CHAPTER TEN The causes of the disaster
The founding of the Reich seemed crowned by the grandeur of an event that exalted the entire nation. After an unparalleled series of victories and as a reward for immortal heroism, the reality of a Reich finally emerged—for children and grandchildren.
What a boom began then!
External independence ensured daily bread at home. The nation had achieved immense material wealth, and the dignity of the state, and with it, that of the entire people, was protected and guaranteed by an army.
So profound is the decline now affecting the Reich and the German people that everyone—as if overcome by vertigo—gives the impression at first of having lost their senses and understanding. It is hardly possible to recall the former high level; so dreamlike and almost unreal do the grandeur and splendor of those times now seem compared to the misery of today.
Only in this way can we explain why, blinded by what that peak was, they forgot to look for the symptoms of the formidable disaster that must have already existed latent in some form.
There’s no doubt that these symptoms really existed. However, very few tried to draw any lessons from this state of affairs.
Of course, the external symptoms of an illness are often more easily seen and discovered than its internal cause. Hence, even today, most of us see the cause of the German disaster primarily in the general economic crisis and its consequences, which affect almost everyone personally; this is a compelling reason for everyone to grasp the magnitude of the catastrophe. The general public is even less able to assess the political, cultural, and moral significance of the disaster. And this is where, for many, sensitivity and reason are completely nullified.
That this happens in the great masses is finally understandable, but that intellectual circles also consider the German disaster
The fact that the current economic crisis is viewed primarily as an “economic catastrophe” and that, consequently, they expect the economy to restore the nation’s health is one of the reasons that has so far prevented a real revival. Only when it is understood that, in this case too, the economy plays only a secondary role, while political, moral, and racial factors must be considered as paramount, will it be possible to penetrate the origin of the current calamity and thereby find the means and direction leading to the nation’s recovery.
The simplest and therefore most widespread explanation is to claim that the lost war is the reason for all the prevailing misfortune.
In response to this assertion, the following must be established: While it is true that losing the war was of terrible significance for the future of our country, that fact alone is not a cause, but rather the consequence of a series of causes.
That the unfortunate end of that bloody struggle must have led to disastrous results was perfectly clear to every discerning and malice-free spirit. Regrettably, there were men who seemed to lack such perspicacity at the given moment, and others who, contrary to their own convictions, questioned and denied this truth. The latter were, for the most part, those who, upon seeing their secret desire fulfilled, must have suddenly realized that they themselves had contributed to what was then the catastrophe. They, therefore, and not the lost war, are to blame for the disaster. Indeed, the loss of the war was merely the result of the maneuvers of those people and not, as they now claim, the consequence of “deficient” command. Nor was the enemy army composed of cowards; the adversary also knew how to die heroically. In numbers, it was superior to the German army from the first day of the war, and for its technical equipment, it had at its disposal the arsenals of the entire world. It is therefore undeniable that the German victories achieved in the course of four years of fighting against an entire world were due, apart from the heroic spirit and prodigious organization of the German army, exclusively to the proven abilities of its commanders. The formidable organization and command of the German army is unprecedented in history.
The fact that this army suffered a disaster was not the cause of our current misfortune.
Or is it that lost wars must inevitably lead to the ruin of the peoples who lose them?
Briefly, one could respond that this is possible as long as military defeat testifies to a people’s moral corruption, their cowardice, their lack of character—in short, their unworthy condition. If this is not the case, military defeat will rather propel them toward a future of greater resurgence, rather than be the tombstone of national existence.
There are numerous examples that History offers confirming the truth of this assertion.
The military defeat of the German people was not, in essence, an undeserved catastrophe, but the reality of a punishment justified by the law of eternal compensation. Were there not, in many circles, shameless displays of joy at the misfortune of the homeland? And isn’t it also true that some people even boasted of having succeeded in bringing the fighting army to its knees? To top it all off, there were those who even took the blame for the war upon themselves, contrary to their own convictions and their better knowledge of the facts.
