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.