Lies being taught;
Mein Kampf is unintelligible ravings of a
maniac.
Now the Truth; Read and know. VOL II CHAPTER VIIa-THE
CONFLICT WITH THE RED FORCES
Part (a) Bourgeois, National socialist and
Marxist public meetings;
In 1919-20 and also in 1921 I attended some
of the bourgeois meetings. Invariably I had the same feeling towards these as
towards the compulsory dose of castor oil in my boyhood days. It just had to be
taken because it was good for one: but it certainly tasted unpleasant. If it
were possible to tie ropes round the German people and forcibly drag them to
these bourgeois meetings, keeping them there behind barred doors and allowing
nobody to escape until the meeting closed, then this procedure might prove
successful in the course of a few hundred years. For my own part, I must
frankly admit that, under such circumstances, I could not find life worth
living; and indeed I should no longer wish to be a German. But, thank God, all
this is impossible. And so it is not surprising that the sane and unspoilt
masses shun these 'bourgeois mass meetings' as the devil shuns holy water.
I came to know the prophets of the bourgeois
WELTANSCHAUUNG, and I was not surprised at what I learned, as I knew that they
attached little importance to the spoken word. At that time I attended meetings
of the Democrats, the German Nationalists, the German People's Party and the Bavarian
People's Party (the Centre Party of Bavaria). What struck me at once was the
homogeneous uniformity of the audiences. Nearly always they were made up
exclusively of party members. The whole affair was more like a yawning card
party than an assembly of people who had just passed through a great
revolution. The speakers did all they could to maintain this tranquil
atmosphere. They declaimed, or rather read out, their speeches in the style of
an intellectual newspaper article or a learned treatise, avoiding all striking
expressions. Here and there a feeble professorial joke would be introduced,
whereupon the people sitting at the speaker's table felt themselves obliged to
laugh--not loudly but encouragingly and with well-bred reserve.
And there were always those people at the
speaker's table. I once attended a meeting in the Wagner Hall in Munich. It was
a demonstration to celebrate the anniversary of the Battle of Leipzig. (Note
17) The speech was delivered or rather read out by a venerable old professor
from one or other of the universities. The committee sat on the platform: one monocle
on the right, another monocle on the left, and in the centre a gentleman with
no monocle. All three of them were punctiliously attired in morning coats, and
I had the impression of being present before a judge's bench just as the death sentence
was about to be pronounced or at a christening or some more solemn religious
ceremony. The so-called speech, which in printed form may have read quite well,
had a disastrous effect. After three quarters of an hour the audience fell into
a sort of hypnotic trance, which was interrupted only when some man or woman
left the hall, or by the clatter which the waitresses made, or by the increasing
yawns of slumbering individuals. I had posted myself behind three workmen who
were present either out of curiosity or because they were sent there by their
parties. From time to time they glanced at one another with an ill-concealed
grin, nudged one another with the elbow, and then silently left the hall. One
could see that they had no intention whatsoever of interrupting the
proceedings, nor indeed was it necessary to interrupt them. At long last the
celebration showed signs of drawing to a close. After the professor, whose
voice had meanwhile become more and more inaudible, finally ended his speech,
the gentleman without the monocle delivered a rousing peroration to the
assembled 'German sisters and brothers.' On behalf of the audience and himself
he expressed gratitude for the magnificent lecture which they had just heard
from Professor X and emphasized how deeply the Professor's words had moved them
all. If a general discussion on the lecture were to take place it would be
tantamount to profanity, and he thought he was voicing the opinion of all
present in suggesting that such a discussion should not be held. Therefore, he
would ask the assembly to rise from their seats and join in singing the
patriotic song, WIR SIND EIN EINIG VOLK VON BRÜDERN. The proceedings finally
closed with the anthem, DEUTSCHLAND ÜBER ALLES.
[Note 17. The Battle of Leipzig (1813), where
the Germans inflicted an overwhelming defeat on Napoleon, was the decisive
event which put an end to the French occupation of Germany.
