MEINKAMPF
Adolf Hitler
HURST AND BLACKETTLTD.,
Publishers since 1812
LONDON • NEW YORK • MELBOURNE
was first published onMarch 21st, 1939
Volume I: A RETROSPECT
Volume II: THE NATIONAL SOCIALIST MOVEMENT
INTRODUCTION
AUTHOR’S PREFACE
On April 1st, 1924, I began toserve my sentence of detention in the Fortress of Landsberg am Lech, followingthe verdict of the Munich People’s Court of that time.
After years of uninterrupted labourit was now possible for the first time to begin a work which many had asked forand which I myself felt would be profitable for the Movement. So I decided todevote two volumes to a description not only of the aims of our Movement butalso of its development. There is more to be learned from this than from anypurely doctrinaire treatise.
This has also given me theopportunity of describing my own development in so far as such a description isnecessary to the understanding of the first as well as the second volume and todestroy the legendary fabrications which the Jewish Press have circulated aboutme.
In this work I turn not tostrangers but to those followers of the Movement whose hearts belong to it andwho wish to study it more profoundly. I know that fewer people are won over bythe written word than by the spoken word and that every great movement on thisearth owes its growth to great speakers and not to great writers.
Nevertheless, in order to producemore equality and uniformity in the defence of any doctrine, its fundamentalprinciples must be committed to writing. May these two volumes therefore serveas the building stones which I contribute to the joint work.
The Fortress, Landsberg am Lech.
At half-past twelve in theafternoon of November 9th, 1923, those whose names are given below fell infront of the Feldherrnhalle and in the forecourt of the former War Ministry inMunich for their loyal faith in the resurrection of their people:
Alfarth,Felix, Merchant, born July 5th, 1901
Bauriedl,Andreas, Hatmaker, born May 4th, 1879
Casella,Theodor, Bank Official, born August 8th, 1900
Ehrlich,Wilhelm, Bank Official, born August 19th, 1894
Faust,Martin, Bank Official, born January 27th, 1901
Hechenberger,Anton, Locksmith, born September 28th, 1902
Koerner,Oskar, Merchant, born January 4th, 1875
Kuhn,Karl, Head Waiter, born July 25th, 1897
Laforce,Karl, Student of Engineering, born October 28th, 1904
Neubauer,Kurt, Waiter, born March 27th, 1899
Pape,Claus von, Merchant, born August 16th, 1904
Pfordten,Theodor von der, Councillor to the Superior Provincial Court, born May 14th,1873
Rickmers,Johann, retired Cavalry Captain, born May 7th, 1881
Scheubner-Richter,Max Erwin von, Dr. of Engineering, born January 9th, 1884
Stransky,Lorenz Ritter von, Engineer, born March 14th, 1899
Wolf,Wilhelm, Merchant, born October 19th, 1898
So-called national officialsrefused to allow the dead heroes a common burial. So I dedicate the firstvolume of this work to them as a common memorial, that the memory of thosemartyrs may be a permanent source of light for the followers of our Movement.
The Fortress, Landsberg a/L.,
October 16th, 1924
In placing before the reader this unabridgedtranslation of Adolf Hitler’s book, Mein Kampf, I feel it my duty to callattention to certain historical facts which must be borne in mind if the readerwould form a fair judgment of what is written in this extraordinary work.
The first volume of Mein Kampf waswritten while the author was imprisoned in a Bavarian fortress. How did he getthere and why? The answer to that question is important, because the book dealswith the events which brought the author into this plight and because he wroteunder the emotional stress caused by the historical happenings of the time. Itwas the hour of Germany’s deepest humiliation, somewhat parallel to that of alittle over a century before, when Napoleon had dismembered the old GermanEmpire and French soldiers occupied almost the whole of Germany.
In the beginning of 1923 theFrench invaded Germany, occupied the Ruhr district and seized several Germantowns in the Rhineland. This was a flagrant breach of international law and wasprotested against by every section of British political opinion at that time.The Germans could not effectively defend themselves, as they had been alreadydisarmed under the provisions of the Versailles Treaty. To make the situationmore fraught with disaster for Germany, and therefore more appalling in itsprospect, the French carried on an intensive propaganda for the separation ofthe Rhineland from the German Republic and the establishment of an independentRhenania. Money was poured out lavishly to bribe agitators to carry on thiswork, and some of the most insidious elements of the German population becameactive in the pay of the invader. At the same time a vigorous movement wasbeing carried on in Bavaria for the secession of that country and theestablishment of an independent Catholic monarchy there, under vassalage toFrance, as Napoleon had done when he made Maximilian the first King of Bavariain 1805.
The separatist movement in theRhineland went so far that some leading German politicians came out in favourof it, suggesting that if the Rhineland were thus ceded it might be possiblefor the German Republic to strike a bargain with the French in regard toReparations. But in Bavaria the movement went even farther. And it was morefar-reaching in its implications; for, if an independent Catholic monarchycould be set up in Bavaria, the next move would have been a union with CatholicGerman-Austria. possibly under a Habsburg King. Thus a Catholic bloc would havebeen created which would extend from the Rhineland through Bavaria and Austriainto the Danube Valley and would have been at least under the moral andmilitary, if not the full political, hegemony of France. The dream seemsfantastic now, but it was considered quite a practical thing in those fantastictimes. The effect of putting such a plan into action would have meant thecomplete dismemberment of Germany; and that is what French diplomacy aimed at.Of course such an aim no longer exists. And I should not recall what must nowseem “old, unhappy, far-off things” to the modern generation, were it not thatthey were very near and actual at the time Mein Kampf was written andwere more unhappy then than we can even imagine now.
By the autumn of 1923 theseparatist movement in Bavaria was on the point of becoming an accomplishedfact. General von Lossow, the Bavarian chief of the Reichswehr no longer tookorders from Berlin. The flag of the German Republic was rarely to be seen,Finally, the Bavarian Prime Minister decided to proclaim an independent Bavariaand its secession from the German Republic. This was to have taken place on theeve of the Fifth Anniversary of the establishment of the German Republic(November 9th, 1918.)
Hitler staged a counter-stroke.For several days he had been mobilizing his storm battalions in theneighbourhood of Munich, intending to make a national demonstration and hopingthat the Reichswehr would stand by him to prevent secession. Ludendorffwas with him. And he thought that the prestige of the great German Commander inthe World War would be sufficient to win the allegiance of the professionalarmy.
A meeting had been announced totake place in the Bürgerbräu Keller on the night of November 8th. The Bavarianpatriotic societies were gathered there, and the Prime Minister, Dr. von Kahr,started to read his official pronunciamento, which practically amounted to aproclamation of Bavarian independence and secession from the Republic. Whilevon Kahr was speaking Hitler entered the hall, followed by Ludendorff. And themeeting was broken up.
Next day the Nazi battalions tookthe street for the purpose of making a mass demonstration in favour of nationalunion. They marched in massed formation, led by Hitler and Ludendorff. As theyreached one of the central squares of the city the army opened fire on them.Sixteen of the marchers were instantly killed, and two died of their wounds inthe local barracks of the Reichswehr. Several others were wounded also.Hitler fell on the pavement and broke a collar-bone. Ludendorff marchedstraight up to the soldiers who were firing from the barricade, but not a mandared draw a trigger on his old Commander.
Hitler was arrested with severalof his comrades and imprisoned in the fortress of Landsberg on the River Lech.On February 26th, 1924, he was brought to trial before the Volksgericht, orPeople’s Court in Munich. He was sentenced to detention in a fortress for fiveyears. With several companions, who had been also sentenced to various periodsof imprisonment, he returned to Landsberg am Lech and remained there until the20th of the following December, when he was released. In all he spent aboutthirteen months in prison. It was during this period that he wrote the firstvolume of Mein Kampf.
If we bear all this in mind we canaccount for the emotional stress under which Mein Kampf was written. Hitler wasnaturally incensed against the Bavarian government authorities, against thefootling patriotic societies who were pawns in the French game, though oftenunconsciously so, and of course against the French. That he should writeharshly of the French was only natural in the circumstances. At that time therewas no exaggeration whatsoever in calling France the implacable and mortalenemy of Germany. Such language was being used by even the pacifists themselves,not only in Germany but abroad. And even though the second volume of MeinKampf was written after Hitler’s release from prison and was publishedafter the French had left the Ruhr, the tramp of the invading armies stillechoed in German ears, and the terrible ravages that had been wrought in theindustrial and financial life of Germany, as a consequence of the Frenchinvasion, had plunged the country into a state of social and economic chaos. InFrance itself the franc fell to fifty per cent of its previous value. Indeed,the whole of Europe had been brought to the brink of ruin, following the Frenchinvasion of the Ruhr and Rhineland.
But, as those things belong to thelimbo of a dead past that nobody wishes to have remembered now, it is oftenasked: Why doesn’t Hitler revise Mein Kampf? The answer, as I think, whichwould immediately come into the mind of an impartial critic is that MeinKampf is an historical document which bears the imprint of its own time. Torevise it would involve taking it out of its historical context. MoreoverHitler has declared that his acts and public statements constitute a partialrevision of his book and are to be taken as such. This refers especially to thestatements in Mein Kampf regarding France and those German kinsfolk thathave not yet been incorporated in the Reich. On behalf of Germany he hasdefinitely acknowledged the German portion of South Tyrol as permanentlybelonging to Italy and, in regard to France, he has again and again declaredthat no grounds now exist for a conflict of political interests between Germanyand France and that Germany has no territorial claims against France. Finally,I may note here that Hitler has also declared that, as he was only a politicalleader and not yet a statesman in a position of official responsibility, whenhe wrote this book, what he stated in Mein Kampf does not implicate himas Chancellor of the Reich.
I now come to some references inthe text which are frequently recurring and which may not always be clear toevery reader. For instance, Hitler speaks indiscriminately of the German Reich.Sometimes he means to refer to the first Reich, or Empire, and sometimesto the German Empire as founded under William I in 1871. Incidentally theregime which he inaugurated in 1933 is generally known as the Third Reich,though this expression is not used in Mein Kampf. Hitler also speaks of theAustrian Reich and the East Mark, without always explicitlydistinguishing between the Habsburg Empire and Austria proper. If the readerwill bear the following historical outline in mind, he will understand thereferences as they occur.
The word Reich, which is aGerman form of the Latin word Regnum, does not mean Kingdom or Empire orRepublic. It is a sort of basic word that may apply to any form ofConstitution. Perhaps our word, Realm, would be the best translation, thoughthe word Empire can be used when the Reich was actually an Empire. Theforerunner of the first German Empire was the Holy Roman Empire whichCharlemagne founded in A.D. 800. Charlemagne was King of the Franks, a group ofGermanic tribes that subsequently became Romanized. In the tenth centuryCharlemagne’s Empire passed into German hands when Otto I (936–973) becameEmperor. As the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, its formal appellation,it continued to exist under German Emperors until Napoleon overran anddismembered Germany during the first decade of the last century. On August 6th,1806, the last Emperor, Francis II, formally resigned the German crown. In thefollowing October Napoleon entered Berlin in triumph, after the Battle of Jena.
After the fall of Napoleon amovement set in for the reunion of the German states in one Empire. But thefirst decisive step towards that end was the foundation of the Second German Empirein 1871, after the Franco-Prussian War. This Empire, however, did not includethe German lands which remained under the Habsburg Crown. These were known asGerman Austria. It was Bismarck’s dream to unite German Austria with the GermanEmpire; but it remained only a dream until Hitler turned it into a reality in1938’. It is well to bear that point in mind, because this dream of reunitingall the German states in one Reich has been a dominant feature of Germanpatriotism and statesmanship for over a century and has been one of Hitler’sideals since his childhood.
In Mein Kampf Hitler oftenspeaks of the East Mark. This East Mark – i.e. eastern frontier land – wasfounded by Charlemagne as the eastern bulwark of the Empire. It was inhabitedprincipally by Germano-Celtic tribes called Bajuvari and stood for centuries asthe firm bulwark of Western Christendom against invasion from the East,especially against the Turks. Geographically it was almost identical withGerman Austria.
There are a few points more that Iwish to mention in this introductory note. For instance, I have let the word Weltanschhauungstand in its original form very often. We have no one English word toconvey the same meaning as the German word, and it would have burdened the texttoo much if I were to use a circumlocution each time the word occurs. Weltanschhauungliterally means “Outlook-on-the World”. But as generally used in Germanthis outlook on the world means a whole system of ideas associated together inan organic unity – ideas of human life, human values, cultural and religiousideas, politics, economics, etc., in fact a totalitarian view of humanexistence. Thus Christianity could be called a Weltanschhauung, andMohammedanism could be called a Weltanschhauung, and Socialism could becalled a Weltanschhauung, especially as preached in Russia. National Socialismclaims definitely to be a Weltanschhauung.
Another word I have often leftstanding in the original is völkisch. The basic word here is Volk,which is sometimes translated as People; but the German word, Volk,means the whole body of the people without any distinction of class or caste.It is a primary word also that suggests what might be called the basic nationalstock. Now, after the defeat in 1918, the downfall of the Monarchy and thedestruction of the aristocracy and the upper classes, the concept of DasVolk came into prominence as the unifying co-efficient which would embracethe whole German people. Hence the large number of völkisch societiesthat arose after the war and hence also the National Socialist concept ofunification which is expressed by the word Volksgemeinschaft, or folkcommunity. This is used in contradistinction to the Socialist concept of thenation as being divided into classes. Hitler’s ideal is the Völkischer Staat,which I have translated as the People’s State.
Finally, I would point out thatthe term Social Democracy may be misleading in English, as it has not ademocratic connotation in our sense. It was the name given to the Socialist Partyin Germany. And that Party was purely Marxist; but it adopted the name SocialDemocrat in order to appeal to the democratic sections of the German people.
JAMES MURPHY.
AbbotsLangley, February, 1939
Excerpts:
"What soon gave me cause for very serious consideration were theactivities of the Jews in certain branches of life, into the mystery of which Ipenetrated little by little. Was there any shady undertaking, any form offoulness, especially in cultural life, in which at least one Jew did notparticipate? On putting the probing knife carefully to that kind of abscess oneimmediately discovered, like a maggot in a putrescent body, a little Jew whowas often blinded by the sudden light." (p.42)
"And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with thewill of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defendingthe handiwork of the Lord." (p.46)
"The yoke of slavery is and always will remain the most unpleasantexperience that mankind can endure. Do the Schwabing decadents look uponGermany’s lot to-day as ‘aesthetic’? Of course, one doesn’t discuss such aquestion with the Jews, because they are the modern inventors of this culturalperfume. Their very existence is an incarnate denial of the beauty of God’simage in His creation." (p.107)
"What we have to fight for is the necessary security for theexistence and increase of our race and people, the subsistence of its childrenand the maintenance of our racial stock unmixed, the freedom and independenceof the Fatherland; so that our people may be enabled to fulfil the missionassigned to it by the Creator." (p.125)
"From time immemorial, however, the Jews have known better than anyothers how falsehood and calumny can be exploited. Is not their very existencefounded on one great lie, namely, that they are a religious community, whereasin reality they are a race? And what a race! One of the greatest thinkers thatmankind has produced has branded the Jews for all time with a statement whichis profoundly and exactly true. He (Schopenhauer) called the Jew “The GreatMaster of Lies”. Those who do not realize the truth of that statement, or donot wish to believe it, will never be able to lend a hand in helping Truth toprevail." (p.134)
"In short, the results of miscegenation are always the following:
(a) The level of the superior race becomes lowered;
(b) physical and mental degeneration sets in, thus leading slowly butsteadily towards a progressive drying up of the vital sap.
The act which brings about such a development is a sin against the willof the Eternal Creator. And as a sin this act will be avenged. Man’s effort tobuild up something that contradicts the iron logic of Nature brings him intoconflict with those principles to which he himself exclusively owes his ownexistence. By acting against the laws of Nature he prepares the way that leadsto his ruin." (p.162)
"It is just at those junctures when the idealistic attitudethreatens to disappear that we notice a weakening of this force which is anecessary constituent in the founding and maintenance of the community and isthereby a necessary condition of civilization. As soon as the spirit of egotismbegins to prevail among a people then the bonds of the social order break andman, by seeking his own personal happiness, veritably tumbles out of heaven andfalls into hell." (p.160)
"In times of distress a wave of public anger has usually arisenagainst the Jew; the masses have taken the law into their own hands; they haveseized Jewish property and ruined the Jew in their urge to protect themselvesagainst what they consider to be a scourge of God. Having come to know the Jewintimately through the course of centuries, in times of distress they lookedupon his presence among them as a public danger comparable only to theplague." (p.174)
"He will stop at nothing. His utterly low-down conduct is soappalling that one really cannot be surprised if in the imagination of ourpeople the Jew is pictured as the incarnation of Satan and the symbol of evil.The ignorance of the broad masses as regards the inner character of the Jew,and the lack of instinct and insight that our upper classes display, are someof the reasons which explain how it is that so many people fall an easy prey tothe systematic campaign of falsehood which the Jew carries on. While the upperclasses, with their innate cowardliness, turn away from anyone whom the Jewthus attacks with lies and calumny, the common people are credulous ofeverything, whether because of their ignorance or their simple-mindedness.Government authorities wrap themselves up in a robe of silence, but morefrequently they persecute the victims of Jewish attacks in order to stop thecampaign in the Jewish Press." (p.184)
"How devoid of ideals and how ignoble is the whole contemporarysystem! The fact that the churches join in committing this sin against theimage of God, even though they continue to emphasize the dignity of that image,is quite in keeping with their present activities. They talk about the Spirit,but they allow man, as the embodiment of the Spirit, to degenerate to theproletarian level. Then they look on with amazement when they realize how smallis the influence of the Christian Faith in their own country and how depraved andungodly is this riff-raff which is physically degenerate and therefore morallydegenerate also. To balance this state of affairs they try to convert theHottentots and the Zulus and the Kaffirs and to bestow on them the blessings ofthe Church. While our European people, God be praised and thanked, are left tobecome the victims of moral depravity, the pious missionary goes out to CentralAfrica and establishes missionary stations for negroes. Finally, sound andhealthy – though primitive and backward – people will be transformed, under thename of our ‘higher civilization’, into a motley of lazy and brutalizedmongrels." (p.226)
"Look at the ravages from which our people are suffering daily as aresult of being contaminated with Jewish blood. Bear in mind the fact that thispoisonous contamination can be eliminated from the national body only aftercenturies, or perhaps never. Think further of how the process of racialdecomposition is debasing and in some cases even destroying the fundamentalAryan qualities of our German people, so that our cultural creativeness as anation is gradually becoming impotent and we are running the danger, at leastin our great cities, of falling to the level where Southern Italy is to-day.This pestilential adulteration of the blood, of which hundreds of thousands ofour people take no account, is being systematically practised by the Jewto-day. Systematically these negroid parasites in our national body corrupt ourinnocent fair-haired girls and thus destroy something which can no longer bereplaced in this world.
The two Christian denominations look on with indifference at theprofanation and destruction of a noble and unique creature who was given to theworld as a gift of God’s grace. For the future of the world, however, it doesnot matter which of the two triumphs over the other, the Catholic or theProtestant. But it does matter whether Aryan humanity survives or perishes. Andyet the two Christian denominations are not contending against the destroyer ofAryan humanity but are trying to destroy one another. Everybody who has theright kind of feeling for his country is solemnly bound, each within his owndenomination, to see to it that he is not constantly talking about the Will ofGod merely from the lips but that in actual fact he fulfils the Will of God anddoes not allow God’s handiwork to be debased. For it was by the Will of Godthat men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures andtheir faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God’s Creation andGod’s Will." (p.310)
Volume I:
A RETROSPECT
CHAPTER I
IN THE HOME OF MY PARENTS
It has turned out fortunate for meto-day that destiny appointed Braunau-on-the-Inn to be my birthplace. For that littletown is situated just on the frontier between those two States the reunion ofwhich seems, at least to us of the younger generation, a task to which weshould devote our lives and in the pursuit of which every possible means shouldbe employed.
German-Austria must be restored tothe great German Motherland. And not indeed on any grounds of economiccalculation whatsoever. No, no. Even if the union were a matter of economicindifference, and even if it were to be disadvantageous from the economic standpoint,still it ought to take place. People of the same blood should be in the sameReich. The German people will have no right to engage in a colonial policyuntil they shall have brought all their children together in the one State.When the territory of the Reich embraces all the Germans and finds itselfunable to assure them a livelihood, only then can the moral right arise, fromthe need of the people to acquire foreign territory. The plough is then thesword; and the tears of war will produce the daily bread for the generations tocome.
And so this little frontier townappeared to me as the symbol of a great task. But in another regard also itpoints to a lesson that is applicable to our day. Over a hundred years ago thissequestered spot was the scene of a tragic calamity which affected the wholeGerman nation and will be remembered for ever, at least in the annals of Germanhistory. At the time of our Fatherland’s deepest humiliation a bookseller,Johannes Palm, uncompromising nationalist and enemy of the French, was put todeath here because he had the misfortune to have loved Germany well. Heobstinately refused to disclose the names of his associates, or rather theprincipals who were chiefly responsible for the affair. Just as it happenedwith Leo Schlageter. The former, like the latter, was denounced to the Frenchby a Government agent. It was a director of police from Augsburg who won anignoble renown on that occasion and set the example which was to be copied at alater date by the neo-German officials of the Reich under Herr Severing’sregime 1).
In this little town on the Inn,haloed by the memory of a German martyr, a town that was Bavarian by blood butunder the rule of the Austrian State, my parents were domiciled towards the endof the last century. My father was a civil servant who fulfilled his dutiesvery conscientiously. My mother looked after the household and lovingly devotedherself to the care of her children. From that period I have not retained verymuch in my memory; because after a few years my father had to leave thatfrontier town which I had come to love so much and take up a new post fartherdown the Inn valley, at Passau, therefore actually in Germany itself.
In those days it was the usual lotof an Austrian civil servant to be transferred periodically from one post toanother. Not long after coming to Passau my father was transferred to Linz, andwhile there he retired finally to live on his pension. But this did not meanthat the old gentleman would now rest from his labours.
He was the son of a poor cottager,and while still a boy he grew restless and left home. When he was barelythirteen years old he buckled on his satchel and set forth from his nativewoodland parish. Despite the dissuasion of villagers who could speak from‘experience,’ he went to Vienna to learn a trade there. This was in thefiftieth year of the last century. It was a sore trial, that of deciding toleave home and face the unknown, with three gulden in his pocket. By when theboy of thirteen was a lad of seventeen and had passed his apprenticeshipexamination as a craftsman he was not content. Quite the contrary. Thepersistent economic depression of that period and the constant want and miserystrengthened his resolution to give up working at a trade and strive for‘something higher.’ As a boy it had seemed to him that the position of theparish priest in his native village was the highest in the scale of humanattainment; but now that the big city had enlarged his outlook the young manlooked up to the dignity of a State official as the highest of all. With thetenacity of one whom misery and trouble had already made old when only half-waythrough his youth the young man of seventeen obstinately set out on his newproject and stuck to it until he won through. He became a civil servant. He wasabout twenty-three years old, I think, when he succeeded in making himself whathe had resolved to become. Thus he was able to fulfil the promise he had madeas a poor boy not to return to his native village until he was ‘somebody.’
He had gained his end. But in thevillage there was nobody who had remembered him as a little boy, and thevillage itself had become strange to him.
Now at last, when he was fifty-sixyears old, he gave up his active career; but he could not bear to be idle for asingle day. On the outskirts of the small market town of Lambach in UpperAustria he bought a farm and tilled it himself. Thus, at the end of a long andhard-working career, he came back to the life which his father had led.
It was at this period that I firstbegan to have ideals of my own. I spent a good deal of time scampering about inthe open, on the long road from school, and mixing up with some of the roughestof the boys, which caused my mother many anxious moments. All this tended tomake me something quite the reverse of a stay-at-home. I gave scarcely anyserious thought to the question of choosing a vocation in life; but I wascertainly quite out of sympathy with the kind of career which my father hadfollowed. I think that an inborn talent for speaking now began to develop andtake shape during the more or less strenuous arguments which I used to havewith my comrades. I had become a juvenile ringleader who learned well andeasily at school but was rather difficult to manage. In my freetime I practisedsinging in the choir of the monastery church at Lambach, and thus it happenedthat I was placed in a very favourable position to be emotionally impressedagain and again by the magnificent splendour of ecclesiastical ceremonial. Whatcould be more natural for me than to look upon the Abbot as representing thehighest human ideal worth striving for, just as the position of the humblevillage priest had appeared to my father in his own boyhood days? At least,that was my idea for a while. But the juvenile disputes I had with my fatherdid not lead him to appreciate his son’s oratorical gifts in such a way as tosee in them a favourable promise for such a career, and so he naturally couldnot understand the boyish ideas I had in my head at that time. Thiscontradiction in my character made him feel somewhat anxious.
As a matter of fact, thattransitory yearning after such a vocation soon gave way to hopes that werebetter suited to my temperament. Browsing through my father’s books, I chancedto come across some publications that dealt with military subjects. One ofthese publications was a popular history of the Franco-German War of 1870–71.It consisted of two volumes of an illustrated periodical dating from those years.These became my favourite reading. In a little while that great and heroicconflict began to take first place in my mind. And from that time onwards Ibecame more and more enthusiastic about everything that was in any wayconnected with war or military affairs.
But this story of theFranco-German War had a special significance for me on other grounds also. Forthe first time, and as yet only in quite a vague way, the question began topresent itself: Is there a difference – and if there be, what is it – betweenthe Germans who fought that war and the other Germans? Why did not Austria alsotake part in it? Why did not my father and all the others fight in thatstruggle? Are we not the same as the other Germans? Do we not all belongtogether?
That was the first time that thisproblem began to agitate my small brain. And from the replies that were givento the questions which I asked very tentatively, I was forced to accept thefact, though with a secret envy, that not all Germans had the good luck to belongto Bismarck’s Empire. This was something that I could not understand.
It was decided that I shouldstudy. Considering my character as a whole, and especially my temperament, myfather decided that the classical subjects studied at the Lyceum were not suitedto my natural talents. He thought that the Realschule 2) would suitme better. My obvious talent for drawing confirmed him in that view; for in hisopinion drawing was a subject too much neglected in the Austrian Gymnasium.Probably also the memory of the hard road which he himself had travelledcontributed to make him look upon classical studies as unpractical andaccordingly to set little value on them. At the back of his mind he had theidea that his son also should become an official of the Government. Indeed hehad decided on that career for me. The difficulties through which he had tostruggle in making his own career led him to overestimate what he had achieved,because this was exclusively the result of his own indefatigable industry andenergy. The characteristic pride of the self-made man urged him towards theidea that his son should follow the same calling and if possible rise to ahigher position in it. Moreover, this idea was strengthened by theconsideration that the results of his own life’s industry had placed him in aposition to facilitate his son’s advancement in the same career.
He was simply incapable ofimagining that I might reject what had meant everything in life to him. Myfather’s decision was simple, definite, clear and, in his eyes, it wassomething to be taken for granted. A man of such a nature who had become anautocrat by reason of his own hard struggle for existence, could not think ofallowing ‘inexperienced’ and irresponsible young fellows to choose their owncareers. To act in such a way, where the future of his own son was concerned,would have been a grave and reprehensible weakness in the exercise of parentalauthority and responsibility, something utterly incompatible with hischaracteristic sense of duty.
And yet it had to be otherwise.
For the first time in my life – Iwas then eleven years old – I felt myself forced into open opposition. Nomatter how hard and determined my father might be about putting his own plansand opinions into action, his son was no less obstinate in refusing to acceptideas on which he set little or no value.
I would not become a civilservant.
No amount of persuasion and noamount of ‘grave’ warnings could break down that opposition. I would not becomea State official, not on any account. All the attempts which my father made toarouse in me a love or liking for that profession, by picturing his own careerfor me, had only the opposite effect. It nauseated me to think that one day Imight be fettered to an office stool, that I could not dispose of my own timebut would be forced to spend the whole of my life filling out forms.
One can imagine what kind ofthoughts such a prospect awakened in the mind of a young fellow who was by nomeans what is called a ‘good boy’ in the current sense of that term. Theridiculously easy school tasks which we were given made it possible for me tospend far more time in the open air than at home. To-day, when my politicalopponents pry into my life with diligent scrutiny, as far back as the days ofmy boyhood, so as finally to be able to prove what disreputable tricks thisHitler was accustomed to in his young days, I thank heaven that I can look backto those happy days and find the memory of them helpful. The fields and thewoods were then the terrain on which all disputes were fought out.
Even attendance at the Realschulecould not alter my way of spending my time. But I had now another battle tofight.
So long as the paternal plan tomake a State functionary contradicted my own inclinations only in the abstract,the conflict was easy to bear. I could be discreet about expressing my personalviews and thus avoid constantly recurrent disputes. My own resolution not tobecome a Government official was sufficient for the time being to put my mindcompletely at rest. I held on to that resolution inexorably. But the situationbecame more difficult once I had a positive plan of my own which I mightpresent to my father as a counter-suggestion. This happened when I was twelveyears old. How it came about I cannot exactly say now; but one day it becameclear to me that I would be a painter – I mean an artist. That I had anaptitude for drawing was an admitted fact. It was even one of the reasons whymy father had sent me to the Realschule; but he had never thought of havingthat talent developed in such a way that I could take up painting as aprofessional career. Quite the contrary. When, as a result of my renewedrefusal to adopt his favourite plan, my father asked me for the first time whatI myself really wished to be, the resolution that I had already formedexpressed itself almost automatically. For a while my father was speechless."A painter? An artist-painter?" he exclaimed.
He wondered whether I was in asound state of mind. He thought that he might not have caught my words rightly,or that he had misunderstood what I meant. But when I had explained my ideas tohim and he saw how seriously I took them, he opposed them with that fulldetermination which was characteristic of him. His decision was exceedinglysimple and could not be deflected from its course by any consideration of whatmy own natural qualifications really were.
"Artist! Not as long as Ilive, never." As the son had inherited some of the father’s obstinacy,besides having other qualities of his own, my reply was equally energetic. Butit stated something quite the contrary.
At that our struggle becamestalemate. The father would not abandon his ‘Never’, and I became all the moreconsolidated in my ‘Nevertheless’.
Naturally the resulting situationwas not pleasant. The old gentleman was bitterly annoyed; and indeed so was I,although I really loved him. My father forbade me to entertain any hopes oftaking up the art of painting as a profession. I went a step further anddeclared that I would not study anything else. With such declarations thesituation became still more strained, so that the old gentleman irrevocablydecided to assert his parental authority at all costs. That led me to adopt anattitude of circumspect silence, but I put my threat into execution. I thoughtthat, once it became clear to my father that I was making no progress at theRealschule, for weal or for woe, he would be forced to allow me to follow thehappy career I had dreamed of.
I do not know whether I calculatedrightly or not. Certainly my failure to make progress became quite visible inthe school. I studied just the subjects that appealed to me, especially thosewhich I thought might be of advantage to me later on as a painter. What did notappear to have any importance from this point of view, or what did nototherwise appeal to me favourably, I completely sabotaged. My school reports ofthat time were always in the extremes of good or bad, according to the subjectand the interest it had for me. In one column my qualification read ‘very good’or ‘excellent’. In another it read ‘average’ or even ‘below average’. By far mybest subjects were geography and, even more so, general history. These were mytwo favourite subjects, and I led the class in them.
When I look back over so manyyears and try to judge the results of that experience I find two verysignificant facts standing out clearly before my mind.
First, I became a nationalist.
Second, I learned to understandand grasp the true meaning of history.
The old Austria was amulti-national State. In those days at least the citizens of the German Empire,taken through and through, could not understand what that fact meant in theeveryday life of the individuals within such a State. After the magnificent triumphantmarch of the victorious armies in the Franco-German War the Germans in theReich became steadily more and more estranged from the Germans beyond theirfrontiers, partly because they did not deign to appreciate those other Germansat their true value or simply because they were incapable of doing so.
The Germans of the Reich did notrealize that if the Germans in Austria had not been of the best racial stockthey could never have given the stamp of their own character to an Empire of 52millions, so definitely that in Germany itself the idea arose – though quite anerroneous one – that Austria was a German State. That was an error which led todire consequences; but all the same it was a magnificent testimony to thecharacter of the ten million Germans in that East Mark. 3) Only veryfew of the Germans in the Reich itself had an idea of the bitter struggle whichthose Eastern Germans had to carry on daily for the preservation of theirGerman language, their German schools and their German character. Only to-day,when a tragic fate has torn several millions of our kinsfolk away from theReich and has forced them to live under the rule of the stranger, dreaming ofthat common fatherland towards which all their yearnings are directed andstruggling to uphold at least the sacred right of using their mother tongue –only now have the wider circles of the German population come to realize whatit means to have to fight for the traditions of one’s race. And so at lastperhaps there are people here and there who can assess the greatness of thatGerman spirit which animated the old East Mark and enabled those people, leftentirely dependent on their own resources, to defend the Empire against theOrient for several centuries and subsequently to hold fast the frontiers of theGerman language through a guerilla warfare of attrition, at a time when theGerman Empire was sedulously cultivating an interest for colonies but not forits own flesh and blood before the threshold of its own door.
What has happened always andeverywhere, in every kind of struggle, happened also in the language fightwhich was carried on in the old Austria. There were three groups – thefighters, the hedgers and the traitors. Even in the schools this siftingalready began to take place. And it is worth noting that the struggle for thelanguage was waged perhaps in its bitterest form around the school; becausethis was the nursery where the seeds had to be watered which were to spring upand form the future generation. The tactical objective of the fight was thewinning over of the child, and it was to the child that the first rallying crywas addressed:
"German youth, do not forgetthat you are a German," and "Remember, little girl, that one day youmust be a German mother."
Those who know something of thejuvenile spirit can understand how youth will always lend a glad ear to such arallying cry. Under many forms the young people led the struggle, fighting intheir own way and with their own weapons. They refused to sing non-Germansongs. The greater the efforts made to win them away from their Germanallegiance, the more they exalted the glory of their German heroes. Theystinted themselves in buying things to eat, so that they might spare theirpennies to help the war chest of their elders. They were incredibly alert inthe significance of what the non-German teachers said and they contradicted inunison. They wore the forbidden emblems of their own kinsfolk and were happywhen penalised for doing so, or even physically punished. In miniature theywere mirrors of loyalty from which the older people might learn a lesson.
And thus it was that at acomparatively early age I took part in the struggle which the nationalitieswere waging against one another in the old Austria. When meetings were held forthe South Mark German League and the School League we wore cornflowers andblack-red-gold colours to express our loyalty. We greeted one another withHeil! and instead of the Austrian anthem we sang our own Deutschland überAlles, despite warnings and penalties. Thus the youth were educated politicallyat a time when the citizens of a so-called national State for the most partknew little of their own nationality except the language. Of course, I did notbelong to the hedgers. Within a little while I had become an ardent ‘GermanNational’, which has a different meaning from the party significance attachedto that phrase to-day.
I developed very rapidly in thenationalist direction, and by the time I was 15 years old I had come tounderstand the distinction between dynastic patriotism and nationalism based onthe concept of folk, or people, my inclination being entirely in favour of thelatter.
Such a preference may not perhapsbe clearly intelligible to those who have never taken the trouble to study theinternal conditions that prevailed under the Habsburg Monarchy.
Among historical studies universalhistory was the subject almost exclusively taught in the Austrian schools, forof specific Austrian history there was only very little. The fate of this Statewas closely bound up with the existence and development of Germany as a whole;so a division of history into German history and Austrian history would bepractically inconceivable. And indeed it was only when the German people cameto be divided between two States that this division of German history began totake place.
The insignia 4) of aformer imperial sovereignty which were still preserved in Vienna appeared toact as magical relics rather than as the visible guarantee of an everlastingbond of union.
When the Habsburg State crumbledto pieces in 1918 the Austrian Germans instinctively raised an outcry for unionwith their German fatherland. That was the voice of a unanimous yearning in thehearts of the whole people for a return to the unforgotten home of theirfathers. But such a general yearning could not be explained except byattributing the cause of it to the historical training through which theindividual Austrian Germans had passed. Therein lay a spring that never driedup. Especially in times of distraction and forgetfulness its quiet voice was areminder of the past, bidding the people to look out beyond the mere welfare ofthe moment to a new future.
The teaching of universal historyin what are called the middle schools is still very unsatisfactory. Fewteachers realize that the purpose of teaching history is not the memorizing ofsome dates and facts, that the student is not interested in knowing the exactdate of a battle or the birthday of some marshal or other, and not at all – orat least only very insignificantly – interested in knowing when the crown ofhis fathers was placed on the brow of some monarch. These are certainly notlooked upon as important matters.
To study history means to searchfor and discover the forces that are the causes of those results which appearbefore our eyes as historical events. The art of reading and studying consistsin remembering the essentials and forgetting what is not essential.
Probably my whole future life wasdetermined by the fact that I had a professor of history who understood, as fewothers understand, how to make this viewpoint prevail in teaching and inexamining. This teacher was Dr. Leopold Poetsch, of the Realschule at Linz. Hewas the ideal personification of the qualities necessary to a teacher ofhistory in the sense I have mentioned above. An elderly gentleman with adecisive manner but a kindly heart, he was a very attractive speaker and wasable to inspire us with his own enthusiasm. Even to-day I cannot recall withoutemotion that venerable personality whose enthusiastic exposition of history sooften made us entirely forget the present and allow ourselves to be transportedas if by magic into the past. He penetrated through the dim mist of thousandsof years and transformed the historical memory of the dead past into a livingreality. When we listened to him we became afire with enthusiasm and we weresometimes moved even to tears.
It was still more fortunate thatthis professor was able not only to illustrate the past by examples from thepresent but from the past he was also able to draw a lesson for the present. Heunderstood better than any other the everyday problems that were then agitatingour minds. The national fervour which we felt in our own small way was utilizedby him as an instrument of our education, inasmuch as he often appealed to ournational sense of honour; for in that way he maintained order and held ourattention much more easily than he could have done by any other means. It wasbecause I had such a professor that history became my favourite subject. As anatural consequence, but without the conscious connivance of my professor, Ithen and there became a young rebel. But who could have studied German historyunder such a teacher and not become an enemy of that State whose rulersexercised such a disastrous influence on the destinies of the German nation?Finally, how could one remain the faithful subject of the House of Habsburg,whose past history and present conduct proved it to be ready ever and always tobetray the interests of the German people for the sake of paltry personalinterests? Did not we as youngsters fully realize that the House of Habsburgdid not, and could not, have any love for us Germans?
What history taught us about thepolicy followed by the House of Habsburg was corroborated by our own everydayexperiences. In the north and in the south the poison of foreign races waseating into the body of our people, and even Vienna was steadily becoming moreand more a non-German city. The ‘Imperial House’ favoured the Czechs on everypossible occasion. Indeed it was the hand of the goddess of eternal justice andinexorable retribution that caused the most deadly enemy of Germanism inAustria, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, to fall by the very bullets which hehimself had helped to cast. Working from above downwards, he was the chiefpatron of the movement to make Austria a Slav State.
The burdens laid on the shouldersof the German people were enormous and the sacrifices of money and blood whichthey had to make were incredibly heavy.
Yet anybody who was not quiteblind must have seen that it was all in vain. What affected us most bitterlywas the consciousness of the fact that this whole system was morally shieldedby the alliance with Germany, whereby the slow extirpation of Germanism in theold Austrian Monarchy seemed in some way to be more or less sanctioned byGermany herself. Habsburg hypocrisy, which endeavoured outwardly to make thepeople believe that Austria still remained a German State, increased thefeeling of hatred against the Imperial House and at the same time aroused aspirit of rebellion and contempt.
But in the German Empire itselfthose who were then its rulers saw nothing of what all this meant. As if struckblind, they stood beside a corpse and in the very symptoms of decompositionthey believed that they recognized the signs of a renewed vitality. In thatunhappy alliance between the young German Empire and the illusory AustrianState lay the germ of the World War and also of the final collapse.
In the subsequent pages of thisbook I shall go to the root of the problem. Suffice it to say here that in thevery early years of my youth I came to certain conclusions which I have neverabandoned. Indeed I became more profoundly convinced of them as the yearspassed. They were: That the dissolution of the Austrian Empire is a preliminarycondition for the defence of Germany; further, that national feeling is by nomeans identical with dynastic patriotism; finally, and above all, that theHouse of Habsburg was destined to bring misfortune to the German nation.
As a logical consequence of theseconvictions, there arose in me a feeling of intense love for my German-Austrianhome and a profound hatred for the Austrian State.
That kind of historical thinkingwhich was developed in me through my study of history at school never left meafterwards. World history became more and more an inexhaustible source for theunderstanding of contemporary historical events, which means politics. ThereforeI will not "learn" politics but let politics teach me.
A precocious revolutionary inpolitics I was no less a precocious revolutionary in art. At that time theprovincial capital of Upper Austria had a theatre which, relatively speaking,was not bad. Almost everything was played there. When I was twelve years old Isaw William Tell performed. That was my first experience of the theatre. Somemonths later I attended a performance of Lohengrin, the first opera I had everheard. I was fascinated at once. My youthful enthusiasm for the Bayreuth Masterknew no limits. Again and again I was drawn to hear his operas; and to-day Iconsider it a great piece of luck that these modest productions in the littleprovincial city prepared the way and made it possible for me to appreciate thebetter productions later on.
But all this helped to intensifymy profound aversion for the career that my father had chosen for me; and thisdislike became especially strong as the rough corners of youthful boorishnessbecame worn off, a process which in my case caused a good deal of pain. Ibecame more and more convinced that I should never be happy as a Stateofficial. And now that the Realschule had recognized and acknowledged myaptitude for drawing, my own resolution became all the stronger. Imprecationsand threats had no longer any chance of changing it. I wanted to become apainter and no power in the world could force me to become a civil servant. Theonly peculiar feature of the situation now was that as I grew bigger I becamemore and more interested in architecture. I considered this fact as a naturaldevelopment of my flair for painting and I rejoiced inwardly that the sphere ofmy artistic interests was thus enlarged. I had no notion that one day it wouldhave to be otherwise.
The question of my career wasdecided much sooner than I could have expected.
When I was in my thirteenth yearmy father was suddenly taken from us. He was still in robust health when astroke of apoplexy painlessly ended his earthly wanderings and left us alldeeply bereaved. His most ardent longing was to be able to help his son toadvance in a career and thus save me from the harsh ordeal that he himself hadto go through. But it appeared to him then as if that longing were all in vain.And yet, though he himself was not conscious of it, he had sown the seeds of afuture which neither of us foresaw at that time.
At first nothing changedoutwardly.
My mother felt it her duty to continuemy education in accordance with my father’s wishes, which meant that she wouldhave me study for the civil service. For my own part I was even more firmlydetermined than ever before that under no circumstances would I become anofficial of the State. The curriculum and teaching methods followed in themiddle school were so far removed from my ideals that I became profoundlyindifferent. Illness suddenly came to my assistance. Within a few weeks itdecided my future and put an end to the long-standing family conflict. My lungsbecame so seriously affected that the doctor advised my mother very stronglynot under any circumstances to allow me to take up a career which wouldnecessitate working in an office. He ordered that I should give up attendanceat the Realschule for a year at least. What I had secretly desired for such along time, and had persistently fought for, now became a reality almost at onestroke.
Influenced by my illness, mymother agreed that I should leave the Realschule and attend the Academy.
Those were happy days, whichappeared to me almost as a dream; but they were bound to remain only a dream.Two years later my mother’s death put a brutal end to all my fine projects. Shesuccumbed to a long and painful illness which from the very beginning permittedlittle hope of recovery. Though expected, her death came as a terrible blow tome. I respected my father, but I loved my mother.
Poverty and stern reality forcedme to decide promptly.
The meagre resources of the familyhad been almost entirely used up through my mother’s severe illness. Theallowance which came to me as an orphan was not enough for the bare necessitiesof life. Somehow or other I would have to earn my own bread.
With my clothes and linen packedin a valise and with an indomitable resolution in my heart, I left for Vienna.I hoped to forestall fate, as my father had done fifty years before. I wasdetermined to become ‘something’ – but certainly not a civil servant.
CHAPTER II
YEARS OF STUDY AND SUFFERING IN VIENNA
When my mother died my fate hadalready been decided in one respect. During the last months of her illness Iwent to Vienna to take the entrance examination for the Academy of Fine Arts.Armed with a bulky packet of sketches, I felt convinced that I should pass theexamination quite easily. At the Realschule I was by far the best student inthe drawing class, and since that time I had made more than ordinary progressin the practice of drawing. Therefore I was pleased with myself and was proudand happy at the prospect of what I considered an assured success.
But there was one misgiving: Itseemed to me that I was better qualified for drawing than for painting,especially in the various branches of architectural drawing. At the same timemy interest in architecture was constantly increasing. And I advanced in thisdirection at a still more rapid pace after my first visit to Vienna, whichlasted two weeks. I was not yet sixteen years old. I went to the Hof Museum tostudy the paintings in the art gallery there; but the building itself capturedalmost all my interest, from early morning until late at night I spent all mytime visiting the various public buildings. And it was the buildings themselvesthat were always the principal attraction for me. For hours and hours I couldstand in wonderment before the Opera and the Parliament. The whole Ring Strassehad a magic effect upon me, as if it were a scene from theThousand-and-one-Nights.
And now I was here for the secondtime in this beautiful city, impatiently waiting to hear the result of theentrance examination but proudly confident that I had got through. I was soconvinced of my success that when the news that I had failed to pass wasbrought to me it struck me like a bolt from the skies. Yet the fact was that Ihad failed. I went to see the Rector and asked him to explain the reasons whythey refused to accept me as a student in the general School of Painting, whichwas part of the Academy. He said that the sketches which I had brought with meunquestionably showed that painting was not what I was suited for but that thesame sketches gave clear indications of my aptitude for architecturaldesigning. Therefore the School of Painting did not come into question for mebut rather the School of Architecture, which also formed part of the Academy.At first it was impossible to understand how this could be so, seeing that Ihad never been to a school for architecture and had never received anyinstruction in architectural designing.
When I left the Hansen Palace, onthe Schiller Platz, I was quite crestfallen. I felt out of sorts with myselffor the first time in my young life. For what I had heard about my capabilitiesnow appeared to me as a lightning flash which clearly revealed a dualism underwhich I had been suffering for a long time, but hitherto I could give no clearaccount whatsoever of the why and wherefore.
Within a few days I myself alsoknew that I ought to become an architect. But of course the way was verydifficult. I was now forced bitterly to rue my former conduct in neglecting anddespising certain subjects at the Realschule. Before taking up the courses atthe School of Architecture in the Academy it was necessary to attend theTechnical Building School; but a necessary qualification for entrance into thisschool was a Leaving Certificate from the Middle School. And this I simply didnot have. According to the human measure of things my dream of following anartistic calling seemed beyond the limits of possibility.
After the death of my mother Icame to Vienna for the third time. This visit was destined to last severalyears. Since I had been there before I had recovered my old calm andresoluteness. The former self-assurance had come back, and I had my eyessteadily fixed on the goal. I would be an architect. Obstacles are placedacross our path in life, not to be boggled at but to be surmounted. And I wasfully determined to surmount these obstacles, having the picture of my fatherconstantly before my mind, who had raised himself by his own efforts to theposition of a civil servant though he was the poor son of a village shoemaker.I had a better start, and the possibilities of struggling through were better.At that time my lot in life seemed to me a harsh one; but to-day I see in it thewise workings of Providence. The Goddess of Fate clutched me in her hands andoften threatened to smash me; but the will grew stronger as the obstaclesincreased, and finally the will triumphed.
I am thankful for that period ofmy life, because it hardened me and enabled me to be as tough as I now am. AndI am even more thankful because I appreciate the fact that I was thus savedfrom the emptiness of a life of ease and that a mother’s darling was taken fromtender arms and handed over to Adversity as to a new mother. Though I thenrebelled against it as too hard a fate, I am grateful that I was thrown into aworld of misery and poverty and thus came to know the people for whom I wasafterwards to fight.
It was during this period that myeyes were opened to two perils, the names of which I scarcely knew hitherto andhad no notion whatsoever of their terrible significance for the existence ofthe German people. These two perils were Marxism and Judaism.
For many people the name of Viennasignifies innocent jollity, a festive place for happy mortals. For me, alas, itis a living memory of the saddest period in my life. Even to-day the mention ofthat city arouses only gloomy thoughts in my mind. Five years of poverty inthat Phaecian 5) town. Five years in which, first as a casuallabourer and then as a painter of little trifles, I had to earn my daily bread.And a meagre morsel indeed it was, not even sufficient to still the hungerwhich I constantly felt. That hunger was the faithful guardian which never leftme but took part in everything I did. Every book that I bought meant renewedhunger, and every visit I paid to the opera meant the intrusion of thatinalienabl companion during the following days. I was always struggling with myunsympathic friend. And yet during that time I learned more than I had everlearned before. Outside my architectural studies and rare visits to the opera,for which I had to deny myself food, I had no other pleasure in life except mybooks.
I read a great deal then, and Ipondered deeply over what I read. All the free time after work was devotedexclusively to study. Thus within a few years I was able to acquire a stock ofknowledge which I find useful even to-day.
But more than that. During thoseyears a view of life and a definite outlook on the world took shape in my mind.These became the granite basis of my conduct at that time. Since then I haveextended that foundation only very little, and I have changed nothing in it.
On the contrary: I am firmlyconvinced to-day that, generally speaking, it is in youth that men lay theessential groundwork of their creative thought, wherever that creative thoughtexists. I make a distinction between the wisdom of age – which can only arisefrom the greater profundity and foresight that are based on the experiences ofa long life – and the creative genius of youth, which blossoms out in thoughtand ideas with inexhaustible fertility, without being able to put these intopractice immediately, because of their very superabundance. These furnish thebuilding materials and plans for the future; and it is from them that age takesthe stones and builds the edifice, unless the so-called wisdom of the years mayhave smothered the creative genius of youth.
The life which I had hitherto ledat home with my parents differed in little or nothing from that of all theothers. I looked forward without apprehension to the morrow, and there was nosuch thing as a social problem to be faced. Those among whom I passed my youngdays belonged to the small bourgeois class. Therefore it was a world that hadvery little contact with the world of genuine manual labourers. For, though atfirst this may appear astonishing, the ditch which separates that class, whichis by no means economically well-off; from the manual labouring class is oftendeeper than people think. The reason for this division, which we may almostcall enmity, lies in the fear that dominates a social group which has only justrisen above the level of the manual labourer – a fear lest it may fall backinto its old condition or at least be classed with the labourers. Moreover,there is something repulsive in remembering the cultural indigence of thatlower class and their rough manners with one another; so that people who areonly on the first rung of the social ladder find it unbearable to be forced tohave any contact with the cultural level and standard of living out of whichthey have passed.
And so it happens that very oftenthose who belong to what can really be called the upper classes find it mucheasier than do the upstarts to descend to and intermingle with their fellowbeings on the lowest social level. For by the word upstart I mean everyone whohas raised himself through his own efforts to a social level higher than thatto which he formerly belonged. In the case of such a person the hard strugglethrough which he passes often destroys his normal human sympathy. His own fightfor existence kills his sensibility for the misery of those who have been leftbehind.
From this point of view fate hadbeen kind to me. Circumstances forced me to return to that world of poverty andeconomic insecurity above which my father had raised himself in his early days;and thus the blinkers of a narrow petit bourgeois education were torn from myeyes. Now for the first time I learned to know men and I learned to distinguishbetween empty appearances or brutal manners and the real inner nature of thepeople who outwardly appeared thus.
At the beginning of the centuryVienna had already taken rank among those cities where social conditions areiniquitous. Dazzling riches and loathsome destitution were intermingled inviolent contrast. In the centre and in the Inner City one felt the pulse-beatof an Empire which had a population of fiity-two millions, with all theperilous charm of a State made up of multiple nationalities. The dazzlingsplendour of the Court acted like a magnet on the wealth and intelligence ofthe whole Empire. And this attraction was further strengthened by the dynasticpolicy of the Habsburg Monarchy in centralizing everything in itself and foritself.
This centralizing policy wasnecessary in order to hold together that hotchpotch of heterogeneousnationalities. But the result of it was an extraordinary concentration ofhigher officials in the city, which was at one and the same time the metropolisand imperial residence.
But Vienna was not merely thepolitical and intellectual centre of the Danubian Monarchy; it was also the commercialcentre. Besides the horde of military officers of high rank, State officials,artists and scientists, there was the still vaster horde of workers. Abjectpoverty confronted the wealth of the aristocracy and the merchant class face toface. Thousands of unemployed loitered in front of the palaces on the RingStrasse; and below that Via Triumphalis of the old Austria the homeless huddledtogether in the murk and filth of the canals.
There was hardly any other Germancity in which the social problem could be studied better than in Vienna. Buthere I must utter a warning against the illusion that this problem can be‘studied’ from above downwards. The man who has never been in the clutches ofthat crushing viper can never know what its poison is. An attempt to study itin any other way will result only in superficial talk and sentimentaldelusions. Both are harmful. The first because it can never go to the root ofthe question, the second because it evades the question entirely. I do not knowwhich is the more nefarious: to ignore social distress, as do the majority ofthose who have been favoured by fortune and those who have risen in the socialscale through their own routine labour, or the equally supercilious and oftentactless but always genteel condescension displayed by people who make a fad ofbeing charitable and who plume themselves on ‘sympathising with the people.’ Ofcourse such persons sin more than they can imagine from lack of instinctiveunderstanding. And thus they are astonished to find that the ‘socialconscience’ on which they pride themselves never produces any results, butoften causes their good intentions to be resented; and then they talk of theingratitude of the people.
Such persons are slow to learnthat here there is no place for merely social activities and that there can beno expectation of gratitude; for in this connection there is no question at allof distributing favours but essentially a matter of retributive justice. I wasprotected against the temptation to study the social question in the way justmentioned, for the simple reason that I was forced to live in the midst ofpoverty-stricken people. Therefore it was not a question of studying theproblem objectively, but rather one of testing its effects on myself. Thoughthe rabbit came through the ordeal of the experiment, this must not be taken asevidence of its harmlessness.
When I try to-day to recall thesuccession of impressions received during that time I find that I can do soonly with approximate completeness. Here I shall describe only the moreessential impressions and those which personally affected me and oftenstaggered me. And I shall mention the few lessons I then learned from thisexperience.
At that time it was for the mostpart not very difficult to find work, because I had to seek work not as askilled tradesman but as a so-called extra-hand ready to take any job thatturned up by chance, just for the sake of earning my daily bread.
Thus I found myself in the samesituation as all those emigrants who shake the dust of Europe from their feet,with the cast-iron determination to lay the foundations of a new existence inthe New World and acquire for themselves a new home. Liberated from all theparalysing prejudices of class and calling, environment and tradition, theyenter any service that opens its doors to them, accepting any work that comestheir way, filled more and more with the idea that honest work never disgracedanybody, no matter what kind it may be. And so I was resolved to set both feet inwhat was for me a new world and push forward on my own road.
I soon found out that there wassome kind of work always to be got, but I also learned that it could just asquickly and easily be lost. The uncertainty of being able to earn a regulardaily livelihood soon appeared to me as the gloomiest feature in this new lifethat I had entered.
Although the skilled worker wasnot so frequently thrown idle on the streets as the unskilled worker, yet theformer was by no means protected against the same fate; because though he maynot have to face hunger as a result of unemployment due to the lack of demandin the labour market, the lock-out and the strike deprived the skilled workerof the chance to earn his bread. Here the element of uncertainty in steadilyearning one’s daily bread was the bitterest feature of the wholesocial-economic system itself.
The country lad who migrates tothe big city feels attracted by what has been described as easy work – which itmay be in reality – and few working hours. He is especially entranced by themagic glimmer spread over the big cities. Accustomed in the country to earn asteady wage, he has been taught not to quit his former post until a new one isat least in sight. As there is a great scarcity of agricultural labour, theprobability of long unemployment in the country has been very small. It is amistake to presume that the lad who leaves the countryside for the town is notmade of such sound material as those who remain at home to work on the land. Onthe contrary, experience shows that it is the more healthy and more vigorousthat emigrate, and not the reverse. Among these emigrants I include not merelythose who emigrate to America, but also the servant boy in the country whodecides to leave his native village and migrate to the big city where he willbe a stranger. He is ready to take the risk of an uncertain fate. In most caseshe comes to town with a little money in his pocket and for the first few dayshe is not discouraged if he should not have the good fortune to find work. Butif he finds a job and then loses it in a little while, the case is much worse.To find work anew, especially in winter, is often difficult and indeedsometimes impossible. For the first few weeks life is still bearable Hereceives his out-of-work money from his trade union and is thus enabled tocarry on. But when the last of his own money is gone and his trade union ceasesto pay out because of the prolonged unemployment, then comes the real distress.He now loiters about and is hungry. Often he pawns or sells the last of hisbelongings. His clothes begin to get shabby and with the increasing poverty ofhis outward appearance he descends to a lower social level and mixes up with aclass of human beings through whom his mind is now poisoned, in addition to hisphysical misery. Then he has nowhere to sleep and if that happens in winter,which is very often the case, he is in dire distress. Finally he gets work. Butthe old story repeats itself. A second time the same thing happens. Then athird time; and now it is probably much worse. Little by little he becomesindifferent to this everlasting insecurity. Finally he grows used to therepetition. Thus even a man who is normally of industrious habits growscareless in his whole attitude towards life and gradually becomes an instrumentin the hands of unscrupulous people who exploit him for the sake of their ownignoble aims. He has been so often thrown out of employment through no fault ofhis own that he is now more or less indifferent whether the strike in which hetakes part be for the purpose of securing his economic rights or be aimed atthe destruction of the State, the whole social order and even civilizationitself. Though the idea of going on strike may not be to his natural liking,yet he joins in it out of sheer indifference.
I saw this process exemplifiedbefore my eyes in thousands of cases. And the longer I observed it the greaterbecame my dislike for that mammoth city which greedily attracts men to itsbosom, in order to break them mercilessly in the end. When they came they stillfelt themselves in communion with their own people at home; if they remainedthat tie was broken.
I was thrown about so much in thelife of the metropolis that I experienced the workings of this fate in my ownperson and felt the effects of it in my own soul. One thing stood out clearlybefore my eyes: It was the sudden changes from work to idleness and vice versa;so that the constant fluctuations thus caused by earnings and expenditurefinally destroyed the ‘sense of thrift for many people and also the habit ofregulating expenditure in an intelligent way. The body appeared to growaccustomed to the vicissitudes of food and hunger, eating heartily in goodtimes and going hungry in bad. Indeed hunger shatters all plans for rationingexpenditure on a regular scale in better times when employment is again found.The reason for this is that the deprivations which the unemployed worker has toendure must be compensated for psychologically by a persistent mental mirage inwhich he imagines himself eating heartily once again. And this dream developsinto such a longing that it turns into a morbid impulse to cast off allself-restraint when work and wages turn up again. Therefore the moment work isfound anew he forgets to regulate the expenditure of his earnings but spendsthem to the full without thinking of to-morrow. This leads to confusion in thelittle weekly housekeeping budget, because the expenditure is not rationallyplanned. When the phenomenon which I have mentioned first happens, the earningswill last perhaps for five days instead of seven; on subsequent occasions theywill last only for three days; as the habit recurs, the earnings will lastscarcely for a day; and finally they will disappear in one night of feasting.
Often there are wife and childrenat home. And in many cases it happens that these become infected by such a wayof living, especially if the husband is good to them and wants to do the besthe can for them and loves them in his own way and according to his own lights.Then the week’s earnings are spent in common at home within two or three days.The family eat and drink together as long as the money lasts and at the end ofthe week they hunger together. Then the wife wanders about furtively in theneighbourhood, borrows a little, and runs up small debts with the shopkeepersin an effort to pull through the lean days towards the end of the week. Theysit down together to the midday meal with only meagre fare on the table, andoften even nothing to eat. They wait for the coming payday, talking of it andmaking plans; and while they are thus hungry they dream of the plenty that isto come. And so the little children become acquainted with misery in theirearly years.
But the evil culminates when thehusband goes his own way from the beginning of the week and the wife protests,simply out of love for the children. Then there are quarrels and bad feelingand the husband takes to drink according as he becomes estranged from his wife.He now becomes drunk every Saturday. Fighting for her own existence and that ofthe children, the wife has to hound him along the road from the factory to thetavern in order to get a few shillings from him on payday. Then when he finallycomes home, maybe on the Sunday or the Monday, having parted with his lastshillings and pence, pitiable scenes follow, scenes that cry out for God’smercy.
I have had actual experience ofall this in hundreds of cases. At first I was disgusted and indignant; butlater on I came to recognize the whole tragedy of their misfortune and tounderstand the profound causes of it. They were the unhappy victims of evilcircumstances.
Housing conditions were very badat that time. The Vienna manual labourers lived in surroundings of appallingmisery. I shudder even to-day when I think of the woeful dens in which peopledwelt, the night shelters and the slums, and all the tenebrous spectacles ofordure, loathsome filth and wickedness.
What will happen one day whenhordes of emancipated slaves come forth from these dens of misery to swoop downon their unsuspecting fellow men? For this other world does not think aboutsuch a possibility. They have allowed these things to go on without caring andeven without suspecting – in their total lack of instinctive understanding –that sooner or later destiny will take its vengeance unless it will have beenappeased in time.
To-day I fervidly thank Providencefor having sent me to such a school. There I could not refuse to take aninterest in matters that did not please me. This school soon taught me aprofound lesson.
In order not to despair completelyof the people among whom I then lived I had to set on one side the outwardappearances of their lives and on the other the reasons why they had developedin that way. Then I could hear everything without discouragement; for those whoemerged from all this misfortune and misery, from this filth and outwarddegradation, were not human beings as such but rather lamentable results oflamentable laws. In my own life similar hardships prevented me from giving wayto a pitying sentimentality at the sight of these degraded products which hadfinally resulted from the pressure of circumstances. No, the sentimentalattitude would be the wrong one to adopt.
Even in those days I already sawthat there was a two-fold method by which alone it would be possible to bringabout an amelioration of these conditions. This method is: first, to createbetter fundamental conditions of social development by establishing a profoundfeeling for social responsibilities among the public; second, to combine thisfeeling for social responsibilities with a ruthless determination to prune awayall excrescences which are incapable of being improved.
Just as Nature concentrates itsgreatest attention, not to the maintenance of what already exists but on theselective breeding of offspring in order to carry on the species, so in humanlife also it is less a matter of artificially improving the existing generation– which, owing to human characteristics, is impossible in ninety-nine cases outof a hundred – and more a matter of securing from the very start a better roadfor future development.
During my struggle for existencein Vienna I perceived very clearly that the aim of all social activity mustnever be merely charitable relief, which is ridiculous and useless, but it mustrather be a means to find a way of eliminating the fundamental deficiencies inour economic and cultural life – deficiencies which necessarily bring about thedegradation of the individual or at least lead him towards such degradation.The difficulty of employing every means, even the most drastic, to eradicatethe hostility prevailing among the working classes towards the State is largelydue to an attitude of uncertainty in deciding upon the inner motives and causesof this contemporary phenomenon. The grounds of this uncertainty are to befound exclusively in the sense of guilt which each individual feels for havingpermitted this tragedy of degradation. For that feeling paralyses every effortat making a serious and firm decision to act. And thus because the people whomit concerns are vacillating they are timid and half-hearted in putting intoeffect even the measures which are indispensable for self-preservation. Whenthe individual is no longer burdened with his own consciousness of blame inthis regard, then and only then will he have that inner tranquillity and outerforce to cut off drastically and ruthlessly all the parasite growth and rootout the weeds.
But because the Austrian State hadalmost no sense of social rights or social legislation its inability to abolishthose evil excrescences was manifest.
I do not know what it was thatappalled me most at that time: the economic misery of those who were then mycompanions, their crude customs and morals, or the low level of theirintellectual culture.
How often our bourgeoisie rises upin moral indignation on hearing from the mouth of some pitiable tramp that itis all the same to him whether he be a German or not and that he will findhimself at home wherever he can get enough to keep body and soul together. Theyprotest sternly against such a lack of ‘national pride’ and strongly expresstheir horror at such sentiments.
But how many people really askthemselves why it is that their own sentiments are better? How many of themunderstand that their natural pride in being members of so favoured a nationarises from the innumerable succession of instances they have encountered whichremind them of the greatness of the Fatherland and the Nation in all spheres ofartistic and cultural life? How many of them realize that pride in theFatherland is largely dependent on knowledge of its greatness in all thosespheres? Do our bourgeois circles ever think what a ridiculously meagre sharethe people have in that knowledge which is a necessary prerequisite for thefeeling of pride in one’s fatherland?
It cannot be objected here that inother countries similar conditions exist and that nevertheless the workingclasses in those countries have remained patriotic. Even if that were so, itwould be no excuse for our negligent attitude. But it is not so. What we callchauvinistic education – in the case of the French people, for example – isonly the excessive exaltation of the greatness of France in all spheres ofculture or, as the French say, civilization. The French boy is not educated onpurely objective principles. Wherever the importance of the political andcultural greatness of his country is concerned he is taught in the mostsubjective way that one can imagine.
This education will always have tobe confined to general ideas in a large perspective and these ought to bedeeply engraven, by constant repetition if necessary, on the memories andfeelings of the people.
In our case, however, we are notmerely guilty of negative sins of omission but also of positively pervertingthe little which some individuals had the luck to learn at school. The ratsthat poison our body-politic gnaw from the hearts and memories of the broadmasses even that little which distress and misery have left.
Let the reader try to picture thefollowing:
There is a lodging in a cellar andthis lodging consists of two damp rooms. In these rooms a workman and his familylive – seven people in all. Let us assume that one of the children is a boy ofthree years. That is the age at which children first become conscious of theimpressions which they receive. In the case of highly gifted people traces ofthe impressions received in those early years last in the memory up to anadvanced age. Now the narrowness and congestion of those living quarters do notconduce to pleasant inter-relations. Thus quarrels and fits of mutual angerarise. These people can hardly be said to live with one another, but ratherdown on top of one another. The small misunderstandings which disappear ofthemselves in a home where there is enough space for people to go apart fromone another for a while, here become the source of chronic disputes. As far asthe children are concerned the situation is tolerable from this point of view.In such conditions they are constantly quarrelling with one another, but thequarrels are quickly and entirely forgotten. But when the parents fall out withone another these daily bickerings often descend to rudeness such as cannot beadequately imagined. The results of such experiences must become apparent lateron in the children. One must have practical experience of such a milieu so asto be able to picture the state of affairs that arises from these mutualrecriminations when the father physically assaults the mother and maltreats herin a fit of drunken rage. At the age of six the child can no longer ignorethose sordid details which even an adult would find revolting. Infected withmoral poison, bodily undernourished, and the poor little head filled withvermin, the young ‘citizen’ goes to the primary school. With difficulty hebarely learns to read and write. There is no possibility of learning anylessons at home. Quite the contrary. The father and mother themselves talkbefore the children in the most disparaging way about the teacher and theschool and they are much more inclined to insult the teachers than to put theiroffspring across the knee and knock sound reason into him. What the littlefellow hears at home does not tend to increase respect for his humansurroundings. Here nothing good is said of human nature as a whole and everyinstitution, from the school to the government, is reviled. Whether religionand morals are concerned or the State and the social order, it is all the same;they are all scoffed at. When the young lad leaves school, at the age offourteen, it would be difficult to say what are the most striking features ofhis character, incredible ignorance in so far as real knowledge is concerned orcynical impudence combined with an attitude towards morality which is reallystartling at so young an age.
What station in life can such aperson fill, to whom nothing is sacred, who has never experienced anythingnoble but, on the contrary, has been intimately acquainted with the lowest kindof human existence? This child of three has got into the habit of reviling allauthority by the time he is fifteen. He has been acquainted only with moralfilth and vileness, everything being excluded that might stimulate his thoughttowards higher things. And now this young specimen of humanity enters theschool of life.
He leads the same kind of lifewhich was exemplified for him by his father during his childhood. He loitersabout and comes home at all hours. He now even black-guards that broken-heartedbeing who gave him birth. He curses God and the world and finally ends up in aHouse of Correction for young people. There he gets the final polish.
And his bourgeois contemporariesare astonished at the lack of ‘patriotic enthusiasm’ which this young ‘citizen’manifests.
Day after day the bourgeois worldare witnesses to the phenomenon of spreading poison among the people throughthe instrumentality of the theatre and the cinema, gutter journalism andobscene books; and yet they are astonished at the deplorable ‘moral standards’and ‘national indifference’ of the masses. As if the cinema bilge and thegutter press and suchlike could inculcate knowledge of the greatness of one’scountry, apart entirely from the earlier education of the individual.
I then came to understand, quicklyand thoroughly, what I had never been aware of before. It was the following:
The question of ‘nationalizing’ apeople is first and foremost one of establishing healthy social conditionswhich will furnish the grounds that are necessary for the education of theindividual. For only when family upbringing and school education haveinculcated in the individual a knowledge of the cultural and economic and,above all, the political greatness of his own country – then, and then only,will it be possible for him to feel proud of being a citizen of such a country.I can fight only for something that I love. I can love only what I respect. Andin order to respect a thing I must at least have some knowledge of it.
As soon as my interest in socialquestions was once awakened I began to study them in a fundamental way. A newand hitherto unknown world was thus revealed to me.
In the years 1909–10 I had so farimproved my, position that I no longer had to earn my daily bread as a manuallabourer. I was now working independently as draughtsman, and painter in watercolours. This métier was a poor one indeed as far as earnings were concerned;for these were only sufficient to meet the bare exigencies of life. Yet it hadan interest for me in view of the profession to which I aspired. Moreover, whenI came home in the evenings I was now no longer dead-tired as formerly, when Iused to be unable to look into a book without falling asleep almostimmediately. My present occupation therefore was in line with the profession Iaimed at for the future. Moreover, I was master of my own time and coulddistribute my working-hours now better than formerly. I painted in order toearn my bread, and I studied because I liked it.
Thus I was able to acquire thattheoretical knowledge of the social problem which was a necessary complement towhat I was learning through actual experience. I studied all the books which I couldfind that dealt with this question and I thought deeply on what I read. I thinkthat the milieu in which I then lived considered me an eccentric person.
Besides my interest in the socialquestion I naturally devoted myself with enthusiasm to the study ofarchitecture. Side by side with music, I considered it queen of the arts. Tostudy it was for me not work but pleasure. I could read or draw until the smallhours of the morning without ever getting tired. And I became more and moreconfident that my dream of a brilliant future would become true, even though Ishould have to wait long years for its fulfilment. I was firmly convinced thatone day I should make a name for myself as an architect.
The fact that, side by side withmy professional studies, I took the greatest interest in everything that had todo with politics did not seem to me to signify anything of great importance. Onthe contrary: I looked upon this practical interest in politics merely as partof an elementary obligation that devolves on every thinking man. Those who haveno understanding of the political world around them have no right to criticizeor complain. On political questions therefore I still continued to read andstudy a great deal. But reading had probably a different significance for mefrom that which it has for the average run of our so-called ‘intellectuals’.
I know people who readinterminably, book after book, from page to page, and yet I should not callthem ‘well-read people’. Of course they ‘know’ an immense amount; but theirbrain seems incapable of assorting and classifying the material which they havegathered from books. They have not the faculty of distinguishing between whatis useful and useless in a book; so that they may retain the former in theirminds and if possible skip over the latter while reading it, if that be notpossible, then – when once read – throw it overboard as useless ballast.Reading is not an end in itself, but a means to an end. Its chief purpose is tohelp towards filling in the framework which is made up of the talents andcapabilities that each individual possesses. Thus each one procures for himselfthe implements and materials necessary for the fulfilment of his calling inlife, no matter whether this be the elementary task of earning one’s dailybread or a calling that responds to higher human aspirations. Such is the firstpurpose of reading. And the second purpose is to give a general knowledge ofthe world in which we live. In both cases, however, the material which one hasacquired through reading must not be stored up in the memory on a plan thatcorresponds to the successive chapters of the book; but each little piece ofknowledge thus gained must be treated as if it were a little stone to beinserted into a mosaic, so that it finds its proper place among all the otherpieces and particles that help to form a general world-picture in the brain ofthe reader. Otherwise only a confused jumble of chaotic notions will resultfrom all this reading. That jumble is not merely useless, but it also tends tomake the unfortunate possessor of it conceited. For he seriously considershimself a well-educated person and thinks that he understands something oflife. He believes that he has acquired knowledge, whereas the truth is thatevery increase in such ‘knowledge’ draws him more and more away from real life,until he finally ends up in some sanatorium or takes to politics and becomes aparliamentary deputy.
Such a person never succeeds inturning his knowledge to practical account when the opportune moment arrives;for his mental equipment is not ordered with a view to meeting the demands ofeveryday life. His knowledge is stored in his brain as a literal transcript ofthe books he has read and the order of succession in which he has read them.And if Fate should one day call upon him to use some of his book-knowledge forcertain practical ends in life that very call will have to name the book andgive the number of the page; for the poor noodle himself would never be able tofind the spot where he gathered the information now called for. But if the pageis not mentioned at the critical moment the widely-read intellectual will findhimself in a state of hopeless embarrassment. In a high state of agitation hesearches for analogous cases and it is almost a dead certainty that he willfinally deliver the wrong prescription.
If that is not a correctdescription, then how can we explain the political achievements of ourParliamentary heroes who hold the highest positions in the government of the country?Otherwise we should have to attribute the doings of such political leaders, notto pathological conditions but simply to malice and chicanery.
On the other hand, one who hascultivated the art of reading will instantly discern, in a book or journal orpamphlet, what ought to be remembered because it meets one’s personal needs oris of value as general knowledge. What he thus learns is incorporated in hismental analogue of this or that problem or thing, further correcting the mentalpicture or enlarging it so that it becomes more exact and precise. Should somepractical problem suddenly demand examination or solution, memory willimmediately select the opportune information from the mass that has beenacquired through years of reading and will place this information at theservice of one’s powers of judgment so as to get a new and clearer view of theproblem in question or produce a definitive solution.
Only thus can reading have anymeaning or be worth while.
The speaker, for example, who hasnot the sources of information ready to hand which are necessary to a propertreatment of his subject is unable to defend his opinions against an opponent,even though those opinions be perfectly sound and true. In every discussion hismemory will leave him shamefully in the lurch. He cannot summon up arguments tosupport his statements or to refute his opponent. So long as the speaker hasonly to defend himself on his own personal account, the situation is notserious; but the evil comes when Chance places at the head of public affairssuch a soi-disant know-it-all, who in reality knows nothing.
From early youth I endeavoured toread books in the right way and I was fortunate in having a good memory andintelligence to assist me. From that point of view my sojourn in Vienna wasparticularly useful and profitable. My experiences of everyday life there werea constant stimulus to study the most diverse problems from new angles.Inasmuch as I was in a position to put theory to the test of reality andreality to the test of theory, I was safe from the danger of pedantictheorizing on the one hand and, on the other, from being too impressed by thesuperficial aspects of reality.
The experience of everyday life atthat time determined me to make a fundamental theoretical study of two mostimportant questions outside of the social question.
It is impossible to say when Imight have started to make a thorough study of the doctrine and characteristicsof Marxism were it not for the fact that I then literally ran head foremostinto the problem.
What I knew of Social Democracy inmy youth was precious little and that little was for the most part wrong. Thefact that it led the struggle for universal suffrage and the secret ballot gaveme an inner satisfaction; for my reason then told me that this would weaken theHabsburg regime, which I so thoroughly detested. I was convinced that even ifit should sacrifice the German element the Danubian State could not continue toexist. Even at the price of a long and slow Slaviz-ation of the AustrianGermans the State would secure no guarantee of a really durable Empire; becauseit was very questionable if and how far the Slavs possessed the necessarycapacity for constructive politics. Therefore I welcomed every movement thatmight lead towards the final disruption of that impossible State which haddecreed that it would stamp out the German character in ten millions of people.The more this babel of tongues wrought discord and disruption, even in theParliament, the nearer the hour approached for the dissolution of thisBabylonian Empire. That would mean the liberation of my German Austrian people,and only then would it become possible for them to be re-united to theMotherland.
Accordingly I had no feelings ofantipathy towards the actual policy of the Social Democrats. That its avowedpurpose was to raise the level of the working classes – which in my ignorance Ithen foolishly believed – was a further reason why I should speak in favour ofSocial Democracy rather than against it. But the features that contributed mostto estrange me from the Social Democratic movement was its hostile attitudetowards the struggle for the conservation of Germanism in Austria, itslamentable cocotting with the Slav ‘comrades’, who received these approachesfavourably as long as any practical advantages were forthcoming but otherwisemaintained a haughty reserve, thus giving the importunate mendicants the sortof answer their behaviour deserved.
And so at the age of seventeen theword ‘Marxism’ was very little known to me, while I looked on ‘SocialDemocracy’ and ‘Socialism’ as synonymous expressions. It was only as the resultof a sudden blow from the rough hand of Fate that my eyes were opened to thenature of this unparalleled system for duping the public.
Hitherto my acquaintance with theSocial Democratic Party was only that of a mere spectator at some of their massmeetings. I had not the slightest idea of the social-democratic teaching or thementality of its partisans. All of a sudden I was brought face to face with theproducts of their teaching and what they called their Weltanschhauung.In this way a few months sufficed for me to learn something which under othercircumstances might have necessitated decades of study – namely, that under thecloak of social virtue and love of one’s neighbour a veritable pestilence wasspreading abroad and that if this pestilence be not stamped out of the worldwithout delay it may eventually succeed in exterminating the human race.
I first came into contact with theSocial Democrats while working in the building trade.
From the very time that I startedwork the situation was not very pleasant for me. My clothes were still ratherdecent. I was careful of my speech and I was reserved in manner. I was sooccupied with thinking of my own present lot and future possibilities that Idid not take much of an interest in my immediate surroundings. I had soughtwork so that I shouldn’t starve and at the same time so as to be able to makefurther headway with my studies, though this headway might be slow. Possibly Ishould not have bothered to be interested in my companions were it not that onthe third or fourth day an event occurred which forced me to take a definitestand. I was ordered to join the trade union.
At that time I knew nothing aboutthe trades unions. I had had no opportunity of forming an opinion on theirutility or inutility, as the case might be. But when I was told that I mustjoin the union I refused. The grounds which I gave for my refusal were simply thatI knew nothing about the matter and that anyhow I would not allow myself to beforced into anything. Probably the former reason saved me from being thrown outright away. They probably thought that within a few days I might be converted’and become more docile. But if they thought that they were profoundly mistaken.After two weeks I found it utterly impossible for me to take such a step, evenif I had been willing to take it at first. During those fourteen days I came toknow my fellow workmen better, and no power in the world could have moved me tojoin an organization whose representatives had meanwhile shown themselves in alight which I found so unfavourable.
During the first days myresentment was aroused.
