Neutrality and Germanic Effort

Source: Germanische Leithefte, volume 1, issue 3, 1941

„…and this I state clearly – I want to know and hear nothing of neutrality… if I come to a border, you must declare yourself cold or warm, for God fights against the devil here. If you want to hold to God, then come to me. But if you prefer to hold to the devil, then you must certainly fight against me. Tertium non dabitur, there is no third option, that is sure. What kind of a thing is that – neutrality? I do not understand it.“

Gustav II. Adolf. King of Sweden, to Georg Wilhelm of Brandenburg, in the year 1630

In these weeks and months Europe’s destiny for all future is being decided. Germanic volunteers with healthy instinct from the Germanic lands of our continent have decided to fight on the side of the Reich. Beyond that, entire folks have courageously assembled for the struggle for Europe, even those who are not directly related by blood to the German folk, but who are closely bound to it as neighbours or through a common history.

On the other side, there were and are states whose position was not initially clear. They called and call themselves „neutrals”.

It the course of time it became clear that even the colourless atti­tude of these others was not entirely so neutral as it at first ap­peared; for when it got serious, they decided in part for England and the Jews, hence against Europe and its New Order. The rul­ing plutocratic strata of these „neutral“ folks never thought about really remaining neutral. They had already, long before the out­break of the war, given up their national sovereignty in that they first placed their territories at the disposal of the spiritual advance of the enemies of the Reich; i.e. they surrendered their news services, press and radio, and tolerated Allied espionage organizations on their „neutral“ ground.

Honour, pride and independence – what did these things mean to them if only their full dishes were left intact! How proud, on the other hand, can those men and women be who, in defiance of all the persecutions, already back then affirmed the ideas of the new millennium in those lands!

But that which their ideological opponents there called neutral­ity, was at best self-deception. Usually, however, it was the at­tempt to cunningly deceive the Reich and their own folks. None of their wirepullers believed in a long-term success of this illu­sory policy. For long before they got up their courage for „the difficult decision“ – „for their folk’s sake“ – to leave the country, their planes stood tanked and ready. This pitiful flight was mere­ly the logical conclusion of their entire working, just like the occupation by the German military of the lands they had misled.

So their abandoned folks in their need had to take the first step to understand their situation. That means they had to recognize that, with the help of their plutocrats, they had simply been drawn into the war plans of Great Britain as pawns. They had to further recognize that England only respected their independence and left the bread in their baskets as long as they were still useful as pawns. This recognition must have been bitter. As bitter as it always is when one must admit a fundamental error on which one had sought to build his entire existence.

Wide circles in the occupied „neutral“ areas are still not in­clined to even partially comprehend the situation. Why and what for this fruitless condition of stubborn peevishness? Because our enemies were able – in one regard – to really „neutralize“ these folks. Namely, they took away their vision for their historical, Germanic origin, for their own dignity, for political reality and the genuine European relationship of power. In that they were helped in recent years by the Jewish emigrants from Germany. In union with them, they were able to achieve a complete paraly­sis of political thought in the small democracies of Germanic origin: every unprejudiced, independent development of political opinion there was extinguished down to the smallest remnants. The in itself healthy desire for possessions, the healthy instinct for acquisition and prosperity, no longer meant just for the sup­port of life, rather they were elevated to the content and purpose of life itself.

So honour and pride had to become stunted. Whoever in these lands, which prided themselves on the possession of „freedom and human rights”, took the freedom to think and act differently than the system, than „society“ or than the masses, was boycotted and economically ruined. So tire trader’s spirit arose and suffo­cated every memory of the heroic origins of the Germanic folks as well as the will for clear decision. One only lived for the day and stuck his head in the sand. Consequently, one did not even remotely believe that one day, and indeed in the near future, de­cisions would be demanded which one could not talk away or buy off with money.

That this spirit of laxity and dishonour did not completely infect the folks is proven by the brave men and women who already very early offered their possessions and their blood for the vic­tory of a National Socialism in their lands. Not least were these peasant circles, hence people who do not live like one-day in­sects, rather who are accustomed to looking across several gener­ations, be it with plants, be it with the breeding of animals, or be it with themselves from hereditary farmstead to hereditary farm­stead.

These National Socialists not only spoke out that neutrality had never really existed in these lands, and that these lands had been bound to Great Britain. No, these National Socialists went far­ther: the special ties of their lands, the deeper insight into the historical connections and the genuine European relationship of power led them to the following recognition: Neutrality is in that moment morally impossible when a blood-related folk fights for the life of itself and of its brother-folks. According to this recog­nition thousands of volunteers from these Germanic lands neighbouring the Reich then streamed to the front. Their blood, which flows for the common struggle, will one day indissolubly bind the Germanic states together again.

We, Germans and „neutrals“, must however reflect and try to image the following: How would it stand with the honour and the esteem of these „neutral“ folks if these volunteers had not come from their ranks?! These volunteers have through their efforts and as the first opened the gates of their lands to allow entrance of a new, great destiny. Through their dear stand for the Reich as the life-giving centre of the continent, they have freed their folks from a centuries-long condition of isolation and feminization. These volunteers have taken care that the history of their lands will in the future be more than a history of the material enjoy­ment of life. The entirety of the „neutral“ folks will one day – if they recognize this war as the decisive turning point in their life history, too – frankly admit that the heroism and the sense of sacrifice of their young sons was the greatest deed in their his­tory since centuries.

The Führer’s Proclamation to the German People and the Note of the German Foreign Office to the Soviet Government, together with appendices



The following 88-page booklet published by the government of the Third Reich contains Adolf Hitler’s speech to the German people concerning his decision to declare war against the Soviet Union, and the official diplomatic message sent to the Soviets, outlining in great detail their crimes and plots against Germany, which violated the terms of the mutual Non-Aggression Pact. These violations are documented and a number of secret intelligence reports provided to Hitler which formed the basis of his decision to declare war on Stalin are also included in this must-read booklet.

This document shows clearly the true, legal basis concerning the war against the USSR in 1941, which support and justify the actions of Adolf Hitler, who had obviously been deceived and betrayed by the treacherous, double-dealing war monger Stalin. Hitler adopted the only attitude and course of action which a responsible German leader and representative of European culture and civilization could take.

Hitler’s intentions, from the time he first came to power in 1933 had always been peaceful and his actions honorable. He had always worked towards these objectives in good faith and with great patience. It was the WWI western allies and their international financial masters who wanted war all along and who would settle for nothing less, and who preferred to back a well-known murderous beast, namely Joseph Stalin, and to have the bloody horrors of Bolshevism be poured out upon European soil, than to have peaceful coexistence with a strong, free, independent and prosperous Germany.

Hitler and his Axis nation partners realized in 1941 that they had to now face this very real threat to Western Europe head on, as Stalin had been planning to attack all along, when Germany had her hands full on the western front. Hitler’s declaration of war was legally and morally justified by any reasonable standard of international warfare and justice, and only a multi-national effort could hope to prevent the Bolshevik takeover of all of Europe.

European Front

Source: SS Leitheft, February 1944

The harder this war affects the European folks, the greater the energies which it awakens in these folks and sets into motion. Outmoded government ideas disappear under the impact of this war as if they never existed. The artificial assortment of states of the Versailles Treaty is crushed, and under suffering and tears a new era is born. We ourselves are only a wave in the flood which is setting the folks of Europe in motion. The ideas of race and socialism are shaking the folks of Europe and pushing them to new forms of state life. Under the impact of the Bolshevik drive of expansion and the meanness of the enemy’s bombing attacks the folks of Europe are being irresistibly drawn closer together, and a feeling of community is emerging which never existed before in the past times of the only apparent prosperity in Europe. It would be wrong to compare the condition of Europe with the one it found itself in when the French Revolution and Napoleon shook the states and folks. Back then the waves of a revolutionary flood struck an outdated Europe lacking an idea under the leadership of the reactionary Chancellor Metternich and destroyed the untenable and hollow system of a European state jumble under Austrian leadership. Today’s Europe does not find itself in a condition of the mere preservation and defence of the past. In that it has become conscious of its Germanic tradition, it breaks outmoded state borders and brings folks together. The old world is represented by the enemy in the west and in the east. Capitalism and Marxism are only the sick tips of the outmoded conception of the purpose of life and of the value of man. The New Europe is carried by the energy of the revolutionary idea of socialism and race. It thus finds itself simultaneously in a condition of defence and attack: attack, because it opposes a sick and outdated world with a better one. The socialism is not only a domestic program of the Reich, which strives for a human order on the basis of accomplishment, but also contains – viewed beyond the state – the program of a New Order of the European folks on the basis of the free development of their folkish values and on the basis of their historical accomplishment.

The Power of the Reich Idea

In the ranks of the Waffen-SS today fight Dutchmen, Flemings, Walloons, Scandinavians, Estonians and Latvians, and soon other folks will dress their awakened youth in the same uniform and thus form the European Front under the SS symbol, which has been born from the need of this hour and forms the foundation of a coming order in Europe. Whoever may have had doubts about the strength of the idea is corrected when he today meets Dutchmen or Estonians in the Waffen-SS, who are more fanatical and determined champions of the Reich idea than many Germans inside the Reich. Thereby we meet the recognition that the service of these men in the east is the steel bath of the Reich idea. The men who have fought over there with the Reich German SS against the Bolsheviks have cast everything behind, all the prejudices that still hamper their contemporaries who have not shared the unique, difficult front experience. In the struggle against our most difficult opponent, the Reich idea in all its radiant beauty is reborn. A European feeling of community is emerging which no longer knows the hesitations of the politicians stuck in the old state theories. These European volunteer SS leaders and SS men are the vanguard of the European front. They love their homeland, and because they love this homeland and are loyal to it deep down, they want as a prize of war a new world, organized by a strong Reich which alone is able to save their homeland and protect the living body of their folk. Certainly, these men are minorities in their folks. World history, however, is always made by the few men who have the courage to dare the new. The hesitations follow only later. One must page through the family history of one such volunteer in order to feel how powerful the idea of the Reich affects this youth. There is, for example, a Fleming. He fights in the ranks of the Waffen-SS. His father is a high-ranking Belgian colonial administrator and now stands in English service; his grandfather was a member of the Belgian parliament, a fanatical representative of French culture against the Flemish opposition of his own homeland. The grandson embraces the Reich and Adolf Hitler. What a break in eras declares itself! What a strong attraction is possessed by the personality of the Führer! How powerful do the blood and the Reich idea speak, that the young men of these folks declare themselves ready to die for this Reich, from which their ancestors have lived apart for decades, yes for centuries!

The European Task of the SS

The SS is hence growing more and more into its European task: It gathers the awakened European youth in the struggle against Bolshevism and the Jewish plutocracies. Whoever may think that the SS hence forfeits its original character or deviates from the strict principles of the Reich has no understanding of the revolutionary idea of National Socialism, which sweeps across the borders of nation states. No one in Europe today believes, regardless of how the war may end, in the return of the artificial state system of Versailles, which owes its existence solely to the English interference in European affairs. It is understandable that through the impact of this war the veneer of a historical development, which often has only lasted a few decades, is wiped away and now the common roots of the European family of folks again comes to light. The fact of the Germanic wandering and the former Germanic settlement between the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea to the Atlantic Ocean and North Africa has formed the blood unity of Europe and created that which we call European culture. The New Order of these folks arises on this same foundation. America and England have no genuine program for a political New Order of the European continent. They view Europe already today only as a colony, which they intend to economically exploit. Bolshevism has just as little to offer Europe in ideas. Marxism recognizes no real folk, just as little as it can accept the concept of blood into its dictionary. National Socialism alone affirms the roots of each genuine folk. It knows that only he who is loyal to his homeland can be loyal to the Reich. The revolutionary socialism of Adolf Hitler means for Europe not only a regulation of the relations of the European folk to each other on the basis of their historical accomplishment and their participation in the present struggle. From the world view of this movement alone emerges the creative strength and the rich fullness of possible bonds of the folks and nations of Europe to the leadership of a strong Reich. One must clearly see that an inner and outer order of Europe can only stem from the depth of the National Socialist view of history. The SS already today forms the iron ring of those men who yearn with passionate hearts for the New Order of Europe under the leadership of a strong Germanic middle. Without the participation of these men the new cannot emerge. It is as if our continent is shaken by a high fever; it is the birth pain of a new era, which wants to arise from the foundation of the blood community of the European family of folks and of a socialist order of their life together.

Whatever path fate may lead us down toward this goal and whatever setbacks may still be in store for us, the goal itself remains fixed. It is the only goal for which it is at all worth living and fighting for. The SS knows that everything must be employed so that the comrades from the European East grow together with it into a community of struggle just like those from the west. Intelligent treatment, a great measure of ability must be used to achieve this goal. The SS remains uncompromising in its principles, in the accomplishment of its practical tasks creative and generous. It must be flexible enough to treat each folk according to its nature and history. It must be our task to form the European youth together into a hard and determined front. The western enemy is not ready to die for a higher world, because he does not recognize it. The enemy in the east has only brought the folks suppression and degradation. If there are inalienable human values, then they are defended by the front of the German army. On our side stands a new idea. To our side must eventually tip the scale of fate, if we remain hard and conscious of the entire historical responsibility of this struggle.

Europe will again become Healthy

Source: Germanische Leithefte, volume 1, issue 1, 1941

We humans live in a world in which all becoming, living, maturing and passing proceeds according to unbending, godly laws of nature. Subservient to them are the stars, heavens and earth, sea and stones, as well as the life of plants and animals.

Nobody in possession of his five faculties doubts that human life also runs according to the same laws. So, too, are the differences between humans determined by the laws of heredity.

In a healthy, naturally-feeling community, for example in peasant life, the sickly is prevented from procreating, and the healthy bonds itself again with the healthy. Only the big city life, estranged from nature, or economic considerations, unfortunately cause many a healthy person to enter marriage with a sickly one.

Then, however, nature avenges itself for the non-observance of its laws: the offspring can become sickly or carry within themselves a tendency toward sickness.

The peasant who still lives bound to nature has always known that, in every species of animal and plant, lines and races must be distinguished, which can not be indiscriminately interbreed. That would destroy the breed. Among humans there are likewise various races. Originally our ancestors respected these barriers, created by the creator. Later certain spiritual and political tendencies gradually suppressed the feeling for natural differences among humans. „Everything is the same which has a human face“, that is what they said at the time of the French Revolution. Liberalism, Marxist-Socialism and Communism – those are the milestones in the decay of a Europe misled by Jewry. For the Bolshevist, racial differences are just prejudices which must be overcome. All of that, however, is a human deviation from the godly laws of nature; a disloyalty toward one’s own blood, which must have the most serious consequences for folk, health and culture. Physical damage, psychological disorder and character inferiority are often the scientifically proven consequences of undesirable race-mixing.

These spiritual, or better said anti-spiritual, tendencies come from racially alien and perverted minds. These teachings do not proceed from the laws of nature at all. In opposition to them. National-Socialism does not seek to construct another humanistic creed, rather it seeks to first of all clearly recognize the natural order created by god. Only this knowledge makes it possible to again lead the misled human back to the natural and hence healthy way of life. Therefore National-Socialism respects the nature-given difference between races. And it recognizes natural barriers.

When I today travel through Germany and everywhere see the children, our little blond youth, I then recognize the purpose of our movement: reaching from the present forward into the German future. – Adolf Hitler

So a National-Socialist also views a future Europe completely differently than a liberal would. Every National-Socialist would instinctively reject a pan-Europe of the American kind. The USA is a mishmash of folks and races. In Europe the various folks have in the course of their development taken on diverse folk characters, because other European races have also blended together – in diverse proportions in the various parts of Germany and its neighbours. All of them have in common, however, a more or less large portion of Nordic blood.

This Nordic blood component is thus that which binds the European folks. A closer union of the Germanic folks is hence not only possible, but also nature-given. The more or less Nordic blood present in the other European folks is primarily of Germanic origin.

If Europe thus does not want to lose its uniqueness, then, above all, the domination of the Nordic race must be secured. The Nordic race, however, has suffered the most by the development of civilization in the last centuries. So has the Nordic race in part nearly ceased to perpetuate itself in the large cities. This valuable race represented and represents not only in the German, but also in all other European folks, the leading segment. This fact is especially significant, because the portion of its blood finds itself in steady decline.

The former, so-called European civilization has likewise had a harmful effect on the health of the folks. The sickly, weak and untalented are promoted with every resource, while the healthy has therefore often had to suffer under the worst social injustice. In nature the sickly and weak are automatically purged and only the strong and healthy come to procreate. Among so-called cultured people, who have created an unnatural environment in their civilization, this „natural selection“ is missing.

This is where the measures of National-Socialism come into play. In the final hour they prevent that the white race perishes in the foreseeable future. Let us designate the racially good and physically and spiritually healthy portion of a folk with the comprehensive concept “healthy Germanic blood“; so all measures of National-Socialism which promote this portion are called „measures for the promotion of healthy Germanic blood’. These measures in National-Socialist Germany take two directions: first they prevent the harmful, and second they promote the beneficial.

The National-Socialist marriage law provides for the presentation of marriage documents before marriage. In this manner can, for the best of the folks, the marriage of the healthy with the congenitally ill or the healthy with people with contagious diseases be prevented. The offering of very favourable, interest-free marriage loans, on the other hand, eases the marriage of the healthy.

These just mentioned measures of the National-Socialist state, however, were always proceeded, often by many years, by similar measures of die SS.

The SS man is selected and educated in such a way that he will not mix with racially alien or congenitally ill blood even without these laws.

But in other areas, too, does the SS set a good example by going along new paths in advance. The SS promotes the return of man to natural living conditions through countless minor measures, for example: promotion of building of one-family homes, physical education and exercise, return of valuable families to the land by promoting new peasantry etc. The SS shows, through the laws of its order and its example, the path along which a strengthening of the Nordic blood portion can be achieved. Similar orders have already existed, scattered throughout history, for example the Toms Wikings of the Baltic Sea, the German Teutonic Knights in Eastern and Western Prussia etc. These orders, too, only accepted valuable, fighting men, and their accomplishments were correspondingly spectacular. But they had one lacking: they limited their laws to males. So their valuable blood was not consciously cared for. But that is what it comes down to in the final analysis, namely that a folk, for the sake of its future, not only preserves its supply of valuable blood, but also increases it.

The Reichsführer SS, therefore, already during die difficult period of struggle in 1931, gave to the SS its memorial „Engagement and Marriage Order“. In it the SS man is given the duty to select his wife according to the same guidelines with which he was accepted into the SS. The wife is then taken into the SS clan. There she is obligated to the same principles as her husband himself. She hence enjoys the same honour and the same high esteem.

Hence the SS stands at the forefront in the struggle for the preservation and strengthening of Germanic blood and shows the path into a future of healthy folk strength and cultural blossoming. The former, creative working of the SS for these ideas of blood has been recognized by the Führer in that he has entrusted to the Reichsführer SS the solidification of the German folk.

From this observance of the National-Socialist laws of blood and race grows an order which for all time will secure not only the protection of the Reich, but will also pave the way ahead in all important questions of human life. It becomes the guardian of the European community of fate. But especially the Germanic folks are bound by this SS order through their common blood. With pride should our children’s children one day say of us:

„You have laid the foundation for the Reich of our race!“

The National-Socialist Critique of Democracy


Democracy or Leadership

Translated by Hadding Scott from the 16th (1940) edition of Hansjoerg Maennel’s Politische Fibel.

Democracy is the doctrine of the equality of all human beings and of the ability of all human beings to govern themselves. (Democracy, Greek = rule by the folk, rule by the masses.)

The starting point of the democratic conception is: “All men are equal.” “Everything that bears a human countenance is equal.” Not only are the peoples equal to each other (this view leads to Internationalism), but even the human beings within a folk are equal. Consequently all have equal rights, even an equal right to participate in the state. “The authority of the state comes from the people.” (Weimar Constitution, Article 1.) – Since direct rule by the people is unworkable, one chooses representative democracy or parliamentary government.

Parliamentarism is the principle of vote by representatives, who make decisions through majority rule. (Parliamentarism, from Lat. parlare = to speak.)

Critique of parliamentary democracy:

  1. It is not true that all men are equal. Human beings are different. The democratic principle, “to each the same,” leads directly to Communism, to the dispossession of the gifted, industrious, and thrifty (precedent: Russia). – Democracy in the modern age started with the French Revolution (1789). “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” (“Gleichheit, Freiheit, Brüderlichkeit”) were the catchwords that ruled the entire 19th Century. The democratic principle of equality is always an instrument of the Jew for the elimination of the best racial forces. When all have equal rights (das gleiche Recht), the capable and intelligent are thereby forced onto the same level as the corrupt and stupid.
  2. It is not true that the best and most capable emerge from a vote. Usually the greatest shouters, the most irresponsible, are chosen. Whoever promises the most has the greatest prospect of going to parliament. The MPs of the democratic system were in no way the elite of the nation. The principle of vote by popular representatives leads inevitably to the creation of economic or religious special-interest parties. The MPs did not represent the folk community, but mostly a specific class or group. Thereby unitary, goal-conscious state-leadership was made impossible. The bourgeois parties and the Marxist parties on the other side cancelled each other out. The power of the nation was likewise nil and could not be effectively and coherently (geschlossen) utilized abroad. International Jewry, however, tipped the balance on the scale of the parliament. – Democracy is always the reign of the Jewish money-bag; it leads to the most evil corruption.
  3. It is not true that the decisions of a majority are always right and beneficial to the people. On the contrary: by no means are 51 voices against 49 voices necessarily correct. “What is the majority? Majority is nonsense. Understanding has always only been among few. One ought to weigh voices, not count them.” (Schiller, Demetrius.) The individual MP conceals himself behind an anonymous majority. He has “obeyed only his conscience.” Mostly however the “representatives of the people” had no conscience. Parliamentary democracy is irresponsibility elevated to a principle of government. It leads to the elimination of all authority, thus ultimately to the complete ruin of folk and state.

Adolf Hitler: “The Jewish democracy of majority rule was always merely a means to the destruction of the existing Aryan leader-class.”

National-Socialism is the fiercest enemy of parliamentary democracy. In opposition to that, it stands for the principle of Fuehrertum. Fuehrertum is the direction of an organization by one over-towering man. The fuehrer-principle is based on the conception of human inequality. There are the intelligent and the stupid, the industrious and the lazy, the good and the bad. The particular peoples and races are different, and so are the individual human beings within a people. – Every folk comrade is appraised according to his performance for the folk. Valuation according to performance. – The standard of valuation must be the same for every folk comrade. We National-Socialists reject preferential treatment for one class. (Examples: absolutism of the 18th Century; the Weimar System, in which the National-Socialist was a second-class person, while lower humanity could run wild with impunity; English plutocracy).

There is no privilege for any special class; all folk comrades are evaluated equally (Program, Point 9). The result of an equal evaluation of the individual person is however not the same, but different. Here this principle applies: “To each what is appropriate,”* not “To each the same,” as in democracy. He who sacrifices and achieves much ought to stand higher than he who achieves little and sacrifices nothing. The National-Socialist idea of leadership (Fuehrergedanke) is founded upon a deliberate selection according to race (genetic value), character, and ability. Thus a rank-order develops. The entire folk organically arrays itself as a pyramid. The most capable and gifted member of the folk, who has prevailed through his over-towering achievements, stands at the head of the folk: he is the Leader.

(Draw this on the blackboard.)

In democracy the “power of the state” comes from the people. It consists in the rule of the mass. Authority (power to give orders) goes from below to above, while on the other hand, responsibility goes from above to below. Both are, however, unworkable in practice. One cannot command upward and assign accountability downward. (Examples.) Democracy thus leads directly to leaderlessness and irresponsibility. – In Fuehrertum by contrast these principles apply: authority from above to below, responsibility from below to above. The Leader appoints his lieutenants (Unterfuehrer), he gives them their orders and guidelines, and for the execution and success of these they are responsible to the Leader.

The National-Socialist movement is an example of true Fuehrertum. If a political leader or an SA-fuehrer gives an order, this must be carried out. Every follower (Gefolgsmann) can be called to account by his leaders. Because Adolf Hitler built up the NSDAP rigorously according to the fuehrer-principle, the movement inevitably prevailed against the Marxist and bourgeois mobs. – Likewise the German state, which is led by means of strict Fuehrertum, prevails against the neighboring democratic states. Against the democratic idea of the mass we National-Socialists set the idea of personality. Everything great in this world, all inventions and all cultural achievements are created by personalities. (Examples.) – Our Leader has formed a German folk out of disintegrating mass. Democracy is a symptom of decline in dying peoples (e.g. Greece, Rome, etc.) All ascending peoples are, by contrast, always led by significant personalities. – Democratic propaganda flatters the mass. Everyone would rather command than obey. Consequently democracy was beloved and the idea of leadership was often unpopular.

It is a mistake to believe that under the “people’s government” it goes well for the people. On the contrary! Experience has shown that parliamentary democracy leads to the ruin of the people. A people can only experience progress (Aufstieg) when a leader (Fuehrer) stands at its head. Heroes make history!

A true leader feels that he is responsible to his people. Here Adolf Hitler is a shining example. This principle of the responsibility of the Leader to the Nation is designated “Germanic democracy.” With Western parliamentary democracy, which we reject, Germanic democracy has nothing in common.

The fuehrer-principle has meaning only in service to the entire nation. To be leader carries obligations The leader is the leader not because he bears special distinctions but because he bears greater responsibility. Leadership is not a privilege but an exalted duty. To be leader is to be an example!

Adolf Hitler is the ideal leader: purposeful and inexorable, but at the same time tactically astute; industrious, never resting, moreover prudent and far-sighted; proud and righteous, but also modest and unpretentious; energetic and austere, but full of warm love for his people. From the simplest origins our Leader has worked his way up against the most difficult obstacles to become the greatest statesman in German history. We National-Socialists are proud that we are privileged to follow a man such as our Leader. He is a lofty example for us. We emulate him with all our powers.

* Jedem das Seine is still the motto of the German military police.

The Colonial Problem

franz-xaver-ritter-von-eppGENERAL RITTER VON EPP
Reich Governor in Bavaria, Reich Leader of the Colonial League and the Colonial Board of the National Socialist Party

Germany’s demand for the return of her Colonial possessions has given rise to an animated world-wide discussion that still continues, thus showing that the Colonial problem is one of those most urgently in need of a satisfactory solution. It will be observed, however, that the most essential aspect of the problem -i.e., Germany’s claim that she has a right to demand the return of her former Colonies – is frequently ignored in the discussions. This circumstance suggests the probability that some writers on the subject lack a clear perception of the arguments by which Germany supports her claim, and that they are not familiar with her Colonial necessities as such. The following account of Germany’s standpoint may therefore be found of some use, as it is doubtful whether a successful outcome of the discussion can be hoped for if it is not based on a sound knowledge of the facts.

Germany was a late-comer in the Colonial sphere.  She only entered it in the last quarter of the past century, when it became apparent that the unclaimed regions of the world were about to be finally distributed among the Powers. She then acquired certain territories in Africa and in the Southern Pacific of which it could be expected that their possession would satisfy at least some of her economic necessities. Her action was in no way prompted by Imperialist motives, but was the direct outcome of a development that had converted her from an agricultural into a highly-industrialised country within a few decades. The more she became industrialised, the greater became her need of imports from abroad, as her own resources of raw materials have always been insufficient. Two reasons combined to bring about her industrialisation: first, the large increase in her population, and second, the unique technical progress achieved ever since. In 1800, her population amounted to about 20,000,000; a century later it had risen to 56,000,000, and in 1914 it had reached a total of 67,800,000. It had thus more than trebled; but as the size of the country had remained almost unchanged, it follows that the “space forces” had decreased by two-thirds.

Additional industries were constantly growing up. A large part of their output was exported, whilst those raw materials and foodstuffs which could not be produced at home were imported. Without such an interchange of commodities, it would have been impossible to provide enough food and work for the steadily growing population. All this development, however, was based on the then existing system of universal free trade. It was taken for granted that peace would continue indefinitely, and that the sanctity of private property and the business man’s initiative would continue to be respected as usual.

The acquisition of Colonial territories by Germany was intended to provide her with a reservoir of supplementary “space forces,” a matter which has at all times been considered the premier aim of all Colonising activities. How firmly this conviction was shared by all the Colonial powers may be gathered from the conclusion of the Congo Convention (1885), which was signed by Britain, Germany, France, Belgium, the United States, Italy, Portugal, and a number of other countries. Article I I of the Congo Act provided that, should any power exercising in Central Africa the rights of sovereignty or those conferred by a protectorate be involved in war, the others would endeavour to ensure that its Central African possessions should be declared neutral, and that they should be treated as though they belonged to a neutral State. The term” Central Africa,” as here used, included not only the whole of the Belgian Congo, but also the whole of German and British East Africa, about one-third of the Cameroons, Uganda, Nyassaland, a small part of Northern Rhodesia, and about one-half of French Equatorial Africa. All these wide domains were to be kept outside the range of a possible European war, and their integrity was to be respected.

Germany vigorously applied herself to the opening-up of her Colonial Empire as soon as the initial difficulties had been overcome. The task was enormous; and Germany had practically no experience as a Colonising power. Large parts of her Colonies had never been explored previous to their peaceable and lawful acquisition by Germany. The natives had to be brought in touch with the administrative system. For reasons of internal policy, the capital required for all these purposes did not flow freely into the Colonies during the first couple of decades; but their opening-up proceeded apace in spite of that drawback; roads and other means of transportation and communication were built, and economic progress was unmistakable. The value of the Colonial export trade increased from 25,000,000 Reichsmarks in 1903 to 160,000,000 Reichsmarks in 1913; and the importance of the Colonies as markets for manufactured articles was steadily growing. By 1914, after less than thirty years of opening-up work, a state of development had been attained that promised well for the future.

It is quite true that Germany’s trade with her Colonies formed a small fraction only of her total trade in those years; but this circumstance has no bearing upon the present economic situation. In the pre-War days, when Free Trade was a fact and not a mere name, and when no obstacles were placed in the way of any country’s foreign trade, Germany was not actually dependent upon the produce of her own Colonies. Besides, she was a large creditor country; she had invested huge sums in all parts of the globe, and she could buy all the necessary raw materials and foodstuffs without endangering her currency.

And then the War broke out. The solemn undertaking given by the signatories of the Congo Act was ignored by Germany’s opponents. On August 2nd, 1914, Dr. Solf, the Colonial Secretary, relying upon the provisions of the Act, advised the administrative authorities of German East Africa by telegram that the Colonies would not be involved in the impending war, and that the European settlers need not fear any complications. A few days later, Great Britain started hostilities in East Africa, and the Colonies became a theatre of war.

This obvious violation of a given undertaking was afterwards sanctioned at Versailles, although those who dispossessed Germany of her Colonies had no legal title to do so. On December 14th, 1917, President Wilson stated before Congress that the War was not to be terminated by an act of revenge, and that no nation and no people should be robbed or penalised; and on February 11th, 1918, he added, that “there shall be no annexations, no contributions, no punitive damages.” This was also implied in the fifth of the President’s Fourteen Points, which provided for “a free, open-minded and absolutely impartial adjustment of all Colonial claims.” Germany accepted the whole of the Fourteen Points by her note of October 3rd; and the Allied and Associated Powers also accepted them after the precise meaning of Point Five had been explained in the so-called Lyons wireless message of October 29th, 1918, which was a report drawn up by American delegates at the request of Colonel House, the President’s confidential adviser. As regards the “justified Colonial Claims of Germany,” it was said in the message that Germany must have access to the tropics and their raw materials, that she needed space for her excess population, and that, in conformity with the proposed terms of peace, the conquest of Colonial territories did not give her opponents a legal title to their possession. In the note of the American Secretary of State (Mr. Lansing) dated November 5th, 1918, it was stated again on behalf of the Allied and Associated Powers that President Wilson’s Fourteen Points were to be the sole basis for the contemplated peace.

In spite of these unambiguous declarations, Germany was forced to surrender her overseas possessions (Art. 119 of the Versailles Treaty), although the unwisdom of making her do so was pointed out in many quarters. According to the secret minutes of the Council of Ten (January 24th, 1919), the Allied and Associated Powers were very far from viewing the whole question with unanimity. President Wilson expressed himself as follows:

The world will say that the Powers first of all divided among themselves the defenceless parts of the globe and then proceeded to create a League of Nations. The naked truth is that every one of these parts has been allotted to a big Power. I wish to say quite openly that the world will never tolerate such a proceeding, which will make the League of Nations impossible, and we shall have to revert to the system of competitive armaments, huge accumulations of debt, and the heavy burden of large armies.

To-day it is only too evident that the President’s forecast has come true. As the Powers did not want to lose their hold on the German Colonies, the mandatory system as set forth in Article 22 of the League Covenant was invented. It is interesting to recall the following remarks made by Mr. Lansing in 1921:

It may appear surprising that the big Powers lent their support so readily to the new method of gaining an apparently limited control of the conquered territories, and that they did not try to acquire full sovereign rights over them. There is no need to look far for an adequate and very practical reason. If Germany’s Colonial possessions had been divided among the victors in accordance with the usual method, and if they had been transferred to them with all the rights of sovereignty, Germany would have been entitled to demand that the value of such ceded territories should be credited to her reparations account. The League, however, was supposed to distribute the mandates in the interests of the inhabitants; and the mandates were to be regarded as obligations, but not as a means for the acquisition of additional territory. In this way, the mandatory system deprived Germany of her Colonies, the value of which would have considerably reduced her indebtedness towards the Allies, whilst the latter acquired the Colonies without losing any claim to compensation. Actually, therefore, the apparent altruism of the mandatory system favoured the selfish and material interests of the Powers by whom the mandates were taken over.

In order to justify the seizure of the Colonies and their transfer, under mandates, to the supreme control of the League, it was asserted that Germany was incapable of administering Colonial populations. In the notes dated July 16th, 19 I 9, it is stated among others that

The Allied and Associated Powers are satisfied that the native inhabitants of the German Colonies are strongly opposed to being again brought under Germany’s sway, and the record of German rule, the traditions of the German Government, and the use to which these Colonies were put as bases from which to prey upon the commerce of the world, make it impossible for the Allied and Associated Powers to return them to Germany, or to entrust to her the responsibility for the training and education of their inhabitants.

These charges were based on the” Report on the Natives of South-West Africa and their Treatment by Germany,” issued by the Administrator’s Office, Windhoek, South-West Africa, concerning which the District Council for South-West Africa unanimously resolved on July 29th, 1926, that it was an instrument of war, and that the time had come for discontinuing its use. General Hertzog, the South African Prime Minister, stated on January 28th, 1927: “The unreliability and worthlessness of the document in question were sufficient to condemn it to the same disgraceful oblivion as all similar documents dating from the time of the war.” And it is interesting to note in this connection that Mr. Amery, the former Secretary for the Colonies, expressed himself in a similar manner in January 1937, by way of replying to my explanation of the German view on the Colonial problem, when he said: “As regards Germany’s inability to rule native populations, that is an assertion like many others made in the speeches and even in the official documents originating in the unhealthy atmosphere of those days.” This latter statement should be read in conjunction with a remark on President Wilson and the mandatory system made by Mr. Lansing: “His noble mind and his lofty views made him blind to the base motives which seem to have been at the root of the general consent given to his beloved mandatory system.”

It follows from the foregoing explanations that the alleged reasons for placing the German Colonies under mandates, and therefore those for the continuance of the mandatory system itself, are untenable. Contrary to a belief prevalent in some quarters, there has never been any actual annexation of the Colonies by the mandatory Powers. If it were otherwise, the question might well be asked: Why should there be any mandatory system at all? And what is the use of Article 22 of the League Covenant, which was intended to form an integral whole together with Article 119 of the Versailles Treaty? The fact that, in accordance with the last-named articles, Germany had to surrender her Colonies to the principal Allied Powers, does not imply a transfer of her sovereignty. (Cf. the corresponding provisions respecting Memel and Danzig in Articles 99 and 100.)

Germany, therefore, has a proper legal claim to the return of her Colonies. The German people are profoundly conscious of having such a claim and regard the existing position as a serious discrimination against themselves. It is evident that the question of the Colonies is at the same time a question of equality of status.

Germany’s demand, however, is not only based on legal and moral grounds, but is supported by weighty economic reasons as well. There are many people outside Germany who do not realise the exceedingly unfavourable conditions which she has to endure in many respects. The Versailles Treaty has deeply undermined the foundations of her economic life. Apart from the loss of her Colonial empire, that treaty also forced her to surrender 13 per cent. of her territory at home, together with the valuable mineral and agricultural resources contained in those parts, as well as her entire mercantile tonnage. The confiscation of German property abroad was sanctioned by the terms of the treaty. Germany’s foreign investments, which represented a value far exceeding £ 1,000,000,000 gold, were taken away from their rightful owners by a stroke of the pen. In addition, she was asked to pay fantastic sums by way of reparation. After she had done so for a number of years, it was seen that a continuance of these payments was an absolute impossibility. In order to make the payments on reparations account, she had been compelled to contract so large a foreign debt that, after the lapse of ten years or so, her liabilities towards her creditors abroad were almost as large as the value of her pre-War foreign investments. This foreign indebtedness accounts for the gigantic losses her gold and foreign-exchange reserves have sustained since 1931.

As time advances, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the Versailles Treaty has brought about a serious disturbance in the world’s equilibrium. It has given rise to an economic development throughout the world the ultimate effect of which has been to reverse completely pre-War conditions. Before the War, the markets for raw materials were unfettered by any restrictions, and long-term commercial treaties guaranteed the freedom of international trade. The economic era, however, which dates from Versailles, is characterised by protectionist, selfish, and monopolist tendencies. Most countries, notably the United States, the United Kingdom and France, have surrounded themselves with high tariff walls, and have introduced every possible device for promoting trade within their own territories and for preventing the products of other countries from entering them.

Thus, present-day Germany finds herself confronted with the following facts: Considerable territorial losses in Europe and abroad; the complete loss of her foreign assets; a large debt resulting from her reparations payments, and the impossibility of importing sufficient quantities of those commodities vitally necessary for maintaining the standard of living of her population and for ensuring the continued existence of her national economy itself. The consequence of her declining export trade was that the foundation on which her economic system had been based for more than a century suffered a considerable contraction. Even though her Colonies may have been relatively unimportant to the balance of her foreign trade in pre-War time, present economic conditions are so different that the possession or non-possession of Colonies is a question of the very first importance.

All these circumstances have to be taken into account by those who want to understand the justice of Germany’s Colonial claims on economic grounds. The fact that governs the whole situation is this: The centre of Europe is inhabited by a nation which, despite every effort made, finds it impossible to safeguard the foundations of its existence by making use of the resources provided by its native soil.

Before the War, Germany had started to develop, on systematic lines, all those resources of the areas subject to her sovereignty which were-and which are-necessary for the maintenance of her surplus population. At Versailles, however, her Colonial empire (which, although but small, was of great importance to her) was divided among nations that were in no need of additional Colonial possessions. Besides, these nations had so many other matters to attend to that they were not in a position to engage in the work of opening-up the mandated areas. It can be shown that the development of the mandated territories – not only as regards the production of raw materials, but also in connection with many other items ¬ has received far less attention than that of countries adjacent to them where the climatic conditions are very similar. It is very instructive to compare, for example, the export totals of oleaginous seeds and fruits from Togoland and the Cameroons with those from the Belgian Congo and Nigeria, those of timber from the Cameroons with those from French Equatorial Africa, and those of cotton from German East Africa (Tanganyika) with those from Uganda and Kenya. Comparisons such as these indicate that the Colonial possessions of the European countries concerned are developed far more systematically than the territories under mandate. The development of the transportation system in the latter has almost come to a standstill since the advent of the mandatory administrations, as may be seen from the following figures:

Railways open to traffic
or in course of construction.
1914. 1934.
East Africa……… 2,171 km. 2,215 km. 44 km.
South-West Africa……………… 2,178 2,357 179
Cameroons……… 443 504 61
Togoland………… 327 442 115


Thus, almost the whole railway system of the mandated territories dates back to the twenty odd years of German rule, whilst the mandatory Powers have hardly done anything since to extend it. Equally slight has been the increase in the export trade of the Colonies since their taking-over by the mandatory Powers. During the period from 1908- 13, i.e., within five years, the total value of their exports went up from £1,400,000 to £8,000,000, which is undoubtedly a clear proof of Germany’s successful Colonial work in Africa and in the Southern Pacific. By 1936, after seventeen years of mandatory rule, that figure had only risen to £10,000,000 gold. The increase, therefore, has been remarkably slight.

Even in their present state of development, the Colonies could do much to ease Germany’s economic difficulties. They could supply considerable percentages of the raw materials she requires. Based on the export statistics for 1936, these percentages work out as follows: Oleaginous seeds and fruits, 14 per cent.; flax, hemp, etc., 43 per cent. (for sisal alone, 261 per cent.); cocoa, 61 per cent.; coffee, 13 per cent.; bananas, 61 per cent.; mineral phosphates, 49 per cent. Other important raw materials that could be imported from the Colonies are hides and skins, cotton, timber, wool, rubber, and various cereals.

No attention has been paid so far to the considerable possibilities of future development. In view of the relative neglect of the mandated territories by their present rulers, we are justified in assuming that their production totals can be greatly augmented within a short period of time. Experts with a good knowledge of all the facts have ascertained that, on a conservative estimate, the value of the exports can be raised to £30,000,000 gold within eight or ten years, provided that intensive methods of cultivation are employed. This means that the mandated territories could supply Germany with 12 or 15 per cent. of her import requirements. It is obvious that this would materially ease Germany’s foreign-exchange position and her international trade relations and would, above all, give her a feeling of economic security.

To make such an increase possible, it would be necessary, of course, to accelerate very considerably the pace at which the opening-up of the Colonies takes place, both through private initiative and by means of Government assistance. A typical example of the great success that can be achieved by systematic work in the right direction is afforded by the Gold Coast Colony, where the cultivation of cocoa was introduced about the turn of the century. In 1906, about 8,000 tons of it could be exported; and by 1936 that figure had risen to as much as 306,000 tons, so that the Gold Coast is now the principal producer of cocoa. As the climatic and geographical conditions of the Cameroons are very similar to those of the Gold Coast, it would seem quite possible to increase the cocoa production of that country very greatly within a short time. The same possibility presents itself for a number of other products that are of value to Germany as foodstuffs or as industrial raw materials, e.g. timber, oleaginous fruits, sisal, and rubber.

Before the War, there was no need for Germany to adjust her foreign trade with an eye to her Colonies. Today, however, large quantities of Colonial produce could be used to cover the needs of the mother country; and the part not thus used could be sold in other markets. In this way, foreign exchange would become available for purchases in other countries.

All the suggestions put forward with a view to making Germany renounce her Colonial claim fail to do justice to the requirements of the country’s body economic. It has been said that Germany ought to make use of the numerous facilities afforded by “the open door.” But if we look at that “open door,” we find that it is very carefully locked indeed. It has already been emphasised that the principal countries of the world have adopted undiluted protectionism since 1924. Great Britain, more especially, has secured for herself a very favourable position in the great raw material markets by the Ottawa agreements. She, therefore, can hardly claim the right to speak of other countries’ freedom of access to raw materials. A glance at the customs lists and import regulations of practically all parts of the British Empire, Dominions as well as Crown Colonies, shows that the products of non-British countries (more particularly finished articles, in the export of which Germany specialises) are treated far less favourably than those originating within the British Empire. Another example of the tendency on the part of the large Colonial Powers to establish a privileged position for their own products is Britain’s policy in Nigeria and the Gold Coast Colony where a quota system for textiles based on the import figures for 1935 has just been introduced. This step is a serious handicap to the trade of the non-British countries, as 1935 was in many respects a year of bad trade. Since then the purchasing capacity of the inhabitants has considerably improved, so that Great Britain alone will reap the resulting advantage. Besides, nearly all the Colonial territories have established a system of discriminating export duties that make it difficult for Germany to obtain a sufficiency of Colonial produce. All this shows how threadbare is the assertion sometimes heard that the have-nots need only set aside an adequate amount of foreign exchange if they want to share in the Colonial wealth. The very fact that payment must be made in foreign exchange puts us at a disadvantage. Besides, nations deprived of their investments abroad can only obtain foreign exchange by selling their goods.

Experience has shown that Germany is not in a position to sell large quantities of her manufactured products in the mandated territories. This applies still more to the actual Colonies of the European Powers, in whose trade the latter-as a rule-have the lion’s share. France’s share in the import trade of Morocco is 43.7 per cent., Great Britain’s share in that of Nigeria is 55.2 per cent., and Belgium’s share in that of the Congo is 43.4 per cent., whilst Germany’s share in the trade of these and numerous other African territories is very slight. Her trade with them is for the most part passive, because even now imports from them considerably exceed her exports to them. The mandated territories are no exception to this rule, notwithstanding the status of economic equality supposed to exist there. The following figures indicate the losses Germany has incurred in her trade with some of her former Colonies since they have ceased to be administered by her.


South West Africa. German East Africa.
1912. 1933. 1912. 1933.
Percentage of Total Imports
Imports from Germany…………………. 81.4 11.1 51.3 10.2
Imports from British Empire……………………. 13.2 77.7 22.5 46.1
Percentage of Total Exports
Exports to Germany… 83.1 18.5 56.7 11.8
Exports to British Empire……………………. 1.1 64.1 10.8 53.9


These figures show how greatly the share of the British Empire in the trade with these two mandated territories has increased at the expense of Germany. Everywhere the Colonial Powers predominate in the import trade of their Colonies and in that of the mandated territories administered by them. Their nationals are sure to get all the orders from public authorities and also those of any importance from most private firms.

Since all the big Colonial Powers have taken successful steps in recent years to cover an increasing part of their import requirements within the areas subject to their political influence, it is difficult to understand why Colonial possessions should be a burden to the countries that own them – an assertion sometimes made to refute Germany’s Colonial claim. The share of the United Kingdom in the import trade of the British Empire went up from 31 per cent. to 42 per cent. within twelve years, and that in the export trade from 41 per cent. to 49 per cent. The same tendency may be observed in regard to France, where the share of the Colonies in the import trade of the mother country increased from 10 per cent. to 26 per cent. in ten years and that in the export trade from 14 per cent. to 32 per cent. Such developments could only take place at the expense of other countries, largely at that of Germany. But even apart from these facts, it is strange to hear it sometimes said that Colonies are of no value. If that were true, the return of the German Colonies would be felt by the mandatory Powers as a relief, and not as a sacrifice. In Germany it has been noticed with interest that such a view of the Colonial problem has frequently been advanced by British writers on the subject.

From all that has been said it may be inferred that the Colonial question is not simply a “raw-material question.” There is no chance of Germany ever being able to extend her trade unless she is reinstated in the possession of her Colonies. The point of cardinal importance, in view of her foreign-exchange position, is that she must be enabled to obtain from territories subject to her own sovereignty, where her own currency circulates, a considerable part of those raw materials and foodstuffs that have now to be paid for in foreign exchange. In this way alone will it be possible for her trade to gain that measure of security and stability which she so urgently needs in the economic domain. Customs facilities and the removal of trade restrictions are insufficient to do justice to her requirements, however desirable they are in other respects.

Germany asks only for the return of territories that were her own property before she had to relinquish possession of them. She demands nothing unfair, and has no design upon the Colonial possessions of other countries. She only desires to recover those overseas territories to which she has a legal title. It is evident that her claim is directed in the first instance against Great Britain, whose Government was chiefly instrumental in depriving her of their possession. In addition, most of the Colonies are now administered by countries that are constituent parts of the British Empire.

It has been shown that Germany has an unchallengeable claim to the return of the Colonies, based on legal and moral grounds, and on the right of every nation to safeguard the interests vital to its existence. This latter necessity is especially urgent in Germany’s case because of the many restrictions to which her commerce is subject. Her demand is not prompted by a desire to stop up any temporary gaps in the system of her supplies, but rather by a determination to pursue a Colonial policy intended to bring about the economic assimilation of the mother country and the Colonies. Her sole aim is of an economic kind; and all allegations to the effect that she wants to turn her Colonies into military bases are groundless. The Anglo-German naval pact ought to be sufficient proof of the futility of such allegations.

The great task with which the statesmen of the present generation are faced is to establish a lasting peace among the nations. No Government anxious to collaborate in it can want to maintain indefinitely a policy by which a nation of 68,000,000 people is to be deprived of its vital rights. The Versailles doctrine of the advantages to be derived from a system of arbitrary restrictions must be abandoned, more particularly in so far as it applies to restrictions that are meant to be of a punitive kind. Germany therefore expects that the Colonial clauses of the Versailles Treaty will be made the subject of a revision that does justice to her legitimate claims. The solution of the problem must be effected by the method of negotiations, because – as the Führer has said – “the Colonial problem is not a question of peace or war.” Once Germany has regained her proper share in the opening-up of overseas territories, her economic system will function normally again and – above all – a valuable contribution will have been rendered to the recovery of international trade. Such a solution will provide the basis for the peaceful co-operation of the white nations and will initiate a lasting epoch of quiet development. It is the hope of all right-minded people that common sense – so indispensable to all human progress – will prevail in the method of handling Germany’s Colonial problem.

The Spiritual Foundations of the New Europe

Otto Dietrich

Excerpt by Reich Press Chief Dr. Otto Dietrich.


The basic element in the political concept of National Socialism is that of the national state. It has no ambition to make imperial conquests, but strives after inner collectivity and national concentration. And the clear proof of this is the unprecedented organization by National Socialism of that tremendous return migration of racial Germans, the return of German blood to the Motherland.

The political conception of the national state is not directed towards a frittering away of power by outward expansion, but towards rational internal construction and the safeguarding of the national standard of existence. It has enforced the idea that relations between states can be made more permanent if the prospect of the nations is clear and determined and if leadership is responsibly and authoritatively rooted in the nation.

The organization of life in our present-day Germany reflects internal national and political determination and externally also shows definite lines of conduct. The ideas and the driving force of National Socialism are directed exclusively towards peace, as long as the indispensable bases of existence and security are guaranteed to our nation of 85 millions living within the heart of Europe. National Socialist Germany has been forced to fight, because the principles of imperialism and world domination of the Anglo-Saxons negate the simplest preliminary conditions for the development of our peace-loving nation. It was for this reason that they declared war on us. Britain is conducting a war of destructive force against constructive organization in the life of nations. The fact that National Socialist Germany has proved itself to be stronger than its aggressor in a war which has been forced upon it, is no proof of the violence of its principles, but only of the strength inherent in its ideal of order.

They say: “We are fighting for the democratic way of life. We are fighting for the liberty of living our lives as we wish.” But National Socialism has no intention of preventing them from doing so. It holds the opinion that every nation should live its own internal life in accordance with its own desires. The crimes they attribute to us are in reality committed by themselves. In no single country in the world does there exist such a great and disgusting intolerance of the mode of living of others as in the Anglo-Saxon countries. This intolerance is carried on hypocritically in the name of liberty, a liberty the real character of which I have already described.

Our adversaries maintain that this is a war of democracy against tyranny that makes it necessary either to unmask these political play-actors or else to open the eyes of their public to their true nature.

I may be allowed here to quote a neutral scholar, who a short while ago wrote an article “Hitler and the Democracies.” He asked the question why the Führer should be an opponent of the democracies, as he was one of the people himself and as president of the most democratic republic in the world was constantly in sincere and direct contact with the people. During his examination, this scholar comes to the conclusion that only the modern democracies, France, Britain and America in particular, apparently had something in common with the will of the people. In reality it was only a pretext for party interests and the compensatory business of a few political circles among the upper classes. The mistakes of liberal democracy had already been made by its founders who had introduced into it their own material and utilitarian outlook and economic individualism.All this had been shamefully decorated by the founders of liberal democracy behind a facade of idealism. They themselves had never honestly believed in the catchwords of “Liberty,” “Equality” and “Fraternity,” which they had invented. In these so-called Western democracies, power was not actually upheld by the people, but a few thousand capitalists. The functioning of democracy merely concealed the selfishness of a small minority living in ease and comfort.

These statements hit the nail on the head. One should not always only talk of democracy, but for once answer the question: “What is ‘democracy‘? What does it actually mean?”

If democracy is no more than invisible domination by a few, achieved by means of money and the fabrication of public opinion, then our opponents are right in calling themselves democracies. But if democracy really denotes government by the people, then it is not they, but we, who are the democrats. We attach no particular value to decorating ourselves with this word that has become so compromised on account of its political past. But if the plutocrats make use of it to camouflage their domination and to deceive the people, then it is necessary to make its meaning perfectly clear. Whoever studies the conception of the National Socialist state in its innermost structure and practical functioning is bound to recognize that it is the most modern government of the people in history. It demonstrates the principles of responsibility and leadership in the truly national state, in opposition to the anonymous principles of degenerate democracy. It regards the will of the people not as a dead parliamentary majority to be gained by money or financial influence, but recognizes it continually in the permanent and direct alliance with the life of the people itself. The National Socialist Party is, therefore, not a party in the parliamentary sense, but simply and positively the party of the German nation. It is the great guardian of the social conscience of the nation, it holds its hand on the pulse of the people, it feels its slightest stirrings, its anxieties and its needs, its requirements and its desires, its pleasure and its pain. It is its helper and adviser and the unceasing bearer of its suggestions to the higher authorities. It has entrusted hundreds of thousands of citizens of all professions and classes with political responsibility, thereby providing tens of thousands of politically tested Germans with the opportunity of advancement to leading positions in the Reich. It has linked the perpetual stream of youth, organically and eternally, with the life of the nation and has created a system for the selection of leaders, which compels future generations to play their uninterrupted and vital part. Tangible shape is thereby given not to the will of a questionable parliamentary majority, but to the true will of the people. By its principles of training, efficiency and selection of leaders, it has given the nation a wonderfully functional system with the rhythm of strength continually renewing itself.

Nearly 2,500 years ago, Plato wrote in his “Laws” that the most excellent constitution of a nation was that which was successful in persuading the masses to submit voluntary and in raising the most intelligent in their midst to leadership. The new principle of national and political leadership developed by the highly gifted leaders of Germany and Italy has made these sublime political concepts reality. When today the messiahs of democracy and the plutocrats talk contemptuously of “dictatorships,” their intellectual arrogance only conceals the stain of ignorance or the essence of hypocrisy which fears nothing so much as the realization of truth by the awakening of the nations.

the-spiritual-foundations-of-the-new-europePurchase for $10