The occupation had lasted about twenty years.
After the Great War, and the partial occupation of Germany once again by French
forces, the Germans used to celebrate the anniversary of the Battle of Leipzig
as a symbol of their yearning.]
And then they all sang. It appeared to me
that when the second verse was reached the voices were fewer and that only when
the refrain came on they swelled loudly. When we reached the third verse my
belief was confirmed that a good many of those present were not very familiar
with the text.
But what has all this to do with the matter
when such a song is sung wholeheartedly and fervidly by an assembly of German
nationals?
After this the meeting broke up and everyone
hurried to get outside, one to his glass of beer, one to a cafe, and others
simply into the fresh air.
Out into the fresh air! That was also my
feeling. And was this the way to honour an heroic struggle in which hundreds of
thousands of Prussians and Germans had fought? To the devil with it all!
That sort of thing might find favour with the
Government, it being merely a 'peaceful' meeting. The Minister responsible for
law and order need not fear that enthusiasm might suddenly get the better of
public decorum and induce these people to pour out of the room and, instead of dispersing
to beer halls and cafes, march in rows of four through the town singing
DEUTSCHLAND hoch in Ehren and causing some unpleasantness to a police force in
need of rest.
No. That type of citizen is of no use to
anyone.
On the other hand the National Socialist
meetings were by no means 'peaceable' affairs. Two distinct WELTANSCHHAUUNGen
raged in bitter opposition to one another, and these meetings did not close with
the mechanical rendering of a dull patriotic song but rather with a passionate
outbreak of popular national feeling.
It was imperative from the start to introduce
rigid discipline into our meetings and establish the authority of the chairman
absolutely. Our purpose was not to pour out a mixture of soft-soap bourgeois
talk; what we had to say was meant to arouse the opponents at our meetings! How
often did they not turn up in masses with a few individual agitators among them
and, judging by the expression on all their faces, ready to finish us off there
and then.
Yes, how often did they not turn up in huge
numbers, those supporters of the Red Flag, all previously instructed to smash
up everything once and for all and put an end to these meetings. More often
than not everything hung on a mere thread, and only the chairman's ruthless
determination and the rough handling by our ushers baffled our adversaries' intentions.
And indeed they had every reason for being irritated.
The fact that we had chosen red as the colour
for our posters sufficed to attract them to our meetings. The ordinary
bourgeoisie were very shocked to see that, we had also chosen the symbolic red
of Bolshevism and they regarded this as something ambiguously significant. The suspicion
was whispered in German Nationalist circles that we also were merely another variety
of Marxism, perhaps even Marxists suitably disguised, or better still, Socialists.
The actual difference between Socialism and Marxism still remains a mystery to
these people up to this day. The charge of Marxism was conclusively proved when
it was discovered that at our meetings we deliberately substituted the words 'Fellow-countrymen
and Women' for 'Ladies and Gentlemen' and addressed each other as 'Party
Comrade'. We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint-hearted
bourgeoisie and their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions and our
aims.
We chose red for our posters after particular
and careful deliberation, our intention being to irritate the Left, so as to
arouse their attention and tempt them to come to our meetings--if only in order
to break them up--so that in this way we got a chance of talking to the people.
In those years' it was indeed a delightful
experience to follow the constantly changing tactics of our perplexed and
helpless adversaries. First of all they appealed to their followers to ignore
us and keep away from our meetings. Generally speaking this appeal was heeded.
But, as time went on, more and more of their followers gradually found their
way to us and accepted our teaching. Then the leaders became nervous and uneasy.
They clung to their belief that such a development should not be ignored
forever, and that terror must be applied in order to put an end to it.
Appeals were then made to the
'class-conscious proletariat' to attend our meetings in masses and strike with
the clenched hand of the proletarian at the representatives of a 'monarchist
and reactionary agitation'.
