|| Home. | Universe Galaxies And Stars Archives. | |
|| Universe | Big Bang | Galaxies | Stars | Solar System | Planets | Hubble Telescope | NASA | Search Engine ||
Germans and Germany.
In the winter of 1919, and still more in the spring and summer of 1920, the young party felt bound to take up a definite stand on a question which alreadyhad become quite serious during the War. In the first volume of this book I have briefly recorded certain facts which I had personally witnessed andwhich foreboded the break-up of Germany. In describing these facts I madereference to the special nature of the propaganda which was directed by the English as well as the French towards reopening the breach that had existed between North and South in Germany. In the spring of 1915 there appearedthe first of a series of leaflets which was systematically followed up andthe aim of which was to arouse feeling against Prussia as being solelyresponsible for the war. Up to 1916 this system had been developed and perfectedin a cunning and shameless manner. Appealing to the basest of human instincts,this propaganda endeavoured to arouse the wrath of the South Germans againstthe North Germans and after a short time it bore fruit. Persons who werethen in high positions under the government and in the Army, especially thoseattached to headquarters in the Bavarian Army, merited the just reproof ofhaving blindly neglected their duty and failed to take the necessary steps to counter such propaganda. But nothing was done. On the contrary, in somequarters it did not appear to be quite unwelcome and probably they wereshort-sighted enough to think that such propaganda might help along thedevelopment of unification in Germany but even that it might automatically bring about consolidation of the federative forces. Scarcely ever in historywas such a wicked neglect more wickedly avenged. The weakening of Prussia, which they believed would result from this propaganda, affected the whole of Germany. It resulted in hastening the collapse which not only wrecked Germany as a whole but even more particularly the federal states.
In that town where the artificially created hatred against Prussia ragedmost violently the revolt against the reigning House was the beginning of the Revolution.
It would be a mistake to think that the enemy propaganda was exclusivelyresponsible for creating an anti-Prussian feeling and that there were noreasons which might excuse the people for having listened to this propaganda.The incredible fashion in which the national economic interests were organized during the War, the absolutely crazy system of centralization which madethe whole Reich its ward and exploited the Reich, furnished the principalgrounds for the growth of that anti-Prussian feeling. The average citizenlooked upon the companies for the placing of war contracts, all of whichhad their headquarters in Berlin, as identical with Berlin and Berlin itself as identical with Prussia. The average citizen did not know that the organizationof these robber companies, which were called War Companies, was not in thehands of Berlin or Prussia and not even in German hands at all. People recognizedonly the gross irregularities and the continual encroachments of that hatedinstitution in the Metropolis of the Reich and directed their anger towardsBerlin and Prussia, all the more because in certain quarters (the Bavarian Government) nothing was done to correct this attitude, but it was even welcomedwith silent rubbing of hands.
The Jew was far too shrewd not to understand that the infamous campaign whichhe had organized, under the cloak of War Companies, for plundering the Germannation would and must eventually arouse opposition. As long as that opposition did not spring directly at his own throat he had no reason to be afraid. Hence he decided that the best way of forestalling an outbreak on the partof the enraged and desperate masses would be to inflame their wrath and atthe same time give it another outlet.
Let Bavaria quarrel as much as it liked with Prussia and Prussia with Bavaria.The more, the merrier. This bitter strife between the two states assuredpeace to the Jew. Thus public attention was completely diverted from theinternational maggot in the body of the nation; indeed, he seemed to havebeen forgotten. Then when there came a danger that level-headed people, ofwhom there are many to be found also in Bavaria, would advise a little morereserve and a more judicious evaluation of things, thus calming the rageagainst Prussia, all the Jew had to do in Berlin was to stage a new provocationand await results. Every time that was done all those who had profiteeredout of the conflict between North and South filled their lungs and againfanned the flame of indignation until it became a blaze.
It was a shrewd and expert manoeuvre on the part of the Jew, to set the differentbranches of the German people quarrelling with one another, so that theirattention would be turned away from himself and he could plunder them allthe more completely.
Then came the Revolution.
Until the year 1918, or rather until the November of that year, the averageGerman citizen, particularly the less educated lower middle-class and theworkers, did not rightly understand what was happening and did not realizewhat must be the inevitable consequences, especially for Bavaria, of thisinternecine strife between the branches of the German people; but at leastthose sections which called themselves 'National' ought to have clearly perceivedthese consequences on the day that the revolution broke out. For the momentthe coup d'état had succeeded, the leader and organizer of the Revolutionin Bavaria put himself forward as the defender of 'Bavarian' interests. Theinternational Jew, Kurt Eisner, began to play off Bavaria against Prussia.This Oriental was just about the last person in the world that could be pointedto as the logical defender of Bavarian interests. In his trade as newspaperreporter he had wandered from place to place all over Germany and to himit was a matter of sheer indifference whether Bavaria or any other particularpart of God's whole world continued to exist.
In deliberately giving the revolutionary rising in Bavaria the characterof an offensive against Prussia, Kurt Eisner was not acting in the slightestdegree from the standpoint of Bavarian interests, but merely as the commissionedrepresentative of Jewry. He exploited existing instincts and antipathiesin Bavaria as a means which would help to make the dismemberment of Germanyall the more easy. When once dismembered, the Reich would fall an easy preyto Bolshevism.