No, absolutely not! The way in which the German people received their defeat allows us to judge very clearly that the true cause of our disaster lay in another state of affairs and not in the purely military loss of some positions or the failure of an offensive; because if the fighting army had truly yielded and thereby brought about the disgrace of the fatherland, the German people would have received the defeat very differently. Then we would have borne the misfortune that followed with gritted teeth, or else groaned, overcome with grief. Fury and anger would have filled our hearts against the adversary, who had become victor by chance or by the will of Fate. In such circumstances, there would have been no laughter or dancing; no one would have dared to praise cowardice or glorify defeat; no one would have mocked the fighting troops or dishonored their flags and cockades.
The military disaster was in reality nothing more than the result of a series of morbid symptoms that had already afflicted the German nation in the pre-war period. This was the first catastrophic consequence, visible to all, of a moral poisoning and a
undermining the instinct for self-preservation and the conditions inherent to it. All this had already begun to undermine, years before, the foundations of the Nation and the Reich.
It took all the incredible fiction of Judaism and its Marxist fighting organization to try to shift the blame for the defeat squarely onto the man who, with superhuman energy and willpower, strove to stem the catastrophe, which he had already seen coming, in order to spare the Fatherland hours of humiliation and shame. By pointing the finger at Ludendorff as responsible for the loss of the war, the weapon of moral right was snatched from the hands of the only dangerous accuser who could have stood up against the traitors to the fatherland.
It is almost possible to consider it a favorable fate for the German people that the era of their latent pathological state had been abruptly sealed by such a terrible catastrophe; for, had it not been so, the nation would undoubtedly have succumbed slowly, but, for that very reason, more fatally. The disease would have become chronic, while an acute state, as it was when the disaster occurred, would at least have been clearly visible to many. It was no coincidence that man conquered the plague more easily than tuberculosis. The one comes in violent waves of death, ravaging humanity; the other, on the other hand, creeps in slowly; one induces terror, the other a growing indifference. The logical consequence was that man confronts the former with the utmost of his energies, while he strives to combat tuberculosis using only weak means. Thus, man conquered the plague, while tuberculosis conquers him. The phenomenon is the same when it comes to diseases that affect the organism of a people.
It is true that in the long years of peace before the war certain anomalies were revealed.
There were many symptoms of decline that should have prompted serious reflection.
*
* *
Due to the extraordinary growth of the German population before the war, the problem of subsistence became increasingly serious,
occupying the forefront of all political and economic orientation and activity. Unfortunately, it was not possible to choose the only effective solution available; instead, it was believed that the desired goal could be achieved through simpler means. Having abandoned the idea of acquiring new territories and opted for the crazy idea of economically conquering the world, ultimately led to an excessive and harmful level of industrialization.
The first far-reaching consequence of this state of affairs was the weakening of the farming class. In the same proportion that this class of the people shrank, the number of the urban proletariat increased, until the balance was broken.
Consequently, the stark contrast between the poor and the rich also became evident.
Ostentation and misery existed so close together that the consequences were, and logically should have been, very dire. Poverty and rising unemployment began their sinister interplay, sowing discontent and anger among the people. The result seemed to be a political class divide, and despite the economic boom, the moral decline grew deeper and deeper day by day.
But more serious than all this were other effects that the nation’s economic preponderance had brought with it.
Directly due to the fact that the economy had become the arbiter of the state, the money factor was the god to whom everyone had to kowtow. A terrible demoralization had begun, terrible because it occurred precisely at a time when the nation needed a heroic spirit more than ever to face the critical hour that seemed to be approaching. Germany had to be prepared to defend with the sword one day its attempt to ensure its people’s daily bread through “peaceful economic activity.”
The hegemony of money was sensibly sanctioned by the authority most called upon to oppose it: His Majesty the Kaiser acted unfortunately by inducing the nobility in particular to join the circle of the new capitalists. Of course, in his defense, it must be acknowledged that Bismarck himself regrettably failed to realize the danger that existed in this regard. But it was a fact that, with this, the idealistic spirit was practically subordinated to the power of money and was
It is also clear that once things are on the right track, they should soon put the nobility of finance before the nobility of blood.
*
* *
The internationalization of the German economy had already begun before the war through the joint-stock company system. Fortunately, a portion of German industry tried its best to avoid the same fate; but in the end, it too had to yield to the concentrated onslaught of greedy capitalism, aided by its most loyal partner: the Marxist movement.
