THE ARMISTICE of November, 1918, ushered in a policy which inall human probability was bound to lead gradually to total submission. Historicalexamples of a similar nature show that nations which lay down their armswithout compelling reasons prefer in the ensuing period to accept the greatesthumiliations and extortions rather than attempt to change their fate bya renewed appeal to force.
This is humanly understandable. A shrewd victor will, if possible,always present his demands to the vanquished in installments. And then,with a nation that has lost its character-and this is the case of everyone which voluntarily submits-he can be sure that it will not regard onemore of these individual oppressions as an adequate reason for taking uparms again. 'The more extortions are willingly accepted in this way, themore unjustified it strikes people finally to take up the defensive againsta new, apparently isolated, though constantly recurring, oppression, especiallywhen, all in all, so much more and greater misfortune has already been bornein patient silence.
The fall of Carthage is the most horrible picture of such aslow execution of a people through its own deserts.
That is why Clausewitz in his Drei Bekenntnisse incomparablysingles out this idea and nails it fast for all time, when he says:
'That the stain of a cowardly submission can never be effaced;that this drop of poison in the blood of a people is passed on to posterityand will paralyze and undermine the strength of later generations'; that,on the other hand, 'even the loss of this freedom after a bloody and honorablestruggle assures the rebirth of a people and is the seed of life from whichsome day a new tree will strike fast roots.'
Of course, a people that has lost all honor and character willnot concern itself with such teachings. For no one who takes them to heartcan sink so low; only he who forgets them, or no longer wants to know them,collapses. Therefore, we must not expect those who embody a spineless submissionsuddenly to look into their hearts and, on the basis of reason and all humanexperience, begin to act differently than before. On the contrary, it isthese men in particular who will dismiss all such teachings until eitherthe nation is definitely accustomed to its yoke of slavery or until betterforces push to the surface, to wrest the power from the hands of the infamousspoilers. In the first case these people usually do not feel so badly, sincenot seldom they are appointed by the shrewd victors to the office of slaveoverseer, which these spineless natures usually wield more mercilessly overtheir people than any foreign beast put in by the enemy himself.
The development since 1918 shows us that in Germany the hopeof winning the victor's favor by voluntary submission unfortunately determinesthe political opinions and the actions of the broad masses in the most catastrophicway. I attach special importance to emphasizing the broad masses, becauseI cannot bring myself to profess the belief that the commissions and omissionsof our people's leaders are attributable to the same ruinous lunacy. Asthe leadership of our destinies has, since the end of the War, been quiteopenly furnished by Jews, we really cannot assume that faulty knowledgealone is the cause of our misfortune; we must, on the contrary, hold theconviction that conscious purpose is destroying our nation. And once weexamine the apparent madness of our nation's leadership in the field offoreign affairs from this standpoint, it is revealed as the subtlest, ice-coldlogic, in the service of the Jewish idea and struggle for world conquest.And thus, it becomes understandable that the same time-span, which from1806 to 1813 sufficed to imbue a totally collapsed Prussia with new vitalenergy and determination for struggle, today has not only elapsed unused,but, on the contrary, has led to an ever-greater weakening of our state.
Seven years after November, 1918, the Treaty of Locarno wassigned.
The course of events was that indicated above: Once the disgracefularmistice had been signed, neither the energy nor the courage could be summonedsuddenly to oppose resistance to our foes' repressive measures, which subsequentlywere repeated over and over. Our enemies were too shrewd to demand too muchat once. They always limit their extortions to the amount which, in theiropinion-and that of the German leadership- would at the moment be bearableenough so that an explosion of popular feeling need not be feared. But themore of these individual dictates had been signed, the less justified itseemed, because of a single additional extortion or exacted humiliation,to do the thing that had not been done because of so many others: to offerresistance. For this is the ' drop of poison ' of which Clausewitz speaks:the spinelessness which once begun must increase more and more and whichgradually becomes the foulest heritage, burdening every future decision.It can become a terrible lead weight, a weight which a nation is not likelyto shake off, but which finally drags it down into the existence of a slaverace.