The tactics employed by him were continued for a time after his death. TheMarxists, who had always derided and exploited the individual German statesand their princes, now suddenly appealed, as an 'Independent Party' to thosesentiments and instincts which had their strongest roots in the familiesof the reigning princes and the individual states.
The fight waged by the Bavarian Soviet Republic against the military contingentsthat were sent to free Bavaria from its grasp was represented by the Marxistpropagandists as first of all the 'Struggle of the Bavarian Worker' against'Prussian Militarism.' This explains why it was that the suppression of the Soviet Republic in Munich did not have the same effect there as in the otherGerman districts. Instead of recalling the masses to a sense of reason, itled to increased bitterness and anger against Prussia.
The art of the Bolshevik agitators, in representing the suppression of theBavarian Soviet Republic as a victory of 'Prussian Militarism' over the'Anti-militarists' and 'Anti-Prussian' people of Bavaria, bore rich fruit.Whereas on the occasion of the elections to the Bavarian Legislative Diet,Kurt Eisner did not have ten thousand followers in Munich and the Communistparty less than three thousand, after the fall of the Bavarian Republic the votes given to the two parties together amounted to nearly one hundred thousand.
It was then that I personally began to combat that crazy incitement of somebranches of the German people against other branches.
I believe that never in my life did I undertake a more unpopular task thanI did when I took my stand against the anti-Prussian incitement. During theSoviet regime in Munich great public meetings were held at which hatred againstthe rest of Germany, but particularly against Prussia, was roused up to sucha pitch that a North German would have risked his life in attending one ofthose meetings. These meetings often ended in wild shouts: "Away from Prussia","Down with the Prussians", "War against Prussia", and so on. This feelingwas openly expressed in the Reichstag by a particularly brilliant defenderof Bavarian sovereign rights when he said: "Rather die as a Bavarian thanrot as a Prussian".
One should have attended some of the meetings held at that time in orderto understand what it meant for one when, for the first time and surrounded by only a handful of friends, I raised my voice against this folly at a meetingheld in the Munich Löwenbräu Keller. Some of my War comrades stoodby me then. And it is easy to imagine how we felt when that raging crowd,which had lost all control of its reason, roared at us and threatened tokill us. During the time that we were fighting for the country the same crowd were for the most part safely ensconced in the rear positions or were peacefully circulating at home as deserters and shirkers. It is true that that sceneturned out to be of advantage to me. My small band of comrades felt for thefirst time absolutely united with me and readily swore to stick by me throughlife and death.
These conflicts, which were constantly repeated in 1919, seemed to becomemore violent soon after the beginning of 1920. There were meetings I remember especially one in the Wagner Hall in the Sonnenstrasse in Munich during the course of which my group, now grown much larger, had todefend themselves against assaults of the most violent character. It happened more than once that dozens of my followers were mishandled, thrown to thefloor and stamped upon by the attackers and were finally thrown out of thehall more dead than alive.
The struggle which I had undertaken, first by myself alone and afterwardswith the support of my war comrades, was now continued by the young movement,I might say almost as a sacred mission.
I am proud of being able to say today that we depending almost exclusively on our followers in Bavaria were responsible for puttingan end, slowly but surely, to the coalition of folly and treason. I say follyand treason because, although convinced that the masses who joined in itmeant well but were stupid, I cannot attribute such simplicity as an extenuating circumstance in the case of the organizers and their abetters. I then looked upon them,and still look upon them today, as traitors in the payment ofFrance. In one case, that of Dorten, history has already pronounced its judgment.
The situation became specially dangerous at that time by reason of the factthat they were very astute in their ability to cloak their real tendencies,by insisting primarily on their federative intentions and claiming that thosewere the sole motives of the agitation. Of course it is quite obvious thatthe agitation against Prussia had nothing to do with federalism. Surely'Federal Activities' is not the phrase with which to describe an effort todissolve and dismember another federal state. For an honest federalist, forwhom the formula used by Bismarck to define his idea of the Reich is nota counterfeit phrase, could not in the same breath express the desire tocut off portions of the Prussian State, which was created or at least completedby Bismarck. Nor could he publicly support such a separatist attempt.
What an outcry would be raised in Munich if some prussian conservative partydeclared itself in favour of detaching Franconia from Bavaria or took publicaction in demanding and promoting such a separatist policy. Nevertheless,one can only have sympathy for all those real and honest federalists whodid not see through this infamous swindle, for they were its principal victims.By distorting the federalist idea in such a way its own champions preparedits grave. One cannot make propaganda for a federalist configuration of theReich by debasing and abusing and besmirching the essential element of sucha political structure, namely Prussia, and thus making such a Confederation impossible, if it ever had been possible. It is all the more incredible byreason of the fact that the fight carried on by those so-called federalistswas directed against that section of the Prussian people which was the lastthat could be looked upon as connected with the November democracy. For theabuse and attacks of these so-called federalists were not levelled againstthe fathers of the Weimar Constitution the majority of whom were SouthGermans or Jews but against those who represented the old conservativePrussia, which was the antipodes of the Weimar Constitution. The fact thatthe directors of this campaign were careful not to touch the Jews is notto be wondered at and perhaps gives the key to the whole riddle.