The persistent war waged on the German steel industry marked the real beginning of the internationalization of the German economy so longed for by Marxism, which was finally achieved with the Marxist triumph of the November 1918 revolution. Just as I write these pages, the general attack directed against the Reich Railways enterprise has also been achieved, passing into the hands of international finance. With this, “international” Social Democracy has achieved another of its important objectives.
The extent to which this “economization” of the German nation had reached is clearly demonstrated by the fact that, after the war, one of the most distinguished leaders of German industry and commerce declared that only the economy as such would be capable of restoring Germany’s position. This opinion, expressed before the world by one Stinnes, caused the most incredible confusion, because with astonishing rapidity it was adopted as a slogan by all the improvised and charlatan “statesmen” whom fate had thrown upon Germany since the outbreak of the revolution.
*
* *
Pre-war German education suffered from many flaws. It had a particularistic orientation focused on purely “theoretical” learning, giving less importance to “practical” learning. Even less value was placed on the development of individual character, and even less
still to the task of fostering a sense of satisfaction in responsibility; finally, there was no importance given to the education of the will and the spirit of decision.
The fruits of this educational system did not truly represent strong minds, but rather docile “scholars,” as we Germans were generally considered before the war, judged by that criterion. Germans were loved because they were useful resources; however, they were little respected, precisely because they lacked sufficient strength of character. Not without reason, then, did Germans lose their nationality and their homeland more easily than any other people. Doesn’t the amusing German proverb “You can carry your hat around the world in your hand” say it all?
This docility was precisely disastrous, as it also determined the sole form under which one could present oneself before the monarch. This form required: never contradicting, but rather agreeing with everything His Majesty deigned to express. This is precisely where the dignity of the free man should be revealed, otherwise the monarchical institution would one day find its end in such servility. All upright men—and these are undoubtedly the most valuable in the State—must have felt repulsion in the face of such an absurd criterion. Because for them, History is History and Truth is Truth, even if they are monarchs.
It is so rare for nations to have the good fortune to unite in one person a great monarch and a great man, that they must be satisfied when inexorable fate spares them at least the worst. From this it follows that the value and significance of the monarchical idea do not lie in the person of the monarch himself, except in the case when Providence wills to crown a brilliant hero like Frederick the Great or a wise spirit like William I. This happens once a century and scarcely more frequently. Otherwise, the idea supports the person, making the raison d’être of that form of government rest on the institution itself. But with this, the monarch himself is included in the circle of servants of the State and is nothing more than a cog in that mechanism to which he too is subordinate.
Another consequence of our flawed pre-war education was a fear of responsibility and the resulting lack of fortitude in addressing vital problems. It is true that the source of this defect among us lies, to a large extent, in the institution of parliament.
In journalistic circles, the press is often referred to as the “great power” in the State.
Obviously, its significance is extraordinary and can never be overestimated. The press, therefore, is the factor that continues to influence the adult educational process. Generally speaking, the newspaper-reading public can be divided into three groups.
1. The credulous who accept everything they read. 2. Those who no longer believe in anything.
3rd Critical spirits, who analyze what they read and know how to judge.
Numerically, the first group is the most significant; it comprises the vast majority of the people and therefore represents the nation’s least intellectual class. This group also includes those lazy types who would be capable of thinking but, out of sheer negligence, accept everything that others have already developed.
The second is numerically much smaller than the first; it is partly composed of members who originally belonged to the first group and who, after disastrous and bitter disappointments, decided to radically change their minds, eventually disbelieving nothing they read. These people are very difficult to deal with, because even when faced with the truth itself, they will always remain skeptical, thus rendering them ineffective for any positive work.
The third group, finally, is the smallest of all and consists of truly intelligent readers, accustomed to independent thinking by nature and education. They read the press, constantly working with their imagination and animated by a critical spirit regarding the author. These readers are appreciated by journalists, admittedly with understandable reserve.
Naturally, for the members of this latter group, the absurdities that can be reported in the columns of a newspaper pose no danger, nor do they matter. Today, when the electoral roll of the masses decides situations, the center of gravity rests precisely on the largest group, and this is the first: a bunch of naive and gullible people.
