Lies being taught;
Mein Kampf is unintelligible ravings of a
maniac.
Now the Truth; Read and know.
VOL 2 CHAPTER X - CHAPTER X THE MASK OF
FEDERALISM
Part 2 – Confederacy and Unification
The controversy over federation and
unification, so cunningly propagandized by the Marxists in 1919-1920 and
onwards, forced National Socialism, which repudiated the quarrel, to take up a
definite stand in relation to the essential problem concerned in it. Ought
Germany to be a confederacy or a military State? What is the practical
significance of these terms? To me it seems that the second question is more
important than the first, because it is fundamental to the understanding of the
whole problem and also because the answer to it may help to clear up confusion
and therewith have a conciliating effect.
What is a Confederacy? (Note 22)
[Note 22. Before 1918 Germany was a federal
Empire, composed of
twenty-five federal states.]
By a Confederacy we
mean a union of sovereign states which of
their own free will and in virtue of their sovereignty come together and create
a collective unit, ceding to that unit as much of their own sovereign rights as
will render the existence of the union possible and will guarantee it.
But the theoretical formula is not wholly put
into practice by any confederacy that exists to-day. And least of all by the
American Union, where it is impossible to speak of original sovereignty in
regard to the majority of the states. Many of them were not included in the
federal complex until long after it had been established. The states that make up
the American Union are mostly in the nature of territories, more or less,
formed for technical administrative purposes, their boundaries having in many
cases been fixed in the mapping office. Originally these states did not and
could not possess sovereign rights of their own. Because it was the Union that
created most of the so-called states. Therefore the sovereign rights, often
very comprehensive, which were left, or rather granted, to the various
territories correspond not only to the whole character of the Confederation but
also to its vast space, which is equivalent to the size of a Continent.
Consequently, in speaking of the United States of America one must not consider
them as sovereign states but as enjoying rights or, better perhaps, autarchic powers,
granted to them and guaranteed by the Constitution.
Nor does our definition adequately express
the condition of affairs in Germany. It is true that in Germany the individual
states existed as states before the REICH and that the REICH was formed from
them. The REICH, however, was not formed by the voluntary and equal
co-operation of the individual states, but rather because the state of Prussia gradually
acquired a position of hegemony over the others. The difference in the
territorial area alone between the German states prevents any comparison with
the American Union. The great difference in territorial area between the very
small German states that then existed and the larger, or even still more the
largest, demonstrates the inequality of their achievements and shows that they
could not take an equal part in founding and shaping the federal Empire. In the
case of most of these individual states it cannot be maintained that they ever enjoyed
real sovereignty; and the term 'State Sovereignty' was really nothing more than
an administrative formula which had no inner meaning. As a matter of fact, not
only developments in the past but also in our own time wiped out several of
these so-called 'Sovereign States' and thus proved in the most definite way how
frail these 'sovereign' state formations were.
I cannot deal here with the historical
question of how these individual states came to be established, but I must call
attention to the fact that hardly in any case did their frontiers coincide with
ethical frontiers of the inhabitants. They were purely political phenomena
which for the most part emerged during the sad epoch when the German Empire was
in a state of exhaustion and was dismembered. They represented both cause and
effect in the process of exhaustion and partition of our fatherland.
The Constitution of the old REICH took all
this into account, at least up to a certain degree, in so far as the individual
states were not accorded equal representation in the Reichstag, but a
representation proportionate to their respective areas, their actual importance
and the role which they played in the formation of the REICH.
The sovereign rights which the individual
states renounced in order to form the REICH were voluntarily ceded only to a
very small degree. For the most part they had no practical existence or they
were simply taken by Prussia under the pressure of her preponderant power. The
principle followed by Bismarck was not to give the REICH what he could take
from the individual states but to demand from the individual states only what was
absolutely necessary for the REICH. A moderate and wise policy. On the one side
Bismarck showed the greatest regard for customs and traditions; on the other
side his policy secured for the new REICH from its foundation onwards a great
measure of love and willing co-operation. But it would be a fundamental error
to attribute Bismarck's decision to any conviction on his part that the REICH
was thus acquiring all the rights of sovereignty which would suflice for all
time. That was far from Bismarck's idea. On the contrary, he wished to leave
over for the future what it would be difficult to carry through at the moment
and might not have been readily agreed to by the individual states. He trusted
to the levelling effect of time and to the pressure exercised by the process of
evolution, the steady action of which appeared more effective than an attempt
to break the resistance which the individual states offered at the moment. By
this policy he showed his great ability in the art of statesmanship. And, as a
matter of fact, the sovereignty of the REICH has continually increased at the
cost of the sovereignty of the individual states. The passing of time has
achieved what Bismarck hoped it would.
