Lies being taught;
Mein Kampf is unintelligible ravings of a
maniac.
Now the Truth; Read and know. Vol II Chapter VIa- THE FIRST
PERIOD OF OUR STRUGGLE:
The echoes of our first great meeting, in the
banquet hall of the Hofbräuhaus on February 24th, 1920, had not yet died away
when we began preparations for our next meeting. Up to that time we had to
consider carefully the venture of holding a small meeting every month or at
most every fortnight in a city like Munich; but now it was decided that we should
hold a mass meeting every week. I need not say that we anxiously asked
ourselves on each occasion again and again: Will the people come and will they
listen? Personally I was firmly convinced that if once they came they would
remain and listen.
During that period the hall of the Hofbrau
Haus in Munich acquired for us, National Socialists, a sort of mystic
significance. Every week there was a meeting, almost always in that hall, and
each time the hall was better filled than on the former occasion, and our
public more attentive.
Starting with the theme, 'Responsibility for
the War,' which nobody at that time cared about, and passing on to the
discussion of the peace treaties, we dealt with almost everything that served
to stimulate the minds of our audience and make them interested in our ideas.
We drew attention to the peace treaties. What the new movement prophesied again
and again before those great masses of people has been fulfilled almost in
every detail. To-day it is easy to talk and write about these things. But in
those days a public mass meeting which was attended not by the small
bourgeoisie but by proletarians who had been aroused by agitators, to criticize
the Peace Treaty of Versailles meant an attack on the Republic and an evidence
of reaction, if not of monarchist tendencies. The moment one uttered the first
criticism of the Versailles Treaty one could expect an immediate reply, which
became almost stereotyped: 'And Brest-Litowsk?' 'Brest-Litowsk!' And then the
crowd would murmur and the murmur would gradually swell into a roar, until the
speaker would have to give up his attempt to persuade them. It would be like
knocking one's head against a wall, so desperate were these people. They would
not listen nor understand that Versailles was a scandal and a disgrace and that
the dictate signified an act of highway robbery against our people. The
disruptive work done by the Marxists and the poisonous propaganda of the
external enemy had robbed these people of their reason. And one had no right to
complain. For the guilt on this side was enormous. What had the German
bourgeoisie done to call a halt to this terrible campaign of disintegration, to
oppose it and open a way to a recognition of the truth by giving a better and
more thorough explanation of the situation than that of the Marxists? Nothing,
nothing. At that time I never saw those who are now the great apostles of the
people. Perhaps they spoke to select groups, at tea parties of their own little
coteries; but there where they should have been, where the wolves were at work,
they never risked their appearance, unless it gave them the opportunity of
yelling in concert with the wolves.
As for myself, I then saw clearly that for
the small group which first composed our movement the question of war guilt had
to be cleared up, and cleared up in the light of historical truth. A
preliminary condition for the future success of our movement was that it should
bring knowledge of the meaning of the peace treaties to the minds of the popular
masses. In the opinion of the masses, the peace treaties then signified a
democratic success. Therefore, it was necessary to take the opposite side and
dig ourselves into the minds of the people as the enemies of the peace
treaties; so that later on, when the naked truth of this despicable swindle
would be disclosed in all its hideousness, the people would recall the position
which we then took and would give us their confidence.
Already at that time I took up my stand on
those important fundamental questions where public opinion had gone wrong as a
whole. I opposed these wrong notions without regard either for popularity or
for hatred, and I was ready to face the fight. The National Socialist German
Labour Party ought not to be led but rather to lead as the master of public opinion.
In the case of every movement, especially
during its struggling stages, there is naturally a temptation to conform to the
tactics of an opponent and use the same battle-cries, when his tactics have
succeeded in leading the people to crazy conclusions or to adopt mistaken
attitudes towards the questions at issue. This temptation is particularly
strong when motives can be found, though they are entirely illusory, that seem to
point towards the same ends which the young movement is aiming at. Human
poltroonery will then all the more readily adopt those arguments which give it
a semblance of justification, 'from its own point of view,' in participating in
the criminal policy which the adversary is following.
On several occasions I have experienced such
cases, in which the greatest energy had to be employed to prevent the ship of
our movement from being drawn into a general current which had been started artificially,
and indeed from sailing with it. The last occasion was when our German Press,
the Hecuba of the existence of the German nation, succeeded in bringing the
question of South Tyrol into a position of importance which was seriously
damaging to the interests of the German people. Without considering what
interests they were serving, several so-called 'national' men, parties and
leagues, joined in the general cry, simply for fear of public opinion which had
been elicited by the Jews, and foolishly contributed to help in the struggle
against a system which we Germans ought, particularly in those days, to
consider as the one ray of light in this distracted world. While the international
World-Marxist Jew is slowly but surely strangling us, our so-called patriots vociferate
against a man and his system which have had the courage to liberate themselves
from the shackles of Jewish Freemasonry at least in one quarter of the globe
and to set the forces of national resistance against the international
world-poison. But weak characters were tempted to set their sails according to
the direction of the wind and capitulate before the shout of public opinion.
