Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf: The Stalag Edition (pp. 532-554). Ostara Publications. Kindle Edition.
CHAPTER XIV: EASTERN BIAS OR EASTERN POLICY
(. . .)
Moreover, we, as National Socialists, must lay down the following principle as regards the essential characteristics of the foreign policy pursued by a völkisch State. The first object of the foreign policy of a völkisch State is to safeguard the existence on this earth of the race which has been organised as an entity by this State, by the establishment of a healthy, enduring and natural proportion between the size and the growth of the population, on the one hand, and the area and resources of its territory, on the other. The only proportion which can be termed ‘healthy’ is one in which the resources of the soil are sufficient, to guarantee the nation’s food-supply. Any condition which falls short of this is none the less unhealthy for the fact that it may endure for centuries or even thousands of years. Sooner or later, this lack of proportion must of necessity lead to the decline; or even annihilation of the people concerned. Only a sufficiently large space on this earth can assure the independent existence of a people. The extent of the territory necessary for the accommodation of the national population must not be estimated in the light of present exigencies or even of its agricultural productivity in relation to the number of the population. In the first volume of this book, under the heading, ‘Germany’s Policy of Alliances before the War’, I have already explained that the territorial dimensions of a State are of importance not only as the immediate source of the nation’s food-supply, but also from the military standpoint. Once a people have become self-supporting as a result of the adequate area of its territory, the next consideration is how to take the necessary steps to safeguard his territory. National security depends on the political and military strength of a State and this, in turn, depends on its geographical situation looked at from the military point of view. Thus the German nation could assure its own future only by becoming a World Power.
For nearly two thousand years the defence of our national interests (as we ought to describe our more or less successful foreign political activities) was a matter of world history. We ourselves have witnessed this, since the gigantic international struggle of the German people for their existence on this earth, and it was carried out in such a way that it has become known in the annals of history as the World War. When Germany entered this struggle it was presumed that she was a World Power. I say ‘presumed’ because in reality she was no such thing. If, in 1914, there had been a different proportion between the German population and its territorial area, Germany would really have been a World Power and, leaving other factors out of count, the War would have ended in her favour. It is neither my task nor my intention here to discuss what would have happened if certain conditions had been fulfilled, but I feel it absolutely incuмbent on me to depict the present situation in its true light, and to point out its weaknesses which give cause for alarm, in order to make at least those who belong to the National Socialist Movement aware of what steps must be taken. Germany is not a World Power to-day.
Even though our present military weakness could be overcome, we would still have no claim to be called a World Power. What importance has any State on earth in which the proportion between the size of the population and the territorial area is so hopelessly unsatisfactory as in the present German Reich? In an epoch in which the world is being gradually portioned out among States, many of whom embrace almost whole continents, one cannot speak of a World Power in referring to a State whose political mother-country is limited to a territorial area of barely five-hundred-thousand square kilometres.
Looked at purely from the territorial point of view, the area of the German Reich is insignificant in comparison with that of so-called World Powers. It would be wrong to cite the case of Britain for the purpose of disproving this statement, because Great Britain, the mother-country, is in reality the great metropolis of the British World Empire, which covers almost one-fourth of the earth’s surface. Among the giant States we must also consider the United States of America, Russia and China. These are enormous territories, some of which have more than ten times the area of the present German Reich. France must also be ranked among these States. Not only because she is constantly increasing the strength of her army by recruiting coloured troops from the population of her gigantic empire, but also because, from the racial point of view, she is rapidly becoming Negroid to such an extent that we can actually speak of the formation of an African state on European soil. The contemporary colonial policy of France cannot be compared with that of Germany in the past. If France develops along the lines it has taken in our day, and should that development continue for the next three hundred years, all traces of French blood will finally be lost in the formation of a Euro-African mulatto state. This would represent a formidable and compact colonial territory stretching from the Rhine to the Congo, inhabited by an inferior race which had developed through a slow and steady process of bastardization.
In this, French colonial policy differs from the policy followed by the old Germany. The former German colonial policy consisted in half measures as did almost everything undertaken at that time It did not aim at the acquisition of new territory for the settlement of German nationals nor did it make any attempt (criminal though this might have been) to reinforce the power of the Reich through the enlistment of black troops. The Askari units in German East Africa represented a small and hesitant step in this direction, but in reality they served only for the defence of the colony itself. The idea of transporting black troops to a European theatre of war—apart entirely from the practical impossibility of doing so during the World War—was never entertained as a proposal to be carried out under favourable conditions; whereas the French, on the contrary, always looked on this as the underlying motive and justification for their colonial activities. Thus we find in the world to-day a number of powerful States which are not only superior to Germany as regards the numerical strength of their population, but which also possess in territorial area the chief support of their political power. Never has the position of the German Reich, judged from the point of view of its area and the size of its population, been so unfavourable in comparison with other States of whilom importance, as at the beginning of its history two thousand years ago and again to-day. In that other era we were a young people and we stormed a world of decadent giant States, the last of which was Rome, to whose overthrow we contributed.