At midday some of my fellow workersused to adjourn to the nearest tavern, while the others remained on thebuilding premises and there ate their midday meal, which in most cases was avery scanty one. These were married men. Their wives brought them the middaysoup in dilapidated vessels. Towards the end of the week there was a gradualincrease in the number of those who remained to eat their midday meal on thebuilding premises. I understood the reason for this afterwards. They now talkedpolitics.
I drank my bottle of milk and atemy morsel of bread somewhere on the outskirts, while I circumspectly studied myenvironment or else fell to meditating on my own harsh lot. Yet I heard morethan enough. And I often thought that some of what they said was meant for myears, in the hope of bringing me to a decision. But all that I heard had theeffect of arousing the strongest antagonism in me. Everything was disparaged –the nation, because it was held to be an invention of the ‘capitalist’ class(how often I had to listen to that phrase!); the Fatherland, because it washeld to be an instrument in the hands of the bourgeoisie for the exploitationof’ the working masses; the authority of the law, because that was a means ofholding down the proletariat; religion, as a means of doping the people, so asto exploit them afterwards; morality, as a badge of stupid and sheepishdocility. There was nothing that they did not drag in the mud.
At first I remained silent; butthat could not last very long. Then I began to take part in the discussion andto reply to their statements. I had to recognize, however, that this was boundto be entirely fruitless, as long as I did not have at least a certain amountof definite information about the questions that were discussed. So I decidedto consult the source from which my interlocutors claimed to have drawn theirso-called wisdom. I devoured book after book, pamphlet after pamphlet.
Meanwhile, we argued with oneanother on the building premises. From day to day I was becoming betterinformed than my companions in the subjects on which they claimed to beexperts. Then a day came when the more redoubtable of my adversaries resortedto the most effective weapon they had to replace the force of reason. This wasintimidation and physical force. Some of the leaders among my adversariesordered me to leave the building or else get flung down from the scaffolding.As I was quite alone I could not put up any physical resistance; so I chose thefirst alternative and departed, richer however by an experience.
I went away full of disgust; butat the same time so deeply moved that it was quite impossible for me to turn myback on the whole situation and think no more about it. When my anger began tocalm down the spirit of obstinacy got the upper hand and I decided that at allcosts I would get back to work again in the building trade. This decisionbecame all the stronger a few weeks later, when my little savings had entirelyrun out and hunger clutched me once again in its merciless arms. No alternativewas left to me. I got work again and had to leave it for the same reasons asbefore.
Then I asked myself: Are these menworthy of belonging to a great people? The question was profoundly disturbing;for if the answer were ‘Yes’, then the struggle to defend one’s nationality isno longer worth all the trouble and sacrifice we demand of our best elements ifit be in the interests of such a rabble. On the other hand, if the answer hadto be ‘No – these men are not worthy of the nation’, then our nation is poorindeed in men. During those days of mental anguish and deep meditation I sawbefore my mind the ever-increasing and menacing army of people who could nolonger be reckoned as belonging to their own nation.
It was with quite a differentfeeling, some days later, that I gazed on the interminable ranks, four abreast,of Viennese workmen parading at a mass demonstration. I stood dumbfounded foralmost two hours, watching that enormous human dragon which slowly uncoileditself there before me. When I finally left the square and wandered in thedirection of my lodgings I felt dismayed and depressed. On my way I noticed theArbeiterzeitung (The Workman’s Journal) in a tobacco shop. This was the chiefpress-organ of the old Austrian Social Democracy. In a cheap café, where the commonpeople used to foregather and where I often went to read the papers, theArbeiterzeitung was also displayed. But hitherto I could not bring myself to domore than glance at the wretched thing for a couple of minutes: for its wholetone was a sort of mental vitriol to me. Under the depressing influence of thedemonstration I had witnessed, some interior voice urged me to buy the paper inthat tobacco shop and read it through. So I brought it home with me and spentthe whole evening reading it, despite the steadily mounting rage provoked bythis ceaseless outpouring of falsehoods.
I now found that in the socialdemocratic daily papers I could study the inner character of thispolitico-philosophic system much better than in all their theoretical literature.
For there was a strikingdiscrepancy between the two. In the literary effusions which dealt with thetheory of Social Democracy there was a display of high-sounding phraseologyabout liberty and human dignity and beauty, all promulgated with an air ofprofound wisdom and serene prophetic assurance; a meticulously-woven glitter ofwords to dazzle and mislead the reader. On the other hand, the daily Pressinculcated this new doctrine of human redemption in the most brutal fashion. Nomeans were too base, provided they could be exploited in the campaign ofslander. These journalists were real virtuosos in the art of twisting facts andpresenting them in a deceptive form. The theoretical literature was intendedfor the simpletons of the soi-disant intellectuals belonging to the middle and,naturally, the upper classes. The newspaper propaganda was intended for themasses.
This probing into books andnewspapers and studying the teachings of Social Democracy reawakened my lovefor my own people. And thus what at first seemed an impassable chasm became theoccasion of a closer affection.
Having once understood the workingof the colossal system for poisoning the popular mind, only a fool could blamethe victims of it. During the years that followed I became more independentand, as I did so, I became better able to understand the inner cause of thesuccess achieved by this Social Democratic gospel. I now realized the meaningand purpose of those brutal orders which prohibited the reading of all booksand newspapers that were not ‘red’ and at the same time demanded that only the‘red’ meetings should be attended. In the clear light of brutal reality I wasable to see what must have been the inevitable consequences of that intolerantteaching.
The psyche of the broad masses isaccessible only to what is strong and uncompromising. Like a woman whose innersensibilities are not so much under the sway of abstract reasoning but arealways subject to the influence of a vague emotional longing for the strengththat completes her being, and who would rather bow to the strong man thandominate the weakling – in like manner the masses of the people prefer theruler to the suppliant and are filled with a stronger sense of mental securityby a teaching that brooks no rival than by a teaching which offers them aliberal choice. They have very little idea of how to make such a choice andthus they are prone to feel that they have been abandoned. They feel verylittle shame at being terrorized intellectually and they are scarcely consciousof the fact that their freedom as human beings is impudently abused; and thusthey have not the slightest suspicion of the intrinsic fallacy of the wholedoctrine. They see only the ruthless force and brutality of its determinedutterances, to which they always submit.
If Social Democracy should beopposed by a more truthful teaching, then even, though the struggle be of thebitterest kind, this truthful teaching will finally prevail provided it beenforced with equal ruthlessness.
Within less than two years I hadgained a clear understanding of Social Democracy, in its teaching and thetechnique of its operations.
I recognized the infamy of thattechnique whereby the movement carried on a campaign of mental terrorismagainst the bourgeoisie, who are neither morally nor spiritually equipped towithstand such attacks. The tactics of Social Democracy consisted in opening,at a given signal, a veritable drum-fire of lies and calumnies against the manwhom they believed to be the most redoubtable of their adversaries, until thenerves of the latter gave way and they sacrificed the man who was attacked,simply in the hope of being allowed to live in peace. But the hope provedalways to be a foolish one, for they were never left in peace.
The same tactics are repeatedagain and again, until fear of these mad dogs exercises, through suggestion, aparalysing effect on their Victims.
Through its own experience SocialDemocracy learned the value of strength, and for that reason it attacks mostlythose in whom it scents stuff of the more stalwart kind, which is indeed a veryrare possession. On the other hand it praises every weakling among itsadversaries, more or less cautiously, according to the measure of his mentalqualities known or presumed. They have less fear of a man of genius who lackswill-power than of a vigorous character with mediocre intelligence and at thesame time they highly commend those who are devoid of intelligence andwill-power.
The Social Democrats know how tocreate the impression that they alone are the protectors of peace. In this way,acting very circumspectly but never losing sight of their ultimate goal, theyconquer one position after another, at one time by methods of quietintimidation and at another time by sheer daylight robbery, employing theselatter tactics at those moments when public attention is turned towards othermatters from which it does not wish to be diverted, or when the publicconsiders an incident too trivial to create a scandal about it and thus provokethe anger of a malignant opponent.
These tactics are based on anaccurate estimation of human frailties and must lead to success, with almostmathematical certainty, unless the other side also learns how to fight poisongas with poison gas. The weaker natures must be told that here it is a case ofto be or not to be.
I also came to understand thatphysical intimidation has its significance for the mass as well as for theindividual. Here again the Socialists had calculated accurately on thepsychological effect.
Intimidation in workshops and infactories, in assembly halls and at mass demonstrations, will always meet withsuccess as long as it does not have to encounter the same kind of terror in astronger form.
Then of course the Party willraise a horrified outcry, yelling blue murder and appealing to the authority ofthe State, which they have just repudiated. In doing this their aim generallyis to add to the general confusion, so that they may have a better opportunityof reaching their own goal unobserved. Their idea is to find among the highergovernment officials some bovine creature who, in the stupid hope that he maywin the good graces of these awe-inspiring opponents so that they may rememberhim in case of future eventualities, will help them now to break all those whomay oppose this world pest.
The impression which suchsuccessful tactics make on the minds of the broad masses, whether they beadherents or opponents, can be estimated only by one who knows the popularmind, not from books but from practical life. For the successes which are thusobtained are taken by the adherents of Social Democracy as a triumphant symbolof the righteousness of their own cause; on the other hand the beaten opponentvery often loses faith in the effectiveness of any further resistance.
The more I understood the methodsof physical intimidation that were employed, the more sympathy I had for themultitude that had succumbed to it.
I am thankful now for the ordealwhich I had to go through at that time; for it was the means of bringing me tothink kindly again of my own people, inasmuch as the experience enabled me todistinguish between the false leaders and the victims who have been led astray.
We must look upon the lattersimply as victims. I have just now tried to depict a few traits which expressthe mentality of those on the lowest rung of the social ladder; but my picturewould be disproportionate if I do not add that amid the social depths I stillfound light; for I experienced a rare spirit of self-sacrifice and loyalcomradeship among those men, who demanded little from life and were contentamid their modest surroundings. This was true especially of the oldergeneration of workmen. And although these qualities were disappearing more andmore in the younger generation, owing to the all-pervading influence of the bigcity, yet among the younger generation also there were many who were sound atthe core and who were able to maintain themselves uncontaminated amid thesordid surroundings of their everyday existence. If these men, who in manycases meant well and were upright in themselves, gave the support to thepolitical activities carried on by the common enemies of our people, that wasbecause those decent workpeople did not and could not grasp the downrightinfamy of the doctrine taught by the socialist agitators. Furthermore, it wasbecause no other section of the community bothered itself about the lot of theworking classes. Finally, the social conditions became such that men whootherwise would have acted differently were forced to submit to them, eventhough unwillingly at first. A day came when poverty gained the upper hand anddrove those workmen into the Social Democratic ranks.
On innumerable occasions thebourgeoisie took a definite stand against even the most legitimate humandemands of the working classes. That conduct was ill-judged and indeed immoraland could bring no gain whatsoever to the bourgeois class. The result was thatthe honest workman abandoned the original concept of the trades unionorganization and was dragged into politics.
There were millions and millionsof workmen who began by being hostile to the Social Democratic Party; but theirdefences were repeatedly stormed and finally they had to surrender. Yet thisdefeat was due to the stupidity of the bourgeois parties, who had opposed everysocial demand put forward by the working class. The short-sighted refusal tomake an effort towards improving labour conditions, the refusal to adoptmeasures which would insure the workman in case of accidents in the factories,the refusal to forbid child labour, the refusal to consider protective measuresfor female workers, especially expectant mothers – all this was of assistanceto the Social Democratic leaders, who were thankful for every opportunity whichthey could exploit for forcing the masses into their net. Our bourgeois partiescan never repair the damage that resulted from the mistake they then made. Forthey sowed the seeds of hatred when they opposed all efforts at social reform.And thus they gave, at least, apparent grounds to justify the claim put forwardby the Social Democrats – namely, that they alone stand up for the interests ofthe working class.
And this became the principalground for the moral justification of the actual existence of the TradesUnions, so that the labour organization became from that time onwards the chiefpolitical recruiting ground to swell the ranks of the Social Democratic Party.
While thus studying the social conditionsaround me I was forced, whether I liked it or not, to decide on the attitude Ishould take towards the Trades Unions. Because I looked upon them asinseparable from the Social Democratic Party, my decision was hasty – andmistaken. I repudiated them as a matter of course. But on this essentialquestion also Fate intervened and gave me a lesson, with the result that Ichanged the opinion which I had first formed.
When I was twenty years old I hadlearned to distinguish between the Trades Union as a means of defending thesocial rights of the employees and fighting for better living conditions forthem and, on the other hand, the Trades Union as a political instrument used bythe Party in the class struggle.
The Social Democrats understoodthe enormous importance of the Trades Union movement. They appropriated it asan instrument and used it with success, while the bourgeois parties failed tounderstand it and thus lost their political prestige. They thought that theirown arrogant Veto would arrest the logical development of the movement andforce it into an illogical position. But it is absurd and also untrue to saythat the Trades Union movement is in itself hostile to the nation. The oppositeis the more correct view. If the activities of the Trades Union are directedtowards improving the condition of a class, and succeed in doing so, suchactivities are not against the Fatherland or the State but are, in the truestsense of the word, national. In that way the trades union organization helps tocreate the social conditions which are indispensable in a general system ofnational education. It deserves high recognition when it destroys thepsychological and physical germs of social disease and thus fosters the generalwelfare of the nation.
It is superfluous to ask whetherthe Trades Union is indispensable.
So long as there are employers whoattack social understanding and have wrong ideas of justice and fair play it isnot only the right but also the duty of their employees – who are, after all, anintegral part of our people – to protect the general interests against thegreed and unreason of the individual. For to safeguard the loyalty andconfidence of the people is as much in the interests of the nation as tosafeguard public health.
Both are seriously menaced bydishonourable employers who are not conscious of their duty as members of thenational community. Their personal avidity or irresponsibility sows the seedsof future trouble. To eliminate the causes of such a development is an action thatsurely deserves well of the country.
It must not be answered here thatthe individual workman is free at any time to escape from the consequences ofan injustice which he has actually suffered at the hands of an employer, orwhich he thinks he has suffered – in other words, he can leave. No. Thatargument is only a ruse to detract attention from the question at issue. Is it,or is it not, in the interests of the nation to remove the causes of socialunrest? If it is, then the fight must be carried on with the only weapons thatpromise success. But the individual workman is never in a position to stand upagainst the might of the big employer; for the question here is not one thatconcerns the triumph of right. If in such a relation right had been recognizedas the guiding principle, then the conflict could not have arisen at all. Buthere it is a question of who is the stronger. If the case were otherwise, thesentiment of justice alone would solve the dispute in an honourable way; or, toput the case more correctly, matters would not have come to such a dispute atall.
No. If unsocial and dishonourabletreatment of men provokes resistance, then the stronger party can impose itsdecision in the conflict until the constitutional legislative authorities doaway with the evil through legislation. Therefore it is evident that if theindividual workman is to have any chance at all of winning through in thestruggle he must be grouped with his fellow workmen and present a united frontbefore the individual employer, who incorporates in his own person the massedstrength of the vested interests in the industrial or commercial undertakingwhich he conducts.
Thus the trades unions can hope toinculcate and strengthen a sense of social responsibility in workaday life andopen the road to practical results. In doing this they tend to remove thosecauses of friction which are a continual source of discontent and complaint.
Blame for the fact that the tradesunions do not fulfil this much-desired function must be laid at the doors ofthose who barred the road to legislative social reform, or rendered such areform ineffective by sabotaging it through their political influence.
The political bourgeoisie failedto understand – or, rather, they did not wish to understand – the importance ofthe trades union movement. The Social Democrats accordingly seized theadvantage offered them by this mistaken policy and took the labour movementunder their exclusive protection, without any protest from the other side. Inthis way they established for themselves a solid bulwark behind which theycould safely retire whenever the struggle assumed a critical aspect. Thus thegenuine purpose of the movement gradually fell into oblivion, and was replacedby new objectives. For the Social Democrats never troubled themselves torespect and uphold the original purpose for which the trade unionist movementwas founded. They simply took over the Movement, lock, stock and barrel, toserve their own political ends.
Within a few decades the TradesUnion Movement was transformed, by the expert hand of Social Democracy, from aninstrument which had been originally fashioned for the defence of human rightsinto an instrument for the destruction of the national economic structure. Theinterests of the working class were not allowed for a moment to cross the pathof this purpose; for in politics the application of economic pressure is alwayspossible if the one side be sufficiently unscrupulous and the othersufficiently inert and docile. In this case both conditions were fulfilled.
By the beginning of the presentcentury the Trades Unionist Movement had already ceased to recognize thepurpose for which it had been founded. From year to year it fell more and moreunder the political control of the Social Democrats, until it finally came tobe used as a battering-ram in the class struggle. The plan was to shatter, bymeans of constantly repeated blows, the economic edifice in the building ofwhich so much time and care had been expended. Once this objective had beenreached, the destruction of the State would become a matter of course, becausethe State would already have been deprived of its economic foundations.Attention to the real interests of the working-classes, on the part of theSocial Democrats, steadily decreased until the cunning leaders saw that itwould be in their immediate political interests if the social and culturaldemands of the broad masses remained unheeded; for there was a danger that ifthese masses once felt content they could no longer be employed as mere passivematerial in the political struggle.
The gloomy prospect whichpresented itself to the eyes of the condottieri of the class warfare, if thediscontent of the masses were no longer available as a war weapon, created somuch anxiety among them that they suppressed and opposed even the mostelementary measures of social reform. And conditions were such that thoseleaders did not have to trouble about attempting to justify such an illogicalpolicy.
As the masses were taught toincrease and heighten their demands the possibility of satisfying them dwindledand whatever ameliorative measures were taken became less and less significant;so that it was at that time possible to persuade the masses that thisridiculous measure in which the most sacred claims of the working-classes werebeing granted represented a diabolical plan to weaken their fighting power inthis easy way and, if possible, to paralyse it. One will not be astonished atthe success of these allegations if one remembers what a small measure ofthinking power the broad masses possess.
In the bourgeois camp there washigh indignation over the bad faith of the Social Democratic tactics; butnothing was done to draw a practical conclusion and organize a counter attack fromthe bourgeois side. The fear of the Social Democrats, to improve the miserableconditions of the working-classes ought to have induced the bourgeois partiesto make the most energetic efforts in this direction and thus snatch from thehands of the class-warfare leaders their most important weapon; but nothing ofthis kind happened.
Instead of attacking the positionof their adversaries the bourgeoisie allowed itself to be pressed and harried.Finally it adopted means that were so tardy and so insignificant that they wereineffective and were repudiated. So the whole situation remained just as it hadbeen before the bourgeois intervention; but the discontent had thereby becomemore serious.
Like a threatening storm, the‘Free Trades Union’ hovered above the political horizon and above the life ofeach individual. It was one of the most frightful instruments of terror thatthreatened the security and independence of the national economic structure,the foundations of the State and the liberty of the individual. Above all, itwas the ‘Free Trades Union’ that turned democracy into a ridiculous and scornedphrase, insulted the ideal of liberty and stigmatized that of fraternity withthe slogan ‘If you will not become our comrade we shall crack your skull’.
It was thus that I then came toknow this friend of humanity. During the years that followed my knowledge of itbecame wider and deeper; but I have never changed anything in that regard.
The more I became acquainted withthe external forms of Social Democracy, the greater became my desire tounderstand the inner nature of its doctrines.
For this purpose the officialliterature of the Party could not help very much. In discussing economicquestions its statements were false and its proofs unsound. In treating ofpolitical aims its attitude was insincere. Furthermore, its modern methods ofchicanery in the presentation of its arguments were profoundly repugnant to me.Its flamboyant sentences, its obscure and incomprehensible phrases, pretendedto contain great thoughts, but they were devoid of thought, and meaningless.One would have to be a decadent Bohemian in one of our modern cities in orderto feel at home in that labyrinth of mental aberration, so that he mightdiscover ‘intimate experiences’ amid the stinking fumes of this literaryDadism. These writers were obviously counting on the proverbial humility of acertain section of our people, who believe that a person who isincomprehensible must be profoundly wise.
In confronting the theoreticalfalsity and absurdity of that doctrine with the reality of its externalmanifestations, I gradually came to have a clear idea of the ends at which itaimed.
During such moments I had darkpresentiments and feared something evil. I had before me a teaching inspired byegoism and hatred, mathematically calculated to win its victory, but thetriumph of which would be a mortal blow to humanity.
Meanwhile I had discovered therelations existing between this destructive teaching and the specific characterof a people, who up to that time had been to me almost unknown.
Knowledge of the Jews is the onlykey whereby one may understand the inner nature and therefore the real aims ofSocial Democracy.
The man who has come to know thisrace has succeeded in removing from his eyes the veil through which he had seenthe aims and meaning of his Party in a false light; and then, out of the murkand fog of social phrases rises the grimacing figure of Marxism.
To-day it is hard and almostimpossible for me to say when the word ‘Jew’ first began to raise anyparticular thought in my mind. I do not remember even having heard the word athome during my father’s lifetime. If this name were mentioned in a derogatorysense I think the old gentleman would just have considered those who used it inthis way as being uneducated reactionaries. In the course of his career he hadcome to be more or less a cosmopolitan, with strong views on nationalism, whichhad its effect on me as well. In school, too, I found no reason to alter thepicture of things I had formed at home.
At the Realschule I knew oneJewish boy. We were all on our guard in our relations with him, but onlybecause his reticence and certain actions of his warned us to be discreet.Beyond that my companions and myself formed no particular opinions in regard tohim.
It was not until I was fourteen orfifteen years old that I frequently ran up against the word ‘Jew’, partly inconnection with political controversies. These references aroused a slightaversion in me, and I could not avoid an uncomfortable feeling which alwayscame over me when I had to listen to religious disputes. But at that time I hadno other feelings about the Jewish question.
There were very few Jews in Linz. Inthe course of centuries the Jews who lived there had become Europeanized inexternal appearance and were so much like other human beings that I even lookedupon them as Germans. The reason why I did not then perceive the absurdity ofsuch an illusion was that the only external mark which I recognized asdistinguishing them from us was the practice of their strange religion. As Ithought that they were persecuted on account of their Faith my aversion tohearing remarks against them grew almost into a feeling of abhorrence. I didnot in the least suspect that there could be such a thing as a systematicanti-Semitism.
Then I came to Vienna.
Confused by the mass ofimpressions I received from the architectural surroundings and depressed by myown troubles, I did not at first distinguish between the different socialstrata of which the population of that mammoth city was composed. AlthoughVienna then had about two hundred thousand Jews among its population of twomillions, I did not notice them. During the first weeks of my sojourn my eyesand my mind were unable to cope with the onrush of new ideas and values. Notuntil I gradually settled down to my surroundings, and the confused picturebegan to grow clearer, did I acquire a more discriminating view of my newworld. And with that I came up against the Jewish problem.
I will not say that the manner inwhich I first became acquainted with it was particularly unpleasant for me. Inthe Jew I still saw only a man who was of a different religion, and therefore, ongrounds of human tolerance, I was against the idea that he should be attackedbecause he had a different faith. And so I considered that the tone adopted bythe anti-Semitic Press in Vienna was unworthy of the cultural traditions of agreat people. The memory of certain events which happened in the middle agescame into my mind, and I felt that I should not like to see them repeated.Generally speaking, these anti-Semitic newspapers did not belong to the firstrank – but I did not then understand the reason of this – and so I regardedthem more as the products of jealousy and envy rather than the expression of asincere, though wrong-headed, feeling.
My own opinions were confirmed bywhat I considered to be the infinitely more dignified manner in which thereally great Press replied to those attacks or simply ignored them, whichlatter seemed to me the most respectable way.
I diligently read what wasgenerally called the World Press – Neue Freie Presse, Wiener Tageblatt, etc.–and I was astonished by the abundance of information they gave their readersand the impartial way in which they presented particular problems. Iappreciated their dignified tone; but sometimes the flamboyancy of the stylewas unconvincing, and I did not like it. But I attributed all this to theoverpowering influence of the world metropolis.
Since I considered Vienna at thattime as such a world metropolis, I thought this constituted sufficient groundsto excuse these shortcomings of the Press. But I was frequently disgusted bythe grovelling way in which the Vienna Press played lackey to the Court.Scarcely a move took place at the Hofburg which was not presented in glorifiedcolours to the readers. It was a foolish practice, which, especially when ithad to do with ‘The Wisest Monarch of all Times’, reminded one almost of thedance which the mountain cock performs at pairing time to woo his mate. It wasall empty nonsense. And I thought that such a policy was a stain on the idealof liberal democracy. I thought that this way of currying favour at the Courtwas unworthy of the people. And that was the first blot that fell on myappreciation of the great Vienna Press.
While in Vienna I continued tofollow with a vivid interest all the events that were taking place in Germany,whether connected with political or cultural question. I had a feeling of prideand admiration when I compared the rise of the young German Empire with thedecline of the Austrian State. But, although the foreign policy of that Empirewas a source of real pleasure on the whole, the internal political happeningswere not always so satisfactory. I did not approve of the campaign which atthat time was being carried on against William II. I looked upon him not onlyas the German Emperor but, above all, as the creator of the German Navy. Thefact that the Emperor was prohibited from speaking in the Reichstag made mevery angry, because the prohibition came from a side which in my eyes had noauthority to make it. For at a single sitting those same parliamentary gandersdid more cackling together than the whole dynasty of Emperors, comprising eventhe weakest, had done in the course of centuries.
It annoyed me to have toacknowledge that in a nation where any half-witted fellow could claim forhimself the right to criticize and might even be let loose on the people as a‘Legislator’ in the Reichstag, the bearer of the Imperial Crown could be thesubject of a ‘reprimand’ on the part of the most miserable assembly ofdrivellers that had ever existed.
I was even more disgusted at theway in which this same Vienna Press salaamed obsequiously before the meaneststeed belonging to the Habsburg royal equipage and went off into wild ecstaciesof delight if the nag wagged its tail in response. And at the same time thesenewspapers took up an attitude of anxiety in matters that concerned the GermanEmperor, trying to cloak their enmity by the serious air they gave themselves.But in my eyes that enmity appeared to be only poorly cloaked. Naturally theyprotested that they had no intention of mixing in Germany’s internal affairs –God forbid! They pretended that by touching a delicate spot in such a friendlyway they were fulfilling a duty that devolved upon them by reason of the mutualalliance between the two countries and at the same time discharging theirobligations of journalistic truthfulness. Having thus excused themselves abouttenderly touching a sore spot, they bored with the finger ruthlessly into thewound.
That sort of thing made my bloodboil. And now I began to be more and more on my guard when reading the greatVienna Press.
I had to acknowledge, however,that on such subjects one of the anti-Semitic papers – the Deutsche Volksblatt– acted more decently.
What got still more on my nerveswas the repugnant manner in which the big newspapers cultivated admiration forFrance. One really had to feel ashamed of being a German when confronted bythose mellifluous hymns of praise for ‘the great culture-nation’. This wretchedGallomania more often than once made me throw away one of those ‘worldnewspapers’. I now often turned to the Volksblatt, which was much smaller insize but which treated such subjects more decently. I was not in accord withits sharp anti-Semitic tone; but again and again I found that its arguments gaveme grounds for serious thought.
Anyhow, it was as a result of suchreading that I came to know the man and the movement which then determined thefate of Vienna. These were Dr. Karl Lueger and the Christian SocialistMovement. At the time I came to Vienna I felt opposed to both. I looked on theman and the movement as ‘reactionary’.
But even an elementary sense ofjustice enforced me to change my opinion when I had the opportunity of knowingthe man and his work, and slowly that opinion grew into outspoken admirationwhen I had better grounds for forming a judgment. To-day, as well as then, Ihold Dr. Karl Lueger as the most eminent type of German Burgermeister. How manyprejudices were thrown over through such a change in my attitude towards theChristian-Socialist Movement!
My ideas about anti-Semitismchanged also in the course of time, but that was the change which I found mostdifficult. It cost me a greater internal conflict with myself, and it was onlyafter a struggle between reason and sentiment that victory began to be decidedin favour of the former. Two years later sentiment rallied to the side ofreasons and became a faithful guardian and counsellor.
At the time of this bitterstruggle, between calm reason and the sentiments in which I had been broughtup, the lessons that I learned on the streets of Vienna rendered me invaluableassistance. A time came when I no longer passed blindly along the street of themighty city, as I had done in the early days, but now with my eyes open notonly to study the buildings but also the human beings.
Once, when passing through theinner City, I suddenly encountered a phenomenon in a long caftan and wearingblack side-locks. My first thought was: Is this a Jew? They certainly did nothave this appearance in Linz. I watched the man stealthily and cautiously; butthe longer I gazed at the strange countenance and examined it feature byfeature, the more the question shaped itself in my brain: Is this a German?
As was always my habit with suchexperiences, I turned to books for help in removing my doubts. For the firsttime in my life I bought myself some anti-Semitic pamphlets for a few pence.But unfortunately they all began with the assumption that in principle thereader had at least a certain degree of information on the Jewish question orwas even familiar with it. Moreover, the tone of most of these pamphlets wassuch that I became doubtful again, because the statements made were partlysuperficial and the proofs extraordinarily unscientific. For weeks, and indeedfor months, I returned to my old way of thinking. The subject appeared soenormous and the accusations were so far-reaching that I was afraid of dealingwith it unjustly and so I became again anxious and uncertain.
Naturally I could no longer doubtthat here there was not a question of Germans who happened to be of a differentreligion but rather that there was question of an entirely different people.For as soon as I began to investigate the matter and observe the Jews, thenVienna appeared to me in a different light. Wherever I now went I saw Jews, andthe more I saw of them the more strikingly and clearly they stood out as adifferent people from the other citizens. Especially the Inner City and thedistrict northwards from the Danube Canal swarmed with a people who, even inouter appearance, bore no similarity to the Germans.
But any indecision which I maystill have felt about that point was finally removed by the activities of acertain section of the Jews themselves. A great movement, called Zionism, aroseamong them. Its aim was to assert the national character of Judaism, and themovement was strongly represented in Vienna.
To outward appearances it seemedas if only one group of Jews championed this movement, while the great majoritydisapproved of it, or even repudiated it. But an investigation of the situationshowed that those outward appearances were purposely misleading. These outwardappearances emerged from a mist of theories which had been produced for reasonsof expediency, if not for purposes of downright deception. For that part ofJewry which was styled Liberal did not disown the Zionists as if they were notmembers of their race but rather as brother Jews who publicly professed theirfaith in an unpractical way, so as to create a danger for Jewry itself.
Thus there was no real rift intheir internal solidarity.
This fictitious conflict betweenthe Zionists and the Liberal Jews soon disgusted me; for it was false throughand through and in direct contradiction to the moral dignity and immaculatecharacter on which that race had always prided itself.
Cleanliness, whether moral or ofanother kind, had its own peculiar meaning for these people. That they werewater-shy was obvious on looking at them and, unfortunately, very often alsowhen not looking at them at all. The odour of those people in caftans oftenused to make me feel ill. Beyond that there were the unkempt clothes and theignoble exterior.
All these details were certainlynot attractive; but the revolting feature was that beneath their uncleanexterior one suddenly perceived the moral mildew of the chosen race.
What soon gave me cause for veryserious consideration were the activities of the Jews in certain branches oflife, into the mystery of which I penetrated little by little. Was there anyshady undertaking, any form of foulness, especially in cultural life, in whichat least one Jew did not participate? On putting the probing knife carefully tothat kind of abscess one immediately discovered, like a maggot in a putrescentbody, a little Jew who was often blinded by the sudden light.
In my eyes the charge againstJudaism became a grave one the moment I discovered the Jewish activities in thePress, in art, in literature and the theatre. All unctuous protests were nowmore or less futile. One needed only to look at the posters announcing thehideous productions of the cinema and theatre, and study the names of theauthors who were highly lauded there in order to become permanently adamant onJewish questions. Here was a pestilence, a moral pestilence, with which thepublic was being infected. It was worse than the Black Plague of long ago. Andin what mighty doses this poison was manufactured and distributed. Naturally,the lower the moral and intellectual level of such an author of artisticproducts the more inexhaustible his fecundity. Sometimes it went so far thatone of these fellows, acting like a sewage pump, would shoot his filth directlyin the face of other members of the human race. In this connection we mustremember there is no limit to the number of such people. One ought to realizethat for one, Goethe, Nature may bring into existence ten thousand suchdespoilers who act as the worst kind of germ-carriers in poisoning human souls.It was a terrible thought, and yet it could not be avoided, that the greaternumber of the Jews seemed specially destined by Nature to play this shamefulpart.
And is it for this reason thatthey can be called the chosen people?
I began then to investigate carefullythe names of all the fabricators of these unclean products in public culturallife. The result of that inquiry was still more disfavourable to the attitudewhich I had hitherto held in regard to the Jews. Though my feelings might rebela thousand time, reason now had to draw its own conclusions.
The fact that nine-tenths of allthe smutty literature, artistic tripe and theatrical banalities, had to becharged to the account of people who formed scarcely one per cent. of thenation – that fact could not be gainsaid. It was there, and had to be admitted.Then I began to examine my favourite ‘World Press’, with that fact before mymind.
The deeper my soundings went thelesser grew my respect for that Press which I formerly admired. Its stylebecame still more repellent and I was forced to reject its ideas as entirelyshallow and superficial. To claim that in the presentation of facts and viewsits attitude was impartial seemed to me to contain more falsehood than truth.The writers were – Jews.
Thousands of details that I hadscarcely noticed before seemed to me now to deserve attention. I began to graspand understand things which I had formerly looked at in a different light.
I saw the Liberal policy of thatPress in another light. Its dignified tone in replying to the attacks of itsadversaries and its dead silence in other cases now became clear to me as partof a cunning and despicable way of deceiving the readers. Its brillianttheatrical criticisms always praised the Jewish authors and its adverse,criticism was reserved exclusively for the Germans.
The light pin-pricks againstWilliam II showed the persistency of its policy, just as did its systematiccommendation of French culture and civilization. The subject matter of thefeuilletons was trivial and often pornographic. The language of this Press as awhole had the accent of a foreign people. The general tone was openlyderogatory to the Germans and this must have been definitely intentional.
What were the interests that urgedthe Vienna Press to adopt such a policy? Or did they do so merely by chance? Inattempting to find an answer to those questions I gradually became more andmore dubious.
Then something happened whichhelped me to come to an early decision. I began to see through the meaning of awhole series of events that were taking place in other branches of Vienneselife. All these were inspired by a general concept of manners and morals whichwas openly put into practice by a large section of the Jews and could beestablished as attributable to them. Here, again, the life which I observed onthe streets taught me what evil really is.
The part which the Jews played inthe social phenomenon of prostitution, and more especially in the white slavetraffic, could be studied here better than in any other West-European city,with the possible exception of certain ports in Southern France. Walking bynight along the streets of the Leopoldstadt, almost at every turn whether onewished it or not, one witnessed certain happenings of whose existence theGermans knew nothing until the War made it possible and indeed inevitable forthe soldiers to see such things on the Eastern front.
A cold shiver ran down my spinewhen I first ascertained that it was the same kind of cold-blooded,thick-skinned and shameless Jew who showed his consummate skill in conductingthat revolting exploitation of the dregs of the big city. Then I became firedwith wrath.
I had now no more hesitation aboutbringing the Jewish problem to light in all its details. No. Henceforth I wasdetermined to do so. But as I learned to track down the Jew in all thedifferent spheres of cultural and artistic life, and in the variousmanifestations of this life everywhere, I suddenly came upon him in a positionwhere I had least expected to find him. I now realized that the Jews were theleaders of Social Democracy. In face of that revelation the scales fell from myeyes. My long inner struggle was at an end.
In my relations with my fellowworkmen I was often astonished to find how easily and often they changed theiropinions on the same questions, sometimes within a few days and sometimes evenwithin the course of a few hours. I found it difficult to understand how menwho always had reasonable ideas when they spoke as individuals with one anothersuddenly lost this reasonableness the moment they acted in the mass. Thatphenomenon often tempted one almost to despair. I used to dispute with them forhours and when I succeeded in bringing them to what I considered a reasonableway of thinking I rejoiced at my success. But next day I would find that it hadbeen all in vain. It was saddening to think I had to begin it all over again.Like a pendulum in its eternal sway, they would fall back into their absurdopinions.
I was able to understand theirposition fully. They were dissatisfied with their lot and cursed the fate whichhad hit them so hard. They hated their employers, whom they looked upon as theheartless administrators of their cruel destiny. Often they used abusivelanguage against the public officials, whom they accused of having no sympathywith the situation of the working people. They made public protests against thecost of living and paraded through the streets in defence of their claims. Atleast all this could be explained on reasonable grounds. But what wasimpossible to understand was the boundless hatred they expressed against theirown fellow citizens, how they disparaged their own nation, mocked at itsgreatness, reviled its history and dragged the names of its most illustriousmen in the gutter.
This hostility towards their ownkith and kin, their own native land and home was as irrational as it wasincomprehensible. It was against Nature.
One could cure that maladytemporarily, but only for some days or at least some weeks. But on meetingthose whom one believed to have been converted one found that they had becomeas they were before. That malady against Nature held them once again in itsclutches.
I gradually discovered that theSocial Democratic Press was predominantly controlled by Jews. But I did notattach special importance to this circumstance, for the same state of affairsexisted also in other newspapers. But there was one striking fact in thisconnection. It was that there was not a single newspaper with which Jews wereconnected that could be spoken of as National, in the meaning that my educationand convictions attached to that word.
Making an effort to overcome mynatural reluctance, I tried to read articles of this nature published in theMarxist Press; but in doing so my aversion increased all the more. And then Iset about learning something of the people who wrote and published thismischievous stuff. From the publisher downwards, all of them were Jews. Irecalled to mind the names of the public leaders of Marxism, and then Irealized that most of them belonged to the Chosen Race – the Social Democraticrepresentatives in the Imperial Cabinet as well as the secretaries of theTrades Unions and the street agitators. Everywhere the same sinister picturepresented itself. I shall never forget the row of names – Austerlitz, David,Adler, Ellenbogen, and others. One fact became quite evident to me. It was thatthis alien race held in its hands the leadership of that Social DemocraticParty with whose minor representatives I had been disputing for months past. Iwas happy at last to know for certain that the Jew is not a German.
Thus I finally discovered who werethe evil spirits leading our people astray. The sojourn in Vienna for one yearhad proved long enough to convince me that no worker is so rooted in hispreconceived notions that he will not surrender them in face of better andclearer arguments and explanations. Gradually I became an expert in thedoctrine of the Marxists and used this knowledge as an instrument to drive homemy own firm convictions. I was successful in nearly every case. The greatmasses can be rescued, but a lot of time and a large share of human patiencemust be devoted to such work.
But a Jew can never be rescuedfrom his fixed notions.
It was then simple enough toattempt to show them the absurdity of their teaching. Within my small circle Italked to them until my throat ached and my voice grew hoarse. I believed thatI could finally convince them of the danger inherent in the Marxist follies.But I only achieved the contrary result. It seemed to me that immediately thedisastrous effects of the Marxist Theory and its application in practice becameevident, the stronger became their obstinacy.
The more I debated with them the morefamiliar I became with their argumentative tactics. At the outset they countedupon the stupidity of their opponents, but when they got so entangled that theycould not find a way out they played the trick of acting as innocentsimpletons. Should they fail, in spite of their tricks of logic, they acted asif they could not understand the counter arguments and bolted away to anotherfield of discussion. They would lay down truisms and platitudes; and, if youaccepted these, then they were applied to other problems and matters of anessentially different nature from the original theme. If you faced them withthis point they would escape again, and you could not bring them to make anyprecise statement. Whenever one tried to get a firm grip on any of these apostlesone’s hand grasped only jelly and slime which slipped through the fingers andcombined again into a solid mass a moment afterwards. If your adversary feltforced to give in to your argument, on account of the observers present, and ifyou then thought that at last you had gained ground, a surprise was in storefor you on the following day. The Jew would be utterly oblivious to what hadhappened the day before, and he would start once again by repeating his formerabsurdities, as if nothing had happened. Should you become indignant and remindhim of yesterday’s defeat, he pretended astonishment and could not rememberanything, except that on the previous day he had proved that his statementswere correct. Sometimes I was dumbfounded. I do not know what amazed me themore – the abundance of their verbiage or the artful way in which they dressedup their falsehoods. I gradually came to hate them.
Yet all this had its good side;because the more I came to know the individual leaders, or at least the propagandists,of Social Democracy, my love for my own people increased correspondingly.Considering the Satanic skill which these evil counsellors displayed, how couldtheir unfortunate victims be blamed? Indeed, I found it extremely difficultmyself to be a match for the dialectical perfidy of that race. How futile itwas to try to win over such people with argument, seeing that their very mouthsdistorted the truth, disowning the very words they had just used and adoptingthem again a few moments afterwards to serve their own ends in the argument!No. The more I came to know the Jew, the easier it was to excuse the workers.
In my opinion the most culpablewere not to be found among the workers but rather among those who did not thinkit worth while to take the trouble to sympathize with their own kinsfolk andgive to the hard-working son of the national family what was his by the ironlogic of justice, while at the same time placing his seducer and corrupteragainst the wall.
Urged by my own daily experiences,I now began to investigate more thoroughly the sources of the Marxist teachingitself. Its effects were well known to me in detail. As a result of carefulobservation, its daily progress had become obvious to me. And one needed only alittle imagination in order to be able to forecast the consequences which mustresult from it. The only question now was: Did the founders foresee the effectsof their work in the form which those effects have shown themselves to-day, orwere the founders themselves the victims of an error? To my mind bothalternatives were possible.
If the second question must beanswered in the affirmative, then it was the duty of every thinking person tooppose this sinister movement with a view to preventing it from producing itsworst results. But if the first question must be answered in the affirmative,then it must be admitted that the original authors of this evil which hasinfected the nations were devils incarnate. For only in the brain of a monster,and not that of a man, could the plan of this organization take shape whoseworkings must finally bring about the collapse of human civilization and turnthis world into a desert waste.
Such being the case the onlyalternative left was to fight, and in that fight to employ all the weaponswhich the human spirit and intellect and will could furnish leaving it to Fateto decide in whose favour the balance should fall.
And so I began to gatherinformation about the authors of this teaching, with a view to studying theprinciples of the movement. The fact that I attained my object sooner than Icould have anticipated was due to the deeper insight into the Jewish questionwhich I then gained, my knowledge of this question being hitherto rathersuperficial. This newly acquired knowledge alone enabled me to make a practicalcomparison between the real content and the theoretical pretentiousness of theteaching laid down by the apostolic founders of Social Democracy; because I nowunderstood the language of the Jew. I realized that the Jew uses language forthe purpose of dissimulating his thought or at least veiling it, so that hisreal aim cannot be discovered by what he says but rather by reading between thelines. This knowledge was the occasion of the greatest inner revolution that Ihad yet experienced. From being a soft-hearted cosmopolitan I became anout-and-out anti-Semite.
Only on one further occasion, andthat for the last time, did I give way to oppressing thoughts which caused mesome moments of profound anxiety.
As I critically reviewed theactivities of the Jewish people throughout long periods of history I becameanxious and asked myself whether for some inscrutable reasons beyond thecomprehension of poor mortals such as ourselves, Destiny may not haveirrevocably decreed that the final victory must go to this small nation? May itnot be that this people which has lived only for the earth has been promisedthe earth as a recompense? is our right to struggle for our ownself-preservation based on reality, or is it a merely subjective thing? Fateanswered the question for me inasmuch as it led me to make a detached andexhaustive inquiry into the Marxist teaching and the activities of the Jewishpeople in connection with it.
The Jewish doctrine of Marxism repudiatesthe aristocratic principle of Nature and substitutes for it the eternalprivilege of force and energy, numerical mass and its dead weight. Thus itdenies the individual worth of the human personality, impugns the teaching thatnationhood and race have a primary significance, and by doing this it takesaway the very foundations of human existence and human civilization. If theMarxist teaching were to be accepted as the foundation of the life of theuniverse, it would lead to the disappearance of all order that is conceivableto the human mind. And thus the adoption of such a law would provoke chaos inthe structure of the greatest organism that we know, with the result that theinhabitants of this earthly planet would finally disappear.
Should the Jew, with the aid ofhis Marxist creed, triumph over the people of this world, his Crown will be thefuneral wreath of mankind, and this planet will once again follow its orbitthrough ether, without any human life on its surface, as it did millions of yearsago.
And so I believe to-day that myconduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standingguard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord.
CHAPTERIII
POLITICAL REFLECTIONS ARISING OUT OF MY SOJOURN INVIENNA
Generally speaking a man shouldnot publicly take part in politics before he has reached the age of thirty,though, of course, exceptions must be made in the case of those who arenaturally gifted with extraordinary political abilities. That at least is myopinion to-day. And the reason for it is that until he reaches his thirtiethyear or thereabouts a man’s mental development will mostly consist in acquiringand sifting such knowledge as is necessary for the groundwork of a generalplatform from which he can examine the different political problems that arisefrom day to day and be able to adopt a definite attitude towards each. A manmust first acquire a fund of general ideas and fit them together so as to forman organic structure of personal thought or outlook on life – a Weltanschhauung.Then he will have that mental equipment without which he cannot form his ownjudgments on particular questions of the day, and he will have acquired thosequalities that are necessary for consistency and steadfastness in the formationof political opinions. Such a man is now qualified, at least subjectively, totake his part in the political conduct of public affairs.
If these pre-requisite conditionsare not fulfilled, and if a man should enter political life without thisequipment, he will run a twofold risk. In the first place, he may find duringthe course of events that the stand which he originally took in regard to someessential question was wrong. He will now have to abandon his former positionor else stick to it against his better knowledge and riper wisdom and after hisreason and convictions have already proved it untenable. If he adopt the formerline of action he will find himself in a difficult personal situation; becausein giving up a position hitherto maintained he will appear inconsistent andwill have no right to expect his followers to remain as loyal to his leadershipas they were before. And, as regards the followers themselves, they may easilylook upon their leader’s change of policy as showing a lack of judgmentinherent in his character. Moreover, the change must cause in them a certainfeeling of discomfiture vis-à-vis those whom the leader formerly opposed.
If he adopts the secondalternative – which so very frequently happens to-day – then publicpronouncements of the leader have no longer his personal persuasion to supportthem. And the more that is the case the defence of his cause will be all themore hollow and superficial. He now descends to the adoption of vulgar means inhis defence. While he himself no longer dreams seriously of standing by hispolitical protestations to the last – for no man will die in defence ofsomething in which he does not believe – he makes increasing demands on hisfollowers. Indeed, the greater be the measure of his own insincerity, the moreunfortunate and inconsiderate become his claims on his party adherents.Finally, he throws aside the last vestiges of true leadership and begins toplay politics. This means that he becomes one of those whose only consistencyis their inconsistency, associated with overbearing insolence and oftentimes anartful mendacity developed to a shamelessly high degree.
Should such a person, to themisfortune of all decent people, succeed in becoming a parliamentary deputy itwill be clear from the outset that for him the essence of political activityconsists in a heroic struggle to keep permanent hold on this milk-bottle as asource of livelihood for himself and his family. The more his wife and childrenare dependent on him, the more stubbornly will he fight to maintain for himselfthe representation of his parliamentary constituency. For that reason any otherperson who gives evidence of political capacity is his personal enemy. In everynew movement he will apprehend the possible beginning of his own downfall. Andeveryone who is a better man than himself will appear to him in the light of amenace.
I shall subsequently deal morefully with the problem to which this kind of parliamentary vermin give rise.
When a man has reached histhirtieth year he has still a great deal to learn. That is obvious. Buthenceforward what he learns will principally be an amplification of his basicideas; it will be fitted in with them organically so as to fill up theframework of the fundamental Weltanschhauung which he already possesses.What he learns anew will not imply the abandonment of principles already held,but rather a deeper knowledge of those principles. And thus his colleagues willnever have the discomforting feeling that they have been hitherto falsely ledby him. On the contrary, their confidence is increased when they perceive thattheir leader’s qualities are steadily developing along the lines of an organicgrowth which results from the constant assimilation of new ideas; so that thefollowers look upon this process as signifying an enrichment of the doctrinesin which they themselves believe, in their eyes every such development is a newwitness to the correctness of that whole body of opinion which has hithertobeen held.
A leader who has to abandon theplatform founded on his general principles, because he recognizes thefoundation as false, can act with honour only when he declares his readiness toaccept the final consequences of his erroneous views. In such a case he ought torefrain from taking public part in any further political activity. Having oncegone astray on essential things he may possibly go astray a second time. But,anyhow, he has no right whatsoever to expect or demand that his fellow citizensshould continue to give him their support.
How little such a line of conductcommends itself to our public leaders nowadays is proved by the generalcorruption prevalent among the cabal which at the present moment feels itselfcalled to political leadership. In the whole cabal there is scarcely one who isproperly equipped for this task.
Although in those days I used togive more time than most others to the consideration of political question, yetI carefully refrained from taking an open part in politics. Only to a smallcircle did I speak of those things which agitated my mind or were the cause ofconstant preoccupation for me. The habit of discussing matters within such arestricted group had many advantages in itself. Rather than talk at them, Ilearned to feel my way into the modes of thought and views of those men aroundme. Oftentimes such ways of thinking and such views were quite primitive. ThusI took every possible occasion to increase my knowledge of men.
Nowhere among the German peoplewas the opportunity for making such a study so favourable as in Vienna.
In the old Danubian Monarchypolitical thought was wider in its range and had a richer variety of intereststhan in the Germany of that epoch – excepting certain parts of Prussia, Hamburgand the districts bordering on the North Sea. When I speak of Austria here Imean that part of the great Habsburg Empire which, by reason of its Germanpopulation, furnished not only the historic basis for the formation of thisState but whose population was for several centuries also the exclusive sourceof cultural life in that political system whose structure was so artificial. Astime went on the stability of the Austrian State and the guarantee of itscontinued existence depended more and more on the maintenance of this germ-cellof that Habsburg Empire.
The hereditary imperial provincesconstituted the heart of the Empire. And it was this heart that constantly sentthe blood of life pulsating through the whole political and cultural system.Corresponding to the heart of the Empire, Vienna signified the brain and thewill. At that time Vienna presented an appearance which made one think of heras an enthroned queen whose authoritative sway united the conglomeration ofheterogenous nationalities that lived under the Habsburg sceptre. The radiantbeauty of the capital city made one forget the sad symptoms of senile decaywhich the State manifested as a whole.
Though the Empire was internallyrickety because of the terrific conflict going on between the variousnationalities, the outside world – and Germany in particular – saw only thatlovely picture of the city. The illusion was all the greater because at thattime Vienna seemed to have risen to its highest pitch of splendour. Under aMayor, who had the true stamp of administrative genius, the venerableresidential City of the Emperors of the old Empire seemed to have the glory ofits youth renewed. The last great German who sprang from the ranks of thepeople that had colonized the East Mark was not a ‘statesman’, in the officialsense. This Dr. Luegar, however, in his rôle as Mayor of ‘the Imperial Capitaland Residential City’, had achieved so much in almost all spheres of municipalactivity, whether economic or cultural, that the heart of the whole Empirethrobbed with renewed vigour. He thus proved himself a much greater statesmanthan the so-called ‘diplomats’ of that period.
The fact that this politicalsystem of heterogeneous races called Austria, finally broke down is no evidencewhatsoever of political incapacity on the part of the German element in the oldEast Mark. The collapse was the inevitable result of an impossible situation.Ten million people cannot permanently hold together a State of fifty millions,composed of different and convicting nationalities, unless certain definitepre-requisite conditions are at hand while there is still time to avail ofthem.
The German-Austrian had very bigways of thinking. Accustomed to live in a great Empire, he had a keen sense ofthe obligations incumbent on him in such a situation. He was the only member ofthe Austrian State who looked beyond the borders of the narrow lands belongingto the Crown and took in all the frontiers of the Empire in the sweep of hismind. Indeed when destiny severed him from the common Fatherland he tried tomaster the tremendous task which was set before him as a consequence. This taskwas to maintain for the German-Austrians that patrimony which, throughinnumerable struggles, their ancestors had originally wrested from the East. Itmust be remembered that the German-Austrians could not put their undividedstrength into this effort, because the hearts and minds of the best among themwere constantly turning back towards their kinsfolk in the Motherland, so thatonly a fraction of their energy remained to be employed at home.
The mental horizon of theGerman-Austrian was comparatively broad. His commercial interests comprisedalmost every section of the heterogeneous Empire. The conduct of almost allimportant undertakings was in his hands. He provided the State, for the mostpart, with its leading technical experts and civil servants. He was responsiblefor carrying on the foreign trade of the country, as far as that sphere ofactivity was not under Jewish control, The German-Austrian exclusivelyrepresented the political cement that held the State together. His militaryduties carried him far beyond the narrow frontiers of his homeland. Though therecruit might join a regiment made up of the German element, the regimentitself might be stationed in Herzegovina as well as in Vienna or Galicia. Theofficers in the Habsburg armies were still Germans and so was the predominatingelement in the higher branches of the civil service. Art and science were inGerman hands. Apart from the new artistic trash, which might easily have beenproduced by a negro tribe, all genuine artistic inspiration came from theGerman section of the population. In music, architecture, sculpture andpainting, Vienna abundantly supplied the entire Dual Monarchy. And the source neverseemed to show signs of a possible exhaustion. Finally, it was the Germanelement that determined the conduct of foreign policy, though a small number ofHungarians were also active in that field.
All efforts, however, to save theunity of the State were doomed to end in failure, because the essentialpre-requisites were missing.
There was only one possible way tocontrol and hold in check the centrifugal forces of the different and differingnationalities. This way was: to govern the Austrian State and organize itinternally on the principle of centralization. In no other way imaginable couldthe existence of that State be assured.
Now and again there were lucidintervals in the higher ruling quarters when this truth was recognized. But itwas soon forgotten again, or else deliberately ignored, because of thedifficulties to be overcome in putting it into practice. Every project whichaimed at giving the Empire a more federal shape was bound to be ineffectivebecause there was no strong central authority which could exercise sufficientpower within the State to hold the federal elements together. It must beremembered in this connection that conditions in Austria were quite differentfrom those which characterized the German State as founded by Bismarck. Germanywas faced with only one difficulty, which was that of transforming the purelypolitical traditions, because throughout the whole of Bismarck’s Germany therewas a common cultural basis. The German Empire contained only members of oneand the same racial or national stock, with the exception of a few minorforeign fragments.
Demographic conditions in Austriawere quite the reverse. With the exception of Hungary there was no politicaltradition, coming down from a great past, in any of the various affiliatedcountries. If there had been, time had either wiped out all traces of it, or atleast, rendered them obscure. Moreover, this was the epoch when the principleof nationality began to be in ascendant; and that phenomenon awakened thenational instincts in the various countries affiliated under the Habsburgsceptre. It was difficult to control the action of these newly awakenednational forces; because, adjacent to the frontiers of the Dual Monarchy, newnational States were springing up whose people were of the same or kindredracial stock as the respective nationalities that constituted the HabsburgEmpire. These new States were able to exercise a greater influence than theGerman element.
Even Vienna could not hold out fora lengthy period in this conflict. When Budapest had developed into ametropolis a rival had grown up whose mission was, not to help in holdingtogether the various divergent parts of the Empire, but rather to strengthenone part. Within a short time Prague followed the example of Budapest; andlater on came Lemberg, Laibach and others. By raising these places which hadformerly been provincial towns to the rank of national cities, rallying centreswere provided for an independent cultural life. Through this the local nationalinstincts acquired a spiritual foundation and therewith gained a more profoundhold on the people. The time was bound to come when the particularist interestsof those various countries would become stronger than their common imperial interests.Once that stage had been reached, Austria’s doom was sealed.
The course of this development wasclearly perceptible since the death of Joseph II. Its rapidity depended on anumber of factors, some of which had their source in the Monarchy itself; whileothers resulted from the position which the Empire had taken in foreignpolitics.
It was impossible to make anythinglike a successful effort for the permanent consolidation of the Austrian Stateunless a firm and persistent policy of centralization were put into force.Before everything else the principle should have been adopted that only onecommon language could be used as the official language of the State. Thus itwould be possible to emphasize the formal unity of that imperial commonwealth.And thus the administration would have in its hands a technical instrumentwithout which the State could not endure as a political unity. In the same waythe school and other forms of education should have been used to inculcate afeeling of common citizenship. Such an objective could not be reached withinten or twenty years. The effort would have to be envisaged in terms ofcenturies; just as in all problems of colonization, steady perseverance is afar more important element than the output of energetic effort at the moment.
It goes without saying that insuch circumstances the country must be governed and administered by strictlyadhering to the principle of uniformity.
For me it was quite instructive todiscover why this did not take place, or rather why it was not done. Those whowere guilty of the omission must be held responsible for the break-up of theHabsburg Empire.
More than any other State, theexistence of the old Austria depended on a strong and capable Government. TheHabsburg Empire lacked ethnical uniformity, which constitutes the fundamentalbasis of a national State and will preserve the existence of such a State eventhough the ruling power should be grossly inefficient. When a State is composedof a homogeneous population, the natural inertia of such a population will holdthe Stage together and maintain its existence through astonishingly longperiods of misgovernment and maladministration. It may often seem as if theprinciple of life had died out in such a body-politic; but a time comes whenthe apparent corpse rises up and displays before the world an astonishingmanifestation of its indestructible vitality.
But the situation is utterlydifferent in a country where the population is not homogeneous, where there isno bond of common blood but only that of one ruling hand. Should the rulinghand show signs of weakness in such a State the result will not be to cause akind of hibernation of the State but rather to awaken the individualistinstincts which are slumbering in the ethnological groups. These instincts donot make themselves felt as long as these groups are dominated by a strongcentral will-to-govern. The danger which exists in these slumbering separatistinstincts can be rendered more or less innocuous only through centuries ofcommon education, common traditions and common interests. The younger suchStates are, the more their existence will depend on the ability and strength ofthe central government. If their foundation was due only to the work of astrong personality or a leader who is a man of genius, in many cases they willbreak up as soon as the founder disappears; because, though great, he stoodalone. But even after centuries of a common education and experiences theseseparatist instincts I have spoken of are not always completely overcome. Theymay be only dormant and may suddenly awaken when the central government showsweakness and the force of a common education as well as the prestige of acommon tradition prove unable to withstand the vital energies of separatistnationalities forging ahead towards the shaping of their own individualexistence.
The failure to see the truth ofall this constituted what may be called the tragic crime of the Habsburgrulers.
Only before the eyes of oneHabsburg ruler, and that for the last time, did the hand of Destiny hold aloftthe torch that threw light on the future of his country. But the torch was thenextinguished for ever.
Joseph II, Roman Emperor of theGerman nation, was filled with a growing anxiety when he realized the fact thathis House was removed to an outlying frontier of his Empire and that the timewould soon be at hand when it would be overturned and engulfed in the whirlpoolcaused by that Babylon of nationalities, unless something was done at theeleventh hour to overcome the dire consequences resulting from the negligenceof his ancestors. With superhuman energy this ‘Friend of Mankind’ made everypossible effort to counteract the effects of the carelessness andthoughtlessness of his predecessors. Within one decade he strove to repair thedamage that had been done through centuries. If Destiny had only granted himforty years for his labours, and if only two generations had carried on thework which he had started, the miracle might have been performed. But when hedied, broken in body and spirit after ten years of rulership, his work sankwith him into the grave and rests with him there in the Capucin Crypt, sleepingits eternal sleep, having never again showed signs of awakening.
His successors had neither theability nor the will-power necessary for the task they had to face.
When the first signs of a newrevolutionary epoch appeared in Europe they gradually scattered the firethroughout Austria. And when the fire began to glow steadily it was fed and fannednot by the social or political conditions but by forces that had their originin the nationalist yearnings of the various ethnic groups.
The European revolutionarymovement of 1848 primarily took the form of a class conflict in almost everyother country, but in Austria it took the form of a new racial struggle. In sofar as the German-Austrians there forgot the origins of the movement, orperhaps had failed to recognize them at the start and consequently took part inthe revolutionary uprising, they sealed their own fate. For they thus helped toawaken the spirit of Western Democracy which, within a short while, shatteredthe foundations of their own existence.
The setting up of a representativeparliamentary body, without insisting on the preliminary that only one languageshould be used in all public intercourse under the State, was the first greatblow to the predominance of the German element in the Dual Monarchy. From thatmoment the State was also doomed to collapse sooner or later. All that followedwas nothing but the historical liquidation of an Empire.
To watch that process ofprogressive disintegration was a tragic and at the same time an instructiveexperience. The execution of history’s decree was carried out in thousands ofdetails. The fact that great numbers of people went about blindfolded amid themanifest signs of dissolution only proves that the gods had decreed thedestruction of Austria.
I do not wish to dwell on detailsbecause that would lie outside the scope of this book. I want to treat indetail only those events which are typical among the causes that lead to thedecline of nations and States and which are therefore of importance to ourpresent age. Moreover, the study of these events helped to furnish the basis ofmy own political outlook.
Among the institutions which mostclearly manifested unmistakable signs of decay, even to the weak-sightedPhilistine, was that which, of all the institutions of State, ought to havebeen the most firmly founded – I mean the Parliament, or the Reichsrat(Imperial Council) as it was called in Austria.
The pattern for this corporatebody was obviously that which existed in England, the land of classicdemocracy. The whole of that excellent organization was bodily transferred toAustria with as little alteration as possible.
As the Austrian counterpart to theBritish two-chamber system a Chamber of Deputies and a House of Lords(Herrenhaus) were established in Vienna. The Houses themselves, considered asbuildings were somewhat different. When Barry built his palaces, or, as we saythe Houses of Parliament, on the shore of the Thames, he could look to thehistory of the British Empire for the inspiration of his work. In that historyhe found sufficient material to fill and decorate the 1,200 niches, brackets,and pillars of his magnificent edifice. His statues and paintings made theHouse of Lords and the House of Commons temples dedicated to the glory of thenation.
There it was that Viennaencountered the first difficulty. When Hansen, the Danish architect, hadcompleted the last gable of the marble palace in which the new body of popularrepresentatives was to be housed he had to turn to the ancient classical worldfor subjects to fill out his decorative plan. This theatrical shrine of ‘WesternDemocracy’ was adorned with the statues and portraits of Greek and Romanstatesmen and philosophers. As if it were meant for a symbol of irony, thehorses of the quadriga that surmounts the two Houses are pulling apart from oneanother towards all four quarters of the globe. There could be no better symbolfor the kind of activity going on within the walls of that same building.
The ‘nationalities’ were opposedto any kind of glorification of Austrian history in the decoration of thisbuilding, insisting that such would constitute an offence to them and aprovocation. Much the same happened in Germany, where the Reich-stag, built byWallot, was not dedicated to the German people until the cannons werethundering in the World War. And then it was dedicated by an inscription.
I was not yet twenty years of agewhen I first entered the Palace on the Franzens-ring to watch and listen in theChamber of Deputies. That first experience aroused in me a profound feeling ofrepugnance.
I had always hated the Parliament,but not as an institution in itself. Quite the contrary. As one who cherishedideals of political freedom I could not even imagine any other form ofgovernment. In the light of my attitude towards the House of Habsburg I shouldthen have considered it a crime against liberty and reason to think of any kindof dictatorship as a possible form of government.
A certain admiration which I hadfor the British Parliament contributed towards the formation of this opinion. Ibecame imbued with that feeling of admiration almost without my being consciousof the effect of it through so much reading of newspapers while I was yet quiteyoung. I could not discard that admiration all in a moment. The dignified wayin which the British House of Commons fulfilled its function impressed megreatly, thanks largely to the glowing terms in which the Austrian Pressreported these events. I used to ask myself whether there could be any noblerform of government than self-government by the people.
But these considerations furnishedthe very motives of my hostility to the Austrian Parliament. The form in whichparliamentary government was here represented seemed unworthy of its greatprototype. The following considerations also influenced my attitude:
The fate of the German element inthe Austrian State depended on its position in Parliament. Up to the time thatuniversal suffrage by secret ballot was introduced the German representativeshad a majority in the Parliament, though that majority was not a verysubstantial one. This situation gave cause for anxiety because theSocial-Democratic fraction of the German element could not be relied upon whennational questions were at stake. In matters that were of critical concern forthe German element, the Social-Democrats always took up an anti-German standbecause they were afraid of losing their followers among the other nationalgroups. Already at that time – before the introduction of universal suffrage –the Social-Democratic Party could no longer be considered as a German Party.The introduction of universal suffrage put an end even to the purely numericalpredominance of the German element. The way was now clear for the further‘de-Germanization’ of the Austrian State.
The national instinct ofself-preservation made it impossible for me to welcome a representative systemin which the German element was not really represented as such, but alwaysbetrayed by the Social-Democratic fraction. Yet all these, and many others,were defects which could not be attributed to the parliamentary system as such,but rather to the Austrian State in particular. I still believed that if theGerman majority could be restored in the representative body there would be nooccasion to oppose such a system as long as the old Austrian State continued toexist.
Such was my general attitude atthe time when I first entered those sacred and contentious halls. For me theywere sacred only because of the radiant beauty of that majestic edifice. AGreek wonder on German soil.
But I soon became enraged by thehideous spectacle that met my eyes. Several hundred representatives were thereto discuss a problem of great economical importance and each representative hadthe right to have his say.
That experience of a day was enoughto supply me with food for thought during several weeks afterwards.
The intellectual level of thedebate was quite low. Some times the debaters did not make themselvesintelligible at all. Several of those present did not speak German but onlytheir Slav vernaculars or dialects. Thus I had the opportunity of hearing withmy own ears what I had been hitherto acquainted with only through reading thenewspapers. A turbulent mass of people, all gesticulating and bawling againstone another, with a pathetic old man shaking his bell and making franticefforts to call the House to a sense of its dignity by friendly appeals,exhortations, and grave warnings.
I could not refrain from laughing.
Several weeks later I paid asecond visit. This time the House presented an entirely different picture, somuch so that one could hardly recognize it as the same place. The hall waspractically empty. They were sleeping in the other rooms below. Only a fewdeputies were in their places, yawning in each other’s faces. One wasspeechifying. A deputy speaker was in the chair. When he looked round it wasquite plain that he felt bored.
Then I began to reflect seriouslyon the whole thing. I went to the Parliament whenever I had any time to spareand watched the spectacle silently but attentively. I listened to the debates,as far as they could be understood, and I studied the more or less intelligentfeatures of those ‘elect’ representatives of the various nationalities whichcomposed that motley State. Gradually I formed my own ideas about what I saw.
A year of such quiet observationwas sufficient to transform or completely destroy my former convictions as tothe character of this parliamentary institution. I no longer opposed merely theperverted form which the principle of parliamentary representation had assumedin Austria. No. It had become impossible for me to accept the system in itself.Up to that time I had believed that the disastrous deficiencies of the AustrianParliament were due to the lack of a German majority, but now I recognized thatthe institution itself was wrong in its very essence and form.
A number of problems presentedthemselves before my mind. I studied more closely the democratic principle of‘decision by the majority vote’, and I scrutinized no less carefully theintellectual and moral worth of the gentlemen who, as the chosenrepresentatives of the nation, were entrusted with the task of making thisinstitution function.
Thus it happened that at one andthe same time I came to know the institution itself and those of whom it wascomposed. And it was thus that, within the course of a few years, I came toform a clear and vivid picture of the average type of that most lightlyworshipped phenomenon of our time – the parliamentary deputy. The picture ofhim which I then formed became deeply engraved on my mind and I have neveraltered it since, at least as far as essentials go.
Once again these object-lessonstaken from real life saved me from getting firmly entangled by a theory whichat first sight seems so alluring to many people, though that theory itself is asymptom of human decadence.
Democracy, as practised in WesternEurope to-day, is the fore-runner of Marxism. In fact, the latter would not beconceivable without the former. Democracy is the breeding-ground in which thebacilli of the Marxist world pest can grow and spread. By the introduction ofparliamentarianism, democracy produced an abortion of filth and fire 6),the creative fire of which, however, seems to have died out.
I am more than grateful to Fatethat this problem came to my notice when I was still in Vienna; for if I hadbeen in Germany at that time I might easily have found only a superficialsolution. If I had been in Berlin when I first discovered what an illogicalthing this institution is which we call Parliament, I might easily have gone tothe other extreme and believed – as many people believed, and apparently notwithout good reason – that the salvation of the people and the Empire could besecured only by restrengthening the principle of imperial authority. Those whohad this belief did not discern the tendencies of their time and were blind tothe aspirations of the people.
In Austria one could not be soeasily misled. There it was impossible to fall from one error into another. Ifthe Parliament were worthless, the Habsburgs were worse; or at least not in theslightest degree better. The problem was not solved by rejecting theparliamentary system. Immediately the question arose: What then? To repudiateand abolish the Vienna Parliament would have resulted in leaving all power inthe hands of the Habsburgs. For me, especially, that idea was impossible.
Since this problem was speciallydifficult in regard to Austria, I was forced while still quite young to go intothe essentials of the whole question more thoroughly than I otherwise shouldhave done.
The aspect of the situation thatfirst made the most striking impression on me and gave me grounds for seriousreflection was the manifest lack of any individual responsibility in therepresentative body.
The parliament passes some acts ordecree which may have the most devastating consequences, yet nobody bears theresponsibility for it. Nobody can be called to account. For surely one cannotsay that a Cabinet discharges its responsibility when it retires after havingbrought about a catastrophe. Or can we say that the responsibility is fullydischarged when a new coalition is formed or parliament dissolved? Can theprinciple of responsibility mean anything else than the responsibility of adefinite person?
Is it at all possible actually tocall to account the leaders of a parliamentary government for any kind ofaction which originated in the wishes of the whole multitude of deputies andwas carried out under their orders or sanction? Instead of developingconstructive ideas and plans, does the business of a statesman consist in theart of making a whole pack of blockheads understand his projects? Is it hisbusiness to entreat and coach them so that they will grant him their generousconsent?
Is it an indispensable quality ina statesman that he should possess a gift of persuasion commensurate with thestatesman’s ability to conceive great political measures and carry them throughinto practice?
Does it really prove that astatesman is incompetent if he should fail to win over a majority of votes tosupport his policy in an assembly which has been called together as the chanceresult of an electoral system that is not always honestly administered.
Has there ever been a case wheresuch an assembly has worthily appraised a great political concept before thatconcept was put into practice and its greatness openly demonstrated through itssuccess?
In this world is not the creativeact of the genius always a protest against the inertia of the mass?
What shall the statesman do if hedoes not succeed in coaxing the parliamentary multitude to give its consent tohis policy? Shall he purchase that consent for some sort of consideration?
Or, when confronted with theobstinate stupidity of his fellow citizens, should he then refrain from pushingforward the measures which he deems to be of vital necessity to the life of thenation? Should he retire or remain in power?
In such circumstances does not aman of character find himself face to face with an insoluble contradictionbetween his own political insight on the one hand and, on the other, his moralintegrity, or, better still, his sense of honesty?
Where can we draw the line betweenpublic duty and personal honour?
Must not every genuine leaderrenounce the idea of degrading himself to the level of a political jobber?
And, on the other hand, does notevery jobber feel the itch to ‘play politics’, seeing that the finalresponsibility will never rest with him personally but with an anonymous masswhich can never be called to account for their deeds?
Must not our parliamentaryprinciple of government by numerical majority necessarily lead to thedestruction of the principle of leadership?
Does anybody honestly believe thathuman progress originates in the composite brain of the majority and not in thebrain of the individual personality?
Or may it be presumed that for thefuture human civilization will be able to dispense with this as a condition ofits existence?
But may it not be that, to-day,more than ever before, the creative brain of the individual is indispensable?
The parliamentary principle ofvesting legislative power in the decision of the majority rejects the authorityof the individual and puts a numerical quota of anonymous heads in its place.In doing so it contradicts the aristrocratic principle, which is a fundamentallaw of nature; but, of course, we must remember that in this decadent era ofours the aristrocratic principle need not be thought of as incorporated in theupper ten thousand.
The devastating influence of thisparliamentary institution might not easily be recognized by those who read theJewish Press, unless the reader has learned how to think independently andexamine the facts for himself. This institution is primarily responsible forthe crowded inrush of mediocre people into the field of politics. Confrontedwith such a phenomenon, a man who is endowed with real qualities of leadershipwill be tempted to refrain from taking part in political life; because underthese circumstances the situation does not call for a man who has a capacityfor constructive statesmanship but rather for a man who is capable ofbargaining for the favour of the majority. Thus the situation will appeal to smallminds and will attract them accordingly.
The narrower the mental outlookand the more meagre the amount of knowledge in a political jobber, the moreaccurate is his estimate of his own political stock, and thus he will be allthe more inclined to appreciate a system which does not demand creative geniusor even high-class talent; but rather that crafty kind of sagacity which makesan efficient town clerk. Indeed, he values this kind of small craftiness morethan the political genius of a Pericles. Such a mediocrity does not even haveto worry about responsibility for what he does. From the beginning he knowsthat whatever be the results of his ‘statesmanship’ his end is alreadyprescribed by the stars; he will one day have to clear out and make room foranother who is of similar mental calibre. For it is another sign of ourdecadent times that the number of eminent statesmen grows according as thecalibre of individual personality dwindles. That calibre will become smallerand smaller the more the individual politician has to depend upon parliamentarymajorities. A man of real political ability will refuse to be the beadle for abevy of footling cacklers; and they in their turn, being the representatives ofthe majority – which means the dunder-headed multitude – hate nothing so muchas a superior brain.
For footling deputies it is alwaysquite a consolation to be led by a person whose intellectual stature is on alevel with their own. Thus each one may have the opportunity to shine in debateamong such compeers and, above all, each one feels that he may one day rise tothe top. If Peter be boss to-day, then why not Paul tomorrow ?
This new invention of democracy isvery closely connected with a peculiar phenomenon which has recently spread toa pernicious extent, namely the cowardice of a large section of our so-calledpolitical leaders. Whenever important decisions have to be made they alwaysfind themselves fortunate in being able to hide behind the backs of what theycall the majority.
In observing one of thesepolitical manipulators one notices how he wheedles the majority in order to gettheir sanction for whatever action he takes. He has to have accomplices inorder to be able to shift responsibility to other shoulders whenever it isopportune to do so. That is the main reason why this kind of political activityis abhorrent to men of character and courage, while at the same time itattracts inferior types; for a person who is not willing to acceptresponsibility for his own actions, but is always seeking to be covered bysomething, must be classed among the knaves and the rascals. If a nationalleader should come from that lower class of politicians the evil consequenceswill soon manifest themselves. Nobody will then have the courage to take a decisivestep. They will submit to abuse and defamation rather than pluck up courage totake a definite stand. And thus nobody is left who is willing to risk hisposition and his career, if needs be, in support of a determined line ofpolicy.
One truth which must always beborne in mind is that the majority can never replace the man. The majorityrepresents not only ignorance but also cowardice. And just as a hundredblockheads do not equal one man of wisdom, so a hundred poltroons are incapableof any political line of action that requires moral strength and fortitude.
The lighter the burden ofresponsibility on each individual leader, the greater will be the number ofthose who, in spite of their sorry mediocrity, will feel the call to placetheir immortal energies at the disposal of the nation. They are so much on thetip-toe of expectation that they find it hard to wait their turn. They stand ina long queue, painfully and sadly counting the number of those ahead of themand calculating the hours until they may eventually come forward. They watchevery change that takes place in the personnel of the office towards whichtheir hopes are directed, and they are grateful for every scandal which removesone of the aspirants waiting ahead of them in the queue. If somebody sticks toolong to his office stool they consider this as almost a breach of a sacredunderstanding based on their mutual solidarity. They grow furious and give nopeace until that inconsiderate person is finally driven out and forced to handover his cosy berth for public disposal. After that he will have little chanceof getting another opportunity. Usually those placemen who have been forced togive up their posts push themselves again into the waiting queue unless theyare hounded away by the protestations of the other aspirants.
The result of all this is that, insuch a State, the succession of sudden changes in public positions and publicoffices has a very disquieting effect in general, which may easily lead todisaster when an adverse crisis arises. It is not only the ignorant and theincompetent person who may fall victim to those parliamentary conditions, forthe genuine leader may be affected just as much as the others, if not more so,whenever Fate has chanced to place a capable man in the position of leader. Letthe superior quality of such a leader be once recognized and the result will bethat a joint front will be organized against him, particularly if that leader,though not coming from their ranks, should fall into the habit of interminglingwith these illustrious nincompoops on their own level. They want to have onlytheir own company and will quickly take a hostile attitude towards any man whomight show himself obviously above and beyond them when he mingles in theirranks. Their instinct, which is so blind in other directions, is very sharp inthis particular.
The inevitable result is that theintellectual level of the ruling class sinks steadily. One can easily forecasthow much the nation and State are bound to suffer from such a condition ofaffairs, provided one does not belong to that same class of ‘leaders’.
The parliamentary régime in theold Austria was the very archetype of the institution as I have described it.
Though the Austrian Prime Ministerwas appointed by the King-Emperor, this act of appointment merely gavepractical effect to the will of the parliament. The huckstering and bargainingthat went on in regard to every ministerial position showed all the typicalmarks of Western Democracy. The results that followed were in keeping with theprinciples applied. The intervals between the replacement of one person byanother gradually became shorter, finally ending up in a wild relay chase. Witheach change the quality of the ‘statesman’ in question deteriorated, until finallyonly the petty type of political huckster remained. In such people thequalities of statesmanship were measured and valued according to the adroitnesswith which they pieced together one coalition after another; in other words,their craftiness in manipulating the pettiest political transactions, which isthe only kind of practical activity suited to the aptitudes of theserepresentatives.
In this sphere Vienna was theschool which offered the most impressive examples.
Another feature that engaged myattention quite as much as the features I have already spoken of was thecontrast between the talents and knowledge of these representatives of thepeople on the one hand and, on the other, the nature of the tasks they had toface. Willingly or unwillingly, one could not help thinking seriously of thenarrow intellectual outlook of these chosen representatives of the variousconstituent nationalities, and one could not avoid pondering on the methodsthrough which these noble figures in our public life were first discovered.
It was worth while to make athorough study and examination of the way in which the real talents of thesegentlemen were devoted to the service of their country; in other words, toanalyse thoroughly the technical procedure of their activities.
The whole spectacle ofparliamentary life became more and more desolate the more one penetrated intoits intimate structure and studied the persons and principles of the system ina spirit of ruthless objectivity. Indeed, it is very necessary to be strictlyobjective in the study of the institution whose sponsors talk of ‘objectivity’in every other sentence as the only fair basis of examination and judgment. Ifone studied these gentlemen and the laws of their strenuous existence theresults were surprising.
There is no other principle whichturns out to be quite so ill-conceived as the parliamentary principle, if weexamine it objectively.
In our examination of it we maypass over the methods according to which the election of the representativestakes place, as well as the ways which bring them into office and bestow newtitles on them. It is quite evident that only to a tiny degree are publicwishes or public necessities satisfied by the manner in which an election takesplace; for everybody who properly estimates the political intelligence of themasses can easily see that this is not sufficiently developed to enable them toform general political judgments on their own account, or to select the men whomight be competent to carry out their ideas in practice.