Before the revolution the Jew was successful in distracting attention fromhimself and his War Companies by inciting the masses, and especially theBavarians, against Prussia. Similarly he felt obliged, after the Revolution,to find some way of camouflaging his new plunder campaign which was nineor ten times greater. And again he succeeded, in this case by provoking theso-called 'national' elements against one another: the conservative Bavariansagainst the Prussians, who were just as conservative. He acted again withextreme cunning, inasmuch as he who held the reins of Prussia's destiny inhis hands provoked such crude and tactless aggressions that again and againthey set the blood boiling in those who were being continually duped. Neveragainst the Jew, however, but always the German against his own brother.The Bavarian did not see the Berlin of four million industrious and efficientworking people, but only the lazy and decadent Berlin which is to be foundin the worst quarters of the West End. And his antipathy was not directedagainst this West End of Berlin but against the 'Prussian' city.
In many cases it tempted one to despair.
The ability which the Jew has displayed in turning public attention awayfrom himself and giving it another direction may be studied also in whatis happening today.
In 1918 there was nothing like an organized anti-Semitic feeling. I stillremember the difficulties we encountered the moment we mentioned the Jew.We were either confronted with dumb-struck faces or else a lively and heftyantagonism. The efforts we made at the time to point out the real enemy tothe public seemed to be doomed to failure. But then things began to changefor the better, though only very slowly. The 'League for Defence andOffence' was defectively organized but at least it had the great merit ofopening up the Jewish question once again. In the winter of 19181919a kind of anti-semitism began slowly to take root. Later on the NationalSocialist Movement presented the Jewish problem in a new light. Taking thequestion beyond the restricted circles of the upper classes and small bourgeoisiewe succeeded in transforming it into the driving motive of a great popularmovement. But the moment we were successful in placing this problem beforethe German people in the light of an idea that would unite them in one strugglethe Jew reacted. He resorted to his old tactics. With amazing alacrity hehurled the torch of discord into the patriotic movement and opened a riftthere. In bringing forward the ultramontane question and in the mutual quarrelsthat it gave rise to between Catholicism and Protestantism lay the solepossibility, as conditions then were, of occupying public attention withother problems and thus ward off the attack which had been concentrated againstJewry. The men who dragged our people into this controversy can never makeamends for the crime they then committed against the nation. Anyhow, theJew has attained the ends he desired. Catholics and Protestants are fightingwith one another to their hearts' content, while the enemy of Aryan humanityand all Christendom is laughing up his sleeve.
Once it was possible to occupy the attention of the public for several yearswith the struggle between federalism and unification, wearing out their energiesin this mutual friction while the Jew trafficked in the freedom of the nationand sold our country to the masters of international high finance. So inour day he has succeeded again, this time by raising ructions between thetwo German religious denominations while the foundations on which both restare being eaten away and destroyed through the poison injected by theinternational and cosmopolitan Jew.
Look at the ravages from which our people are suffering daily as a resultof 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 asa nation is gradually becoming impotent and we are running the danger, atleast in our great cities, of falling to the level where Southern Italy istoday. This pestilential adulteration of the blood, of which hundreds ofthousands of our people take no account, is being systematically practisedby the Jew today. Systematically these negroid parasites in our nationalbody corrupt our innocent fair-haired girls and thus destroy something whichcan no longer be replaced in this world.
The two Christian denominations look on with indifference at the profanationand destruction of a noble and unique creature who was given to the worldas a gift of God's grace. For the future of the world, however, it does notmatter which of the two triumphs over the other, the Catholic or the Protestant.But it does matter whether Aryan humanity survives or perishes. And yet thetwo Christian denominations are not contending against the destroyer of Aryan humanity but are trying to destroy one another. Everybody who has the rightkind of feeling for his country is solemnly bound, each within his owndenomination, to see to it that he is not constantly talking about the Willof God merely from the lips but that in actual fact he fulfils the Will ofGod and does not allow God's handiwork to be debased. For it was by the Willof God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their naturesand their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God's Creationand God's Will. Therefore everyone should endeavour, each in his own denominationof course, and should consider it as his first and most solemn duty to hinderany and everyone whose conduct tends, either by word or deed, to go outsidehis own religious body and pick a quarrel with those of another denomination.For, in view of the religious schism that exists in Germany, to attack theessential characteristics of one denomination must necessarily lead to awar of extermination between the two Christian denominations. Here therecan be no comparison between our position and that of France, or Spain orItaly. In those three countries one may, for instance, make propaganda forthe side that is fighting against ultramontanism without thereby incurringthe danger of a national rift among the French, or Spanish or Italian people.In Germany, however, that cannot be so, for here the Protestants would alsotake part in such propaganda. And thus the defence which elsewhere only Catholicsorganize against clerical aggression in political matters would assume withus the character of a Protestant attack against Catholicism. What may betolerated by the faithful in one denomination even when it seems unjust tothem, will at once be indignantly rejected and opposed on a priori groundsif it should come from the militant leaders of another denomination. Thisis so true that even men who would be ready and willing to fight for theremoval of manifest grievances within their own religious denomination willdrop their