To-day we find ourselves in a world of great and powerful States among which our own Reich is steadily losing in significance. We must always face this bitter truth with clear and calm minds. We must study the area and population of the German Reich in relation to the other States and compare them throughout the centuries. Then, I know, everyone will realise to his consternation that what I said at the outset is true, namely, that Germany is no longer a World Power, whether she be strong or weak from the military point of view. There is no comparison between our position and that of the other States throughout the world, and this is to be attributed to the ill-fated foreign policy pursued by our governments, to the fact that our foreign policy failed absolutely to pursue a definite aim with unswerving perseverance and also to the fact that we have lost every sound impulse and instinct for self-preservation. If the National Socialist Movement is to be credited by posterity with having fulfilled a great mission on behalf of our nation it must fully recognise the serious nature of our actual position in the world, and struggle bravely and doggedly against the aimlessness and inefficiency which have hitherto led the German people to pursue a false course as regards foreign policy.
Without respect for ‘tradition,’ and without any preconceived notions, the Movement must find the courage to organise our national forces, and set them on the path which will lead them beyond the confines of the ‘living space’ which is theirs to-day, to the acquisition of new territory. Thus the Movement will save the German people from the danger of perishing or of becoming slaves in the service of any other people. Our Movement must seek to abolish the present lack of proportion between our population and the area of our national territory, considered as the source of our maintenance or as a basis of political power. It ought also to strive to abolish the contrast between past history and the hopelessly powerless position in which we are to-day. In striving to do so, it must bear in mind the fact that we are the custodians of the highest form of civilisation on this earth, that we have a correspondingly high duty and that we shall fulfill this duty only if we inspire the German people with race-consciousness, so that they will concern themselves not merely with the breeding of dogs, horses and cats, but also care for the purity of their own blood.
When I say that the foreign policy hitherto followed by Germany has been aimless and ineffectual, the proof of my statement will be found in the actual failure of this policy. Were our people intellectually backward, or did they lack courage, the final results of their efforts could not have been worse than those of which we are witnesses to-day. We must not allow ourselves to be misled by developments during the last decades before the War, because we must not measure the strength of a State taken by itself, but in comparison with other States. Now, this comparison shows that not only had the strength of the other States increased more steadily than that of Germany, but that in the long run it proved to be greater, so that, despite her apparent prosperity, Germany gradually dropped further behind in the race with other States. In short, the difference in size increases much to our detriment. Even in the size of our population we lagged behind, and kept on losing ground.
Since the courage of our people is unsurpassed by that of any other in the world and their sacrifice in defence of their existence greater than that of any other nation, their failure can be ascribed only to the false way in which this sacrifice was used. If, in this connection, we examine the chain of political vicissitudes through which our people have passed during more than a thousand years, recalling the innumerable struggles and wars and investigating the results as we have them before us to-day, we must confess that from the sea of blood only three phenomena have emerged which we can consider as the lasting fruits of a definite foreign policy, or, in fact of a policy at all. These were, firstly, the colonization of the Ostmark, which was mainly the work of the Bavarian secondly, the conquest and settlement of the territory east of the Elbe; and thirdly, the organisation of the Brandenburg-Prussian State, which was the work of the Hohenzollerns and which became the model for, and the nucleus of, a new Reich.
An instructive lesson for the future! These first two great successes of our foreign policy turned out to be the most enduring. Without them our people would play no part in the world to-day. These achievements were the first, and unfortunately the only, successful attempts to establish a satisfactory balance between cur increasing population and the area of our country, and we must regard it as a fatal mistake that our German historians have never correctly appreciated these two outstanding achievements which were of such significance for the following generations. On the other hand, they wrote panegyrics on many other things, on heroism displayed in the pursuit of a fantastic aim and on innumerable adventurous campaigns and wars, instead of realising that these latter had no significance in relation to the main course of our national development. The third great success achieved by our political activity was the establishment of the Prussian State and the development of a particular State concept which grew out of this. To the same source we must attribute the organisation of the instinct of national self-preservation and self-defence in the German Army, an achievement which suited the modern world. The transformation of the idea of self-defence on the part of the individual into the duty of national defence is derived from the Prussian State and the new State concept which it introduced. It would be impossible to over-estimate the importance of this process. The German nation, which, as a result of racial disintegration, had become the victim of exaggerated individualism, partially regained, through the disciplinary training of the Prussian Army, its capacity for organisation. What other nations still retain of the original herd instinct, we regained, in some measure, for the national community by the artificial means of military training. Consequently, the abolition of compulsory national military service—which may have no significance for dozens of other nations—had fatal consequences for us. Let ten generations of Germans be without the corrective and educative effect of military training and delivered over to the evil effects of their racial and, consequently, ideological disintegration and our people would lose the last relics of an independent existence on this earth.
The German intellect could then make its contribution to civilisation only through the medium of individuals living under the rule of foreign nations and its origin would remain unknown, while acting as the fertilizing manure of civilisation, until the last residue of Nordic-Aryan blood in us had become corrupted or extinct. It is a remarkable fact that the real political successes achieved by our people during their millennial struggles are better appreciated and understood by our adversaries than by ourselves. Even to-day we wax enthusiastic about an act of heroism which robbed our people of millions of their best racial stock and turned out completely fruitless in the end.
The distinction between the real political successes which our people have achieved in the course of their long history and the futile aims for which the blood of the nation has been shed is of supreme importance in determining our policy now and in the future. We National Socialists must never allow ourselves to join in the huzza-ing patriotism of our contemporary bourgeois circles. It would be fatal for us to look upon the developments immediately before the War as in any way binding us in the choice of our own course. We can recognise no obligation devolving on us which may have its origin in any historical phase of the nineteenth century. In contradiction to the policy of those who represented that period, we must take our stand on the principles already mentioned in regard to foreign policy, namely, the necessity for bringing our territorial area into accord with the number of our population.