Whatever definition we may give ofthe term ‘public opinion’, only a very small part of it originates frompersonal experience or individual insight. The greater portion of it resultsfrom the manner in which public matters have been presented to the peoplethrough an overwhelmingly impressive and persistent system of ‘information’.
In the religious sphere theprofession of a denominational belief is largely the result of education, whilethe religious yearning itself slumbers in the soul; so too the politicalopinions of the masses are the final result of influences systematicallyoperating on human sentiment and intelligence in virtue of a method which isapplied sometimes with almost-incredible thoroughness and perseverance.
By far the most effective branchof political education, which in this connection is best expressed by the word‘propaganda’, is carried on by the Press. The Press is the chief means employedin the process of political ‘enlightenment’. It represents a kind of school foradults. This educational activity, however, is not in the hands of the Statebut in the clutches of powers which are partly of a very inferior character.While still a young man in Vienna I had excellent opportunities for coming toknow the men who owned this machine for mass instruction, as well as those whosupplied it with the ideas it distributed. At first I was quite surprised whenI realized how little time was necessary for this dangerous Great Power withinthe State to produce a certain belief among the public; and in doing so thegenuine will and convictions of the public were often completely misconstrued.It took the Press only a few days to transform some ridiculously trivial matterinto an issue of national importance, while vital problems were completelyignored or filched and hidden away from public attention.
The Press succeeded in the magicalart of producing names from nowhere within the course of a few weeks. They madeit appear that the great hopes of the masses were bound up with those names.And so they made those names more popular than any man of real ability couldever hope to be in a long lifetime. All this was done, despite the fact thatsuch names were utterly unknown and indeed had never been heard of even up to amonth before the Press publicly emblazoned them. At the same time old and triedfigures in the political and other spheres of life quickly faded from thepublic memory and were forgotten as if they were dead, though still healthy andin the enjoyment of their full viguour. Or sometimes such men were so vilelyabused that it looked as if their names would soon stand as permanent symbolsof the worst kind of baseness. In order to estimate properly the reallypernicious influence which the Press can exercise one had to study thisinfamous Jewish method whereby honourable and decent people were besmirchedwith mud and filth, in the form of low abuse and slander, from hundreds andhundreds of quarters simultaneously, as if commanded by some magic formula.
These highway robbers would grabat anything which might serve their evil ends.
They would poke their noses intothe most intimate family affairs and would not rest until they had sniffed outsome petty item which could be used to destroy the reputation of their victim.But if the result of all this sniffing should be that nothing derogatory wasdiscovered in the private or public life of the victim, they continued to hurlabuse at him, in the belief that some of their animadversions would stick eventhough refuted a thousand times. In most cases it finally turned out impossiblefor the victim to continue his defence, because the accuser worked togetherwith so many accomplices that his slanders were re-echoed interminably. Butthese slanderers would never own that they were acting from motives whichinfluence the common run of humanity or are understood by them. Oh, no. Thescoundrel who defamed his contemporaries in this villainous way would crownhimself with a halo of heroic probity fashioned of unctuous phraseology andtwaddle about his ‘duties as a journalist’ and other mouldy nonsense of thatkind. When these cuttle-fishes gathered together in large shoals at meetingsand congresses they would give out a lot of slimy talk about a special kind ofhonour which they called the professional honour of the journalist. Then theassembled species would bow their respects to one another.
These are the kind of beings thatfabricate more than two-thirds of what is called public opinion, from the foamof which the parliamentary Aphrodite eventually arises.
Several volumes would be needed ifone were to give an adequate account of the whole procedure and fully describeall its hollow fallacies. But if we pass over the details and look at theproduct itself while it is in operation I think this alone will be sufficientto open the eyes of even the most innocent and credulous person, so that he mayrecognize the absurdity of this institution by looking at it objectively.
In order to realize how this humanaberration is as harmful as it is absurd, the test and easiest method is tocompare democratic parliamentarianism with a genuine German democracy.
The remarkable characteristic ofthe parliamentary form of democracy is the fact that a number of persons, letus say five hundred – including, in recent time, women also – are elected toparliament and invested with authority to give final judgment on anything andeverything. In practice they alone are the governing body; for although theymay appoint a Cabinet, which seems outwardly to direct the affairs of state,this Cabinet has not a real existence of its own. In reality the so-calledGovernment cannot do anything against the will of the assembly. It can never becalled to account for anything, since the right of decision is not vested inthe Cabinet but in the parliamentary majority. The Cabinet always functionsonly as the executor of the will of the majority. Its political ability can bejudged only according to how far it succeeds in adjusting itself to the will ofthe majority or in persuading the majority to agree to its proposals. But thismeans that it must descend from the level of a real governing power to that ofa mendicant who has to beg the approval of a majority that may be got togetherfor the time being. Indeed, the chief preoccupation of the Cabinet must be tosecure for itself, in the case of’ each individual measure, the favour of themajority then in power or, failing that, to form a new majority that will bemore favourably disposed. If it should succeed in either of these efforts itmay go on ‘governing’ for a little while. If it should fail to win or form amajority it must retire. The question whether its policy as such has been rightor wrong does not matter at all.
Thereby all responsibility is abolishedin practice. To what consequences such a state of affairs can lead may easilybe understood from the following simple considerations:
Those five hundred deputies whohave been elected by the people come from various dissimilar callings in life andshow very varying degrees of political capacity, with the result that the wholecombination is disjointed and sometimes presents quite a sorry picture. Surelynobody believes that these chosen representatives of the nation are the choicespirits or first-class intellects. Nobody, I hope, is foolish enough to pretendthat hundreds of statesmen can emerge from papers placed in the ballot box byelectors who are anything else but averagely intelligent. The absurd notionthat men of genius are born out of universal suffrage cannot be too stronglyrepudiated. In the first place, those times may be really called blessed whenone genuine statesman makes his appearance among a people. Such statesmen donot appear all at once in hundreds or more. Secondly, among the broad massesthere is instinctively a definite antipathy towards every outstanding genius.There is a better chance of seeing a camel pass through the eye of a needlethan of seeing a really great man ‘discovered’ through an election.
Whatever has happened in historyabove the level of the average of the broad public has mostly been due to thedriving force of an individual personality.
But here five hundred persons ofless than modest intellectual qualities pass judgment on the most importantproblems affecting the nation. They form governments which in turn learn to winthe approval of the illustrious assembly for every legislative step that may betaken, which means that the policy to be carried out is actually the policy ofthe five hundred.
And indeed, generally speaking,the policy bears the stamp of its origin.
But let us pass over theintellectual qualities of these representatives and ask what is the nature ofthe task set before them. If we consider the fact that the problems which haveto be discussed and solved belong to the most varied and diverse fields we canvery well realize how inefficient a governing system must be which entrusts theright of decision to a mass assembly in which only very few possess theknowledge and experience such as would qualify them to deal with the mattersthat have to be settled. The most important economic measures are submitted toa tribunal in which not more than one-tenth of the members have studied theelements of economics. This means that final authority is vested in men who areutterly devoid of any preparatory training which might make them competent todecide on the questions at issue.
The same holds true of every otherproblem. It is always a majority of ignorant and incompetent people who decideon each measure; for the composition of the institution does not vary, whilethe problems to be dealt with come from the most varied spheres of public life.An intelligent judgment would be possible only if different deputies had theauthority to deal with different issues. It is out of the question to thinkthat the same people are fitted to decide on transport questions as well as,let us say, on questions of foreign policy, unless each of them be a universalgenius. But scarcely more than one genius appears in a century. Here we arescarcely ever dealing with real brains, but only with dilettanti who are asnarrow-minded as they are conceited and arrogant, intellectual demi-mondes ofthe worst kind. This is why these honourable gentlemen show such astonishinglevity in discussing and deciding on matters that would demand the mostpainstaking consideration even from great minds. Measures of momentousimportance for the future existence of the State are framed and discussed in anatmosphere more suited to the card-table. Indeed the latter suggests a muchmore fitting occupation for these gentlemen than that of deciding the destiniesof a people.
Of course it would be unfair toassume that each member in such a parliament was endowed by nature with such asmall sense of responsibility. That is out of the question.
But this system, by forcing theindividual to pass judgment on questions for which he is not competentgradually debases his moral character. Nobody will have the courage to say:"Gentlemen, I am afraid we know nothing about what we are talking about. Ifor one have no competency in the matter at all." Anyhow if such adeclaration were made it would not change matters very much; for such outspokenhonesty would not be understood. The person who made the declaration would bedeemed an honourable ass who ought not to be allowed to spoil the game. Thosewho have a knowledge of human nature know that nobody likes to be considered afool among his associates; and in certain circles honesty is taken as an indexof stupidity.
Thus it happens that a naturallyupright man, once he finds himself elected to parliament, may eventually beinduced by the force of circumstances to acquiesce in a general line of conductwhich is base in itself and amounts to a betrayal of the public trust. Thatfeeling that if the individual refrained from taking part in a certain decisionhis attitude would not alter the situation in the least, destroys every realsense of honour which might occasionally arouse the conscience of one person oranother. Finally, the otherwise upright deputy will succeed in persuadinghimself that he is by no means the worst of the lot and that by taking part ina certain line of action he may prevent something worse from happening.
A counter argument may be putforward here. It may be said that of course the individual member may not havethe knowledge which is requisite for the treatment of this or that question,yet his attitude towards it is taken on the advice of his Party as the guidingauthority in each political matter; and it may further be said that the Partysets up special committees of experts who have even more than the requisiteknowledge for dealing with the questions placed before them.
At first sight, that argumentseems sound. But then another question arises – namely, why are five hundredpersons elected if only a few have the wisdom which is required to deal withthe more important problems?
It is not the aim of our moderndemocratic parliamentary system to bring together an assembly of intelligentand well-informed deputies. Not at all. The aim rather is to bring together agroup of nonentities who are dependent on others for their views and who can beall the more easily led, the narrower the mental outlook of each individual is.That is the only way in which a party policy, according to the evil meaning ithas to-day, can be put into effect. And by this method alone it is possible forthe wirepuller, who exercises the real control, to remain in the dark, so thatpersonally he can never be brought to account for his actions. For under suchcircumstances none of the decisions taken, no matter how disastrous they mayturn out for the nation as a whole, can be laid at the door of the individualwhom everybody knows to be the evil genius responsible for the whole affair.All responsibility is shifted to the shoulders of the Party as a whole.
In practice no actualresponsibility remains. For responsibility arises only from personal duty andnot from the obligations that rest with a parliamentary assembly of emptytalkers.
The parliamentary institutionattracts people of the badger type, who do not like the open light. No uprightman, who is ready to accept personal responsibility for his acts, will beattracted to such an institution.
That is the reason why this brandof democracy has become a tool in the hand of that race which, because of theinner purposes it wishes to attain, must shun the open light, as it has alwaysdone and always will do. Only a Jew can praise an institution which is ascorrupt and false as himself.
As a contrast to this kind ofdemocracy we have the German democracy, which is a true democracy; for here theleader is freely chosen and is obliged to accept full responsibility for allhis actions and omissions. The problems to be dealt with are not put to thevote of the majority; but they are decided upon by the individual, and as aguarantee of responsibility for those decisions he pledges all he has in theworld and even his life.
The objection may be raised herethat under such conditions it would be very difficult to find a man who wouldbe ready to devote himself to so fateful a task. The answer to that objectionis as follows:
We thank God that the inner spiritof our German democracy will of itself prevent the chance careerist, who may beintellectually worthless and a moral twister, from coming by devious ways to aposition in which he may govern his fellow-citizens. The fear of undertakingsuch far-reaching responsibilities, under German democracy, will scare off theignorant and the feckless.
But should it happen that such aperson might creep in surreptitiously it will be easy enough to identify himand apostrophize him ruthlessly. somewhat thus: "Be off, you scoundrel.Don’t soil these steps with your feet; because these are the steps that lead tothe portals of the Pantheon of History, and they are not meant forplace-hunters but for men of noble character."
Such were the views I formed aftertwo years of attendance at the sessions of the Viennese Parliament. Then I wentthere no more.
The parliamentary regime becameone of the causes why the strength of the Habsburg State steadily declinedduring the last years of its existence. The more the predominance of the Germanelement was whittled away through parliamentary procedure, the more prominentbecame the system of playing off one of the various constituent nationalitiesagainst the other. In the Imperial Parliament it was always the German elementthat suffered through the system, which meant that the results were detrimentalto the Empire as a whole; for at the close of the century even the mostsimple-minded people could recognize that the cohesive forces within the DualMonarchy no longer sufficed to counterbalance the separatist tendencies of theprovincial nationalities. On the contrary!
The measures which the Stateadopted for its own maintenance became more and more mean spirited and in alike degree the general disrespect for the State increased. Not only Hungarybut also the various Slav provinces gradually ceased to identify themselveswith the monarchy which embraced them all, and accordingly they did not feelits weakness as in any way detrimental to themselves. They rather welcomedthose manifestations of senile decay. They looked forward to the finaldissolution of the State, and not to its recovery.
The complete collapse was stillforestalled in Parliament by the humiliating concessions that were made toevery kind of importunate demands, at the cost of the German element.Throughout the country the defence of the State rested on playing off thevarious nationalities against one another. But the general trend of thisdevelopment was directed against the Germans. Especially since the right ofsuccession to the throne conferred certain influence on the Archduke FranzFerdinand, the policy of increasing the power of the Czechs was carried outsystematically from the upper grades of the administration down to the lower.With all the means at his command the heir to the Dual Monarchy personally furtheredthe policy that aimed at eliminating the influence of the German element, or atleast he acted as protector of that policy. By the use of State officials astools, purely German districts were gradually but decisively brought within thedanger zone of the mixed languages. Even in Lower Austria this process began tomake headway with a constantly increasing tempo and Vienna was looked upon bythe Czechs as their biggest city.
In the family circle of this newHabsburger the Czech language was favoured. The wife of the Archduke hadformerly been a Czech Countess and was wedded to the Prince by a morganaticmarriage. She came from an environment where hostility to the Germans had beentraditional. The leading idea in the mind of the Archduke was to establish aSlav State in Central Europe, which was to be constructed on a purely Catholicbasis, so as to serve as a bulwark against Orthodox Russia.
As had happened often in Habsburghistory, religion was thus exploited to serve a purely political policy, and inthis case a fatal policy, at least as far as German interests were concerned.The result was lamentable in many respects.
Neither the House of Habsburg northe Catholic Church received the reward which they expected. Habsburg lost thethrone and the Church lost a great State. By employing religious motives in theservice of politics, a spirit was aroused which the instigators of that policyhad never thought possible.
From the attempt to exterminateGermanism in the old monarchy by every available means arose the Pan-GermanMovement in Austria, as a response.
In the ’eighties of the lastcentury Manchester Liberalism, which was Jewish in its fundamental ideas, hadreached the zenith of its influence in the Dual Monarchy, or had already passedthat point. The reaction which set in did not arise from social but fromnationalistic tendencies, as was always the case in the old Austria. Theinstinct of self-preservation drove the German element to defend itselfenergetically. Economic considerations only slowly began to gain an importantinfluence; but they were of secondary concern. But of the general politicalchaos two party organizations emerged. The one was more of a national, and theother more of a social, character; but both were highly interesting andinstructive for the future.
After the war of 1866, which hadresulted in the humiliation of Austria, the House of Habsburg contemplated arevanche on the battlefield. Only the tragic end of the Emperor Maximilian of Mexicoprevented a still closer collaboration with France. The chief blame forMaximilian’s disastrous expedition was attributed to Napoleon III and the factthat the Frenchman left him in the lurch aroused a general feeling ofindignation. Yet the Habsburgs were still lying in wait for their opportunity.If the war of 1870–71 had not been such a singular triumph, the Viennese Courtmight have chanced the game of blood in order to get its revenge for Sadowa.But when the first reports arrived from the Franco-German battlefield, which,though true, seemed miraculous and almost incredible, the ‘most wise’ of allmonarchs recognized that the moment was inopportune and tried to accept theunfavourable situation with as good a grace as possible.
The heroic conflict of those twoyears (1870–71) produced a still greater miracle; for with the Habsburgs thechange of attitude never came from an inner heartfelt urge but only from thepressure of circumstances. The German people of the East Mark, however, wereentranced by the triumphant glory of the newly established German Empire andwere profoundly moved when they saw the dream of their fathers resurgent in amagnificent reality.
For – let us make no mistake aboutit – the true German-Austrian realized from this time onward, that Königgrätzwas the tragic, though necessary, pre-condition for the re-establishment of anEmpire which should no longer be burdened with the palsy of the old allianceand which indeed had no share in that morbid decay. Above all, the German-Austrianhad come to feel in the very depths of his own being that the historicalmission of the House of Habsburg had come to an end and that the new Empirecould choose only an Emperor who was of heroic mould and was therefore worthyto wear the ‘Crown of the Rhine’. It was right and just that Destiny should bepraised for having chosen a scion of that House of which Frederick the Greathad in past times given the nation an elevated and resplendent symbol for alltime to come.
After the great war of 1870–71 theHouse of Habsburg set to work with all its determination to exterminate thedangerous German element – about whose inner feelings and attitude there couldbe no doubt – slowly but deliberately. I use the word exterminate, because thatalone expresses what must have been the final result of the Slavophile policy.Then it was that the fire of rebellion blazed up among the people whoseextermination had been decreed. That fire was such as had never been witnessedin modern German history.
For the first time nationalistsand patriots were transformed into rebels.
Not rebels against the nation orthe State as such but rebels against that form of government which they wereconvinced, would inevitably bring about the ruin of their own people. For thefirst time in modern history the traditional dynastic patriotism and nationallove of fatherland and people were in open conflict.
It was to the merit of thePan-German movement in Austria during the closing decade of the last centurythat it pointed out clearly and unequivocally that a State is entitled todemand respect and protection for its authority only when such authority isadministered in accordance with the interests of the nation, or at least not ina manner detrimental to those interests.
The authority of the State cannever be an end in itself; for, if that were so, any kind of tyranny would beinviolable and sacred.
If a government uses theinstruments of power in its hands for the purpose of leading a people to ruin,then rebellion is not only the right but also the duty of every individualcitizen.
The question of whether and whensuch a situation exists cannot be answered by theoretical dissertations butonly by the exercise of force, and it is success that decides the issue.
Every government, even though itmay be the worst possible and even though it may have betrayed the nation’strust in thousands of ways, will claim that its duty is to uphold the authorityof the State. Its adversaries, who are fighting for national self-preservation,must use the same weapons which the government uses if they are to prevailagainst such a rule and secure their own freedom and independence. Thereforethe conflict will be fought out with ‘legal’ means as long as the power whichis to be overthrown uses them; but the insurgents will not hesitate to applyillegal means if the oppressor himself employs them.
Generally speaking, we must notforget that the highest aim of human existence is not the maintenance of aState of Government but rather the conservation of the race.
If the race is in danger of beingoppressed or even exterminated the question of legality is only of secondaryimportance. The established power may in such a case employ only those meanswhich are recognized as ‘legal’. yet the instinct of self-preservation on thepart of the oppressed will always justify, to the highest degree, theemployment of all possible resources.
Only on the recognition of thisprinciple was it possible for those struggles to be carried through, of whichhistory furnishes magnificent examples in abundance, against foreign bondage oroppression at home.
Human rights are above the rightsof the State. But if a people be defeated in the struggle for its human rightsthis means that its weight has proved too light in the scale of Destiny to havethe luck of being able to endure in this terrestrial world.
The world is not there to bepossessed by the faint-hearted races.
Austria affords a very clear andstriking example of how easy it is for tyranny to hide its head under the cloakof what is called ‘legality’.
The legal exercise of power in theHabsburg State was then based on the anti-German attitude of the parliament,with its non-German majorities, and on the dynastic House, which was alsohostile to the German element. The whole authority of the State wasincorporated in these two factors. To attempt to alter the lot of the Germanelement through these two factors would have been senseless. Those who advisedthe ‘legal’ way as the only possible way, and also obedience to the Stateauthority, could offer no resistance; because a policy of resistance could nothave been put into effect through legal measures. To follow the advice of thelegalist counsellors would have meant the inevitable ruin of the German elementwithin the Monarchy, and this disaster would not have taken long to come. TheGerman element has actually been saved only because the State as suchcollapsed.
The spectacled theorist would havegiven his life for his doctrine rather than for his people.
Because man has made laws hesubsequently comes to think that he exists for the sake of the laws.
A great service rendered by thepan-German movement then was that it abolished all such nonsense, though thedoctrinaire theorists and other fetish worshippers were shocked.
When the Habsburgs attempted tocome to close quarters with the German element, by the employment of all themeans of attack which they had at their command, the Pan-German Party hit outruthlessly against the ‘illustrious’ dynasty. This Party was the first to probeinto and expose the corrupt condition of the State; and in doing so they openedthe eyes of hundreds of thousands. To have liberated the high ideal of love forone’s country from the embrace of this deplorable dynasty was one of the greatservices rendered by the Pan-German movement.
When that Party first made itsappearance it secured a large following – indeed, the movement threatened tobecome almost an avalanche. But the first successes were not maintained. At thetime I came to Vienna the pan-German Party had been eclipsed by theChristian-Socialist Party, which had come into power in the meantime. Indeed,the Pan-German Party had sunk to a level of almost complete insignificance.
The rise and decline of thePan-German movement on the one hand and the marvellous progress of theChristian-Socialist Party on the other, became a classic object of study forme, and as such they played an important part in the development of my ownviews.
When I came to Vienna all mysympathies were exclusively with the Pan-German Movement.
I was just as much impressed bythe fact that they had the courage to shout Heil Hohenzollern as I rejoiced attheir determination to consider themselves an integral part of the GermanEmpire, from which they were separated only provisionally. They never missed anopportunity to explain their attitude in public, which raised my enthusiasm andconfidence. To avow one’s principles publicly on every problem that concernedGermanism, and never to make any compromises, seemed to me the only way ofsaving our people. What I could not understand was how this movement broke downso soon after such a magnificent start; and it was no less incomprehensiblethat the Christian-Socialists should gain such tremendous power within such ashort time. They had just reached the pinnacle of their popularity.
When I began to compare those twomovements Fate placed before me the best means of understanding the causes ofthis puzzling problem. The action of Fate in this case was hastened by my ownstraitened circumstances.
I shall begin my analysis with anaccount of the two men who must be regarded as the founders and leaders of thetwo movements. These were George vonSchönerer and Dr. Karl Lueger.
As far as personality goes, both werefar above the level and stature of the so-called parliamentary figures. Theylived lives of immaculate and irreproachable probity amidst the miasma ofall-round political corruption. Personally I first liked the Pan-Germanrepresentative, Schönerer, and it was only afterwards and gradually that I feltan equal liking for the Christian-Socialist leader.
When I compared their respectiveabilities Schönerer seemed to me a better and more profound thinker onfundamental problems. He foresaw the inevitable downfall of the Austrian Statemore clearly and accurately than anyone else. If this warning in regard to theHabsburg Empire had been heeded in Germany the disastrous world war, whichinvolved Germany against the whole of Europe, would never have taken place.
But though Schönerer succeeded inpenetrating to the essentials of a problem he was very often much mistaken inhis judgment of men.
And herein lay Dr. Lueger’sspecial talent. He had a rare gift of insight into human nature and he was verycareful not to take men as something better than they were in reality. He basedhis plans on the practical possibilities which human life offered him, whereasSchönerer had only little discrimination in that respect. All ideas that thisPan-German had were right in the abstract, but he did not have the forcefulnessor understanding necessary to put his ideas across to the broad masses. He wasnot able to formulate them so that they could be easily grasped by the masses,whose powers of comprehension are limited and will always remain so. Thereforeall Schönerer’s knowledge was only the wisdom of a prophet and he never couldsucceed in having it put into practice.
This lack of insight into humannature led him to form a wrong estimate of the forces behind certain movementsand the inherent strength of old institutions.
Schönerer indeed realized that theproblems he had to deal with were in the nature of a Weltanschhauung;but he did not understand that only the broad masses of a nation can make suchconvictions prevail, which are almost of a religious nature.
Unfortunately he understood onlyvery imperfectly how feeble is the fighting spirit of the so-calledbourgeoisie. That weakness is due to their business interests, which individualsare too much afraid of risking and which therefore deter them from takingaction. And, generally speaking, a Weltanschhauung can have no prospectof success unless the broad masses declare themselves ready to act as itsstandard-bearers and to fight on its behalf wherever and to whatever extentthat may be necessary.
This failure to understand theimportance of the lower strata of the population resulted in a very inadequateconcept of the social problem.
In all this Dr. Lueger was theopposite of Schönerer. His profound knowledge of human nature enabled him toform a correct estimate of the various social forces and it saved him fromunder-rating the power of existing institutions. And it was perhaps this veryquality which enabled him to utilize those institutions as a means to serve thepurposes of his policy.
He saw only too clearly that, inour epoch, the political fighting power of the upper classes is quiteinsignificant and not at all capable of fighting for a great new movement untilthe triumph of that movement be secured. Thus he devoted the greatest part ofhis political activity to the task of winning over those sections of thepopulation whose existence was in danger and fostering the militant spirit inthem rather than attempting to paralyse it. He was also quick to adopt allavailable means for winning the support of long-established institutions, so asto be able to derive the greatest possible advantage for his movement fromthose old sources of power.
Thus it was that, first of all, hechose as the social basis of his new Party that middle class which wasthreatened with extinction. In this way he secured a solid following which waswilling to make great sacrifices and had good fighting stamina. His extremelywise attitude towards the Catholic Church rapidly won over the younger clergyin such large numbers that the old Clerical Party was forced to retire from thefield of action or else, which was the wiser course, join the new Party, in thehope of gradually winning back one position after another.
But it would be a seriousinjustice to the man if we were to regard this as his essential characteristic.For he possessed the qualities of an able tactician, and had the true genius ofa great reformer; but all these were limited by his exact perception of thepossibilities at hand and also of his own capabilities.
The aims which this really eminentman decided to pursue were intensely practical. He wished to conquer Vienna,the heart of the Monarchy. It was from Vienna that the last pulses of life beatthrough the diseased and worn-out body of the decrepit Empire. If the heartcould be made healthier the others parts of the body were bound to revive. Thatidea was correct in principle; but the time within which it could be applied inpractice was strictly limited. And that was the man’s weak point.
His achievements as Burgomaster ofthe City of Vienna are immortal, in the best sense of the word. But all thatcould not save the Monarchy. It came too late.
His rival, Schönerer, saw thismore clearly. What Dr. Lueger undertook to put into practice turned outmarvellously successful. But the results which he expected to follow theseachievements did not come. Schönerer did not attain the ends he had proposed tohimself; but his fears were realized, alas, in a terrible fashion. Thus boththese men failed to attain their further objectives. Lueger could not saveAustria and Schönerer could not prevent the downfall of the German people inAustria.
To study the causes of failure inthe case of these two parties is to learn a lesson that is highly instructivefor our own epoch. This is specially useful for my friends, because in manypoints the circumstances of our own day are similar to those of that time.Therefore such a lesson may help us to guard against the mistakes which broughtone of those movements to an end and rendered the other barren of results.
In my opinion, the wreck of thePan-German Movement in Austria must be attributed to three causes.
The first of these consisted inthe fact that the leaders did not have a clear concept of the importance of thesocial problem, particularly for a new movement which had an essentiallyrevolutionary character. Schönerer and his followers directed their attentionprincipally to the bourgeois classes. For that reason their movement was boundto turn out mediocre and tame. The German bourgeoisie, especially in its uppercircles, is pacifist even to the point of complete self-abnegation – though theindividual may not be aware of this – wherever the internal affairs of thenation or State are concerned. In good times, which in this case means times ofgood government, such a psychological attitude makes this social layerextraordinarily valuable to the State. But when there is a bad government, sucha quality has a destructive effect. In order to assure the possibility ofcarrying through a really strenuous struggle, the Pan-German Movement shouldhave devoted its efforts to winning over the masses. The failure to do thisleft the movement from the very beginning without the elementary impulse whichsuch a wave needs if it is not to ebb within a short while.
In failing to see the truth ofthis principle clearly at the very outset of the movement and in neglecting toput it into practice the new Party made an initial mistake which could notpossibly be rectified afterwards. For the numerous moderate bourgeois elementsadmitted into the movements increasingly determined its internal orientationand thus forestalled all further prospects of gaining any appreciable supportamong the masses of the people. Under such conditions such a movement could notget beyond mere discussion and criticism. Quasi-religious faith and the spiritof sacrifice were not to be found in the movement any more. Their place was takenby the effort towards ‘positive’ collaboration, which in this case meant theacknowledgment of the existing state of affairs, gradually whittling away therough corners of the questions in dispute, and ending up with the making of adishonourable peace.
Such was the fate of thePan-German Movement, because at the start the leaders did not realize that themost important condition of success was that they should recruit theirfollowing from the broad masses of the people. The Movement thus became bourgeoisand respectable and radical only in moderation.
From this failure resulted thesecond cause of its rapid decline.
The position of the Germans inAustria was already desperate when Pan-Germanism arose. Year after yearParliament was being used more and more as an instrument for the gradualextinction of the German-Austrian population. The only hope for anyeleventh-hour effort to save it lay in the overthrow of the parliamentarysystem; but there was very little prospect of this happening.
Therewith the Pan-German Movementwas confronted with a question of primary importance.
To overthrow the Parliament,should the Pan-Germanists have entered it ‘to undermine it from within’, as thecurrent phrase was? Or should they have assailed the institution as such fromthe outside?
They entered the Parliament andcame out defeated. But they had found themselves obliged to enter.
For in order to wage an effectivewar against such a power from the outside, indomitable courage and a readyspirit of sacrifice were necessary weapons. In such cases the bull must beseized by the horns. Furious drives may bring the assailant to the ground againand again; but if he has a stout heart he will stand up, even though some bonesmay be broken, and only after a long and tough struggle will he achieve histriumph. New champions are attracted to a cause by the appeal of greatsacrifices made for its sake, until that indomitable spirit is finally crownedwith success.
For such a result, however, thechildren of the people from the great masses are necessary. They alone have therequisite determination and tenacity to fight a sanguinary issue through to theend. But the Pan-German Movement did not have these broad masses as itschampions, and so no other means of solution could be tried out except that ofentering Parliamcnt.
It would be a mistake to thinkthat this decision resulted from a long series of internal hesitations of amoral kind, or that it was the outcome of careful calculation. No. They did noteven think of another solution. Those who participated in this blunder wereactuated by general considerations and vague notions as to what would be thesignificance and effect of taking part in such a special way in thatinstitution which they had condemned on principle. In general they hoped thatthey would thus have the means of expounding their cause to the great masses ofthe people, because they would be able to speak before ‘the forum of the wholenation’. Also, it seemed reasonable to believe that by attacking the evil inthe root they would be more effective than if the attack came from outside.They believed that, if protected by the immunity of Parliament, the position ofthe individual protagonists would be strengthened and that thus the force oftheir attacks would be enhanced.
In reality everything turned outquite otherwise.
The Forum before which thePan-German representatives spoke had not grown greater, but had actually becomesmaller; for each spoke only to the circle that was ready to listen to him orcould read the report of his speech in the newspapers.
But the greater forum of immediatelisteners is not the parliamentary auditorium: it is the large public meeting.For here alone will there be thousands of men who have come simply to hear whata speaker has to say, whereas in the parliamentary sittings only a few hundredare present; and for the most part these are there only to earn their dailyallowance for attendance and not to be enlightened by the wisdom of one orother of the ‘representatives of the people’.
The most important considerationis that the same public is always present and that this public does not wish tolearn anything new; because, setting aside the question of its intelligence, itlacks even that modest quantum of will-power which is necessary for the effortof learning.
Not one of the representatives ofthe people will pay homage to a superior truth and devote himself to itsservice. No. Not one of these gentry will act thus, except he has grounds forhoping that by such a conversion he may be able to retain the representation ofhis constituency in the coming legislature. Therefore, only when it becomesquite clear that the old party is likely to have a bad time of it at theforthcoming elections – only then will those models of manly virtue set out insearch of a new party or a new policy which may have better electoralprospects; but of course this change of position will be accompanied by averitable deluge of high moral motives to justify it. And thus it always happensthat when an existing Party has incurred such general disfavour among thepublic that it is threatened with the probability of a crushing defeat, then agreat migration commences. The parliamentary rats leave the Party ship.
All this happens not because theindividuals in the case have become better informed on the questions at issueand have resolved to act accordingly. These changes of front are evidence onlyof that gift of clairvoyance which warns the parliamentary flea at the rightmoment and enables him to hop into another warm Party bed.
To speak before such a forumsignifies casting pearls before certain animals.
Verily it does not repay the painstaken; for the result must always be negative.
And that is actually whathappened. The Pan-German representatives might have talked themselves hoarse,but to no effect whatsoever.
The Press either ignored themtotally or so mutilated their speeches that the logical consistency wasdestroyed or the meaning twisted round in such a way that the public got only avery wrong impression regarding the aims of the new movement. What theindividual members said was not of importance. The important matter was whatpeople read as coming from them. This consisted of mere extracts which had beentorn out of the context of the speeches and gave an impression of incoherentnonsense, which indeed was purposely meant. Thus the only public before whichthey really spoke consisted merely of five hundred parliamentarians; and thatsays enough.
The worst was the following:
The Pan-German Movement could hopefor success only if the leaders realized from the very first moment that herethere was no question so much of a new Party as of a new Weltanschhauung.This alone could arouse the inner moral forces that were necessary for such agigantic struggle. And for this struggle the leaders must be men of first-classbrains and indomitable courage. If the struggle on behalf of a Weltanschhauungis not conducted by men of heroic spirit who are ready to sacrifice,everything, within a short while it will become impossible to find realfighting followers who are ready to lay down their lives for the cause. A manwho fights only for his own existence has not much left over for the service ofthe community.
In order to secure the conditionsthat are necessary for success, everybody concerned must be made to understandthat the new movement looks to posterity for its honour and glory but that ithas no recompense to offer to the present-day members. If a movement shouldoffer a large number of positions and offices that are easily accessible thenumber of unworthy candidates admitted to membership will be constantly on theincrease and eventually a day will come when there will be such a preponderanceof political profiteers among the membership of a successful Party that thecombatants who bore the brunt of the battle in the earlier stages of themovement can now scarcely recognize their own Party and may be ejected by thelater arrivals as unwanted ballast. Therewith the movement will no longer havea mission to fulfil.
Once the Pan-Germanists decided tocollaborate with Parliament they were no longer leaders and combatants in apopular movement, but merely parliamentarians. Thus the Movement sank to thecommon political party level of the day and no longer had the strength to facea hostile fate and defy the risk of martyrdom. Instead of fighting, thePan-German leaders fell into the habit of talking and negotiating. The newparliamentarians soon found that it was a more satisfactory, because lessrisky, way of fulfilling their task if they would defend the new Weltanschhauungwith the spiritual weapon of parliamentary rhetoric rather than take up a fightin which they placed their lives in danger, the outcome of which also wasuncertain and even at the best could offer no prospect of personal gain forthemselves.
When they had taken their seats inParliament their adherents outside hoped and waited for miracles to happen.Naturally no such miracles happened or could happen. Whereupon the adherents ofthe movement soon grew impatient, because reports they read about their owndeputies did not in the least come up to what had been expected when they votedfor these deputies at the elections. The reason for this was not far to seek.It was due to the fact that an unfriendly Press refrained from giving a trueaccount of what the Pan-German representatives of the people were actuallydoing.
According as the new deputies gotto like this mild form of ‘revolutionary’ struggle in Parliament and in theprovincial diets they gradually became reluctant to resume the more hazardouswork of expounding the principles of the movement before the broad masses ofthe people.
Mass meetings in public becamemore and more rare, though these are the only means of exercising a reallyeffective influence on the people; because here the influence comes from directpersonal contact and in this way the support of large sections of the peoplecan be obtained.
When the tables on which thespeakers used to stand in the great beer-halls, addressing an assembly ofthousands, were deserted for the parliamentary tribune and the speeches were nolonger addressed to the people directly but to the so-called ‘chosen’representatives, the Pan-German Movement lost its popular character and in alittle while degenerated to the level of a more or less serious club whereproblems of the day are discussed academically.
The wrong impression created bythe Press was no longer corrected by personal contact with the people throughpublic meetings, whereby the individual representatives might have given a trueaccount of their activities. The final result of this neglect was that the word‘Pan-German’ came to have an unpleasant sound in the ears of the masses.
The knights of the pen and theliterary snobs of to-day should be made to realize that the greattransformations which have taken place in this world were never conducted by agoosequill. No. The task of the pen must always be that of presenting thetheoretical concepts which motivate such changes. The force which has ever andalways set in motion great historical avalanches of religious and politicalmovements is the magic power of the spoken word.
The broad masses of a populationare more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force. All greatmovements are popular movements. They are the volcanic eruptions of humanpassions and emotions, stirred into activity by the ruthless Goddess ofDistress or by the torch of the spoken word cast into the midst of the people.In no case have great movements been set afoot by the syrupy effusions ofæsthetic littérateurs and drawing-room heroes.
The doom of a nation can beaverted only by a storm of glowing passion; but only those who are passionatethemselves can arouse passion in others. It is only through the capacity forpassionate feeling that chosen leaders can wield the power of the word which,like hammer blows, will open the door to the hearts of the people.
He who is not capable ofpassionate feeling and speech was never chosen by Providence to be the heraldof its will. Therefore a writer should stick to his ink-bottle and busy himselfwith theoretical questions if he has the requisite ability and knowledge. Hehas not been born or chosen to be a leader.
A movement which has great ends toachieve must carefully guard against the danger of losing contact with themasses of the people. Every problem encountered must be examined from thisviewpoint first of all and the decision to be made must always be in harmonywith this principle.
The movement must avoid everythingwhich might lessen or weaken its power of influencing the masses; not fromdemagogical motives but because of the simple fact that no great idea, nomatter how sublime and exalted it may appear, can be realized in practicewithout the effective power which resides in the popular masses. Stern realityalone must mark the way to the goal. To be unwilling to walk the road ofhardship means, only too often in this world, the total renunciation of ouraims and purposes, whether that renunciation be consciously willed or not.
The moment the Pan-German leaders,in virtue of their acceptance of the parliamentary principle, moved the centreof their activities away from the people and into Parliament, in that moment theysacrificed the future for the sake of a cheap momentary success. They chose theeasier way in the struggle and in doing so rendered themselves unworthy of thefinal victory.
While in Vienna I used to ponderseriously over these two questions, and I saw that the main reason for thecollapse of the Pan-German Movement lay in the fact that these very questionswere not rightly appreciated. To my mind at that time the Movement seemedchosen to take in its hands the leadership of the German element in Austria.
These first two blunders which ledto the downfall of the Pan-German Movement were very closely connected with oneanother. Faulty recognition of the inner driving forces that urge greatmovements forward led to an inadequate appreciation of the part which the broadmasses play in bringing about such changes. The result was that too littleattention was given to the social problem and that the attempts made by themovement to capture the minds of the lower classes were too few and too weak.Another result was the acceptance of the parliamentary policy, which had asimilar effect in regard to the importance of the masses.
If there had been a properappreciation of the tremendous powers of endurance always shown by the massesin revolutionary movements a different attitude towards the social problemwould have been taken, and also a different policy in the matter of propaganda.Then the centre of gravity of the movement would not have been transferred tothe Parliament but would have remained in the workshops and in the streets.
There was a third mistake, whichalso had its roots in the failure to understand the worth of the masses. Themasses are first set in motion, along a definite direction, by men of superiortalents; but then these masses once in motion are like a flywheel inasmuch asthey sustain the momentum and steady balance of the offensive.
The policy of the Pan-Germanleaders in deciding to carry through a difficult fight against the CatholicChurch can be explained only by attributing it to an inadequate understandingof the spiritual character of the people.
The reasons why the new Partyengaged in a violent campaign against Rome were as follows:
As soon as the House of Habsburg haddefinitely decided to transform Austria into a Slav State all sorts of meanswere adopted which seemed in any way serviceable for that purpose. The Habsburgrulers had no scruples of conscience about exploiting even religiousinstitutions in the service of this new ‘State Idea’. One of the many methodsthus employed was the use of Czech parishes and their clergy as instruments forspreading Slav hegemony throughout Austria. This proceeding was carried out asfollows:
Parish priests of Czechnationality were appointed in purely German districts. Gradually but steadilypushing forward the interests of the Czech people before those of the Church,the parishes and their priests became generative cells in the process ofde-Germanization.
Unfortunately the German-Austrianclergy completely failed to counter this procedure. Not only were theyincapable of taking a similar initiative on the German side, but they showedthemselves unable to meet the Czech offensive with adequate resistance. TheGerman element was accordingly pushed backwards, slowly but steadily, throughthe perversion of religious belief for political ends on the one side, and theJack of proper resistance on the other side. Such were the tactics used indealing with the smaller problems; but those used in dealing with the largerproblems were not very different.
The anti-German aims pursued bythe Habsburgs, especially through the instrumentality of the higher clergy, didnot meet with any vigorous resistance, while the clerical representatives ofthe German interests withdrew completely to the rear. The general impressioncreated could not be other than that the Catholic clergy as such were grosslyneglecting the rights of the German population.
Therefore it looked as if theCatholic Church was not in sympathy with the German people but that it unjustlysupported their adversaries. The root of the whole evil, especially accordingto Schönerer’s opinion, lay in the fact that the leadership of the CatholicChurch was not in Germany, and that this fact alone was sufficient reason forthe hostile attitude of the Church towards the demands of our people.
The so-called cultural problemreceded almost completely into the background, as was generally the caseeverywhere throughout Austria at that time. In assuming a hostile attitudetowards the Catholic Church, the Pan-German leaders were influenced not so muchby the Church’s position in questions of science but principally by the factthat the Church did not defend German rights, as it should have done, butalways supported those who encroached on these rights, especially then Slavs.
George Schönerer was not a man whodid things by halves. He went into battle against the Church because he wasconvinced that this was the only way in which the German people could be saved.The Los-von-Rom (Away from Rome) Movement seemed the most formidable, but atthe same time most difficult, method of attacking and destroying theadversary’s citadel. Schönerer believed that if this movement could be carriedthrough successfully the unfortunate division between the two great religiousdenominations in Germany would be wiped out and that the inner forces of theGerman Empire and Nation would be enormously enhanced by such a victory.
But the premises as well as theconclusions in this case were both erroneous.
It was undoubtedly true that thenational powers of resistance, in everything concerning Germanism as such, weremuch weaker among the German Catholic clergy than among their non-Germanconfrères, especially the Czechs. And only an ignorant person could be unawareof the fact that it scarcely ever entered the mind of the German clergy to takethe offensive on behalf of German interests.
But at the same time everybody whois not blind to facts must admit that all this should be attributed to acharacteristic under which we Germans have all been doomed to suffer. Thischaracteristic shows itself in our objective way of regarding our ownnationality, as if it were something that lay outside of us.
While the Czech priest adopted asubjective attitude towards his own people and only an objective attitudetowards the Church, the German parish priest showed a subjective devotion tohis Church and remained objective in regard to his nation. It is a phenomenonwhich, unfortunately for us, can be observed occurring in exactly the same wayin thousands of other cases.
It is by no means a peculiarinheritance from Catholicism; but it is something in us which does not takelong to gnaw the vitals of almost every institution, especially institutions ofState and those which have ideal aims. Take, for example, the attitude of ourState officials in regard to the efforts made for bringing about a nationalresurgence and compare that attitude with the stand which the public officialsof any other nation would have taken in such a case. Or is it to be believedthat the military officers of any other country in the world would refuse tocome forward on behalf of the national aspirations, but would rather hidebehind the phrase ‘Authority of the State’, as has been the case in our countryduring the last five years and has even been deemed a meritorious attitude? Orlet us take another example. In regard to the Jewish problem, do not the twoChristian denominations take up a standpoint to-day which does not respond tothe national exigencies or even the interests of religion? Consider theattitude of a Jewish Rabbi towards any question, even one of quiteinsignificant importance, concerning the Jews as a race, and compare hisattitude with that of the majority of our clergy, whether Catholic orProtestant.
We observe the same phenomenonwherever it is a matter of standing up for some abstract idea.
‘Authority of the State’,‘Democracy’, ‘Pacifism’, ‘International Solidarity’, etc., all such notionsbecome rigid, dogmatic concepts with us; and the more vital the generalnecessities of the nation, the more will they be judged exclusively in thelight of those concepts.
This unfortunate habit of lookingat all national demands from the viewpoint of a pre-conceived notion makes itimpossible for us to see the subjective side of a thing which objectivelycontradicts one’s own doctrine. It finally leads to a complete reversion in therelation of means to an end. Any attempt at a national revival will be opposedif the preliminary condition of such a revival be that a bad and perniciousregime must first of all be overthrown; because such an action will beconsidered as a violation of the ‘Authority of the State’. In the eyes of thosewho take that standpoint, the ‘Authority of the State’ is not a means which isthere to serve an end but rather, to the mind of the dogmatic believer inobjectivity, it is an end in itself; and he looks upon that as sufficientapology for his own miserable existence. Such people would raise an outcry, if,for instance, anyone should attempt to set up a dictatorship, even though theman responsible for it were Frederick the Great and even though the politiciansfor the time being, who constituted the parliamentary majority, were small andincompetent men or maybe even on a lower grade of inferiority; because to suchsticklers for abstract principles the law of democracy is more sacred than thewelfare of the nation. In accordance with his principles, one of these gentry willdefend the worst kind of tyranny, though it may be leading a people to ruin,because it is the fleeting embodiment of the ‘Authority of the State’, andanother will reject even a highly beneficent government if it should happen notto be in accord with his notion of ‘democracy’.
In the same way our Germanpacifist will remain silent while the nation is groaning under an oppressionwhich is being exercised by a sanguinary military power, when this state ofaffairs gives rise to active resistance; because such resistance means theemployment of physical force, which is against the spirit of the pacifistassociations. The German International Socialist may be rooked and plundered byhis comrades in all the other countries of the world in the name of ‘solidarity’,but he responds with fraternal kindness and never thinks of trying to get hisown back, or even of defending himself. And why? Because he is a – German.
It may be unpleasant to dwell onsuch truths, but if something is to be changed we must start by diagnosing thedisease.
The phenomenon which I have justdescribed also accounts for the feeble manner in which German interests arepromoted and defended by a section of the clergy.
Such conduct is not themanifestation of a malicious intent, nor is it the outcome of orders given from‘above’, as we say; but such a lack of national grit and determination is dueto defects in our educational system. For, instead of inculcating in the youtha lively sense of their German nationality, the aim of the educational systemis to make the youth prostrate themselves in homage to the idea, as if the ideawere an idol.
The education which makes them thedevotees of such abstract notions as ‘Democracy’, ‘International Socialism’,‘Pacifism’, etc., is so hard-and-fast and exclusive and, operating as it doesfrom within outwards, is so purely subjective that in forming their generalpicture of outside life as a whole they are fundamentally influenced by these apriori notions. But, on the other hand, the attitude towards their own Germannationality has been very objective from youth upwards. The Pacifist – in sofar as he is a German – who surrenders himself subjectively, body and soul, tothe dictates of his dogmatic principles, will always first consider the objectiveright or wrong of a situation when danger threatens his own people, even thoughthat danger be grave and unjustly wrought from outside. But he will never takehis stand in the ranks of his own people and fight for and with them from thesheer instinct of self-preservation.
Another example may furtherillustrate how far this applies to the different religious denominations. In sofar as its origin and tradition are based on German ideals, Protestantism ofitself defends those ideals better. But it fails the moment it is called uponto defend national interests which do not belong to the sphere of its idealsand traditional development, or which, for some reason or other, may berejected by that sphere.
Therefore Protestantism willalways take its part in promoting German ideals as far as concerns moralintegrity or national education, when the German spiritual being or language orspiritual freedom are to be defended: because these represent the principles onwhich Protestantism itself is grounded. But this same Protestantism violentlyopposes every attempt to rescue the nation from the clutches of its mortalenemy; because the Protestant attitude towards the Jews is more or less rigidlyand dogmatically fixed. And yet this is the first problem which has to besolved, unless all attempts to bring about a German resurgence or to raise thelevel of the nation’s standing are doomed to turn out nonsensical andimpossible.
During my sojourn in Vienna I hadample leisure and opportunity to study this problem without allowing anyprejudices to intervene; and in my daily intercourse with people I was able toestablish the correctness of the opinion I formed by the test of thousands ofinstances.
In this focus where the greatestvarieties of nationality had converged it was quite clear and open to everybodyto see that the German pacifist was always and exclusively the one who tried toconsider the interests of his own nation objectively; but you could never finda Jew who took a similar attitude towards his own race. Furthermore, I foundthat only the German Socialist is ‘international’ in the sense that he feelshimself obliged not to demand justice for his own people in any other mannerthan by whining and wailing to his international comrades. Nobody could everreproach Czechs or Poles or other nations with such conduct. In short, even atthat time, already I recognized that this evil is only partly a result of thedoctrines taught by Socialism, Pacifism, etc., but mainly the result of ourtotally inadequate system of education, the defects of which are responsiblefor the lack of devotion to our own national ideals.
Therefore the first theoreticalargument advanced by the Pan-German leaders as the basis of their offensiveagainst Catholicism was quite entenable.
The only way to remedy the evil Ihave been speaking of is to train the Germans from youth upwards to an absoluterecognition of the rights of their own people, instead of poisoning theirminds, while they are still only children, with the virus of this curbed‘objectivity’, even in matters concerning the very maintenance of our ownexistence. The result of this would be that the Catholic in Germany, just as inIreland, Poland or France, will be a German first and foremost. But all thispresupposes a radical change in the national government.
The strongest proof in support ofmy contention is furnished by what took place at that historical juncture whenour people were called for the last time before the tribunal of History todefend their own existence, in a life-or-death struggle.
As long as there was no lack ofleadership in the higher circles, the people fulfilled their duty andobligations to an overwhelming extent. Whether Protestant pastor or Catholicpriest, each did his very utmost in helping our powers of resistance to holdout, not only in the trenches but also, and even more so, at home. During thoseyears, and especially during the first outburst of enthusiasm, in bothreligious camps there was one undivided and sacred German Empire for whosepreservation and future existence they all prayed to Heaven.
The Pan-German Movement in Austriaought to have asked itself this one question: Is the maintenance of the Germanelement in Austria possible or not, as long as that element remains within the foldof the Catholic Faith? If that question should have been answered in theaffirmative, then the political Party should not have meddled in religious anddenominational questions. But if the question had to be answered in thenegative, then a religious reformation should have been started and not apolitical party movement.
Anyone who believes that areligious reformation can be achieved through the agency of a politicalorganization shows that he has no idea of the development of religiousconceptions and doctrines of faith and how these are given practical effect bythe Church.
No man can serve two masters. AndI hold that the foundation or overthrow of a religion has far greaterconsequences than the foundation or overthrow of a State, to say nothing of aParty.
It is no argument to the contraryto say that the attacks were only defensive measures against attacks from theother side.
Undoubtedly there have always beenunscrupulous rogues who did not hesitate to degrade religion to the base usesof politics. Nearly always such a people had nothing else in their minds exceptto make a business of religions and politics. But on the other hand it would bewrong to hold religion itself, or a religious denomination, responsible for anumber of rascals who exploit the Church for their own base interests just asthey would exploit anything else in which they had a part.
Nothing could be more to the tasteof one of these parliamentary loungers and tricksters than to be able to find ascapegoat for his political sharp-practice – after the event, of course. Themoment religion or a religious denomination is attacked and made responsiblefor his personal misdeeds this shrewd fellow will raise a row at once and callthe world to witness how justified he was in acting as he did, proclaiming thathe and his eloquence alone have saved religion and the Church. The public,which is mostly stupid and has a very short memory, is not capable ofrecognizing the real instigator of the quarrel in the midst of the turmoil thathas been raised. Frequently it does not remember the beginning of the fight andso the rogue gets by with his stunt.
A cunning fellow of that sort isquite well aware that his misdeeds have nothing to do with religion. And so hewill laugh up his sleeve all the more heartily when his honest but artlessadversary loses the game and, one day losing all faith in humanity, retiresfrom the activities of public life.
But from another viewpoint also itwould be wrong to make religion, or the Church as such, responsible for themisdeeds of individuals. If one compares the magnitude of the organization, asit stands visible to every eye, with the average weakness of human nature weshall have to admit that the proportion of good to bad is more favourable herethan anywhere else. Among the priests there may, of course, be some who usetheir sacred calling to further their political ambitions. There are clergy whounfortunately forget that in the political mêlée they ought to be the paladinsof the more sublime truths and not the abettors of falsehood and slander. Butfor each one of these unworthy specimens we can find a thousand or more whofulfil their mission nobly as the trustworthy guardians of souls and who towerabove the level of our corrupt epoch, as little islands above the seaswamp.
I cannot condemn the Church assuch, and I should feel quite as little justified in doing so if some depravedperson in the robe of a priest commits some offence against the moral law. Norshould I for a moment think of blaming the Church if one of its innumerablemembers betrays and besmirches his compatriots, especially not in epochs whensuch conduct is quite common. We must not forget, particularly in our day, thatfor one such Ephialtes 7) there are a thousand whose hearts bleed insympathy with their people during these years of misfortune and who, togetherwith the best of our nation, yearn for the hour when fortune will smile on usagain.
If it be objected that here we areconcerned not with the petty problems of everyday life but principally withfundamental truths and questions of dogma, the only way of answering thatobjection is to ask a question:
Do you feel that Providence hascalled you to proclaim the Truth to the world? If so, then go and do it. Butyou ought to have the courage to do it directly and not use some politicalparty as your mouthpiece; for in this way you shirk your vocation. In the placeof something that now exists and is bad put something else that is better andwill last into the future.
If you lack the requisite courageor if you yourself do not know clearly what your better substitute ought to be,leave the whole thing alone. But, whatever happens, do not try to reach thegoal by the roundabout way of a political party if you are not brave enough tofight with your visor lifted.
Political parties have no right tomeddle in religious questions except when these relate to something that isalien to the national well-being and thus calculated to undermine racialcustoms and morals.
If some ecclesiastical dignitariesshould misuse religious ceremonies or religious teaching to injure their ownnation their opponents ought never to take the same road and fight them withthe same weapons.
To a political leader thereligious teachings and practices of his people should be sacred andinviolable. Otherwise he should not be a statesman but a reformer, if he hasthe necessary qualities for such a mission.
Any other line of conduct willlead to disaster, especially in Germany.
In studying the Pan-German Movementand its conflict with Rome I was then firmly persuaded, and especially in thecourse of later years, that by their failure to understand the importance ofthe social problem the Pan-Germanists lost the support of the broad masses, whoare the indispensable combatants in such a movement. By entering Parliament thePan-German leaders deprived themselves of the great driving force which residesin the masses and at the same time they laid on their own shoulders all thedefects of the parliamentary institution. Their struggle against the Churchmade their position impossible in numerous circles of the lower and middleclass, while at the same time it robbed them of innumerable high-class elements– some of the best indeed that the nation possessed. The practical outcome ofthe Austrian Kulturkampf was negative.
Although they succeeded in winning100,000 members away from the Church, that did not do much harm to the latter.The Church did not really need to shed any tears over these lost sheep, for itlost only those who had for a long time ceased to belong to it in their innerhearts. The difference between this new reformation and the great Reformationwas that in the historic epoch of the great Reformation some of the bestmembers left the Church because of religious convictions, whereas in this newreformation only those left who had been indifferent before and who were nowinfluenced by political considerations. From the political point of view alonethe result was as ridiculous as it was deplorable.
Once again a political movementwhich had promised so much for the German nation collapsed, because it was notconducted in a spirit of unflinching adherence to naked reality, but lostitself in fields where it was bound to get broken up.
The Pan-German Movement wouldnever have made this mistake if it had properly understood the psyche of thebroad masses. If the leaders had known that, for psychological reasons alone,it is not expedient to place two or more sets of adversaries before the masses– since that leads to a complete splitting up of their fighting strength – theywould have concentrated the full and undivided force of their attack against asingle adversary. Nothing in the policy of a political party is so fraught withdanger as to allow its decisions to be directed by people who want to havetheir fingers in every pie though they do not know how to cook the simplestdish.
But even though there is much thatcan really be said against the various religious denominations, politicalleaders must not forget that the experience of history teaches us that nopurely political party in similar circumstances ever succeeded in bringingabout a religious reformation. One does not study history for the purpose offorgetting or mistrusting its lessons afterwards, when the time comes to applythese lessons in practice. It would be a mistake to believe that in thisparticular case things were different, so that the eternal truths of historywere no longer applicable. One learns history in order to be able to apply itslessons to the present time and whoever fails to do this cannot pretend to be apolitical leader. In reality he is quite a superficial person or, as is mostlythe case, a conceited simpleton whose good intentions cannot make up for hisincompetence in practical affairs.
The art of leadership, asdisplayed by really great popular leaders in all ages, consists inconsolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary and takingcare that nothing will split up that attention into sections. The more themilitant energies of the people are directed towards one objective the morewill new recruits join the movement, attracted by the magnetism of its unifiedaction, and thus the striking power will be all the more enhanced. The leaderof genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if theybelonged to the one category; for weak and wavering natures among a leader’sfollowing may easily begin to be dubious about the justice of their own causeif they have to face different enemies.
As soon as the vacillating massesfind themselves facing an opposition that is made up of different groups ofenemies their sense of objectivity will be aroused and they will ask how is itthat all the others can be in the wrong and they themselves, and theirmovement, alone in the right.
Such a feeling would be the firststep towards a paralysis of their fighting vigour. Where there are variousenemies who are split up into divergent groups it will be necessary to blockthem all together as forming one solid front, so that the mass of followers ina popular movement may see only one common enemy against whom they have tofight. Such uniformity intensifies their belief in the justice of their owncause and strengthens their feeling of hostility towards the opponent.
The Pan-German Movement wasunsuccessful because the leaders did not grasp the significance of that truth.They saw the goal clearly and their intentions were right; but they took thewrong road. Their action may be compared to that of an Alpine climber who neverloses sight of the peak he wants to reach, who has set out with the greatestdetermination and energy, but pays no attention to the road beneath his feet.With his eye always fixed firmly on the goal he does not think over or noticethe nature of the ascent and finally he fails.
The manner in which the greatrival of the Pan-German Party set out to attain its goal was quite different.The way it took was well and shrewdly chosen; but it did not have a clearvision of the goal. In almost all the questions where the Pan-German Movementfailed, the policy of the Christian-Socialist Party was correct and systematic.
They assessed the importance ofthe masses correctly, and thus they gained the support of large numbers of thepopular masses by emphasizing the social character of the Movement from thevery start. By directing their appeal especially to the lower middle class andthe artisans, they gained adherents who were faithful, persevering andself-sacrificing. The Christian-Socialist leaders took care to avoid allcontroversy with the institutions of religion and thus they secured the supportof that mighty organization, the Catholic Church. Those leaders recognized thevalue of propaganda on a large scale and they were veritable virtuosos inworking up the spiritual instincts of the broad masses of their adherents.
The failure of this Party to carryinto effect the dream of saving Austria from dissolution must be attributed totwo main defects in the means they employed and also the lack of a clearperception of the ends they wished to reach.
The anti-Semitism of theChristian-Socialists was based on religious instead of racial principles. Thereason for this mistake gave rise to the second error also.
The founders of the Christian-SocialistParty were of the opinion that they could not base their position on the racialprinciple if they wished to save Austria, because they felt that a generaldisintegration of the State might quickly result from the adoption of such a policy.In the opinion of the Party chiefs the situation in Vienna demanded that allfactors which tended to estrange the nationalities from one another should becarefully avoided and that all factors making for unity should be encouraged.
At that time Vienna was sohoneycombed with foreign elements, especially the Czechs, that the greatestamount of tolerance was necessary if these elements were to be enlisted in theranks of any party that was not anti-German on principle. If Austria was to besaved those elements were indispensable. And so attempts were made to win thesupport of the small traders, a great number of whom were Czechs, by combatingthe liberalism of the Manchester School; and they believed that by adoptingthis attitude they had found a slogan against Jewry which, because of itsreligious implications, would unite all the different nationalities which madeup the population of the old Austria.
It was obvious, however, that thiskind of anti-Semitism did not upset the Jews very much, simply because it had apurely religious foundation. If the worst came to the worst a few drops ofbaptismal water would settle the matter, hereupon the Jew could still carry onhis business safely and at the same time retain his Jewish nationality.
On such superficial grounds it wasimpossible to deal with the whole problem in an earnest and rational way. Theconsequence was that many people could not understand this kind ofanti-Semitism and therefore refused to take part in it.
The attractive force of the idea wasthus restricted exclusively to narrow-minded circles, because the leadersfailed to go beyond the mere emotional appeal and did not ground their positionon a truly rational basis. The intellectuals were opposed to such a policy onprinciple. It looked more and more as if the whole movement was a new attemptto proselytize the Jews, or, on the other hand, as if it were merely organizedfrom the wish to compete with other contemporary movements. Thus the strugglelost all traces of having been organized for a spiritual and sublime mission.Indeed, it seemed to some people – and these were by no means worthlesselements – to be immoral and reprehensible. The movement failed to awaken abelief that here there was a problem of vital importance for the whole ofhumanity and on the solution of which the destiny of the whole Gentile worlddepended.
Through this shilly-shally way ofdealing with the problem the anti-Semitism of the Christian-Socialists turnedout to be quite ineffective.
It was anti-Semitic only inoutward appearance. And this was worse than if it had made no pretences at allto anti-Semitism; for the pretence gave rise to a false sense of security amongpeople who believed that the enemy had been taken by the ears; but, as a matterof fact, the people themselves were being led by the nose.
The Jew readily adjusted himselfto this form of anti-Semitism and found its continuance more profitable to himthan its abolition would be.
This whole movement led to greatsacrifices being made for the sake of that State which was composed of manyheterogeneous nationalities; but much greater sacrifices had to be made by thetrustees of the German element.
One did not dare to be‘nationalist’, even in Vienna, lest the ground should fall away from under one’sfeet. It was hoped that the Habsburg State might be saved by a silent evasionof the nationalist question; but this policy led that State to ruin. The samepolicy also led to the collapse of Christian Socialism, for thus the Movementwas deprived of the only source of energy from which a political party can drawthe necessary driving force.
During those years I carefullyfollowed the two movements and observed how they developed, one because myheart was with it and the other because of my admiration for that remarkableman who then appeared to me as a bitter symbol of the whole German populationin Austria.
When the imposing funeral cortègeof the dead Burgomaster wound its way from the City Hall towards the RingStrasse I stood among the hundreds of thousands who watched the solemnprocession pass by. As I stood there I felt deeply moved, and my instinctclearly told me that the work of this man was all in vain, because a sinisterFate was inexorably leading this State to its downfall. If Dr. Karl Lueger hadlived in Germany he would have been ranked among the great leaders of ourpeople. It was a misfortune for his work and for himseif that he had to live inthis impossible State.
When he died the fire had alreadybeen enkindled in the Balkans and was spreading month by month. Fate had beenmerciful in sparing him the sight of what, even to the last, he had hoped toprevent.
I endeavoured to analyse the causewhich rendered one of those movements futile and wrecked the progress of theother. The result of this investigation was the profound conviction that, apartfrom the inherent impossibility of consolidating the position of the State inthe old Austria, the two parties made the following fatal mistake:
The Pan-German Party was perfectlyright in its fundamental ideas regarding the aim of the Movement, which was tobring about a German restoration, but it was unfortunate in its choice ofmeans. It was nationalist, but unfortunately it paid too little heed to thesocial problem, and thus it failed to gain the support of the masses. Itsanti-Jewish policy, however, was grounded on a correct perception of thesignificance of the racial problem and not on religious principles. But it wasmistaken in its assessment of facts and adopted the wrong tactics when it madewar against one of the religious denominations.
The Christian-Socialist Movementhad only a vague concept of a German revival as part of its object, but it wasintelligent and fortunate in the choice of means to carry out its policy as aParty. The Christian-Socialists grasped the significance of the socialquestion; but they adopted the wrong principles in their struggle againstJewry, and they utterly failed to appreciate the value of the national idea asa source of political energy.
If the Christian-Socialist Party,together with its shrewd judgment in regard to the worth of the popular masses,had only judged rightly also on the importance of the racial problem – whichwas properly grasped by the Pan-German Movement – and if this party had beenreally nationalist; or if the Pan-German leaders, on the other hand, inaddition to their correct judgment of the Jewish problem and of the nationalidea, had adopted the practical wisdom of the Christian-Socialist Party, andparticularly their attitude towards Socialism – then a movement would havedeveloped which, in my opinion, might at that time have successfully alteredthe course of German destiny.
If things did not turn out thus,the fault lay for the most part in the inherent nature of the Austrian State.
I did not find my own convictionsupheld by any party then in existence, and so I could not bring myself toenlist as a member in any of the existing organizations or even lend a hand intheir struggle. Even at that time all those organizations seemed to me to bealready jaded in their energies and were therefore incapable of bringing abouta national revival of the German people in a really profound way, not merelyoutwardly.
My inner aversion to the HabsburgState was increasing daily.
The more I paid special attentionto questions of foreign policy, the more the conviction grew upon me that thisphantom State would surely bring misfortune on the Germans. I realized more andmore that the destiny of the German nation could not be decisively influencedfrom here but only in the German Empire itself. And this was true not only inregard to general political questions but also – and in no less a degree – inregard to the whole sphere of cultural life.
Here, also, in all mattersaffecting the national culture and art, the Austrian State showed all the signsof senile decrepitude, or at least it was ceasing to be of any consequence tothe German nation, as far as these matters were concerned. This was especiallytrue of its architecture. Modern architecture could not produce any greatresults in Austria because, since the building of the Ring Strasse – at leastin Vienna – architectural activities had become insignificant when comparedwith the progressive plans which were being thought out in Germany.
And so I came more and more tolead what may be called a twofold existence. Reason and reality forced me tocontinue my harsh apprenticeship in Austria, though I must now say that thisapprenticeship turned out fortunate in the end. But my heart was elsewhere.
A feeling of discontent grew uponme and made me depressed the more I came to realize the inside hollowness ofthis State and the impossibility of saving it from collapse. At the same time Ifelt perfectly certain that it would bring all kinds of misfortune to theGerman people.
I was convinced that the HabsburgState would balk and hinder every German who might show signs of realgreatness, while at the same time it would aid and abet every non-Germanactivity.
This conglomerate spectacle ofheterogeneous races which the capital of the Dual Monarchy presented, thismotley of Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, Ruthenians, Serbs and Croats, etc., andalways that bacillus which is the solvent of human society, the Jew, here andthere and everywhere – the whole spectacle was repugnant to me. The giganticcity seemed to be the incarnation of mongrel depravity.
The German language, which I hadspoken from the time of my boyhood, was the vernacular idiom of Lower Bavaria.I never forgot that particular style of speech, and I could never learn theViennese dialect. The longer I lived in that city the stronger became my hatredfor the promiscuous swarm of foreign peoples which had begun to batten on thatold nursery ground of German culture. The idea that this State could maintainits further existence for any considerable time was quite absurd.
Austria was then like a piece ofancient mosaic in which the cohesive cement had dried up and become old andfriable. As long as such a work of art remains untouched it may hold togetherand continue to exist; but the moment some blow is struck on it then it breaksup into thousands of fragments. Therefore it was now only a question of whenthe blow would come.
Because my heart was always withthe German Empire and not with the Austrian Monarchy, the hour of Austria’sdissolution as a State appeared to me only as the first step towards theemancipation of the German nation.
All these considerations intensifiedmy yearning to depart for that country for which my heart had been secretlylonging since the days of my youth.
I hoped that one day I might beable to make my mark as an architect and that I could devote my talents to theservice of my country on a large or small scale, according to the will of Fate.
A final reason was that I longedto be among those who lived and worked in that land from which the movementshould be launched, the object of which would be the fulfilment of what myheart had always longed for, namely, the union of the country in which I wasborn with our common fatherland, the German Empire.
There are many who may notunderstand how such a yearning can be so strong; but I appeal especially to twogroups of people. The first includes all those who are still denied thehappiness I have spoken of, and the second embraces those who once enjoyed thathappiness but had it torn from them by a harsh fate. I turn to all those whohave been torn from their motherland and who have to struggle for thepreservation of their most sacred patrimony, their native language, persecutedand harried because of their loyalty and love for the homeland, yearning sadlyfor the hour when they will be allowed to return to the bosom of their father’shousehold. To these I address my words, and I know that they will understand.
Only he who has experienced in hisown inner life what it means to be German and yet to be denied the right ofbelonging to his fatherland can appreciate the profound nostalgia which thatenforced exile causes. It is a perpetual heartache, and there is no place forjoy and contentment until the doors of paternal home are thrown open and allthose through whose veins kindred blood is flowing will find peace and rest intheir common Reich.
Vienna was a hard school for me;but it taught me the most profound lessons of my life. I was scarcely more thana boy when I came to live there, and when I left it I had grown to be a man ofa grave and pensive nature. In Vienna I acquired the foundations of a Weltanschhauungin general and developed a faculty for analysing political questions inparticular. That Weltanschhauung and the political ideas then formedhave never been abandoned, though they were expanded later on in some directions.It is only now that I can fully appreciate how valuable those years ofapprenticeship were for me.
That is why I have given adetailed account of this period. There, in Vienna, stark reality taught me thetruths that now form the fundamental principles of the Party which within thecourse of five years has grown from modest beginnings to a great mass movement.I do not know what my attitude towards Jewry, Social-Democracy, or ratherMarxism in general, to the social problem, etc., would be to-day if I had notacquired a stock of personal beliefs at such an early age, by dint of hardstudy and under the duress of Fate.
For, although the misfortunes ofthe Fatherland may have stimulated thousands and thousands to ponder over theinner causes of the collapse, that could not lead to such a thorough knowledgeand deep insight as a man may develop who has fought a hard struggle for manyyears so that he might be master of his own fate.
At last I came to Munich, in thespring of 1912.
The city itself was as familiar tome as if I had lived for years within its walls.
This was because my studies inarchitecture had been constantly turning my attention to the metropolis ofGerman art. One must know Munich if one would know Germany, and it isimpossible to acquire a knowledge of German art without seeing Munich.
All things considered, thispre-war sojourn was by far the happiest and most contented time of my life. Myearnings were very slender; but after all I did not live for the sake ofpainting. I painted in order to get the bare necessities of existence while Icontinued my studies. I was firmly convinced that I should finally succeed inreaching the goal I had marked out for myself. And this conviction alone wasstrong enough to enable me to bear the petty hardships of everyday life withoutworrying very much about them.
Moreover, almost from the veryfirst moment of my sojourn there I came to love that city more than any otherplace known to me. A German city! I said to myself. How different to Vienna. Itwas with a feeling of disgust that my imagination reverted to that Babylon ofraces. Another pleasant feature here was the way the people spoke German, whichwas much nearer my own way of speaking than the Viennese idiom. The Munichidiom recalled the days of my youth, especially when I spoke with those who hadcome to Munich from Lower Bavaria. There were a thousand or more things which Iinwardly loved or which I came to love during the course of my stay. But whatattracted me most was the marvellous wedlock of native folk-energy with thefine artistic spirit of the city, that unique harmony from the Hofbräuhaus tothe Odeon, from the October Festival to the Pinakothek, etc. The reason why myheart’s strings are entwined around this city as around no other spot in thisworld is probably because Munich is and will remain inseparably connected withthe development of my own career; and the fact that from the beginning of myvisit I felt inwardly happy and contented is to be attributed to the charm ofthe marvellous Wittelsbach Capital, which has attracted probably everybody whois blessed with a feeling for beauty instead of commercial instincts.
Apart from my professional work, Iwas most interested in the study of current political events, particularlythose which were connected with foreign relations. I approached these by way ofthe German policy of alliances which, ever since my Austrian days, I hadconsidered to be an utterly mistaken one. But in Vienna I had not yet seen quiteclearly how far the German Empire had gone in the process of’ self-delusion. InVienna I was inclined to assume, or probably I persuaded myself to do so inorder to excuse the German mistake, that possibly the authorities in Berlinknew how weak and unreliable their ally would prove to be when brought face toface with realities, but that, for more or less mysterious reasons, theyrefrained from allowing their opinions on this point to be known in public.Their idea was that they should support the policy of alliances which Bismarckhad initiated and the sudden discontinuance of which might be undesirable, iffor no other reason than that it might arouse those foreign countries whichwere lying in wait for their chance or might alarm the Philistines at home.
But my contact with the peoplesoon taught me, to my horror, that my assumptions were wrong. I was amazed tofind everywhere, even in circles otherwise well informed, that nobody had theslightest intimation of the real character of the Habsburg Monarchy. Among thecommon people in particular there was a prevalent illusion that the Austrianally was a Power which would have to be seriously reckoned with and would rallyits man-power in the hour of need. The mass of the people continued to look uponthe Dual Monarchy as a ‘German State’ and believed that it could be reliedupon. They assumed that its strength could be measured by the millions of itssubjects, as was the case in Germany. First of all, they did not realize thatAustria had ceased to be a German State and, secondly, that the conditionsprevailing within the Austrian Empire were steadily pushing it headlong to thebrink of disaster.
At that time I knew the conditionof affairs in the Austrian State better than the professional diplomats. Blindfolded,as nearly always, these diplomats stumbled along on their way to disaster. Theopinions prevailing among the bulk of the people reflected only what had beendrummed into them from official quarters above. And these higher authoritiesgrovelled before the ‘Ally’, as the people of old bowed down before the GoldenCalf. They probably thought that by being polite and amiable they might balancethe lack of honesty on the other side. Thus they took every declaration at itsfull face value.
Even while in Vienna I used to beannoyed again and again by the discrepancy between the speeches of the officialstatesmen and the contents of the Viennese Press. And yet Vienna was still aGerman city, at least as far as appearances went. But one encountered an utterlydifferent state of things on leaving Vienna, or rather German-Austria, andcoming into the Slav provinces. It needed only a glance at the Praguenewspapers in order to see how the whole exalted hocus-pocus of the TripleAlliance was judged from there. In Prague there was nothing but gibes andsneers for that masterpiece of statesmanship. Even in the piping times ofpeace, when the two emperors kissed each other on the brow in token offriendship, those papers did not cloak their belief that the alliance would beliquidated the moment a first attempt was made to bring it down from theshimmering glory of a Nibelungen ideal to the plane of practical affairs.
Great indignation was aroused afew years later, when the alliances were put to the first practical test. Italynot only withdrew from the Triple Alliance, leaving the other two members tomarch by themselves. but she even joined their enemies. That anybody shouldbelieve even for a moment in the possibility of such a miracle as that of Italyfighting on the same side as Austria would be simply incredible to anyone whodid not suffer from the blindness of official diplomacy. And that was just howpeople felt in Austria also.
In Austria only the Habsburgs andthe German-Austrians supported the alliance. The Habsburgs did so from shrewdcalculation of their own interests and from necessity. The Germans did it outof good faith and political ignorance. They acted in good faith inasmuch asthey believed that by establishing the Triple Alliance they were doing a greatservice to the German Empire and were thus helping to strengthen it andconsolidate its defence. They showed their political ignorance, however, inholding such ideas, because, instead of helping the German Empire they reallychained it to a moribund State which might bring its associate into the gravewith itself; and, above all, by championing this alliance they fell more andmore a prey to the Habsburg policy of de-Germanization. For the alliance gavethe Habsburgs good grounds for believing that the German Empire would notinterfere in their domestic affairs and thus they were in a position to carryinto effect, with more ease and less risk, their domestic policy of graduallyeliminating the German element. Not only could the ‘objectiveness’ of theGerman Government be counted upon, and thus there need be no fear of protestfrom that quarter, but one could always remind the German-Austrians of thealliance and thus silence them in case they should ever object to thereprehensible means that were being employed to establish a Slav hegemony inthe Dual Monarchy.
What could the German-Austriansdo, when the people of the German Empire itself had openly proclaimed theirtrust and confidence in the Habsburg régime?
Should they resist, and thus bebranded openly before their kinsfolk in the Reich as traitors to their ownnational interests? They, who for so many decades had sacrificed so much forthe sake of their German tradition!
Once the influence of the Germansin Austria had been wiped out, what then would be the value of the alliance? Ifthe Triple Alliance were to be advantageous to Germany, was it not a necessarycondition that the predominance of the German element in Austria should bemaintained? Or did anyone really believe that Germany could continue to be theally of a Habsburg Empire under the hegemony of the Slavs?
The official attitude of Germandiplomacy, as well as that of the general public towards internal problemsaffecting the Austrian nationalities was not merely stupid, it was insane. Onthe alliance, as on a solid foundation, they grounded the security and futureexistence of a nation of seventy millions, while at the same time they allowedtheir partner to continue his policy of undermining the sole foundation of thatalliance methodically and resolutely, from year to year. A day must come whennothing but a formal contract with Viennese diplomats would be left. Thealliance itself, as an effective support, would be lost to Germany.
As far as concerned Italy, suchhad been the case from the outset.
If people in Germany had studiedhistory and the psychology of nations a little more carefully not one of themcould have believed for a single hour that the Quirinal and the VienneseHofburg could ever stand shoulder to shoulder on a common battle front. Italywould have exploded like a volcano if any Italian government had dared to senda single Italian soldier to fight for the Habsburg State. So fanatically hatedwas this State that the Italians could stand in no other relation to it on abattle front except as enemies. More than once in Vienna I have witnessedexplosions of the contempt and profound hatred which ‘allied’ the Italian tothe Austrian State. The crimes which the House of Habsburg committed againstItalian freedom and independence during several centuries were too grave to beforgiven, even with the best of goodwill. But this goodwill did not exist,either among the rank and file of the population or in the government.Therefore for Italy there were only two ways of co-existing with Austria –alliance or war. By choosing the first it was possible to prepare leisurely forthe second.
Especially since relations betweenRussia and Austria tended more and more towards the arbitrament of war, theGerman policy of alliances was as senseless as it was dangerous. Here was aclassical instance which demonstrated the lack of any broad or logical lines ofthought.
But what was the reason forforming the alliance at all? It could not have been other than the wish tosecure the future of the Reich better than if it were to depend exclusively onits own resources. But the future of the Reich could not have meant anythingelse than the problem of securing the means of existence for the German people.
The only questions therefore werethe following: What form shall the life of the nation assume in the near future– that is to say within such a period as we can forecast? And by what means canthe necessary foundation and security be guaranteed for this development withinthe framework of the general distribution of power among the European nations?A clear analysis of the principles on which the foreign policy of Germanstatecraft were to be based should have led to the following conclusions:
The annual increase of populationin Germany amounts to almost 900,000 souls. The difficulties of providing forthis army of new citizens must grow from year to year and must finally lead toa catastrophe, unless ways and means are found which will forestall the dangerof misery and hunger. There were four ways of providing against this terriblecalamity:
(1) It was possible to adopt theFrench example and artificially restrict the number of births, thus avoiding anexcess of population.
