NATIONAL SOCIALISM:      

PAGE II

Document UK-81
Source: Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression. Volume VIII. USGPO, Washington, 1946/pp.603-606

Political Way

Otto Ohlendorf

[Appendix "A" I..1 to Affidavit sworn by Otto Ohlendorf at Nurnberg, 20 November, 1945.]

After 'I joined the NSDAP in May 1925, I participated in all tasks which arose in the young and numerically small Party organization. I was at the same time Ortsgruppenleiter, treasurer and organizer of meetings. I distributed newspapers and leaflets, spoke in discussions at public meetings of other parties and served in the SA. Besides this, I, with three other Party members, were ordered to the SS service in 1926. However, at that time I did not engage in any SS activities because shortly thereafter I left my home town and was removed from the list of the SS. Therefore, I did not receive any SS identity card and learned of my then SS number 880 first in 1936 when, with reference to my early membership in the SS, I was again enrolled in the SS under my old number. Until 1936 I had no connection with the SS. During 1929-31 I spoke independently and on my own initiative at numerous Party meetings of the competent Gau Party Leadership at Hannover. At that time I studied at Goettingen and from there I worked especially in the town and area of Nordheim according to my own plan for the Party. I organized training courses and spoke at numerous evening discussions and public meetings. Despite my activity I remained a simple Party member as I avoided a too close connection with the official Party organs. Because of my own opinion at that time I was already separated from the real and personal ways of a Number of the leading Party members.

After my first legal State Examination in 1931, I went to Italy as an exchange student for one year. My reason therefore was to become acquainted with a movement which supposedly was parallel to National Socialism, and which had had ten years of practice and unlimited possibilities to develop. I became acquainted with Fascism in theory and practice. I became thoroughly acquainted with its organization and leading personalities. I arrived at the conclusion that in the case of Fascism, it was not a question of a new conception of people and state which further developed the individualism, but that it was another system of absolute power which was formed around the person of Mussolini. The human beings and people in Fascism had no values in themselves, but were objects of the State and derived their value and recognition from the State as the sole reality. From this fact originated the irreconcilable contrast National Socialism, which is founded on the reality of the value of life in the individual human beings and the people, and, therefore, in contrast to Fascism subordinated the State to the needs of the people. After my return from Italy I stayed away from Party work until the assumption of power. I received no positive answer to the reports on Fascism which I sent to the Party Leadership and wanted first to become oriented on further development of the Party within the Reich. Furthermore, it was my definite resolution to continue my own life independently of the Party. After the assumption of power I, therefore, remained in legal training. At the meetings I mostly spoke on the theme of Fascism and National Socialism in order to point out the dangers which threatened National Socialism by copying the Fascist organizational forms and the insufficient differentiation from the Fascist program.

I considered Fascism the primary opponent of National Socialism. In other European countries there already existed Fascist movements and Fascism conducted a continuous and purposeful propaganda all over Europe. Therefore, I considered the offer of Professor Jens Jessen to become his assistant at the Institute for World Economy at Kiel, to serve my purposes, especially because I could found a section for Fascism and National Socialism and in that way have a good opportunity to fight against the plans of introducing Fascism into National Socialism.

Between 1933 and 1938, I attempted to obtain a total picture of the complete literature in German and Italian which concerned intellectual, cultural, sociological or economical themes, as well as State theories. Both this literature and the National Socialistic policy in practice showed after the assumption of power that the still immature National Socialistic ideology was diverted from the principles of its original world picture. Theorists, as well as responsible leaders in Party and State, believed that they could conquer temporary difficulties in State and economy, education and culture, only by use of old methods belonging to past stages of civilization. At this time, it was my greatest wish to write an analysis of the spiritual and formative impulses in the National Socialistic work of the present time in order to draw the attention of the leading National Socialist circles and young scientists to the spiritual principles which they used as supposedly National Socialist. However, foreign tendencies became increasingly stronger especially at first in the food economy and later on during the Four Year Plan in the rest of the economy, in communal politics, and in the complete field of science. Therefore, I accepted an offer in 1936, again from Professor Jessen, which gave me the opportunity by means of the SD des Reichsfuehrer's SS to report to the highest leader posts in Party and State and in such way advance my plans based on observation of the theoretical and practical development of people and State.

As many personal and essential matters made this task difficult, I grasped this opportunity to participate in the execution of the original National Socialist principles with special satisfaction. These principles advocated, as the foremost goal of National Socialism, to develop the best characteristics of the people and to form them into a community of equality and to furnish the best possible spiritual and moral existence for the individuals of the people. I undertook the task with heart and soul when I worked in Reich Group Commerce and when I was Ministerial Direktor and permanent deputy of the State Secretary in the Reich Ministry of Economy, I understood together with many others, that a necessary phase within the evolution would be strong controversies with the Party and State. Only against strong opposition of the old spiritual forces could the goal be achieved which would make the welfare and dignity of man the real conception of politics; also to achieve in the economy that man should become basis and decisive subject of the measures of the political economy, this especially because the economy is the most important and preponderant molder of man's destiny. National Socialism seemed to be the first attempt to find a natural synthesis between the free, intended to be independent man of individualism and the actual bonds life compels on him in the community in which he finds himself. In order to achieve this synthesis, National Socialism ought to signify self consciousness, and the inner freedom of man, from which the laws for the natural order of the people's community could be recognized and accomplished. with conviction.

This idea did not, however, find a period of calm in which it could be developed spiritually and in active daily life. The collapse of the National Socialist system in Germany has shown that the forces favoring highly developed human communities were not strong enough to carry through to this goal.

           
MOTHERHOOD AND WARRIORHOOD
          
BY GREGOR STRASSER

We are socialists. We are enemies, deadly enemies, of today's capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, its unfair wage system, its immoral way of judging the worth of human beings in terms of their wealth and their money, instead of their responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system whatever happens!

And yet it is not enough just to change the system, to replace one economic system by another; what is needed above all is to change the spirit! The spirit to be overcome is the spirit of materialism!

We must learn that work means more than possessions! Performance is more than dividends! It is the most wretched legacy of this capitalist system that the criterion for everything's value is money, wealth, possessions! The decline of a people is the inevitable consequence of the use of this yardstick, because selection on the basis of property is the arch-enemy of race, blood, life! We have never left any doubts about the fact that our national socialism puts an end to the privileges of wealth, and that the emancipation of the worker involves participation in profits, property, and management.

There has been much talk in the volkisch movement about the emergence of a new political leadership, and the call for such a leadership is compatible with what I have been saying. But the ways which it recommends for solving the problem, examining people's blood, re-nordification, etc., etc., seem to my practical nature somewhat dubious as far as their feasibility, their value, and even their effectiveness is concerned! There is another one, however, which is an archetypally German, Prussian way, which is more appropriate than any other: selection through the army!

For a man, military service is the most profound and valuable form of participation in the State--for the woman it is motherhood! There are many African tribes where mothers who die in labor are buried with the same honors as warriors who have fallen in battle!

You can call it utopian but for me it is a certainty! Given twenty to thirty years of this type of selection, Germany will have a leadership and executive class which will change the whole face of society and the State, and provide the backbone of the State and its economy!

-According to one historian, Gregor Strasser (1892-1934) advocated a "'leftist', profoundly anti-capitalist, social-revolutionary vision" for the German Nazi Party. As the North German Party chief and head of Reich Propaganda and organization, Strasser's star seemed to be on the rise. He later fell out with Hitler over ideology and was killed in the SA Purge of June, 1934.

         
The next two articles were written by a young lady from Russia:

           
 Different Way

Recently in certain circles in today's Russia more popularity is gaining the concept of the "Third Way". This supposes that this concept is opposed to two first ones- communism and democracy. However it is extremely difficult to realize or define its essential difference. Quite probably, one of the reasons is inaccuracy of the formulation itself. When one says "the third", they automatically put it in one line with the two previous ones, i.e. the action evolves at the same plane, and there happens no transition to another level, no radical change of situation. In this connection, it seems more appropriate to use another term: not "the third", but the Different Way. So, be it different peculiar way. Yet what is its basic difference?

It is necessary at once to say that it's possible to ascribe to the Different Way various movements of so called fascist kin. Certainly it is known, that these movements (Italian fascism, German national socialism, Spanish phalangism, Romanian guardism, Belgian rexism, movement of Salazar in Portugal etc.) have had distinctions, and sometimes quite essential, therefore they may and should be distinguished between each other. However, the purpose of the present article is yet to reveal their inner unity and difference in relation to democracy and communism, therefore hereinafter they will be referred to simply as fascist, as accepted today. Many people are surprised and indignant at the increasing interest to fascism in our times. Really, it is possible to agree that this tendency has a bit irrational character. The matter is not about general reproaches and debates on how much suffering brought fascism in our land, as if communists and liberals were engaged exclusively into nice deeds here… Nevertheless considering stereotype image with which fascism is presented to us today, indeed it seems very difficult to feel sympathy towards it. Yet nevertheless it happens (in Italy there is a curious term for this phenomenon- philofascism). We may say about intuitive, instinctive rather than rational character of this inclination to fascism. Many would consider it as shortcoming, however such inconvenient position is quite justifiable. Certainly the ability to count ("ratio" derives from a Latin verb "reri" = to count) is necessary for the man, however it is impossible to consider this skill a highest ability of humans.

The same may be applied to historical knowledge. Not speaking about its complexity it is in general, it is absolutely obvious that today it's quite problematic to evaluate objectively the particular meaning and true mission of fascism. Partly it is connected with a lack of proper information, but in greater degree with extremely great bias in selection of information on the subject (which is true relating to both opponents and defenders of fascism). But the main problem is in impossibility to comprehend the issue "from outside": this is possible only "from inside". Yet the very wish to understand the essence of fascism as it was and its difference from other political movements, is quite legitimate.

Today when we want to find parallels to or differences of one system vs. another, we use to operate with social, economic or political categories (as a rule the latter are always put on a level dependable on economy). However one may look at the problem from another side - from the point of Weltanschauung, worldview. In this case the term "ideology" does not match adequately because what matters is not just an idea but namely the people's attitude towards world and life.

Proceeding from that, as the fundamental difference of fascism from democracy and communism we could consider its anti-materialistic and anti-atheistic orientation. In confirmation to this we could give many facts and quotes, yet let's limit ourselves to the one. As Himmler put it, the person not trusting in God "ist uberheblich, grosenwahnsinning und dumm, er ist fur uns nicht geeignet" (self-confident impudent fellow suffering with megalomania and foolish; such a person does not suit us [i.e. SS staff]) (J. Evola, "Il fascismo visto dalla Destra, ed. Settimo Sigillo, Roma, 1989, p.196). In other words, not every believer can become a fascist, but a fascist cannot be an atheist. At the same time it's not proper to call the fascist just religious, at least from the point of view of modern understanding of religiosity. Firstly, for a fascist God is primly the Mystery and Power, not the priestly or moral law. Secondly, a fascist not simply trusts in God, but we may say that for him the existence of God is absolutely obvious, the confirmation of which is the fact of existence of the World itself (World as cosmos/Universe, sacred law and Order as compared to modern "official" understanding of "world"). From there follows a special attitude of a fascist to the world. This world for him is not something dead-born, ordinary and banal, but living Entity, greatest mystery and enigma. As the world is a creature of superhuman powers, God, living in it cannot be considered as a punishment for committed sins. Living within the world is the greatest joy and greatest testing. Therefore what others consider as a misfortune and suffering, a fascist considers as testing of his forces and abilities, as an opportunity to realize his willpower. The heavier is testing, the fierce is the struggle, the greater power he's got. The qualitative characteristic of this world is richness of Sacred Presence.

It is obvious that from such a viewpoint, this modern world devoid of God is no more the world of Order, but rather its antipode- chaos. The characteristic of chaos is its essential homogeneity and infinity that excludes opportunity of orientation and consequently of any evolvement. Therefore the human cannot live in chaos, he needs something to oppose it. However paradoxically, chaos has its own positive feature: everything is possible in chaos. Including World's creation, creativity. Modern world is devoid of any God, for the world God remains somewhere behind, hidden in inaccessible past or, in the best, may appear in the end of time in uncertain future. But for the fascist, who always maintains God in himself, He is Always and Everywhere, here and now. Feeling live presence of God in himself, the fascist finds in Him the point of rest, World's pole, thus making possible some orientation and the way/movement. Kindling in himself a sacred flame in which illusory world burns down, he cleanses himself and all around him, giving an opportunity for the deadly world to become the real World, God's Order subjected not to rigid laws of economy and historical or biological evolution, but to live sacral principle of Higher Justice and Reason: Suum cuique, jedem das seine. Thus he takes on himself a greatest risk and hardest burden and responsibility, because this law spreads on him too, and if he doesn't prove to be on the top doing his best, this flame will burn him too. And if he fights and holds on, he will acquire greatest power, because creativity is a godly force…

Fascism is blamed for many things, including anti-humanism. Perhaps this is one of few accusations with which one may fully agree. It is necessary only to find out what properly is "humanism". The main principle of humanism says: the man is the greatest value of all. But isn't it denying of God? Fascist Anti-humanism has direct relation to the anti-materialistic nature of humanism. Fascism insist on a priority of transcendent values exceeding human realm- values of the higher, godly level. Everything in the world, including the man, has a value only because it is connected with transcendent reality. To be the human is only one of the possible forms of existence and as any other form it has its own limits, and only transcending them it is possible to attain a higher plane.

If we try to determine fascism from the point of view of philosophy, perhaps it is possible to define it as immanent transcendentalism. Speaking otherwise, for fascism the human is valuable by his paradoxical inner and original (immanent) connection to Something which surpasses him, in particular to God (in metaphysical sense). It is paradoxical because in principle all relating to God is considered unattainable and incomprehensible for the humans (i.e. transcendent for them). In ancient times there existed such concept as "initiation" which meant overcoming of profane narrow state of mundane existence and radical change of human nature. Not without reason some people were named "twice-born". It is doubtful to claim similar mysteries within fascism, however I can risk to assert that the tendency to revive ancient rituals may be characteristical of fascist movements as well.

It is obvious that the presence of such tendencies dictates special attitude to death. Death remains the sole authentic companion and guide, master of initiation, it allows the human in the end to overcome himself. Not a black hole of materialists, but just a new step, a new stage on the way, faithful adviser - that is the death for the fascist. This pushes the fascist to most dangerous, heavy and problematic in his life. Fascist does not refrains nor refuses from life, but he can tell "Yes" not only to the life, but also to the death.