From the past we can learn only one lesson, and this is that the aim which is to be pursued in our political conduct must be twofold, namely, (1) the acquisition of territory as the objective of our foreign policy and (2) the establishment of a new, uniform and ideologically secure foundation as the objective of our political activities at home. I shall deal briefly with the question of how far our territorial aims are justified according to ethical and moral principles. This is all the more necessary here because, in our so-called völkisch circles, there are all kinds of smooth-tongued phrase-mongers who try to persuade the German people that the great aim of their foreign policy ought to be to right the wrongs of 1918, while at the same time they consider it incuмbent on them to assure the whole world of the brotherly spirit and sympathy of the German people. In regard to this point I should like to make the following preliminary statement.
To demand that the 1914 frontiers should be restored is a glaring political absurdity that is fraught with such consequences as to make the claim itself appear criminal. The confines of the Reich as they existed in 1914 were thoroughly illogical, because they were not really complete, in the sense of including all the members of the German people, nor were they reasonable, in view of the geographical exigencies of military defence. They were not the outcome of a well-considered political plan, they were temporary frontiers established in virtue of a political struggle that had not been fought to a finish, and indeed they were partly the chance result of circuмstances. One would be equally justified (and in many cases better justified) in selecting any other year in our history and in demanding that the objective of our foreign policy should be the re-establishment of the conditions then existing. The demands I have mentioned are quite characteristic of our bourgeois compatriots, who, in such matters, take no politically productive thought for the future.
They live only in the past and indeed only in the immediate past, for even their retrospect does not go back beyond their own times. The law of inertia binds them to the present order of things, leading them to oppose every attempt to change this. Their opposition, however, never takes the form of any kind of active defence, it is merely passive obstinacy. Therefore, we must regard it as quite natural that the political horizon of such people should not reach beyond 1914. In proclaiming that the aim of their political activities is to have the frontiers of that time restored, they only help to close up the rifts that are already becoming apparent in the league which our enemies have formed against us. Only on these grounds can we explain the fact that eight years after a world conflagration in which a number of allied belligerents had aspirations and aims that were partly in conflict with one another, the coalition of the victors still remains more or less solid. Each of those States in its turn profited by the German collapse. In the fear which they all felt of our strength, the Great Powers maintained a mutual silence about their individual feelings of envy and enmity towards one another. They felt that to carry into effect a general process of expropriation of the Reich’s possessions would be the surest guarantee against the possibility of our resurgence. A bad conscience and fear of the strength of our people made up the durable cement which has held the members of that league together, even up to the present moment; nor have they been deceived by us. Inasmuch as our bourgeoisie sets up the restoration of the 1914 frontiers as the aim of Germany’s political programme, each member of the enemy coalition who might otherwise be inclined to withdraw from it, clings to the coalition for fear that he might, having lost the support of his allies, become an isolated object of attack. Each individual State feels itself endangered and threatened by this battle-cry, and that battle-cry itself is absurd, for the two following reasons: Firstly, because there is no available means of extricating it from the twilight atmosphere of club meetings and transforming it into something real. Secondly, because even if it could be carried into effect the result would be so futile that it would not be worth while to risk the blood of our people once again for such a purpose.
There can be scarcely any doubt whatsoever that only through bƖσσdshɛd could we achieve the restoration of the 1914 frontiers. One must have the simple mind of a child to believe that the revision of the Versailles Treaty can be obtained by indirect means and by beseeching the clemency of the victors—apart from the fact that for this we should need a Talleyrand, and there is no Talleyrand among us. Fifty per cent of our politicians are artful dodgers who are without character and hostile to our people, while the other fifty per cent is made up of well-meaning, harmless, and complaisant incompetents. Moreover, times have changed since the Congress of Vienna, it is no longer princes or their courtesans who haggle and bargain about State frontiers, but the inexorable cosmopolitan Jєω who fights for dominion over the nations. The sword is the only means whereby a nation can ward off that strangle-hold. Only when the concentrated might of rampant patriotic fervour is organised can it defy the menace of international enslavement of the nations. Such a course of action entails, and always will entail, bƖσσdshɛd.
If we are once convinced that the future of Germany calls for supreme effort, then, apart from considerations of political prudence, we are in duty bound to set up an aim that is worthy of that effort and to struggle to achieve it. The 1914 frontiers are of no significance for the future of the German nation. They did not serve to protect us in the past, nor do they offer any guarantee for our defence in the future. These frontiers do not help the German people to achieve internal unity, nor do they serve to safeguard its food-supplies. From the military standpoint these frontiers are neither strategically good nor even satisfactory. Finally, they cannot serve to improve our present position in relation to other World Powers, or rather in relation to the real World Powers. They will not lessen the discrepancy between ourselves and Great Britain, nor help us to rival the United States its size.
