they will adopt the use of negative criticism under no circumstances but
 
will engage only in constructive work. That is nothing but puerile
 
chatter and is typical of the whole lot of folkists. It is another proof
 
that the history of our own times has made no impression on these minds.
 
Marxism too has had its aims to pursue and it also recognizes
 
constructive work, though by this it understands only the establishment
 
of despotic rule in the hands of international Jewish finance.
 
Nevertheless for seventy years its principal work still remains in the
 
field of criticism. And what disruptive and destructive criticism it has
 
been! Criticism repeated again and again, until the corrosive acid ate
 
into the old State so thoroughly that it finally crumbled to pieces.
 
Only then did the so-called 'constructive' critical work of Marxism
 
begin. And that was natural, right and logical. An existing order of
 
things is not abolished by merely proclaiming and insisting on a new
 
one. It must not be hoped that those who are the partisans of the
 
existing order and have their interests bound up with it will be
 
converted and won over to the new movement simply by being shown that
 
something new is necessary. On the contrary, what may easily happen is
 
that two different situations will exist side by side and that a
 
WELTANSCHAUUNG is transformed into a party, above which level it will
 
not be able to raise itself afterwards. For a WELTANSCHAUUNG is
 
intolerant and cannot permit another to exist side by side with it. It
 
imperiously demands its own recognition as unique and exclusive and a
 
complete transformation in accordance with its views throughout all the
 
branches of public life. It can never allow the previous state of
 
affairs to continue in existence by its side.
 
 
 
And the same holds true of religions.
 
 
 
Christianity was not content with erecting an altar of its own. It had
 
first to destroy the pagan altars. It was only in virtue of this
 
passionate intolerance that an apodictic faith could grow up. And
 
intolerance is an indispensable condition for the growth of such a
 
faith.
 
 
 
It may be objected here that in these phenomena which we find throughout
 
the history of the world we have to recognize mostly a specifically
 
Jewish mode of thought and that such fanaticism and intolerance are
 
typical symptoms of Jewish mentality. That may be a thousandfold true;
 
and it is a fact deeply to be regretted. The appearance of intolerance
 
and fanaticism in the history of mankind may be deeply regrettable, and
 
it may be looked upon as foreign to human nature, but the fact does not
 
change conditions as they exist to-day. The men who wish to liberate our
 
German nation from the conditions in which it now exists cannot cudgel
 
their brains with thinking how excellent it would be if this or that had
 
never arisen. They must strive to find ways and means of abolishing what
 
actually exists. A philosophy of life which is inspired by an infernal
 
spirit of intolerance can only be set aside by a doctrine that is
 
advanced in an equally ardent spirit and fought for with as determined a
 
will and which is itself a new idea, pure and absolutely true.
 
 
 
Each one of us to-day may regret the fact that the advent of
 
Christianity was the first occasion on which spiritual terror was
 
introduced into the much freer ancient world, but the fact cannot be
 
denied that ever since then the world is pervaded and dominated by this
 
kind of coercion and that violence is broken only by violence and terror
 
by terror. Only then can a new regime be created by means of
 
constructive work. Political parties are prone to enter compromises; but
 
a WELTANSCHAUUNG never does this. A political party is inclined to
 
adjust its teachings with a view to meeting those of its opponents, but
 
a WELTANSCHAUUNG proclaims its own infallibility.
 
 
 
In the beginning, political parties have also and nearly always the
 
intention of {255}securing an exclusive and despotic domination for
 
themselves. They always show a slight tendency to become
 
WELTANSCHHAUUNGen. But the limited nature of their programme is in
 
itself enough to rob them of that heroic spirit which a WELTANSCHAUUNG
 
demands. The spirit of conciliation which animates their will attracts
 
those petty and chicken-hearted people who are not fit to be
 
protagonists in any crusade. That is the reason why they mostly become
 
struck in their miserable pettiness very early on the march. They give
 
up fighting for their ideology and, by way of what they call 'positive
 
collaboration,' they try as quickly as possible to wedge themselves into
 
some tiny place at the trough of the existent regime and to stick there
 
as long as possible. Their whole effort ends at that. And if they should
 
get shouldered away from the common manger by a competition of more
 
brutal manners then their only idea is to force themselves in again, by
 
force or chicanery, among the herd of all the others who have similar
 
appetites, in order to get back into the front row, and finally--even
 
at the expense of their most sacred convictions--participate anew in
 
that beloved spot where they find their fodder. They are the jackals of
 
politics.
 
 
 
But a general WELTANSCHAUUNG will never share its place with something
 
else. Therefore it can never agree to collaborate in any order of things
 
that it condemns. On the contrary it feels obliged to employ every means
 
in fighting against the old order and the whole world of ideas belonging
 
to that order and prepare the way for its destruction.
 
 
 
These purely destructive tactics, the danger of which is so readily
 
perceived by the enemy that he forms a united front against them for his
 
common defence, and also the constructive tactics, which must be
 
aggressive in order to carry the new world of ideas to success--both
 
these phases of the struggle call for a body of resolute fighters. Any
 
new philosophy of life will bring its ideas to victory only if the most
 
courageous and active elements of its epoch and its people are enrolled
 
under its standards and grouped firmly together in a powerful fighting
 
organization. To achieve this purpose it is absolutely necessary to
 
select from the general system of doctrine a certain number of ideas
 
which will appeal to such individuals and which, once they are expressed
 
in a precise and clear-cut form, will serve as articles of faith for a
 
new association of men. While the programme of the ordinary political
 
party is nothing but the recipe for cooking up favourable results out of
 
the next general elections, the programme of a WELTANSCHAUUNG
 
represents a declaration of war against an existing order of things,
 
against present conditions, in short, against the established
 
WELTANSCHAUUNG.
 
 
 
It is not necessary, however, that every individual fighter for such a
 
new doctrine need have a full grasp of the ultimate ideas and plans of
 
those who are the leaders of the movement. It is only necessary that
 
each should have a clear notion of the fundamental ideas and that he
 
should thoroughly assimilate a few of the most fundamental principles,
 
so that he will be convinced of the necessity of carrying the movement
 
and its doctrines to success. The individual soldier is not initiated in
 
the knowledge of high strategical plans. But he is trained to submit to
 
a rigid discipline, to be passionately convinced of the justice and
 
inner worth of his cause and that he must devote himself to it without
 
reserve. So, too, the individual follower of a movement must be made
 
acquainted with its far-reaching purpose, how it is inspired by a
 
powerful will and has a great future before it.
 
 
 
Supposing that each soldier in an army were a general, and had the
 
training and capacity for generalship, that army would not be an
 
efficient fighting instrument. Similarly a political movement would not
 
be very efficient in fighting for a WELTANSCHAUUNG if it were made up
 
exclusively of intellectuals. No, we need the simple soldier also.
 
Without him no discipline can be established.
 
 
 
By its very nature, an organization can exist only if leaders of high
 
intellectual ability are served by a large mass of men who are
 
emotionally devoted to the cause. To maintain discipline in a company of
 
two hundred men who are equally intelligent and capable would turn out
 
more difficult in the long run than in a company of one hundred and
 
ninety less gifted men and ten who have had a higher education.
 
 
 
{256}The Social-Democrats have profited very much by recognizing this
 
truth. They took the broad masses of our people who had just completed
 
military service and learned to submit to discipline, and they subjected
 
this mass of men to the discipline of the Social-Democratic
 
organization, which was no less rigid than the discipline through which
 
the young men had passed in their military training. The
 
Social-Democratic organization consisted of an army divided into
 
officers and men. The German worker who had passed through his military
 
service became the private soldier in that army, and the Jewish
 
intellectual was the officer. The German trade union functionaries may
 
be compared to the non-commissioned officers. The fact, which was always
 
looked upon with indifference by our middle-classes, that only the
 
so-called uneducated classes joined Marxism was the very ground on which
 
this party achieved its success. For while the bourgeois parties,
 
because they mostly consisted of intellectuals, were only a feckless
 
band of undisciplined individuals, out of much less intelligent human
 
material the Marxist leaders formed an army of party combatants who obey
 
their Jewish masters just as blindly as they formerly obeyed their
 
German officers. The German middle-classes, who never; bothered their
 
heads about psychological problems because they felt themselves superior
 
to such matters, did not think it necessary to reflect on the profound
 
significance of this fact and the secret danger involved in it. Indeed
 
they believed. that a political movement which draws its followers
 
exclusively from intellectual circles must, for that very reason, be of
 
greater importance and have better grounds. for its chances of success,
 
and even a greater probability of taking over the government of the
 
country than a party made up of the ignorant masses. They completely
 
failed to realize the fact that the strength of a political party never
 
consists in the intelligence and independent spirit of the rank-and-file
 
of its members but rather in the spirit of willing obedience with which
 
they follow their intellectual leaders. What is of decisive importance
 
is the leadership itself. When two bodies of troops are arrayed in
 
mutual combat victory will not fall to that side in which every soldier
 
has an expert knowledge of the rules of strategy, but rather to that
 
side which has the best leaders and at the same time the best
 
disciplined, most blindly obedient and best drilled troops.
 
 
 
That is a fundamental piece of knowledge which we must always bear in
 
mind when we examine the possibility of transforming a WELTANSCHAUUNG
 
into a practical reality.
 
 
 
If we agree that in order to carry a WELTANSCHAUUNG into practical
 
effect it must be incorporated in a fighting movement, then the logical
 
consequence is that the programme of such a movement must take account
 
of the human material at its disposal. Just as the ultimate aims and
 
fundamental principles must be absolutely definite and unmistakable, so
 
the propagandist programme must be well drawn up and must be inspired by
 
a keen sense of its psychological appeals to the minds of those without
 
whose help the noblest ideas will be doomed to remain in the eternal,
 
realm of ideas.
 
 
 
If the idea of the People's State, which is at present an obscure wish,
 
is one day to attain a clear and definite success, from its vague and
 
vast mass of thought it will have to put forward certain definite
 
principles which of their very nature and content are calculated to
 
attract a broad mass of adherents; in other words, such a group of
 
people as can guarantee that these principles will be fought for. That
 
group of people are the German workers.
 
 
 
That is why the programme of the new movement was condensed into a few
 
fundamental postulates, twenty-five in all. They are meant first of all
 
to give the ordinary man a rough sketch of what the movement is aiming
 
at. They are, so to say, a profession of faith which on the one hand is
 
meant to win adherents to the movement and, on the other, they are meant
 
to unite such adherents together in a covenant to which all have
 
subscribed.
 
 
 
In these matters we must never lose sight of the following: What we call
 
the programme of the movement is absolutely right as far as its ultimate
 
aims are concerned, but as regards the manner in which that programme is
 
formulated, certain psychological considerations had to be taken
 
into account. Hence, in the course of time, the opinion may well arise
 
that certain principles should be expressed differently and might be
 
better formulated. But any attempt at a different formulation has a
 
fatal effect in most cases. For something that ought to be fixed and
 
unshakable thereby becomes the subject of discussion. As soon as one
 
point alone is removed from the sphere of dogmatic certainty, the
 
discussion will not simply result in a new and better formulation which
 
will have greater consistency but may easily lead to endless debates and
 
general confusion. In such cases the question must always be carefully
 
considered as to whether a new and more adequate formulation is to be
 
preferred, though it may cause a controversy within the movement, or
 
whether it may not be better to retain the old formula which, though
 
probably not the best, represents an organism enclosed in itself, solid
 
and internally homogeneous. All experience shows that the second of
 
these alternatives is preferable. For since in these changes one is
 
dealing only with external forms such corrections will always appear
 
desirable and possible. But in the last analysis the generality of
 
people think superficially and therefore the great danger is that in
 
what is merely an external formulation of the programme people will see
 
an essential aim of the movement. In that way the will and the combative
 
force at the service of the ideas are weakened and the energies that
 
ought to be directed towards the outer world are dissipated in
 
programmatic discussions within the ranks of the movement.
 
 
 
For a doctrine that is actually right in its main features it is less
 
dangerous to retain a formulation which may no longer be quite adequate
 
instead of trying to improve it and thereby allowing a fundamental
 
principle of the movement, which had hitherto been considered as solid
 
as granite, to become the subject of a general discussion which may have
 
unfortunate consequences. This is particularly to be avoided as long as
 
a movement is still fighting for victory. For would it be possible to
 
inspire people with blind faith in the truth of a doctrine if doubt and
 
uncertainty are encouraged by continual alterations in its external
 
formulation?
 
 
 
The essentials of a teaching must never be looked for in its external
 
formulas, but always in its inner meaning. And this meaning is
 
unchangeable. And in its interest one can only wish that a movement
 
should exclude everything that tends towards disintegration and
 
uncertainty in order to preserve the unified force that is necessary for
 
its triumph.
 
 
 
Here again the Catholic Church has a lesson to teach us. Though
 
sometimes, and often quite unnecessarily, its dogmatic system is in
 
conflict with the exact sciences and with scientific discoveries, it is
 
not disposed to sacrifice a syllable of its teachings. It has rightly
 
recognized that its powers of resistance would be weakened by
 
introducing greater or less doctrinal adaptations to meet the temporary
 
conclusions of science, which in reality are always vacillating. And
 
thus it holds fast to its fixed and established dogmas which alone can
 
give to the whole system the character of a faith. And that is the
 
reason why it stands firmer to-day than ever before. We may prophesy
 
that, as a fixed pole amid fleeting phenomena, it will continue to
 
attract increasing numbers of people who will be blindly attached to it
 
the more rapid the rhythm of changing phenomena around it.
 
 
 
Therefore whoever really and seriously desires that the idea of the
 
People's State should triumph must realize that this triumph can be
 
assured only through a militant movement and that this movement must
 
ground its strength only on the granite firmness of an impregnable and
 
firmly coherent programme. In regard to its formulas it must never make
 
concessions to the spirit of the time but must maintain the form that
 
has once and for all been decided upon as the right one; in any case
 
until victory has crowned its efforts. Before this goal has been reached
 
any attempt to open a discussion on the opportuneness of this or that
 
point in the programme might tend to disintegrate the solidity and
 
fighting strength of the movement, according to the measures in which
 
its followers might take part in such an internal dispute. Some
 
'improvements' introduced to-day might be subjected to a critical
 
examination to-morrow, in order to substitute it with something better
 
{258}the day after. Once the barrier has been taken down the road is
 
opened and we know only the beginning, but we do not know to what
 
shoreless sea it may lead.
 
 
 
This important principle had to be acknowledged in practice by the
 
members of the National Socialist Movement at its very beginning. In its
 
programme of twenty-five points the National Socialist German Labour
 
Party has been furnished with a basis that must remain unshakable. The
 
members of the movement, both present and future, must never feel
 
themselves called upon to undertake a critical revision of these leading
 
postulates, but rather feel themselves obliged to put them into practice
 
as they stand. Otherwise the next generation would, in its turn and with
 
equal right, expend its energy in such purely formal work within the
 
party, instead of winning new adherents to the movement and thus adding
 
to its power. For the majority of our followers the essence of the
 
movement will consist not so much in the letter of our theses but in the
 
meaning that we attribute to them.
 
 
 
The new movement owes its name to these considerations, and later on its
 
programme was drawn up in conformity with them. They are the basis of
 
our propaganda. In order to carry the idea of the People's State to
 
victory, a popular party had to be founded, a party that did not consist
 
of intellectual leaders only but also of manual labourers. Any attempt
 
to carry these theories into effect without the aid of a militant
 
organization would be doomed to failure to-day, as it has failed in the
 
past and must fail in the future. That is why the movement is not only
 
justified but it is also obliged to consider itself as the champion and
 
representative of these ideas. Just as the fundamental principles of the
 
National Socialist Movement are based on the folk idea, folk ideas are
 
National Socialist. If National Socialism would triumph it will have to
 
hold firm to this fact unreservedly, and here again it has not only the
 
right but also the duty to emphasize most rigidly that any attempt to
 
represent the folk idea outside of the National Socialist German Labour
 
Party is futile and in most cases fraudulent.
 
 
 
If the reproach should be launched against our movement that it has
 
'monopolized' the folk idea, there is only one answer to give.
 
 
 
Not only have we monopolized the folk idea but, to all practical intents
 
and purposes, we have created it.
 
 
 
For what hitherto existed under this name was not in the least capable
 
of influencing the destiny of our people, since all those ideas lacked a
 
political and coherent formulation. In most cases they are nothing but
 
isolated and incoherent notions which are more or less right. Quite
 
frequently these were in open contradiction to one another and in no
 
case was there any internal cohesion among them. And even if this
 
internal cohesion existed it would have been much too weak to form the
 
basis of any movement.
 
 
 
Only the National Socialist Movement proved capable of fulfilling this
 
task.
 
 
 
All kinds of associations and groups, big as well as little, now claim
 
the title VÖLKISCH. This is one result of the work which National
 
Socialism has done. Without this work, not one of all these parties
 
would have thought of adopting the word VÖLKISCH at all. That expression
 
would have meant nothing to them and especially their directors would
 
never have had anything to do with such an idea. Not until the work of
 
the German National Socialist Labour Party had given this idea a
 
pregnant meaning did it appear in the mouths of all kinds of people. Our
 
party above all, by the success of its propaganda, has shown the force
 
of the folk idea; so much so that the others, in an effort to gain
 
proselytes, find themselves forced to copy our example, at least in
 
words.
 
 
 
Just as heretofore they exploited everything to serve their petty
 
electoral purposes, to-day they use the word VÖLKISCH only as an
 
external and hollow-sounding phrase for the purpose of counteracting the
 
force of the impression which the National Socialist Party makes on the
 
members of those other parties. Only the desire to maintain their
 
existence and the fear that our movement may prevail, because it is
 
based on a WELTANSCHAUUNG that is of universal importance, and because
 
they feel that the exclusive character of our movement betokens danger
 
for them--only for these reasons do they use words which they
 
repudiated eight {259}years ago, derided seven years ago, branded as
 
stupid six years ago, combated five years ago, hated four years ago, and
 
finally, two years ago, annexed and incorporated them in their present
 
political vocabulary, employing them as war slogans in their struggle.
 
 
 
And so it is necessary even now not to cease calling attention to the
 
fact that not one of those parties has the slightest idea of what the
 
German nation needs. The most striking proof of this is represented by
 
the superficial way in which they use the word VÖLKISCH.
 
 
 
Not less dangerous are those who run about as semi-folkists formulating
 
fantastic schemes which are mostly based on nothing else than a fixed
 
idea which in itself might be right but which, because it is an isolated
 
notion, is of no use whatsoever for the formation of a great homogeneous
 
fighting association and could by no means serve as the basis of its
 
organization. Those people who concoct a programme which consists partly
 
of their own ideas and partly of ideas taken from others, about which
 
they have read somewhere, are often more dangerous than the outspoken
 
enemies of the VÖLKISCH idea. At best they are sterile theorists but
 
more frequently they are mischievous agitators of the public mind. They
 
believe that they can mask their intellectual vanity, the futility of
 
their efforts, and their lack of stability, by sporting flowing beards
 
and indulging in ancient German gestures.
 
 
 
In face of all those futile attempts, it is therefore worth while to
 
recall the time when the new National Socialist Movement began its
 
fight.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER VI
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE FIRST PERIOD OF OUR STRUGGLE
 
 
 
 
 
The echoes of our first great meeting, in the banquet hall of the
 
Hofbräuhaus on February 24th, 1920, had not yet died away when we began
 
preparations for our next meeting. Up to that time we had to consider
 
carefully the venture of holding a small meeting every month or at most
 
every fortnight in a city like Munich; but now it was decided that we
 
should hold a mass meeting every week. I need not say that we anxiously
 
asked ourselves on each occasion again and again: Will the people come
 
and will they listen? Personally I was firmly convinced that if once
 
they came they would remain and listen.
 
 
 
During that period the hall of the Hofbrau Haus in Munich acquired for
 
us, National Socialists, a sort of mystic significance. Every week there
 
was a meeting, almost always in that hall, and each time the hall was
 
better filled than on the former occasion, and our public more
 
attentive.
 
 
 
Starting with the theme, 'Responsibility for the War,' which nobody at
 
that time cared about, and passing on to the discussion of the peace
 
treaties, we dealt with almost everything that served to stimulate the
 
minds of our audience and make them interested in our ideas. We drew
 
attention to the peace treaties. What the new movement prophesied again
 
and again before those great masses of people has been fulfilled almost
 
in every detail. To-day it is easy to talk and write about these things.
 
But in those days a public mass meeting which was attended not by the
 
small bourgeoisie but by proletarians who had been aroused by agitators,
 
to criticize the Peace Treaty of Versailles meant an attack on the
 
Republic and an evidence of reaction, if not of monarchist tendencies.
 
The moment one uttered the first criticism of the Versailles Treaty one
 
could expect an immediate reply, which became almost stereotyped: 'And
 
Brest-Litowsk?' 'Brest-Litowsk!' And then the crowd would murmur and the
 
murmur would gradually swell into a roar, until the speaker would have
 
to give up his attempt to persuade them. It would be like knocking one's
 
head against a wall, so desperate were these people. They would not
 
listen nor understand that Versailles was a scandal and a disgrace and
 
that the dictate signified an act of highway robbery against our people.
 
The disruptive work done by the Marxists and the poisonous propaganda of
 
the external enemy had robbed these people of their reason. And one had
 
no right to complain. For the guilt on this side was enormous. What had
 
the German bourgeoisie done to call a halt to this terrible campaign of
 
disintegration, to oppose it and open a way to a recognition of the
 
truth by giving a better and more thorough explanation of the situation
 
than that of the Marxists? Nothing, nothing. At that time I never saw
 
those who are now the great apostles of the people. Perhaps they spoke
 
to select groups, at tea parties of their own little coteries; but there
 
where they should have been, where the wolves were at work, they never
 
risked their appearance, unless it gave them the opportunity of yelling
 
in concert with the wolves.
 
 
 
As for myself, I then saw clearly that for the small group which first
 
composed our movement the question of war guilt had to be cleared up,
 
and cleared up in the light of historical truth. A preliminary condition
 
for the future success of our movement was that it should bring
 
knowledge of the meaning of the peace treaties to the minds of the
 
popular masses. In the opinion of the masses, the peace treaties then
 
signified a democratic success. Therefore, it was necessary to take the
 
opposite side and dig ourselves into the minds of the people as the
 
enemies of the peace treaties; so that later on, when the naked truth of
 
this despicable swindle would be disclosed in all its hideousness, the
 
people would recall the position which we then took and would give us
 
their confidence.
 
 
 
Already at that time I took up my stand on those important fundamental
 
questions where public opinion had gone wrong as a whole. I opposed
 
these wrong notions without regard either for popularity or for hatred,
 
and I was ready to face the fight. The National Socialist German Labour
 
Party ought not to be the beadle but rather the master of public
 
opinion. It must not serve the masses but rather dominate them.
 
 
 
In the case of every movement, especially during its struggling stages,
 
there is naturally a temptation to conform to the tactics of an opponent
 
and use the same battle-cries, when his tactics have succeeded in
 
leading the people to crazy conclusions or to adopt mistaken attitudes
 
towards the questions at issue. This temptation is particularly strong
 
when motives can be found, though they are entirely illusory, that seem
 
to point towards the same ends which the young movement is aiming at.
 
Human poltroonery will then all the more readily adopt those arguments
 
which give it a semblance of justification, 'from its own point of
 
view,' in participating in the criminal policy which the adversary is
 
following.
 
 
 
On several occasions I have experienced such cases, in which the
 
greatest energy had to be employed to prevent the ship of our movement
 
from being drawn into a general current which had been started
 
artificially, and indeed from sailing with it. The last occasion was
 
when our German Press, the Hecuba of the existence of the German nation,
 
succeeded in bringing the question of South Tyrol into a position of
 
importance which was seriously damaging to the interests of the German
 
people. Without considering what interests they were serving, several
 
so-called 'national' men, parties and leagues, joined in the general
 
cry, simply for fear of public opinion which had been excited by the
 
Jews, and foolishly contributed to help in the struggle against a system
 
which we Germans ought, particularly in those days, to consider as the
 
one ray of light in this distracted world. While the international
 
World-Jew is slowly but surely strangling us, our so-called patriots
 
vociferate against a man and his system which have had the courage to
 
liberate themselves from the shackles of Jewish Freemasonry at least in
 
one quarter of the globe and to set the forces of national resistance
 
against the international world-poison. But weak characters were tempted
 
to set their sails according to the direction of the wind and capitulate
 
before the shout of public opinion. For it was veritably a capitulation.
 
They are so much in the habit of lying and so morally base that men may
 
not admit this even to themselves, but the truth remains that only
 
cowardice and fear of the public feeling aroused by the Jews induced
 
certain people to join in the hue and cry. All the other reasons put
 
forward were only miserable excuses of paltry culprits who were
 
conscious of their own crime.
 
 
 
There it was necessary to grasp the rudder with an iron hand and turn
 
the movement about, so as to save it from a course that would have led
 
it on the rocks. Certainly to attempt such a change of course was not a
 
popular manoeuvre at that time, because all the leading forces of public
 
opinion had been active and a great flame of public feeling illuminated
 
only one direction. Such a decision almost always brings disfavour on
 
those who dare to take it. In the course of history not a few men have
 
been stoned for an act for which posterity has afterwards thanked them
 
on its knees.
 
 
 
But a movement must count on posterity and not on the plaudits of the
 
movement. It may well be that at such moments certain individuals have
 
to endure hours of anguish; but they should not forget that the moment
 
of liberation will come and that a movement which purposes to reshape
 
the world must serve the future and not the passing hour.
 
 
 
On this point it may be asserted that the greatest and most enduring
 
successes in history are mostly those which were least understood at the
 
beginning, because they were in strong contrast to public opinion and
 
the views and wishes of the time.
 
 
 
We had experience of this when we made our own first public appearance.
 
In all truth it can be said that we did not court public favour but made
 
an onslaught on the follies of our people. In those days the following
 
happened almost always: I presented myself before an assembly of men who
 
believed the opposite of what I wished to say and who wanted the
 
opposite of what I believed in. Then I had to spend a couple of hours in
 
persuading two or three thousand people to give up the opinions they had
 
first held, in destroying the foundations of their views with one blow
 
after another and finally in leading them over to take their stand on
 
the grounds of our own convictions and our WELTANSCHAUUNG.
 
 
 
I learned something that was important at that time, namely, to snatch
 
from the hands of the enemy the weapons which he was using in his reply.
 
I soon noticed that our adversaries, especially in the persons of those
 
who led the discussion against us, were furnished with a definite
 
repertoire of arguments out of which they took points against our claims
 
which were being constantly repeated. The uniform character of this mode
 
of procedure pointed to a systematic and unified training. And so we
 
were able to recognize the incredible way in which the enemy's
 
propagandists had been disciplined, and I am proud to-day that I
 
discovered a means not only of making this propaganda ineffective but of
 
beating the artificers of it at their own work. Two years later I was
 
master of that art.
 
 
 
In every speech which I made it was important to get a clear idea
 
beforehand of the probable form and matter of the counter-arguments we
 
had to expect in the discussion, so that in the course of my own speech
 
these could be dealt with and refuted. To this end it was necessary to
 
mention all the possible objections and show their inconsistency; it was
 
all the easier to win over an honest listener by expunging from his
 
memory the arguments which had been impressed upon it, so that we
 
anticipated our replies. What he had learned was refuted without having
 
been mentioned by him and that made him all the more attentive to what I
 
had to say.
 
 
 
That was the reason why, after my first lecture on the 'Peace Treaty of
 
Versailles,' which I delivered to the troops while I was still a
 
political instructor in my regiment, I made an alteration in the title
 
and subject and henceforth spoke on 'The Treaties of Brest-Litowsk and
 
Versailles.' For after the discussion which followed my first lecture I
 
quickly ascertained that in reality people knew nothing about the Treaty
 
of Brest-Litowsk and that able party propaganda had succeeded in
 
presenting that Treaty as one of the most scandalous acts of violence in
 
the history of the world.
 
 
 
As a result of the persistency with which this falsehood was repeated
 
again and again before the masses of the people, millions of Germans saw
 
in the Treaty of Versailles a just castigation for the crime we had
 
committed at Brest-Litowsk. Thus they considered all opposition to
 
Versailles as unjust and in many cases there was an honest moral dislike
 
to such a proceeding. And this was also the reason why the shameless and
 
monstrous word 'Reparations' came into common use in Germany. This
 
hypocritical falsehood appeared to millions of our exasperated fellow
 
countrymen as the fulfilment of a higher justice. It is a terrible
 
thought, but the fact was so. The best proof of this was the propaganda
 
which I initiated against Versailles by explaining the Treaty of
 
Brest-Litowsk. I compared the two treaties with one another, point by
 
point, and showed how in truth the one treaty was immensely humane, in
 
contradistinction to the inhuman barbarity of the other. The effect was
 
very striking. Then I spoke on this theme before an assembly of two
 
thousand persons, during which I often saw three thousand six hundred
 
hostile eyes fixed on me. And three hours later I had in front of me a
 
swaying mass of righteous indignation and fury. A great lie had been
 
uprooted from the hearts and brains of a crowd composed of thousands of
 
individuals and a truth had been implanted in its place.
 
 
 
The two lectures--that 'On the Causes of the World War' and 'On the
 
Peace Treaties of Brest-Litowsk and Versailles' respectively--I then
 
considered as the most important of all. Therefore I repeated them
 
dozens of times, always giving them a new intonation; until at least on
 
those points a definitely clear and unanimous opinion reigned among
 
those from whom our movement recruited its first members.
 
 
 
Furthermore, these gatherings brought me the advantage that I slowly
 
became a platform orator at mass meetings, and gave me practice in the
 
pathos and gesture required in large halls that held thousands of
 
people.
 
 
 
Outside of the small circles which I have mentioned, at that time I
 
found no party engaged in explaining things to the people in this way.
 
Not one of these parties was then active which talk to-day as if it was
 
they who had brought about the change in public opinion. If a political
 
leader, calling himself a nationalist, pronounced a discourse somewhere
 
or other on this theme it was only before circles which for the most
 
part were already of his own conviction and among whom the most that was
 
done was to confirm them in their opinions. But that was not what was
 
needed then. What was needed was to win over through propaganda and
 
explanation those whose opinions and mental attitudes held them bound to
 
the enemy's camp.
 
 
 
The one-page circular was also adopted by us to help in this propaganda.
 
While still a soldier I had written a circular in which I contrasted the
 
Treaty of Brest-Litowsk with that of Versailles. That circular was
 
printed and distributed in large numbers. Later on I used it for the
 
party, and also with good success. Our first meetings were distinguished
 
by the fact that there were tables covered with leaflets, papers, and
 
pamphlets of every kind. But we relied principally on the spoken word.
 
And, in fact, this is the only means capable of producing really great
 
revolutions, which can be explained on general psychological grounds.
 
 
 
In the first volume I have already stated that all the formidable events
 
which have changed the aspect of the world were carried through, not by
 
the written but by the spoken word. On that point there was a long
 
discussion in a certain section of the Press during the course of which
 
our shrewd bourgeois people strongly opposed my thesis. But the reason
 
for this attitude confounded the sceptics. The bourgeois intellectuals
 
protested against my attitude simply because they themselves did not
 
have the force or ability to influence the masses through the spoken
 
word; for they always relied exclusively on the help of writers and did
 
not enter the arena themselves as orators for the purpose of arousing
 
the people. The development of events necessarily led to that condition
 
of affairs which is characteristic of the bourgeoisie to-day, namely,
 
the loss of the psychological instinct to act upon and influence the
 
masses.
 
 
 
An orator receives continuous guidance from the people before whom he
 
speaks. This helps him to correct the direction of his speech; for he
 
can always gauge, by the faces of his hearers, how far they follow and
 
understand him, and whether his words are producing the desired effect.
 
But the writer does not know his reader at all. Therefore, from the
 
outset he does not address himself to a definite human group of persons
 
which he has before his eyes but must write in a general way. Hence, up
 
to a certain extent he must fail in psychological finesse and
 
flexibility. Therefore, in general it may be said that a brilliant
 
orator writes better than a brilliant writer can speak, unless the
 
latter has continual practice in public speaking. One must also remember
 
that of itself the multitude is mentally inert, that it remains attached
 
to its old habits and that it is not naturally prone to read something
 
which does not conform with its own pre-established beliefs when such
 
writing does not contain what the multitude hopes to find there.
 
Therefore, some piece of writing which has a particular tendency is for
 
the most part read only by those who are in sympathy with it. Only a
 
leaflet or a placard, on account of its brevity, can hope to arouse a
 
momentary interest in those whose opinions differ from it. The picture,
 
in all its forms, including the film, has better prospects. Here there
 
is less need of elaborating the appeal to the intelligence. It is
 
sufficient if one be careful to have quite short texts, because many
 
people are more ready to accept a pictorial presentation than to read a
 
long written description. In a much shorter time, at one stroke I might
 
say, people will understand a pictorial presentation of something which
 
it would take them a long and laborious effort of reading to understand.
 
 
 
The most important consideration, however, is that one never knows into
 
what hands a piece of written material comes and yet the form in which
 
its subject is presented must remain the same. In general the effect is
 
greater when the form of treatment corresponds to the mental level of
 
the reader and suits his nature. Therefore, a book which is meant for
 
the broad masses of the people must try from the very start to gain its
 
effects through a style and level of ideas which would be quite
 
different from a book intended to be read by the higher intellectual
 
classes.
 
 
 
Only through his capacity for adaptability does the force of the written
 
word approach that of oral speech. The orator may deal with the same
 
subject as a book deals with; but if he has the genius of a great and
 
popular orator he will scarcely ever repeat the same argument or the
 
same material in the same form on two consecutive occasions. He will
 
always follow the lead of the great mass in such a way that from the
 
living emotion of his hearers the apt word which he needs will be
 
suggested to him and in its turn this will go straight to the hearts of
 
his hearers. Should he make even a slight mistake he has the living
 
correction before him. As I have already said, he can read the play of
 
expression on the faces of his hearers, first to see if they understand
 
what he says, secondly to see if they take in the whole of his argument,
 
and, thirdly, in how far they are convinced of the justice of what has
 
been placed before them. Should he observe, first, that his hearers do
 
not understand him he will make his explanation so elementary and clear
 
that they will be able to grasp it, even to the last individual.
 
Secondly, if he feels that they are not capable of following him he will
 
make one idea follow another carefully and slowly until the most
 
slow-witted hearer no longer lags behind. Thirdly, as soon as he has the
 
feeling that they do not seem convinced that he is right in the way he
 
has put things to them he will repeat his argument over and over again,
 
always giving fresh illustrations, and he himself will state their
 
unspoken objection. He will repeat these objections, dissecting them and
 
refuting them, until the last group of the opposition show him by their
 
behaviour and play of expression that they have capitulated before his
 
exposition of the case.
 
 
 
Not infrequently it is a case of overcoming ingrained prejudices which
 
are mostly unconscious and are supported by sentiment rather than
 
reason. It is a thousand times more difficult to overcome this barrier
 
of instinctive aversion, emotional hatred and preventive dissent than to
 
correct opinions which are founded on defective or erroneous knowledge.
 
False ideas and ignorance may be set aside by means of instruction, but
 
emotional resistance never can. Nothing but an appeal to these hidden
 
forces will be effective here. And that appeal can be made by scarcely
 
any writer. Only the orator can hope to make it.
 
 
 
A very striking proof of this is found in the fact that, though we had a
 
bourgeois Press which in many cases was well written and produced and
 
had a circulation of millions among the people, it could not prevent the
 
broad masses from becoming the implacable enemies of the bourgeois
 
class. The deluge of papers and books published by the intellectual
 
circles year after year passed over the millions of the lower social
 
strata like water over glazed leather. This proves that one of two
 
things must be true: either that the matter offered in the bourgeois
 
Press was worthless or that it is impossible to reach the hearts of the
 
broad masses by means of the written word alone. Of course, the latter
 
would be specially true where the written material shows such little
 
psychological insight as has hitherto been the case.
 
 
 
It is useless to object here, as certain big Berlin papers of
 
German-National tendencies have attempted to do, that this statement is
 
refuted by the fact that the Marxists have exercised their greatest
 
influence through their writings, and especially through their principal
 
book, published by Karl Marx. Seldom has a more superficial argument
 
been based on a false assumption. What gave Marxism its amazing
 
influence over the broad masses was not that formal printed work which
 
sets forth the Jewish system of ideas, but the tremendous oral
 
propaganda carried on for years among the masses. Out of one hundred
 
thousand German workers scarcely one hundred know of Marx's book. It has
 
been studied much more in intellectual circles and especially by the
 
Jews than by the genuine followers of the movement who come from the
 
lower classes. That work was not written for the masses, but exclusively
 
for the intellectual leaders of the Jewish machine for conquering the
 
world. The engine was heated with quite different stuff: namely, the
 
journalistic Press. What differentiates the bourgeois Press from the
 
Marxist Press is that the latter is written by agitators, whereas the
 
bourgeois Press would like to carry on agitation by means of
 
professional writers. The Social-Democrat sub-editor, who almost always
 
came directly from the meeting to the editorial offices of his paper,
 
felt his job on his finger-tips. But the bourgeois writer who left his
 
desk to appear before the masses already felt ill when he smelled the
 
very odour of the crowd and found that what he had written was useless
 
to him.
 
 
 
What won over millions of workpeople to the Marxist cause was not the EX
 
CATHEDRA style of the Marxist writers but the formidable propagandist
 
work done by tens of thousands of indefatigable agitators, commencing
 
with the leading fiery agitator down to the smallest official in the
 
syndicate, the trusted delegate and the platform orator. Furthermore,
 
there were the hundreds of thousands of meetings where these orators,
 
standing on tables in smoky taverns, hammered their ideas into the heads
 
of the masses, thus acquiring an admirable psychological knowledge of
 
the human material they had to deal with. And in this way they were
 
enabled to select the best weapons for their assault on the citadel of
 
public opinion. In addition to all this there were the gigantic
 
mass-demonstrations with processions in which a hundred thousand men
 
took part. All this was calculated to impress on the petty-hearted
 
individual the proud conviction that, though a small worm, he was at the
 
same time a cell of the great dragon before whose devastating breath the
 
hated bourgeois world would one day be consumed in fire and flame, and
 
the dictatorship of the proletariat would celebrate its conclusive
 
victory.
 
 
 
This kind of propaganda influenced men in such a way as to give them a
 
taste for reading the Social Democratic Press and prepare their minds
 
for its teaching. That Press, in its turn, was a vehicle of the spoken
 
word rather than of the written word. Whereas in the bourgeois camp
 
professors and learned writers, theorists and authors of all kinds, made
 
attempts at talking, in the Marxist camp real speakers often made
 
attempts at writing. And it was precisely the Jew who was most prominent
 
here. In general and because of his shrewd dialectical skill and his
 
knack of twisting the truth to suit his own purposes, he was an
 
effective writer but in reality his MÉTIER was that of a revolutionary
 
orator rather than a writer.
 
 
 
For this reason the journalistic bourgeois world, setting aside the fact
 
that here also the Jew held the whip hand and that therefore this press
 
did not really interest itself in the instructtion of the broad masses,
 
was not able to exercise even the least influence over the opinions held
 
by the great masses of our people.
 
 
 
It is difficult to remove emotional prejudices, psychological bias,
 
feelings, etc., and to put others in their place. Success depends here
 
on imponderable conditions and influences. Only the orator who is gifted
 
with the most sensitive insight can estimate all this. Even the time of
 
day at which the speech is delivered has a decisive influence on its
 
results. The same speech, made by the same orator and on the same theme,
 
will have very different results according as it is delivered at ten
 
o'clock in the forenoon, at three in the afternoon, or in the evening.
 
When I first engaged in public speaking I arranged for meetings to take
 
place in the forenoon and I remember particularly a demonstration that
 
we held in the Munich Kindl Keller 'Against the Oppression of German
 
Districts.' That was the biggest hall then in Munich and the audacity of
 
our undertaking was great. In order to make the hour of the meeting
 
attractive for all the members of our movement and the other people who
 
might come, I fixed it for ten o'clock on a Sunday morning. The result
 
was depressing. But it was very instructive. The hall was filled. The
 
impression was profound, but the general feeling was cold as ice. Nobody
 
got warmed up, and I myself, as the speaker of the occasion, felt
 
profoundly unhappy at the thought that I could not establish the
 
slightest contact with my audience. I do not think I spoke worse than
 
before, but the effect seemed absolutely negative. I left the hall very
 
discontented, but also feeling that I had gained a new experience. Later
 
on I tried the same kind of experiment, but always with the same
 
results.
 
 
 
That was nothing to be wondered at. If one goes to a theatre to see a
 
matinée performance and then attends an evening performance of the same
 
play one is astounded at the difference in the impressions created. A
 
sensitive person recognizes for himself the fact that these two states
 
of mind caused by the matinee and the evening performance respectively
 
are quite different in themselves. The same is true of cinema
 
productions. This latter point is important; for one may say of the
 
theatre that perhaps in the afternoon the actor does not make the same
 
effort as in the evening. But surely it cannot be said that the cinema
 
is different in the afternoon from what it is at nine o'clock in the
 
evening. No, here the time exercises a distinct influence, just as a
 
room exercises a distinct influence on a person. There are rooms which
 
leave one cold, for reasons which are difficult to explain. There are
 
rooms which refuse steadfastly to allow any favourable atmosphere to be
 
created in them. Moreover, certain memories and traditions which are
 
present as pictures in the human mind may have a determining influence
 
on the impression produced. Thus, a representation of Parsifal at
 
Bayreuth will have an effect quite different from that which the same
 
opera produces in any other part of the world. The mysterious charm of
 
the House on the 'Festival Heights' in the old city of The Margrave
 
cannot be equalled or substituted anywhere else.
 
 
 
In all these cases one deals with the problem of influencing the freedom
 
of the human will. And that is true especially of meetings where there
 
are men whose wills are opposed to the speaker and who must be brought
 
around to a new way of thinking. In the morning and during the day it
 
seems that the power of the human will rebels with its strongest energy
 
against any attempt to impose upon it the will or opinion of another. On
 
the other hand, in the evening it easily succumbs to the domination of a
 
stronger will. Because really in such assemblies there is a contest
 
between two opposite forces. The superior oratorical art of a man who
 
has the compelling character of an apostle will succeed better in
 
bringing around to a new way of thinking those who have naturally been
 
subjected to a weakening of their forces of resistance rather than in
 
converting those who are in full possession of their volitional and
 
intellectual energies.
 
 
 
The mysterious artificial dimness of the Catholic churches also serves
 
this purpose, the burning candles, the incense, the thurible, etc.
 
 
 
In this struggle between the orator and the opponent whom he must
 
convert to his cause this marvellous sensibility towards the
 
psychological influences of propaganda can hardly ever be availed of by
 
an author. Generally speaking, the effect of the writer's work helps
 
rather to conserve, reinforce and deepen the foundations of a mentality
 
already existing. All really great historical revolutions were not
 
produced by the written word. At most, they were accompanied by it.
 
 
 
It is out of the question to think that the French Revolution could have
 
been carried into effect by philosophizing theories if they had not
 
found an army of agitators led by demagogues of the grand style. These
 
demagogues inflamed popular passion that had been already aroused, until
 
that volcanic eruption finally broke out and convulsed the whole of
 
Europe. And the same happened in the case of the gigantic Bolshevik
 
revolution which recently took place in Russia. It was not due to the
 
writers on Lenin's side but to the oratorical activities of those who
 
preached the doctrine of hatred and that of the innumerable small and
 
great orators who took part in the agitation.
 
 
 
The masses of illiterate Russians were not fired to Communist
 
revolutionary enthusiasm by reading the theories of Karl Marx but by the
 
promises of paradise made to the people by thousands of agitators in the
 
service of an idea.
 
 
 
It was always so, and it will always be so.
 
 
 
It is just typical of our pig-headed intellectuals, who live apart from
 
the practical world, to think that a writer must of necessity be
 
superior to an orator in intelligence. This point of view was once
 
exquisitely illustrated by a critique, published in a certain National
 
paper which I have already mentioned, where it was stated that one is
 
often disillusioned by reading the speech of an acknowledged great
 
orator in print. That reminded me of another article which came into my
 
hands during the War. It dealt with the speeches of Lloyd George, who
 
was then Minister of Munitions, and examined them in a painstaking way
 
under the microscope of criticism. The writer made the brilliant
 
statement that these speeches showed inferior intelligence and learning
 
and that, moreover, they were banal and commonplace productions. I
 
myself procured some of these speeches, published in pamphlet form, and
 
had to laugh at the fact that a normal German quill-driver did not in
 
the least understand these psychological masterpieces in the art of
 
influencing the masses. This man criticized these speeches exclusively
 
according to the impression they made on his own blasé mind, whereas the
 
great British Demagogue had produced an immense effect on his audience
 
through them, and in the widest sense on the whole of the British
 
populace. Looked at from this point of view, that Englishman's speeches
 
were most wonderful achievements, precisely because they showed an
 
astounding knowledge of the soul of the broad masses of the people. For
 
that reason their effect was really penetrating. Compare with them the
 
futile stammerings of a Bethmann-Hollweg. On the surface his speeches
 
were undoubtedly more intellectual, but they just proved this man's
 
inability to speak to the people, which he really could not do.
 
Nevertheless, to the average stupid brain of the German writer, who is,
 
of course, endowed with a lot of scientific learning, it came quite
 
natural to judge the speeches of the English Minister--which were made
 
for the purpose of influencing the masses--by the impression which they
 
made on his own mind, fossilized in its abstract learning. And it was
 
more natural for him to compare them in the light of that impression
 
with the brilliant but futile talk of the German statesman, which of
 
course appealed to the writer's mind much more favourably. That the
 
genius of Lloyd George was not only equal but a thousandfold superior to
 
that of a Bethmann-Hollweg is proved by the fact that he found for his
 
speeches that form and expression which opened the hearts of his people
 
to him and made these people carry out his will absolutely. The
 
primitive quality itself of those speeches, the originality of his
 
expressions, his choice of clear and simple illustration, are examples
 
which prove the superior political capacity of this Englishman. For one
 
must never judge the speech of a statesman to his people by the
 
impression which it leaves on the mind of a university professor but by
 
the effect it produces on the people. And this is the sole criterion of
 
the orator's genius.
 
 
 
The astonishing development of our movement, which was created from
 
nothing a few years ago and is to-day singled out for persecution by all
 
the internal and external enemies of our nation, must be attributed to
 
the constant recognition and practical application of those principles.
 
 
 
Written matter also played an important part in our movement; but at the
 
stage of which I am writing it served to give an equal and uniform
 
education to the directors of the movement, in the upper as well as in
 
the lower grades, rather than to convert the masses of our adversaries.
 
It was only in very rare cases that a convinced and devoted Social
 
Democrat or Communist was induced to acquire an understanding of our
 
WELTANSCHAUUNG or to study a criticism of his own by procuring and
 
reading one of our pamphlets or even one of our books. Even a newspaper
 
is rarely read if it does not bear the stamp of a party affiliation.
 
Moreover, the reading of newspapers helps little; because the general
 
picture given by a single number of a newspaper is so confused and
 
produces such a fragmentary impression that it really does not influence
 
the occasional reader. And where a man has to count his pennies it
 
cannot be assumed that, exclusively for the purpose of being objectively
 
informed, he will become a regular reader or subscriber to a paper which
 
opposes his views. Only one who has already joined a movement will
 
regularly read the party organ of that movement, and especially for the
 
purpose of keeping himself informed of what is happening in the
 
movement.
 
 
 
It is quite different with the 'spoken' leaflet. Especially if it be
 
distributed gratis it will be taken up by one person or another, all the
 
more willingly if its display title refers to a question about which
 
everybody is talking at the moment. Perhaps the reader, after having
 
read through such a leaflet more or less thoughtfully, will have new
 
viewpoints and mental attitudes and may give his attention to a new
 
movement. But with these, even in the best of cases, only a small
 
impulse will be given, but no definite conviction will be created;
 
because the leaflet can do nothing more than draw attention to something
 
and can become effective only by bringing the reader subsequently into a
 
situation where he is more fundamentally informed and instructed. Such
 
instruction must always be given at the mass assembly.
 
 
 
Mass assemblies are also necessary for the reason that, in attending
 
them, the individual who felt himself formerly only on the point of
 
joining the new movement, now begins to feel isolated and in fear of
 
being left alone as he acquires for the first time the picture of a
 
great community which has a strengthening and encouraging effect on most
 
people. Brigaded in a company or battalion, surrounded by his
 
companions, he will march with a lighter heart to the attack than if he
 
had to march alone. In the crowd he feels himself in some way thus
 
sheltered, though in reality there are a thousand arguments against such
 
a feeling.
 
 
 
Mass demonstrations on the grand scale not only reinforce the will of
 
the individual but they draw him still closer to the movement and help
 
to create an ESPRIT DE CORPS. The man who appears first as the
 
representative of a new doctrine in his place of business or in his
 
factory is bound to feel himself embarrassed and has need of that
 
reinforcement which comes from the consciousness that he is a member of
 
a great community. And only a mass demonstration can impress upon him
 
the greatness of this community. If, on leaving the shop or mammoth
 
factory, in which he feels very small indeed, he should enter a vast
 
assembly for the first time and see around him thousands and thousands
 
of men who hold the same opinions; if, while still seeking his way, he
 
is gripped by the force of mass-suggestion which comes from the
 
excitement and enthusiasm of three or four thousand other men in whose
 
midst he finds himself; if the manifest success and the concensus of
 
thousands confirm the truth and justice of the new teaching and for the
 
first time raise doubt in his mind as to the truth of the opinions held
 
by himself up to now--then he submits himself to the fascination of
 
what we call mass-suggestion. The will, the yearning and indeed the
 
strength of thousands of people are in each individual. A man who enters
 
such a meeting in doubt and hesitation leaves it inwardly fortified; he
 
has become a member of a community.
 
 
 
The National Socialist Movement should never forget this, and it should
 
never allow itself to be influenced by these bourgeois duffers who think
 
they know everything but who have foolishly gambled away a great State,
 
together with their own existence and the supremacy of their own class.
 
They are overflowing with ability; they can do everything, and they know
 
everything. But there is one thing they have not known how to do, and
 
that is how to save the German people from falling into the arms of
 
Marxism. In that they have shown themselves most pitiably and miserably
 
impotent. So that the present opinion they have of themselves is only
 
equal to their conceit. Their pride and stupidity are fruits of the same
 
tree.
 
 
 
If these people try to disparage the importance of the spoken word
 
to-day, they do it only because they realize--God be praised and
 
thanked--how futile all their own speechifying has been.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER VII
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE CONFLICT WITH THE RED FORCES
 
 
 
 
 
In 1919-20 and also in 1921 I attended some of the bourgeois meetings.
 
Invariably I had the same feeling towards these as towards the
 
compulsory dose of castor oil in my boyhood days. It just had to be
 
taken because it was good for one: but it certainly tasted unpleasant.
 
If it were possible to tie ropes round the German people and forcibly
 
drag them to these bourgeois meetings, keeping them there behind barred
 
doors and allowing nobody to escape until the meeting closed, then this
 
procedure might prove successful in the course of a few hundred years.
 
For my own part, I must frankly admit that, under such circumstances, I
 
could not find life worth living; and indeed I should no longer wish to
 
be a German. But, thank God, all this is impossible. And so it is not
 
surprising that the sane and unspoilt masses shun these 'bourgeois mass
 
meetings' as the devil shuns holy water.
 
 
 
I came to know the prophets of the bourgeois WELTANSCHAUUNG, and I was
 
not surprised at what I learned, as I knew that they attached little
 
importance to the spoken word. At that time I attended meetings of the
 
Democrats, the German Nationalists, the German People's Party and the
 
Bavarian People's Party (the Centre Party of Bavaria). What struck me at
 
once was the homogeneous uniformity of the audiences. Nearly always they
 
were made up exclusively of party members. The whole affair was more
 
like a yawning card party than an assembly of people who had just passed
 
through a great revolution. The speakers did all they could to maintain
 
this tranquil atmosphere. They declaimed, or rather read out, their
 
speeches in the style of an intellectual newspaper article or a learned
 
treatise, avoiding all striking expressions. Here and there a feeble
 
professorial joke would be introduced, whereupon the people sitting at
 
the speaker's table felt themselves obliged to laugh--not loudly but
 
encouragingly and with well-bred reserve.
 
 
 
And there were always those people at the speaker's table. I once
 
attended a meeting in the Wagner Hall in Munich. It was a demonstration
 
to celebrate the anniversary of the Battle of Leipzig. (Note 17) The
 
speech was delivered or rather read out by a venerable old professor from
 
one or other of the universities. The committee sat on the platform: one
 
monocle on the right, another monocle on the left, and in the centre a
 
gentleman with no monocle. All three of them were punctiliously attired
 
in morning coats, and I had the impression of being present before a
 
judge's bench just as the death sentence was about to be pronounced or
 
at a christening or some more solemn religious ceremony. The so-called
 
speech, which in printed form may have read quite well, had a disastrous
 
effect. After three quarters of an hour the audience fell into a sort of
 
hypnotic trance, which was interrupted only when some man or woman left
 
the hall, or by the clatter which the waitresses made, or by the
 
increasing yawns of slumbering individuals. I had posted myself behind
 
three workmen who were present either out of curiosity or because they
 
were sent there by their parties. From time to time they glanced at one
 
another with an ill-concealed grin, nudged one another with the elbow,
 
and then silently left the hall. One could see that they had no
 
intention whatsoever of interrupting the proceedings, nor indeed was it
 
necessary to interrupt them. At long last the celebration showed signs
 
of drawing to a close. After the professor, whose voice had meanwhile
 
become more and more inaudible, finally ended his speech, the gentleman
 
without the monocle delivered a rousing peroration to the assembled
 
'German sisters and brothers.' On behalf of the audience and himself he
 
expressed gratitude for the magnificent lecture which they had just
 
heard from Professor X and emphasized how deeply the Professor's words
 
had moved them all. If a general discussion on the lecture were to take
 
place it would be tantamount to profanity, and he thought he was voicing
 
the opinion of all present in suggesting that such a discussion should
 
not be held. Therefore, he would ask the assembly to rise from their
 
seats and join in singing the patriotic song, WIR SIND EIN EINIG VOLK
 
VON BRÜDERN. The proceedings finally closed with the anthem, DEUTSCHLAND
 
ÜBER ALLES.
 
 
 
[Note 17. The Battle of Leipzig (1813), where the Germans inflicted an
 
overwhelming defeat on Napoleon, was the decisive event which put an end
 
to the French occupation of Germany.
 