own fight and turn their activities against the outsider the moment the abolition of such grievances is counselled or demanded by one who isnot of the same faith. They consider it unjustified and inadmissible and incorrect for outsiders to meddle in matters which do not affect them atall. Such attempts are not excused even when they are inspired by a feelingfor the supreme interests of the national community; because even in ourday religious feelings still have deeper roots than all feeling for politicaland national expediency. That cannot be changed by setting one denominationagainst another in bitter conflict. It can be changed only if, through aspirit of mutual tolerance, the nation can be assured of a future the greatnessof which will gradually operate as a conciliating factor in the sphere ofreligion also. I have no hesitation in saying that in those men who seektoday to embroil the patriotic movement in religious quarrels I see worse enemies of my country than the international communists are. For the NationalSocialist Movement has set itself to the task of converting those communists.But anyone who goes outside the ranks of his own Movement and tends to turnit away from the fulfilment of its mission is acting in a manner that deservesthe severest condemnation. He is acting as a champion of Jewish interests,whether consciously or unconsciously does not matter. For it is in the interestsof the Jews today that the energies of the patriotic movement should besquandered in a religious conflict, because it is beginning to be dangerousfor the Jews. I have purposely used the phrase about squandering the energiesof the Movement, because nobody but some person who is entirely ignorantof history could imagine that this movement can solve a question which thegreatest statesmen have tried for centuries to solve, and tried in vain.
Anyhow the facts speak for themselves. The men who suddenly discovered, in1924, that the highest mission of the patriotic movement was to fightultramontanism, have not succeeded in smashing ultramontanism, but they succeededin splitting the patriotic movement. I have to guard against the possibilityof some immature brain arising in the patriotic movement which thinks thatit can do what even a Bismarck failed to do. It will be always one of thefirst duties of those who are directing the National socialist Movement tooppose unconditionally any attempt to place the National socialist Movementat the service of such a conflict. And anybody who conducts a propagandawith that end in view must be expelled forthwith from its ranks.
As a matter of fact we succeeded until the autumn of 1923 in keeping ourmovement away from such controversies. The most devoted Protestant couldstand side by side with the most devoted Catholic in our ranks without havinghis conscience disturbed in the slightest as far as concerned his religiousconvictions. The bitter struggle which both waged in common against the wreckerof Aryan humanity taught them natural respect and esteem. And it was justin those years that our movement had to engage in a bitter strife with theCentre party not for religious ends but for national, racial, political andeconomic ends. The success we then achieved showed that we were right, butit does not speak today in favour of those who thought they knew better.
In recent years things have gone so far that patriotic circles, in god-forsakenblindness of their religious strife, could not recognize the folly of theirconduct even from the fact that atheist Marxist newspapers advocated thecause of one religious denomination or the other, according as it suitedMarxist interests, so as to create confusion through slogans and declarationswhich were often immeasurably stupid, now molesting the one party and againthe other, and thus poking the fire to keep the blaze at its highest.
But in the case of a people like the Germans, whose history has so often shown them capable of fighting for phantoms to the point of complete exhaustion,every war-cry is a mortal danger. By these slogans our people have often been drawn away from the real problems of their existence. While we wereexhausting our energies in religious wars the others were acquiring theirshare of the world. And while the patriotic movement is debating with itself whether the ultramontane danger be greater than the Jewish, or vice versa, the Jew is destroying the racial basis of our existence and thereby annihilatingour people. As far as regards that kind of 'patriotic' warrior, on behalfof the National socialist Movement and therefore of the German people I praywith all my heart: "Lord, preserve us from such friends, and then we caneasily deal with our enemies."
The controversy over federation and unification, so cunningly propagandizedby the Jews in 1919-1920 and onwards, forced National Socialism, whichrepudiated the quarrel, to take up a definite stand in relation to the essentialproblem concerned in it. Ought Germany to be a confederacy or a military State? What is the practical significance of these terms? To me it seemsthat the second question is more important than the first, because it is fundamental to the understanding of the whole problem and also because the answer to it may help to clear up confusion and therewith have a conciliatingeffect.
What is a Confederacy?
By a Confederacy we mean a union of sovereign states which of their own freewill and in virtue of their sovereignty come together and create a collectiveunit, ceding to that unit as much of their own sovereign rights as will renderthe existence of the union possible and will guarantee it.
But the theoretical formula is not wholly put into practice by any confederacythat exists today. And least of all by the American Union, where it isimpossible to speak of original sovereignty in regard to the majority ofthe states. Many of them were not included in the federal complex until longafter it had been established. The states that make up the American Unionare mostly in the nature of territories, more or less, formed for technicaladministrative purposes, their boundaries having in many cases been fixedin the mapping office. Originally these states did not and could not possesssovereign rights of their own. Because it was the Union that created mostof the so-called states. Therefore the sovereign rights, often verycomprehensive, which were left, or rather granted, to the various territories correspond not only to the whole character of the Confederation but alsoto its vast space, which is equivalent to the size of a Continent. Consequently,in speaking of the United States of America one must not consider them assovereign states but as enjoying rights or, better perhaps, autarchic powers,granted to them and guaranteed by the Constitution.