Not the slave of the God, but a warrior of God, the fascist fights with chaos and its monstrous generation - huge Golem, a creature without soul, revived with the help of black magic of materialism - i.e. with the modern primitive "world". He does not aim to destroy chaos, but to create from chaos the real World, to return its mystery and joy, to return God to the world - that is the main task of fascist movement, that is Different Way…

Probably many people would think that all the above is too far from concrete practical life and therefore not relevant. However as it was once said about theoretical preconditions of the movement by a person, known first of all as a greatest practical man: "The task is... not to estimate from different sides the level of its [i.e. theory's or program's] feasibility at each given moment, but to show with maximum possible clarity its essence... It is possible to say that Gods patronize them [i.e. them, who define program tasks] namely when they demand something impossible…" (Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Moscow, 1992, p. 175-177).

"The works, that are being peddled about nowadays
as national socialist philosophy have nothing to do
with the inherent truth and greatness of this movement."
Martin Heidegger "What is metaphysics"

"I don't believe that philosophy taken in its narrow
theoretical meaning, is able to influence politics.
It has to be turned into ideology or universal vision
of the world. Such an example was given
by Enlightenment, Marxist dialectic materialism
and by certain philosophical ideas,
which were included in the concept
of German national socialism."
Julius Evola (excerpt from an interview)

Everyone has got own road to National Socialism. Personally, I was brought to it, no matter how paradoxically it may sound, with the help of philosophy. So as the place of chief philosopher in "the Soviet land " was traditionally given to Marx (Lenin no way can be mentioned as a philosopher -- one has to simply reach the hand and read one of the first edition of Lenin's "Philosophical letters ", its margins are filled with remarks which in 99 cases out of 100 read "shit"), and democracies have given the same role to Dr. Freud, the country of winning National Socialism praised Nietzsche as its chief philosopher. It was sufficient to me to get interested in that ideology.

It should be noted, first of all, that from the beginning I has found that most of the studies devoted to National Socialism are extremely untrustworthy. This statement is especially valid in regard to so called "occult" origin of the nazism. Here is just one example. N. Goodrick-Clarke in his "The occult roots of Nazism" while mentioning Hitler's addiction to astrology makes reference to Ellic Howe's book: 'Urania's Children' , whereas it is proved just in the same book -- such an "addiction" was invented by journalists. After having read a huge amount of such "studies" - most of which can be called rubbish - I have come to conclusion that the discussion about "occult roots" of nazism is absolutely baseless. Although societies like Thule, Vriel and many similar did exist, and many leaders of Third Reich in fact were the members of such societies, I dare to claim that these societies hardly played an important role in the process of development of National Socialist ideology. Once, the Fuhrer has told about his movement: "The one who fails to see in the National Socialism nothing but the political movement has understood nothing about National Socialism, for its goal is the will to creation of a superior human". This excerpt is being cited by the scholars of "occult roots" continuously, though most of them are unable to realize that the enigma of National Socialism is connected with its emergence and not with some connections with secret societies.

It is practically impossible to understand the uniqueness of National Socialist vision (namely like universal vision and not just ideology) if one is limited to use only rational and logic thinking. This was even noticed by Pauwels and Bergier in their basically stupid book "Morning of the Magicians" when they write that nazism is practically incomprehensible for modern people brought up with ideals of the Enlightenment and humanism. Add to this that the prerequisite for understanding nazism is being partly a nazi. As Rosenberg put it, nazism can not be understood, one has to live it: "it is rather a state, an inner condition, than a philosophical system".

And, really, National Socialism as a special perception of surrounding world is only available with people that possess unique physical and psychical qualities, first of all, of spiritual character. That requires a special sense, which can be called "metaphysical" sense. As such I call the ability, first, to recognize an essential difference behind superficial similarity and deep similarity between two seemingly different substances. Second, the person must be able to find eternal and essential out of temporary and accidental.

People of today have practically lost that ability because of their utterly rationalized living, the residues of this ability is employed only in trivial situations. For example, we smell the rot and can not mistake it with blooming apple tree (by the way, it is told that even hypnosis can not influence our odour recognition). We have only to smell well enough to feel the modern world is rotten. However, if the smell is more or less functioning system, the sight seems to fail. For example, I still wonder at the existence of people who are tricky enough to state that Fascism and Bolshevism had something in common, labelling both the totalitarian societies. The difference between totalitarianism is evident, since Nazi era newsreels have nothing in common with Sovdepian kitsch a la Stalin (except for military newsreels). The ones who have eyes should see!

Yet, we have to return to the main topic. What is the deadlock for the most scholars of National Socialism? How such things could happen in ХХ century? Are these people our contemporaries? That movement was in such contradiction to the entire spirit of our century that its emergence looks like a true miracle. That was a different world, which was not fitting into the limits of historical development. One can say that Third Reich belongs to mythological order (like a sacred legend) rather than historical (i.e. profane) sphere. The Black Order with its rituals and scrupulously developed system of initiation can be understood as natural continuation of Legends of the Knights of the Round Table, but is hardly imaginable as part of pupil's history reader.

The National Socialists have defied the "unshakable" laws of history thus proving by their example that politics is the art of impossible. They have acted as if what they create should last forever but they also understood that everything can be shattered in no time. Such is the viewpoint of a superior human being, and this is the key to understanding the idea of Eternal Reich.

The will for creation of superior human does not lie in changing the human nature - that would be a very doubtful undertaking - it is connected with problem of self-determination and self-transcendence of human being, a breakthrough into another level of being. In contrast to communists and liberals which are striving to equalize each and everyone, to breed a sort of mediocrity, that is fully domesticated "good" man, by freeing from all "evil" (be it "damned legacy of capitalism" or whatever racial and religious "prejudices"), National Socialists, having accepted essential and unavoidable inequality of humans, strive to build a strict hierarchy. Their motto was not "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite" but "Jedem das seine". That is why they have been treating the problem of world vision in the most serious way. They had to develop an entirely new system of values, and for doing that task they had to change almost everything, including physical appearance of the world.

Many would consider such an endeavor as National Socialist fancy. I would like to merely outline how important this problem in regard to universal vision is. When people used to live on the "flat" Earth, all they had to do to reach the "end of the world" was to sail away in any direction. The encounter with something "out of this world" was depending on persistence of the traveler. It did not really matter what shape the Earth has (for our physical perception is always subjective, our sensing organs have their limits and the tools we create can only increase natural sensitivity but can not add new senses), the important was that the traveler knew that anytime he could find himself "beyond the Earth's end" and this depends solely on his will. That idea was radically changed by the new concept of construction of the world. For this reason National Socialists have taken their own new theory of "Ice and Flame Antagonism". We, the unlucky ones, however, we forced to "discover" space, which was found to be endless. Thus, no "end of the world" could be found in the space. No limits and bounds. No hope...

The Nazis have lost? Yet, it's true. Probably, they remain forever as losers in the history books, but the myth has its own rules and the winner does not become always a mythical hero. Yes, the Germans have lost, but they have created their own Eternal Reich which is alive, although in some different way as "the only true teaching", which might be alive in centuries (i.e. on the time line). The Third Reich is a part of Eternity.

I foresee in advance the reproaches regarding idealization of nazism and would like to emphasize the following. I am not going to polemize with anyone on this matter and argue, like revisionists do, using calculations proving that there were no gas chambers or it was impossible to eliminate 6000000 Jews. Is it so or not so - I am least bothered about it. I view National Socialism as I like to view it. It is my will and thus my right. Am I not objective? Yes, damn it, I hate this so called "objectivity", which is used (with very few exceptions) by the people who are not able to have their own view. I am sufficed with the following words: "Hitler has discovered another dimension of reality, in which a reality yet to born has it absolute meaning" (Andre Brissaud "Hitler et L'Order Noir") to say it today - Heil Hitler!

Himmler Talks with an American Journalist

During his lifetime Lothrop Stoddard (1883-1950) was one of America's most influential writers. He earned a doctorate from Harvard, and was the author of 15 books, including the much-discussed 1920 work, The Rising Tide of Color. He wrote numerous articles and essays, and was an editorial writer and foreign affairs expert for The Washington Star.

Shortly after the outbreak of the Second World War in Europe, he went to Germany on behalf of the North American Newspaper Alliance to report first-hand from the war-beleaguered Third Reich. During this visit he conducted interviews with such key figures as Hitler, Himmler, and Goebbels. Stoddard compiled his observations and interviews in a 300-page book, Into the Darkness, that the Dictionary of American Biography called "a fair and honest appraisal of the Nazi state." This remarkable account will soon be re-issued in an attractive new Noontide edition.

In the following essay, adapted from Chapter 20 of Into the Darkness, Stoddard presents a skeptical but open-minded look at the role of the all-embracing National Socialist Party. This chapter also includes his January 1940 interview with Heinrich Himmler -- the first ever granted to a foreign journalist by the SS leader.

'The Party." That is the commonest phrase in Germany today. It denotes that all-powerful organization, NSDAP (National Socialist German Workers Party) which dominates, energizes, and directs the Third Reich.

Just what is the Party, and what are its relations with the Nation, the State Administration, and those numberless organizations characteristic of German life? That was one of the first questions I put when I got to Germany. Knowing as I did the range of official literature, I supposed I would be promptly handed a neat manual setting forth the whole subject in the meticulous Teutonic Way. What was my amazement when the Propaganda Ministry informed me that no such manual existed, the reason alleged being that the system was more or less fluid and that changes were continually taking place.

Accordingly, I had to piece the current picture together, bit by bit. You never can be sure, at first glance, what is "Party" and what isn't. For instance, I at first took it for granted that all the Brown-Shirt SA and Black-uniformed SS men I saw were Party members. Presently I learned that this was not true; that many of them were candidates, qualifying themselves for membership by meritorious service. As for the organizations, some were "Party," others "State," still others are intermediate, while one or two, like the National Labor Service (Arbeitsdienst), were started by the Party but are now under State control. It was all very confusing. Indeed, I frankly admit that even now I haven't got a wholly clear idea of the scheme in all its complex details.

The reason for this seeming confusion appears to be that National Socialism, though a revolutionary movement, evolved as a regular political party with a complete organization of its own, until, by the time it came to power, it had become virtually a State within a State. Instead of merging itself with the State, or vice versa, this separate organization has been maintained. Of course, all branches of the State are headed by prominent Party men, and their higher subordinates are usually Party members. Indeed, a man may simultaneously hold a State and a Party office. But, in such cases, both the offices and their functions are kept consciously distinct from each other.

When Nazis try to explain to you the interactions of State and Party, they usually say the Party is like an electric motor running a lot of machinery. This motor is the great energizer. It revolves very rapidly and tries to make the machine go at top speed. The machine, however, tends to run at a regulated tempo, toning down in practice the motor's dynamic urge. The Party urges ever: "Faster! Faster!" The officials of the State Administration, however, charged as they are with actual responsibilities and faced with practical problems, act as a machine "governor," keeping progress within realistic bounds.

Dr. Robert Ley, head of the Labor Front, occupies the post of Organization-Leader for the entire Party, and on this exalted phase of his activities his views were enlightening.

"Dr. Ley," I asked him in an interview, "for a long time I've been studying the various organizations you direct. I think I've learned considerable about them, yet I know I haven't got the whole picture. Will you explain to me briefly the basic principles underlying all of them? And will you also explain their relations to both the Party and the State?"

It was late afternoon. We were sitting in a cozy reception-room adjacent to the Doctor's study, in the restful atmosphere of tea, cakes, and sandwiches. For some moments, Dr. Ley sipped his tea reflectively.

"Let's see how I'd best put it," he said finally. "As to our basic ideas, they are very simple. First of all, the principle of natural leadership. By this we mean the proved leader who by sheer merit has fought his way up from below to supreme command. This is best exemplified by Adolf Hitler, our Führer, whom we believe to be an inspired genius."

By this time Dr. Ley had fairly warmed to his subject. His gray eyes shone with enthusiasm.

"Our second principle," he went on, "is absolute loyalty and obedience. So long as a plan is under discussion, it is carefully weighed from every angle. Once debate is closed and a decision is made, everyone gets behind it one hundred percent. But behind both those principles is a third which is even more fundamental. This is what we call the Gemeinschaft -- the organic unity of a people, founded on identity of blood. Germany is fortunate in being racially united. That is the ultimate secret of our harmonious strength."

"Thanks for the explanation," said I. "Now would you mind going on and telling me how, on those foundations, you have built up the various organizations you direct, and how they stand to the Party and to the State?"

"Before I do that," Dr. Ley answered, "let me make clear what the Party and the State mean to each other. The National Socialist Party, as others have doubtless told you, may be likened to a motor which supplies the energy by which an elaborate machine is run. To change the simile, we may also compare the Party to the advance-guard of a column of marching troops. Its duty is to pioneer, investigate, make everything safe. The State, on the other hand, is the main body which occupies the ground won and puts everything in final order. One of the outstanding features of the Third Reich is that the Party can, and does, make all sorts of experiments which would be impossible for State officials, tied down as they are by legal regulations and red tape."

"Would you mind making that a bit more specific?" I ventured.

"All right," he said. "Take me, for example. I'm not a State official. I'm purely a Party leader whose duty it is to prepare such experiments and set them going. Within my field, I have almost boundless freedom of action. For instance when the Führer ordered me to put through the People's Automobile (Volkswagen) Plan, I got the large sums needed. Of course I am held rigidly responsible for results. If I botched a job, I'd immediately be called to account. But so long as things go right, I don't have to waste my time explaining to all sorts of people just what I'm doing. With us, it's efficiency that counts."

"Do your experiments always succeed?" I asked.

"Not always," Dr. Ley admitted. "And when, after a full and fair trial, they are found to be impracticable, we frankly give them up. Sometimes, again, we find an idea to be theoretically sound but, for one reason or another, premature. In that case we lay the idea aside, to be tried again under more favorable circumstances. But when an experiment has proved sound and workable, the Party presently hands it over to the State; which then, as it were, anchors it firmly into the national life by giving it permanent legal status, That's what has actually happened with the institution we call Arbeitsdienst -- the universal labor service required of young men and women. It started as a social experiment run by the Party. Now, having proved itself out, it is a regular state matter."

"Which means," I suggested, "that the party is thereby free to take up still other social experiments?"

"Exactly," he nodded. "And we have so may measures, not merely for bettering life materially but for enriching it as well. We believe the more work we give men to do, the more enjoyment we must give them too. This applies to all grades of persons, with recreation furnished them according to their abilities and tastes. It is not a leveling process -- rather is it a grading process, putting people in their right places."