Under certain circumstances, inperiods of distress or under bad climatic condition, or if the soil yields toopoor a return, Nature herself tends to check the increase of population in somecountries and among some races, but by a method which is quite as ruthless asit is wise. It does not impede the procreative faculty as such; but it doesimpede the further existence of the offspring by submitting it to such testsand privations that everything which is less strong or less healthy is forcedto retreat into the bosom of tile unknown. Whatever survives these hardships ofexistence has been tested and tried a thousandfold, hardened and renders fit tocontinue the process of procreation; so that the same thorough selection willbegin all over again. By thus dealing brutally with the individual andrecalling him the very moment he shows that he is not fitted for the trials oflife, Nature preserves the strength of the race and the species and raises itto the highest degree of efficiency.
The decrease in numbers thereforeimplies an increase of strength, as far as the individual is concerned, andthis finally means the invigoration of the species.
But the case is different when manhimself starts the process of numerical restriction. Man is not carved fromNature’s wood. He is made of ‘human’ material. He knows more than the ruthlessQueen of Wisdom. He does not impede the preservation of the individual butprevents procreation itself. To the individual, who always sees only himselfand not the race, this line of action seems more humane and just than theopposite way. But, unfortunately, the consequences are also the opposite.
By leaving the process ofprocreation unchecked and by submitting the individual to the hardestpreparatory tests in life, Nature selects the best from an abundance of singleelements and stamps them as fit to live and carry on the conservation of thespecies. But man restricts the procreative faculty and strives obstinately tokeep alive at any cost whatever has once been born. This correction of theDivine Will seems to him to be wise and humane, and he rejoices at havingtrumped Nature’s card in one game at least and thus proved that she is notentirely reliable. The dear little ape of an all-mighty father is delighted tosee and hear that he has succeeded in effecting a numerical restriction; but hewould be very displeased if told that this, his system, brings about adegeneration in personal quality.
For as soon as the procreativefaculty is thwarted and the number of births diminished, the natural strugglefor existence which allows only healthy and strong individuals to survive isreplaced by a sheer craze to ‘save’ feeble and even diseased creatures at anycost. And thus the seeds are sown for a human progeny which will become more andmore miserable from one generation to another, as long as Nature’s will isscorned.
But if that policy be carried outthe final results must be that such a nation will eventually terminate its ownexistence on this earth; for though man may defy the eternal laws ofprocreation during a certain period, vengeance will follow sooner or later. Astronger race will oust that which has grown weak; for the vital urge, in itsultimate form, will burst asunder all the absurd chains of this so-calledhumane consideration for the individual and will replace it with the humanityof Nature, which wipes out what is weak in order to give place to the strong.
Any policy which aims at securingthe existence of a nation by restricting the birth-rate robs that nation of itsfuture.
(2) A second solution is that ofinternal colonization. This is a proposal which is frequently made in our owntime and one hears it lauded a good deal. It is a suggestion that is well-meantbut it is misunderstood by most people, so that it is the source of moremischief than can be imagined.
It is certainly true that theproductivity of the soil can be increased within certain limits; but onlywithin defined limits and not indefinitely. By increasing the productive powersof the soil it will be possible to balance the effect of a surplus birth-ratein Germany for a certain period of time, without running any danger of hunger.But we have to face the fact that the general standard of living is rising morequickly than even the birth rate. The requirements of food and clothing arebecoming greater from year to year and are out of proportion to those of ourancestors of, let us say, a hundred years ago. It would, therefore, be amistaken view that every increase in the productive powers of the soil willsupply the requisite conditions for an increase in the population. No. That istrue up to a certain point only, for at least a portion of the increasedproduce of the soil will be consumed by the margin of increased demands causedby the steady rise in the standard of living. But even if these demands were tobe curtailed to the narrowest limits possible and if at the same time we wereto use all our available energies in the intenser cultivation, we should herereach a definite limit which is conditioned by the inherent nature of the soilitself. No matter how industriously we may labour we cannot increaseagricultural production beyond this limit. Therefore, though we may postponethe evil hour of distress for a certain time, it will arrive at last. The firstphenomenon will be the recurrence of famine periods from time to time, afterbad harvests, etc. The intervals between these famines will become shorter andshorter the more the population increases; and, finally, the famine times willdisappear only in those rare years of plenty when the granaries are full. And atime will ultimately come when even in those years of plenty there will not beenough to go round; so that hunger will dog the footsteps of the nation. Naturemust now step in once more and select those who are to survive, or else manwill help himself by artificially preventing his own increase, with all thefatal consequences for the race and the species which have been alreadymentioned.
It may be objected here that, inone form or another, this future is in store for all mankind and that theindividual nation or race cannot escape the general fate.
At first glance, that objectionseems logical enough; but we have to take the following into account:
The day will certainly come whenthe whole of mankind will be forced to check the augmentation of the humanspecies, because there will be no further possibility of adjusting theproductivity of the soil to the perpetual increase in the population. Naturemust then be allowed to use her own methods or man may possibly take the taskof regulation into his own hands and establish the necessary equilibrium by theapplication of better means than we have at our disposal to-day. But then itwill be a problem for mankind as a whole, whereas now only those races have tosuffer from want which no longer have the strength and daring to acquiresufficient soil to fulfil their needs. For, as things stand to-day, vast spacesstill lie uncultivated all over the surface of the globe. Those spaces are onlywaiting for the ploughshare. And it is quite certain that Nature did not setthose territories apart as the exclusive pastures of any one nation or race tobe held unutilized in reserve for the future. Such land awaits the people whohave the strength to acquire it and the diligence to cultivate it.
Nature knows no politicalfrontiers. She begins by establishing life on this globe and then watches thefree play of forces. Those who show the greatest courage and industry are thechildren nearest to her heart and they will be granted the sovereign right ofexistence.
If a nation confines itself to‘internal colonization’ while other races are perpetually increasing theirterritorial annexations all over the globe, that nation will be forced torestrict the numerical growth of its population at a time when the othernations are increasing theirs. This situation must eventually arrive. It willarrive soon if the territory which the nation has at its disposal be small. Nowit is unfortunately true that only too often the best nations – or, to speakmore exactly, the only really cultured nations, who at the same time are thechief bearers of human progress – have decided, in their blind pacifism, torefrain from the acquisition of new territory and to be content with ‘internalcolonization.’ But at the same time nations of inferior quality succeed ingetting hold of large spaces for colonization all over the globe. The state ofaffairs which must result from this contrast is the following:
Races which are culturallysuperior but less ruthless would be forced to restrict their increase, becauseof insufficient territory to support the population, while less civilized racescould increase indefinitely, owing to the vast territories at their disposal.In other words: should that state of affairs continue, then the world will oneday be possessed by that portion of mankind which is culturally inferior butmore active and energetic.
A time will come, even though inthe distant future, when there can be only two alternatives: Either the worldwill be ruled according to our modern concept of democracy, and then everydecision will be in favour of the numerically stronger races; or the world willbe governed by the law of natural distribution of power, and then those nationswill be victorious who are of more brutal will and are not the nations who havepractised self-denial.
Nobody can doubt that this worldwill one day be the scene of dreadful struggles for existence on the part ofmankind. In the end the instinct of self-preservation alone will triumph.Before its consuming fire this so-called humanitarianism, which connotes only amixture of fatuous timidity and self-conceit, will melt away as under the Marchsunshine. Man has become great through perpetual struggle. In perpetual peacehis greatness must decline.
For us Germans, the slogan of‘internal colonization’ is fatal, because it encourages the belief that we havediscovered a means which is in accordance with our innate pacifism and whichwill enable us to work for our livelihood in a half slumbering existence. Sucha teaching, once it were taken seriously by our people, would mean the end ofall effort to acquire for ourselves that place in the world which we deserve.If. the average German were once convinced that by this measure he has thechance of ensuring his livelihood and guaranteeing his future, any attempt totake an active and profitable part in sustaining the vital demands of hiscountry would be out of the question. Should the nation agree to such an attitudethen any really useful foreign policy might be looked upon as dead and buried,together with all hope for the future of the German people.
Once we know what the consequencesof this ‘internal colonization’ theory would be we can no longer consider as amere accident the fact that among those who inculcate this quite perniciousmentality among our people the Jew is always in the first line. He knows hissofties only too well not to know that they are ready to be the gratefulvictims of every swindle which promises them a gold-block in the shape of adiscovery that will enable them to outwit Nature and thus render superfluousthe hard and inexorable struggle for existence; so that finally they may becomelords of the planet partly by sheer dolce far niente and partly by working whena pleasing opportunity arises.
It cannot be too stronglyemphasised that any German ‘internal colonization’ must first of all beconsidered as suited only for the relief of social grievances. To carry out asystem of internal colonization, the most important preliminary measure wouldbe to free the soil from the grip of the speculator and assure that freedom.But such a system could never suffice to assure the future of the nationwithout the acquisition of new territory.
If we adopt a different plan weshall soon reach a point beyond which the resources of our soil can no longerbe exploited, and at the same time we shall reach a point beyond which ourman-power cannot develop.
In conclusion, the following mustbe said:
The fact that only up to a limitedextent can internal colonization be practised in a national territory which isof definitely small area and the restriction of the procreative faculty whichfollows as a result of such conditions – these two factors have a veryunfavourable effect on the military and political standing of a nation.
The extent of the nationalterritory is a determining factor in the external security of the nation. Thelarger the territory which a people has at its disposal the stronger are thenational defences of that people. Military decisions are more quickly, moreeasily, more completely and more effectively gained against a people occupyinga national territory which is restricted in area, than against States whichhave extensive territories. Moreover, the magnitude of a national territory isin itself a certain assurance that an outside Power will not hastily risk theadventure of an invasion; for in that case the struggle would have to be longand exhausting before victory could be hoped for. The risk being so great.there would have to be extraordinary reasons for such an aggressive adventure.Hence it is that the territorial magnitude of a State furnishes a basis whereonnational liberty and independence can be maintained with relative ease; while,on the contrary, a State whose territory is small offers a natural temptationto the invader.
As a matter of fact, so-callednational circles in the German Reich rejected those first two possibilities ofestablishing a balance between the constant numerical increase in thepopulation and a national territory which could not expand proportionately. Butthe reasons given for that rejection were different from those which I havejust expounded. It was mainly on the basis of certain moral sentiments thatrestriction of the birth-rate was objected to. Proposals for internalcolonization were rejected indignantly because it was suspected that such apolicy might mean an attack on the big landowners, and that this attack mightbe the forerunner of a general assault against the principle of privateproperty as a whole. The form in which the latter solution – internalcolonization – was recommended justified the misgivings of the big landowners.
But the form in which thecolonization proposal was rejected was not very clever, as regards theimpression which such rejection might be calculated to make on the mass of thepeople, and anyhow it did not go to the root of the problem at all.
Only two further ways were leftopen in which work and bread could be secured for the increasing population.
(3) It was possible to think ofacquiring new territory on which a certain portion of’ the increasingpopulation could be settled each year; or else
(4) Our industry and commerce hadto be organized in such a manner as to secure an increase in the exports andthus be able to support our people by the increased purchasing power accruingfrom the profits made on foreign markets.
Therefore the problem was: Apolicy of territorial expansion or a colonial and commercial policy. Bothpolicies were taken into consideration, examined, recommended and rejected,from various standpoints, with the result that the second alternative wasfinally adopted. The sounder alternative, however, was undoubtedly the first.
The principle of acquiring newterritory, on which the surplus population could be settled, has manyadvantages to recommend it, especially if we take the future as well as thepresent into account.
In the first place, too muchimportance cannot be placed on the necessity for adopting a policy which willmake it possible to maintain a healthy peasant class as the basis of thenational community. Many of our present evils have their origin exclusively inthe disproportion between the urban and rural portions of the population. Asolid stock of small and medium farmers has at all times been the bestprotection which a nation could have against the social diseases that areprevalent to-day. Moreover, that is the only solution which guarantees thedaily bread of a nation within the framework of its domestic national economy.With this condition once guaranteed, industry and commerce would retire fromthe unhealthy position of foremost importance which they hold to-day and wouldtake their due place within the general scheme of national economy, adjustingthe balance between demand and supply. Thus industry and commerce would nolonger constitute the basis of the national subsistence, but would be auxiliaryinstitutions. By fulfilling their proper function, which is to adjust thebalance between national production and national consumption, they render thenational subsistence more or less independent of foreign countries and thusassure the freedom and independence of the nation, especially at criticaljunctures in its history.
Such a territorial policy,however, cannot find its fulfilment in the Cameroons but almost exclusivelyhere in Europe. One must calmly and squarely face the truth that it certainlycannot be part of the dispensation of Divine Providence to give a fifty timeslarger share of the soil of this world to one nation than to another. Inconsidering this state of affairs to-day, one must not allow existing politicalfrontiers to distract attention from what ought to exist on principles ofstrict justice. If this earth has sufficient room for all, then we ought tohave that share of the soil which is absolutely necessary for our existence.
Of course people will notvoluntarily make that accommodation. At this point the right ofself-preservation comes into effect. And when attempts to settle the difficultyin an amicable way are rejected the clenched hand must take by force that whichwas refused to the open hand of friendship. If in the past our ancestors hadbased their political decisions on similar pacifist nonsense as our presentgeneration does, we should not possess more than one-third of the nationalterritory that we possess to-day and probably there would be no German nationto worry about its future in Europe. No. We owe the two Eastern Marks 8)of the Empire to the natural determination of our forefathers in their strugglefor existence, and thus it is to the same determined policy that we owe theinner strength which is based on the extent of our political and racialterritories and which alone has made it possible for us to exist up to now.
And there is still another reasonwhy that solution would have been the correct one:
Many contemporary European Statesare like pyramids standing on their apexes. The European territory which theseStates possess is ridiculously small when compared with the enormous overheadweight of their colonies, foreign trade, etc. It may be said that they have theapex in Europe and the base of the pyramid all over the world; quite differentfrom the United States of America, which has its base on the American Continentand is in contact with the rest of the world only through its apex. Out of thatsituation arises the incomparable inner strength of the U.S.A. and the contrarysituation is responsible for the weakness of most of the colonial EuropeanPowers.
England cannot be suggested as anargument against this assertion, though in glancing casually over the map ofthe British Empire one is inclined easily to overlook the existence of a wholeAnglo-Saxon world. England’s position cannot be compared with that of any otherState in Europe, since it forms a vast community of language and culturetogether with the U.S.A.
Therefore the only possibilitywhich Germany had of carrying a sound territorial policy into effect was thatof acquiring new territory in Europe itself. Colonies cannot serve this purposeas long as they are not suited for settlement by Europeans on a large scale. Inthe nineteenth century it was no longer possible to acquire such colonies bypeaceful means. Therefore any attempt at such a colonial expansion would havemeant an enormous military struggle. Consequently it would have been morepractical to undertake that military struggle for new territory in Europerather than to wage war for the acquisition of possessions abroad.
Such a decision naturally demandedthat the nation’s undivided energies should be devoted to it. A policy of thatkind which requires for its fulfilment every ounce of available energy on thepart of everybody concerned, cannot be carried into effect by half-measures orin a hesitating manner. The political leadership of the German Empire shouldthen have been directed exclusively to this goal. No political step should havebeen taken in response to other considerations than this task and the means ofaccomplishing it. Germany should have been alive to the fact that such a goalcould have been reached only by war, and the prospect of war should have beenfaced with calm and collected determination.
The whole system of alliancesshould have been envisaged and valued from that standpoint. If new territorywere to be acquired in Europe it must have been mainly at Russia’s cost, andonce again the new German Empire should have set out on its march along thesame road as was formerly trodden by the Teutonic Knights, this time to acquiresoil for the German plough by means of the German sword and thus provide thenation with its daily bread.
For such a policy, however, therewas only one possible ally in Europe. That was England.
Only by alliance with England wasit possible to safeguard the rear of the new German crusade. The justificationfor undertaking such an expedition was stronger than the justification whichour forefathers had for setting out on theirs. Not one of our pacifists refusesto eat the bread made from the grain grown in the East; and yet the firstplough here was that called the ‘Sword’.
No sacrifice should have beenconsidered too great if it was a necessary means of gaining England’sfriendship. Colonial and naval ambitions should have been abandoned andattempts should not have been made to compete against British industries.
Only a clear and definite policycould lead to such an achievement. Such a policy would have demanded arenunciation of the endeavour to conquer the world’s markets, also arenunciation of colonial intentions and naval power. All the means of power atthe disposal of the State should have been concentrated in the military forceson land. This policy would have involved a period of temporary self-denial, forthe sake of a great and powerful future.
There was a time when Englandmight have entered into negotiations with us, on the grounds of that proposal.For England would have well understood that the problems arising from thesteady increase in population were forcing Germany to look for a solutioneither in Europe with the help of England or, without England, in some otherpart of the world.
This outlook was probably thechief reason why London tried to draw nearer to Germany about the turn of thecentury. For the first time in Germany an attitude was then manifested whichafterwards displayed itself in a most tragic way. People then gave expressionto an unpleasant feeling that we might thus find ourselves obliged to pullEngland’s chestnuts out of the fire. As if an alliance could be based onanything else than mutual give-and-take! And England would have become a partyto such a mutual bargain. British diplomats were still wise enough to know thatan equivalent must be forthcoming as a consideration for any services rendered.
Let us suppose that in 1904 ourGerman foreign policy was managed astutely enough to enable us to take the partwhich Japan played. It is not easy to measure the greatness of the results thatmight have accrued to Germany from such a policy.
There would have been no worldwar. The blood which would have been shed in 1904 would not have been a tenthof that shed from 1914 to 1918. And what a position Germany would hold in theworld to-day?
In any case the alliance withAustria was then an absurdity.
For this mummy of a State did notattach itself to Germany for the purpose of carrying through a war, but ratherto maintain a perpetual state of peace which was meant to be exploited for thepurpose of slowly but persistently exterminating the German element in the DualMonarchy.
Another reason for the impossiblecharacter of this alliance was that nobody could expect such a State to take anactive part in defending German national interests, seeing that it did not havesufficient strength and determination to put an end to the policy ofde-Germanization within its own frontiers. If Germany herself was not moved bya sufficiently powerful national sentiment and was not sufficiently ruthless totake away from that absurd Habsburg State the right to decide the destinies often million inhabitants who were of the same nationality as the Germansthemselves, surely it was out of the question to expect the Habsburg State tobe a collaborating party in any great and courageous German undertaking. Theattitude of the old Reich towards the Austrian question might have been takenas a test of its stamina for the struggle where the destinies of the wholenation were at stake.
In any case, the policy ofoppression against the German population in Austria should not have beenallowed to be carried on and to grow stronger from year to year; for the valueof Austria as an ally could be assured only by upholding the German elementthere. But that course was not followed.
Nothing was dreaded so much as thepossibility of an armed conflict; but finally, and at a most unfavourablemoment, the conflict had to be faced and accepted. They thought to cut loosefrom the cords of destiny, but destiny held them fast.
They dreamt of maintaining a worldpeace and woke up to find themselves in a world war.
And that dream of peace was a mostsignificant reason why the above-mentioned third alternative for the futuredevelopment of Germany was not even taken into consideration. The fact wasrecognized that new territory could be gained only in the East; but this meantthat there would be fighting ahead, whereas they wanted peace at any cost. Theslogan of German foreign policy at one time used to be: The use of all possiblemeans for the maintenance of the German nation. Now it was changed to:Maintenance of world peace by all possible means. We know what the result was.I shall resume the discussion of this point in detail later on.
There remained still anotheralternative, which we may call the fourth. This was: Industry and world trade,naval power and colonies.
Such a development might certainlyhave been attained more easily and more rapidly. To colonize a territory is aslow process, often extending over centuries. Yet this fact is the source of itsinner strength, for it is not through a sudden burst of enthusiasm that it canbe put into effect, but rather through a gradual and enduring process of growthquite different from industrial progress, which can be urged on byadvertisement within a few years. The result thus achieved, however, is not oflasting quality but something frail, like a soap-bubble. It is much easier tobuild quickly than to carry through the tough task of settling a territory withfarmers and establishing farmsteads. But the former is more quickly destroyedthan the latter.
In adopting such a course Germanymust have known that to follow it out would necessarily mean war sooner orlater. Only children could believe that sweet and unctuous expressions ofgoodness and persistent avowals of peaceful intentions could get them theirbananas through this ‘friendly competition between the nations’, with theprospect of never having to fight for them.
No. Once we had taken this road,England was bound to be our enemy at some time or other to come. Of course itfitted in nicely with our innocent assumptions, but still it was absurd to growindignant at the fact that a day came when the English took the liberty ofopposing our peaceful penetration with the brutality of violent egoists.
Naturally, we on our side wouldnever have done such a thing.
If a European territorial policyagainst Russia could have been put into practice only in case we had England asour ally, on the other hand a colonial and world-trade policy could have beencarried into effect only against English interests and with the support ofRussia. But then this policy should have been adopted in full consciousness ofall the consequences it involved and, above all things, Austria should havebeen discarded as quickly as possible.
At the turn of the century thealliance with Austria had become a veritable absurdity from all points of view.
But nobody thought of forming analliance with Russia against England, just as nobody thought of making Englandan ally against Russia; for in either case the final result would inevitablyhave meant war. And to avoid war was the very reason why a commercial andindustrial policy was decided upon. It was believed that the peaceful conquestof the world by commercial means provided a method which would permanentlysupplant the policy of force. Occasionally, however, there were doubts aboutthe efficiency of this principle, especially when some quite incomprehensiblewarnings came from England now and again. That was the reason why the fleet wasbuilt. It was not for the purpose of attacking or annihilating England butmerely to defend the concept of world-peace, mentioned above, and also toprotect the principle of conquering the world by ‘peaceful’ means. Thereforethis fleet was kept within modest limits, not only as regards the number andtonnage of the vessels but also in regard to their armament, the idea being tofurnish new proofs of peaceful intentions.
The chatter about the peacefulconquest of the world by commercial means was probably the most completelynonsensical stuff ever raised to the dignity of a guiding principle in thepolicy of a State, This nonsense became even more foolish when England waspointed out as a typical example to prove how the thing could be put into practice.Our doctrinal way of regarding history and our professorial ideas in thatdomain have done irreparable harm and offer a striking ‘proof’ of how people‘learn’ history without understanding anything of it. As a matter of fact,England ought to have been looked upon as a convincing argument against thetheory of the pacific conquest of the world by commercial means. No nationprepared the way for its commercial conquests more brutally than England did bymeans of the sword, and no other nation has defended such conquests moreruthlessly. Is it not a characteristic quality of British statecraft that itknows how to use political power in order to gain economic advantages and,inversely, to turn economic conquests into political power? What an astounding errorit was to believe that England would not have the courage to give its own bloodfor the purposes of its own economic expansion! The fact that England did notpossess a national army proved nothing; for it is not the actual militarystructure of the moment that matters but rather the will and determination touse whatever military strength is available. England has always had thearmament which she needed. She always fought with those weapons which werenecessary for success. She sent mercenary troops, to fight as long asmercenaries sufficed; but she never hesitated to draw heavily and deeply fromthe best blood of the whole nation when victory could be obtained only by sucha sacrifice. And in every case the fighting spirit, dogged determination, and useof brutal means in conducting military operations have always remained thesame.
But in Germany, through the mediumof the schools, the Press and the comic papers, an idea of the Englishman wasgradually formed which was bound eventually to lead to the worst kind ofself-deception. This absurdity slowly but persistently spread into everyquarter of German life. The result was an undervaluation for which we have hadto pay a heavy penalty. The delusion was so profound that the Englishman waslooked upon as a shrewd business man, but personally a coward even to anincredible degree. Unfortunately our lofty teachers of professorial history didnot bring home to the minds of their pupils the truth that it is not possibleto build up such a mighty organization as the British Empire by mere swindleand fraud. The few who called attention to that truth were either ignored orsilenced. I can vividly recall to mind the astonished looks of my comrades whenthey found themselves personally face to face for the first time with theTommies in Flanders. After a few days of fighting the consciousness slowlydawned on our soldiers that those Scotsmen were not like the ones we had seendescribed and caricatured in the comic papers and mentioned in the communiqués.
It was then that I formed my firstideas of the efficiency of various forms of propaganda.
Such a falsification, however,served the purpose of those who had fabricated it. This caricature of theEnglishman, though false, could be used to prove the possibility of conqueringthe world peacefully by commercial means. Where the Englishman succeeded weshould also succeed. Our far greater honesty and our freedom from thatspecifically English ‘perfidy’ would be assets on our side. Thereby it washoped that the sympathy of the smaller nations and the confidence of thegreater nations could be gained more easily.
We did not realize that ourhonesty was an object of profound aversion for other people because weourselves believed in it. The rest of the world looked on our behaviour as themanifestation of a shrewd deceitfulness; but when the revolution came, thenthey were amazed at the deeper insight it gave them into our mentality, sincereeven beyond the limits of stupidity.
Once we understand the part playedby that absurd notion of conquering the world by peaceful commercial means wecan clearly understand how that other absurdity, the Triple Alliance, came toexist. With what State then could an alliance have been made? In alliance withAustria we could not acquire new territory by military means, even in Europe.And this very fact was the real reason for the inner weakness of the TripleAlliance. A Bismarck could permit himself such a makeshift for the necessitiesof the moment, but certainly not any of his bungling successors, and least ofall when the foundations no longer existed on which Bismarck had formed theTriple Alliance. In Bismarck’s time Austria could still be looked upon as aGerman State; but the gradual introduction of universal suffrage turned the countryinto a parliamentary Babel, in which the German voice was scarcely audible.
From the viewpoint of racialpolicy, this alliance with Austria was simply disastrous. A new Slavic GreatPower was allowed to grow up close to the frontiers of the German Empire. Lateron this Power was bound to adopt towards Germany an attitude different fromthat of Russia, for example. The Alliance was thus bound to become more emptyand more feeble, because the only supporters of it were losing their influenceand were being systematically pushed out of the more important public offices.
About the year 1900 the Alliancewith Austria had already entered the same phase as the Alliance between Austriaand Italy.
Here also only one alternative waspossible: Either to take the side of the Habsburg Monarchy or to raise aprotest against the oppression of the German element in Austria. But, generallyspeaking, when one takes such a course it is bound eventually to lead to openconflict.
From the psychological point ofview also, the Triple decreases according as such an alliance limits its objectto the defence of the status quo. But, on the other hand, an alliance willincrease its cohesive strength the more the parties concerned in it may hope touse it as a means of reaching some practical goal of expansion. Here, aseverywhere else, strength does not lie in defence but in attack.
This truth was recognized invarious quarters but, unfortunately, not by the so-called electedrepresentatives of the people. As early as 1912 Ludendorff, who was thenColonel and an Officer of the General Staff, pointed out these weak features ofthe Alliance in a memorandum which he then drew up. But of course the‘statesmen’ did not attach any importance or value to that document. In generalit would seem as if reason were a faculty that is active only in the case ofordinary mortals but that it is entirely absent when we come to deal with thatbranch of the species known as ‘diplomats’.
It was lucky for Germany that thewar of 1914 broke out with Austria as its direct cause, for thus the Habsburgswere compelled to participate. Had the origin of the War been otherwise,Germany would have been left to her own resources. The Habsburg State wouldnever have been ready or willing to take part in a war for the origin of whichGermany was responsible. What was the object of so much obloquy later in thecase of Italy’s decision would have taken place, only earlier, in the case ofAustria. In other words, if Germany had been forced to go to war for some reasonof its own, Austria would have remained ‘neutral’ in order to safeguard theState against a revolution which might begin immediately after the war hadstarted. The Slav element would have preferred to smash up the Dual Monarchy in1914 rather than permit it to come to the assistance of Germany. But at thattime there were only a few who understood all the dangers and aggravationswhich resulted from the alliance with the Danubian Monarchy.
In the first place, Austria hadtoo many enemies who were eagerly looking forward to obtain the heritage ofthat decrepit State, so that these people gradually developed a certainanimosity against Germany, because Germany was an obstacle to their desiresinasmuch as it kept the Dual Monarchy from falling to pieces, a consummationthat was hoped for and yearned for on all sides. The conviction developed thatVienna could be reached only by passing through Berlin.
In the second place, by adoptingthis policy Germany lost its best and most promising chances of other alliances.In place of these possibilities one now observed a growing tension in therelations with Russia and even with Italy. And this in spite of the fact thatthe general attitude in Rome was just as favourable to Germany as it washostile to Austria, a hostility which lay dormant in the individual Italian andbroke out violently on occasion.
Since a commercial and industrialpolicy had been adopted, no motive was left for waging war against Russia. Onlythe enemies of the two countries, Germany and Russia, could have an activeinterest in such a war under these circumstances. As a matter of fact, it wasonly the Jews and the Marxists who tried to stir up bad blood between the twoStates.
In the third place, the Allianceconstituted a permanent danger to German security; for any great Power that washostile to Bismarck’s Empire could mobilize a whole lot of other States in awar against Germany by promising them tempting spoils at the expense of theAustrian ally.
It was possible to arouse the wholeof Eastern Europe against Austria, especially Russia, and Italy also. The worldcoalition which had developed under the leadership of King Edward could neverhave become a reality if Germany’s ally, Austria, had not offered such analluring prospect of booty. It was this fact alone which made it possible tocombine so many heterogeneous States with divergent interests into one commonphalanx of attack. Every member could hope to enrich himself at the expense ofAustria if he joined in the general attack against Germany. The fact thatTurkey was also a tacit party to the unfortunate alliance with Austriaaugmented Germany’s peril to an extraordinary degree.
Jewish international financeneeded this bait of the Austrian heritage in order to carry out its plans ofruining Germany; for Germany had not yet surrendered to the general controlwhich the international captains of finance and trade exercised over the otherStates. Thus it was possible to consolidate that coalition and make it strongenough and brave enough, through the sheer weight of numbers, to join in bodilyconflict with the ‘horned’ Siegfried.9)
The alliance with the HabsburgMonarchy, which I loathed while still in Austria, was the subject of graveconcern on my part and caused me to meditate on it so persistently that finallyI came to the conclusions which I have mentioned above.
In the small circles which Ifrequented at that time I did not conceal my conviction that this sinisteragreement with a State doomed to collapse would also bring catastrophe toGermany if she did not free herself from it in time. I never for a momentwavered in that firm conviction, even when the tempest of the World War seemedto have made shipwreck of the reasoning faculty itself and had put blindenthusiasm in its place, even among those circles where the coolest and hardestobjective thinking ought to have held sway. In the trenches I voiced and upheldmy own opinion whenever these problems came under discussion. I held that toabandon the Habsburg Monarchy would involve no sacrifice if Germany couldthereby reduce the number of her own enemies; for the millions of Germans whohad donned the steel helmet had done so not to fight for the maintenance of acorrupt dynasty but rather for the salvation of the German people.
Before the War there wereoccasions on which it seemed that at least one section of the German public hadsome slight misgivings about the political wisdom of the alliance with Austria.From time to time German conservative circles issued warnings against beingover-confident about the worth of that alliance; but, like every otherreasonable suggestion made at that time, it was thrown to the winds. Thegeneral conviction was that the right measures had been adopted to ‘conquer’the world, that the success of these measures would be enormous and thesacrifices negligible.
Once again the ‘uninitiated’layman could do nothing but observe how the ‘elect’ were marching straightahead towards disaster and enticing their beloved people to follow them, as therats followed the Pied Piper of Hamelin.
If we would look for the deepergrounds which made it possible to foist on the people this absurd notion ofpeacefully conquering the world through commercial penetration, and how it waspossible to put forward the maintenance of world-peace as a national aim, weshall find that these grounds lay in a general morbid condition that hadpervaded the whole body of German political thought.
The triumphant progress oftechnical science in Germany and the marvellous development of Germanindustries and commerce led us to forget that a powerful State had been thenecessary pre-requisite of that success. On the contrary, certain circles wenteven so far as to give vent to the theory that the State owed its very existenceto these phenomena; that it was, above all, an economic institution and shouldbe constituted in accordance with economic interests. Therefore, it was held,the State was dependent on the economic structure. This condition of things waslooked upon and glorified as the soundest and most normal arrangement.
Now, the truth is that the Statein itself has nothing whatsoever to do with any definite economic concept or adefinite economic development. It does not arise from a compact made betweencontracting parties, within a certain delimited territory, for the purpose ofserving economic ends. The State is a community of living beings who havekindred physical and spiritual natures, organized for the purpose of assuringthe conservation of their own kind and to help towards fulfilling those endswhich Providence has assigned to that particular race or racial branch.Therein, and therein alone, lie the purpose and meaning of a State. Economicactivity is one of the many auxiliary means which are necessary for theattainment of those aims. But economic activity is never the origin or purposeof a State, except where a State has been originally founded on a false andunnatural basis. And this alone explains why a State as such does notnecessarily need a certain delimited territory as a condition of itsestablishment. This condition becomes a necessary pre-requisite only amongthose people who would provide and assure subsistence for their kinsfolkthrough their own industry, which means that they are ready to carry on thestruggle for existence by means of their own work. People who can sneak theirway, like parasites, into the human body politic and make others work for themunder various pretences can form a State without possessing any definitedelimited territory. This is chiefly applicable to that parasitic nation which,particularly at the present time preys upon the honest portion of mankind; Imean the Jews.
The Jewish State has never beendelimited in space. It has been spread all over the world, without anyfrontiers whatsoever, and has always been constituted from the membership ofone race exclusively. That is why the Jews have always formed a State withinthe State. One of the most ingenious tricks ever devised has been that ofsailing the Jewish ship-of-state under the flag of Religion and thus securingthat tolerance which Aryans are always ready to grant to different religiousfaiths. But the Mosaic Law is really nothing else than the doctrine of thepreservation of the Jewish race. Therefore this Law takes in all spheres ofsociological, political and economic science which have a bearing on the mainend in view.
The instinct for the preservationof one’s own species is the primary cause that leads to the formation of humancommunities. Hence the State is a racial organism, and not an economicorganization. The difference between the two is so great as to beincomprehensible to our contemporary so-called ‘statesmen’. That is why theylike to believe that the State may be constituted as an economic structure,whereas the truth is that it has always resulted from the exercise of thosequalities which are part of the will to preserve the species and the race. Butthese qualities always exist and operate through the heroic virtues and havenothing to do with commercial egoism; for the conservation of the speciesalways presupposes that the individual is ready to sacrifice himself. Such isthe meaning of the poet’s lines:
Und setzet ihr nicht das Leben ein,
Nie wird euch das Leben gewonnensein.
(And if you do not stake yourlife,
You will never win life foryourself.) 10)
The sacrifice of the individualexistence is necessary in order to assure the conservation of the race. Henceit is that the most essential condition for the establishment and maintenanceof a State is a certain feeling of solidarity, wounded in an identity ofcharacter and race and in a resolute readiness to defend these at all costs.With people who live on their own territory this will result in a developmentof the heroic virtues; with a parasitic people it will develop the arts ofsubterfuge and gross perfidy unless we admit that these characteristics areinnate and that the varying political forms through which the parasitic raceexpresses itself are only the outward manifestations of innate characteristics.At least in the beginning, the formation of a State can result only from amanifestation of the heroic qualities I have spoken of. And the people who failin the struggle for existence, that is to say those, who become vassals and arethereby condemned to disappear entirely sooner or later, are those who do notdisplay the heroic virtues in the struggle, or those who fall victims to theperfidy of the parasites. And even in this latter case the failure is not somuch due to lack of intellectual powers, but rather to a lack of courage anddetermination. An attempt is made to conceal the real nature of this failing bysaying that it is the humane feeling.
The qualities which are employedfor the foundation and preservation of a State have accordingly little ornothing to do with the economic situation. And this is conspicuouslydemonstrated by the fact that the inner strength of a State only very rarelycoincides with what is called its economic expansion. On the contrary, there arenumerous examples to show that a period of economic prosperity indicates theapproaching decline of a State. If it were correct to attribute the foundationof human communities to economic forces, then the power of the State as suchwould be at its highest pitch during periods of economic prosperity, and notvice versa.
It is specially difficult tounderstand how the belief that the State is brought into being and preserved byeconomic forces could gain currency in a country which has given proof of theopposite in every phase of its history. The history of Prussia shows in amanner particularly clear and distinct, that it is out of the moral virtues ofthe people and not from their economic circumstances that a State is formed. Itis only under the protection of those virtues that economic activities can bedeveloped and the latter will continue to flourish until a time comes when thecreative political capacity declines. Therewith the economic structure willalso break down, a phenomenon which is now happening in an alarming mannerbefore our eyes. The material interest of mankind can prosper only in the shadeof the heroic virtues. The moment they become the primary considerations oflife they wreck the basis of their own existence.
Whenever the political power ofGermany was specially strong the economic situation also improved. But whenevereconomic interests alone occupied the foremost place in the life of the people,and thrust transcendent ideals into the back.-ground, the State collapsed andeconomic ruin followed readily.
If we consider the question ofwhat those forces actually are which are necessary to the creation andpreservation of a State, we shall find that they are: The capacity andreadiness to sacrifice the individual to the common welfare. That thesequalities have nothing at all to do with economics can be proved by referringto the simple fact that man does not sacrifice himself for material interests.In other words, he will die for an ideal but not for a business. The marvellousgift for public psychology which the English have was never shown better thanthe way in which they presented their case in the World War. We were fightingfor our bread; but the English declared that they were fighting for ‘freedom’,and not at all for their own freedom. Oh, no, but for the freedom of the smallnations. German people laughed at that effrontery and were angered by it; butin doing so they showed how political thought had declined among our so-calleddiplomats in Germany even before the War. These diplomatists did not have theslightest notion of what that force was which brought men to face death oftheir own free will and determination.
As long as the German people, inthe War of 1914, continued to believe that they were fighting for ideals theystood firm. As soon as they were told that they were fighting only for theirdaily bread they began to give up the struggle.
Our clever ‘statesmen’ weregreatly amazed at this change of feeling. They never understood that as soon asman is called upon to struggle for purely material causes he will avoid deathas best he can; for death and the enjoyment of the material fruits of a victoryare quite incompatible concepts. The frailest woman will become a heroine whenthe life of her own child is at stake. And only the will to save the race andnative land or the State, which offers protection to the race, has in all agesbeen the urge which has forced men to face the weapons of their enemies.
The following may be proclaimed asa truth that always holds good:
A State has never arisen fromcommercial causes for the purpose of peacefully serving commercial ends; butStates have always arisen from the instinct to maintain the racial group,whether this instinct manifest itself in the heroic sphere or in the sphere ofcunning and chicanery. In the first case we have the Aryan States, based on theprinciples of work and cultural development. In the second case we have theJewish parasitic colonies. But as soon as economic interests begin topredominate over the racial and cultural instincts in a people or a State,these economic interests unloose the causes that lead to subjugation andoppression.
The belief, which prevailed inGermany before the War, that the world could be opened up and even conqueredfor Germany through a system of peaceful commercial penetration and a colonialpolicy was a typical symptom which indicated the decline of those realqualities whereby States are created and preserved, and indicated also thedecline of that insight, will-power and practical determination which belong tothose qualities. The World War with its consequences, was the naturalliquidation of that decline.
To anyone who had not thought overthe matter deeply, this attitude of the German people – which was quite general– must have seemed an insoluble enigma. After all, Germany herself was amagnificent example of an empire that had been built up purely by a policy ofpower. Prussia, which was the generative cell of the German Empire, had beencreated by brilliant heroic deeds and not by a financial or commercial compact.And the Empire itself was but the magnificent recompense for a leadership thathad been conducted on a policy of power and military valour.
How then did it happen that thepolitical instincts of this very same German people became so degenerate? Forit was not merely one isolated phenomenon which pointed to this decadence, butmorbid symptoms which appeared in alarming numbers, now all over the bodypolitic, or eating into the body of the nation like a gangrenous ulcer. Itseemed as if some all-pervading poisonous fluid had been injected by somemysterious hand into the bloodstream of this once heroic body, bringing about acreeping paralysis that affected the reason and the elementary instinct of self-preservation.
During the years 1912–1914 I usedto ponder perpetually on those problems which related to the policy of theTriple Alliance and the economic policy then being pursued by the GermanEmpire. Once again I came to the conclusion that the only explanation of thisenigma lay in the operation of that force which I had already become acquaintedwith in Vienna, though from a different angle of vision. The force to which Irefer was the Marxist teaching and Weltanschhauung and its organizedaction throughout the nation.
For the second time in my life Iplunged deep into the study of that destructive teaching. This time, however, Iwas not urged by the study of the question by the impressions and influences ofmy daily environment, but directed rather by the observation of generalphenomena in the political life of Germany. In delving again into thetheoretical literature of this new world and endeavouring to get a clear viewof the possible consequences of its teaching, I compared the theoretical principlesof Marxism with the phenomena and happenings brought about by its activities inthe political, cultural, and economic spheres.
For the first time in my life Inow turned my attention to the efforts that were being made to subdue thisuniversal pest.
I studied Bismarck’s exceptionallegislation in its original concept, its operation and its results. Gradually Iformed a basis for my own opinions, which has proved as solid as a rock, sothat never since have I had to change my attitude towards the general problem.I also made a further and more thorough analysis of the relations betweenMarxism and Jewry.
During my sojourn in Vienna I usedto look upon Germany as an imperturbable colossus; but even then serious doubtsand misgivings would often disturb me. In my own mind and in my conversationwith my small circle of acquaintances I used to criticize Germany’s foreignpolicy and the incredibly superficial way, according to my thinking, in whichMarxism was dealt with, though it was then the most important problem inGermany. I could not understand how they could stumble blindfolded into themidst of this peril, the effects of which would be momentous if the openlydeclared aims of Marxism could be put into practice. Even as early as that timeI warned people around me, just as I am warning a wider audience now, againstthat soothing slogan of all indolent and feckless nature: Nothing can happen tous. A similar mental contagion had already destroyed a mighty empire. CanGermany escape the operation of those laws to which all other human communitiesare subject?
In the years 1913 and 1914 Iexpressed my opinion for the first time in various circles, some of which arenow members of the National Socialist Movement, that the problem of how thefuture of the German nation can be secured is the problem of how Marxism can beexterminated.
I considered the disastrous policyof the Triple Alliance as one of the consequences resulting from thedisintegrating effects of the Marxist teaching; for the alarming feature wasthat this teaching was invisibly corrupting the foundations of a healthypolitical and economic outlook. Those who had been themselves contaminatedfrequently did not realise that their aims and actions sprang from this Weltanschhauung,which they otherwise openly repudiated.
Long before then the spiritual andmoral decline of the German people had set in, though those who were affectedby the morbid decadence were frequently unaware – as often happens – of theforces which were breaking up their very existence. Sometimes they tried tocure the disease by doctoring the symptoms, which were taken as the cause. Butsince nobody recognized, or wanted to recognize, the real cause of the diseasethis way of combating Marxism was no more effective than the application ofsome quack’s ointment.
CHAPTERV
THE WORLD WAR
During the boisterous years of myyouth nothing used to damp my wild spirits so much as to think that I was born ata time when the world had manifestly decided not to erect any more temples offame except in honour of business people and State officials. The tempest ofhistorical achievements seemed to have permanently subsided, so much so thatthe future appeared to be irrevocably delivered over to what was calledpeaceful competition between the nations. This simply meant a system of mutualexploitation by fraudulent means, the principle of resorting to the use offorce in self-defence being formally excluded. Individual countriesincreasingly assumed the appearance of commercial undertakings, grabbingterritory and clients and concessions from each other under any and every kindof pretext. And it was all staged to an accompaniment of loud but innocuousshouting. This trend of affairs seemed destined to develop steadily andpermanently. Having the support of public approbation, it seemed boundeventually to transform the world into a mammoth department store. In thevestibule of this emporium there would be rows of monumental busts which wouldconfer immortality on those profiteers who had proved themselves the shrewdestat their trade and those administrative officials who had shown themselves themost innocuous. The salesmen could be represented by the English and theadministrative functionaries by the Germans; whereas the Jews would besacrificed to the unprofitable calling of proprietorship, for they areconstantly avowing that they make no profits and are always being called uponto ‘pay out’. Moreover they have the advantage of being versed in the foreignlanguages.
Why could I not have been born ahundred years ago? I used to ask myself. Somewhere about the time of the Warsof Liberation, when a man was still of some value even though he had no‘business’.
Thus I used to think it anill-deserved stroke of bad luck that I had arrived too late on this terrestrialglobe, and I felt chagrined at the idea that my life would have to run itscourse along peaceful and orderly lines. As a boy I was anything but a pacifistand all attempts to make me so turned out futile.
Then the Boer War came, like aglow of lightning on the far horizon. Day after day I used to gaze intently atthe newspapers and I almost ‘devoured’ the telegrams and communiques, overjoyedto think that I could witness that heroic struggle, even though from so great adistance.
When the Russo-Japanese War came Iwas older and better able to judge for myself. For national reasons I then tookthe side of the Japanese in our discussions. I looked upon the defeat of theRussians as a blow to Austrian Slavism.
Many years had passed between thattime and my arrival in Munich. I now realized that what I formerly believed tobe a morbid decadence was only the lull before the storm. During my Vienna daysthe Balkans were already in the grip of that sultry pause which presages theviolent storm. Here and there a flash of lightning could be occasionally seen;but it rapidly disappeared in sinister gloom. Then the Balkan War broke out;and therewith the first gusts of the forthcoming tornado swept across ahighly-strung Europe. In the supervening calm men felt the atmosphereoppressive and foreboding, so much so that the sense of an impendingcatastrophe became transformed into a feeling of impatient expectance. Theywished that Heaven would give free rein to the fate which could now no longerbe curbed. Then the first great bolt of lightning struck the earth. The stormbroke and the thunder of the heavens intermingled with the roar of the cannonsin the World War.
When the news came to Munich thatthe Archduke Franz Ferdinand had been murdered, I had been at home all day anddid not get the particulars of how it happened. At first I feared that theshots may have been fired by some German-Austrian students who had been arousedto a state of furious indignation by the persistent pro-Slav activities of theHeir to the Habsburg Throne and therefore wished to liberate the Germanpopulation from this internal enemy. It was quite easy to imagine what theresult of such a mistake would have been. It would have brought on a new waveof persecution, the motives of which would have been ‘justified’ before thewhole world. But soon afterwards I heard the names of the presumed assassinsand also that they were known to be Serbs. I felt somewhat dumbfounded in faceof the inexorable vengeance which Destiny had wrought. The greatest friend ofthe Slavs had fallen a victim to the bullets of Slav patriots.
It is unjust to the Viennagovernment of that time to blame it now for the form and tenor of the ultimatumwhich was then presented. In a similar position and under similarcircumstances, no other Power in the world would have acted otherwise. On hersouthern frontiers Austria had a relentless mortal foe who indulged in acts ofprovocation against the Dual Monarchy at intervals which were becoming more andmore frequent. This persistent line of conduct would not have been relaxeduntil the arrival of the opportune moment for the destruction of the Empire. InAustria there was good reason to fear that, at the latest, this moment wouldcome with the death of the old Emperor. Once that had taken place, it was quitepossible that the Monarchy would not be able to offer any serious resistance.For some years past the State had been so completely identified with thepersonality of Francis Joseph that, in the eyes of the great mass of thepeople, the death of this venerable personification of the Empire would betantamount to the death of the Empire itself. Indeed it was one of the clever artificesof Slav policy to foster the impression that the Austrian State owed its veryexistence exclusively to the prodigies and rare talents of that monarch. Thiskind of flattery was particularly welcomed at the Hofburg, all the more becauseit had no relation whatsoever to the services actually rendered by the Emperor.No effort whatsoever was made to locate the carefully prepared sting which layhidden in this glorifying praise. One fact which was entirely overlooked,perhaps intentionally, was that the more the Empire remained dependent on theso-called administrative talents of ‘the wisest Monarch of all times’, the morecatastrophic would be the situation when Fate came to knock at the door anddemand its tribute.
Was it possible even to imaginethe Austrian Empire without its venerable ruler? Would not the tragedy whichbefell Maria Theresa be repeated at once?
It is really unjust to the Viennagovernmental circles to reproach them with having instigated a war which mighthave been prevented. The war was bound to come. Perhaps it might have beenpostponed for a year or two at the most. But it had always been the misfortuneof German, as well as Austrian, diplomats that they endeavoured to put off theinevitable day of reckoning, with the result that they were finally compelledto deliver their blow at a most inopportune moment.
No. Those who did not wish thiswar ought to have had the courage to take the consequences of the refusal uponthemselves. Those consequences must necessarily have meant the sacrifice ofAustria. And even then war would have come, not as a war in which all thenations would have been banded against us but in the form of a dismemberment ofthe Habsburg Monarchy. In that case we should have had to decide whether weshould come to the assistance of the Habsburg or stand aside as spectators,with our arms folded, and thus allow Fate to run its course.
Just those who are loudest intheir imprecations to-day and make a great parade of wisdom in judging thecauses of the war are the very same people whose collaboration was the mostfatal factor in steering towards the war.
For several decades previously theGerman Social-Democrats had been agitating in an underhand and knavish way forwar against Russia; whereas the German Centre Party, with religious ends inview, had worked to make the Austrian State the chief centre and turning-pointof German policy. The consequences of this folly had now to be borne. What camewas bound to come and under no circumstances could it have been avoided. Thefault of the German Government lay in the fact that, merely for the sake ofpreserving peace at all costs, it continued to miss the occasions that werefavourable for action, got entangled in an alliance for the purpose ofpreserving the peace of the world, and thus finally became the victim of aworld coalition which opposed the German effort for the maintenance of peaceand was determined to bring about the world war.
Had the Vienna Government of thattime formulated its ultimatum in less drastic terms, that would not havealtered the situation at all: but such a course might have aroused publicindignation. For, in the eyes of the great masses, the ultimatum was toomoderate and certainly not excessive or brutal. Those who would deny thisto-day are either simpletons with feeble memories or else deliberatefalsehood-mongers.
The War of 1914 was certainly notforced on the masses; it was even desired by the whole people.
There was a desire to bring thegeneral feeling of uncertainty to an end once and for all. And it is only inthe light of this fact that we can understand how more than two million Germanmen and youths voluntarily joined the colours, ready to shed the last drop oftheir blood for the cause.
For me these hours came as adeliverance from the distress that had weighed upon me during the days of myyouth. I am not ashamed to acknowledge to-day that I was carried away by theenthusiasm of the moment and that I sank down upon my knees and thanked Heavenout of the fullness of my heart for the favour of having been permitted to livein such a time.
The fight for freedom had brokenout on an unparalleled scale in the history of the world. From the moment thatFate took the helm in hand the conviction grew among the mass of the people thatnow it was not a question of deciding the destinies of Austria or Serbia butthat the very existence of the German nation itself was at stake.
At last, after many years ofblindness, the people saw clearly into the future. Therefore, almost immediatelyafter the gigantic struggle had begun, an excessive enthusiasm was replaced bya more earnest and more fitting undertone, because the exaltation of thepopular spirit was not a mere passing frenzy. It was only too necessary thatthe gravity of the situation should be recognized. At that time there was,generally speaking, not the slightest presentiment or conception of how longthe war might last. People dreamed of the soldiers being home by Christmas andthat then they would resume their daily work in peace.
Whatever mankind desires, that itwill hope for and believe in. The overwhelming majority of the people had longsince grown weary of the perpetual insecurity in the general condition ofpublic affairs. Hence it was only natural that no one believed that theAustro-Serbian conflict could be shelved. Therefore they looked forward to aradical settlement of accounts. I also belonged to the millions that desiredthis.
The moment the news of theSarajevo outrage reached Munich two ideas came into my mind: First, that warwas absolutely inevitable and, second, that the Habsburg State would now beforced to honour its signature to the alliance. For what I had feared most wasthat one day Germany herself, perhaps as a result of the Alliance, would becomeinvolved in a conflict the first direct cause of which did not affect Austria.In such a contingency, I feared that the Austrian State, for domestic politicalreasons, would find itself unable to decide in favour of its ally. But now thisdanger was removed. The old State was compelled to fight, whether it wished todo so or not.
My own attitude towards theconflict was equally simple and clear. I believed that it was not a case ofAustria fighting to get satisfaction from Serbia but rather a case of Germanyfighting for her own existence – the German nation for its ownto-be-or-not-to-be, for its freedom and for its future. The work of Bismarckmust now be carried on. Young Germany must show itself worthy of the blood shedby our fathers on so many heroic fields of battle, from Weissenburg to Sedanand Paris. And if this struggle should bring us victory our people will againrank foremost among the great nations. Only then could the German Empire assertitself as the mighty champion of peace, without the necessity of restrictingthe daily bread of its children for the sake of maintaining the peace.
As a boy and as a young man, Ioften longed for the occasion to prove that my national enthusiasm was not merevapouring. Hurrahing sometimes seemed to me to be a kind of sinful indulgence,though I could not give any justification for that feeling; for, after all, whohas the right to shout that triumphant word if he has not won the right to itthere where there is no play-acting and where the hand of the Goddess ofDestiny puts the truth and sincerity of nations and men through her inexorabletest? Just as millions of others, I felt a proud joy in being permitted to gothrough this test. I had so often sung Deutschland über Alles and so oftenroared ‘Heil’ that I now thought it was as a kind of retro-active grace that Iwas granted the right of appearing before the Court of Eternal Justice totestify to the truth of those sentiments.
One thing was clear to me from thevery beginning, namely, that in the event of war, which now seemed inevitable,my books would have to be thrown aside forthwith. I also realized that my placewould have to be there where the inner voice of conscience called me.
I had left Austria principally forpolitical reasons. What therefore could be more rational than that I should putinto practice the logical consequences of my political opinions, now that thewar had begun. I had no desire to fight for the Habsburg cause, but I wasprepared to die at any time for my own kinsfolk and the Empire to which theyreally belonged.
On August 3rd, 1914, I presentedan urgent petition to His Majesty, King Ludwig III, requesting to be allowed toserve in a Bavarian regiment. In those days the Chancellery had its hands quitefull and therefore I was all the more pleased when I received the answer a daylater, that my request had been granted. I opened the document with tremblinghands; and no words of mine could now describe the satisfaction I felt onreading that I was instructed to report to a Bavarian regiment. Within a fewdays I was wearing that uniform which I was not to put oft again for nearly sixyears.
For me, as for every German, themost memorable period of my life now began. Face to face with that mightystruggle, all the past fell away into oblivion. With a wistful pride I lookback on those days, especially because we are now approaching the tenthanniversary of that memorable happening. I recall those early weeks of war whenkind fortune permitted me to take my place in that heroic struggle among thenations.
As the scene unfolds itself beforemy mind, it seems only like yesterday. I see myself among my young comrades onour first parade drill, and so on until at last the day came on which we wereto leave for the front.
In common with the others, I hadone worry during those days. This was a fear that we might arrive too late forthe fighting at the front. Time and again that thought disturbed me and everyannouncement of a victorious engagement left a bitter taste, which increased asthe news of further victories arrived.
At long last the day came when weleft Munich on war service. For the first time in my life I saw the Rhine, aswe journeyed westwards to stand guard before that historic German river againstits traditional and grasping enemy. As the first soft rays of the morning sunbroke through the light mist and disclosed to us the Niederwald Statue, withone accord the whole troop train broke into the strains of Die Wacht am Rhein.I then felt as if my heart could not contain its spirit.
And then followed a damp, coldnight in Flanders. We marched in silence throughout the night and as themorning sun came through the mist an iron greeting suddenly burst above ourheads. Shrapnel exploded in our midst and spluttered in the damp ground. Butbefore the smoke of the explosion disappeared a wild ‘Hurrah’ was shouted fromtwo hundred throats, in response to this first greeting of Death. Then beganthe whistling of bullets and the booming of cannons, the shouting and singingof the combatants. With eyes straining feverishly, we pressed forward, quickerand quicker, until we finally came to close-quarter fighting, there beyond thebeet-fields and the meadows. Soon the strains of a song reached us from afar.Nearer and nearer, from company to company, it came. And while Death began tomake havoc in our ranks we passed the song on to those beside us: Deutschland,Deutschland über Alles, über Alles in der Welt.
After four days in the trenches wecame back. Even our step was no longer what it had been. Boys of seventeenlooked now like grown men. The rank and file of the List Regiment 11)had not been properly trained in the art of warfare, but they knew how to dielike old soldiers.
That was the beginning. And thuswe carried on from year to year. A feeling of horror replaced the romanticfighting spirit. Enthusiasm cooled down gradually and exuberant spirits werequelled by the fear of the ever-present Death. A time came when there arosewithin each one of us a conflict between the urge to self-preservation and thecall of duty. And I had to go through that conflict too. As Death sought itsprey everywhere and unrelentingly a nameless Something rebelled within the weakbody and tried to introduce itself under the name of Common Sense; but in realityit was Fear, which had taken on this cloak in order to impose itself on theindividual. But the more the voice which advised prudence increased its effortsand the more clear and persuasive became its appeal, resistance became all thestronger; until finally the internal strife was over and the call of duty wastriumphant. Already in the winter of 1915–16 I had come through that innerstruggle. The will had asserted its incontestable mastery. Whereas in the earlydays I went into the fight with a cheer and a laugh, I was now habitually calmand resolute. And that frame of mind endured. Fate might now put me through thefinal test without my nerves or reason giving way. The young volunteer hadbecome an old soldier.
This same transformation tookplace throughout the whole army. Constant fighting had aged and toughened itand hardened it, so that it stood firm and dauntless against every assault.
Only now was it possible to judgethat army. After two and three years of continuous fighting, having been throwninto one battle after another, standing up stoutly against superior numbers andsuperior armament, suffering hunger and privation, the time had come when onecould assess the value of that singular fighting force.
For a thousand years to comenobody will dare to speak of heroism without recalling the German Army of theWorld War. And then from the dim past will emerge the immortal vision of thosesolid ranks of steel helmets that never flinched and never faltered. And aslong as Germans live they will be proud to remember that these men were thesons of their forefathers.
I was then a soldier and did notwish to meddle in politics, all the more so because the time was inopportune. Istill believe that the most modest stable-boy of those days served his countrybetter than the best of, let us say, the ‘parliamentary deputies’. My hatredfor those footlers was never greater than in those days when all decent men whohad anything to say said it point-blank in the enemy’s face; or, failing this,kept their mouths shut and did their duty elsewhere. I despised those politicalfellows and if I had had my way I would have formed them into a LabourBattalion and given them the opportunity of babbling amongst themselves totheir hearts’ content, without offence or harm to decent people.
In those days I cared nothing forpolitics; but I could not help forming an opinion on certain manifestationswhich affected not only the whole nation but also us soldiers in particular.There were two things which caused me the greatest anxiety at that time andwhich I had come to regard as detrimental to our interests.
Shortly after our first series ofvictories a certain section of the Press already began to throw cold water,drip by drip, on the enthusiasm of the public. At first this was not obvious tomany people. It was done under the mask of good intentions and a spirit ofanxious care. The public was told that big celebrations of victories weresomewhat out of place and were not worthy expressions of the spirit of a great nation.The fortitude and valour of German soldiers were accepted facts which did notnecessarily call for outbursts of celebration. Furthermore, it was asked, whatwould foreign opinion have to say about these manifestations? Would not foreignopinion react more favourably to a quiet and sober form of celebration ratherthan to all this wild jubilation? Surely the time had come – so the Pressdeclared – for us Germans to remember that this war was not our work and thathence there need be no feeling of shame in declaring our willingness to do ourshare towards effecting an understanding among the nations. For this reason itwould not be wise to sully the radiant deeds of our army with unbecomingjubilation; for the rest of the world would never understand this. Furthermore,nothing is more appreciated than the modesty with which a true hero quietly andunassumingly carries on and forgets. Such was the gist of their warning.
Instead of catching these fellowsby their long ears and dragging them to some ditch and looping a cord aroundtheir necks, so that the victorious enthusiasm of the nation should no longeroffend the aesthetic sensibilities of these knights of the pen, a general Presscampaign was now allowed to go on against what was called ‘unbecoming’ and‘undignified’ forms of victorious celebration.
No one seemed to have the faintestidea that when public enthusiasm is once damped, nothing can enkindle it again,when the necessity arises. This enthusiasm is an intoxication and must be keptup in that form. Without the support of this enthusiastic spirit how would itbe possible to endure in a struggle which, according to human standards, madesuch immense demands on the spiritual stamina of the nation?
I was only too well acquaintedwith the psychology of the broad masses not to know that in such cases amagnaminous ‘aestheticism’ cannot fan the fire which is needed to keep the ironhot. In my eyes it was even a mistake not to have tried to raise the pitch ofpublic enthusiasm still higher. Therefore I could not at all understand why thecontrary policy was adopted, that is to say, the policy of damping the publicspirit.
Another thing which irritated mewas the manner in which Marxism was regarded and accepted. I thought that allthis proved how little they knew about the Marxist plague. It was believed inall seriousness that the abolition of party distinctions during the War hadmade Marxism a mild and moderate thing.
But here there was no question ofparty. There was question of a doctrine which was being expounded for theexpress purpose of leading humanity to its destruction. The purport of thisdoctrine was not understood because nothing was said about that side of thequestion in our Jew-ridden universities and because our supercilious bureaucraticofficials did not think it worth while to read up a subject which had not beenprescribed in their university course. This mighty revolutionary trend wasgoing on beside them; but those ‘intellectuals’ would not deign to give ittheir attention. That is why State enterprise nearly always lags behind privateenterprise. Of these gentry once can truly say that their maxim is: What wedon’t know won’t bother us. In the August of 1914 the German worker was lookedupon as an adherent of Marxist socialism. That was a gross error. When thosefateful hours dawned the German worker shook off the poisonous clutches of thatplague; otherwise he would not have been so willing and ready to fight. Andpeople were stupid enough to imagine that Marxism had now become ‘national’,another apt illustration of the fact that those in authority had never takenthe trouble to study the real tenor of the Marxist teaching. If they had doneso, such foolish errors would not have been committed.
Marxism, whose final objective wasand is and will continue to be the destruction of all non-Jewish nationalStates, had to witness in those days of July 1914 how the German workingclasses, which it had been inveigling, were aroused by the national spirit andrapidly ranged themselves on the side of the Fatherland. Within a few days thedeceptive smoke-screen of that infamous national betrayal had vanished intothin air and the Jewish bosses suddenly found themselves alone and deserted. Itwas as if not a vestige had been left of that folly and madness with which themasses of the German people had been inoculated for sixty years. That wasindeed an evil day for the betrayers of German Labour. The moment, however,that the leaders realized the danger which threatened them they pulled the magiccap of deceit over their ears and, without being identified, played the part ofmimes in the national reawakening.
The time seemed to have arrivedfor proceeding against the whole Jewish gang of public pests. Then it was thataction should have been taken regardless of any consequent whining orprotestation. At one stroke, in the August of 1914, all the empty nonsenseabout international solidarity was knocked out of the heads of the Germanworking classes. A few weeks later, instead of this stupid talk sounding intheir ears, they heard the noise of American-manufactured shrapnel burstingabove the heads of the marching columns, as a symbol of internationalcomradeship. Now that the German worker had rediscovered the road tonationhood, it ought to have been the duty of any Government which had the careof the people in its keeping, to take this opportunity of mercilessly rootingout everything that was opposed to the national spirit.
While the flower of the nation’s manhoodwas dying at the front, there was time enough at home at least to exterminatethis vermin. But, instead of doing so, His Majesty the Kaiser held out his handto these hoary criminals, thus assuring them his protection and allowing themto regain their mental composure.
And so the viper could begin hiswork again. This time, however, more carefully than before, but still moredestructively. While honest people dreamt of reconciliation these perjuredcriminals were making preparations for a revolution.
Naturally I was distressed at thehalf-measures which were adopted at that time; but I never thought it possiblethat the final consequences could have been so disastrous?
But what should have been donethen? Throw the ringleaders into gaol, prosecute them and rid the nation ofthem? Uncompromising military measures should have been adopted to root out theevil. Parties should have been abolished and the Reichstag brought to itssenses at the point of the bayonet, if necessary. It would have been stillbetter if the Reichstag had been dissolved immediately. Just as the Republicto-day dissolves the parties when it wants to, so in those days there was evenmore justification for applying that measure, seeing that the very existence ofthe nation was at stake. Of course this suggestion would give rise to thequestion: Is it possible to eradicate ideas by force of arms? Could a Weltanschhauungbe attacked by means of physical force?
At that time I turned thesequestions over and over again in my mind. By studying analogous cases,exemplified in history, particularly those which had arisen from religiouscircumstances, I came to the following fundamental conclusion:
Ideas and philosophical systems aswell as movements grounded on a definite spiritual foundation, whether true ornot, can never be broken by the use of force after a certain stage, except onone condition: namely, that this use of force is in the service of a new ideaor Weltanschhauung which burns with a new flame.
The application of force alone,without moral support based on a spiritual concept, can never bring about thedestruction of an idea or arrest the propagation of it, unless one is ready andable ruthlessly to exterminate the last upholders of that idea even to a man,and also wipe out any tradition which it may tend to leave behind. Now in themajority of cases the result of such a course has been to exclude such a State,either temporarily or for ever, from the comity of States that are of politicalsignificance; but experience has also shown that such a sanguinary method ofextirpation arouses the better section of the population under the persecutingpower. As a matter of fact, every persecution which has no spiritual motives tosupport it is morally unjust and raises opposition among the best elements ofthe population; so much so that these are driven more and more to champion theideas that are unjustly persecuted. With many individuals this arises from thesheer spirit of opposition to every attempt at suppressing spiritual things bybrute force.
In this way the number ofconvinced adherents of the persecuted doctrine increases as the persecutionprogresses. Hence the total destruction of a new doctrine can be accomplishedonly by a vast plan of extermination; but this, in the final analysis, meansthe loss of some of the best blood in a nation or State. And that blood is thenavenged, because such an internal and total clean-up brings about the collapseof the nation’s strength. And such a procedure is always condemned to futilityfrom the very start if the attacked doctrine should happen to have spreadbeyond a small circle.
That is why in this case, as withall other growths, the doctrine can be exterminated in its earliest stages. Astime goes on its powers of resistance increase, until at the approach of age itgives way to younger elements, but under another form and from other motives.
The fact remains that nearly allattempts to exterminate a doctrine, without having some spiritual basis ofattack against it, and also to wipe out all the organizations it has created,have led in many cases to the very opposite being achieved; and that for thefollowing reasons:
When sheer force is used to combatthe spread of a doctrine, then that force must be employed systematically and persistently.This means that the chances of success in the suppression of a doctrine lieonly in the persistent and uniform application of the methods chosen. Themoment hesitation is shown, and periods of tolerance alternate with theapplication of force, the doctrine against which these measures are directedwill not only recover strength but every successive persecution will bring toits support new adherents who have been shocked by the oppressive methodsemployed. The old adherents will become more embittered and their allegiancewill thereby be strengthened. Therefore when force is employed success isdependent on the consistent manner in which it is used. This persistence,however, is nothing less than the product of definite spiritual convictions. Everyform of force that is not supported by a spiritual backing will be alwaysindecisive and uncertain. Such a force lacks the stability that can be foundonly in a Weltanschhauung which has devoted champions. Such a force isthe expression of the individual energies; therefore it is from time to timedependent on the change of persons in whose hands it is employed and also ontheir characters and capacities.
But there is something else to besaid: Every Weltanschhauung, whether religious or political – and it issometimes difficult to say where the one ends and the other begins – fights notso much for the negative destruction of the opposing world of ideas as for thepositive realization of its own ideas. Thus its struggle lies in attack ratherthan in defence. It has the advantage of knowing where its objective lies, asthis objective represents the realization of its own ideas. Inversely, it isdifficult to say when the negative aim for the destruction of a hostiledoctrine is reached and secured. For this reason alone a Weltanschhauungwhich is of an aggressive character is more definite in plan and more powerfuland decisive in action than a Weltanschhauung which takes up a merelydefensive attitude. If force be used to combat a spiritual power, that forceremains a defensive measure only so long as the wielders of it are not thestandard-bearers and apostles of a new spiritual doctrine.
To sum up, the following must beborne in mind: That every attempt to combat a Weltanschhauung by meansof force will turn out futile in the end if the struggle fails to take the formof an offensive for the establishment of an entirely new spiritual order of’things. It is only in the struggle between two Weltan-schauungen that physicalforce, consistently and ruthlessly applied, will eventually turn the scales inits own favour. It was here that the fight against Marxism had hitherto failed.
This was also the reason whyBismarck’s anti-socialist legislation failed and was bound to fail in the longrun, despite everything. It lacked the basis of a new Weltanschhauungfor whose development and extension the struggle might have been taken up. Tosay that the serving up of drivel about a so-called ‘State-Authority’ or‘Law-and-Order’ was an adequate foundation for the spiritual driving force in alife-or-death struggle is only what one would expect to hear from the wiseacresin high official positions.
It was because there were noadequate spiritual motives back of this offensive that Bismarck was compelledto hand over the administration of his socialist legislative measures to thejudgment and approval of those circles which were themselves the product of theMarxist teaching. Thus a very ludicrous state of affairs prevailed when theIron Chancellor surrendered the fate of his struggle against Marxism to thegoodwill of the bourgeois democracy. He left the goat to take care of thegarden. But this was only the necessary result of the failure to find afundamentally new Weltanschhauung which would attract devoted champions toits cause and could be established on the ground from which Marxism had beendriven out. And thus the result of the Bismarckian campaign was deplorable.
During the World War, or at thebeginning of it, were the conditions any different? Unfortunately, they werenot.
The more I then pondered over thenecessity for a change in the attitude of the executive government towardsSocial-Democracy, as the incorporation of contemporary Marxism, the more Irealized the want of a practical substitute for this doctrine. SupposingSocial-Democracy were overthrown, what had one to offer the masses in itsstead? Not a single movement existed which promised any success in attractingvast numbers of workers who would be now more or less without leaders, andholding these workers in its train. It is nonsensical to imagine that theinternational fanatic who has just severed his connection with a class partywould forthwith join a bourgeois party, or, in other words, another classorganization. For however unsatisfactory these various organizations may appearto be, it cannot be denied that bourgeois politicians look on the distinctionbetween classes as a very important factor in social life, provided it does notturn out politically disadvantageous to them. If they deny this fact they showthemselves not only impudent but also mendacious.
Generally speaking, one shouldguard against considering the broad masses more stupid than they really are. Inpolitical matters it frequently happens that feeling judges more correctly thanintellect. But the opinion that this feeling on the part of the masses issufficient proof of their stupid international attitude can be immediately anddefinitely refuted by the simple fact that pacifist democracy is no lessfatuous, though it draws its supporters almost exclusively from bourgeoiscircles. As long as millions of citizens daily gulp down what thesocial-democratic Press tells them, it ill becomes the ‘Masters’ to joke at theexpense of the ‘Comrades’; for in the long run they all swallow the same hash,even though it be dished up with different spices. In both cases the cook isone and the same – the Jew.
One should be careful aboutcontradicting established facts. It is an undeniable fact that the classquestion has nothing to do with questions concerning ideals, though that dopeis administered at election time. Class arrogance among a large section of ourpeople, as well as a prevailing tendency to look down on the manual labourer,are obvious facts and not the fancies of some day-dreamer. Nevertheless it onlyillustrates the mentality of our so-called intellectual circles, that they havenot yet grasped the fact that circumstances which are incapable of preventingthe growth of such a plague as Marxism are certainly not capable of restoringwhat has been lost.
The bourgeois’ parties – a namecoined by themselves – will never again be able to win over and hold theproletarian masses in their train. That is because two worlds stand opposed toone another here, in part naturally and in part artificially divided. These twocamps have one leading thought, and that is that they must fight one another.But in such a fight the younger will come off victorious; and that is Marxism.
In 1914 a fight againstSocial-Democracy was indeed quite conceivable. But the lack of any practicalsubstitute made it doubtful how long the fight could be kept up. In thisrespect there was a gaping void.
Long before the War I was of thesame opinion and that was the reason why I could not decide to join any of theparties then existing. During the course of the World War my conviction wasstill further confirmed by the manifest impossibility of fightingSocial-Democracy in anything like a thorough way: because for that purposethere should have been a movement that was something more than a mere‘parliamentary’ party, and there was none such.
I frequently discussed that wantwith my intimate comrades. And it was then that I first conceived the idea oftaking up political work later on. As I have often assured my friends, it wasjust this that induced me to become active on the public hustings after theWar, in addition to my professional work. And I am sure that this decision wasarrived at after much earnest thought.
CHAPTER VI
In watching the course ofpolitical events I was always struck by the active part which propaganda playedin them. I saw that it was an instrument, which the Marxist Socialists knew howto handle in a masterly way and how to put it to practical uses. Thus I sooncame to realize that the right use of propaganda was an art in itself and thatthis art was practically unknown to our bourgeois parties. TheChristian-Socialist Party alone, especially in Lueger’s time, showed a certainefficiency in the employment of this instrument and owed much of their successto it.
It was during the War, however,that we had the best chance of estimating the tremendous results which could beobtained by a propagandist system properly carried out. Here again,unfortunately, everything was left to the other side, the work done on our sidebeing worse than insignificant. It was the total failure of the whole Germansystem of information – a failure which was perfectly obvious to every soldier– that urged me to consider the problem of propaganda in a comprehensive way. Ihad ample opportunity to learn a practical lesson in this matter; forunfortunately it was only too well taught us by the enemy. The lack on our sidewas exploited by the enemy in such an efficient manner that one could say itshowed itself as a real work of genius. In that propaganda carried on by theenemy I found admirable sources of instruction. The lesson to be learned fromthis had unfortunately no attraction for the geniuses on our own side. Theywere simply above all such things, too clever to accept any teaching. Anyhowthey did not honestly wish to learn anything.
Had we any propaganda at all?Alas, I can reply only in the negative. All that was undertaken in thisdirection was so utterly inadequate and misconceived from the very beginningthat not only did it prove useless but at times harmful. In substance it wasinsufficient. Psychologically it was all wrong. Anybody who had carefullyinvestigated the German propaganda must have formed that judgment of it. Ourpeople did not seem to be clear even about the primary question itself: Whetherpropaganda is a means or an end?
Propaganda is a means and must,therefore, be judged in relation to the end it is intended to serve. It must beorganized in such a way as to be capable of attaining its objective. And, as itis quite clear that the importance of the objective may vary from thestandpoint of general necessity, the essential internal character of thepropaganda must vary accordingly. The cause for which we fought during the Warwas the noblest and highest that man could strive for. We were fighting for thefreedom and independence of our country, for the security of our future welfareand the honour of the nation. Despite all views to the contrary, this honourdoes actually exist, or rather it will have to exist; for a nation withouthonour will sooner or later lose its freedom and independence. This is inaccordance with the ruling of a higher justice, for a generation of poltroonsis not entitled to freedom. He who would be a slave cannot have honour; forsuch honour would soon become an object of general scorn.
Germany was waging war for itsvery existence. The purpose of its war propaganda should have been tostrengthen the fighting spirit in that struggle and help it to victory.
But when nations are fighting fortheir existence on this earth, when the question of ‘to be or not to be’ has tobe answered, then all humane and æsthetic considerations must be set aside; forthese ideals do not exist of themselves somewhere in the air but are theproduct of man’s creative imagination and disappear when he disappears. Natureknows nothing of them. Moreover, they are characteristic of only a small numberof nations, or rather of races, and their value depends on the measure in whichthey spring from the racial feeling of the latter. Humane and æsthetic idealswill disappear from the inhabited earth when those races disappear which arethe creators and standard-bearers of them.
All such ideals are only of secondaryimportance when a nation is struggling for its existence. They must beprevented from entering into the struggle the moment they threaten to weakenthe stamina of the nation that is waging war. That is always the only visibleeffect whereby their place in the struggle is to be judged.
In regard to the part played byhumane feeling, Moltke stated that in time of war the essential thing is to geta decision as quickly as possible and that the most ruthless methods offighting are at the same time the most humane. When people attempt to answerthis reasoning by highfalutin talk about æsthetics, etc., only one answer canbe given. It is that the vital questions involved in the struggle of a nationfor its existence must not be subordinated to any æsthetic considerations. Theyoke of slavery is and always will remain the most unpleasant experience thatmankind can endure. Do the Schwabing 12) decadents look uponGermany’s lot to-day as ‘aesthetic’? Of course, one doesn’t discuss such aquestion with the Jews, because they are the modern inventors of this culturalperfume. Their very existence is an incarnate denial of the beauty of God’simage in His creation.
Since these ideas of what isbeautiful and humane have no place in warfare, they are not to be used asstandards of war propaganda.
During the War, propaganda was ameans to an end. And this end was the struggle for existence of the Germannation. Propaganda, therefore, should have been regarded from the standpoint ofits utility for that purpose. The most cruel weapons were then the most humane,provided they helped towards a speedier decision; and only those methods weregood and beautiful which helped towards securing the dignity and freedom of thenation. Such was the only possible attitude to adopt towards war propaganda inthe life-or-death struggle.
If those in what are calledpositions of authority had realized this there would have been no uncertaintyabout the form and employment of war propaganda as a weapon; for it is nothingbut a weapon, and indeed a most terrifying weapon in the hands of those whoknow how to use it.
The second question of decisiveimportance is this: To whom should propaganda be made to appeal? To theeducated intellectual classes? Or to the less intellectual?
Propaganda must always addressitself to the broad masses of the people. For the intellectual classes, or whatare called the intellectual classes to-day, propaganda is not suited, but onlyscientific exposition. Propaganda has as little to do with science as an advertisementposter has to do with art, as far as concerns the form in which it presents itsmessage. The art of the advertisement poster consists in the ability of thedesigner to attract the attention of the crowd through the form and colours hechooses. The advertisement poster announcing an exhibition of art has no otheraim than to convince the public of the importance of the exhibition. The betterit does that, the better is the art of the poster as such. Being meantaccordingly to impress upon the public the meaning of the exposition, theposter can never take the place of the artistic objects displayed in theexposition hall. They are something entirely different. Therefore. those whowish to study the artistic display must study something that is quite differentfrom the poster; indeed for that purpose a mere wandering through theexhibition galleries is of no use. The student of art must carefully andthoroughly study each exhibit in order slowly to form a judicious opinion aboutit.
The situation is the same inregard to what we understand by the word, propaganda. The purpose of propagandais not the personal instruction of the individual, but rather to attract publicattention to certain things, the importance of which can be brought home to themasses only by this means.
Here the art of propagandaconsists in putting a matter so clearly and forcibly before the minds of thepeople as to create a general conviction regarding the reality of a certainfact, the necessity of certain things and the just character of something thatis essential. But as this art is not an end in itself and because its purposemust be exactly that of the advertisement poster, to attract the attention ofthe masses and not by any means to dispense individual instructions to thosewho already have an educated opinion on things or who wish to form such anopinion on grounds of objective study – because that is not the purpose ofpropaganda, it must appeal to the feelings of the public rather than to theirreasoning powers.
All propaganda must be presentedin a popular form and must fix its intellectual level so as not to be above theheads of the least intellectual of those to whom it is directed. Thus itspurely intellectual level will have to be that of the lowest mental commondenominator among the public it is desired to reach. When there is question ofbringing a whole nation within the circle of its influence, as happens in thecase of war propaganda, then too much attention cannot be paid to the necessityof avoiding a high level, which presupposes a relatively high degree ofintelligence among the public.