 
 
The occupation had lasted about twenty years. After the Great War, and
 
the partial occupation of Germany once again by French forces, the
 
Germans used to celebrate the anniversary of the Battle of Leipzig as a
 
symbol of their yearning.]
 
 
 
And then they all sang. It appeared to me that when the second verse was
 
reached the voices were fewer and that only when the refrain came on
 
they swelled loudly. When we reached the third verse my belief was
 
confirmed that a good many of those present were not very familiar with
 
the text.
 
 
 
But what has all this to do with the matter when such a song is sung
 
wholeheartedly and fervidly by an assembly of German nationals?
 
 
 
After this the meeting broke up and everyone hurried to get outside, one
 
to his glass of beer, one to a cafe, and others simply into the fresh
 
air.
 
 
 
Out into the fresh air! That was also my feeling. And was this the way
 
to honour an heroic struggle in which hundreds of thousands of Prussians
 
and Germans had fought? To the devil with it all!
 
 
 
That sort of thing might find favour with the Government, it being
 
merely a 'peaceful' meeting. The Minister responsible for law and order
 
need not fear that enthusiasm might suddenly get the better of public
 
decorum and induce these people to pour out of the room and, instead of
 
dispersing to beer halls and cafes, march in rows of four through the
 
town singing DEUTSCHLAND hoch in Ehren and causing some unpleasantness
 
to a police force in need of rest.
 
 
 
No. That type of citizen is of no use to anyone.
 
 
 
On the other hand the National Socialist meetings were by no means
 
'peaceable' affairs. Two distinct WELTANSCHHAUUNGen raged in bitter
 
opposition to one another, and these meetings did not close with the
 
mechanical rendering of a dull patriotic song but rather with a
 
passionate outbreak of popular national feeling.
 
 
 
It was imperative from the start to introduce rigid discipline into our
 
meetings and establish the authority of the chairman absolutely. Our
 
purpose was not to pour out a mixture of soft-soap bourgeois talk; what
 
we had to say was meant to arouse the opponents at our meetings! How
 
often did they not turn up in masses with a few individual agitators
 
among them and, judging by the expression on all their faces, ready to
 
finish us off there and then.
 
 
 
Yes, how often did they not turn up in huge numbers, those supporters of
 
the Red Flag, all previously instructed to smash up everything once and
 
for all and put an end to these meetings. More often than not everything
 
hung on a mere thread, and only the chairman's ruthless determination
 
and the rough handling by our ushers baffled our adversaries'
 
intentions. And indeed they had every reason for being irritated.
 
 
 
The fact that we had chosen red as the colour for our posters sufficed
 
to attract them to our meetings. The ordinary bourgeoisie were very
 
shocked to see that, we had also chosen the symbolic red of Bolshevism
 
and they regarded this as something ambiguously significant. The
 
suspicion was whispered in German Nationalist circles that we also were
 
merely another variety of Marxism, perhaps even Marxists suitably
 
disguised, or better still, Socialists. The actual difference between
 
Socialism and Marxism still remains a mystery to these people up to this
 
day. The charge of Marxism was conclusively proved when it was
 
discovered that at our meetings we deliberately substituted the words
 
'Fellow-countrymen and Women' for 'Ladies and Gentlemen' and addressed
 
each other as 'Party Comrade'. We used to roar with laughter at these
 
silly faint-hearted bourgeoisie and their efforts to puzzle out our
 
origin, our intentions and our aims.
 
 
 
We chose red for our posters after particular and careful deliberation,
 
our intention being to irritate the Left, so as to arouse their
 
attention and tempt them to come to our meetings--if only in order to
 
break them up--so that in this way we got a chance of talking to the
 
people.
 
 
 
In those years' it was indeed a delightful experience to follow the
 
constantly changing tactics of our perplexed and helpless adversaries.
 
First of all they appealed to their followers to ignore us and keep away
 
from our meetings. Generally speaking this appeal was heeded. But, as
 
time went on, more and more of their followers gradually found their way
 
to us and accepted our teaching. Then the leaders became nervous and
 
uneasy. They clung to their belief that such a development should not be
 
ignored for ever, and that terror must be applied in order to put an end
 
to it.
 
 
 
Appeals were then made to the 'class-conscious proletariat' to attend
 
our meetings in masses and strike with the clenched hand of the
 
proletarian at the representatives of a 'monarchist and reactionary
 
agitation'.
 
 
 
Our meetings suddenly became packed with work-people fully
 
three-quarters of an hour before the proceedings were scheduled to
 
begin. These gatherings resembled a powder cask ready to explode at any
 
moment; and the fuse was conveniently at hand. But matters always turned
 
out differently. People came as enemies and left, not perhaps prepared
 
to join us, yet in a reflective mood and disposed critically to examine
 
the correctness of their own doctrine. Gradually as time went on my
 
three-hour lectures resulted in supporters and opponents becoming united
 
in one single enthusiastic group of people. Every signal for the
 
breaking-up of the meeting failed. The result was that the opposition
 
leaders became frightened and once again looked for help to those
 
quarters that had formerly discountenanced these tactics and, with some
 
show of right, had been of the opinion that on principle the workers
 
should be forbidden to attend our meetings.
 
 
 
Then they did not come any more, or only in small numbers. But after a
 
short time the whole game started all over again. The instructions to
 
keep away from us were ignored; the comrades came in steadily increasing
 
numbers, until finally the advocates of the radical tactics won the day.
 
We were to be broken up.
 
 
 
Yet when, after two, three and even eight meetings, it was realized that
 
to break up these gatherings was easier said than done and that every
 
meeting resulted in a decisive weakening of the red fighting forces,
 
then suddenly the other password was introduced: 'Proletarians, comrades
 
and comradesses, avoid meetings of the National Socialist agitators'.
 
 
 
The same eternally alternating tactics were also to be observed in the
 
Red Press. Soon they tried to silence us but discovered the uselessness
 
of such an attempt. After that they swung round to the opposite tactics.
 
Daily 'reference' was made to us solely for the purpose of absolutely
 
ridiculing us in the eyes of the working-classes. After a time these
 
gentlemen must have felt that no harm was being done to us, but that, on
 
the contrary, we were reaping an advantage in that people were asking
 
themselves why so much space was being devoted to a subject which was
 
supposed to be so ludicrous. People became curious. Suddenly there was a
 
change of tactics and for a time we were treated as veritable criminals
 
against mankind. One article followed the other, in which our criminal
 
intentions were explained and new proofs brought forward to support what
 
was said. Scandalous tales, all of them fabricated from start to finish,
 
were published in order to help to poison the public mind. But in a
 
short time even these attacks also proved futile; and in fact they
 
assisted materially because they attracted public attention to us.
 
 
 
In those days I took up the standpoint that it was immaterial whether
 
they laughed at us or reviled us, whether they depicted us as fools or
 
criminals; the important point was that they took notice of us and that
 
in the eyes of the working-classes we came to be regarded as the only
 
force capable of putting up a fight. I said to myself that the followers
 
of the Jewish Press would come to know all about us and our real aims.
 
 
 
One reason why they never got so far as breaking up our meetings was
 
undoubtedly the incredible cowardice displayed by the leaders of the
 
opposition. On every critical occasion they left the dirty work to the
 
smaller fry whilst they waited outside the halls for the results of the
 
break up.
 
 
 
We were exceptionally well informed in regard to our opponents'
 
intentions, not only because we allowed several of our party colleagues
 
to remain members of the Red organizations for reasons of expediency,
 
but also because the Red wire-pullers, fortunately for us, were
 
afflicted with a degree of talkativeness that is still unfortunately
 
very prevalent among Germans. They could not keep their own counsel, and
 
more often than not they started cackling before the proverbial egg was
 
laid. Hence, time and again our precautions were such that Red agitators
 
had no inkling of how near they were to being thrown out of the
 
meetings.
 
 
 
This state of affairs compelled us to take the work of safeguarding our
 
meetings into our own hands. No reliance could be placed on official
 
protection. On the contrary; experience showed that such protection
 
always favoured only the disturbers. The only real outcome of police
 
intervention would be that the meeting would be dissolved, that is to
 
say, closed. And that is precisely what our opponents granted.
 
 
 
Generally speaking, this led the police to adopt a procedure which, to
 
say the least, was a most infamous sample of official malpractice. The
 
moment they received information of a threat that the one or other
 
meeting was to be broken up, instead of arresting the would-be
 
disturbers, they promptly advised the innocent parties that the meeting
 
was forbidden. This step the police proclaimed as a 'precautionary
 
measure in the interests of law and order'.
 
 
 
The political work and activities of decent people could therefore
 
always be hindered by desperate ruffians who had the means at their
 
disposal. In the name of peace and order State authority bowed down to
 
these ruffians and demanded that others should not provoke them. When
 
National Socialism desired to hold meetings in certain parts and the
 
labour unions declared that their members would resist, then it was not
 
these blackmailers that were arrested and gaoled. No. Our meetings were
 
forbidden by the police. Yes, this organ of the law had the unspeakable
 
impudence to advise us in writing to this effect in innumerable
 
instances. To avoid such eventualities, it was necessary to see to it
 
that every attempt to disturb a meeting was nipped in the bud. Another
 
feature to be taken into account in this respect is that all meetings
 
which rely on police protection must necessarily bring discredit to
 
their promoters in the eyes of the general public. Meetings that are
 
only possible with the protective assistance of a strong force of police
 
convert nobody; because in order to win over the lower strata of the
 
people there must be a visible show of strength on one's own side. In
 
the same way that a man of courage will win a woman's affection more
 
easily than a coward, so a heroic movement will be more successful in
 
winning over the hearts of a people than a weak movement which relies on
 
police support for its very existence.
 
 
 
It is for this latter reason in particular that our young movement was
 
to be charged with the responsibility of assuring its own existence,
 
defending itself; and conducting its own work of smashing the Red
 
opposition.
 
 
 
The work of organizing the protective measures for our meetings was
 
based on the following:
 
 
 
(1) An energetic and psychologically judicious way of conducting the
 
meeting.
 
 
 
(2) An organized squad of troops to maintain order.
 
 
 
In those days we and no one else were masters of the situation at our
 
meetings and on no occasion did we fail to emphasize this. Our opponents
 
fully realized that any provocation would be the occasion of throwing
 
them out of the hall at once, whatever the odds against us. At meetings,
 
particularly outside Munich, we had in those days from five to eight
 
hundred opponents against fifteen to sixteen National Socialists; yet we
 
brooked no interference, for we were ready to be killed rather than
 
capitulate. More than once a handful of party colleagues offered a
 
heroic resistance to a raging and violent mob of Reds. Those fifteen or
 
twenty men would certainly have been overwhelmed in the end had not the
 
opponents known that three or four times as many of themselves would
 
first get their skulls cracked. Arid that risk they were not willing to
 
run. We had done our best to study Marxist and bourgeois methods of
 
conducting meetings, and we had certainly learnt something.
 
 
 
The Marxists had always exercised a most rigid discipline so that the
 
question of breaking up their meetings could never have originated in
 
bourgeois quarters. This gave the Reds all the more reason for acting on
 
this plan. In time they not only became past-masters in this art but in
 
certain large districts of the REICH they went so far as to declare that
 
non-Marxist meetings were nothing less than a cause of' provocation
 
against the proletariat. This was particularly the case when the
 
wire-pullers suspected that a meeting might call attention to their own
 
transgressions and thus expose their own treachery and chicanery.
 
Therefore the moment such a meeting was announced to be held a howl of
 
rage went up from the Red Press. These detractors of the law nearly
 
always turned first to the authorities and requested in imperative and
 
threatening language that this 'provocation of the proletariat' be
 
stopped forthwith in the 'interests of law and order'. Their language
 
was chosen according to the importance of the official blockhead they
 
were dealing with and thus success was assured. If by chance the
 
official happened to be a true German--and not a mere figurehead--and he
 
declined the impudent request, then the time-honoured appeal to stop
 
'provocation of the proletariat' was issued together with instructions
 
to attend such and such a meeting on a certain date in full strength for
 
the purpose of 'putting a stop to the disgraceful machinations of the
 
bourgeoisie by means of the proletarian fist'.
 
 
 
The pitiful and frightened manner in which these bourgeois meetings are
 
conducted must be seen in order to be believed. Very frequently these
 
threats were sufficient to call off such a meeting at once. The feeling
 
of fear was so marked that the meeting, instead of commencing at eight
 
o'clock, very seldom was opened before a quarter to nine or nine
 
o'clock. The Chairman thereupon did his best, by showering compliments
 
on the 'gentleman of the opposition' to prove how he and all others
 
present were pleased (a palpable lie) to welcome a visit from men who as
 
yet were not in sympathy with them for the reason that only by mutual
 
discussion (immediately agreed to) could they be brought closer together
 
in mutual understanding. Apart from this the Chairman also assured them
 
that the meeting had no intention whatsoever of interfering with the
 
professed convictions of anybody. Indeed no. Everyone had the right to
 
form and hold his own political views, but others should be allowed to
 
do likewise. He therefore requested that the speaker be allowed to
 
deliver his speech without interruption--the speech in any case not
 
being a long affair. People abroad, he continued, would thus not come to
 
regard this meeting as another shameful example of the bitter fraternal
 
strife that is raging in Germany. And so on and so forth
 
 
 
The brothers of the Left had little if any appreciation for that sort of
 
talk; the speaker had hardly commenced when he was shouted down. One
 
gathered the impression at times that these speakers were graceful for
 
being peremptorily cut short in their martyr-like discourse. These
 
bourgeois toreadors left the arena in the midst of a vast uproar, that
 
is to say, provided that they were not thrown down the stairs with
 
cracked skulls, which was very often the case.
 
 
 
Therefore, our methods of organization at National Socialist meetings
 
were something quite strange to the Marxists. They came to our meetings
 
in the belief that the little game which they had so often played could
 
as a matter of course be also repeated on us. "To-day we shall finish
 
them off." How often did they bawl this out to each other on entering
 
the meeting hall, only to be thrown out with lightning speed before they
 
had time to repeat it.
 
 
 
In the first place our method of conducting a meeting was entirely
 
different. We did not beg and pray to be allowed to speak, and we did
 
not straightway give everybody the right to hold endless discussions. We
 
curtly gave everyone to understand that we were masters of the meeting
 
and that we would do as it pleased us and that everyone who dared to
 
interrupt would be unceremoniously thrown out. We stated clearly our
 
refusal to accept responsibility for anyone treated in this manner. If
 
time permitted and if it suited us, a discussion would be allowed to
 
take place. Our party colleague would now make his speech.... That kind
 
of talk was sufficient in itself to astonish the Marxists.
 
 
 
Secondly, we had at our disposal a well-trained and organized body of
 
men for maintaining order at our meetings. On the other hand the
 
bourgeois parties protected their meetings with a body of men better
 
classified as ushers who by virtue of their age thought they were
 
entitled to-authority and respect. But as Marxism has little or no
 
respect for these things, the question of suitable self-protection at
 
these bourgeois meetings was, so to speak, in practice non-existent.
 
 
 
When our political meetings first started I made it a special point to
 
organize a suitable defensive squad--a squad composed chiefly of young
 
men. Some of them were comrades who had seen active service with me;
 
others were young party members who, right from the start, had been
 
trained and brought up to realize that only terror is capable of
 
smashing terror--that only courageous and determined people had made a
 
success of things in this world and that, finally, we were fighting for
 
an idea so lofty that it was worth the last drop of our blood. These
 
young men had been brought up to realize that where force replaced
 
common sense in the solution of a problem, the best means of defence was
 
attack and that the reputation of our hall-guard squads should stamp us
 
as a political fighting force and not as a debating society.
 
 
 
And it was extraordinary how eagerly these boys of the War generation
 
responded to this order. They had indeed good reason for being bitterly
 
disappointed and indignant at the miserable milksop methods employed by
 
the bourgeoise.
 
 
 
Thus it became clear to everyone that the Revolution had only been
 
possible thanks to the dastardly methods of a bourgeois government. At
 
that time there was certainly no lack of man-power to suppress the
 
revolution, but unfortunately there was an entire lack of directive
 
brain power. How often did the eyes of my young men light up with
 
enthusiasm when I explained to them the vital functions connected with
 
their task and assured them time and again that all earthly wisdom is
 
useless unless it be supported by a measure of strength, that the gentle
 
goddess of Peace can only walk in company with the god of War, and that
 
every great act of peace must be protected and assisted by force. In
 
this way the idea of military service came to them in a far more
 
realistic form--not in the fossilized sense of the souls of decrepit
 
officials serving the dead authority of a dead State, but in the living
 
realization of the duty of each man to sacrifice his life at all times
 
so that his country might live.
 
 
 
How those young men did their job!
 
 
 
Like a swarm of hornets they tackled disturbers at our meetings,
 
regardless of superiority of numbers, however great, indifferent to
 
wounds and bloodshed, inspired with the great idea of blazing a trail
 
for the sacred mission of our movement.
 
 
 
As early as the summer of 1920 the organization of squads of men as hall
 
guards for maintaining order at our meetings was gradually assuming
 
definite shape. By the spring of 1921 this body of men were sectioned
 
off into squads of one hundred, which in turn were sub-divided into
 
smaller groups.
 
 
 
The urgency for this was apparent, as meanwhile the number of our
 
meetings had steadily increased. We still frequently met in the Munich
 
Hofbräuhaus but more frequently in the large meeting halls throughout
 
the city itself. In the autumn and winter of 1920-1921 our meetings in
 
the Bürgerbräu and Munich Kindlbräu had assumed vast proportions and it
 
was always the same picture that presented itself; namely, meetings of
 
the NSDAP (The German National Socialist Labour Party) were always
 
crowded out so that the police were compelled to close and bar the doors
 
long before proceedings commenced.
 
 
 
The organization of defence guards for keeping order at our meetings
 
cleared up a very difficult question. Up till then the movement had
 
possessed no party badge and no party flag. The lack of these tokens was
 
not only a disadvantage at that time but would prove intolerable in the
 
future. The disadvantages were chiefly that members of the party
 
possessed no outward broken of membership which linked them together,
 
and it was absolutely unthinkable that for the future they should remain
 
without some token which would be a symbol of the movement and could be
 
set against that of the International.
 
 
 
More than once in my youth the psychological importance of such a symbol
 
had become clearly evident to me and from a sentimental point of view
 
also it was advisable. In Berlin, after the War, I was present at a
 
mass-demonstration of Marxists in front of the Royal Palace and in the
 
Lustgarten. A sea of red flags, red armlets and red flowers was in
 
itself sufficient to give that huge assembly of about 120,000 persons an
 
outward appearance of strength. I was now able to feel and understand
 
how easily the man in the street succumbs to the hypnotic magic of such
 
a grandiose piece of theatrical presentation.
 
 
 
The bourgeoisie, which as a party neither possesses or stands for any
 
WELTANSCHAUUNG, had therefore not a single banner. Their party was
 
composed of 'patriots' who went about in the colours of the REICH. If
 
these colours were the symbol of a definite WELTANSCHAUUNG then one
 
could understand the rulers of the State regarding this flag as
 
expressive of their own WELTANSCHAUUNG, seeing that through their
 
efforts the official REICH flag was expressive of their own
 
WELTANSCHAUUNG.
 
 
 
But in reality the position was otherwise.
 
 
 
The REICH was morticed together without the aid of the German
 
bourgeoisie and the flag itself was born of the War and therefore merely
 
a State flag possessing no importance in the sense of any particular
 
ideological mission.
 
 
 
Only in one part of the German-speaking territory--in
 
German-Austria--was there anything like a bourgeois party flag in
 
evidence. Here a section of the national bourgeoisie selected the 1848
 
colours (black, red and gold) as their party flag and therewith created
 
a symbol which, though of no importance from a weltanschauliche
 
viewpoint, had, nevertheless, a revolutionary character from a national
 
point of view. The most bitter opponents of this flag at that time, and
 
this should not be forgotten to-day, were the Social Democrats and the
 
Christian Socialists or clericals. They, in particular, were the ones
 
who degraded and besmirched these colours in the same way as in 1918
 
they dragged black, white and red into the gutter. Of course, the black,
 
red and gold of the German parties in the old Austria were the colours
 
of the year 1848: that is to say, of a period likely to be regarded as
 
somewhat visionary, but it was a period that had honest German souls as
 
its representatives, although the Jews were lurking unseen as
 
wire-pullers in the background. It was high treason and the shameful
 
enslavement of the German territory that first of all made these colours
 
so attractive to the Marxists of the Centre Party; so much so that
 
to-day they revere them as their most cherished possession and use them
 
as their own banners for the protection of the flag they once foully
 
besmirched.
 
 
 
It is a fact, therefore, that, up till 1920, in opposition to the
 
Marxists there was no flag that would have stood for a consolidated
 
resistance to them. For even if the better political elements of the
 
German bourgeoisie were loath to accept the suddenly discovered black,
 
red and gold colours as their symbol after the year 1918, they
 
nevertheless were incapable of counteracting this with a future
 
programme of their own that would correspond to the new trend of
 
affairs. At the most, they had a reconstruction of the old REICH in
 
mind.
 
 
 
And it is to this way of thinking that the black, white and red colours
 
of the old REICH are indebted for their resurrection as the flag of our
 
so-called national bourgeois parties.
 
 
 
It was obvious that the symbol of a régime which had been overthrown by
 
the Marxists under inglorious circumstances was not now worthy to serve
 
as a banner under which the same Marxism was to be crushed in its turn.
 
However much any decent German may love and revere those old colours,
 
glorious when placed side by side in their youthful freshness, when he
 
had fought under them and seen the sacrifice of so many lives, that flag
 
had little value for the struggle of the future.
 
 
 
In our Movement I have always adopted the standpoint that it was a
 
really lucky thing for the German nation that it had lost its old flag
 
(Note 18). This standpoint of mine was in strong contrast to that of the
 
bourgeois politicians. It may be immaterial to us what the Republic does
 
under its flag. But let us be deeply grateful to fate for having so
 
graciously spared the most glorious war flag for all time from becoming
 
an ignominious rag. The REICH of to-day, which sells itself and its
 
people, must never be allowed to adopt the honourable and heroic black,
 
white and red colours.
 
 
 
[Note 18. The flag of the German Empire, founded in 1871, was
 
Black-White-Red. This was discarded in 1918 and Black-Red-Gold was chosen
 
as the flag of the German Republic founded at Weimar in 1919. The flag
 
designed by Hitler--red with a white disc in the centre, bearing the
 
black swastika--is now the national flag.]
 
 
 
As long as the November outrage endures, that outrage may continue to
 
bear its own external sign and not steal that of an honourable past. Our
 
bourgeois politicians should awaken their consciences to the fact that
 
whoever desires this State to have the black, white and red colours is
 
pilfering from the past. The old flag was suitable only for the old
 
REICH and, thank Heaven, the Republic chose the colours best suited to
 
itself.
 
 
 
This was also the reason why we National Socialists recognized that
 
hoisting the old colours would be no symbol of our special aims; for we
 
had no wish to resurrect from the dead the old REICH which had been
 
ruined through its own blunders, but to build up a new State.
 
 
 
The Movement which is fighting Marxism to-day along these lines must
 
display on its banner the symbol of the new State.
 
 
 
The question of the new flag, that is to say the form and appearance it
 
must take, kept us very busy in those days. Suggestions poured in from
 
all quarters, which although well meant were more or less impossible in
 
practice. The new flag had not only to become a symbol expressing our
 
own struggle but on the other hand it was necessary that it should prove
 
effective as a large poster. All those who busy themselves with the
 
tastes of the public will recognize and appreciate the great importance
 
of these apparently petty matters. In hundreds of thousands of cases a
 
really striking emblem may be the first cause of awakening interest in a
 
movement.
 
 
 
For this reason we declined all suggestions from various quarters for
 
identifying our movement by means of a white flag with the old State or
 
rather with those decrepit parties whose sole political objective is the
 
restoration of past conditions. And, apart from this, white is not a
 
colour capable of attracting and focusing public attention. It is a
 
colour suitable only for young women's associations and not for a
 
movement that stands for reform in a revolutionary period.
 
 
 
Black was also suggested--certainly well-suited to the times, but
 
embodying no significance to empress the will behind our movement. And,
 
finally, black is incapable of attracting attention.
 
 
 
White and blue was discarded, despite its admirable aesthetic appeal--as
 
being the colours of an individual German Federal State--a State that,
 
unfortunately, through its political attitude of particularist
 
narrow-mindedness did not enjoy a good reputation. And, generally
 
speaking, with these colours it would have been difficult to attract
 
attention to our movement. The same applies to black and white.
 
 
 
Black, red and gold did not enter the question at all.
 
 
 
And this also applies to black, white and red for reasons already
 
stated. At least, not in the form hitherto in use. But the effectiveness
 
of these three colours is far superior to all the others and they are
 
certainly the most strikingly harmonious combination to be found.
 
 
 
I myself was always for keeping the old colours, not only because I, as
 
a soldier, regarded them as my most sacred possession, but because in
 
their aesthetic effect, they conformed more than anything else to my
 
personal taste. Accordingly I had to discard all the innumerable
 
suggestions and designs which had been proposed for the new movement,
 
among which were many that had incorporated the swastika into the old
 
colours. I, as leader, was unwilling to make public my own design, as it
 
was possible that someone else could come forward with a design just as
 
good, if not better, than my own. As a matter of fact, a dental surgeon
 
from Starnberg submitted a good design very similar to mine, with only
 
one mistake, in that his swastika with curved corners was set upon a
 
white background.
 
 
 
After innumerable trials I decided upon a final form--a flag of red
 
material with a white disc bearing in its centre a black swastika. After
 
many trials I obtained the correct proportions between the dimensions of
 
the flag and of the white central disc, as well as that of the swastika.
 
And this is how it has remained ever since.
 
 
 
At the same time we immediately ordered the corresponding armlets for
 
our squad of men who kept order at meetings, armlets of red material, a
 
central white disc with the black swastika upon it. Herr Füss, a Munich
 
goldsmith, supplied the first practical and permanent design.
 
 
 
The new flag appeared in public in the midsummer of 1920. It suited our
 
movement admirably, both being new and young. Not a soul had seen this
 
flag before; its effect at that time was something akin to that of a
 
blazing torch. We ourselves experienced almost a boyish delight when one
 
of the ladies of the party who had been entrusted with the making of the
 
flag finally handed it over to us. And a few months later those of us in
 
Munich were in possession of six of these flags. The steadily increasing
 
strength of our hall guards was a main factor in popularizing the
 
symbol.
 
 
 
And indeed a symbol it proved to be.
 
 
 
Not only because it incorporated those revered colours expressive of our
 
homage to the glorious past and which once brought so much honour to the
 
German nation, but this symbol was also an eloquent expression of the
 
will behind the movement. We National Socialists regarded our flag as
 
being the embodiment of our party programme. The red expressed the
 
social thought underlying the movement. White the national thought. And
 
the swastika signified the mission allotted to us--the struggle for the
 
victory of Aryan mankind and at the same time the triumph of the ideal
 
of creative work which is in itself and always will be anti-Semitic.
 
 
 
Two years later, when our squad of hall guards had long since grown into
 
storm detachments, it seemed necessary to give this defensive
 
organization of a young WELTANSCHAUUNG a particular symbol of victory,
 
namely a Standard. I also designed this and entrusted the execution of
 
it to an old party comrade, Herr Gahr, who was a goldsmith. Ever since
 
that time this Standard has been the distinctive token of the National
 
Socialist struggle.
 
 
 
The increasing interest taken in our meetings, particularly during 1920,
 
compelled us at times to hold two meetings a week. Crowds gathered round
 
our posters; the large meeting halls in the town were always filled and
 
tens of thousands of people, who had been led astray by the teachings of
 
Marxism, found their way to us and assisted in the work of fighting for
 
the liberation of the REICH. The public in Munich had got to know us. We
 
were being spoken about. The words 'National Socialist' had become
 
common property to many and signified for them a definite party
 
programme. Our circle of supporters and even of members was constantly
 
increasing, so that in the winter of 1920-21 we were able to appear as a
 
strong party in Munich.
 
 
 
At that time there was no party in Munich with the exception of the
 
Marxist parties--certainly no nationalist party--which was able to hold
 
such mass demonstrations as ours. The Munich Kindl Hall, which held
 
5,000 people, was more than once overcrowded and up till then there was
 
only one other hall, the Krone Circus Hall, into which we had not
 
ventured.
 
 
 
At the end of January 1921 there was again great cause for anxiety in
 
Germany. The Paris Agreement, by which Germany pledged herself to pay
 
the crazy sum of a hundred milliards of gold marks, was to be confirmed
 
by the London Ultimatum.
 
 
 
Thereupon an old-established Munich working committee, representative of
 
so-called VÖLKISCH groups, deemed it advisable to call for a public
 
meeting of protest. I became nervous and restless when I saw that a lot
 
of time was being wasted and nothing undertaken. At first a meeting was
 
suggested in the KÖNIG PLATZ; on second thoughts this was turned down,
 
as someone feared the proceedings might be wrecked by Red elements.
 
Another suggestion was a demonstration in front of the Feldherrn Hall,
 
but this also came to nothing. Finally a combined meeting in the Munich
 
Kindl Hall was suggested. Meanwhile, day after day had gone by; the big
 
parties had entirely ignored the terrible event, and the working
 
committee could not decide on a definite date for holding the
 
demonstration.
 
 
 
On Tuesday, February 1st, I put forward an urgent demand for a final
 
decision. I was put off until Wednesday. On that day I demanded to be
 
told clearly if and when the meeting was to take place. The reply was
 
again uncertain and evasive, it being stated that it was 'intended' to
 
arrange a demonstration that day week.
 
 
 
At that I lost all patience and decided to conduct a demonstration of
 
protest on my own. At noon on Wednesday I dictated in ten minutes the
 
text of the poster and at the same time hired the Krone Circus Hall for
 
the next day, February 3rd.
 
 
 
In those days this was a tremendous venture. Not only because of the
 
uncertainty of filling that vast hall, but also because of the risk of
 
the meeting being wrecked.
 
 
 
Numerically our squad of hall guards was not strong enough for this vast
 
hall. I was also uncertain about what to do in case the meeting was
 
broken up--a huge circus building being a different proposition from an
 
ordinary meeting hall. But events showed that my fears were misplaced,
 
the opposite being the case. In that vast building a squad of wreckers
 
could be tackled and subdued more easily than in a cramped hall.
 
 
 
One thing was certain: A failure would throw us back for a long time to
 
come. If one meeting was wrecked our prestige would be seriously injured
 
and our opponents would be encouraged to repeat their success. That
 
would lead to sabotage of our work in connection with further meetings
 
and months of difficult struggle would be necessary to overcome this.
 
 
 
We had only one day in which to post our bills, Thursday. Unfortunately
 
it rained on the morning of that day and there was reason to fear that
 
many people would prefer to remain at home rather than hurry to a
 
meeting through rain and snow, especially when there was likely to be
 
violence and bloodshed.
 
 
 
And indeed on that Thursday morning I was suddenly struck with fear that
 
the hall might never be filled to capacity, which would have made me
 
ridiculous in the eyes of the working committee. I therefore immediately
 
dictated various leaflets, had them printed and distributed in the
 
afternoon. Of course they contained an invitation to attend the meeting.
 
 
 
Two lorries which I hired were draped as much as possible in red, each
 
had our new flag hoisted on it and was then filled with fifteen or
 
twenty members of our party. Orders were given the members to canvas the
 
streets thoroughly, distribute leaflets and conduct propaganda for the
 
mass meeting to be held that evening. It was the first time that lorries
 
had driven through the streets bearing flags and not manned by Marxists.
 
The public stared open-mouthed at these red-draped cars, and in the
 
outlying districts clenched fists were angrily raised at this new
 
evidence of 'provocation of the proletariat'. Were not the Marxists the
 
only ones entitled to hold meetings and drive about in motor lorries?
 
 
 
At seven o'clock in the evening only a few had gathered in the circus
 
hall. I was being kept informed by telephone every ten minutes and was
 
becoming uneasy. Usually at seven or a quarter past our meeting halls
 
were already half filled; sometimes even packed. But I soon found out
 
the reason why I was uneasy. I had entirely forgotten to take into
 
account the huge dimensions of this new meeting place. A thousand people
 
in the Hofbräuhaus was quite an impressive sight, but the same number in
 
the Circus building was swallowed up in its dimensions and was hardly
 
noticeable. Shortly afterwards I received more hopeful reports and at a
 
quarter to eight I was informed that the hall was three-quarters filled,
 
with huge crowds still lined up at the pay boxes. I then left for the
 
meeting.
 
 
 
I arrived at the Circus building at two minutes past eight. There was
 
still a crowd of people outside, partly inquisitive people and many
 
opponents who preferred to wait outside for developments.
 
 
 
When I entered the great hall I felt the same joy I had felt a year
 
previously at the first meeting in the Munich Hofbräu Banquet Hall; but
 
it was not until I had forced my way through the solid wall of people
 
and reached the platform that I perceived the full measure of our
 
success. The hall was before me, like a huge shell, packed with
 
thousands and thousands of people. Even the arena was densely crowded.
 
More than 5,600 tickets had been sold and, allowing for the unemployed,
 
poor students and our own detachments of men for keeping order, a crowd
 
of about 6,500 must have been present.
 
 
 
My theme was 'Future or Downfall' and I was filled with joy at the
 
conviction that the future was represented by the crowds that I was
 
addressing.
 
 
 
I began, and spoke for about two and a half hours. I had the feeling
 
after the first half-hour that the meeting was going to be a big
 
success. Contact had been at once established with all those thousands
 
of individuals. After the first hour the speech was already being
 
received by spontaneous outbreaks of applause, but after the second hour
 
this died down to a solemn stillness which I was to experience so often
 
later on in this same hall, and which will for ever be remembered by all
 
those present. Nothing broke this impressive silence and only when the
 
last word had been spoken did the meeting give vent to its feelings by
 
singing the national anthem.
 
 
 
I watched the scene during the next twenty minutes, as the vast hall
 
slowly emptied itself, and only then did I leave the platform, a happy
 
man, and made my way home.
 
 
 
Photographs were taken of this first meeting in the Krone Circus Hall in
 
Munich. They are more eloquent than words to demonstrate the success of
 
this demonstration. The bourgeois papers reproduced photographs and
 
reported the meeting as having been merely 'nationalist' in character;
 
in their usual modest fashion they omitted all mention of its promoters.
 
 
 
Thus for the first time we had developed far beyond the dimensions of an
 
ordinary party. We could no longer be ignored. And to dispel all doubt
 
that the meeting was merely an isolated success, I immediately arranged
 
for another at the Circus Hall in the following week, and again we had
 
the same success. Once more the vast hall was overflowing with people;
 
so much so that I decided to hold a third meeting during the following
 
week, which also proved a similar success.
 
 
 
After these initial successes early in 1921 I increased our activity in
 
Munich still further. I not only held meetings once a week, but during
 
some weeks even two were regularly held and very often during midsummer
 
and autumn this increased to three. We met regularly at the Circus Hall
 
and it gave us great satisfaction to see that every meeting brought us
 
the same measure of success.
 
 
 
The result was shown in an ever-increasing number of supporters and
 
members into our party.
 
 
 
Naturally, such success did not allow our opponents to sleep soundly. At
 
first their tactics fluctuated between the use of terror and silence in
 
our regard. Then they recognized that neither terror nor silence could
 
hinder the progress of our movement. So they had recourse to a supreme
 
act of terror which was intended to put a definite end to our activities
 
in the holding of meetings.
 
 
 
As a pretext for action along this line they availed themselves of a
 
very mysterious attack on one of the Landtag deputies, named Erhard
 
Auer. It was declared that someone had fired several shots at this man
 
one evening. This meant that he was not shot but that an attempt had
 
been made to shoot him. A fabulous presence of mind and heroic courage
 
on the part of Social Democratic leaders not only prevented the
 
sacrilegious intention from taking effect but also put the crazy
 
would-be assassins to flight, like the cowards that they were. They were
 
so quick and fled so far that subsequently the police could not find
 
even the slightest traces of them. This mysterious episode was used by
 
the organ of the Social Democratic Party to arouse public feeling
 
against the movement, and while doing this it delivered its old
 
rigmarole about the tactics that were to be employed the next time.
 
Their purpose was to see to it that our movement should not grow but
 
should be immediately hewn down root and branch by the hefty arm of the
 
proletariat.
 
 
 
A few days later the real attack came. It was decided finally to
 
interrupt one of our meetings which was billed to take place in the
 
Munich Hofbräuhaus, and at which I myself was to speak.
 
 
 
On November 4th, 1921, in the evening between six and seven o'clock I
 
received the first precise news that the meeting would positively be
 
broken up and that to carry out this action our adversaries had decided
 
to send to the meeting great masses of workmen employed in certain 'Red'
 
factories.
 
 
 
It was due to an unfortunate accident that we did not receive this news
 
sooner. On that day we had given up our old business office in the
 
Sternecker Gasse in Munich and moved into other quarters; or rather we
 
had given up the old offices and our new quarters were not yet in
 
functioning order. The telephone arrangements had been cut off by the
 
former tenants and had not yet been reinstalled. Hence it happened that
 
several attempts made that day to inform us by telephone of the break-up
 
which had been planned for the evening did not reach us.
 
 
 
Consequently our order troops were not present in strong force at that
 
meeting. There was only one squad present, which did not consist of the
 
usual one hundred men, but only of about forty-six. And our telephone
 
connections were not yet sufficiently organized to be able to give the
 
alarm in the course of an hour or so, so that a sufficiently powerful
 
number of order troops to deal with the situation could be called. It
 
must also be added that on several previous occasions we had been
 
forewarned, but nothing special happened. The old proverb, 'Revolutions
 
which were announced have scarcely ever come off', had hitherto been
 
proved true in our regard.
 
 
 
Possibly for this reason also sufficiently strong precautions had not
 
been taken on that day to cope with the brutal determination of our
 
opponents to break up our meeting.
 
 
 
Finally, we did not believe that the Hofbräuhaus in Munich was suitable
 
for the interruptive tactics of our adversaries. We had feared such a
 
thing far more in the bigger halls, especially that of the Krone Circus.
 
But on this point we learned a very serviceable lesson that evening.
 
Later, we studied this whole question according to a scientific system
 
and arrived at results, both interesting and incredible, and which
 
subsequently were an essential factor in the direction of our
 
organization and in the tactics of our Storm Troops.
 
 
 
When I arrived in the entrance halt of the Hofbräuhaus at 7.45 that
 
evening I realizcd that there could be no doubt as to what the 'Reds'
 
intended. The hall was filled, and for that reason the police had barred
 
the entrances. Our adversaries, who had arrived very early, were in the
 
hall, and our followers were for the most part outside. The small
 
bodyguard awaited me at the entrance. I had the doors leading to the
 
principal hall closed and then asked the bodyguard of forty-five or
 
forty-six men to come forward. I made it clear to the boys that perhaps
 
on that evening for the first time they would have to show their
 
unbending and unbreakable loyalty to the movement and that not one of us
 
should leave the hall unless carried out dead. I added that I would
 
remain in the hall and that I did not believe that one of them would
 
abandon me, and that if I saw any one of them act the coward I myself
 
would personally tear off his armlet and his badge. I demanded of them
 
that they should come forward if the slightest attempt to sabotage the
 
meeting were made and that they must remember that the best defence is
 
always attack.
 
 
 
I was greeted with a triple 'HEIL' which sounded more hoarse and violent
 
than usual.
 
 
 
Then I advanced through the hall and could take in the situation with my
 
own eyes. Our opponents sat closely huddled together and tried to pierce
 
me through with their looks. Innumerable faces glowing with hatred and
 
rage were fixed on me, while others with sneering grimaces shouted at me
 
together. Now they would 'Finish with us. We must look out for our
 
entrails. To-day they would smash in our faces once and for all.' And
 
there were other expressions of an equally elegant character. They knew
 
that they were there in superior numbers and they acted accordingly.
 
 
 
Yet we were able to open the meeting; and I began to speak. In the Hall
 
of the Hofbräuhaus I stood always at the side, away from the entry and
 
on top of a beer table. Therefore I was always right in the midst of the
 
audience. Perhaps this circumstance was responsible for creating a
 
certain feeling and a sense of agreement which I never found elsewhere.
 
 
 
Before me, and especially towards my left, there were only opponents,
 
seated or standing. They were mostly robust youths and men from the
 
Maffei Factory, from Kustermann's, and from the factories on the Isar,
 
etc. Along the right-hand wall of the hall they were thickly massed
 
quite close to my table. They now began to order litre mugs of beer, one
 
after the other, and to throw the empty mugs under the table. In this
 
way whole batteries were collected. I should have been surprised had
 
this meeting ended peacefully.
 
 
 
In spite of all the interruptions, I was able to speak for about an hour
 
and a half and I felt as if I were master of the situation. Even the
 
ringleaders of the disturbers appeared to be convinced of this; for they
 
steadily became more uneasy, often left the hall, returned and spoke to
 
their men in an obviously nervous way.
 
 
 
A small psychological error which I committed in replying to an
 
interruption, and the mistake of which I myself was conscious the moment
 
the words had left my mouth, gave the sign for the outbreak.
 
 
 
There were a few furious outbursts and all in a moment a man jumped on a
 
seat and shouted "Liberty". At that signal the champions of liberty
 
began their work.
 
 
 
In a few moments the hall was filled with a yelling and shrieking mob.
 
Numerous beer-mugs flew like howitzers above their heads. Amid this
 
uproar one heard the crash of chair legs, the crashing of mugs, groans
 
and yells and screams.
 
 
 
It was a mad spectacle. I stood where I was and could observe my boys
 
doing their duty, every one of them.
 
 
 
There I had the chance of seeing what a bourgeois meeting could be.
 
 
 
The dance had hardly begun when my Storm Troops, as they were called
 
from that day onwards, launched their attack. Like wolves they threw
 
themselves on the enemy again and again in parties of eight or ten and
 
began steadily to thrash them out of the hall. After five minutes I
 
could see hardly one of them that was not streaming with blood. Then I
 
realized what kind of men many of them were, above all my brave Maurice
 
Hess, who is my private secretary to-day, and many others who, even
 
though seriously wounded, attacked again and again as long as they could
 
stand on their feet. Twenty minutes long the pandemonium continued. Then
 
the opponents, who had numbered seven or eight hundred, had been driven
 
from the hall or hurled out headlong by my men, who had not numbered
 
fifty. Only in the left corner a big crowd still stood out against our
 
men and put up a bitter fight. Then two pistol shots rang out from the
 
entrance to the hall in the direction of the platform and now a wild din
 
of shooting broke out from all sides. One's heart almost rejoiced at
 
this spectacle which recalled memories of the War.
 
 
 
At that moment it was not possible to identify the person who had fired
 
the shots. But at any rate I could see that my boys renewed the attack
 
with increased fury until finally the last disturbers were overcome and
 
flung out of the hall.
 
 
 
About twenty-five minutes had passed since it all began. The hall looked
 
as if a bomb had exploded there. Many of my comrades had to be bandaged
 
and others taken away. But we remained masters of the situation. Hermann
 
Essen, who was chairman of the meeting, announced: "The meeting will
 
continue. The speaker shall proceed." So I went on with my speech.
 
 
 
When we ourselves declared the meeting at an end an excited police
 
officer rushed in, waved his hands and declared: "The meeting is
 
dissolved."
 
 
 
Without wishing to do so I had to laugh at this example of the law's
 
delay. It was the authentic constabulary officiosiousness. The smaller
 
they are the greater they must always appear.
 
 
 
That evening we learned a real lesson. And our adversaries never forgot
 
the lesson they had received.
 
 
 
Up to the autumn of 1923 the Münchener post did not again mention the
 
clenched fists of the Proletariat.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER VIII
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE STRONG IS STRONGEST WHEN ALONE
 
 
 
 
 
In the preceding chapter I mentioned the existence of a co-operative
 
union between the German patriotic associations. Here I shall deal
 
briefly with this question.
 
 
 
In speaking of a co-operative union we generally mean a group of
 
associations which, for the purpose of facilitating their work,
 
establish mutual relations for collaborating with one another along
 
certain lines, appointing a common directorate with varying powers and
 
thenceforth carrying out a common line of action. The average citizen is
 
pleased and reassured when he hears that these associations, by
 
establishing a co-operative union among one another, have at long last
 
discovered a common platform on which they can stand united and have
 
eliminated all grounds of mutual difference. Therewith a general
 
conviction arises, to the effect that such a union is an immense gain in
 
strength and that small groups which were weak as long as they stood
 
alone have now suddenly become strong. Yet this conviction is for the
 
most part a mistaken one.
 
 
 
It will be interesting and, in my opinion, important for the better
 
understanding of this question if we try to get a clear notion of how it
 
comes about that these associations, unions, etc., are established, when
 
all of them declare that they have the same ends in view. In itself it
 
would be logical to expect that one aim should be fought for by a single
 
association and it would be more reasonable if there were not a number
 
of associations fighting for the same aim. In the beginning there was
 
undoubtedly only one association which had this one fixed aim in view.
 
One man proclaimed a truth somewhere and, calling for the solution of a
 
definite question, fixed his aim and founded a movement for the purpose
 
of carrying his views into effect.
 
 
 
That is how an association or a party is founded, the scope of whose
 
programme is either the abolition of existing evils or the positive
 
establishment of a certain order of things in the future.
 
 
 
Once such a movement has come into existence it may lay practical claim
 
to certain priority rights. The natural course of things would now be
 
that all those who wish to fight for the same objective as this movement
 
is striving for should identify themselves with it and thus increase its
 
strength, so that the common purpose in view may be all the better
 
served. Especially men of superior intelligence must feel, one and all,
 
that by joining the movement they are establishing precisely those
 
conditions which are necessary for practical success in the common
 
struggle. Accordingly it is reasonable and, in a certain sense,
 
honest--which honesty, as I shall show later, is an element of very
 
great importance--that only one movement should be founded for the
 
purpose of attaining the one aim.
 
 
 
The fact that this does not happen must be attributed to two causes. The
 
first may almost be described as tragic. The second is a matter for
 
pity, because it has its foundation in the weaknesses of human nature.
 
But, on going to the bottom of things, I see in both causes only facts
 
which give still another ground for strengthening our will, our energy
 
and intensity of purpose; so that finally, through the higher
 
development of the human faculties, the solution of the problem in
 
question may be rendered possible.
 
 
 
The tragic reason why it so often happens that the pursuit of one
 
definite task is not left to one association alone is as follows:
 
Generally speaking, every action carried out on the grand style in this
 
world is the expression of a desire that has already existed for a long
 
time in millions of human hearts, a longing which may have been
 
nourished in silence. Yes, it may happen that throughout centuries men
 
may have been yearning for the solution of a definite problem, because
 
they have been suffering under an unendurable order of affairs, without
 
seeing on the far horizon the coming fulfilment of the universal
 
longing. Nations which are no longer capable of finding an heroic
 
deliverance from such a sorrowful fate may be looked upon as effete.
 
But, on the other hand, nothing gives better proof of the vital forces
 
of a people and the consequent guarantee of its right to exist than that
 
one day, through a happy decree of Destiny, a man arises who is capable
 
of liberating his people from some great oppression, or of wiping out
 
some bitter distress, or of calming the national soul which had been
 
tormented through its sense of insecurity, and thus fulfilling what had
 
long been the universal yearning of the people.
 
 
 
An essential characteristic of what are called the great questions of
 
the time is that thousands undertake the task of solving them and that
 
many feel themselves called to this task: yea, even that Destiny itself
 
has proposed many for the choice, so that through the free play of
 
forces the stronger and bolder shall finally be victorious and to him
 
shall be entrusted the task of solving the problem.
 
 
 
Thus it may happen that for centuries many are discontented with the
 
form in which their religious life expresses itself and yearn for a
 
renovation of it; and so it may happen that through this impulse of the
 
soul some dozens of men may arise who believe that, by virtue of their
 
understanding and their knowledge, they are called to solve the
 
religious difficulties of the time and accordingly present themselves as
 
the prophets of a new teaching or at least as declared adversaries of
 
the standing beliefs.
 
 
 
Here also it is certain that the natural law will take its course,
 
inasmuch as the strongest will be destined to fulfil the great mission.
 
But usually the others are slow to acknowledge that only one man is
 
called. On the contrary, they all believe that they have an equal right
 
to engage in the solution of the diffculties in question and that they
 
are equally called to that task. Their contemporary world is generally
 
quite unable to decide which of all these possesses the highest gifts
 
and accordingly merits the support of all.
 
 
 
So in the course of centuries, or indeed often within the same epoch,
 
different men establish different movements to struggle towards the same
 
end. At least the end is declared by the founders of the movements to be
 
the same, or may be looked upon as such by the masses of the people. The
 
populace nourishes vague desires and has only general opinions, without
 
having any precise notion of their own ideals and desires or of the
 
question whether and how it is impossible for these ideals and desires
 
to be fulfilled.
 
 
 
The tragedy lies in the fact that many men struggle to reach the same
 
objective by different roads, each one genuinely believing in his own
 
mission and holding himself in duty bound to follow his own road without
 
any regard for the others.
 
 
 
These movements, parties, religious groups, etc., originate entirely
 
independently of one another out of the general urge of the time, and
 
all with a view to working towards the same goal. It may seem a tragic
 
thing, at least at first sight, that this should be so, because people
 
are too often inclined to think that forces which are dispersed in
 
different directions would attain their ends far more quickly and more
 
surely if they were united in one common effort. But that is not so. For
 
Nature herself decides according to the rules of her inexorable logic.
 
She leaves these diverse groups to compete with one another and dispute
 
the palm of victory and thus she chooses the clearest, shortest and
 
surest way along which she leads the movement to its final goal.
 
 
 
How could one decide from outside which is the best way, if the forces
 
at hand were not allowed free play, if the final decision were to rest
 
with the doctrinaire judgment of men who are so infatuated with their
 
own superior knowledge that their minds are not open to accept the
 
indisputable proof presented by manifest success, which in the last
 
analysis always gives the final confirmation of the justice of a course
 
of action.
 
 
 
Hence, though diverse groups march along different routes towards the
 
same objective, as soon as they come to know that analogous efforts are
 
being made around them, they will have to study all the more carefully
 
whether they have chosen the best way and whether a shorter way may not
 
be found and how their efforts can best be employed to reach the
 
objective more quickly.
 
 
 
Through this rivalry each individual protagonist develops his faculties
 
to a still higher pitch of perfection and the human race has frequently
 
owed its progress to the lessons learned from the misfortunes of former
 
attempts which have come to grief. Therefore we may conclude that we
 
come to know the better ways of reaching final results through a state
 
of things which at first sight appeared tragic; namely, the initial
 
dispersion of individual efforts, wherein each group was unconsciously
 
responsible for such dispersion.
 
 
 
In studying the lessons of history with a view to finding a way for the
 
solution of the German problem, the prevailing opinion at one time was
 
that there were two possible paths along which that problem might be
 
solved and that these two paths should have united from the very
 
beginning. The chief representatives and champions of these two paths
 
were Austria and Prussia respectively, Habsburg and Hohenzollern. All
 
the rest, according to this prevalent opinion, ought to have entrusted
 
their united forces to the one or the other party. But at that time the
 
path of the most prominent representative, the Habsburg, would have been
 
taken, though the Austrian policy would never have led to the foundation
 
of a united German REICH.
 
 
 
Finally, a strong and united German REICH arose out of that which many
 
millions of Germans deplored in their hearts as the last and most
 
terrible manifestation of our fratricidal strife. The truth is that the
 
German Imperial Crown was retrieved on the battle field of Königgrätz
 
and not in the fights that were waged before Paris, as was commonly
 
asserted afterwards.
 
 
 
Thus the foundation of the German REICH was not the consequence of any
 
common will working along common lines, but it was much more the outcome
 
of a deliberate struggle for hegemony, though the protagonists were
 
often hardly conscious of this. And from this struggle Prussia finally
 
came out victorious. Anybody who is not so blinded by partisan politics
 
as to deny this truth will have to agree that the so-called wisdom of
 
men would never have come to the same wise decision as the wisdom of
 
Life itself, that is to say, the free play of forces, finally brought to
 
realization. For in the German lands of two hundred years before who
 
would seriously have believed that Hohenzollern Prussia, and not
 
Habsburg, would become the germ cell, the founder and the tutor of the
 
new REICH? And, on the other hand, who would deny to-day that Destiny
 
thus acted wiser than human wisdom. Who could now imagine a German REICH
 
based on the foundations of an effete and degenerate dynasty?
 
 
 
No. The general evolution of things, even though it took a century of
 
struggle, placed the best in the position that it had merited.
 
 
 
And that will always be so. Therefore it is not to be regretted if
 
different men set out to attain the same objective. In this way the
 
strongest and swiftest becomes recognized and turns out to be the
 
victor.
 
 
 
Now there is a second cause for the fact that often in the lives of
 
nations several movements which show the same characteristics strive
 
along different ways to reach what appears to be the same goal. This
 
second cause is not at all tragic, but just something that rightly calls
 
forth pity. It arises from a sad mixture of envy, jealousy, ambition,
 
and the itch for taking what belongs to others. Unfortunately these
 
failings are often found united in single specimens of the human
 
species.
 
 
 
The moment a man arises who profoundly understands the distress of his
 
people and, having diagnosed the evil with perfect accuracy, takes
 
measures to cure it; the moment he fixes his aim and chooses the means
 
to reach it--then paltry and pettifogging people become all attention
 
and eagerly follow the doings of this man who has thus come before the
 
public gaze. Just like sparrows who are apparently indifferent, but in
 
reality are firmly intent on the movements of the fortunate companion
 
with the morsel of bread so that they may snatch it from him if he
 
should momentarily relax his hold on it, so it is also with the human
 
species. All that is needed is that one man should strike out on a new
 
road and then a crowd of poltroons will prick up their ears and begin to
 
sniff for whatever little booty may possibly lie at the end of that
 
road. The moment they think they have discovered where the booty is to
 
be gathered they hurry to find another way which may prove to be quicker
 
in reaching that goal.
 