The German collapse and the abolition of the
monarchical form of government necessarily hastened this development. The
German federal states, which had not been grounded on ethnical foundations but
arose rather out of political conditions, were bound to lose their importance the
moment the monarchical form of government and the dynasties connected with it
were abolished, for it was to the spirit inherent in these that the individual
states owned their political origin and development. Thus deprived of their
internal RAISON D'ÊTRE, they renounced all right to survival and were induced
by purely practical reasons to fuse with their neighbours or else they joined
the more powerful states out of their own free will. That proved in a striking manner
how extraordinarily frail was the actual sovereignty these small phantom states
enjoyed, and it proved too how lightly they were estimated by their own
citizens.
Though the abolition of the monarchical
regime and its representatives had dealt a hard blow to the federal character
of the REICH, still more destructive, from the federal point of view, was the
acceptance of the obligations that resulted from the 'peace' treaty.
It was only natural and logical that the
federal states should lose all sovereign control over the finances the moment
the REICH, in consequence
of a lost war, was subjected to financial
obligations which could never be guaranteed through separate treaties with the
individual states. The subsequent steps which led the REICH to take over the
posts and railways were an enforced advance in the process of enslaving our
people, a process which the peace treaties gradually developed. The REICH was forced
to secure possession of resources which had to be constantly increased in order
to satisfy the demands made by further extortions.
The form in which the powers of the REICH
were thus extended to embrace the federal states was often ridiculously stupid,
but in itself the procedure was logical and natural. The blame for it must be
laid at the door of these men and those parties that failed in the hour of need
to concentrate all their energies in an effort to bring the war to a victorious
issue. The guilt lies on those parties which, especially in Bavaria, catered
for their own egotistic interests during the war and refused to the REICH what
the REICH had to requisition to a tenfold greater measure when the war was
lost. The retribution of History! Rarely has the vengeance of Heaven followed
so closely on the crime as it did in this case. Those same parties which, a few
years previously, placed the interests of their own states--especially in
Bavaria—before those of the REICH had now to look on passively while the
pressure of events forced the REICH, in its own interests, to abolish the
existence of the individual states. They were the victims of their own
defaults.
It was an unparalleled example of hypocrisy
to raise the cry of lamentation over the loss which the federal states suffered
in being deprived of their sovereign rights. This cry was raised before the electorate,
for it is only to the electorate that our contemporary parties address
themselves. But these parties, without exception, outbid one another in
accepting a policy of fulfilment which, by the sheer force of circumstances and
in its ultimate consequences, could not but lead to a profound alteration in
the internal structure of the REICH. Bismarck's REICH was free and unhampered
by any obligations towards the outside world.
Bismarck's REICH never had to shoulder such
heavy and entirely unproductive obligations as those to which Germany was
subjected under the Dawes Plan. Also in domestic affairs Bismarck's REICH was
able to limit its powers to a few matters that were absolutely necessary for
its existence. Therefore it could dispense with the necessity of a financial control
over these states and could live from their contributions. On the other side
the relatively small financial tribute which the federal states had to pay to
the REICH induced them to welcome its existence. But it is untrue and unjust to
state now, as certain propagandists do, that the federal states are displeased
with the REICH merely because of their financial subjection to it. No, that is
not how the matter really stands. The lack of sympathy for the political idea
embodied in the REICH is not due to the loss of sovereign rights on the part of
the individual states. It is much more the result of the deplorable fashion in
which the present régime cares for the interests of the German people. Despite
all the celebrations in honour of the national flag and the Constitution, every
section of the German people feels that the present REICH is not in accordance with
its heart's desire. And the Law for the Protection of the Republic may prevent
outrages against republican institutions, but it will not gain the love of one
single German. In its constant anxiety to protect itself against its own citizens
by means of laws and sentences of imprisonment, the Republic has aroused sharp
and humiliating criticism of all republican institutions as such.