Not only that, but they would not serve to lessen substantially the importance of France in international politics. One thing alone is certain, namely, the attempt to restore the frontiers of 1914, even if it proved successful, would lead to a further draining of the blood of our nation to such an extent that no virile men would be left to execute the revolutions and perform the deeds necessary in order to assure the future existence of the nation. On the contrary, under the intoxicating influence of such a superficial success further aims would be renounced, all the more so because so-called ‘national honour’ would seem to be vindicated and new ports would be opened, at least for a certain time, to our commercial development. In the face of all this we National Socialists must adhere firmly to the aim that we have set for our foreign policy, namely, that the German people must be guaranteed that living-space to which it is entitled, and only in pursuance of such an aim can the shedding of the blood of our people be justified in the eyes of God, and future generations of Germans.
God—because we are sent into this world to struggle for our daily bread, as creatures to whom nothing is donated and who must be able to win and maintain their position as lords of the earth by virtue of their own intelligence and courage. Germans—in the eyes of further generations of Germans, since the blood of no German should be spilt unless it be to guarantee the lives of a thousand others yet unborn. The territory on which our German peasants will one day be able to rear sturdy sons will justify the sacrifice of the lives of sons of peasants to-day, and though the statesmen responsible for this sacrifice may be persecuted by their contemporaries, posterity will absolve them from the charge of having been guilty of bƖσσdshɛd and of sacrificing the nation. Here I must protest sharply against those völkisch scribblers who pretend that such territorial extension would be a ‘violation of the sacred rights of man’ and accordingly attack it in their literary effusions.
One never knows what are the hidden forces behind the activities of such persons. But it is certain that the confusion which they provoke suits the game our enemies are playing against our nation and is in accordance with their wishes. By the conception of this attitude such scribblers contribute in criminal fashion to weaken from within and to destroy our people’s will to defend their own vital interests by the only effective means that can be used for that purpose, for no nation on earth possesses a square yard of territory by decree of a higher Will and by virtue of a higher Right. The German frontiers are the outcome of chance and are only temporary frontiers that have been established as the result of political struggles which took place at various times.
The same is also true of the frontiers which demarcate the territories in which other nations live. Only an imbecile could look on the physical geography of the globe as fixed and unchangeable. Actually, it represents only an apparent interval in a continual evolutionary process due to the certain action of the formidable forces of Nature, and is liable to destruction and transformation to-morrow through still more formidable forces. So, too, in the lives of the nations the confines of their ‘living space’ are liable to change. State frontiers are established by human beings and may be altered by human beings. The fact that a nation has acquired an enormous territorial area is no reason why other nations should for ever acknowledge its right to that territory.
At most, the possession of such territory is a proof of the might of the conqueror and the weakness of those who submit to him and this might alone is right. If the German people is cramped in an insufficient living space and is, for that reason, faced with a hopeless future, it is not by the law of Destiny, and the refusal to accept such a situation is by no means a violation of Destiny’s laws. Just as no Higher Power has allotted more territory to other nations than to the German nation, an unjust distribution of territory cannot constitute an offence against such a Power. The land in which we now live was not a gift bestowed by Heaven on our forefathers, but was conquered by them at the risk of their lives. Thus, now, in future our people will not acquire territory and with it the means of subsistence as a favour at the hands of any other nation, but will have to win it by the power of a triumphant sword.
To-day we are all convinced of the necessity for regulating our position with regard to France; but our success here will be ineffectual in the vain if the general aims of our foreign policy stop at that. It can have significance for us only if it serves to cover our flank in the struggle for that extension of territory which is necessary for the existence of our people in Europe, for colonial acquisitions will not solve that question. It can be solved only by the acquisition of such territory for the settlement of our people as will extend the area of the mother-country and thereby not only keep the newly-settled population in close touch with the parent-country, but will guarantee the entire territory the enjoyment of those advantages accruing from its total size.
The völkisch Movement must not play the advocate for ether nations, but beg the protagonist of its own nation. Otherwise it would he superfluous and, above all, it would have no right to clamour against the past, for it would then be repeating the action of the past. The old German policy suffered from having been determined by dynastic considerations, the new German policy must not adopt the sentimentally cosmopolitan attitude of völkisch circles. Above all, we must riot form a police guard for the famous ‘small oppressed nations,’ but we must be the soldiers of the German nation. We National Socialists must go still further. The right to territory may become a duty when a great nation seems destined to go under unless its territory be extended, and that is particularly true when the nation in question is not a handful of Negroes, but the Germanic mother of all those who have given culture to the modern world.
Germany will either become a World Power or will not continue to exist, but in order to become a World Power she needs that territorial area which would give her the necessary importance to-day and assure the existence of her citizens.
Therefore, we National Socialists have purposely broken away from the line of conduct followed by pre-war Germany in foreign policy. We are beginning at the point at which our ancestors left off six hundred years ago. We are putting a stop to the eternal German trek towards Southern and Western Europe and are turning our eyes towards the lands that lie to the east of us. We are abandoning, once and for all, the colonial and commercial policy of pre-war days and are making a start upon the future policy of territorial expansion, but when we speak of new territory in Europe to-day we must think principally of Russia and the border states under her rule. Destiny itself seems to point the way for us here. In delivering Russia over to Bolshevism, Fate robbed the Russian people of that intellectual class which had once created the Russian State and was the guarantee for its existence. The Russian State as such was not the outcome of the ability of the Slav to establish a constitution, but rather a marvellous example of the constructive political activity of the Germanic element in a race of inferior worth.