 
 
As soon as a new movement is founded and has formulated a definite
 
programme, people of that kind come forward and proclaim that they are
 
fighting for the same cause. This does not imply that they are ready
 
honestly to join the ranks of such a movement and thus recognize its
 
right of priority. It implies rather that they intend to steal the
 
programme and found a new party on it. In doing this they are shameless
 
enough to assure the unthinking public that for a long time they had
 
intended to take the same line of action as the other has now taken, and
 
frequently they succeed in thus placing themselves in a favourable
 
light, instead of arousing the general disapprobation which they justly
 
deserve. For it is a piece of gross impudence to take what has already
 
been inscribed on another's flag and display it on one's own, to steal
 
the programme of another, and then to form a separate group as if all
 
had been created by the new founder of this group. The impudence of such
 
conduct is particularly demonstrated when the individuals who first
 
caused dispersion and disruption by their new foundation are those
 
who--as experience has shown--are most emphatic in proclaiming the
 
necessity of union and unity the moment they find they cannot catch up
 
with their adversary's advance.
 
 
 
It is to that kind of conduct that the so-called 'patriotic
 
disintegration' is to be attributed.
 
 
 
Certainly in the years 1918--1919 the founding of a multitude of new
 
groups, parties, etc., calling themselves 'Patriotic,' was a natural
 
phenomenon of the time, for which the founders were not at all
 
responsible. By 1920 the National Socialist German Labour Party had
 
slowly crystallized from all these parties and had become supreme. There
 
could be no better proof of the sterling honesty of certain individual
 
founders than the fact that many of them decided, in a really admirable
 
manner, to sacrifice their manifestly less successful movements to the
 
stronger movement, by joining it unconditionally and dissolving their
 
own.
 
 
 
This is specially true in regard to Julius Streicher, who was at that
 
time the protagonist of the German Socialist party in Nürnberg. The
 
National Socialist German Labour Party had been founded with similar
 
aims in view, but quite independently of the other. I have already said
 
that Streicher, then a teacher in Nürnberg, was the chief protagonist of
 
the German Socialist Party. He had a sacred conviction of the mission
 
and future of his own movement. As soon, however, as the superior
 
strength and stronger growth of the National Socialist Party became
 
clear and unquestionable to his mind, he gave up his work in the German
 
Socialist Party and called upon his followers to fall into line with the
 
National Socialist German Labour Party, which had come out victorious
 
from the mutual contest, and carry on the fight within its ranks for the
 
common cause. The decision was personally a difficult one for him, but
 
it showed a profound sense of honesty.
 
 
 
When that first period of the movement was over there remained no
 
further dispersion of forces: for their honest intentions had led the
 
men of that time to the same honourable, straightforward and just
 
conclusion. What we now call the 'patriotic disintegration' owes its
 
existence exclusively to the second of the two causes which I have
 
mentioned. Ambitious men who at first had no ideas of their own, and
 
still less any concept of aims to be pursued, felt themselves 'called'
 
exactly at that moment in which the success of the National Socialist
 
German Labour Party became unquestionable.
 
 
 
Suddenly programmes appeared which were mere transcripts of ours. Ideas
 
were proclaimed which had been taken from us. Aims were set up on behalf
 
of which we had been fighting for several years, and ways were mapped
 
out which the National Socialists had for a long time trodden. All kinds
 
of means were resorted to for the purpose of trying to convince the
 
public that, although the National Socialist German Labour Party had now
 
been for a long time in existence, it was found necessary to establish
 
these new parties. But all these phrases were just as insincere as the
 
motives behind them were ignoble.
 
 
 
In reality all this was grounded only on one dominant motive. That
 
motive was the personal ambition of the founders, who wished to play a
 
part in which their own pigmy talents could contribute nothing original
 
except the gross effrontery which they displayed in appropriating the
 
ideas of others, a mode of conduct which in ordinary life is looked upon
 
as thieving.
 
 
 
At that time there was not an idea or concept launched by other people
 
which these political kleptomaniacs did not seize upon at once for the
 
purpose of applying to their own base uses. Those who did all this were
 
the same people who subsequently, with tears in their eyes, profoundly
 
deplored the 'patriotic disintegration' and spoke unceasingly about the
 
'necessity of unity'. In doing this they nurtured the secret hope that
 
they might be able to cry down the others, who would tire of hearing
 
these loud-mouthed accusations and would end up by abandoning all claim
 
to the ideas that had been stolen from them and would abandon to the
 
thieves not only the task of carrying these ideas into effect but also
 
the task of carrying on the movements of which they themselves were the
 
original founders.
 
 
 
When that did not succeed, and the new enterprises, thanks to the paltry
 
mentality of their promoters, did not show the favourable results which
 
had been promised beforehand, then they became more modest in their
 
pretences and were happy if they could land themselves in one of the
 
so-called 'co-operative unions'.
 
 
 
At that period everything which could not stand on its own feet joined
 
one of those co-operative unions, believing that eight lame people
 
hanging on to one another could force a gladiator to surrender to them.
 
 
 
But if among all these cripples there was one who was sound of limb he
 
had to use all his strength to sustain the others and thus he himself
 
was practically paralysed.
 
 
 
We ought to look upon the question of joining these working coalitions
 
as a tactical problem, but, in coming to a decision, we must never
 
forget the following fundamental principle:
 
 
 
Through the formation of a working coalition associations which are weak
 
in themselves can never be made strong, whereas it can and does happen
 
not infrequently that a strong association loses its strength by joining
 
in a coalition with weaker ones. It is a mistake to believe that a
 
factor of strength will result from the coalition of weak groups;
 
because experience shows that under all forms and all conditions the
 
majority represents the duffers and poltroons. Hence a multiplicity of
 
associations, under a directorate of many heads, elected by these same
 
associations, is abandoned to the control of poltroons and weaklings.
 
Through such a coalition the free play of forces is paralysed, the
 
struggle for the selection of the best is abolished and therewith the
 
necessary and final victory of the healthier and stronger is impeded.
 
Coalitions of that kind are inimical to the process of natural
 
development, because for the most part they hinder rather than advance
 
the solution of the problem which is being fought for.
 
 
 
It may happen that, from considerations of a purely tactical kind, the
 
supreme command of a movement whose goal is set in the future will enter
 
into a coalition with such associations for the treatment of special
 
questions and may also stand on a common platform with them, but this
 
can be only for a short and limited period. Such a coalition must not be
 
permanent, if the movement does not wish to renounce its liberating
 
mission. Because if it should become indissolubly tied up in such a
 
combination it would lose the capacity and the right to allow its own
 
forces to work freely in following out a natural development, so as to
 
overcome rivals and attain its own objective triumphantly.
 
 
 
It must never be forgotten that nothing really great in this world has
 
ever been achieved through coalitions, but that such achievements have
 
always been due to the triumph of the individual. Successes achieved
 
through coalitions, owing to the very nature of their source, carry the
 
germs of future disintegration in them from the very start; so much so
 
that they have already forfeited what has been achieved. The great
 
revolutions which have taken place in human thought and have veritably
 
transformed the aspect of the world would have been inconceivable and
 
impossible to carry out except through titanic struggles waged between
 
individual natures, but never as the enterprises of coalitions.
 
 
 
And, above all things, the People's State will never be created by the
 
desire for compromise inherent in a patriotic coalition, but only by the
 
iron will of a single movement which has successfully come through in
 
the struggle with all the others.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER IX
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FUNDAMENTAL IDEAS REGARDING THE NATURE AND ORGANIZATION OF THE STORM TROOPS
 
 
 
 
 
The strength of the old state rested on three pillars: the monarchical
 
form of government, the civil service, and the army. The Revolution of
 
1918 abolished the form of government, dissolved the army and abandoned
 
the civil service to the corruption of party politics. Thus the
 
essential supports of what is called the Authority of the State were
 
shattered. This authority nearly always depends on three elements, which
 
are the essential foundations of all authority.
 
 
 
Popular support is the first element which is necessary for the creation
 
of authority. But an authority resting on that foundation alone is still
 
quite frail, uncertain and vacillating. Hence everyone who finds himself
 
vested with an authority that is based only on popular support must take
 
measures to improve and consolidate the foundations of that authority by
 
the creation of force. Accordingly we must look upon power, that is to
 
say, the capacity to use force, as the second foundation on which all
 
authority is based. This foundation is more stable and secure, but not
 
always stronger, than the first. If popular support and power are united
 
together and can endure for a certain time, then an authority may arise
 
which is based on a still stronger foundation, namely, the authority of
 
tradition. And, finally, if popular support, power, and tradition are
 
united together, then the authority based on them may be looked upon as
 
invincible.
 
 
 
In Germany the Revolution abolished this last foundation. There was no
 
longer even a traditional authority. With the collapse of the old REICH,
 
the suppression of the monarchical form of government, the destruction
 
of all the old insignia of greatness and the imperial symbols, tradition
 
was shattered at a blow. The result was that the authority of the State
 
was shaken to its foundations.
 
 
 
The second pillar of statal authority, namely POWER, also ceased to
 
exist. In order to carry through the Revolution it was necessary to
 
dissolve that body which had hitherto incorporated the organized force
 
and power of the State, namely, the Army. Indeed, some detached
 
fragments of the Army itself had to be employed as fighting elements in
 
the Revolution. The Armies at the front were not subjected in the same
 
measure to this process of disruption; but as they gradually left
 
farther behind them the fields of glory on which they had fought
 
heroically for four-and-half years, they were attacked by the solvent
 
acid that had permeated the Fatherland; and when they arrived at the
 
demobilizing centres they fell into that state of confusion which was
 
styled voluntary obedience in the time of the Soldiers' Councils.
 
 
 
Of course it was out of the question to think of founding any kind of
 
authority on this crowd of mutineering soldiers, who looked upon
 
military service as a work of eight hours per day. Therefore the second
 
element, that which guarantees the stability of authority, was also
 
abolished and the Revolution had only the original element, popular
 
support, on which to build up its authority. But this basis was
 
extraordinarily insecure. By means of a few violent thrusts the
 
Revolution had shattered the old statal edifice to its deepest
 
foundations, but only because the normal equilibrium within the social
 
structure of the nation had already been destroyed by the war.
 
 
 
Every national body is made up of three main classes. At one extreme we
 
have the best of the people, taking the word 'best' here to indicate
 
those who are highly endowed with the civic virtues and are noted for
 
their courage and their readiness to sacrifice their private interests.
 
At the other extreme are the worst dregs of humanity, in whom vice and
 
egotistic interests prevail. Between these two extremes stands the third
 
class, which is made up of the broad middle stratum, who do not
 
represent radiant heroism or vulgar vice.
 
 
 
The stages of a nation's rise are accomplished exclusively under the
 
leadership of the best extreme.
 
 
 
Times of normal and symmetrical development, or of stable conditions,
 
owe their existence and outwardly visible characteristics to the
 
preponderating influence of the middle stratum. In this stage the two
 
extreme classes are balanced against one another; in other words, they
 
are relatively cancelled out.
 
 
 
Times of national collapse are determined by the preponderating
 
influence of the worst elements.
 
 
 
It must be noted here, however, that the broad masses, which constitute
 
what I have called the middle section, come forward and make their
 
influence felt only when the two extreme sections are engaged in mutual
 
strife. In case one of the extreme sections comes out victorious the
 
middle section will readily submit to its domination. If the best
 
dominate, the broad masses will follow it. Should the worst extreme turn
 
out triumphant, then the middle section will at least offer no
 
opposition to it; for the masses that constitute the middle class never
 
fight their own battles.
 
 
 
The outpouring of blood for four-and-a-half years during the war
 
destroyed the inner equilibrium between these three sections in so far
 
as it can be said--though admitting the sacrifices made by the middle
 
section--that the class which consisted of the best human elements
 
almost completely disappeared through the loss of so much of its blood
 
in the war, because it was impossible to replace the truly enormous
 
quantity of heroic German blood which had been shed during those
 
four-and-a-half years. In hundreds of thousands of cases it was always a
 
matter of 'VOLUNTEERS to the front', VOLUNTEERS for patrol and duty,
 
VOLUNTEER dispatch carriers, VOLUNTEERS for establishing and working
 
telephonic communications, VOLUNTEERS for bridge-building, VOLUNTEERS
 
for the submarines, VOLUNTEERS for the air service, VOLUNTEERS for the
 
storm battalions, and so on, and so on. During four-and-a-half years,
 
and on thousands of occasions, there was always the call for volunteers
 
and again for volunteers. And the result was always the same. Beardless
 
young fellows or fully developed men, all filled with an ardent love for
 
their country, urged on by their own courageous spirit or by a lofty
 
sense of their duty--it was always such men who answered the call for
 
volunteers. Tens of thousands, indeed hundreds of thousands, of such men
 
came forward, so that that kind of human material steadily grew scarcer
 
and scarcer. What did not actually fall was maimed in the fight or
 
gradually had to join the ranks of the crippled because of the wounds
 
they were constantly receiving, and thus they had to carry on
 
interminably owing to the steady decrease in the supply of such men. In
 
1914 whole armies were composed of volunteers who, owing to a criminal
 
lack of conscience on the part of our feckless parliamentarians, had not
 
received any proper training in times of peace, and so were thrown as
 
defenceless cannon-fodder to the enemy. The four hundred thousand who
 
thus fell or were permanently maimed on the battlefields of Flanders
 
could not be replaced any more. Their loss was something far more than
 
merely numerical. With their death the scales, which were already too
 
lightly weighed at that end of the social structure which represented
 
our best human quality, now moved upwards rapidly, becoming heavier on
 
the other end with those vulgar elements of infamy and cowardice--in
 
short, there was an increase in the elements that constituted the worst
 
extreme of our population.
 
 
 
And there was something more: While for four-and-a-half years our best
 
human material was being thinned to an exceptional degree on the
 
battlefields, our worst people wonderfully succeeded in saving
 
themselves. For each hero who made the supreme sacrifice and ascended
 
the steps of Valhalla, there was a shirker who cunningly dodged death on
 
the plea of being engaged in business that was more or less useful at
 
home.
 
 
 
And so the picture which presented itself at the end of the war was
 
this: The great middle stratum of the nation had fulfilled its duty and
 
paid its toll of blood. One extreme of the population, which was
 
constituted of the best elements, had given a typical example of its
 
heroism and had sacrificed itself almost to a man. The other extreme,
 
which was constituted of the worst elements of the population, had
 
preserved itself almost intact, through taking advantage of absurd laws
 
and also because the authorities failed to enforce certain articles of
 
the military code.
 
 
 
This carefully preserved scum of our nation then made the Revolution.
 
And the reason why it could do so was that the extreme section composed
 
of the best elements was no longer there to oppose it. It no longer
 
existed.
 
 
 
Hence the German Revolution, from the very beginning, depended on only
 
one section of the population. This act of Cain was not committed by the
 
German people as such, but by an obscure CANAILLE of deserters,
 
hooligans, etc.
 
 
 
The man at the front gladly welcomed the end of the strife in which so
 
much blood had been shed. He was happy to be able to return home and see
 
his wife and children once again. But he had no moral connection with
 
the Revolution. He did not like it, nor did he like those who had
 
provoked and organized it. During the four-and-a-half years of that
 
bitter struggle at the front he had come to forget the party hyenas at
 
home and all their wrangling had become foreign to him.
 
 
 
The Revolution was really popular only with a small section of the
 
German people: namely, that class and their accomplices who had selected
 
the rucksack as the hall-mark of all honourable citizens in this new
 
State. They did not like the Revolution for its own sake, though many
 
people still erroneously believe the contrary, but for the consequences
 
which followed in its train.
 
 
 
But it was very difficult to establish any abiding authority on the
 
popular support given to these Marxist freebooters. And yet the young
 
Republic stood in need of authority at any cost, unless it was ready to
 
agree to be overthrown after a short period of chaos by an elementary
 
force assembled from those last elements that still remained among the
 
best extreme of the population.
 
 
 
The danger which those who were responsible for the Revolution feared
 
most at that time was that, in the turmoil of the confusion which they
 
themselves had created, the ground would suddenly be taken from under
 
their feet, that they might be suddenly seized and transported to
 
another terrain by an iron grip, such as has often appeared at these
 
junctures in the history of nations. The Republic must be consolidated
 
at all costs.
 
 
 
Hence it was forced almost immediately after its foundation to erect
 
another pillar beside that wavering pillar of popularity. They found
 
that power must be organized once again in order to procure a firmer
 
foundation for their authority.
 
 
 
When those who had been the matadors of the Revolution in December 1918,
 
and January and February 1919, felt the ground trembling beneath their
 
feet they looked around them for men who would be ready to reinforce
 
them with military support; for their feeble position was dependent only
 
on whatever popular favour they enjoyed. The 'anti-militarist' Republic
 
had need of soldiers. But the first and only pillar on which the
 
authority of the State rested, namely, its popularity, was grounded only
 
on a conglomeration of rowdies and thieves, burglars, deserters,
 
shirkers, etc. Therefore in that section of the nation which we have
 
called the evil extreme it was useless to look for men who would be
 
willing to sacrifice their lives on behalf of a new ideal. The section
 
which had nourished the revolutionary idea and carried out the
 
Revolution was neither able nor willing to call on the soldiers to
 
protect it. For that section had no wish whatsoever to organize a
 
republican State, but to disorganize what already existed and thus
 
satisfy its own instincts all the better. Their password was not the
 
organization and construction of the German Republic, but rather the
 
plundering of it.
 
 
 
Hence the cry for help sent out by the public representatives, who were
 
beset by a thousand anxieties, did not find any response among this
 
class of people, but rather provoked a feeling of bitterness and
 
repudiation. For they looked upon this step as the beginning of a breach
 
of faith and trust, and in the building up of an authority which was no
 
longer based on popular support but also on force they saw the beginning
 
of a hostile move against what the Revolution meant essentially for
 
those elements. They feared that measures might be taken against the
 
right to robbery and absolute domination on the part of a horde of
 
thieves and plunderers--in short, the worst rabble--who had broken out
 
of the convict prisons and left their chains behind.
 
 
 
The representatives of the people might cry out as much as they liked,
 
but they could get no help from that rabble. The cries for help were met
 
with the counter-cry 'traitors' by those very people on whose support
 
the popularity of the regime was founded.
 
 
 
Then for the first time large numbers of young Germans were found who
 
were ready to button on the military uniform once again in the service
 
of 'Peace and Order', as they believed, shouldering the carbine and
 
rifle and donning the steel helmet to defend the wreckers of the
 
Fatherland. Volunteer corps were assembled and, although hating the
 
Revolution, they began to defend it. The practical effect of their
 
action was to render the Revolution firm and stable. In doing this they
 
acted in perfect good faith.
 
 
 
The real organizer of the Revolution and the actual wire-puller behind
 
it, the international Jew, had sized up the situation correctly. The
 
German people were not yet ripe to be drawn into the blood swamp of
 
Bolshevism, as the Russian people had been drawn. And that was because
 
there was a closer racial union between the intellectual classes in
 
Germany and the manual workers, and also because broad social strata
 
were permeated with cultured people, such as was the case also in the
 
other States of Western Europe; but this state of affairs was completely
 
lacking in Russia. In that country the intellectual classes were mostly
 
not of Russian nationality, or at least they did not have the racial
 
characteristics of the Slav. The thin upper layer of intellectuals which
 
then existed in Russia might be abolished at any time, because there was
 
no intermediate stratum connecting it organically with the great mass of
 
the people. There the mental and moral level of the great mass of the
 
people was frightfully low.
 
 
 
In Russia the moment the agitators were successful in inciting broad
 
masses of the people, who could not read or write, against the upper
 
layer of intellectuals who were not in contact with the masses or
 
permanently linked with them in any way--at that moment the destiny of
 
Russia was decided, the success of the Revolution was assured. Thereupon
 
the analphabetic Russian became the slave of his Jewish dictators who,
 
on their side, were shrewd enough to name their dictatorship 'The
 
Dictatorship of the People'.
 
 
 
In the case of Germany an additional factor must be taken into account.
 
Here the Revolution could be carried into effect only if the Army could
 
first be gradually dismembered. But the real author of the Revolution
 
and of the process of disintegration in the Army was not the soldier who
 
had fought at the front but the CANAILLE which more or less shunned the
 
light and which were either quartered in the home garrisons or were
 
officiating as 'indispensables' somewhere in the business world at home.
 
This army was reinforced by ten thousand deserters who, without running
 
any particular risk, could turn their backs on the Front. At all times
 
the real poltroon fears nothing so much as death. But at the Front he
 
had death before his eyes every day in a thousand different shapes.
 
There has always been one possible way, and one only, of making weak or
 
wavering men, or even downright poltroons, face their duty steadfastly.
 
This means that the deserter must be given to understand that his
 
desertion will bring upon him just the very thing he is flying from. At
 
the Front a man may die, but the deserter MUST die. Only this draconian
 
threat against every attempt to desert the flag can have a terrifying
 
effect, not merely on the individual but also on the mass. Therein lay
 
the meaning and purpose of the military penal code.
 
 
 
It was a fine belief to think that the great struggle for the life of a
 
nation could be carried through if it were based solely on voluntary
 
fidelity arising from and sustained by the knowledge that such a
 
struggle was necessary. The voluntary fulfilment of one's duty is a
 
motive that determines the actions of only the best men, but not of the
 
average type of men. Hence special laws are necessary; just as, for
 
instance, the law against stealing, which was not made for men who are
 
honest on principle but for the weak and unstable elements. Such laws
 
are meant to hinder the evil-doer through their deterrent effect and
 
thus prevent a state of affairs from arising in which the honest man is
 
considered the more stupid, and which would end in the belief that it is
 
better to have a share in the robbery than to stand by with empty hands
 
or allow oneself to be robbed.
 
 
 
It was a mistake to believe that in a struggle which, according to all
 
human foresight, might last for several years it would be possible to
 
dispense with those expedients which the experience of hundreds and even
 
of thousands of years had proved to be effective in making weak and
 
unstable men face and fulfil their duty in difficult times and at
 
moments of great nervous stress.
 
 
 
For the voluntary war hero it is, of course, not necessary to have the
 
death penalty in the military code, but it is necessary for the cowardly
 
egoists who value their own lives more than the existence of the
 
community in the hour of national need. Such weak and characterless
 
people can be held back from surrendering to their cowardice only by the
 
application of the heaviest penalties. When men have to struggle with
 
death every day and remain for weeks in trenches of mire, often very
 
badly supplied with food, the man who is unsure of himself and begins to
 
waver cannot be made to stick to his post by threats of imprisonment or
 
even penal servitude. Only by a ruthless enforcement of the death
 
penalty can this be effected. For experience shows that at such a time
 
the recruit considers prison a thousand times more preferable than the
 
battlefield. In prison at least his precious life is not in danger. The
 
practical abolition of the death penalty during the war was a mistake
 
for which we had to pay dearly. Such omission really meant that the
 
military penal code was no longer recognized as valid. An army of
 
deserters poured into the stations at the rear or returned home,
 
especially in 1918, and there began to form that huge criminal
 
organization with which we were suddenly faced, after November 7th,
 
1918, and which perpetrated the Revolution.
 
 
 
The Front had nothing to do with all this. Naturally, the soldiers at
 
the Front were yearning for peace. But it was precisely that fact which
 
represented a special danger for the Revolution. For when the German
 
soldiers began to draw near home, after the Armistice, the
 
revolutionaries were in trepidation and asked the same question again
 
and again: What will the troops from the Front do? Will the field-greys
 
stand for it?
 
 
 
During those weeks the Revolution was forced to give itself at least an
 
external appearance of moderation, if it were not to run the risk of
 
being wrecked in a moment by a few German divisions. For at that time,
 
even if the commander of one division alone had made up his mind to
 
rally the soldiers of his division, who had always remained faithful to
 
him, in an onslaught to tear down the red flag and put the 'councils' up
 
against the wall, or, if there was any resistance, to break it with
 
trench-mortars and hand grenades, that division would have grown into an
 
army of sixty divisions in less than four weeks. The Jew wire-pullers
 
were terrified by this prospect more than by anything else; and to
 
forestall this particular danger they found it necessary to give the
 
Revolution a certain aspect of moderation. They dared not allow it to
 
degenerate into Bolshevism, so they had to face the existing conditions
 
by putting up the hypocritical picture of 'order and tranquillity'.
 
Hence many important concessions, the appeal to the old civil service
 
and to the heads of the old Army. They would be needed at least for a
 
certain time, and only when they had served the purpose of Turks' Heads
 
could the deserved kick-out be administered with impunity. Then the
 
Republic would be taken entirely out of the hands of the old servants of
 
the State and delivered into the claws of the revolutionaries.
 
 
 
They thought that this was the only plan which would succeed in duping
 
the old generals and civil servants and disarm any eventual opposition
 
beforehand through the apparently harmless and mild character of the new
 
regime.
 
 
 
Practical experience has shown to what extent the plan succeeded.
 
 
 
The Revolution, however, was not made by the peaceful and orderly
 
elements of the nation but rather by rioters, thieves and robbers. And
 
the way in which the Revolution was developing did not accord with the
 
intentions of these latter elements; still, on tactical grounds, it was
 
not possible to explain to them the reasons for the course things were
 
taking and make that course acceptable.
 
 
 
As Social Democracy gradually gained power it lost more and more the
 
character of a crude revolutionary party. Of course in their inner
 
hearts the Social Democrats wanted a revolution; and their leaders had
 
no other end in view. Certainly not. But what finally resulted was only
 
a revolutionary programme; but not a body of men who would be able to
 
carry it out. A revolution cannot be carried through by a party of ten
 
million members. If such a movement were attempted the leaders would
 
find that it was not an extreme section of the population on which they
 
had to depend butrather the broad masses of the middle stratum; hence
 
the inert masses.
 
 
 
Recognizing all this, already during the war, the Jews caused the famous
 
split in the Social Democratic Party. While the Social Democratic Party,
 
conforming to the inertia of its mass following, clung like a leaden
 
weight on the neck of the national defence, the actively radical
 
elements were extracted from it and formed into new aggressive columns
 
for purposes of attack. The Independent Socialist Party and the
 
Spartacist League were the storm battalions of revolutionary Marxism.
 
The objective assigned to them was to create a FAIT ACCOMPLI, on the
 
grounds of which the masses of the Social Democratic Party could take
 
their stand, having been prepared for this event long beforehand. The
 
feckless bourgeoisie had been estimated at its just value by the
 
Marxists and treated EN CANAILLE. Nobody bothered about it, knowing well
 
that in their canine servility the representatives of an old and
 
worn-out generation would not be able to offer any serious resistance.
 
 
 
When the Revolution had succeeded and its artificers believed that the
 
main pillars of the old State had been broken down, the Army returning
 
from the Front began to appear in the light of a sinister sphinx and
 
thus made it necessary to slow down the national course of the
 
Revolution. The main body of the Social Democratic horde occupied the
 
conquered positions, and the Independent Socialist and Spartacist storm
 
battalions were side-tracked.
 
 
 
But that did not happen without a struggle.
 
 
 
The activist assault formations that had started the Revolution were
 
dissatisfied and felt that they had been betrayed. They now wanted to
 
continue the fight on their own account. But their illimitable
 
racketeering became odious even to the wire-pullers of the Revolution.
 
For the Revolution itself had scarcely been accomplished when two camps
 
appeared. In the one camp were the elements of peace and order; in the
 
other were those of blood and terror. Was it not perfectly natural that
 
our bourgeoisie should rush with flying colours to the camp of peace and
 
order? For once in their lives their piteous political organizations
 
found it possible to act, inasmuch as the ground had been prepared for
 
them on which they were glad to get a new footing; and thus to a certain
 
extent they found themselves in coalition with that power which they
 
hated but feared. The German political bourgeoisie achieved the high
 
honour of being able to associate itself with the accursed Marxist
 
leaders for the purpose of combating Bolshevism.
 
 
 
Thus the following state of affairs took shape as early as December 1918
 
and January 1919:
 
 
 
A minority constituted of the worst elements had made the Revolution.
 
And behind this minority all the Marxist parties immediately fell into
 
step. The Revolution itself had an outward appearance of moderation,
 
which aroused against it the enmity of the fanatical extremists. These
 
began to launch hand-grenades and fire machine-guns, occupying public
 
buildings, thus threatening to destroy the moderate appearance of the
 
Revolution. To prevent this terror from developing further a truce was
 
concluded between the representatives of the new regime and the
 
adherents of the old order, so as to be able to wage a common fight
 
against the extremists. The result was that the enemies of the Republic
 
ceased to oppose the Republic as such and helped to subjugate those who
 
were also enemies of the Republic, though for quite different reasons.
 
But a further result was that all danger of the adherents of the old
 
State putting up a fight against the new was now definitely averted.
 
 
 
This fact must always be clearly kept in mind. Only by remembering it
 
can we understand how it was possible that a nation in which nine-tenths
 
of the people had not joined in a revolution, where seven-tenths
 
repudiated it and six-tenths detested it--how this nation allowed the
 
Revolution to be imposed upon it by the remaining one-tenth of the
 
population.
 
 
 
Gradually the barricade heroes in the Spartacist camp petered out, and
 
so did the nationalist patriots and idealists on the other side. As
 
these two groups steadily dwindled, the masses of the middle stratum, as
 
always happens, triumphed. The Bourgeoisie and the Marxists met together
 
on the grounds of accomplished facts, and the Republic began to be
 
consolidated. At first, however, that did not prevent the bourgeois
 
parties from propounding their monarchist ideas for some time further,
 
especially at the elections, whereby they endeavoured to conjure up the
 
spirits of the dead past to encourage their own feeble-hearted
 
followers. It was not an honest proceeding. In their hearts they had
 
broken with the monarchy long ago; but the foulness of the new regime
 
had begun to extend its corruptive action and make itself felt in the
 
camp of the bourgeois parties. The common bourgeois politician now felt
 
better in the slime of republican corruption than in the severe decency
 
of the defunct State, which still lived in his memory.
 
 
 
As I have already pointed out, after the destruction of the old Army the
 
revolutionary leaders were forced to strengthen statal authority by
 
creating a new factor of power. In the conditions that existed they
 
could do this only by winning over to their side the adherents of a
 
WELTANSCHAUUNG which was a direct contradiction of their own. From
 
those elements alone it was possible slowly to create a new army which,
 
limited numerically by the peace treaties, had to be subsequently
 
transformed in spirit so as to become an instrument of the new regime.
 
 
 
Setting aside the defects of the old State, which really became the
 
cause of the Revolution, if we ask how it was possible to carry the
 
Revolution to a successful issue as a political act, we arrive at the
 
following conclusions:
 
 
 
l. It was due to a process of dry rot in our conceptions of duty and
 
obedience.
 
 
 
2. It was due also to the passive timidity of the Parties who were
 
supposed to uphold the State.
 
 
 
To this the following must be added: The dry rot which attacked our
 
concepts of duty and obedience was fundamentally due to our wholly
 
non-national and purely State education. From this came the habit of
 
confusing means and ends. Consciousness of duty, fulfilment of duty, and
 
obedience, are not ends in themselves no more than the State is an end
 
in itself; but they all ought to be employed as means to facilitate and
 
assure the existence of a community of people who are kindred both
 
physically and spiritually. At a moment when a nation is manifestly
 
collapsing and when all outward signs show that it is on the point of
 
becoming the victim of ruthless oppression, thanks to the conduct of a
 
few miscreants, to obey these people and fulfil one's duty towards them
 
is merely doctrinaire formalism, and indeed pure folly; whereas, on the
 
other hand, the refusal of obedience and fulfilment of duty in such a
 
case might save the nation from collapse. According to our current
 
bourgeois idea of the State, if a divisional general received from above
 
the order not to shoot he fulfilled his duty and therefore acted rightly
 
in not shooting, because to the bourgeois mind blind formal obedience is
 
a more valuable thing than the life of a nation. But according to the
 
National Socialist concept it is not obedience to weak superiors that
 
should prevail at such moments, in such an hour the duty of assuming
 
personal responsibility towards the whole nation makes its appearance.
 
 
 
The Revolution succeeded because that concept had ceased to be a vital
 
force with our people, or rather with our governments, and died down to
 
something that was merely formal and doctrinaire.
 
 
 
As regards the second point, it may be said that the more profound cause
 
of the fecklessness of the bourgeois parties must be attributed to the
 
fact that the most active and upright section of our people had lost
 
their lives in the war. Apart from that, the bourgeois parties, which
 
may be considered as the only political formations that stood by the old
 
State, were convinced that they ought to defend their principles only by
 
intellectual ways and means, since the use of physical force was
 
permitted only to the State. That outlook was a sign of the weakness and
 
decadence which had been gradually developing. And it was also senseless
 
at a period when there was a political adversary who had long ago
 
abandoned that standpoint and, instead of this, had openly declared that
 
he meant to attain his political ends by force whenever that became
 
possible. When Marxism emerged in the world of bourgeois democracy, as a
 
consequence of that democracy itself, the appeal sent out by the
 
bourgeois democracy to fight Marxism with intellectual weapons was a
 
piece of folly for which a terrible expiation had to be made later on.
 
For Marxism always professed the doctrine that the use of arms was a
 
matter which had to be judged from the standpoint of expediency and that
 
success justified the use of arms.
 
 
 
This idea was proved correct during the days from November 7 to 10,
 
1918. The Marxists did not then bother themselves in the least about
 
parliament or democracy, but they gave the death blow to both by turning
 
loose their horde of criminals to shoot and raise hell.
 
 
 
When the Revolution was over the bourgeois parties changed the title of
 
their firm and suddenly reappeared, the heroic leaders emerging from
 
dark cellars or more lightsome storehouses where they had sought refuge.
 
But, just as happens in the case of all representatives of antiquated
 
institutions, they had not forgotten their errors or learned anything
 
new. Their political programme was grounded in the past, even though
 
they themselves had become reconciled to the new regime. Their aim was
 
to secure a share in the new establishment, and so they continued the
 
use of words as their sole weapon.
 
 
 
Therefore after the Revolution the bourgeois parties also capitulated to
 
the street in a miserable fashion.
 
 
 
When the law for the Protection of the Republic was introduced the
 
majority was not at first in favour of it. But, confronted with two
 
hundred thousand Marxists demonstrating in the streets, the bourgeois
 
'statesmen' were so terror-stricken that they voted for the Law against
 
their wills, for the edifying reason that otherwise they feared they
 
might get their heads smashed by the enraged masses on leaving the
 
Reichstag.
 
 
 
And so the new State developed along its own course, as if there had
 
been no national opposition at all.
 
 
 
The only organizations which at that time had the strength and courage
 
to face Marxism and its enraged masses were first of all the volunteer
 
corps (Note 19), and subsequently the organizations for self-defence, the
 
civic guards and finally the associations formed by the demobilized
 
soldiers of the old Army.
 
 
 
[Note 19. After the DEBACLE of 1918 several semi-military associations were
 
formed by demobilized officers who had fought at the Front. These were
 
semi-clandestine associations and were known as FREIKORPS (Volunteer
 
corps). Their principal purpose was to act as rallying centres for the
 
old nationalist elements.]
 
 
 
But the existence of these bodies did not appreciably change the course
 
of German history; and that for the following causes:
 
 
 
As the so-called national parties were without influence, because they
 
had no force which could effectively demonstrate in the street, the
 
Leagues of Defence could not exercise any influence because they had no
 
political idea and especially because they had no definite political aim
 
in view.
 
 
 
The success which Marxism once attained was due to perfect co-operation
 
between political purposes and ruthless force. What deprived nationalist
 
Germany of all practical hopes of shaping German development was the
 
lack of a determined co-operation between brute force and political aims
 
wisely chosen.
 
 
 
Whatever may have been the aspirations of the 'national' parties, they
 
had no force whatsoever to fight for these aspirations, least of all in
 
the streets.
 
 
 
The Defence Leagues had force at their disposal. They were masters of
 
the street and of the State, but they lacked political ideas and aims on
 
behalf of which their forces might have been or could have been employed
 
in the interests of the German nation. The cunning Jew was able in both
 
cases, by his astute powers of persuasion, in reinforcing an already
 
existing tendency to make this unfortunate state of affairs permanent
 
and at the same time to drive the roots of it still deeper.
 
 
 
The Jew succeeded brilliantly in using his Press for the purpose of
 
spreading abroad the idea that the defence associations were of a
 
'non-political' character just as in politics he was always astute
 
enough to praise the purely intellectual character of the struggle and
 
demand that it must always be kept on that plane
 
 
 
Millions of German imbeciles then repeated this folly without having the
 
slightest suspicion that by so doing they were, for all practical
 
purposes, disarming themselves and delivering themselves defenceless
 
into the hands of the Jew.
 
 
 
But there is a natural explanation of this also. The lack of a great
 
idea which would re-shape things anew has always meant a limitation in
 
fighting power. The conviction of the right to employ even the most
 
brutal weapons is always associated with an ardent faith in the
 
necessity for a new and revolutionary transformation of the world.
 
 
 
A movement which does not fight for such high aims and ideals will never
 
have recourse to extreme means.
 
 
 
The appearance of a new and great idea was the secret of success in the
 
French Revolution. The Russian Revolution owes its triumph to an idea.
 
And it was only the idea that enabled Fascism triumphantly to subject a
 
whole nation to a process of complete renovation.
 
 
 
Bourgeois parties are not capable of such an achievement. And it was not
 
the bourgeois parties alone that fixed their aim in a restoration of the
 
past. The defence associations also did so, in so far as they concerned
 
themselves with political aims at all. The spirit of the old war legions
 
and Kyffauser tendencies lived in them and therewith helped politically
 
to blunt the sharpest weapons which the German nation then possessed and
 
allow them to rust in the hands of republican serfs. The fact that these
 
associations were inspired by the best of intentions in so doing, and
 
certainly acted in good faith, does not alter in the slightest degree
 
the foolishness of the course they adopted.
 
 
 
In the consolidated REICHSWEHR Marxism gradually acquired the support of
 
force, which it needed for its authority. As a logical consequence it
 
proceeded to abolish those defence associations which it considered
 
dangerous, declaring that they were now no longer necessary. Some rash
 
leaders who defied the Marxist orders were summoned to court and sent to
 
prison. But they all got what they had deserved.
 
 
 
The founding of the National Socialist German Labour Party incited a
 
movement which was the first to fix its aim, not in a mechanical
 
restoration of the past--as the bourgeois parties did--but in the
 
substitution of an organic People's State for the present absurd statal
 
mechanism.
 
 
 
From the first day of its foundation the new movement took its stand on
 
the principle that its ideas had to be propagated by intellectual means
 
but that, wherever necessary, muscular force must be employed to support
 
this propaganda. In accordance with their conviction of the paramount
 
importance of the new doctrine, the leaders of the new movement
 
naturally believe that no sacrifice can be considered too great when it
 
is a question of carrying through the purpose of the movement.
 
 
 
I have emphasized that in certain circumstances a movement which is
 
meant to win over the hearts of the people must be ready to defend
 
itself with its own forces against terrorist attempts on the part of its
 
adversaries. It has invariably happened in the history of the world that
 
formal State authority has failed to break a reign of terror which was
 
inspired by a WELTANSCHAUUNG. It can only be conquered by a new and
 
different WELTANSCHAUUNG whose representatives are quite as audacious
 
and determined. The acknowledgment of this fact has always been very
 
unpleasant for the bureaucrats who are the protectors of the State, but
 
the fact remains nevertheless. The rulers of the State can guarantee
 
tranquillity and order only in case the State embodies a WELTANSCHAUUNG
 
which is shared in by the people as a whole; so that elements of
 
disturbance can be treated as isolated criminals, instead of being
 
considered as the champions of an idea which is diametrically opposed to
 
official opinions. If such should be the case the State may employ the
 
most violent measures for centuries long against the terror that
 
threatens it; but in the end all these measures will prove futile, and
 
the State will have to succumb.
 
 
 
The German State is intensely overrun by Marxism. In a struggle that
 
went on for seventy years the State was not able to prevent the triumph
 
of the Marxist idea. Even though the sentences to penal servitude and
 
imprisonment amounted in all to thousands of years, and even though the
 
most sanguinary methods of repression were in innumerable instances
 
threatened against the champions of the Marxist WELTANSCHAUUNG, in the
 
end the State was forced to capitulate almost completely. The ordinary
 
bourgeois political leaders will deny all this, but their protests are
 
futile.
 
 
 
Seeing that the State capitulated unconditionally to Marxism on November
 
9th, 1918, it will not suddenly rise up tomorrow as the conqueror of
 
Marxism. On the contrary. Bourgeois simpletons sitting on office stools
 
in the various ministries babble about the necessity of not governing
 
against the wishes of the workers, and by the word 'workers' they mean
 
the Marxists. By identifying the German worker with Marxism not only are
 
they guilty of a vile falsification of the truth, but they thus try to
 
hide their own collapse before the Marxist idea and the Marxist
 
organization.
 
 
 
In view of the complete subordination of the present State to Marxism,
 
the National Socialist Movement feels all the more bound not only to
 
prepare the way for the triumph of its idea by appealing to the reason
 
and understanding of the public but also to take upon itself the
 
responsibility of organizing its own defence against the terror of the
 
International, which is intoxicated with its own victory.
 
 
 
I have already described how practical experience in our young movement
 
led us slowly to organize a system of defence for our meetings. This
 
gradually assumed the character of a military body specially trained for
 
the maintenance of order, and tended to develop into a service which
 
would have its properly organized cadres.
 
 
 
This new formation might resemble the defence associations externally,
 
but in reality there were no grounds of comparison between the one and
 
the other.
 
 
 
As I have already said, the German defence organizations did not have
 
any definite political ideas of their own. They really were only
 
associations for mutual protection, and they were trained and organized
 
accordingly, so that they were an illegal complement or auxiliary to the
 
legal forces of the State. Their character as free corps arose only from
 
the way in which they were constructed and the situation in which the
 
State found itself at that time. But they certainly could not claim to
 
be free corps on the grounds that they were associations formed freely
 
and privately for the purpose of fighting for their own freely formed
 
political convictions. Such they were not, despite the fact that some of
 
their leaders and some associations as such were definitely opposed to
 
the Republic. For before we can speak of political convictions in the
 
higher sense we must be something more than merely convinced that the
 
existing regime is defective. Political convictions in the higher sense
 
mean that one has the picture of a new regime clearly before one's mind,
 
feels that the establishment of this regime is an absolute necessity and
 
sets himself to carry out that purpose as the highest task to which his
 
life can be devoted.
 
 
 
The troops for the preservation of order, which were then formed under
 
the National Socialist Movement, were fundamentally different from all
 
the other defence associations by reason of the fact that our formations
 
were not meant in any way to defend the state of things created by the
 
Revolution, but rather that they were meant exclusively to support our
 
struggle for the creation of a new Germany.
 
 
 
In the beginning this body was merely a guard to maintain order at our
 
meetings. Its first task was limited to making it possible for us to
 
hold our meetings, which otherwise would have been completely prevented
 
by our opponents. These men were at that time trained merely for
 
purposes of attack, but they were not taught to adore the big stick
 
exclusively, as was then pretended in stupid German patriotic circles.
 
They used the cudgel because they knew that it can be made impossible
 
for high ideals to be put forward if the man who endeavours to propagate
 
them can be struck down with the cudgel. As a matter of fact, it has
 
happened in history not infrequently that some of the greatest minds
 
have perished under the blows of the most insignificant helots. Our
 
bodyguards did not look upon violence as an end in itself, but they
 
protected the expositors of ideal aims and purposes against hostile
 
coercion by violence. They also understood that there was no obligation
 
to undertake the defence of a State which did not guarantee the defence
 
of the nation, but that, on the contrary, they had to defend the nation
 
against those who were threatening to destroy nation and State.
 
 
 
After the fight which took place at the meeting in the Munich
 
Hofbräuhaus, where the small number of our guards who were present won
 
everlasting fame for themselves by the heroic manner in which they
 
stormed the adversaries; these guards were called THE STORM DETACHMENT.
 
As the name itself indicates, they represent only a DETACHMENT of the
 
Movement. They are one constituent element of it, just as is the Press,
 
the propaganda, educational institutes, and other sections of the Party.
 
 
 
We learned how necessary was the formation of such a body, not only from
 
our experience on the occasion of that memorable meeting but also when
 
we sought gradually to carry the Movement beyond Munich and extend it to
 
the other parts of Germany. Once we had begun to appear as a danger to
 
Marxism the Marxists lost no opportunity of trying to crush beforehand
 
all preparations for the holding of National Socialist meetings. When
 
they did not succeed in this they tried to break up the meeting itself.
 
It goes without saying that all the Marxist organizations, no matter of
 
what grade or view, blindly supported the policy and activities of their
 
representations in every case. But what is to be said of the bourgeois
 
parties who, when they were reduced to silence by these same Marxists
 
and in many places did not dare to send their speakers to appear before
 
the public, yet showed themselves pleased, in a stupid and
 
incomprehensible manner, every time we received any kind of set-back in
 
our fight against Marxism. The bourgeois parties were happy to think
 
that those whom they themselves could not stand up against, but had to
 
knuckle down to, could not be broken by us. What must be said of those
 
State officials, chiefs of police, and even cabinet ministers, who
 
showed a scandalous lack of principle in presenting themselves
 
externally to the public as 'national' and yet shamelessly acted as the
 
henchmen of the Marxists in the disputes which we, National Socialists,
 
had with the latter. What can be said of persons who debased themselves
 
so far, for the sake of a little abject praise in the Jewish Press, that
 
they persecuted those men to whose heroic courage and intervention,
 
regardless of risk, they were partly indebted for not having been torn
 
to pieces by the Red mob a few years previously and strung up to the
 
lamp-posts?
 
 
 
One day these lamentable phenomena fired the late but unforgotten
 
Prefect Pöhner--a man whose unbending straightforwardness forced him to
 
hate all twisters and to hate them as only a man with an honest heart
 
can hate--to say: "In all my life I wished to be first a German and then
 
an official, and I never wanted to mix up with these creatures who, as
 
if they were kept officials, prostituted themselves before anybody who
 
could play lord and master for the time being."
 
 
 
It was a specially sad thing that gradually tens of thousands of honest
 
and loyal servants of the State did not only come under the power of
 
such people but were also slowly contaminated by their unprincipled
 
morals. Moreover, these kind of men pursued honest officials with a
 
furious hatred, degrading them and driving them from their positions,
 
and yet passed themselves off as 'national' by the aid of their lying
 
hypocrisy.
 
 
 
From officials of that kind we could expect no support, and only in very
 
rare instances was it given. Only by building up its own defence could
 
our movement become secure and attract that amount of public attention
 
and general respect which is given to those who can defend themselves
 
when attacked.
 
 
 
As an underlying principle in the internal development of the Storm
 
Detachment, we came to the decision that not only should it be perfectly
 
trained in bodily efficiency but that the men should be so instructed as
 
to make them indomitably convinced champions of the National Socialist
 
ideas and, finally, that they should be schooled to observe the
 
strictest discipline. This body was to have nothing to do with the
 
defence organizations of the bourgeois type and especially not with any
 
secret organization.
 
 
 
My reasons at that time for guarding strictly against letting the Storm
 
Detachment of the German National Socialist Labour Party appear as a
 
defence association were as follows:
 
 
 
On purely practical grounds it is impossible to build up a national
 
defence organization by means of private associations, unless the State
 
makes an enormous contribution to it. Whoever thinks otherwise
 
overestimates his own powers. Now it is entirely out of the question to
 
form organizations of any military value for a definite purpose on the
 
principle of so-called 'voluntary discipline'. Here the chief support
 
for enforcing orders, namely, the power of inflicting punishment, is
 
lacking. In the autumn, or rather in the spring, of 1919 it was still
 
possible to raise 'volunteer corps', not only because most of the men
 
who came forward at that time had been through the school of the old
 
Army, but also because the kind of duty imposed there constrained the
 
individual to absolute obedience at least for a definite period of time.
 
 
 
That spirit is entirely lacking in the volunteer defence organizations
 
of to-day. The more the defence association grows, the weaker its
 
discipline becomes and so much the less can one demand from the
 
individual members. Thus the whole organization will more and more
 
assume the character of the old non-political associations of war
 
comrades and veterans.
 
 
 
It is impossible to carry through a voluntary training in military
 
service for larger masses unless one is assured absolute power of
 
command. There will always be few men who will voluntarily and
 
spontaneously submit to that kind of obedience which is considered
 
natural and necessary in the Army.
 
 
 
Moreover, a proper system of military training cannot be developed where
 
there are such ridiculously scanty means as those at the disposal of the
 
defence associations. The principal task of such an institution must be
 
to impart the best and most reliable kind of instruction. Eight years
 
have passed since the end of the War, and during that time none of our
 
German youth, at an age when formerly they would have had to do military
 
service, have received any systematic training at all. The aim of a
 
defence association cannot be to enlist here and now all those who have
 
already received a military training; for in that case it could be
 
reckoned with mathematical accuracy when the last member would leave the
 
association. Even the younger soldier from 1918 will no longer be fit
 
for front-line service twenty years later, and we are approaching that
 
state of things with a rapidity that gives cause for anxiety. Thus the
 
defence associations must assume more and more the aspect of the old
 
ex-service men's societies. But that cannot be the meaning and purpose
 
of an institution which calls itself, not an association of ex-service
 
men but a DEFENCE association, indicating by this title that it
 
considers its task to be, not only to preserve the tradition of the old
 
soldiers and hold them together but also to propagate the idea of
 
national defence and be able to carry this idea into practical effect,
 
which means the creation of a body of men who are fit and trained for
 
military defence.
 
 
 
But this implies that those elements will receive a military training
 
which up to now have received none. This is something that in practice
 
is impossible for the defence associations. Real soldiers cannot be made
 
by a training of one or two hours per week. In view of the enormously
 
increasing demands which modern warfare imposes on each individual
 
soldier to-day, a military service of two years is barely sufficient to
 
transform a raw recruit into a trained soldier. At the Front during the
 
War we all saw the fearful consequences which our young recruits had to
 
suffer from their lack of a thorough military training. Volunteer
 
formations which had been drilled for fifteen or twenty weeks under an
 
iron discipline and shown unlimited self-denial proved nevertheless to
 
be no better than cannon fodder at the Front. Only when distributed
 
among the ranks of the old and experienced soldiers could the young
 
recruits, who had been trained for four or six months, become useful
 
members of a regiment. Guided by the 'old men', they adapted themselves
 
gradually to their task.
 
 
 
In the light of all this, how hopeless must the attempt be to create a
 
body of fighting troops by a so-called training of one or two hours in
 
the week, without any definite power of command and without any
 
considerable means. In that way perhaps one could refresh military
 
training in old soldiers, but raw recruits cannot thus be transformed
 
into expert soldiers.
 
 
 
How such a proceeding produces utterly worthless results may also be
 
demonstrated by the fact that at the same time as these so-called
 
volunteer defence associations, with great effort and outcry and under
 
difficulties and lack of necessities, try to educate and train a few
 
thousand men of goodwill (the others need not be taken into account) for
 
purposes of national defence, the State teaches our young men democratic
 
and pacifist ideas and thus deprives millions and millions of their
 
national instincts, poisons their logical sense of patriotism and
 
gradually turns them into a herd of sheep who will patiently follow any
 
arbitrary command. Thus they render ridiculous all those attempts made
 
by the defence associations to inculcate their ideas in the minds of the
 
German youth.
 
 
 
Almost more important is the following consideration, which has always
 
made me take up a stand against all attempts at a so-called military
 
training on the basis of the volunteer associations.
 
 
 
Assuming that, in spite of all the difficulties just mentioned, a
 
defence association were successful in training a certain number of
 
Germans every year to be efficient soldiers, not only as regards their
 
mental outlook but also as regards bodily efficiency and the expert
 
handling of arms, the result must necessarily be null and void in a
 
State whose whole tendency makes it not only look upon such a defensive
 
formation as undesirable but even positively hate it, because such an
 
association would completely contradict the intimate aims of the
 
political leaders, who are the corrupters of this State.
 
 
 
But anyhow, such a result would be worthless under governments which
 
have demonstrated by their own acts that they do not lay the slightest
 
importance on the military power of the nation and are not disposed to
 
permit an appeal to that power only in case that it were necessary for
 
the protection of their own malignant existence.
 
 
 
And that is the state of affairs to-day. It is not ridiculous to think
 
of training some ten thousand men in the use of arms, and carry on that
 
training surreptitiously, when a few years previously the State, having
 
shamefully sacrificed eight-and-a-half million highly trained soldiers,
 
not merely did not require their services any more, but, as a mark of
 
gratitude for their sacrifices, held them up to public contumely. Shall
 
we train soldiers for a regime which besmirched and spat upon our most
 
glorious soldiers, tore the medals and badges from their breasts,
 
trampled on their flags and derided their achievements? Has the present
 
regime taken one step towards restoring the honour of the old army and
 
bringing those who destroyed and outraged it to answer for their deeds?
 
Not in the least. On the contrary, the people I have just referred to
 
may be seen enthroned in the highest positions under the State to-day.
 
And yet it was said at Leipzig: "Right goes with might." Since, however,
 
in our Republic to-day might is in the hands of the very men who
 
arranged for the Revolution, and since that Revolution represents a most
 
despicable act of high treason against the nation--yea, the vilest act
 
in German history--there can surely be no grounds for saying that might
 
of this character should be enhanced by the formation of a new young
 
army. It is against all sound reason.
 
 
 
The importance which this State attached, after the Revolution of 1918,
 
to the reinforcement of its position from the military point of view is
 
clearly and unmistakably demonstrated by its attitude towards the large
 
self-defence organizations which existed in that period. They were not
 
unwelcome as long as they were of use for the personal protection of the
 
miserable creatures cast up by the Revolution.
 
 
 
But the danger to these creatures seemed to disappear as the debasement
 
of our people gradually increased. As the existence of the defence
 
associations no longer implied a reinforcement of the national policy
 
they became superfluous. Hence every effort was made to disarm them and
 
suppress them wherever that was possible.
 
 
 
History records only a few examples of gratitude on the part of princes.
 
But there is not one patriot among the new bourgeoisie who can count on
 
the gratitude of revolutionary incendiaries and assassins, persons who
 
have enriched themselves from the public spoil and betrayed the nation.
 
In examining the problem as to the wisdom of forming these defence
 
associations I have never ceased to ask: 'For whom shall I train these
 
young men? For what purpose will they be employed when they will have to
 
be called out?' The answer to these questions lays down at the same time
 
the best rule for us to follow.
 
 
 
If the present State should one day have to call upon trained troops of
 
this kind it would never be for the purpose of defending the interests
 
of the nation VIS-À-VIS those of the stranger but rather to protect the
 
oppressors of the nation inside the country against the danger of a
 
general outbreak of wrath on the part of a nation which has been
 
deceived and betrayed and whose interests have been bartered away.
 
