The following is an important historical article published in “The West Australian” of Perth, May 2, 1933. It offers a relatively “fair and balanced” summation of the problems that had been prevalent in Germany and of the solutions proposed by the newly elected NSDAP government under the new, duly appointed Chancellor Adolf Hitler, and the reasoning behind them. The author is inaccurate in a few things but attempted to contrast NS philosophy with British democracy, how they had evolved separately under different circumstances and conditions, and encourages the reader to be objective and to set aside the chauvinistic British / Anglo-Saxon world view in assessing the New Germany.
Published on May 2nd, the article follows the declaration of the May 1st holiday (probably written in response to it). That holiday was insisted upon by the left-leaning elements within the NSDAP. The party was essentially a grand coalition for national unity and not a right-wing party extremist as commonly portrayed. Indeed, there were those on the right who felt Hitler was not conservative enough, nor harsh enough. The NSDAP was socialist in a true sense and not “Marxist”. They made it clear that this “Worker’s Day” (Labour Day) holiday was NOT in keeping with the Communist holiday that originated in the Soviet Union, but rather, should be viewed as a victory over Bolshevism.
The author points out that National Socialism (as I have also pointed out in previous articles) professed to be Christian in nature, and that there are no imperialist aims; that it was an attempt to resolve the domestic political, economic, cultural and social chaos in the failed “Weimar Republic” under which the Germans had suffered, and had sought remedy. NSDAP opposition to Freemasonry is also addressed
Please note, however, that the term “Nazi” was an epithet created by the enemies of the NSDAP, and then picked up by the foreign media and it is perpetuated to this day. It was never used by the National Socialists themselves. “Nazi” was never the correct abbreviation. It was simply the NSDAP or NS, as I have previously pointed out. Nor did the Germans use the term “Nazism” to describe their movement or philosophy.
I have added some highlights and also offer additional commentary at the end on various points of contention, followed by an audio discussion about the Weimar Republic.
(Click the image to enlarge it or follow the link at the bottom)
THE NAZI PHILOSOPHY
The West Australian (Perth, WA : 1879 – 1954), Tuesday 2 May 1933, page 8
By forcing the absorption of the Stalhelm into their own ranks, the Nazis appear to have arrived at the moment when they are strong enough to overwhelm the Nationalists, who were associated with them by the President, for their control. Moreover the National Socialists have celebrated May Day as marking their destruction of Marxism in Germany.
Their first rush has broken its political power, and captured everywhere the control of the police and the strategic offices of government throughout the country. Now they propose to refine their methods of suppression by establishing a political police on the lines of the Russian O.G.P.U., which will be charged with detecting and crushing any danger of counter-revolution. Meantime the Jews are being rapidly thrust from all positions of influence and control that they have gained, and a people who prefer always to work with brain rather than hand are suffering a rationing of their educational opportunities according to their proportion of the population. (see note 1)
Almost incredulous horror is the natural reaction of English Liberal opinion to this unlimited revolutionary tyranny. There is much in the picture of events that we have been given that is as ludicrous as it is horrible. Even allowing for the fact that naturally the most sensational and highly coloured incidents are those which find their way into foreign news, it still remains clear that the leading motives of Nazi policy contradict fundamentally the most precious principles of social and political life that the British people began to learn, in blood and tears, 300 years ago.
We have come to believe that to trust as much freedom of opinion and action to individuals as is consistent with a highly organised State is the best way to secure the greatest happiness to all, and the best means of releasing individual energies and opinions that enrich the common life. We have come to regard politics as concerned almost entirely with economic problems, and have left cultural and spiritual interests to private choice and voluntary organisation. Even our State education as far as possible ignores these values. Vaguely but strongly we feel that an idea which has lost its temper has lost its virtue. We have left to take care of themselves patriotism and the forces which bind a nation together and the influences which maintain its standards of conduct.
The vehement national self-consciousness of the new German Movement — Die Deutsche Bewegung — has stirred an Elder Liberal in Viscount Grey to be thankful that this German Revolution is not armed — as the French Revolution succeeded in arming itself for a crusade. It is of the utmost moment that we should try to understand this German Movement, if we are to judge it fairly and make the best of it, and an attitude of a proiri and perhaps somewhat Pharisaic condemnation will not help.
The Nazis deny that it is a crusading spirit directed against other countries or a return to the “old” Germany of 1914. There is nothing of the economic Imperialism anxious for conquest in their movement, which is anti-capitalist, they affirm, and there is no desire to re-establish a military caste eager to justify itself by victory. The National Socialists claim to be regaining for Germany the possession of her own soul. They wish to re-affirm the dignity of Germany among the community of nations and declare that they are ready for just as much disarmament as their neighbours. Their main preoccupations are internal.
The Nazis declare that Great Britain can afford freedom because her society is fundamentally unified. She can afford to seek a balance of political truth by allowing opposing parties to alternate periods of office, because their quarrels are not “real,” that is, they do not split the national fabric from top to bottom. Therefore each party when in power can “universalise” its ideas, knowing that it cannot injure its opponents very deeply without inflicting corresponding injury on its supporters. They contend that the condition of Germany is very different.