For it was veritably a capitulation. They are so much in the habit of lying and
so morally base that men may not admit this even to themselves, but the truth
remains that only cowardice and fear of the public feeling aroused by the Jews
induced certain people to join in the hue and cry. All the other reasons put forward
were only miserable excuses of paltry culprits who were conscious of their own
crime.
There it was necessary to grasp the rudder
with an iron hand and turn the movement about, so as to save it from a course
that would have led it on the rocks. Certainly to attempt such a change of
course was not a popular manoeuvre at that time, because all the leading forces
of public opinion had been active and a great flame of public feeling
illuminated only one direction. Such a decision almost always brings disfavour
on those who dare to take it. In the course of history not a few men have been
stoned for an act for which posterity has afterwards thanked them on its knees.
But a movement must count on posterity and
not on the plaudits of the movement. It may well be that at such moments
certain individuals have to endure hours of anguish; but they should not forget
that the moment of liberation will come and that a movement which purposes to
reshape the world must serve the future and not the passing hour.
On this point it may be asserted that the
greatest and most enduring successes in history are mostly those which were
least understood at the beginning, because they were in strong contrast to
public opinion and the views and wishes of the time.
We had experience of this when we made our
own first public appearance. In all truth it can be said that we did not court
public favour but made an onslaught on the follies of our people. In those days
the following happened almost always: I presented myself before an assembly of
men who believed the opposite of what I wished to say and who wanted the opposite
of what I believed in. Then I had to spend a couple of hours in persuading two
or three thousand people to give up the opinions they had first held, in
destroying the foundations of their views with one blow after another and
finally in leading them over to take their stand on the grounds of our own
convictions and our WELTANSCHAUUNG.
I learned something that was important at
that time, namely, to snatch from the hands of the enemy the weapons which he
was using in his reply. I soon noticed that our adversaries, especially in the
persons of those who led the discussion against us, were furnished with a
definite repertoire of arguments out of which they took points against our
claims which were being constantly repeated. The uniform character of this mode
of procedure pointed to a systematic and unified training. And so we were able
to recognize the incredible way in which the enemy's propagandists had been
disciplined, and I am proud to-day that I discovered a means not only of making
this propaganda ineffective but of beating the artificers of it at their own
work. Two years later I was master of that art.
In every speech which I made it was important
to get a clear idea beforehand of the probable form and matter of the counter-arguments
we had to expect in the discussion, so that in the course of my own speech these
could be dealt with and refuted. To this end it was necessary to mention all
the possible objections and show their inconsistency; it was all the easier to
win over an honest listener by expunging from his memory the arguments which
had been impressed upon it, so that we anticipated our replies. What he had
learned was refuted without having been mentioned by him and that made him all
the more attentive to what I had to say.
That was the reason why, after my first
lecture on the 'Peace Treaty of Versailles,' which I delivered to the troops
while I was still a political instructor in my regiment, I made an alteration
in the title and subject and henceforth spoke on 'The Treaties of Brest-Litowsk
and Versailles.' For after the discussion which followed my first lecture I quickly
ascertained that in reality people knew nothing about the Treaty of
Brest-Litowsk and that able party propaganda had succeeded in presenting that
Treaty as one of the most scandalous acts of violence in the history of the
world.
As a result of the persistency with which
this falsehood was repeated again and again before the masses of the people,
millions of Germans saw in the Treaty of Versailles a just castigation for the
crime we had committed at Brest-Litowsk. Thus they considered all opposition to
Versailles as unjust and in many cases there was an honest moral dislike to
such a proceeding. And this was also the reason why the shameless and monstrous
word 'Reparations' came into common use in Germany. This hypocritical falsehood
appeared to millions of our exasperated fellow countrymen as the fulfilment of
a higher justice. It is a terrible thought, but the fact was so. The best proof
of this was the propaganda which I initiated against Versailles by explaining
the Treaty of Brest-Litowsk. I compared the two treaties with one another,
point by point, and showed how in truth the one treaty was immensely humane, in
contradistinction to the inhuman barbarity of the other. The effect was very
striking. Then I spoke on this theme before an assembly of two thousand
persons, during which I often saw three thousand six hundred hostile eyes fixed
on me. And three hours later I had in front of me a swaying mass of righteous
indignation and fury. A great lie had been uprooted from the hearts and brains
of a crowd composed of thousands of individuals and a truth had been implanted
in its place.
The two lectures--that 'On the Causes of the
World War' and 'On the Peace Treaties of Brest-Litowsk and Versailles'
respectively--I then considered as the most important of all. Therefore I
repeated them dozens of times, always giving them a new intonation; until at
least on those points a definitely clear and unanimous opinion reigned among those
from whom our movement recruited its first members.
Furthermore, these gatherings brought me the
advantage that I slowly
became a platform orator at mass meetings,
and gave me practice in the pathos and gesture required in large halls that
held thousands of people.