This is the way in which many mighty empires throughout the world were created. More than once inferior races with Germanic organisers and rulers as their leaders became formidable States and continued to exist as long as the racial nucleus which had originally created the State remained. For centuries, Russia has lived on this Germanic nucleus of its governing classes, but to-day this nucleus has been practically exterminated. The Jєω has taken its place. Just as it is impossible for the Russian, on his own, to shake off the Jєωιѕн yoke so, too, it is impossible for the Jєω to keep this mighty State in existence for any lengthy period of time. He himself is by no means an organising element, but rather a ferment of decomposition.
This colossal empire in the East is ripe for dissolution, and the end of the Jєωιѕн domination in Russia will also be the end of Russia as a State. We are chosen by Destiny to be the witnesses of a catastrophe which will afford the most striking confirmation of the völkisch theory of race.
It is our task, and the mission of the National Socialist Movement, to develop in our people that political mentality which will enable them to realise that the aim which they must set themselves in future could not find fulfilment in the glorious enthusiasm of a victorious campaign fought with the ardour of an Alexander the Great. That the Jєω should declare himself bitterly hostile to such a policy is only natural, for the Jєω knows better than any other what the adoption of this line of conduct will mean for his own future. That fact alone ought to teach all genuine nationalists that this new orientation is the right one, but, unfortunately, the reverse is the case. Not only among the members of the German National Party, but also in purely völkisch circles, violent opposition is being raised against this Eastern European policy, and in connection with that opposition, as in all such cases, the authority of great men is cited. The spirit of Bismarck is evoked in defence of a policy which is as stupid as it is impossible, and is in the highest degree detrimental to the German people.
They say that Bismarck attached great importance to the maintenance of good relations with Russia. To a certain extent, that is true, but they quite forget to add that he laid equal stress on the importance of good relations with Italy, for example. Indeed, the same Herr von Bismarck once concluded an alliance with Italy so that he might more easily settle accounts with Austria. Why is this policy not continued to-day? The answer will be to the effect that the Italy of to-day is not the Italy of that time. Well then, honourable sirs, permit me to remind you that the Russia of to-day is no longer the Russia of that time. Bismarck never dreamt of laying down a political course of action which, from the tactical point of view, was to hold good for all time. He was too much the master of the hour to bind himself in that way. The question, therefore, ought not to be what did Bismarck do then, but rather what would he do to-day. And that question is much easier to answer. His political sagacity would never allow him to ally himself with a State that is doomed to disappear. Moreover, Bismarck looked upon the colonial and commercial policy of his time with mixed feelings, because at first, his chief concern was to find the surest way of consolidating and internally strengthening the state system which he himself had created. That was the sole reason why, at that time, he welcomed Russian protection in the rear, which gave him a free hand for his activities in the West, but what was then advantageous to Germany would now be detrimental. As early as 1920–21, the young National Socialist Movement was slowly, beginning to make itself felt in the political world and was spoken of in various circles as the movement for the liberation of the German nation. At that time it was approached from various quarters with the object of establishing definite relations with the liberationist movements in other countries. This was quite in keeping with the much-advertised ‘League of Oppressed Nations.’
The persons concerned were, for the most part, representatives of some of the Balkan States and also of Egypt and India. They always impressed me as loquacious gentlemen who gave themselves airs, but had no real backing. Not a few Germans, however, especially in the nationalist camp, allowed themselves to be taken in by these pompous Orientals, and in the person of some Indian or Egyptian student they believed at once that they were face to face with a ‘representative’ of India or Egypt. They did not realise that, in most cases, they were dealing with persons who had no backing and who were not authorised to conclude any sort of agreement whatsoever, so that the practical result of any contact with such individuals was nil, unless one chose to enter the time spent thus as a dead loss. I was always on my guard against these attempts, not only because I had something better to do than to waste weeks in such sterile ‘discussions,’ but also because I believed that even if one were dealing with authorised representatives of such nations, the whole affair would be bound to turn out futile, if not positively harmful. Even in peace-time it was lamentable enough that the German policy of alliances, because it had no active and aggressive aims in view, ended in a defensive association of antiquated States which, as far as history was concerned were already on the retired list. There was little to be said either for the alliance with Austria or for that with Turkey. While the greatest military and industrial States of the earth had joined together in a league for purposes of active aggression, a few old and effete States were got together, and with this antique bric-a-brac an attempt was made to face an active world-coalition.
Germany has had to pay dearly for that mistaken foreign policy and yet not dearly enough to prevent our incorrigible visionaries from falling into the same error again, for the attempt to bring about the disarmament of the all-powerful victorious States through a ‘League of Oppressed Nations’ is not only ridiculous, but disastrous. It is disastrous because in that way the attention of the German people is again being diverted from real possibilities, which they abandon for the sake of fanciful and fruitless hopes and illusions. The German of to-day is like a drowning man who clutches at any straw. At the same time many of the people who are misled in this way are otherwise highly educated. Whenever some will-o’-the-wisp of a fantastic hope appears these people immediately pursue it. No matter whether it be a League of Oppressed Nations, a League of Nations, or some other fantastic invention, thousands of ingenuous souls will always be found to believe in it. I well remember the childishly incomprehensible hope that Britain’s downfall in India was imminent, which was cherished by völkisch circles in the years 1920–21. A few Asiatic mountebank, who may even have been sincere ‘champions of Indian freedom,’ were then at a loose end in Europe and succeeded in inspiring otherwise quite reasonable people with the fixed notion that the British World Empire, of which India was the hub, was just about to collapse there. They never realised that this was wishful thinking, nor did they stop to think how absurd their hopes were, for inasmuch as they expected the end of the British Empire and of Britain’s power to follow the collapse of its dominion over India, they themselves admitted that India was of paramount importance to Britain. It is more than probable that this vital question was not in the nature of a mystery known only to the prophets of German völkisch circles, but also to those in whose hands lay the shaping of British history.