One of the primary tasks of the State and the nation is to prevent this sector of the population from falling under the influence of poor, ignorant, or even malicious educators. The State therefore has the obligation to monitor their education and oppose abuse. The press, above all, must be subject to strict surveillance, because the influence it
The influence it exerts on these people is the most effective and penetrating of all, since it does not act temporarily, but permanently. The secret of its enormous importance lies in its systematic and eternal repetition. The State should never allow itself to be influenced by the chatter of so-called “freedom of the press.”
The State must rigorously and without hesitation secure this powerful means of popular education and place it at the service of the nation.
And what scoops did the pre-war German press offer its readers?
Wasn’t that perhaps the worst poison imaginable? Do we still remember how exaggerated the pacifism was that was injected into the hearts of our people, precisely at a time when the rest of the world was already slowly but surely preparing to strangle Germany? Weren’t morals and customs ridiculed as antiquated, until our people became “modernized” as well? Wasn’t it the press that, in its constant aggression, undermined the foundations of state authority to the point that a single blow was enough to bring it all down?
Finally, wasn’t it the same press that discredited the army through systematic criticism, sabotaging compulsory military service, and instigating the denial of military loans, etc.?
The work of the so-called liberal press was the work of the gravediggers of the German nation and the Reich. We will say nothing of the Marxist journals devoted to lies; for them, falsehood is a vital necessity, like mice for a cat. Their mission is to dislocate the racial and national power of the people, to prepare them to bear the yoke of slavery of international capitalism and its managers, the Jews.
But what did the State do in the face of such a collective poisoning of the nation? Nothing, absolutely nothing. A few ridiculous decrees and a few sentences imposed for extremely violent outrages. That’s all there is to it!
The repressive struggle of the then German governments against the press—mostly of Jewish origin—that was gradually corrupting the people, did not follow a straight line of conduct nor was it backed by the necessary integrity, and above all, it lacked a precise purpose. They acted without any plan, sometimes capturing only a few “vipers” for weeks or even months.
journalistic that had already bitten too much; but the reptiles’ nest itself remained intact.
The Jew, however, was too perceptive to allow his entire press to attack simultaneously. One part of it had to support the other. Indeed, while the Jewish-Marxist newspapers rudely attacked everything that could be sacred to man and fought the State and the Government in the most infamous manner, instigating, among large sections of the people, one against the other, the Jewish bourgeois-democratic gazettes knew how to maintain the appearance of a famous objectivity. This press was careful not to use crude expressions or intemperate phrases; it rejected all acts of violence, always appealing to a struggle with “spiritual” weapons, a struggle that, sarcastically, was precisely the least “spiritual” of the people who proclaimed it.
But it is precisely for our intellectual mediocrity that the Jew writes his so-called “press of intelligence.” Newspapers like the “Frankfurter Zeitung” and the “Berliner Tageblatt” are aimed at this reading public; their tone is conveniently regulated for this public, and they exert their influence upon it. With resounding phrases and pompous turns of phrase, they know how to lull their readers into believing that their press work is truly of a scientific nature, or even, if you will, in the service of morality. In this way, the poison was able to imperceptibly infiltrate the blood of our people and act without the State being able to subdue the evil. The derisory measures of repression adopted did nothing more than reveal the imminent decline of the Empire. We must not forget that an institution that no longer has the firm resolve to defend its stability by all means has practically surrendered.
*
* *
A further example, which highlights the inadequacy and weakness that characterized the pre-war German government when dealing with vital national problems, is that, parallel to the political and moral infection that plagued the people, they had been undermined for years by a no less sinister current of organic poisoning.
Syphilis began to spread on a large scale, especially in populous cities, while tuberculosis, on the other hand, spread to the
A deadly harvest spread across the country. Despite the fact that in both cases the consequences were serious for the nation, no radical measures were taken. In particular, in the face of the threat of syphilis, the attitude of the government and parliament can only be described as complete capitulation. In this case, too, only the fight against the underlying causes of the disease and simple action against its manifestations could be effective.
The main cause of the spread of syphilis must be sought in the prostitution of love, the results of which, even if they do not lead to this terrible scourge, will always entail a grave danger for the nation, since its moral ravages are enough to gradually but irremediably lead a people toward ruin. It is undeniable that the population of our large cities is increasingly prostituting their sexual lives and thus surrendering to syphilis in ever-increasing proportions. The most clearly noticeable results of this collective infection can be found, on the one hand, in mental asylums and, on the other, unfortunately, in children.