"To each man according to his abilities?" I remarked.

"Absolutely," said Dr. Ley. "We are always on the lookout for ability; especially capacity for leadership (Leitungsfaehigkeit). That precious quality confers upon an individual the right to an agreeable life, a fine mansion, and many other good things. But the instant he shows himself unworthy of his position he loses them all and is cast aside. National Socialism plays no favorites. While princes and rich men have not been deprived of their titles and wealth, none of them have any prescriptive right to prominence in the Third Reich. If a prince in the Party (and we have them) shows capacity for leadership, he goes ahead. Otherwise, he stays in the background."

So much for this exposition of Party principles, from its organizational director -- to be taken with the usual grain of salt between theory and practice. Now a few words as to the growth and character of Party membership, as gathered from various official spokesmen.

Down to January 30, 1933, the lists were open to all persons who cared to join. Up to that time the Party was fighting for its very life and every recruit was welcome. On that epochal date, the triumph of National Socialism became virtually assured. At the moment, its membership totaled approximately 1,600,000. These veterans, who joined while success was still doubtful and helped put it across, still enjoy a certain prestige faintly reminiscent of the "Old Bolsheviks" in Soviet Russia. The Nazi "Old Guard" hold most of the leading posts and are generally regarded as most trustworthy. This explains why one sees relatively few aristocratic types in the upper ranks of the Party today, because not many joined up before 1933.

Although a rush to get on the band-wagon began at once, the Party welcomed new members until the following May, when its ranks had swelled to 3,200,000 -- just 100 percent. The list were then closed to individual joiners, but were still held open to members of certain nationalistic organizations like the Stahlhelm [veterans association] until 1936, when the Party had 4,400,000 adherents. Thenceforth, accessions were rigidly scrutinized. In fact, applications were discouraged; the Party sought the man, rather than the man the Party. The rule now is that membership is earned only after two or three years' faithful service in some form or other. It takes an outstanding act of merit in Party eyes for a man or woman to be admitted in lesser time. Much of the unpaid work of the country, such as volunteer service in the NSV [the national public welfare organization], Winter-Help drives, or food-card distribution, is done with this in mind. Exceptionally distinguished activity is required for such persons to rise high in the Party organization. Able technicians may soon land good jobs, but that is different from getting into the directing upper crust. I was told that less stringent rules had been in force for candidates from Sudetenland and Poland after the acquisition of those regions, and that the total membership now approximates 6,000,000. After all, that is not a very large figure in comparison with the 80,000,000 Germans who inhabit the Greater Reich. The Party is thus still fairly exclusive, though if we add the families of members, the Nazi bloc probably numbers close to 20,000,000.

Theoretically, any young man or woman of unmixed "Aryan" blood is eligible when they come of age, and it is from the ranks of youth that the Party strives to recruit its membership. However, even here candidates must have an unblemished record, from a party standpoint, in the Hitler Youth, and must be vouched for by their local Party Group. Formal admission takes the form of a solemn oath taken in front of the swastika flag, with the right arm upraised in the Nazi salute. The oath consists of a pledge of unconditional obedience to Adolf Hitler and the party, after which the neophyte subscribes to a long list of commandments, the first one being: The Führer is always right.

From the rising generation, the party thus selects for membership those young men and women best conditioned for its purposes, And from this already selected group is recruited the Schutz Staffeln (Defense Detachments), commonly known as the SS. This is the Party's private army. Originally it was a relatively small elite section of the Brown-Shirt Storm Troopers. But after the Party assumed power the SA men were assigned mainly to routine patriotic duties such as collecting for the Winter-Help. The SS, on the contrary, became the party's mainstay in upholding its all-pervading influence and authority. I was unable to learn its precise numbers, but I understand its present strength to be at least 200,000, organized into regiments, brigades, and divisions, just like the regular army itself.

Furthermore, the SS serves as a training school for both the ordinary police force (Schutz Polizei) and the Political Secret Police -- the dread Gestapo. All three allied organizations are headed by Heinrich Himmler, who built them up to their present efficiency and thus wields a power in the Reich presumably second only to that of the Führer himself.

The typical SS man is tall and blond, young or in the prime of life, with fine physique enhanced by careful athletic training. As Nora Waln aptly puts it, he has "the daily-dozen-followed-by-a- cold-shower look." As he strides along in his well-tailored black uniform with its symbolic death's-head insignia, he is clearly cock-o'-the-walk -- and he knows it. It is interesting to observe how civilians instinctively give him the right-of-way on the sidewalks or in subway trains.

These SS may in many ways be compared to the Janissary Corps of the Old Ottoman Empire. To begin with they are picked men -- picked for fanatical loyalty to the Party, for health and strength, and for unmixed "Aryan" blood. Before attaining full membership in the corps they undergo rigorous training, Spartan in character, which is best characterized by Nietzsche's famous dictum: Be hard! Well-poised hardness both to self and to others is their outstanding attitude. When discussing with foreign residents some harsh or ruthless aspect of the Nazi regime, they would often say: "That's the SS mentality coming out."

As might be expected, the SS have a strong esprit de corps. Their pride in themselves and their organization is unmistakable. Ever aspect of their private lives must conform to strict standards and is carefully supervised. For instance, when they marry (as they are supposed to do in conformity with the Nazi eugenic program), the bride must be equally "Aryan," must pass exacting physical tests, and is expected to attend special courses in domestic and ideological training. The pair are thus deemed well-fitted to play the role required of them and to produce plenty of children for that biological aristocracy which is destined to be the natural rulers of the Third Reich. In return, SS families are well taken care of. Two of the best housing developments I was shown in the Berlin suburbs were for SS households.

I understand that the Gestapo, or Secret Police, are equally well disciplined and looked after, but of course they are invisible to ordinary view. I recall an amusing instance on this point. Some time after my arrival in Berlin I was chatting with a high Nazi acquaintance, who asked me casually; "By the way, how many Gestapos have you seen since you got here?"

"None -- that I could recognize," was my reply.

He laughed heartily. "A good answer," he said. "And you never will -- unless they want you to."

Well, there was one Gestapo that I did want to see -- the Big Chief of them all -- Heinrich Himmler himself. But I was told that seeing him was almost as difficult as getting an audience with the Führer, because he systematically shuns publicity and is therefore journalistically one of Germany's most inaccessible personalities. Naturally, that made me all the more eager to interview him. I finally did, the very day before I left Berlin. It was one of those by-products from my enhanced popularity which I encountered when I returned from Budapest, and which was undoubtedly due to my having strictly kept my word regarding the Hitler audience. Journalistically, this was a clear "scoop," for I was told by the Propaganda Ministry that mine was the first interview Himmler had ever given a foreign correspondent.

Like so many of my experiences in Nazi Germany, the whole affair was quite different from what I had imagined. Off-hand, you would say that the redoubtable Himmler's headquarters would have a mysterious or even a sinister atmosphere. But it didn't. It is a stately old building, made over into offices. You need a special pass to enter, but I went with an official, so there was no delay. Ascending to the second story by a broad stone stairway, we were quickly shown the Chief's quarters, and passed through a suite of offices, light, airy, and tastefully businesslike. There, young men and women were busy with typewriters and filing-cabinets. If the men had not been in uniform, I might have imagined myself about to meet a big corporation executive. Certainly, there was no "police" atmosphere about the place, secret or otherwise; no obvious plainclothes-men, gimlet-eyed sleuths, or other "properties" of a similar nature.

When I finally entered the inner sanctum I was met by a brisk-stepping individual of medium height who greeted me pleasantly and offered me a seat on a well-upholstered sofa. Heinrich Himmler is a South German type, with close-cut dark hair, a Bavarian accent, and dark blue eyes which look searchingly at you from behind rimless glasses. He is only forty years of age -- extraordinarily young for the man who heads the whole police force of the Reich, commands the entire SS, and has charge of the vast resettlement program whereby hundreds of thousands of Germans from the Baltic states, Russia, and northern Italy are coming back willy-nilly to their racial an cultural Fatherland.

Those are certainly three big jobs for one individual. How he does it all is hard to understand. But you get at least an inkling when you meet and talk with him. The longer you are in his presence, the more you become conscious of dynamic energy -- restrained and unspectacular, yet persistent and efficient to the last degree. Also you begin to glimpse what lies behind his matter-of-fact exterior. At first he impresses you as a rather strenuous bureaucrat. But as he discusses his police duties, you notice that his mouth sets in a thin line while his eyes take on a steely glint. Then you realize how formidable he must be professionally.

It was this aspect of this activities that I first broached. "I certainly am glad to meet one of whom I have heard so much," was my opening remark. "Perhaps you know that, in America, we hear rather terrible things about the Gestapo. Indeed," I added with a smile, "it is sometimes compared to the Russian Cheka, with you yourself, Excellency, as a second Dzerzhinsky!"

Himmler took this in good part. He laughed easily. "I'm sure our police organization isn't half as black as it's painted abroad," was his reply. "We certainly do our best to combat crime of every sort, and our criminal statistics imply that we are fairly successful. Frankly, we believe that habitual offenders should not be at large to plague society, so we keep them locked up. Why, for instance, should a sex-offender who has been sentenced three of four times be again set free, to bring lasting sorrow to another decent home? We send all such persons to a detention-camp and keep them there. But I assure you that their surroundings aren't bad. In fact, I know they are better fed, clothed, and lodged than the miners of South Wales. Ever seen one of our concentration-camps?"

"No," I answered, "I wasn't able to get permission."

"Too bad I didn't know about it," said Himmler. "There you'd see the sort of social scum we have shut sway from society for its own good."

That was all very fine, but I felt that Himmler was hedging a bit. So I proceeded: "You refer there to criminals in the general sense of the term. But how about political offenders -- say, old-fashioned liberals? Is any political opposition tolerated?"

"What a person thinks is none of our concern," shot back Himmler quickly. "But when he acts upon his thoughts, perhaps to the point of starting a conspiracy, then we take action. We believe in extinguishing a fire while it is still small. It saves trouble and averts much damage. Besides," he continued, "there isn't any need for political opposition with us. If a man sees something he thinks is wrong, let him come straight to us and talk the matter over. Let him even write me personally. Such letters always reach me. We welcome new ideas and are only to glad to correct mistakes. Let me give you an example. Suppose somebody sees traffic on a busy corner badly handled. In other countries he could write a scathing letter to the newspapers saying how stupidly and badly the police run things. A hundred thousand people who may never have even seen that corner might get all excited, and the prestige of both the police and the State itself might suffer in consequence. With us, all that man has to do is to write us, and I assure you the matter will be quickly righted."

Feeling this traffic simile was a bit ingenuous, I tried to lead him back to the point he knew I had in mind. I nodded sympathetically and said, "That sounds reasonable. But how about a political matter? For instance, take a man like Pastor Niemoeller?"

I felt that ought to bring some reaction, because the Pastor is poison-ivy to most Nazis. Only a few days before, one fairly prominent member of the Party had grown red in the face at the mention of Niemoeller's name and had hissed: "The dirty traitor! If I had my way, I'd order him put up against a wall and shot!"

Himmler took it more calmly. He merely raised a deprecating hand, replying: "Please understand, it was political controversy which got him into trouble. We never interfere with matters of religious dogma." Then, after a moment's pause, he added: "If foreign attacks upon us in this affair would cease, perhaps he could be more leniently dealt with."

It was clear that Himmler didn't wish to discuss the subject further. His eyes narrowed slightly and a frown appeared above the bridge of his nose. Seeing there was nothing more to be gained on that line, I took another tack.

"Tell me something about the basis of the SS organization?" was my next question.

"The Schutz-Staffel," answered Himmler blandly, "represents the best and soundest young manhood of the race. It is founded on the ideals of self-sacrifice, loyalty, discipline, and all-round excellence. Besides being soldiers, the SS has many cultural sides. For instance, we have our own porcelain factory, make our own furniture, and do much scholarly research. When you leave me, I shall have you taken to the barracks of the Leibstandarte here in Berlin, the elite regiment which guards the Führer. There you will see the type of young manhood of which the SS is so justly proud."

"And now, Excellency," I went on, "a few words, if you will, about your resettlement policy?"

"That policy," replied Himmler, "can best be expressed in the words of our Führer: 'To give lasting peace to our eastern borders.' For centuries, that region and others in eastern Europe have been chronically disturbed by jarring minorities hopelessly mixed up with one another. What we are now trying to do is to separate these quarreling elements in just, constructive fashion. We have voluntarily withdrawn our German minorities form places like the Baltic states, and we shall do the same in northern Italy. We are even marking out a place for the Jews where they may live quietly unto themselves. Between us and the Poles we seek to fashion a proper racial boundary. Of course, we are going about it slowly -- you can't move multitudes of people with their livestock and personal belongings like pawns on a chessboard. But that is the objective we ultimately hope to attain."

Himmler talked further about his resettlement policies, carefully avoiding the tragic aspects that they involve. He then returned briefly to the subject of his SS. At that point, a smart young aide entered and saluted.

"The motor [car] is ready, sir," he announced.

"To see the Life-Guards," explained Himmler. "I certainly want you to get a glimpse of my men before you leave."

So saying, the redoubtable head of the Gestapo gave me a muscular handshake and wished me a pleasant homeward journey.

It was a wretched day in late January, cold as Greenland and with swirling spits of snow to thicken the blanket already on the ground. As Himmler's car reached the suburbs, it swerved and swayed ticklishly in hard-packed snow-ruts. However, the SS man at the wheel was a splendid driver and got us to our destination safely and with celerity.

Hitler's Life-Guards occupy the former Prussian Military Cadet School. The buildings are old, though well kept up. The one exception is the swimming-hall, a magnificent new building with a pool so large that I judged nearly a thousand men could bathe together without too much crowding. The Commandant -- a hard-bitten old soldier, small, wiry, and dark-complexioned, in striking contrast to his young subordinates who were all blonds of gigantic size -- proudly told me how it happened to be built.

It seems that the Führer came out one day to see how his Life-Guards were housed. At that time, the swimming-hall was an old structure capable of accommodating only one company at a time. Hitler looked it over and frowned. "This is no fit place for my Leibstandarte to bathe," he announced. "Bring me pencil and paper!" Then and there he sketched out his idea of what the new swimming-hall should be. And on those lines it was actually built.

Such is the "Party" and such are the men who control its destinies. What are we to think of this amazing organization and of its aggressively dynamic creed which so uncompromisingly challenges our world and its ideas?