Our meetings suddenly became packed with
work-people fully three-quarters of an hour before the proceedings were
scheduled to begin. These gatherings resembled a powder cask ready to explode
at any moment; and the fuse was conveniently at hand. But matters always turned
out differently. People came as enemies and left, not perhaps prepared to join
us, yet in a reflective mood and disposed critically to examine the correctness
of their own doctrine. Gradually as time went on my three-hour lectures
resulted in supporters and opponents becoming united in one single enthusiastic
group of people. Every signal for the breaking-up of the meeting failed. The
result was that the opposition leaders became frightened and once again looked
for help to those quarters that had formerly discountenanced these tactics and,
with some show of right, had been of the opinion that on principle the workers should
be forbidden to attend our meetings.
Then they did not come any more, or only in
small numbers. But after a short time the whole game started all over again.
The instructions to keep away from us were ignored; the comrades came in
steadily increasing numbers, until finally the advocates of the radical tactics
won the day. We were to be broken up.
Yet when, after two, three and even eight
meetings, it was realized that to break up these gatherings was easier said
than done and that every meeting resulted in a decisive weakening of the red
fighting forces, then suddenly the other password was introduced:
'Proletarians, comrades and comradesses, avoid meetings of the National
Socialist agitators'.
The same eternally alternating tactics were
also to be observed in the Red Press. Soon they tried to silence us but
discovered the uselessness of such an attempt. After that they swung round to
the opposite tactics. Daily 'reference' was made to us solely for the purpose
of absolutely ridiculing us in the eyes of the working-classes. After a time
these gentlemen must have felt that no harm was being done to us, but that, on the
contrary, we were reaping an advantage in that people were asking themselves
why so much space was being devoted to a subject which was supposed to be so ludicrous.
People became curious. Suddenly there was a change of tactics and for a time we
were treated as veritable criminals against mankind. One article followed the
other, in which our criminal intentions were explained and new proofs brought
forward to support what was said. Scandalous tales, all of them fabricated from
start to finish, were published in order to help to poison the public mind. But
in a short time even these attacks also proved futile; and in fact they assisted
materially because they attracted public attention to us.
In those days I took up the standpoint that
it was immaterial whether they laughed at us or reviled us, whether they depicted
us as fools or criminals; the important point was that they took notice of us
and that in the eyes of the working-classes we came to be regarded as the only force
capable of putting up a fight. I said to myself that the followers of the Marxist
Press would come to know all about us and our real aims.
One reason why they never got so far as
breaking up our meetings was undoubtedly the incredible cowardice displayed by
the leaders of the opposition. On every critical occasion they left the dirty
work to the smaller fry whilst they waited outside the halls for the results of
the break up.
We were exceptionally well informed in regard
to our opponents' intentions, not only because we allowed several of our party
colleagues to remain members of the Red organizations for reasons of
expediency, but also because the Red wire-pullers, fortunately for us, were afflicted
with a degree of talkativeness that is still unfortunately very prevalent among
Germans. They could not keep their own counsel, and more often than not they
started cackling before the proverbial egg was laid. Hence, time and again our
precautions were such that Red agitators had no inkling of how near they were
to being thrown out of the meetings.
This state of affairs compelled us to take
the work of safeguarding our meetings into our own hands. No reliance could be
placed on official protection. On the contrary; experience showed that such
protection always favoured only the disturbers. The only real outcome of police
intervention would be that the meeting would be dissolved, that is to say,
closed. And that is precisely what our opponents granted.
Generally speaking, this led the police to
adopt a procedure which, to say the least, was a most infamous sample of
official malpractice. The moment they received information of a threat that the
one or other meeting was to be broken up, instead of arresting the would-be disturbers,
they promptly advised the innocent parties that the meeting was forbidden. This
step the police proclaimed as a 'precautionary measure in the interests of law
and order'.