It is simply puerile to suppose that in Britain itself the importance of India for the British Empire was not adequately appreciated. It is a proof of failure to have learned a lesson from the World War and of a thorough misunderstanding and inability to recognise the quality of Anglo-Saxon determination, if anyone imagines that Britain would let India go without first putting forth the last ounce of her strength in a struggle to hold it. Moreover, it shows how complete is the ignorance prevailing in Germany as to the manner in which Britain administers her Empire and permeates it with her spirit. Britain will never lose India unless her administrative machinery becomes corrupt as a result of racial contamination (which is at present entirely out of the question in India), or unless she is overcome by the sword of some powerful enemy. Indian risings will never bring this about. We Germans have had sufficient experience to know how hard it is to overcome Britain, and apart from all this, I as a Teuton, would far rather see India under British rule than under that of any other nation. The hopes founded on a legendary rising in Egypt were just as chimerical. The ‘Holy War’ may give our German nincompoops the pleasing illusion that others are now prepared to shed their blood for them. Indeed this cowardly speculation is almost always the father of such hopes, but in actual fact the ‘Holy War’ would soon be brought to a sanguinary conclusion under the withering fire of British machine-guns and a hail of British shells. A coalition of cripples cannot attack a powerful State which is determined, if necessary, to shed the last drop of its blood in order to preserve its existence.
I, as a nationalist, who estimate the worth of humanity according to racial standards, must, in recognising the inferiority of the so-called ‘oppressed nations’, refuse to link the destiny of my own people with the destiny of theirs.
To-day we must take up the same attitude towards Russia. The Russia of to-day, deprived of its Germanic ruling class, is, apart from the secret designs of its new rulers, no suitable ally in the struggle for German liberty. From the purely military point of view, a Russo-German coalition waging war against Western Europe, and probably against the whole world on that account, would be catastrophic for us. The struggle would have to be fought out, not on Russian, but on German territory, without Germany being able to receive from Russia the slightest effective support. The military forces at the disposal of the present German Reich are so small and so inadequate for the waging of a foreign war that it would be impossible to defend our frontiers against Western Europe, Britain included. The industrial area of Germany would have to be abandoned undefended before the concentrated attack of our adversaries, It must be added that between Germany and Russia there is the Polish State, completely in the hands of the French. Should Germany and Russia together wage war against Western Europe, Russia would have to overthrow Poland before the first Russian soldier could be conveyed to a German front, but it is less a question of soldiers than of technical equipment.
In this respect our plight during the World War would be repeated, but in a more terrible manner. At that time, German, industry had to be drained to help our glorious allies, and on the technical side Germany had to carry on the war almost alone. In this new hypothetical war Russia, as a technical factor, would count for nothing. We should have practically nothing to oppose to the general mechanisation of the world, which in the next war will assume overwhelming and decisive proportions. In this important field Germany has not only shamefully lagged behind, but would, with the little she has, have to reinforce Russia, which at the present moment does not possess a single factory capable of producing a motor-car in good running order. Under such conditions such a struggle would assume the character of sheer slaughter. The youth of Germany would have to shed more of its blood than it did even in the World War; for, as always, it would fall to us to bear the brunt of the fighting, and the result would be an inevitable catastrophe. Even supposing that a miracle took place and that this war did not end in the total annihilation of Germany, the final result would be that the German nation would be bled white, and, surrounded as she would be by great military States, her real situation would be in no way ameliorated. It is useless to object here that in case of an alliance with Russia we should not think of an immediate war or that anyhow we should have the means of making thorough preparations for war.
This is absurd, since an alliance which is not for the purpose of waging war has no meaning and no value. The object of forming an alliance is to wage war.
Even though, at the moment when an alliance is concluded, the prospect of war is a distant one, still the idea of the situation developing towards war is the reason underlying the formation of an alliance. It is out of the question to think that the other Powers would be deceived as to the purpose of such an alliance. A Russo-German coalition would either remain a mere scrap of paper (in which case it would have no meaning for us), or the terms of the agreement would be put into effect, and in that case the rest of the world would be forewarned. It would be childish to think that in such circuмstances Britain and France would wait ten years to give the Russo-German alliance time to complete its technical preparations. Far from it, the storm would break over Germany immediately. The fact of forming an alliance with Russia would, therefore; be the signal for a new war, the result of which would be the end of Germany. To these considerations the following must be added: (1) Those who are in power in Russia to-day have no intention of forming an honourable alliance or of remaining true to it, if they did. It must never be forgotten that the present rulers of Russia are blood-stained criminals, that here we have the dregs of humanity which, favoured by the circuмstances of a tragic moment, overran a great State, and, in their lust for blood, killed and extirpated millions of educated people belonging to the ruling classes, and that now for nearly ten years they have ruled with a savage tyranny such as has never been known. It must not be forgotten that these rulers belong to a people in which the most bestial cruelty is allied to a capacity for artful mendacity and which, to-day more than ever, believes itself called upon to impose its sanguinary despotism on the rest of the world. It must not be forgotten that the international Jєω, who is to-day absolute master in Russia, does not look upon Germany as an ally, but as a State condemned to the same doom as Russia itself.