The excuse that other countries are not in better condition could hardly change the fact of their own decline. And it is precisely in this case that it is appropriate to ask: Which country will be the first, and perhaps the only one, to overcome the danger, and which nations, on the other hand, will be its fatal victims? This problem, too, represents nothing more than the touchstone of the value of the race, and since the problem primarily concerns descendants, it is included among those truths according to which it is said, with terrible reason, that the sins of the fathers are avenged to the tenth generation. A truth that refers exclusively to crimes against blood and against the race.
Sins against blood and race constitute the original sin of this world and the decline of a defeated humanity.
The situation in pre-war Germany was extremely deplorable in the face of the seriousness of this problem. What was done to contain the infection among our youth in the big cities? What was done to effectively counteract prostitution and the corruption of sexual life? And what, finally, was done to address the growing spread of syphilis among the people resulting from this state of affairs?
The answer flows easily by simply pointing out what should have been done.
In all cases where seemingly impossible needs or tasks are at stake, it is essential to focus the full attention of a people on the problem at hand, presenting it as if its solution determined its existence or nonexistence. Only in this way can a people become capable and capable of truly eminent endeavors and achievements. This principle also applies to the individual in particular, whenever he or she aspires to great tasks.
Prostitution is a disgrace to humanity and cannot be destroyed through moral preaching or the sole virtue of pious sentiments. Its limitation and eventual elimination presuppose, as a preliminary matter, the elimination of a series of preliminary conditions, the first of which is facilitating the possibility of marriage, in accordance with human nature, at a younger age than is currently the case. The degree to which this madness and incomprehension have reached among many people in our time is demonstrated by the not uncommon occurrence of mothers in “good society” who, they say, would be satisfied if their daughters had husbands who had already “broken their horns,” etc. Offspring will then be the tangible result of these “rational” conjugal unions. If we also take into account that birth rates are restricted to a minimum, thus curtailing the phenomenon of natural selection, and that the life of even the most miserable human being must be protected, the only question that remains is: why does the institution of marriage exist and for what purpose?
Thus civilized peoples degenerate, gradually plunging into ruin.
Nor can marriage be considered an end in itself; rather, it must serve a higher purpose, which is the multiplication and preservation of the species and the race. This is its raison d’être and its primary mission.
The enormous importance of this issue should be understood, especially in an era when the so-called “socialist” republic, due to its inability to solve the housing problem, simply prevents countless marriages and thus fuels prostitution. Another cause that hinders marriage at an appropriate age lies in our absurd system of wage distribution, which ignores the family factor and its subsistence.
This means, to summarize the above, that the fight against prostitution will only be truly effective when, through a fundamental reform of social conditions, marriage becomes feasible at a younger age than is currently the case. This is the essence of the solution to the problem.
Secondly, it is the task of education and teaching to eradicate a series of defects that are almost ignored today.
Education, for example, should aim to ensure that the student’s free time is used for beneficial physical training. At that age, he has no right to wander the streets or go to the cinema; rather, he must dedicate himself, apart from his daily work, to strengthening his young organism so that, when one day he enters the struggle for existence, the reality of life does not catch him unprepared. To direct and fulfill, to guide and direct: that is the task of youth education, and its role is not exclusively to instill wisdom. It is also its duty to dispel the erroneous conception that physical exercise is a personal matter for each individual. There is no freedom to sin at the expense of one’s offspring and, consequently, of one’s race.
In parallel with the process of educating the body, the fight against the poisoning of the soul must begin. Our entire social life today resembles a breeding ground for ideas and sexual stimulants. One need only analyze the content of our movie theaters, variety shows, and theaters to reach the irrefutable conclusion that all this is not exactly the spiritual nourishment appropriate for youth. Our social life must be freed from the intoxicating perfume and from the feigned modesty unworthy of man.