 
 
For this reason it was decided that the Storm Detachment of the German
 
National Socialist Labour Party ought not to be in the nature of a
 
military organization. It had to be an instrument of protection and
 
education for the National Socialist Movement and its duties should be
 
in quite a different sphere from that of the military defence
 
association.
 
 
 
And, of course, the Storm Detachment should not be in the nature of a
 
secret organization. Secret organizations are established only for
 
purposes that are against the law. Therewith the purpose of such an
 
organization is limited by its very nature. Considering the loquacious
 
propensities of the German people, it is not possible to build up any
 
vast organization, keeping it secret at the same time and cloaking its
 
purpose. Every attempt of that kind is destined to turn out absolutely
 
futile. It is not merely that our police officials to-day have at their
 
disposal a staff of eaves-droppers and other such rabble who are ready
 
to play traitor, like Judas, for thirty pieces of silver and will betray
 
whatever secrets they can discover and will invent what they would like
 
to reveal. In order to forestall such eventualities, it is never
 
possible to bind one's own followers to the silence that is necessary.
 
Only small groups can become really secret societies, and that only
 
after long years of filtration. But the very smallness of such groups
 
would deprive them of all value for the National Socialist Movement.
 
What we needed then and need now is not one or two hundred dare-devil
 
conspirators but a hundred thousand devoted champions of our
 
WELTANSCHAUUNG. The work must not be done through secret conventicles
 
but through formidable mass demonstrations in public. Dagger and pistol
 
and poison-vial cannot clear the way for the progress of the movement.
 
That can be done only by winning over the man in the street. We must
 
overthrow Marxism, so that for the future National Socialism will be
 
master of the street, just as it will one day become master of the
 
State.
 
 
 
There is another danger connected with secret societies. It lies in the
 
fact that their members often completely misunderstand the greatness of
 
the task in hand and are apt to believe that a favourable destiny can be
 
assured for the nation all at once by means of a single murder. Such a
 
belief may find historical justification by appealing to cases where a
 
nation had been suffering under the tyranny of some oppressor who at the
 
same time was a man of genius and whose extraordinary personality
 
guaranteed the internal solidity of his position and enabled him to
 
maintain his fearful oppression. In such cases a man may suddenly arise
 
from the ranks of the people who is ready to sacrifice himself and
 
plunge the deadly steel into the heart of the hated individual. In order
 
to look upon such a deed as abhorrent one must have the republican
 
mentality of that petty CANAILLE who are conscious of their own crime.
 
But the greatest champion (Note 20) of liberty that the German people have
 
ever had has glorified such a deed in WILLIAM TELL.
 
 
 
[Note 20. Schiller, who wrote the famous drama of WILLIAM TELL.]
 
 
 
During 1919 and 1920 there was danger that the members of secret
 
organizations, under the influence of great historical examples and
 
overcome by the immensity of the nation's misfortunes, might attempt to
 
wreak vengeance on the destroyers of their country, under the belief
 
that this would end the miseries of the people. All such attempts were
 
sheer folly, for the reason that the Marxist triumph was not due to the
 
superior genius of one remarkable person but rather to immeasurable
 
incompetence and cowardly shirking on the part of the bourgeoisie. The
 
hardest criticism that can be uttered against our bourgeoisie is simply
 
to state the fact that it submitted to the Revolution, even though the
 
Revolution did not produce one single man of eminent worth. One can
 
always understand how it was possible to capitulate before a
 
Robespierre, a Danton, or a Marat; but it was utterly scandalous to go
 
down on all fours before the withered Scheidemann, the obese Herr
 
Erzberger, Frederick Ebert, and the innumerable other political pigmies
 
of the Revolution. There was not a single man of parts in whom one could
 
see the revolutionary man of genius. Therein lay the country's
 
misfortune; for they were only revolutionary bugs, Spartacists wholesale
 
and retail. To suppress one of them would be an act of no consequence.
 
The only result would be that another pair of bloodsuckers, equally fat
 
and thirsty, would be ready to take his place.
 
 
 
During those years we had to take up a determined stand against an idea
 
which owed its origin and foundation to historical episodes that were
 
really great, but to which our own despicable epoch did not bear the
 
slightest similarity.
 
 
 
The same reply may be given when there is question of putting somebody
 
'on the spot' who has acted as a traitor to his country. It would be
 
ridiculous and illogical to shoot a poor wretch (Note 21) who had betrayed
 
the position of a howitzer to the enemy while the highest positions of the
 
government are occupied by a rabble who bartered away a whole empire,
 
who have on their consciences the deaths of two million men who were
 
sacrificed in vain, fellows who were responsible for the millions maimed
 
in the war and who make a thriving business out of the republican regime
 
without allowing their souls to be disturbed in any way. It would be
 
absurd to do away with small traitors in a State whose government has
 
absolved the great traitors from all punishment. For it might easily
 
happen that one day an honest idealist, who, out of love for his
 
country, had removed from circulation some miserable informer that had
 
given information about secret stores of arms might now be called to
 
answer for his act before the chief traitors of the country. And there
 
is still an important question: Shall some small traitorous creature be
 
suppressed by another small traitor, or by an idealist? In the former
 
case the result would be doubtful and the deed would almost surely be
 
revealed later on. In the second case a petty rascal is put out of the
 
way and the life of an idealist who may be irreplaceable is in jeopardy.
 
 
 
[Note 21. The reference here is to those who gave information to the
 
Allied Commissions about hidden stores of arms in Germany.]
 
 
 
For myself, I believe that small thieves should not be hanged while big
 
thieves are allowed to go free. One day a national tribunal will have to
 
judge and sentence some tens of thousands of organizers who were
 
responsible for the criminal November betrayal and all the consequences
 
that followed on it. Such an example will teach the necessary lesson,
 
once and for ever, to those paltry traitors who revealed to the enemy
 
the places where arms were hidden.
 
 
 
On the grounds of these considerations I steadfastly forbade all
 
participation in secret societies, and I took care that the Storm
 
Detachment should not assume such a character. During those years I kept
 
the National Socialist Movement away from those experiments which were
 
being undertaken by young Germans who for the most part were inspired
 
with a sublime idealism but who became the victims of their own deeds,
 
because they could not ameliorate the lot of their fatherland to the
 
slightest degree.
 
 
 
If then the Storm Detachment must not be either a military defence
 
organization or a secret society, the following conclusions must result:
 
 
 
1. Its training must not be organized from the military standpoint but
 
from the standpoint of what is most practical for party purposes. Seeing
 
that its members must undergo a good physical training, the place of
 
chief importance must not be given to military drill but rather to the
 
practice of sports. I have always considered boxing and ju-jitsu more
 
important than some kind of bad, because mediocre, training in
 
rifle-shooting. If the German nation were presented with a body of young
 
men who had been perfectly trained in athletic sports, who were imbued
 
with an ardent love for their country and a readiness to take the
 
initiative in a fight, then the national State could make an army out of
 
that body within less than two years if it were necessary, provided the
 
cadres already existed. In the actual state of affairs only the
 
REICHSWEHR could furnish the cadres and not a defence organization that
 
was neither one thing nor the other. Bodily efficiency would develop in
 
the individual a conviction of his superiority and would give him that
 
confidence which is always based only on the consciousness of one's own
 
powers. They must also develop that athletic agility which can be
 
employed as a defensive weapon in the service of the Movement.
 
 
 
2. In order to safeguard the Storm Detachment against any tendency
 
towards secrecy, not only must the uniform be such that it can
 
immediately be recognized by everybody, but the large number of its
 
effectives show the direction in which the Movement is going and which
 
must be known to the whole public. The members of the Storm Detachment
 
must not hold secret gatherings but must march in the open and thus, by
 
their actions, put an end to all legends about a secret organization. In
 
order to keep them away from all temptations towards finding an outlet
 
for their activities in small conspiracies, from the very beginning we
 
had to inculcate in their minds the great idea of the Movement and
 
educate them so thoroughly to the task of defending this idea that their
 
horizon became enlarged and that the individual no longer considered it
 
his mission to remove from circulation some rascal or other, whether big
 
or small, but to devote himself entirely to the task of bringing about
 
the establishment of a new National Socialist People's State. In this
 
way the struggle against the present State was placed on a higher plane
 
than that of petty revenge and small conspiracies. It was elevated to
 
the level of a spiritual struggle on behalf of a WELTANSCHAUUNG, for
 
the destruction of Marxism in all its shapes and forms.
 
 
 
3. The form of organization adopted for the Storm Detachment, as well as
 
its uniform and equipment, had to follow different models from those of
 
the old Army. They had to be specially suited to the requirements of the
 
task that was assigned to the Storm Detachment.
 
 
 
These were the ideas I followed in 1920 and 1921. I endeavoured to
 
instil them gradually into the members of the young organization. And
 
the result was that by the midsummer of 1922 we had a goodly number of
 
formations which consisted of a hundred men each. By the late autumn of
 
that year these formations received their distinctive uniforms. There
 
were three events which turned out to be of supreme importance for the
 
subsequent development of the Storm Detachment.
 
 
 
1. The great mass demonstration against the Law for the Protection of
 
the Republic. This demonstration was held in the late summer of 1922 on
 
the KÖNIGS-PLATZ in Munich, by all the patriotic societies. The National
 
Socialist Movement also participated in it. The march-past of our party,
 
in serried ranks, was led by six Munich companies of a hundred men each,
 
followed by the political sections of the Party. Two bands marched with
 
us and about fifteen flags were carried. When the National Socialists
 
arrived at the great square it was already half full, but no flag was
 
flying. Our entry aroused unbounded enthusiasm. I myself had the honour
 
of being one of the speakers who addressed that mass of about sixty
 
thousand people.
 
 
 
The demonstration was an overwhelming success; especially because it was
 
proved for the first time that nationalist Munich could march on the
 
streets, in spite of all threats from the Reds. Members of the
 
organization for the defence of the Red Republic endeavoured to hinder
 
the marching columns by their terrorist activities, but they were
 
scattered by the companies of the Storm Detachment within a few minutes
 
and sent off with bleeding skulls. The National Socialist Movement had
 
then shown for the first time that in future it was determined to
 
exercise the right to march on the streets and thus take this monopoly
 
away from the international traitors and enemies of the country.
 
 
 
The result of that day was an incontestable proof that our ideas for the
 
creation of the Storm Detachment were right, both from the psychological
 
viewpoint and as to the manner in which this body was organized.
 
 
 
On the basis of this success the enlistment progressed so rapidly that
 
within a few weeks the number of Munich companies of a hundred men each
 
became doubled.
 
 
 
2. The expedition to Coburg in October 1922.
 
 
 
Certain People's Societies had decided to hold a German Day at Coburg. I
 
was invited to take part, with the intimation that they wished me to
 
bring a following along. This invitation, which I received at eleven
 
o'clock in the morning, arrived just in time. Within an hour the
 
arrangements for our participation in the German Congress were ready. I
 
picked eight hundred men of the Storm Detachment to accompany me. These
 
were divided into about fourteen companies and had to be brought by
 
special train from Munich to Coburg, which had just voted by plebiscite
 
to be annexed to Bavaria. Corresponding orders were given to other
 
groups of the National Socialist Storm Detachment which had meanwhile
 
been formed in various other localities.
 
 
 
This was the first time that such a special train ran in Germany. At all
 
the places where the new members of the Storm Detachment joined us our
 
train caused a sensation. Many of the people had never seen our flag.
 
And it made a very great impression.
 
 
 
As we arrived at the station in Coburg we were received by a deputation
 
of the organizing committee of the German Day. They announced that it
 
had been 'arranged' at the orders of local trades unions--that is to
 
say, the Independent and Communist Parties--that we should not enter the
 
town with our flags unfurled and our band playing (we had a band
 
consisting of forty-two musicians with us) and that we should not march
 
with closed ranks.
 
 
 
I immediately rejected these unmilitary conditions and did not fail to
 
declare before the gentlemen who had arranged this 'day' how astonished
 
I was at the idea of their negotiating with such people and coming to an
 
agreement with them. Then I announced that the Storm Troops would
 
immediately march into the town in company formation, with our flags
 
flying and the band playing.
 
 
 
And that is what happened.
 
 
 
As we came out into the station yard we were met by a growling and
 
yelling mob of several thousand, that shouted at us: 'Assassins',
 
'Bandits', 'Robbers', 'Criminals'. These were the choice names which
 
these exemplary founders of the German Republic showered on us. The
 
young Storm Detachment gave a model example of order. The companies fell
 
into formation on the square in front of the station and at first took
 
no notice of the insults hurled at them by the mob. The police were
 
anxious. They did not pilot us to the quarters assigned to us on the
 
outskirts of Coburg, a city quite unknown to us, but to the Hofbräuhaus
 
Keller in the centre of the town. Right and left of our march the tumult
 
raised by the accompanying mob steadily increased. Scarcely had the last
 
company entered the courtyard of the Hofbräuhaus when the huge mass made
 
a rush to get in after them, shouting madly. In order to prevent this,
 
the police closed the gates. Seeing the position was untenable I called
 
the Storm Detachment to attention and then asked the police to open the
 
gates immediately. After a good deal of hesitation, they consented.
 
 
 
We now marched back along the same route as we had come, in the
 
direction of our quarters, and there we had to make a stand against the
 
crowd. As their cries and yells all along the route had failed to
 
disturb the equanimity of our companies, the champions of true
 
Socialism, Equality, and Fraternity now took to throwing stones. That
 
brought our patience to an end. For ten minutes long, blows fell right
 
and left, like a devastating shower of hail. Fifteen minutes later there
 
were no more Reds to be seen in the street.
 
 
 
The collisions which took place when the night came on were more
 
serious. Patrols of the Storm Detachment had discovered National
 
Socialists who had been attacked singly and were in an atrocious state.
 
Thereupon we made short work of the opponents. By the following morning
 
the Red terror, under which Coburg had been suffering for years, was
 
definitely smashed.
 
 
 
Adopting the typically Marxist and Jewish method of spreading
 
falsehoods, leaflets were distributed by hand on the streets, bearing
 
the caption: "Comrades and Comradesses of the International
 
Proletariat." These leaflets were meant to arouse the wrath of the
 
populace. Twisting the facts completely around, they declared that our
 
'bands of assasins' had commenced 'a war of extermination against the
 
peaceful workers of Coburg'. At half-past one that day there was to be a
 
'great popular demonstration', at which it was hoped that the workers of
 
the whole district would turn up. I was determined finally to crush this
 
Red terror and so I summoned the Storm Detachment to meet at midday.
 
Their number had now increased to 1,500. I decided to march with these
 
men to the Coburg Festival and to cross the big square where the Red
 
demonstration was to take place. I wanted to see if they would attempt
 
to assault us again. When we entered the square we found that instead of
 
the ten thousand that had been advertised, there were only a few hundred
 
people present. As we approached they remained silent for the most part,
 
and some ran away. Only at certain points along the route some bodies of
 
Reds, who had arrived from outside the city and had not yet come to know
 
us, attempted to start a row. But a few fisticuffs put them to flight.
 
And now one could see how the population, which had for such a long time
 
been so wretchedly intimidated, slowly woke up and recovered their
 
courage. They welcomed us openly, and in the evening, on our return
 
march, spontaneous shouts of jubilation broke out at several points
 
along the route.
 
 
 
At the station the railway employees informed us all of a sudden that
 
our train would not move. Thereupon I had some of the ringleaders told
 
that if this were the case I would have all the Red Party heroes
 
arrested that fell into our hands, that we would drive the train
 
ourselves, but that we would take away with us, in the locomotive and
 
tender and in some of the carriages, a few dozen members of this
 
brotherhood of international solidarity. I did not omit to let those
 
gentry know that if we had to conduct the train the journey would
 
undoubtedly be a very risky adventure and that we might all break our
 
necks. It would be a consolation, however, to know that we should not go
 
to Eternity alone, but in equality and fraternity with the Red gentry.
 
 
 
Thereupon the train departed punctually and we arrived next morning in
 
Munich safe and sound.
 
 
 
Thus at Coburg, for the first time since 1914, the equality of all
 
citizens before the law was re-established. For even if some coxcomb of
 
a higher official should assert to-day that the State protects the lives
 
of its citizens, at least in those days it was not so. For at that time
 
the citizens had to defend themselves against the representatives of the
 
present State.
 
 
 
At first it was not possible fully to estimate the importance of the
 
consequences which resulted from that day. The victorious Storm Troops
 
had their confidence in themselves considerably reinforced and also
 
their faith in the sagacity of their leaders. Our contemporaries began
 
to pay us special attention and for the first time many recognized the
 
National Socialist Movement as an organization that in all probability
 
was destined to bring the Marxist folly to a deserving end.
 
 
 
Only the democrats lamented the fact that we had not the complaisance to
 
allow our skulls to be cracked and that we had dared, in a democratic
 
Republic, to hit back with fists and sticks at a brutal assault, rather
 
than with pacifist chants.
 
 
 
Generally speaking, the bourgeois Press was partly distressed and partly
 
vulgar, as always. Only a few decent newspapers expressed their
 
satisfaction that at least in one locality the Marxist street bullies
 
had been effectively dealt with.
 
 
 
And in Coburg itself at least a part of the Marxist workers who must be
 
looked upon as misled, learned from the blows of National Socialist
 
fists that these workers were also fighting for ideals, because
 
experience teaches that the human being fights only for something in
 
which he believes and which he loves.
 
 
 
The Storm Detachment itself benefited most from the Coburg events. It
 
grew so quickly in numbers that at the Party Congress in January 1923
 
six thousand men participated in the ceremony of consecrating the flags
 
and the first companies were fully clad in their new uniform.
 
 
 
Our experience in Coburg proved how essential it is to introduce one
 
distinctive uniform for the Storm Detachment, not only for the purpose
 
of strengthening the ESPRIT DE CORPS but also to avoid confusion and the
 
danger of not recognizing the opponent in a squabble. Up to that time
 
they had merely worn the armlet, but now the tunic and the well-known
 
cap were added.
 
 
 
But the Coburg experience had also another important result. We now
 
determined to break the Red Terror in all those localities where for
 
many years it had prevented men of other views from holding their
 
meetings. We were determined to restore the right of free assembly. From
 
that time onwards we brought our battalions together in such places and
 
little by little the red citadels of Bavaria, one after another, fell
 
before the National Socialist propaganda. The Storm Troops became more
 
and more adept at their job. They increasingly lost all semblance of an
 
aimless and lifeless defence movement and came out into the light as an
 
active militant organization, fighting for the establishment of a new
 
German State.
 
 
 
This logical development continued until March 1923. Then an event
 
occurred which made me divert the Movement from the course hitherto
 
followed and introduce some changes in its outer formation.
 
 
 
In the first months of 1923 the French occupied the Ruhr district. The
 
consequence of this was of great importance in the development of the
 
Storm Detachment.
 
 
 
It is not yet possible, nor would it be in the interest of the nation,
 
to write or speak openly and freely on the subject. I shall speak of it
 
only as far as the matter has been dealt with in public discussions and
 
thus brought to the knowledge of everybody.
 
 
 
The occupation of the Ruhr district, which did not come as a surprise to
 
us, gave grounds for hoping that Germany would at last abandon its
 
cowardly policy of submission and therewith give the defensive
 
associations a definite task to fulfil. The Storm Detachment also, which
 
now numbered several thousand of robust and vigorous young men, should
 
not be excluded from this national service. During the spring and summer
 
of 1923 it was transformed into a fighting military organization. It is
 
to this reorganization that we must in great part attribute the later
 
developments that took place during 1923, in so far as it affected our
 
Movement.
 
 
 
Elsewhere I shall deal in broad outline with the development of events
 
in 1923. Here I wish only to state that the transformation of the Storm
 
Detachment at that time must have been detrimental to the interests of
 
the Movement if the conditions that had motivated the change were not to
 
be carried into effect, namely, the adoption of a policy of active
 
resistance against France.
 
 
 
The events which took place at the close of 1923, terrible as they may
 
appear at first sight, were almost a necessity if looked at from a
 
higher standpoint; because, in view of the attitude taken by the
 
Government of the German REICH, conversion of the Storm Troops into a
 
military force would be meaningless and thus a transformation which
 
would also be harmful to the Movement was ended at one stroke. At the
 
same time it was made possible for us to reconstruct at the point where
 
we had been diverted from the proper course.
 
 
 
In the year 1925 the German National Socialist Labour Party was
 
re-founded and had to organize and train its Storm Detachment once again
 
according to the principles I have laid down. It must return to the
 
original idea and once more it must consider its most essential task to
 
function as the instrument of defence and reinforcement in the spiritual
 
struggle to establish the ideals of the Movement.
 
 
 
The Storm Detachment must not be allowed to sink to the level of
 
something in the nature of a defence organization or a secret society.
 
Steps must be taken rather to make it a vanguard of 100,000 men in the
 
struggle for the National Socialist ideal which is based on the profound
 
principle of a People's State.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER X
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE MASK OF FEDERALISM
 
 
 
 
 
In the winter of 1919, and still more in the spring and summer of 1920,
 
the young Party felt bound to take up a definite stand on a question
 
which already had become quite serious during the War. In the first
 
volume of this book I have briefly recorded certain facts which I had
 
personally witnessed and which foreboded the break-up of Germany. In
 
describing these facts I made reference to the special nature of the
 
propaganda which was directed by the English as well as the French
 
towards reopening the breach that had existed between North and South in
 
Germany. In the spring of 1915 there appeared the first of a series of
 
leaflets which was systematically followed up and the aim of which was
 
to arouse feeling against Prussia as being solely responsible for the
 
war. Up to 1916 this system had been developed and perfected in a
 
cunning and shameless manner. Appealing to the basest of human
 
instincts, this propaganda endeavoured to arouse the wrath of the South
 
Germans against the North Germans and after a short time it bore fruit.
 
Persons who were then in high positions under the Government and in the
 
Army, especially those attached to headquarters in the Bavarian Army,
 
merited the just reproof of having blindly neglected their duty and
 
failed to take the necessary steps to counter such propaganda. But
 
nothing was done. On the contrary, in some quarters it did not appear to
 
be quite unwelcome and probably they were short-sighted enough to think
 
that such propaganda might help along the development of unification in
 
Germany but even that it might automatically bring about consolidation
 
of the federative forces. Scarcely ever in history was such a wicked
 
neglect more wickedly avenged. The weakening of Prussia, which they
 
believed would result from this propaganda, affected the whole of
 
Germany. It resulted in hastening the collapse which not only wrecked
 
Germany as a whole but even more particularly the federal states.
 
 
 
In that town where the artificially created hatred against Prussia raged
 
most violently the revolt against the reigning House was the beginning
 
of the Revolution.
 
 
 
It would be a mistake to think that the enemy propaganda was exclusively
 
responsible for creating an anti-Prussian feeling and that there were no
 
reasons which might excuse the people for having listened to this
 
propaganda. The incredible fashion in which the national economic
 
interests were organized during the War, the absolutely crazy system of
 
centralization which made the whole REICH its ward and exploited the
 
REICH, furnished the principal grounds for the growth of that
 
anti-Prussian feeling. The average citizen looked upon the companies for
 
the placing of war contracts, all of which had their headquarters in
 
Berlin, as identical with Berlin and Berlin itself as identical with
 
Prussia. The average citizen did not know that the organization of these
 
robber companies, which were called War Companies, was not in the hands
 
of Berlin or Prussia and not even in German hands at all. People
 
recognized only the gross irregularities and the continual encroachments
 
of that hated institution in the Metropolis of the REICH and directed
 
their anger towards Berlin and Prussia, all the more because in certain
 
quarters (the Bavarian Government) nothing was done to correct this
 
attitude, but it was even welcomed with silent rubbing of hands.
 
 
 
The Jew was far too shrewd not to understand that the infamous campaign
 
which he had organized, under the cloak of War Companies, for plundering
 
the German nation would and must eventually arouse opposition. As long
 
as that opposition did not spring directly at his own throat he had no
 
reason to be afraid. Hence he decided that the best way of forestalling
 
an outbreak on the part of the enraged and desperate masses would be to
 
inflame their wrath and at the same time give it another outlet.
 
 
 
Let Bavaria quarrel as much as it liked with Prussia and Prussia with
 
Bavaria. The more, the merrier. This bitter strife between the two
 
states assured peace to the Jew. Thus public attention was completely
 
diverted from the international maggot in the body of the nation;
 
indeed, he seemed to have been forgotten. Then when there came a danger
 
that level-headed people, of whom there are many to be found also in
 
Bavaria, would advise a little more reserve and a more judicious
 
evaluation of things, thus calming the rage against Prussia, all the Jew
 
had to do in Berlin was to stage a new provocation and await results.
 
Every time that was done all those who had profiteered out of the
 
conflict between North and South filled their lungs and again fanned the
 
flame of indignation until it became a blaze.
 
 
 
It was a shrewd and expert manoeuvre on the part of the Jew, to set the
 
different branches of the German people quarrelling with one another, so
 
that their attention would be turned away from himself and he could
 
plunder them all the more completely.
 
 
 
Then came the Revolution.
 
 
 
Until the year 1918, or rather until the November of that year, the
 
average German citizen, particularly the less educated lower
 
middle-class and the workers, did not rightly understand what was
 
happening and did not realize what must be the inevitable consequences,
 
especially for Bavaria, of this internecine strife between the branches
 
of the German people; but at least those sections which called
 
themselves 'National' ought to have clearly perceived these consequences
 
on the day that the Revolution broke out. For the moment the COUP D'ÉTAT
 
had succeeded, the leader and organizer of the Revolution in Bavaria put
 
himself forward as the defender of 'Bavarian' interests. The
 
international Jew, Kurt Eisner, began to play off Bavaria against
 
Prussia. This Oriental was just about the last person in the world that
 
could be pointed to as the logical defender of Bavarian interests. In
 
his trade as newspaper reporter he had wandered from place to place all
 
over Germany and to him it was a matter of sheer indifference whether
 
Bavaria or any other particular part of God's whole world continued to
 
exist.
 
 
 
In deliberately giving the revolutionary rising in Bavaria the character
 
of an offensive against Prussia, Kurt Eisner was not acting in the
 
slightest degree from the standpoint of Bavarian interests, but merely
 
as the commissioned representative of Jewry. He exploited existing
 
instincts and antipathies in Bavaria as a means which would help to make
 
the dismemberment of Germany all the more easy. When once dismembered,
 
the REICH would fall an easy prey to Bolshevism.
 
 
 
The tactics employed by him were continued for a time after his death.
 
The Marxists, who had always derided and exploited the individual German
 
states and their princes, now suddenly appealed, as an 'Independent
 
Party' to those sentiments and instincts which had their strongest roots
 
in the families of the reigning princes and the individual states.
 
 
 
The fight waged by the Bavarian Soviet Republic against the military
 
contingents that were sent to free Bavaria from its grasp was
 
represented by the Marxist propagandists as first of all the 'Struggle
 
of the Bavarian Worker' against 'Prussian Militarism.' This explains why
 
it was that the suppression of the Soviet Republic in Munich did not
 
have the same effect there as in the other German districts. Instead of
 
recalling the masses to a sense of reason, it led to increased
 
bitterness and anger against Prussia.
 
 
 
The art of the Bolshevik agitators, in representing the suppression of
 
the Bavarian Soviet Republic as a victory of 'Prussian Militarism' over
 
the 'Anti-militarists' and 'Anti-Prussian' people of Bavaria, bore rich
 
fruit. Whereas on the occasion of the elections to the Bavarian
 
Legislative Diet, Kurt Eisner did not have ten thousand followers in
 
Munich and the Communist party less than three thousand, after the fall
 
of the Bavarian Republic the votes given to the two parties together
 
amounted to nearly one hundred thousand.
 
 
 
It was then that I personally began to combat that crazy incitement of
 
some branches of the German people against other branches.
 
 
 
I believe that never in my life did I undertake a more unpopular task
 
than I did when I took my stand against the anti-Prussian incitement.
 
During the Soviet regime in Munich great public meetings were held at
 
which hatred against the rest of Germany, but particularly against
 
Prussia, was roused up to such a pitch that a North German would have
 
risked his life in attending one of those meetings. These meetings often
 
ended in wild shouts: "Away from Prussia", "Down with the Prussians",
 
"War against Prussia", and so on. This feeling was openly expressed in
 
the Reichstag by a particularly brilliant defender of Bavarian sovereign
 
rights when he said: "Rather die as a Bavarian than rot as a Prussian".
 
 
 
One should have attended some of the meetings held at that time in order
 
to understand what it meant for one when, for the first time and
 
surrounded by only a handful of friends, I raised my voice against this
 
folly at a meeting held in the Munich Löwenbräu Keller. Some of my War
 
comrades stood by me then. And it is easy to imagine how we felt when
 
that raging crowd, which had lost all control of its reason, roared at
 
us and threatened to kill us. During the time that we were fighting for
 
the country the same crowd were for the most part safely ensconced in
 
the rear positions or were peacefully circulating at home as deserters
 
and shirkers. It is true that that scene turned out to be of advantage
 
to me. My small band of comrades felt for the first time absolutely
 
united with me and readily swore to stick by me through life and death.
 
 
 
These conflicts, which were constantly repeated in 1919, seemed to
 
become more violent soon after the beginning of 1920. There were
 
meetings--I remember especially one in the Wagner Hall in the
 
Sonnenstrasse in Munich--during the course of which my group, now grown
 
much larger, had to defend themselves against assaults of the most
 
violent character. It happened more than once that dozens of my
 
followers were mishandled, thrown to the floor and stamped upon by the
 
attackers and were finally thrown out of the hall more dead than alive.
 
 
 
The struggle which I had undertaken, first by myself alone and
 
afterwards with the support of my war comrades, was now continued by the
 
young movement, I might say almost as a sacred mission.
 
 
 
I am proud of being able to say to-day that we--depending almost
 
exclusively on our followers in Bavaria--were responsible for putting an
 
end, slowly but surely, to the coalition of folly and treason. I say
 
folly and treason because, although convinced that the masses who joined
 
in it meant well but were stupid, I cannot attribute such simplicity as
 
an extenuating circumstance in the case of the organizers and their
 
abetters. I then looked upon them, and still look upon them to-day, as
 
traitors in the payment of France. In one case, that of Dorten, history
 
has already pronounced its judgment.
 
 
 
The situation became specially dangerous at that time by reason of the
 
fact that they were very astute in their ability to cloak their real
 
tendencies, by insisting primarily on their federative intentions and
 
claiming that those were the sole motives of the agitation. Of course it
 
is quite obvious that the agitation against Prussia had nothing to do
 
with federalism. Surely 'Federal Activities' is not the phrase with
 
which to describe an effort to dissolve and dismember another federal
 
state. For an honest federalist, for whom the formula used by Bismarck
 
to define his idea of the REICH is not a counterfeit phrase, could not
 
in the same breath express the desire to cut off portions of the
 
Prussian State, which was created or at least completed by Bismarck. Nor
 
could he publicly support such a separatist attempt.
 
 
 
What an outcry would be raised in Munich if some prussian conservative
 
party declared itself in favour of detaching Franconia from Bavaria or
 
took public action in demanding and promoting such a separatist policy.
 
Nevertheless, one can only have sympathy for all those real and honest
 
federalists who did not see through this infamous swindle, for they were
 
its principal victims. By distorting the federalist idea in such a way
 
its own champions prepared its grave. One cannot make propaganda for a
 
federalist configuration of the REICH by debasing and abusing and
 
besmirching the essential element of such a political structure, namely
 
Prussia, and thus making such a Confederation impossible, if it ever had
 
been possible. It is all the more incredible by reason of the fact that
 
the fight carried on by those so-called federalists was directed against
 
that section of the Prussian people which was the last that could be
 
looked upon as connected with the November democracy. For the abuse and
 
attacks of these so-called federalists were not levelled against the
 
fathers of the Weimar Constitution--the majority of whom were South
 
Germans or Jews--but against those who represented the old conservative
 
Prussia, which was the antipodes of the Weimar Constitution. The fact
 
that the directors of this campaign were careful not to touch the Jews
 
is not to be wondered at and perhaps gives the key to the whole riddle.
 
 
 
Before the Revolution the Jew was successful in distracting attention
 
from himself and his War Companies by inciting the masses, and
 
especially the Bavarians, against Prussia. Similarly he felt obliged,
 
after the Revolution, to find some way of camouflaging his new plunder
 
campaign which was nine or ten times greater. And again he succeeded, in
 
this case by provoking the so-called 'national' elements against one
 
another: the conservative Bavarians against the Prussians, who were just
 
as conservative. He acted again with extreme cunning, inasmuch as he who
 
held the reins of Prussia's destiny in his hands provoked such crude and
 
tactless aggressions that again and again they set the blood boiling in
 
those who were being continually duped. Never against the Jew, however,
 
but always the German against his own brother. The Bavarian did not see
 
the Berlin of four million industrious and efficient working people, but
 
only the lazy and decadent Berlin which is to be found in the worst
 
quarters of the West End. And his antipathy was not directed against
 
this West End of Berlin but against the 'Prussian' city.
 
 
 
In many cases it tempted one to despair.
 
 
 
The ability which the Jew has displayed in turning public attention away
 
from himself and giving it another direction may be studied also in what
 
is happening to-day.
 
 
 
In 1918 there was nothing like an organized anti-Semitic feeling. I
 
still remember the difficulties we encountered the moment we mentioned
 
the Jew. We were either confronted with dumb-struck faces or else a
 
lively and hefty antagonism. The efforts we made at the time to point
 
out the real enemy to the public seemed to be doomed to failure. But
 
then things began to change for the better, though only very slowly. The
 
'League for Defence and Offence' was defectively organized but at least
 
it had the great merit of opening up the Jewish question once again. In
 
the winter of 1918-1919 a kind of anti-semitism began slowly to take
 
root. Later on the National Socialist Movement presented the Jewish
 
problem in a new light. Taking the question beyond the restricted
 
circles of the upper classes and small bourgeoisie we succeeded in
 
transforming it into the driving motive of a great popular movement. But
 
the moment we were successful in placing this problem before the German
 
people in the light of an idea that would unite them in one struggle the
 
Jew reacted. He resorted to his old tactics. With amazing alacrity he
 
hurled the torch of discord into the patriotic movement and opened a
 
rift there. In bringing forward the ultramontane question and in the
 
mutual quarrels that it gave rise to between Catholicism and
 
Protestantism lay the sole possibility, as conditions then were, of
 
occupying public attention with other problems and thus ward off the
 
attack which had been concentrated against Jewry. The men who dragged
 
our people into this controversy can never make amends for the crime
 
they then committed against the nation. Anyhow, the Jew has attained the
 
ends he desired. Catholics and Protestants are fighting with one another
 
to their hearts' content, while the enemy of Aryan humanity and all
 
Christendom is laughing up his sleeve.
 
 
 
Once it was possible to occupy the attention of the public for several
 
years with the struggle between federalism and unification, wearing out
 
their energies in this mutual friction while the Jew trafficked in the
 
freedom of the nation and sold our country to the masters of
 
international high finance. So in our day he has succeeded again, this
 
time by raising ructions between the two German religious denominations
 
while the foundations on which both rest are being eaten away and
 
destroyed through the poison injected by the international and
 
cosmopolitan Jew.
 
 
 
Look at the ravages from which our people are suffering daily as a
 
result of being contaminated with Jewish blood. Bear in mind the fact
 
that this poisonous contamination can be eliminated from the national
 
body only after centuries, or perhaps never. Think further of how the
 
process of racial decomposition is debasing and in some cases even
 
destroying the fundamental Aryan qualities of our German people, so that
 
our cultural creativeness as a nation is gradually becoming impotent and
 
we are running the danger, at least in our great cities, of falling to
 
the level where Southern Italy is to-day. This pestilential adulteration
 
of the blood, of which hundreds of thousands of our people take no
 
account, is being systematically practised by the Jew to-day.
 
Systematically these negroid parasites in our national body corrupt our
 
innocent fair-haired girls and thus destroy something which can no
 
longer be replaced in this world.
 
 
 
The two Christian denominations look on with indifference at the
 
profanation and destruction of a noble and unique creature who was given
 
to the world as a gift of God's grace. For the future of the world,
 
however, it does not matter which of the two triumphs over the other,
 
the Catholic or the Protestant. But it does matter whether Aryan
 
humanity survives or perishes. And yet the two Christian denominations
 
are not contending against the destroyer of Aryan humanity but are
 
trying to destroy one another. Everybody who has the right kind of
 
feeling for his country is solemnly bound, each within his own
 
denomination, to see to it that he is not constantly talking about the
 
Will of God merely from the lips but that in actual fact he fulfils the
 
Will of God and does not allow God's handiwork to be debased. For it was
 
by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were
 
given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages
 
war against God's Creation and God's Will. Therefore everyone should
 
endeavour, each in his own denomination of course, and should consider
 
it as his first and most solemn duty to hinder any and everyone whose
 
conduct tends, either by word or deed, to go outside his own religious
 
body and pick a quarrel with those of another denomination. For, in view
 
of the religious schism that exists in Germany, to attack the essential
 
characteristics of one denomination must necessarily lead to a war of
 
extermination between the two Christian denominations. Here there can be
 
no comparison between our position and that of France, or Spain or
 
Italy. In those three countries one may, for instance, make propaganda
 
for the side that is fighting against ultramontanism without thereby
 
incurring the danger of a national rift among the French, or Spanish or
 
Italian people. In Germany, however, that cannot be so, for here the
 
Protestants would also take part in such propaganda. And thus the
 
defence which elsewhere only Catholics organize against clerical
 
aggression in political matters would assume with us the character of a
 
Protestant attack against Catholicism. What may be tolerated by the
 
faithful in one denomination even when it seems unjust to them, will at
 
once be indignantly rejected and opposed on A PRIORI grounds if it
 
should come from the militant leaders of another denomination. This is
 
so true that even men who would be ready and willing to fight for the
 
removal of manifest grievances within their own religious denomination
 
will drop their own fight and turn their activities against the outsider
 
the moment the abolition of such grievances is counselled or demanded by
 
one who is not of the same faith. They consider it unjustified and
 
inadmissible and incorrect for outsiders to meddle in matters which do
 
not affect them at all. Such attempts are not excused even when they are
 
inspired by a feeling for the supreme interests of the national
 
community; because even in our day religious feelings still have deeper
 
roots than all feeling for political and national expediency. That
 
cannot be changed by setting one denomination against another in bitter
 
conflict. It can be changed only if, through a spirit of mutual
 
tolerance, the nation can be assured of a future the greatness of which
 
will gradually operate as a conciliating factor in the sphere of
 
religion also. I have no hesitation in saying that in those men who seek
 
to-day to embroil the patriotic movement in religious quarrels I see
 
worse enemies of my country than the international communists are. For
 
the National Socialist Movement has set itself to the task of converting
 
those communists. But anyone who goes outside the ranks of his own
 
Movement and tends to turn it away from the fulfilment of its mission is
 
acting in a manner that deserves the severest condemnation. He is acting
 
as a champion of Jewish interests, whether consciously or unconsciously
 
does not matter. For it is in the interests of the Jews to-day that the
 
energies of the patriotic movement should be squandered in a religious
 
conflict, because it is beginning to be dangerous for the Jews. I have
 
purposely used the phrase about SQUANDERING the energies of the
 
Movement, because nobody but some person who is entirely ignorant of
 
history could imagine that this movement can solve a question which the
 
greatest statesmen have tried for centuries to solve, and tried in vain.
 
 
 
Anyhow the facts speak for themselves. The men who suddenly discovered,
 
in 1924, that the highest mission of the patriotic movement was to fight
 
ultramontanism, have not succeeded in smashing ultramontanism, but they
 
succeeded in splitting the patriotic movement. I have to guard against
 
the possibility of some immature brain arising in the patriotic movement
 
which thinks that it can do what even a Bismarck failed to do. It will
 
be always one of the first duties of those who are directing the
 
National Socialist Movement to oppose unconditionally any attempt to
 
place the National Socialist Movement at the service of such a conflict.
 
And anybody who conducts a propaganda with that end in view must be
 
expelled forthwith from its ranks.
 
 
 
As a matter of fact we succeeded until the autumn of 1923 in keeping our
 
movement away from such controversies. The most devoted Protestant could
 
stand side by side with the most devoted Catholic in our ranks without
 
having his conscience disturbed in the slightest as far as concerned his
 
religious convictions. The bitter struggle which both waged in common
 
against the wrecker of Aryan humanity taught them natural respect and
 
esteem. And it was just in those years that our movement had to engage
 
in a bitter strife with the Centre Party not for religious ends but for
 
national, racial, political and economic ends. The success we then
 
achieved showed that we were right, but it does not speak to-day in
 
favour of those who thought they knew better.
 
 
 
In recent years things have gone so far that patriotic circles, in
 
god-forsaken blindness of their religious strife, could not recognize
 
the folly of their conduct even from the fact that atheist Marxist
 
newspapers advocated the cause of one religious denomination or the
 
other, according as it suited Marxist interests, so as to create
 
confusion through slogans and declarations which were often immeasurably
 
stupid, now molesting the one party and again the other, and thus poking
 
the fire to keep the blaze at its highest.
 
 
 
But in the case of a people like the Germans, whose history has so often
 
shown them capable of fighting for phantoms to the point of complete
 
exhaustion, every war-cry is a mortal danger. By these slogans our
 
people have often been drawn away from the real problems of their
 
existence. While we were exhausting our energies in religious wars the
 
others were acquiring their share of the world. And while the patriotic
 
movement is debating with itself whether the ultramontane danger be
 
greater than the Jewish, or vice versa, the Jew is destroying the racial
 
basis of our existence and thereby annihilating our people. As far as
 
regards that kind of 'patriotic' warrior, on behalf of the National
 
Socialist Movement and therefore of the German people I pray with all my
 
heart: "Lord, preserve us from such friends, and then we can easily deal
 
with our enemies."
 
 
 
The controversy over federation and unification, so cunningly
 
propagandized by the Jews in 1919-1920 and onwards, forced National
 
Socialism, which repudiated the quarrel, to take up a definite stand in
 
relation to the essential problem concerned in it. Ought Germany to be a
 
confederacy or a military State? What is the practical significance of
 
these terms? To me it seems that the second question is more important
 
than the first, because it is fundamental to the understanding of the
 
whole problem and also because the answer to it may help to clear up
 
confusion and therewith have a conciliating effect.
 
 
 
What is a Confederacy? (Note 22)
 
 
 
[Note 22. Before 1918 Germany was a federal Empire, composed of
 
twenty-five federal states.]
 
 
 
By a Confederacy we mean a union of sovereign states which of their own
 
free will and in virtue of their sovereignty come together and create a
 
collective unit, ceding to that unit as much of their own sovereign
 
rights as will render the existence of the union possible and will
 
guarantee it.
 
 
 
But the theoretical formula is not wholly put into practice by any
 
confederacy that exists to-day. And least of all by the American Union,
 
where it is impossible to speak of original sovereignty in regard to the
 
majority of the states. Many of them were not included in the federal
 
complex until long after it had been established. The states that make
 
up the American Union are mostly in the nature of territories, more or
 
less, formed for technical administrative purposes, their boundaries
 
having in many cases been fixed in the mapping office. Originally these
 
states did not and could not possess sovereign rights of their own.
 
Because it was the Union that created most of the so-called states.
 
Therefore the sovereign rights, often very comprehensive, which were
 
left, or rather granted, to the various territories correspond not only
 
to the whole character of the Confederation but also to its vast space,
 
which is equivalent to the size of a Continent. Consequently, in
 
speaking of the United States of America one must not consider them as
 
sovereign states but as enjoying rights or, better perhaps, autarchic
 
powers, granted to them and guaranteed by the Constitution.
 
 
 
Nor does our definition adequately express the condition of affairs in
 
Germany. It is true that in Germany the individual states existed as
 
states before the REICH and that the REICH was formed from them. The
 
REICH, however, was not formed by the voluntary and equal co-operation
 
of the individual states, but rather because the state of Prussia
 
gradually acquired a position of hegemony over the others. The
 
difference in the territorial area alone between the German states
 
prevents any comparison with the American Union. The great difference in
 
territorial area between the very small German states that then existed
 
and the larger, or even still more the largest, demonstrates the
 
inequality of their achievements and shows that they could not take an
 
equal part in founding and shaping the federal Empire. In the case of
 
most of these individual states it cannot be maintained that they ever
 
enjoyed real sovereignty; and the term 'State Sovereignty' was really
 
nothing more than an administrative formula which had no inner meaning.
 
As a matter of fact, not only developments in the past but also in our
 
own time wiped out several of these so-called 'Sovereign States' and
 
thus proved in the most definite way how frail these 'sovereign' state
 
formations were.
 
 
 
I cannot deal here with the historical question of how these individual
 
states came to be established, but I must call attention to the fact
 
that hardly in any case did their frontiers coincide with ethical
 
frontiers of the inhabitants. They were purely political phenomena which
 
for the most part emerged during the sad epoch when the German Empire
 
was in a state of exhaustion and was dismembered. They represented both
 
cause and effect in the process of exhaustion and partition of our
 
fatherland.
 
 
 
The Constitution of the old REICH took all this into account, at least
 
up to a certain degree, in so far as the individual states were not
 
accorded equal representation in the Reichstag, but a representation
 
proportionate to their respective areas, their actual importance and the
 
role which they played in the formation of the REICH.
 
 
 
The sovereign rights which the individual states renounced in order to
 
form the REICH were voluntarily ceded only to a very small degree. For
 
the most part they had no practical existence or they were simply taken
 
by Prussia under the pressure of her preponderant power. The principle
 
followed by Bismarck was not to give the REICH what he could take from
 
the individual states but to demand from the individual states only what
 
was absolutely necessary for the REICH. A moderate and wise policy. On
 
the one side Bismarck showed the greatest regard for customs and
 
traditions; on the other side his policy secured for the new REICH from
 
its foundation onwards a great measure of love and willing co-operation.
 
But it would be a fundamental error to attribute Bismarck's decision to
 
any conviction on his part that the REICH was thus acquiring all the
 
rights of sovereignty which would suflice for all time. That was far
 
from Bismarck's idea. On the contrary, he wished to leave over for the
 
future what it would be difficult to carry through at the moment and
 
might not have been readily agreed to by the individual states. He
 
trusted to the levelling effect of time and to the pressure exercised by
 
the process of evolution, the steady action of which appeared more
 
effective than an attempt to break the resistance which the individual
 
states offered at the moment. By this policy he showed his great ability
 
in the art of statesmanship. And, as a matter of fact, the sovereignty
 
of the REICH has continually increased at the cost of the sovereignty of
 
the individual states. The passing of time has achieved what Bismarck
 
hoped it would.
 
 
 
The German collapse and the abolition of the monarchical form of
 
government necessarily hastened this development. The German federal
 
states, which had not been grounded on ethnical foundations but arose
 
rather out of political conditions, were bound to lose their importance
 
the moment the monarchical form of government and the dynasties
 
connected with it were abolished, for it was to the spirit inherent in
 
these that the individual states owned their political origin and
 
development. Thus deprived of their internal RAISON D'ÊTRE, they
 
renounced all right to survival and were induced by purely practical
 
reasons to fuse with their neighbours or else they joined the more
 
powerful states out of their own free will. That proved in a striking
 
manner how extraordinarily frail was the actual sovereignty these small
 
phantom states enjoyed, and it proved too how lightly they were
 
estimated by their own citizens.
 
 
 
Though the abolition of the monarchical regime and its representatives
 
had dealt a hard blow to the federal character of the REICH, still more
 
destructive, from the federal point of view, was the acceptance of the
 
obligations that resulted from the 'peace' treaty.
 
 
 
It was only natural and logical that the federal states should lose all
 
sovereign control over the finances the moment the REICH, in consequence
 
of a lost war, was subjected to financial obligations which could never
 
be guaranteed through separate treaties with the individual states. The
 
subsequent steps which led the REICH to take over the posts and railways
 
were an enforced advance in the process of enslaving our people, a
 
process which the peace treaties gradually developed. The REICH was
 
forced to secure possession of resources which had to be constantly
 
increased in order to satisfy the demands made by further extortions.
 
 
 
The form in which the powers of the REICH were thus extended to embrace
 
the federal states was often ridiculously stupid, but in itself the
 
procedure was logical and natural. The blame for it must be laid at the
 
door of these men and those parties that failed in the hour of need to
 
concentrate all their energies in an effort to bring the war to a
 
victorious issue. The guilt lies on those parties which, especially in
 
Bavaria, catered for their own egotistic interests during the war and
 
refused to the REICH what the REICH had to requisition to a tenfold
 
greater measure when the war was lost. The retribution of History!
 
Rarely has the vengeance of Heaven followed so closely on the crime as
 
it did in this case. Those same parties which, a few years previously,
 
placed the interests of their own states--especially in Bavaria--before
 
those of the REICH had now to look on passively while the pressure of
 
events forced the REICH, in its own interests, to abolish the existence
 
of the individual states. They were the victims of their own defaults.
 
 
 
It was an unparalleled example of hypocrisy to raise the cry of
 
lamentation over the loss which the federal states suffered in being
 
deprived of their sovereign rights. This cry was raised before the
 
electorate, for it is only to the electorate that our contemporary
 
parties address themselves. But these parties, without exception, outbid
 
one another in accepting a policy of fulfilment which, by the sheer
 
force of circumstances and in its ultimate consequences, could not but
 
lead to a profound alteration in the internal structure of the REICH.
 
Bismarck's REICH was free and unhampered by any obligations towards the
 
outside world.
 
 
 
Bismarck's REICH never had to shoulder such heavy and entirely
 
unproductive obligations as those to which Germany was subjected under
 
the Dawes Plan. Also in domestic affairs Bismarck's REICH was able to
 
limit its powers to a few matters that were absolutely necessary for its
 
existence. Therefore it could dispense with the necessity of a financial
 
control over these states and could live from their contributions. On
 
the other side the relatively small financial tribute which the federal
 
states had to pay to the REICH induced them to welcome its existence.
 
But it is untrue and unjust to state now, as certain propagandists do,
 
that the federal states are displeased with the REICH merely because of
 
their financial subjection to it. No, that is not how the matter really
 
stands. The lack of sympathy for the political idea embodied in the
 
REICH is not due to the loss of sovereign rights on the part of the
 
individual states. It is much more the result of the deplorable fashion
 
in which the present régime cares for the interests of the German
 
people. Despite all the celebrations in honour of the national flag and
 
the Constitution, every section of the German people feels that the
 
present REICH is not in accordance with its heart's desire. And the Law
 
for the Protection of the Republic may prevent outrages against
 
republican institutions, but it will not gain the love of one single
 
German. In its constant anxiety to protect itself against its own
 
citizens by means of laws and sentences of imprisonment, the Republic
 
has aroused sharp and humiliating criticism of all republican
 
institutions as such.
 
 
 
For another reason also it is untrue to say, as certain parties affirm
 
to-day, that the REICH has ceased to be popular on account of its
 
overbearing conduct in regard to certain sovereign rights which the
 
individual states had heretofore enjoyed. Supposing the REICH had not
 
extended its authority over the individual states, there is no reason to
 
believe that it would find more favour among those states if the general
 
obligations remained so heavy as they now are. On the contrary, if the
 
individual states had to pay their respective shares of the highly
 
increased tribute which the REICH has to meet to-day in order to fulfil
 
the provisions of the Versailles Dictate, the hostility towards the
 
REICH would be infinitely greater. For then not only would it prove
 
difficult to collect the respective contributions due to the REICH from
 
the federal states, but coercive methods would have to be employed in
 
making the collections. The Republic stands on the footing of the peace
 
treaties and has neither the courage nor the intention to break them.
 
That being so, it must observe the obligations which the peace treaties
 
have imposed on it. The responsibility for this situation is to be
 
attributed solely to those parties who preach unceasingly to the patient
 
electoral masses on the necessity of maintaining the autonomy of the
 
federal states, while at the same time they champion and demand of the
 
REICH a policy which must necessarily lead to the suppression of even
 
the very last of those so-called 'sovereign' rights.
 
 
 
I say NECESSARILY because the present REICH has no other possible means
 
of bearing the burden of charges which an insane domestic and foreign
 
policy has laid on it. Here still another wedge is placed on the former,
 
to drive it in still deeper. Every new debt which the REICH contracts,
 
through the criminal way in which the interests of Germany are
 
represented VIS-À-VIS foreign countries, necessitates a new and stronger
 
blow which drives the under wedges still deeper, That blow demands
 
another step in the progressive abolition of the sovereign rights of the
 
individual states, so as not to allow the germs of opposition to rise up
 
into activity or even to exist.
 
 
 
The chief characteristic difference between the policy of the present
 
REICH and that of former times lies in this: The old REICH gave freedom
 
to its people at home and showed itself strong towards the outside
 
world, whereas the Republic shows itself weak towards the stranger and
 
oppresses its own citizens at home. In both cases one attitude
 
determines the other. A vigorous national State does not need to make
 
many laws for the interior, because of the affection and attachment of
 
its citizens. The international servile State can live only by coercing
 
its citizens to render it the services it demands. And it is a piece of
 
impudent falsehood for the present regime to speak of 'Free citizens'.
 
Only the old Germany could speak in that manner. The present Republic is
 
a colony of slaves at the service of the stranger. At best it has
 
subjects, but not citizens. Hence it does not possess a national flag
 
but only a trade mark, introduced and protected by official decree and
 
legislative measures. This symbol, which is the Gessler's cap of German
 
Democracy, will always remain alien to the spirit of our people. On its
 
side, the Republic having no sense of tradition or respect for past
 
greatness, dragged the symbol of the past in the mud, but it will be
 
surprised one day to discover how superficial is the devotion of its
 
citizens to its own symbol. The Republic has given to itself the
 
character of an intermezzo in German history. And so this State is bound
 
constantly to restrict more and more the sovereign rights of the
 
individual states, not only for general reasons of a financial character
 
but also on principle. For by enforcing a policy of financial blackmail,
 
to squeeze the last ounce of substance out of its people, it is forced
 
also to take their last rights away from them, lest the general
 
discontent may one day flame up into open rebellion.
 
 
 
We, National Socialists, would reverse this formula and would adopt the
 
following axiom: A strong national REICH which recognizes and protects
 
to the largest possible measure the rights of its citizens both within
 
and outside its frontiers can allow freedom to reign at home without
 
trembling for the safety of the State. On the other hand, a strong
 
national Government can intervene to a considerable degree in the
 
liberties of the individual subject as well as in the liberties of the
 
constituent states without thereby weakening the ideal of the REICH; and
 
it can do this while recognizing its responsibility for the ideal of the
 
REICH, because in these particular acts and measures the individual
 
citizen recognizes a means of promoting the prestige of the nation as a
 
whole.
 