Nor does our definition adequately express the condition of affairs in Germany.It is true that in Germany the individual states existed as states beforethe Reich and that the Reich was formed from them. The Reich, however, wasnot formed by the voluntary and equal co-operation of the individual states,but rather because the state of Prussia gradually acquired a position ofhegemony over the others. The difference in the territorial area alone betweenthe German states prevents any comparison with the American Union. The great difference in territorial area between the very small German states that then existed and the larger, or even still more the largest, demonstratesthe inequality of their achievements and shows that they could not take anequal part in founding and shaping the federal Empire. In the case of most of these individual states it cannot be maintained that they ever enjoyed real sovereignty; and the term 'State Sovereignty' was really nothing morethan an administrative formula which had no inner meaning. As a matter offact, not only developments in the past but also in our own time wiped outseveral of these so-called 'Sovereign States' and thus proved in the mostdefinite way how frail these 'sovereign' state formations were.
I cannot deal here with the historical question of how these individual statescame to be established, but I must call attention to the fact that hardlyin any case did their frontiers coincide with ethical frontiers of theinhabitants. They were purely political phenomena which for the most partemerged during the sad epoch when the German Empire was in a state of exhaustion and was dismembered. They represented both cause and effect in the processof exhaustion and partition of our fatherland.
The Constitution of the old Reich took all this into account, at least upto a certain degree, in so far as the individual states were not accordedequal representation in the Reichstag, but a representation proportionateto their respective areas, their actual importance and the role which they played in the formation of the Reich.
The sovereign rights which the individual states renounced in order to form the Reich were voluntarily ceded only to a very small degree. For the mostpart they had no practical existence or they were simply taken by Prussia under the pressure of her preponderant power. The principle followed by Bismarckwas not to give the Reich what he could take from the individual states butto demand from the individual states only what was absolutely necessary forthe Reich. A moderate and wise policy. On the one side Bismarck showed thegreatest regard for customs and traditions; on the other side his policysecured for the new Reich from its foundation onwards a great measure oflove and willing co-operation. But it would be a fundamental error to attributeBismarck's decision to any conviction on his part that the Reich was thusacquiring all the rights of sovereignty which would suflice for all time.That was far from Bismarck's idea. On the contrary, he wished to leave overfor the future what it would be difficult to carry through at the momentand might not have been readily agreed to by the individual states. He trustedto the levelling effect of time and to the pressure exercised by the processof evolution, the steady action of which appeared more effective than anattempt to break the resistance which the individual states offered at the moment. By this policy he showed his great ability in the art of statesmanship.And, as a matter of fact, the sovereignty of the Reich has continually increasedat the cost of the sovereignty of the individual states. The passing of timehas achieved what Bismarck hoped it would.
The German collapse and the abolition of the monarchical form of governmentnecessarily hastened this development. The German federal states, which hadnot been grounded on ethnical foundations but arose rather out of politicalconditions, were bound to lose their importance the moment the monarchical form of government and the dynasties connected with it were abolished, forit was to the spirit inherent in these that the individual states owned theirpolitical origin and development. Thus deprived of their internal raisond'être, they renounced all right to survival and were induced by purelypractical reasons to fuse with their neighbours or else they joined the morepowerful states out of their own free will. That proved in a striking mannerhow extraordinarily frail was the actual sovereignty these small phantomstates enjoyed, and it proved too how lightly they were estimated by theirown citizens.
Though the abolition of the monarchical regime and its representatives haddealt a hard blow to the federal character of the Reich, still more destructive,from the federal point of view, was the acceptance of the obligations thatresulted from the 'peace' treaty.
It was only natural and logical that the federal states should lose all sovereigncontrol over the finances the moment the Reich, in consequence of a lost war, was subjected to financial obligations which could never be guaranteed through separate treaties with the individual states. The subsequent stepswhich led the Reich to take over the posts and railways were an enforcedadvance in the process of enslaving our people, a process which the peacetreaties gradually developed. The Reich was forced to secure possession ofresources which had to be constantly increased in order to satisfy the demands made by further extortions.
The form in which the powers of the Reich were thus extended to embrace thefederal states was often ridiculously stupid, but in itself the procedurewas logical and natural. The blame for it must be laid at the door of thesemen and those parties that failed in the hour of need to concentrate alltheir energies in an effort to bring the war to a victorious issue. The guiltlies on those parties which, especially in Bavaria, catered for their ownegotistic interests during the war and refused to the Reich what the Reichhad to requisition to a tenfold greater measure when the war was lost. Theretribution of History! Rarely has the vengeance of Heaven followed so closely on the crime as it did in this case. Those same parties which, a few years previously, placed the interests of their own states especially inBavaria before those of the Reich had now to look on passively whilethe pressure of events forced the Reich, in its own interests, to abolishthe existence of the individual states. They were the victims of their owndefaults.