Thus, in Germany edicts of disarmament alternated with edictsof enslavement, political emasculation with economic pillage, and finallycreated that moral spirit which can regard the Dawes Plan as a stroke ofgood fortune and the Treaty of Locarno as a success. Viewing all this froma higher vantagepoint, we can speak of one single piece of good fortunein all this misery, which is that, though men can be befuddled, the heavenscannot be bribed. For their blessing remained absent: since then hardshipand care have been the constant companions-of our people, and our one faithfulally has been misery. Destiny made no exception in this case, but gave uswhat we deserved. Since we no longer know how to value honor, it teachesus at least to appreciate freedom in the matter of bread. By now peoplehave learned to cry out for bread, but one of these days they will prayfor freedom.
Bitter as was the collapse of our nation in the years after1918, and obvious at that very time, every man who dared prophesy even thenwhat later always materialized was violently and resolutely persecuted.Wretched and bad as the leaders of our nation were, they were equally arrogant,and especially when it came to ridding themselves of undesired, becauseunpleasant, prophets. We were treated to- the spectacle (as we still aretoday!) of the greatest parliamentary thick-heads, regular saddlers andglovemakers-and not only by profession, which in itself means nothing-suddenlysetting themselves on the pedestal of statesmen, from which they could lecturedown at plain ordinary mortals. It had and has nothing to do with the casethat such a ' statesman ' by the sixth month of his activity is shown upas the most incompetent windbag, the butt of everyone's ridicule and contempt,that he doesn't know which way to turn and has provided unmistakable proofof his total incapacity ! No, that makes no difference, on the contrary:the more lacking the parliamentary statesmen of this Republic are in realaccomplishment, the more furiously they persecute those who expect accomplishmentsfrom them, who have the audacity to point out the failure of their previousactivity and predict the failure of their future moves. But if once youfinally pin down one of these parliamentary honorables, and this politicalshowman really cannot deny the collapse of his whole activity and its resultsany longer, they find thousands and thousands of grounds for excusing theirlack of success, and there is only one that they will not admit, namely,that they themselves are the main cause of all evil.


By the winter of 1922-23, at the latest, it should have beengenerally understood that even after the conclusion of peace France wasstill endeavoring with iron logic to achieve the war aim she had originallyhad in mind. For no one will be likely to believe that France poured outthe blood of her people- never too rich to begin with-for four and a halfyears in the most decisive struggle of her history, only to have the damagepreviously done made good by subsequent reparations. Even Alsace-Lorrainein itself would not explain the energy with which the French carried onthe War, if it had not been a part of French foreign policy's really greatpolitical program for the future. And this goal is: the dissolution of Germanyinto a hodge-podge of little states. That is what chauvinistic France foughtfor, though at the same time in reality it sold its people as mercenariesto the international world Jew.
 This French war aim would have been attainable by the War alone if,as Paris had first hoped, the struggle had taken place on German soil. Supposethat the bloody battles of the World War had been fought, not on the Somme,in Flanders, in Artois, before Warsaw, Nijni-Novgorod, Kovno, Riga, andall the other places, but in Germany, on the Ruhr and the Main, on the Elbe,at Hanover, Leipzig, Nuremberg, etc., and you will have to agree that thiswould have offered a possibility of breaking up Germany. It is very questionablewhether our young federative state could for four and a half years havesurvived the same test of strain as rigidly centralized France, orientedsolely toward her uncontested center in Paris. The fact that this giganticstruggle of nations occurred outside the borders of our fatherland was notonly to the immortal credit of the old army, it was also the greatest goodfortune for the German future. It is my firm and heartfelt conviction, andsometimes almost a source of anguish to me, that otherwise there would longsince have been no German Reich, but only ' German states.' And this isthe sole reason why the blood of our fallen friends and brothers has atleast not Bowed entirely in vain.
Thus everything turned out differently! True, Germany collapsedlike a flash in November, 1918. But when the catastrophe occurred in thehomeland, our field armies were still deep in enemy territory. The firstconcern of France at that time was not the dissolution of Germany, but:How shall we get the German armies out of France and Belgium as quicklyas possible? And so the first task of the heads of state in Paris for concludingthe World War was to disarm the German armies and if possible drive themback to Germany at once; and only after that could they devote themselvesto the fulfillment of their real and original war aim. In this respect,to be sure, France was already paralyzed. For England the War had reallybeen victoriously concluded with the annihilation of Germany as a colonialand commercial power and her reduction to the rank of a second-class state.Not only did the English possess no interest in the total exterminationof the German state; they even had every reason to desire a rival againstFrance in Europe for the future. Hence the French political leaders hadto continue with determined peacetime labor what the War had begun, andClemenceau's utterance, that for him the peace was only the continuationof the War, took on an increased significance.