Only after the implementation of these measures can we count on the possibility of effective medical-prophylactic action. But here too, it cannot be a question of half-measures, but rather of the most radical decisions. It is a contradiction to give terminally ill patients the constant possibility, so to speak, of infecting the healthy. What sense of humanity is this, according to which, in order not to harm just one, a hundred others are allowed to succumb…? The imperative to make it impossible for defective beings to procreate equally defective offspring is an imperative of the clearest reason and, in its systematic application, represents the most humane action of humanity. It will save millions of innocent beings from suffering and will ultimately determine for the future a
Progressive improvement. If the case requires it, the isolation of incurable patients should be carried out mercilessly, a barbaric measure for the unfortunate sufferer, but a blessing for their contemporaries and for posterity.
*
* *
Just as a political disaster of the current magnitude would have been inconceivable sixty years ago, no less inconceivable would have been the cultural collapse that began to reveal itself in Futurist and Cubist concepts starting around 1900. Sixty years ago, an exhibition of so-called “Dadaist expressions” would have been simply impossible, and its organizers would have ended up in a mental asylum, whereas today, they even preside over art institutions.
Similar anomalies were observed in Germany in almost every area of art and culture. A sad measure of our internal decline was the fact that it was impossible to allow young people to visit most of these pseudo-artistic centers, a fact that was publicly and shamelessly stated by the use of the well-known warning sign: “No entry for minors.”
Consider that precautionary measures must be observed precisely in those places that should be primarily intended for the enlightenment and education of youth, not for the amusement of old and perverted circles. What would Schiller have exclaimed at such a state of affairs, and with what indignation would Goethe have turned his back?
But what are Schiller, Goethe, or Shakespeare compared to these new “geniuses” of contemporary German art? Outdated and obsolete figures, in short, outmoded figures. The characteristic of this era, then, is this: it is not content with merely bringing in impurities, but also vilifies everything truly great from the past. By the end of the 19th century, in almost all areas of art, especially in the fields of theater and literature, very few important works were produced, and the good works of bygone era were often degraded, presenting them as mediocre and outdated.
*
**
Another critical aspect must still be mentioned: At the end of the last century, our cities increasingly lost their status as cultural centers and descended to the category of simple human conglomerations. The scant connection between the current proletariat of our large cities and the place where they live shows that in such a case, it is effectively nothing more than an occasional point of residence for the individual. This stems from the frequent change of location due to social conditions, a change that does not give the worker the time necessary to develop a closer relationship with the environment in which they live. On the other hand, however, the reason for this state of affairs must also be sought in the fact that today’s cities are insignificant and poor in all aspects of general culture. These cities are nothing more than a crowded cluster of enormous blocks of rental housing, and no one can feel affection for a city that offers no greater appeal than a similar one, lacking any distinctive character and in which everything that represents art has been dispensed with.
*
* *
An analysis of religious life in Germany before the war provides an insight into the general disintegration that prevailed. For some time now, in this respect as well, large sectors of national opinion had lacked a unified and ideologically effective conviction. Those who officially disassociate themselves from their religion do not play as negative a role as those who are completely indifferent. While our two Christian denominations (Catholic and Evangelical) maintain missions in Asia and Africa, seeking to gain new converts—that is, engaged in activities that yield modest results in the face of the progress being made by Mohammedanism there—they are losing millions and millions of convinced followers in Europe itself, who either become completely indifferent to religious life or go their own way. Especially from a moral point of view, the consequences are very unfavorable.
It is also worth highlighting the increasingly violent struggle against the dogmatic foundations of the respective confessions, foundations without
for whom the practical preservation of a religious faith in this human world would be inconceivable. The great mass of a people is not made up of philosophers, and it is primarily for the masses that faith constitutes the sole basis of a moral ideology. The various substitutes have not proven their efficiency or suitability to be seen as a profitable compensation for existing religious beliefs. For religious doctrine and faith to truly embrace the broad social strata, it is necessary that the absolute authority flowing from the depths of that faith be the foundation of their efficiency. What customs mean for general life, without which only hundreds of thousands of people of a higher intellectual level would live rationally, while millions of others do not, is what laws represent for the State and dogmas for religions.