 
 
Of course, every State in the world has to face the question of
 
unification in its internal organization. And Germany is no exception in
 
this matter. Nowadays it is absurd to speak of 'statal sovereignty' for
 
the constituent states of the REICH, because that has already become
 
impossible on account of the ridiculously small size of so many of these
 
states. In the sphere of commerce as well as that of administration the
 
importance of the individual states has been steadily decreasing. Modern
 
means of communication and mechanical progress have been increasingly
 
restricting distance and space. What was once a State is to-day only a
 
province and the territory covered by a modern State had once the
 
importance of a continent. The purely technical difficulty of
 
administering a State like Germany is not greater than that of governing
 
a province like Brandenburg a hundred years ago. And to-day it is easier
 
to cover the distance from Munich to Berlin than it was to cover the
 
distance from Munich to Starnberg a hundred years ago. In view of the
 
modern means of transport, the whole territory of the REICH to-day is
 
smaller than that of certain German federal states at the time of the
 
Napoleonic wars. To close one's eyes to the consequences of these facts
 
means to live in the past. There always were, there are and always will
 
be, men who do this. They may retard but they cannot stop the
 
revolutions of history.
 
 
 
We, National Socialists, must not allow the consequences of that truth
 
to pass by us unnoticed. In these matters also we must not permit
 
ourselves to be misled by the phrases of our so-called national
 
bourgeois parties. I say 'phrases', because these same parodies do not
 
seriously believe that it is possible for them to carry out their
 
proposals, and because they themselves are the chief culprits and also
 
the accomplices responsible for the present state of affairs. Especially
 
in Bavaria, the demands for a halt in the process of centralization can
 
be no more than a party move behind which there is no serious idea. If
 
these parties ever had to pass from the realm of phrase-making into that
 
of practical deeds they would present a sorry spectacle. Every so-called
 
'Robbery of Sovereign Rights' from Bavaria by the REICH has met with no
 
practical resistance, except for some fatuous barking by way of protest.
 
Indeed, when anyone seriously opposed the madness that was shown in
 
carrying out this system of centralization he was told by those same
 
parties that he understood nothing of the nature and needs of the State
 
to-day. They slandered him and pronounced him anathema and persecuted
 
him until he was either shut up in prison or illegally deprived of the
 
right of public speech. In the light of these facts our followers should
 
become all the more convinced of the profound hypocrisy which
 
characterizes these so-called federalist circles. To a certain extent
 
they use the federalist doctrine just as they use the name of religion,
 
merely as a means of promoting their own base party interests.
 
 
 
A certain unification, especially in the field of transport, appears
 
logical. But we, National Socialists, feel it our duty to oppose with
 
all our might such a development in the modern State, especially when
 
the measures proposed are solely for the purpose of screening a
 
disastrous foreign policy and making it possible. And just because the
 
present REICH has threatened to take over the railways, the posts, the
 
finances, etc., not from the high standpoint of a national policy, but
 
in order to have in its hands the means and pledges for an unlimited
 
policy of fulfilment--for that reason we, National Socialists, must take
 
every step that seems suitable to obstruct and, if possible, definitely
 
to prevent such a policy. We must fight against the present system of
 
amalgamating institutions that are vitally important for the existence
 
of our people, because this system is being adopted solely to facilitate
 
the payment of milliards and the transference of pledges to the
 
stranger, under the post-War provisions which our politicians have
 
accepted.
 
 
 
For these reasons also the National Socialist Movement has to take up a
 
stand against such tendencies.
 
 
 
Moreover, we must oppose such centralization because in domestic affairs
 
it helps to reinforce a system of government which in all its
 
manifestations has brought the greatest misfortunes on the German
 
nation. The present Jewish-Democratic REICH, which has become a
 
veritable curse for the German people, is seeking to negative the force
 
of the criticism offered by all the federal states which have not yet
 
become imbued with the spirit of the age, and is trying to carry out
 
this policy by crushing them to the point of annihilation. In face of
 
this we National Socialists must try to ground the opposition of the
 
individual states on such a basis that it will be able to operate with a
 
good promise of success. We must do this by transforming the struggle
 
against centralization into something that will be an expression of the
 
higher interests of the German nation as such. Therefore, while the
 
Bavarian Populist Party, acting from its own narrow and particularist
 
standpoint, fights to maintain the 'special rights' of the Bavarian
 
State, we ought to stand on quite a different ground in fighting for the
 
same rights. Our grounds ought to be those of the higher national
 
interests in opposition to the November Democracy.
 
 
 
A still further reason for opposing a centralizing process of that kind
 
arises from the certain conviction that in great part this so-called
 
nationalization does not make for unification at all and still less for
 
simplification. In many cases it is adopted simply as a means of
 
removing from the sovereign control of the individual states certain
 
institutions which they wish to place in the hands of the revolutionary
 
parties. In German History favouritism has never been of so base a
 
character as in the democratic republic. A great portion of this
 
centralization to-day is the work of parties which once promised that
 
they would open the way for the promotion of talent, meaning thereby
 
that they would fill those posts and offices entirely with their own
 
partisans. Since the foundation of the Republic the Jews especially have
 
been obtaining positions in the economic institutions taken over by the
 
REICH and also positions in the national administration, so that the one
 
and the other have become preserves of Jewry.
 
 
 
For tactical reasons, this last consideration obliges us to watch with
 
the greatest attention every further attempt at centralization and fight
 
it at each step. But in doing this our standpoint must always be that of
 
a lofty national policy and never a pettifogging particularism.
 
 
 
This last observation is necessary, lest an opinion might arise among
 
our own followers that we do not accredit to the REICH the right of
 
incorporating in itself a sovereignty which is superior to that of the
 
constituent states. As regards this right we cannot and must not
 
entertain the slightest doubt. Because for us the State is nothing but a
 
form. Its substance, or content, is the essential thing. And that is the
 
nation, the people. It is clear therefore that every other interest must
 
be subordinated to the supreme interests of the nation. In particular we
 
cannot accredit to any other state a sovereign power and sovereign
 
rights within the confines of the nation and the REICH, which represents
 
the nation. The absurdity which some federal states commit by
 
maintaining 'representations' abroad and corresponding foreign
 
'representations' among themselves--that must cease and will cease.
 
Until this happens we cannot be surprised if certain foreign countries
 
are dubious about the political unity of the REICH and act accordingly.
 
The absurdity of these 'representations' is all the greater because they
 
do harm and do not bring the slightest advantage. If the interests of a
 
German abroad cannot be protected by the ambassador of the REICH, much
 
less can they be protected by the minister from some small federal state
 
which appears ridiculous in the framework of the present world order.
 
The real truth is that these small federal states are envisaged as
 
points of attack for attempts at secession, which prospect is always
 
pleasing to a certain foreign State. We, National Socialists, must not
 
allow some noble caste which has become effete with age to occupy an
 
ambassadorial post abroad, with the idea that by engrafting one of its
 
withered branches in new soil the green leaves may sprout again. Already
 
in the time of the old REICH our diplomatic representatives abroad were
 
such a sorry lot that a further trial of that experience would be out of
 
the question.
 
 
 
It is certain that in the future the importance of the individual states
 
will be transferred to the sphere of our cultural policy. The monarch
 
who did most to make Bavaria an important centre was not an obstinate
 
particularist with anti-German tendencies, but Ludwig I who was as much
 
devoted to the ideal of German greatness as he was to that of art. His
 
first consideration was to use the powers of the state to develop the
 
cultural position of Bavaria and not its political power. And in doing
 
this he produced better and more durable results than if he had followed
 
any other line of conduct. Up to this time Munich was a provincial
 
residence town of only small importance, but he transformed it into the
 
metropolis of German art and by doing so he made it an intellectual
 
centre which even to-day holds Franconia to Bavaria, though the
 
Franconians are of quite a different temperament. If Munich had remained
 
as it had been earlier, what has happened in Saxony would have been
 
repeated in Bavaria, with the difference that Leipzig and Bavarian
 
Nürnberg would have become, not Bavarian but Franconian cities. It was
 
not the cry of "Down with Prussia" that made Munich great. What made
 
this a city of importance was the King who wished to present it to the
 
German nation as an artistic jewel that would have to be seen and
 
appreciated, and so it has turned out in fact. Therein lies a lesson for
 
the future. The importance of the individual states in the future will
 
no longer lie in their political or statal power. I look to them rather
 
as important ethnical and cultural centres. But even in this respect
 
time will do its levelling work. Modern travelling facilities shuffle
 
people among one another in such a way that tribal boundaries will fade
 
out and even the cultural picture will gradually become more of a
 
uniform pattern.
 
 
 
The army must definitely be kept clear of the influence of the
 
individual states. The coming National Socialist State must not fall
 
back into the error of the past by imposing on the army a task which is
 
not within its sphere and never should have been assigned to it. The
 
German army does not exist for the purpose of being a school in which
 
tribal particularisms are to be cultivated and preserved, but rather as
 
a school for teaching all the Germans to understand and adapt their
 
habits to one another. Whatever tends to have a separating influence in
 
the life of the nation ought to be made a unifying influence in the
 
army. The army must raise the German boy above the narrow horizon of his
 
own little native province and set him within the broad picture of the
 
nation. The youth must learn to know, not the confines of his own region
 
but those of the fatherland, because it is the latter that he will have
 
to defend one day. It is therefore absurd to have the German youth do
 
his military training in his own native region. During that period he
 
ought to learn to know Germany. This is all the more important to-day,
 
since young Germans no longer travel on their own account as they once
 
used to do and thus enlarge their horizon. In view of this, is it not
 
absurd to leave the young Bavarian recruit at Munich, the recruit from
 
Baden at Baden itself and the Württemberger at Stuttgart and so on? And
 
would it not be more reasonable to show the Rhine and the North Sea to
 
the Bavarian, the Alps to the native of Hamburg and the mountains of
 
Central Germany to the boy from East Prussia? The character proper to
 
each region ought to be maintained in the troops but not in the training
 
garrisons. We may disapprove of every attempt at unification but not
 
that of unifying the army. On the contrary, even though we should wish
 
to welcome no other kind of unification, this must be greeted with joy.
 
In view of the size of the present army of the REICH, it would be absurd
 
to maintain the federal divisions among the troops. Moreover, in the
 
unification of the German army which has actually been effected we see a
 
fact which we must not renounce but restore in the future national army.
 
 
 
Finally a new and triumphant idea should burst every chain which tends
 
to paralyse its efforts to push forward. National Socialism must claim
 
the right to impose its principles on the whole German nation, without
 
regard to what were hitherto the confines of federal states. And we must
 
educate the German nation in our ideas and principles. As the Churches
 
do not feel themselves bound or limited by political confines, so the
 
National Socialist Idea cannot feel itself limited to the territories of
 
the individual federal states that belong to our Fatherland.
 
 
 
The National Socialist doctrine is not handmaid to the political
 
interests of the single federal states. One day it must become teacher
 
to the whole German nation. It must determine the life of the whole
 
people and shape that life anew. For this reason we must imperatively
 
demand the right to overstep boundaries that have been traced by a
 
political development which we repudiate.
 
 
 
The more completely our ideas triumph, the more liberty can we concede
 
in particular affairs to our citizens at home.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER XI
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PROPAGANDA AND ORGANIZATION
 
 
 
 
 
The year 1921 was specially important for me from many points of view.
 
 
 
When I entered the German Labour Party I at once took charge of the
 
propaganda, believing this branch to be far the most important for the
 
time being. Just then it was not a matter of pressing necessity to
 
cudgel one's brains over problems of organization. The first necessity
 
was to spread our ideas among as many people as possible. Propaganda
 
should go well ahead of organization and gather together the human
 
material for the latter to work up. I have never been in favour of hasty
 
and pedantic methods of organization, because in most cases the result
 
is merely a piece of dead mechanism and only rarely a living
 
organization. Organization is a thing that derives its existence from
 
organic life, organic evolution. When the same set of ideas have found a
 
lodgement in the minds of a certain number of people they tend of
 
themselves to form a certain degree of order among those people and out
 
of this inner formation something that is very valuable arises. Of
 
course here, as everywhere else, one must take account of those human
 
weaknesses which make men hesitate, especially at the beginning, to
 
submit to the control of a superior mind. If an organization is imposed
 
from above downwards in a mechanical fashion, there is always the danger
 
that some individual may push himself forward who is not known for what
 
he is and who, out of jealousy, will try to hinder abler persons from
 
taking a leading place in the movement. The damage that results from
 
that kind of thing may have fatal consequences, especially in a new
 
movement.
 
 
 
For this reason it is advisable first to propagate and publicly expound
 
the ideas on which the movement is founded. This work of propaganda
 
should continue for a certain time and should be directed from one
 
centre. When the ideas have gradually won over a number of people this
 
human material should be carefully sifted for the purpose of selecting
 
those who have ability in leadership and putting that ability to the
 
test. It will often be found that apparently insignificant persons will
 
nevertheless turn out to be born leaders.
 
 
 
Of course, it is quite a mistake to suppose that those who show a very
 
intelligent grasp of the theory underlying a movement are for that
 
reason qualified to fill responsible positions on the directorate. The
 
contrary is very frequently the case.
 
 
 
Great masters of theory are only very rarely great organizers also. And
 
this is because the greatness of the theorist and founder of a system
 
consists in being able to discover and lay down those laws that are
 
right in the abstract, whereas the organizer must first of all be a man
 
of psychological insight. He must take men as they are, and for that
 
reason he must know them, not having too high or too low an estimate of
 
human nature. He must take account of their weaknesses, their baseness
 
and all the other various characteristics, so as to form something out
 
of them which will be a living organism, endowed with strong powers of
 
resistance, fitted to be the carrier of an idea and strong enough to
 
ensure the triumph of that idea.
 
 
 
But it is still more rare to find a great theorist who is at the same
 
time a great leader. For the latter must be more of an agitator, a truth
 
that will not be readily accepted by many of those who deal with
 
problems only from the scientific standpoint. And yet what I say is only
 
natural. For an agitator who shows himself capable of expounding ideas
 
to the great masses must always be a psychologist, even though he may be
 
only a demagogue. Therefore he will always be a much more capable leader
 
than the contemplative theorist who meditates on his ideas, far from the
 
human throng and the world. For to be a leader means to be able to move
 
the masses. The gift of formulating ideas has nothing whatsoever to do
 
with the capacity for leadership. It would be entirely futile to discuss
 
the question as to which is the more important: the faculty of
 
conceiving ideals and human aims or that of being able to have them put
 
into practice. Here, as so often happens in life, the one would be
 
entirely meaningless without the other. The noblest conceptions of the
 
human understanding remain without purpose or value if the leader cannot
 
move the masses towards them. And, conversely, what would it avail to
 
have all the genius and elan of a leader if the intellectual theorist
 
does not fix the aims for which mankind must struggle. But when the
 
abilities of theorist and organizer and leader are united in the one
 
person, then we have the rarest phenomenon on this earth. And it is that
 
union which produces the great man.
 
 
 
As I have already said, during my first period in the Party I devoted
 
myself to the work of propaganda. I had to succeed in gradually
 
gathering together a small nucleus of men who would accept the new
 
teaching and be inspired by it. And in this way we should provide the
 
human material which subsequently would form the constituent elements of
 
the organization. Thus the goal of the propagandist is nearly always
 
fixed far beyond that of the organizer.
 
 
 
If a movement proposes to overthrow a certain order of things and
 
construct a new one in its place, then the following principles must be
 
clearly understood and must dominate in the ranks of its leadership:
 
Every movement which has gained its human material must first divide
 
this material into two groups: namely, followers and members.
 
 
 
It is the task of the propagandist to recruit the followers and it is
 
the task of the organizer to select the members.
 
 
 
The follower of a movement is he who understands and accepts its aims;
 
the member is he who fights for them.
 
 
 
The follower is one whom the propaganda has converted to the doctrine of
 
the movement. The member is he who will be charged by the organization
 
to collaborate in winning over new followers from which in turn new
 
members can be formed.
 
 
 
To be a follower needs only the passive recognition of the idea. To be a
 
member means to represent that idea and fight for it. From ten followers
 
one can have scarcely more than two members. To be a follower simply
 
implies that a man has accepted the teaching of the movement; whereas to
 
be a member means that a man has the courage to participate actively in
 
diffusing that teaching in which he has come to believe.
 
 
 
Because of its passive character, the simple effort of believing in a
 
political doctrine is enough for the majority, for the majority of
 
mankind is mentally lazy and timid. To be a member one must be
 
intellectually active, and therefore this applies only to the minority.
 
 
 
Such being the case, the propagandist must seek untiringly to acquire
 
new followers for the movement, whereas the organizer must diligently
 
look out for the best elements among such followers, so that these
 
elements may be transformed into members. The propagandist need not
 
trouble too much about the personal worth of the individual proselytes
 
he has won for the movement. He need not inquire into their abilities,
 
their intelligence or character. From these proselytes, however, the
 
organizer will have to select those individuals who are most capable of
 
actively helping to bring the movement to victory.
 
 
 
The propagandist aims at inducing the whole people to accept his
 
teaching. The organizer includes in his body of membership only those
 
who, on psychological grounds, will not be an impediment to the further
 
diffusion of the doctrines of the movement.
 
 
 
The propagandist inculcates his doctrine among the masses, with the idea
 
of preparing them for the time when this doctrine will triumph, through
 
the body of combatant members which he has formed from those followers
 
who have given proof of the necessary ability and will-power to carry
 
the struggle to victory.
 
 
 
The final triumph of a doctrine will be made all the more easy if the
 
propagandist has effectively converted large bodies of men to the belief
 
in that doctrine and if the organization that actively conducts the
 
fight be exclusive, vigorous and solid.
 
 
 
When the propaganda work has converted a whole people to believe in a
 
doctrine, the organization can turn the results of this into practical
 
effect through the work of a mere handful of men. Propaganda and
 
organization, therefore follower and member, then stand towards one
 
another in a definite mutual relationship. The better the propaganda has
 
worked, the smaller will the organization be. The greater the number of
 
followers, so much the smaller can be the number of members. And
 
conversely. If the propaganda be bad, the organization must be large.
 
And if there be only a small number of followers, the membership must be
 
all the larger--if the movement really counts on being successful.
 
 
 
The first duty of the propagandist is to win over people who can
 
subsequently be taken into the organization. And the first duty of the
 
organization is to select and train men who will be capable of carrying
 
on the propaganda. The second duty of the organization is to disrupt the
 
existing order of things and thus make room for the penetration of the
 
new teaching which it represents, while the duty of the organizer must
 
be to fight for the purpose of securing power, so that the doctrine may
 
finally triumph.
 
 
 
A revolutionary conception of the world and human existence will always
 
achieve decisive success when the new WELTANSCHAUUNG has been taught to
 
a whole people, or subsequently forced upon them if necessary, and when,
 
on the other hand, the central organization, the movement itself, is in
 
the hands of only those few men who are absolutely indispensable to form
 
the nerve-centres of the coming State.
 
 
 
Put in another way, this means that in every great revolutionary
 
movement that is of world importance the idea of this movement must
 
always be spread abroad through the operation of propaganda. The
 
propagandist must never tire in his efforts to make the new ideas
 
clearly understood, inculcating them among others, or at least he must
 
place himself in the position of those others and endeavour to upset
 
their confidence in the convictions they have hitherto held. In order
 
that such propaganda should have backbone to it, it must be based on an
 
organization. The organization chooses its members from among those
 
followers whom the propaganda has won. That organization will become all
 
the more vigorous if the work of propaganda be pushed forward
 
intensively. And the propaganda will work all the better when the
 
organization back of it is vigorous and strong in itself.
 
 
 
Hence the supreme task of the organizer is to see to it that any discord
 
or differences which may arise among the members of the movement will
 
not lead to a split and thereby cramp the work within the movement.
 
Moreover, it is the duty of the organization to see that the fighting
 
spirit of the movement does not flag or die out but that it is
 
constantly reinvigorated and restrengthened. It is not necessary the
 
number of members should increase indefinitely. Quite the contrary would
 
be better. In view of the fact that only a fraction of humanity has
 
energy and courage, a movement which increases its own organization
 
indefinitely must of necessity one day become plethoric and inactive.
 
Organizations, that is to say, groups of members, which increase their
 
size beyond certain dimensions gradually lose their fighting force and
 
are no longer in form to back up the propagation of a doctrine with
 
aggressive elan and determination.
 
 
 
Now the greater and more revolutionary a doctrine is, so much the more
 
active will be the spirit inspiring its body of members, because the
 
subversive energy of such a doctrine will frighten way the
 
chicken-hearted and small-minded bourgeoisie. In their hearts they may
 
believe in the doctrine but they are afraid to acknowledge their belief
 
openly. By reason of this very fact, however, an organization inspired
 
by a veritable revolutionary idea will attract into the body of its
 
membership only the most active of those believers who have been won for
 
it by its propaganda. It is in this activity on the part of the
 
membership body, guaranteed by the process of natural selection, that we
 
are to seek the prerequisite conditions for the continuation of an
 
active and spirited propaganda and also the victorious struggle for the
 
success of the idea on which the movement is based.
 
 
 
The greatest danger that can threaten a movement is an abnormal increase
 
in the number of its members, owing to its too rapid success. So long as
 
a movement has to carry on a hard and bitter fight, people of weak and
 
fundamentally egotistic temperament will steer very clear of it; but
 
these will try to be accepted as members the moment the party achieves a
 
manifest success in the course of its development.
 
 
 
It is on these grounds that we are to explain why so many movements
 
which were at first successful slowed down before reaching the
 
fulfilment of their purpose and, from an inner weakness which could not
 
otherwise be explained, gave up the struggle and finally disappeared
 
from the field. As a result of the early successes achieved, so many
 
undesirable, unworthy and especially timid individuals became members of
 
the movement that they finally secured the majority and stifled the
 
fighting spirit of the others. These inferior elements then turned the
 
movement to the service of their personal interests and, debasing it to
 
the level of their own miserable heroism, no longer struggled for the
 
triumph of the original idea. The fire of the first fervour died out,
 
the fighting spirit flagged and, as the bourgeois world is accustomed to
 
say very justly in such cases, the party mixed water with its wine.
 
 
 
For this reason it is necessary that a movement should, from the sheer
 
instinct of self-preservation, close its lists to new membership the
 
moment it becomes successful. And any further increase in its
 
organization should be allowed to take place only with the most careful
 
foresight and after a painstaking sifting of those who apply for
 
membership. Only thus will it be possible to keep the kernel of the
 
movement intact and fresh and sound. Care must be taken that the conduct
 
of the movement is maintained exclusively in the hands of this original
 
nucleus. This means that the nucleus must direct the propaganda which
 
aims at securing general recognition for the movement. And the movement
 
itself, when it has secured power in its hands, must carry out all those
 
acts and measures which are necessary in order that its ideas should be
 
finally established in practice.
 
 
 
With those elements that originally made the movement, the organization
 
should occupy all the important positions that have been conquered and
 
from those elements the whole directorate should be formed. This should
 
continue until the maxims and doctrines of the party have become the
 
foundation and policy of the new State. Only then will it be permissible
 
gradually to give the reins into the hands of the Constitution of that
 
State which the spirit of the movement has created. But this usually
 
happens through a process of mutual rivalry, for here it is less a
 
question of human intelligence than of the play and effect of the forces
 
whose development may indeed be foreseen from the start but not
 
perpetually controlled.
 
 
 
All great movements, whether of a political or religious nature, owe
 
their imposing success to the recognition and adoption of those
 
principles. And no durable success is conceivable if these laws are not
 
observed.
 
 
 
As director of propaganda for the party, I took care not merely to
 
prepare the ground for the greatness of the movement in its subsequent
 
stages, but I also adopted the most radical measures against allowing
 
into the organization any other than the best material. For the more
 
radical and exciting my propaganda was, the more did it frighten weak
 
and wavering characters away, thus preventing them from entering the
 
first nucleus of our organization. Perhaps they remained followers, but
 
they did not raise their voices. On the contrary, they maintained a
 
discreet silence on the fact. Many thousands of persons then assured me
 
that they were in full agreement with us but they could not on any
 
account become members of our party. They said that the movement was so
 
radical that to take part in it as members would expose them to grave
 
censures and grave dangers, so that they would rather continue to be
 
looked upon as honest and peaceful citizens and remain aside, for the
 
time being at least, though devoted to our cause with all their hearts.
 
 
 
And that was all to the good. If all these men who in their hearts did
 
not approve of revolutionary ideas came into our movement as members at
 
that time, we should be looked upon as a pious confraternity to-day and
 
not as a young movement inspired with the spirit of combat.
 
 
 
The lively and combative form which I gave to all our propaganda
 
fortified and guaranteed the radical tendency of our movement, and the
 
result was that, with a few exceptions, only men of radical views were
 
disposed to become members.
 
 
 
It was due to the effect of our propaganda that within a short period of
 
time hundreds of thousands of citizens became convinced in their hearts
 
that we were right and wished us victory, although personally they were
 
too timid to make sacrifices for our cause or even participate in it.
 
 
 
Up to the middle of 1921 this simple activity of gathering in followers
 
was sufficient and was of value to the movement. But in the summer of
 
that year certain events happened which made it seem opportune for us to
 
bring our organization into line with the manifest successes which the
 
propaganda had achieved.
 
 
 
An attempt made by a group of patriotic visionaries, supported by the
 
chairman of the party at that time, to take over the direction of the
 
party led to the break up of this little intrigue and, by a unanimous
 
vote at a general meeting, entrusted the entire direction of the party
 
to my own hands. At the same time a new statute was passed which
 
invested sole responsibility in the chairman of the movement, abolished
 
the system of resolutions in committee and in its stead introduced the
 
principle of division of labour which since that time has worked
 
excellently.
 
 
 
From August 1st, 1921, onwards I undertook this internal reorganization
 
of the party and was supported by a number of excellent men. I shall
 
mention them and their work individually later on.
 
 
 
In my endeavour to turn the results gained by the propaganda to the
 
advantage of the organization and thus stabilize them, I had to abolish
 
completely a number of old customs and introduce regulations which none
 
of the other parties possessed or had adopted.
 
 
 
In the years 1920-21 the movement was controlled by a committee elected
 
by the members at a general meeting. The committee was composed of a
 
first and second treasurer, a first and second secretary, and a first
 
and second chairman at the head of it. In addition to these there was a
 
representative of the members, the director of propaganda, and various
 
assessors.
 
 
 
Comically enough, the committee embodied the very principle against
 
which the movement itself wanted to fight with all its energy, namely,
 
the principle of parliamentarianism. Here was a principle which
 
personified everything that was being opposed by the movement, from the
 
smallest local groups to the district and regional groups, the state
 
groups and finally the national directorate itself. It was a system
 
under which we all suffered and are still suffering.
 
 
 
It was imperative to change this state of affairs forthwith, if this bad
 
foundation in the internal organization was not to keep the movement
 
insecure and render the fulfilment of its high mission impossible.
 
 
 
The sessions of the committee, which were ruled by a protocol, and in
 
which decisions were made according to the vote of the majority,
 
presented the picture of a miniature parliament. Here also there was no
 
such thing as personal responsibility. And here reigned the same
 
absurdities and illogical state of affairs as flourish in our great
 
representative bodies of the State. Names were presented to this
 
committee for election as secretaries, treasurers, representatives of
 
the members of the organization, propaganda agents and God knows what
 
else. And then they all acted in common on every particular question and
 
decided it by vote. Accordingly, the director of propaganda voted on a
 
question that concerned the man who had to do with the finances and the
 
latter in his turn voted on a question that concerned only the
 
organization as such, the organizer voting on a subject that had to do
 
with the secretarial department, and so on.
 
 
 
Why select a special man for propaganda if treasurers and scribes and
 
commissaries, etc., had to deliver judgment on questions concerning it?
 
To a person of commonsense that sort of thing seemed as incomprehensible
 
as it would be if in a great manufacturing concern the board of
 
directors were to decide on technical questions of production or if,
 
inversely, the engineers were to decide on questions of administration.
 
 
 
I refused to countenance that kind of folly and after a short time I
 
ceased to appear at the meetings of the committee. I did nothing else
 
except attend to my own department of propaganda and I did not permit
 
any of the others to poke their heads into my activities. Conversely, I
 
did not interfere in the affairs of others.
 
 
 
When the new statute was approved and I was appointed as president, I
 
had the necessary authority in my hands and also the corresponding right
 
to make short shrift of all that nonsense. In the place of decisions by
 
the majority vote of the committee, the principle of absolute
 
responsibility was introduced.
 
 
 
The chairman is responsible for the whole control of the movement. He
 
apportions the work among the members of the committee subordinate to
 
him and for special work he selects other individuals. Each of these
 
gentlemen must bear sole responsibility for the task assigned to him. He
 
is subordinate only to the chairman, whose duty is to supervise the
 
general collaboration, selecting the personnel and giving general
 
directions for the co-ordination of the common work.
 
 
 
This principle of absolute responsibility is being adopted little by
 
little throughout the movement. In the small local groups and perhaps
 
also in the regional and district groups it will take yet a long time
 
before the principle can be thoroughly imposed, because timid and
 
hesitant characters are naturally opposed to it. For them the idea of
 
bearing absolute responsibility for an act opens up an unpleasant
 
prospect. They would like to hide behind the shoulders of the majority
 
in the so-called committee, having their acts covered by decisions
 
passed in that way. But it seems to me a matter of absolute necessity to
 
take a decisive stand against that view, to make no concessions
 
whatsoever to this fear of responsibility, even though it takes some
 
time before we can put fully into effect this concept of duty and
 
ability in leadership, which will finally bring forward leaders who have
 
the requisite abilities to occupy the chief posts.
 
 
 
In any case, a movement which must fight against the absurdity of
 
parliamentary institutions must be immune from this sort of thing. Only
 
thus will it have the requisite strength to carry on the struggle.
 
 
 
At a time when the majority dominates everywhere else a movement which
 
is based on the principle of one leader who has to bear personal
 
responsibility for the direction of the official acts of the movement
 
itself will one day overthrow the present situation and triumph over the
 
existing regime. That is a mathematical certainty.
 
 
 
This idea made it necessary to reorganize our movement internally. The
 
logical development of this reorganization brought about a clear-cut
 
distinction between the economic section of the movement and the general
 
political direction. The principle of personal responsibility was
 
extended to all the administrative branches of the party and it brought
 
about a healthy renovation, by liberating them from political influences
 
and allowing them to operate solely on economic principles.
 
 
 
In the autumn of 1921, when the party was founded, there were only six
 
members. The party did not have any headquarters, nor officials, nor
 
formularies, nor a stamp, nor printed material of any sort. The
 
committee first held its sittings in a restaurant on the Herrengasse and
 
then in a café at Gasteig. This state of affairs could not last. So I at
 
once took action in the matter. I went around to several restaurants and
 
hotels in Munich, with the idea of renting a room in one of them for the
 
use of the Party. In the old Sterneckerbräu im Tal, there was a small
 
room with arched roof, which in earlier times was used as a sort of
 
festive tavern where the Bavarian Counsellors of the Holy Roman Empire
 
foregathered. It was dark and dismal and accordingly well suited to its
 
ancient uses, though less suited to the new purpose it was now destined
 
to serve. The little street on which its one window looked out was so
 
narrow that even on the brightest summer day the room remained dim and
 
sombre. Here we took up our first fixed abode. The rent came to fifty
 
marks per month, which was then an enormous sum for us. But our
 
exigencies had to be very modest. We dared not complain even when they
 
removed the wooden wainscoting a few days after we had taken possession.
 
This panelling had been specially put up for the Imperial Counsellors.
 
The place began to look more like a grotto than an office.
 
 
 
Still it marked an important step forward. Slowly we had electric light
 
installed and later on a telephone. A table and some borrowed chairs
 
were brought, an open paper-stand and later on a cupboard. Two
 
sideboards, which belonged to the landlord, served to store our
 
leaflets, placards, etc.
 
 
 
As time went on it turned out impossible to direct the course of the
 
movement merely by holding a committee meeting once a week. The current
 
business administration of the movement could not be regularly attended
 
to except we had a salaried official.
 
 
 
But that was then very difficult for us. The movement had still so few
 
members that it was hard to find among them a suitable person for the
 
job who would be content with very little for himself and at the same
 
time would be ready to meet the manifold demands which the movement
 
would make on his time and energy.
 
 
 
After long searching we discovered a soldier who consented to become our
 
first administrator. His name was Schüssler, an old war comrade of mine.
 
At first he came to our new office every day between six and eight
 
o'clock in the evening. Later on he came from five to eight and
 
subsequently for the whole afternoon. Finally it became a full-time job
 
and he worked in the office from morning until late at night. He was an
 
industrious, upright and thoroughly honest man, faithful and devoted to
 
the movement. He brought with him a small Adler typewriter of his own.
 
It was the first machine to be used in the service of the party.
 
Subsequently the party bought it by paying for it in installments. We
 
needed a small safe in order to keep our papers and register of
 
membership from danger of being stolen--not to guard our funds, which
 
did not then exist. On the contrary, our financial position was so
 
miserable that I often had to dip my hand into my own personal savings.
 
 
 
After eighteen months our business quarters had become too small, so we
 
moved to a new place in the Cornelius Strasse. Again our office was in a
 
restaurant, but instead of one room we now had three smaller rooms and
 
one large room with great windows. At that time this appeared a
 
wonderful thing to us. We remained there until the end of November 1923.
 
 
 
In December 1920, we acquired the VÖLKISCHER BEOBACHTER. This newspaper
 
which, as its name implies, championed the claims of the people, was now
 
to become the organ of the German National Socialist Labour Party. At
 
first it appeared twice weekly; but at the beginning of 1928 it became a
 
daily paper, and at the end of August in the same year it began to
 
appear in the large format which is now well known.
 
 
 
As a complete novice in journalism I then learned many a lesson for
 
which I had to pay dearly.
 
 
 
In contradistinction to the enormous number of papers in Jewish hands,
 
there was at that time only one important newspaper that defended the
 
cause of the people. This was a matter for grave consideration. As I
 
have often learned by experience, the reason for that state of things
 
must be attributed to the incompetent way in which the business side of
 
the so-called popular newspapers was managed. These were conducted too
 
much according to the rule that opinion should prevail over action that
 
produces results. Quite a wrong standpoint, for opinion is of itself
 
something internal and finds its best expression in productive activity.
 
The man who does valuable work for his people expresses thereby his
 
excellent sentiments, whereas another who merely talks about his
 
opinions and does nothing that is of real value or use to the people is
 
a person who perverts all right thinking. And that attitude of his is
 
also pernicious for the community.
 
 
 
The VÖLKISCHE BEOBACHTER was a so-called 'popular' organ, as its name
 
indicated. It had all the good qualities, but still more the errors and
 
weaknesses, inherent in all popular institutions. Though its contents
 
were excellent, its management as a business concern was simply
 
impossible. Here also the underlying idea was that popular newspapers
 
ought to be subsidized by popular contributions, without recognizing
 
that it had to make its way in competition with the others and that it
 
was dishonest to expect the subscriptions of good patriots to make up
 
for the mistaken management of the undertaking.
 
 
 
I took care to alter those conditions promptly, for I recognized the
 
danger lurking in them. Luck was on my side here, inasmuch as it brought
 
me the man who since that time has rendered innumerable services to the
 
movement, not only as business manager of the newspaper but also as
 
business manager of the party. In 1914, in the War, I made the
 
acquaintance of Max Amann, who was then my superior and is to-day
 
general business Director of the Party. During four years in the War I
 
had occasion to observe almost continually the unusual ability, the
 
diligence and the rigorous conscientiousness of my future collaborator.
 
 
 
In the summer of 1921 I applied to my old regimental comrade, whom I met
 
one day by chance, and asked him to become business manager of the
 
movement. At that time the movement was passing through a grave crisis
 
and I had reason to be dissatisfied with several of our officials, with
 
one of whom I had had a very bitter experience. Amann then held a good
 
situation in which there were also good prospects for him.
 
 
 
After long hesitation he agreed to my request, but only on condition
 
that he must not be at the mercy of incompetent committees. He must be
 
responsible to one master, and only one.
 
 
 
It is to the inestimable credit of this first business manager of the
 
party, whose commercial knowledge is extensive and profound, that he
 
brought order and probity into the various offices of the party. Since
 
that time these have remained exemplary and cannot be equalled or
 
excelled in this by any other branches of the movement. But, as often
 
happens in life, great ability provokes envy and disfavour. That had
 
also to be expected in this case and borne patiently.
 
 
 
Since 1922 rigorous regulations have been in force, not only for the
 
commercial construction of the movement but also in the organization of
 
it as such. There exists now a central filing system, where the names
 
and particulars of all the members are enrolled. The financing of the
 
party has been placed on sound lines. The current expenditure must be
 
covered by the current receipts and special receipts can be used only
 
for special expenditures. Thus, notwithstanding the difficulties of the
 
time the movement remained practically without any debts, except for a
 
few small current accounts. Indeed, there was a permanent increase in
 
the funds. Things are managed as in a private business. The employed
 
personnel hold their jobs in virtue of their practical efficiency and
 
could not in any manner take cover behind their professed loyalty to the
 
party. A good National Socialist proves his soundness by the readiness,
 
diligence and capability with which he discharges whatever duties are
 
assigned to him in whatever situation he holds within the national
 
community. The man who does not fulfil his duty in the job he holds
 
cannot boast of a loyalty against which he himself really sins.
 
 
 
Adamant against all kinds of outer influence, the new business director
 
of the party firmly maintained the standpoint that there were no
 
sinecure posts in the party administration for followers and members of
 
the movement whose pleasure is not work. A movement which fights so
 
energetically against the corruption introduced into our civil service
 
by the various political parties must be immune from that vice in its
 
own administrative department. It happened that some men were taken on
 
the staff of the paper who had formerly been adherents of the Bavarian
 
People's Party, but their work showed that they were excellently
 
qualified for the job. The result of this experiment was generally
 
excellent. It was owing to this honest and frank recognition of
 
individual efficiency that the movement won the hearts of its employees
 
more swiftly and more profoundly than had ever been the case before.
 
Subsequently they became good National Socialists and remained so. Not
 
in word only, but they proved it by the steady and honest and
 
conscientious work which they performed in the service of the new
 
movement. Naturally a well qualified party member was preferred to
 
another who had equal qualifications but did not belong to the party.
 
The rigid determination with which our new business chief applied these
 
principles and gradually put them into force, despite all
 
misunderstandings, turned out to be of great advantage to the movement.
 
To this we owe the fact that it was possible for us--during the
 
difficult period of the inflation, when thousands of businesses failed
 
and thousands of newspapers had to cease publication--not only to keep
 
the commercial department of the movement going and meet all its
 
obligations but also to make steady progress with the VÖLKISCHE
 
BEOBACHTER. At that time it came to be ranked among the great
 
newspapers.
 
 
 
The year 1921 was of further importance for me by reason of the fact
 
that in my position as chairman of the party I slowly but steadily
 
succeeded in putting a stop to the criticisms and the intrusions of some
 
members of the committee in regard to the detailed activities of the
 
party administration. This was important, because we could not get a
 
capable man to take on a job if nincompoops were constantly allowed to
 
butt in, pretending that they knew everything much better; whereas in
 
reality they had left only general chaos behind them. Then these
 
wise-acres retired, for the most part quite modestly, to seek another
 
field for their activities where they could supervise and tell how
 
things ought to be done. Some men seemed to have a mania for sniffing
 
behind everything and were, so to say, always in a permanent state of
 
pregnancy with magnificent plans and ideas and projects and methods.
 
Naturally their noble aim and ideal were always the formation of a
 
committee which could pretend to be an organ of control in order to be
 
able to sniff as experts into the regular work done by others. But it is
 
offensive and contrary to the spirit of National Socialism when
 
incompetent people constantly interfere in the work of capable persons.
 
But these makers of committees do not take that very much into account.
 
In those years I felt it my duty to safeguard against such annoyance all
 
those who were entrusted with regular and responsible work, so that
 
there should be no spying over the shoulder and they would be guaranteed
 
a free hand in their day's work.
 
 
 
The best means of making committees innocuous, which either did nothing
 
or cooked up impracticable decisions, was to give them some real work to
 
do. It was then amusing to see how the members would silently fade away
 
and were soon nowhere to be found. It made me think of that great
 
institution of the same kind, the Reichstag. How quickly they would
 
evanesce if they were put to some real work instead of talking,
 
especially if each member were made personally responsible for the work
 
assigned to him.
 
 
 
I always demanded that, just as in private life so also in the movement,
 
one should not tire of seeking until the best and honestest and
 
manifestly the most competent person could be found for the position of
 
leader or administrator in each section of the movement. Once installed
 
in his position he was given absolute authority and full freedom of
 
action towards his subordinates and full responsibility towards his
 
superiors. Nobody was placed in a position of authority towards his
 
subordinates unless he himself was competent in the work entrusted to
 
them. In the course of two years I brought my views more and more into
 
practice; so that to-day, at least as far as the higher direction of the
 
movement is concerned, they are accepted as a matter of course.
 
 
 
The manifest success of this attitude was shown on November 9th, 1923.
 
Four years previously, when I entered the movement, it did not have even
 
a rubber stamp. On November 9th, 1923, the party was dissolved and its
 
property confiscated. The total sum realized by all the objects of value
 
and the paper amounted to more than 170,000 gold marks.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER XII
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE PROBLEM OF THE TRADE UNIONS
 
 
 
 
 
Owing to the rapid growth of the movement, in 1922 we felt compelled to
 
take a definite stand on a question which has not been fully solved even
 
yet.
 
 
 
In our efforts to discover the quickest and easiest way for the movement
 
to reach the heart of the broad masses we were always confronted with
 
the objection that the worker could never completely belong to us while
 
his interests in the purely vocational and economic sphere were cared
 
for by a political organization conducted by men whose principles were
 
quite different from ours.
 
 
 
That was quite a serious objection. The general belief was that a
 
workman engaged in some trade or other could not exist if he did not
 
belong to a trade union. Not only were his professional interests thus
 
protected but a guarantee of permanent employment was simply
 
inconceivable without membership in a trade union. The majority of the
 
workers were in the trades unions. Generally speaking, the unions had
 
successfully conducted the battle for the establishment of a definite
 
scale of wages and had concluded agreements which guaranteed the worker
 
a steady income. Undoubtedly the workers in the various trades benefited
 
by the results of that campaign and, for honest men especially,
 
conflicts of conscience must have arisen if they took the wages which
 
had been assured through the struggle fought by the trades unions and if
 
at the same time the men themselves withdrew from the fight.
 
 
 
It was difficult to discuss this problem with the average bourgeois
 
employer. He had no understanding (or did not wish to have any) for
 
either the material or moral side of the question. Finally he declared
 
that his own economic interests were in principle opposed to every kind
 
of organization which joined together the workmen that were dependent on
 
him. Hence it was for the most part impossible to bring these bourgeois
 
employers to take an impartial view of the situation. Here, therefore,
 
as in so many other cases, it was necessary to appeal to disinterested
 
outsiders who would not be subject to the temptation of fixing their
 
attention on the trees and failing to see the forest. With a little good
 
will on their part, they could much more easily understand a state of
 
affairs which is of the highest importance for our present and future
 
existence.
 
 
 
In the first volume of this book I have already expressed my views on
 
the nature and purpose and necessity of trade unions. There I took up
 
the standpoint that unless measures are undertaken by the State (usually
 
futile in such cases) or a new ideal is introduced in our education,
 
which would change the attitude of the employer towards the worker, no
 
other course would be open to the latter except to defend his own
 
interests himself by appealing to his equal rights as a contracting
 
party within the economic sphere of the nation's existence. I stated
 
further that this would conform to the interests of the national
 
community if thereby social injustices could be redressed which
 
otherwise would cause serious damage to the whole social structure. I
 
stated, moreover, that the worker would always find it necessary to
 
undertake this protective action as long as there were men among the
 
employers who had no sense of their social obligations nor even of the
 
most elementary human rights. And I concluded by saying that if such
 
self-defence be considered necessary its form ought to be that of an
 
association made up of the workers themselves on the basis of trades
 
unions.
 
 
 
This was my general idea and it remained the same in 1922. But a clear
 
and precise formula was still to be discovered. We could not be
 
satisfied with merely understanding the problem. It was necessary to
 
come to some conclusions that could be put into practice. The following
 
questions had to be answered:
 
 
 
(1) Are trade unions necessary?
 
 
 
(2) Should the German National Socialist Labour Party itself operate on
 
a trade unionist basis or have its members take part in trade unionist
 
activities in some form or other?
 
 
 
(3) What form should a National Socialist Trades Union take? What are
 
the tasks confronting us and the ends we must try to attain?
 
 
 
(4) How can we establish trade unions for such tasks and aims?
 
 
 
I think that I have already answered the first question adequately. In
 
the present state of affairs I am convinced that we cannot possibly
 
dispense with the trades unions. On the contrary, they are among the
 
most important institutions in the economic life of the nation. Not only
 
are they important in the sphere of social policy but also, and even
 
more so, in the national political sphere. For when the great masses of
 
a nation see their vital needs satisfied through a just trade unionist
 
movement the stamina of the whole nation in its struggle for existence
 
will be enormously reinforced thereby.
 
 
 
Before everything else, the trades unions are necessary as building
 
stones for the future economic parliament, which will be made up of
 
chambers representing the various professions and occupations.
 
 
 
The second question is also easy to answer. If the trade unionist
 
movement is important, then it is clear that National Socialism ought to
 
take a definite stand on that question, not only theoretically but also
 
in practice. But how? That is more difficult to see clearly.
 
 
 
The National Socialist Movement, which aims at establishing the National
 
Socialist People's State, must always bear steadfastly in mind the
 
principle that every future institution under that State must be rooted
 
in the movement itself. It is a great mistake to believe that by
 
acquiring possession of supreme political power we can bring about a
 
definite reorganization, suddenly starting from nothing, without the
 
help of a certain reserve stock of men who have been trained beforehand,
 
especially in the spirit of the movement. Here also the principle holds
 
good that the spirit is always more important than the external form
 
which it animates; since this form can be created mechanically and
 
quickly. For instance, the leadership principle may be imposed on an
 
organized political community in a dictatorial way. But this principle
 
can become a living reality only by passing through the stages that are
 
necessary for its own evolution. These stages lead from the smallest
 
cell of the State organism upwards. As its bearers and representatives,
 
the leadership principle must have a body of men who have passed through
 
a process of selection lasting over several years, who have been
 
tempered by the hard realities of life and thus rendered capable of
 
carrying the principle into practical effect.
 
 
 
It is out of the question to think that a scheme for the Constitution of
 
a State can be pulled out of a portfolio at a moment's notice and
 
'introduced' by imperative orders from above. One may try that kind of
 
thing but the result will always be something that has not sufficient
 
vitality to endure. It will be like a stillborn infant. The idea of it
 
calls to mind the origin of the Weimar Constitution and the attempt to
 
impose on the German people a new Constitution and a new flag, neither
 
of which had any inner relation to the vicissitudes of our people's
 
history during the last half century.
 
 
 
The National Socialist State must guard against all such experiments. It
 
must grow out of an organization which has already existed for a long
 
time. This organization must possess National Socialist life in itself,
 
so that finally it may be able to establish a National Socialist State
 
that will be a living reality.
 
 
 
As I have already said, the germ cells of this State must lie in the
 
administrative chambers which will represent the various occupations and
 
professions, therefore first of all in the trades unions. If this
 
subsequent vocational representation and the Central Economic Parliament
 
are to be National Socialist institutions, these important germ cells
 
must be vehicles of the National Socialist concept of life. The
 
institutions of the movement are to be brought over into the State; for
 
the State cannot call into existence all of a sudden and as if by magic
 
those institutions which are necessary to its existence, unless it
 
wishes to have institutions that are bound to remain completely
 
lifeless.
 
 
 
Looking at the matter from the highest standpoint, the National
 
Socialist Movement will have to recognize the necessity of adopting its
 
own trade-unionist policy.
 
 
 
It must do this for a further reason, namely because a real National
 
Socialist education for the employer as well as for the employee, in the
 
spirit of a mutual co-operation within the common framework of the
 
national community, cannot be secured by theoretical instruction,
 
appeals and exhortations, but through the struggles of daily life. In
 
this spirit and through this spirit the movement must educate the
 
several large economic groups and bring them closer to one another under
 
a wider outlook. Without this preparatory work it would be sheer
 
illusion to hope that a real national community can be brought into
 
existence. The great ideal represented by its philosophy of life and for
 
which the movement fights can alone form a general style of thought
 
steadily and slowly. And this style will show that the new state of
 
things rests on foundations that are internally sound and not merely an
 
external façade.
 
 
 
Hence the movement must adopt a positive attitude towards the
 
trade-unionist idea. But it must go further than this. For the enormous
 
number of members and followers of the trade-unionist movement it must
 
provide a practical education which will meet the exigencies of the
 
coming National Socialist State.
 
 
 
The answer to the third question follows from what has been already
 
said.
 
 
 
The National Socialist Trades Union is not an instrument for class
 
warfare, but a representative organ of the various occupations and
 
callings. The National Socialist State recognizes no 'classes'. But,
 
under the political aspect, it recognizes only citizens with absolutely
 
equal rights and equal obligations corresponding thereto. And, side by
 
side with these, it recognizes subjects of the State who have no
 
political rights whatsoever.
 
 
 
According to the National Socialist concept, it is not the task of the
 
trades union to band together certain men within the national community
 
and thus gradually transform these men into a class, so as to use them
 
in a conflict against other groups similarly organized within the
 
national community. We certainly cannot assign this task to the trades
 
union as such. This was the task assigned to it the moment it became a
 
fighting weapon in the hands of the Marxists. The trades union is not
 
naturally an instrument of class warfare; but the Marxists transformed
 
it into an instrument for use in their own class struggle. They created
 
the economic weapon which the international Jew uses for the purpose of
 
destroying the economic foundations of free and independent national
 
States, for ruining their national industry and trade and thereby
 
enslaving free nations to serve Jewish world-finance, which transcends
 
all State boundaries.
 
 
 
In contradistinction to this, the National Socialist Trades Union must
 
organize definite groups and those who participate in the economic life
 
of the nation and thus enhance the security of the national economic
 
system itself, reinforcing it by the elimination of all those anomalies
 
which ultimately exercise a destructive influence on the social body of
 
the nation, damaging the vital forces of the national community,
 
prejudicing the welfare of the State and, by no means as a last
 
consequence, bringing evil and destruction on economic life itself.
 
 
 
Therefore in the hands of the National Socialist Trades Union the strike
 
is not an instrument for disturbing and dislocating the national
 
production, but for increasing it and making it run smoothly, by
 
fighting against all those annoyances which by reason of their unsocial
 
character hinder efficiency in business and thereby hamper the existence
 
of the whole nation. For individual efficiency stands always in casual
 
relation to the general social and juridical position of the individual
 
in the economic process. Individual efficiency is also the sole root of
 
the conviction that the economic prosperity of the nation must
 
necessarily redound to the benefit of the individual citizen.
 
 
 
The National Socialist employee will have to recognize the fact that the
 
economic prosperity of the nation brings with it his own material
 
happiness.
 
 
 
The National Socialist employer must recognize that the happiness and
 
contentment of his employees are necessary pre-requisites for the
 
existence and development of his own economic prosperity.
 
 
 
National Socialist workers and employers are both together the delegates
 
and mandatories of the whole national community. The large measure of
 
personal freedom which is accorded to them for their activities must be
 
explained by the fact that experience has shown that the productive
 
powers of the individual are more enhanced by being accorded a generous
 
measure of freedom than by coercion from above. Moreover, by according
 
this freedom we give free play to the natural process of selection which
 
brings forward the ablest and most capable and most industrious. For the
 
National Socialist Trades Union, therefore, the strike is a means that
 
may, and indeed must, be resorted to as long as there is not a National
 
Socialist State yet. But when that State is established it will, as a
 
matter of course, abolish the mass struggle between the two great groups
 
made up of employers and employees respectively, a struggle which has
 
always resulted in lessening the national production and injuring the
 
national community. In place of this struggle, the National Socialist
 
State will take over the task of caring for and defending the rights of
 
all parties concerned. It will be the duty of the Economic Chamber
 
itself to keep the national economic system in smooth working order and
 
to remove whatever defects or errors it may suffer from. Questions that
 
are now fought over through a quarrel that involves millions of people
 
will then be settled in the Representative Chambers of Trades and
 
Professions and in the Central Economic Parliament. Thus employers and
 
employees will no longer find themselves drawn into a mutual conflict
 
over wages and hours of work, always to the detriment of their mutual
 
interests. But they will solve these problems together on a higher
 
plane, where the welfare of the national community and of the State will
 
be as a shining ideal to throw light on all their negotiations.
 
 
 
Here again, as everywhere else, the inflexible principle must be
 
observed, that the interests of the country must come before party
 
interests.
 
 
 
The task of the National Socialist Trades Union will be to educate and
 
prepare its members to conform to these ideals. That task may be stated
 
as follows: All must work together for the maintenance and security of
 
our people and the People's State, each one according to the abilities
 
and powers with which Nature has endowed him and which have been
 
developed and trained by the national community.
 
 
 
Our fourth question was: How shall we establish trades unions for such
 
tasks and aims? That is far more difficult to answer.
 
 
 
Generally speaking, it is easier to establish something in new territory
 
than in old territory which already has its established institutions. In
 
a district where there is no existing business of a special character
 
one can easily establish a new business of this character. But it is
 
more difficult if the same kind of enterprise already exists and it is
 
most difficult of all when the conditions are such that only one
 
enterprise of this kind can prosper. For here the promoters of the new
 
enterprise find themselves confronted not only with the problem of
 
introducing their own business but also that of how to bring about the
 
destruction of the other business already existing in the district, so
 
that the new enterprise may be able to exist.
 
 
 
It would be senseless to have a National Socialist Trades Union side by
 
side with other trades unions. For this Trades Union must be thoroughly
 
imbued with a feeling for the ideological nature of its task and of the
 
resulting obligation not to tolerate other similar or hostile
 
institutions. It must also insist that itself alone is necessary, to the
 
exclusion of all the rest. It can come to no arrangement and no
 
compromise with kindred tendencies but must assert its own absolute and
 
exclusive right.
 
 
 
There were two ways which might lead to such a development:
 
 
 
(1) We could establish our Trades Union and then gradually take up the
 
fight against the Marxist International Trades Union.
 
