Mein Kampf - Adolf Hitler [English Version-- A Gutenberg Project]

A Project Gutenberg of Australia eBook

Title:      Mein Kampf
Author:     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 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