Persistently, on every conceivable occasion, they had to shatterthe structure of the Reich. By the imposition of one disarmament note afteranother, on the one hand, and by the economic extortion thus made possible,on the other hand, Paris hoped slowly to disjoint the Reich structure. Themore rapidly national honor withered away in Germany, the sooner could economicpressure and unending poverty lead to destructive political effects. Sucha policy of political repression and economic plunder, carried on for tenor twenty years, must gradually ruin even the best state structure and undercertain circumstances dissolve it. And thereby the French war aim wouldfinally be achieved.
By the winter of 1922-23 this must long since have been recognizedas the French intent. Only two possibilities remained: We might hope graduallyto blunt the French will against the tenacity of the German nation, or atlong last to do what would have to be done in the end anyway, to pull thehelm of the Reich ship about on some particularly crass occasion, and ramthe enemy. This, to be sure, meant a life-and-death struggle, and thereexisted a prospect of life only if previously we succeeded in isolatingFrance to such a degree that this second war would not again constitutea struggle of Germany against the world, but a defense of Germany againsta France which was constantly disturbing the world and its peace.
I emphasize the fact, and I am firmly convinced of it, thatthis second eventuality must and will some day occur, whatever happens.I never believe that France's intentions toward us could ever change, forin the last analysis they are merely in line with the self-preservationof the French nation. If I were a Frenchman, and if the greatness of Francewere as dear to me as that of Germany is sacred, I could not and would notact any differently from Clemenceau. The French nation, slowly dying out,not only with regard to population, but particularly with regard to itsbest racial elements, can in the long run retain its position in the worldonly if Germany is shattered. French policy may pursue a thousand detours;somewhere in the end there will be this goal, the fulfillment of ultimatedesires and deepest longing. And it is false to believe that a purely passivewill, desiring only to preserve itself, can for any length of time resista will that is no less powerful, but proceeds actively. As long as the eternalconflict between Germany and France is carried on only in the form of aGerman defense against French aggression, it will never be decided, butfrom year to year, from century to century, Germany will lose one positionafter another. Follow the movements of the German language frontier beginningwith the twelfth century until today, and you will hardly be able to counton the success of an attitude and a development which has done us so muchdamage up till now.
Only when this is fully understood in Germany, so that the vitalwill of the German nation is no longer allowed to languish in purely passivedefense, but is pulled together for a final active reckoning with Franceand thrown into a last decisive struggle with the greatest ultimate aimson the German side- only then will we be able to end the eternal and essentiallyso fruitless struggle between ourselves and France; presupposing, of course,that Germany actually regards the destruction of France as only a meanswhich will afterward enable her finally to give our people the expansionmade possible elsewhere. Today we count eighty million Germans in Europe!This foreign policy will be acknowledged as correct only if, after scarcelya hundred years, there are two hundred and fifty million Germans on thiscontinent, and not living penned in as factory coolies for the rest of theworld, but: as peasants and workers, who guarantee each other's livelihoodby their labor.
In December, 1922, the situation between Germany and Franceagain seemed menacingly exacerbated. France was contemplating immense newextortions, and needed pledges for them. The economic pillage had to bepreceded by a political pressure and it seemed to the French that only aviolent blow at the nerve center of our entire German life would enablethem to subject our 'recalcitrant' people to a sharper yoke. With the occupationof the Roar, the French hoped not only to break the moral backbone of Germanyonce and for all, but to put us into an embarrassing economic situationin which, whether we liked it or not, we would have to assume every obligation,even the heaviest.
It was a question of bending and breaking. Germany bent at thevery outset, and ended up by breaking completely later.
With the occupation of the Ruhr, Fate once again held out ahand to help the German people rise again. For what at the first momentcould not but seem a great misfortune embraced on closer inspection an infinitelypromising opportunity to terminate all German misery.