 
 
(2) Or we could enter the Marxist Trades Union and inculcate a new
 
spirit in it, with the idea of transforming it into an instrument in the
 
service of the new ideal.
 
 
 
The first way was not advisable, by reason of the fact that our
 
financial situation was still the cause of much worry to us at that time
 
and our resources were quite slender. The effects of the inflation were
 
steadily spreading and made the particular situation still more
 
difficult for us, because in those years one could scarcely speak of any
 
material help which the trades unions could extend to their members.
 
From this point of view, there was no reason why the individual worker
 
should pay his dues to the union. Even the Marxist unions then existing
 
were already on the point of collapse until, as the result of Herr
 
Cuno's enlightened Ruhr policy, millions were suddenly poured into their
 
coffers. This so-called 'national' Chancellor of the REICH should go
 
down in history as the Redeemer of the Marxist trades unions.
 
 
 
We could not count on similar financial facilities. And nobody could be
 
induced to enter a new Trades Union which, on account of its financial
 
weakness, could not offer him the slightest material benefit. On the
 
other hand, I felt bound absolutely to guard against the creation of
 
such an organization which would only be a shelter for shirkers of the
 
more or less intellectual type.
 
 
 
At that time the question of personnel played the most important role. I
 
did not have a single man whom I might call upon to carry out this
 
important task. Whoever could have succeeded at that time in
 
overthrowing the Marxist unions to make way for the triumph of the
 
National Socialist corporative idea, which would then take the place of
 
the ruinous class warfare--such a person would be fit to rank with the
 
very greatest men our nation has produced and his bust should be
 
installed in the Valhalla at Regensburg for the admiration of posterity.
 
 
 
But I knew of no person who could qualify for such a pedestal.
 
 
 
In this connection we must not be led astray by the fact that the
 
international trades unions are conducted by men of only mediocre
 
significance, for when those unions were founded there was nothing else
 
of a similar kind already in existence. To-day the National Socialist
 
Movement must fight against a monster organization which has existed for
 
a long time, rests on gigantic foundations and is carefully constructed
 
even in the smallest details. An assailant must always exercise more
 
intelligence than the defender, if he is to overthrow the latter. The
 
Marxist trade-unionist citadel may be governed to-day by mediocre
 
leaders, but it cannot be taken by assault except through the dauntless
 
energy and genius of a superior leader on the other side. If such a
 
leader cannot be found it is futile to struggle with Fate and even more
 
foolish to try to overthrow the existing state of things without being
 
able to construct a better in its place.
 
 
 
Here one must apply the maxim that in life it is often better to allow
 
something to go by the board rather than try to half do it or do it
 
badly, owing to a lack of suitable means.
 
 
 
To this we must add another consideration, which is not at all of a
 
demagogic character. At that time I had, and I still have to-day, a
 
firmly rooted conviction that when one is engaged in a great ideological
 
struggle in the political field it would be a grave mistake to mix up
 
economic questions with this struggle in its earlier stages. This
 
applies particularly to our German people. For if such were to happen in
 
their case the economic struggle would immediately distract the energy
 
necessary for the political fight. Once the people are brought to
 
believe that they can buy a little house with their savings they will
 
devote themselves to the task of increasing their savings and no spare
 
time will be left to them for the political struggle against those who,
 
in one way or another, will one day secure possession of the pennies
 
that have been saved. Instead of participating in the political conflict
 
on behalf of the opinions and convictions which they have been brought
 
to accept they will now go further with their 'settlement' idea and in
 
the end they will find themselves for the most part sitting on the
 
ground amidst all the stools.
 
 
 
To-day the National Socialist Movement is at the beginning of its
 
struggle. In great part it must first of all shape and develop its
 
ideals. It must employ every ounce of its energy in the struggle to have
 
its great ideal accepted, and the success of this effort is not
 
conceivable unless the combined energies of the movement be entirely at
 
the service of this struggle.
 
 
 
To-day we have a classical example of how the active strength of a
 
people becomes paralysed when that people is too much taken up with
 
purely economic problems.
 
 
 
The Revolution which took place in November 1918 was not made by the
 
trades unions, but it was carried out in spite of them. And the people
 
of Germany did not wage any political fight for the future of their
 
country because they thought that the future could be sufficiently
 
secured by constructive work in the economic field.
 
 
 
We must learn a lesson from this experience, because in our case the
 
same thing must happen under the same circumstances. The more the
 
combined strength of our movement is concentrated in the political
 
struggle, the more confidently may we count on being successful along
 
our whole front. But if we busy ourselves prematurely with trade
 
unionist problems, settlement problems, etc., it will be to the
 
disadvantage of our own cause, taken as a whole. For, though these
 
problems may be important, they cannot be solved in an adequate manner
 
until we have political power in our hand and are able to use it in the
 
service of this idea. Until that day comes these problems can have only
 
a paralysing effect on the movement. And if it takes them up too soon
 
they will only be a hindrance in the effort to attain its own
 
ideological aims. It may then easily happen that trade unionist
 
considerations will control the political direction of the movement,
 
instead of the ideological aims of the movement directing the way that
 
the trades unions are to take.
 
 
 
The movement and the nation can derive advantage from a National
 
Socialist trade unionist organization only if the latter be so
 
thoroughly inspired by National Socialist ideas that it runs no danger
 
of falling into step behind the Marxist movement. For a National
 
Socialist Trades Union which would consider itself only as a competitor
 
against the Marxist unions would be worse than none. It must declare war
 
against the Marxist Trades Union, not only as an organization but, above
 
all, as an idea. It must declare itself hostile to the idea of class and
 
class warfare and, in place of this, it must declare itself as the
 
defender of the various occupational and professional interests of the
 
German people.
 
 
 
Considered from all these points of view it was not then advisable, nor
 
is it yet advisable, to think of founding our own Trades Union. That
 
seemed clear to me, at least until somebody appeared who was obviously
 
called by fate to solve this particular problem.
 
 
 
Therefore there remained only two possible ways. Either to recommend our
 
own party members to leave the trades unions in which they were enrolled
 
or to remain in them for the moment, with the idea of causing as much
 
destruction in them as possible.
 
 
 
In general, I recommended the latter alternative.
 
 
 
Especially in the year 1922-23 we could easily do that. For, during the
 
period of inflation, the financial advantages which might be reaped from
 
a trades union organization would be negligible, because we could expect
 
to enroll only a few members owing to the undeveloped condition of our
 
movement. The damage which might result from such a policy was all the
 
greater because its bitterest critics and opponents were to be found
 
among the followers of the National Socialist Party.
 
 
 
I had already entirely discountenanced all experiments which were
 
destined from the very beginning to be unsuccessful. I would have
 
considered it criminal to run the risk of depriving a worker of his
 
scant earnings in order to help an organization which, according to my
 
inner conviction, could not promise real advantages to its members.
 
 
 
Should a new political party fade out of existence one day nobody would
 
be injured thereby and some would have profited, but none would have a
 
right to complain. For what each individual contributes to a political
 
movement is given with the idea that it may ultimately come to nothing.
 
But the man who pays his dues to a trade union has the right to expect
 
some guarantee in return. If this is not done, then the directors of
 
such a trade union are swindlers or at least careless people who ought
 
to be brought to a sense of their responsibilities.
 
 
 
We took all these viewpoints into consideration before making our
 
decision in 1922. Others thought otherwise and founded trades unions.
 
They upbraided us for being short-sighted and failing to see into the
 
future. But it did not take long for these organizations to disappear
 
and the result was what would have happened in our own case. But the
 
difference was that we should have deceived neither ourselves nor those
 
who believed in us.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER XIII
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE GERMAN POST-WAR POLICY OF ALLIANCES
 
 
 
 
 
The erratic manner in which the foreign affairs of the REICH were
 
conducted was due to a lack of sound guiding principles for the
 
formation of practical and useful alliances. Not only was this state of
 
affairs continued after the Revolution, but it became even worse.
 
 
 
For the confused state of our political ideas in general before the War
 
may be looked upon as the chief cause of our defective statesmanship;
 
but in the post-War period this cause must be attributed to a lack of
 
honest intentions. It was natural that those parties who had fully
 
achieved their destructive purpose by means of the Revolution should
 
feel that it would not serve their interests if a policy of alliances
 
were adopted which must ultimately result in the restoration of a free
 
German State. A development in this direction would not be in conformity
 
with the purposes of the November crime. It would have interrupted and
 
indeed put an end to the internationalization of German national economy
 
and German Labour. But what was feared most of all was that a successful
 
effort to make the REICH independent of foreign countries might have an
 
influence in domestic politics which one day would turn out disastrous
 
for those who now hold supreme power in the government of the REICH. One
 
cannot imagine the revival of a nation unless that revival be preceded
 
by a process of nationalization. Conversely, every important success in
 
the field of foreign politics must call forth a favourable reaction at
 
home. Experience proves that every struggle for liberty increases the
 
national sentiment and national self-consciousness and therewith gives
 
rise to a keener sensibility towards anti-national elements and
 
tendencies. A state of things, and persons also, that may be tolerated
 
and even pass unnoticed in times of peace will not only become the
 
object of aversion when national enthusiasm is aroused but will even
 
provoke positive opposition, which frequently turns out disastrous for
 
them. In this connection we may recall the spy-scare that became
 
prevalent when the war broke out, when human passion suddenly manifested
 
itself to such a heightened degree as to lead to the most brutal
 
persecutions, often without any justifiable grounds, although everybody
 
knew that the danger resulting from spies is greater during the long
 
periods of peace; but, for obvious reasons, they do not then attract a
 
similar amount of public attention. For this reason the subtle instinct
 
of the State parasites who came to the surface of the national body
 
through the November happenings makes them feel at once that a policy of
 
alliances which would restore the freedom of our people and awaken
 
national sentiment might possibly ruin their own criminal existence.
 
 
 
Thus we may explain the fact that since 1918 the men who have held the
 
reins of government adopted an entirely negative attitude towards
 
foreign affairs and that the business of the State has been almost
 
constantly conducted in a systematic way against the interests of the
 
German nation. For that which at first sight seemed a matter of chance
 
proved, on closer examination, to be a logical advance along the road
 
which was first publicly entered upon by the November Revolution of
 
1918.
 
 
 
Undoubtedly a distinction ought to be made between (1) the responsible
 
administrators of our affairs of State, or rather those who ought to be
 
responsible; (2) the average run of our parliamentary politicasters, and
 
(3) the masses of our people, whose sheepish docility corresponds to
 
their want of intelligence.
 
 
 
The first know what they want. The second fall into line with them,
 
either because they have been already schooled in what is afoot or
 
because they have not the courage to take an uncompromising stand
 
against a course which they know and feel to be detrimental. The third
 
just submit to it because they are too stupid to understand.
 
 
 
While the German National Socialist Labour Party was only a small and
 
practically unknown society, problems of foreign policy could have only
 
a secondary importance in the eyes of many of its members. This was the
 
case especially because our movement has always proclaimed the
 
principle, and must proclaim it, that the freedom of the country in its
 
foreign relations is not a gift that will be bestowed upon us by Heaven
 
or by any earthly Powers, but can only be the fruit of a development of
 
our inner forces. We must first root out the causes which led to our
 
collapse and we must eliminate all those who are profiting by that
 
collapse. Then we shall be in a position to take up the fight for the
 
restoration of our freedom in the management of our foreign relations.
 
 
 
It will be easily understood therefore why we did not attach so much
 
importance to foreign affairs during the early stages of our young
 
movement, but preferred to concentrate on the problem of internal
 
reform.
 
 
 
But when the small and insignificant society expanded and finally grew
 
too large for its first framework, the young organization assumed the
 
importance of a great association and we then felt it incumbent on us to
 
take a definite stand on problems regarding the development of a foreign
 
policy. It was necessary to lay down the main lines of action which
 
would not only be in accord with the fundamental ideas of our
 
WELTANSCHAUUNG but would actually be an expansion of it in the
 
practical world of foreign affairs.
 
 
 
Just because our people have had no political education in matters
 
concerning our relations abroad, it was necessary to teach the leaders
 
in the various sections of our movement, and also the masses of the
 
people, the chief principles which ought to guide the development of our
 
foreign relations. That was one of the first tasks to be accomplished in
 
order to prepare the ground for the practical carrying out of a foreign
 
policy which would win back the independence of the nation in managing
 
its external affairs and thus restore the real sovereignty of the REICH.
 
 
 
The fundamental and guiding principles which we must always bear in mind
 
when studying this question is that foreign policy is only a means to an
 
end and that the sole end to be pursued is the welfare of our own
 
people. Every problem in foreign politics must be considered from this
 
point of view, and this point of view alone. Shall such and such a
 
solution prove advantageous to our people now or in the future, or will
 
it injure their interests? That is the question.
 
 
 
This is the sole preoccupation that must occupy our minds in dealing
 
with a question. Party politics, religious considerations, humanitarian
 
ideals--all such and all other preoccupations must absolutely give way
 
to this.
 
 
 
Before the War the purpose to which German foreign policy should have
 
been devoted was to assure the supply of material necessities for the
 
maintenance of our people and their children. And the way should have
 
been prepared which would lead to this goal. Alliances should have been
 
established which would have proved beneficial to us from this point of
 
view and would have brought us the necessary auxiliary support. The task
 
to be accomplished is the same to-day, but with this difference: In
 
pre-War times it was a question of caring for the maintenance of the
 
German people, backed up by the power which a strong and independent
 
State then possessed, but our task to-day is to make our nation powerful
 
once again by re-establishing a strong and independent State. The
 
re-establishment of such a State is the prerequisite and necessary
 
condition which must be fulfilled in order that we may be able
 
subsequently to put into practice a foreign policy which will serve to
 
guarantee the existence of our people in the future, fulfilling their
 
needs and furnishing them with those necessities of life which they
 
lack. In other words, the aim which Germany ought to pursue to-day in
 
her foreign policy is to prepare the way for the recovery of her liberty
 
to-morrow. In this connection there is a fundamental principle which we
 
must keep steadily before our minds. It is this: The possibility of
 
winning back the independence of a nation is not absolutely bound up
 
with the question of territorial reintegration but it will suffice if a
 
small remnant, no matter how small, of this nation and State will exist,
 
provided it possesses the necessary independence to become not only the
 
vehicle of' the common spirit of the whole people but also to prepare
 
the way for the military fight to reconquer the nation's liberty.
 
 
 
When a people who amount to a hundred million souls tolerate the yoke of
 
common slavery in order to prevent the territory belonging to their
 
State from being broken up and divided, that is worse than if such a
 
State and such a people were dismembered while one fragment still
 
retained its complete independence. Of course, the natural proviso here
 
is that this fragment must be inspired with a consciousness of the
 
solemn duty that devolves upon it, not only to proclaim persistently the
 
inviolable unity of its spiritual and cultural life with that of its
 
detached members but also to prepare the means that are necessary for
 
the military conflict which will finally liberate and re-unite the
 
fragments that are suffering under oppression.
 
 
 
One must also bear in mind the fact that the restoration of lost
 
districts which were formerly parts of the State, both ethnically and
 
politically, must in the first instance be a question of winning back
 
political power and independence for the motherland itself, and that in
 
such cases the special interests of the lost districts must be
 
uncompromisingly regarded as a matter of secondary importance in the
 
face of the one main task, which is to win back the freedom of the
 
central territory. For the detached and oppressed fragments of a nation
 
or an imperial province cannot achieve their liberation through the
 
expression of yearnings and protests on the part of the oppressed and
 
abandoned, but only when the portion which has more or less retained its
 
sovereign independence can resort to the use of force for the purpose of
 
reconquering those territories that once belonged to the common
 
fatherland.
 
 
 
Therefore, in order to reconquer lost territories the first condition to
 
be fulfilled is to work energetically for the increased welfare and
 
reinforcement of the strength of that portion of the State which has
 
remained over after the partition. Thus the unquenchable yearning which
 
slumbers in the hearts of the people must be awakened and restrengthened
 
by bringing new forces to its aid, so that when the hour comes all will
 
be devoted to the one purpose of liberating and uniting the whole
 
people. Therefore, the interests of the separated territories must be
 
subordinated to the one purpose. That one purpose must aim at obtaining
 
for the central remaining portion such a measure of power and might that
 
will enable it to enforce its will on the hostile will of the victor and
 
thus redress the wrong. For flaming protests will not restore the
 
oppressed territories to the bosom of a common REICH. That can be done
 
only through the might of the sword.
 
 
 
The forging of this sword is a work that has to be done through the
 
domestic policy which must be adopted by a national government. To see
 
that the work of forging these arms is assured, and to recruit the men
 
who will bear them, that is the task of the foreign policy.
 
 
 
In the first volume of this book I discussed the inadequacy of our
 
policy of alliances before the War. There were four possible ways to
 
secure the necessary foodstuffs for the maintenance of our people. Of
 
these ways the fourth, which was the most unfavourable, was chosen.
 
Instead of a sound policy of territorial expansion in Europe, our rulers
 
embarked on a policy of colonial and trade expansion. That policy was
 
all the more mistaken inasmuch as they presumed that in this way the
 
danger of an armed conflict would be averted. The result of the attempt
 
to sit on many stools at the same time might have been foreseen. It let
 
us fall to the ground in the midst of them all. And the World War was
 
only the last reckoning presented to the REICH to pay for the failure of
 
its foreign policy.
 
 
 
The right way that should have been taken in those days was the third
 
way I indicated: namely, to increase the strength of the REICH as a
 
Continental Power by the acquisition of new territory in Europe. And at
 
the same time a further expansion, through the subsequent acquisition of
 
colonial territory, might thus be brought within the range of practical
 
politics. Of course, this policy could not have been carried through
 
except in alliance with England, or by devoting such abnormal efforts to
 
the increase of military force and armament that, for forty or fifty
 
years, all cultural undertakings would have to be completely relegated
 
to the background. This responsibility might very well have been
 
undertaken. The cultural importance of a nation is almost always
 
dependent on its political freedom and independence. Political freedom
 
is a prerequisite condition for the existence, or rather the creation,
 
of great cultural undertakings. Accordingly no sacrifice can be too
 
great when there is question of securing the political freedom of a
 
nation. What might have to be deducted from the budget expenses for
 
cultural purposes, in order to meet abnormal demands for increasing the
 
military power of the State, can be generously paid back later on.
 
Indeed, it may be said that after a State has concentrated all its
 
resources in one effort for the purpose of securing its political
 
independence a certain period of ease and renewed equilibrium sets in.
 
And it often happens that the cultural spirit of the nation, which had
 
been heretofore cramped and confined, now suddenly blooms forth. Thus
 
Greece experienced the great Periclean era after the miseries it had
 
suffered during the Persian Wars. And the Roman Republic turned its
 
energies to the cultivation of a higher civilization when it was freed
 
from the stress and worry of the Punic Wars.
 
 
 
Of course, it could not be expected that a parliamentary majority of
 
feckless and stupid people would be capable of deciding on such a
 
resolute policy for the absolute subordination of all other national
 
interests to the one sole task of preparing for a future conflict of
 
arms which would result in establishing the security of the State. The
 
father of Frederick the Great sacrificed everything in order to be ready
 
for that conflict; but the fathers of our absurd parliamentarian
 
democracy, with the Jewish hall-mark, could not do it.
 
 
 
That is why, in pre-War times, the military preparation necessary to
 
enable us to conquer new territory in Europe was only very mediocre, so
 
that it was difficult to obtain the support of really helpful allies.
 
 
 
Those who directed our foreign affairs would not entertain even the idea
 
of systematically preparing for war. They rejected every plan for the
 
acquisition of territory in Europe. And by preferring a policy of
 
colonial and trade expansion, they sacrificed the alliance with England,
 
which was then possible. At the same time they neglected to seek the
 
support of Russia, which would have been a logical proceeding. Finally
 
they stumbled into the World War, abandoned by all except the
 
ill-starred Habsburgs.
 
 
 
The characteristic of our present foreign policy is that it follows no
 
discernible or even intelligible lines of action. Whereas before the War
 
a mistake was made in taking the fourth way that I have mentioned, and
 
this was pursued only in a halfhearted manner, since the Revolution not
 
even the sharpest eye can detect any way that is being followed. Even
 
more than before the War, there is absolutely no such thing as a
 
systematic plan, except the systematic attempts that are made to destroy
 
the last possibility of a national revival.
 
 
 
If we make an impartial examination of the situation existing in Europe
 
to-day as far as concerns the relation of the various Powers to one
 
another, we shall arrive at the following results:
 
 
 
For the past three hundred years the history of our Continent has been
 
definitely determined by England's efforts to keep the European States
 
opposed to one another in an equilibrium of forces, thus assuring the
 
necessary protection of her own rear while she pursued the great aims of
 
British world-policy.
 
 
 
The traditional tendency of British diplomacy ever since the reign of
 
Queen Elizabeth has been to employ systematically every possible means
 
to prevent any one Power from attaining a preponderant position over the
 
other European Powers and, if necessary, to break that preponderance by
 
means of armed intervention. The only parallel to this has been the
 
tradition of the Prussian Army. England has made use of various forces
 
to carry out its purpose, choosing them according to the actual
 
situation or the task to be faced; but the will and determination to use
 
them has always been the same. The more difficult England's position
 
became in the course of history the more the British Imperial Government
 
considered it necessary to maintain a condition of political paralysis
 
among the various European States, as a result of their mutual
 
rivalries. When the North American colonies obtained their political
 
independence it became still more necessary for England to use every
 
effort to establish and maintain the defence of her flank in Europe. In
 
accordance with this policy she reduced Spain and the Netherlands to the
 
position of inferior naval Powers. Having accomplished this, England
 
concentrated all her forces against the increasing strength of France,
 
until she brought about the downfall of Napoleon Bonaparte and therewith
 
destroyed the military hegemony of France, which was the most dangerous
 
rival that England had to fear.
 
 
 
The change of attitude in British statesmanship towards Germany took
 
place only very slowly, not only because the German nation did not
 
represent an obvious danger for England as long as it lacked national
 
unification, but also because public opinion in England, which had been
 
directed to other quarters by a system of propaganda that had been
 
carried out for a long time, could be turned to a new direction only by
 
slow degrees. In order to reach the proposed ends the calmly reflecting
 
statesman had to bow to popular sentiment, which is the most powerful
 
motive-force and is at the same time the most lasting in its energy.
 
When the statesman has attained one of his ends, he must immediately
 
turn his thoughts to others; but only by degrees and the slow work of
 
propaganda can the sentiment of the masses be shaped into an instrument
 
for the attainment of the new aims which their leaders have decided on.
 
 
 
As early as 1870-71 England had decided on the new stand it would take.
 
On certain occasions minor oscillations in that policy were caused by
 
the growing influence of America in the commercial markets of the world
 
and also by the increasing political power of Russia; but,
 
unfortunately, Germany did not take advantage of these and, therefore,
 
the original tendency of British diplomacy was only reinforced.
 
 
 
England looked upon Germany as a Power which was of world importance
 
commercially and politically and which, partly because of its enormous
 
industrial development, assumed such threatening proportions that the
 
two countries already contended against one another in the same sphere
 
and with equal energy. The so-called peaceful conquest of the world by
 
commercial enterprise, which, in the eyes of those who governed our
 
public affairs at that time, represented the highest peak of human
 
wisdom, was just the thing that led English statesmen to adopt a policy
 
of resistance. That this resistance assumed the form of an organized
 
aggression on a vast scale was in full conformity with a type of
 
statesmanship which did not aim at the maintenance of a dubious world
 
peace but aimed at the consolidation of British world-hegemony. In
 
carrying out this policy, England allied herself with those countries
 
which had a definite military importance. And that was in keeping with
 
her traditional caution in estimating the power of her adversary and
 
also in recognizing her own temporary weakness. That line of conduct
 
cannot be called unscrupulous; because such a comprehensive organization
 
for war purposes must not be judged from the heroic point of view but
 
from that of expediency. The object of a diplomatic policy must not be
 
to see that a nation goes down heroically but rather that it survives in
 
a practical way. Hence every road that leads to this goal is opportune
 
and the failure to take it must be looked upon as a criminal neglect of
 
duty.
 
 
 
When the German Revolution took place England's fears of a German world
 
hegemony came to a satisfactory end.
 
 
 
From that time it was not an English interest to see Germany totally
 
cancelled from the geographic map of Europe. On the contrary, the
 
astounding collapse which took place in November 1918 found British
 
diplomacy confronted with a situation which at first appeared untenable.
 
 
 
For four-and-a-half years the British Empire had fought to break the
 
presumed preponderance of a Continental Power. A sudden collapse now
 
happened which removed this Power from the foreground of European
 
affairs. That collapse disclosed itself finally in the lack of even the
 
primordial instinct of self-preservation, so that European equilibrium
 
was destroyed within forty-eight hours. Germany was annihilated and
 
France became the first political Power on the Continent of Europe.
 
 
 
The tremendous propaganda which was carried on during this war for the
 
purpose of encouraging the British public to stick it out to the end
 
aroused all the primitive instincts and passions of the populace and was
 
bound eventually to hang as a leaden weight on the decisions of British
 
statesmen. With the colonial, economical and commercial destruction of
 
Germany, England's war aims were attained. Whatever went beyond those
 
aims was an obstacle to the furtherance of British interests. Only the
 
enemies of England could profit by the disappearance of Germany as a
 
Great Continental Power in Europe. In November 1918, however, and up to
 
the summer of 1919, it was not possible for England to change its
 
diplomatic attitude; because during the long war it had appealed, more
 
than it had ever done before, to the feelings of the populace. In view
 
of the feeling prevalent among its own people, England could not change
 
its foreign policy; and another reason which made that impossible was
 
the military strength to which other European Powers had now attained.
 
France had taken the direction of peace negotiations into her own hands
 
and could impose her law upon the others. During those months of
 
negotiations and bargaining the only Power that could have altered the
 
course which things were taking was Germany herself; but Germany was
 
torn asunder by a civil war, and her so-called statesmen had declared
 
themselves ready to accept any and every dictate imposed on them.
 
 
 
Now, in the comity of nations, when one nation loses its instinct for
 
self-preservation and ceases to be an active member it sinks to the
 
level of an enslaved nation and its territory will have to suffer the
 
fate of a colony.
 
 
 
To prevent the power of France from becoming too great, the only form
 
which English negotiations could take was that of participating in
 
France's lust for aggrandizement.
 
 
 
As a matter of fact, England did not attain the ends for which she went
 
to war. Not only did it turn out impossible to prevent a Continental
 
Power from obtaining a preponderance over the ratio of strength in the
 
Continental State system of Europe, but a large measure of preponderance
 
had been obtained and firmly established.
 
 
 
In 1914 Germany, considered as a military State, was wedged in between
 
two countries, one of which had equal military forces at its disposal
 
and the other had greater military resources. Then there was England's
 
overwhelming supremacy at sea. France and Russia alone hindered and
 
opposed the excessive aggrandizement of Germany. The unfavourable
 
geographical situation of the REICH, from the military point of view,
 
might be looked upon as another coefficient of security against an
 
exaggerated increase of German power. From the naval point of view, the
 
configuration of the coast-line was unfavourable in case of a conflict
 
with England. And though the maritime frontier was short and cramped,
 
the land frontier was widely extended and open.
 
 
 
France's position is different to-day. It is the first military Power
 
without a serious rival on the Continent. It is almost entirely
 
protected by its southern frontier against Spain and Italy. Against
 
Germany it is safeguarded by the prostrate condition of our country. A
 
long stretch of its coast-line faces the vital nervous system of the
 
British Empire. Not only could French aeroplanes and long-range
 
batteries attack the vital centres of the British system, but submarines
 
can threaten the great British commercial routes. A submarine campaign
 
based on France's long Atlantic coast and on the European and North
 
African coasts of the Mediterranean would have disastrous consequences
 
for England.
 
 
 
Thus the political results of the war to prevent the development of
 
German power was the creation of a French hegemony on the Continent. The
 
military result was the consolidation of France as the first Continental
 
Power and the recognition of American equality on the sea. The economic
 
result was the cession of great spheres of British interests to her
 
former allies and associates.
 
 
 
The Balkanization of Europe, up to a certain degree, was desirable and
 
indeed necessary in the light of the traditional policy of Great
 
Britain, just as France desired the Balkanization of Germany.
 
 
 
What England has always desired, and will continue to desire, is to
 
prevent any one Continental Power in Europe from attaining a position of
 
world importance. Therefore England wishes to maintain a definite
 
equilibrium of forces among the European States--for this equilibrium
 
seems a necessary condition of England's world-hegemony.
 
 
 
What France has always desired, and will continue to desire, is to
 
prevent Germany from becoming a homogeneous Power. Therefore France
 
wants to maintain a system of small German States whose forces would
 
balance one another and over which there should be no central
 
government. Then, by acquiring possession of the left bank of the Rhine,
 
she would have fulfilled the pre-requisite conditions for the
 
establishment and security of her hegemony in Europe.
 
 
 
The final aims of French diplomacy must be in perpetual opposition to
 
the final tendencies of British statesmanship.
 
 
 
Taking these considerations as a starting-point, anyone who investigates
 
the possibilities that exist for Germany to find allies must come to the
 
conclusion that there remains no other way of forming an alliance except
 
to approach England. The consequences of England's war policy were and
 
are disastrous for Germany. However, we cannot close our eyes to the
 
fact that, as things stand to-day, the necessary interests of England no
 
longer demand the destruction of Germany. On the contrary, British
 
diplomacy must tend more and more, from year to year, towards curbing
 
France's unbridled lust after hegemony. Now, a policy of alliances
 
cannot be pursued by bearing past grievances in mind, but it can be
 
rendered fruitful by taking account of past experiences. Experience
 
should have taught us that alliances formed for negative purposes suffer
 
from intrinsic weakness. The destinies of nations can be welded together
 
only under the prospect of a common success, of common gain and
 
conquest, in short, a common extension of power for both contracting
 
parties.
 
 
 
The ignorance of our people on questions of foreign politics is clearly
 
demonstrated by the reports in the daily Press which talk about
 
"friendship towards Germany" on the part of one or the other foreign
 
statesman, whereby this professed friendship is taken as a special
 
guarantee that such persons will champion a policy that will be
 
advantageous to our people. That kind of talk is absurd to an incredible
 
degree. It means speculating on the unparalleled simplicity of the
 
average German philistine when he comes to talking politics. There is
 
not any British, American, or Italian statesman who could ever be
 
described as 'pro-German'. Every Englishman must naturally be British
 
first of all. The same is true of every American. And no Italian
 
statesman would be prepared to adopt a policy that was not pro-Italian.
 
Therefore, anyone who expects to form alliances with foreign nations on
 
the basis of a pro-German feeling among the statesmen of other countries
 
is either an ass or a deceiver. The necessary condition for linking
 
together the destinies of nations is never mutual esteem or mutual
 
sympathy, but rather the prospect of advantages accruing to the
 
contracting parties. It is true that a British statesman will always
 
follow a pro-British and not a pro-German policy; but it is also true
 
that certain definite interests involved in this pro-British policy may
 
coincide on various grounds with German interests. Naturally that can be
 
so only to a certain degree and the situation may one day be completely
 
reversed. But the art of statesmanship is shown when at certain periods
 
there is question of reaching a certain end and when allies are found
 
who must take the same road in order to defend their own interests.
 
 
 
The practical application of these principles at the present time must
 
depend on the answer given to the following questions: What States are
 
not vitally interested in the fact that, by the complete abolition of a
 
German Central Europe, the economic and military power of France has
 
reached a position of absolute hegemony? Which are the States that, in
 
consideration of the conditions which are essential to their own
 
existence and in view of the tradition that has hitherto been followed
 
in conducting their foreign policy, envisage such a development as a
 
menace to their own future?
 
 
 
Finally, we must be quite clear on the following point: France is and
 
will remain the implacable enemy of Germany. It does not matter what
 
Governments have ruled or will rule in France, whether Bourbon or
 
Jacobin, Napoleonic or Bourgeois-Democratic, Clerical Republican or Red
 
Bolshevik, their foreign policy will always be directed towards
 
acquiring possession of the Rhine frontier and consolidating France's
 
position on this river by disuniting and dismembering Germany.
 
 
 
England did not want Germany to be a world Power. France desired that
 
there should be no Power called Germany. Therefore there was a very
 
essential difference. To-day we are not fighting for our position as a
 
World-Power but only for the existence of our country, for national
 
unity and the daily bread of our children. Taking this point of view
 
into consideration, only two States remain to us as possible allies in
 
Europe--England and Italy.
 
 
 
England is not pleased to see a France on whose military power there is
 
no check in Europe, so that one day she might undertake the support of a
 
policy which in some way or other might come into conflict with British
 
interests. Nor can England be pleased to see France in possession of
 
such enormous coal and iron mines in Western Europe as would make it
 
possible for her one day to play a role in world-commerce which might
 
threaten danger to British interests. Moreover, England can never be
 
pleased to see a France whose political position on the Continent, owing
 
to the dismemberment of the rest of Europe, seems so absolutely assured
 
that she is not only able to resume a French world-policy on great lines
 
but would even find herself compelled to do so. The bombs which were
 
once dropped by the Zeppelins might be multiplied by the thousand every
 
night. The military predominance of France is a weight that presses
 
heavily on the hearts of the World Empire over which Great Britain
 
rules.
 
 
 
Nor can Italy desire, nor will she desire, any further strengthening of
 
France's power in Europe. The future of Italy will be conditioned by the
 
development of events in the Mediterranean and by the political
 
situation in the area surrounding that sea. The reason that led Italy
 
into the War was not a desire to contribute towards the aggrandizement
 
of France but rather to deal her hated Adriatic rival a mortal blow. Any
 
further increase of France's power on the Continent would hamper the
 
development of Italy's future, and Italy does not deceive herself by
 
thinking that racial kindred between the nations will in any way
 
eliminate rivalries.
 
 
 
Serious and impartial consideration proves that it is these two States,
 
Great Britain and Italy, whose natural interests not only do not
 
contrast with the conditions essential to the existence of the German
 
nation but are identical with them, to a certain extent.
 
 
 
But when we consider the possibilities of alliances we must be careful
 
not to lose sight of three factors. The first factor concerns ourselves;
 
the other two concern the two States I have mentioned.
 
 
 
Is it at all possible to conclude an alliance with Germany as it is
 
to-day? Can a Power which would enter into an alliance for the purpose
 
of securing assistance in an effort to carry out its own OFFENSIVE
 
aims--can such a Power form an alliance with a State whose rulers have
 
for years long presented a spectacle of deplorable incompetence and
 
pacifist cowardice and where the majority of the people, blinded by
 
democratic and Marxist teachings, betray the interests of their own
 
people and country in a manner that cries to Heaven for vengeance? As
 
things stand to-day, can any Power hope to establish useful relations
 
and hope to fight together for the furtherance of their common interests
 
with this State which manifestly has neither the will nor the courage to
 
move a finger even in the defence of its bare existence? Take the case
 
of a Power for which an alliance must be much more than a pact to
 
guarantee a state of slow decomposition, such as happened with the old
 
and disastrous Triple Alliance. Can such a Power associate itself for
 
life or death with a State whose most characteristic signs of activity
 
consist of a rampant servility in external relations and a scandalous
 
repression of the national spirit at home? Can such a Power be
 
associated with a State in which there is nothing of greatness, because
 
its whole policy does not deserve it? Or can alliances be made with
 
Governments which are in the hands of men who are despised by their own
 
fellow-citizens and consequently are not respected abroad?
 
 
 
No. A self-respecting Power which expects something more from alliances
 
than commissions for greedy Parliamentarians will not and cannot enter
 
into an alliance with our present-day Germany. Our present inability to
 
form alliances furnishes the principle and most solid basis for the
 
combined action of the enemies who are robbing us. Because Germany does
 
not defend itself in any other way except by the flamboyant protests of
 
our parliamentarian elect, there is no reason why the rest of the world
 
should take up the fight in our defence. And God does not follow the
 
principle of granting freedom to a nation of cowards, despite all the
 
implications of our 'patriotic' associations. Therefore, for those
 
States which have not a direct interest in our annihilation no other
 
course remains open except to participate in France's campaign of
 
plunder, at least to make it impossible for the strength of France to be
 
exclusively aggrandized thereby.
 
 
 
In the second place, we must not forget that among the nations which
 
were formerly our enemies mass-propaganda has turned the opinions and
 
feelings of large sections of the population in a fixed direction. When
 
for years long a foreign nation has been presented to the public as a
 
horde of 'Huns', 'Robbers', 'Vandals', etc., they cannot suddenly be
 
presented as something different, and the enemy of yesterday cannot be
 
recommended as the ally of tomorrow.
 
 
 
But the third factor deserves greater attention, since it is of
 
essential importance for establishing future alliances in Europe.
 
 
 
From the political point of view it is not in the interests of Great
 
Britain that Germany should be ruined even still more, but such a
 
proceeding would be very much in the interests of the international
 
money-markets manipulated by the Jew. The cleavage between the official,
 
or rather traditional, British statesmanship and the controlling
 
influence of the Jew on the money-markets is nowhere so clearly
 
manifested as in the various attitudes taken towards problems of British
 
foreign policy. Contrary to the interests and welfare of the British
 
State, Jewish finance demands not only the absolute economic destruction
 
of Germany but its complete political enslavement. The
 
internationalization of our German economic system, that is to say, the
 
transference of our productive forces to the control of Jewish
 
international finance, can be completely carried out only in a State
 
that has been politically Bolshevized. But the Marxist fighting forces,
 
commanded by international and Jewish stock-exchange capital, cannot
 
finally smash the national resistance in Germany without friendly help
 
from outside. For this purpose French armies would first have to invade
 
and overcome the territory of the German REICH until a state of
 
international chaos would set in, and then the country would have to
 
succumb to Bolshevik storm troops in the service of Jewish international
 
finance.
 
 
 
Hence it is that at the present time the Jew is the great agitator for
 
the complete destruction of Germany. Whenever we read of attacks against
 
Germany taking place in any part of the world the Jew is always the
 
instigator. In peace-time, as well as during the War, the Jewish-Marxist
 
stock-exchange Press systematically stirred up hatred against Germany,
 
until one State after another abandoned its neutrality and placed itself
 
at the service of the world coalition, even against the real interests
 
of its own people.
 
 
 
The Jewish way of reasoning thus becomes quite clear. The Bolshevization
 
of Germany, that is to say, the extermination of the patriotic and
 
national German intellectuals, thus making it possible to force German
 
Labour to bear the yoke of international Jewish finance--that is only
 
the overture to the movement for expanding Jewish power on a wider scale
 
and finally subjugating the world to its rule. As has so often happened
 
in history, Germany is the chief pivot of this formidable struggle. If
 
our people and our State should fall victims to these oppressors of the
 
nations, lusting after blood and money, the whole earth would become the
 
prey of that hydra. Should Germany be freed from its grip, a great
 
menace for the nations of the world would thereby be eliminated.
 
 
 
It is certain that Jewry uses all its subterranean activities not only
 
for the purpose of keeping alive old national enmities against Germany
 
but even to spread them farther and render them more acute wherever
 
possible. It is no less certain that these activities are only very
 
partially in keeping with the true interests of the nations among whose
 
people the poison is spread. As a general principle, Jewry carries on
 
its campaign in the various countries by the use of arguments that are
 
best calculated to appeal to the mentality of the respective nations and
 
are most likely to produce the desired results; for Jewry knows what the
 
public feeling is in each country. Our national stock has been so much
 
adulterated by the mixture of alien elements that, in its fight for
 
power, Jewry can make use of the more or less 'cosmopolitan' circles
 
which exist among us, inspired by the pacifist and international
 
ideologies. In France they exploit the well-known and accurately
 
estimated chauvinistic spirit. In England they exploit the commercial
 
and world-political outlook. In short, they always work upon the
 
essential characteristics that belong to the mentality of each nation.
 
When they have in this way achieved a decisive influence in the
 
political and economic spheres they can drop the limitations which their
 
former tactics necessitated, now disclosing their real intentions and
 
the ends for which they are fighting. Their work of destruction now goes
 
ahead more quickly, reducing one State after another to a mass of ruins
 
on which they will erect the everlasting and sovereign Jewish Empire.
 
 
 
In England, and in Italy, the contrast between the better kind of solid
 
statesmanship and the policy of the Jewish stock-exchange often becomes
 
strikingly evident.
 
 
 
Only in France there exists to-day more than ever before a profound
 
accord between the views of the stock-exchange, controlled by the Jews,
 
and the chauvinistic policy pursued by French statesmen. This identity
 
of views constitutes an immense, danger for Germany. And it is just for
 
this reason that France is and will remain by far the most dangerous
 
enemy. The French people, who are becoming more and more obsessed by
 
negroid ideas, represent a threatening menace to the existence of the
 
white race in Europe, because they are bound up with the Jewish campaign
 
for world-domination. For the contamination caused by the influx of
 
negroid blood on the Rhine, in the very heart of Europe, is in accord
 
with the sadist and perverse lust for vengeance on the part of the
 
hereditary enemy of our people, just as it suits the purpose of the cool
 
calculating Jew who would use this means of introducing a process of
 
bastardization in the very centre of the European Continent and, by
 
infecting the white race with the blood of an inferior stock, would
 
destroy the foundations of its independent existence.
 
 
 
France's activities in Europe to-day, spurred on by the French lust for
 
vengeance and systematically directed by the Jew, are a criminal attack
 
against the life of the white race and will one day arouse against the
 
French people a spirit of vengeance among a generation which will have
 
recognized the original sin of mankind in this racial pollution.
 
 
 
As far as concerns Germany, the danger which France represents involves
 
the duty of relegating all sentiment to a subordinate place and
 
extending the hand to those who are threatened with the same menace and
 
who are not willing to suffer or tolerate France's lust for hegemony.
 
 
 
For a long time yet to come there will be only two Powers in Europe with
 
which it may be possible for Germany to conclude an alliance. These
 
Powers are Great Britain and Italy.
 
 
 
If we take the trouble to cast a glance backwards on the way in which
 
German foreign policy has been conducted since the Revolution we must,
 
in view of the constant and incomprehensible acts of submission on the
 
part. of our governments, either lose heart or become fired with rage
 
and take up the cudgels against such a regime. Their way of acting
 
cannot be attributed to a want of understanding, because what seemed to
 
every thinking man to be inconceivable was accomplished by the leaders
 
of the November parties with their Cyclopean intellects. They bowed to
 
France and begged her favour. Yes, during all these recent years, with
 
the touching simplicity of incorrigible visionaries, they went on their
 
knees to France again and again. They perpetuaily wagged their tails
 
before the GRANDE NATION. And in each trick-o'-the-loop which the French
 
hangmen performed with his rope they recognized a visible change of
 
feeling. Our real political wire-pullers never shared in this absurd
 
credulity. The idea of establishing a friendship with France was for
 
them only a means of thwarting every attempt on Germany's part to adopt
 
a practical policy of alliances. They had no illusions about French aims
 
or those of the men behind the scenes in France. What induced them to
 
take up such an attitude and to act as if they honestly believed that
 
the fate of Germany could possibly be changed in this way was the cool
 
calculation that if this did not happen our people might take the reins
 
into their own hands and choose another road.
 
 
 
Of course it is difficult for us to propose England as our possible ally
 
in the future. Our Jewish Press has always been adept in concentrating
 
hatred against England particularly. And many of our good German
 
simpletons perch on these branches which the Jews have limed to capture
 
them. They babble about a restoration of German sea power and protest
 
against the robbery of our colonies. Thus they furnish material which
 
the contriving Jew transmits to his clansmen in England, so that it can
 
be used there for purposes of practical propaganda. For our
 
simple-minded bourgeoisie who indulge in politics can take in only
 
little by little the idea that to-day we have not to fight for
 
'sea-power' and such things. Even before the War it was absurd to direct
 
the national energies of Germany towards this end without first having
 
secured our position in Europe. Such a hope to-day reaches that peak of
 
absurdity which may be called criminal in the domain of politics.
 
 
 
Often one becomes really desperate on seeing how the Jewish wire-pullers
 
succeeded in concentrating the attention of the people on things which
 
are only of secondary importance to-day, They incited the people to
 
demonstrations and protests while at the same time France was tearing
 
our nation asunder bit by bit and systematically removing the very
 
foundations of our national independence.
 
 
 
In this connection I have to think of the Wooden Horse in the riding of
 
which the Jew showed extraordinary skill during these years. I mean
 
South Tyrol.
 
 
 
Yes, South Tyrol. The reason why I take up this question here is just
 
because I want to call to account that shameful CANAILLE who relied on
 
the ignorance and short memories of large sections of our people and
 
stimulated a national indignation which is as foreign to the real
 
character of our parliamentary impostors as the idea of respect for
 
private property is to a magpie.
 
 
 
I should like to state here that I was one of those who, at the time
 
when the fate of South Tyrol was being decided--that is to say, from
 
August 1914 to November 1918--took my place where that country also
 
could have been effectively defended, namely, in the Army. I did my
 
share in the fighting during those years, not merely to save South Tyrol
 
from being lost but also to save every other German province for the
 
Fatherland.
 
 
 
The parliamentary sharpers did not take part in that combat. The whole
 
CANAILLE played party politics. On the other hand, we carried on the
 
fight in the belief that a victorious issue of the War would enable the
 
German nation to keep South Tyrol also; but the loud-mouthed traitor
 
carried on a seditious agitation against such a victorious issue, until
 
the fighting Siegfried succumbed to the dagger plunged in his back. It
 
was only natural that the inflammatory and hypocritical speeches of the
 
elegantly dressed parliamentarians on the Vienna RATHAUS PLATZ or in
 
front of the FELDHERRNHALLE in Munich could not save South Tyrol for
 
Germany. That could be done only by the fighting battalions at the
 
Front. Those who broke up that fighting front betrayed South Tyrol, as
 
well as the other districts of Germany.
 
 
 
Anyone who thinks that the South Tyrol question can be solved to-day by
 
protests and manifestations and processions organized by various
 
associations is either a humbug or merely a German philistine.
 
 
 
In this regard it must be quite clearly understood that we cannot get
 
back the territories we have lost if we depend on solemn imprecations
 
before the throne of the Almighty God or on pious hopes in a League of
 
Nations, but only by the force of arms.
 
 
 
Therefore the only remaining question is: Who is ready to take up arms
 
for the restoration of the lost territories?
 
 
 
As far as concerns myself personally, I can state with a good conscience
 
that I would have courage enough to take part in a campaign for the
 
reconquest of South Tyrol, at the head of parliamentarian storm
 
battalions consisting of parliamentarian gasconaders and all the party
 
leaders, also the various Councillors of State. Only the Devil knows
 
whether I might have the luck of seeing a few shells suddenly burst over
 
this 'burning' demonstration of protest. I think that if a fox were to
 
break into a poultry yard his presence would not provoke such a
 
helter-skelter and rush to cover as we should witness in the band of
 
'protesters'.
 
 
 
The vilest part of it all is that these talkers themselves do not
 
believe that anything can be achieved in this way. Each one of them
 
knows very well how harmless and ineffective their whole pretence is.
 
They do it only because it is easier now to babble about the restoration
 
of South Tyrol than to fight for its preservation in days gone by.
 
 
 
Each one plays the part that he is best capable of playing in life. In
 
those days we offered our blood. To-day these people are engaged in
 
whetting their tusks.
 
 
 
It is particularly interesting to note to-day how legitimist circles in
 
Vienna preen themselves on their work for the restoration of South
 
Tyrol. Seven years ago their august and illustrious Dynasty helped, by
 
an act of perjury and treason, to make it possible for the victorious
 
world-coalition to take away South Tyrol. At that time these circles
 
supported the perfidious policy adopted by their Dynasty and did not
 
trouble themselves in the least about the fate of South Tyrol or any
 
other province. Naturally it is easier to-day to take up the fight for
 
this territory, since the present struggle is waged with 'the weapons of
 
the mind'. Anyhow, it is easier to join in a 'meeting of protestation'
 
and talk yourself hoarse in giving vent to the noble indignation that
 
fills your breast, or stain your finger with the writing of a newspaper
 
article, than to blow up a bridge, for instance, during the occupation
 
of the Ruhr.
 
 
 
The reason why certain circles have made the question of South Tyrol the
 
pivot of German-Italian relations during the past few years is quite
 
evident. Jews and Habsburg legitimists are greatly interested in
 
preventing Germany from pursuing a policy of alliance which might lead
 
one day to the resurgence of a free German fatherland. It is not out of
 
love for South Tyrol that they play this role to-day--for their policy
 
would turn out detrimental rather than helpful to the interests of that
 
province--but through fear of an agreement being established between
 
Germany and Italy.
 
 
 
A tendency towards lying and calumny lies in the nature of these people,
 
and that explains how they can calmly and brazenly attempt to twist
 
things in such a way as to make it appear that we have 'betrayed' South
 
Tyrol.
 
 
 
There is one clear answer that must be given to these gentlemen. It is
 
this: Tyrol has been betrayed, in the first place, by every German who
 
was sound in limb and body and did not offer himself for service at the
 
Front during 1914-1918 to do his duty towards his country.
 
 
 
In the second place, Tyrol was betrayed by every man who, during those
 
years did not help to reinforce the national spirit and the national
 
powers of resistance, so as to enable the country to carry through the
 
War and keep up the fight to the very end.
 
 
 
In the third place, South Tyrol was betrayed by everyone who took part
 
in the November Revolution, either directly by his act or indirectly by
 
a cowardly toleration of it, and thus broke the sole weapon that could
 
have saved South Tyrol.
 
 
 
In the fourth place, South Tyrol was betrayed by those parties and their
 
adherents who put their signatures to the disgraceful treaties of
 
Versailles and St. Germain.
 
 
 
And so the matter stands, my brave gentlemen, who make your protests
 
only with words.
 
 
 
To-day I am guided by a calm and cool recognition of the fact that the
 
lost territories cannot be won back by the whetted tongues of
 
parliamentary spouters but only by the whetted sword; in other words,
 
through a fight where blood will have to be shed.
 
 
 
Now, I have no hesitations in saying that to-day, once the die has been
 
cast, it is not only impossible to win back South Tyrol through a war
 
but I should definitely take my stand against such a movement, because I
 
am convinced that it would not be possible to arouse the national
 
enthusiasm of the German people and maintain it in such a way as would
 
be necessary in order to carry through such a war to a successful issue.
 
On the contrary, I believe that if we have to shed German blood once
 
again it would be criminal to do so for the sake of liberating 200,000
 
Germans, when more than seven million neighbouring Germans are suffering
 
under foreign domination and a vital artery of the German nation has
 
become a playground for hordes of African niggers.
 
 
 
If the German nation is to put an end to a state of things which
 
threatens to wipe it off the map of Europe it must not fall into the
 
errors of the pre-War period and make the whole world its enemy. But it
 
must ascertain who is its most dangerous enemy so that it can
 
concentrate all its forces in a struggle to beat him. And if, in order
 
to carry through this struggle to victory, sacrifices should be made in
 
other quarters, future generations will not condemn us for that. They
 
will take account of the miseries and anxieties which led us to make
 
such a bitter decision, and in the light of that consideration they will
 
more clearly recognize the brilliancy of our success.
 
 
 
Again I must say here that we must always be guided by the fundamental
 
principle that, as a preliminary to winning back lost provinces, the
 
political independence and strength of the motherland must first be
 
restored.
 
 
 
The first task which has to be accomplished is to make that independence
 
possible and to secure it by a wise policy of alliances, which
 
presupposes an energetic management of our public affairs.
 
 
 
But it is just on this point that we, National Socialists, have to guard
 
against being dragged into the tow of our ranting bourgeois patriots who
 
take their cue from the Jew. It would be a disaster if, instead of
 
preparing for the coming struggle, our Movement also were to busy itself
 
with mere protests by word of mouth.
 
 
 
It was the fantastic idea of a Nibelungen alliance with the decomposed
 
body of the Habsburg State that brought about Germany's ruin. Fantastic
 
sentimentality in dealing with the possibilities of foreign policy
 
to-day would be the best means of preventing our revival for innumerable
 
years to come.
 
 
 
Here I must briefly answer the objections which may be raised in regard
 
to the three questions I have put.
 
 
 
1. Is it possible at all to form an alliance with the present Germany,
 
whose weakness is so visible to all eyes?
 
 
 
2. Can the ex-enemy nations change their attitude towards Germany?
 
 
 
3. In other nations is not the influence of Jewry stronger than the
 
recognition of their own interests, and does not this influence thwart
 
all their good intentions and render all their plans futile?
 
 
 
I think that I have already dealt adequately with one of the two aspects
 
of the first point. Of course nobody will enter into an alliance with
 
the present Germany. No Power in the world would link its fortunes with
 
a State whose government does not afford grounds for the slightest
 
confidence. As regards the attempt which has been made by many of our
 
compatriots to explain the conduct of the Government by referring to the
 
woeful state of public feeling and thus excuse such conduct, I must
 
strongly object to that way of looking at things.
 
 
 
The lack of character which our people have shown during the last six
 
years is deeply distressing. The indifference with which they have
 
treated the most urgent necessities of our nation might veritably lead
 
one to despair. Their cowardice is such that it often cries to heaven
 
for vengeance. But one must never forget that we are dealing with a
 
people who gave to the world, a few years previously, an admirable
 
example of the highest human qualities. From the first days of August
 
1914 to the end of the tremendous struggle between the nations, no
 
people in the world gave a better proof of manly courage, tenacity and
 
patient endurance, than this people gave who are so cast down and
 
dispirited to-day. Nobody will dare to assert that the lack of character
 
among our people to-day is typical of them. What we have to endure
 
to-day, among us and around us, is due only to the influence of the sad
 
and distressing effects that followed the high treason committed on
 
November 9th, 1918. More than ever before the word of the poet is true:
 
that evil can only give rise to evil. But even in this epoch those
 
qualities among our people which are fundamentally sound are not
 
entirely lost. They slumber in the depths of the national conscience,
 
and sometimes in the clouded firmament we see certain qualities like
 
shining lights which Germany will one day remember as the first symptoms
 
of a revival. We often see young Germans assembling and forming
 
determined resolutions, as they did in 1914, freely and willingly to
 
offer themselves as a sacrifice on the altar of their beloved
 
Fatherland. Millions of men have resumed work, whole-heartedly and
 
zealously, as if no revolution had ever affected them. The smith is at
 
his anvil once again. And the farmer drives his plough. The scientist is
 
in his laboratory. And everybody is once again attending to his duty
 
with the same zeal and devotion as formerly.
 
 
 
The oppression which we suffer from at the hands of our enemies is no
 
longer taken, as it formerly was, as a matter for laughter; but it is
 
resented with bitterness and anger. There can be no doubt that a great
 
change of attitude has taken place.
 
 
 
This evolution has not yet taken the shape of a conscious intention and
 
movement to restore the political power and independence of our nation;
 
but the blame for this must be attributed to those utterly incompetent
 
people who have no natural endowments to qualify them for statesmanship
 
and yet have been governing our nation since 1918 and leading it to
 
ruin.
 
 
 
Yes. If anybody accuses our people to-day he ought to be asked: What is
 
being done to help them? What are we to say of the poor support which
 
the people give to any measures introduced by the Government? Is it not
 
true that such a thing as a Government hardly exists at all? And must we
 
consider the poor support which it receives as a sign of a lack of
 
vitality in the nation itself; or is it not rather a proof of the
 
complete failure of the methods employed in the management of this
 
valuable trust? What have our Governments done to re-awaken in the
 
nation a proud spirit of self-assertion, up-standing manliness, and a
 
spirit of righteous defiance towards its enemies?
 
 
 
In 1919, when the Peace Treaty was imposed on the German nation, there
 
were grounds for hoping that this instrument of unrestricted oppression
 
would help to reinforce the outcry for the freedom of Germany. Peace
 
treaties which make demands that fall like a whip-lash on the people
 
turn out not infrequently to be the signal of a future revival.
 
 
 
To what purpose could the Treaty of Versailles have been exploited?
 
 
 
In the hands of a willing Government, how could this instrument of
 
unlimited blackmail and shameful humiliation have been applied for the
 
purpose of arousing national sentiment to its highest pitch? How could a
 
well-directed system of propaganda have utilized the sadist cruelty of
 
that treaty so as to change the indifference of the people to a feeling
 
of indignation and transform that indignation into a spirit of dauntless
 
resistance?
 
 
 
Each point of that Treaty could have been engraved on the minds and
 
hearts of the German people and burned into them until sixty million men
 
and women would find their souls aflame with a feeling of rage and
 
shame; and a torrent of fire would burst forth as from a furnace, and
 
one common will would be forged from it, like a sword of steel. Then the
 
people would join in the common cry: "To arms again!"
 
 
 
Yes. A treaty of that kind can be used for such a purpose. Its unbounded
 
oppression and its impudent demands were an excellent propaganda weapon
 
to arouse the sluggish spirit of the nation and restore its vitality.
 
 
 
Then, from the child's story-book to the last newspaper in the country,
 
and every theatre and cinema, every pillar where placards are posted and
 
every free space on the hoardings should be utilized in the service of
 
this one great mission, until the faint-hearted cry, "Lord, deliver us,"
 
which our patriotic associations send up to Heaven to-day would be
 
transformed into an ardent prayer: "Almighty God, bless our arms when
 
the hour comes. Be just, as Thou hast always been just. Judge now if we
 
deserve our freedom. Lord, bless our struggle."
 
 
 
All opportunities were neglected and nothing was done.
 
 
 
Who will be surprised now if our people are not such as they should be
 
or might be? The rest of the world looks upon us only as its valet, or
 
as a kindly dog that will lick its master's hand after he has been
 
whipped.
 
 
 
Of course the possibilities of forming alliances with other nations are
 
hampered by the indifference of our own people, but much more by our
 
Governments. They have been and are so corrupt that now, after eight
 
years of indescribable oppression, there exists only a faint desire for
 
liberty.
 
 
 
In order that our nation may undertake a policy of alliances, it must
 
restore its prestige among other nations, and it must have an
 
authoritative Government that is not a drudge in the service of foreign
 
States and the taskmaster of its own people, but rather the herald of
 
the national will.
 
 
 
If our people had a government which would look upon this as its
 
mission, six years would not have passed before a courageous foreign
 
policy on the part of the REICH would find a corresponding support among
 
the people, whose desire for freedom would be encouraged and intensified
 
thereby.
 
 
 
The third objection referred to the difficulty of changing the ex-enemy
 
nations into friendly allies. That objection may be answered as follows:
 
 
 
The general anti-German psychosis which has developed in other countries
 
through the war propaganda must of necessity continue to exist as long
 
as there is not a renaissance of the national conscience among the
 
German people, so that the German REICH may once again become a State
 
which is able to play its part on the chess-board of European politics
 
and with whom the others feel that they can play. Only when the
 
Government and the people feel absolutely certain of being able to
 
undertake a policy of alliances can one Power or another, whose
 
interests coincide with ours, think of instituting a system of
 
propaganda for the purpose of changing public opinion among its own
 
people. Naturally it will take several years of persevering and ably
 
directed work to reach such a result. Just because a long period is
 
needed in order to change the public opinion of a country, it is
 
necessary to reflect calmly before such an enterprise be undertaken.
 
This means that one must not enter upon this kind of work unless one is
 
absolutely convinced that it is worth the trouble and that it will bring
 
results which will be valuable in the future. One must not try to change
 
the opinions and feelings of a people by basing one's actions on the
 
vain cajolery of a more or less brilliant Foreign Minister, but only if
 
there be a tangible guarantee that the new orientation will be really
 
useful. Otherwise public opinion in the country dealt with may be just
 
thrown into a state of complete confusion. The most reliable guarantee
 
that can be given for the possibility of subsequently entering into an
 
alliance with a certain State cannot be found in the loquacious suavity
 
of some individual member of the Government, but in the manifest
 
stability of a definite and practical policy on the part of the
 
Government as a whole, and in the support which is given to that policy
 
by the public opinion of the country. The faith of the public in this
 
policy will be strengthened all the more if the Government organize one
 
active propaganda to explain its efforts and secure public support for
 
them, and if public opinion favourably responds to the Government's
 
policy.
 
 
 
Therefore a nation in such a position as ours will be looked upon as a
 
possible ally if public opinion supports the Government's policy and if
 
both are united in the same enthusiastic determination to carry through
 
the fight for national freedom. That condition of affairs must be firmly
 
established before any attempt can be made to change public opinion in
 
other countries which, for the sake of defending their most elementary
 
interests, are disposed to take the road shoulder-to-shoulder with a
 
companion who seems able to play his part in defending those interests.
 
In other words, this means that they will be ready to establish an
 
alliance.
 
 
 
For this purpose, however, one thing is necessary. Seeing that the task
 
of bringing about a radical change in the public opinion of a country
 
calls for hard work, and many do not at first understand what it means,
 
it would be both foolish and criminal to commit mistakes which could be
 
used as weapons in the hands of those who are opposed to such a change.
 
 
 
One must recognize the fact that it takes a long time for a people to
 
understand completely the inner purposes which a Government has in view,
 
because it is not possible to explain the ultimate aims of the
 
preparations that are being made to carry through a certain policy. In
 
such cases the Government has to count on the blind faith of the masses
 
or the intuitive instinct of the ruling caste that is more developed
 
intellectually. But since many people lack this insight, this political
 
acumen and faculty for seeing into the trend of affairs, and since
 
political considerations forbid a public explanation of why such and
 
such a course is being followed, a certain number of leaders in
 
intellectual circles will always oppose new tendencies which, because
 
they are not easily grasped, can be pointed to as mere experiments. And
 
that attitude arouses opposition among conservative circles regarding
 
the measures in question.
 
 
 
For this reason a strict duty devolves upon everybody not to allow any
 
weapon to fall into the hands of those who would interfere with the work
 
of bringing about a mutual understanding with other nations. This is
 
specially so in our case, where we have to deal with the pretentions and
 
fantastic talk of our patriotic associations and our small bourgeoisie
 
who talk politics in the cafes. That the cry for a new war fleet, the
 
restoration of our colonies, etc., has no chance of ever being carried
 
out in practice will not be denied by anyone who thinks over the matter
 
calmly and seriously. These harmless and sometimes half-crazy spouters
 
in the war of protests are serving the interests of our mortal enemy,
 
while the manner in which their vapourings are exploited for political
 
purposes in England cannot be considered as advantageous to Germany.
 
 
 
They squander their energies in futile demonstrations against the whole
 
world. These demonstrations are harmful to our interests and those who
 
indulge in them forget the fundamental principle which is a preliminary
 
condition of all success. What thou doest, do it thoroughly. Because we
 
keep on howling against five or ten States we fail to concentrate all
 
the forces of our national will and our physical strength for a blow at
 
the heart of our bitterest enemy. And in this way we sacrifice the
 
possibility of securing an alliance which would reinforce our strength
 
for that decisive conflict.
 
 
 
Here, too, there is a mission for National Socialism to fulfil. It must
 
teach our people not to fix their attention on the little things but
 
rather on the great things, not to exhaust their energies on secondary
 
objects, and not to forget that the object we shall have to fight for
 
one day is the bare existence of our people and that the sole enemy we
 
shall have to strike at is that Power which is robbing us of this
 
existence.
 
 
 
It may be that we shall have many a heavy burden to bear. But this is by
 
no means an excuse for refusing to listen to reason and raise
 
nonsensical outcries against the rest of the world, instead of
 
concentrating all our forces against the most deadly enemy.
 
 
 
Moreover, the German people will have no moral right to complain of the
 
manner in which the rest of the world acts towards them, as long as they
 
themselves have not called to account those criminals who sold and
 
betrayed their own country. We cannot hope to be taken very seriously if
 
we indulge in long-range abuse and protests against England and Italy
 
and then allow those scoundrels to circulate undisturbed in our own
 
country who were in the pay of the enemy war propaganda, took the
 
weapons out of our hands, broke the backbone of our resistance and
 
bartered away the REICH for thirty pieces of silver.
 
 
 
The enemy did only what was expected. And we ought to learn from the
 
stand he took and the way he acted.
 
 
 
Anyone who cannot rise to the level of this outlook must reflect that
 
otherwise there would remain nothing else than to renounce the idea of
 
adopting any policy of alliances for the future. For if we cannot form
 
an alliance with England because she has robbed us of our colonies, or
 
with Italy because she has taken possession of South Tyrol, or with
 
Poland or Czechoslovakia, then there remains no other possibility of an
 
alliance in Europe except with France which, inter alia, has robbed us
 
of Alsace and Lorraine.
 
 
 
There can scarcely be any doubt as to whether this last alternative
 
would be advantageous to the interests of the German people. But if it
 
be defended by somebody one is always doubtful whether that person be
 
merely a simpleton or an astute rogue.
 
 
 
As far as concerns the leaders in these activities, I think the latter
 
hypothesis is true.
 
 
 
A change in public feeling among those nations which have hitherto been
 
enemies and whose true interests will correspond in the future with ours
 
could be effected, as far as human calculation goes, if the internal
 
strength of our State and our manifest determination to secure our own
 
existence made it clear that we should be valuable allies. Moreover, it
 
is necessary that our incompetent way of doing things and our criminal
 
conduct in some matters should not furnish grounds which may be utilized
 
for purposes of propaganda by those who would oppose our projects of
 
establishing an alliance with one or other of our former enemies.
 
 
 
The answer to the third question is still more difficult: Is it
 
conceivable that they who represent the true interests of those nations
 
which may possibly form an alliance with us could put their views into
 
practice against the will of the Jew, who is the mortal enemy of
 
national and independent popular States?
 
 
 
For instance, could the motive-forces of Great Britain's traditional
 
statesmanship smash the disastrous influence of the Jew, or could they
 
not?
 
 
 
This question, as I have already said, is very difficult to answer. The
 
answer depends on so many factors that it is impossible to form a
 
conclusive judgment. Anyhow, one thing is certain: The power of the
 
Government in a given State and at a definite period may be so firmly
 
established in the public estimation and so absolutely at the service of
 
the country's interests that the forces of international Jewry could not
 
possibly organize a real and effective obstruction against measures
 
considered to be politically necessary.
 
 
 
The fight which Fascist Italy waged against Jewry's three principal
 
weapons, the profound reasons for which may not have been consciously
 
understood (though I do not believe this myself) furnishes the best
 
proof that the poison fangs of that Power which transcends all State
 
boundaries are being drawn, even though in an indirect way. The
 
prohibition of Freemasonry and secret societies, the suppression of the
 
supernational Press and the definite abolition of Marxism, together with
 
the steadily increasing consolidation of the Fascist concept of the
 
State--all this will enable the Italian Government, in the course of
 
some years, to advance more and more the interests of the Italian people
 
without paying any attention to the hissing of the Jewish world-hydra.
 
 
 
The English situation is not so favourable. In that country which has
 
'the freest democracy' the Jew dictates his will, almost unrestrained
 
but indirectly, through his influence on public opinion. And yet there
 
is a perpetual struggle in England between those who are entrusted with
 
the defence of State interests and the protagonists of Jewish
 
world-dictatorship.
 
 
 
After the War it became clear for the first time how sharp this contrast
 
is, when British statesmanship took one stand on the Japanese problem
 
and the Press took a different stand.
 
 
 
Just after the War had ceased the old mutual antipathy between America
 
and Japan began to reappear. Naturally the great European Powers could
 
not remain indifferent to this new war menace. In England, despite the
 
ties of kinship, there was a certain amount of jealousy and anxiety over
 
the growing importance of the United States in all spheres of
 
international economics and politics. What was formerly a colonial
 
territory, the daughter of a great mother, seemed about to become the
 
new mistress of the world. It is quite understandable that to-day
 
England should re-examine her old alliances and that British
 
statesmanship should look anxiously to the danger of a coming moment
 
when the cry would no longer be: "Britain rules the waves", but rather:
 
"The Seas belong to the United States".
 
 
 
The gigantic North American State, with the enormous resources of its
 
virgin soil, is much more invulnerable than the encircled German REICH.
 
Should a day come when the die which will finally decide the destinies
 
of the nations will have to be cast in that country, England would be
 
doomed if she stood alone. Therefore she eagerly reaches out her hand to
 
a member of the yellow race and enters an alliance which, from the
 
racial point of view is perhaps unpardonable; but from the political
 
viewpoint it represents the sole possibility of reinforcing Britain's
 
world position in face of the strenuous developments taking place on the
 
American continent.
 
 
 
Despite the fact that they fought side by side on the European
 
battlefields, the British Government did not decide to conclude an
 
alliance with the Asiatic partner, yet the whole Jewish Press opposed
 
the idea of a Japanese alliance.
 
 
 
How can we explain the fact that up to 1918 the Jewish Press championed
 
the policy of the British Government against the German REICH and then
 
suddenly began to take its own way and showed itself disloyal to the
 
Government?
 
 
 
It was not in the interests of Great Britain to have Germany
 
annihilated, but primarily a Jewish interest. And to-day the destruction
 
of Japan would serve British political interests less than it would
 
serve the far-reaching intentions of those who are leading the movement
 
that hopes to establish a Jewish world-empire. While England is using
 
all her endeavours to maintain her position in the world, the Jew is
 
organizing his aggressive plans for the conquest of it.
 
 
 
He already sees the present European States as pliant instruments in his
 
hands, whether indirectly through the power of so-called Western
 
Democracy or in the form of a direct domination through Russian
 
Bolshevism. But it is not only the old world that he holds in his snare;
 
for a like fate threatens the new world. Jews control the financial
 
forces of America on the stock exchange. Year after year the Jew
 
increases his hold on Labour in a nation of 120 million souls. But a
 
very small section still remains quite independent and is thus the cause
 
of chagrin to the Jew.
 
 
 
The Jews show consummate skill in manipulating public opinion and using
 
it as an instrument in fighting for their own future.
 
 
 
The great leaders of Jewry are confident that the day is near at hand
 
when the command given in the Old Testament will be carried out and the
 
Jews will devour the other nations of the earth.
 
 
 
Among this great mass of denationalized countries which have become
 
Jewish colonies one independent State could bring about the ruin of the
 
whole structure at the last moment. The reason for doing this would be
 
that Bolshevism as a world-system cannot continue to exist unless it
 
encompasses the whole earth. Should one State preserve its national
 
strength and its national greatness the empire of the Jewish satrapy,
 
like every other tyranny, would have to succumb to the force of the
 
national idea.
 
 
 
As a result of his millennial experience in accommodating himself to
 
surrounding circumstances, the Jew knows very well that he can undermine
 
the existence of European nations by a process of racial bastardization,
 
but that he could hardly do the same to a national Asiatic State like
 
Japan. To-day he can ape the ways of the German and the Englishman, the
 
American and the Frenchman, but he has no means of approach to the
 
yellow Asiatic. Therefore he seeks to destroy the Japanese national
 
State by using other national States as his instruments, so that he may
 
rid himself of a dangerous opponent before he takes over supreme control
 
of the last national State and transforms that control into a tyranny
 
for the oppression of the defenceless.
 
 
 
He does not want to see a national Japanese State in existence when he
 
founds his millennial empire of the future, and therefore he wants to
 
destroy it before establishing his own dictatorship.
 
 
 
And so he is busy to-day in stirring up antipathy towards Japan among
 
the other nations, as he stirred it up against Germany. Thus it may
 
happen that while British statesmanship is still endeavouring to ground
 
its policy in the alliance with Japan, the Jewish Press in Great Britain
 
may be at the same time leading a hostile movement against that ally and
 
preparing for a war of destruction by pretending that it is for the
 
triumph of democracy and at the same time raising the war-cry: Down with
 
Japanese militarism and imperialism.
 
 
 
Thus in England to-day the Jew opposes the policy of the State. And for
 
this reason the struggle against the Jewish world-danger will one day
 
begin also in that country.
 
 
 
And here again the National Socialist Movement has a tremendous task
 
before it.
 
 
 
It must open the eyes of our people in regard to foreign nations and it
 
must continually remind them of the real enemy who menaces the world
 
to-day. In place of preaching hatred against Aryans from whom we may be
 
separated on almost every other ground but with whom the bond of kindred
 
blood and the main features of a common civilization unite us, we must
 
devote ourselves to arousing general indignation against the maleficent
 
enemy of humanity and the real author of all our sufferings.
 
 
 
The National Socialist Movement must see to it that at least in our own
 
country the mortal enemy is recognized and that the fight against him
 
may be a beacon light pointing to a new and better period for other
 
nations as well as showing the way of salvation for Aryan humanity in
 
the struggle for its existence.
 
 
 
Finally, may reason be our guide and will-power our strength. And may
 
the sacred duty of directing our conduct as I have pointed out give us
 
perseverance and tenacity; and may our faith be our supreme protection.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER XIV
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
GERMANY'S POLICY IN EASTERN EUROPE
 
 
 
 
 
There are two considerations which induce me to make a special analysis
 
of Germany's position in regard to Russia. These are:
 
 
 
(1) This may prove to be the most decisive point in determining
 
Germany's foreign policy.
 
 
 
(2) The problem which has to be solved in this connection is also a
 
touchstone to test the political capacity of the young National
 
Socialist Movement for clear thinking and acting along the right lines.
 
 
 
I must confess that the second consideration has often been a source of
 
great anxiety to me. The members of our movement are not recruited from
 
circles which are habitually indifferent to public affairs, but mostly
 
from among men who hold more or less extreme views. Such being the case,
 
it is only natural that their understanding of foreign politics should
 
suffer from the prejudice and inadequate knowledge of those circles to
 
which they were formerly attached by political and ideological ties. And
 
this is true not merely of the men who come to us from the Left. On the
 
contrary, however subversive may have been the kind of teaching they
 
formerly received in regard to these problems, in very many cases this
 
was at least partly counterbalanced by the residue of sound and natural
 
instincts which remained. In such cases it is only necessary to
 
substitute a better teaching in place of the earlier influences, in
 
order to transform the instinct of self-preservation and other sound
 
instincts into valuable assets.
 
 
 
On the other hand, it is much more difficult to impress definite
 
political ideas on the minds of men whose earlier political education
 
was not less nonsensical and illogical than that given to the partisans
 
of the Left. These men have sacrificed the last residue of their natural
 
instincts to the worship of some abstract and entirely objective theory.
 
It is particularly difficult to induce these representatives of our
 
so-called intellectual circles to take a realistic and logical view of
 
their own interests and the interests of their nation in its relations
 
with foreign countries. Their minds are overladen with a huge burden of
 
prejudices and absurd ideas and they have lost or renounced every
 
instinct of self-preservation. With those men also the National
 
Socialist Movement has to fight a hard battle. And the struggle is all
 
the harder because, though very often they are utterly incompetent, they
 
are so self-conceited that, without the slightest justification, they
 
look down with disdain on ordinary commonsense people. These arrogant
 
snobs who pretend to know better than other people, are wholly incapable
 
of calmly and coolly analysing a problem and weighing its pros and cons,
 
which are the necessary preliminaries of any decision or action in the
 
field of foreign politics.
 
 
 
It is just this circle which is beginning to-day to divert our foreign
 
policy into most disastrous directions and turn it away from the task of
 
promoting the real interests of the nation. Seeing that they do this in
 
order to serve their own fantastic ideologies, I feel myself obliged to
 
take the greatest pains in laying before my own colleagues a clear
 
exposition of the most important problem in our foreign policy, namely,
 
our position in relation to Russia. I shall deal with it, as thoroughly
 
as may be necessary to make it generally understood and as far as the
 
limits of this book permit. Let me begin by laying down the following
 
postulate:
 
 
 
When we speak of foreign politics we understand that domain of
 
government which has set before it the task of managing the affairs of a
 
nation in its relations with the rest of the world. Now the guiding
 
principles which must be followed in managing these affairs must be
 
based on the definite facts that are at hand. Moreover, as National
 
Socialists, we must lay down the following axiom regarding the manner in
 
which the foreign policy of a People's State should be conducted:
 
 
 
The foreign policy of a People's State must first of all bear in mind
 
the duty of securing the existence of the race which is incorporated in
 
this State. And this must be done by establishing a healthy and natural
 
proportion between the number and growth of the population on the one
 
hand and the extent and resources of the territory they inhabit, on the
 
other. That balance must be such that it accords with the vital
 
necessities of the people.
 
 
 
What I call a HEALTHY proportion is that in which the support of a
 
people is guaranteed by the resources of its own soil and sub-soil. Any
 
situation which falls short of this condition is none the less unhealthy
 
even though it may endure for centuries or even a thousand years. Sooner
 
or later, this lack of proportion must of necessity lead to the decline
 
or even annihilation of the people concerned.
 
 
 
Only a sufficiently large space on this earth can assure the independent
 
existence of a people.
 
 
 
The extent of the territorial expansion that may be necessary for the
 
settlement of the national population must not be estimated by present
 
exigencies nor even by the magnitude of its agricultural productivity in
 
relation to the number of the population. In the first volume of this
 
book, under the heading "Germany's Policy of Alliances before the War,"
 
I have already explained that the geometrical dimensions of a State are
 
of importance not only as the source of the nation's foodstuffs and raw
 
materials, but also from the political and military standpoints. Once a
 
people is assured of being able to maintain itself from the resources of
 
the national territory, it must think of how this national territory can
 
be defended. National security depends on the political strength of a
 
State, and this strength, in its turn, depends on the military
 
possibilities inherent in the geographical situation.
 
 
 
Thus the German nation could assure its own future only by being a World
 
Power. For nearly two thousand years the defence of our national
 
interests was a matter of world history, as can be seen from our more or
 
less successful activities in the field of foreign politics. We
 
ourselves have been witnesses to this, seeing that the gigantic struggle
 
that went on from 1914 to 1918 was only the struggle of the German
 
people for their existence on this earth, and it was carried out in such
 
a way that it has become known in history as the World War.
 
 
 
When Germany entered this struggle it was presumed that she was a World
 
Power. I say PRESUMED, because in reality she was no such thing. In
 
1914, if there had been a different proportion between the German
 
population and its territorial area, Germany would have been really a
 
World Power and, if we leave other factors out of count, the War would
 
have ended in our favour.
 
 
 
It is not my task nor my intention here to discuss what would have
 
happened if certain conditions had been fulfilled. But I feel it
 
absolutely incumbent on me to show the present conditions in their bare
 
and unadorned reality, insisting on the weakness inherent in them, so
 
that at least in the ranks of the National Socialist Movement they
 
should receive the necessary recognition.
 
 
 
Germany is not at all a World Power to-day. Even though our present
 
military weakness could be overcome, we still would have no claim to be
 
called a World Power. What importance on earth has a State in which the
 
proportion between the size of the population and the territorial area
 
is so miserable as in the present German REICH? At an epoch in which the
 
world is being gradually portioned out among States many of whom almost
 
embrace whole continents one cannot speak of a World Power in the case
 
of a State whose political motherland is confined to a territorial area
 
of barely five-hundred-thousand square kilometres.
 
 
 
Looked at purely from the territorial point of view, the area comprised
 
in the German REICH is insignificant in comparison with the other States
 
that are called World Powers. England must not be cited here as an
 
example to contradict this statement; for the English motherland is in
 
reality the great metropolis of the British World Empire, which owns
 
almost a fourth of the earth's surface. Next to this we must consider
 
the American Union as one of the foremost among the colossal States,
 
also Russia and China. These are enormous spaces, some of which are more
 
than ten times greater in territorial extent than the present German
 
REICH. France must also be ranked among these colossal States. Not only
 
because she is adding to the strength of her army in a constantly
 
increasing measure by recruiting coloured troops from the population of
 
her gigantic empire, but also because France is racially becoming more
 
and more negroid, so much so that now one can actually speak of the
 
creation of an African State on European soil. The contemporary colonial
 
policy of France cannot be compared with that of Germany in the past. If
 
France develops along the lines it has taken in our day, and should that
 
development continue for the next three hundred years, all traces of
 
French blood will finally be submerged in the formation of a
 
Euro-African Mulatto State. This would represent a formidable and
 
compact colonial territory stretching from the Rhine to the Congo,
 
inhabited by an inferior race which had developed through a slow and
 
steady process of bastardization.
 
 
 
That process distinguishes French colonial policy from the policy
 
followed by the old Germany.
 
 
 
The former German colonial policy was carried out by half-measures, as
 
was almost everything they did at that time. They did not gain an
 
expanse of territory for the settlement of German nationals nor did they
 
attempt to reinforce the power of the REICH through the enlistment of
 
black troops, which would have been a criminal undertaking. The Askari
 
in German East Africa represented a small and hesitant step along this
 
road; but in reality they served only for the defence of the colony
 
itself. The idea of importing black troops to a European theatre of
 
war--apart entirely from the practical impossibility of this in the
 
World War--was never entertained as a proposal to be carried out under
 
favourable circumstances; whereas, on the contrary, the French always
 
looked on such an idea as fundamental in their colonial activities.
 
 
 
Thus we find in the world to-day not only a number of States that are
 
much greater than the German in the mere numerical size of their
 
populations, but also possess a greater support for their political
 
power. The proportion between the territorial dimensions of the German
 
REICH and the numerical size of its population was never so unfavourable
 
in comparison with the other world States as at the beginning of our
 
history two thousand years ago and again to-day. At the former juncture
 
we were a young people and we stormed a world which was made up of great
 
States that were already in a decadent condition, of which the last
 
giant was Rome, to whose overthrow we contributed. To-day we find
 
ourselves in a world of great and powerful States, among which the
 
importance of our own REICH is constantly declining more and more.
 
 
 
We must always face this bitter truth with clear and calm minds. We must
 
study the area and population of the German REICH in relation to the
 
other States and compare them down through the centuries. Then we shall
 
find that, as I have said, Germany is not a World Power whether its
 
military strength be great or not.
 
 
 
There is no proportion between our position and that of the other States
 
throughout the world. And this lack of proportion is to be attributed to
 
the fact that our foreign policy never had a definite aim to attain, and
 
also to the fact that we lost every sound impulse and instinct for
 
self-preservation.
 
 
 
If the historians who are to write our national history at some future
 
date are to give the National Socialist Movement the credit of having
 
devoted itself to a sacred duty in the service of our people, this
 
movement will have to recognize the real truth of our situation in
 
regard to the rest of the world. However painful this recognition may
 
be, the movement must draw courage from it and a sense of practical
 
realities in fighting against the aimlessness and incompetence which has
 
hitherto been shown by our people in the conduct of their foreign
 
policy. Without respect for 'tradition,' and without any preconceived
 
notions, the movement must find the courage to organize our national
 
forces and set them on the path which will lead them away from that
 
territorial restriction which is the bane of our national life to-day,
 
and win new territory for them. Thus the movement will save the German
 
people from the danger of perishing or of being slaves in the service of
 
any other people.
 
 
 
Our movement must seek to abolish the present disastrous proportion
 
between our population and the area of our national territory,
 
considering national territory as the source of our maintenance or as a
 
basis of political power. And it ought to strive to abolish the contrast
 
between past history and the hopelessly powerless situation in which we
 
are to-day. In striving for this it must bear in mind the fact that we
 
are members of the highest species of humanity on this earth, that we
 
have a correspondingly high duty, and that we shall fulfil this duty
 
only if we inspire the German people with the racial idea, so that they
 
will occupy themselves not merely with the breeding of good dogs and
 
horses and cats, but also care for the purity of their own blood.
 
 
 
When I say that the foreign policy hitherto followed by Germany has been
 
without aim and ineffectual, the proof of my statement will be found in
 
the actual failures of this policy. Were our people intellectually
 
backward, or if they lacked courage, the final results of their efforts
 
could not have been worse than what we see to-day. What happened during
 
the last decades before the War does not permit of any illusions on this
 
point; because we must not measure the strength of a State taken by
 
itself, but in comparison with other States. Now, this comparison shows
 
that the other States increased their strength in such a measure that
 
not only did it balance that of Germany but turned out in the end to be
 
greater; so that, contrary to appearances, when compared with the other
 
States Germany declined more and more in power until there was a large
 
margin in her disfavour. Yes, even in the size of our population we
 
remained far behind, and kept on losing ground. Though it is true that
 
the courage of our people was not surpassed by that of any other in the
 
world and that they poured out more blood than any other nation in
 
defence of their existence, their failure was due only to the erroneous
 
way in which that courage was turned to practical purposes.
 
 
 
In this connection, if we examine the chain of political vicissitudes
 
through which our people have passed during more than a thousand years,
 
recalling the innumerable struggles and wars and scrutinizing it all in
 
the light of the results that are before our eyes to-day, we must
 
confess that from the ocean of blood only three phenomena have emerged
 
which we must consider as lasting fruits of political happenings
 
definitely determined by our foreign policy.
 
 
 
(1) The colonization of the Eastern Mark, which was mostly the work of
 
the Bajuvari.
 
 
 
(2) The conquest and settlement of the territory east of the Elbe.
 
 
 
(3) The organization of the Brandenburg-Prussian State, which was the
 
work of the Hohenzollerns and which became the model for the
 
crystallization of a new REICH.
 
 
 
An instructive lesson for the future.
 
 
 
These first two great successes of our foreign policy turned out to be
 
the most enduring. Without them our people would play no role in the
 
world to-day. These achievements were the first and unfortunately the
 
only successful attempts to establish a harmony between our increasing
 
population and the territory from which it drew its livelihood. And we
 
must look upon it as of really fatal import that our German historians
 
have never correctly appreciated these formidable facts which were so
 
full of importance for the following generations. In contradistinction
 
to this, they wrote panegyrics on many other things, fantastic heroism,
 
innumerable adventures and wars, without understanding that these latter
 
had no significance whatsoever for the main line of our national
 
development.
 
 
 
The third great success achieved by our political activity was the
 
establishment of the Prussian State and the development of a particular
 
State concept which grew out of this. To the same source we are to
 
attribute the organization of the instinct of national self-preservation
 
and self-defence in the German Army, an achievement which suited the
 
modern world. The transformation of the idea of self-defence on the part
 
of the individual into the duty of national defence is derived from the
 
Prussian State and the new statal concept which it introduced. It would
 
be impossible to over-estimate the importance of this historical
 
process. Disrupted by excessive individualism, the German nation became
 
disciplined under the organization of the Prussian Army and in this way
 
recovered at least some of the capacity to form a national community,
 
which in the case of other people had originally arisen through the
 
constructive urge of the herd instinct. Consequently the abolition of
 
compulsory national military service--which may have no meaning for
 
dozens of other nations--had fatal consequences for us. Ten generations
 
of Germans left without the corrective and educative effect of military
 
training and delivered over to the evil effects of those dissensions and
 
divisions the roots of which lie in their blood and display their force
 
also in a disunity of world-outlook--these ten generations would be
 
sufficient to allow our people to lose the last relics of an independent
 
existence on this earth.
 
 
 
The German spirit could then make its contribution to civilization only
 
through individuals living under the rule of foreign nations and the
 
origin of those individuals would remain unknown. They would remain as
 
the fertilizing manure of civilization, until the last residue of
 
Nordic-Aryan blood would become corrupted or drained out.
 
 
 
It is a remarkable fact that the real political successes achieved by
 
our people during their millennial struggles are better appreciated and
 
understood among our adversaries than among ourselves. Even still to-day
 
we grow enthusiastic about a heroism which robbed our people of millions
 
of their best racial stock and turned out completely fruitless in the
 
end.
 
 
 
The distinction between the real political successes which our people
 
achieved in the course of their long history and the futile ends for
 
which the blood of the nation has been shed is of supreme importance for
 
the determination of our policy now and in the future.
 
 
 
We, National Socialists, must never allow ourselves to re-echo the
 
hurrah patriotism of our contemporary bourgeois circles. It would be a
 
fatal danger for us to look on the immediate developments before the War
 
as constituting a precedent which we should be obliged to take into
 
account, even though only to the very smallest degree, in choosing our
 
own way. We can recognize no obligation devolving on us which may have
 
its historical roots in any part of the nineteenth century. In
 
contradistinction to the policy of those who represented that period, we
 
must take our stand on the principles already mentioned in regard to
 
foreign policy: namely, the necessity of bringing our territorial area
 
into just proportion with the number of our population. From the past we
 
can learn only one lesson. And this is that the aim which is to be
 
pursued in our political conduct must be twofold: namely (1) the
 
acquisition of territory as the objective of our foreign policy and (2)
 
the establishment of a new and uniform foundation as the objective of
 
our political activities at home, in accordance with our doctrine of
 
nationhood.
 
 
 
I shall briefly deal with the question of how far our territorial aims
 
are justified according to ethical and moral principles. This is all the
 
more necessary here because, in our so-called nationalist circles, there
 
are all kinds of plausible phrase-mongers who try to persuade the German
 
people that the great aim of their foreign policy ought to be to right
 
the wrongs of 1918, while at the same time they consider it incumbent on
 
them to assure the whole world of the brotherly spirit and sympathy of
 
the German people towards all other nations.
 
 
 
In regard to this point I should like to make the following statement:
 
To demand that the 1914 frontiers should be restored is a glaring
 
political absurdity that is fraught with such consequences as to make
 
the claim itself appear criminal. The confines of the REICH as they
 
existed in 1914 were thoroughly illogical; because they were not really
 
complete, in the sense of including all the members of the German
 
nation. Nor were they reasonable, in view of the geographical exigencies
 
of military defence. They were not the consequence of a political plan
 
which had been well considered and carried out. But they were temporary
 
frontiers established in virtue of a political struggle that had not
 
been brought to a finish; and indeed they were partly the chance result
 
of circumstances. One would have just as good a right, and in many cases
 
a better right, to choose some other outstanding year than 1914 in the
 
course of our history and demand that the objective of our foreign
 
policy should be the re-establishment of the conditions then existing.
 
The demands I have mentioned are quite characteristic of our bourgeois
 
compatriots, who in such matters take no political thought of the
 
future, They live only in the past and indeed only in the immediate
 
past; for their retrospect does not go back beyond their own times. The
 
law of inertia binds them to the present order of things, leading them
 
to oppose every attempt to change this. Their opposition, however, never
 
passes over into any kind of active defence. It is only mere passive
 
obstinacy. Therefore, we must regard it as quite natural that the
 
political horizon of such people should not reach beyond 1914. In
 
proclaiming that the aim of their political activities is to have the
 
frontiers of that time restored, they only help to close up the rifts
 
that are already becoming apparent in the league which our enemies have
 
formed against us. Only on these grounds can we explain the fact that
 
eight years after a world conflagration in which a number of Allied
 
belligerents had aspirations and aims that were partly in conflict with
 
one another, the coalition of the victors still remains more or less
 
solid.
 
 
 
Each of those States in its turn profited by the German collapse. In the
 
fear which they all felt before the proof of strength that we had given,
 
the Great Powers maintained a mutual silence about their individual
 
feelings of envy and enmity towards one another. They felt that the best
 
guarantee against a resurgence of our strength in the future would be to
 
break up and dismember our REICH as thoroughly as possible. A bad
 
conscience and fear of the strength of our people made up the durable
 
cement which has held the members of that league together, even up to
 
the present moment.
 
 
 
And our conduct does not tend to change this state of affairs. Inasmuch
 
as our bourgeoisie sets up the restoration of the 1914 frontiers as the
 
aim of Germany's political programme, each member of the enemy coalition
 
who otherwise might be inclined to withdraw from the combination sticks
 
to it, out of fear lest he might be attacked by us if he isolated
 
himself and in that case would not have the support of his allies. Each
 
individual State feels itself aimed at and threatened by this programme.
 
And the programme is absurd, for the following two reasons:
 
 
 
(1) Because there are no available means of extricating it from the
 
twilight atmosphere of political soirees and transforming it into
 
reality.
 
 
 
(2) Even if it could be really carried into effect the result would be
 
so miserable that, surely to God, it would not be worth while to risk
 
the blood of our people once again for such a purpose.
 
 
 
For there can be scarcely any doubt whatsoever that only through
 
bloodshed could we achieve the restoration of the 1914 frontiers. One
 
must have the simple mind of a child to believe that the revision of the
 
Versailles Treaty can be obtained by indirect means and by beseeching
 
the clemency of the victors; without taking into account the fact that
 
for this we should need somebody who had the character of a
 
Talleyrand, and there is no Talleyrand among us. Fifty percent of our
 
politicians consists of artful dodgers who have no character and are
 
quite hostile to the sympathies of our people, while the other fifty per
 
cent is made up of well-meaning, harmless, and complaisant incompetents.
 
Times have changed since the Congress of Vienna. It is no longer princes
 
or their courtesans who contend and bargain about State frontiers, but
 
the inexorable cosmopolitan Jew who is fighting for his own dominion
 
over the nations. The sword is the only means whereby a nation can
 
thrust that clutch from its throat. Only when national sentiment is
 
organized and concentrated into an effective force can it defy that
 
international menace which tends towards an enslavement of the nations.
 
But this road is and will always be marked with bloodshed.
 
 
 
If we are once convinced that the future of Germany calls for the
 
sacrifice, in one way or another, of all that we have and are, then we
 
must set aside considerations of political prudence and devote ourselves
 
wholly to the struggle for a future that will be worthy of our country.
 
 
 
For the future of the German nation the 1914 frontiers are of no
 
significance. They did not serve to protect us in the past, nor do they
 
offer any guarantee for our defence in the future. With these frontiers
 
the German people cannot maintain themselves as a compact unit, nor can
 
they be assured of their maintenance. From the military viewpoint these
 
frontiers are not advantageous or even such as not to cause anxiety. And
 
while we are bound to such frontiers it will not be possible for us to
 
improve our present position in relation to the other World Powers, or
 
rather in relation to the real World Powers. We shall not lessen the
 
discrepancy between our territory and that of Great Britain, nor shall
 
we reach the magnitude of the United States of America. Not only that,
 
but we cannot substantially lessen the importance of France in
 
international politics.
 
 
 
One thing alone is certain: The attempt to restore the frontiers of
 
1914, even if it turned out successful, would demand so much bloodshed
 
on the part of our people that no future sacrifice would be possible to
 
carry out effectively such measures as would be necessary to assure the
 
future existence of the nation. On the contrary, under the intoxication
 
of such a superficial success further aims would be renounced, all the
 
more so because the so-called 'national honour' would seem to be
 
revindicated and new ports would be opened, at least for a certain time,
 
to our commercial development.
 
 
 
Against all this we, National Socialists, must stick firmly to the aim
 
that we have set for our foreign policy; namely, that the German people
 
must be assured the territorial area which is necessary for it to exist
 
on this earth. And only for such action as is undertaken to secure those
 
ends can it be lawful in the eyes of God and our German posterity to
 
allow the blood of our people to be shed once again. Before God, because
 
we are sent into this world with the commission to struggle for our
 
daily bread, as creatures to whom nothing is donated and who must be
 
able to win and hold their position as lords of the earth only through
 
their own intelligence and courage. And this justification must be
 
established also before our German posterity, on the grounds that for
 
each one who has shed his blood the life of a thousand others will be
 
guaranteed to posterity. The territory on which one day our German
 
peasants will be able to bring forth and nourish their sturdy sons will
 
justify the blood of the sons of the peasants that has to be shed
 
to-day. And the statesmen who will have decreed this sacrifice may be
 
persecuted by their contemporaries, but posterity will absolve them from
 
all guilt for having demanded this offering from their people.
 
 
 
Here I must protest as sharply as possible against those nationalist
 
scribes who pretend that such territorial extension would be a
 
"violation of the sacred rights of man" and accordingly pour out their
 
literary effusions against it. One never knows what are the hidden
 
forces behind the activities of such persons. But it is certain that the
 
confusion which they provoke suits the game our enemies are playing
 
against our nation and is in accordance with their wishes. By taking
 
such an attitude these scribes contribute criminally to weaken from the
 
inside and to destroy the will of our people to promote their own vital
 
interests by the only effective means that can be used for that purpose.
 
For no nation on earth possesses a square yard of ground and soil by
 
decree of a higher Will and in virtue of a higher Right. The German
 
frontiers are the outcome of chance, and are only temporary frontiers
 
that have been established as the result of political struggles which
 
took place at various times. The same is also true of the frontiers
 
which demarcate the territories on which other nations live. And just as
 
only an imbecile could look on the physical geography of the globe as
 
fixed and unchangeable--for in reality it represents a definite stage in
 
a given evolutionary epoch which is due to the formidable forces of
 
Nature and may be altered to-morrow by more powerful forces of
 
destruction and change--so, too, in the lives of the nations the
 
confines which are necessary for their sustenance are subject to change.
 
 
 
State frontiers are established by human beings and may be changed by
 
human beings.
 
 
 
The fact that a nation has acquired an enormous territorial area is no
 
reason why it should hold that territory perpetually. At most, the
 
possession of such territory is a proof of the strength of the conqueror
 
and the weakness of those who submit to him. And in this strength alone
 
lives the right of possession. If the German people are imprisoned
 
within an impossible territorial area and for that reason are face to
 
face with a miserable future, this is not by the command of Destiny, and
 
the refusal to accept such a situation is by no means a violation of
 
Destiny's laws. For just as no Higher Power has promised more territory
 
to other nations than to the German, so it cannot be blamed for an
 
unjust distribution of the soil. The soil on which we now live was not a
 
gift bestowed by Heaven on our forefathers. But they had to conquer it
 
by risking their lives. So also in the future our people will not obtain
 
territory, and therewith the means of existence, as a favour from any
 
other people, but will have to win it by the power of a triumphant
 
sword.
 
 
 
To-day we are all convinced of the necessity of regulating our situation
 
in regard to France; but our success here will be ineffective in its
 
broad results if the general aims of our foreign policy will have to
 
stop at that. It can have significance for us only if it serves to cover
 
our flank in the struggle for that extension of territory which is
 
necessary for the existence of our people in Europe. For colonial
 
acquisitions will not solve that question. It can be solved only by the
 
winning of such territory for the settlement of our people as will
 
extend the area of the motherland and thereby will not only keep the new
 
settlers in the closest communion with the land of their origin, but
 
will guarantee to this territorial ensemble the advantages which arise
 
from the fact that in their expansion over greater territory the people
 
remain united as a political unit.
 
 
 
The National Movement must not be the advocate for other nations, but
 
the protagonist for its own nation. Otherwise it would be something
 
superfluous and, above all, it would have no right to clamour against
 
the action of the past; for then it would be repeating the action of the
 
past. The old German policy suffered from the mistake of having been
 
determined by dynastic considerations. The new German policy must not
 
follow the sentimentality of cosmopolitan patriotism. Above all, we must
 
not form a police guard for the famous 'poor small nations'; but we must
 
be the soldiers of the German nation.
 
 
 
We National Socialists have to go still further. The right to territory
 
may become a duty when a great nation seems destined to go under unless
 
its territory be extended. And that is particularly true when the nation
 
in question is not some little group of negro people but the Germanic
 
mother of all the life which has given cultural shape to the modern
 
world. Germany will either become a World Power or will not continue to
 
exist at all. But in order to become a World Power it needs that
 
territorial magnitude which gives it the necessary importance to-day and
 
assures the existence of its citizens.
 
 
 
Therefore we National Socialists have purposely drawn a line through the
 
line of conduct followed by pre-War Germany in foreign policy. We put an
 
end to the perpetual Germanic march towards the South and West of Europe
 
and turn our eyes towards the lands of the East. We finally put a stop
 
to the colonial and trade policy of pre-War times and pass over to the
 
territorial policy of the future.
 
 
 
But when we speak of new territory in Europe to-day we must principally
 
think of Russia and the border States subject to her.
 
 
 
Destiny itself seems to wish to point out the way for us here. In
 
delivering Russia over to Bolshevism, Fate robbed the Russian people of
 
that intellectual class which had once created the Russian State and
 
were the guarantee of its existence. For the Russian State was not
 
organized by the constructive political talent of the Slav element in
 
Russia, but was much more a marvellous exemplification of the capacity
 
for State-building possessed by the Germanic element in a race of
 
inferior worth. Thus were many powerful Empires created all over the
 
earth. More often than once inferior races with Germanic organizers and
 
rulers as their leaders became formidable States and continued to exist
 
as long as the racial nucleus remained which had originally created each
 
respective State. For centuries Russia owed the source of its livelihood
 
as a State to the Germanic nucleus of its governing class. But this
 
nucleus is now almost wholly broken up and abolished. The Jew has taken
 
its place. Just as it is impossible for the Russian to shake off the
 
Jewish yoke by exerting his own powers, so, too, it is impossible for
 
the Jew to keep this formidable State in existence for any long period
 
of time. He himself is by no means an organizing element, but rather a
 
ferment of decomposition. This colossal Empire in the East is ripe for
 
dissolution. And the end of the Jewish domination in Russia will also be
 
the end of Russia as a State. We are chosen by Destiny to be the
 
witnesses of a catastrophe which will afford the strongest confirmation
 
of the nationalist theory of race.
 
 
 
But it is our task, and it is the mission of the National Socialist
 
Movement, to develop in our people that political mentality which will
 
enable them to realize that the aim which they must set to themselves
 
for the fulfilment of their future must not be some wildly enthusiastic
 
adventure in the footsteps of Alexander the Great but industrious labour
 
with the German plough, for which the German sword will provide the
 
soil.
 
 
 
That the Jew should declare himself bitterly hostile to such a policy is
 
only quite natural. For the Jews know better than any others what the
 
adoption of this line of conduct must mean for their own future. That
 
fact alone ought to teach all genuine nationalists that this new
 
orientation is the right and just one. But, unfortunately, the opposite
 
is the case. Not only among the members of the German-National Party but
 
also in purely nationalist circles violent opposition is raised against
 
this Eastern policy. And in connection with that opposition, as in all
 
such cases, the authority of great names is appealed to. The spirit of
 
Bismarck is evoked in defence of a policy which is as stupid as it is
 
impossible, and is in the highest degree detrimental to the interests of
 
the German people. They say that Bismarck laid great importance on the
 
value of good relations with Russia. To a certain extent, that is true.
 
But they quite forget to add that he laid equal stress on the importance
 
of good relations with Italy, for example. Indeed, the same Herr von
 
Bismarck once concluded an alliance with Italy so that he might more
 
easily settle accounts with Austria. Why is not this policy now
 
advocated? They will reply that the Italy of to-day is not the Italy of
 
that time. Good. But then, honourable sirs, permit me to remind you that
 
the Russia of to-day is no longer the Russia of that time. Bismarck
 
never laid down a policy which would be permanently binding under all
 
circumstances and should be adhered to on principle. He was too much the
 
master of the moment to burden himself with that kind of obligation.
 
Therefore, the question ought not to be what Bismarck then did, but
 
rather what he would do to-day. And that question is very easy to
 
answer. His political sagacity would never allow him to ally himself
 
with a State that is doomed to disappear.
 
 
 
Moreover, Bismarck looked upon the colonial and trade policy of his time
 
with mixed feelings, because what he most desired was to assure the best
 
possibilities of consolidating and internally strengthening the state
 
system which he himself had created. That was the sole ground on which
 
he then welcomed the Russian defence in his rear, so as to give him a
 
free hand for his activities in the West. But what was advantageous then
 
to Germany would now be detrimental.
 
 
 
As early as 1920-21, when the young movement began slowly to appear on
 
the political horizon and movements for the liberation of the German
 
nation were formed here and there, the Party was approached from various
 
quarters in an attempt to bring it into definite connection with the
 
liberationist movements in other countries. This was in line with the
 
plans of the 'League of Oppressed Nations', which had been advertised in
 
many quarters and was composed principally of representatives of some of
 
the Balkan States and also of Egypt and India. These always impressed me
 
as charlatans who gave themselves big airs but had no real background at
 
all. Not a few Germans, however, especially in the nationalist camp,
 
allowed themselves to be taken in by these pompous Orientals, and in the
 
person of some wandering Indian or Egyptian student they believed at
 
once that they were face to face with a 'representative' of India or
 
Egypt. They did not realize that in most cases they were dealing with
 
persons who had no backing whatsoever, who were not authorized by
 
anybody to conclude any sort of agreement whatsoever; so that the
 
practical result of every negotiation with such individuals was negative
 
and the time spent in such dealings had to be reckoned as utterly lost.
 
I was always on my guard against these attempts. Not only that I had
 
something better to do than to waste weeks in such sterile
 
'discussions', but also because I believed that even if one were dealing
 
with genuine representatives that whole affair would be bound to turn
 
out futile, if not positively harmful.
 
 
 
In peace-time it was already lamentable enough that the policy of
 
alliances, because it had no active and aggressive aims in view, ended
 
in a defensive association with antiquated States that had been
 
pensioned off by the history of the world. The alliance with Austria, as
 
well as that with Turkey, was not much to be joyful about. While the
 
great military and industrial States of the earth had come together in a
 
league for purposes of active aggression, a few old and effete States
 
were collected, and with this antique bric-à-brac an attempt was made to
 
face an active world coalition. Germany had to pay dearly for that
 
mistaken foreign policy and yet not dearly enough to prevent our
 
incorrigible visionaries from falling back into the same error again.
 
For the attempt to make possible the disarmament of the all-powerful
 
victorious States through a 'League of Oppressed Nations' is not only
 
ridiculous but disastrous. It is disastrous because in that way the
 
German people are again being diverted from real possibilities, which
 
they abandon for the sake of fruitless hopes and illusions. In reality
 
the German of to-day is like a drowning man that clutches at any straw
 
which may float beside him. And one finds people doing this who are
 
otherwise highly educated. Wherever some will-o'-the-wisp of a fantastic
 
hope appears these people set off immediately to chase it. Let this be a
 
League of Oppressed Nations, a League of Nations, or some other
 
fantastic invention, thousands of ingenuous souls will always be found
 
to believe in it.
 
 
 
I remember well the childish and incomprehensible hopes which arose
 
suddenly in nationalist circles in the years 1920-21 to the effect that
 
England was just nearing its downfall in India. A few Asiatic
 
mountebanks, who put themselves forward as "the champions of Indian
 
Freedom", then began to peregrinate throughout Europe and succeeded in
 
inspiring otherwise quite reasonable people with the fixed notion that
 
the British World Empire, which had its pivot in India, was just about
 
to collapse there. They never realized that their own wish was the
 
father of all these ideas. Nor did they stop to think how absurd their
 
wishes were. For inasmuch as they expected the end of the British Empire
 
and of England's power to follow the collapse of its dominion over
 
India, they themselves admitted that India was of the most outstanding
 
importance for England.
 
 
 
Now in all likelihood the deep mysteries of this most important problem
 
must have been known not only to the German-National prophets but also
 
to those who had the direction of British history in their hands. It is
 
right down puerile to suppose that in England itself the importance of
 
India for the British Empire was not adequately appreciated. And it is a
 
proof of having learned nothing from the world war and of thoroughly
 
misunderstanding or knowing nothing about Anglo-Saxon determination,
 
when they imagine that England could lose India without first having put
 
forth the last ounce of her strength in the struggle to hold it.
 
Moreover, it shows how complete is the ignorance prevailing in Germany
 
as to the manner in which the spirit of England permeates and
 
administers her Empire. England will never lose India unless she admits
 
racial disruption in the machinery of her administration (which at
 
present is entirely out of the question in India) or unless she is
 
overcome by the sword of some powerful enemy. But Indian risings will
 
never bring this about. We Germans have had sufficient experience to
 
know how hard it is to coerce England. And, apart from all this, I as a
 
German would far rather see India under British domination than under
 
that of any other nation.
 
 
 
The hopes of an epic rising in Egypt were just as chimerical. The 'Holy
 
War' may bring the pleasing illusion to our German nincompoops that
 
others are now ready to shed their blood for them. Indeed, this cowardly
 
speculation is almost always the father of such hopes. But in reality
 
the illusion would soon be brought to an end under the fusillade from a
 
few companies of British machine-guns and a hail of British bombs.
 
 
 
A coalition of cripples cannot attack a powerful State which is
 
determined, if necessary, to shed the last drop of its blood to maintain
 
its existence. To me, as a nationalist who appreciates the worth of the
 
racial basis of humanity, I must recognize the racial inferiority of the
 
so-called 'Oppressed Nations', and that is enough to prevent me from
 
linking the destiny of my people with the destiny of those inferior
 
races.
 
 
 
To-day we must take up the same sort of attitude also towards Russia.
 
The Russia of to-day, deprived of its Germanic ruling class, is not a
 
possible ally in the struggle for German liberty, setting aside entirely
 
the inner designs of its new rulers. From the purely military viewpoint
 
a Russo-German coalition waging war against Western Europe, and probably
 
against the whole world on that account, would be catastrophic for us.
 