It was an unparalleled example of hypocrisy to raise the cry of lamentationover the loss which the federal states suffered in being deprived of theirsovereign rights. This cry was raised before the electorate, for it is onlyto the electorate that our contemporary parties address themselves. But theseparties, without exception, outbid one another in accepting a policy of fulfilment which, by the sheer force of circumstances and in its ultimate consequences, could not but lead to a profound alteration in the internal structure of the Reich. Bismarck's Reich was free and unhampered by anyobligations towards the outside world.
Bismarck's Reich never had to shoulder such heavy and entirely unproductiveobligations as those to which Germany was subjected under the Dawes Plan.Also in domestic affairs Bismarck's Reich was able to limit its powers toa few matters that were absolutely necessary for its existence. Thereforeit could dispense with the necessity of a financial control over these states and could live from their contributions. On the other side the relatively small financial tribute which the federal states had to pay to the Reich induced them to welcome its existence. But it is untrue and unjust to statenow, as certain propagandists do, that the federal states are displeased with the Reich merely because of their financial subjection to it. No, thatis not how the matter really stands. The lack of sympathy for the politicalidea embodied in the Reich is not due to the loss of sovereign rights onthe part of the individual states. It is much more the result of the deplorablefashion in which the present régime cares for the interests of the German people. Despite all the celebrations in honour of the national flagand the Constitution, every section of the German people feels that the present Reich is not in accordance with its heart's desire. And the Law for theProtection of the Republic may prevent outrages against republican institutions,but it will not gain the love of one single German. In its constant anxiety to protect itself against its own citizens by means of laws and sentences of imprisonment, the Republic has aroused sharp and humiliating criticism of all republican institutions as such.
For another reason also it is untrue to say, as certain parties affirm today,that the Reich has ceased to be popular on account of its overbearing conductin regard to certain sovereign rights which the individual states had heretoforeenjoyed. Supposing the Reich had not extended its authority over the individualstates, there is no reason to believe that it would find more favour amongthose states if the general obligations remained so heavy as they now are.On the contrary, if the individual states had to pay their respective sharesof the highly increased tribute which the Reich has to meet today in orderto fulfil the provisions of the Versailles Dictate, the hostility towardsthe Reich would be infinitely greater. For then not only would it prove difficultto collect the respective contributions due to the Reich from the federalstates, but coercive methods would have to be employed in making the collections.The Republic stands on the footing of the peace treaties and has neither the courage nor the intention to break them. That being so, it must observethe obligations which the peace treaties have imposed on it. The responsibilityfor this situation is to be attributed solely to those parties who preachunceasingly to the patient electoral masses on the necessity of maintaining the autonomy of the federal states, while at the same time they championand demand of the Reich a policy which must necessarily lead to the suppressionof even the very last of those so-called 'sovereign' rights.
I say necessarily because the present Reich has no other possible means ofbearing the burden of charges which an insane domestic and foreign policyhas laid on it. Here still another wedge is placed on the former, to driveit in still deeper. Every new debt which the Reich contracts, through thecriminal way in which the interests of Germany are represented vis-à-visforeign countries, necessitates a new and stronger blow which drives the under wedges still deeper, That blow demands another step in the progressiveabolition of the sovereign rights of the individual states, so as not toallow the germs of opposition to rise up into activity or even to exist.
The chief characteristic difference between the policy of the present Reichand that of former times lies in this: The old Reich gave freedom to itspeople at home and showed itself strong towards the outside world, whereasthe Republic shows itself weak towards the stranger and oppresses its owncitizens at home. In both cases one attitude determines the other. A vigorousnational State does not need to make many laws for the interior, becauseof the affection and attachment of its citizens. The international servileState can live only by coercing its citizens to render it the services itdemands. And it is a piece of impudent falsehood for the present regime tospeak of 'Free citizens'. Only the old Germany could speak in that manner.The present Republic is a colony of slaves at the service of the stranger.At best it has subjects, but not citizens. Hence it does not possess a nationalflag but only a trade mark, introduced and protected by official decree andlegislative measures. This symbol, which is the Gessler's cap of German Democracy, will always remain alien to the spirit of our people. On its side,the Republic having no sense of tradition or respect for past greatness,dragged the symbol of the past in the mud, but it will be surprised one dayto discover how superficial is the devotion of its citizens to its own symbol.The Republic has given to itself the character of an intermezzo in Germanhistory. And so this State is bound constantly to restrict more and morethe sovereign rights of the individual states, not only for general reasons of a financial character but also on principle. For by enforcing a policy of financial blackmail, to squeeze the last ounce of substance out of itspeople, it is forced also to take their last rights away from them, lestthe general discontent may one day flame up into open rebellion.
We, National socialist s, would reverse this formula and would adopt the following axiom: A strong national Reich which recognizes and protects to the largestpossible measure the rights of its citizens both within and outside its frontierscan allow freedom to reign at home without trembling for the safety of theState. On the other hand, a strong national government can intervene to a considerable degree in the liberties of the individual subject as well asin the liberties of the constituent states without thereby weakening theideal of the Reich; and it can do this while recognizing its responsibilityfor the ideal of the Reich, because in these particular acts and measuresthe individual citizen recognizes a means of promoting the prestige of the nation as a whole.