The political work and activities of decent
people could therefore always be hindered by desperate ruffians who had the
means at their disposal. In the name of peace and order State authority bowed
down to these ruffians and demanded that others should not provoke them. When National
Socialism desired to hold meetings in certain parts and the labour unions
declared that their members would resist, then it was not these blackmailers
that were arrested and gaoled. No. Our meetings were forbidden by the police.
Yes, this organ of the law had the unspeakable impudence to advise us in
writing to this effect in innumerable instances. To avoid such eventualities,
it was necessary to see to it that every attempt to disturb a meeting was
nipped in the bud. Another feature to be taken into account in this respect is
that all meetings which rely on police protection must necessarily bring
discredit to their promoters in the eyes of the general public. Meetings that
are only possible with the protective assistance of a strong force of police convert
nobody; because in order to win over the lower strata of the people there must
be a visible show of strength on one's own side. In the same way that a man of
courage will win a woman's affection more easily than a coward, so a heroic
movement will be more successful in winning over the hearts of a people than a
weak movement which relies on police support for its very existence.
It is for this latter reason in particular
that our young movement was to be charged with the responsibility of assuring
its own existence, defending itself; and conducting its own work of smashing
the Red opposition.
The work of organizing the protective
measures for our meetings was based on the following:
(1) An energetic and psychologically
judicious way of conducting the meeting.
(2) An organized squad of troops to maintain
order.
In those days we and no one else were masters
of the situation at our meetings and on no occasion did we fail to emphasize
this. Our opponents fully realized that any provocation would be the occasion
of throwing them out of the hall at once, whatever the odds against us. At
meetings, particularly outside Munich, we had in those days from five to eight hundred
opponents against fifteen to sixteen National Socialists; yet we brooked no
interference, for we were ready to be killed rather than capitulate. More than
once a handful of party colleagues offered a heroic resistance to a raging and
violent mob of Reds. Those fifteen or twenty men would certainly have been
overwhelmed in the end had not the opponents known that three or four times as
many of themselves would first get their skulls cracked. Arid that risk they
were not willing to run. We had done our best to study Marxist and bourgeois
methods of conducting meetings, and we had certainly learnt something.
The Marxists had always exercised a most
rigid discipline so that the question of breaking up their meetings could
never have originated in bourgeois quarters. This gave the Reds all
the more reason for acting on this plan. In time they not only became
past-masters in this art but in certain large districts of the REICH they
went so far as to declare that non-Marxist meetings were nothing less than a
cause of' provocation against the proletariat. This was
particularly the case when the wire-pullers suspected that a meeting might
call attention to their own transgressions and thus expose their own
treachery and chicanery. Therefore the moment such a meeting was
announced to be held a howl of rage went up from the Red Press. These
detractors of the law nearly always turned first to the authorities and
requested in imperative and threatening language that this 'provocation
of the proletariat' be stopped forthwith in the 'interests of law
and order'. Their language was chosen according to the importance of the
official blockhead they were dealing with and thus success was
assured. If by chance the official happened to be a true German--and
not a mere figurehead--and he
declined the impudent request, then the
time-honoured appeal to stop 'provocation of the proletariat' was issued
together with instructions to attend such and such a meeting on a
certain date in full strength for the purpose of 'putting a stop to the
disgraceful machinations of the bourgeoisie by means of the proletarian
fist'.
The pitiful and frightened manner in which
these bourgeois meetings are conducted must be seen in order to be
believed. Very frequently these threats were sufficient to call off such a
meeting at once. The feeling of fear was so marked that the meeting,
instead of commencing at eight o'clock, very seldom was opened before a
quarter to nine or nine o'clock. The Chairman thereupon did his best,
by showering compliments on the 'gentleman of the opposition' to prove
how he and all others present were pleased (a palpable lie) to
welcome a visit from men who as yet were not in sympathy with them for the
reason that only by mutual discussion (immediately agreed to) could they
be brought closer together in mutual understanding. Apart from this the
Chairman also assured them that the meeting had no intention whatsoever
of interfering with the professed convictions of anybody. Indeed no.