The struggle would have to be fought out, not on Russian but on German
 
territory, without Germany being able to receive from Russia the
 
slightest effective support. The means of power at the disposal of the
 
present German REICH are so miserable and so inadequate to the waging of
 
a foreign war that it would be impossible to defend our frontiers
 
against Western Europe, England included. And the industrial area of
 
Germany would have to be abandoned undefended to the concentrated attack
 
of our adversaries. It must be added that between Germany and Russia
 
there is the Polish State, completely in the hands of the French. In
 
case Germany and Russia together should wage war against Western Europe,
 
Russia would have to overthrow Poland before the first Russian soldier
 
could arrive on the German front. But it is not so much a question of
 
soldiers as of technical equipment. In this regard we should have our
 
situation in the world war repeated, but in a more terrible manner. At
 
that time German industry had to be drained to help our glorious allies,
 
and from the technical side Germany had to carry on the war almost
 
alone. In this new hypothetical war Russia, as a technical factor, would
 
count for nothing. We should have practically nothing to oppose to the
 
general motorization of the world, which in the next war will make its
 
appearance in an overwhelming and decisive form. In this important field
 
Germany has not only shamefully lagged behind, but with the little it
 
has it would have to reinforce Russia, which at the present moment does
 
not possess a single factory capable of producing a motor gun-wagon.
 
Under such conditions the presupposed coming struggle would assume the
 
character of sheer slaughter. The German youth would have to shed more
 
of its blood than it did even in the world war; for, as always, the
 
honour of fighting will fall on us alone, and the result would be an
 
inevitable catastrophe. But even admitting that a miracle were produced
 
and that this war did not end in the total annihilation of Germany, the
 
final result would be that the German nation would be bled white, and,
 
surrounded by great military States, its real situation would be in no
 
way ameliorated.
 
 
 
It is useless to object here that in case of an alliance with Russia we
 
should not think of an immediate war or that, anyhow, we should have
 
means of making thorough preparations for war. No. An alliance which is
 
not for the purpose of waging war has no meaning and no value. Even
 
though at the moment when an alliance is concluded the prospect of war
 
is a distant one, still the idea of the situation developing towards war
 
is the profound reason for entering into an alliance. It is out of the
 
question to think that the other Powers would be deceived as to the
 
purpose of such an alliance. A Russo-German coalition would remain
 
either a matter of so much paper--and in this case it would have no
 
meaning for us--or the letter of the treaty would be put into practice
 
visibly, and in that case the rest of the world would be warned. It
 
would be childish to think that in such circumstances England and France
 
would wait for ten years to give the Russo-German alliance time to
 
complete its technical preparations. No. The storm would break over
 
Germany immediately.
 
 
 
Therefore the fact of forming an alliance with Russia would be the
 
signal for a new war. And the result of that would be the end of
 
Germany.
 
 
 
To these considerations the following must be added:
 
 
 
(1) Those who are in power in Russia to-day have no idea of forming an
 
honourable alliance or of remaining true to it, if they did.
 
 
 
It must never be forgotten that the present rulers of Russia are
 
blood-stained criminals, that here we have the dregs of humanity which,
 
favoured by the circumstances of a tragic moment, overran a great State,
 
degraded and extirpated millions of educated people out of sheer
 
blood-lust, and that now for nearly ten years they have ruled with such
 
a savage tyranny as was never known before. It must not be forgotten
 
that these rulers belong to a people in whom the most bestial cruelty is
 
allied with a capacity for artful mendacity and believes itself to-day
 
more than ever called to impose its sanguinary despotism on the rest of
 
the world. It must not be forgotten that the international Jew, who is
 
to-day the absolute master of Russia, does not look upon Germany as an
 
ally but as a State condemned to the same doom as Russia. One does not
 
form an alliance with a partner whose only aim is the destruction of his
 
fellow-partner. Above all, one does not enter into alliances with people
 
for whom no treaty is sacred; because they do not move about this earth
 
as men of honour and sincerity but as the representatives of lies and
 
deception, thievery and plunder and robbery. The man who thinks that he
 
can bind himself by treaty with parasites is like the tree that believes
 
it can form a profitable bargain with the ivy that surrounds it.
 
 
 
(2) The menace to which Russia once succumbed is hanging steadily over
 
Germany. Only a bourgeois simpleton could imagine that Bolshevism can be
 
tamed. In his superficial way of thinking he does not suspect that here
 
we are dealing with a phenomenon that is due to an urge of the blood:
 
namely, the aspiration of the Jewish people to become the despots of the
 
world. That aspiration is quite as natural as the impulse of the
 
Anglo-Saxon to sit in the seats of rulership all over the earth. And as
 
the Anglo-Saxon chooses his own way of reaching those ends and fights
 
for them with his characteristic weapons, so also does the Jew. The Jew
 
wriggles his way in among the body of the nations and bores them hollow
 
from inside. The weapons with which he works are lies and calumny,
 
poisonous infection and disintegration, until he has ruined his hated
 
adversary. In Russian Bolshevism we ought to recognize the kind of
 
attempt which is being made by the Jew in the twentieth century to
 
secure dominion over the world. In other epochs he worked towards the
 
same goal but with different, though at bottom similar, means. The kind
 
of effort which the Jew puts forth springs from the deepest roots in the
 
nature of his being. A people does not of itself renounce the impulse to
 
increase its stock and power. Only external circumstances or senile
 
impotence can force them to renounce this urge. In the same way the Jew
 
will never spontaneously give up his march towards the goal of world
 
dictatorship or repress his external urge. He can be thrown back on his
 
road only by forces that are exterior to him, for his instinct towards
 
world domination will die out only with himself. The impotence of
 
nations and their extinction through senility can come only when their
 
blood has remained no longer pure. And the Jewish people preserve the
 
purity of their blood better than any other nation on earth. Therefore
 
the Jew follows his destined road until he is opposed by a force
 
superior to him. And then a desperate struggle takes place to send back
 
to Lucifer him who would assault the heavens.
 
 
 
To-day Germany is the next battlefield for Russian Bolshevism. All the
 
force of a fresh missionary idea is needed to raise up our nation once
 
more, to rescue it from the coils of the international serpent and stop
 
the process of corruption which is taking place in the internal
 
constitution of our blood; so that the forces of our nation, once
 
liberated, may be employed to preserve our nationality and prevent the
 
repetition of the recent catastrophe from taking place even in the most
 
distant future. If this be the goal we set to ourselves it would be
 
folly to ally ourselves with a country whose master is the mortal enemy
 
of our future. How can we release our people from this poisonous grip if
 
we accept the same grip ourselves? How can we teach the German worker
 
that Bolshevism is an infamous crime against humanity if we ally
 
ourselves with this infernal abortion and recognize its existence as
 
legitimate. With what right shall we condemn the members of the broad
 
masses whose sympathies lie with a certain WELTANSCHAUUNG if the rulers
 
of our State choose the representatives of that WELTANSCHAUUNG as their
 
allies? The struggle against the Jewish Bolshevization of the world
 
demands that we should declare our position towards Soviet Russia. We
 
cannot cast out the Devil through Beelzebub. If nationalist circles
 
to-day grow enthusiastic about the idea of an alliance with Bolshevism,
 
then let them look around only in Germany and recognize from what
 
quarter they are being supported. Do these nationalists believe that a
 
policy which is recommended and acclaimed by the Marxist international
 
Press can be beneficial for the German people? Since when has the Jew
 
acted as shield-bearer for the militant nationalist?
 
 
 
One special reproach which could be made against the old German REICH
 
with regard to its policy of alliances was that it spoiled its relations
 
towards all others by continually swinging now this way and now that way
 
and by its weakness in trying to preserve world peace at all costs. But
 
one reproach which cannot be made against it is that it did not continue
 
to maintain good relations with Russia.
 
 
 
I admit frankly that before the War I thought it would have been better
 
if Germany had abandoned her senseless colonial policy and her naval
 
policy and had joined England in an alliance against Russia, therewith
 
renouncing her weak world policy for a determined European policy, with
 
the idea of acquiring new territory on the Continent. I do not forget
 
the constant insolent threats which Pan-Slavist Russia made against
 
Germany. I do not forget the continual trial mobilizations, the sole
 
object of which was to irritate Germany. I cannot forget the tone of
 
public opinion in Russia which in pre-War days excelled itself in
 
hate-inspired outbursts against our nation and REICH. Nor can I forget
 
the big Russian Press which was always more favourable to France than to
 
us.
 
 
 
But, in spite of everything, there was still a second way possible
 
before the War. We might have won the support of Russia and turned
 
against England. Circumstances are entirely different to-day. If, before
 
the War, throwing all sentiment to the winds, we could have marched by
 
the side of Russia, that is no longer possible for us to-day. Since then
 
the hand of the world-clock has moved forward. The hour has struck and
 
struck loudly, when the destiny of our people must be decided one way or
 
another.
 
 
 
The present consolidation of the great States of the world is the last
 
warning signal for us to look to ourselves and bring our people back
 
from their land of visions to the land of hard truth and point the way
 
into the future, on which alone the old REICH can march triumphantly
 
once again.
 
 
 
If, in view of this great and most important task placed before it, the
 
National Socialist Movement sets aside all illusions and takes reason as
 
its sole effective guide the catastrophe of 1918 may turn out to be an
 
infinite blessing for the future of our nation. From the lesson of that
 
collapse it may formulate an entirely new orientation for the conduct of
 
its foreign policy. Internally reinforced through its new
 
WELTANSCHAUUNG, the German nation may reach a final stabilization of
 
its policy towards the outside world. It may end by gaining what England
 
has, what even Russia had, and what France again and again utilized as
 
the ultimate grounds on which she was able to base correct decisions for
 
her own interests: namely, A Political Testament. Political Testament of
 
the German Nation ought to lay down the following rules, which will be
 
always valid for its conduct towards the outside world:
 
 
 
Never permit two Continental Powers to arise in Europe. Should any
 
attempt be made to organize a second military Power on the German
 
frontier by the creation of a State which may become a Military Power,
 
with the prospect of an aggression against Germany in view, such an
 
event confers on Germany not only the right but the duty to prevent by
 
every means, including military means, the creation of such a State and
 
to crush it if created. See to it that the strength of our nation does
 
not rest on colonial foundations but on those of our own native
 
territory in Europe. Never consider the REICH secure unless, for
 
centuries to come, it is in a position to give every descendant of our
 
race a piece of ground and soil that he can call his own. Never forget
 
that the most sacred of all rights in this world is man's right to the
 
earth which he wishes to cultivate for himself and that the holiest of
 
all sacrifices is that of the blood poured out for it.
 
 
 
I should not like to close this chapter without referring once again to
 
the one sole possibility of alliances that exists for us in Europe at
 
the present moment. In speaking of the German alliance problem in the
 
present chapter I mentioned England and Italy as the only countries with
 
which it would be worth while for us to strive to form a close alliance
 
and that this alliance would be advantageous. I should like here to
 
underline again the military importance of such an alliance.
 
 
 
The military consequences of forming this alliance would be the direct
 
opposite of the consequences of an alliance with Russia. Most important
 
of all is the fact that a RAPPROCHEMENT with England and Italy would in
 
no way involve a danger of war. The only Power that could oppose such an
 
arrangement would be France; and France would not be in a position to
 
make war. But the alliance should allow to Germany the possibility of
 
making those preparations in all tranquillity which, within the
 
framework of such a coalition, might in one way or another be requisite
 
in view of a regulation of accounts with France. For the full
 
significance of such an alliance lies in the fact that on its conclusion
 
Germany would no longer be subject to the threat of a sudden invasion.
 
The coalition against her would disappear automatically; that is to say,
 
the Entente which brought such disaster to us. Thus France, the mortal
 
enemy of our people, would be isolated. And even though at first this
 
success would have only a moral effect, it would be sufficient to give
 
Germany such liberty of action as we cannot now imagine. For the new
 
Anglo-German-Italian alliance would hold the political initiative and no
 
longer France.
 
 
 
A further success would be that at one stroke Germany would be delivered
 
from her unfavourable strategical situation. On the one side her flank
 
would be strongly protected; and, on the other, the assurance of being
 
able to import her foodstuffs and raw materials would be a beneficial
 
result of this new alignment of States. But almost of greater importance
 
would be the fact that this new League would include States that possess
 
technical qualities which mutually supplement each other. For the first
 
time Germany would have allies who would not be as vampires on her
 
economic body but would contribute their part to complete our technical
 
equipment. And we must not forget a final fact: namely, that in this
 
case we should not have allies resembling Turkey and Russia to-day. The
 
greatest World Power on this earth and a young national State would
 
supply far other elements for a struggle in Europe than the putrescent
 
carcasses of the States with which Germany was allied in the last war.
 
 
 
As I have already said, great difficulties would naturally be made to
 
hinder the conclusion of such an alliance. But was not the formation of
 
the Entente somewhat more difficult? Where King Edward VII succeeded
 
partly against interests that were of their nature opposed to his work
 
we must and will succeed, if the recognition of the necessity of such a
 
development so inspires us that we shall be able to act with skill and
 
conquer our own feelings in carrying the policy through. This will be
 
possible when, incited to action by the miseries of our situation, we
 
shall adopt a definite purpose and follow it out systematically instead
 
of the defective foreign policy of the last decades, which never had a
 
fixed purpose in view.
 
 
 
The future goal of our foreign policy ought not to involve an
 
orientation to the East or the West, but it ought to be an Eastern
 
policy which will have in view the acquisition of such territory as is
 
necessary for our German people. To carry out this policy we need that
 
force which the mortal enemy of our nation, France, now deprives us of
 
by holding us in her grip and pitilessly robbing us of our strength.
 
Therefore we must stop at no sacrifice in our effort to destroy the
 
French striving towards hegemony over Europe. As our natural ally to-day
 
we have every Power on the Continent that feels France's lust for
 
hegemony in Europe unbearable. No attempt to approach those Powers ought
 
to appear too difficult for us, and no sacrifice should be considered
 
too heavy, if the final outcome would be to make it possible for us to
 
overthrow our bitterest enemy. The minor wounds will be cured by the
 
beneficent influence of time, once the ground wounds have been
 
cauterized and closed.
 
 
 
Naturally the internal enemies of our people will howl with rage. But
 
this will not succeed in forcing us as National Socialists to cease our
 
preaching in favour of that which our most profound conviction tells us
 
to be necessary. We must oppose the current of public opinion which will
 
be driven mad by Jewish cunning in exploiting our German
 
thoughtlessness. The waves of this public opinion often rage and roar
 
against us; but the man who swims with the current attracts less
 
attention than he who buffets it. To-day we are but a rock in the river.
 
In a few years Fate may raise us up as a dam against which the general
 
current will be broken, only to flow forward in a new bed. Therefore it
 
is necessary that in the eyes of the rest of the world our movement
 
should be recognized as representing a definite and determined political
 
programme. We ought to bear on our visors the distinguishing sign of
 
that task which Heaven expects us to fulfil.
 
 
 
When we ourselves are fully aware of the ineluctable necessity which
 
determines our external policy this knowledge will fill us with the grit
 
which we need in order to stand up with equanimity under the bombardment
 
launched against us by the enemy Press and to hold firm when some
 
insinuating voice whispers that we ought to give ground here and there
 
in order not to have all against us and that we might sometimes howl
 
with the wolves.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER XV
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENCE
 
 
 
 
 
After we had laid down our arms, in November 1918, a policy was adopted
 
which in all human probability was bound to lead gradually to our
 
complete subjugation. Analogous examples from history show that those
 
nations which lay down their arms without being absolutely forced to do
 
so subsequently prefer to submit to the greatest humiliations and
 
exactions rather than try to change their fate by resorting to arms
 
again.
 
 
 
That is intelligible on purely human grounds. A shrewd conqueror will
 
always enforce his exactions on the conquered only by stages, as far as
 
that is possible. Then he may expect that a people who have lost all
 
strength of character--which is always the case with every nation that
 
voluntarily submits to the threats of an opponent--will not find in any
 
of these acts of oppression, if one be enforced apart from the other,
 
sufficient grounds for taking up arms again. The more numerous the
 
extortions thus passively accepted so much the less will resistance
 
appear justified in the eyes of other people, if the vanquished nation
 
should end by revolting against the last act of oppression in a long
 
series. And that is specially so if the nation has already patiently and
 
silently accepted impositions which were much more exacting.
 
 
 
The fall of Carthage is a terrible example of the slow agony of a people
 
which ended in destruction and which was the fault of the people
 
themselves.
 
 
 
In his THREE ARTICLES OF FAITH Clausewitz expressed this idea admirably
 
and gave it a definite form when he said: "The stigma of shame incurred
 
by a cowardly submission can never be effaced. The drop of poison which
 
thus enters the blood of a nation will be transmitted to posterity. It
 
will undermine and paralyse the strength of later generations." But, on
 
the contrary, he added: "Even the loss of its liberty after a sanguinary
 
and honourable struggle assures the resurgence of the nation and is the
 
vital nucleus from which one day a new tree can draw firm roots."
 
 
 
Naturally a nation which has lost all sense of honour and all strength
 
of character will not feel the force of such a doctrine. But any nation
 
that takes it to heart will never fall very low. Only those who forget
 
it or do not wish to acknowledge it will collapse. Hence those
 
responsible for a cowardly submission cannot be expected suddenly to
 
take thought with themselves, for the purpose of changing their former
 
conduct and directing it in the way pointed out by human reason and
 
experience. On the contrary, they will repudiate such a doctrine, until
 
the people either become permanently habituated to the yoke of slavery
 
or the better elements of the nation push their way into the foreground
 
and forcibly take power away from the hands of an infamous and corrupt
 
regime. In the first case those who hold power will be pleased with the
 
state of affairs, because the conquerors often entrust them with the
 
task of supervising the slaves. And these utterly characterless beings
 
then exercise that power to the detriment of their own people, more
 
cruelly than the most cruel-hearted stranger that might be nominated by
 
the enemy himself.
 
 
 
The events which happened subsequent to 1918 in Germany prove how the
 
hope of securing the clemency of the victor by making a voluntary
 
submission had the most disastrous influence on the political views and
 
conduct of the broad masses. I say the broad masses explicitly, because
 
I cannot persuade myself that the things which were done or left undone
 
by the leaders of the people are to be attributed to a similar
 
disastrous illusion. Seeing that the direction of our historical destiny
 
after the war was now openly controlled by the Jews, it is impossible to
 
admit that a defective knowledge of the state of affairs was the sole
 
cause of our misfortunes. On the contrary, the conclusion that must be
 
drawn from the facts is that our people were intentionally driven to
 
ruin. If we examine it from this point of view we shall find that the
 
direction of the nation's foreign policy was not so foolish as it
 
appeared; for on scrutinizing the matter closely we see clearly that
 
this conduct was a procedure which had been calmly calculated, shrewdly
 
defined and logically carried out in the service of the Jewish idea and
 
the Jewish endeavour to secure the mastery of the world.
 
 
 
From 1806 to 1813 Prussia was in a state of collapse. But that period
 
sufficed to renew the vital energies of the nation and inspire it once
 
more with a resolute determination to fight. An equal period of time has
 
passed over our heads from 1918 until to-day, and no advantage has been
 
derived from it. On the contrary, the vital strength of our State has
 
been steadily sapped.
 
 
 
Seven years after November 1918 the Locarno Treaty was signed.
 
 
 
Thus the development which took place was what I have indicated above.
 
Once the shameful Armistice had been signed our people were unable to
 
pluck up sufficient courage and energy to call a halt suddenly to the
 
conduct of our adversary as the oppressive measures were being
 
constantly renewed. The enemy was too shrewd to put forward all his
 
demands at once. He confined his duress always to those exactions which,
 
in his opinion and that of our German Government, could be submitted to
 
for the moment: so that in this way they did not risk causing an
 
explosion of public feeling. But according as the single impositions
 
were increasingly subscribed to and tolerated it appeared less
 
justifiable to do now in the case of one sole imposition or act of
 
duress what had not been previously done in the case of so many others,
 
namely, to oppose it. That is the 'drop of poison' of which Clausewitz
 
speaks. Once this lack of character is manifested the resultant
 
condition becomes steadily aggravated and weighs like an evil
 
inheritance on all future decisions. It may become as a leaden weight
 
around the nation's neck, which cannot be shaken off but which forces it
 
to drag out its existence in slavery.
 
 
 
Thus, in Germany, edicts for disarmament and oppression and economic
 
plunder followed one after the other, making us politically helpless.
 
The result of all this was to create that mood which made so many look
 
upon the Dawes Plan as a blessing and the Locarno Treaty as a success.
 
From a higher point of view we may speak of one sole blessing in the
 
midst of so much misery. This blessing is that, though men may be
 
fooled, Heaven can't be bribed. For Heaven withheld its blessing. Since
 
that time Misery and Anxiety have been the constant companions of our
 
people, and Distress is the one Ally that has remained loyal to us. In
 
this case also Destiny has made no exceptions. It has given us our
 
deserts. Since we did not know how to value honour any more, it has
 
taught us to value the liberty to seek for bread. Now that the nation
 
has learned to cry for bread, it may one day learn to pray for freedom.
 
 
 
The collapse of our nation in the years following 1918 was bitter and
 
manifest. And yet that was the time chosen to persecute us in the most
 
malicious way our enemies could devise, so that what happened afterwards
 
could have been foretold by anybody then. The government to which our
 
people submitted was as hopelessly incompetent as it was conceited, and
 
this was especially shown in repudiating those who gave any warning that
 
disturbed or displeased. Then we saw--and to-day also--the greatest
 
parliamentary nincompoops, really common saddlers and glove-makers--not
 
merely by trade, for that would signify very little--suddenly raised to
 
the rank of statesmen and sermonizing to humble mortals from that
 
pedestal. It did not matter, and it still does not matter, that such a
 
'statesman', after having displayed his talents for six months or so as
 
a mere windbag, is shown up for what he is and becomes the object of
 
public raillery and sarcasm. It does not matter that he has given the
 
most evident proof of complete incompetency. No. That does not matter at
 
all. On the contrary, the less real service the parliamentary statesmen
 
of this Republic render the country, the more savagely they persecute
 
all who expect that parliamentary deputies should show some positive
 
results of their activities. And they persecute everybody who dares to
 
point to the failure of these activities and predict similar failures
 
for the future. If one finally succeeds in nailing down one of these
 
parliamentarians to hard facts, so that this political artist can no
 
longer deny the real failure of his whole action and its results, then
 
he will find thousands of grounds for excuse, but will in no way admit
 
that he himself is the chief cause of the evil.
 
 
 
In the winter of 1922-23, at the latest, it ought to have been generally
 
recognized that, even after the conclusion of peace, France was still
 
endeavouring with iron consistency to attain those ends which had been
 
originally envisaged as the final purpose of the War. For nobody could
 
think of believing that for four and a half years France continued to
 
pour out the not abundant supply of her national blood in the most
 
decisive struggle throughout all her history in order subsequently to
 
obtain compensation through reparations for the damages sustained. Even
 
Alsace and Lorraine, taken by themselves, would not account for the
 
energy with which the French conducted the War, if Alsace-Lorraine were
 
not already considered as a part of the really vast programme which
 
French foreign policy had envisaged for the future. The aim of that
 
programme was: Disintegration of Germany into a collection of small
 
states. It was for this that Chauvinist France waged war; and in doing
 
so she was in reality selling her people to be the serfs of the
 
international Jew.
 
 
 
French war aims would have been obtained through the World War if, as
 
was originally hoped in Paris, the struggle had been carried out on
 
German soil. Let us imagine the bloody battles of the World War not as
 
having taken place on the Somme, in Flanders, in Artois, in front of
 
Warsaw, Nizhni-Novogorod, Kowno, and Riga but in Germany, in the Ruhr or
 
on the Maine, on the Elbe, in front of Hanover, Leipzig, Nürnberg, etc.
 
If such happened, then we must admit that the destruction of Germany
 
might have been accomplished. It is very much open to question if our
 
young federal State could have borne the hard struggle for four and a
 
half years, as it was borne by a France that had been centralized for
 
centuries, with the whole national imagination focused on Paris. If this
 
titanic conflict between the nations developed outside the frontiers of
 
our fatherland, not only is all the merit due to the immortal service
 
rendered by our old army but it was also very fortunate for the future
 
of Germany. I am fully convinced that if things had taken a different
 
course there would no longer be a German REICH to-day but only 'German
 
States'. And that is the only reason why the blood which was shed by our
 
friends and brothers in the War was at least not shed in vain.
 
 
 
The course which events took was otherwise. In November 1918 Germany did
 
indeed collapse with lightning suddenness. But when the catastrophe took
 
place at home the armies under the Commander-in-Chief were still deep in
 
the enemy's country. At that time France's first preoccupation was not
 
the dismemberment of Germany but the problem of how to get the German
 
armies out of France and Belgium as quickly as possible. And so, in
 
order to put an end to the War, the first thing that had to be done by
 
the Paris Government was to disarm the German armies and push them back
 
into Germany if possible. Until this was done the French could not
 
devote their attention to carrying out their own particular and original
 
war aims. As far as concerned England, the War was really won when
 
Germany was destroyed as a colonial and commercial Power and was reduced
 
to the rank of a second-class State. It was not in England's interest to
 
wipe out the German State altogether. In fact, on many grounds it was
 
desirable for her to have a future rival against France in Europe.
 
Therefore French policy was forced to carry on by peaceful means the
 
work for which the War had opened the way; and Clemenceau's statement,
 
that for him Peace was merely a continuation of the War, thus acquired
 
an enhanced significance.
 
 
 
Persistently and on every opportunity that arose, the effort to
 
dislocate the framework of the REICH was to have been carried on. By
 
perpetually sending new notes that demanded disarmament, on the one
 
hand, and by the imposition of economic levies which, on the other hand,
 
could be carried out as the process of disarmament progressed, it was
 
hoped in Paris that the framework of the REICH would gradually fall to
 
pieces. The more the Germans lost their sense of national honour the
 
more could economic pressure and continued economic distress be
 
effective as factors of political destruction. Such a policy of
 
political oppression and economic exploitation, carried out for ten or
 
twenty years, must in the long run steadily ruin the most compact
 
national body and, under certain circumstances, dismember it. Then the
 
French war aims would have been definitely attained.
 
 
 
By the winter of 1922-23 the intentions of the French must already have
 
been known for a long time back. There remained only two possible ways
 
of confronting the situation. If the German national body showed itself
 
sufficiently tough-skinned, it might gradually blunt the will of the
 
French or it might do--once and for all--what was bound to become
 
inevitable one day: that is to say, under the provocation of some
 
particularly brutal act of oppression it could put the helm of the
 
German ship of state to roundabout and ram the enemy. That would
 
naturally involve a life-and-death-struggle. And the prospect of coming
 
through the struggle alive depended on whether France could be so far
 
isolated that in this second battle Germany would not have to fight
 
against the whole world but in defence of Germany against a France that
 
was persistently disturbing the peace of the world.
 
 
 
I insist on this point, and I am profoundly convinced of it, namely,
 
that this second alternative will one day be chosen and will have to be
 
chosen and carried out in one way or another. I shall never believe that
 
France will of herself alter her intentions towards us, because, in the
 
last analysis, they are only the expression of the French instinct for
 
self-preservation. Were I a Frenchman and were the greatness of France
 
so dear to me as that of Germany actually is, in the final reckoning I
 
could not and would not act otherwise than a Clemenceau. The French
 
nation, which is slowly dying out, not so much through depopulation as
 
through the progressive disappearance of the best elements of the race,
 
can continue to play an important role in the world only if Germany be
 
destroyed. French policy may make a thousand detours on the march
 
towards its fixed goal, but the destruction of Germany is the end which
 
it always has in view as the fulfilment of the most profound yearning
 
and ultimate intentions of the French. Now it is a mistake to believe
 
that if the will on one side should remain only PASSIVE and intent on
 
its own self-preservation it can hold out permanently against another
 
will which is not less forceful but is ACTIVE. As long as the eternal
 
conflict between France and Germany is waged only in the form of a
 
German defence against the French attack, that conflict can never be
 
decided; and from century to century Germany will lose one position
 
after another. If we study the changes that have taken place, from the
 
twelfth century up to our day, in the frontiers within which the German
 
language is spoken, we can hardly hope for a successful issue to result
 
from the acceptance and development of a line of conduct which has
 
hitherto been so detrimental for us.
 
 
 
Only when the Germans have taken all this fully into account will they
 
cease from allowing the national will-to-life to wear itself out in
 
merely passive defence, but they will rally together for a last decisive
 
contest with France. And in this contest the essential objective of the
 
German nation will be fought for. Only then will it be possible to put
 
an end to the eternal Franco-German conflict which has hitherto proved
 
so sterile. Of course it is here presumed that Germany sees in the
 
suppression of France nothing more than a means which will make it
 
possible for our people finally to expand in another quarter. To-day
 
there are eighty million Germans in Europe. And our foreign policy will
 
be recognized as rightly conducted only when, after barely a hundred
 
years, there will be 250 million Germans living on this Continent, not
 
packed together as the coolies in the factories of another Continent but
 
as tillers of the soil and workers whose labour will be a mutual
 
assurance for their existence.
 
 
 
In December 1922 the situation between Germany and France assumed a
 
particularly threatening aspect. France had new and vast oppressive
 
measures in view and needed sanctions for her conduct. Political
 
pressure had to precede the economic plunder, and the French believed
 
that only by making a violent attack against the central nervous system
 
of German life would they be able to make our 'recalcitrant' people bow
 
to their galling yoke. By the occupation of the Ruhr District, it was
 
hoped in France that not only would the moral backbone of Germany be
 
broken finally but that we should be reduced to such a grave economic
 
condition that we should be forced, for weal or woe, to subscribe to the
 
heaviest possible obligations.
 
 
 
It was a question of bending and breaking Germany. At first Germany bent
 
and subsequently broke in pieces completely.
 
 
 
Through the occupation of the Ruhr, Fate once more reached out its hand
 
to the German people and bade them arise. For what at first appeared as
 
a heavy stroke of misfortune was found, on closer examination, to
 
contain extremely encouraging possibilities of bringing Germany's
 
sufferings to an end.
 
 
 
As regards foreign politics, the action of France in occupying the Ruhr
 
really estranged England for the first time in quite a profound way.
 
Indeed it estranged not merely British diplomatic circles, which had
 
concluded the French alliance and had upheld it from motives of calm and
 
objective calculation, but it also estranged large sections of the
 
English nation. The English business world in particular scarcely
 
concealed the displeasure it felt at this incredible forward step in
 
strengthening the power of France on the Continent. From the military
 
standpoint alone France now assumed a position in Europe such as Germany
 
herself had not held previously. Moreover, France thus obtained control
 
over economic resources which practically gave her a monopoly that
 
consolidated her political and commercial strength against all
 
competition. The most important iron and coal mines of Europe were now
 
united in the hand of one nation which, in contrast to Germany, had
 
hitherto defended her vital interests in an active and resolute fashion
 
and whose military efficiency in the Great War was still fresh in the
 
memories of the whole world. The French occupation of the Ruhr coal
 
field deprived England of all the successes she had gained in the War.
 
And the victors were now Marshal Foch and the France he represented, no
 
longer the calm and painstaking British statesmen.
 
 
 
In Italy also the attitude towards France, which had not been very
 
favourable since the end of the War, now became positively hostile. The
 
great historic moment had come when the Allies of yesterday might become
 
the enemies of to-morrow. If things happened otherwise and if the Allies
 
did not suddenly come into conflict with one another, as in the Second
 
Balkan War, that was due to the fact that Germany had no Enver Pasha but
 
merely a Cuno as Chancellor of the REICH.
 
 
 
Nevertheless, the French invasion of the Ruhr opened up great
 
possibilities for the future not only in Germany's foreign politics but
 
also in her internal politics. A considerable section of our people who,
 
thanks to the persistent influence of a mendacious Press, had looked
 
upon France as the champion of progress and liberty, were suddenly cured
 
of this illusion. In 1914 the dream of international solidarity suddenly
 
vanished from the brain of our German working class. They were brought
 
back into the world of everlasting struggle, where one creature feeds on
 
the other and where the death of the weaker implies the life of the
 
stronger. The same thing happened in the spring of 1923.
 
 
 
When the French put their threats into effect and penetrated, at first
 
hesitatingly and cautiously, into the coal-basin of Lower Germany the
 
hour of destiny had struck for Germany. It was a great and decisive
 
moment. If at that moment our people had changed not only their frame of
 
mind but also their conduct the German Ruhr District could have been
 
made for France what Moscow turned out to be for Napoleon. Indeed, there
 
were only two possibilities: either to leave this move also to take its
 
course and do nothing or to turn to the German people in that region of
 
sweltering forges and flaming furnaces. An effort might have been made
 
to set their wills afire with determination to put an end to this
 
persistent disgrace and to face a momentary terror rather than submit to
 
a terror that was endless.
 
 
 
Cuno, who was then Chancellor of the REICH, can claim the immortal merit
 
of having discovered a third way; and our German bourgeois political
 
parties merit the still more glorious honour of having admired him and
 
collaborated with him.
 
 
 
Here I shall deal with the second way as briefly as possible.
 
 
 
By occupying the Ruhr France committed a glaring violation of the
 
Versailles Treaty. Her action brought her into conflict with several of
 
the guarantor Powers, especially with England and Italy. She could no
 
longer hope that those States would back her up in her egotistic act of
 
brigandage. She could count only on her own forces to reap anything like
 
a positive result from that adventure, for such it was at the start. For
 
a German National Government there was only one possible way left open.
 
And this was the way which honour prescribed. Certainly at the beginning
 
we could not have opposed France with an active armed resistance. But it
 
should have been clearly recognized that any negotiations which did not
 
have the argument of force to back them up would turn out futile and
 
ridiculous. If it were not possible to organize an active resistance,
 
then it was absurd to take up the standpoint: "We shall not enter into
 
any negotiations." But it was still more absurd finally to enter into
 
negotiations without having organized the necessary force as a support.
 
 
 
Not that it was possible for us by military means to prevent the
 
occupation of the Ruhr. Only a madman could have recommended such a
 
decision. But under the impression produced by the action which France
 
had taken, and during the time that it was being carried out, measures
 
could have been, and should have been, undertaken without any regard to
 
the Versailles Treaty, which France herself had violated, to provide
 
those military resources which would serve as a collateral argument to
 
back up the negotiations later on. For it was quite clear from the
 
beginning that the fate of this district occupied by the French would
 
one day be decided at some conference table or other. But it also must
 
have been quite to everybody that even the best negotiators could have
 
little success as long as the ground on which they themselves stood and
 
the chair on which they sat were not under the armed protection of their
 
own people. A weak pigmy cannot contend against athletes, and a
 
negotiator without any armed defence at his back must always bow in
 
obeisance when a Brennus throws the sword into the scales on the enemy's
 
side, unless an equally strong sword can be thrown into the scales at
 
the other end and thus maintain the balance. It was really distressing
 
to have to observe the comedy of negotiations which, ever since 1918,
 
regularly preceded each arbitrary dictate that the enemy imposed upon
 
us. We offered a sorry spectacle to the eyes of the whole world when we
 
were invited, for the sake of derision, to attend conference tables
 
simply to be presented with decisions and programmes which had already
 
been drawn up and passed a long time before, and which we were permitted
 
to discuss, but from the beginning had to be considered as unalterable.
 
It is true that in scarcely a single instance were our negotiators men
 
of more than mediocre abilities. For the most part they justified only
 
too well the insolent observation made by Lloyd George when he
 
sarcastically remarked, in the presence of a former Chancellor of the
 
REICH, Herr Simon, that the Germans were not able to choose men of
 
intelligence as their leaders and representatives. But in face of the
 
resolute determination and the power which the enemy held in his hands,
 
on the one side, and the lamentable impotence of Germany on the other,
 
even a body of geniuses could have obtained only very little for
 
Germany.
 
 
 
In the spring of 1923, however, anyone who might have thought of seizing
 
the opportunity of the French invasion of the Ruhr to reconstruct the
 
military power of Germany would first have had to restore to the nation
 
its moral weapons, to reinforce its will-power, and to extirpate those
 
who had destroyed this most valuable element of national strength.
 
 
 
Just as in 1918 we had to pay with our blood for the failure to crush
 
the Marxist serpent underfoot once and for all in 1914 and 1915, now we
 
have to suffer retribution for the fact that in the spring of 1923 we
 
did not seize the opportunity then offered us for finally wiping out the
 
handiwork done by the Marxists who betrayed their country and were
 
responsible for the murder of our people.
 
 
 
Any idea of opposing French aggression with an efficacious resistance
 
was only pure folly as long as the fight had not been taken up against
 
those forces which, five years previously, had broken the German
 
resistance on the battlefields by the influences which they exercised at
 
home. Only bourgeois minds could have arrived at the incredible belief
 
that Marxism had probably become quite a different thing now and that
 
the CANAILLE of ringleaders in 1918, who callously used the bodies of
 
our two million dead as stepping-stones on which they climbed into the
 
various Government positions, would now, in the year 1923, suddenly show
 
themselves ready to pay their tribute to the national conscience. It was
 
veritably a piece of incredible folly to expect that those traitors
 
would suddenly appear as the champions of German freedom. They had no
 
intention of doing it. Just as a hyena will not leave its carrion, a
 
Marxist will not give up indulging in the betrayal of his country. It is
 
out of the question to put forward the stupid retort here, that so many
 
of the workers gave their blood for Germany. German workers, yes, but no
 
longer international Marxists. If the German working class, in 1914,
 
consisted of real Marxists the War would have ended within three weeks.
 
Germany would have collapsed before the first soldier had put a foot
 
beyond the frontiers. No. The fact that the German people carried on the
 
War proved that the Marxist folly had not yet been able to penetrate
 
deeply. But as the War was prolonged German soldiers and workers
 
gradually fell back into the hands of the Marxist leaders, and the
 
number of those who thus relapsed became lost to their country. At the
 
beginning of the War, or even during the War, if twelve or fifteen
 
thousand of these Jews who were corrupting the nation had been forced to
 
submit to poison-gas, just as hundreds of thousands of our best German
 
workers from every social stratum and from every trade and calling had
 
to face it in the field, then the millions of sacrifices made at the
 
front would not have been in vain. On the contrary: If twelve thousand
 
of these malefactors had been eliminated in proper time probably the
 
lives of a million decent men, who would be of value to Germany in the
 
future, might have been saved. But it was in accordance with bourgeois
 
'statesmanship' to hand over, without the twitch of an eyelid, millions
 
of human beings to be slaughtered on the battlefields, while they looked
 
upon ten or twelve thousand public traitors, profiteers, usurers and
 
swindlers, as the dearest and most sacred national treasure and
 
proclaimed their persons to be inviolable. Indeed it would be hard to
 
say what is the most outstanding feature of these bourgeois circles:
 
mental debility, moral weakness and cowardice, or a mere down-at-heel
 
mentality. It is a class that is certainly doomed to go under but,
 
unhappily, it drags down the whole nation with it into the abyss.
 
 
 
The situation in 1923 was quite similar to that of 1918. No matter what
 
form of resistance was decided upon, the first prerequisite for taking
 
action was the elimination of the Marxist poison from the body of the
 
nation. And I was convinced that the first task then of a really
 
National Government was to seek and find those forces that were
 
determined to wage a war of destruction against Marxism and to give
 
these forces a free hand. It was their duty not to bow down before the
 
fetish of 'order and tranquillity' at a moment when the enemy from
 
outside was dealing the Fatherland a death-blow and when high treason
 
was lurking behind every street corner at home. No. A really National
 
Government ought then to have welcomed disorder and unrest if this
 
turmoil would afford an opportunity of finally settling with the
 
Marxists, who are the mortal enemies of our people. If this precaution
 
were neglected, then it was sheer folly to think of resisting, no matter
 
what form that resistance might take.
 
 
 
Of course, such a settlement of accounts with the Marxists as would be
 
of real historical importance could not be effected along lines laid
 
down by some secret council or according to some plan concocted by the
 
shrivelled mind of some cabinet minister. It would have to be in
 
accordance with the eternal laws of life on this Earth which are and
 
will remain those of a ceaseless struggle for existence. It must always
 
be remembered that in many instances a hardy and healthy nation has
 
emerged from the ordeal of the most bloody civil wars, while from peace
 
conditions which had been artificially maintained there often resulted a
 
state of national putrescence that reeked to the skies. The fate of a
 
nation cannot be changed in kid gloves. And so in the year 1923 brutal
 
action should have been taken to stamp out the vipers that battened on
 
the body of the nation. If this were done, then the first prerequisite
 
for an active opposition would have been fulfilled.
 
 
 
At that time I often talked myself hoarse in trying to make it clear, at
 
least to the so-called national circles, what was then at stake and that
 
by repeating the errors committed in 1914 and the following years we
 
must necessarily come to the same kind of catastrophe as in 1918. I
 
frequently implored of them to let Fate have a free hand and to make it
 
possible for our Movement to settle with the Marxists. But I preached to
 
deaf ears. They all thought they knew better, including the Chief of the
 
Defence Force, until finally they found themselves forced to subscribe
 
to the vilest capitulation that history records.
 
 
 
I then became profoundly convinced that the German bourgeoisie had come
 
to the end of its mission and was not capable of fulfilling any further
 
function. And then also I recognized the fact that all the bourgeois
 
parties had been fighting Marxism merely from the spirit of competition
 
without sincerely wishing to destroy it. For a long time they had been
 
accustomed to assist in the destruction of their country, and their one
 
great care was to secure good seats at the funeral banquet. It was for
 
this alone that they kept on 'fighting'.
 
 
 
At that time--I admit it openly--I conceived a profound admiration for
 
the great man beyond the Alps, whose ardent love for his people inspired
 
him not to bargain with Italy's internal enemies but to use all possible
 
ways and means in an effort to wipe them out. What places Mussolini in
 
the ranks of the world's great men is his decision not to share Italy
 
with the Marxists but to redeem his country from Marxism by destroying
 
internationalism.
 
 
 
What miserable pigmies our sham statesmen in Germany appear by
 
comparison with him. And how nauseating it is to witness the conceit and
 
effrontery of these nonentities in criticizing a man who is a thousand
 
times greater than them. And how painful it is to think that this takes
 
place in a country which could point to a Bismarck as its leader as
 
recently as fifty years ago.
 
 
 
The attitude adopted by the bourgeoisie in 1923 and the way in which
 
they dealt kindly with Marxism decided from the outset the fate of any
 
attempt at active resistance in the Ruhr. With that deadly enemy in our
 
own ranks it was sheer folly to think of fighting France. The most that
 
could then be done was to stage a sham fight in order to satisfy the
 
German national element to some extent, to tranquillize the 'boiling
 
state of the public mind', or dope it, which was what was really
 
intended. Had they really believed in what they did, they ought to have
 
recognized that the strength of a nation lies, first of all, not in its
 
arms but in its will, and that before conquering the external enemy the
 
enemy at home would have to be eliminated. If not, then disaster must
 
result if victory be not achieved on the very first day of the fight.
 
The shadow of one defeat is sufficient to break up the resistance of a
 
nation that has not been liberated from its internal enemies, and give
 
the adversary a decisive victory.
 
 
 
In the spring of 1923 all this might have been predicted. It is useless
 
to ask whether it was then possible to count on a military success
 
against France. For if the result of the German action in regard to the
 
French invasion of the Ruhr had been only the destruction of Marxism at
 
home, success would have been on our side. Once liberated from the
 
deadly enemies of her present and future existence, Germany would
 
possess forces which no power in the world could strangle again. On the
 
day when Marxism is broken in Germany the chains that bind Germany will
 
be smashed for ever. For never in our history have we been conquered by
 
the strength of our outside enemies but only through our own failings
 
and the enemy in our own camp.
 
 
 
Since it was not able to decide on such heroic action at that time, the
 
Government could have chosen the first way: namely, to allow things to
 
take their course and do nothing at all.
 
 
 
But at that great moment Heaven made Germany a present of a great man.
 
This was Herr Cuno. He was neither a statesman nor a politician by
 
profession, still less a politician by birth. But he belonged to that
 
type of politician who is merely used for liGYMNASIUMating some definite
 
question. Apart from that, he had business experience. It was a curse
 
for Germany that, in the practice of politics, this business man looked
 
upon politics also as a business undertaking and regulated his conduct
 
accordingly.
 
 
 
"France occupies the Ruhr. What is there in the Ruhr? Coal. And so
 
France occupies the Ruhr for the sake of its coal?" What could come more
 
naturally to the mind of Herr Cuno than the idea of a strike, which
 
would prevent the French from obtaining any coal? And therefore, in the
 
opinion of Herr Cuno, one day or other they would certainly have to get
 
out of the Ruhr again if the occupation did not prove to be a paying
 
business. Such were approximately the lines along which that OUTSTANDING
 
NATIONAL STATESMAN reasoned. At Stuttgart and other places he spoke to
 
'his people' and this people became lost in admiration for him. Of
 
course they needed the Marxists for the strike, because the workers
 
would have to be the first to go on strike. Now, in the brain of a
 
bourgeois statesman such as Cuno, a Marxist and a worker are one and the
 
same thing. Therefore it was necessary to bring the worker into line
 
with all the other Germans in a united front. One should have seen how
 
the countenances of these party politicians beamed with the light of
 
their moth-eaten bourgeois culture when the great genius spoke the word
 
of revelation to them. Here was a nationalist and also a man of genius.
 
At last they had discovered what they had so long sought. For now the
 
abyss between Marxism and themselves could be bridged over. And thus it
 
became possible for the pseudo-nationalist to ape the German manner and
 
adopt nationalist phraseology in reaching out the ingenuous hand of
 
friendship to the internationalist traitors of their country. The
 
traitor readily grasped that hand, because, just as Herr Cuno had need
 
of the Marxist chiefs for his 'united front', the Marxist chiefs needed
 
Herr Cuno's money. So that both parties mutually benefited by the
 
transaction. Cuno obtained his united front, constituted of nationalist
 
charlatans and international swindlers. And now, with the help of the
 
money paid to them by the State, these people were able to pursue their
 
glorious mission, which was to destroy the national economic system. It
 
was an immortal thought, that of saving a nation by means of a general
 
strike in which the strikers were paid by the State. It was a command
 
that could be enthusiastically obeyed by the most indifferent of
 
loafers.
 
 
 
Everybody knows that prayers will not make a nation free. But that it is
 
possible to liberate a nation by giving up work has yet to be proved by
 
historical experience. Instead of promoting a paid general strike at
 
that time, and making this the basis of his 'united front', if Herr Cuno
 
had demanded two hours more work from every German, then the swindle of
 
the 'united front' would have been disposed of within three days.
 
Nations do not obtain their freedom by refusing to work but by making
 
sacrifices.
 
 
 
Anyhow, the so-called passive resistance could not last long. Nobody but
 
a man entirely ignorant of war could imagine that an army of occupation
 
might be frightened and driven out by such ridiculous means. And yet
 
this could have been the only purpose of an action for which the country
 
had to pay out milliards and which contributed seriously to devaluate
 
the national currency.
 
 
 
Of course the French were able to make themselves almost at home in the
 
Ruhr basin the moment they saw that such ridiculous measures were being
 
adopted against them. They had received the prescription directly from
 
ourselves of the best way to bring a recalcitrant civil population to a
 
sense of reason if its conduct implied a serious danger for the
 
officials which the army of occupation had placed in authority. Nine
 
years previously we wiped out with lightning rapidity bands of Belgian
 
FRANCS-TIREURS and made the civil population clearly understand the
 
seriousness of the situation, when the activities of these bands
 
threatened grave danger for the German army. In like manner if the
 
passive resistance of the Ruhr became really dangerous for the French,
 
the armies of occupation would have needed no more than eight days to
 
bring the whole piece of childish nonsense to a gruesome end. For we
 
must always go back to the original question in all this business: What
 
were we to do if the passive resistance came to the point where it
 
really got on the nerves of our opponents and they proceeded to suppress
 
it with force and bloodshed? Would we still continue to resist? If so,
 
then, for weal or woe, we would have to submit to a severe and bloody
 
persecution. And in that case we should be faced with the same situation
 
as would have faced us in the case of an active resistance. In other
 
words, we should have to fight. Therefore the so-called passive
 
resistance would be logical only if supported by the determination to
 
come out and wage an open fight in case of necessity or adopt a kind of
 
guerilla warfare. Generally speaking, one undertakes such a struggle
 
when there is a possibility of success. The moment a besieged fortress
 
is taken by assault there is no practical alternative left to the
 
defenders except to surrender, if instead of probable death they are
 
assured that their lives will be spared. Let the garrison of a citadel
 
which has been completely encircled by the enemy once lose all hope of
 
being delivered by their friends, then the strength of the defence
 
collapses totally.
 
 
 
That is why passive resistance in the Ruhr, when one considers the final
 
consequences which it might and must necessarily have if it were to turn
 
out really successful, had no practical meaning unless an active front
 
had been organized to support it. Then one might have demanded immense
 
efforts from our people. If each of these Westphalians in the Ruhr could
 
have been assured that the home country had mobilized an army of eighty
 
or a hundred divisions to support them, the French would have found
 
themselves treading on thorns. Surely a greater number of courageous men
 
could be found to sacrifice themselves for a successful enterprise than
 
for an enterprise that was manifestly futile.
 
 
 
This was the classic occasion that induced us National Socialists to
 
take up a resolute stand against the so-called national word of command.
 
And that is what we did. During those months I was attacked by people
 
whose patriotism was a mixture of stupidity and humbug and who took part
 
in the general hue and cry because of the pleasant sensation they felt
 
at being suddenly enabled to show themselves as nationalists, without
 
running any danger thereby. In my estimation, this despicable 'united
 
front' was one of the most ridiculous things that could be imagined. And
 
events proved that I was right.
 
 
 
As soon as the Trades Unions had nearly filled their treasuries with
 
Cuno's contributions, and the moment had come when it would be necessary
 
to transform the passive resistance from a mere inert defence into
 
active aggression, the Red hyenas suddenly broke out of the national
 
sheepfold and returned to be what they always had been. Without sounding
 
any drums or trumpets, Herr Cuno returned to his ships. Germany was
 
richer by one experience and poorer by the loss of one great hope.
 
 
 
Up to midsummer of that year several officers, who certainly were not
 
the least brave and honourable of their kind, had not really believed
 
that the course of things could take a turn that was so humiliating.
 
They had all hoped that--if not openly, then at least secretly--the
 
necessary measures would be taken to make this insolent French invasion
 
a turning-point in German history. In our ranks also there were many who
 
counted at least on the intervention of the REICHSWEHR. That conviction
 
was so ardent that it decisively influenced the conduct and especially
 
the training of innumerable young men.
 
 
 
But when the disgraceful collapse set in and the most humiliating kind
 
of capitulation was made, indignation against such a betrayal of our
 
unhappy country broke out into a blaze. Millions of German money had
 
been spent in vain and thousands of young Germans had been sacrificed,
 
who were foolish enough to trust in the promises made by the rulers of
 
the REICH. Millions of people now became clearly convinced that Germany
 
could be saved only if the whole prevailing system were destroyed root
 
and branch.
 
 
 
There never had been a more propitious moment for such a solution. On
 
the one side an act of high treason had been committed against the
 
country, openly and shamelessly. On the other side a nation found itself
 
delivered over to die slowly of hunger. Since the State itself had
 
trodden down all the precepts of faith and loyalty, made a mockery of
 
the rights of its citizens, rendered the sacrifices of millions of its
 
most loyal sons fruitless and robbed other millions of their last penny,
 
such a State could no longer expect anything but hatred from its
 
subjects. This hatred against those who had ruined the people and the
 
country was bound to find an outlet in one form or another. In this
 
connection I shall quote here the concluding sentence of a speech which
 
I delivered at the great court trial that took place in the spring of
 
1924.
 
 
 
"The judges of this State may tranquilly condemn us for our conduct at
 
that time, but History, the goddess of a higher truth and a better legal
 
code, will smile as she tears up this verdict and will acquit us all of
 
the crime for which this verdict demands punishment."
 
 
 
But History will then also summon before its own tribunal those who,
 
invested with power to-day, have trampled on law and justice, condemning
 
our people to misery and ruin, and who, in the hour of their country's
 
misfortune, took more account of their own ego than of the life of the
 
community.
 
 
 
Here I shall not relate the course of events which led to November 8th,
 
1923, and closed with that date. I shall not do so because I cannot see
 
that this would serve any beneficial purpose in the future and also
 
because no good could come of opening old sores that have been just only
 
closed. Moreover, it would be out of place to talk about the guilt of
 
men who perhaps in the depths of their hearts have as much love for
 
their people as I myself, and who merely did not follow the same road as
 
I took or failed to recognize it as the right one to take.
 
 
 
In the face of the great misfortune which has befallen our fatherland
 
and affects all us, I must abstain from offending and perhaps disuniting
 
those men who must at some future date form one great united front which
 
will be made up of true and loyal Germans and which will have to
 
withstand the common front presented by the enemy of our people. For I
 
know that a time will come when those who then treated us as enemies
 
will venerate the men who trod the bitter way of death for the sake of
 
their people.
 
 
 
I have dedicated the first volume of this book to our eighteen fallen
 
heroes. Here at the end of this second volume let me again bring those
 
men to the memory of the adherents and champions of our ideals, as
 
heroes who, in the full consciousness of what they were doing,
 
sacrificed their lives for us all. We must never fail to recall those
 
names in order to encourage the weak and wavering among us when duty
 
calls, that duty which they fulfilled with absolute faith, even to its
 
extreme consequences. Together with those, and as one of the best of
 
all, I should like to mention the name of a man who devoted his life to
 
reawakening his and our people, through his writing and his ideas and
 
finally through positive action. I mean: Dietrich Eckart.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EPILOGUE
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
On November 9th, 1923, four and a half years after its foundation, the
 
German National Socialist Labour Party was dissolved and forbidden
 
throughout the whole of the REICH. To-day, in November 1926, it is again
 
established throughout the REICH, enjoying full liberty, stronger and
 
internally more compact than ever before.
 
 
 
All persecutions of the Movement and the individuals at its head, all
 
the imputations and calumnies, have not been able to prevail against it.
 
Thanks to the justice of its ideas, the integrity of its intentions and
 
the spirit of self-denial that animates its members, it has overcome all
 
oppression and increased its strength through the ordeal. If, in our
 
contemporary world of parliamentary corruption, our Movement remains
 
always conscious of the profound nature of its struggle and feels that
 
it personifies the values of individual personality and race, and orders
 
its action accordingly--then it may count with mathematical certainty on
 
achieving victory some day in the future. And Germany must necessarily
 
win the position which belongs to it on this Earth if it is led and
 
organized according to these principles.
 
 
 
A State which, in an epoch of racial adulteration, devotes itself to the
 
duty of preserving the best elements of its racial stock must one day
 
become ruler of the Earth.
 
 
 
The adherents of our Movements must always remember this, whenever they
 
may have misgivings lest the greatness of the sacrifices demanded of
 
them may not be justified by the possibilities of success.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE END
 

Revision as of 23:30, 3 December 2022