One thing seems certain: The National Socialist upheaval that has created the Third Reich goes far deeper than the Fascist regime in Italy, and is perhaps a more defiant breach with the historic past than even the Communism of Soviet Russia. This the Nazis themselves claim with no uncertain voice. Listen to what Otto Dietrich, one of their outstanding spokesmen, has to say on this point:

"The Nationalist Socialist revolution is a totalitarian revolution ... It embraces and revolutionizes not only our culture but our whole thought and the concepts underlying it -- in other words, our very manner of thinking. Hence it becomes the starting point, the condition, and the impelling force of all our actions ... We are crossing the threshold of a new era. National Socialism is more than a renascence. It does not signify the return to an old and antiquated world. On the contrary, it constitutes the bridge to a new world!"

Outside of Germany, most persons seem inclined to think that the "new world" envisioned by the Nazis would not be a very desirable abode. However, that does not alter the fact that we are here confronted by a revolution of the most radical kind, and that its leaders are revolutionists from the ground up. Furthermore, though most of them are still relatively young in years, they are all veterans hardened by prolonged adversity and scarred from many battles. They are the logical outcome of the quarter-century of hectic national life which we have already discussed. In my opinion, therefore, both they and their movement may be deemed normal by-products of an abnormal situation.

To give one instance of the grim school wherein they were fashioned, let me cite an episode from my own experience. In mid-summer of the year 1923, I sat in my room at the Hotel Adlon, discussing with a German the deplorable position to which his country had then been reduced. I had just come to Berlin from a trip through the Rhineland and the Ruhr, where I had watched the passive-resistance campaign against the French invaders, seen the black troops, and studied other aspects of that tragic affair. Now, largely in consequence of that desperate maneuver, the Mark was slipping fast to perdition, national bankruptcy was at hand, and utter ruin loomed in the offing.

As my guest discussed the seemingly hopeless situation, he was visibly in agony. Sweat stood out on his forehead. Suddenly, his mood changed utterly. Flinging back his head, he burst into truly blood-curdling laughter, best described by the German phrase galgenhumor -- gallows-humor. Still shaking with his macabre mirth, he leaned forward and tapped me on the knee.

"Millions of us have already died, on the battlefield and from the British hunger blockade," he chuckled. "Perhaps millions more of us will perish, and we shall surely be ruined. No one can tell what trials await us, and the world will do little to assuage our agony. But, no matter what happens, it will be mainly the weak and soft who will perish. Soon, the good-natured, easy-going, pot-bellied German will be no more. Dr. Stoddard, let me make you a prophecy. If this goes on, in about fifteen years you will see a New Germany, so lean, so hard, so ruthless, that she can take on all comers -- and beat them!"

The desperate spirit of the cornered man I talked to on a long-gone summer day typifies merely one phase of the bitter schooling which made Germany's present rulers what they are. In post-war Britain, a phrase was coined to depict their English counterparts. That phrase was: The Lost Generation. But if that were true of the war-scarred youth of Britain, how infinitely truer was it of German youth! Well, those war-youngsters are now in the saddle. So what we see in Germany is -- the lost generation come to power.

From the moment I first looked at those rulers of the Third Reich, I felt there was something about them which, from my American viewpoint, was queer. As I analyzed them, I realized that it was a sort of twisted cynicism combined with a hard ruthlessness. And when I listened to their life-stories, I saw it could scarcely be otherwise. Most of them had entered the war as volunteers when they were mere boys. One, I recall, was only fifteen at the time; others were not much older. These burningly patriotic lads went through the hell of a losing war, culminating in crushing defeat. Then their abased spirits were given a savage tonic by joining the Free Corps formed to combat the attempt at a "Spartakist" [Communist] revolution. Joyously, they killed Communists for a while. After that, some of them tried to go to college or into business; but few of them could adapt themselves to the life of the Weimar republic which they hated and despised. Some of them went abroad, adventuring; the rest sulked and brooded until their ears heard a sudden trumpet-call. It as Nazidom's brazen clarion: Deutschland, Erwache! "Germany, Awake!" They listened to Adolf Hitler's oratory which stressed all the longings of their embittered hearts and they fell under his hypnotic spell. Into the ranks of the Storm-Troops they went, with additional years of fighting as they killed more Communists and "mastered the streets." Then, at last, victory -- and undisputed power.

Such, in a nutshell, are the Nazis, as I analyzed them. The rest, only war's awesome arbitrament can decide.

Reproduced From: Journal of Historical Review

Goebbels' Place in History

No other name is so firmly associated with the term propaganda, conjuring lies and deceit, than that of Dr. Joseph Goebbels. But the popular image of this man, particularly in the United States, is a crude caricature.

Following his birth in 1897 in Rheydt, a medium-size city in the German Rhineland, Paul Joseph Goebbels was raised in a solidly middle-class, staunchly Roman Catholic family.

Although physically unimpressive and handicapped (one leg was shorter than the other), he was gifted with intelligence, a quick tongue and a melodious voice. He excelled in his studies. After a rigorous Gymnasium "humanistic" education, he studied at several German universities, receiving a doctorate from Heidelberg University in 1921.

After an unsuccessful effort to find employment as a writer for major national daily papers, and a nine-month stint working at a bank in Cologne, he became an activist in the fledgling National Socialist Party, and served as editor of two party periodicals, the weekly Völkische Freiheit ("National Freedom") and, later, of NS-Briefe ("NS Letters").

With pronounced working class sympathies, and even some pro-Communist sentiments, during this period he was known as a member of the Party's "left wing."

In 1926, Hitler appointed him Gauleiter for Berlin. He lost no time taking firm control of the small and feuding Party organization there, and infusing it with new dynamism. Goebbels threw himself into his task, quickly proving himself a master organizer and public speaker. As part of his ceaseless efforts in Germany's most important city, in July 1927 he started his own newspaper, Der Angriff ("The Attack").

Goebbels' faced an uphill battle because he aimed, above all, to win support from the city's working class population -- which overwhelmingly supported the Marxist Social Democratic and Communist parties -- while at the same time not alienating middle class voters.

This strategy was perhaps most severely tested during the 1932 Berlin transport workers strike, which paralyzed the great city's bus, elevated railway and subway systems. Only the National Socialists and the Communists supported the workers in their strike against the city government, which was controlled by the Social Democratic party. The result was an odd temporary "Nazi-Commie" alliance that alarmed many middle class Germans.

Goebbels missed no opportunity for humor, sarcasm or mockery. When the Social Democratic government banned the wearing of uniforms by the Party's brownshirted stormtroopers -- its paramilitary citizens militia -- Goebbels mocked the ban by having the men march in public, costumed in stovepipe hats, paper caps, and similar items.

Another stunt he organized was a "debate" with Chancellor Heinrich Brüning. Because Brüning refused to participate, Goebbels "debated" an empty chair, responding -- in Rush Limbaugh style -- to a phonograph recording of a speech by the Chancellor. With wit and sarcasm, Goebbels "ironed flat" his colorless opponent -- to roars of laughter from the mass audience.

Berliners loved such audacious spectacles, and showed their appreciation at the ballot box. In May 1928 Goebbels was elected as a deputy to the German parliament (Reichstag), and six months later was elected to the city council.

In 1929 Hitler named him director of propaganda for the entire National Socialist party, a demanding post of considerable responsibility. In spite of formidable and sometimes violent opposition -- Party speakers were routinely banned, for example, and Hitler's voice was not permitted on German radio -- the National Socialist movement grew rapidly during this period. By 1932 Hitler's Party had become Germany's most important, with by far the largest faction in the Reichstag.

The Party's vast propaganda and publishing empire -- supervised by Goebbels -- included 120 daily or weekly newspapers regularly read by about a million people across the country.

With a distinctly youthful leadership, the National Socialist movement was especially popular among younger Germans. For example, by the time Hitler became Chancellor, National Socialists had already swept the student council elections in German universities.

On January 30, 1933, President Paul von Hindenburg named Hitler as Chancellor, entrusting the 43-year-old former First World War corporal with responsibility for governing an economically devastated nation on the verge of civil war.

Six weeks after the National Socialist "seizure of power," the 35-year-old Goebbels was named "Reich Minister for Propaganda and Popular Enlightenment." In this position, and as President of the "Reich Culture Chamber" (Reichskulturkammer), he exercised wide control over Germany's radio, film, newspapers, periodical press and book publishing, as well as over the nation's cultural life.

During the first years of the Second World War, 1939 to 1942, Goebbels' job as Propaganda Minister was relatively easy. With an almost unbroken string of German and Axis military victories, maintaining public morale was not difficult. His greatest challenge came during the final two years of the war, as Germany's armies suffered ever more terrible military reverses, her great cities crumbling into ruins under a growing storm of British-American bombings, and with utter defeat looming.

It was during this period that Goebbels' most dramatically proved his skill as a master molder of public opinion. In spite of the drastically worsening situation -- both militarily and on home front -- he largely succeeded in maintaining public morale, confidence in Hitler's leadership, and even hope.

Although German historian Helmut Heiber paints a highly critical and generally unflattering portrait in his biography, Goebbels (New York: Hawthorn, 1972), at the same time, he acknowledges Goebbels' talents and strengths.

He notes:

[Goebbels] was able, until the very last minute, to encourage and exploit a blind trust in Hitler and his genius. It is indeed one of the macabre phenomena of the Third Reich that even in their country's agony the mass of the German people remained docile and faithful to Hitler's banner ... In spite of everything they had experienced, they kept the faith. [p. 133]

After the great defeat at Stalingrad in early February 1943, Goebbels was the first official forthrightly to acknowledge the seriousness of the peril that faced the nation and Europe, and frankly to concede that Germany could lose the war.

Probably the best known of his wartime speeches was his brilliantly crafted "Total War" address of February 18, 1943. Masterfully delivered to a large audience in Berlin's Sportpalast hall, it was broadcast on national radio and excerpts were shown in the weekly "Deutsche Wochenschau" newsreel.

Speaking in the aftermath of the Stalingrad catastrophe, Goebbels stressed the grim truth that catastrophic defeat was a real possibility, and concluded with a rousing call for national mobilization. (Germany's national economy was still operating on a largely peacetime basis, with factories turning out a vast array of non-essential consumer goods.)

An enormous banner proclaimed the rally's slogan: "Total War, Shortest War."

Goebbels' frankness and even courage won him a measure of popular admiration. Writes Heiber:

He understood the value of admitting reverses and even, now and then, errors; his readiness to be thus "candid" was a kind of knowledgeable wink at his audience -- "Look, I take you seriously. Let's be frank with one another" -- and enabled him to ensnare them all the more. The result was that later on, after 1943, after he had borrowed ... the "blood, sweat and tears" theme of Churchill, people were ready to believe in the ray of hope which he astutely let shine through the somber coloring of his speeches. [p. 134]

"As other influential Nazis began to creep into their shells," comments Heiber, "Goebbels could dare to appear before a mob and not only gain a hearing, but even arouse faith and hope ..." [p. 134]

As the war dragged on, Goebbels' front-page editorial essays in the weekly paper Das Reich played an increasingly important role in sustaining public morale. They were widely reprinted and routinely read over the radio. "His articles in Das Reich," acknowledges Heiber, "were indeed excellent, brilliantly written, and full of bright ideas ..." [p. 235]

Heiber also notes:

Goebbels' articles were carefully worked out more than a week before they were to appear, written in excellent, polished German, stylistically enjoyable and relatively discriminating in content; often they seemed illumined by the lofty wisdom of a great thinker. Their very titles were reminiscent of philosophical treatises: "On the Meaning of War," "The Essential Nature of the Crisis," "On the Work of the Spirit," "On Speaking and Being Silent," "The Indispensability of Freedom," "About National Duty in War." ...It is all very well turned and very solid. These articles made an impression, and Goebbels knew it. [ p. 252 ]

Regrettably, little of what Goebbels wrote and said during the latter war years -- when he was at the peak of his powers -- has been translated into English.

One of Goebbels' greatest wartime propaganda achievements was his exploitation of the Katyn massacre story. In April 1943, the Germans discovered at Katyn, near Smolensk in occupied Russia, a mass grave of thousands of Polish officers who had been taken prisoner by the Soviets in 1939, and shot by Soviet secret police in April 1940.

On Goebbels' orders, German newspapers and magazines devoted great attention to the story, giving it weeks of detailed, often front-page coverage. His astute treatment of the story contributed significantly to a major Allied political defeat -- a break in relations between the Soviet government and the Polish government-in-exile. (Meanwhile, American and British officials and newspapers backed the Soviet lie that Germans were responsible for the atrocity.)

In addition to his work as the nation's chief propagandist, during the war Goebbels took on ever greater organizational and policy-making responsibilities, playing an increasingly important role in keeping the nation's industrial and social machinery functioning.

In February 1942, Hitler entrusted him with special authority to oversee assistance to people ravaged in Allied air attacks -- a post that was to assume ever greater importance as the aerial bombardment of Germany steadily escalated.

In the summer of 1944, Hitler named him "Reich Plenipotentiary for the Total War Mobilization." Thus, during the final catastrophic months of the war Goebbels -- along with Armaments Minister Albert Speer -- directed Germany's human and material resources for maximum war production, while simultaneously continuing somehow to operate the nation's electric power and water plants, transportation and telephone systems, food and fuel supply networks, public schools, radio broadcasting and daily newspaper publishing.

This organizational feat of keeping essential social and community services functioning, while at the same time maintaining and even sharply increasing armaments production -- in spite of devastating aerial bombardment and an ever worsening military situation -- is an achievement without historical parallel.

"We have become a people on the defensive," Goebbels wrote in Das Reich of Feb. 11, 1945 -- eleven weeks before the end. "We work and we fight, we wander, we leave our homes, we suffer and endure, and we do all this with a silent dignity which, in the end, will arouse the admiration of the entire world. Europe may well be happy that it still possesses such a people. Today this people is the salvation of Europe. Tomorrow, therefore, it will be Europe's pride."

His final radio address, broadcast over what remained of a tattered network, was delivered on April 19, 1945. As he had done every year since 1933, he spoke on the eve of Hitler's birthday.

Even on this occasion, when the terrible end was glaringly obvious to all, Goebbels still spoke with eloquent, controlled passion, frankly acknowledging the supreme gravity of the situation while inspiring hope. He had not lost his ability to rouse his countrymen with fervor as well as a certain seeming nobility.

"Do not let yourself be disconcerted by the worldwide clamor that will now begin," he urged in a letter written to his stepson just days before his death. "There will come a day, when all the lies will collapse under their own weight, and truth will again triumph."