Everyone had the right to form and hold his own political views, but
others should be allowed to do likewise. He therefore requested that the
speaker be allowed to deliver his speech without interruption--the
speech in any case not being a long affair. People abroad, he
continued, would thus not come to regard this meeting as another shameful
example of the bitter fraternal strife that is raging in Germany. And so on
and so forth.
The brothers of the Left had little if any
appreciation for that sort of talk; the speaker had hardly commenced when
he was shouted down. One gathered the impression at times that these
speakers were graceful for being peremptorily cut short in their
martyr-like discourse and not thrown
down the stairs.
In the first place our method of conducting a
meeting was entirely different. We did not beg and pray to be
allowed to speak, and we did not straightway give everybody the right to
hold endless discussions. We curtly gave everyone to understand that we
were masters of the meeting and that we would do as it pleased us and
that everyone who dared to interrupt would be unceremoniously thrown
out. We stated clearly our refusal to accept responsibility for anyone
treated in this manner. If time permitted and if it suited us, a
discussion would be allowed to take place. Our party colleague would now
make his speech.... That kind of talk was sufficient in itself to astonish
the Marxists.
Secondly, we had at our disposal a
well-trained and organized body of men for maintaining order at our meetings. On
the other hand the bourgeois parties protected their meetings
with a body of men better classified as ushers who by virtue of their
age thought they were entitled to-authority and respect. But as
Marxism has little or no respect for these things, the question of
suitable self-protection at these bourgeois meetings was, so to speak, in
practice non-existent.
When our political meetings first started I
made it a special point to organize a suitable defensive squad--a squad
composed chiefly of young men. Some of them were comrades who had seen
active service with me; others were young party members who, right
from the start, had been trained and brought up to realize that only
terror is capable of smashing terror--that only courageous and
determined people had made a success of things in this world and that,
finally, we were fighting for an idea so lofty that it was worth the last
drop of our blood. These young men had been brought up to realize that
where force replaced common sense in the solution of a problem,
the best means of defence was attack and that the reputation of our
hall-guard squads should stamp us as a political fighting force and not as a
debating society.
And it was extraordinary how eagerly these
boys of the War generation responded to this order. They had indeed good
reason for being bitterly disappointed and indignant at the miserable
milksop methods employed by the bourgeoise.
Thus it became clear to everyone that the
Revolution had only been possible thanks to the dastardly methods of a
bourgeois government. At that time there was certainly no lack of
man-power to suppress the revolution, but unfortunately there was an
entire lack of directive brain power. How often did the eyes of my
young men light up with enthusiasm when I explained to them the vital
functions connected with their task and assured them time and again
that all earthly wisdom is useless unless it be supported by a measure
of strength, that the gentle goddess of Peace can only walk in company
with the god of War, and that every great act of peace must be protected and
assisted by force. In this way the idea of military service came to them in a
far more realistic form--not in the fossilized sense of the souls of decrepit officials
serving he dead authority of a dead State, but in the living realization of
the duty of each man to sacrifice his life at all times so that his country
might live.
How those young men did their job!
Like a swarm of hornets they tackled
disturbers at our meetings, regardless of superiority of numbers, however
great, indifferent to wounds and bloodshed, inspired with the great idea of
blazing a trail for the sacred mission of our movement.
As early as the summer of 1920 the
organization of squads of men as hall guards for maintaining order at our
meetings was gradually assuming definite shape. By the spring of 1921 this body
of men were sectioned off into squads of one hundred, which in turn were
sub-divided into smaller groups.
In the autumn and winter of 1920-1921 our
meetings in the Bürgerbräu and Munich Kindlbräu had assumed vast proportions
and it was always the same picture that presented itself; namely, meetings of the
NSDAP (The German National Socialist Labour Party) were always crowded out so
that the police were compelled to close and bar the doors long before
proceedings commenced.
Adolf Hitler
No comments:
Post a Comment