One does not form an alliance with a partner whose only aim is the destruction of his co-partner. Above all, one does not enter into alliances with people to whom no treaty is sacred, because they do not exist as the upholders of truth and honour, but as the protagonists of lying and deception, thievery, plunder and robbery. The man who thinks that he can enter into a treaty with parasites is like a tree that believes it can make a bargain with the mistletoe that feeds on it. (2) The menace to which Russia once succuмbed is perpetually hanging over Germany. Only a bourgeois simpleton could imagine that the Bolshevist danger has been overcome. In his superficial way of thinking he does not suspect that here we are dealing with a phenomenon that is due to an urge of the blood, namely, the aspiration of the Jєωιѕн people to become the despots of the world. That aspiration is quite as natural as the impulse of the Anglo-Saxon to rule the world, and as the Anglo-Saxon chooses his own way of attaining those ends and fights for them with characteristic weapons, so does the Jєω. The Jєω follows his own methods, he insinuates himself into the very heart of the nations and then proceeds to undermine the national structure from within. The weapons with which he works are lies and calumny, poisonous infection and disintegration, intensifying the struggle until he has succeeded in exterminating his hated adversary to the accompaniment of much bƖσσdshɛd.
In Russian Bolshevism we must recognise the kind of attempt which is being made by the Jєω in the twentieth century to secure dominion over the world. In other epochs he worked towards the same goal, but with different, though fundamentally similar, means. The ambition of the Jєω is part and parcel of his very nature. Just as no other people would voluntarily check the instinct to increase in numbers or in power, unless forced to do so by external circuмstances or senile decay, so the Jєω will never, of his own accord, repress his eternal urge and abandon his struggle for world dictatorship. Only external forces can thwart him, or his instinct for world domination will die out with his race. If nations become impotent or extinct through senility it is because they have failed to preserve their racial purity. The Jєωs preserve the purity of their blood better than any other people on earth. Thus the Jєω pursues his fateful course until he meets another and superior force and after a desperate struggle he who would have stormed the heavens is hurled back once more to the regions of Lucifer. To-day Germany is Bolshevism’s next objective. All the force of a fresh missionary idea is needed to rouse our nation once more, to free it from the toils of the international serpent and stop the process of corruption of our blood from within. The forces of our nation, thus liberated, may be employed to preserve our nationality and in this way, prevent a repetition of the recent catastrophe from taking place even in the most distant future. If this be the goal we set ourselves, it would be folly to ally ourselves with a country whose ruler is the mortal enemy of our future. How can we release our people from this poisonous grip if we ourselves accept it?
How can we teach the German worker that Bolshevism is an infamous crime against humanity if we ally ourselves with this infernal abortion and recognise its existence as legitimate? What right have we to condemn the members of the broad masses whose sympathies lie with a certain Weltanschauung if the rulers of our State choose the representatives of that Weltanschauung as their allies? The struggle against the Jєωιѕн Bolshevisation of the world demands that we should declare our position towards Soviet Russia. We cannot cast out the Devil through Beelzebub. If to-day even völkisch circles are eager for an alliance with Russia, let there but pause to look around in Germany itself, in order that they may realise from what quarter their support comes. Do these people holding völkisch views believe that a policy which is recommended and acclaimed by the Marxist international press can benefit the German people? Since when do they fight with weapons provided by the Jєω? One reproach which could be levelled against the old German Reich with regard to its policy of alliances was that it spoiled its relations towards all other States by continual vacillation and by its weakness in trying to preserve world peace at all costs, but one reproach which cannot be levelled against it is that it failed to maintain good relations with Russia. I frankly admit that, before the War, I thought it would have been better if Germany had abandoned her senseless colonial policy and her naval policy and had joined Britain in an alliance against Russia. Thereby Germany would renounce her weak world policy for a determined European policy, with the idea of acquiring new territory on the Continent. I do not forget the constant insolent threats which Pan-Slav Russia made against Germany. I do not forget the continual mobilisation rehearsals, the sole object of which was to irritate Germany. I cannot forget the tone of public opinion in Russia which, in pre-war days, excelled itself in hate-inspired outbursts against our nation and our Reich, nor can I forget the big Russian press which was always more favourable to France than to us. Yet, despite all this, another alternative was open to us before the War. We might have won the support of Russia and turned against Britain. Circuмstances are entirely different to-day.
Although, before the War, we might have swallowed our pride and marched at the side of Russia, that is no longer possible to-day. Since then the hand of the world-clock has moved forward and points the hour in which the destiny of our people must be decided one way or another. The present process of consolidation now being carried out by the great States of the world is the last warning signal to us to look to ourselves, to bring our people back from the realm of visions to the realm of hard facts and point the sole way into the future, which will lead the old Reich to a new era of prosperity. If, in view of this great and most important task before it, the National Socialist Movement sets aside all illusions and takes reason as its sole guide, the catastrophe of 1918 may turn out to be an infinite blessing for the future of our nation. As a result of the collapse our nation may succeed in adopting an entirely new attitude with regard to foreign policy, and strengthened within by its new Weltanschauung, the German nation may finally stabilise its foreign policy. It may end by gaining what Britain has, what even Russia had, and what enabled France again and again to make analogous decisions which ultimately proved to be to her advantage, namely, a political testament.