In his final testament written just hours before he took his life, Hitler named Goebbels as his successor as Chancellor -- a tribute to steadfast loyalty even to the bitter end. But Goebbels held this empty position for just a few hours. After he and his wife had their six children put to death, and with Soviet troops just a few hundred yards away, on the evening of May 1, 1945, Joseph and Magda Goebbels ended their lives in the courtyard outside the Führerbunker.

Contrary to popular belief, Goebbels was successful as a propagandist not because he was a master of the "Big Lie," but rather as a result of his fidelity to facts and truth.

As biographer Heiber notes:

Goebbels was accordingly able to celebrate his information policy as being not only superior to the enemy's in its monolithic character, but also of a "seriousness and credibility" which "simply cannot be surpassed." The boast could be made with some justification: Seen in the long view, Goebbels preached, the best propaganda is that which does no more than serve the truth." [p. 254]

"Goebbels' real lies, his conscious lies, always pertained to mere detail ...," writes Heiber. "Goebbels' lies were more in the nature of those equivocations and evasions by which government spokesmen everywhere seek to 'protect' the 'national interest'." [pp. 134, 135]

It is also common to imagine that, however skilled, Goebbels was little more than a clever ranter who won support from his countrymen by appealing to base feelings of envy, revenge, conceit and arrogant pride.

This view, which implicitly demeans Germans as a nation of emotional and mental cripples, is especially widespread in the United States. If he thinks about it at all, the typical American imagines that if he had been living in Third Reich Germany, he would not have "fallen" for Goebbels' "obvious" lies.

Such a self-flattering view is based on ignorance. In his classic study, Propaganda (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1968; Vintage, 1973 [p. 54]), French scholar Jacques Ellul pointed out that Goebbels' postwar image is itself a propaganda distortion:

There remains the problem of Goebbels' reputation. He wore the title of Big Liar (bestowed by Anglo-Saxon propaganda) and yet he never stopped battling for propaganda to be as accurate as possible. He preferred being cynical and brutal to being caught in a lie. He used to say: "Everybody must know what the situation is." He was always the first to announce disastrous events or difficult situations, without hiding anything. The result was a general belief between 1939 and 1942 that German communiqués not only were more concise, clearer and less cluttered, but were more truthful than Allied communiqués (American and neutral opinion) -- and, furthermore, that the Germans published all the news two or three days before the Allies. All this is so true that pinning the title of Big Liar on Goebbels must be considered quite a propaganda success.

German academic critized
for denying Hitler was "absolutely evil"...

Posted by Sam on June 23, 2000 at 14:38:57:

GERMAN historians are outraged after a top literary prize was awarded to a controversial academic who has sought to justify Hitler's anti-Semitism and play down the monstrosity of Nazi war crimes.

Ernst Nolte was awarded the Konrad Adenauer prize, normally given for works that "contribute to a better future", this month, provoking a dispute over revisionism in modern German history.

The academics' anger was heightened when Horst Moeller, the director of the highly respected Institute for Contemporary History, scandalised colleagues by praising Professor Nolte for his "life's work of high rank" and opening up the debate on wartime Germany.

Professor Nolte became an academic pariah in the 1980s when he suggested that Hitler and national socialism presented a distorted mirror image of Stalin and Bolshevism and to merge unacceptably his anti-Semitism with his anti-communism. Professor Nolte has not wavered from his views despite a barrage of criticism. "The Holocaust is indissolubly linked not only to Hitler's hostility to Bolshevism but also to the war against the Soviet Union in general," he said.

Professor Nolte, who also emphasised that Hitler was not "absolutely evil", is not a revisionist in the manner of David Irving - he does not deny the scope of the Holocaust. He is, however, by most definitions, an apologist for Hitler. To the surprise of politicians as well as historians, Professor Nolte was awarded the Konrad Adenauer prize by the conservative Germany Foundation. The speech was delivered by Horst Moeller, director of the Institute for Contemporary History in Munich.

Professor Moeller wanted to spice his praise of Professor Nolte with criticism, but somehow only the praise seemed to trickle through. As a result it appears to many historians that the Institute has given its seal of approval to Professor Nolte's views.

This is more than an innocent slip-up. Throughout German history departments there are already arguments about repositioning the importance of Hitler. Some reduce the significance of national socialism by comparing it with supposedly totalitarian regimes such as that of the East German Communists. One Dresden historian questioned the morality of trying to kill Hitler in a crowded beer cellar in 1938. The would-be assassin, he said, had no right to risk the lives of innocent people.

The Institute of Contemporary History had to fight for funding after the war when there was no political interest in raking over the ashes of national socialism. Since then however, it has grown into a major influential institute employing 80 academics. Its studies of the social hierarchy in Auschwitz changed the way that people looked at victimhood in concentration camps.

Most controversially, however, it supervised and edited the publication of 20 volumes of diaries written by Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister. This provided an essential source for scholars of national socialism - but also made the institute a magnet for revisionists such as Mr Irving who were keen to adjust the public picture of Hitler.

In his speech, Professor Moeller emphasised that he did not share Professor's Nolte's basic thesis that the Nazis were an understandable reaction to Bolshevism. However, he did call for academic tolerance and a serious discussion rather than demonisation of Ernst Nolte's works.

Unfortunately the only discussion that has ensued is about the integrity of the historical profession in Germany. How far can German historians discuss Hitler in a normal way - advancing positive as well as negative elements - without seeming to be Nazi sympathisers?

Hitler, it seems, cannot be buried in academe.

ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny

Copyright (c) 2000 - Ingrid A. Rimland

June 21. 2000

Glad tidings! And is this ever welcome news!

Today's New York Times carries an article by Roger Cohen I would call stunning, even wondrous. Read for yourself, and ponder what it means for Europe.

Title: Hitler Apologist Wins German Honor, and a Storm Breaks Out

New York Times:

The award of one of Germany's most prestigious literary prizes to a historian who has sought to justify the Holocaust has ignited a fierce dispute here at a time of conservative and reactionary intellectual stirrings in Europe.

The historian, Ernst Nolte, has argued that Hitler's anti-Semitism had a "rational core" and that Nazism was in essence a riposte to Bolshevism. He received the Konrad Adenauer Prize for literature this month, causing an uproar that has filled newspapers with invective and divided one of the country's leading historical institutes.

Zundelsite:

The historical record is, and has been, crystal clear for 70 years. National Socialism was a ***reaction against Jewish-dominated Bolshevism***. It was, in fact, the only viable alternative, since conservatism, liberalism and clericalism had failed Europe miserably in the 1920s and 1930.

My readers will want to know that Nolte, the recipient of the award, has been the subject of intense persecution over the last ten years, having had his car bombed and burned and his summer retreat made the target of arsonists.

New York Times:

The prize, whose past recipients include former Chancellor Helmut Kohl, is given for works that "contribute to a better future" by the Munich-based Deutschland Foundation. The organization is conservative and close to the right wing of the Christian Democratic Party but had not been considered reactionary or revisionist.

Zundelsite:

One does not have to be a reactionary or revisionist to put two and two together. Liberals, Socialists and Marxists have slowly lost their all-pervasive power over European thinking, and this New York Times article just about spells it out.

New York Times:

Accepting the prize, Mr. Nolte said, "We should leave behind the view that the opposite of National Socialist goals is always good and right." He added that because Nazism was the "strongest of all counter forces" to Bolshevism, a movement with wide Jewish support, Hitler may have had "rational" reasons for attacking the Jews.

Zundelsite:

This is, of course, absolutely correct. The Bolshevik Revolution was Jewish-Marxist inspired, financed and carried out, not against class enemies but against the gentile aristocracy of Russia and Europe generally. Even Winston Churchill acknowledged that in his article in the Illustrated Sunday Herald of February 8, 1920, "Zionism versus Bolshevism: The Revolution in Russia." In this article, Churchill described the Jewish leadership of the terroristic Communist Revolution.

New York Times:

The timing of the prize was particularly delicate because this is a period of some intellectual ferment in Europe. The success of the Austrian rightist Jörg Haider in steering his Freedom Party into government has emboldened the right.

Zundelsite:

One might also argue that Europe is coming to its senses, throwing off the Marxist yoke - in the East and in the West!

New York Times:

In Germany and France, a conservative reaction is evident against what the French call "the angelic left," which is accused of imposing a stifling political correctness on debate and of backing a multicultural tide that will sweep away the European nation state.

Zundelsite:

The reaction to the crimes and insanity of Marxist liberalism is gaining momentum, sweeping away the lies, fabrications and deceptions of the Allied-imposed post-war victors' point of view.

New York Times:

In this context, Mr. Nolte has emerged as an iconoclast with apparently growing conservative appeal. A few days after receiving the prize, he was widely applauded at a conference in Paris where he again explored his thesis about Hitler and the Jews.

Zundelsite:

Ah - Paris of all places! French intellectuals, including Professor Faurisson, Garaudy and others have been in the forefront of this quiet but inevitable "counter-revolution" - of truth over lies and historical facts over political "truths."

New York Times:

"The award of the prize to Nolte was a clear political statement intended to promote the view that there is no particular stigma to Nazism in the light of what some Germans now call the 'Red Holocaust' in the Soviet Union," said Charles Maier, a Harvard historian. "It's exculpatory in the German context. It's also really scandalous."

Zundelsite:

What is really "scandalous" is something else. Scandalous has been the attempt by largely Jewish-American based academics for the last half century to falsify history to make it match the Jewish concept of what National Socialism and Hitler were all about.

New York Times:

The unease and anger in Germany over the prize has been accentuated by the fact that another prominent historian, Horst Möller, the director of the distinguished Institute for Contemporary History, chose to make the speech honoring Mr. Nolte.

Zundelsite:

It was only a matter of time for a decent man and a professional to say: "Enough is enough!" Now let's see if Horst Möller is indeed such a man - or if he will cave in as others have before him.

New York Times:

The institute was established after the war in Munich with a clear educational mission directed largely toward researching Nazism.

Zundelsite:

". . . and, let no one forget, give most of their writings an anti-Nazi, pro-Allied slant!"

New York Times:

In his speech, Mr. Möller said he did not agree with all of Mr. Nolte's views, but went on to praise a "life's work of high rank" and to make a vigorous attack on the "hate-filled and defamatory" attempts to stop open debate in Germany.

Zundelsite:

It took Möller and his fellow professional historians fifty years to work up enough courage to speak out and call a spade a spade. One wonders if the shameless, ambulance-chasing Reparations Racketeers had anything to do with that?

New York Times:

The reaction was overwhelming. Newspapers have been filled with letters from other historians at the institute calling on Mr. Möller to resign.

In an open letter to Die Zeit, Heinrich A. Winkler, a professor of history at Berlin's Humboldt University, said, "Mr. Möller allowed himself to become party to an intellectual political offensive aimed at integrating rightist and revisionist positions in the conservative mainstream." (...)

Zundelsite:

And how sweet this sounds to revisionist ears - ". . . an intellectual political offensive"! Doesn't it just melt on your tongue?

New York Times:

With Haiderism thriving in neighboring Austria, the ground has become fertile in Germany for a nationalist and right-wing intellectual awakening. It is fed by weariness, even anger, at what is seen as Germany's eternal victimization for the Holocaust, and irritation at the multicultural message from a Red-Green government.

Zundelsite:

Translation: Germans and Austrians have been kicked once too many! Now they are telling the world: "Get off our backs!" Soon they may tell them to pay reparations for the bombing of Germany's cities and the rape and murder of its civilians - millions of them! After all, the precedent is there!

New York Times:

Mr. Nolte took up these themes in his speech. He attacked those who argue for "an unstoppable transition toward world civilization." He bitterly denounced the "collective accusation" continuously leveled at Germany since 1945.

Zundelsite:

Hear! Hear! Such words from Germany?

New York Times:

The historian, the author of books including "Three Faces of Fascism" and "The European Civil War," has been well known for his argument about Hitler and Stalin since the 1980's.

Zundelsite:

Well known? That man has paid his dues! He has been vilified, persecuted and suppressed! He has been victimized like everybody in the world who dared question the warped post-war view of history from the Allies-Marxist-Jewish angle!

New York Times:

But never before has a center-right institution like the Deutschland Foundation moved to embrace him in such a formal way, intimating that at least the right of the Christian Democratic Party may be ready to countenance the view that the crimes of the Nazis were not unique and have been unfairly singled out.

Mr. Haider has made a lot of headway in Austria precisely by questioning the "intellectual tyranny" of the left.

Zundelsite:

This reaction was inevitable. The pendulum is swinging back - big time! - and hitting a few noses.

=====

Source: New York Times, June 21, 2000 http://www.nytimes.com/library/books/062100nolte-prize.html 

Reproduced From:  CODOH

The Myth of the Twentieth Century

ISBN 0-911038-47-7

 

 

 

 

The Life and Death of Alfred Rosenberg

ALFRED ROSENBERG was born on the twelfth day of January, 1893 and was hanged at Nuremberg at 1:49 A.M. on the morning of 16. October 1946. He was the fourth man of the ten on whom Master-Sergeant John C. Woods performed his grisly task as hangman on that cold, black night. Adolf Hitler had died by his own hand on 30 April, 1945 as the Russian army closed inexorably around the last redoubt of the Reichskanzlei bunker. As a captive of the Russians, it is unlikely that he would ever have been brought to any kind of trial-even such as the Nuremberg proceedings. Like Sultan Bayazid in the hands of Timur, or Emelyan Pugachev at the mercy of that enlightened monarch, Catherine the Great, Hitler would probably have ended in an iron cage, suspended from the Kremlin walls and reduced, no doubt, to a mindless vegetable by the inquisitors who had learned their trade so well in the Lubianka cellars. And such was the prevailing mood of the times, even in the Western democracies, that it is doubtful that any voices would have been heard protesting.

Heinrich Himmler, too, had poisoned himself and Dr. Paul Josef Goebbels, his wife and their six children had perished in the same manner on the day following the death of Hitler and Eva Braun. Martin Bormann had disappeared. He was nevertheless sentenced to death in absentia –a procedure unknown to British or American jurisprudence– at Nuremberg. It seems most likely now that Bormann perished in the streets of Berlin in an attempt to escape and that his body was simply blown to bits by some chance high-explosive shell.

Then there was the Reichs-Marschall, Hermann Goering, jovial, ebullient, bon vivant, art lover, commander of the Richthofen squadron in World War 1. Goering was probably the most charismatic figure in the National Socialist hierarchy after Hitler himself. He was deputy Führer until the last few days and always the unquestioned number-two man in the Reich. At Nuremberg, his courage and wit frequently discomfited the duller minds of the prosecuting team and, at the end, less than two hours before his scheduled hanging, he was to cheat the eager hangman with a cyanide capsule he had managed to secrete on his person.