Outside of the small circles which I have
mentioned, at that time I found no party engaged in explaining things to the
people in this way. Not one of these parties was then active which talk to-day
as if it was they who had brought about the change in public opinion. If a
political leader, calling himself a nationalist, pronounced a discourse
somewhere or other on this theme it was only before circles which for the most part
were already of his own conviction and among whom the most that was done was to
confirm them in their opinions. But that was not what was needed then. What was
needed was to win over through propaganda and explanation those whose opinions
and mental attitudes held them bound to the enemy's camp.
The one-page circular was also adopted by us
to help in this propaganda. While still a soldier I had written a circular in
which I contrasted the Treaty of Brest-Litowsk with that of Versailles. That
circular was printed and distributed in large numbers. Later on I used it for
the party, and also with good success. Our first meetings were distinguished by
the fact that there were tables covered with leaflets, papers, and pamphlets of
every kind. But we relied principally on the spoken word. And, in fact, this is
the only means capable of producing really great revolutions, which can be
explained on general psychological grounds.
In the first volume I have already stated
that all the formidable events which have changed the aspect of the world were
carried through, not by the written but by the spoken word. On that point there
was a long discussion in a certain section of the Press during the course of
which our shrewd bourgeois people strongly opposed my thesis. But the reason for
this attitude confounded the sceptics. The bourgeois intellectuals protested
against my attitude simply because they themselves did not have the force or
ability to influence the masses through the spoken word; for they always relied
exclusively on the help of writers and did not enter the arena themselves as
orators for the purpose of arousing the people. The development of events
necessarily led to that condition of affairs which is characteristic of the
bourgeoisie to-day, namely, the loss of the psychological instinct to act upon
and influence the masses.
An orator receives continuous guidance from
the people before whom he speaks. This helps him to correct the direction of
his speech; for he can always gauge, by the faces of his hearers, how far they
follow and understand him, and whether his words are producing the desired
effect. But the writer does not know his reader at all. Therefore, from the outset
he does not address himself to a definite human group of persons which he has
before his eyes but must write in a general way. Hence, up to a certain extent
he must fail in psychological finesse and flexibility. Therefore, in general it
may be said that a brilliant orator writes better than a brilliant writer can
speak, unless the latter has continual practice in public speaking. One must
also remember that of itself the multitude is mentally inert, that it
remains attached to its old habits and that it is not naturally prone to read
something which does not conform with its own pre-established beliefs when such
writing does not contain what the multitude hopes to find there. Therefore,
some piece of writing which has a particular tendency is for the most part read
only by those who are in sympathy with it. Only a leaflet or a placard, on
account of its brevity, can hope to arouse a momentary interest in those whose
opinions differ from it. The picture, in all its forms, including the film, has
better prospects. Here there is less need of elaborating the appeal to the
intelligence. It is sufficient if one be careful to have quite short texts,
because many people are more ready to accept a pictorial presentation than to
read a long written description. In a much shorter time, at one stroke I might say,
people will understand a pictorial presentation of something which it would
take them a long and laborious effort of reading to understand.
The most important consideration, however, is
that one never knows into what hands a piece of written material comes and yet
the form in which its subject is presented must remain the same. In general the
effect is greater when the form of treatment corresponds to the mental level of
the reader and suits his nature. Therefore, a book which is meant for the broad
masses of the people must try from the very start to gain its effects through a
style and level of ideas which would be quite different from a book intended to
be read by the higher intellectual classes.
Only through his capacity for adaptability
does the force of the written word approach that of oral speech. The orator may
deal with the same subject as a book deals with; but if he has the genius of a
great and popular orator he will scarcely ever repeat the same argument or the same
material in the same form on two consecutive occasions. He will always follow
the lead of the great mass in such a way that from the living emotion of his
hearers the apt word which he needs will be suggested to him and in its turn
this will go straight to the hearts of his hearers. Should he make even a
slight mistake he has the living correction before him. As I have already said,
he can read the play of expression on the faces of his hearers, first to see if
they understand what he says, secondly to see if they take in the whole of his
argument, and, thirdly, in how far they are convinced of the justice of what
has been placed before them. Should he observe, first, that his hearers do not
understand him he will make his explanation so elementary and clear that they
will be able to grasp it, even to the last individual. Secondly, if he feels that
they are not capable of following him he will make one idea follow another
carefully and slowly until the most slow-witted hearer no longer lags behind.
Thirdly, as soon as he has the feeling that they do not seem convinced that he
is right in the way he has put things to them he will repeat his argument over
and over again, always giving fresh illustrations, and he himself will state
their unspoken objection. He will repeat these objections, dissecting them and refuting
them, until the last group of the opposition show him by their behaviour and
play of expression that they have capitulated before his exposition of the
case.
Not infrequently it is a case of overcoming
ingrained prejudices which are mostly unconscious and are supported by
sentiment rather than reason. It is a thousand times more difficult to overcome
this barrier of instinctive aversion, emotional hatred and preventive dissent
than to correct opinions which are founded on defective or erroneous knowledge.
False ideas and ignorance may be set aside by means of instruction, but emotional
resistance never can. Nothing but an appeal to these hidden forces will be
effective here. And that appeal can be made by scarcely any writer. Only the
orator can hope to make it.
Adolf Hitler
No comments:
Post a Comment