Of course, every State in the world has to face the question of unificationin its internal organization. And Germany is no exception in this matter.Nowadays it is absurd to speak of 'statal sovereignty' for the constituentstates of the Reich, because that has already become impossible on accountof the ridiculously small size of so many of these states. In the sphereof commerce as well as that of administration the importance of the individualstates has been steadily decreasing. Modern means of communication and mechanicalprogress have been increasingly restricting distance and space. What wasonce a State is today only a province and the territory covered by a modernState had once the importance of a continent. The purely technical difficultyof administering a State like Germany is not greater than that of governinga province like Brandenburg a hundred years ago. And today it is easierto cover the distance from Munich to Berlin than it was to cover the distancefrom Munich to Starnberg a hundred years ago. In view of the modern meansof transport, the whole territory of the Reich today is smaller than thatof certain German federal states at the time of the Napoleonic wars. To closeone's eyes to the consequences of these facts means to live in the past.There always were, there are and always will be, men who do this. They mayretard but they cannot stop the revolutions of history.
We, National socialist s, must not allow the consequences of that truth topass by us unnoticed. In these matters also we must not permit ourselvesto be misled by the phrases of our so-called national bourgeois parties.I say 'phrases', because these same parodies do not seriously believe thatit is possible for them to carry out their proposals, and because they themselves are the chief culprits and also the accomplices responsible for the present state of affairs. Especially in Bavaria, the demands for a halt in the process of centralization can be no more than a party move behind which there isno serious idea. If these parties ever had to pass from the realm ofphrase-making into that of practical deeds they would present a sorry spectacle.Every so-called 'Robbery of Sovereign Rights' from Bavaria by the Reich has met with no practical resistance, except for some fatuous barking by wayof protest. Indeed, when anyone seriously opposed the madness that was shownin carrying out this system of centralization he was told by those same partiesthat he understood nothing of the nature and needs of the State today. Theyslandered him and pronounced him anathema and persecuted him until he waseither shut up in prison or illegally deprived of the right of public speech.In the light of these facts our followers should become all the more convincedof the profound hypocrisy which characterizes these so-called federalistcircles. To a certain extent they use the federalist doctrine just as theyuse the name of religion, merely as a means of promoting their own base party interests.
A certain unification, especially in the field of transport, appears logical.But we, National socialists, feel it our duty to oppose with all our mightsuch a development in the modern State, especially when the measures proposedare solely for the purpose of screening a disastrous foreign policy and making it possible. And just because the present Reich has threatened to take overthe railways, the posts, the finances, etc., not from the high standpointof a national policy, but in order to have in its hands the means and pledgesfor an unlimited policy of fulfilment for that reason we, NationalSocialists, must take every step that seems suitable to obstruct and, ifpossible, definitely to prevent such a policy. We must fight against thepresent system of amalgamating institutions that are vitally important forthe existence of our people, because this system is being adopted solelyto facilitate the payment of milliards and the transference of pledges tothe stranger, under the post-War provisions which our politicians have accepted.
For these reasons also the National socialist Movement has to take up a standagainst such tendencies.
Moreover, we must oppose such centralization because in domestic affairsit helps to reinforce a system of government which in all its manifestations has brought the greatest misfortunes on the German nation. The present Jewish-Democratic Reich, which has become a veritable curse for the German people, is seeking to negative the force of the criticism offered by all the federal states which have not yet become imbued with the spirit of the age, and is trying to carry out this policy by crushing them to the point of annihilation. In face of this we National socialist s must try to ground the opposition of the individual states on such a basis that it will be able to operate with a good promise of success. We must do this by transformingthe struggle against centralization into something that will be an expressionof the higher interests of the German nation as such. Therefore, while theBavarian Populist Party, acting from its own narrow and particularist standpoint, fights to maintain the 'special rights' of the Bavarian State, we ought tostand on quite a different ground in fighting for the same rights. Our groundsought to be those of the higher national interests in opposition to the November Democracy.
A still further reason for opposing a centralizing process of that kind arisesfrom the certain conviction that in great part this so-called nationalizationdoes not make for unification at all and still less for simplification. Inmany cases it is adopted simply as a means of removing from the sovereigncontrol of the individual states certain institutions which they wish toplace in the hands of the revolutionary parties. In German History favouritismhas never been of so base a character as in the democratic republic. A greatportion of this centralization today is the work of parties which once promisedthat they would open the way for the promotion of talent, meaning therebythat they would fill those posts and offices entirely with their own partisans. Since the foundation of the Republic the Jews especially have been obtaining positions in the economic institutions taken over by the Reich and also positionsin the national administration, so that the one and the other have become preserves of Jewry.
For tactical reasons, this last consideration obliges us to watch with the greatest attention every further attempt at centralization and fight it ateach step. But in doing this our standpoint must always be that of a lofty national policy and never a pettifogging particularism.