The more modest the scientifictenor of this propaganda and the more it is addressed exclusively to publicsentiment, the more decisive will be its success. This is the best test of thevalue of a propaganda, and not the approbation of a small group ofintellectuals or artistic people.
The art of propaganda consistsprecisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through anappeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form thatwill arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses. Thatthis is not understood by those among us whose wits are supposed to have beensharpened to the highest pitch is only another proof of their vanity or mentalinertia.
Once we have understood hownecessary it is to concentrate the persuasive forces of propaganda on the broadmasses of the people, the following lessons result therefrom:
That it is a mistake to organizethe direct propaganda as if it were a manifold system of scientificinstruction.
The receptive powers of the massesare very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, theyquickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confinedto a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible instereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until thevery last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. Ifthis principle be forgotten and if an attempt be made to be abstract andgeneral, the propaganda will turn out ineffective; for the public will not beable to digest or retain what is offered to them in this way. Therefore, thegreater the scope of the message that has to be presented, the more necessaryit is for the propaganda to discover that plan of action which ispsychologically the most efficient.
It was, for example, a fundamentalmistake to ridicule the worth of the enemy as the Austrian and German comicpapers made a chief point of doing in their propaganda. The very principle hereis a mistaken one; for, when they came face to face with the enemy, oursoldiers had quite a different impression. Therefore, the mistake haddisastrous results. Once the German soldier realised what a tough enemy he hadto fight he felt that he had been deceived by the manufacturers of theinformation which had been given him. Therefore, instead of strengthening andstimulating his fighting spirit, this information had quite the contrary effect.Finally he lost heart.
On the other hand, British andAmerican war propaganda was psychologically efficient. By picturing the Germansto their own people as Barbarians and Huns, they were preparing their soldiersfor the horrors of war and safeguarding them against illusions. The mostterrific weapons which those soldiers encountered in the field merely confirmedthe information that they had already received and their belief in the truth ofthe assertions made by their respective governments was accordingly reinforced.Thus their rage and hatred against the infamous foe was increased. The terriblehavoc caused by the German weapons of war was only another illustration of theHunnish brutality of those barbarians; whereas on the side of the Entente notime was left the soldiers to meditate on the similar havoc which their ownweapons were capable of. Thus the British soldier was never allowed to feelthat the information which he received at home was untrue. Unfortunately theopposite was the case with the Germans, who finally wound up by rejectingeverything from home as pure swindle and humbug. This result was made possiblebecause at home they thought that the work of propaganda could be entrusted tothe first ass that came along, braying of his own special talents, and they hadno conception of the fact that propaganda demands the most skilled brains thatcan be found.
Thus the German war propagandaafforded us an incomparable example of how the work of ‘enlightenment’ shouldnot be done and how such an example was the result of an entire failure to takeany psychological considerations whatsoever into account.
From the enemy, however, a fund ofvaluable knowledge could be gained by those who kept their eyes open, whosepowers of perception had not yet become sclerotic, and who duringfour-and-a-half years had to experience the perpetual flood of enemypropaganda.
The worst of all was that ourpeople did not understand the very first condition which has to be fulfilled inevery kind of propaganda; namely, a systematically one-sided attitude towardsevery problem that has to be dealt with. In this regard so many errors werecommitted, even from the very beginning of the war, that it was justifiable todoubt whether so much folly could be attributed solely to the stupidity ofpeople in higher quarters.
What, for example, should we sayof a poster which purported to advertise some new brand of soap by insisting onthe excellent qualities of the competitive brands? We should naturally shakeour heads. And it ought to be just the same in a similar kind of politicaladvertisement. The aim of propaganda is not to try to pass judgment onconflicting rights, giving each its due, but exclusively to emphasize the rightwhich we are asserting. Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectivelyand, in so far as it is favourable to the other side, present it according tothe theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of thetruth which is favourable to its own side.
It was a fundamental mistake todiscuss the question of who was responsible for the outbreak of the war anddeclare that the sole responsibility could not be attributed to Germany. Thesole responsibility should have been laid on the shoulders of the enemy,without any discussion whatsoever.
And what was the consequence ofthese half-measures? The broad masses of the people are not made up ofdiplomats or professors of public jurisprudence nor simply of persons who are ableto form reasoned judgment in given cases, but a vacillating crowd of humanchildren who are constantly wavering between one idea and another. As soon asour own propaganda made the slightest suggestion that the enemy had a certainamount of justice on his side, then we laid down the basis on which the justiceof our own cause could be questioned. The masses are not in a position todiscern where the enemy’s fault ends and where our own begins. In such a casethey become hesitant and distrustful, especially when the enemy does not makethe same mistake but heaps all the blame on his adversary. Could there be anyclearer proof of this than the fact that finally our own people believed whatwas said by the enemy’s propaganda, which was uniform and consistent in itsassertions, rather than what our own propaganda said? And that, of course, wasincreased by the mania for objectivity which addicts our people. Everybodybegan to be careful about doing an injustice to the enemy, even at the cost ofseriously injuring, and even ruining his own people and State.
Naturally the masses were notconscious of the fact that those in authority had failed to study the subjectfrom this angle.
The great majority of a nation isso feminine in its character and outlook that its thought and conduct are ruledby sentiment rather than by sober reasoning. This sentiment, however, is notcomplex, but simple and consistent. It is not highly differentiated, but hasonly the negative and positive notions of love and hatred, right and wrong,truth and falsehood. Its notions are never partly this and partly that. Englishpropaganda especially understood this in a marvellous way and put what theyunderstood into practice. They allowed no half-measures which might have givenrise to some doubt.
Proof of how brilliantly theyunderstood that the feeling of the masses is something primitive was shown intheir policy of publishing tales of horror and outrages which fitted in withthe real horrors of the time, thereby cleverly and ruthlessly preparing theground for moral solidarity at the front, even in times of great defeats.Further, the way in which they pilloried the German enemy as solely responsiblefor the war – which was a brutal and absolute falsehood – and the way in whichthey proclaimed his guilt was excellently calculated to reach the masses,realizing that these are always extremist in their feelings. And thus it wasthat this atrocious lie was positively believed.
The effectiveness of this kind ofpropaganda is well illustrated by the fact that after four-and-a-half years,not only was the enemy still carrying on his propagandist work, but it wasalready undermining the stamina of our people at home.
That our propaganda did notachieve similar results is not to be wondered at, because it had the germs ofinefficiency lodged in its very being by reason of its ambiguity. And becauseof the very nature of its content one could not expect it to make the necessaryimpression on the masses. Only our feckless ‘statesmen’ could have imaginedthat on pacifists slops of such a kind the enthusiasm could be nourished whichis necessary to enkindle that spirit which leads men to die for their country.
And so this product of ours wasnot only worthless but detrimental.
No matter what an amount of talentemployed in the organization of propaganda, it will have no result if dueaccount is not taken of these fundamental principles. Propaganda must belimited to a few simple themes and these must be represented again and again.Here, as in innumerable other cases, perseverance is the first and mostimportant condition of success.
Particularly in the field ofpropaganda, placid æsthetes and blase intellectuals should never be allowed totake the lead. The former would readily transform the impressive character ofreal propaganda into something suitable only for literary tea parties. As tothe second class of people, one must always beware of this pest; for, inconsequence of their insensibility to normal impressions, they are constantlyseeking new excitements.
Such people grow sick and tired ofeverything. They always long for change and will always be incapable of puttingthemselves in the position of picturing the wants of their less callousfellow-creatures in their immediate neighbourhood, let alone trying tounderstand them. The blase intellectuals are always the first to criticizepropaganda, or rather its message, because this appears to them to be outmodedand trivial. They are always looking for something new, always yearning forchange; and thus they become the mortal enemies of every effort that may bemade to influence the masses in an effective way. The moment the organizationand message of a propagandist movement begins to be orientated according totheir tastes it becomes incoherent and scattered.
It is not the purpose ofpropaganda to create a series of alterations in sentiment with a view topleasing these blase gentry. Its chief function is to convince the masses,whose slowness of understanding needs to be given time in order that they mayabsorb information; and only constant repetition will finally succeed inimprinting an idea on the memory of the crowd.
Every change that is made in thesubject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion.The leading slogan must of course be illustrated in many ways and from severalangles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the sameformula. In this way alone can propaganda be consistent and dynamic in itseffects.
Only by following these generallines and sticking to them steadfastly, with uniform and concise emphasis, canfinal success be reached. Then one will be rewarded by the surprising andalmost incredible results that such a persistent policy secures.
The success of any advertisement,whether of a business or political nature, depends on the consistency andperseverance with which it is employed.
In this respect also thepropaganda organized by our enemies set us an excellent example. It confineditself to a few themes, which were meant exclusively for mass consumption, andit repeated these themes with untiring perseverance. Once these fundamentalthemes and the manner of placing them before the world were recognized aseffective, they adhered to them without the slightest alteration for the wholeduration of the War. At first all of it appeared to be idiotic in its impudentassertiveness. Later on it was looked upon as disturbing, but finally it wasbelieved.
But in England they came tounderstand something further: namely, that the possibility of success in theuse of this spiritual weapon consists in the mass employment of it, and thatwhen employed in this way it brings full returns for the large expensesincurred.
In England propaganda was regardedas a weapon of the first order, whereas with us it represented the last hope ofa livelihood for our unemployed politicians and a snug job for shirkers of themodest hero type.
Taken all in all, its results werenegative.
CHAPTER VII
THE REVOLUTION
In 1915 the enemy started his propagandaamong our soldiers. From 1916 onwards it steadily became more intensive, and atthe beginning of 1918 it had swollen into a storm flood. One could now judgethe effects of this proselytizing movement step by step. Gradually our soldiersbegan to think just in the way the enemy wished them to think. On the Germanside there was no counter-propaganda.
At that time the army authorities,under our able and resolute Commander, were willing and ready to take up thefight in the propaganda domain also, but unfortunately they did not have thenecessary means to carry that intention into effect. Moreover, the armyauthorities would have made a psychological mistake had they undertaken thistask of mental training. To be efficacious it had come from the home front. Foronly thus could it be successful among men who for nearly four years now hadbeen performing immortal deeds of heroism and undergoing all sorts ofprivations for the sake of that home. But what were the people at home doing?Was their failure to act merely due to unintelligence or bad faith?
In the midsummer of 1918, afterthe evacuation of the southern bank of the hearne, the German Press adopted apolicy which was so woefully inopportune, and even criminally stupid, that Iused to ask myself a question which made me more and more furious day afterday: Is it really true that we have nobody who will dare to put an end to thisprocess of spiritual sabotage which is being carried on among our heroictroops?
What happened in France duringthose days of 1914, when our armies invaded that country and were marching intriumph from one victory to another? What happened in Italy when their armiescollapsed on the Isonzo front? What happened in France again during the springof 1918, when German divisions took the main French positions by storm andheavy long-distance artillery bombarded Paris?
How they whipped up the flaggingcourage of those troops who were retreating and fanned the fires of national enthusiasmamong them! How their propaganda and their marvellous aptitude in the exerciseof mass-influence reawakened the fighting spirit in that broken front andhammered into the heads of the soldiers a, firm belief in final victory!
Meanwhile, what were our peopledoing in this sphere? Nothing, or even worse than nothing. Again and again Iused to become enraged and indignant as I read the latest papers and realizedthe nature of the mass-murder they were committing: through their influence onthe minds of the people and the soldiers. More than once I was tormented by thethought that if Providence had put the conduct of German propaganda into myhands, instead of into the hands of those incompetent and even criminalignoramuses and weaklings, the outcome of the struggle might have beendifferent.
During those months I felt for thefirst time that Fate was dealing adversely with me in keeping me on thefighting front and in a position where any chance bullet from some nigger orother might finish me, whereas I could have done the Fatherland a real servicein another sphere. For I was then presumptuous enough to believe that I wouldhave been successful in managing the propaganda business.
But I was a being without a name,one among eight millions. Hence it was better for me to keep my mouth shut anddo my duty as well as I could in the position to which I had been assigned.
In the summer of 1915 the firstenemy leaflets were dropped on our trenches. They all told more or less thesame story, with some variations in the form of it. The story was that distresswas steadily on the increase in Germany; that the War would last indefinitely;that the prospect of victory for us was becoming fainter day after day; thatthe people at home were yearning for peace, but that ‘Militarism’ and the‘Kaiser’ would not permit it; that the world – which knew this very well – wasnot waging war against the German people but only against the man who wasexclusively responsible, the Kaiser; that until this enemy of world-peace wasremoved there could be no end to the conflict; but that when the War was overthe liberal and democratic nations would receive the Germans as colleagues inthe League for World Peace. This would be done the moment ‘Prussian Militarism’had been finally destroyed.
To illustrate and substantiate allthese statements, the leaflets very often contained ‘Letters from Home’, thecontents of which appeared to confirm the enemy’s propagandist message.
Generally speaking, we onlylaughed at all these efforts. The leaflets were read, sent to baseheadquarters, then forgotten until a favourable wind once again blew a freshcontingent into the trenches. These were mostly dropped from æroplanes whichwere used specially for that purpose.
One feature of this propaganda wasvery striking. It was that in sections where Bavarian troops were stationedevery effort was made by the enemy propagandists to stir up feeling against thePrussians, assuring the soldiers that Prussia and Prussia alone was the guiltyparty who was responsible for bringing on and continuing the War, and thatthere was no hostility whatsoever towards the Bavarians; but that there couldbe no possibility of coming to their assistance so long as they continued toserve Prussian interests and helped to pull the Prussian chestnuts out of thefire.
This persistent propaganda beganto have a real influence on our soldiers in 1915. The feeling against Prussiagrew quite noticeable among the Bavarian troops, but those in authority didnothing to counteract it. This was something more than a mere crime ofomission; for sooner or later not only the Prussians were bound to have toatone severely for it but the whole German nation and consequently theBavarians themselves also.
In this direction the enemy propagandabegan to achieve undoubted success from 1916 onwards.
In a similar way letters comingdirectly from home had long since been exercising their effect. There was nowno further necessity for the enemy to broadcast such letters in leaflet form.And also against this influence from home nothing was done except a fewsupremely stupid ‘warnings’ uttered by the executive government. The wholefront was drenched in this poison which thoughtless women at home sent out,without suspecting for a moment that the enemy’s chances of final victory werethus strengthened or that the sufferings of their own men at the front werethus being prolonged and rendered more severe. These stupid letters written byGerman women eventually cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of our men.
Thus in 1916 several distressingphenomena were already manifest. The whole front was complaining and grousing,discontented over many things and often justifiably so. While they were hungryand yet patient, and their relatives at home were in distress, in otherquarters there was feasting and revelry. Yes; even on the front itselfeverything was not as it ought to have been in this regard.
Even in the early stages of thewar the soldiers were sometimes prone to complain; but such criticism wasconfined to ‘internal affairs’. The man who at one moment groused and grumbledceased his murmur after a few moments and went about his duty silently, as ifeverything were in order. The company which had given signs of discontent amoment earlier hung on now to its bit of trench, defending it tooth and nail,as if Germany’s fate depended on these few hundred yards of mud andshell-holes. The glorious old army was still at its post. A sudden change in myown fortunes soon placed me in a position where I had first-hand experience ofthe contrast between this old army and the home front. At the end of September1916 my division was sent into the Battle of the Somme. For us this was thefirst of a series of heavy engagements, and the impression created was that ofa veritable inferno, rather than war. Through weeks of incessant artillerybombardment we stood firm, at times ceding a little ground but then taking itback again, and never giving way. On October 7th, 1916, I was wounded but hadthe luck of being able to get back to our lines and was then ordered to be sentby ambulance train to Germany.
Two years had passed since I hadleft home, an almost endless period in such circumstances. I could hardlyimagine what Germans looked like without uniforms. In the clearing hospital atHermies I was startled when I suddenly heard the voice of a German woman whowas acting as nursing sister and talking with one of the wounded men lying nearme. Two years! And then this voice for the first time!
The nearer our ambulance trainapproached the German frontier the more restless each one of us became. Enroute we recognised all these places through which we passed two years beforeas young volunteers – Brussels, Louvain, Liège – and finally we thought werecognized the first German homestead, with its familiar high gables andpicturesque window-shutters. Home!
What a change! From the mud of theSomme battlefields to the spotless white beds in this wonderful building. Onehesitated at first before entering them. It was only by slow stages that onecould grow accustomed to this new world again. But unfortunately there werecertain other aspects also in which this new world was different.
The spirit of the army at thefront appeared to be out of place here. For the first time I encounteredsomething which up to then was unknown at the front: namely, boasting of one’sown cowardice. For, though we certainly heard complaining and grousing at thefront, this was never in the spirit of any agitation to insubordination and certainlynot an attempt to glorify one’s fear. No; there at the front a coward was acoward and nothing else, And the contempt which his weakness aroused in theothers was quite general, just as the real hero was admired all round. But herein hospital the spirit was quite different in some respects. Loudmouthedagitators were busy here in heaping ridicule on the good soldier and paintingthe weak-kneed poltroon in glorious colours. A couple of miserable humanspecimens were the ringleaders in this process of defamation. One of themboasted of having intentionally injured his hand in barbed-wire entanglementsin order to get sent to hospital. Although his wound was only a slight one, itappeared that he had been here for a very long time and would be here interminably.Some arrangement for him seemed to be worked by some sort of swindle, just ashe got sent here in the ambulance train through a swindle. This pestilentialspecimen actually had the audacity to parade his knavery as the manifestationof a courage which was superior to that of the brave soldier who dies a hero’sdeath. There were many who heard this talk in silence; but there were otherswho expressed their assent to what the fellow said.
Personally I was disgusted at thethought that a seditious agitator of this kind should be allowed to remain insuch an institution. What could be done? The hospital authorities here musthave known who and what he was; and actually they did know. But still they didnothing about it.
As soon as I was able to walk onceagain I obtained leave to visit Berlin.
Bitter want was in evidenceeverywhere. The metropolis, with its teeming millions, was suffering fromhunger. The talk that was current in the various places of refreshment andhospices visited by the soldiers was much the same as that in our hospital. Theimpression given was that these agitators purposely singled out such places inorder to spread their views.
But in Munich conditions were farworse. After my discharge from hospital, I was sent to a reserve battalionthere. I felt as in some strange town. Anger, discontent, complaints met one’sears wherever one went. To a certain extent this was due to the infinitelymaladroit manner in which the soldiers who had returned from the front weretreated by the non-commissioned officers who had never seen a day’s activeservice and who on that account were partly incapable of adopting the properattitude towards the old soldiers. Naturally those old soldiers displayedcertain characteristics which had been developed from the experiences in thetrenches. The officers of the reserve units could not understand thesepeculiarities, whereas the officer home from active service was at least in aposition to understand them for himself. As a result he received more respectfrom the men than officers at the home headquarters. But, apart from all this,the general spirit was deplorable. The art of shirking was looked upon asalmost a proof of higher intelligence, and devotion to duty was considered asign of weakness or bigotry. Government offices were staffed by Jews. Almostevery clerk was a Jew and every Jew was a clerk. I was amazed at this multitudeof combatants who belonged to the chosen people and could not help comparing itwith their slender numbers in the fighting lines.
In the business world thesituation was even worse. Here the Jews had actually become ‘indispensable’.Like leeches, they were slowly sucking the blood from the pores of the nationalbody. By means of newly floated War Companies an instrument had been discoveredwhereby all national trade was throttled so that no business could be carriedon freely
Special emphasis was laid on thenecessity for unhampered centralization. Hence as early as 1916–17 practicallyall production was under the control of Jewish finance.
But against whom was the anger ofthe people directed? It was then that I already saw the fateful day approachingwhich must finally bring the debacle, unless timely preventive measures weretaken.
While Jewry was busy despoilingthe nation and tightening the screws of its despotism, the work of inciting thepeople against the Prussians increased. And just as nothing was done at thefront to put a stop to the venomous propaganda, so here at home no officialsteps were taken against it. Nobody seemed capable of understanding that thecollapse of Prussia could never bring about the rise of Bavaria. On thecontrary, the collapse of the one must necessarily drag the other down with it.
This kind of behaviour affected mevery deeply. In it I could see only a clever Jewish trick for diverting publicattention from themselves to others. While Prussians and Bavarians weresquabbling, the Jews were taking away the sustenance of both from under theirvery noses. While Prussians were being abused in Bavaria the Jews organized therevolution and with one stroke smashed both Prussia and Bavaria.
I could not tolerate thisexecrable squabbling among people of the same German stock and preferred to beat the front once again. Therefore, just after my arrival in Munich I reportedmyself for service again. At the beginning of March 1917 I rejoined my oldregiment at the front.
Towards the end of 1917 it seemedas if we had got over the worst phases of moral depression at the front. Afterthe Russian collapse the whole army recovered its courage and hope, and allwere gradually becoming more and more convinced that the struggle would end inour favour. We could sing once again. The ravens were ceasing to croak. Faithin the future of the Fatherland was once more in the ascendant.
The Italian collapse in the autumnof 1917 had a wonderful effect; for this victory proved that it was possible tobreak through another front besides the Russian. This inspiring thought nowbecame dominant in the minds of millions at the front and encouraged them tolook forward with confidence to the spring of 1918. It was quite obvious thatthe enemy was in a state of depression. During this winter the front wassomewhat quieter than usual. But that was the calm before the storm.
Just when preparations were beingmade to launch a final offensive which would bring this seemingly eternalstruggle to an end, while endless columns of transports were bringing men andmunitions to the front, and while the men were being trained for that finalonslaught, then it was that the greatest act of treachery during the whole Warwas accomplished in Germany.
Germany must not win the War. Atthat moment when victory seemed ready to alight on the German standards, aconspiracy was arranged for the purpose of striking at the heart of the Germanspring offensive with one blow from the rear and thus making victoryimpossible. A general strike in the munition factories was organized.
If this conspiracy could achieveits purpose the German front would have collapsed and the wishes of theVorwärts (the organ of the Social-Democratic Party) that this time victoryshould not take the side of the German banners, would have been fulfilled. Forwant of munitions the front would be broken through within a few weeks, theoffensive would be effectively stopped and the Entente saved. ThenInternational Finance would assume control over Germany and the internalobjective of the Marxist national betrayal would be achieved. That objectivewas the destruction of the national economic system and the establishment ofinternational capitalistic domination in its stead. And this goal has reallybeen reached, thanks to the stupid credulity of the one side and theunspeakable treachery of the other.
The munition strike, however, didnot bring the final success that had been hoped for: namely, to starve thefront of ammunition. It lasted too short a time for the lack of ammunitions assuch to bring disaster to the army, as was originally planned. But the moraldamage was much more terrible.
In the first place. what was thearmy fighting for if the people at home did not wish it to be victorious? Forwhom then were these enormous sacrifices and privations being made and endured?Must the soldiers fight for victory while the home front goes on strike againstit?
In the second place, what effectdid this move have on the enemy?
In the winter of 1917–18 darkclouds hovered in the firmament of the Entente. For nearly four years onslaughtafter onslaught has been made against the German giant, but they failed tobring him to the ground. He had to keep them at bay with one arm that held thedefensive shield because his other arm had to be free to wield the swordagainst his enemies, now in the East and now in the South. But at last theseenemies were overcome and his rear was now free for the conflict in the West.Rivers of blood had been shed for the accomplishment of that task; but now thesword was free to combine in battle with the shield on the Western Front. Andsince the enemy had hitherto failed to break the German defence here, theGermans themselves had now to launch the attack. The enemy feared and trembledbefore the prospect of this German victory.
At Paris and London conferencesfollowed one another in unending series. Even the enemy propaganda encountereddifficulties. It was no longer so easy to demonstrate that the prospect of aGerman victory was hopeless. A prudent silence reigned at the front, even amongthe troops of the Entente. The insolence of their masters had suddenlysubsided. A disturbing truth began to dawn on them. Their opinion of the Germansoldier had changed. Hitherto they were able to picture him as a kind of foolwhose end would be destruction; but now they found themselves face to face withthe soldier who had overcome their Russian ally. The policy of restricting theoffensive to the East, which had been imposed on the German militaryauthorities by the necessities of the situation, now seemed to the Entente as atactical stroke of genius. For three years these Germans had been batteringaway at the Russian front without any apparent success at first. Thosefruitless efforts were almost sneered at; for it was thought that in the longrun the Russian giant would triumph through sheer force of numbers. Germanywould be worn out through shedding so much blood. And facts appeared to confirmthis hope.
Since the September days of 1914,when for the first time interminable columns of Russian war prisoners pouredinto Germany after the Battle of Tannenberg, it seemed as if the stream wouldnever end but that as soon as one army was defeated and routed another wouldtake its place. The supply of soldiers which the gigantic Empire placed at thedisposal of the Czar seemed inexhaustible; new victims were always at hand forthe holocaust of war. How long could Germany hold out in this competition?Would not the day finally have to come when, after the last victory which theGermans would achieve, there would still remain reserve armies in Russia to bemustered for the final battle? And what then? According to human standards aRussian victory over Germany might be delayed but it would have to come in thelong run.
All the hopes that had been basedon Russia were now lost. The Ally who had sacrificed the most blood on thealtar of their mutual interests had come to the end of his resources and layprostrate before his unrelenting foe. A feeling of terror and dismay came overthe Entente soldiers who had hitherto been buoyed up by blind faith. Theyfeared the coming spring. For, seeing that hitherto they had failed to breakthe Germans when the latter could concentrate only part of the fightingstrength on the Western Front, how could they count on victory now that theundivided forces of that amazing land of heroes appeared to be gathered for amassed attack in the West?
The shadow of the events which hadtaken place in South Tyrol, the spectre of General Cadorna’s defeated armies,were reflected in the gloomy faces of the Entente troops in Flanders. Faith invictory gave way to fear of defeat to come.
Then, on those cold nights, whenone almost heard the tread of the German armies advancing to the great assault,and the decision was being awaited in fear and trembling, suddenly a luridlight was set aglow in Germany and sent its rays into the last shell-hole onthe enemy’s front. At the very moment when the German divisions were receivingtheir final orders for the great offensive a general strike broke out inGermany.
At first the world wasdumbfounded. Then the enemy propaganda began activities once again and pouncedon this theme at the eleventh hour. All of a sudden a means had come whichcould be utilized to revive the sinking confidence of the Entente soldiers. Theprobabilities of victory could now be presented as certain, and the anxiousforeboding in regard to coming events could now be transformed into a feelingof resolute assurance. The regiments that had to bear the brunt of the GreatestGerman onslaught in history could now be inspired with the conviction that thefinal decision in this war would not be won by the audacity of the Germanassault but rather by the powers of endurance on the side of the defence. Letthe Germans now have whatever victories they liked, the revolution and not thevictorious army was welcomed in the Fatherland.
British, French and Americannewspapers began to spread this belief among their readers while a very ablymanaged propaganda encouraged the morale of their troops at the front.
‘Germany Facing Revolution! AnAllied Victory Inevitable!’ That was the best medicine to set the staggeringPoilu and Tommy on their feet once again. Our rifles and machine-guns could nowopen fire once again; but instead of effecting a panic-stricken retreat theywere now met with a determined resistance that was full of confidence.
That was the result of the strikein the munitions factories. Throughout the enemy countries faith in victory wasthus revived and strengthened, and that paralysing feeling of despair which hadhitherto made itself felt on the Entente front was banished. Consequently thestrike cost the lives of thousands of German soldiers. But the despicableinstigators of that dastardly strike were candidates for the highest publicpositions in the Germany of the Revolution.
At first it was apparentlypossible to overcome the repercussion of these events on the German soldiers,but on the enemy’s side they had a lasting effect. Here the resistance had lostall the character of an army fighting for a lost cause. In its place there was nowa grim determination to struggle through to victory. For, according to allhuman rules of judgment, victory would now be assured if the Western frontcould hold out against the German offensive even for only a few months. TheAllied parliaments recognized the possibilities of a better future and votedhuge sums of money for the continuation of the propaganda which was employedfor the purpose of breaking up the internal cohesion of Germany.
It was my luck that I was able totake part in the first two offensives and in the final offensive. These haveleft on me the most stupendous impressions of my life – stupendous, because nowfor the last time the struggle lost its defensive character and assumed thecharacter of an offensive, just as it was in 1914. A sigh of relief went upfrom the German trenches and dug-outs when finally, after three years ofendurance in that inferno, the day for the settling of accounts had come. Onceagain the lusty cheering of victorious battalions was heard, as they hung the lastcrowns of the immortal laurel on the standards which they consecrated toVictory. Once again the strains of patriotic songs soared upwards to theheavens above the endless columns of marching troops, and for the last time theLord smiled on his ungrateful children.
In the midsummer of 1918 a feelingof sultry oppression hung over the front. At home they were quarrelling. Aboutwhat? We heard a great deal among various units at the front. The War was now ahopeless affair, and only the foolhardy could think of victory. It was not thepeople but the capitalists and the Monarchy who were interested in carrying on.Such were the ideas that came from home and were discussed at the front.
At first this gave rise to onlyvery slight reaction. What did universal suffrage matter to us? Is this what wehad been fighting for during four years? It was a dastardly piece of robberythus to filch from the graves of our heroes the ideals for which they hadfallen. It was not to the slogan, ‘Long Live Universal Suffrage,’ that ourtroops in Flanders once faced certain death but with the cry, ‘Deutschland überAlles in der Welt’. A small but by no means an unimportant difference. And themajority of those who were shouting for this suffrage were absent when it cameto fighting for it. All this political rabble were strangers to us at thefront. During those days only a fraction of these parliamentarian gentry wereto be seen where honest Germans foregathered.
The old soldiers who had fought atthe front had little liking for those new war aims of Messrs. Ebert,Scheidemann, Barth, Liebknecht and others. We could not understand why, all ofa sudden, the shirkers should abrogate all executive powers to themselves,without having any regard to the army.
From the very beginning I had myown definite personal views. I intensely loathed the whole gang of miserableparty politicians who had betrayed the people. I had long ago realized that theinterests of the nation played only a very small part with this disreputablecrew and that what counted with them was the possibility of filling their ownempty pockets. My opinion was that those people thoroughly deserved to behanged, because they were ready to sacrifice the peace and if necessary allowGermany to be defeated just to serve their own ends. To consider their wisheswould mean to sacrifice the interests of the working classes for the benefit ofa gang of thieves. To meet their wishes meant that one should agree tosacrifice Germany.
Such, too, was the opinion stillheld by the majority of the army. But the reinforcements which came from homewere fast becoming worse and worse; so much so that their arrival was a sourceof weakness rather than of strength to our fighting forces. The young recruitsin particular were for the most part useless. Sometimes it was hard to believethat they were sons of the same nation that sent its youth into the battlesthat were fought round Ypres.
In August and September thesymptoms of moral disintegration increased more and more rapidly, although theenemy’s offensive was not at all comparable to the frightfulness of our ownformer defensive battles. In comparison with this offensive the battles foughton the Somme and in Flanders remained in our memories as the most terrible ofall horrors.
At the end of September mydivision occupied, for the third time, those positions which we had once takenby storm as young volunteers. What a memory!
Here we had received our baptismof fire, in October and November 1914. With a burning love of the homeland intheir hearts and a song on their lips, our young regiment went into action asif going to a dance. The dearest blood was given freely here in the belief thatit was shed to protect the freedom and independence of the Fatherland.
In July 1917 we set foot for thesecond time on what we regarded as sacred soil. Were not our best comrades atrest here, some of them little more than boys – the soldiers who had rushedinto death for their country’s sake, their eyes glowing with enthusiastic love.
The older ones among us, who hadbeen with the regiment from the beginning, were deeply moved as we stood onthis sacred spot where we had sworn ‘Loyalty and Duty unto Death’. Three yearsago the regiment had taken this position by storm; now it was called upon to defendit in a gruelling struggle.
With an artillery bombardment thatlasted three weeks the English prepared for their great offensive in Flanders.There the spirits of the dead seemed to live again. The regiment dug itselfinto the mud, clung to its shell-holes and craters, neither flinching norwavering, but growing smaller in numbers day after day. Finally the Britishlaunched their attack on July 31st, 1917.
We were relieved in the beginning ofAugust. The regiment had dwindled down to a few companies, who staggered back,mud-crusted, more like phantoms than human beings. Besides a few hundred yardsof shell-holes, death was the only reward which the English gained.
Now in the autumn of 1918 we stoodfor the third time on the ground we had stormed in 1914. The village ofComines, which formerly had served us as a base, was now within the fightingzone. Although little had changed in the surrounding district itself, yet themen had become different, somehow or other. They now talked politics. Likeeverywhere else, the poison from home was having its effect here also. Theyoung drafts succumbed to it completely. They had come directly from home.
During the night of October13th-14th, the British opened an attack with gas on the front south of Ypres.They used the yellow gas whose effect was unknown to us, at least from personalexperience. I was destined to experience it that very night. On a hill south ofWerwick, in the evening of October 13th, we were subjected for several hours toa heavy bombardment with gas bombs, which continued throughout the night withmore or less intensity. About midnight a number of us were put out of action,some for ever. Towards morning I also began to feel pain. It increased withevery quarter of an hour; and about seven o’clock my eyes were scorching as Istaggered back and delivered the last dispatch I was destined to carry in thiswar. A few hours later my eyes were like glowing coals and all was darknessaround me.
I was sent into hospital atPasewalk in Pomerania, and there it was that I had to hear of the Revolution.
For a long time there had beensomething in the air which was indefinable and repulsive. People were sayingthat something was bound to happen within the next few weeks, although I couldnot imagine what this meant. In the first instance I thought of a strikesimilar to the one which had taken place in spring. Unfavourable rumours wereconstantly coming from the Navy, which was said to be in a state of ferment.But this seemed to be a fanciful creation of a few isolated young people. It istrue that at the hospital they were all talking abut the end of the war andhoping that this was not far off, but nobody thought that the decision wouldcome immediately. I was not able to read the newspapers.
In November the general tensionincreased. Then one day disaster broke in upon us suddenly and without warning.Sailors came in motor-lorries and called on us to rise in revolt. A fewJew-boys were the leaders in that combat for the ‘Liberty, Beauty, and Dignity’of our National Being. Not one of them had seen active service at the front.Through the medium of a hospital for venereal diseases these three Orientalshad been sent back home. Now their red rags were being hoisted here.
During the last few days I hadbegun to feel somewhat better. The burning pain in the eye-sockets had becomeless severe. Gradually I was able to distinguish the general outlines of myimmediate surroundings. And it was permissible to hope that at least I wouldrecover my sight sufficiently to be able to take up some profession later on.That I would ever be able to draw or design once again was naturally out of thequestion. Thus I was on the way to recovery when the frightful hour came.
My first thought was that thisoutbreak of high treason was only a local affair. I tried to enforce thisbelief among my comrades. My Bavarian hospital mates, in particular, werereadily responsive. Their inclinations were anything but revolutionary. I couldnot imagine this madness breaking out in Munich; for it seemed to me thatloyalty to the House of Wittelsbach was, after all, stronger than the will of afew Jews. And so I could not help believing that this was merely a revolt inthe Navy and that it would be suppressed within the next few days.
With the next few days came themost astounding information of my life. The rumours grew more and morepersistent. I was told that what I had considered to be a local affair was inreality a general revolution. In addition to this, from the front came theshameful news that they wished to capitulate! What! Was such a thing possible?
On November 10th the local pastorvisited the hospital for the purpose of delivering a short address. And thatwas how we came to know the whole story.
I was in a fever of excitement asI listened to the address. The reverend old gentleman seemed to be tremblingwhen he informed us that the House of Hohen-zollern should no longer wear theImperial Crown, that the Fatherland had become a ‘Republic’, that we shouldpray to the Almighty not to withhold His blessing from the new order of thingsand not to abandon our people in the days to come. In delivering this messagehe could not do more than briefly express appreciation of the Royal House, itsservices to Pomerania, to Prussia, indeed, to the whole of the GermanFatherland, and – here he began to weep. A feeling of profound dismay fell onthe people in that assembly, and I do not think there was a single eye thatwithheld its tears. As for myself, I broke down completely when the oldgentleman tried to resume his story by informing us that we must now end thislong war, because the war was lost, he said, and we were at the mercy of thevictor. The Fatherland would have to bear heavy burdens in the future. We wereto accept the terms of the Armistice and trust to the magnanimity of our formerenemies. It was impossible for me to stay and listen any longer. Darknesssurrounded me as I staggered and stumbled back to my ward and buried my achinghead between the blankets and pillow.
I had not cried since the day thatI stood beside my mother’s grave. Whenever Fate dealt cruelly with me in myyoung days the spirit of determination within me grew stronger and stronger.During all those long years of war, when Death claimed many a true friend andcomrade from our ranks, to me it would have appeared sinful to have uttered aword of complaint. Did they not die for Germany? And, finally, almost in thelast few days of that titanic struggle, when the waves of poison gas envelopedme and began to penetrate my eyes, the thought of becoming permanently blindunnerved me; but the voice of conscience cried out immediately: Poor miserablefellow, will you start howling when there are thousands of others whose lot isa hundred times worse than yours? And so I accepted my misfortune in silence,realizing that this was the only thing to be done and that personal sufferingwas nothing when compared with the misfortune of one’s country.
So all had been in vain. In vainall the sacrifices and privations, in vain the hunger and thirst for endlessmonths, in vain those hours that we stuck to our posts though the fear of deathgripped our souls, and in vain the deaths of two millions who fell in dischargingthis duty. Think of those hundreds of thousands who set out with hearts full offaith in their fatherland, and never returned; ought not their graves to open,so that the spirits of those heroes bespattered with mud and blood should comehome and take vengeance on those who had so despicably betrayed the greatestsacrifice which a human being can make for his country? Was it for this thatthe soldiers died in August and September 1914, for this that the volunteerregiments followed the old comrades in the autumn of the same year? Was it forthis that those boys of seventeen years of age were mingled with the earth ofFlanders? Was this meant to be the fruits of the sacrifice which German mothersmade for their Fatherland when, with heavy hearts, they said good-bye to theirsons who never returned? Has all this been done in order to enable a gang ofdespicable criminals to lay hands on the Fatherland?
Was this then what the Germansoldier struggled for through sweltering heat and blinding snowstorm, enduringhunger and thirst and cold, fatigued from sleepless nights and endless marches?Was it for this that he lived through an inferno of artillery bombardments, laygasping and choking during gas attacks, neither flinching nor faltering, butremaining staunch to the thought of defending the Fatherland against the enemy?Certainly these heroes also deserved the epitaph: Traveller, when you come toGermany, tell the Homeland that we lie here, true to the Fatherland andfaithful to our duty.
And at Home? But – was this theonly sacrifice that we had to consider? Was the Germany of the past a countryof little worth? Did she not owe a certain duty to her own history? Were westill worthy to partake in the glory of the past? How could we justify this actto future generations?
What a gang of despicable anddepraved criminals!
The more I tried then to gleansome definite information of the terrible events that had happened the more myhead became afire with rage and shame. What was all the pain I suffered in myeyes compared with this tragedy?
The following days were terribleto bear, and the nights still worse. To depend on the mercy of the enemy was aprecept which only fools or criminal liars could recommend. During those nightsmy hatred increased – hatred for the orignators of this dastardly crime.
During the following days my ownfate became clear to me. I was forced now to scoff at the thought of mypersonal future, which hitherto had been the cause of so much worry to me. Wasit not ludicrous to think of building up anything on such a foundation?Finally, it also became clear to me that it was the inevitable that hadhappened, something which I had feared for a long time, though I really did nothave the heart to believe it.
Emperor William II was the firstGerman Emperor to offer the hand of friendship to the Marxist leaders, notsuspecting that they were scoundrels without any sense of honour. While theyheld the imperial hand in theirs, the other hand was already feeling for thedagger.
There is no such thing as comingto an understanding with the Jews. It must be the hard-and-fast ‘Either-Or.’
For my part I then decided that Iwould take up political work.
CHAPTER VIII
THE BEGINNING OF MY POLITICAL ACTIVITIES
Towards the end of November I returnedto Munich. I went to the depot of my regiment, which was now in the hands ofthe ‘Soldiers’ Councils’. As the whole administration was quite repulsive tome, I decided to leave it as soon as I possibly could. With my faithfulwar-comrade, Ernst-Schmidt, I came to Traunstein and remained there until thecamp was broken up. In March 1919 we were back again in Munich.
The situation there could not lastas it was. It tended irresistibly to a further extension of the Revolution.Eisner’s death served only to hasten this development and finally led to thedictatorship of the Councils – or, to put it more correctly, to a Jewishhegemony, which turned out to be transitory but which was the original aim ofthose who had contrived the Revolution.
At that juncture innumerable planstook shape in my mind. I spent whole days pondering on the problem of whatcould be done, but unfortunately every project had to give way before the hardfact that I was quite unknown and therefore did not have even the first pre-requisitenecessary for effective action. Later on I shall explain the reasons why Icould not decide to join any of the parties then in existence.
As the new Soviet Revolution beganto run its course in Munich my first activities drew upon me the ill-will ofthe Central Council. In the early morning of April 27th, 1919, I was to havebeen arrested; but the three fellows who came to arrest me did not have thecourage to face my rifle and withdrew just as they had arrived.
A few days after the liberation ofMunich I was ordered to appear before the Inquiry Commission which had been setup in the 2nd Infantry Regiment for the purpose of watching revolutionaryactivities. That was my first incursion into the more or less political field.
After another few weeks I receivedorders to attend a course of lectures which were being given to members of thearmy. This course was meant to inculcate certain fundamental principles onwhich the soldier could base his political ideas. For me the advantage of thisorganization was that it gave me a chance of meeting fellow soldiers who wereof the same way of thinking and with whom I could discuss the actual situation.We were all more or less firmly convinced that Germany could not be saved fromimminent disaster by those who had participated in the November treachery –that is to say, the Centre and the Social-Democrats; and also that theso-called Bourgeois-National group could not make good the damage that had beendone, even if they had the best intentions. They lacked a number of requisiteswithout which such a task could never be successfully undertaken. The yearsthat followed have justified the opinions which we held at that time.
In our small circle we discussedthe project of forming a new party. The leading ideas which we then proposedwere the same as those which were carried into effect afterwards, when theGerman Labour Party was founded. The name of the new movement which was to befounded should be such that of itself, it would appeal to the mass of the people;for all our efforts would turn out vain and useless if this condition werelacking. And that was the reason why we chose the name ‘Social-RevolutionaryParty’, particularly because the social principles of our new organization wereindeed revolutionary.
But there was also a morefundamental reason. The attention which I had given to economic problems duringmy earlier years was more or less confined to considerations arising directlyout of the social problem. Subsequently this outlook broadened as I came tostudy the German policy of the Triple Alliance. This policy was very largelythe result of an erroneous valuation of the economic situation, together with aconfused notion as to the basis on which the future subsistence of the Germanpeople could be guaranteed. All these ideas were based on the principle thatcapital is exclusively the product of labour and that, just like labour, it wassubject to all the factors which can hinder or promote human activity. Hence,from the national standpoint, the significance of capital depended on thegreatness and freedom and power of the State, that is to say, of the nation,and that it is this dependence alone which leads capital to promote theinterests of the State and the nation, from the instinct of self-preservationand for the sake of its own development.
On such principles the attitude ofthe State towards capital would be comparatively simple and clear. Its onlyobject would be to make sure that capital remained subservient to the State anddid not allocate to itself the right to dominate national interests. Thus itcould confine its activities within the two following limits: on the one side,to assure a vital and independent system of national economy and, on the other,to safeguard the social rights of the workers.
Previously I did not recognizewith adequate clearness the difference between capital which is purely theproduct of creative labour and the existence and nature of capital which isexclusively the result of financial speculation. Here I needed an impulse toset my mind thinking in this direction; but that impulse had hitherto beenlacking.
The requisite impulse now camefrom one of the men who delivered lectures in the course I have alreadymentioned. This was Gottfried Feder.
For the first time in my life Iheard a discussion which dealt with the principles of stock-exchange capitaland capital which was used for loan activities. After hearing the first lecturedelivered by Feder, the idea immediately came into my head that I had now founda way to one of the most essential pre-requisites for the founding of a newparty.
To my mind, Feder’s meritconsisted in the ruthless and trenchant way in which he described the doublecharacter of the capital engaged in stock-exchange and loan transaction, layingbare the fact that this capital is ever and always dependent on the payment ofinterest. In fundamental questions his statements were so full of common sensethat those who criticized him did not deny that au fond his ideas were soundbut they doubted whether it be possible to put these ideas into practice. To methis seemed the strongest point in Feder’s teaching, though others consideredit a weak point.
It is not the business of him wholays down a theoretical programme to explain the various ways in whichsomething can be put into practice. His task is to deal with the problem assuch; and, therefore, he has to look to the end rather than the means. Theimportant question is whether an idea is fundamentally right or not. Thequestion of whether or not it may be difficult to carry it out in practice isquite another matter. When a man whose task it is to lay down the principles ofa programme or policy begins to busy himself with the question as to whether itis expedient and practical, instead of confining himself to the statement ofthe absolute truth, his work will cease to be a guiding star to those who arelooking about for light and leading and will become merely a recipe forevery-day iife. The man who lays down the programme of a movement must consideronly the goal. It is for the political leader to point out the way in whichthat goal may be reached. The thought of the former will, therefore, bedetermined by those truths that are everlasting, whereas the activity of thelatter must always be guided by taking practical account of the circumstancesunder which those truths have to be carried into effect.
The greatness of the one willdepend on the absolute truth of his idea, considered in the abstract; whereasthat of the other will depend on whether or not he correctly judges the givenrealities and how they may be utilized under the guidance of the truthsestablished by the former. The test of greatness as applied to a politicalleader is the success of his plans and his enterprises, which means his abilityto reach the goal for which he sets out; whereas the final goal set up by thepolitical philosopher can never be reached; for human thought may grasp truthsand picture ends which it sees like clear crystal, though such ends can never becompletely fulfilled because human nature is weak and imperfect. The more anidea is correct in the abstract, and, therefore, all the more powerful, thesmaller is the possibility of putting it into practice, at least as far as thislatter depends on human beings. The significance of a political philosopherdoes not depend on the practical success of the plans he lays down but ratheron their absolute truth and the influence they exert on the progress ofmankind. If it were otherwise, the founders of religions could not beconsidered as the greatest men who have ever lived, because their moral aimswill never be completely or even approximately carried out in practice. Eventhat religion which is called the Religion of Love is really no more than afaint reflex of the will of its sublime Founder. But its significance lies inthe orientation which it endeavoured to give to human civilization, and humanvirtue and morals.
This very wide difference betweenthe functions of a political philosopher and a practical political leader isthe reason why the qualifications necessary for both functions are scarcelyever found associated in the same person. This applies especially to theso-called successful politician of the smaller kind, whose activity is indeedhardly more than practising the art of doing the possible, as Bismarck modestlydefined the art of politics in general. If such a politician resolutely avoidsgreat ideas his success will be all the easier to attain; it will be attainedmore expeditely and frequently will be more tangible. By reason of this veryfact, however, such success is doomed to futility and sometimes does not evensurvive the death of its author. Generally speaking, the work of politicians iswithout significance for the following generation, because their temporarysuccess was based on the expediency of avoiding all really great decisiveproblems and ideas which would be valid also for future generations.
To pursue ideals which will stillbe of value and significance for the future is generally not a very profitableundertaking and he who follows such a course is only very rarely understood bythe mass of the people, who find beer and milk a more persuasive index ofpolitical values than far-sighted plans for the future, the realization ofwhich can only take place later on and the advantages of which can be reapedonly by posterity.
Because of a certain vanity, whichis always one of the blood-relations of unintelligence, the general run ofpoliticians will always eschew those schemes for the future which are reallydifficult to put into practice; and they will practise this avoidance so thatthey may not lose the immediate favour of the mob. The importance and thesuccess of such politicians belong exclusively to the present and will be of noconsequence for the future. But that does not worry small-minded people; theyare quite content with momentary results.
The position of the constructivepolitical philosopher is quite different. The importance of his work mustalways be judged from the standpoint of the future; and he is frequentlydescribed by the word Weltfremd, or dreamer. While the ability of thepolitician consists in mastering the art of the possible, the founder of apolitical system belongs to those who are said to please the gods only becausethey wish for and demand the impossible. They will always have to renouncecontemporary fame; but if their ideas be immortal, posterity will grant themits acknowledgment.
Within long spans of humanprogress it may occasionally happen that the practical politician and politicalphilosopher are one. The more intimate this union is, the greater will be theobstacles which the activity of the politician will have to encounter. Such aman does not labour for the purpose of satisfying demands that are obvious toevery philistine, but he reaches out towards ends which can be understood onlyby the few. His life is torn asunder by hatred and love. The protest of hiscontemporaries, who do not understand the man, is in conflict with the recognitionof posterity, for whom he also works.
For the greater the work which aman does for the future, the less will he be appreciated by his contemporaries.His struggle will accordingly be all the more severe, and his success all therarer. When, in the course of centuries, such a man appears who is blessed withsuccess then, towards the end of his days, he may have a faint prevision of hisfuture fame. But such great men are only the Marathon runners of history. Thelaurels of contemporary fame are only for the brow of the dying hero.
The great protagonists are thosewho fight for their ideas and ideals despite the fact that they receive norecognition at the hands of their contemporaries. They are the men whosememories will be enshrined in the hearts of the future generations. It seemsthen as if each individual felt it his duty to make retroactive atonement forthe wrong which great men have suffered at the hands of their contemporaries.Their lives and their work are then studied with touching and gratefuladmiration. Especially in dark days of distress, such men have the power ofhealing broken hearts and elevating the despairing spirit of a people.
To this group belong not only thegenuinely great statesmen but all the great reformers as well. Beside Frederickthe Great we have such men as Martin Luther and Richard Wagner.
When I heard Gottfried Feder’sfirst lecture on ‘The Abolition of the Interest-Servitude’, I understoodimmediately that here was a truth of transcendental importance for the futureof the German people. The absolute separation of stock-exchange capital fromthe economic life of the nation would make it possible to oppose the process ofinternationalization in German business without at the same time attackingcapital as such, for to do this would jeopardize the foundations of ournational independence. I clearly saw what was developing in Germany and Irealized then that the stiffest fight we would have to wage would not beagainst the enemy nations but against international capital. In Feder’s speechI found an effective rallying-cry for our coming struggle.
Here, again, later events provedhow correct was the impression we then had. The fools among our bourgeoispoliticians do not mock at us on this point any more; for even those politiciansnow see – if they would speak the truth – that international stock-exchangecapital was not only the chief instigating factor in bringing on the War butthat now when the War is over it turns the peace into a hell.
The struggle against internationalfinance capital and loan-capital has become one of the most important points inthe programme on which the German nation has based its fight for economicfreedom and independence.
Regarding the objections raised byso-called practical people, the following answer must suffice: Allapprehensions concerning the fearful economic consequences that would followthe abolition of the servitude that results from interest-capital areill-timed; for, in the first place, the economic principles hitherto followedhave proved quite fatal to the interests of the German people. The attitudeadopted when the question of maintaining our national existence arose vividlyrecalls similar advice once given by experts – the Bavarian Medical College,for example – on the question of introducing railroads. The fears expressed bythat august body of experts were not realized. Those who travelled in thecoaches of the new ‘Steam-horse’ did not suffer from vertigo. Those who lookedon did not become ill and the hoardings which had been erected to conceal thenew invention were eventually taken down. Only those blinds which obscure thevision of the would-be ‘experts’, have remained. And that will be always so.
In the second place, the followingmust be borne in mind: Any idea may be a source of danger if it be looked uponas an end in itself, when really it is only the means to an end. For me and forall genuine National-Socialists there is only one doctrine. People andFatherland.
What we have to fight for is the necessarysecurity for the existence and increase of our race and people, the subsistenceof its children and the maintenance of our racial stock unmixed, the freedomand independence of the Fatherland; so that our people may be enabled to fulfilthe mission assigned to it by the Creator.
All ideas and ideals, all teachingand all knowledge, must serve these ends. It is from this standpoint thateverything must be examined and turned to practical uses or else discarded.Thus a theory can never become a mere dead dogma since everything will have toserve the practical ends of everyday life.
Thus the judgment arrived at byGottfried Feder determined me to make a fundamental study of a question withwhich I had hitherto not been very familiar.
I began to study again and thus itwas that I first came to understand perfectly what was the substance andpurpose of the life-work of the Jew, Karl Marx. His Capital became intelligibleto me now for the first time. And in the light of it I now exactly understoodthe fight of the Social-Democrats against national economics, a fight which wasto prepare the ground for the hegemony of a real international andstock-exchange capital.
In another direction also thiscourse of lectures had important consequences for me.
One day I put my name down aswishing to take part in the discussion. Another of the participants thoughtthat he would break a lance for the Jews and entered into a lengthy defence ofthem. This aroused my opposition. An overwhelming number of those who attendedthe lecture course supported my views. The consequence of it all was that, afew days later, I was assigned to a regiment then stationed at Munich and givena position there as ‘instruction officer’.
At that time the spirit ofdiscipline was rather weak among those troops. It was still suffering from theafter-effects of the period when the Soldiers’ Councils were in control. Onlygradually and carefully could a new spirit of military discipline and obediencebe introduced in place of ‘voluntary obedience’, a term which had been used toexpress the ideal of military discipline under Kurt Eisner’s higgledy-piggledyregime. The soldiers had to be taught to think and feel in a national andpatriotic way. In these two directions lay my future line of action.
I took up my work with thegreatest delight and devotion. Here I was presented with an opportunity ofspeaking before quite a large audience. I was now able to confirm what I hadhitherto merely felt, namely, that I had a talent for public speaking. My voicehad become so much better that I could be well understood, at least in allparts of the small hall where the soldiers assembled.
No task could have been morepleasing to me than this one; for now, before being demobilized, I was in aposition to render useful service to an institution which had been infinitelydear to my heart: namely, the army.
I am able to state that my talkswere successful. During the course of my lectures I have led back hundreds andeven thousands of my fellow countrymen to their people and their fatherland. I‘nationalized’ these troops and by so doing I helped to restore generaldiscipline.
Here again I made the acquaintanceof several comrades whose thought ran along the same lines as my own and wholater became members of the first group out of which the new movementdeveloped.
CHAPTER IX
THE GERMAN LABOUR PARTY
One day I received an order frommy superiors to investigate the nature of an association which was apparentlypolitical. It called itself ‘The German Labour Party’ and was soon to hold ameeting at which Gottfried Feder would speak. I was ordered to attend thismeeting and report on the situation.
The spirit of curiosity in whichthe army authorities then regarded political parties can be very well understood.The Revolution had granted the soldiers the right to take an active part inpolitics and it was particularly those with the smallest experience who hadavailed themselves of this right. But not until the Centre and theSocial-Democratic parties were reluctantly forced to recognize that thesympathies of the soldiers had turned away from the revolutionary partiestowards the national movement and the national reawakening, did they feelobliged to withdraw from the army the right to vote and to forbid it allpolitical activity.
The fact that the Centre andMarxism had adopted this policy was instructive, because if they had not thuscurtailed the ‘rights of the citizen’ – as they described the political rightsof the soldiers after the Revolution – the government which had beenestablished in November 1918 would have been overthrown within a few years andthe dishonour and disgrace of the nation would not have been further prolonged.At that time the soldiers were on the point of taking the best way to rid thenation of the vampires and valets who served the cause of the Entente in theinterior of the country. But the fact that the so-called ‘national’ partiesvoted enthusiastically for the doctrinaire policy of the criminals whoorganized the Revolution in November (1918) helped also to render the armyineffective as an instrument of national restoration and thus showed once againwhere men might be led by the purely abstract notions accepted by these mostgullible people.
The minds of the bourgeois middleclasses had become so fossilized that they sincerely believed the army couldonce again become what it had previously been, namely, a rampart of Germanvalour; while the Centre Party and the Marxists intended only to extract thepoisonous tooth of nationalism, without which an army must always remain just apolice force but can never be in the position of a military organizationcapable of fighting against the outside enemy. This truth was sufficientlyproved by subsequent events.
Or did our ‘national’ politiciansbelieve, after all, that the development of our army could be other thannational? This belief might be possible and could be explained by the fact thatduring the War they were not soldiers but merely talkers. In other words, theywere parliamentarians, and, as such, they did not have the slightest idea ofwhat was passing in the hearts of those men who remembered the greatness oftheir own past and also remembered that they had once been the first soldiersin the world.
I decided to attend the meeting ofthis Party, which had hitherto been entirely unknown to me. When I arrived thatevening in the guest room of the former Sternecker Brewery – which has nowbecome a place of historical significance for us – I found approximately 20–25persons present, most of them belonging to the lower classes.
The theme of Feder’s lecture wasalready familiar to me; for I had heard it in the lecture course I have spokenof. Therefore, I could concentrate my attention on studying the society itself.
The impression it made upon me wasneither good nor bad. I felt that here was just another one of these many newsocieties which were being formed at that time. In those days everybody feltcalled upon to found a new Party whenever he felt displeased with the course ofevents and had lost confidence in all the parties already existing. Thus it wasthat new associations sprouted up all round, to disappear just as quickly,without exercising any effect or making any noise whatsoever. Generallyspeaking, the founders of such associations did not have the slightest idea ofwhat it means to bring together a number of people for the foundations of aparty or a movement. Therefore these associations disappeared because of theirwoeful lack of anything like an adequate grasp of the necessities of thesituation.
My opinion of the ‘German LabourParty’ was not very different after I had listened to their proceedings forabout two hours. I was glad when Feder finally came to a close. I had observedenough and was just about to leave when it was announced that anybody whowished was free to open a discussion. Thereupon, I decided to remain. But thediscussion seemed to proceed without anything of vital importance beingmentioned, when suddenly a ‘professor’ commenced to speak. He opened bythrowing doubt on the accuracy of what Feder had said, and then. after Federhad replied very effectively, the professor suddenly took up his position onwhat he called ‘the basis of facts,’ but before this he recommended the youngparty most urgently to introduce the secession of Bavaria from Prussia as oneof the leading proposals in its programme. In the most self-assured way, thisman kept on insisting that German-Austria would join Bavaria and that the peacewould then function much better. He made other similarly extravagantstatements. At this juncture I felt bound to ask for permission to speak and totell the learned gentleman what I thought. The result was that the honourablegentleman who had last spoken slipped out of his place, like a whipped cur,without uttering a sound. While I was speaking the audience listened with anexpression of surprise on their faces. When I was just about to say good-nightto the assembly and to leave, a man came after me quickly and introducedhimself. I did not grasp the name correctly; but he placed a little book in myhand, which was obviously a political pamphlet, and asked me very earnestly toread it.
I was quite pleased; because inthis way, I could come to know about this association without having to attendits tiresome meetings. Moreover, this man, who had the appearance of a workman,made a good impression on me. Thereupon, I left the hall.
At that time I was living in oneof the barracks of the 2nd Infantry Regiment. I had a little room which stillbore the unmistakable traces of the Revolution. During the day I was mostlyout, at the quarters of Light Infantry No. 41 or else attending meetings orlectures, held at some other branch of the army. I spent only the night at thequarters where I lodged. Since I usually woke up about five o’clock everymorning I got into the habit of amusing myself with watching little mice whichplayed around in my small room. I used to place a few pieces of hard bread orcrust on the floor and watch the funny little beasts playing around andenjoying themselves with these delicacies. I had suffered so many privations inmy own life that I well knew what hunger was and could only too well picture tomyself the pleasure these little creatures were experiencing.
So on the morning after themeeting I have mentioned, it happened that about five o’clock I lay fully awakein bed, watching the mice playing and vying with each other. As I was not ableto go to sleep again, I suddenly remembered the pamphlet that one of theworkers had given me at the meeting. It was a small pamphlet of which thisworker was the author. In his little book he described how his mind had thrownoff the shackles of the Marxist and trades-union phraseology, and that he hadcome back to the nationalist ideals. That was the reason why he had entitledhis little book: "My Political Awakening". The pamphlet secured myattention the moment I began to read, and I read it with interest to the end.The process here described was similar to that which I had experienced in myown case ten years previously. Unconsciously my own experiences began to stiragain in my mind. During that day my thoughts returned several times to what Ihad read; but I finally decided to give the matter no further attention. A weekor so later, however, I received a postcard which informed me, to myastonishment, that I had been admitted into the German Labour Party. I wasasked to answer this communication and to attend a meeting of the PartyCommittee on Wednesday next.
This manner of getting membersrather amazed me, and I did not know whether to be angry or laugh at it.Hitherto I had not any idea of entering a party already in existence but wantedto found one of my own. Such an invitation as I now had received I looked uponas entirely out of the question for me.
I was about to send a writtenreply when my curiosity got the better of me, and I decided to attend thegathering at the date assigned, so that I might expound my principles to thesegentlemen in person.
Wednesday came. The tavern inwhich the meeting was to take place was the ‘Alte Rosenbad’ in theHerrnstrasse, into which apparently only an occasional guest wandered. This wasnot very surprising in the year 1919, when the bills of fare even at the largerrestaurants were only very modest and scanty in their pretensions and thus notvery attractive to clients. But I had never before heard of this restaurant.
I went through the badly-lightedguest-room, where not a single guest was to be seen, and searched for the doorwhich led to the side room; and there I was face-to-face with the ‘Congress’.Under the dim light shed by a grimy gas-lamp I could see four young peoplesitting around a table, one of them the author of the pamphlet. He greeted mecordially and welcomed me as a new member of the German Labour Party.
I was taken somewhat aback onbeing informed that actually the National President of the Party had not yetcome; so I decided that I would keep back my own exposition for the time being.Finally the President appeared. He was the man who had been chairman of themeeting held in the Sternecker Brewery, when Feder spoke.
My curiosity was stimulated anewand I sat waiting for what was going to happen. Now I got at least as far aslearning the names of the gentlemen who had been parties to the whole affair.The Reich National President of the Association was a certain Herr Harrer andthe President for the Munich district was Anton Drexler.
The minutes of the previousmeeting were read out and a vote of confidence in the secretary was passed.Then came the treasurer’s report. The Society possessed a total fund of sevenmarks and fifty pfennigs (a sum corresponding to 7s. 6d. in English money atpar), whereupon the treasurer was assured that he had the confidence of themembers. This was now inserted in the minutes. Then letters of reply which hadbeen written by the Chairman were read; first, to a letter received from Kiel,then to one from Düsseldorf and finally to one from Berlin. All three repliesreceived the approval of all present. Then the incoming letters were read – onefrom Berlin, one from Düsseldorf and one from Kiel. The reception of theseletters seemed to cause great satisfaction. This increasing bulk ofcorrespondence was taken as the best and most obvious sign of the growingimportance of the German Labour Party. And then? Well, there followed a longdiscussion of the replies which would be given to these newly-received letters.
It was all very awful. This wasthe worst kind of parish-pump clubbism. And was I supposed to become a memberof such a club?
The question of new members wasnext discussed – that is to say, the question of catching myself in the trap.
I now began to ask questions. ButI found that, apart from a few general principles, there was nothing – noprogramme, no pamphlet, nothing at all in print, no card of membership, noteven a party stamp, nothing but obvious good faith and good intentions.
I no longer felt inclined tolaugh; for what else was all this but a typical sign of the most completeperplexity and deepest despair in regard to all political parties, theirprogrammes and views and activities? The feeling which had induced those fewyoung people to join in what seemed such a ridiculous enterprise was nothingbut the call of the inner voice which told them – though more intuitively thanconsciously – that the whole party system as it had hitherto existed was notthe kind of force that could restore the German nation or repair the damagesthat had been done to the German people by those who hitherto controlled theinternal affairs of the nation. I quickly read through the list of principlesthat formed the platform of the party. These principles were stated ontypewritten sheets. Here again I found evidence of the spirit of longing andsearching, but no sign whatever of a knowledge of the conflict that had to befought. I myself had experienced the feelings which inspired those people. Itwas the longing for a movement which should be more than a party, in thehitherto accepted meaning of that word.
When I returned to my room in thebarracks that evening I had formed a definite opinion on this association and Iwas facing the most difficult problem of my life. Should I join this party orrefuse?
From the side of the intellectalone, every consideration urged me to refuse; but my feelings troubled me. Themore I tried to prove to myself how senseless this club was, on the whole, themore did my feelings incline me to favour it. During the following days I wasrestless.
I began to consider all the prosand cons. I had long ago decided to take an active part in politics. The factthat I could do so only through a new movement was quite clear to me; but I hadhitherto lacked the impulse to take concrete action. I am not one of thosepeople who will begin something to-day and just give it up the next day for thesake of something new. That was the main reason which made it so difficult forme to decide in joining something newly founded; for this must become the realfulfilment of everything I dreamt, or else it had better not be started at all.I knew that such a decision should bind me for ever and that there could be noturning back. For me there could be no idle dallying but only a cause to bechampioned ardently. I had already an instinctive feeling against people whotook up everything, but never carried anything through to the end. I loathedthese Jacks-of-all-Trades, and considered the activities of such people to beworse than if they were to remain entirely quiescent.
Fate herself now seemed to supplythe finger-post that pointed out the way. I should never have entered one ofthe big parties already in existence and shall explain my reasons for thislater on. This ludicrous little formation, with its handful of members, seemedto have the unique advantage of not yet being fossilized into an ‘organization’and still offered a chance for real personal activity on the part of theindividual. Here it might still be possible to do some effective work; and, asthe movement was still small, one could all the easier give it the requiredshape. Here it was still possible to determine the character of the movement,the aims to be achieved and the road to be taken, which would have beenimpossible in the case of the big parties already existing.
The longer I reflected on theproblem, the more my opinion developed that just such a small movement wouldbest serve as an instrument to prepare the way for the national resurgence, butthat this could never be done by the political parliamentary parties which weretoo firmly attached to obsolete ideas or had an interest in supporting the newregime. What had to be proclaimed here was a new Weltanschhauung and nota new election cry.
It was, however, infinitelydifficult to decide on putting the intention into practice. What were thequalifications which I could bring to the accomplishment of such a task?
The fact that I was poor andwithout resources could, in my opinion, be the easiest to bear. But the factthat I was utterly unknown raised a more difficult problem. I was only one ofthe millions which Chance allows to exist or cease to exist, whom even theirnext-door neighbours will not consent to know. Another difficulty arose fromthe fact that I had not gone through the regular school curriculum.
The so-called ‘intellectuals’still look down with infinite superciliousness on anyone who has not beenthrough the prescribed schools and allowed them to pump the necessary knowledgeinto him. The question of what a man can do is never asked but rather, what hashe learned? ‘Educated’ people look upon any imbecile who is plastered with anumber of academic certificates as superior to the ablest young fellow wholacks these precious documents. I could therefore easily imagine how this‘educated’ world would receive me and I was wrong only in so far as I thenbelieved men to be for the most part better than they proved to be in the coldlight of reality. Because of their being as they are, the few exceptions standout all the more conspicuously. I learned more and more to distinguish betweenthose who will always be at school and those who will one day come to knowsomething in reality.
After two days of careful broodingand reflection I became convinced that I must take the contemplated step.
It was the most fateful decisionof my life. No retreat was possible.
Thus I declared myself ready toaccept the membership tendered me by the German Labour Party and received aprovisional certificate of membership. I was numbered seven.
CHAPTER X
WHY THE SECOND REICH COLLAPSED
The depth of a fall is alwaysmeasured by the difference between the level of the original position fromwhich a body has fallen and that in which it is now found. The same holds goodfor Nations and States. The matter of greatest importance here is the height ofthe original level, or rather the greatest height that had been attained beforethe descent began.
For only the profound decline orcollapse of that which was capable of reaching extraordinary heights can make astriking impression on the eye of the beholder. The collapse of the SecondReich was all the more bewildering for those who could ponder over it and feelthe effect of it in their hearts, because the Reich had fallen from a heightwhich can hardly be imagined in these days of misery and humiliation.
The Second Reich was founded incircumstances of such dazzling splendour that the whole nation had becomeentranced and exalted by it. Following an unparalleled series of victories,that Empire was handed over as the guerdon of immortal heroism to the childrenand grandchildren of the heroes. Whether they were fully conscious of it or notdoes not matter; anyhow, the Germans felt that this Empire had not been broughtinto existence by a series of able political negotiations through parliamentarychannels, but that it was different from political institutions foundedelsewhere by reason of the nobler circumstances that had accompanied itsestablishment. When its foundations were laid the accompanying music was not thechatter of parliamentary debates but the thunder and boom of war along thebattle front that encircled Paris. It was thus that an act of statesmanship wasaccomplished whereby the Germans, princes as well as people, established thefuture Reich and restored the symbol of the Imperial Crown. Bismarck’s Statewas not founded on treason and assassination by deserters and shirkers but bythe regiments that had fought at the front. This unique birth and baptism offire sufficed of themselves to surround the Second Empire with an aureole ofhistorical splendour such as few of the older States could lay claim to.
And what an ascension then began!A position of independence in regard to the outside world guaranteed the meansof livelihood at home. The nation increased in numbers and in worldly wealth.The honour of the State and therewith the honour of the people as a whole weresecured and protected by an army which was the most striking witness of thedifference between this new Reich and the old German Confederation.
But the downfall of the SecondEmpire and the German people has been so profound that they all seem to havebeen struck dumbfounded and rendered incapable of feeling the significance ofthis downfall or reflecting on it. It seems as if people were utterly unable topicture in their minds the heights to which the Empire formerly attained, sovisionary and unreal appears the greatness and splendour of those days incontrast to the misery of the present. Bearing this in mind we can understandwhy and how people become so dazed when they try to look back to the sublimepast that they forget to look for the symptoms of the great collapse which mustcertainly have been present in some form or other. Naturally this applies onlyto those for whom Germany was more than merely a place of abode and a source oflivelihood. These are the only people who have been able to feel the presentconditions as really catastrophic, whereas others have considered theseconditions as the fulfilment of what they had looked forward to and hithertosilently wished.
The symptoms of future collapsewere definitely to be perceived in those earlier days, although very few madeany attempt to draw a practical lesson from their significance. But this is nowa greater necessity than it ever was before. For just as bodily ailments can becured only when their origin has been diagnosed, so also political disease canbe treated only when it has been diagnosed. It is obvious of course that theexternal symptoms of any disease can be more readily detected than its internalcauses, for these symptoms strike the eye more easily. This is also the reasonwhy so many people recognize only external effects and mistake them for causes.Indeed they will sometimes try to deny the existence of such causes. And thatis why the majority of people among us recognize the German collapse only inthe prevailing economic distress and the results that have followed therefrom.Almost everyone has to carry his share of this burden, and that is why each onelooks on the economic catastrophe as the cause of the present deplorable stateof affairs. The broad masses of the people see little of the cultural,political, and moral background of this collapse. Many of them completely lackboth the necessary feeling and powers of understanding for it.
That the masses of the peopleshould thus estimate the causes of Germany’s downfall is quite understandable.But the fact that intelligent sections of the community regard the Germancollapse primarily as an economic catastrophe, and consequently think that acure for it may be found in an economic solution, seems to me to be the reasonwhy hitherto no improvement has been brought about. No improvement can bebrought about until it be understood that economics play only a second or thirdrole, while the main part is played by political, moral and racial factors.Only when this is understood will it be possible to understand the causes ofthe present evil and consequently to find the ways and means of remedying them.
Therefore the question of whyGermany really collapsed is one of the most urgent significance, especially fora political movement which aims at overcoming this disaster.
In scrutinizing the past with aview to discovering the causes of the German break-up, it is necessary to becareful lest we may be unduly impressed by external results that readily strikethe eye and thus ignore the less manifest causes of these results.
The most facile, and therefore themost generally accepted, way of accounting for the present misfortune is to saythat it is the result of a lost war, and that this is the real cause of thepresent misfortune. Probably there are many who honestly believe in this absurdexplanation but there are many more in whose mouths it is a deliberate and consciousfalsehood. This applies to all those who are now feeding at the Governmenttroughs. For the prophets of the Revolution again and again declared to thepeople that it would be immaterial to the great masses what the result of theWar might be. On the contrary, they solemnly assured the public that it wasHigh Finance which was principally interested in a victorious outcome of thisgigantic struggle among the nations but that the German people and the Germanworkers had no interest whatsoever in such an outcome. Indeed the apostles ofworld conciliation habitually asserted that, far from any German downfall, theopposite was bound to take place – namely, the resurgence of the German people– once ‘militarism’ had been crushed. Did not these self-same circles sing thepraises of the Entente and did they not also lay the whole blame for thesanguinary struggle on the shoulders of Germany? Without this explanation,would they have been able to put forward the theory that a military defeatwould have no political consequences for the German people? Was not the wholeRevolution dressed up in gala colours as blocking the victorious advance of theGerman banners and that thus the German people would be assured its libertyboth at home and abroad?
Is not that so, you miserable,lying rascals?
That kind of impudence which istypical of the Jews was necessary in order to proclaim the defeat of the armyas the cause of the German collapse. Indeed the Berlin Vorwärts, that organ andmouthpiece of sedition then wrote on this occasion that the German nationshould not be permitted to bring home its banners triumphantly.
And yet they attribute ourcollapse to the military defeat.
Of course it would be out of thequestion to enter into an argument with these liars who deny at one moment whatthey said the moment before. I should waste no further words on them were itnot for the fact that there are many thoughtless people who repeat all this inparrot fashion, without being necessarily inspired by any evil motives. But theobservations I am making here are also meant for our fighting followers, seeingthat nowadays one’s spoken words are often forgotten and twisted in theirmeaning.
The assertion that the loss of theWar was the cause of the German collapse can best be answered as follows:
It is admittedly a fact that theloss of the War was of tragic importance for the future of our country. Butthat loss was not in itself a cause. It was rather the consequence of othercauses. That a disastrous ending to this life-or-death conflict must haveinvolved catastrophes in its train was clearly seen by everyone of insight whocould think in a straightforward manner. But unfortunately there were alsopeople whose powers of understanding seemed to fail them at that critical moment.And there were other people who had first questioned that truth and thenaltogether denied it. And there were people who, after their secret desire hadbeen fulfilled, were suddenly faced with the subsequent facts that resultedfrom their own collaboration. Such people are responsible for the collapse, andnot the lost war, though they now want to attribute everything to this. As amatter of fact the loss of the War was a result of their activities and not theresult of bad leadership as they now would like to maintain. Our enemies werenot cowards. They also know how to die. From the very first day of the War theyoutnumbered the German Army, and the arsenals and armament factories of thewhole world were at their disposal for the replenishment of military equipment.Indeed it is universally admitted that the German victories, which had beensteadily won during four years of warfare against the whole world, were due tosuperior leadership, apart of course from the heroism of the troops. And theorganization was solely due to the German military leadership. Thatorganization and leadership of the German Army was the most mighty thing thatthe world has ever seen. Any shortcomings which became evident were humanlyunavoidable. The collapse of that army was not the cause of our presentdistress. It was itself the consequence of other faults. But this consequencein its turn ushered in a further collapse, which was more visible. That suchwas actually the case can be shown as follows:
Must a military defeat necessarilylead to such a complete overthrow of the State and Nation? Whenever has thisbeen the result of an unlucky war? As a matter of fact, are nations ever ruinedby a lost war and by that alone? The answer to this question can be brieflystated by referring to the fact that military defeats are the result ofinternal decay, cowardice, want of character, and are a retribution for suchthings. If such were not the causes then a military defeat would lead to anational resurgence and bring the nation to a higher pitch of effort. Amilitary defeat is not the tombstone of national life. History affordsinnumerable examples to confirm the truth of that statement.
Unfortunately Germany’s militaryoverthrow was not an undeserved catastrophe, but a well-merited punishmentwhich was in the nature of an eternal retribution. This defeat was more thandeserved by us; for it represented the greatest external phenomenon ofdecomposition among a series of internal phenomena, which, although they werevisible, were not recognized by the majority of the people, who follow thetactics of the ostrich and see only what they want to see.
Let us examine the symptoms thatwere evident in Germany at the time that the German people accepted thisdefeat. Is it not true that in several circles the misfortunes of theFatherland were even joyfully welcomed in the most shameful manner? Who couldact in such a way without thereby meriting vengeance for his attitude? Werethere not people who even went further and boasted that they had gone to theextent of weakening the front and causing a collapse? Therefore it was not theenemy who brought this disgrace upon our shoulders but rather our owncountrymen. If they suffered misfortune for it afterwards, was that misfortuneundeserved? Was there ever a case in history where a people declared itselfguilty of a war, and that even against its better conscience and its betterknowledge?
No, and again no. In the manner inwhich the German nation reacted to its defeat we can see that the real cause ofour collapse must be looked for elsewhere and not in the purely military lossof a few positions or the failure of an offensive. For if the front as such hadgiven way and thus brought about a national disaster, then the German nationwould have accepted the defeat in quite another spirit. They would have bornethe subsequent misfortune with clenched teeth, or they would have beenoverwhelmed by sorrow. Regret and fury would have filled their hearts againstan enemy into whose hands victory had been given by a chance event or thedecree of Fate; and in that case the nation, following the example of the RomanSenate, would have faced the defeated legions on their return and expressedtheir thanks for the sacrifices that had been made and would have requestedthem not to lose faith in the Empire. Even the capitulation would have beensigned under the sway of calm reason, while the heart would have beaten in thehope of the coming revanche.
That is the reception that wouldhave been given to a military defeat which had to be attributed only to theadverse decree of Fortune. There would have been neither joy-making nordancing. Cowardice would not have been boasted of, and the defeat would nothave been honoured. On returning from the Front, the troops would not have beenmocked at, and the colours would not have been dragged in the dust. But aboveall, that disgraceful state of affairs could never have arisen which induced aBritish officer, Colonel Repington, to declare with scorn: Every third German isa traitor! No, in such a case this plague would never have assumed theproportions of a veritable flood which, for the past five years, has smotheredevery vestige of respect for the German nation in the outside world.
This shows only too clearly how falseit is to say that the loss of the War was the cause of the German break-up. No.The military defeat was itself but the consequence of a whole series of morbidsymptoms and their causes which had become active in the German nation beforethe War broke out. The War was the first catastrophal consequence, visible toall, of how traditions and national morale had been poisoned and how theinstinct of self-preservation had degenerated. These were the preliminarycauses which for many years had been undermining the foundations of the nationand the Empire.
But it remained for the Jews, withtheir unqualified capacity for falsehood, and their fighting comrades, theMarxists, to impute responsibility for the downfall precisely to the man whoalone had shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent thecatastrophe which he had foreseen and to save the nation from that hour ofcomplete overthrow and shame. By placing responsibility for the loss of theworld war on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took away the weapon of moralright from the only adversary dangerous enough to be likely to succeed inbringing the betrayers of the Fatherland to Justice. All this was inspiredby the principle – which is quite true in itself – that in the big lie there isalways a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation arealways more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional naturethan consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of theirminds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, sincethey themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed toresort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads tofabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could havethe impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts whichprove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will stilldoubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some otherexplanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, evenafter it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars inthis world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These peopleknow only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.