Only through dogmas does the purely spiritual conception, vacillating and infinitely variable in its interpretation, become precise and acquire a concrete form, without which it could never become faith. The opposite would mean that the idea is never capable of being exalted above a metaphysical conception, or better yet, above a philosophical opinion. Therefore, the attack directed against dogmas is very similar to the struggle against the legal foundations of the State; and just as this struggle would end in complete state anarchy, anti-dogmatic action would result in a religious nihilism, devoid of all value.
For the politician, the assessment of a religion’s value should be governed less by its perhaps innate deficiencies than by the qualitative merits of a visibly better doctrinal substitute. But until such a substitute has been found, only madmen and criminals would dare to demolish what exists.
The worst anomalies, however, stem from the abuse of religious conviction for political ends. If religious life in pre-war Germany had acquired an unpleasant taste for many, this was due to nothing other than the abuse of Christianity by a so-called “Christian” political party and the brazen attempt to identify the Catholic religion with a political party.
This disastrous impersonation gave parliamentary mandates to a series of useless people, while bringing nothing but harm to the Church.
The result of such anomalies had to be borne by the entire nation, since the emerging consequences of the weakening of life
religious events occurred precisely at a time when everything had already begun to give way and waver, threatening the collapse of the traditional foundations of morality and good customs.
*
* *
Even in the field of political activity, the observant spirit saw anomalies that, if not eliminated or corrected in time, could and should inevitably be considered signs of the Empire’s imminent decline. The lack of direction in German policy, both domestic and foreign, did not escape the insight of anyone who deliberately sought to grasp the situation. In official government circles, the same indifference was felt toward the revelations of a Houston Steward Chamberlain that is observed today.
Even before the war, many had realized that the very institution that was supposed to embody the vitality of the Reich – Parliament, the Reichstag – was the most vulnerable of all.
One of the many ill-considered assertions frequently heard today is that parliamentarism in Germany had failed “since the 1918 revolution.” This easily creates the impression that parliament played a different role before that time.
Everything subordinated to the influence of the then parliament was always mediocre, regardless of the aspect considered. The Reich’s alliance policy was mediocre and deficient. And so was the policy toward Poland; it opted for provocations, without ever seriously addressing the problem itself. The result was neither favorable to Germanism nor conciliatory toward Poland, but it did mean enmity with Russia. The solution to the Alsace-Lorraine question was equally mediocre. Instead of crushing the head of the French hydra once and for all and granting, moreover, equal rights to the Alsatians, neither was done. Although it would not have been possible to achieve anything, since the ranks of the major parties also included the greatest traitors to the fatherland; Watterlé, for example, in the Center Party.
All this would have been bearable if such a state of general mediocrity had not also ended up making victims of
that entity on which the existence of the Reich ultimately depended: the army.
The crime that the so-called “German parliament” committed with this is more than enough to forever curse the German people.
*
* *
While Judaism, through its Marxist and democratic press, spread the lie of “German militarism” throughout the world, attempting to blame Germany by every means possible, the Marxist and democratic parties, for their part, systematically opposed the plan for broad military training of the German people. The monstrous crime committed thereby was immediately apparent to anyone who had even considered that in the event of war, the entire nation would have to take up arms and that, for the same reason—the infamy of those illustrious figures of the so-called “national representation”—millions of Germans would be thrown against the enemy in conditions of insufficient or even poor military training.
If, in the case of the land forces, too few recruits were trained, the same deficiency was evident in the naval forces, rendering the institution intended for national defense practically useless. Already in the orientation adopted for the naval organization program, the Admiralty renounced the possibility of offensive action, thus placing itself from the outset on the defensive plane. This meant, therefore, that this automatically renounced the possibility of ultimate success, which lies and always will lie in offensive action.
If the German units in the Battle of Skagerrak had had the same displacement, the same number of artillery, and the same speed as the British ships, the British fleet would have met its end under the hurricane of German .38-caliber grenades, which were more accurate and effective than those of the enemy. And what, despite these shortcomings, the German navy nevertheless achieved as an everlasting glory can be attributed only to the quality of the German sailors and also to the skill and incomparable heroism of the officers and their subordinates.
Whoever meditates on all the sacrifice that the punishable negligence of people completely lacking in responsibility represented for the nation; whoever reflects on the lives sacrificed in vain and the fate of those maimed, as well as on the unique shame and infinite misery of which we are now victims; whoever knows, finally, that all this came about only to pave the way to ministerial posts for unscrupulous, ambitious men, hunters of public office; whoever reflects on all this will understand that such human beings can certainly be described as scoundrels and criminals.