The fundamental principles of the political testament of the German nation determining the course of its foreign policy shall be as follows: Never permit two continental Powers to arise in Europe. Look upon every attempt to establish a second military Power on the frontiers of Germany, be it only in the shape of a State capable of becoming a military power, as tantamount to an attack upon Germany. Regard it not only as your right, but as your duty, to prevent by every possible means, including resort to arms, the establishment of such a State, and to crush it, should it be established.
See to it that the strength of our nation does not rest on colonial foundations, but on those of our own native territory in Europe. Never consider the Reich secure unless, for centuries to come, it is in a position to give every descendant of our race a piece of ground that he can call his own. Never forget that the most sacred of all rights in this world is man’s right to the soil which he wishes to cultivate for himself and that the holiest of all sacrifices is that of the blood shed for it. I should not like to conclude these remarks without referring once again to the sole possibility of an alliance that exists for us in Europe at the present moment. In the previous chapter dealing with the problem of Germany’s policy of alliances, I mentioned Britain and Italy as the only countries with which it would be worth while for us to strive to form a close alliance and that such an alliance would be advantageous. I should like here to deal briefly with the military importance of such an alliance.
The military consequences of this alliance would be the direct opposite of the consequences of an alliance with Russia. Most important of all is the fact that a rapprochement with Britain and Italy would in no way involve a danger of war. The only Power liable to oppose such an alliance would be France who would scarcely be in a position to do so. Thus, such an alliance would afford Germany an opportunity of quietly making those preparations which, within the framework of such a coalition, would necessarily have to lie made with a view to settling accounts with France. The lull significance of such an alliance lies in the fact that its conclusion would not automatically lay Germany open to the threat of invasion, but that the very coalition would be broken up, that is to say, the Entente which has been the cause of so many of our misfortunes, would be dissolved, thus making France, our inveterate enemy, the victim of violation. Even though this success would at first have only a moral effect, it would be sufficient to allow Germany such liberty of action as we cannot now imagine, for the new Anglo-German-Italian alliance would have the political initiative and no longer France.
A further result would be that at one stroke Germany would finally be delivered from her unfavourable strategical position. On the one side, her flank would be strongly protected and, on the other, the guarantee that we would have an adequate supply of foodstuffs and raw materials would be a beneficial result of this new coalition of States. Almost more important, however, is the fact that this new league would include States whose potential of technical production would, in many respects, be mutually complementary. For the first time Germany would have allies who would not like vampires suck the life-blood of her industry, but could, and would, contribute liberally to the completion of our technical equipment. We must not forget one final fact, namely, that in this case we should not have allies like Turkey or present-day Russia. The greatest World Power on this earth and a young national State would constitute factors in a European struggle which were very different from the corrupt and decadent Powers to which Germany was allied in the last war. As I have already said, there are great obstacles in the way of such an alliance. But was not the formation of the Entente somewhat more difficult? Where King Edward VII succeeded, partly in the face of traditional interests, we must and will succeed, if we are so convinced of the necessity for such a development that we are wisely prepared to conquer our own feelings and carry the policy through. This will be possible only when, driven to action by suffering and distress, we renounce the shilly-shallying foreign policy of recent decades and follow unswervingly a course of action in pursuit of a definite aim.
The future goal of our foreign policy ought to be neither a Western nor an Eastern bias; it ought to be an Eastern policy the object of which is the acquisition of such territory as is necessary in order that the German people can live. To carry out this policy we need that force of which France, the mortal enemy of our nation, is now depriving us by holding us in her grip and pitilessly robbing us of our strength.
We must, therefore, stop at no sacrifice in an effort to stop France’s striving for hegemony in Europe. As our natural ally to-day we have every Power on the Continent which, like ourselves, feels France’s lust for mastery in Europe unbearable. No attempt to approach those Powers ought to appear too difficult to us, and no sacrifice should be considered too great, if the final outcome would be to make it possible for us to overthrow our most bitter enemy.
The minor wounds will be cured by the beneficent influence of Time, once the major wound has been cauterised and closed. Naturally, the internal enemies of our people will howl with rage, but let us, as National Socialists, not be misled into ceasing to advocate what our most profound conviction tells us to be necessary. We must oppose the current of public opinion which will be led astray by Jєωιѕн cunning in exploiting our German lack of perception. The waves may often rage and roar around us; but the man who swims with the current attracts less attention than he who buffets it.
To-day we are but a rock in the river. In a few years Fate may raise us up as a dam against which the general current will be broken, only to flow forward in a new bed. It is, therefore, necessary that in the eyes of the rest of the world our Movement should be recognised as representing a definite political programme. Whatever fate Heaven may have in store for us, we must be recognised by an outward and visible sign. As long as we ourselves recognise the ineluctable necessity which must determine our foreign policy, this knowledge will lend us that power of endurance which we often require when, under the withering fire of the opposition press, some of us experience fear and are assailed by the temptation to make concessions here or there and ‘to do as the Romans do,’ in order not to have the whole world against us.
Topic: nαzι Ideology (Read 16433 times)