The sentiments of those who thus escaped the victor's vengeance were no doubt those of Brutus at Philippi –

Thou seest the world, Volumnius, how it goes.

Our enemies have beat us to the pit.

It is more worthy to leap in ourselves

Than tarry till they push us.

Thus of the twenty-two men indicted before the International Military Tribunal (IMT) at Nuremberg, one had never been present and one took his own life before the sentence of death could be carried out. Of the remaining twenty, three were acquitted of the charges brought against them, Hjalmar Schacht, Franz von Papen and Hans Fritzsche.

It is not my purpose in this brief introduction to discuss the Nuremberg trials in any great detail, nor yet the public rationale for them. At the time they were arranged for and conducted, I was still a serving officer in the Royal Air Force of Great Britain and had spent some six years fighting the Germans and Japanese. Nevertheless, the whole concept of trying the leaders of a defeated enemy nation for crimes which were only defined retroactively (ex postfacto "law") in a court in which the prosecution and the judicial bench belonged to the same party, where normal rules of evidence were suspended in advance and where the tu quoque defense ("You did the same thing") was disallowed, disturbed and distressed me. I had been raised to believe in the impeccable majesty and justice of British law and, indeed, with some naiveté perhaps, in its superiority over that of all other nations.

It did not help to read a headline in the British newspaper with the largest daily circulation-about 4,000,000-which crowed "We Shall Try Them And Hang Them." Nor did the fact that by 1946 few people in the West had any doubts that the ghastly Katyn Forest and associated massacres of some 15,000 helpless Polish officer POWs had been perpetrated by one of the parties which were about to sit on the bench of the International Military Tribunal. Many of us in the armed forces knew much more than that. We knew, although we did not talk about it very much, that the most dreadful atrocities had been committed by all the major parties in the war that had just concluded. And in the years that have followed, our knowledge of that aspect has increased prodigiously.

But I was only a junior officer and very young. There were a number of prominent men, far more important and knowledgeable than a mere flight lieutenant, who were disturbed and distressed. And it is very doubtful if any of them could have been accused of sympathy with the ideology of National Socialism or even with the Germans as a nation. Apart from a long list of eminent scholars and revisionist historians-too long to attempt to catalogue here-there were in England such men as The Very Reverend William Inge, Dean of St. Paul's, or the attorney, F.J.P. Veale, whose book, Advance to Barbarism, is still one of the most effective critiques of the Nuremberg mentality. And in the United States, Senator Robert A. Taft knowingly sacrificed his career and a fair chance at the American Presidency by speaking publicly against the implementation of ex post facto law as repugnant to the whole tradition of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence and the letter and spirit of the United States Constitution. That this was political suicide -and Taft knew it- is a thought for the younger reader to ponder while trying to comprehend the fanatical spirit of vengeance which dominated the era. President John F. Kennedy well understood the nature of Taft's deed and honored him for it in his book, Profiles in Courage.

How different it all is today! We have learned so many things in recent years -the truth about the sinking of the Lusitania in World War 1, for example; or the truth about the Churchill-Lindemann-Harris policy of terror bombing. Much, much else. Or is it really so different? The publishing houses, many of them, and a fortiori the movies and television, remind us almost daily of the thesis of a special Teutonic diabolism. *

* In early 1981 it was revealed that Churchill had made plans to rain mustard gas and deadly anthrax bombs on German civilian centers. If the war had not ended when it did, his plans would have been carried out and large areas of Germany, even today (1981) would not be habitable. Hitler, however, never seriously considered the use of gas except in retaliation to gas attacks. One reason, perhaps, is that Hitler was himself a victim of British gas warfare in the trenches of the First World War.-Ed.

At the time of this writing, thirty-five years have passed since the end of World War II. Can we possibly find some historical analog -not too distant- the events which have taken place in the intervening years? Perhaps that would help us to gauge the truth or falsity implicit in the title of Veale's book.

In 1792, the French Revolutionary government began a virtually continuous war of aggression for the next twenty-three years against most of the rest of Europe. Its purposes were twofold: to rally and unite factions within the nation, and to seize the territory and exploit the resources of its neighbors. By 1796, the career of Napoleon Bonaparte was in full flower. For nineteen more years, the Napoleonic armies marched and countermarched across all Europe, drenching the soil of the continent in blood. Belgium, Holland and much of Italy and western Germany were annexed directly to France. The art treasures of the conquered peoples were looted. Forced contributions of money and manpower were exacted from the satellite nations. Political enemies were assassinated. General Napoleon became dictator of Franco by a coup detat in 1799, and emperor in 1804.

When, in 1814, Napoleon was first defeated by the vast coalition ranged against him ("How many crows were ye against the dying eagle? ") he abdicated and was granted sovereignty over the Italian island of Elba. He escaped and returned to France in 1815, raised more armies and resumed the war. After his final defeat at Waterloo, he again abdicated and was taken to the Atlantic island of St. Helena. On the way, the ship docked at Plymouth where English crowds turned out, not to gloat or to jeer, but to pay their respects to their fallen foe. Napoleon spent the remaining six years of his life on St. Helena writing his memoirs and living, with a suitable staff of aides and servants, in relative comfort (apart from some petty irritations inflicted by the rather spiteful governor). In 1840, his body was brought home to France and entombed magnificently in Les Invalides. There he lies, surrounded by murals of his greatest victories, to this day the supreme national hero of France. When Queen Victoria visited Paris, she went to see Napoleon's tomb and there she made her young son kneel in homage.

By 1918, the chivalrous and aristocratic ethos had long given place to that of homo vulgaris, democracy triumphans. And so there was heard much talk of hanging the Kaiser. But it was only splenetic prattle. He had sought refuge in Holland and no great pressure was exerted upon the Dutch to surrender him. In any event, he lived out his life as a comfortable country squire on his estate at Doom. As a final note on this part of our topic, it may be remarked that the terms imposed on Prussia in 1807 were far more severe than those imposed on France in 1815; and the terms imposed on Germany in 1919 were savagely punitive and "Carthaginian" compared with those imposed on France by Germany in 1871.

But it was not until 1945 that the victors finally progressed to the level of the Book of Esther or the story of Samuel and Agag. Could it be that this was the ultimate triumph of Christianity? That we were at last taking the Bible as a serious guide to conduct? Or was it a triumph of democracy as in the Book of Esther or the story of Samuel and Agag. Could it be that something!

The defendants at Nuremberg were separately charged on two, three or four counts. Twelve men. including Rosenberg, were charged on all four counts. These were:

1. Conspiracy to wage war.

2. Crimes against peace.

3. War crimes.

4. Crimes against humanity.

Richard Harwood (Nuremberg and Other War Crimes Trials) comments as follows:

THE CHARGES could have been drawn up by some poet or philosopher, for no specific item of legislation passed by any specified legislature was alleged to have been broken. For someone to be charged with a crime necessitates their breaking a law. No country had, or has, a law against waging war. Neither does any country have a law against waging "aggressive" war. Who defines the aggression? When Britain and France invaded Egypt in 1956, their leaders and generals were not arrested and charged with waging aggressive war.

Every single one of the charges could have been equally well laid at the Allies door. Consider:

1. Conspiracy to wage war

the Anglo-French-planned invasion of Norway  

Stalin's planned invasion of Poland 

Roosevelt's plans to enmesh the USA in the war.

 

2. Crimes against peace

Stalin's invasion of Poland and Finland

Britain's invasion of Iraq [and Iran]

Britain's sinking of the French fleet at Oran

American invasion of Iceland and Greenland.

 

3. War crimes

the wanton destruction of German cities

the Soviet' murder and ill-treatment of German POWs

the use of Germans as slave laborers after the war in all

the Allied European countries.

 

4. Crimes against humanity

the Soviet massacre of the Poles at Katyn

the Anglo-American bombing of civilian targets

the Soviet atrocities against their own people before

and during the war.

Harwood has by no means exhausted the list. Individual acts of the most appalling sadism and cruelty were committed by Allied soldiers against both Germans and Japanese who had already surrendered. Incidents of rape and looting were a feature of all the Allied occupation forces in the early days, but the wholesale and unchecked rape of the women, girls and boys in Berlin, the looting and sacking of that city by the armies of Marshals Zhukov and Koniev, and the instant killing of any German civilian who tried to shield his womenfolk, make the horrors of the Thirty Years War read like an exercise in knightly and gentlemanly conduct.

But amid the cant and solemnity of the Nuremberg "trials," the victors would not accept any charges of misconduct against themselves. Alfred Rosenberg was found guilty on all four counts and, as we have already noted, met his end on the gallows on the moming of the 16th of October, 1946. He left behind a widow and a young daughter.

Who was this rather quiet and withdrawn-even shy-man with the somewhat bland good looks of an upper-class English senior civil servant? By all accounts he was, in his personal life, a kind man, rather humorless, incorruptible. There was neither cynicism nor pragmatism in his fanatical dedication to the National Socialist ideology but the fanaticism only became eloquent in his writing. He lacked the extrovert geniality to be a good conversationalist. This introversion was certainly not characteristic of the generality of the Nazi leaders-not even of Hess whose withdrawal appears to have developed as a result of his treatment by his British captors after his peace-seeking flight to Scotland, in 1941. Rosenberg seems to have been the buff of a good deal of rough humor in p circles, and not the least on account of his name Which, In was thought of as typically Jewish, although in the Baltic area from where he came it was commonly a gentile name also. Yet Rosenberg remained always totally loyal and, apart from Hitler himself, was the only member of the party to remain prominent from the earliest days until the very end. But he was not equipped by training or temperament for the rough and tumble of practical affairs.

Rosenberg's tastes and interests lay in classical music, architecture, and above all in literary and philosophical matters. Among the great German philosophers, the works of Immanuel Kant and Arthur Schopenhauer seem to have made the deepest and most lasting impression. But he was a voracious reader. He certainly read Ernst Haeckel, probably the most famous of the German Indologists. He read a great deal of the Aryan literature of ancient India, especially the Rig Veda. and it is evident that he was well-acquainted with the Zend Avesta, the sacred book of ancient, pre-Islamic Persia. He steeped himself in the classical history of Greece and Rome and especially in classical mythology. This almost omnivorous and self-directed study, together with his personal experiences in revolutionary Russia and post-war Germany, were the two pillars upon which he constructed his final and passionate world-view.

His vocation, however, as he saw it and as he partially fulfilled it, was to become the custodian of the party ideology and the author of a magnum opus which would provide National Socialism with a definitive theory of history as a function of race. That work Der Mythos des 20. Jahrhunderts- (The Myth of the Twentieth Century).

National Socialist orthodoxy was never as monolithic nor as all-embracing as that of Marx and Lenin. There was, of course, agreement on the major issues-that World Jewry was the irreconcilable enemy of all Aryan civilization and culture and especially of Germany; that the punitive clauses of the Treaty of Versailles were intolerable and must be rejected; that all Germans must understand and feel their spiritual unity as a true Volk and that distinctions and rivalries of class and faction must disappear. But apart from such general principles, there was a wide variety of opinions an(f philosophic positions. Rosenberg was well aware of this and at considerable pains in his Introduction to emphasize that the Mythos was a personal philosophy. He is, for example, almost as violent. anti-Catholic as he is anti-Jewish and only relatively less anti-Protestant. He is, in fact, anti-Christian. Yet most of the party rank and file were Christian, and Germany is half Catholic.

Jesus of Nazareth, he thought, was a great man whose teachings hi been corrupted by a clever Jew, Paul of Tarsus. In the following centuries, the Catholic church had evolved an elaborate theology and ceremonial which had nothing in common with the Founder and was, in fact, a resurgence of degraded Leveantine-Etruscan superstitions decked out in spuriously "Christian" forms.

But Rosenberg's quarrel with the Catholics was not simply or solely a matter of theology. There was in Germany a powerful Catholic political party, the Zentrum Partei. Even Bismarck, in the nineteenth century, had seen the political nature of the Catholics in Germany as a danger to the internal peace and new-won unification of the nation. It must be remembered that the Second Reich which came into being in January 1871 and expired in November 1918 was never a strongly centralized State. It contained four kingdoms-Prussia, Bavaria, Württemberg and Saxony, five grand duchies, thirteen duchies, three free cities and the Imperial Territory ... of Elsass-Lothringer had been a dream which only . . . three short but bitter wars had been able to realize. Bavaria, Württemberg and the Rhineland were predominantly Catholic, and separatist tendencies always threatened to surface in time of crisisencouraged by France and, at least in the view of Protestant Prussia, aggravated by the recently proclaimed doctrine of Papal infallibility which had set all Protestant Europe by the ears. The ultramontanism which had developed as a reaction to the Napoleonic and French Revolutionary wars was fundamentally anti-nationalist. It was so seen even in Catholic Italy where the conflict between Italian nationalism and the Vatican was called "the Roman Question" and was not resolved until Mussolini's Concordat with the Pope in 1929. There was a strong anti-clerical party in France. And so, in Prussia the struggle against political Catholicism was waged by Bismarck under the banner of the Kulturkampf and the so-called "May" or "Falk" laws of 1873. The Jesuits were also expelled from the territory of the Reich.

In the first few years following World War 1, there were renewed dangers of separatism in Catholic Bavaria and, even more seriously in the Rhineland, where the separatist movement was encouraged by the French government and the French armies of occupation. It is in the light of the foregoing that we must consider Rosenberg's attacks upon the Catholic church-not as an explicit political philosophy, perhaps, but rather as a kind of gut-level perception of an irreconcilably inimical force in the national body. Before deriding this as the "backward" attitudes of Mitteleuropa sixty years ago, Americans might usefully remind themselves that when John Kennedy was seeking the Democratic nomination, sophisticated American politicos expressed doubts as to whether a Catholic would be acceptable to the American people as their president and many ordinary citizens of Protestant persuasion were genuinely alarmed that the White House might become a branch office of the Vatican.

What of Rosenberg's yet greater enemy, the Jew? In some ways, the explanation is simpler and in others more profoundly complex than his hostility to the Catholics. There was a certain amount of literary and intellectual anti-Semitism in Germany and Hapsburg Austria in the nineteenth century, but it was hardly more than that which also existed in contemporary England. In England, for example, Punch, the popular humorous magazine, frequently featured derogatory cartoons and verses involving Jews. Lord Salisbury, and other prominent Englishmen, called Disraeli "an unscrupulous Jew."