*
* *
There were also many positive aspects compared to the aforementioned shortcomings and other shortcomings of pre-war German life. Analyzing the circumstances impartially, one must come to the conclusion that most of our shortcomings were also largely inherent to other countries and peoples, who often far surpassed us in this respect, but without possessing our truly good qualities.
Among the nation’s uncontaminated sources, we must highlight three institutions that were exemplary and, one might even say, unique in their kind.
First, the very constitution of the state and the character it had achieved in contemporary Germany. Of course, in this regard, we must disregard the personalities of some monarchs, who suffered from all human weaknesses. Several of these monarchs preferred to surround themselves with flatterers rather than righteous spirits and took their advice from them.
Of undeniable value was undoubtedly the stability of the state as a whole, under the monarchical form of government, as well as the fact that even the lowest public offices were protected from the speculation of ambitious politicians. Then there was the dignity of the state institution itself and the authority resulting from it, apart from the significant position of the Reich’s administrative body and, above all, that of the army, which stood above the level of party political commitments. Added to this was the advantage that the power of the state was embodied in the person of the monarch,
Thus, it constituted a symbol of a responsibility it assumed on a scale greater than that of the casual conglomeration of a parliamentary majority. Above all, this was the reason for the proverbial adequacy of German public administration. Finally, what the German monarchs fostered in the arts and sciences, particularly during the 19th century, has remained worthy of exemplary merit, and the present era cannot in any way be compared with that era in that regard.
*
* *
However, it is the army that plays the role of the qualitative factor par excellence at a time when demoralization was setting in and beginning to spread throughout the national organization. What the German people owe the army can be summed up in one word: everything.
The army instilled a sense of absolute responsibility and also fostered a spirit of determination.
Contrary to what occurred in everyday life, saturated with greed and materialism, the army educated the people toward the ideal and toward devotion to the homeland and its greatness. The army was a school for educating the people, united against class divisions, and perhaps its only flaw was its institution of a one-year voluntary service system; a flaw, we say, because this system undermined the principle of absolute equality, placing the most intellectually prepared individual outside the common framework, the very opposite of which would have been beneficial. Given the lack of a real sense of life that dominated our upper classes and their estrangement from their own people, the army would have been the only one capable of beneficial influence, avoiding, at least within its ranks, any isolation of the so-called intellectual class.
The army of the former Empire must be recognized as its greatest merit in that, in an era when the criterion of the “general majority of heads” predominated, it knew how to impose heads on the majority. Against the Jewish-democratic principle of blind idolatry of numbers, the army steadfastly maintained the principle of faith in personality. In this way, it formed what is so lacking in modern times: men. To the mire of general complacency and effeminacy, they annually returned.
From the ranks of the army, 350,000 energetic young men had acquired a steely physical constitution over a two-year period of military training. The young man who had practiced obedience during this time could then learn to command. A man who had once been a soldier was recognized in his very demeanor.
That was the high school of the German nation, and it was not in vain that the mortal hatred of those who, out of envy and ambition, yearned for and needed for their own ends the impotence of the Reich and the lack of defensive capacity of its citizens was concentrated upon it.
Along with the constitutive form of the State and the balanced quality of the army, the incomparable administrative organization of the former Reich formed the set of the three exemplary institutions of the Empire.
Germany was the best-organized and best-administered country in the world. A German civil servant could easily be accused of bureaucratic routine, but that didn’t mean that circumstances were different in other countries; on the contrary, they were perhaps worse. What those states lacked was the admirable stability of the administrative mechanism and the incorruptible honesty and loyalty of the officials that the Reich enjoyed.
The admirable strength and power of the ancient Empire rested on its state constitution, its army and its administrative organization.
*
* *
If we consider that, in spite of the shortcomings that existed in Germany before the war, there were also powerful favorable aspects, we will come to the conclusion that the initial cause of the disaster of 1918 must be sought elsewhere, and indeed this is the case.
The final and most profound reason that led to the downfall of the Empire lay in the failure to recognize in a timely manner the importance of the racial problem for the future of the people.