From the standpoint of foreign relations, the occupation ofthe Ruhr for the first time really alienated England basically from France,and not only in the circles of British diplomacy which had concluded, examined,and maintained the French alliance as such only with the sober eye of coldcalculators, but also in the broadest circles of the English people. TheEnglish economy in particular viewed with ill-concealed displeasure thisnew and incredible strengthening of French continental power. For not onlythat France, from the purely politico-military point of view, now assumeda position in Europe such as previously not even Germany had possessed,but, economically as well, she now obtained economic foundations which almostcombined a position of economic monopoly with her capacity for politicalcompetition. The largest iron mines and coal fields in Europe were thusunited in the hands of a nation which, in sharp contrast to Germany, hadalways defended its vital interests with equal determination and activism,and which in the Great War had freshly reminded the whole world of its militaryreliability. With the occupation of the Ruhr coal fields by France, England'sentire gain through the War was wrested from her hands, and the victor wasno longer British diplomacy so industrious and alert, but Marshal Foch andthe France he represented.
In Italy, too, the mood against France, which, since the endof the War, had been by no means rosy to begin with, shifted to a veritablehatred. It was the great, historical moment in which the allies of formerdays could become the enemies of tomorrow. If things turned out differentlyand the allies did not, as in the second Balkan War, suddenly break intoa sudden feud among themselves, this was attributable only to the circumstancethat Germany simply had no Enver Pasha, but a Reich Chancellor Cuno.
Yet not only from the standpoint of foreign policy, but of domesticpolicy as well, the French assault on the Ruhr held great future potentialitiesfor Germany. A considerable part of our people which, thanks to the incessantinfluence of our lying press, still regarded France as the champion of progressand liberalism, was abruptly cured of this lunatic delusion. Just as theyear 1914 had dispelled the dreams of international solidarity between peoplesfrom the heads of our German workers and led them suddenly back into theworld of eternal struggle, throughout which one being feeds on another andthe death of the weaker means the life of the stronger, the spring of 1923did likewise.
When the Frenchman carried out his threats and finally, thoughat first cautiously and hesitantly, began to move into the lower Germancoal district, a great decisive hour of destiny had struck for Germany.If in this moment our people combined a change of heart with a shift intheir previous attitude, the Ruhr could become a Napoleonic Moscow for France.There were only two possibilities: Either we stood for this new offenseand did nothing, or, directing the eyes of the German people to this landof glowing smelters and smoky furnaces, we inspired them with a glowingwill to end this eternal disgrace and rather take upon themselves the terrorsof the moment than bear an endless terror one moment longer.
To have discovered a third way was the immortal distinctionof Reich Chancellor Cuno, to have admired it and gone along, the still moreglorious distinction of our German bourgeois parties.
Here I shall first examine the second course as briefly as possible.
With the occupation of the Ruhr, France had accomplished a conspicuousbreach of the Versailles Treaty. In so doing, she had also put herself inconflict with a number of signatory powers, and especially with Englandand Italy. France could no longer hope for any support on the part of thesestates for her own selfish campaign of plunder: She herself, therefore,had to bring the adventure-and that is what it was at first-to some happyconclusion. For a national German government there could be but a singlecourse, that which honor prescribed. It was certain that for the presentFrance could not be opposed by active force of arms; but we had to realizeclearly that any negotiations, unless backed by power, would be absurd andfruitless. Without the possibility of active resistance, it was absurd toadopt the standpoint: 'We shall enter into no negotiations'; but it waseven more senseless to end by entering into negotiations after all, withouthaving meanwhile equipped ourselves with power.
Not that we could have prevented the occupation of the Ruhrby military measures. Only a madman could have advised such a decision.But utilizing the impression made by this French action and while it wasbeing carried out, what we absolutely should have done was, without regardfor the Treaty of Versailles which France herself had torn up, to securethe military resources with which we could later have equipped our negotiators.For it was clear from the start that one day the question of this territoryoccupied by France would be settled at some conference table. But we hadto be equally clear on the fact that even the best negotiators can achievelittle success, as long as the ground on which they stand and the chairon which they sit is not the shield arm of their nation. A feeble littletailor cannot argue with athletes, and a defenseless negotiator has alwayssuffered the sword of Brennus on the opposing side of the scale, unlesshe had his own to throw in as a counterweight. Or has it not been miserableto watch the comic-opera negotiations which since 1918 have always precededthe repeated dictates? This degrading spectacle presented to the whole world,first inviting us to the conference table, as though in mockery, then presentingus with decisions and programs prepared long before, which, to be sure,could be discussed, but which from the start could only be regarded as unalterable.It is true that our negotiators, in hardly a single case, rose above themost humble average, and for the most part justified only too well the insolentutterance of Lloyd George, who contemptuously remarked, a propos of formerReich Minister Simon, ' that the Germans didn't know how to choose men ofintelligence as their leaders and representatives.' But even geniuses, inview of the enemy's determined will to power and the miserable defenselessnessof our own people in every respect, would have achieved but little.
But anyone who in the spring of 1923 wanted to make France'soccupation of the Ruhr an occasion for reviving our military implementsof power had first to give the nation its spiritual weapons, strengthenits will power, and destroy the corrupters of this most precious nationalstrength.
Just as in 1918 we paid with our blood for the fact that in1914 and 1915 we did not proceed to trample the head of the Marxist serpentonce and for all, we would have to pay most catastrophically if in the springof 1923 we did not avail ourselves of the opportunity to halt the activityof the Marxist traitors and murderers of the nation for good.
Any idea of real resistance to France was utter nonsense ifwe did not declare war against those forces which five years before hadbroken German resistance on the battlefields from within. Only bourgeoisminds can arrive at the incredible opinion that Marxism might now have changed,and that the scoundrelly leaders of 1918, who then coldly trampled two milliondead underfoot, the better to climb into the various seats of government,now in 1923 were suddenly ready to render their tribute to the nationalconscience. An incredible and really insane idea, the hope that the traitorsof former days would suddenly turn into fighters for a German freedom. Itnever entered their heads. No more than a hyena abandons carrion does aMarxist abandon treason. And don't annoy me, if you please, with the stupidestof all arguments, that, after all, so many workers bled for Germany. Germanworkers, yes, but then they were no longer international Marxists. If in1914 the German working class in their innermost convictions had still consistedof Marxists, the War would have been over in three weeks. Germany wouldhave collapsed even before the first soldier set foot across the border.No, the fact that the German people was then still fighting proved thatthe Marxist delusion had not yet been able to gnaw its way into the bottommostdepths. But in exact proportion as, in the course of the War, the Germanworker and the German soldier fell back into the hands of the Marxist leaders,in exactly that proportion he was lost to the fatherland. If at the beginningof the War and during the War twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrewcorrupters of the people had been held under poison gas, as happened tohundreds of thousands of our very best German workers in the field, th sacrificeof millions at the front would not have been in vain. On the contrary: twelvethousand scoundrels eliminated in time might have saved the lives of a millionreal Germans, valuable for the future. But it just happened to be in theline of bourgeois 'statesmanship' to subject millions to a bloody end onthe battlefield without batting an eyelash, but to regard ten or twelvethousand traitors, profiteers, usurers, and swindlers as a sacred nationaltreasure and openly proclaim their inviolability. We never know which isgreater in this bourgeois world, the imbecility, weakness, and cowardice,or their deep-dyed corruption. It is truly a class doomed by Fate, but unfortunately,however, it is dragging a whole nation with it into the abyss.
And in 1923 we faced exactly the same situation as in 1918.Regardless what type of resistance was decided on, the first requirementwas always the elimination of the Marxist poison from our national body.And in my opinion, it was then the very first task of a truly national governmentto seek and find the forces which were resolved to declare a war of annihilationon Marxism, and then to give these forces a free road; it was their dutynot to worship the idiocy of 'law and order' at a moment when the enemywithout was administering the most annihilating blow to the fatherland andat home treason lurked on every street corner. No, at that time a reallynational government should have desired disorder and unrest, provided onlythat amid the confusion a basic reckoning with Marxism at last became possibleand actually took place. If this were not done, any thought of resistance,regardless of what type, was pure madness.
Such a reckoning of real world-historical import, it must beadmitted, does not follow the schedules of a privy councilor or some dried-upold minister, but the eternal laws of life on this earth, which are thestruggle for this life and which remain struggle. It should have been bornein mind that the bloodiest civil wars have often given rise to a steeledand healthy people, while artificially cultivated states of peace have morethan once produced a rottenness that stank to high Heaven. You do not alterthe destinies of nations in kid gloves. And so, in the year 1923, the mostbrutal thrust was required to seize the vipers that were devouring our people.Only if this were successful did the preparation of active resistance havemeaning.
At that time I often talked my throat hoarse, attempting tomake it clear, at least to the so-called national circles, what was nowat stake, and that, if we made the same blunders as in 1914 and the yearsthat followed, the end would inevitably be the same as in 1918. Again andagain, I begged them to give free rein to :Pate, and to give our movementan opportunity for a reckoning with Marxism; but I preached to deaf ears.They all knew better, including the chief of the armed forces, until atlength they faced the most wretched capitulation of all time.
Then I realized in my innermost.soul that the German bourgeoisiewas at the end of its mission and is destined for no further mission. ThenI saw how all these parties continued to bicker with the Marxists only outof competitors' envy, without any serious desire to annihilate them; atheart they had all of them long since reconciled themselves to the destructionof the fatherland, and what moved them was only grave concern that theythemselves should be able to partake in the funeral feast. That is all theywere still 'fighting' for.
In this period-I openly admit-I conceived the profoundest admirationfor the great man south of the Alps, who, full of ardent love for his people,made no pacts with the enemies of Italy, but strove for their annihilationby all ways and means. What will rank Mussolini among the great men of thisearth is his determination not to share Italy with the Marxists, but todestroy internationalism and save the fatherland from it.
How miserable and dwarfish our German would-be statesmen seemby comparison, and how one gags with disgust when these nonentities, withboorish arrogance, dare to criticize this man who is a thousand times greaterthan they; and how painful it is to think that this is happening in a landwhich barely half a century ago could call a Bismarck its leader.
In view of this attitude on the part of the bourgeoisie andthe policy of leaving the Marxists untouched, the fate of any active resistancein 1923 was decided in advance. To fight France with the deadly enemy inour own ranks would have been sheer idiocy. What was done after that couldat most be shadow-boxing, staged to satisfy the nationalistic element inGermany in some measure, or in reality to dupe the 'seething soul of thepeople.' If they had seriously believed in what they were doing, they wouldhave had to recognize that the strength of a nation lies primarily, notin its weapons, but in its will, and that, before foreign enemies are conquered,the enemy within must be annihilated; otherwise God help us if victory doesnot reward our arms on the very first day. Once so much as the shadow ofa defeat grazes a people that is not free of internal enemies, its forceof resistance will break and the foe will be the final victor.
This could be predicted as early as February, 1923. Let no onemention the questionableness of a military success against France ! Forif the result of the German action in the face of the invasion of the Ruhrhad only been the destruction of Marxism at home, by that fact alone successwould have been on our side. A Germany saved from these mortal enemies ofher existence and her future would possess forces which the whole worldcould no longer have stifled. On the day when Marxism is smashed in Germany,her fetters wig in truth be broken forever. For never in our history havewe been defeated by the strength of our foes, but always by our own vicesand by the enemies in our own camp.
Since the leaders of the German state could not summon up thecourage for such a heroic deed, logically they could only have chosen thefirst course, that of doing nothing at all and letting things slide.
But in the great hour Heaven sent the German people a greatman, Herr von Cuno. He was not really a statesman or a politician by profession,and of course still less by birth; he was a kind of political hack, whowas needed only for the performance of certain definite jobs; otherwisehe was really more adept at business. A curse for Germany, because thisbusinessman in politics regarded politics as an economic enterprise andacted accordingly.
'France has occupied the Ruhr; what is in the Ruhr? Coal. Therefore,France has occupied the Ruhr on account of the coal.' What was more naturalfor Herr Cuno than the idea of striking in order that the French shouldget no coal, whereupon, in the opinion of Herr Cuno, they would one dayevacuate the Ruhr when the enterprise proved unprofitable. Such, more orless, was this 'eminent"national"statesman,' who in Stuttgartand elsewhere was allowed to address his people, and whom the people gapedat in blissful admiration.
But for a strike, of course, the Marxists were needed, for itwas primarily the workers who would have to strike. Therefore, it was necessaryto bring the worker (and in the brain of one of these bourgeois statesmanhe is always synonymous with the Marxist) into a united front with all theother Germans. The way these moldy political party cheeses glowed at thesound of such a brilliant slogan was something to behold! Not only a productof genius, it was national at the same time-there at last they had whatat heart they had been seeking the whole while. The bridge to Marxism hadbeen found, and the national swindler was enabled to put on a Teutonic faceand mouth German phrases while holding out a friendly hand to the internationaltraitor. And the traitor seized it with the utmost alacrity. For just asCuno needed the Marxist leaders for his 'united front,' the Marxist leaderswere just as urgently in need of Cuno's money. So it was a help to bothparties. Cuno obtained his united front, formed of national windbags andanti-national scoundrels, and the international swindlers received statefunds to carry out the supreme mission of their struggle-that is, to destroythe national economy, and this time actually at the expense of the state.An immortal idea, to save the nation by buying a general strike; in anycase a slogan in which even the most indifferent good-fornothing could joinwith full enthusiasm.
It is generally known that a nation cannot be made free by prayers.But maybe one could be made free by sitting with folded arms, and that hadto be historically tested. If at that time Berr Cuno, instead of proclaiminghis subsidized general strike and setting it up as the foundation of the'united front,' had only demanded two more hours of work from every German,the 'united front' swindle would have shown itself up on the third day.Peoples are not freed by doing nothing, but by sacrifices..
To be sure, this so-called passive resistance as such couldnot be maintained for long. For only a man totally ignorant of warfare couldimagine that occupying armies can be frightened away by such ridiculousmeans. And that alone could have been the sense of an action the costs ofwhich ran into billions and which materially helped to shatter the nationalcurrency to its very foundations.
Of course, the French could make themselves at home in the Ruhrwith a certain sense of inner relief as soon as they saw the resisters employingsuch methods. They had in fact obtained from us the best directions forbringing a recalcitrant civilian population to reason when its conduct representsa serious menace to the occupation authorities. With what lightning speed,after all, we had routed the Belgian franc-tireur bands nine years previousand made the seriousness of the situation clear to the civilian populationwhen the German armies ran the risk of incurring serious damage from theiractivity. As soon as the passive resistance in the Ruhr had grown reallydangerous to the French, it would have been child's play for the troopsof occupation to put a cruel end to the whole childish mischief in lessthan a week. For the ultimate question is always this: What do we do ifthe passive resistance ends by really getting on an adversary's nerves andhe takes up the struggle against it with brutal strong-arm methods? Arewe then resolved to offer further resistance? If so, we must for betteror worse invite the gravest, bloodiest persecutions. But then we stand exactlywhere active resistance would put us - face to Mace with struggle. Henceany so-called passive resistance has an inner meaning only if it is backedby determination to continue it if necessary in open struggle or in undercoverguerrilla warfare. In general, any such struggle will depend on a convictionthat success is possible. As soon as a besieged fortress under heavy attackby the enemy is forced to abandon the last hope of relief, for all practicalpurposes it gives up the fight, especially when in such a case the defenderis lured by the certainty of life rather than probable death. Rob the garrisonof a surrounded fortress of faith in a possible liberation, and all theforces of defense will abruptly collapse.
Therefore, a passive resistance in the Ruhr, in view of theultimate consequences it could and inevitably would produce in case it wereactually successful, only had meaning if an active front were built up behindit. Then, it is true, there is no limit to what could have been drawn fromour people. If every one of these Westphalians had known that the homelandwas setting up an army of eighty or a hundred divisions, the Frenchmen wouldhave found it thorny going. There are always more courageous men willingto sacrifice themselves for success than for something that is obviouslyfutile.
It was a classical case which forced us National Socialiststo take the sharpest position against a so-called national slogan. And sowe did. In these months I was attacked no little by men whose whole nationalattitude was nothing but a mixture of stupidity and outward sham, all ofwhom joined in the shouting only because they were unable to resist theagreeable thrill of suddenly being able to put on national airs withoutany danger. I regarded this most lamentable of all united fronts as a mostridiculous phenomenon, and history has proved me right.
As soon as the unions had filled their treasuries with Cuno'sfunds, and the passive resistance was faced with the decision of passingfrom defense with folded arms to active attack, the Red hyenas immediatelybolted from the national sheep herd and became again what they had alwaysbeen. Quietly and ingloriously Herr Cuno retreated to his ships, and Germanywas richer by one experience and poorer by one great hope.
Down to late midsummer many officers, and they were assuredlynot the worst, had at heart not believed in such a disgraceful development.They had all hoped that, if not openly, in secret at least, preparationshad been undertaken to make this insolent French assault a turning pointin German history. Even in our ranks there were many who put their confidenceat least in the Reichswehr. And this conviction was so alive that it decisivelydetermined the actions and particularly the training of innumerable youngpeople.
But when the disgraceful collapse occurred and the crushing,disgraceful capitulation followed, the sacrifice of billions of marks andthousands of young Germans-who had been stupid enough to take the promisesof the Reich's leaders seriously- indignation flared into a blaze againstsuch a betrayal of our unfortunate people. In millions of minds the convictionsuddenly arose bright and clear that only a radical elimination of the wholeruling system could save Germany.
Never was the time riper, never did it cry out more imperiouslyfor such a solution than in the moment when, on the one hand, naked treasonshamelessly revealed itself, while, on the other hand, a people was economicallydelivered to slow starvation. Since the state itself trampled all laws ofloyalty and faith underfoot, mocked the rights of its citizens, cheatedmillions of its truest sons of their sacrifices and robbed millions of othersof their last penny, it had no further right to expect anything but hatredof its subjects. And in any event, this hatred against the spoilers of peopleand fatherland was pressing toward an explosion. In this place I can onlypoint to the final sentence of my last speech in the great trial of spring,1924:
'The judges of this state may go right ahead and convict usfor our actions at that time, but History, acting as the goddess of a highertruth and a higher justice, will one day smilingly tear up this verdict,acquitting us of all guilt and blame.'
And then she will call all those before her judgment seat, whotoday, in possession of power, trample justice and law underfoot, who haveled our people into misery and ruin and amid the misfortune of the fatherlandhave valued their own ego above the life of the community.
In this place I shall not continue with an account of thoseevents which led to and brought about the 8th of November, 1923. I shallnot do so because in so doing I see no promise for the future, and becauseabove all it is useless to reopen wounds that seem scarcely healed; moreover,because it is useless to speak of guilt regarding men who in the bottomof their hearts, perhaps, were all devoted to their nation with equal love,and who only missed or failed to understand the common road.
In view of the great common misfortune of our fatherland, Itoday no longer wish to wound and thus perhaps alienate those who one dayin the future will have to form the great united front of those who arereally true Germans at heart against the common front of the enemies ofour people. For I know that some day the time will come when even thosewho then faced us with hostility, will think with veneration of those whotraveled the bitter road of death for their German people.
I wish at the end of the second volume to remind the supportersand champions of our doctrine of those eighteen I heroes, to whom I havededicated the first volume of my work, those heroes who sacrificed themselvesfor us all with the clearest consciousness. They must forever recall thewavering and the weak to the fulfillment of his duty, a duty which theythemselves in the best faith carried to its final consequence. And amongthem I want also to count that man, one of the best, who devoted his lifeto the awakening of his, our people, in his writings and his thoughts andfinally in his deeds:




Conclusion

ON NOVEMBER 9, 1923, in the fourth year of its existence, theNational Socialist German Workers' Party was dissolved and prohibited inthe whole Reich territory. Today in November, 1926, it stands again freebefore us, stronger and inwardly firmer than ever before.
All the persecutions of the movement and its individual leaders,all vilifications and slanders, were powerless to harm it. The correctnessof its ideas, the purity of its will, its supporters' spirit of self-sacrifice,have caused it to issue from all repressions stronger than ever.
If, in the world of our present parliamentary corruption, itbecomes more and more aware of the profoundest essence of its struggle,feels itself to be the purest embodiment of the value of race and personalityand conducts itself accordingly, it will with almost mathematical certaintysome day emerge victorious from its struggle. Just as Germany must inevitablywin her rightful position on this earth if she is led and organized accordingto the same principles.
A state which in this age of racial poisoning dedicates itselfto the care of its best racial elements must some day become lord of theearth.
May the adherents of our movement never forget this if everthe magnitude of the sacrifices should beguile them to an anxious comparisonwith the possible results.