People who found themselves in financial difficulties and had to resort to money lenders were said, pityingly, to be "in the hands of the Jews." And the very word "Jew" was and is used as a verb, as in the expression, to Jew one down."

In Russia, anti-Jewish sentiment was much stronger and combined two elements, peasant religiosity and the political perception of the anarchistic, revolutionary and terrorist movements as being heavily Jewish in their leadership. But it was probably in France where animosity to the Jews was strongest. The early years of the Third Republic were beset by a number of financial scandals which caused grievous losses to the small investors and considerable suffering. When a number of these were uncovered and Jewish financiers figured very prominently, a bitter anti-Semitism prevailed in France which reached its apogee in the Dreyfus case. One perhaps should also mention Poland, at that time part of the domains of the Russian Tsar, where anti-Semitism was pandemic and where it persisted at least until the end of the Second World War, since when its overt expression has become a criminal offense.

Rosenberg's anti-Semitism may have had its earliest roots in his youth as a subject of the Tsar. But it was doubtless his personal and direct experience of living in Moscow at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution that made the greatest initial impression. There is no longer any real dispute among honest historians that the leadership of the Bolsheviks (as well as the Social Revolutionary Party-which was a much larger group) was predominantly Jewish. No less an authority than Winston Churchill wrote an article for the Illustrated Sunday Herald (London) in February 1920, entitled "Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People," in which he pointed out that Jews dominated the short-lived Communist regimes of Bela Kun in Hungary and Kurt Eisner in Bavaria no less than in Lenin's Russia.

Rosenberg's extensive reading certainly reinforced his personal observations. He had read the works of Paul de Lagarde, a nineteenth-century professor of oriental languages at Göttingen University who was strongly anti-Semitic. He had read the Frenchman, Count Arthur de Gobineau, whose book, On the Inequality of Human Races, is the seminal work of racialist thinking. Above all, he had read, at the age of seventeen, Houston Stewart Chamberlain's monumental Foundations of the Nineteenth Century. This last is intensely anti-Jewish and anti-Catholic.

The Aryan race has been the creative force in all civilization. The modern Germans and their kindred peoples are the current bearers of this creative and civilizing force (a view shared, among others, by Theodore Roosevelt and Cecil Rhodes). Southern Europe is a miscegenated "chaos of the peoples" and the Jew, above all, is the eternal enemy of Aryan values and Aryan culture.

Rosenberg, in his memoirs, tells us that this book of Chamberlain's ,'set him at once on fire." Chamberlain, it might be mentioned in passing, was the son of a British admiral and the son-in-law of Richard Wagner. But it was in post-war Germany that the final influence must have shaped Rosenberg's thinking. He had visited German relatives before the war. Until 1918, however, he had been a student at Moscow University. He graduated in Architecture, a field he never subsequently pursued. He must have been a talented student, however, for he was asked by his professor to remain at the University as a member of the faculty.

Instead he made his way to a defeated, humiliated and starving Germany, apparently by way of Paris. The leadership of the radical Left parties, the Communists, the Social Democrats, the Independent Socialists and the Spartacists, was mostly Jewish. It had been these elements which had promoted disastrous strikes in the last year of the war and had been largely instrumental in tormenting the insurrections and the naval mutiny which led to the abdication of the Kaiser and the establishment of the so-called Weimar Republic.

Whether Germany could have long continued to resist the enormous power of the Allies, especially after the total collapse of her own three allies, is a moot point. But it was commonly felt throughout Germany that the total defeat and utter helplessness of Germany before the triumphant victors was precipitated and made inevitable by treason on the home front in which Jewish influence was the greatest factor and that, but for this, Germany might have held out long enough to secure a truly negotiated peace rather than submit to a merciless Diktat.

Nor was this all. Until hated Tsarist Russia had been overthrown and defeated, worried Jewry and, especially, German Jewry had supported the cause of the central powers. After that, Jewish support switched to the allies. The negotiations in 1916 which led up to the Balfour Declaration of the following year were later admitted by the British wartime Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, to have been undertaken because of the need felt to win the support of the Zionist movement throughout the world. There exists strongly suggestive evidence that the success of this ploy created a quidpro quo situation between the British government and the powerful American Zionists who, in turn, brought irresistible pressure on President Wilson to bring about the decisive participation of the United States in the war.

In any event, the Weimar Republic which lasted from the end of 1918 to the beginning of 1933, was politically a middle-of-the-road democracy. Socially it was a period of extreme libertarianism and, indeed, license. Berlin came to be seen by traditionalist and conservative observers as the ..cesspool of Europe." To others, it was the haven of total permissiveness where anything went and every passion and vice could be indulged with impunity. Istvan Deak, who admired Berlin society of the period, wrote of it:

Berlin harbored those who elsewhere might have been subjected to ridicule or persecution. Comintern agents. Dadaist poets, expressionist painters, anarchist philosophers, Sexualwissenschaftler, vegetarian and Esperantist prophets of a new humanity. Schnorrer ("freeloaders," artists of coffeehouse indolence) courtesans, homosexuals, drug addicts, naked dancers, and professional criminals flourished in a city which was hungry for the new, the sensational, the extreme. Moreover, Berlin became the cultural center of Central and Eastern Europe as well.

Peter Gay, another well-known Jewish historian, in a book with a significant sub-title (Weimar Culture: The Outsider as Insider), writes in a similar vein, telling us that when we think of Weimar, we think of modernity in art, literature and thought; we think of the rebellion of sons against fathers, Dadaists against art, libertines against old-fashioned moralists; we think of the The Threepenny Opera, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, The Magic Mountain, the Bauhaus, Marlene Dietrich . . .

Die Weltbühne was the most prominent and influential of the left-wing literary journals. Not to have read the latest issue, according to Kurt Hiller, was considered uncouth. Of the sixty-eight writers whose religious origins could be established, forty-two were found to be of Jewish descent, two were half-Jews and only twenty-four were non-Jews (of whom three were married to Jewesses) Deak tells us: "The enthusiasm of the Weltbühne writers for revolutionary socialist propositions was to a great part due to the recognition of their inescapable Jewish condition. "

Deak tells us further, but with an air of approbation, that of those who now dictated public taste and morals and "corrupted their customers", more than three-fourths were not natives, but came from Austria, Hungry, the Ukraine and Poland. These were the people whom Walter Rathenau, himself a Jew, called "an Asiatic horde on the Brandenburg sands. "

The late Sir. Arthur Bryant, a respected historian and a conservative Christian gentleman, wholly out of sympathy with the Nazi regime which followed the Weimar period, is by reason of those very qualities and traits a most reliable source is dealing with the nature of the Weimar Republic. In his book, Unfinished Victory, which was published just before the outbreak of World War 11, he describes in vivid and evocative language the alien quality of the "200,000 or more Jews" who thronged Berlin. Many of them (he says) had poured into the country during the post-war upheaval. They did not stay poor long. Bryant points out that as late as November 1938, after five years of anti-Jewish legislation, Jews still owned about one-third of all real property in the Reich, most of it acquired during the disastrous inflation of 1923 with foreign funds obtained through their international connections.

In 1924, Viscount D'Abernon, the British ambassador, held a conversation with Gustav Stresemann in which the latter spoke of the growing hatred of the Jews. "The mass of the people," said Stresemann, "are discontented because they find that they themselves are poor while the Jews are rich, and they ask, 'why has the government allowed this?' "

Bryant says that although the Jews comprised only one percent of the population, their control of the national wealth and power soon lost all relation to their numbers. In the 1924 Reichstag, a quarter of the Social Democrats were Jews. Jews controlled 57% of the metal trade, 22% of the grain, and 39% of the textile. More then 50% of the members of the Berlin Chamber of Commerce were Jews, as were 1,200 of the 1,474 members of the Stock Exchange. Of the 29 legitimate theaters in Berlin, 23 had Jewish directors. At one point, says Bryant (quoting an anti-Nazi book by E. Mowrer, Germany Puts the Clock Back), so complete was the Jewish monopoly of the Press that "a telephone connection between [sic] three Jews in Ministerial Offices could effect the suspension of any newspaper in the State."

Authorship, continues Bryant, was almost a Jewish monopoly. In 1931, of 144 film scripts worked, 119 were written by Jews and 77 produced by them. Medicine and law followed the same pattern; 42% of the Berlin doctors were Jews (1,932) and 48% of the lawyers. "Every year it became harder for a Gentile to gain or keep a foothold in any privileged occupation. "

In Walter Mehring's play The Merchant of Berlin, the hero, a poverty-stricken Jewish immigrant,

...soon has the whole town at his feet with his wonderful adroitness and freedom from bourgeois moral scruples ... he derides every cherished symbol of German morality and national pride and holds them up to ridicule. The soldier's corpse and steel helmet ... swept away with the scourings of the street, are shown to weigh nothing ... against the predatory courage, the quick cunning and the rollicking sensual opportunism of the little hero. To the disinherited German they stood for something very different for love of country, duty now shamed and made the sport of the gutter. Human beings with their long and diverse histories cannot always be expected to see things in the same way.

Bryant points out that beggars on horseback are seldom popular and that this particular species was arrogant, vulgar and vicious. In a particularly moving passage, he speaks of his vivid and painful recollection of seeing the throngs of half-starving children of both sexes who haunted the doors of the great hotels and restaurants to sell their bodies to rich arrivistes.

There follow several pages in Bryant's book of detailed description of the contents of display windows of bookshops specializing in pornography and the literature of perversion, and of the general moral degradation in daily life and in art. Bryant is distressed, too, by the undisguised scorn for Christianity-a Jewish poet's (Carl Zuckmayer) comparing a cat caterwauling on the roof at night with Jesus at Bethsemane, or a Jewish writer's depicting Christ as a drunken lecher.

Major Francis Yeats-Brown (European Jungle) adds a few figures to Bryant's, relative to the disproportionate power of Jews in the professions. He tells us that in Berlin 1,925 out of 3,450 lawyers were Jews and in Frankfort, 432 out of 659. Fifteen Jewish bankers held 718 directorships. In Vienna, 85% of the lawyers, 70% of the dentists, more than 50% of the physicians, were Jews. The boot and shoe industry was 80% Jewish, as were the newspapers; the banks, 75%; the wine trade, 73%; the cinema, 70%; lumber and paper, 70%; fur and furriers, 87%; bakeries and laundries, 60%.

Even Dr. Chaim Weizmann, who was visiting Germany at the height of the immediate post-war economic distress in order to raise money for the Jewish immigrants in Palestine, spoke disparagingly of the Jews in Germany. He told the British Ambassador that Jewish intellectuals in Germany were most overbearing and aggressive, and quite intolerable. Most significantly, he referred to them as "a race apart, differing widely from the native races." But the "race apart" dominated the culture and many, if not most, of the professions, as we have indicated above. Peter Gay, writing of the vast Ullstein publishing empire, says that their power was almost frightening and that for a writer without a private income the favor of Ullstein meant luxury, its disfavor near-starvation.

In the flourishing theater, even the great classics were cut, edited and distorted to fit the exigencies of left-wing propaganda. Leopold Jessner, whom Gay calls "the most powerful man in the Weimar theater," staged a deliberate distortion of Schiller's Wilhelm Tell in which all the patriotic references to Fatherland were cut and the play converted into a call for revolution. The tyrant Gessler was portrayed as a bemedalled caricature of a Junker general. Albert Bassermann played Tell and Fritz Kortner played Gassier. Both were Jews. The production was in 1919. Well might Gay say:

Hugo Preuss, the architect of the Weimar Constitution, was a symbol of the revolution; as a Jew and a left-wing democrat ... he, the outsider, gave shape to the new Republic, his Republic.

In his study of the Weltbühne, Deak tells us that it was the duty of that journal to plead the case of the convicted criminal, the abortionist mother, the homosexual, and the prostitute. In 1925, Erich Leisar, in its pages, was demanding legalized abortion. The magazine ardently espoused the cause of George Groß in his trial (he was acquitted) for publishing a blasphemous cartoon. Kurt Hiller demanded the abolition of laws against homosexuality, and Magnus Hirschfeld objected even to the prohibition against adult immorality with children.

Kurt Tucholsky, a Weltbühne editor, wrote that the journal served a good cause, that of transforming Teutschland into Deutschland. (Teuschland is an archaic form used symbolically to represent all that was traditional and historic in Germany.) A brief glance at some of Tucholsky's utterances and attitudes as reported in Deak's work might well epitomize this limited sampling of our subject. That " . . . Judaism and unquestioning German patriotism were mutually exclusive propositions - - - " may well be true, and Tucholsky seems to have sought out every sensitive and exposed nerve he could find in order to play upon it. His favorite target was the Army. German officers during the war, he declared, had cared more for their whores than their men. In a brilliant but savage pun on Ein Volk der Dichter und Denker; (a people of poets and thinkers), he called the German people "Ein Volk der Richter und Henker" ("a people of judges and hangmen"):

... we betray a state that we disavow . . . The country I am allegedly betraying is not my country; this state is not my state; this legal system is not my legal system. Its different banners are to me as meaningless as are its provincial ideals.

Tucholsky finally gave up the editorship of Weltbühne and went to live in Paris. His successor was convicted of betraying military secrets and sentenced to imprisonment in 1931.

In music (or perhaps anti-music) the name of Arnold Schönberg is prominent. The prophet of atonality developed his twelve-tone system and Sprechgesang in 1924. In the following year carne the first performance of Alben Berg's opera Wozzech, which used Schönberg's system. The "hero" is an ignorant soldier who commits murder and suicide. In 1928 Bertolt Brecht's Die Dreigroschenoper opened at the Schiffbauerdamm, with music by Kurt Weill. The milieu of the play is the lumpenproletariat world of prostitutes, thieves and beggars, Barbara Sapinsley describes it as "a burlesque of modern society showing it ruled by a criminal underworld." Mackie Messer, says Gay taunts his bourgeois audience for loving its own fat belly and assures it "Erst kommt das Fressen, dann kommt die Moral."

Deak denies that Brecht was a Jew but admits that in at least two publications he is so listed. Deak's own attitudes may be evaluated by his statement that " . . . such Communists as Bertholt Brecht . . . [and others] . . . were responsible for much of the cultural brilliance and vitality of the Weimar period."

Another diabolic vision is to be found in the works of Franz Kafka. Günther Anders, discussing Kafka's art, compares the latter's concept of beauty to the Gorgon's head. Kafka argues that the existence of evil proves the existence of an evil God: divine authority, the law, and evil, are one. The essential Jewish quality of Kafka's thought, says Anders, lies in his total rejection of the concept of "Nature," of a world apart from man and man's institutions as an untouched preserve of loveliness and reverence.