For another reason also it is untrue to say,
as certain parties affirm to-day, that the REICH has ceased to be popular on
account of its overbearing conduct in regard to certain sovereign rights which
the individual states had heretofore enjoyed. Supposing the REICH had not extended
its authority over the individual states, there is no reason to believe that it
would find more favour among those states if the general obligations remained
so heavy as they now are. On the contrary, if the individual states had to pay
their respective shares of the highly increased tribute which the REICH has to
meet to-day in order to fulfil the provisions of the Versailles Dictate, the
hostility towards the REICH would be infinitely greater. For then not only
would it prove difficult to collect the respective contributions due to the
REICH from the federal states, but coercive methods would have to be employed
in making the collections. The Republic stands on the footing of the peace treaties
and has neither the courage nor the intention to break them. That being so, it
must observe the obligations which the peace treaties have imposed on it. The
responsibility for this situation is to be attributed solely to those parties
who preach unceasingly to the patient electoral masses on the necessity of
maintaining the autonomy of the federal states, while at the same time they
champion and demand of the REICH a policy which must necessarily lead to the
suppression of even the very last of those so-called 'sovereign' rights.
I say NECESSARILY because the present REICH
has no other possible means of bearing the burden of charges which an insane
domestic and foreign policy has laid on it. Here still another wedge is placed
on the former, to drive it in still deeper. Every new debt which the REICH
contracts, through the criminal way in which the interests of Germany are represented
VIS-À-VIS foreign countries, necessitates a new and stronger blow which drives
the under wedges still deeper, That blow demands another step in the
progressive abolition of the sovereign rights of the individual states, so as
not to allow the germs of opposition to rise up into activity or even to exist.
The chief characteristic difference between
the policy of the present REICH and that of former times lies in this: The old
REICH gave freedom to its people at home and showed itself strong towards the
outside world, whereas the Republic shows itself weak towards the stranger and oppresses
its own citizens at home. In both cases one attitude determines the other. A
vigorous national State does not need to make many laws for the interior,
because of the affection and attachment of its citizens. The international
servile State can live only by coercing its citizens to render it the services
it demands. And it is a piece of impudent falsehood for the present regime to
speak of 'Free citizens'. Only the old Germany could speak in that manner. The
present Republic is a colony of slaves at the service of the stranger. At best
it has subjects, but not citizens. Hence it does not possess a national flag but
only a trade mark, introduced and protected by official decree and legislative
measures. This symbol, which is the Gessler's cap of German Democracy, will
always remain alien to the spirit of our people. On its side, the Republic
having no sense of tradition or respect for past greatness, dragged the symbol
of the past in the mud, but it will be surprised one day to discover how
superficial is the devotion of its citizens to its own symbol. The Republic has
given to itself the character of an intermezzo in German history. And so this
State is bound constantly to restrict more and more the sovereign rights of the
individual states, not only for general reasons of a financial character but
also on principle. For by enforcing a policy of financial blackmail, to squeeze
the last ounce of substance out of its people, it is forced also to take their
last rights away from them, lest the general discontent may one day flame up
into open rebellion.
We, National Socialists, would reverse this
formula and would adopt the following axiom: A strong national REICH which
recognizes and protects to the largest possible measure the rights of its
citizens both within and outside its frontiers can allow freedom to reign at
home without trembling for the safety of the State. On the other hand, a strong
national Government can intervene to a considerable degree in the liberties of
the individual subject as well as in the liberties of the constituent states
without thereby weakening the ideal of the REICH; and it can do this while
recognizing its responsibility for the ideal of the REICH, because in these
particular acts and measures the individual citizen recognizes a means of
promoting the prestige of the nation as a whole.
Adolf Hitler
No comments:
Post a Comment