From time immemorial. however, theJews have known better than any others how falsehood and calumny can beexploited. Is not their very existence founded on one great lie, namely, thatthey are a religious community, whereas in reality they are a race? And what arace! One of the greatest thinkers that mankind has produced has branded theJews for all time with a statement which is profoundly and exactly true. He(Schopenhauer) called the Jew "The Great Master of Lies". Those whodo not realize the truth of that statement, or do not wish to believe it, willnever be able to lend a hand in helping Truth to prevail.
We may regard it as a great strokeof fortune for the German nation that its period of lingering suffering was sosuddenly curtailed and transformed into such a terrible catastrophe. For ifthings had gone on as they were the nation would have more slowly, but moresurely, gone to ruin. The disease would have become chronic; whereas, in theacute form of the disaster, it at least showed itself clearly to the eyes of aconsiderable number of observers. It was not by accident that man conquered theblack plague more easily than he conquered tuberculosis. The first appeared interrifying waves of death that shook the whole of mankind, the other advancesinsidiously; the first induces terror, the other gradual indifference. Theresult is, however, that men opposed the first with all the energy they werecapable of, whilst they try to arrest tuberculosis by feeble means. Thus manhas mastered the black plague, while tuberculosis still gets the better of him.
The same applies to diseases innations. So long as these diseases are not of a catastrophic character, thepopulation will slowly accustom itself to them and later succumb. It is then astroke of luck – although a bitter one – when Fate decides to interfere in thisslow process of decay and suddenly brings the victim face to face with thefinal stage of the disease. More often than not the result of a catastrophe isthat a cure is at once undertaken and carried through with rigid determination.
But even in such a case theessential preliminary condition is always the recognition of the internalcauses which have given rise to the disease in question.
The important question here is thedifferentiation of the root causes from the circumstances developing out ofthem. This becomes all the more difficult the longer the germs of diseaseremain in the national body and the longer they are allowed to become anintegral part of that body. It may easily happen that, as time goes on, it willbecome so difficult to recognize certain definite virulent poisons as such thatthey are accepted as belonging to the national being; or they are merelytolerated as a necessary evil, so that drastic attempts to locate those aliengerms are not held to be necessary.
During the long period of peaceprior to the last war certain evils were apparent here and there although, withone or two exceptions, very little effort was made to discover their origin.Here again these exceptions were first and foremost those phenomena in theeconomic life of the nation which were more apparent to the individual than theevil conditions existing in a good many other spheres.
There were many signs of decaywhich ought to have been given serious thought. As far as economics wereconcerned, the following may be said: –
The amazing increase of populationin Germany before the war brought the question of providing daily bread into amore and more prominent position in all spheres of political and economicthought and action. But unfortunately those responsible could not make up theirminds to arrive at the only correct solution and preferred to reach theirobjective by cheaper methods. Repudiation of the idea of acquiring freshterritory and the substitution for it of the mad desire for the commercialconquest of the world was bound to lead eventually to unlimited and injuriousindustrialization.
The first and most fatal resultbrought about in this way was the weakening of the agricultural classes, whosedecline was proportionate to the increase in the proletariat of the urbanareas, until finally the equilibrium was completely upset.
The big barrier dividing rich andpoor now became apparent. Luxury and poverty lived so close to each other thatthe consequences were bound to be deplorable. Want and frequent unemploymentbegan to play havoc with the people and left discontent and embitterment behindthem. The result of this was to divide the population into political classes.Discontent increased in spite of commercial prosperity. Matters finally reachedthat stage which brought about the general conviction that ‘things cannot go onas they are’, although no one seemed able to visualize what was really going tohappen.
These were typical and visiblesigns of the depths which the prevailing discontent had reached. Far worse thanthese, however, were other consequences which became apparent as a result ofthe industrialization of the nation.
In proportion to the extent thatcommerce assumed definite control of the State, money became more and more of aGod whom all had to serve and bow down to. Heavenly Gods became more and moreold-fashioned and were laid away in the corners to make room for the worship ofmammon. And thus began a period of utter degeneration which became speciallypernicious because it set in at a time when the nation was more than ever inneed of an exalted idea, for a critical hour was threatening. Germany shouldhave been prepared to protect with the sword her efforts to win her own dailybread in a peaceful way.
Unfortunately, the predominance ofmoney received support and sanction in the very quarter which ought to havebeen opposed to it. His Majesty, the Kaiser, made a mistake when he raisedrepresentatives of the new finance capital to the ranks of the nobility.Admittedly, it may be offered as an excuse that even Bismarck failed to realizethe threatening danger in this respect. In practice, however, all ideal virtuesbecame secondary considerations to those of money, for it was clear that havingonce taken this road, the nobility of the sword would very soon rank second tothat of finance.
Financial operations succeedeasier than war operations. Hence it was no longer any great attraction for atrue hero or even a statesman to be brought into touch with the nearest Jewbanker. Real merit was not interested in receiving cheap decorations andtherefore declined them with thanks. But from the standpoint of good breedingsuch a development was deeply regrettable. The nobility began to lose more andmore of the racial qualities that were a condition of its very existence, withthe result that in many cases the term ‘plebeian’ would have been moreappropriate.
A serious state of economicdisruption was being brought about by the slow elimination of the personalcontrol of vested interests and the gradual transference of the whole economicstructure into the hands of joint stock companies.
In this way labour became degradedinto an object of speculation in the hands of unscrupulous exploiters.
The de-personalization of propertyownership increased on a vast scale. Financial exchange circles began totriumph and made slow but sure progress in assuming control of the whole ofnational life.
Before the War theinternationalization of the German economic structure had already begun by theroundabout way of share issues. It is true that a section of the Germanindustrialists made a determined attempt to avert the danger, but in the end theygave way before the united attacks of money-grabbing capitalism, which wasassisted in this fight by its faithful henchmen in the Marxist movement.
The persistent war against German‘heavy industries’ was the visible start of the internationalization of Germaneconomic life as envisaged by the Marxists. This, however, could only bebrought to a successful conclusion by the victory which Marxism was able togain in the Revolution. As I write these words, success is attending thegeneral attack on the German State Railways which are now to be turned over tointernational capitalists. Thus ‘International Social-Democracy’ has once againattained one of its main objectives.
The best evidence of how far this‘commercialization’ of the German nation was able to go can be plainly seen inthe fact that when the War was over one of the leading captains of Germanindustry and commerce gave it as his opinion that commerce as such was the onlyforce which could put Germany on its feet again.
This sort of nonsense was utteredjust at the time when France was restoring public education on a humanitarianbasis, thus doing away with the idea that national life is dependent oncommerce rather than ideal values. The statement which Stinnes broadcasted tothe world at that time caused incredible confusion. It was immediately taken upand has become the leading motto of all those humbugs and babblers – the‘statesmen’ whom Fate let loose on Germany after the Revolution.
One of the worst evidences ofdecadence in Germany before the War was the ever increasing habit of doingthings by halves. This was one of the consequences of the insecurity that wasfelt all round. And it is to be attributed also to a certain timidity whichresulted from one cause or another. And the latter malady was aggravated by theeducational system.
German education in pre-War timeshad an extraordinary number of weak features. It was simply and exclusivelylimited to the production of pure knowledge and paid little attention to thedevelopment of practical ability. Still less attention was given to thedevelopment of individual character, in so far as this is ever possible. Andhardly any attention at all was paid to the development of a sense ofresponsibility, to strengthening the will and the powers of decision. Theresult of this method was to produce erudite people who had a passion forknowing everything. Before the War we Germans were accepted and estimatedaccordingly. The German was liked because good use could be made of him; butthere was little esteem for him personally, on account of this weakness ofcharacter. For those who can read its significance aright, there is muchinstruction in the fact that among all nationalities Germans were the first topart with their national citizenship when they found themselves in a foreigncountry. And there is a world of meaning in the saying that was then prevalent:‘With the hat in the hand one can go through the whole country’.
This kind of social etiquetteturned out disastrous when it prescribed the exclusive forms that had to beobserved in the presence of His Majesty. These forms insisted that there shouldbe no contradiction whatsoever, but that everything should be praised which HisMajesty condescended to like.
It was just here that the frank expressionof manly dignity, and not subservience, was most needed. Servility in thepresence of monarchs may be good enough for the professional lackey andplace-hunter, in fact for all those decadent beings who are more pleased to befound moving in the high circles of royalty than among honest citizens. Theseexceedingly ‘humble’ creatures however, though they grovel before their lordand bread-giver, invariably put on airs of boundless superciliousness towardsother mortals, which was particularly impudent when they posed as the onlypeople who had the right to be called ‘monarchists’. This was a gross piece ofimpertinence such as only despicable specimens among the newly-ennobled oryet-to-be-ennobled could be capable of.
And these have always been justthe people who have prepared the way for the downfall of monarchy and themonarchical principle. It could not be otherwise. For when a man is prepared tostand up for a cause, come what may, he never grovels before itsrepresentative. A man who is serious about the maintenance and welfare of aninstitution will not allow himself to be discouraged when the representativesof that institution show certain faults and failings. And he certainly will notrun around to tell the world about it, as certain false democratic ‘friends’ ofthe monarchy have done; but he will approach His Majesty, the bearer of theCrown himself, to warn him of the seriousness of a situation and persuade themonarch to act. Furthermore, he will not take up the standpoint that it must beleft to His Majesty to act as the latter thinks fit, even though the coursewhich he would take must plainly lead to disaster. But the man I am thinking ofwill deem it his duty to protect the monarchy against the monarch himself, nomatter what personal risk he may run in doing so. If the worth of themonarchical institution be dependent on the person of the monarch himself, thenit would be the worst institution imaginable; for only in rare cases are kingsfound to be models of wisdom and understanding, and integrity of character,though we might like to think otherwise. But this fact is unpalatable to theprofessional knaves and lackeys. Yet all upright men, and they are the backboneof the nation, repudiate the nonsensical fiction that all monarchs are wise,etc. For such men history is history and truth is truth, even where monarchsare concerned. But if a nation should have the good luck to possess a greatking or a great man it ought to consider itself as specially favoured above allthe other nations, and these may be thankful if an adverse fortune has notallotted the worst to them.
It is clear that the worth andsignificance of the monarchical principle cannot rest in the person of themonarch alone, unless Heaven decrees that the crown should be set on the headof a brilliant hero like Frederick the Great, or a sagacious person likeWilliam I. This may happen once in several centuries, but hardly oftener thanthat. The ideal of the monarchy takes precedence of the person of the monarch,inasmuch as the meaning of the institution must lie in the institution it self.Thus the monarchy may be reckoned in the category of those whose duty it is toserve. He, too, is but a wheel in this machine and as such he is obliged to dohis duty towards it. He has to adapt himself for the fulfilment of high aims.If, therefore , there were no significance attached to the idea itself andeverything merely centred around the ‘sacred’ person, then it would never bepossible to depose a ruler who has shown himself to be an imbecile.
It is essential to insist uponthis truth at the present time, because recently those phenomena have appearedagain and were in no small measure responsible for the collapse of themonarchy. With a certain amount of native impudence these persons once againtalk about ‘their King’ – that is to say, the man whom they shamefully deserteda few years ago at a most critical hour. Those who refrain from participatingin this chorus of lies are summarily classified as ‘bad Germans’. They who makethe charge are the same class of quitters who ran away in 1918 and took towearing red badges. They thought that discretion was the better part of valour.They were indifferent about what happened to the Kaiser. They camouflagedthemselves as ‘peaceful citizens’ but more often than not they vanishedaltogether. All of a sudden these champions of royalty were nowhere to be foundat that time. Circumspectly, one by one, these ‘servants and counsellors’ ofthe Crown reappeared, to resume their lip-service to royalty but only afterothers had borne the brunt of the anti-royalist attack and suppressed theRevolution for them. Once again they were all there. remembering wistfully theflesh-pots of Egypt and almost bursting with devotion for the royal cause. Thiswent on until the day came when red badges were again in the ascendant. Thenthis whole ramshackle assembly of royal worshippers scuttled anew like micefrom the cats.
If monarchs were not themselvesresponsible for such things one could not help sympathizing with them. But theymust realize that with such champions thrones can be lost but certainly nevergained.
All this devotion was a mistakeand was the result of our whole system of education, which in this case broughtabout a particularly severe retribution. Such lamentable trumpery was kept upat the various courts that the monarchy was slowly becoming under mined. Whenfinally it did begin to totter, everything was swept away. Naturally,grovellers and lick-spittles are never willing to die for their masters. Thatmonarchs never realize this, and almost on principle never really take thetrouble to learn it, has always been their undoing.
One visible result of wrongeducational system was the fear of shouldering responsibility and the resultantweakness in dealing with obvious vital problems of existence.
The starting point of thisepidemic, however, was in our parliamentary institution where the shirking ofresponsibility is particularly fostered. Unfortunately the disease slowlyspread to all branches of everyday life but particularly affected the sphere ofpublic affairs. Responsibility was being shirked everywhere and this led toinsufficient or half-hearted measures being taken, personal responsibility foreach act being reduced to a minimum.
If we consider the attitude ofvarious Governments towards a whole series of really pernicious phenomena inpublic life, we shall at once recognize the fearful significance of this policyof half-measures and the lack of courage to undertake responsibilities. I shallsingle out only a few from the large numbers of instances known to me.
In journalistic circles it is apleasing custom to speak of the Press as a ‘Great Power’ within the State. As amatter of fact its importance is immense. One cannot easily overestimate it,for the Press continues the work of education even in adult life. Generally,readers of the Press can be classified into three groups:
First, those who believeeverything they read;
Second, those who no longerbelieve anything;
Third, those who criticallyexamine what they read and form their judgments accordingly.
Numerically, the first group is byfar the strongest, being composed of the broad masses of the people.Intellectually, it forms the simplest portion of the nation. It cannot beclassified according to occupation but only into grades of intelligence. Underthis category come all those who have not been born to think for themselves orwho have not learnt to do so and who, partly through incompetence and partlythrough ignorance, believe everything that is set before them in print. Tothese we must add that type of lazy individual who, although capable ofthinking for himself out of sheer laziness gratefully absorbs everything thatothers had thought over, modestly believing this to have been thoroughly done.The influence which the Press has on all these people is therefore enormous;for after all they constitute the broad masses of a nation. But, somehow theyare not in a position or are not willing personally to sift what is beingserved up to them; so that their whole attitude towards daily problems isalmost solely the result of extraneous influence. All this can be advantageouswhere public enlightenment is of a serious and truthful character, but greatharm is done when scoundrels and liars take a hand at this work.
The second group is numericallysmaller, being partly composed of those who were formerly in the first groupand after a series of bitter disappointments are now prepared to believenothing of what they see in print. They hate all newspapers. Either they do notread them at all or they become exceptionally annoyed at their contents, whichthey hold to be nothing but a congeries of lies and misstatements. These peopleare difficult to handle; for they will always be sceptical of the truth.Consequently, they are useless for any form of positive work.
The third group is easily thesmallest, being composed of real intellectuals whom natural aptitude andeducation have taught to think for themselves and who in all things try to formtheir own judgments, while at the same time carefully sifting what they read.They will not read any newspaper without using their own intelligence tocollaborate with that of the writer and naturally this does not set writers aneasy task. Journalists appreciate this type of reader only with a certainamount of reservation.
Hence the trash that newspapersare capable of serving up is of little danger – much less of importance – tothe members of the third group of readers. In the majority of cases thesereaders have learnt to regard every journalist as fundamentally a rogue whosometimes speaks the truth. Most unfortunately, the value of these readers liesin their intelligence and not in their numerical strength, an unhappy state ofaffairs in a period where wisdom counts for nothing and majorities foreverything. Nowadays when the voting papers of the masses are the decidingfactor; the decision lies in the hands of the numerically strongest group; thatis to say the first group, the crowd of simpletons and the credulous.
It is an all-important interest ofthe State and a national duty to prevent these people from falling into thehands of false, ignorant or even evil-minded teachers. Therefore it is the dutyof the State to supervise their education and prevent every form of offence inthis respect. Particular attention should be paid to the Press; for itsinfluence on these people is by far the strongest and most penetrating of all;since its effect is not transitory but continual. Its immense significance liesin the uniform and persistent repetition of its teaching. Here, if anywhere,the State should never forget that all means should converge towards the sameend. It must not be led astray by the will-o’-the-wisp of so-called ‘freedom ofthe Press’, or be talked into neglecting its duty, and withholding from thenation that which is good and which does good. With ruthless determination theState must keep control of this instrument of popular education and place it atthe service of the State and the Nation.
But what sort of pabulum was itthat the German Press served up for the consumption of its readers in pre-Wardays? Was it not the worst virulent poison imaginable? Was not pacifism in itsworst form inoculated into our people at a time when others were preparingslowly but surely to pounce upon Germany? Did not this self-same Press of oursin peace time already instil into the public mind a doubt as to the sovereignrights of the State itself, thereby already handicapping the State in choosingits means of defence? Was it not the German Press that under stood how to makeall the nonsensical talk about ‘Western democracy’ palatable to our people,until an exuberant public was eventually prepared to entrust its future to theLeague of Nations? Was not this Press instrumental in bringing in a state ofmoral degradation among our people? Were not morals and public decency made tolook ridiculous and classed as out-of-date and banal, until finally our peoplealso became modernized? By means of persistent attacks, did not the Press keepon undermining the authority of the State, until one blow sufficed to bringthis institution tottering to the ground? Did not the Press oppose with all itsmight every movement to give the State that which belongs to the State, and bymeans of constant criticism, injure the reputation of the army, sabotagegeneral conscription and demand refusal of military credits, etc. – until thesuccess of this campaign was assured?
The function of the so-calledliberal Press was to dig the grave for the German people and Reich. No mentionneed be made of the lying Marxist Press. To them the spreading of falsehood isas much a vital necessity as the mouse is to a cat. Their sole task is to breakthe national backbone of the people, thus preparing the nation to become theslaves of international finance and its masters, the Jews.
And what measures did the Statetake to counteract this wholesale poisoning of the public mind? None,absolutely nothing at all. By this policy it was hoped to win the favour ofthis pest – by means of flattery, by a recognition of the ‘value’ of the Press,its ‘importance’, its ‘educative mission’ and similar nonsense. The Jewsacknowledged all this with a knowing smile and returned thanks.
The reason for this ignominiousfailure on the part of the State lay not so much in its refusal to realize thedanger as in the out-and-out cowardly way of meeting the situation by theadoption of faulty and ineffective measures. No one had the courage to employany energetic and radical methods. Everyone temporised in some way or other;and instead of striking at its heart, the viper was only further irritated. Theresult was that not only did everything remain as it was, but the power of thisinstitution which should have been combated grew greater from year to year.
The defence put up by theGovernment in those days against a mainly Jew-controlled Press that was slowlycorrupting the nation, followed no definite line of action, it had nodetermination behind it and above all, no fixed objective whatsoever in view.This is where official understanding of the situation completely failed both inestimating the importance of the struggle, choosing the means and deciding on adefinite plan. They merely tinkered with the problem. Occasionally, whenbitten, they imprisoned one or another journalistic viper for a few weeks ormonths, but the whole poisonous brood was allowed to carry on in peace.
It must be admitted that all thiswas partly the result of extraordinary crafty tactics on the part of Jewry onthe one hand, and obvious official stupidity or naïveté on the other hand. TheJews were too clever to allow a simultaneous attack to be made on the whole oftheir Press. No one section functioned as cover for the other. While theMarxist newspaper, in the most despicable manner possible, reviled everythingthat was sacred, furiously attacked the State and Government and incitedcertain classes of the community against each other, the bourgeois-democraticpapers, also in Jewish hands, knew how to camouflage themselves as modelexamples of objectivity. They studiously avoided harsh language, knowing wellthat block-heads are capable of judging only by external appearances and neverable to penetrate to the real depth and meaning of anything. They measure theworth of an object by its exterior and not by its content. This form of humanfrailty was carefully studied and understood by the Press.
For this class of blockheads theFrankfurter Zeitung would be acknowledged as the essence of respectability. Italways carefully avoided calling a spade a spade. It deprecated the use ofevery form of physical force and persistently appealed to the nobility offighting with ‘intellectual’ weapons. But this fight, curiously enough, wasmost popular with the least intellectual classes. That is one of the results ofour defective education, which turns the youth away from the instinctivedictates of Nature, pumps into them a certain amount of knowledge withouthowever being able to bring them to what is the supreme act of knowing. To thisend diligence and goodwill are of no avail, if innate understanding fail. Thisfinal knowledge at which man must aim is the understanding of causes which areinstinctively perceived.
Let me explain: Man must not fallinto the error of thinking that he was ever meant to become lord and master ofNature. A lopsided education has helped to encourage that illusion. Man mustrealize that a fundamental law of necessity reigns throughout the whole realmof Nature and that his existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle andstrife. He will then feel that there cannot be a separate law for mankind in aworld in which planets and suns follow their orbits, where moons and planetstrace their destined paths, where the strong are always the masters of the weakand where those subject to such laws must obey them or be destroyed. Man mustalso submit to the eternal principles of this supreme wisdom. He may try tounderstand them but he can never free himself from their sway.
It is just for intellectualdemi-monde that the Jew writes those papers which he calls his ‘intellectual’Press. For them the Frankfurter Zeitung and Berliner Tageblatt are written, thetone being adapted to them, and it is over these people that such papers havean influence. While studiously avoiding all forms of expression that mightstrike the reader as crude, the poison is injected from other vials into thehearts of the clientele. The effervescent tone and the fine phraseology lug thereaders into believing that a love for knowledge and moral principle is thesole driving force that determines the policy of such papers, whereas inreality these features represent a cunning way of disarming any opposition thatmight be directed against the Jews and their Press.
They make such a parade ofrespectability that the imbecile readers are all the more ready to believe thatthe excesses which other papers indulge in are only of a mild nature and notsuch as to warrant legal action being taken against them. Indeed such actionmight trespass on the freedom of the Press, that expression being a euphemismunder which such papers escape legal punishment for deceiving the public andpoisoning the public mind. Hence the authorities are very slow indeed to takeany steps against these journalistic bandits for fear of immediately alienatingthe sympathy of the so-called respectable Press. A fear that is only too wellfounded, for the moment any attempt is made to proceed against any member ofthe gutter press all the others rush to its assistance at once, not indeed tosupport its policy but simply and solely to defend the principle of freedom ofthe Press and liberty of public opinion. This outcry will succeed in coweringthe most stalwart; for it comes from the mouth of what is called decentjournalism.
And so this poison was allowed toenter the national bloodstream and infect public life without the Governmenttaking any effectual measures to master the course of the disease. Theridiculous half-measures that were taken were in themselves an indication ofthe process of disintegration that was already threatening to break up theEmpire. For an institution practically surrenders its existence when it is nolonger determined to defend itself with all the weapons at its command. Everyhalf-measure is the outward expression of an internal process of decay whichmust lead to an external collapse sooner or later.
I believe that our presentgeneration would easily master this danger if they were rightly led. For thisgeneration has gone through certain experiences which must have strengthenedthe nerves of all those who did not become nervously broken by them. Certainlyin days to come the Jews will raise a tremendous cry throughout theirnewspapers once a hand is laid on their favourite nest, once a move is made toput an end to this scandalous Press and once this instrument which shapespublic opinion is brought under State control and no longer left in the handsof aliens and enemies of the people. I am certain that this will be easier forus than it was for our fathers. The scream of the twelve-inch shrapnel is morepenetrating than the hiss from a thousand Jewish newspaper vipers. Thereforelet them go on with their hissing.
A further example of the weak andhesitating way in which vital national problems were dealt with in pre-WarGermany is the following: Hand in hand with the political and moral process ofinfecting the nation, for many years an equally virulent process of infectionhad been attacking the public health of the people. In large cities,particularly, syphilis steadily increased and tuberculosis kept pace with it inreaping its harvest of death almost in every part of the country.
Although in both cases the effecton the nation was alarming, it seemed as if nobody was in a position toundertake any decisive measures against these scourges.
In the case of syphilis especiallythe attitude of the State and public bodies was one of absolute capitulation.To combat this state of affairs something of far wider sweep should have beenundertaken than was really done. The discovery of a remedy which is of aquestionable nature and the excellent way in which it was placed on the marketwere only of little assistance in fighting such a scourge. Here again the onlycourse to adopt is to attack the disease in its causes rather than in itssymptoms. But in this case the primary cause is to be found in the manner inwhich love has been prostituted. Even though this did not directly bring aboutthe fearful disease itself, the nation must still suffer serious damagethereby, for the moral havoc resulting from this prostitution would besufficient to bring about the destruction of the nation, slowly but surely.This Judaizing of our spiritual life and mammonizing of our natural instinctfor procreation will sooner or later work havoc with our whole posterity. Forinstead of strong, healthy children, blessed with natural feelings, we shallsee miserable specimens of humanity resulting from economic calculation. For economicconsiderations are becoming more and more the foundations of marriage and thesole preliminary condition of it. And love looks for an outlet elsewhere.
Here, as elsewhere, one may defyNature for a certain period of time; but sooner or later she will take herinexorable revenge. And when man realizes this truth it is often too late.
Our own nobility furnishes anexample of the devastating consequences that follow from a persistent refusalto recognize the primary conditions necessary for normal wedlock. Here we areopenly brought face to face with the results of those reproductive habits whichon the one hand are determined by social pressure and, on the other, byfinancial considerations. The one leads to inherited debility and the other toadulteration of the blood-strain; for all the Jewish daughters of thedepartment store proprietors are looked upon as eligible mates to co-operate inpropagating His Lordship’s stock. And the stock certainly looks it. All thisleads to absolute degeneration. Nowadays our bourgeoise are making efforts tofollow in the same path, They will come to the same journey’s end.
These unpleasant truths arehastily and nonchalantly brushed aside, as if by so doing the real state ofaffairs could also be abolished. But no. It cannot be denied that thepopulation of our great towns and cities is tending more and more to avail ofprostitution in the exercise of its amorous instincts and is thus becoming moreand more contaminated by the scourge of venereal disease. On the one hand, thevisible effects of this mass-infection can be observed in our insane asylumsand, on the other hand, alas! among the children at home. These are the dolefuland tragic witnesses to the steadily increasing scourge that is poisoning oursexual life. Their sufferings are the visible results of parental vice.
There are many ways of becomingresigned to this unpleasant and terrible fact. Many people go about seeingnothing or, to be more correct, not wanting to see anything. This is by far thesimplest and cheapest attitude to adopt. Others cover themselves in the sacredmantle of prudery, as ridiculous as it is false. They describe the wholecondition of affairs as sinful and are profoundly indignant when brought faceto face with a victim. They close their eyes in reverend abhorrence to thisgodless scourge and pray to the Almighty that He – if possible after their owndeath – may rain down fire and brimstone as on Sodom and Gomorrah and so onceagain make an out standing example of this shameless section of humanity.Finally, there are those who are well aware of the terrible results which thisscourge will and must bring about, but they merely shrug their shoulders, fullyconvinced of their inability to undertake anything against this peril. Hence mattersare allowed to take their own course.
Undoubtedly all this is veryconvenient and simple, only it must not be overlooked that this convenient wayof approaching things can have fatal consequences for our national life. The excusethat other nations are also not faring any better does not alter the fact ofour own deterioration, except that the feeling of sympathy for other strickennations makes our own suffering easier to bear. But the important question thatarises here is: Which nation will be the first to take the initiative inmastering this scourge, and which nations will succumb to it? This will be thefinal upshot of the whole situation. The present is a period of probation forracial values. The race that fails to come through the test will simply die outand its place will be taken by the healthier and stronger races, which will beable to endure greater hardships. As this problem primarily concerns posterity,it belongs to that category of which it is said with terrible justificationthat the sins of the fathers are visited on their offspring unto the tenthgeneration. This is a consequence which follows on an infringement of the lawsof blood and race.
The sin against blood and race isthe hereditary sin in this world and it brings disaster on every nation thatcommits it.
The attitude towards this onevital problem in pre-War Germany was most regrettable. What measures wereundertaken to arrest the infection of our youth in the large cities? What wasdone to put an end to the contamination and mammonization of sexual life amongus? What was done to fight the resultant spreading of syphilis throughout thewhole of our national life? The reply to this question can best be illustratedby showing what should have been done.
Instead of tackling this problemin a haphazard way, the authorities should have realized that the fortunes ormisfortunes of future generations depended on its solution. But to admit thiswould have demanded that active measures be carried out in a ruthless manner.The primary condition would have been that the enlightened attention of thewhole country should be concentrated on this terrible danger, so that everyindividual would realize the importance of fighting against it. It would befutile to impose obligations of a definite character – which are oftendifficult to bear – and expect them to become generally effective, unless thepublic be thoroughly instructed on the necessity of imposing and accepting suchobligations. This demands a widespread and systematic method of enlightenmentand all other daily problems that might distract public attention from thisgreat central problem should be relegated to the background.
In every case where there areexigencies or tasks that seem impossible to deal with successfully publicopinion must be concentrated on the one problem, under the conviction that thesolution of this problem alone is a matter of life or death. Only in this waycan public interest be aroused to such a pitch as will urge people to combinein a great voluntary effort and achieve important results.
This fundamental truth appliesalso to the individual, provided he is desirous of attaining some great end. Hemust always concentrate his efforts to one definitely limited stage of his progresswhich has to be completed before the next step be attempted. Those who do notendeavour to realize their aims step by step and who do not concentrate theirenergy in reaching the individual stages, will never attain the finalobjective. At some stage or other they will falter and fail. This systematicway of approaching an objective is an art in itself, and always calls for theexpenditure of every ounce of energy in order to conquer step after step of theroad.
Therefore the most essentialpreliminary condition necessary for an attack on such a difficult stage of thehuman road is that the authorities should succeed in convincing the masses thatthe immediate objective which is now being fought for is the only one thatdeserves to be considered and the only one on which everything depends. Thebroad masses are never able clearly to see the whole stretch of the road lyingin front of them without becoming tired and thus losing faith in their abilityto complete the task. To a certain extent they will keep the objective in mind,but they are only able to survey the whole road in small stages, as in the caseof the traveller who knows where his journey is going to end but who mastersthe endless stretch far better by attacking it in degrees. Only in this way canhe keep up his determination to reach the final objective.
It is in this way, with theassistance of every form of propaganda, that the problem of fighting venerealdisease should be placed before the public – not as a task for the nation butas the main task. Every possible means should be employed to bring the truthabout this scourge home to the minds of the people, until the whole nation hasbeen convinced that everything depends on the solution of this problem; that isto say, a healthy future or national decay.
Only after such preparatorymeasures – if necessary spread over a period of many years – will publicattention and public resolution be fully aroused, and only then can serious anddefinite measures be undertaken without running the risk of not being fullyunderstood or of being suddenly faced with a slackening of the public will. Itmust be made clear to all that a serious fight against this scourge calls forvast sacrifices and an enormous amount of work.
To wage war against syphilis meansfighting against prostitution, against prejudice, against old-establishedcustoms, against current fashion, public opinion, and, last but not least,against false prudery in certain circles.
The first preliminary condition tobe fulfilled before the State can claim a moral right to fight against allthese things is that the young generation should be afforded facilities forcontracting early marriages. Late marriages have the sanction of a customwhich, from whatever angle we view it, is and will remain a disgrace tohumanity.
Prostitution is a disgrace tohumanity and cannot be removed simply by charitable or academic methods. Itsrestriction and final extermination presupposes the removal of a whole seriesof contributory circumstances. The first remedy must always be to establishsuch conditions as will make early marriages possible, especially for young men– for women are, after all, only passive subjects in this matter.
An illustration of the extent towhich people have so often been led astray nowadays is afforded by the factthat not infrequently one hears mothers in so-called ‘better’ circles openlyexpressing their satisfaction at having found as a husband for their daughter aman who has already sown his wild oats, etc. As there is usually so littleshortage in men of this type, the poor girl finds no difficulty in getting amate of this description, and the children of this marriage are a visibleresult of such supposedly sensible unions.
When one realizes, apart fromthis, that every possible effort is being made to hinder the process ofprocreation and that Nature is being wilfully cheated of her rights, thereremains really only one question: Why is such an institution as marriage stillin existence, and what are its functions? Is it really nothing better thanprostitution? Does our duty to posterity no longer play any part? Or do peoplenot realize the nature of the curse they are inflicting on themselves and theiroffspring by such criminally foolish neglect of one of the primary laws ofNature? This is how civilized nations degenerate and gradually perish.
Marriage is not an end in itselfbut must serve the greater end, which is that of increasing and maintaining thehuman species and the race. This is its only meaning and purpose.
This being admitted, then it isclear that the institution of marriage must be judged by the manner in whichits allotted function is fulfilled. Therefore early marriages should be therule, because thus the young couple will still have that pristine force whichis the fountain head of a healthy posterity with unimpaired powers ofresistance. Of course early marriages cannot be made the rule unless a wholeseries of social measures are first undertaken without which early marriagescannot be even thought of . In other words, a solution of this question, whichseems a small problem in itself, cannot be brought about without adoptingradical measures to alter the social background. The importance of suchmeasures ought to be studied and properly estimated, especially at a time whenthe so-called ‘social’ Republic has shown itself unable to solve the housingproblem and thus has made it impossible for innumerable couples to get married.That sort of policy prepares the way for the further advance of prostitution.
Another reason why early marriagesare impossible is our nonsensical method of regulating the scale of salaries,which pays far too little attention to the problem of family support.Prostitution, therefore, can only be really seriously tackled if, by means of aradical social reform, early marriage is made easier than hitherto. This is thefirst preliminary necessity for the solution of this problem.
Secondly, a whole series of falsenotions must be eradicated from our system of bringing up and educatingchildren – things which hitherto no one seems to have worried about. In ourpresent educational system a balance will have to be established, first andforemost, between mental instruction and physical training.
What is known as Gymnasium(Grammar School) to-day is a positive insult to the Greek institution. Oursystem of education entirely loses sight of the fact that in the long run ahealthy mind can exist only in a healthy body. This statement, with fewexceptions, applies particularly to the broad masses of the nation.
In the pre-War Germany there was atime when no one took the trouble to think over this truth. Training of thebody was criminally neglected, the one-sided training of the mind beingregarded as a sufficient guarantee for the nation’s greatness. This mistake wasdestined to show its effects sooner than had been anticipated. It is not purechance that the Bolshevic teaching flourishes in those regions whose degeneratepopulation has been brought to the verge of starvation, as, for example, in thecase of Central Germany, Saxony, and the Ruhr Valley. In all these districtsthere is a marked absence of any serious resistance, even by the so-calledintellectual classes, against this Jewish contagion. And the simple reason isthat the intellectual classes are themselves physically degenerate, not throughprivation but through education. The exclusive intellectualism of the educationin vogue among our upper classes makes them unfit for life’s struggle at anepoch in which physical force and not mind is the dominating factor. Thus theyare neither capable of maintaining themselves nor of making their way in life.In nearly every case physical disability is the forerunner of personalcowardice.
The extravagant emphasis laid onpurely intellectual education and the consequent neglect of physical trainingmust necessarily lead to sexual thoughts in early youth. Those boys whoseconstitutions have been trained and hardened by sports and gymnastics are lessprone to sexual indulgence than those stay-at-homes who have been fedexclusively with mental pabulum. Sound methods of education cannot, however,afford to disregard this, and we must not forget that the expectations of ahealthy young man from a woman will differ from those of a weakling who has beenprematurely corrupted.
Thus in every branch of oureducation the day’s curriculum must be arranged so as to occupy a boy’s freetime in profitable development of his physical powers. He has no right in thoseyears to loaf about, becoming a nuisance in public streets and in cinemas; butwhen his day’s work is done he ought to harden his young body so that hisstrength may not be found wanting when the occasion arises. To prepare for thisand to carry it out should be the function of our educational system and notexclusively to pump in knowledge or wisdom. Our school system must also riditself of the notion that the training of the body is a task that should beleft to the individual himself. There is no such thing as allowing freedom ofchoice to sin against posterity and thus against the race.
The fight against pollution of themind must be waged simultaneously with the training of the body. To-day thewhole of our public life may be compared to a hot-house for the forced growthof sexual notions and incitements. A glance at the bill-of-fare provided by ourcinemas, playhouses, and theatres suffices to prove that this is not the rightfood, especially for our young people. Hoardings and advertisements kioskscombine to attract the public in the most vulgar manner. Anyone who has notaltogether lost contact with adolescent yearnings will realize that all thismust have very grave consequences. This seductive and sensuous atmosphere putsnotions into the heads of our youth which, at their age, ought still to beunknown to them. Unfortunately, the results of this kind of education can bestbe seen in our contemporary youth who are prematurely grown up and thereforeold before their time. The law courts from time to time throw a distressinglight on the spiritual life of our 14- and 15-year old children. Who,therefore, will be surprised to learn that venereal disease claims its victimsat this age? And is it not a frightful shame to see the number of physicallyweak and intellectually spoiled young men who have been introduced to themysteries of marriage by the whores of the big cities?
No; those who want seriously tocombat prostitution must first of all assist in removing the spiritualconditions on which it thrives. They will have to clean up the moral pollutionof our city ‘culture’ fearlessly and without regard for the outcry that willfollow. If we do not drag our youth out of the morass of their presentenvironment they will be engulfed by it. Those people who do not want to seethese things are deliberately encouraging them and are guilty of spreading theeffects of prostitution to the future – for the future belongs to our younggeneration. This process of cleansing our ‘Kultur’ will have to be applied inpractically all spheres. The stage, art, literature, the cinema, the Press andadvertisement posters, all must have the stains of pollution removed and beplaced in the service of a national and cultural idea. The life of the peoplemust be freed from the asphyxiating perfume of our modern eroticism and alsofrom every unmanly and prudish form of insincerity. In all these things the aimand the method must be determined by thoughtful consideration for thepreservation of our national well-being in body and soul. The right to personalfreedom comes second in importance to the duty of maintaining the race.
Only after such measures have beenput into practice can a medical campaign against this scourge begin with somehope of success. But, here again, half-measures will be valueless. Far-reachingand important decisions will have to be made. It would be doing things byhalves if incurables were given the opportunity of infecting one healthy personafter another. This would be that kind of humanitarianism which would allowhundreds to perish in order to save the suffering of one individual. The demandthat it should be made impossible for defective people to continue to propagatedefective offspring is a demand that is based on most reasonable grounds, andits proper fulfilment is the most humane task that mankind has to face. Unhappyand undeserved suffering in millions of cases will be spared, with the resultthat there will be a gradual improvement in national health. A determineddecision to act in this manner will at the same time provide an obstacle againstthe further spread of venereal disease. It would then be a case, wherenecessary, of mercilessly isolating all incurables – perhaps a barbaric measurefor those unfortunates – but a blessing for the present generation and forposterity. The temporary pain thus experienced in this century can and willspare future thousands of generations from suffering.
The fight against syphilis and itspace-maker, prostitution, is one of the gigantic tasks of mankind; gigantic,because it is not merely a case of solving a single problem but the removal ofa whole series of evils which are the contributory causes of this scourge.Disease of the body in this case is merely the result of a diseased conditionof the moral, social, and racial instincts.
But if for reasons of indolence orcowardice this fight is not fought to a finish we may imagine what conditionswill be like 500 years hence. Little of God’s image will be left in humannature, except to mock the Creator.
But what has been done in Germanyto counteract this scourge? If we think calmly over the answer we shall find itdistressing. It is true that in governmental circles the terrible and injuriouseffects of this disease were well known, but the counter-measures which wereofficially adopted were ineffective and a hopeless failure. They tinkered withcures for the symptoms, wholly regardless of the cause of the disease.Prostitutes were medically examined and controlled as far as possible, and whensigns of infection were apparent they were sent to hospital . When outwardlycured, they were once more let loose on humanity.
It is true that ‘protectivelegislation’ was introduced which made sexual intercourse a punishable offencefor all those not completely cured, or those suffering from venereal disease. Thislegislation was correct in theory, but in practice it failed completely. In thefirst place, in the majority of cases women will decline to appear in court aswitnesses against men who have robbed them of their health. Women would beexposed far more than men to uncharitable remarks in such cases, and one canimagine what their position would be if they had been infected by their ownhusbands. Should women in that case lay a charge? Or what should they do?
In the case of the man there is theadditional fact that he frequently is unfortunate enough to run up against thisdanger when he is under the influence of alcohol. His condition makes itimpossible for him to assess the qualities of his ‘amorous beauty,’ a factwhich is well known to every diseased prostitute and makes them single out menin this ideal condition for preference. The result is that the unfortunate manis not able to recollect later on who his compassionate benefactress was, whichis not surprising in cities like Berlin and Munich. Many of such cases arevisitors from the provinces who, held speechless and enthralled by the magiccharm of city life, become an easy prey for prostitutes.
In the final analysis who is ableto say whether he has been infected or not?
Are there not innumerable cases onrecord where an apparently cured person has a relapse and does untold harmwithout knowing it?
Therefore in practice the resultsof these legislative measures are negative. The same applies to the control ofprostitution, and, finally, even medical treatment and cure are nowadays unsafeand doubtful. One thing only is certain. The scourge has spread further andfurther in spite of all measures, and this alone suffices definitely to stampand substantiate their inefficiency.
Everything else that wasundertaken was just as inefficient as it was absurd. The spiritual prostitutionof the people was neither arrested nor was anything whatsoever undertaken inthis direction.
Those, however, who do not regardthis subject as a serious one would do well to examine the statistical data ofthe spread of this disease, study its growth in the last century andcontemplate the possibilities of its further development. The ordinaryobserver, unless he were particularly stupid, would experience a cold shudderif the position were made clear to him.
The half-hearted and waveringattitude adopted in pre-War Germany towards this iniquitous condition canassuredly be taken as a visible sign of national decay. When the courage tofight for one’s own health is no longer in evidence, then the right to live inthis world of struggle also ceases.
One of the visible signs of decayin the old Reich was the slow setback which the general cultural levelexperienced. But by ‘Kultur’ I do not mean that which we nowadays style ascivilization, which on the contrary may rather be regarded as inimical to thespiritual elevation of life.
At the turn of the last century anew element began to make its appearance in our world. It was an element whichhad been hitherto absolutely unknown and foreign to us. In former times therehad certainly been offences against good taste; but these were mostlydepartures from the orthodox canons of art, and posterity could recognize acertain historical value in them. But the new products showed signs, not onlyof artistic aberration but of spiritual degeneration. Here, in the culturalsphere, the signs of the coming collapse first became manifest.
The Bolshevization of art is theonly cultural form of life and the only spiritual manifestation of whichBolshevism is capable.
Anyone to whom this statement mayappear strange need only take a glance at those lucky States which have becomeBolshevized and, to his horror, he will there recognize those morbidmonstrosities which have been produced by insane and degenerate people. Allthose artistic aberrations which are classified under the names of cubism anddadism, since the opening of the present century, are manifestations of artwhich have come to be officially recognized by the State itself. Thisphenomenon made its appearance even during the short-lived period of the SovietRepublic in Bavaria. At that time one might easily have recognized how all theofficial posters, propagandist pictures and newspapers, etc., showed signs notonly of political but also of cultural decadence.
About sixty years ago a politicalcollapse such as we are experiencing to-day would have been just asinconceivable as the cultural decline which has been manifested in cubist andfuturist pictures ever since 1900. Sixty years ago an exhibition of so-calleddadistic ‘experiences’ would have been an absolutely preposterous idea. Theorganizers of such an exhibition would then have been certified for the lunaticasylum, whereas, to-day they are appointed presidents of art societies. At thattime such an epidemic would never have been allowed to spread. Public opinionwould not have tolerated it, and the Government would not have remained silent;for it is the duty of a Government to save its people from being stampeded intosuch intellectual madness. But intellectual madness would have resulted from adevelopment that followed the acceptance of this kind of art. It would havemarked one of the worst changes in human history; for it would have meant thata retrogressive process had begun to take place in the human brain, the finalstages of which would be unthinkable.
If we study the course of ourcultural life during the last twenty-five years we shall be astonished to notehow far we have already gone in this process of retrogression. Everywhere wefind the presence of those germs which give rise to protuberant growths thatmust sooner or later bring about the ruin of our culture. Here we findundoubted symptoms of slow corruption; and woe to the nations that are nolonger able to bring that morbid process to a halt.
In almost all the various fieldsof German art and culture those morbid phenomena may be observed. Hereeverything seems to have passed the culminating point of its excellence and tohave entered the curve of a hasty decline. At the beginning of the century thetheatres seemed already degenerating and ceasing to be cultural factors, exceptthe Court theatres, which opposed this prostitution of the national art. Withthese exceptions, and also a few other decent institutions, the plays producedon the stage were of such a nature that the people would have benefited by notvisiting them at all. A sad symptom of decline was manifested by the fact thatin the case of many ‘art centres’ the sign was posted on the entrance doors:For Adults Only.
Let it be borne in mind that theseprecautions had to be taken in regard to institutions whose main purpose shouldhave been to promote the education of the youth and not merely to provideamusement for sophisticated adults. What would the great dramatists of othertimes have said of such measures and, above all, of the conditions which madethese measures necessary? How exasperated Schiller would have been, and howGoethe would have turned away in disgust!
But what are Schiller, Goethe andShakespeare when confronted with the heroes of our modern German literature?Old and frowsy and outmoded and finished. For it was typical of this epoch thatnot only were its own products bad but that the authors of such products andtheir backers reviled everything that had really been great in the past. Thisis a phenomenon that is very characteristic of such epochs. The more vile andmiserable are the men and products of an epoch, the more they will hate anddenigrate the ideal achievements of former generations. What these people wouldlike best would be completely to destroy every vestige of the past, in order todo away with that sole standard of comparison which prevents their own daubsfrom being looked upon as art. Therefore the more lamentable and wretched arethe products of each new era, the more it will try to obliterate all thememorials of the past. But any real innovation that is for the benefit ofmankind can always face comparison with the best of what has gone before; andfrequently it happens that those monuments of the past guarantee the acceptanceof those modern productions. There is no fear that modern productions of realworth will look pale and worthless beside the monuments of the past. What iscontributed to the general treasury of human culture often fulfils a part thatis necessary in order to keep the memory of old achievements alive, becausethis memory alone is the standard whereby our own works are properlyappreciated. Only those who have nothing of value to give to the world willoppose everything that already exists and would have it destroyed at all costs.
And this holds good not only fornew phenomena in the cultural domain but also in politics. The more inferiornew revolutionary movements are, the more will they try to denigrate the oldforms. Here again the desire to pawn off their shoddy products as great andoriginal achievements leads them into a blind hatred against everything whichbelongs to the past and which is superior to their own work. As long as thehistorical memory of Frederick the Great, for instance, still lives, FrederickEbert can arouse only a problematic admiration. The relation of the hero ofSans Souci to the former republican of Bremen may be compared to that of thesun to the moon; for the moon can shine only after the direct rays of the sunhave left the earth. Thus we can readily understand why it is that all the newmoons in human history have hated the fixed stars. In the field of politics, ifFate should happen temporarily to place the ruling power in the hands of thosenonentities they are not only eager to defile and revile the past but at thesame time they will use all means to evade criticism of their own acts. The Lawfor the Protection of the Republic, which the new German State enacted, may betaken as one example of this truth.
One has good grounds to besuspicious in regard to any new idea, or any doctrine or philosophy, anypolitical or economical movement, which tries to deny everything that the pasthas produced or to present it as inferior and worthless. Any renovation whichis really beneficial to human progress will always have to begin itsconstructive work at the level where the last stones of the structure have beenlaid. It need not blush to utilize those truths which have already beenestablished; for all human culture, as well as man himself, is only the resultof one long line of development, where each generation has contributed but onestone to the building of the whole structure. The meaning and purpose ofrevolutions cannot be to tear down the whole building but to take away what hasnot been well fitted into it or is unsuitable, and to rebuild the free spacethus caused, after which the main construction of the building will be carriedon.
Thus alone will it be possible totalk of human progress; for otherwise the world would never be free of chaos,since each generation would feel entitled to reject the past and to destroy allthe work of the past, as the necessary preliminary to any new work of its own.
The saddest feature of thecondition in which our whole civilization found itself before the War was thefact that it was not only barren of any creative force to produce its own worksof art and civilization but that it hated, defiled and tried to efface thememory of the superior works produced in the past. About the end of the lastcentury people were less interested in producing new significant works of theirown – particularly in the fields of dramatic art and literature – than indefaming the best works of the past and in presenting them as inferior andantiquated. As if this period of disgraceful decadence had the slightestcapacity to produce anything of superior quality! The efforts made to concealthe past from the eyes of the present afforded clear evidence of the fact thatthese apostles of the future acted from an evil intent. These symptoms shouldhave made it clear to all that it was not a question of new, though wrong,cultural ideas but of a process which was undermining the very foundations ofcivilization. It threw the artistic feeling which had hitherto been quite saneinto utter confusion, thus spiritually preparing the way for politicalBolshevism. If the creative spirit of the Periclean age be manifested in theParthenon, then the Bolshevist era is manifested through its cubist grimace.
In this connection attention mustbe drawn once again to the want of courage displayed by one section of ourpeople, namely, by those who, in virtue of their education and position, oughtto have felt themselves obliged to take up a firm stand against this outrage onour culture. But they refrained from offering serious resistance andsurrendered to what they considered the inevitable. This abdication of theirswas due, however, to sheer funk lest the apostles of Bolshevist art might raisea rumpus; for those apostles always violently attacked everyone who was notready to recognize them as the choice spirits of artistic creation, and theytried to strangle all opposition by saying that it was the product ofphilistine and backwater minds. People trembled in fear lest they might beaccused by these yahoos and swindlers of lacking artistic appreciation, as ifit would have been a disgrace not to be able to understand and appreciate theeffusions of those mental degenerates or arrant rogues. Those culturaldisciples, however, had a very simple way of presenting their own effusions asworks of the highest quality. They offered incomprehensible and manifestlycrazy productions to their amazed contemporaries as what they called ‘an innerexperience’. Thus they forestalled all adverse criticism at very little costindeed. Of course nobody ever doubted that there could have been innerexperiences like that, but some doubt ought to have arisen as to whether or notthere was any justification for exposing these hallucinations of psychopaths orcriminals to the sane portion of human society. The works produced by a Moritzvon Schwind or a Böcklin were also externalizations of an inner experience, butthese were the experiences of divinely gifted artists and not of buffoons.
This situation afforded a goodopportunity of studying the miserable cowardliness of our so-calledintellectuals who shirked the duty of offering serious resistance to thepoisoning of the sound instincts of our people. They left it to the peoplethemselves to formulate their own attitude towards his impudent nonsense. Lestthey might be considered as understanding nothing of art, they accepted everycaricature of art, until they finally lost the power of judging what is reallygood or bad.
Taken all in all, there weresuperabundant symptoms to show that a diseased epoch had begun.
Still another critical symptom hasto be considered. In the course of the nineteenth century our towns and citiesbegan more and more to lose their character as centres of civilization andbecame more and more centres of habitation. In our great modern cities theproletariat does not show much attachment to the place where it lives. Thisfeeling results from the fact that their dwelling-place is nothing but anaccidental abode, and that feeling is also partly due to the frequent change ofresidence which is forced upon them by social conditions. There is no time forthe growth of any attachment to the town in which they live. But another reasonlies in the cultural barrenness and superficiality of our modern cities. At thetime of the German Wars of Liberation our German towns and cities were not onlysmall in number but also very modest in size. The few that could really becalled great cities were mostly the residential cities of princes; as such theyhad almost always a definite cultural value and also a definite culturalaspect. Those few towns which had more than fifty thousand inhabitants were, incomparison with modern cities of the same size, rich in scientific and artistictreasures. At the time when Munich had not more than sixty thousand souls itwas already well on the way to become one of the first German centres of art.Nowadays almost every industrial town has a population at least as large asthat, without having anything of real value to call its own. They areagglomerations of tenement houses and congested dwelling barracks, and nothingelse. It would be a miracle if anybody should grow sentimentally attached tosuch a meaningless place. Nobody can grow attached to a place which offers onlyjust as much or as little as any other place would offer, which has nocharacter of its own and where obviously pains have been taken to avoideverything that might have any resemblance to an artistic appearance.
But this is not all. Even thegreat cities become more barren of real works of art the more they increase inpopulation. They assume more and more a neutral atmosphere and present the sameaspect, though on a larger scale, as the wretched little factory towns.Everything that our modern age has contributed to the civilization of our greatcities is absolutely deficient. All our towns are living on the glory and thetreasures of the past. If we take away from the Munich of to-day everythingthat was created under Ludwig II we should be horror-stricken to see how meagrehas been the output of important artistic creations since that time. One mightsay much the same of Berlin and most of our other great towns.
But the following is the essentialthing to be noticed: Our great modern cities have no outstanding monuments thatdominate the general aspect of the city and could be pointed to as the symbolsof a whole epoch. Yet almost every ancient town had a monument erected to itsglory. It was not in private dwellings that the characteristic art of ancientcities was displayed but in the public monuments, which were not meant to havea transitory interest but an enduring one. And this was because they did notrepresent the wealth of some individual citizen but the greatness andimportance of the community. It was under this inspiration that those monumentsarose which bound the individual inhabitants to their own town in a manner thatis often almost incomprehensible to us to-day. What struck the eye of theindividual citizen was not a number of mediocre private buildings, but imposingstructures that belonged to the whole community. In contradistinction to these,private dwellings were of only very secondary importance indeed.
When we compare the size of thoseancient public buildings with that of the private dwellings belonging to thesame epoch then we can understand the great importance which was given to theprinciple that those works which reflected and affected the life of thecommunity should take precedence of all others.
Among the broken arches and vastspaces that are covered with ruins from the ancient world the colossal richesthat still arouse our wonder have not been left to us from the commercialpalaces of these days but from the temples of the Gods and the public edificesthat belonged to the State. The community itself was the owner of those greatedifices. Even in the pomp of Rome during the decadence it was not the villasand palaces of some citizens that filled the most prominent place but ratherthe temples and the baths, the stadia, the circuses, the aqueducts, thebasilicas, etc., which belonged to the State and therefore to the people as awhole.
In medieval Germany also the sameprinciple held sway, although the artistic outlook was quite different. Inancient times the theme that found its expression in the Acropolis or thePantheon was now clothed in the forms of the Gothic Cathedral. In the medievalcities these monumental structures towered gigantically above the swarm ofsmaller buildings with their framework walls of wood and brick. And they remainthe dominant feature of these cities even to our own day, although they arebecoming more and more obscured by the apartment barracks. They determine thecharacter and appearance of the locality. Cathedrals, city-halls, cornexchanges, defence towers, are the outward expression of an idea which has itscounterpart only in the ancient world.
The dimensions and quality of our publicbuildings to-day are in deplorable contrast to the edifices that representprivate interests. If a similar fate should befall Berlin as befell Rome futuregenerations might gaze upon the ruins of some Jewish department stores orjoint-stock hotels and think that these were the characteristic expressions ofthe culture of our time. In Berlin itself, compare the shameful disproportionbetween the buildings which belong to the Reich and those which have beenerected for the accommodation of trade and finance.
The credits that are voted forpublic buildings are in most cases inadequate and really ridiculous. They arenot built as structures that were meant to last but mostly for the purpose ofanswering the need of the moment. No higher idea influenced those whocommissioned such buildings. At the time the Berlin Schloss was built it had aquite different significance from what the new library has for our time, seeingthat one battleship alone represents an expenditure of about sixty millionmarks, whereas less than half that sum was allotted for the building of theReichstag, which is the most imposing structure erected for the Reich and whichshould have been built to last for ages. Yet, in deciding the question ofinternal decoration, the Upper House voted against the use of stone and orderedthat the walls should be covered with stucco. For once, however, theparliamentarians made an appropriate decision on that occasion; for plasterheads would be out of place between stone walls.
The community as such is not thedominant characteristic of our contemporary cities, and therefore it is not tobe wondered at if the community does not find itself architecturallyrepresented. Thus we must eventually arrive at a veritable civic desert whichwill at last be reflected in the total indifference of the individual citizentowards his own country.
This is also a sign of ourcultural decay and general break-up. Our era is entirely preoccupied withlittle things which are to no purpose, or rather it is entirely preoccupied inthe service of money. Therefore it is not to be wondered at if, with theworship of such an idol, the sense of heroism should entirely disappear. Butthe present is only reaping what the past has sown.
All these symptoms which precededthe final collapse of the Second Empire must be attributed to the lack of adefinite and uniformly accepted Weltanschhauung and the generaluncertainty of outlook consequent on that lack. This uncertainty showed itselfwhen the great questions of the time had to be considered one after another anda decisive policy adopted towards them. This lack is also accountable for thehabit of doing everything by halves, beginning with the educational system, theshilly-shally, the reluctance to undertake responsibilites and, finally, thecowardly tolerance of evils that were even admitted to be destructive.Visionary humanitarianisms became the fashion. In weakly submitting to theseaberrations and sparing the feelings of the individual, the future of millionsof human beings was sacrificed.
An examination of the religioussituation before the War shows that the general process of disruption hadextended to this sphere also. A great part of the nation itself had for a longtime already ceased to have any convictions of a uniform and practicalcharacter in their ideological outlook on life. In this matter the point ofprimary importance was by no means the number of people who renounced theirchurch membership but rather the widespread indifference. While the twoChristian denominations maintained missions in Asia and Africa, for the purposeof securing new adherents to the Faith, these same denominations were losingmillions and millions of their adherents at home in Europe. These formeradherents either gave up religion wholly as a directive force in their lives orthey adopted their own interpretation of it. The consequences of this werespecially felt in the moral life of the country. In parenthesis it may beremarked that the progress made by the missions in spreading the ChristianFaith abroad was only quite modest in comparison with the spread ofMohammedanism.
It must be noted too that theattack on the dogmatic principles underlying ecclesiastical teaching increasedsteadily in violence. And yet this human world of ours would be inconceivablewithout the practical existence of a religious belief. The great masses of anation are not composed of philosophers. For the masses of the people,especially faith is absolutely the only basis of a moral outlook on life. Thevarious substitutes that have been offered have not shown any results thatmight warrant us in thinking that they might usefully replace the existingdenominations. But if religious teaching and religious faith were once acceptedby the broad masses as active forces in their lives, then the absoluteauthority of the doctrines of faith would be the foundation of all practicaleffort. There may be a few hundreds of thousands of superior men who can livewisely and intelligently without depending on the general standards thatprevail in everyday life, but the millions of others cannot do so. Now theplace which general custom fills in everyday life corresponds to that ofgeneral laws in the State and dogma in religion. The purely spiritual idea isof itself a changeable thing that may be subjected to endless interpretations.It is only through dogma that it is given a precise and concrete form withoutwhich it could not become a living faith. Otherwise the spiritual idea wouldnever become anything more than a mere metaphysical concept, or rather aphilosophical opinion. Accordingly the attack against dogma is comparable to anattack against the general laws on which the State is founded. And so thisattack would finally lead to complete political anarchy if it were successful,just as the attack on religion would lead to a worthless religious nihilism.
The political leader should notestimate the worth of a religion by taking some of its shortcomings intoaccount, but he should ask himself whether there be any practical substitute ina view which is demonstrably better. Until such a substitute be available onlyfools and criminals would think of abolishing the existing religion.
Undoubtedly no small amount ofblame for the present unsatisfactory religious situation must be attributed tothose who have encumbered the ideal of religion with purely materialaccessories and have thus given rise to an utterly futile conflict betweenreligion and science. In this conflict victory will nearly always be on theside of science, even though after a bitter struggle, while religion willsuffer heavily in the eyes of those who cannot penetrate beneath the meresuperficial aspects of science.
But the greatest damage of all hascome from the practice of debasing religion as a means that can be exploited toserve political interests, or rather commercial interests. The impudent andloud-mouthed liars who do this make their profession of faith before the wholeworld in stentorian tones so that all poor mortals may hear – not that they areready to die for it if necessary but rather that they may live all the better.They are ready to sell their faith for any political quid pro quo. For tenparliamentary mandates they would ally themselves with the Marxists, who arethe mortal foes of all religion. And for a seat in the Cabinet they would gothe length of wedlock with the devil, if the latter had not still retained sometraces of decency.
If religious life in pre-warGermany had a disagreeable savour for the mouths of many people this was becauseChristianity had been lowered to base uses by political parties that calledthemselves Christian and because of the shameful way in which they tried toidentify the Catholic Faith with a political party.
This substitution was fatal. Itprocured some worthless parliamentary mandates for the party in question, butthe Church suffered damage thereby.
The consequences of that situationhad to be borne by the whole nation; for the laxity that resulted in religiouslife set in at a juncture when everything was beginning to lose hold andvacillate and the traditional foundations of custom and of morality werethreatening to fall asunder.
Yet all those cracks and clefts inthe social organism might not have been dangerous if no grave burdens had beenlaid upon it; but they became disastrous when the internal solidarity of thenation was the most important factor in withstanding the storm of big events.
In the political field alsoobservant eyes might have noticed certain anomalies of the Reich which foretolddisaster unless some alteration and correction took place in time. The lack oforientation in German policy, both domestic and foreign, was obvious toeveryone who was not purposely blind. The best thing that could be said aboutthe practice of making compromises is that it seemed outwardly to be in harmonywith Bismarck’s axiom that ‘politics is the art of the possible’. But Bismarckwas a slightly different man from the Chancellors who followed him. Thisdifference allowed the former to apply that formula to the very essence of hispolicy, while in the mouths of the others it took on an utterly differentsignificance. When he uttered that phrase Bismarck meant to say that in orderto attain a definite political end all possible means should be employed or atleast that all possibilities should be tried. But his successors see in thatphrase only a solemn declaration that one is not necessarily bound to havepolitical principles or any definite political aims at all. And the politicalleaders of the Reich at that time had no far-seeing policy. Here, again, thenecessary foundation was lacking, namely, a definite Weltanschhauung,and these leaders also lacked that clear insight into the laws of politicalevolution which is a necessary quality in political leadership.
Many people who took a gloomy viewof things at that time condemned the lack of ideas and lack of orientationwhich were evident in directing the policy of the Reich. They recognized theinner weakness and futility of this policy. But such people played only asecondary role in politics. Those who had the Government of the country intheir hands were quite as indifferent to principles of civil wisdom laid downby thinkers like Houston Stewart Chamberlain as our political leaders now are.These people are too stupid to think for themselves, and they have too muchself-conceit to take from others the instruction which they need. Oxenstierna 14)gave expression to a truth which has lasted since time immemorial, when he saidthat the world is governed by only a particle of wisdom. Almost every civilservant of councillor rank might naturally be supposed to possess only an atomor so belonging to this particle. But since Germany became a Republic even thismodicum is wanting. And that is why they had to promulgate the Law for theDefence of the Republic, which prohibits the holding of such views orexpressing them. It was fortunate for Oxenstierna that he lived at that timeand not in this wise Republic of our time.
Already before the War thatinstitution which should have represented the strength of the Reich – theParliament, the Reichstag – was widely recognized as its weakest feature.Cowardliness and fear of shouldering responsibilities were associated togetherthere in a perfect fashion.
One of the silliest notions thatone hears expressed to-day is that in Germany the parliamentary institution hasceased to function since the Revolution. This might easily be taken to implythat the case was different before the Revolution. But in reality the parliamentaryinstitution never functioned except to the detriment of the country. And itfunctioned thus in those days when people saw nothing or did not wish to seeanything. The German downfall is to be attributed in no small degree to thisinstitution. But that the catastrophe did not take place sooner is not to becredited to the Parliament but rather to those who opposed the influence ofthis institution which, during peace times, was digging the grave of the GermanNation and the German Reich.
From the immense mass ofdevastating evils that were due either directly or indirectly to the ParliamentI shall select one the most intimately typical of this institution which wasthe most irresponsible of all time. The evil I speak of was seen in theappalling shilly-shally and weakness in conducting the internal and externalaffairs of the Reich. It was attributable in the first place to the action ofthe Reichstag and was one of the principal causes of the political collapse.
Everything subject to the influenceof Parliament was done by halves, no matter from what aspect you may regard it.
The foreign policy of the Reich inthe matter of alliances was an example of shilly-shally. They wished tomaintain peace, but in doing so they steered straight. into war.
Their Polish policy was alsocarried out by half-measures. It resulted neither in a German triumph norPolish conciliation, and it made enemies of the Russians.
They tried to solve theAlsace-Lorraine question through half-measures. Instead of crushing the head ofthe French hydra once and for all with the mailed fist and grantingAlsace-Lorraine equal rights with the other German States, they did neither theone nor the other. Anyhow, it was impossible for them to do otherwise, for theyhad among their ranks the greatest traitors to the country, such as HerrWetterlé of the Centre Party.
But still the country might havebeen able to bear with all this provided the half-measure policy had notvictimized that force in which, as the last resort, the existence of the Empiredepended: namely, the Army.
The crime committed by theso-called German Reichstag in this regard was sufficient of itself to draw downupon it the curses of the German Nation for all time. On the most miserable ofpretexts these parliamentary party henchmen filched from the hands of thenation and threw away the weapons which were needed to maintain its existenceand therewith defend the liberty and independence of our people. If the graveson the plains of Flanders were to open to-day the bloodstained accusers wouldarise, hundreds of thousands of our best German youth who were driven into thearms of death by those conscienceless parliamentary ruffians who were eitherwrongly educated for their task or only half-educated. Those youths, and othermillions of the killed and mutilated, were lost to the Fatherland simply andsolely in order that a few hundred deceivers of the people might carry outtheir political manoeuvres and their exactions or even treasonably pursue theirdoctrinaire theories.
By means of the Marxist anddemocratic Press, the Jews spread the colossal falsehood about ‘GermanMilitarism’ throughout the world and tried to inculpate Germany by everypossible means, while at the same time the Marxist and democratic parties refusedto assent to the measures that were necessary for the adequate training of ournational defence forces. The appalling crime thus committed by these peopleought to have been obvious to everybody who foresaw that in case of war thewhole nation would have to be called to arms and that, because of the meanhuckstering of these noble ‘representatives of the people’, as they calledthemselves, millions of Germans would have to face the enemy ill-equipped andinsufficiently trained. But even apart from the consequences of the crude andbrutal lack of conscience which these parliamentarian rascals displayed, it wasquite clear that the lack of properly trained soldiers at the beginning of awar would most probably lead to the loss of such a war; and this probabilitywas confirmed in a most terrible way during the course of the world war.
Therefore the German people lostthe struggle for the freedom and independence of their country because of thehalf-hearted and defective policy employed during times of peace in theorganization and training of the defensive strength of the nation.
The number of recruits trained forthe land forces was too small; but the same half-heartedness was shown inregard to the navy and made this weapon of national self-preservation more orless ineffective. Unfortunately, even the naval authorities themselves werecontaminated with this spirit of half-heartedness. The tendency to build theship on the stocks somewhat smaller than that just launched by the British didnot show much foresight and less genius. A fleet which cannot be brought to thesame numerical strength as that of the probable enemy ought to compensate forthis inferiority by the superior fighting power of the individual ship. It isthe weight of the fighting power that counts and not any sort of traditionalquality. As a matter of fact, modern technical development is so advanced andso well proportioned among the various civilized States that it must be lookedon as practically impossible for one Power to build vessels which would have asuperior fighting quality to that of the vessels of equal size built by theother Powers. But it is even less feasible to build vessels of smallerdisplacement which will be superior in action to those of larger displacement.
As a matter of fact, the smallerproportions of the German vessels could be maintained only at the expense ofspeed and armament. The phrase used to justify this policy was in itself anevidence of the lack of logical thinking on the part of the naval authorities whowere in charge of these matters in times of peace. They declared that theGerman guns were definitely superior to the British 30.5 cm. as regardsstriking efficiency.
But that was just why they should haveadopted the policy of building 30.5 cm. guns also; for it ought to have beentheir object not to achieve equality but superiority in fighting strength. Ifthat were not so then it would have been superfluous to equip the land forceswith 42 cm. mortars; for the German 21 cm. mortar could be far superior to anyhigh-angle guns which the French possessed at that time and since thefortresses could probably have been taken by means of 30.5 cm. mortars. Thearmy authorities unfortunately failed to do so. If they refrained from assuringsuperior efficiency in the artillery as in the velocity, this was because ofthe fundamentally false ‘principle of risk’ which they adopted. The navalauthorities, already in times of peace, renounced the principle of attack andthus had to follow a defensive policy from the very beginning of the War. Butby this attitude they renounced also the chances of final success, which can beachieved only by an offensive policy.
A vessel with slower speed andweaker armament will be crippled and battered by an adversary that is fasterand stronger and can frequently shoot from a favourable distance. A largenumber of cruisers have been through bitter experiences in this matter. Howwrong were the ideas prevalent among the naval authorities in times of peacewas proved during the War. They were compelled to modify the armament of theold vessels and to equip the new ones with better armament whenever there was achance to do so. If the German vessels in the Battle of the Skagerrak had beenof equal size, the same armament and the same speed as the English, the BritishFleet would have gone down under the tempest of the German 38 centimetershells, which hit their aims more accurately and were more effective.
Japan had followed a differentkind of naval policy. There, care was principally taken to create with everysingle new vessel a fighting force that would be superior to those of theeventual adversaries. But, because of this policy, it was afterwards possibleto use the fleet for the offensive.
While the army authorities refusedto adopt such fundamentally erroneous principles, the navy – whichunfortunately had more representatives in Parliament – succumbed to the spiritthat ruled there. The navy was not organized on a strong basis, and it waslater used in an unsystematic and irresolute way. The immortal glory which thenavy won, in spite of these drawbacks, must be entirely credited to the goodwork and the efficiency and incomparable heroism of officers and crews. If theformer commanders-in-chief had been inspired with the same kind of genius allthe sacrifices would not have been in vain.
It was probably the veryparliamentarian skill displayed by the chief of the navy during the years ofpeace which later became the cause of the fatal collapse, since parliamentarianconsiderations had begun to play a more important role in the construction ofthe navy than fighting considerations. The irresolution, the weakness and thefailure to adopt a logically consistent policy, which is typical of theparliamentary system, contaminated the naval authorities.
As I have already emphasized, themilitary authorities did not allow themselves to be led astray by suchfundamentally erroneous ideas. Ludendorff, who was then a Colonel in the GeneralStaff, led a desperate struggle against the criminal vacillations with whichthe Reichstag treated the most vital problems of the nation and in most casesvoted against them. If the fight which this officer then waged remainedunsuccessful this must be debited to the Parliament and partly also to thewretched and weak attitude of the Chancellor, Bethmann-Hollweg.
Yet those who are responsible forGermany’s collapse do not hesitate now to lay all the blame on the shoulders ofthe one man who took a firm stand against the neglectful manner in which theinterests of the nation were managed. But one falsehood more or less makes nodifference to these congenital tricksters.
Anybody who thinks of all thesacrifices which this nation has had to bear, as a result of the criminalneglect of those irresponsible individuals; anybody who thinks of the number ofthose who died or were maimed unnecessarily; anybody who thinks of thedeplorable shame and dishonour which has been heaped upon us and of theillimitable distress into which our people are now plunged – anybody whorealizes that in order to prepare the way to a few seats in Parliament for someunscrupulous place-hunters and arrivists will understand that such hirelingscan be called by no other name than that of rascal and criminal; for otherwisethose words could have no meaning. In comparison with traitors who betrayed thenation’s trust every other kind of twister may be looked upon as an honourableman.
It was a peculiar feature of thesituation that all the real faults of the old Germany were exposed to thepublic gaze only when the inner solidarity of the nation could be injured bydoing so. Then, indeed, unpleasant truths were openly proclaimed in the ears ofthe broad masses, while many other things were at other times shamefully hushedup or their existence simply denied, especially at times when an opendiscussion of such problems might have led to an improvement in their regard.The higher government authorities knew little or nothing of the nature and useof propaganda in such matters. Only the Jew knew that by an able and persistentuse of propaganda heaven itself can be presented to the people as if it werehell and, vice versa, the most miserable kind of life can be presented as if itwere paradise. The Jew knew this and acted accordingly. But the German, orrather his Government, did not have the slightest suspicion of it. During theWar the heaviest of penalties had to be paid for that ignorance.
Over against the innumerabledrawbacks which I have mentioned here and which affected German life before theWar there were many outstanding features on the positive side. If we take animpartial survey we must admit that most of our drawbacks were in great measureprevalent also in other countries and among the other nations, and very oftenin a worse form than with us; whereas among us there were many real advantageswhich the other did not have.
The leading phase of Germany’ssuperiority arose from the fact that, almost alone among all the other Europeannations, the German nation had made the strongest effort to preserve thenational character of its economic structure and for this reason was lesssubject than other countries to the power of international finance, thoughindeed there were many untoward symptoms in this regard also.
And yet this superiority was aperilous one and turned out later to be one of the chief causes of the worldwar.
But even if we disregard thisadvantage of national independence in economic matters there were certain otherpositive features of our social and political life which were of outstandingexcellence. These features were represented by three institutions which wereconstant sources of regeneration. In their respective spheres they were modelsof perfection and were partly unrivalled.
The first of these was the statalform as such and the manner in which it had been developed for Germany inmodern times. Of course we must except those monarchs who, as human beings,were subject to the failings which afflict this life and its children. If wewere not so tolerant in these matters, then the case of the present generationwould be hopeless; for if we take into consideration the personal capabilitiesand character of the representative figures in our present regime it would bedifficult to imagine a more modest level of intelligence and moral character.If we measure the ‘value’ of the German Revolution by the personal worth andcalibre of the individuals whom this revolution has presented to the Germanpeople since November 1918 then we may feel ashamed indeed in thinking of thejudgment which posterity will pass on these people, when the Law for theProtection of the Republic can no longer silence public opinion. Cominggenerations will surely decide that the intelligence and integrity of our newGerman leaders were in adverse ratio to their boasting and their vices.
It must be admitted that themonarchy had become alien in spirit to many citizens and especially the broadmasses. This resulted from the fact that the monarchs were not alwayssurrounded by the highest intelligence – so to say – and certainly not alwaysby persons of the most upright character. Unfortunately many of them preferredflatterers to honest-spoken men and hence received their ‘information’ from theformer. This was a source of grave danger at a time when the world was passingthrough a period in which many of the old conditions were changing and whenthis change was affecting even the traditions of the Court.
The average man or woman could nothave felt a wave of enthusiasm surging within the breast when, for example, atthe turn of the century, a princess in uniform and on horseback had thesoldiers file past her on parade. Those high circles had apparently no idea ofthe impression which such a parade made on the minds of ordinary people; elsesuch unfortunate occurrences would not have taken place. The sentimentalhumanitarianism – not always very sincere – which was professed in those highcircles was often more repulsive than attractive. When, for instance, thePrincess X condescended to taste the products of a soup kitchen and found themexcellent, as usual, such a gesture might have made an excellent impression intimes long past, but on this occasion it had the opposite effect to what wasintended. For even if we take it for granted that Her Highness did not have theslightest idea, that on the day she sampled it, the food was not quite the sameas on other days, it sufficed that the people knew it. Even the best ofintentions thus became an object of ridicule or a cause of exasperation.
Descriptions of the proverbialfrugality practised by the monarch, his much too early rise in the morning andthe drudgery he had to go through all day long until late at night, andespecially the constantly expressed fears lest he might become undernourished –all this gave rise to ominous expression on the part of the people. Nobody waskeen to know what and how much the monarch ate or drank. Nobody grudged him afull meal, or the necessary amount of sleep. Everybody was pleased when themonarch, as a man and a personality, brought honour on his family and hiscountry and fulfilled his duties as a sovereign. All the legends which werecirculated about him helped little and did much damage.
These and such things, however,are only mere bagatelle. What was much worse was the feeling, which spreadthroughout large sections of the nation, that the affairs of the individualwere being taken care of from above and that he did not need to bother himselfwith them. As long as the Government was really good, or at least moved bygoodwill, no serious objections could be raised.
But the country was destined todisaster when the old Government, which had at least striven for the best,became replaced by a new regime which was not of the same quality. Then thedocile obedience and infantile credulity which formerly offered no resistancewas bound to be one of the most fatal evils that can be imagined.
But against these and otherdefects there were certain qualities which undoubtedly had a positive effect.
First of all the monarchical formof government guarantees stability in the direction of public affairs andsafeguards public offices from the speculative turmoil of ambitiouspoliticians. Furthermore, the venerable tradition which this institutionpossesses arouses a feeling which gives weight to the monarchical authority.Beyond this there is the fact that the whole corps of officials, and the armyin particular, are raised above the level of political party obligations. Andstill another positive feature was that the supreme rulership of the State wasembodied in the monarch, as an individual person, who could serve as the symbolof responsibility, which a monarch has to bear more seriously than anyanonymous parliamentary majority. Indeed, the proverbial honesty and integrityof the German administration must be attributed chiefly to this fact. Finally,the monarchy fulfilled a high cultural function among the German people, whichmade amends for many of its defects. The German residential cities haveremained, even to our time, centres of that artistic spirit which now threatensto disappear and is becoming more and more materialistic. The German princesgave a great deal of excellent and practical encouragement to art and science,especially during the nineteenth century. Our present age certainly has nothingof equal worth.
During that process ofdisintegration which was slowly extending throughout the social order the mostpositive force of resistance was that offered by the army. This was thestrongest source of education which the German people possessed. For thatreason all the hatred of our enemies was directed against the paladin of ournational self-preservation and our liberty. The strongest testimony in favour ofthis unique institution is the fact that it was derided, hated and foughtagainst, but also feared, by worthless elements all round. The fact that theinternational profiteers who gathered at Versailles, further to exploit andplunder the nations directed their enmity specially against the old German armyproved once again that it deserved to be regarded as the institution whichprotected the liberties of our people against the forces of the internationalstock-exchange. If the army had not been there to sound the alarm and stand onguard, the purposes of the Versailles representatives would have been carriedout much sooner. There is only one word to express what the German people oweto this army – Everything!
It was the army that stillinculcated a sense of responsibility among the people when this quality hadbecome very rare and when the habit of shirking every kind of responsibilitywas steadily spreading. This habit had grown up under the evil influences ofParliament, which was itself the very model of irresponsibility. The armytrained the people to personal courage at a time when the virtue of timiditythreatened to become an epidemic and when the spirit of sacrificing one’spersonal interests for the good of the community was considered as somethingthat amounted almost to weak-mindedness. At a time when only those wereestimated as intelligent who knew how to safeguard and promote their ownegotistic interests, the army was the school through which individual Germanswere taught not to seek the salvation of their nation in the false ideology ofinternational fraternization between negroes, Germans, Chinese, French andEnglish, etc., but in the strength and unity of their own national being.
The army developed theindividual’s powers of resolute decision, and this at a time when a spirit ofindecision and scepticism governed human conduct. At a time when the wiseacreswere everywhere setting the fashion it needed courage to uphold the principlethat any command is better than none. This one principle represents a robustand sound style of thought, of which not a trace would have been left in theother branches of life if the army had not furnished a constant rejuvenation ofthis fundamental force. A sufficient proof of this may be found in the appallinglack of decision which our present government authorities display. They cannotshake off their mental and moral lethargy and decide on some definite line ofaction except when they are forced to sign some new dictate for theexploitation of the German people. In that case they decline all responsibilitywhile at the same time they sign everything which the other side places beforethem; and they sign with the readiness of an official stenographer. Theirconduct is here explicable on the ground that in this case they are not underthe necessity of coming to a decision; for the decision is dictated to them.