This last observation is necessary, lest an opinion might arise among ourown followers that we do not accredit to the Reich the right of incorporatingin itself a sovereignty which is superior to that of the constituent states.As regards this right we cannot and must not entertain the slightest doubt. Because for us the State is nothing but a form. Its substance, or content,is the essential thing. And that is the nation, the people. It is clear thereforethat every other interest must be subordinated to the supreme interests ofthe nation. In particular we cannot accredit to any other state a sovereign power and sovereign rights within the confines of the nation and the Reich, which represents the nation. The absurdity which some federal states commitby maintaining 'representations' abroad and corresponding foreign'representations' among themselves that must cease and will cease.Until this happens we cannot be surprised if certain foreign countries aredubious about the political unity of the Reich and act accordingly. The absurdityof these 'representations' is all the greater because they do harm and donot bring the slightest advantage. If the interests of a German abroad cannotbe protected by the ambassador of the Reich, much less can they be protected by the minister from some small federal state which appears ridiculous inthe framework of the present world order. The real truth is that these small federal states are envisaged as points of attack for attempts at secession,which prospect is always pleasing to a certain foreign State. We, National Socialists, must not allow some noble caste which has become effete withage to occupy an ambassadorial post abroad, with the idea that by engraftingone of its withered branches in new soil the green leaves may sprout again. Already in the time of the old Reich our diplomatic representatives abroadwere such a sorry lot that a further trial of that experience would be outof the question.
It is certain that in the future the importance of the individual stateswill be transferred to the sphere of our cultural policy. The monarch whodid most to make Bavaria an important centre was not an obstinate particularistwith anti-German tendencies, but Ludwig I who was as much devoted to theideal of German greatness as he was to that of art. His first considerationwas to use the powers of the state to develop the cultural position of Bavariaand not its political power. And in doing this he produced better and moredurable results than if he had followed any other line of conduct. Up tothis time Munich was a provincial residence town of only small importance,but he transformed it into the metropolis of German art and by doing so hemade it an intellectual centre which even today holds Franconia to Bavaria, though the Franconians are of quite a different temperament. If Munich had remained as it had been earlier, what has happened in Saxony would have beenrepeated in Bavaria, with the diAerence that Leipzig and Bavarian Nürnbergwould have become, not Bavarian but Franconian cities. It was not the cryof "Down with Prussia" that made Munich great. What made this a city ofimportance was the King who wished to present it to the German nation asan artistic jewel that would have to be seen and appreciated, and so it hasturned out in fact. Therein lies a lesson for the future. The importanceof the individual states in the future will no longer lie in their politicalor statal power. I look to them rather as important ethnical and culturalcentres. But even in this respect time will do its levelling work. Moderntravelling facilities shuffle people among one another in such a way thattribal boundaries will fade out and even the cultural picture will graduallybecome more of a uniform pattern.
The army must definitely be kept clear of the influence of the individualstates. The coming National socialist State must not fall back into the errorof the past by imposing on the army a task which is not within its sphereand never should have been assigned to it. The German army does not existfor the purpose of being a school in which tribal particularisms are to becultivated and preserved, but rather as a school for teaching all the Germansto understand and adapt their habits to one another. Whatever tends to havea separating influence in the life of the nation ought to be made a unifyinginfluence in the army. The army must raise the German boy above the narrowhorizon of his own little native province and set him within the broad pictureof the nation. The youth must learn to know, not the confines of his ownregion but those of the fatherland, because it is the latter that he willhave to defend one day. It is therefore absurd to have the German youth dohis military training in his own native region. During that period he oughtto learn to know Germany. This is all the more important today, since youngGermans no longer travel on their own account as they once used to do andthus enlarge their horizon. In view of this, is it not absurd to leave theyoung Bavarian recruit at Munich, the recruit from Baden at Baden itselfand the Württemberger at Stuttgart and so on? And would it not be morereasonable to show the Rhine and the North Sea to the Bavarian, the Alpsto the native of Hamburg and the mountains of Central Germany to the boyfrom East Prussia? The character proper to each region ought to be maintainedin the troops but not in the training garrisons. We may disapprove of everyattempt at unification but not that of unifying the army. On the contrary,even though we should wish to welcome no other kind of unification, thismust be greeted with joy. In view of the size of the present army of theReich, it would be absurd to maintain the federal divisions among the troops.Moreover, in the unification of the German army which has actually been effectedwe see a fact which we must not renounce but restore in the future nationalarmy.
Finally a new and triumphant idea should burst every chain which tends toparalyse its efforts to push forward. National socialism must claim the rightto impose its principles on the whole German nation, without regard to whatwere hitherto the confines of federal states. And we must educate the Germannation in our ideas and principles. As the Churches do not feel themselvesbound or limited by political confines, so the National socialist Idea cannotfeel itself limited to the territories of the individual federal states thatbelong to our Fatherland.
The National socialist doctrine is not handmaid to the political interests of the single federal states. One day it must become teacher to the wholeGerman nation. It must determine the life of the whole people and shape that life anew. For this reason we must imperatively demand the right to overstep boundaries that have been traced by a political development which we repudiate.
The more completely our ideas triumph, the more liberty can we concede inparticular affairs to our citizens at home.
Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler: Chapters Below.
Related Adolf Hitler and Nazi Pages
Go To Print Article
Universe - Galaxies and Stars: Links and Contacts
|| GNU License | Contact | Copyright | WebMaster | Terms | Disclaimer | Top Of Page. ||