A word must be said on an institution whose lifespan coincided exactly with that of the Republic itself-the Bauhaus. The Bauhaus was opened by Walter Gropius in the city of Weimar in 1919 as a school of "artistic unity." The names associated with it were not all those of Jews. Gropius himself was not a Jew (Franz Werfel converted from Judaism to Catholicism). But most of the important figures in the circles were Jews -Paul Klee, Wassily Kandinsky, Lyonel Feininger, Gerhard Marcks, Oskar Schlemmer, Laslo Moholy-Nagy, Josef Albers, inter alia. Its ultimate mood was "frantic pessimism." In 1925 the citizens of Weimar expelled the Bauhaus artists from their town, says Deak, from where they moved, via Dessau, to Berlin.

Such then was the Germany to which the young Rosenberg came from Bolshevik Russia and which he surveyed with loathing, anger and disgust. And thus he began his fateful career in the nascent National Socialist German Workers Party. He joined the party in 1919 having attended a meeting at which he immediately and permanently fell under Hitler's spell. In 1921, he became the editor of the party newspaper, the Völkischer Beobachter. He contributed a great many articles and wrote and published some relatively minor books. After Hitler and Hess were imprisoned at Landsberg in 1924, Rosenberg became a kind of custodian of the, then, interdicted Nazi party. In due course, he became head of the foreign policy office of the party (not to be confused with the government foreign office) and was also in charge of defining party policy with regard to secondary and higher education. In 1940, he headed a special staff which had the responsibility of collecting and safeguarding the art treasures of the occupied Eastern territories. This gave rise to the charge against him at Nuremberg of the wholesale looting of art treasures. It might be salutary to recall in passing that some 6,000 German paintings were "liberated" by the American occupation authorities after World War II and shipped to the United States to be stored at Pueblo, Colorado. President Carter recently refused a request by the Bonn regime to return the paintings to their German owners.

In 1941, Rosenberg was given the responsibility of setting up the civil administration of the occupied Russian and Baltic territories. The appointment seems to have been-or soon to have become-a merely ceremonial position. His nominal subordinates, men like Erich Koch and Heinrich Löhse, exercised the real administrative power. As for the SS., it was under the control of Heinrich Himmler and quite independent from Rosenberg's office.

At Nuremberg, Rosenberg was also charged with having encouraged the invasion of Norway. This really was a monstrous piece of Allied hypocrisy. Norwegian coastal waters had already been deliberately violated by the British navy, as in the case of the Altmark incident. At the time of the German invasion, an Anglo-French expeditionary force was already in the process of being formed and the Germans simply beat it to the punch. Such was the immediate confusion that Neville Chamberlain even uttered the hollow boast that "Hitler has missed the bus" when the Allies landed at Narvik.

When Rosenberg's life and career are examined with impartiality and detachment -as one would hope were possible after so long a period of time has elapsed- one is forced to the conclusion-that his real "crime" was racism and, more specifically, antisemitism. He was hanged, it would appear, for what he thought and wrote. The American prosecutor hammered away on this point. Rosenberg's writings, he charged, were instrumental in the rise of the Nazi party to power. It seems a strange sort of indictment coming from the representative of a power which is always so smugly self-congratulatory about the First Amendment.

Rosenberg was twice married. His first wife, Hilda Leesmann, was a ballet student and an accomplished classical pianist. He met her in Riga and they were married in 1915. She contracted tuberculosis, apparently as a result of the dreadful privations attendant upon the war in Eastern Europe and during the Bolshevik Revolution. She went to Switzerland in 1918. Alfred and she did not see each other again and in 1923 he allowed her to divorce him. In 1925, he married Hedwig Kramer. They had one son who died in infancy and a daughter, Irene, born in 1930. Hedwig and Irene withdrew as far as possible from public life and notice after 1946.

Why should anyone read the Mythos today? It is open to much criticism as a book. It is not a scientific treatise on race. It is not a lofty, detached (I will not say "impartial" because historical impartiality is a noble illusion, impossible to attain) work of history, Rosenberg is no stylist. His mind races ahead of his syntax and one subordinate clause after another attach themselves to his original sentences. The result, all too often, reminds the reader of Mark Twain's dictum: "whenever the literary German dives into a sentence, that is the last you are going to see of him till he emerges on the other side of the Atlantic with the verb in his mouth." His citations do not conform to the accepted canons of scholarship. While patently honest and authentic, they are often incomplete as to publishing data.

But when all these negative aspects have been given due notice, there remains a battery of the most powerful arguments for reading him. For students of history, the Mythos is an important historical document. For students of politics and political psychology, it is equally so. There is vast and most impressive erudition. It might not be too high-flown to say that there is the soul of a man and, perhaps of a nation-or at least of an epoch-on display. Our knowledge and understanding of the ideology and the Zeitgeist of the Third Reich and, indeed, of its immediate antecedents, is seriously incomplete without the Mythos.

It is not the function of the writer of an Introduction to another man's work to adumbrate the contents and arguments of that work. Still less is it his function to analyze and argue the pros and cons of the argumentation or the validity of the author's views. Briefly, therefore, and in conclusion, Rosenberg's view is that the various races of man possess racial souls. These racial souls are as enduring and immutable as the racial phenotype-no more and no less. They give rise to cultures, values, religions and political systems which are uniquely congruent with the race in question and are alien to any other race. Miscegenation brings about the degeneration and destruction of such cultures by reason of a kind of schizophrenic condition of racial bastardy. Aryan man has created all the great civilizations of ancient India, ancient Persia, Greece, Rome and, probably, Egypt. Each has ultimately decayed and falled by reason of race-mixing.

It is certainly not a new idea. Juvenal in the second century, contemplating the polyglot, polyracial population of a Rome which by then was mainly made up of Levantines, Egyptians and other Near Eastern immigrants, uttered his famous warning: "In Tibetim defluxit Orontes." The last great Aryan civilization is that created by the Teutonic branches of the Aryan race since the fall of Rome. That civilization is now threatened by a rebellion and resurgence of the non-Aryan elements-especially the Jews and Levantine Christianity. The natural values of Aryan man include the concept of honor which takes precedence over the Christian ethics of diffuse and undirected love and pity. The Aryan pantheon is one of sky-gods, not earth or subterranean (cthonian) deities. Aryan society is partriarchal rather than matriachal. Aryan man is the first and only racial-type which has been able to construct rational scientific and investigatory systems of thought, free from superstitious or religious corruptions. Why did Rosenberg think that way? What evidence or argumentation does he offer to support his case? For that, patient reader, you must read his book.

Peter Peel Reseda, California 1981

STALINIST REVISIONISM

One thing that should be born in mind about the Holocaust industry is that their objectives are multi-fold. These objectives include extorting as much money as possible for Israel and individual Jews through exploitation of the Holocaust lie in a dozen ways, from bogus "reparations" to movies to merchandising; defaming the memory of Adolf Hitler and trying to prevent a resurgence of National Socialism; and one of their lesser known goals, to cover up and explain away the genuine atrocities committed by Joseph Stalin and his largely Jewish Bolshevik state. Always bear in mind the almost universal left-wing, quasi-Marxist ideological orientation of the major Exterminationists.

It may come as a surprise that the Nizkor types have their own "revisionists" who act as apologists for the murderous Israeli entity and for the Stalin regime as well as every other Communist dictatorship past and present. I recently acquired one of these Other Revisionist works, entitled LIFE AND TERROR IN STALIN'S RUSSIA, 1934-1941 by a professor from Miami University in Oxford, Ohio named Robert W. Thurston. Briefly summarized, the thrust of Dr. Thurston's "revisionist" thesis is as follows:

*The atrocities committed by Stalin have been greatly exaggerated, especially by that odious chap Solzhenitsyn, who has an axe to grind; his mammoth works are simply sour grapes due to the ten years or so he spent in the GULAG. Imagine being a sorehead over a minor inconvenience like that! For example, Thurston claims through the use of "official" Soviet statistics from the 1950s that from 1930 to 1939 there were a mere 40,000-odd executions in the Soviet Union. Even if this figure were true, an average of 4,000 "legal" executions per year has got to be a record for any society with any pretense to civilization, but it is far from accurate.

To this day farmers and construction crews throughout the former Soviet Union digging into the earth will periodically turn up mass graves containing thousands of skeletons, each skull with the small bullet hole in the back which is the death signature of the NKVD. There are occasional perfunctory efforts to blame these burial pits on the Nazis, but no one takes them seriously. Local folklore has preserved the memory of certain terrible nights long ago when the trucks rumbled through the darkness into a forest or field, and the far-off sounds of the screams and the shots, then the hideous silence and the glow of the headlights faintly seen through the trees or across the steppes. Everybody in Russia and the whole world knows who sent those wretched victims into the night to perish in agony. Forensic examinations have shown that some were buried alive.

There is a good deal of variation throughout Thurston's book on the typical liberal apologia for all their screw-ups which we are familiar with today from the Clintons and all their predecessors. When absolutely forced to confront unpalatable and uncomfortable truth, they grudgingly admit "okay, mistakes were made, but you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, now shut up about it and let's move on." [I have to admit this is marginally better than our own Movement; with some few exceptions we react to unpalatable and uncomfortable truths by averting our eyes and viciously attacking anyone who attempts to bring them to light.] The "mistake" of the Ukrainian famine which murdered untold millions of people by artificially created starvation in 1930-1933 is touched upon with only the most fleeting and dismissive of references. The author has clearly taken to heart Stalin's famous dictum: "One death is a tragedy; a million deaths is just a statistic."

*This particular book also puts forth a strange variation on the "abuse excuse": to summarize, Dr. Thurston admits that Iosif Vissarionovich wasn't a very mellow guy at times, but A) Stalin was brutalized by his experiences facing us evil Fascist types during the Russian Civil War of 1918-1921; and B) Stalin didn't know what was going on during the Terror; it was all the fault of that nasty little dwarf Yezhov. (Interestingly, both these stories were circulating in Soviet society and in the GULAGs themselves during the 1930s, deliberately planted by Stalin's agents to divert attention from his role in the unspeakable horror he was inflicting on Russia.) He waxes abstruse in explaining the many surviving lists of thousands of names per day, the death lists, with Stalin's signature on each page and countersigned by Yezhov and Molotov, ordering the mass executions. (One might mention en passant that this is precisely the kind of documentation which is completely missing in the case of the Third Reich and the Holocaust allegations.) Finally Thurston concludes, "We simply don't know why Stalin signed these horrible documents."

Why? Why do you think, you idiot? Because he wanted them dead, that's why.

I won't go on. If anyone is interested in reading a well-written, interestingly documented and totally duplicitous whitewash of the most murderous tyrant in human history, I recommend this book. As you may have gathered, in my considered opinion Dr. Thurston is full of it. But that's not the point of this article. My point is not what people like Thurston write, but how I and other legitimate National Socialists react. Or more specifically, how we do NOT react.

I disagree with the entire thrust of Thurston's book: I think it is a disgraceful attempt to apologize for and explain away atrocities beyond the mind's comprehension because of a long-standing sick, twisted liberal passion for an uncouth Asiatic despot. But do I attempt to deny Robert Thurston's right to to write and publish and distribute such a book? I do not. Do I write nasty letters to the book's publisher demanding that it be withdrawn from circulation, like Morris Dees did when Lyle Stuart published THE TURNER DIARIES? I do not. Do I boycott and phone in bomb threats to bookstores who carry Dr. Thurston's work? I do not. Do I send a mob to Dr. Thurston's house and attempt to burn down the building with him inside? I do not. Do I institute year after year of bogus lawsuits and prosecutions to try and jail Dr. Thurston or strip him of his citizenship and deport him? I do not. Do I bribe legislatures to pass laws making the denial of Stalin's atrocities a crime? I do not. Do I use vast funds, the source of which is never adequately explained or even inquired into, to buy up copies of the book, pull them from the shelves, and destroy them or bury them in a warehouse? I do not.

Presumably Dr. Thurston has an e-mail account. Do I forge e-mails purportedly from him and then spam them to thousands of addresses unsolicited in an attempt to generate complaints to his ISP? I do not. I am not Nizkor. Do I contact his ISP and threaten everything from legal action to a bomb if Dr. Thurston's account is not cancelled, along with his web page if he has one? I do not. I am neither Nizkor nor the National Alliance. Do I take Dr. Thurston's legitimate posts to a newsgroup and re-write them so as to make him look stupid, or forge them when Dr. Thurston gets tired of it and refuses to post any more, thus launching a thread of two to three hundred abusive and insulting posts from morally subnormal cretins like Andrew Mathis and Rich Graves? I do not; that is Nizkor's bag. Do I hire private detectives to locate Dr. Thurston's home address and employer and try to get him fired from his job or evicted from his home? Nope, Nizkor again. Do I broadcast Dr. Thurston's home address all over the Internet and incite any political thug or any feeble-minded youth who might listen to attack Dr. Thurston and vandalize his property, while I sit safe and sound hiding behind my computer terminal? Not me, that's Tom Metzger you're thinking of.

Would I do any of these things if I had the power to do so? I would not. What I WOULD try to do if I could is arrange a debate between Dr. Thurston and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Robert Conquest, or Robert Tucker so that these genuine experts could rip Thurston a new asshole, academically speaking.

That is how free men react to criticism and views with which they disagree. Tyrants and tyrants alone attempt to suppress freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and freedom of debate about matters of history and philosophy and faith. Only a tyrant or a criminal with something to hide attempts to place his ideas, his behavior, and his agenda outside the bounds of public scrutiny and criticism. Let there be no mistake: the Ken McVays and the Jamie McCarthies and the Wiesenthal crowd are the guys in the black hats here, and they have been joined recently by some very incongruous company.

It is the duty of everyone reading this, regardless of their ideological orientation, to ensure that censorship and repression fails. Because if one of us goes down, all of us will eventually go down. You may recall the story of the old man who called his quarreling sons together and took up a number of sticks, breaking them one by one. Then he took the same number of sticks and bound them together, and not even the strongest among his sons could break them.

This is the origin of the ancient symbol of the fasces; with an irony that perhaps some lefties and libertarians may appreciate, it is the symbol which shows the way towards maintaining our freedoms, on the Internet and everywhere else.

88! Harold A. Covington

"This destiny does not tire, nor can it be broken, and its mantle of strength descends upon those in its service." - Francis Parker Yockey, IMPERIUM