The army imbued its members with aspirit of idealism and developed their readiness to sacrifice themselves fortheir country and its honour, while greed and materialism dominated in all theother branches of life. The army united a people who were split up intoclasses: and in this respect had only one defect, which was the One YearMilitary Service, a privilege granted to those who had passed through the highschools. It was a defect, because the principle of absolute equality wasthereby violated; and those who had a better education were thus placed outsidethe cadres to which the rest of their comrades belonged. The reverse would havebeen better. Since our upper classes were really ignorant of what was going onin the body corporate of the nation and were becoming more and more estrangedfrom the life of the people, the army would have accomplished a very beneficialmission if it had refused to discriminate in favour of the so-calledintellectuals, especially within its own ranks. It was a mistake that this wasnot done; but in this world of ours can we find any institution that has not atleast one defect? And in the army the good features were so absolutelypredominant that the few defects it had were far below the average thatgenerally rises from human weakness.
But the greatest credit which thearmy of the old Empire deserves is that, at a time when the person of theindividual counted for nothing and the majority was everything, it placedindividual personal values above majority values. By insisting on its faith inpersonality, the army opposed that typically Jewish and democratic apotheosisof the power of numbers. The army trained what at that time was most surelyneeded: namely, real men. In a period when men were falling a prey toeffeminacy and laxity, 350,000 vigorously trained young men went from the ranksof the army each year to mingle with their fellow-men. In the course of theirtwo years’ training they had lost the softness of their young days and haddeveloped bodies as tough as steel. The young man who had been taught obediencefor two years was now fitted to command. The trained soldier could berecognized already by his walk.
This was the great school of theGerman nation; and it was not without reason that it drew upon its head all thebitter hatred of those who wanted the Empire to be weak and defenceless,because they were jealous of its greatness and were themselves possessed by aspirit of rapacity and greed. The rest of the world recognized a fact whichmany Germans did not wish to see, either because they were blind to facts orbecause out of malice they did not wish to see it. This fact was that theGerman Army was the most powerful weapon for the defence and freedom of theGerman nation and the best guarantee for the livelihood of its citizens.
There was a third institution ofpositive worth, which has to be placed beside that of the monarchy and thearmy. This was the civil service.
German administration was betterorganized and better carried out than the administration of other countries.There may have been objections to the bureaucratic routine of the officials,but from this point of view the state of affairs was similar, if not worse, inthe other countries. But the other States did not have the wonderful solidaritywhich this organization possessed in Germany, nor were their civil servants ofthat same high level of scrupulous honesty. It is certainly better to be atrifle over-bureaucratic and honest and loyal than to be over-sophisticated andmodern, the latter often implying an inferior type of character and alsoignorance and inefficiency. For if it be insinuated to-day that the Germanadministration of the pre-War period may have been excellent so far asbureaucratic technique goes, but that from the practical business point of viewit was incompetent, I can only give the following reply: What other country inthe world possessed a better-organized and administered business enterprisethan the German State Railways, for instance? It was left to the Revolution todestroy this standard organization, until a time came when it was taken out ofthe hands of the nation and socialized, in the sense which the founders of theRepublic had given to that word, namely, making it subservient to theinternational stock-exchange capitalists, who were the wire-pullers of theGerman Revolution.
The most outstanding trait in the civilservice and the whole body of the civil administration was its independence ofthe vicissitudes of government, the political mentality of which could exerciseno influence on the attitude of the German State officials. Since theRevolution this situation has been completely changed. Efficiency andcapability have been replaced by the test of party-adherence; and independenceof character and initiative are no longer appreciated as positive qualities ina public official. They rather tell against him.
The wonderful might and power ofthe old Empire was based on the monarchical form of government, the army andthe civil service. On these three foundations rested that great strength whichis now entirely lacking; namely, the authority of the State. For the authorityof the State cannot be based on the babbling that goes on in Parliament or inthe provincial diets and not upon laws made to protect the State, or uponsentences passed by the law courts to frighten those who have had the hardihoodto deny the authority of the State, but only on the general confidence whichthe management and administration of the community establishes among thepeople. This confidence is in its turn, nothing else than the result of anunshakable inner conviction that the government and administration of a countryis inspired by disinterested and honest goodwill and on the feeling that thespirit of the law is in complete harmony with the moral convictions of thepeople. In the long run, systems of government are not maintained by terrorismbut on the belief of the people in the merits and sincerity of those whoadminister and promote the public interests.
Though it be true that in theperiod preceding the War certain grave evils tended to infect and corrode theinner strength of the nation, it must be remembered that the other Statessuffered even more than Germany from these drawbacks and yet those other Statesdid not fail and break down when the time of crisis came. If we rememberfurther that those defects in pre-War Germany were outweighed by great positivequalities we shall have to look elsewhere for the effective cause of thecollapse. And elsewhere it lay.
The ultimate and most profoundreason of the German downfall is to be found in the fact that the racialproblem was ignored and that its importance in the historical development ofnations was not grasped. For the events that take place in the life of nationsare not due to chance but are the natural results of the effort to conserve andmultiply the species and the race, even though men may not be able consciouslyto picture to their minds the profound motives of their conduct.
CHAPTER XI
RACE AND PEOPLE
There are certain truths whichstand out so openly on the roadsides of life, as it were, that every passer-by maysee them. Yet, because of their very obviousness, the general run of peopledisregard such truths or at least they do not make them the object of anyconscious knowledge. People are so blind to some of the simplest facts inevery-day life that they are highly surprised when somebody calls attention towhat everybody ought to know. Examples of The Columbus Egg lie around us inhundreds of thousands; but observers like Columbus are rare.
Walking about in the garden ofNature, most men have the self-conceit to think that they know everything; yetalmost all are blind to one of the outstanding principles that Nature employsin her work. This principle may be called the inner isolation whichcharacterizes each and every living species on this earth.
Even a superficial glance issufficient to show that all the innumerable forms in which the life-urge ofNature manifests itself are subject to a fundamental law – one may call it aniron law of Nature – which compels the various species to keep within the definitelimits of their own life-forms when propagating and multiplying their kind.Each animal mates only with one of its own species. The titmouse cohabits onlywith the titmouse, the finch with the finch, the stork with the stork, thefield-mouse with the field-mouse, the house-mouse with the house-mouse, thewolf with the she-wolf, etc.
Deviations from this law takeplace only in exceptional circumstances. This happens especially under thecompulsion of captivity, or when some other obstacle makes procreativeintercourse impossible between individuals of the same species. But then Natureabhors such intercourse with all her might; and her protest is most clearlydemonstrated by the fact that the hybrid is either sterile or the fecundity ofits descendants is limited. In most cases hybrids and their progeny are deniedthe ordinary powers of resistance to disease or the natural means of defenceagainst outer attack.
Such a dispensation of Nature isquite logical. Every crossing between two breeds which are not quite equalresults in a product which holds an intermediate place between the levels ofthe two parents. This means that the offspring will indeed be superior to theparent which stands in the biologically lower order of being, but not so highas the higher parent. For this reason it must eventually succumb in anystruggle against the higher species. Such mating contradicts the will of Naturetowards the selective improvements of life in general. The favourablepreliminary to this improvement is not to mate individuals of higher and lowerorders of being but rather to allow the complete triumph of the higher order.The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signifythe sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look uponthis principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of afeebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law did not direct the processof evolution then the higher development of organic life would not beconceivable at all.
This urge for the maintenance ofthe unmixed breed, which is a phenomenon that prevails throughout the whole ofthe natural world, results not only in the sharply defined outward distinctionbetween one species and another but also in the internal similarity ofcharacteristic qualities which are peculiar to each breed or species. The foxremains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain thecharacter of a tiger. The only difference that can exist within the speciesmust be in the various degrees of structural strength and active power, in theintelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with which the individual specimensare endowed. It would be impossible to find a fox which has a kindly andprotective disposition towards geese, just as no cat exists which has afriendly disposition towards mice.
That is why the struggle betweenthe various species does not arise from a feeling of mutual antipathy butrather from hunger and love. In both cases Nature looks on calmly and is evenpleased with what happens. The struggle for the daily livelihood leaves behindin the ruck everything that is weak or diseased or wavering; while the fight ofthe male to possess the female gives to the strongest the right, or at least,the possibility to propagate its kind. And this struggle is a means offurthering the health and powers of resistance in the species. Thus it is oneof the causes underlying the process of development towards a higher quality ofbeing.
If the case were different theprogressive process would cease, and even retrogression might set in. Since theinferior always outnumber the superior, the former would always increase morerapidly if they possessed the same capacities for survival and for theprocreation of their kind; and the final consequence would be that the best inquality would be forced to recede into the background. Therefore a correctivemeasure in favour of the better quality must intervene. Nature supplies this byestablishing rigorous conditions of life to which the weaker will have tosubmit and will thereby be numerically restricted; but even that portion whichsurvives cannot indiscriminately multiply, for here a new and rigorousselection takes place, according to strength and health.
If Nature does not wish that weakerindividuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superiorrace should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all herefforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish anevolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.
History furnishes us withinnumerable instances that prove this law. It shows, with a startling clarity,that whenever Aryans have mingled their blood with that of an inferior race theresult has been the downfall of the people who were the standard-bearers of ahigher culture. In North America, where the population is prevalently Teutonic,and where those elements intermingled with the inferior race only to a verysmall degree, we have a quality of mankind and a civilization which aredifferent from those of Central and South America. In these latter countriesthe immigrants – who mainly belonged to the Latin races – mated with theaborigines, sometimes to a very large extent indeed. In this case we have aclear and decisive example of the effect produced by the mixture of races. Butin North America the Teutonic element, which has kept its racial stock pure anddid not mix it with any other racial stock, has come to dominate the AmericanContinent and will remain master of it as long as that element does not fall avictim to the habit of adulterating its blood.
In short, the results ofmiscegenation are always the following:
(a) The level of the superior racebecomes lowered;
(b) physical and mentaldegeneration sets in, thus leading slowly but steadily towards a progressivedrying up of the vital sap.
The act which brings about such adevelopment is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator. And as a sin thisact will be avenged.
Man’s effort to build up somethingthat contradicts the iron logic of Nature brings him into conflict with thoseprinciples to which he himself exclusively owes his own existence. By actingagainst the laws of Nature he prepares the way that leads to his ruin.
Here we meet the insolentobjection, which is Jewish in its inspiration and is typical of the modernpacifist. It says: "Man can control even Nature."
There are millions who repeat byrote that piece of Jewish babble and end up by imagining that somehow theythemselves are the conquerors of Nature. And yet their only weapon is just amere idea, and a very preposterous idea into the bargain; because if oneaccepted it, then it would be impossible even to imagine the existence of theworld.
The real truth is that, not onlyhas man failed to overcome Nature in any sphere whatsoever but that at best hehas merely succeeded in getting hold of and lifting a tiny corner of theenormous veil which she has spread over her eternal mysteries and secret. Henever creates anything. All he can do is to discover something. He does notmaster Nature but has only come to be the master of those living beings whohave not gained the knowledge he has arrived at by penetrating into some ofNature’s laws and mysteries. Apart from all this, an idea can never subject toits own sway those conditions which are necessary for the existence anddevelopment of mankind; for the idea itself has come only from man. Without manthere would be no human idea in this world. The idea as such is thereforealways dependent on the existence of man and consequently is dependent on thoselaws which furnish the conditions of his existence.
And not only that. Certain ideasare even confined to certain people. This holds true with regard to those ideasin particular which have not their roots in objective scientific truth but inthe world of feeling. In other words, to use a phrase which is current to-dayand which well and clearly expresses this truth: They reflect an innerexperience. All such ideas, which have nothing to do with cold logic as suchbut represent mere manifestations of feeling, such as ethical and moralconceptions, etc., are inextricably bound up with man’s existence. It is to thecreative powers of man’s imagination that such ideas owe their existence.
Now, then, a necessary conditionfor the maintenance of such ideas is the existence of certain races and certaintypes of men. For example, anyone who sincerely wishes that the pacifist ideashould prevail in this world ought to do all he is capable of doing to help theGermans conquer the world; for in case the reverse should happen it may easilybe that the last pacifist would disappear with the last German. I say thisbecause, unfortunately, only our people, and no other people in the world, fella prey to this idea. Whether you like it or not, you would have to make up yourmind to forget wars if you would achieve the pacifist ideal. Nothing less thanthis was the plan of the American world-redeemer, Woodrow Wilson. Anyhow thatwas what our visionaries believed, and they thought that through his planstheir ideals would be attained.
The pacifist-humanitarian idea mayindeed become an excellent one when the most superior type of manhood will havesucceeded in subjugating the world to such an extent that this type is thensole master of the earth. This idea could have an injurious effect only in themeasure according to which its application would become difficult and finallyimpossible. So, first of all, the fight and then pacifism. If the case weredifferent it would mean that mankind has already passed the zenith of itsdevelopment, and accordingly the end would not be the supremacy of some moralideal but degeneration into barbarism and consequent chaos. People may laugh atthis statement; but our planet has been moving through the spaces of ether formillions and millions of years, uninhabited by men, and at some future date mayeasily begin to do so again – if men should forget that wherever they havereached a superior level of existence, it was not the result of following theideas of crazy visionaries but by acknowledging and rigorously observing theiron laws of Nature.
All that we admire in the worldto-day, its science, its art, its technical developments and discoveries, arethe products of the creative activities of a few peoples, and it may be truethat their first beginnings must be attributed to one race. The maintenance ofcivilization is wholly dependent on such peoples. Should they perish, all thatmakes this earth beautiful will descend with them into the grave.
However great, for example, be theinfluence which the soil exerts on men, this influence will always varyaccording to the race in which it produces its effect. Dearth of soil maystimulate one race to the most strenuous efforts and highest achievement;while, for another race, the poverty of the soil may be the cause of misery andfinally of undernourishment, with all its consequences. The internalcharacteristics of a people are always the causes which determine the nature ofthe effect that outer circumstances have on them. What reduces one race tostarvation trains another race to harder work.
All the great civilizations of thepast became decadent because the originally creative race died out, as a resultof contamination of the blood.
The most profound cause of such adecline is to be found in the fact that the people ignored the principle thatall culture depends on men, and not the reverse. In other words, in order topreserve a certain culture, the type of manhood that creates such a culturemust be preserved. But such a preservation goes hand-in-hand with theinexorable law that it is the strongest and the best who must triumph and thatthey have the right to endure.
He who would live must fight. Hewho does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the lawof life, has not the right to exist.
Such a saying may sound hard; but,after all, that is how the matter really stands. Yet far harder is the lot ofhim who believes that he can overcome Nature and thus in reality insults her.Distress, misery, and disease are her rejoinders.
Whoever ignores or despises thelaws of race really deprives himself of the happiness to which he believes hecan attain. For he places an obstacle in the victorious path of the superiorrace and, by so doing, he interferes with a prerequisite condition of all humanprogress. Loaded with the burden of humanitarian sentiment, he falls back tothe level of those who are unable to raise themselves in the scale of being.
It would be futile to attempt todiscuss the question as to what race or races were the originalstandard-bearers of human culture and were thereby the real founders of allthat we understand by the word humanity. It is much simpler to deal with thisquestion in so far as it relates to the present time. Here the answer is simpleand clear. Every manifestation of human culture, every product of art, scienceand technical skill, which we see before our eyes to-day, is almost exclusivelythe product of the Aryan creative power. This very fact fully justifies theconclusion that it was the Aryan alone who founded a superior type of humanity;therefore he represents the architype of what we understand by the term: MAN.He is the Prometheus of mankind, from whose shining brow the divine spark ofgenius has at all times flashed forth, always kindling anew that fire which, inthe form of knowledge, illuminated the dark night by drawing aside the veil ofmystery and thus showing man how to rise and become master over all the otherbeings on the earth. Should he be forced to disappear, a profound darkness willdescend on the earth; within a few thousand years human culture will vanish andthe world will become a desert.
If we divide mankind into threecategories – founders of culture, bearers of culture, and destroyers of culture– the Aryan alone can be considered as representing the first category. It washe who laid the groundwork and erected the walls of every great structure inhuman culture. Only the shape and colour of such structures are to beattributed to the individual characteristics of the various nations. It is theAryan who has furnished the great building-stones and plans for the edifices ofall human progress; only the way in which these plans have been executed is tobe attributed to the qualities of each individual race. Within a few decadesthe whole of Eastern Asia, for instance, appropriated a culture and called sucha culture its own, whereas the basis of that culture was the Greek mind andTeutonic skill as we know it. Only the external form – at least to a certaindegree – shows the traits of an Asiatic inspiration. It is not true, as somebelieve, that Japan adds European technique to a culture of her own. The truthrather is that European science and technics are just decked out with thepeculiar characteristics of Japanese civilization. The foundations of actuallife in Japan to-day are not those of the native Japanese culture, althoughthis characterizes the external features of the country, which features strikethe eye of European observers on account of their fundamental difference fromus; but the real foundations of contemporary Japanese life are the enormousscientific and technical achievements of Europe and America, that is to say, ofAryan peoples. Only by adopting these achievements as the foundations of theirown progress can the various nations of the Orient take a place in contemporaryworld progress. The scientific and technical achievements of Europe and Americaprovide the basis on which the struggle for daily livelihood is carried on inthe Orient. They provide the necessary arms and instruments for this struggle,and only the outer forms of these instruments have become gradually adapted toJapanese ways of life.
If, from to-day onwards, the Aryaninfluence on Japan would cease – and if we suppose that Europe and Americawould collapse – then the present progress of Japan in science and techniquemight still last for a short duration; but within a few decades the inspirationwould dry up, and native Japanese character would triumph, while the presentcivilization would become fossilized and fall back into the sleep from which itwas aroused about seventy years ago by the impact of Aryan culture. We maytherefore draw the conclusion that, just as the present Japanese developmenthas been due to Aryan influence, so in the immemorial past an outside influenceand an outside culture brought into existence the Japanese culture of that day.This opinion is very strongly supported by the fact that the ancientcivilization of Japan actually became fossilizied and petrified. Such a processof senility can happen only if a people loses the racial cell which originallyhad been creative or if the outside influence should be withdrawn after havingawakened and maintained the first cultural developments in that region. If itbe shown that a people owes the fundamental elements of its culture to foreignraces, assimilating and elaborating such elements, and if subsequently thatculture becomes fossilized whenever the external influence ceases, then such arace may be called the depository but never the creator of a culture.
If we subject the differentpeoples to a strict test from this standpoint we shall find that scarcely anyone of them has originally created a culture, but almost all have been merelythe recipients of a culture created elsewhere.
This development may be depictedas always happening somewhat in the following way:
Aryan tribes, often almostridiculously small in number, subjugated foreign peoples and, stimulated by theconditions of life which their new country offered them (fertility, the natureof the climate, etc.), and profiting also by the abundance of manual labourfurnished them by the inferior race, they developed intellectual and organizingfaculties which had hitherto been dormant in these conquering tribes. Withinthe course of a few thousand years, or even centuries, they gave life tocultures whose primitive traits completely corresponded to the character of thefounders, though modified by adaptation to the peculiarities of the soil andthe characteristics of the subjugated people. But finally the conquering raceoffended against the principles which they first had observed, namely, themaintenance of their racial stock unmixed, and they began to intermingle withthe subjugated people. Thus they put an end to their own separate existence;for the original sin committed in Paradise has always been followed by theexpulsion of the guilty parties.
After a thousand years or more thelast visible traces of those former masters may then be found in a lighter tintof the skin which the Aryan blood had bequeathed to the subjugated race, and ina fossilized culture of which those Aryans had been the original creators. Forjust as the blood. of the conqueror, who was a conqueror not only in body butalso in spirit, got submerged in the blood of the subject race, so thesubstance disappeared out of which the torch of human culture and progress waskindled. In so far as the blood of the former ruling race has left a lightnuance of colour in the blood of its descendants, as a token and a memory, thenight of cultural life is rendered less dim and dark by a mild light radiatedfrom the products of those who were the bearers of the original fire. Theirradiance shines across the barbarism to which the subjected race has revertedand might often lead the superficial observer to believe that he sees beforehim an image of the present race when he is really looking into a mirrorwherein only the past is reflected.
It may happen that in the courseof its history such a people will come into contact a second time, and evenoftener, with the original founders of their culture and may not even rememberthat distant association. Instinctively the remnants of blood left from thatold ruling race will be drawn towards this new phenomenon and what had formerlybeen possible only under compulsion can now be successfully achieved in avoluntary way. A new cultural wave flows in and lasts until the blood of itsstandard-bearers becomes once again adulterated by intermixture with theoriginally conquered race.
It will be the task of those whoset themselves to the study of a universal history of civilization toinvestigate history from this point of view instead of allowing themselves tobe smothered under the mass of external data, as is only too often the casewith our present historical science.
This short sketch of the changesthat take place among those races that are only the depositories of a culturealso furnishes a picture of the development and the activity and thedisappearance of those who are the true founders of culture on this earth,namely the Aryans themselves.
Just as in our daily life theso-called man of genius needs a particular occasion, and sometimes indeed aspecial stimulus, to bring his genius to light, so too in the life of thepeoples the race that has genius in it needs the occasion and stimulus to bringthat genius to expression. In the monotony and routine of everyday life even personsof significance seem just like the others and do not rise beyond the averagelevel of their fellow-men. But as soon as such men find themselves in a specialsituation which disconcerts and unbalances the others, the humble person ofapparently common qualities reveals traits of genius, often to the amazement ofthose who have hitherto known him in the small things of everyday life. That isthe reason why a prophet only seldom counts for something in his own country.War offers an excellent occasion for observing this phenomenon. In times ofdistress, when the others despair, apparently harmless boys suddenly spring upand become heroes, full of determination, undaunted in the presence of Deathand manifesting wonderful powers of calm reflection under such circumstances.If such an hour of trial did not come nobody would have thought that the soulof a hero lurked in the body of that beardless youth. A special impulse isalmost always necessary to bring a man of genius into the foreground. Thesledge-hammer of Fate which strikes down the one so easily suddenly finds thecounter-impact of steel when it strikes at the other. And, after the commonshell of everyday life is broken, the core that lay hidden in it is displayedto the eyes of an astonished world. This surrounding world then grows obstinateand will not believe that what had seemed so like itself is really of thatdifferent quality so suddenly displayed. This is a process which is repeatedprobably every time a man of outstanding significance appears.
Though an inventor, for example,does not establish his fame until the very day that he carries through hisinvention, it would be a mistake to believe that the creative genius did notbecome alive in him until that moment. From the very hour of his birth thespark of genius is living within the man who has been endowed with the realcreative faculty. True genius is an innate quality. It can never be the resultof education or training.
As I have stated already, thisholds good not merely of the individual but also of the race. Those peoples whomanifest creative abilities in certain periods of their history have alwaysbeen fundamentally creative. It belongs to their very nature, even though thisfact may escape the eyes of the superficial observer. Here also recognitionfrom outside is only the consequence of practical achievement. Since the restof the world is incapable of recognizing genius as such, it can only see thevisible manifestations of genius in the form of inventions, discoveries, buildings,painting, etc.; but even here a long time passes before recognition is given.Just as the individual person who has been endowed with the gift of genius, orat least talent of a very high order, cannot bring that endowment torealization until he comes under the urge of special circumstances, so in thelife of the nations the creative capacities and powers frequently have to waituntil certain conditions stimulate them to action.
The most obvious example of thistruth is furnished by that race which has been, and still is, thestandard-bearer of human progress: I mean the Aryan race. As soon as Fatebrings them face to face with special circumstances their powers begin todevelop progressively and to be manifested in tangible form. The characteristiccultures which they create under such circumstances are almost alwaysconditioned by the soil, the climate and the people they subjugate. The lastfactor – that of the character of the people – is the most decisive one. Themore primitive the technical conditions under which the civilizing activitytakes place, the more necessary is the existence of manual labour which can beorganized and employed so as to take the place of mechanical power. Had it notbeen possible for them to employ members of the inferior race which theyconquered, the Aryans would never have been in a position to take the firststeps on the road which led them to a later type of culture; just as, withoutthe help of certain suitable animals which they were able to tame, they wouldnever have come to the invention of mechanical power which has subsequentlyenabled them to do without these beasts. The phrase, ‘The Moor has accomplishedhis function, so let him now depart’, has, unfortunately, a profoundapplication. For thousands of years the horse has been the faithful servant ofman and has helped him to lay the foundations of human progress, but now motorpower has dispensed with the use of the horse. In a few years to come the useof the horse will cease entirely; and yet without its collaboration man couldscarcely have come to the stage of development which he has now created.
For the establishment of superiortypes of civilization the members of inferior races formed one of the mostessential pre-requisites. They alone could supply the lack of mechanical meanswithout which no progress is possible. It is certain that the first stages ofhuman civilization were not based so much on the use of tame animals as on theemployment of human beings who were members of an inferior race.
Only after subjugated races wereemployed as slaves was a similar fate allotted to animals, and not vice versa,as some people would have us believe. At first it was the conquered enemy whohad to draw the plough and only afterwards did the ox and horse take his place.Nobody else but puling pacifists can consider this fact as a sign of humandegradation. Such people fail to recognize that this evolution had to takeplace in order that man might reach that degree of civilization which theseapostles now exploit in an attempt to make the world pay attention to theirrigmarole.
The progress of mankind may becompared to the process of ascending an infinite ladder. One does not reach thehigher level without first having climbed the lower rungs. The Aryan thereforehad to take that road which his sense of reality pointed out to him and notthat which the modern pacifist dreams of. The path of reality is, however,difficult and hard to tread; yet it is the only one which finally leads to thegoal where the others envisage mankind in their dreams. But the real truth isthat those dreamers help only to lead man away from his goal rather thantowards it.
It was not by mere chance that thefirst forms of civilization arose there where the Aryan came into contact withinferior races, subjugated them and forced them to obey his command. Themembers of the inferior race became the first mechanical tools in the serviceof a growing civilization.
Thereby the way was clearlyindicated which the Aryan had to follow. As a conqueror, he subjugated inferiorraces and turned their physical powers into organized channels under his ownleadership, forcing them to follow his will and purpose. By imposing on them auseful, though hard, manner of employing their powers he not only spared thelives of those whom he had conquered but probably made their lives easier thanthese had been in the former state of so-called ‘freedom’. While he ruthlesslymaintained his position as their master, he not only remained master but healso maintained and advanced civilization. For this depended exclusively on hisinborn abilities and, therefore, on the preservation of the Aryan race as such.As soon, however, as his subject began to rise and approach the level of theirconqueror, a phase of which ascension was probably the use of his language, thebarriers that had distinguished master from servant broke down. The Aryanneglected to maintain his own racial stock unmixed and therewith lost the rightto live in the paradise which he himself had created. He became submerged inthe racial mixture and gradually lost his cultural creativeness, until hefinally grew, not only mentally but also physically, more like the aborigineswhom he had subjected rather than his own ancestors. For some time he couldcontinue to live on the capital of that culture which still remained; but acondition of fossilization soon set in and he sank into oblivion.
That is how cultures and empiresdecline and yield their places to new formations.
The adulteration of the blood and racialdeterioration conditioned thereby are the only causes that account for thedecline of ancient civilizations; for it is never by war that nations areruined, but by the loss of their powers of resistance, which are exclusively acharacteristic of pure racial blood. In this world everything that is not ofsound racial stock is like chaff. Every historical event in the world isnothing more nor less than a manifestation of the instinct of racialself-preservation, whether for weal or woe.
The question as to the groundreasons for the predominant importance of Aryanism can be answered by pointingout that it is not so much that the Aryans are endowed with a stronger instinctfor self-preservation, but rather that this manifests itself in a way which ispeculiar to themselves. Considered from the subjective standpoint, thewill-to-live is of course equally strong all round and only the forms in whichit is expressed are different. Among the most primitive organisms the instinctfor self-preservation does not extend beyond the care of the individual ego.Egotism, as we call this passion, is so predominant that it includes even thetime element; which means that the present moment is deemed the most importantand that nothing is left to the future. The animal lives only for itself,searching for food only when it feels hunger and fighting only for thepreservation of its own life. As long as the instinct for self-preservationmanifests itself exclusively in such a way, there is no basis for theestablishment of a community; not even the most primitive form of all, that isto say the family. The society formed by the male with the female, where itgoes beyond the mere conditions of mating, calls for the extension of theinstinct of self-preservation, since the readiness to fight for one’s own egohas to be extended also to the mate. The male sometimes provides food for thefemale, but in most cases both parents provide food for the offspring. Almostalways they are ready to protect and defend each other; so that here we findthe first, though infinitely simple, manifestation of the spirit of sacrifice.As soon as this spirit extends beyond the narrow limits of the family, we havethe conditions under which larger associations and finally even States can beformed.
The lowest species of human beingsgive evidence of this quality only to a very small degree, so that often theydo not go beyond the formation of the family society. With an increasingreadiness to place their immediate personal interests in the background, thecapacity for organizing more extensive communities develops.
The readiness to sacrifice one’spersonal work and, if necessary, even one’s life for others shows its mosthighly developed form in the Aryan race. The greatness of the Aryan is not basedon his intellectual powers, but rather on his willingness to devote all hisfaculties to the service of the community. Here the instinct forself-preservation has reached its noblest form; for the Aryan willinglysubordinates his own ego to the common weal and when necessity calls he willeven sacrifice his own life for the community.
The constructive powers of theAryan and that peculiar ability he has for the building up of a culture are notgrounded in his intellectual gifts alone. If that were so they might only bedestructive and could never have the ability to organize; for the latteressentially depends on the readiness of the individual to renounce his ownpersonal opinions and interests and to lay both at the service of the humangroup. By serving the common weal he receives his reward in return. Forexample, he does not work directly for himself but makes his productive work apart of the activity of the group to which he belongs, not only for his ownbenefit but for the general. The spirit underlying this attitude is expressedby the word: WORK, which to him does not at all signify a means of earningone’s daily livelihood but rather a productive activity which cannot clash withthe interests of the community. Whenever human activity is directed exclusivelyto the service of the instinct for self-preservation it is called theft orusury, robbery or burglary, etc.
This mental attitude, which forcesself-interest to recede into the background in favour of the common weal, isthe first prerequisite for any kind of really human civilization. It is out ofthis spirit alone that great human achievements have sprung for which theoriginal doers have scarcely ever received any recompense but which turns outto be the source of abundant benefit for their descendants. It is this spiritalone which can explain why it so often happens that people can endure a harshbut honest existence which offers them no returns for their toil except a poorand modest livelihood. But such a livelihood helps to consolidate thefoundations on which the community exists. Every worker and every peasant,every inventor, state official, etc., who works without ever achieving fortuneor prosperity for himself, is a representative of this sublime idea, eventhough he may never become conscious of the profound meaning of his ownactivity.
Everything that may be said ofthat kind of work which is the fundamental condition of providing food and thebasic means of human progress is true even in a higher sense of work that isdone for the protection of man and his civilization. The renunciation of one’sown life for the sake of the community is the crowning significance of the ideaof all sacrifice. In this way only is it possible to protect what has beenbuilt up by man and to assure that this will not be destroyed by the hand ofman or of nature.
In the German language we have aword which admirably expresses this underlying spirit of all work: It isPflichterfüllung, which means the service of the common weal before theconsideration of one’s own interests. The fundamental spirit out of which thiskind of activity springs is the contradistinction of ‘Egotism’ and we call it‘Idealism’. By this we mean to signify the willingness of the individual tomake sacrifices for the community and his fellow-men.
It is of the utmost importance toinsist again and again that idealism is not merely a superfluous manifestationof sentiment but rather something which has been, is and always will be, anecessary precondition of human civilization; it is even out of this that thevery idea of the word ‘Human’ arises. To this kind of mentality the Aryan oweshis position in the world. And the world is indebted to the Aryan mind forhaving developed the concept of ‘mankind’; for it is out of this spirit alonethat the creative force has come which in a unique way combined robust muscularpower with a first-class intellect and thus created the monuments of humancivilization.
Were it not for idealism all thefaculties of the intellect, even the most brilliant, would be nothing butintellect itself, a mere external phenomenon without inner value and never acreative force.
Since true idealism, however, isessentially the subordination of the interests and life of the individual tothe interests and life of the community, and since the community on its partrepresents the pre-requisite condition of every form of organization, thisidealism accords in its innermost essence with the final purpose of Nature.This feeling alone makes men voluntarily acknowledge that strength and powerare entitled to take the lead and thus makes them a constituent particle inthat order out of which the whole universe is shaped and formed.
Without being conscious of it, thepurest idealism is always associated with the most profound knowledge. How truethis is and how little genuine idealism has to do with fantasticself-dramatization will become clear the moment we ask an unspoilt child, ahealthy boy for example, to give his opinion. The very same boy who listens tothe rantings of an ‘idealistic’ pacifist without understanding them, and evenrejects them, would readily sacrifice his young life for the ideal of hispeople.
Unconsciously his instinct willsubmit to the knowledge that the preservation of the species, even at the costof the individual life, is a primal necessity and he will protest against thefantasies of pacifist ranters, who in reality are nothing better than cowardlyegoists, even though camouflaged, who contradict the laws of human development.For it is a necessity of human evolution that the individual should be imbuedwith the spirit of sacrifice in favour of the common weal, and that he shouldnot be influenced by the morbid notions of those knaves who pretend to knowbetter than Nature and who have the impudencc to criticize her decrees.
It is just at those junctures whenthe idealistic attitude threatens to disappear that we notice a weakening ofthis force which is a necessary constituent in the founding and maintenance ofthe community and is thereby a necessary condition of civilization. As soon asthe spirit of egotism begins to prevail among a people then the bonds of thesocial order break and man, by seeking his own personal happiness, veritablytumbles out of heaven and falls into hell.
Posterity will not remember thosewho pursued only their own individual interests, but it will praise thoseheroes who renounced their own happiness.
The Jew offers the most strikingcontrast to the Aryan. There is probably no other people in the world who haveso developed the instinct of self-preservation as the so-called ‘chosen’people. The best proof of this statement is found in the simple fact that thisrace still exists. Where can another people be found that in the course of thelast two thousand years has undergone so few changes in mental outlook andcharacter as the Jewish people? And yet what other people has taken such aconstant part in the great revolutions? But even after having passed throughthe most gigantic catastrophes that have overwhelmed mankind, the Jews remainthe same as ever. What an infinitely tenacious will-to-live, to preserve one’skind, is demonstrated by that fact!
The intellectual faculties of theJew have been trained through thousands of years. To-day the Jew is looked uponas specially ‘cunning’; and in a certain sense he has been so throughout theages. His intellectual powers, however, are not the result of an innerevolution but rather have been shaped by the object-lessons which the Jew hasreceived from others. The human spirit cannot climb upwards without takingsuccessive steps. For every step upwards it needs the foundation of what hasbeen constructed before – the past – which in, the comprehensive sense hereemployed, can have been laid only in a general civilization. All thinkingoriginates only to a very small degree in personal experience. The largest partis based on the accumulated experiences of the past. The general level ofcivilization provides the individual, who in most cases is not consciouslyaware of the fact, with such an abundance of preliminary knowledge that withthis equipment he can more easily take further steps on the road of progress.The boy of to-day, for example, grows up among such an overwhelming mass oftechnical achievement which has accumulated during the last century that hetakes as granted many things which a hundred years ago were still mysterieseven to the greatest minds of those times. Yet these things that are not somuch a matter of course are of enormous importance to those who would understandthe progress we have made in these matters and would carry on that progress astep farther. If a man of genius belonging to the ‘twenties of the last centurywere to arise from his grave to-day he would find it more difficult tounderstand our present age than the contemporary boy of fifteen years of agewho may even have only an average intelligence. The man of genius, thus comeback from the past, would need to provide himself with an extraordinary amountof preliminary information which our contemporary youth receive automatically,so to speak, during the time they are growing up among the products of ourmodern civilization.
Since the Jew – for reasons that Ishall deal with immediately – never had a civilization of his own, he hasalways been furnished by others with a basis for his: intellectual work. Hisintellect has always developed by the use of those cultural achievements whichhe has found ready-to-hand around him.
The process has never been thereverse.
For, though among the Jews theinstinct of self-preservation has not been weaker but has been much strongerthan among other peoples, and though the impression may easily be created thatthe intellectual powers of the Jew are at least equal to those of other races,the Jews completely lack the most essential pre-requisite of a cultural people,namely the idealistic spirit. With the Jewish people the readiness forsacrifice does not extend beyond the simple instinct of individualpreservation. In their case the feeling of racial solidarity which theyapparently manifest is nothing but a very primitive gregarious instinct,similar to that which may be found among other organisms in this world. It is aremarkable fact that this herd instinct brings individuals together for mutualprotection only as long as there is a common danger which makes mutualassistance expedient or inevitable. The same pack of wolves which a moment agojoined together in a common attack on their victim will dissolve intoindividual wolves as soon as their hunger has been satisfied. This is also sureof horses, which unite to defend themselves against any aggressor but separatethe moment the danger is over.
It is much the same with the Jew.His spirit of sacrifice is only apparent. It manifests itself only so long asthe existence of the individual makes this a matter of absolute necessity. Butas soon as the common foe is conquered and the danger which threatened theindividual Jews is overcome and the prey secured, then the apparent harmonydisappears and the original conditions set in again. Jews act in concord onlywhen a common danger threatens them or a common prey attracts them. Where thesetwo motives no longer exist then the most brutal egotism appears and thesepeople who before had lived together in unity will turn into a swarm of ratsthat bitterly fight against each other.
If the Jews were the only peoplein the world they would be wallowing in filth and mire and would exploit oneanother and try to exterminate one another in a bitter struggle, except in sofar as their utter lack of the ideal of sacrifice, which shows itself in theircowardly spirit, would prevent this struggle from developing.
Therefore it would be a completemistake to interpret the mutual help which the Jews render one another when theyhave to fight – or, to put it more accurately, to exploit – their fellow being,as the expression of a certain idealistic spirit of sacrifice.
Here again the Jew merely followsthe call of his individual egotism. That is why the Jewish State, which oughtto be a vital organization to serve the purpose of preserving or increasing therace, has absolutely no territorial boundaries. For the territorialdelimitation of a State always demands a certain idealism of spirit on the partof the race which forms that State and especially a proper acceptance of theidea of work. A State which is territorially delimited cannot be established ormaintained unless the general attitude towards work be a positive one. If thisattitude be lacking, then the necessary basis of a civilization is alsolacking.
That is why the Jewish people,despite the intellectual powers with which they are apparently endowed, havenot a culture – certainly not a culture of their own. The culture which the Jewenjoys to-day is the product of the work of others and this product is debasedin the hands of the Jew.
In order to form a correctjudgment of the place which the Jew holds in relation to the whole problem ofhuman civilization, we must bear in mind the essential fact that there never hasbeen any Jewish art and consequently that nothing of this kind exists to-day.We must realize that especially in those two royal domains of art, namelyarchitecture and music, the Jew has done no original creative work. When theJew comes to producing something in the field of art he merely bowdler-izessomething already in existence or simply steals the intellectual word, ofothers. The Jew essentially lacks those qualities which are characteristic ofthose creative races that are the founders of civilization.
To what extent the Jewappropriates the civilization built up by others – or rather corrupts it, tospeak more accurately – is indicated by the fact that he cultivates chiefly theart which calls for the smallest amount of original invention, namely thedramatic art. And even here he is nothing better than a kind of juggler or,perhaps more correctly speaking, a kind of monkey imitator; for in this domainalso he lacks the creative elan which is necessary for the production of allreally great work. Even here, therefore, he is not a creative genius but rathera superficial imitator who, in spite of all his retouching and tricks, cannotdisguise the fact that there is no inner vitality in the shape he gives hisproducts. At this juncture the Jewish Press comes in and renders friendlyassistance by shouting hosannas over the head of even the most ordinary bunglerof a Jew, until the rest of the world is stampeded into thinking that theobject of so much praise must really be an artist, whereas in reality he may benothing more than a low-class mimic.
No; the Jews have not the creativeabilities which are necessary to the founding of a civilization; for in themthere is not, and never has been, that spirit of idealism which is anabsolutely necessary element in the higher development of mankind. Thereforethe Jewish intellect will never be constructive but always destructive. At bestit may serve as a stimulus in rare cases but only within the meaning of thepoet’s lines: ‘The Power which always wills the Bad, and always works theGood’ (Kraft, die stets das Böse will und stets das Gute schafft).It is not through his help but in spite of his help that mankind makes anyprogress.
Since the Jew has never had aState which was based on territorial delimitations, and therefore never acivilization of his own, the idea arose that here we were dealing with a peoplewho had to be considered as Nomads. That is a great and mischievous mistake.The true nomad does actually possess a definite delimited territory where helives. It is merely that he does not cultivate it, as the settled farmer does,but that he lives on the products of his herds, with which he wanders over hisdomain. The natural reason for this mode of existence is to be found in thefact that the soil is not fertile and that it does not give the steady producewhich makes a fixed abode possible. Outside of this natural cause, however,there is a more profound cause: namely, that no mechanical civilization is athand to make up for the natural poverty of the region in question. There areterritories where the Aryan can establish fixed settlements by means of thetechnical skill which he has developed in the course of more than a thousandyears, even though these territories would otherwise have to be abandoned,unless the Aryan were willing to wander about them in nomadic fashion; but histechnical tradition and his age-long experience of the use of technical meanswould probably make the nomadic life unbearable for him. We ought to rememberthat during the first period of American colonization numerous Aryans earnedtheir daily livelihood as trappers and hunters, etc., frequently wanderingabout in large groups with their women and children, their mode of existencevery much resembling that of ordinary nomads. The moment, however, that theygrew more numerous and were able to accumulate larger resources, they clearedthe land and drove out the aborigines, at the same time establishingsettlements which rapidly increased all over the country.
The Aryan himself was probably atfirst a nomad and became a settler in the course of ages. But yet he was neverof the Jewish kind. The Jew is not a nomad; for the nomad has already adefinite attitude towards the concept of ‘work’, and this attitude served asthe basis of a later cultural development, when the necessary intellectualconditions were at hand. There is a certain amount of idealism in the generalattitude of the nomad, even though it be rather primitive. His whole charactermay, therefore, be foreign to Aryan feeling but it will never be repulsive. Butnot even the slightest trace of idealism exists in the Jewish character. TheJew has never been a nomad, but always a parasite, battening on the substanceof others. If he occasionally abandoned regions where he had hitherto lived hedid not do it voluntarily. He did it because from time to time he was drivenout by people who were tired of having their hospitality abused by such guests.Jewish self-expansion is a parasitic phenomenon – since the Jew is alwayslooking for new pastures for his race.
But this has nothing to do withnomadic life as such; because the Jew does not ever think of leaving aterritory which he has once occupied. He sticks where he is with such tenacitythat he can hardly be driven out even by superior physical force. He expandsinto new territories only when certain conditions for his existence areprovided therein; but even then – unlike the nomad – he will not change hisformer abode. He is and remains a parasite, a sponger who, like a perniciousbacillus, spreads over wider and wider areas according as some favourable areaattracts him. The effect produced by his presence is also like that of thevampire; for wherever he establishes himself the people who grant him hospitalityare bound to be bled to death sooner or later. Thus the Jew has at all timeslived in States that have belonged to other races and within the organizationof those States he had formed a State of his own, which is, however, hiddenbehind the mask of a ‘religious community’, as long as external circumstancesdo not make it advisable for this community to declare its true nature. As soonas the Jew feels himself sufficiently established in his position to be able tohold it without a disguise, he lifts the mask and suddenly appears in thecharacter which so many did not formerly believe or wish to see: namely that ofthe Jew.
The life which the Jew lives as aparasite thriving on the substance of other nations and States has resulted indeveloping that specific character which Schopenhauer once described when hespoke of the Jew as ‘The Great Master of Lies’. The kind of existence which heleads forces the Jew to the systematic use of falsehood, just as naturally asthe inhabitants of northern climates are forced to wear warm clothes.
He can live among other nationsand States only as long as he succeeds in persuading them that the Jews are nota distinct people but the representatives of a religious faith who thusconstitute a ‘religious community’, though this be of a peculiar character.
As a matter of fact, however, thisis the first of his great falsehoods.
He is obliged to conceal his ownparticular character and mode of life that he may be allowed to continue hisexistence as a parasite among the nations. The greater the intelligence of theindividual Jew, the better will he succeed in deceiving others. His success inthis line may even go so far that the people who grant him hospitality may beled to believe that the Jew among them is a genuine Frenchman, for instance, orEnglishman or German or Italian, who just happens to belong to a religiousdenomination which is different from that prevailing in these countries.Especially in circles concerned with the executive administration of the State,where the officials generally have only a minimum of historical sense, the Jewis able to impose his infamous deception with comparative ease. In thesecircles independent thinking is considered a sin against the sacred rulesaccording to which official promotion takes place. It is therefore notsurprising that even to-day in the Bavarian government offices, for example,there is not the slightest suspicion that the Jews form a distinct nationthemselves and are not merely the adherents of a ‘Confession’, though oneglance at the Press which belongs to the Jews ought to furnish sufficientevidence to the contrary even for those who possess only the smallest degree ofintelligence. The Jewish Echo, however, is not an official gazette andtherefore not authoritative in the eyes of those government potentates.
Jewry has always been a nation ofa definite racial character and never differentiated merely by the fact ofbelonging to a certain religion. At a very early date, urged on by the desireto make their way in the world, the Jews began to cast about for a meanswhereby they might distract such attention as might prove inconvenient forthem. What could be more effective and at the same time more above suspicionthan to borrow and utilize the idea of the religious community? Here alsoeverything is copied, or rather stolen; for the Jew could not possess anyreligious institution which had developed out of his own consciousness, seeingthat he lacks every kind of idealism; which means that belief in a life beyondthis terrestrial existence is foreign to him. In the Aryan mind no religion canever be imagined unless it embodies the conviction that life in some form orother will continue after death. As a matter of fact, the Talmud is not a bookthat lays down principles according to which the individual should prepare forthe life to come. It only furnishes rules for a practical and convenient lifein this world.
The religious teaching of the Jewsis principally a collection of instructions for maintaining the Jewish bloodpure and for regulating intercourse between Jews and the rest of the world:that is to say, their relation with non-Jews. But the Jewish religious teachingis not concerned with moral problems. It is rather concerned with economicproblems, and very petty ones at that. In regard to the moral value of thereligious teaching of the Jews there exist and always have existed quiteexhaustive studies (not from the Jewish side; for whatever the Jews havewritten on this question has naturally always been of a tendentious character)which show up the kind of religion that the Jews have in a light that makes itlook very uncanny to the Aryan mind. The Jew himself is the best example of thekind of product which this religious training evolves. His life is of thisworld only and his mentality is as foreign to the true spirit of Christianityas his character was foreign to the great Founder of this new creed twothousand years ago. And the Founder of Christianity made no secret indeed ofHis estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary He drove thoseenemies of the human race out of the Temple of God; because then, as always,they used religion as a means of advancing their commercial interests. But atthat time Christ was nailed to the Cross for his attitude towards the Jews;whereas our modern Christians enter into party politics and when elections arebeing held they debase themselves to beg for Jewish votes. They even enter intopolitical intrigues with the atheistic Jewish parties against the interests oftheir own Christian nation.
On this first and fundamental lie,the purpose of which is to make people believe that Jewry is not a nation but areligion, other lies are subsequently based. One of those further lies, forexample, is in connection with the language spoken by the Jew. For him languageis not an instrument for the expression of his inner thoughts but rather ameans of cloaking them. When talking French his thoughts are Jewish and whenwriting German rhymes he only gives expression to the character of his ownrace.
As long as the Jew has notsucceeded in mastering other peoples he is forced to speak their languagewhether he likes it or not. But the moment that the world would become theslave of the Jew it would have to learn some other language (Esperanto, forexample) so that by this means the Jew could dominate all the more easily.
How much the whole existence ofthis people is based on a permanent falsehood is proved in a unique way by ‘TheProtocols of the Elders of Zion’, which are so violently repudiated by theJews. With groans and moans, the Frankfurter Zeitung repeats again and againthat these are forgeries. This alone is evidence in favour of theirauthenticity. What many Jews unconsciously wish to do is here clearly setforth. It is not necessary to ask out of what Jewish brain these revelationssprang; but what is of vital interest is that they disclose, with an almostterrifying precision, the mentality and methods of action characteristic of theJewish people and these writings expound in all their various directions thefinal aims towards which the Jews are striving. The study of real happenings,however, is the best way of judging the authenticity of those documents. If thehistorical developments which have taken place within the last few centuries bestudied in the light of this book we shall understand why the Jewish Pressincessantly repudiates and denounces it. For the Jewish peril will be stampedout the moment the general public come into possession of that book andunderstand it.
In order to get to know the Jewproperly it is necessary to study the road which he has been following amongthe other peoples during the last few centuries. One example will suffice togive a clear insight here. Since his career has been the same at all epochs –just as the people at whose expense he has lived have remained the same – forthe purposes of making the requisite analysis it will be best to mark hisprogress by stages. For the sake of simplicity we shall indicate these stagesby letters of the alphabet.
The first Jews came into what wasthen called Germania during the period of the Roman invasion; and, as usual,they came as merchants. During the turmoil caused by the great migrations ofthe German tribes the Jews seem to have disappeared. We may therefore considerthe period when the Germans formed the first political communities as thebeginning of that process whereby Central and Northern Europe was again, andthis time permanently, Judaized. A development began which has always been thesame or similar wherever and whenever Jews came into contact with Aryanpeoples.
(a) As soon as the first permanentsettlements had been established the Jew was suddenly ‘there’. He arrived as amerchant and in the beginning did not trouble to disguise his nationality. Hestill remained openly a Jew, partly it may be because he knew too little of thelanguage. It may also be that people of other races refused to mix with him, sothat he could not very well adopt any other appearance than that of a foreignmerchant. Because of his subtlety and cunning and the lack of experience on thepart of the people whose guest he became, it was not to his disadvantage openlyto retain his Jewish character. This may even have been advantageous to him; forthe foreigner was received kindly.
(b) Slowly but steadily he beganto take part in the economic life around him; not as a producer, however, butonly as a middleman. His commercial cunning, acquired through thousands ofyears of negotiation as an intermediary, made him superior in this field to theAryans, who were still quite ingenuous and indeed clumsy and whose honesty wasunlimited; so that after a short while commerce seemed destined to become aJewish monopoly. The Jew began by lending out money at usurious interest, whichis a permanent trade of his. It was he who first introduced the payment ofinterest on borrowed money. The danger which this innovation involved was notat first recognized; indeed the innovation was welcomed, because it offeredmomentary advantages.
(c) At this stage the Jew hadbecome firmly settled down; that is to say, he inhabited special sections ofthe cities and towns and had his own quarter in the market-places. Thus hegradually came to form a State within a State. He came to look upon thecommercial domain and all money transactions as a privilege belongingexclusively to himself and he exploited it ruthlessly.
(d) At this stage finance andtrade had become his complete monopoly. Finally, his usurious rate of interestaroused opposition and the increasing impudence which the Jew began to manifestall round stirred up popular indignation, while his display of wealth gave riseto popular envy. The cup of his iniquity became full to the brim when heincluded landed property among his commercial wares and degraded the soil tothe level of a market commodity. Since he himself never cultivated the soil butconsidered it as an object to be exploited, on which the peasant may stillremain but only on condition that he submits to the most heartless exactions ofhis new master, public antipathy against the Jew steadily increased and finallyturned into open animosity. His extortionate tyranny became so unbearable thatpeople rebelled against his control and used physical violence against him.They began to scrutinize this foreigner somewhat more closely, and then beganto discover the repulsive traits and characteristics inherent in him, untilfinally an abyss opened between the Jews and their hosts, across which abyssthere could be no further contact.
In times of distress a wave ofpublic anger has usually arisen against the Jew; the masses have taken the lawinto their own hands; they have seized Jewish property and ruined the Jew intheir urge to protect themselves against what they consider to be a scourge ofGod. Having come to know the Jew intimately through the course of centuries, intimes of distress they looked upon his presence among them as a public dangercomparable only to the plague.
(e) But then the Jew began to revealhis true character. He paid court to governments, with servile flattery, usedhis money to ingratiate himself further and thus regularly secured for himselfonce again the privilege of exploiting his victim. Although public wrath flaredup against this eternal profiteer and drove him out, after a few years hereappeared in those same places and carried on as before. No persecution couldforce him to give up his trade of exploiting other people and no amount ofharrying succeeded in driving him out permanently. He always returned after ashort time and it was always the old story with him.
In an effort to save at least theworst from happening, legislation was passed which debarred the Jew fromobtaining possession of the land.
(f) In proportion as the powers ofkings and princes increased, the Jew sidled up to them. He begged for‘charters’ and ‘privileges’ which those gentlemen, who were generally infinancial straits, gladly granted if they received adequate payment in return.However high the price he has to pay, the Jew will succeed in getting it backwithin a few years from operating the privilege he has acquired, even withinterest and compound interest. He is a real leech who clings to the body ofhis unfortunate victims and cannot be removed; so that when the princes foundthemselves in need once again they took the blood from his swollen veins withtheir own hands.
This game was repeated unendingly.In the case of those who were called ‘German Princes’, the part they played wasquite as contemptible as that played by the Jew. They were a real scourge fortheir people. Their compeers may be found in some of the government ministersof our time.
It was due to the German princesthat the German nation could not succeed in definitely freeing itself from theJewish peril. Unfortunately the situation did not change at a later period. Theprinces finally received the reward which they had a thousand-fold deserved forall the crimes committed by them against their own people. They had alliedthemselves with Satan and later on they discovered that they were in Satan’sembrace.
(g) By permitting themselves to beentangled in the toils of the Jew, the princes prepared their own downfall. Theposition which they held among their people was slowly but steadily underminednot only by their continued failure to guard the interests of their subjectsbut by the positive exploitation of them. The Jew calculated exactly the timewhen the downfall of the princes was approaching and did his best to hasten it.He intensified their financial difficulties by hindering them in the exerciseof their duty towards their people, by inveigling them through the most servileflatteries into further personal display, whereby he made himself more and moreindispensable to them. His astuteness, or rather his utter unscrupulousness, inmoney affairs enabled him to exact new income from the princes, to squeeze themoney out of them and then have it spent as quickly as possible. Every Courthad its ‘Court Jews’, as this plague was called, who tortured the innocentvictims until they were driven to despair; while at the same time this Jewprovided the means which the princes squandered on their own pleasures. It isnot to be wondered at that these ornaments of the human race became the recipientsof official honours and even were admitted into the ranks of the hereditarynobility, thus contributing not only to expose that social institution toridicule but also to contaminate it from the inside.
Naturally the Jew could nowexploit the position to which he had attained and push himself forward evenmore rapidly than before. Finally he became baptized and thus entitled to allthe rights and privileges which belonged to the children of the nation on whichhe preyed. This was a high-class stroke of business for him, and he oftenavailed himself of it, to the great joy of the Church, which was proud ofhaving gained a new child in the Faith, and also to the joy of Israel, whichwas happy at seeing the trick pulled off successfully.
(h) At this stage a transformationbegan to take place in the world of Jewry. Up to now they had been Jews – thatis to say, they did not hitherto set any great value on pretending to besomething else; and anyhow the distinctive characteristics which separated themfrom other races could not be easily overcome. Even as late as the time ofFrederick the Great nobody looked upon the Jews as other than a ‘foreign’people, and Goethe rose up in revolt against the failure legally to prohibitmarriage between Christians and Jews. Goethe was certainly no reactionary andno time-server. What he said came from the voice of the blood and the voice ofreason. Notwithstanding the disgraceful happenings taking place in Courtcircles, the people recognized instinctively that the Jew was the foreign bodyin their own flesh and their attitude towards him was directed by recognitionof that fact.
But a change was now destined totake place. In the course of more than a thousand years the Jew had learned tomaster the language of his hosts so thoroughly that he considered he might nowlay stress on his Jewish character and emphasize the ‘Germanism’ a bit more.Though it must have appeared ridiculous and absurd at first sight, he wasimpudent enough to call himself a ‘Teuton’, which in this case meant a German.In that way began one of the most infamous impositions that can be imagined.The Jew did not possess the slightest traces of the German character. He hadonly acquired the art of twisting the German language to his own uses, and thatin a disgusting way, without having assimilated any other feature of the Germancharacter. Therefore his command of the language was the sole ground on whichhe could pretend to be a German. It is not however by the tie of language, butexclusively by the tie of blood that the members of a race are bound together.And the Jew himself knows this better than any other, seeing that he attachesso little importance to the preservation of his own language while at the sametime he strives his utmost to maintain his blood free from intermixture withthat of other races. A man may acquire and use a new language without muchtrouble; but it is only his old ideas that he expresses through the newlanguage. His inner nature is not modified thereby. The best proof of this isfurnished by the Jew himself. He may speak a thousand tongues and yet hisJewish nature will remain always one and the same. His distinguishingcharacteristics were the same when he spoke the Latin language at Ostia twothousand years ago as a merchant in grain, as they are to-day when he tries tosell adulterated flour with the aid of his German gibberish. He is always thesame Jew. That so obvious a fact is not recognized by the average head-clerk ina German government department, or by an officer in the police administration,is also a self-evident and natural fact; since it would be difficult to findanother class of people who are so lacking in instinct and intelligence as thecivil servants employed by our modern German State authorities.
The reason why, at the stage I amdealing with, the Jew so suddenly decided to transform himself into a German isnot difficult to discover. He felt the power of the princes slowly crumblingand therefore looked about to find a new social plank on which he might stand.Furthermore, his financial domination over all the spheres of economic life hadbecome so powerful that he felt he could no longer sustain that enormousstructure or add to it unless he were admitted to the full enjoyment of the‘rights of citizenship.’ He aimed at both, preservation and expansion; for thehigher he could climb the more alluring became the prospect of reaching the oldgoal, which was promised to him in ancient times, namely world-rulership, andwhich he now looked forward to with feverish eyes, as he thought he saw itvisibly approaching. Therefore all his efforts were now directed to becoming afully-fledged citizen, endowed with all civil and political rights.
That was the reason for hisemancipation from the Ghetto.
(i) And thus the Court Jew slowlydeveloped into the national Jew. But naturally he still remained associatedwith persons in higher quarters and he even attempted to push his way furtherinto the inner circles of the ruling set. But at the same time some otherrepresentatives of his race were currying favour with the people. If weremember the crimes the Jew had committed against the masses of the people inthe course of so many centuries, how repeatedly and ruthlessly he exploitedthem and how he sucked out even the very marrow of their substance, and when wefurther remember how they gradually came to hate him and finally considered himas a public scourge – then we may well understand how difficult the Jew musthave found this final transformation. Yes, indeed, it must tax all their powersto be able to present themselves as ‘friends of humanity’ to the poor victimswhom they have skinned raw.
Therefore the Jew began by makingpublic amends for the crimes which he had committed against the people in the past.He started his metamorphosis by first appearing as the ‘benefactor’ ofhumanity. Since his new philanthropic policy had a very concrete aim in view,he could not very well apply to himself the biblical counsel, not to allow theleft hand to know what the right hand is giving. He felt obliged to let as manypeople as possible know how deeply the sufferings of the masses grieved him andto what excesses of personal sacrifice he was ready to go in order to helpthem. With this manifestation of innate modesty, so typical of the Jew, hetrumpeted his virtues before the world until finally the world actually beganto believe him. Those who refused to share this belief were considered to bedoing him an injustice. Thus after a little while he began to twist thingsaround, so as to make it appear that it was he who had always been wronged, andvice versa. There were really some particularly foolish people who could nothelp pitying this poor unfortunate creature of a Jew.
Attention may be called to thefact that, in spite of his proclaimed readiness to make personal sacrifices,the Jew never becomes poor thereby. He has a happy knack of always making bothends meet. Occasionally his benevolence might be compared to the manure whichis not spread over the field merely for the purpose of getting rid of it, butrather with a view to future produce. Anyhow, after a comparatively shortperiod of time, the world was given to know that the Jew had become a generalbenefactor and philanthropist. What a transformation!
What is looked upon as more orless natural when done by other people here became an object of astonishment,and even sometimes of admiration, because it was considered so unusual in aJew. That is why he has received more credit for his acts of benevolence thanordinary mortals.
And something more: The Jew becameliberal all of a sudden and began to talk enthusiastically of how humanprogress must be encouraged. Gradually he assumed the air of being the heraldof a new age.
Yet at the same time he continuedto undermine the ground-work of that part of the economic system in which thepeople have the most practical interest. He bought up stock in the variousnational undertakings and thus pushed his influence into the circuit ofnational production, making this latter an object of buying and selling on thestock exchange, or rather what might be called the pawn in a financial game ofchess, and thus ruining the basis on which personal proprietorship alone ispossible. Only with the entrance of the Jew did that feeling of estrangement,between employers and employees begin which led at a later date to thepolitical class-struggle.
Finally the Jew gained anincreasing influence in all economic undertakings by means of his predominancein the stock-exchange. If not the ownership, at least he secured control of theworking power of the nation.
In order to strengthen hispolitical position, he directed his efforts towards removing the barrier ofracial and civic discrimination which had hitherto hindered his advance atevery turn. With characteristic tenacity he championed the cause of religioustolerance for this purpose; and in the freemason organization, which had fallencompletely into his hands, he found a magnificent weapon which helped him toachieve his ends. Government circles, as well as the higher sections of thepolitical and commercial bourgeoisie, fell a prey to his plans through hismanipulation of the masonic net, though they themselves did not even suspectwhat was happening.
Only the people as such, or ratherthe masses which were just becoming conscious of their own power and werebeginning to use it in the fight for their rights and liberties, had hithertoescaped the grip of the Jew. At least his influence had not yet penetrated tothe deeper and wider sections of the people. This was unsatisfactory to him.The most important phase of his policy was therefore to secure control over thepeople. The Jew realized that in his efforts to reach the position of publicdespot he would need a ‘peace-maker.’ And he thought he could find apeace-maker if he could whip-in sufficient extensive sections of the bourgeois.But the freemasons failed to catch the glove-manufacturers and thelinen-weavers in the frail meshes of their net. And so it became necessary tofind a grosser and withal a more effective means. Thus another weapon besidethat of freemasonry would have to be secured. This was the Press. The Jewexercised all his skill and tenacity in getting hold of it. By means of thePress he began gradually to control public life in its entirety. He began todrive it along the road which he had chosen to reach his own ends; for he wasnow in a position to create and direct that force which, under the name of‘public opinion’ is better known to-day than it was some decades ago.
Simultaneously the Jew gavehimself the air of thirsting after knowledge. He lauded every phase ofprogress, particularly those phases which led to the ruin of others; for hejudges all progress and development from the standpoint of the advantages whichthese bring to his own people. When it brings him no such advantages he is thedeadly enemy of enlightenment and hates all culture which is real culture assuch. All the knowledge which he acquires in the schools of others is exploitedby him exclusively in the service of his own race.
Even more watchfully than everbefore, he now stood guard over his Jewish nationality. Though bubbling overwith ‘enlightenment’, ‘progress’, ‘liberty’, ‘humanity’, etc., his first carewas to preserve the racial integrity of his own people. He occasionallybestowed one of his female members on an influential Christian; but the racialstock of his male descendants was always preserved unmixed fundamentally. Hepoisons the blood of others but preserves his own blood unadulterated. The Jewscarcely ever marries a Christian girl, but the Christian takes a Jewess towife. The mongrels that are a result of this latter union always declarethemselves on the Jewish side. Thus a part of the higher nobility in particularbecame completely degenerate. The Jew was well aware of this fact andsystematically used this means of disarming the intellectual leaders of theopposite race. To mask his tactics and fool his victims, he talks of theequality of all men, no matter what their race or colour may be. And thesimpletons begin to believe him.
Since his whole nature stillretains too foreign an odour for the broad masses of the people to allowthemselves to be caught in his snare, he uses the Press to put before the publica picture of himself which is entirely untrue to life but well designed toserve his purpose. In the comic papers special efforts are made to representthe Jews as an inoffensive little race which, like all others, has itspeculiarities. In spite of their manners, which may seem a bit strange, thecomic papers present the Jews as fundamentally good-hearted and honourable.Attempts are generally made to make them appear insignificant rather thandangerous.
During this phase of his progressthe chief goal of the Jew was the victory of democracy, or rather the supremehegemony of the parliamentary system, which embodies his concept of democracy.This institution harmonises best with his purposes; for thus the personalelement is eliminated and in its place we have the dunder-headed majority,inefficiency and, last but by no means least, knavery.
The final result must necessarilyhave been the overthrow of the monarchy, which had to happen sooner or later.
(j) A tremendous economicdevelopment transformed the social structure of the nation. The small artisanclass slowly disappeared and the factory worker, who took its place, hadscarcely any chance of establishing an independent existence of his own butsank more and more to the level of a proletariat. An essential characteristicof the factory worker is that he is scarcely ever able to provide for anindependent source of livelihood which will support him in later life. In thetrue sense of the word, he is ‘disinherited’. His old age is a misery to him andcan hardly be called life at all.
In earlier times a similarsituation had been created, which had imperatively demanded a solution and forwhich a solution was found. Side by side with the peasant and the artisan, anew class was gradually developed, namely that of officials and employees,especially those employed in the various services of the State. They also werea ‘disinherited’ class, in the true sense of the word. But the State found aremedy for this unhealthy situation by taking upon itself the duty of providingfor the State official who could establish nothing that would be an independentmeans of livelihood for himself in his old age. Thus the system of pensions andretiring allowances was introduced. Private enterprises slowly followed this examplein increasing numbers; so that to-day every permanent non-manual workerreceives a pension in his later years, if the firm which he has served is onethat has reached or gone beyond a certain size. It was only by virtue of theassurance given of State officials, that they would be cared for in their oldage. that such a high degree of unselfish devotion to duty was developed, whichin pre-war times was one of the distinguising characteristics of Germanofficials.
Thus a whole class which had nopersonal property was saved from destitution by an intelligent system ofprovision, and found a place in the social structure of the national community.
The problem is now put before theState and nation, but this time in a much larger form. When the new industriessprang up and developed, millions of people left the countryside and thevillages to take up employment in the big factories. The conditions under whichthis new class found itself forced to live were worse than miserable. The moreor less mechanical transformation of the methods of work hitherto in vogueamong the artisans and peasants did not fit in well with the habits ormentality of this new working-class. The way in which the peasants and artisanshad formerly worked had nothing comparable to the intensive labour of the newfactory worker. In the old trades time did not play a highly important role,but it became an essential element in the new industrial system. The formaltaking over of the old working hours into the mammoth industrial enterpriseshad fatal results. The actual amount of work hitherto accomplished within acertain time was comparatively small, because the modern methods of intensiveproduction were then unknown. Therefore, though in the older system a workingday of fourteen or even fifteen hours was not unendurable, now it was beyondthe possibilities of human endurance because in the new system every minute wasutilized to the extreme. This absurd transference of the old working hours tothe new industrial system proved fatal in two directions. First, it ruined thehealth of the workers; secondly, it destroyed their faith in a superior law ofjustice. Finally, on the one hand a miserable wage was received and, on theother, the employer held a much more lucrative position than before. Hence astriking difference between the ways of life on the one side and on the other.
In the open country there could beno social problem, because the master and the farm-hand were doing the samekind of work and doing it together. They ate their food in common, andsometimes even out of the same dish. But in this sphere also the new systemintroduced an entirely different set of conditions between masters and men.
The division created betweenemployer and employees seems not to have extended to all branches of life. Howfar this Judaizing process has been allowed to take effect among our people isillustrated by the fact that manual labour not only receives practically norecognition but is even considered degrading. That is not a natural German attitude.It is due to the introduction of a foreign element into our lives, and thatforeign element is the Jewish spirit, one of the effects of which has been totransform the high esteem in which our handicrafts once were held into adefinite feeling that all physical labour is something base and unworthy.
Thus a new social class has grownup which stands in low esteem; and the day must come when we shall have to facethe question of whether the nation will be able to make this class an integralpart of the social community or whether the difference of status now existingwill become a permanent gulf separating this class from the others.
One thing, however, is certain:This class does not include the worst elements of the community in its ranks.Rather the contrary is the truth: it includes the most energetic parts of thenation. The sophistication which is the result of a so-called civilization hasnot yet exercised its disintegrating and degenerating influence on this class.The broad masses of this new lower class, constituted by the manual labourers,have not yet fallen a prey to the morbid weakness of pacifism. These are stillrobust and, if necessary, they can be brutal.
While our bourgeoisie middle classpaid no attention at all to this momentous problem and indifferently allowedevents to take their course, the Jew seized upon the manifold possibilitieswhich the situation offered him for the future. While on the one hand heorganized capitalistic methods of exploitation to their ultimate degree ofefficiency, he curried favour with the victims of his policy and his power andin a short while became the leader of their struggle against himself. ‘Againsthimself’ is here only a figurative way of speaking; for this ‘Great Master ofLies’ knows how to appear in the guise of the innocent and throw the guilt onothers. Since he had the impudence to take a personal lead among the masses,they never for a moment suspected that they were falling a prey to one of themost infamous deceits ever practised. And yet that is what it actually was.
The moment this new class hadarisen out of the general economic situation and taken shape as a definite bodyin the social order, the Jew saw clearly where he would find the necessarypacemaker for his own progressive march. At first he had used the bourgeoisclass as a battering-ram against the feudal order; and now he used the workeragainst the bourgeois world. Just as he succeeded in obtaining civic rights byintrigues carried on under the protection of the bourgeois class, he now hopedthat by joining in the struggle which the workers were waging for their ownexistence he would be able to obtain full control over them.
When that moment arrives, then theonly objective the workers will have to fight for will be the future of theJewish people. Without knowing it, the worker is placing himself at the serviceof the very power against which he believes he is fighting. Apparently he ismade to fight against capital and thus he is all the more easily brought tofight for capitalist interests. Outcries are systematically raised againstinternational capital but in reality it is against the structure of nationaleconomics that these slogans are directed. The idea is to demolish thisstructure and on its ruins triumphantly erect the structure of theInternational Stock Exchange.
In this line of action theprocedure of the Jew was as follows:
He kowtowed to the worker,hypocritically pretended to feel pity for him and his lot, and even to beindignant at the misery and poverty which the worker had to endure. That is theway in which the Jew endeavoured to gain the confidence of the working class.He showed himself eager to study their various hardships, whether real orimaginary, and strove to awaken a yearning on the part of the workers to changethe conditions under which they lived. The Jew artfully enkindled that innateyearning for social justice which is a typical Aryan characteristic. Once thatyearning became alive it was transformed into hatred against those in more fortunatecircumstances of life. The next stage was to give a precise philosophicalaspect to the struggle for the elimination of social wrongs. And thus theMarxist doctrine was invented.
By presenting his doctrine as partand parcel of a just revindication of social rights, the Jew propagated thedoctrine all the more effectively. But at the same time he provoked theopposition of decent people who refused to admit these demands which, becauseof the form and pseudo-philosophical trimmings in which they are presented,seemed fundamentally unjust and impossible for realization. For, under thecloak of purely social concepts there are hidden aims which are of a Sataniccharacter. These aims are even expounded in the open with the clarity ofunlimited impudence. This Marxist doctrine is an individual mixture of humanreason and human absurdity; but the combination is arranged in such a way thatonly the absurd part of it could ever be put into practice, but never thereasonable part of it. By categorically repudiating the personal worth of theindividual and also the nation and its racial constituent, this doctrinedestroys the fundamental basis of all civilization; for civilizationessentially depends on these very factors. Such is the true essence of the MarxistWeltanschhauung, so far as the word Weltanschhauung can beapplied at all to this phantom arising from a criminal brain. The destructionof the concept of personality and of race removes the chief obstacle whichbarred the way to domination of the social body by its inferior elements, whichare the Jews.
The very absurdity of the economicand political theories of Marxism gives the doctrine its peculiar significance.Because of its pseudo-logic, intelligent people refuse to support it, while allthose who are less accustomed to use their intellectual faculties, or who haveonly a rudimentary notion of economic principles, join the Marxist cause withflying banners. The intelligence behind the movement – for even this movementneeds intelligence if it is to subsist – is supplied by the Jews themselves,naturally of course as a gratuitous service which is at the same time asacrifice on their part.
Thus arose a movement which wascomposed exclusively of manual workers under the leadership of Jews. To all externalappearances, this movement strives to ameliorate the conditions under which theworkers live; but in reality its aim is to enslave and thereby annihilate thenon-Jewish races.
The propaganda which thefreemasons had carried on among the so-called intelligentsia, whereby theirpacifist teaching paralysed the instinct for national self-preservation, wasnow extended to the broad masses of the workers and bourgeoisie by means of thePress, which was almost everywhere in Jewish hands. To those two instruments ofdisintegration a third and still more ruthless one was added, namely, theorganization of brute physical force among the masses. As massed columns ofattacks, the Marxist troops stormed those parts of the social order which hadbeen left standing after the two former undermining operations had done theirwork.
The combined activity of all theseforces has been marvellously managed. And it will not be surprising if it turnsout that those institutions which have always appeared as the organs of themore or less traditional authority of the State should now fall before theMarxist attack. Among our higher and highest State officials, with very fewexceptions, the Jew has found the cost complacent backers in his work ofdestruction. An attitude of sneaking servility towards ‘superiors’ andsupercilious arrogance towards ‘inferiors’ are the characteristics of thisclass of people, as well as a grade of stupidity which is really frighteningand at the same time a towering self-conceit, which has been so consistentlydeveloped to make it amusing.
But these qualities are of thegreatest utility to the Jew in his dealings with our authorities. Thereforethey are qualities which he appreciates most in the officials.
If I were to sketch roughly theactual struggle which is now beginning I should describe it somewhat thus:
Not satisfied with the economicconquest of the world, but also demanding that it must come under his politicalcontrol, the Jew subdivides the organized Marxist power into two parts, whichcorrespond to the ultimate objectives that are to be fought for in thisstruggle which is carried on under the direction of the Jew. To outwardappearance, these seem to be two independent movements, but in reality theyconstitute an indivisible unity. The two divisions are: The political movementand the trades union movement.
The trades union movement has togather in the recruits. It offers assistance and protection to the workers inthe hard struggle which they have to wage for the bare means of existence, astruggle which has been occasioned by the greediness and narrow-mindedness ofmany of the industrialists. Unless the workers be ready to surrender all claimsto an existence which the dignity of human nature itself demands, and unlessthey are ready to submit their fate to the will of employers who in many caseshave no sense of human responsibilities and are utterly callous to human wants,then the worker must necessarily take matters into his own hands, seeing thatthe organized social community – that is to say, the State – pays no attentionto his needs.
The so-called national-mindedbourgeoisie, blinded by its own material interests, opposes this life-or-deathstruggle of the workers and places the most difficult obstacles in their way.Not only does this bourgeoisie hinder all efforts to enact legislation whichwould shorten the inhumanly long hours of work, prohibit child-labour, grantsecurity and protection to women and improve the hygienic conditions of theworkshops and the dwellings of the working-class, but while the bourgeoisiehinders all this the shrewd Jew takes the cause of the oppressed into his ownhands. He gradually becomes the leader of the trades union movements, which isan easy task for him, because he does not genuinely intend to find remedies forthe social wrong: he pursues only one objective, namely, to gather andconsolidate a body of followers who will act under his commands as an armedweapon in the economic war for the destruction of national economicindependence. For, while a sound social policy has to move between the twopoles of securing a decent level of public health and welfare on the one handand, on the other, that of safeguarding the independence of the economic lifeof the nation, the Jew does not take these poles into account at all. Thedestruction of both is one of his main objects. He would ruin, rather thansafeguard, the independence of the national economic system. Therefore, as theleader of the trades union movement, he has no scruples about putting forwarddemands which not only go beyond the declared purpose of the movement but couldnot be carried into effect without ruining the national economic structure. Onthe other hand, he has no interest in seeing a healthy and sturdy populationdevelop; he would be more content to see the people degenerate into anunthinking herd which could be reduced to total subjection. Because these arehis final objectives, he can afford to put forward the most absurd claims. Heknows very well that these claims can never be realized and that thereforenothing in the actual state of affairs could be altered by them, but that themost they can do is to arouse the spirit of unrest among the masses. That isexactly the purpose which he wishes such propaganda to serve and not a real andhonest improvement of the social conditions.
The Jews will therefore remain theunquestioned leaders of the trades union movement so long as a campaign is notundertaken, which must be carried out on gigantic lines, for the enlightenmentof the masses; so that they will be enabled better to understand the causes oftheir misery. Or the same end might be achieved if the government authoritieswould get rid of the Jew and his work. For as long as the masses remain soill-informed as they actually are to-day, and as long as the State remains asindifferent to their lot as it now is, the masses will follow whatever leadermakes them the most extravagant promises in regard to economic matters. The Jewis a past master at this art and his activities are not hampered by moralconsiderations of any kind.
Naturally it takes him only ashort time to defeat all his competitors in this field and drive them from thescene of action. In accordance with the general brutality and rapacity of hisnature, he turns the trades union movement into an organization for theexercise of physical violence. The resistance of those whose common sense hashitherto saved them from surrendering to the Jewish dictatorship is now brokendown by terrorization. The success of that kind of activity is enormous.
Parallel with this, .the politicalorganization advances. It operates hand-in-hand with the trades union movement,inasmuch as the latter prepares the masses for the political organization andeven forces them into it. This is also the source that provides the money whichthe political organization needs to keep its enormous apparatus in action. Thetrades union organization is the organ of control for the political activity ofits members and whips in the masses for all great political demonstrations. Inthe end it ceases to struggle for economic interests but places its chiefweapon, the refusal to continue work – which takes the form of a general strike– at the disposal of the political movement.
By means of a Press whose contentsare adapted to the level of the most ignorant readers, the political and tradesunion organizations are provided with an instrument which prepares the loweststratum of the nation for a campaign of ruthless destruction. It is notconsidered part of the purpose of this Press to inspire its readers with idealswhich might help them to lift their minds above the sordid conditions of theirdaily lives; but, on the contrary, it panders to their lowest instincts. Amongthe lazy-minded and self-seeking sections of the masses this kind ofspeculation turns out lucrative.
It is this Press above all whichcarries on a fanatical campaign of calumny, strives to tear down everythingthat might be considered as a mainstay of national independence and to sabotageall cultural values as well as to destroy the autonomy of the national economicsystem.
It aims its attack especiallyagainst all men of character who refuse to fall into line with the Jewishefforts to obtain control over the State or who appear dangerous to the Jewsmerely because of their superior intelligence. For in order to incur the enmityof the Jew it is not necessary to show any open hostility towards him. It isquite sufficient if one be considered capable of opposing the Jew some time in thefuture or using his abilities and character to enhance the power and positionof a nation which the Jew finds hostile to himself.
The Jewish instinct, which neverfails where these problems have to be dealt with, readily discerns the truementality of those whom the Jew meets in everyday life; and those who are notof a kindred spirit with him may be sure of being listed among his enemies.Since the Jew is not the object of aggression but the aggressor himself, heconsiders as his enemies not only those who attack him but also those who maybe capable of resisting him. The means which he employs to break people of thiskind, who may show themselves decent and upright, are not the open meansgenerally used in honourable conflict, but falsehood and calumny.
He will stop at nothing. Hisutterly low-down conduct is so appalling that one really cannot be surprised ifin the imagination of our people the Jew is pictured as the incarnation ofSatan and the symbol of evil.
The ignorance of the broad massesas regards the inner character of the Jew, and the lack of instinct and insightthat our upper classes display, are some of the reasons which explain how it isthat so many people fall an easy prey to the systematic campaign of falsehoodwhich the Jew carries on.
While the upper classes, withtheir innate cowardliness, turn away from anyone whom the Jew thus attacks withlies and calumny, the common people are credulous of everything, whetherbecause of their ignorance or their simple-mindedness. Government authoritieswrap themselves up in a robe of silence, but more frequently they persecute thevictims of Jewish attacks in order to stop the campaign in the Jewish Press. Tothe fatuous mind of the government official such a line of conduct appears tobelong to the policy of upholding the authority of the State and preservingpublic order. Gradually the Marxist weapon in the hands of the Jew becomes aconstant bogy to decent people. Sometimes the fear of it sticks in the brain orweighs upon them as a kind of nightmare. People begin to quail before thisfearful foe and therewith become his victims.
(k) The Jewish domination in theState seems now so fully assured that not only can he now afford to callhimself a Jew once again, but he even acknowledges freely and openly what hisideas are on racial and political questions. A section of the Jews avows itselfquite openly as an alien people, but even here there is another falsehood. Whenthe Zionists try to make the rest of the world believe that the new nationalconsciousness of the Jews will be satisfied by the establishment of a JewishState in Palestine, the Jews thereby adopt another means to dupe thesimple-minded Gentile. They have not the slightest intention of building up aJewish State in Palestine so as to live in it. What they really are aiming atis to establish a central organization for their international swindling andcheating. As a sovereign State, this cannot be controlled by any of the otherStates. Therefore it can serve as a refuge for swindlers who have been foundout and at the same time a high-school for the training of other swindlers.
As a sign of their growingpresumption and sense of security, a certain section of them openly andimpudently proclaim their Jewish nationality while another sectionhypocritically pretend that they are German, French or English as the case maybe. Their blatant behaviour in their relations with other people shows howclearly they envisage their day of triumph in the near future.
The black-haired Jewish youth liesin wait for hours on end, satanically glaring at and spying on the unsuspiciousgirl whom he plans to seduce, adulterating her blood and removing her from thebosom of her own people. The Jew uses every possible means to undermine theracial foundations of a subjugated people. In his systematic efforts to ruingirls and women he strives to break down the last barriers of discriminationbetween him and other peoples. The Jews were responsible for bringing negroesinto the Rhineland, with the ultimate idea of bastardizing the white race whichthey hate and thus lowering its cultural and political level so that the Jewmight dominate. For as long as a people remain racially pure and are consciousof the treasure of their blood, they can never be overcome by the Jew. Never inthis world can the Jew become master of any people except a bastardized people.
That is why the Jew systematicallyendeavours to lower the racial quality of a people by permanently adulteratingthe blood of the individuals who make up that people.
In the field of politics he nowbegins to replace the idea of democracy by introducing the dictatorship of theproletariat. In the masses organized under the Marxist banners he has found aweapon which makes it possible for him to discard democracy, so as to subjugateand rule in a dictatorial fashion by the aid of brute force. He issystematically working in two ways to bring about this revolution. These waysare the economic and the political respectively.
Aided by international influences,he forms a ring of enemies around those nations which have proved themselvestoo sturdy for him in withstanding attacks from within. He would like to forcethem into war and then, if it should be necessary to his plans, he will unfurlthe banners of revolt even while the troops are actually fighting at the front.
Economically he brings about thedestruction of the State by a systematic method of sabotaging socialenterprises until these become so costly that they are taken out of the handsof the State and then submitted to the control of Jewish finance. Politicallyhe works to withdraw from the State its means of susbsistence, inasmuch as heundermines the foundations of national resistance and defence, destroys theconfidence which the people have in their Government, reviles the past and itshistory and drags everything national down into the gutter.
Culturally his activity consistsin bowdlerizing art, literature and the theatre, holding the expressions ofnational sentiment up to scorn, overturning all concepts of the sublime andbeautiful, the worthy and the good, finally dragging the people to the level ofhis own low mentality.
Of religion he makes a mockery.Morality and decency are described as antiquated prejudices and thus asystematic attack is made to undermine those last foundations on which thenational being must rest if the nation is to struggle for its existence in thisworld.
(l) Now begins the great and finalrevolution. As soon as the Jew is in possession of political power he drops thelast few veils which have hitherto helped to conceal his features. Out of thedemocratic Jew, the Jew of the People, arises the ‘Jew of the Blood’, thetyrant of the peoples. In the course of a few years he endeavours toexterminate all those who represent the national intelligence. And by thusdepriving the peoples of their natural intellectual leaders he fits them fortheir fate as slaves under a lasting despotism.
Russia furnishes the most terribleexample of such a slavery. In that country the Jew killed or starved thirtymillions of the people, in a bout of savage fanaticism and partly by theemployment of inhuman torture. And he did this so that a gang of Jewishliterati and financial bandits should dominate over a great people.
But the final consequence is notmerely that the people lose all their freedom under the domination of the Jews,but that in the end these parasites themselves disappear. The death of thevictim is followed sooner or later by that of the vampire.
If we review all the causes whichcontributed to bring about the downfall of the German people we shall find thatthe most profound and decisive cause must be attributed to the lack of insightinto the racial problem and especially in the failure to recognize the Jewishdanger.
It would have been easy enough toendure the defeats suffered on the battlefields in August 1918. They werenothing when compared with the military victories which our nation hadachieved. Our downfall was not the result of those defeats; but we wereoverthrown by that force which had prepared those defeats by systematicallyoperating for several decades to destroy those political instincts and thatmoral stamina which alone enable a people to struggle for its existence andtherewith secure the right to exist.
By neglecting the problem ofpreserving the racial foundations of our national life, the old Empireabrogated the sole right which entitles a people to live on this planet.Nations that make mongrels of their people, or allow their people to be turnedinto mongrels, sin against the Will of Eternal Providence. And thus theiroverthrow at the hands of a stronger opponent cannot be looked upon as a wrongbut, on the contrary, as a restoration of justice. If a people refuses to guardand uphold the qualities with which it has been endowed by Nature and whichhave their roots in the racial blood, then such a people has no right tocomplain over the loss of its earthly existence.
Everything on this earth can bemade into something better. Every defeat may be made the foundation of a futurevictory. Every lost war may be the cause of a later resurgence. Everyvisitation of distress can give a new impetus to human energy. And out of everyoppression those forces can develop which bring about a new re-birth of thenational soul – provided always that the racial blood is kept pure.
But the loss of racial purity willwreck inner happiness for ever. It degrades men for all time to come. And thephysical and moral consequences can never be wiped out.
If this unique problem be studiedand compared with the other problems of life we shall easily recognize howsmall is their importance in comparison with this. They are all limited totime; but the problem of the maintenance or loss of the purity of the racialblood will last as long as man himself lasts.
All the symptoms of decline whichmanifested themselves already in pre-war times can be traced back to the racialproblem.
Whether one is dealing withquestions of general law, or monstrous excrescences in economic life, ofphenomena which point to a cultural decline or political degeneration, whetherit be a question of defects in the school-system or of the evil influence whichthe Press exerts over the adult population – always and everywhere these phenomenaare at bottom caused by a lack of consideration for the interests of the raceto which one’s own nation belongs, or by the failure to recognize the dangerthat comes from allowing a foreign race to exist within the national body.
That is why all attempts atreform, all institutions for social relief, all political striving, alleconomic progress and all apparent increase in the general stock of knowledge,were doomed to be unproductive of any significant results. The nation, as wellas the organization which enables it to exist – namely, the State – were notdeveloping in inner strength and stability, but, on the contrary, were visiblylosing their vitality. The false brilliance of the Second Empire could notdisguise the inner weakness. And every attempt to invigorate it anew failedbecause the main and most important problem was left out of consideration.
It would be a mistake to thinkthat the followers of the various political parties which tried to doctor thecondition of the German people, or even all their leaders, were bad inthemselves or meant wrong. Their activity even at best was doomed to fail,merely because of the fact that they saw nothing but the symptoms of ourgeneral malady and they tried to doctor the symptoms while they overlooked thereal cause of the disease. If one makes a methodical study of the lines alongwhich the old Empire developed one cannot help seeing, after a carefulpolitical analysis, that a process of inner degeneration had already set ineven at the time when the united Empire was formed and the German nation beganto make rapid external progress. The general situation was declining, in spiteof the apparent political success and in spite of the increasing economicwealth. At the elections to the Reichstag the growing number of Marxist votesindicated that the internal breakdown and the political collapse were thenrapidly approaching. All the victories of the so-called bourgeois parties werefruitless, not only because they could not prevent the numerical increase inthe growing mass of Marxist votes, even when the bourgeois parties triumphed atthe polls, but mainly because they themselves were already infected with thegerms of decay. Though quite unaware of it, the bourgeois world was infectedfrom within with the deadly virus of Marxist ideas. The fact that theysometimes openly resisted was to be explained by the competitive strife amongambitious political leaders, rather than by attributing it to any opposition inprinciple between adversaries who were determined to fight one another to thebitter end. During all those years only one protagonist was fighting withsteadfast perseverance. This was the Jew. The Star of David steadily ascendedas the will to national self-preservation declined.
Therefore it was not a solidnational phalanx that, of itself and out of its own feeling of solidarity,rushed to the battlefields in August 1914. But it was rather the manifestationof the last flicker from the instinct of national self-preservation against theprogress of the paralysis with which the pacifist and Marxist doctrinethreatened our people. Even in those days when the destinies of the nation werein the balance the internal enemy was not recognized; therefore all efforts toresist the external enemy were bound to be in vain. Providence did not grantthe reward to the victorious sword, but followed the eternal law of retributivejustice. A profound recognition of all this was the source of those principlesand tendencies which inspire our new movement. We were convinced that only byrecognizing such truths could we stop the national decline in Germany and lay agranite foundation on which the State could again be built up, a State whichwould not be a piece of mechanism alien to our people, constituted for economicpurposes and interests, but an organism created from the soul of the peoplethemselves.
CHAPTERXII
THE FIRST STAGE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GERMANNATIONAL SOCIALIST LABOUR PARTY
Here at the close of the volume Ishall describe the first stage in the progress of our movement and shall give abrief account of the problems we had to deal with during that period. In doingthis I have no intention of expounding the ideals which we have set up as thegoal of our movement; for these ideals are so momentous in their significancethat an exposition of them will need a whole volume. Therefore I shall devotethe second volume of this book to a detailed survey of the principles whichform the programme of our movement and I shall attempt to draw a picture ofwhat we mean by the word ‘State’. When I say ‘we’ in this connection I mean toinclude all those hundreds of thousands who have fundamentally the samelonging, though in the individual cases they cannot find adequate words todescribe the vision that hovers before their eyes. It is a characteristicfeature of all great reforms that in the beginning there is only one singleprotagonist to come forward on behalf of several millions of people. The finalgoal of a great reformation has often been the object of profound longing onthe parts of hundreds of thousands for many centuries before, until finally oneamong them comes forward as a herald to announce the will of that multitude andbecome the standard-bearer of the old yearning, which he now leads to arealization in a new idea.
The fact that millions of ourpeople yearn at heart for a radical change in our present conditions is provedby the profound discontent which exists among them. This feeling is manifestedin a thousand ways. Some express it in a form of discouragement and despair.Others show it in resentment and anger and indignation. Among some the profounddiscontent calls forth an attitude of indifference, while it urges others toviolent manifestations of wrath. Another indication of this feeling may be seenon the one hand in the attitude of those who abstain from voting at electionsand, on the other, in the large numbers of those who side with the fanaticalextremists of the left wing.
To these latter people our youngmovement had to appeal first of all. It was not meant to be an organization forcontented and satisfied people, but was meant to gather in all those who weresuffering from profound anxiety and could find no peace, those who were unhappyand discontented. It was not meant to float on the surface of the nation butrather to push its roots deep among the masses.
Looked at from the purelypolitical point of view, the situation in 1918 was as follows: A nation hadbeen torn into two parts. One part, which was by far the smaller of the two,contained the intellectual classes of the nation from which all those employedin physical labour were excluded. On the surface these intellectual classesappeared to be national-minded, but that word meant nothing else to them excepta very vague and feeble concept of the duty to defend what they called theinterests of the State, which in turn seemed identical with those of thedynastic regime. This class tried to defend its ideas and reach its aims bycarrying on the fight with the aid of intellectual weapons, which could be usedonly here and there and which had only a superficial effect against the brutalmeasures employed by the adversaries, in the face of which the intellectualweapons were of their very nature bound to fail. With one violent blow theclass which had hitherto governed was now struck down. It trembled with fearand accepted every humiliation imposed on it by the merciless victor.
Over against this class stood thebroad masses of manual labourers who were organized in movements with a more orless radically Marxist tendency. These organized masses were firmly determinedto break any kind of intellectual resistance by the use of brute force. Theyhad no nationalist tendencies whatsoever and deliberately repudiated the ideaof advancing the interests of the nation as such. On the contrary, theypromoted the interests of the foreign oppressor. Numerically this classembraced the majority of the population and, what is more important, includedall those elements of the nation without whose collaboration a nationalresurgence was not only a practical impossibility but was even inconceivable.
For already in 1918 one thing hadto be clearly recognized; namely, that no resurgence of the German nation couldtake place until we had first restored our national strength to face theoutside world. For this purpose arms are not the preliminary necessity, thoughour bourgeois ‘statesmen’ always blathered about it being so; what was wantedwas will-power. At one time the German people had more than sufficient militaryarmament. And yet they were not able to defend their liberty because theylacked those energies which spring from the instinct of nationalself-preservation and the will to hold on to one’s own. The best armament isonly dead and worthless material as long as the spirit is wanting which makesmen willing and determined to avail themselves of such weapons. Germany wasrendered defenceless not because she lacked arms, but because she lacked thewill to keep her arms for the maintenance of her people.
To-day our Left-wing politiciansin particular are constantly insisting that their craven-hearted and obsequiousforeign policy necessarily results from the disarmament of Germany, whereas thetruth is that this is the policy of traitors. To all that kind of talk theanswer ought to be: No, the contrary is the truth. Your action in delivering upthe arms was dictated by your anti-national and criminal policy of abandoningthe interests of the nation. And now you try to make people believe that yourmiserable whining is fundamentally due to the fact that you have no arms. Justlike everything else in your conduct, this is a lie and a falsification of thetrue reason.
But the politicians of the Rightdeserve exactly the same reproach. It was through their miserable cowardicethat those ruffians of Jews who came into power in 1918 were able to rob thenation of its arms. The conservative politicians have neither right nor reasonon their side when they appeal to disarmament as the cause which compelled themto adopt a policy of prudence (that is to say, cowardice). Here, again, thecontrary is the truth. Disarmament is the result of their lack of spirit.
Therefore the problem of restoringGermany’s power is not a question of how can we manufacture arms but rather aquestion of how we can produce that spirit which enables a people to bear arms.Once this spirit prevails among a people then it will find a thousand ways,each of which leads to the necessary armament. But a coward will not fire evena single shot when attacked though he may be armed with ten pistols. For himthey are of less value than a blackthorn in the hands of a man of courage.
The problem of re-establishing thepolitical power of our nation is first of all a problem of restoring theinstinct of national self-preservation for if no other reason than that everypreparatory step in foreign policy and every foreign judgment on the worth of aState has been proved by experience to be grounded not on the material size ofthe armament such a State may possess but rather on the moral capacity forresistance which such a State has or is believed to have. The question whetheror not a nation be desirable as an ally is not so much determined by the inertmass of arms which it has at hand but by the obvious presence of a sturdy willto national self-preservation and a heroic courage which will fight through tothe last breath. For an alliance is not made between arms but between men.
The British nation will thereforebe considered as the most valuable ally in the world as long as it can becounted upon to show that brutality and tenacity in its government, as well asin the spirit of the broad masses, which enables it to carry through to victoryany struggle that it once enters upon, no matter how long such a struggle maylast, or however great the sacrifice that may be necessary or whatever themeans that have to be employed; and all this even though the actual militaryequipment at hand may be utterly inadequate when compared with that of othernations.
Once it is understood that therestoration of Germany is a question of reawakening the will to politicalself-preservation we shall see quite clearly that it will not be enough to winover those elements that are already national-minded but that the deliberatelyanti-national masses must be converted to believe in the national ideals.
A young movement that aims atre-establishing a German State with full sovereign powers will therefore haveto make the task of winning over the broad masses a special objective of itsplan of campaign. Our so-called ‘national bourgeoisie’ are so lamentablysupine, generally speaking, and their national spirit appears so feckless, thatwe may feel sure they will offer no serious resistance against a vigorousnational foreign – or domestic policy. Even though the narrow-minded Germanbourgeoisie should keep up a passive resistance when the hour of deliverance isat hand, as they did in Bismarck’s time, we shall never have to fear any activeresistance on their part, because of their recognized proverbial cowardice.
It is quite different with themasses of our population, who are imbued with ideas of internationalism.Through the primitive roughness of their natures they are disposed to acceptthe preaching of violence, while at the same time their Jewish leaders are morebrutal and ruthless. They will crush any attempt at a German revival, just asthey smashed the German Army by striking at it from the rear. Above all, theseorganized masses will use their numerical majority in this ParliamentarianState not only to hinder any national foreign policy, but also to preventGermany from restoring her political power and therewith her prestige abroad. Thusshe becomes excluded from the ranks of desirable allies. For it is not weourselves alone who are aware of the handicap that results from the existenceof fifteen million Marxists, democrats, pacifists and followers of the Centre,in our midst, but foreign nations also recognize this internal burden which wehave to bear and take it into their calculations when estimating the value of apossible alliance with us. Nobody would wish to form an alliance with a Statewhere the active portion of the population is at least passively opposed to anyresolute foreign policy.
The situation is made still worseby reason of the fact that the leaders of those parties which were responsiblefor the national betrayal are ready to oppose any and every attempt at a revival,simply because they want to retain the positions they now hold. According tothe laws that govern human history it is inconceivable that the German peoplecould resume the place they formerly held without retaliating on those who wereboth cause and occasion of the collapse that involved the ruin of our State.Before the judgment seat of posterity November 1918 will not be regarded as asimple rebellion but as high treason against the country.
Therefore it is not possible tothink of re-establishing German sovereignty and political independence withoutat the same time reconstructing a united front within the nation, by a peacefulconversion of the popular will.
Looked at from the standpoint ofpractical ways and means, it seems absurd to think of liberating Germany fromforeign bondage as long as the masses of the people are not willing to supportsuch an ideal of freedom. After carefully considering this problem from thepurely military point of view, everybody, and in particular every officer, willagree that a war cannot be waged against an outside enemy by battalions ofstudents; but that, together with the brains of the nation, the physicalstrength of the nation is also necessary. Furthermore it must be rememberedthat the nation would be robbed of its irreplaceable assets by a nationaldefence in which only the intellectual circles, as they are called, wereengaged. The young German intellectuals who joined the volunteer regiments andfell on the battlefields of Flanders in the autumn of 1914 were bitterly missedlater on. They were the dearest treasure which the nation possessed and theirloss could not be made good in the course of the war. And it is not only thestruggle itself which could not be waged if the working masses of the nationdid not join the storm battalions, but the necessary technical preparationscould not be made without a unified will and a common front within the nationitself. Our nation which has to exist disarmed, under the thousand eyesappointed by the Versailles Peace Treaty, cannot make any technicalpreparations for the recovery of its freedom and human independence until thewhole army of spies employed within the country is cut down to those few whoseinborn baseness would lead them to betray anything and everything for theproverbial thirty pieces of silver. But we can deal with such people. Themillions, however, who are opposed to every kind of national revival simplybecause of their political opinions, constitute an insurmountable obstacle. Atleast the obstacle will remain insurmountable as long as the cause of theiropposition, which is international Marxism, is not overcome and its teachingsbanished from both their hearts and heads.
From whatever point of view we mayexamine the possibility of recovering our independence as a State and a people,whether we consider the problem from the standpoint of technical rearmament orfrom that of the actual struggle itself, the necessary pre-requisite alwaysremains the same. This pre-requisite is that the broad masses of the peoplemust first be won over to accept the principle of our national independence.
If we do not regain our externalfreedom every step forward in domestic reform will at best be an augmentationof our productive powers for the benefit of those nations that look upon us asa colony to be exploited. The surplus produced by any so-called improvementwould only go into the hands of our international controllers and any socialbetterment would at best increase the product of our labour in favour of those people.No cultural progress can be made by the German nation, because such progress istoo much bound up with the political independence and dignity of a people.
Therefore, as we can find asatisfactory solution for the problem of Germany’s future only by winning overthe broad masses of our people for the support of the national idea, this workof education must be considered the highest and most important task to beaccomplished by a movement which does not strive merely to satisfy the needs ofthe moment but considers itself bound to examine in the light of future resultseverything it decides to do or refrain from doing.
As early as 1919 we were convincedthat the nationalization of the masses would have to constitute the first andparamount aim of the new movement. From the tactical standpoint, this decisionlaid a certain number of obligations on our shoulders.
(1) No social sacrifice could beconsidered too great in this effort to win over the masses for the nationalrevival.
In the field of nationaleconomics, whatever concessions are granted to-day to the employees arenegligible when compared with the benefit to be reaped by the whole nation ifsuch concessions contribute to bring back the masses of the people once more tothe bosom of their own nation. Nothing but meanness and shortsightedness, whichare characteristics that unfortunately are only too prevalent among ouremployers, could prevent people from recognizing that in the long run noeconomic improvement and therefore no rise in profits are possible unlessinternal solidarity be restored among the bulk of the people who make up ournation.
If the German trades unions haddefended the interests of the working-classes uncompromisingly during the War;if even during the War they had used the weapon of the strike to force theindustrialists – who were greedy for higher dividends – to grant the demands ofthe workers for whom the unions acted; if at the same time they had stood up asgood Germans for the defence of the nation as stoutly as for their own claims,and if they had given to their country what was their country’s due – then theWar would never have been lost. How ludicrously insignificant would all, andeven the greatest, economic concession have been in face of the tremendousimportance of such a victory.
For a movement which would restorethe German worker to the German people it is therefore absolutely necessary tounderstand clearly that economic sacrifices must be considered light in suchcases, provided of course that they do not go the length of endangering theindependence and stability of the national economic system.
(2) The education of the massesalong national lines can be carried out only indirectly, by improving theirsocial conditions; for only by such a process can the economic conditions becreated which enable everybody to share in the cultural life of the nation.
(3) The nationalization of thebroad masses can never be achieved by half-measures – that is to say, by feeblyinsisting on what is called the objective side of the question – but only by aruthless and devoted insistence on the one aim which must be achieved. Thismeans that a people cannot be made ‘national’ according to the significationattached to that word by our bourgeois class to-day – that is to say,nationalism with many reservations – but national in the vehement and extremesense. Poison can be overcome only by a counter-poison, and only the supinebourgeois mind could think that the Kingdom of Heaven can be attained by acompromise.
The broad masses of a nation arenot made up of professors and diplomats. Since these masses have only a pooracquaintance with abstract ideas, their reactions lie more in the domain of thefeelings, where the roots of their positive as well as their negative attitudesare implanted. They are susceptible only to a manifestation of strength whichcomes definitely either from the positive or negative side, but they are neversusceptible to any half-hearted attitude that wavers between one pole and theother. The emotional grounds of their attitude furnish the reason for theirextraordinary stability. It is always more difficult to fight successfullyagainst Faith than against knowledge. Love is less subject to change thanrespect. Hatred is more lasting than mere aversion. And the driving force whichhas brought about the most tremendous revolutions on this earth has never beena body of scientific teaching which has gained power over the masses, butalways a devotion which has inspired them, and often a kind of hysteria whichhas urged them to action.
Whoever wishes to win over themasses must know the key that will open the door to their hearts. It is notobjectivity, which is a feckless attitude, but a determined will, backed up byforce, when necessary.
(4) The soul of the masses can bewon only if those who lead the movement for that purpose are determined notmerely to carry through the positive struggle for their own aims but are alsodetermined to destroy the enemy that opposes them.
When they see an uncompromisingonslaught against an adversary the people have at all times taken this as aproof that right is on the side of the active aggressor; but if the aggressorshould go only half-way and fail to push home his success by driving hisopponent entirely from the scene of action, the people will look upon this as asign that the aggressor is uncertain of the justice of his own cause and hishalf-way policy may even be an acknowledgment that his cause is unjust.
The masses are but a part ofNature herself. Their feeling is such that they cannot understand mutualhand-shakings between men who are declared enemies. Their wish is to see thestronger side win and the weaker wiped out or subjected unconditionally to thewill of the stronger.
The nationalization of the massescan be successfully achieved only if, in the positive struggle to win the soulof the people, those who spread the international poison among them areexterminated.
(5) All the great problems of ourtime are problems of the moment and are only the results of certain definitecauses. And among all those there is only one that has a profoundly causalsignificance. This is the problem of preserving the pure racial stock among thepeople. Human vigour or decline depends on the blood. Nations that are notaware of the importance of their racial stock, or which neglect to preserve it,are like men who would try to educate the pug-dog to do the work of thegreyhound, not understanding that neither the speed of the greyhound nor theimitative faculties of the poodle are inborn qualities which cannot be drilledinto the one or the other by any form of training. A people that fails topreserve the purity of its racial blood thereby destroys the unity of the soulof the nation in all its manifestations. A disintegrated national character isthe inevitable consequence of a process of disintegration in the blood. And thechange which takes place in the spiritual and creative faculties of a people isonly an effect of the change that has modified its racial substance.
If we are to free the Germanpeople from all those failings and ways of acting which do not spring fromtheir original character, we must first get rid of those foreign germs in thenational body which are the cause of its failings and false ways.
The German nation will neverrevive unless the racial problem is taken into account and dealt with. Theracial problem furnishes the key not only to the understanding of human historybut also to the understanding of every kind of human culture.
(6) By incorporating in thenational community the masses of our people who are now in the internationalcamp we do not thereby mean to renounce the principle that the interests of thevarious trades and professions must be safeguarded. Divergent interests in thevarious branches of labour and in the trades and professions are not the sameas a division between the various classes, but rather a feature inherent in theeconomic situation. Vocational grouping does not clash in the least with theidea of a national community, for this means national unity in regard to allthose problems that affect the life of the nation as such.
To incorporate in the nationalcommunity, or simply the State, a stratum of the people which has now formed asocial class the standing of the higher classes must not be lowered but that ofthe lower classes must be raised. The class which carries through this processis never the higher class but rather the lower one which is fighting forequality of rights. The bourgeoisie of to-day was not incorporated in the Statethrough measures enacted by the feudal nobility but only through its own energyand a leadership that had sprung from its own ranks.
The German worker cannot be raisedfrom his present standing and incorporated in the German folk-community bymeans of goody-goody meetings where people talk about the brotherhood of thepeople, but rather by a systematic improvement in the social and cultural lifeof the worker until the yawning abyss between him and the other classes can befilled in. A movement which has this for its aim must try to recruit itsfollowers mainly from the ranks of the working class. It must include membersof the intellectual classes only in so far as such members have rightlyunderstood and accepted without reserve the ideal towards which the movement isstriving. This process of transformation and reunion cannot be completed withinten or twenty years. It will take several generations, as the history of suchmovements has shown.
The most difficult obstacle to thereunion of our contemporary worker in the national folk-community does notconsist so much in the fact that he fights for the interests of hisfellow-workers, but rather in the international ideas with which he is imbuedand which are of their nature at variance with the ideas of nationhood andfatherland. This hostile attitude to nation and fatherland has been inculcatedby the leaders of the working class. If they were inspired by the principle ofdevotion to the nation in all that concerns its political and social welfare,the trades unions would make those millions of workers most valuable members ofthe national community, without thereby affecting their own constant strugglefor their economic demands.
A movement which sincerelyendeavours to bring the German worker back into his folk-community, and rescuehim from the folly of internationalism, must wage a vigorous campaign againstcertain notions that are prevalent among the industrialists. One of thesenotions is that according to the concept of the folk-community, the employee isobliged to surrender all his economic rights to the employer and, further, thatthe workers would come into conflict with the folk-community if they shouldattempt to defend their own just and vital interests. Those who try topropagate such a notion are deliberate liars. The idea of a folk-community doesnot impose any obligations on the one side that are not imposed on the other.
A worker certainly does somethingwhich is contrary to the spirit of folk-community if he acts entirely on hisown initiative and puts forward exaggerated demands without taking the commongood into consideration or the maintenance of the national economic structure.But an industrialist also acts against the spirit of the folk-community if headopts inhuman methods of exploitation and misuses the working forces of thenation to make millions unjustly for himself from the sweat of the workers. Hehas no right to call himself ‘national’ and no right to talk of afolk-community, for he is only an unscrupulous egoist who sows the seeds ofsocial discontent and provokes a spirit of conflict which sooner or later mustbe injurious to the interests of the country.
The reservoir from which the youngmovement has to draw its members will first of all be the working masses. Thosemasses must be delivered from the clutches of the international mania. Theirsocial distress must be eliminated. They must be raised above their presentcultural level, which is deplorable, and transformed into a resolute andvaluable factor in the folk-community, inspired by national ideas and nationalsentiment.
If among those intellectualcircles that are nationalist in their outlook men can be found who genuinelylove the people and look forward eagerly to the future of Germany, and at thesame time have a sound grasp of the importance of a struggle whose aim is towin over the soul of the masses, such men are cordially welcomed in the ranksof our movement, because they can serve as a valuable intellectual force in thework that has to be done. But this movement can never aim at recruiting itsmembership from the unthinking herd of bourgeois voters. If it did so themovement would be burdened with a mass of people whose whole mentality wouldonly help to paralyse the effort of our campaign to win the mass of the people.In theory it may be very fine to say that the broad masses ought to beinfluenced by a combined leadership of the upper and lower social strata withinthe framework of the one movement; but, notwithstanding all this, the factremains that though it may be possible to exercise a psychological influence onthe bourgeois classes and to arouse some enthusiasm or even awaken someunderstanding among them by our public demonstrations, their traditionalcharacteristics cannot be changed. In other words, we could not eliminate fromthe bourgeois classes the inefficiency and supineness which are part of atradition that has developed through centuries. The difference between thecultural levels of the two groups and between their respective attitudestowards social-economic questions is still so great that it would turn out ahindrance to the movement the moment the first enthusiasm aroused by ourdemonstrations calmed down.
Finally, it is not part of ourprogramme to transform the nationalist camp itself, but rather to win overthose who are anti-national in their outlook. It is from this viewpoint thatthe strategy of the whole movement must finally be decided.
(7) This one-sided but accordinglyclear and definite attitude must be manifested in the propaganda of themovement; and, on the other hand, this is absolutely necessary to make thepropaganda itself effective.
If propaganda is to be of serviceto the movement it must be addressed to one side alone; for if it should varythe direction of its appeal it will not be understood in the one camp or may berejected by the other, as merely insisting on obvious and uninterestingtruisms; for the intellectual training of the two camps that come into questionhere has been very different.
Even the manner in which somethingis presented and the tone in which particular details are emphasized cannothave the same effect in those two strata that belong respectively to the oppositeextremes of the social structure. If the propaganda should refrain from usingprimitive forms of expression it will not appeal to the sentiments of themasses. If, on the other hand, it conforms to the crude sentiments of themasses in its words and gestures the intellectual circles will be averse to itbecause of its roughness and vulgarity. Among a hundred men who call themselvesorators there are scarcely ten who are capable of speaking with effect beforean audience of street-sweepers, locksmiths and navvies, etc., to-day andexpound the same subject with equal effect to-morrow before an audience ofuniversity professors and students. Among a thousand public speakers there maybe only one who can speak before a composite audience of locksmiths andprofessors in the same hall in such a way that his statements can be fullycomprehended by each group while at the same time he effectively influencesboth and awakens enthusiasm, on the one side as well as on the other, to heartyapplause. But it must be remembered that in most cases even the most beautifulidea embodied in a sublime theory can be brought home to the public onlythrough the medium of smaller minds. The thing that matters here is not thevision of the man of genius who created the great idea but rather the successwhich his apostles achieve in shaping the expression of this idea so as tobring it home to the minds of the masses.
Social-Democracy and the wholeMarxist movement were particularly qualified to attract the great masses of thenation, because of the uniformity of the public to which they addressed theirappeal. The more limited and narrow their ideas and arguments, the easier itwas for the masses to grasp and assimilate them; for those ideas and argumentswere well adapted to a low level of intelligence.
These considerations led the newmovement to adopt a clear and simple line of policy, which was as follows:
In its message as well as in itsforms of expression the propaganda must be kept on a level with theintelligence of the masses, and its value must be measured only by the actualsuccess it achieves.
At a public meeting where thegreat masses are gathered together the best speaker is not he whose way ofapproaching a subject is most akin to the spirit of those intellectuals who mayhappen to be present, but the speaker who knows how to win the hearts of themasses.
An educated man who is present andwho finds fault with an address because he considers it to be on anintellectual plane that is too low, though he himself has witnessed its effecton the lower intellectual groups whose adherence has to be won, only showshimself completely incapable of rightly judging the situation and therewithproves that he can be of no use in the new movement. Only intellectuals can beof use to a movement who understand its mission and its aims so well that theyhave learned to judge our methods of propaganda exclusively by the successobtained and never by the impression which those methods made on theintellectuals themselves. For our propaganda is not meant to serve as anentertainment for those people who already have a nationalist outlook, but itspurpose is to win the adhesion of those who have hitherto been hostile tonational ideas and who are nevertheless of our own blood and race.
In general, those considerationsof which I have given a brief summary in the chapter on ‘War Propaganda’ becamethe guiding rules and principles which determined the kind of propaganda wewere to adopt in our campaign and the manner in which we were to put it intopractice. The success that has been obtained proves that our decision wasright.
(8) The ends which any politicalreform movement sets out to attain can never be reached by trying to educatethe public or influence those in power but only by getting political power intoits hands. Every idea that is meant to move the world has not only the rightbut also the obligation of securing control of those means which will enablethe idea to be carried into effect. In this world success is the only rule ofjudgment whereby we can decide whether such an undertaking was right or wrong.And by the word ‘success’ in this connection I do not mean such a success asthe mere conquest of power in 1918 but the successful issue whereby the commoninterests of the nation have been served. A coup d’etat cannot be consideredsuccessful if, as many empty-headed government lawyers in Germany now believe,the revolutionaries succeeded in getting control of the State into their handsbut only if, in comparison with the state of affairs under the old regime, thelot of the nation has been improved when the aims and intentions on which therevolution was based have been put into practice. This certainly does not applyto the German Revolution, as that movement was called, which brought a gang ofbandits into power in the autumn of 1918.
But if the conquest of politicalpower be a requisite preliminary for the practical realization of the idealsthat inspire a reform movement, then any movement which aims at reform must, fromthe very first day of its activity, be considered by its leaders as a movementof the masses and not as a literary tea club or an association of philistineswho meet to play ninepins.
(9) The nature and internalorganization of the new movement make it anti-parliamentarian. That is to say,it rejects in general and in its own structure all those principles accordingto which decisions are to be taken on the vote of the majority and according towhich the leader is only the executor of the will and opinion of others. Themovement lays down the principle that, in the smallest as well as in thegreatest problems, one person must have absolute authority and bear allresponsibility.
In our movement the practicalconsequences of this principle are the following:
The president of a large group isappointed by the head of the group immediately above his in authority. He isthen the responsible leader of his group. All the committees are subject to hisauthority and not he to theirs. There is no such thing as committees that votebut only committees that work. This work is allotted by the responsible leader,who is the president of the group. The same principle applies to the higherorganizations – the Bezirk (district), the Kreis (urban circuit) and the Gau (theregion). In each case the president is appointed from above and is investedwith full authority and executive power. Only the leader of the whole party iselected at the general meeting of the members. But he is the sole leader of themovement. All the committees are responsible to him, but he is not responsibleto the committees. His decision is final, but he bears the whole responsibilityof it. The members of the movement are entitled to call him to account by meansof a new election, or to remove him from office if he has violated theprinciples of the movement or has not served its interests adequately. He isthen replaced by a more capable man. who is invested with the same authorityand obliged to bear the same responsibility.
One of the highest duties of themovement is to make this principle imperative not only within its own ranks butalso for the whole State.
The man who becomes leader isinvested with the highest and unlimited authority, but he also has to bear thelast and gravest responsibility.
The man who has not the courage toshoulder responsibility for his actions is not fitted to be a leader. Only aman of heroic mould can have the vocation for such a task.
Human progress and human culturesare not founded by the multitude. They are exclusively the work of personalgenius and personal efficiency.
Because of this principle, ourmovement must necessarily be anti-parliamentarian, and if it takes part in theparliamentary institution it is only for the purpose of destroying thisinstitution from within; in other words, we wish to do away with an institutionwhich we must look upon as one of the gravest symptoms of human decline.
(10) The movement steadfastlyrefuses to take up any stand in regard to those problems which are eitheroutside of its sphere of political work or seem to have no fundamentalimportance for us. It does not aim at bringing about a religious reformation,but rather a political reorganization of our people. It looks upon the tworeligious denominations as equally valuable mainstays for the existence of ourpeople, and therefore it makes war on all those parties which would degradethis foundation, on which the religious and moral stability of our people isbased, to an instrument in the service of party interests.
Finally, the movement does not aimat establishing any one form of State or trying to destroy another, but ratherto make those fundamental principles prevail without which no republic and nomonarchy can exist for any length of time. The movement does not consider itsmission to be the establishment of a monarchy or the preservation of theRepublic but rather to create a German State.
The problem concerning the outerform of this State, that is to say, its final shape, is not of fundamentalimportance. It is a problem which must be solved in the light of what seemspractical and opportune at the moment.
Once a nation has understood andappreciated the great problems that affect its inner existence, the question ofouter formalities will never lead to any internal conflict.
(11) The problem of the innerorganization of the movement is not one of principle but of expediency.
The best kind of organization isnot that which places a large intermediary apparatus between the leadership ofthe movement and the individual followers but rather that which workssuccessfully with the smallest possible intermediary apparatus. For it is thetask of such an organization to transmit a certain idea which originated in thebrain of one individual to a multitude of people and to supervise the manner inwhich this idea is being put into practice.
Therefore, from any and everyviewpoint, the organization is only a necessary evil. At best it is only ameans of reaching certain ends. The worst happens when it becomes an end initself.
Since the world produces moremechanical than intelligent beings, it will always be easier to develop theform of an organization than its substance; that is to say, the ideas which itis meant to serve.
The march of any idea whichstrives towards practical fulfilment, and in particular those ideas which areof a reformatory character, may be roughly sketched as follows:
A creative idea takes shape in themind of somebody who thereupon feels himself called upon to transmit this ideato the world. He propounds his faith before others and thereby gradually wins acertain number of followers. This direct and personal way of promulgating one’sideas among one’s contemporaries is the most natural and the most ideal. But asthe movement develops and secures a large number of followers it graduallybecomes impossible for the original founder of the doctrine on which themovement is based to carry on his propaganda personally among his innumerablefollowers and at the same time guide the course of the movement.
According as the community offollowers increases, direct communication between the head and the individualfollowers becomes impossible. This intercourse must then take place through anintermediary apparatus introduced into the framework of the movement. Thusideal conditions of inter-communication cease, and organization has to beintroduced as a necessary evil. Small subsidiary groups come into existence, asin the political movement, for example, where the local groups represent thegerm-cells out of which the organization develops later on.
But such sub-divisions must not beintroduced into the movement until the authority of the spiritual founder andof the school he has created are accepted without reservation. Otherwise themovement would run the risk of becoming split up by divergent doctrines. Inthis connection too much emphasis cannot be laid on the importance of havingone geographic centre as the chief seat of the movement. Only the existence ofsuch a seat or centre, around which a magic charm such as that of Mecca or Romeis woven, can supply a movement with that permanent driving force which has itssources in the internal unity of the movement and the recognition of one headas representing this unity.
When the first germinal cells ofthe organization are being formed care must always be taken to insist on theimportance of the place where the idea originated. The creative, moral andpractical greatness of the place whence the movement went forth and from whichit is governed must be exalted to a supreme symbol, and this must be honouredall the more according as the original cells of the movement become so numerousthat they have to be regrouped into larger units in the structure of the organization.
When the number of individualfollowers became so large that direct personal contact with the head of themovement was out of the question, then we had to form those first local groups.As those groups multiplied to an extraordinary number it was necessary toestablish higher cadres into which the local groups were distributed. Examplesof such cadres in the political organization are those of the region (Gau) andthe district (Bezirk).
Though it may be easy enough tomaintain the original central authority over the lowest groups, it is much moredifficult to do so in relation to the higher units of organization which havenow developed. And yet we must succeed in doing this, for this is anindispensable condition if the unity of the movement is to be guaranteed andthe idea of it carried into effect.
Finally, when those largerintermediary organizations have to be combined in new and still higher units itbecomes increasingly difficult to maintain over them the absolute supremacy ofthe original seat of the movement and the school attached to it.
Consequently the mechanical formsof an organization must only be introduced if and in so far as the spiritualauthority and the ideals of the central seat of the organization are shown tobe firmly established. In the political sphere it may often happen that thissupremacy can be maintained only when the movement has taken over supremepolitical control of the nation.
Having taken all theseconsiderations into account, the following principles were laid down for theinner structure of the movement:
(a) That at the beginning allactivity should be concentrated in one town: namely, Munich. That a band ofabsolutely reliable followers should be trained and a school founded whichwould subsequently help to propagate the idea of the movement. That theprestige of the movement, for the sake of its subsequent extension, shouldfirst be established here through gaining as many successful and visibleresults as possible in this one place. To secure name and fame for the movementand its leader it was necessary, not only to give in this one town a strikingexample to shatter the belief that the Marxist doctrine was invincible but alsoto show that a counter-doctrine was possible.
(b) That local groups should not beestablished before the supremacy of the central authority in Munich wasdefinitely established and acknowledged.
(c) That District, Regional, andProvincial groups should be formed only after the need for them has becomeevident and only after the supremacy of the central authority has beensatisfactorily guaranteed.
Further, that the creation ofsubordinate organisms must depend on whether or not those persons can be foundwho are qualified to undertake the leadership of them.
Here there were only twosolutions:
(a) That the movement shouldacquire the necessary funds to attract and train intelligent people who wouldbe capable of becoming leaders. The personnel thus obtained could then besystematically employed according as the tactical situation and the necessityfor efficiency demanded.
This solution was the easier andthe more expedite. But it demanded large financial resources; for this group ofleaders could work in the movement only if they could be paid a salary.
(b) Because the movement is not ina position to employ paid officials it must begin by depending on honoraryhelpers. Naturally this solution is slower and more difficult.
It means that the leaders of themovement have to allow vast territories to lie fallow unless in these respectivedistricts one of the members comes forward who is capable and willing to placehimself at the service of the central authority for the purpose of organizingand directing the movement in the region concerned.
It may happen that in extensiveregions no such leader can be found, but that at the same time in other regionstwo or three or even more persons appear whose capabilities are almost on alevel. The difficulty which this situation involves is very great and can beovercome only with the passing of the years.
For the establishment of anybranch of the organization the decisive condition must always be that a personcan be found who is capable of fulfilling the functions of a leader.
Just as the army and all itsvarious units of organization are useless if there are no officers, so anypolitical organization is worthless if it has not the right kind of leaders.
If an inspiring personality whohas the gift of leadership cannot be found for the organization and directionof a local group it is better for the movement to refrain from establishingsuch a group than to run the risk of failure after the group has been founded.
The will to be a leader is not asufficient qualification for leadership. For the leader must have the othernecessary qualities. Among these qualities will-power and energy must beconsidered as more serviceable than the intellect of a genius. The mostvaluable association of qualities is to be found in a combination of talent,determination and perseverance.
(12) The future of a movement isdetermined by the devotion, and even intolerance, with which its members fightfor their cause. They must feel convinced that their cause alone is just, andthey must carry it through to success, as against other similar organizationsin the same field.
It is quite erroneous to believethat the strength of a movement must increase if it be combined with othermovements of a similar kind. Any expansion resulting from such a combinationwill of course mean an increase in external development, which superficialobservers might consider as also an increase of power; but in reality themovement thus admits outside elements which will subsequently weaken itsconstitutional vigour.
Though it may be said that onemovement is identical in character with another, in reality no such identityexists. If it did exist then practically there would not be two movements butonly one. And whatever the difference may be, even if it consist only of themeasure in which the capabilities of the one set of leaders differ from thoseof the other, there it is. It is against the natural law of all development tocouple dissimilar organisms,or the law is that the stronger must overcome theweaker and, through the struggle necessary for such a conquest, increase theconstitutional vigour and effective strength of the victor.
By amalgamating politicalorganizations that are approximately alike, certain immediate advantages may begained, but advantages thus gained are bound in the long run to become the causeof internal weaknesses which will make their appearance later on.
A movement can become great onlyif the unhampered development of its internal strength be safeguarded andsteadfastly augmented, until victory over all its competitors be secured.
One may safely say that thestrength of a movement and its right to existence can be developed only as longas it remains true to the principle that struggle is a necessary condition ofits progress and that its maximum strength will be reached only as soon ascomplete victory has been won.
Therefore a movement must notstrive to obtain successes that will be only immediate and transitory, but itmust show a spirit of uncompromising perseverance in carrying through a longstruggle which will secure for it a long period of inner growth.
All those movements which owetheir expansion to a so-called combination of similar organisms, which meansthat their external strength is due to a policy of compromise, are like plantswhose growth is forced in a hothouse. They shoot up externally but they lackthat inner strength which enables the natural plant to grow into a tree thatwill withstand the storms of centuries.
The greatness of every powerfulorganization which embodies a creative idea lies in the spirit of religiousdevotion and intolerance with which it stands out against all others, becauseit has an ardent faith in its own right. If an idea is right in itself and,furnished with the fighting weapons I have mentioned, wages war on this earth,then it is invincible and persecution will only add to its internal strength.
The greatness of Christianity didnot arise from attempts to make compromises with those philosophical opinionsof the ancient world which had some resemblance to its own doctrine, but in theunrelenting and fanatical proclamation and defence of its own teaching.
The apparent advance that amovement makes by associating itself with other movements will be easilyreached and surpassed by the steady increase of strength which a doctrine andits organization acquires if it remains independent and fights its own causealone.
(13) The movement ought to educateits adherents to the principle that struggle must not be considered a necessaryevil but as something to be desired in itself. Therefore they must not beafraid of the hostility which their adversaries manifest towards them but theymust take it as a necessary condition on which their whole right to existenceis based. They must not try to avoid being hated by those who are the enemiesof our people and our philosophy of life, but must welcome such hatred. Liesand calumnies are part of the method which the enemy employs to express hischagrin.
The man who is not opposed andvilified and slandered in the Jewish Press is not a staunch German and not atrue National Socialist. The best rule whereby the sincerity of hisconvictions, his character and strength of will, can be measured is thehostility which his name arouses among the mortal enemies of our people.
The followers of the movement, andindeed the whole nation, must be reminded again and again of the fact that,through the medium of his newspapers, the Jew is always spreading falsehood andthat if he tells the truth on some occasions it is only for the purpose ofmasking some greater deceit, which turns the apparent truth into a deliberatefalsehood. The Jew is the Great Master of Lies. Falsehood and duplicity are theweapons with which he fights.
Every calumny and falsehoodpublished by the Jews are tokens of honour which can be worn by our comrades.He whom they decry most is nearest to our hearts and he whom they mortally hateis our best friend.
If a comrade of ours opens aJewish newspaper in the morning and does not find himself vilified there, thenhe has spent yesterday to no account. For if he had achieved something he wouldbe persecuted, slandered, derided and abused. Those who effectively combat thismortal enemy of our people, who is at the same time the enemy of all Aryanpeoples and all culture, can only expect to arouse opposition on the part ofthis race and become the object of its slanderous attacks.
When these truths become part ofthe flesh and blood, as it were, of our members, then the movement will beimpregnable and invincible.
(14) The movement must use allpossible means to cultivate respect for the individual personality. It mustnever forget that all human values are based on personal values, and that everyidea and achievement is the fruit of the creative power of one man. We mustnever forget that admiration for everything that is great is not only a tributeto one creative personality but that all those who feel such admiration becomethereby united under one covenant.
Nothing can take the place of theindividual, especially if the individual embodies in himself not the mechanicalelement but the element of cultural creativeness. No pupil can take the placeof the master in completing a great picture which he has left unfinished; andjust in the same way no substitute can take the place of the great poet or thinker,or the great statesman or military general. For the source of their power is inthe realm of artistic creativeness. It can never be mechanically acquired,because it is an innate product of divine grace.
The greatest revolutions and thegreatest achievements of this world, its greatest cultural works and theimmortal creations of great statesmen, are inseparably bound up with one namewhich stands as a symbol for them in each respective case. The failure to paytribute to one of those great spirits signifies a neglect of that enormoussource of power which lies in the remembrance of all great men and women.
The Jew himself knows this best.He, whose great men have always been great only in their efforts to destroymankind and its civilization, takes good care that they are worshipped asidols. But the Jew tries to degrade the honour in which nations hold theirgreat men and women. He stigmatizes this honour as ‘the cult of personality’.
As soon as a nation has so farlost its courage as to submit to this impudent defamation on the part of theJews it renounces the most important source of its own inner strength. Thisinner force cannot arise from a policy of pandering to the masses but only fromthe worship of men of genius, whose lives have uplifted and ennobled the nationitself.
When men’s hearts are breaking andtheir souls are plunged into the depths of despair, their great forebears turntheir eyes towards them from the dim shadows of the past – those forebears whoknew how to triumph over anxiety and affliction, mental servitude and physicalbondage – and extend their eternal hands in a gesture of encouragement todespairing souls. Woe to the nation that is ashamed to clasp those hands.
During the initial phase of ourmovement our greatest handicap was the fact that none of us were known and ournames meant nothing, a fact which then seemed to some of us to make the chancesof final success problematical. Our most difficult task then was to make ourmembers firmly believe that there was a tremendous future in store for themovement and to maintain this belief as a living faith; for at that time onlysix, seven or eight persons came to hear one of our speakers.
Consider that only six or sevenpoor devils who were entirely unknown came together to found a movement whichshould succeed in doing what the great mass-parties had failed to do: namely,to reconstruct the German Reich, even in greater power and glory than before.We should have been very pleased if we were attacked or even ridiculed. But themost depressing fact was that nobody paid any attention to us whatever. Thisutter lack of interest in us caused me great mental pain at that time.
When I entered the circle of thosemen there was not yet any question of a party or a movement. I have alreadydescribed the impression which was made on me when I first came into contactwith that small organization. Subsequently I had time, and also the occasion,to study the form of this so-called party which at first had made such a woefulimpression. The picture was indeed quite depressing and discouraging. There wasnothing, absolutely nothing at all. There was only the name of a party. And thecommittee consisted of all the party members. Somehow or other it seemed justthe kind of thing we were about to fight against – a miniature parliament. Thevoting system was employed. When the great parliament cried until they werehoarse – at least they shouted over problems of importance – here this smallcircle engaged in interminable discussions as to the form in which they mightanswer the letters which they were delighted to have received.
Needless to say, the public knewnothing of all this. In Munich nobody knew of the existence of such a party,not even by name, except our few members and their small circle ofacquaintances.
Every Wednesday what was called acommittee meeting was held in one of the cafés, and a debate was arranged forone evening each week. In the beginning all the members of the movement werealso members of the committee, therefore the same persons always turned up atboth meetings. The first step that had to be taken was to extend the narrowlimits of this small circle and get new members, but the principal necessitywas to utilize all the means at our command for the purpose of making themovement known.
We chose the following methods: Wedecided to hold a monthly meeting to which the public would be invited. Some ofthe invitations were typewritten, and some were written by hand. For the firstfew meetings we distributed them in the streets and delivered them personallyat certain houses. Each one canvassed among his own acquaintances and tried topersuade some of them to attend our meetings. The result was lamentable.
I still remember once how I personallydelivered eighty of these invitations and how we waited in the evening for thecrowds to come. After waiting in vain for a whole hour the chairman finally hadto open the meeting. Again there were only seven people present, the oldfamiliar seven.
We then changed our methods. Wehad the invitations written with a typewriter in a Munich stationer’s shop andthen multigraphed them.
The result was that a few morepeople attended our next meeting. The number increased gradually from eleven tothirteen to seventeen, to twenty-three and finally to thirty-four. We collectedsome money within our own circle, each poor devil giving a small contribution,and in that way we raised sufficient funds to be able to advertise one of ourmeetings in the Munich Observer, which was still an independent paper.
This time we had an astonishingsuccess. We had chosen the Munich Hofbräuhaus Keller (which must not beconfounded with the Munich Hofbräuhaus Festsaal) as our meeting-place. It was asmall hall and would accommodate scarcely more than 130 people. To me, however,the hall seemed enormous, and we were all trembling lest this tremendousedifice would remain partly empty on the night of the meeting.
At seven o’clock 111 persons werepresent, and the meeting was opened. A Munich professor delivered the principaladdress, and I spoke after him. That was my first appearance in the role ofpublic orator. The whole thing seemed a very daring adventure to Herr Harrer,who was then chairman of the party. He was a very decent fellow; but he had ana priori conviction that, although I might have quite a number of goodqualities, I certainly did not have a talent for public speaking. Even later hecould not be persuaded to change his opinion. But he was mistaken. Twenty minuteshad been allotted to me for my speech on this occasion, which might be lookedupon as our first public meeting.
I talked for thirty minutes, andwhat I always had felt deep down in my heart, without being able to put it tothe test, was here proved to be true: I could make a good speech. At the end ofthe thirty minutes it was quite clear that all the people in the little hallhad been profoundly impressed. The enthusiasm aroused among them found itsfirst expression in the fact that my appeal to those present brought usdonations which amounted to three hundred marks. That was a great relief forus. Our finances were at that time so meagre that we could not afford to haveour party prospectus printed, or even leaflets. Now we possessed at least the nucleusof a fund from which we could pay the most urgent and necessary expenses.
But the success of this firstlarger meeting was also important from another point of view. I had alreadybegun to introduce some young and fresh members into the committee. During thelong period of my military service I had come to know a large number of goodcomrades whom I was now able to persuade to join our party. All of them wereenergetic and disciplined young men who, through their years of militaryservice, had been imbued with the principle that nothing is impossible and thatwhere there’s a will there’s a way.
The need for this fresh bloodsupply became evident to me after a few weeks of collaboration with the newmembers. Herr Harrer, who was then chairman of the party, was a journalist byprofession, and as such he was a man of general knowledge. But as leader of theparty he had one very serious handicap: he could not speak to the crowd. Thoughhe did his work conscientiously, it lacked the necessary driving force,probably for the reason that he had no oratorical gifts whatsoever. HerrDrexler, at that time chairman of the Munich local group, was a simple workingman. He, too, was not of any great importance as a speaker. Moreover, he wasnot a soldier. He had never done military service, even during the War. So thatthis man who was feeble and diffident by nature had missed the only schoolwhich knows how to transform diffident and weakly natures into real men.Therefore neither of those two men were of the stuff that would have enabledthem to stir up an ardent and indomitable faith in the ultimate triumph of themovement and to brush aside, with obstinate force and if necessary with brutalruthlessness, all obstacles that stood in the path of the new idea. Such a taskcould be carried out only by men who had been trained, body and soul, in thosemilitary virtues which make a man, so to speak, agile as a greyhound, tough asleather, and hard as Krupp steel.
At that time I was still asoldier. Physically and mentally I had the polish of six years of service, sothat in the beginning this circle must have looked on me as quite a stranger.In common with my army comrades, I had forgotten such phrases as: "Thatwill not go", or "That is not possible", or "We ought not totake such a risk; it is too dangerous".
The whole undertaking was of itsvery nature dangerous. At that time there were many parts of Germany where itwould have been absolutely impossible openly to invite people to a nationalmeeting that dared to make a direct appeal to the masses. Those who attendedsuch meetings were usually dispersed and driven away with broken heads. Itcertainly did not call for any great qualities to be able to do things in thatway. The largest so-called bourgeois mass meetings were accustomed to dissolve,and those in attendance would run away like rabbits when frightened by a dog assoon as a dozen communists appeared on the scene. The Reds used to pay littleattention to those bourgeois organizations where only babblers talked. Theyrecognized the inner triviality of such associations much better than themembers themselves and therefore felt that they need not be afraid of them. Onthe contrary, however, they were all the more determined to use every possiblemeans of annihilating once and for all any movement that appeared to them to bea danger to their own interests. The most effective means which they alwaysemployed in such cases were terror and brute force.
The Marxist leaders, whosebusiness consisted in deceiving and misleading the public, naturally hated mostof all a movement whose declared aim was to win over those masses whichhitherto had been exclusively at the service of international Marxism in theJewish and Stock Exchange parties. The title alone, ‘German Labour party’,irritated them. It could easily be foreseen that at the first opportune momentwe should have to face the opposition of the Marxist despots, who were stillintoxicated with their triumph in 1918.
People in the small circles of ourown movement at that time showed a certain amount of anxiety at the prospect ofsuch a conflict. They wanted to refrain as much as possible from coming outinto the open, because they feared that they might be attacked and beaten. Intheir minds they saw our first public meetings broken up and feared that themovement might thus be ruined for ever. I found it difficult to defend my ownposition, which was that the conflict should not be evaded but that it shouldbe faced openly and that we should be armed with those weapons which are theonly protection against brute force. Terror cannot be overcome by the weaponsof the mind but only by counter-terror. The success of our first public meetingstrengthened my own position. The members felt encouraged to arrange for a secondmeeting, even on a larger scale.
Some time in October 1919 thesecond larger meeting took place in the Eberl-bräu Keller. The theme of ourspeeches was ‘Brest-Litowsk and Versailles’. There were four speakers. I talkedfor almost an hour, and the success was even more striking than at our firstmeeting. The number of people who attended had grown to more than 130. Anattempt to disturb the proceedings was immediately frustrated by my comrades.The would-be disturbers were thrown down the stairs, bearing imprints ofviolence on their heads.
A fortnight later another meetingtook place in the same hall. The number in attendance had now increased to morethan 170, which meant that the room was fairly well filled. I spoke again, andonce more the success obtained was greater than at the previous meeting.
Then I proposed that a larger hallshould be found. After looking around for some time we discovered one at theother end of the town, in the ‘Deutschen Reich’ in the Dachauer Strasse. Thefirst meeting at this new rendezvous had a smaller attendance than the previousmeeting. There were just less than 140 present. The members of the committeebegan to be discouraged, and those who had always been sceptical were nowconvinced that this falling-off in the attendance was due to the fact that wewere holding the meetings at too short intervals. There were livelydiscussions, in which I upheld my own opinion that a city with 700,000inhabitants ought to be able not only to stand one meeting every fortnight butten meetings every week. I held that we should not be discouraged by onecomparative setback, that the tactics we had chosen were correct, and thatsooner or later success would be ours if we only continued with determinedperseverance to push forward on our road. This whole winter of 1919–20 was onecontinual struggle to strengthen confidence in our ability to carry themovement through to success and to intensify this confidence until it became aburning faith that could move mountains.
Our next meeting in the small hallproved the truth of my contention. Our audience had increased to more than 200.The publicity effect and the financial success were splendid. I immediatelyurged that a further meeting should be held. It took place in less than afortnight, and there were more than 270 people present. Two weeks later weinvited our followers and their friends, for the seventh time, to attend ourmeeting. The same hall was scarcely large enough for the number that came. Theyamounted to more than four hundred.
During this phase the youngmovement developed its inner form. Sometimes we had more or less heftydiscussions within our small circle. From various sides – it was then just thesame as it is to-day – objections were made against the idea of calling theyoung movement a party. I have always considered such criticism as ademonstration of practical incapability and narrow-mindedness on the part ofthe critic. Those objections have always been raised by men who could notdifferentiate between external appearances and inner strength, but tried tojudge the movement by the high-sounding character of the name attached to it.To this end they ransacked the vocabulary of our ancestors, with unfortunateresults.
At that time it was very difficultto make the people understand that every movement is a party as long as it hasnot brought its ideals to final triumph and thus achieved its purpose. It is aparty even if it give itself a thousand difterent names.
Any person who tries to carry intopractice an original idea whose realization would be for the benefit of hisfellow men will first have to look for disciples who are ready to fight for theends he has in view. And if these ends did not go beyond the destruction of theparty system and therewith put a stop to the process of disintegration, thenall those who come forward as protagonists and apostles of such an ideal are aparty in themselves as long as their final goal is reached. It is onlyhair-splitting and playing with words when these antiquated theorists, whosepractical success is in reverse ratio to their wisdom, presume to think theycan change the character of a movement which is at the same time a party, bymerely changing its name.
On the contrary, it is entirelyout of harmony with the spirit of the nation to keep harping on that far-offand forgotten nomenclature which belongs to the ancient Germanic times and doesnot awaken any distinct association in our age. This habit of borrowing wordsfrom the dead past tends to mislead the people into thinking that the externaltrappings of its vocabulary are the important feature of a movement. It isreally a mischievous habit; but it is quite prevalent nowadays.
At that time, and subsequently, Ihad to warn followers repeatedly against these wandering scholars who werepeddling Germanic folk-lore and who never accomplished anything positive orpractical, except to cultivate their own superabundant self-conceit. The newmovement must guard itself against an influx of people whose onlyrecommendation is their own statement that they have been fighting for thesevery same ideals during the last thirty or forty years.
Now if somebody has fought forforty years to carry into effect what he calls an idea, and if these allegedefforts not only show no positive results but have not even been able to hinderthe success of the opposing party, then the story of those forty years offutile effort furnishes sufficient proof for the incompetence of such aprotagonist. People of that kind are specially dangerous because they do notwant to participate in the movement as ordinary members. They talk rather ofthe leading positions which would be the only fitting posts for them, in viewof their past work and also so that they might be enabled to carry on that workfurther. But woe to a young movement if the conduct of it should fall into thehands of such people. A business man who has been in charge of a great firm forforty years and who has completely ruined it through his mismanagement is notthe kind of person one would recommend for the founding of a new firm. And itis just the same with a new national movement. Nobody of common sense wouldappoint to a leading post in such a movement some Teutonic Methuselah who hadbeen ineffectively preaching some idea for a period of forty years, untilhimself and his idea had entered the stage of senile decay.
Furthermore, only a very smallpercentage of such people join a new movement with the intention of serving itsend unselfishly and helping in the spread of its principles. In most cases theycome because they think that, under the ægis of the new movement, it will bepossible for them to promulgate their old ideas to the misfortune of their newlisteners. Anyhow, nobody ever seems able to describe what exactly these ideas are.
It is typical of such persons thatthey rant about ancient Teutonic heroes of the dim and distant ages, stoneaxes, battle spears and shields, whereas in reality they themselves are thewoefullest poltroons imaginable. For those very same people who brandishTeutonic tin swords that have been fashioned carefully according to ancientmodels and wear padded bear-skins, with the horns of oxen mounted over theirbearded faces, proclaim that all contemporary conflicts must be decided by theweapons of the mind alone. And thus they skedaddle when the first communistcudgel appears. Posterity will have little occasion to write a new epic onthese heroic gladiators.
I have seen too much of that kindof people not to feel a profound contempt for their miserable play-acting. Tothe masses of the nation they are just an object of ridicule; but the Jew findsit to his own interest to treat these folk-lore comedians with respect and toprefer them to real men who are fighting to establish a German State. And yetthese comedians are extremely proud of themselves. Notwithstanding theircomplete fecklessness, which is an established fact, they pretend to knoweverything better than other people; so much so that they make themselves averitable nuisance to all sincere and honest patriots, to whom not only theheroism of the past is worthy of honour but who also feel bound to leaveexamples of their own work for the inspiration of the coming generation.
Among those people there were somewhose conduct can be explained by their innate stupidity and incompetence; butthere are others who have a definite ulterior purpose in view. Often it isdifficult to distinguish between the two classes. The impression which I oftenget, especially of those so-called religious reformers whose creed is groundedon ancient Germanic customs, is that they are the missionaries and protégés ofthose forces which do not wish to see a national revival taking place inGermany. All their activities tend to turn the attention of the people awayfrom the necessity of fighting together in a common cause against the commonenemy, namely the Jew. Moreover, that kind of preaching induces the people touse up their energies, not in fighting for the common cause, but in absurd andruinous religious controversies within their own ranks. There are definitegrounds that make it absolutely necessary for the movement to be dominated by astrong central force which is embodied in the authoritative leadership. In thisway alone is it possible to counteract the activity of such fatal elements. Andthat is just the reason why these folk-lore Ahasueruses are vigorously hostileto any movement whose members are firmly united under one leader and onediscipline. Those people of whom I have spoken hate such a movement because itis capable of putting a stop to their mischief.
It was not without good reasonthat when we laid down a clearly defined programme for the new movement weexcluded the word völkisch from it. The concept underlying the term völkischcannot serve as the basis of a movement, because it is too indefinite andgeneral in its application. Therefore, if somebody called himself völkisch sucha designation could not be taken as the hall-mark of some definite, partyaffiliation.
Because this concept is so indefinitefrom the practical viewpoint, it gives rise to various interpretations and thuspeople can appeal to it all the more easily as a sort of personalrecommendation. Whenever such a vague concept, which is subject to so manyinterpretations, is admitted into a political movement it tends to break up thedisciplined solidarity of the fighting forces. No such solidarity can bemaintained if each individual member be allowed to define for himself what hebelieves and what he is willing to do.
One feels it a disgrace when onenotices the kind of people who float about nowadays with the völkisch symbolstuck in their buttonholes, and at the same time to notice how many people havevarious ideas of their own as to the significance of that symbol. A well-known professorin Bavaria, a famous combatant who fights only with the weapons of the mind andwho boasts of having marched against Berlin – by shouldering the weapons of themind, of course – believes that the word völkisch is synonymous with‘monarchical’. But this learned authority has hitherto neglected to explain howour German monarchs of the past can be identified with what we generally meanby the word völkisch to-day. I am afraid he will find himself at a loss if heis asked to give a precise answer. For it would be very difficult indeed toimagine anything less völkisch than most of those German monarchical Stateswere. Had they been otherwise they would not have disappeared; or if they werevölkisch, then the fact of their downfall may be taken as evidence that thevölkisch outlook on the world (Weltanschhauung) is a false outlook.
Everybody interprets this conceptin his own way. But such multifarious opinions cannot be adopted as the basis ofa militant political movement. I need not call attention to the absolute lackof worldly wisdom, and especially the failure to understand the soul of thenation, which is displayed by these Messianic Precursors of the TwentiethCentury. Sufficient attention has been called to those people by the ridiculewhich the left-wing parties have bestowed on them. They allow them to babble onand sneer at them.
I do not set much value on thefriendship of people who do not succeed in getting disliked by their enemies.Therefore, we considered the friendship of such people as not only worthlessbut even dangerous to our young movement. That was the principal reason why wefirst called ourselves a Party. We hoped that by giving ourselves such a namewe might scare away a whole host of völkisch dreamers. And that was the reasonalso why we named our Party, The National Socialist German Labour Party.
The first term, Party, kept awayall those dreamers who live in the past and all the lovers of bombasticnomenclature, as well as those who went around beating the big drum for thevölkisch idea. The full name of the Party kept away all those heroes whoseweapon is the sword of the spirit and all those whining poltroons who takerefuge behind their so-called ‘intelligence’ as if it were a kind of shield.
It was only to be expected thatthis latter class would launch a massed attack against us after our movementhad started; but, of course, it was only a pen-and-ink attack, for thegoose-quill is the only weapon which these völkisch lancers wield. We haddeclared one of our principles thus: "We shall meet violence with violencein our own defence". Naturally that principle disturbed the equanimity ofthe knights of the pen. They reproached us bitterly not only for what they calledour crude worship of the cudgel but also because, according to them, we had nointellectual forces on our side. These charlatans did not think for a momentthat a Demosthenes could be reduced to silence at a mass-meeting by fiftyidiots who had come there to shout him down and use their fists against hissupporters. The innate cowardice of the pen-and-ink charlatan prevents him fromexposing himself to such a danger, for he always works in safe retirement andnever dares to make a noise or come forward in public.
Even to-day I must warn themembers of our young movement in the strongest possible terms to guard againstthe danger of falling into the snare of those who call themselves ‘silentworkers’. These ‘silent workers’ are not only a whitelivered lot but are also,and always will be, ignorant do-nothings. A man who is aware of certainhappenings and knows that a certain danger threatens, and at the same time seesa certain remedy which can be employed against it, is in duty bound not to workin silence but to come into the open and publicly fight for the destruction ofthe evil and the acceptance of his own remedy. If he does not do so, then he isneglecting his duty and shows that he is weak in character and that he fails toact either because of his timidity, or indolence or incompetence. Most of these‘silent workers’ generally pretend to know God knows what. Not one of them iscapable of any real achievement, but they keep on trying to fool the world withtheir antics. Though quite indolent, they try to create the impression thattheir ‘silent work’ keeps them very busy. To put it briefly, they are sheerswindlers, political jobbers who feel chagrined by the honest work which othersare doing. When you find one of these völkisch moths buzzing over the value ofhis ‘silent work’ you may be sure that you are dealing with a fellow who doesno productive work at all but steals from others the fruits of their honestlabour.
In addition to all this one oughtto note the arrogance and conceited impudence with which these obscurantistidlers try to tear to pieces the work of other people, criticizing it with anair of superiority, and thus playing into the hands of the mortal enemy of ourpeople.
Even the simplest follower who hasthe courage to stand on the table in some beer-hall where his enemies aregathered, and manfully and openly defend his position against them, achieves athousand times more than these slinking hypocrites. He at least will convertone or two people to believe in the movement. One can examine his work and testits effectiveness by its actual results. But those knavish swindlers – whopraise their own ‘silent work’ and shelter themselves under the cloak ofanonymity, are just worthless drones, in the truest sense of the term, and areutterly useless for the purpose of our national reconstruction.
In the beginning of 1920 I putforward the idea of holding our first mass meeting. On this proposal there weredifferences of opinion amongst us. Some leading members of our party thought thatthe time was not ripe for such a meeting and that the result might bedetrimental. The Press of the Left had begun to take notice of us and we werelucky enough in being able gradually to arouse their wrath. We had begun toappear at other meetings and to ask questions or contradict the speakers, withthe natural result that we were shouted down forthwith. But still we therebygained some of our ends. People began to know of our existence and the betterthey understood us, the stronger became their aversion and their enmity.Therefore we might expect that a large contingent of our friends from the RedCamp would attend our first mass meeting.
I fully realized that our meetingwould probably be broken up. But we had to face the fight; if not now, then somemonths later. Since the first day of our foundation we were resolved to securethe future of the movement by fighting our way forward in a spirit of blindfaith and ruthless determination. I was well acquainted with the mentality ofall those who belonged to the Red Camp, and I knew quite well that if weopposed them tooth and nail not only would we make an impression on them butthat we even might win new followers for ourselves. Therefore I felt that wemust decide on a policy of active opposition.
Herr Harrer was then chairman ofour party. He did not see eye to eye with me as to the opportune time for ourfirst mass meeting. Accordingly he felt himself obliged to resign from theleadership of the movement, as an upright and honest man. Herr Anton Drexlertook his place. I kept the work of organizing the propaganda in my own handsand I listened to no compromise in carrying it out.
We decided on February 24th 1920as the date for the first great popular meeting to be held under the ægis ofthis movement which was hitherto unknown.
I made all the preparatoryarrangements personally. They did not take very long. The whole apparatus ofour organization was set in motion for the purpose of being able to secure arapid decision as to our policy. Within twenty-four hours we had to decide onthe attitude we should take in regard to the questions of the day which wouldbe put forward at the mass meeting. The notices which advertised the meetinghad to bring these points before the public. In this direction we were forcedto depend on the use of posters and leaflets, the contents of which and themanner in which they were displayed were decided upon in accordance with theprinciples which I have already laid down in dealing with propaganda ingeneral. They were produced in a form which would appeal to the crowd. Theyconcentrated on a few points which were repeated again and again. The text wasconcise and definite, an absolutely dogmatic form of expression being used. Wedistributed these posters and leaflets with a dogged energy and then wepatiently waited for the effect they would produce.
For our principal colour we chosered, as it has an exciting effect on the eye and was therefore calculated toarouse the attention of our opponents and irritate them. Thus they would haveto take notice of us – whether they liked it or not – and would not forget us.
One result of our tactics was toshow up clearly the close political fraternization that existed also here inBavaria between the Marxists and the Centre Party. The political party thatheld power in Bavaria, which was the Bavarian People’s Party (affiliated withthe Centre Party) did its best to counteract the effect which our placards werehaving on the ‘Red’ masses. Thus they made a definite step to fetter ouractivities. If the police could find no other grounds for prohibiting ourplacards, then they might claim that we were disturbing the traffic in thestreets. And thus the so-called German National People’s Party calmed theanxieties of their ‘Red’ allies by completely prohibiting those placards whichproclaimed a message that was bringing back to the bosom of their own peoplehundreds of thousands of workers who had been misled by international agitatorsand incensed against their own nation. These placards bear witness to thebitterness of the struggle in which the young movement was then engaged. Futuregenerations will find in these placards a documentary proof of ourdetermination and the justice of our own cause. And these placards will alsoprove how the so-called national officials took arbitrary action to strangle amovement that did not please them, because it was nationalizing the broadmasses of the people and winning them back to their own racial stock.
These placards will also help torefute the theory that there was then a national government in Bavaria and theywill afford documentary confirmation of the fact that if Bavaria remainednationally-minded during the years 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922 and 1923, this wasnot due to a national government but it was because the national spiritgradually gained a deeper hold on the people and the Government was forced tofollow public feeling. The Government authorities themselves did everything intheir power to hamper this process of recovery and make it impossible. But inthis connection two officials must be mentioned as outstanding exceptions.
Ernst Pöhner was Chief of Policeat the time. He had a loyal counsellor in Dr. Frick, who was his chiefexecutive official. These were the only men among the higher officials who hadthe courage to place the interests of their country before their own interestsin holding on to their jobs. Of those in responsible positions Ernst Pöhner wasthe only one who did not pay court to the mob but felt that his duty was towardsthe nation as such and was ready to risk and sacrifice everything, even hispersonal livelihood, to help in the restoration of the German people, whom hedearly loved. For that reason he was a bitter thorn in the side of the venalgroup of Government officials. It was not the interests of the nation or thenecessity of a national revival that inspired or directed their conduct. Theysimply truckled to the wishes of the Government, so as to secure their dailybread for themselves, but they had no thought whatsoever for the nationalwelfare that had been entrusted to their care.
Above all, Pöhner was one of thosepeople who, in contradistinction to the majority of our so-called defenders ofthe authority of the State, did not fear to incur the enmity of the traitors tothe country and the nation but rather courted it as a mark of honour andhonesty. For such men the hatred of the Jews and Marxists and the lies andcalumnies they spread, were their only source of happiness in the midst of thenational misery. Pöhner was a man of granite loyalty. He was like one of theascetic characters of the classical era and was at the same time that kind ofstraightforward German for whom the saying ‘Better dead than a slave’ is not anempty phrase but a veritable heart’s cry.
In my opinion he and hiscollaborator, Dr. Frick, are the only men holding positions then in Bavaria whohave the right to be considered as having taken active part in the creation ofa national Bavaria.
Before holding our first greatmass meeting it was necessary not only to have our propaganda material readybut also to have the main items of our programme printed.
In the second volume of this bookI shall give a detailed account of the guiding principles which we thenfollowed in drawing up our programme. Here I will only say that the programmewas arranged not merely to set forth the form and content of the young movementbut also with an eye to making it understood among the broad masses. Theso-called intellectual circles made jokes and sneered at it and then tried tocriticize it. But the effect of our programme proved that the ideas which wethen held were right.
During those years I saw dozens ofnew movements arise and disappear without leaving a trace behind. Only onemovement has survived. It is the National Socialist German Labour Party. To-dayI am more convinced than ever before that, though they may combat us and try toparalyse our movement, and though pettifogging party ministers may forbid usthe right of free speech, they cannot prevent the triumph of our ideas. Whenthe present system of statal administration and even the names of the politicalparties that represent it will be forgotten, the programmatic basis of theNational Socialist movement will supply the groundwork on which the futureState will be built.
The meetings which we held beforeJanuary 1920 had enabled us to collect the financial means that were necessaryto have our first pamphlets and posters and programmes printed.
I shall bring the first part ofthis book to a close by referring to our first great mass meeting, because thatmeeting marked the occasion on which our framework as a small party had to bebroken up and we started to become the most powerful factor of this epoch inthe influence we exercised on public opinion. At that time my chief anxiety wasthat we might not fill the hall and that we might have to face empty benches. Imyself was firmly convinced that if only the people would come this day wouldturn out a great success for the young movement. That was my feeling as Iwaited impatiently for the hour to come.
It had been announced that themeeting would begin at 7.30. A quarter-of-an-hour before the opening time Iwalked through the chief hall of the Hofbräuhaus on the Platz in Munich and myheart was nearly bursting with joy. The great hall – for at that time it seemedvery big to me – was filled to overflowing. Nearly 2,000 people were present.And, above all, those people had come whom we had always wished to reach. Morethan half the audience consisted of persons who seemed to be communists orindependents. Our first great demonstration was destined, in their view, tocome to an abrupt end.
But things happened otherwise.When the first speaker had finished I got up to speak. After a few minutes Iwas met with a hailstorm of interruptions and violent encounters broke out inthe body of the hall. A handful of my loyal war comrades and some otherfollowers grappled with the disturbers and restored order in a little while. Iwas able to continue my speech. After half an hour the applause began to drownthe interruptions and the hootings. Then interruptions gradually ceased andapplause took their place. When I finally came to explain the twenty-fivepoints and laid them, point after point, before the masses gathered there andasked them to pass their own judgment on each point, one point after anotherwas accepted with increasing enthusiasm. When the last point was reached I hadbefore me a hall full of people united by a new conviction, a new faith and anew will.
Nearly four hours had passed whenthe hall began to clear. As the masses streamed towards the exits, crammedshoulder to shoulder, shoving and pushing, I knew that a movement was now setafoot among the German people which would never pass into oblivion.
A fire was enkindled from whoseglowing heat the sword would be fashioned which would restore freedom to theGerman Siegfried and bring back life to the German nation.
Beside the revival which I thenforesaw, I also felt that the Goddess of Vengeance was now getting ready toredress the treason of the 9th of November, 1918. The hall was emptied. Themovement was on the march.