Listed here are four Preteen Hardcore Ways Everybody Believes In.

Main Page Forums Q & A Listed here are four Preteen Hardcore Ways Everybody Believes In.

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Author
  • #12294 Reply

    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

    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

    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

    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.



    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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.



    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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.



    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    (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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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.



    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    “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

    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

    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

    “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

    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.

    #181130 Reply


    #181241 Reply
    Guest – price for ivermectin tablets

    #181379 Reply

    comprare cialis online

    #206557 Reply

    azithromycin covid

    #206720 Reply


    #207039 Reply
    #218215 Reply
    Guest – furosemide dosage in heart failure

    #220206 Reply

    Kamagra 100 Mg Tours

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
Reply To: Listed here are four Preteen Hardcore Ways Everybody Believes In.
Your information: