Lies being taught;
Mein Kampf is unintelligible ravings of a
maniac.
Now the Truth;
CHAPTER IV Munich Views on Future of a Nation. Part B.
“but nobody thought of forming an alliance with
Russia against England, just as nobody thought of making England an ally
against Russia; for in either case the final result would inevitably
have meant war. And to avoid war was the very reason why a commercial and
industrial policy was decided upon. It was believed that the
peaceful conquest of the world by commercial means provided a method which
would permanently supplant the policy of force. Occasionally, however, there
were doubts about the efficiency of this principle, especially when some quite incomprehensible
warnings came from England now and again. That was the reason why the fleet was
built. It was not for the purpose of attacking or annihilating England but
merely to defend the concept of world-peace, mentioned above, and also to
protect the principle of conquering the world by 'peaceful' means. Therefore
this fleet was kept within modest limits, not only as regards the number and
tonnage of the vessels but also in regard to their armament, the idea being to
furnish new proofs of peaceful intentions.
The chatter about the peaceful conquest of
the world by commercial means was probably the most completely nonsensical
stuff ever raised to the dignity of a guiding principle in the policy of a
State, This nonsense became even more foolish when England was pointed out as a
typical example to prove how the thing could be put into practice. Our
doctrinal way of regarding history and our professorial ideas in that domain
have done irreparable harm and offer a striking 'proof' of how people 'learn'
history without understanding anything of it. As a matter of fact, England
ought to have been looked upon as a convincing argument against the theory of
the pacific conquest of the world by commercial means. No nation prepared the
way for its commercial conquests more brutally than England did by means of the
sword, and no other nation has defended such conquests more ruthlessly. Is it
not a characteristic quality of British statecraft that it knows how to use political
power in order to gain economic advantages and, inversely, to turn economic
conquests into political power? What an astounding error it was to believe that
England would not have the courage to give its own blood for the purposes of
its own economic expansion! The fact that England did not possess a national army
proved nothing; for it is not the actual military structure of the moment that
matters but rather the will and determination to use whatever military strength
is available. England has always had the armament which she needed. She always
fought with those weapons which were necessary for success. She sent mercenary troops,
to fight as long as mercenaries sufficed; but she never hesitated to draw
heavily and deeply from the best blood of the whole nation when victory could
be obtained only by such a sacrifice. And in every case the fighting spirit,
dogged determination, and use of brutal means in conducting military operations
have always remained the same.
But in Germany, through the medium of the
schools, the Press and the comic papers, an idea of the Englishman was
gradually formed which was bound eventually to lead to the worst kind of
self-deception. This absurdity slowly but persistently spread into every
quarter of German life. The result was an undervaluation for which we have had
to pay a heavy penalty. The delusion was so profound that the Englishman was looked
upon as a shrewd business man, but personally a coward even to an incredible
degree. Unfortunately our lofty teachers of professorial history did not bring
home to the minds of their pupils the truth that it is not possible to build up
such a mighty organization as the British Empire by mere swindle and fraud. The
few who called attention to that truth were either ignored or silenced. I can
vividly recall to mind the astonished looks of my comrades when they found
themselves personally face to face for the first time with the Tommies in
Flanders. After a few days of fighting the consciousness slowly dawned on our
soldiers that those Scotsmen were not like the ones we had seen described and caricatured
in the comic papers and mentioned in the communiqués...
Now, the truth is that the State in itself
has nothing whatsoever to do with any definite economic concept or a definite
economic development. It does not arise from a compact made between contracting
parties, within a certain delimited territory, for the purpose of serving economic
ends. The State is a community of living beings who have kindred physical and
spiritual natures, organized for the purpose of assuring the conservation of
their own kind and to help towards fulfilling those ends which Providence has
assigned to that particular race or racial branch. Therein, and therein alone,
lie the purpose and meaning of a State. Economic activity is one of the many
auxiliary means which are necessary for the attainment of those aims. But
economic activity is never the origin or purpose of a State, except where a
State has been originally founded on a false and unnatural basis. And this
alone explains why a State as such does not necessarily need a certain delimited
territory as a condition of its establishment. This condition becomes a necessary re-requisite only among those people who would provide and assure subsistence
for their kinsfolk through their own industry, which means that they are ready
to carry on the struggle for existence by means of their own work.
The qualities which are employed for the
foundation and preservation of a State have accordingly little or nothing to do
with the economic situation. And this is conspicuously demonstrated by the fact
that the inner strength of a State only very rarely coincides with what is
called its economic expansion. On the contrary, there are numerous examples to
show that a period of economic prosperity indicates the approaching decline of
a State. If it were correct to attribute the foundation of human communities to
economic forces, then the power of the State as such would be at its highest
pitch during periods of economic prosperity, and not vice versa.
It is specially difficult to understand how
the belief that the State is brought into being and preserved by economic
forces could gain currency in a country which has given proof of the opposite
in every phase of its history. The history of Prussia shows in a manner
particularly clear and distinct, that it is out of the moral virtues of the
people and not from their economic circumstances that a State is formed. It is
only under the protection of those virtues that economic activities can be
developed and the latter will continue to flourish until a time comes when the
creative political capacity declines. Therewith the economic structure will
also break down, a phenomenon which is now happening in an alarming manner before
our eyes. The material interest of mankind can prosper only in the shade of the
heroic virtues. The moment they become the primary considerations of life they
wreck the basis of their own existence.
Whenever the political power of Germany was
specially strong the economic situation also improved. But whenever economic
interests alone occupied the foremost place in the life of the people, and
thrust transcendent ideals into the back.-ground, the State collapsed and economic
ruin followed readily.
If we consider the question of what those
forces actually are which are necessary to the creation and preservation of a
State, we shall find that they are: The capacity and readiness to sacrifice the
individual to the common welfare. That these qualities have nothing at all to
do with economics can be proved by referring to the simple fact that man does
not sacrifice himself for material interests. In other words, he will die for
an ideal but not for a business. The marvellous gift for public psychology
which the English have was never shown better than the way in which they
presented their case in the World War. We were fighting for our bread; but the
English declared that they were fighting for 'freedom', and not at all for
their own freedom. Oh, no, but for the freedom of the small nations. German
people laughed at that effrontery and were angered by it; but in doing so they
showed how political thought had declined among our so-called diplomats in
Germany even before the War. These diplomatists did not have the slightest
notion of what that force was which brought men to face death of their own free
will and determination.
As long as the German people, in the War of
1914, continued to believe that they were fighting for ideals they stood firm.
As soon as they were told that they were fighting only for their daily bread
they began to give up the struggle.”
Adolf Hitler
No comments:
Post a Comment