Since 1917 Germany has been two nations in bitter conflict.
The German spirit is naturally religious, the Marxist philosophy is militantly atheistic and materialist. The German spirit is a love of Fatherland, the Marxists know only allegiance to a class. The Jew, they claim, in a settled society, becomes a useful conservative, but in a country in turmoil he plunges into all disturbances as a leader against the nationalist spirit which is alien to him. The Nazis plan their attempt to unify the national life into two offensives. The first aims to kill the disruptive ideas by force. They believe that not only can the Marxist organisations be destroyed by violence, but Marxist doctrine also. Mutatis mutandis, the Russian communists have the same faith that violence steadily applied can kill out opposing doctrine.
The Nazi movement is religious to a degree that would be incredible to the British mind in a political movement, though how far it is Christian is a matter in dispute between its leaders and the leaders of Protestant and Roman Catholic Germany. But the faith is there that Germany has a life and destiny given her from God, and that God may be in the whirlwind. They vehemently affirm that it is possible to love one’s neighbour by salutary and saving violence. Christians have held the same view at various moments in the past.
The Nazis quote Bismarck:
“I can of myself do nothing: I can only wait for God to pass by, and catch the hem of His garment letting it carry me on.”
The incident of the Ems telegram is a forceful reminder, however, that if one bases one’s policy on the idea of God it had better be in the Christian conception of God. Herr Hitler’s alleged resolve to remodel the Freemasons into the “Christian Order of Frederick the Great” sounds like a contradiction in the terms of his title, from which a sense of humour might have saved him. (see note 2)
This attempt to restore unity in the national soul by killing the ideas that divide has its parallel in the economic sphere. The Nazis affirm rightly enough that there is not one class war but many. Thus they see modern economic society:
“The picture of a fight of all against all. Government against people, party against party, thereby resulting in the strangest and most impossible alliances; parliament against government employee against employer, consumer against producer, trader against producer and consumer, landlord against householder, workman against peasant, (i.e. primary producer), official against public, working class against Bourgeoisie, Church against State.”
These wars, they blame somewhat unfairly to Marx and his followers who they declare have lowered the level of the national life to a materialist struggle for material possessions. Have the Nazis contributed one or two more wars to those already in being, or will they be able to achieve a reconciliation within German society? (see note 3)
Their economic ideas are more incoherent than their views concerning the national soul, but generally they hope to reconcile these class wars by destroying both large-scale capitalism and Marxist socialism. “Big business” must go. The day of the small independent producer must come back both in agriculture and industry. The State must plan and regulate production. The worker will be given National Socialism in place of Marxist Socialism. (see note 4)
It is admitted that this development will to some degree put back economic progress and lower the standard of living, but the Nazis contend that its removal of all the various class wars now raging will be worth it. (see note 5)
These ways of thinking reveal a deep cleavage between the dominant ideas of the Anglo-Saxon and German mind. From experience we believe that the hope of reconciliation by violence is vain, and that bitterness begets bitterness. But if the modern German mind is to work with the modern British mind there must be some understanding of the differences in historic circumstances and ideas.
A reasoned disapproval, mixed with some sympathy for Germany’s problems, is better than a violent prejudice.
1. “the Jews are being rapidly thrust from all positions of influence and control that they have gained …. ” It is true that the Jews who had taken advantage, or who had been systematically ‘advantaged’ through the Versailles Diktat and in the advent of the corrupt democratic Weimar Republic (which had wreaked havoc(economic despair, social chaos and cultural decline upon the Germans) were systematically removed from positions of power and influence. The indigenous Germans had been usurped and systematically ‘disadvantaged’ after WWI. A “Germany for Germans” or “Germans First” policy was what the NS proposed and eventually instituted in the interest of self-preservation, putting Germans back in charge of their own nation and destiny; masters in in their own house.
2. “The incident of the Ems telegram is a forceful reminder, however, that if one bases one’s policy on the idea of God it had better be in the Christian conception of God. Herr Hitler’s alleged resolve to remodel the Freemasons into the “Christian Order of Frederick the Great” sounds like a contradiction in the terms of his title, from which a sense of humour might have saved him.” …. Hitler stated on many occasions that he was Christian and that National Socialism was based upon “Positive Christianity”. There was NO dispute about as the author indicated. Hitler and the NS were totally opposed to Freemasonry, declared war on it and banned it, and other “secret societies” which had their own agenda or the “globalist” agenda and acting contrary to the interests of the German nation and people. Hitler, in fact, had a wonderful, albeit sarcastic, sense of humour as can be read in many of his speeches, and there many pictures of him laughing and smiling which you will never see in the mainstream media.
See my previous articles on Hitler and Christianity
3. “These wars, they blame somewhat unfairly to Marx and his followers who they declare have lowered the level of the national life to a materialist struggle for material possessions. Have the Nazis contributed one or two more wars to those already in being, or will they be able to achieve a reconciliation within German society?” ….The divisions in Germany were accurately described. It is good that the author makes a distinction regarding Marx, as many falsely believe that National Socialism was “Marxist”. In fact it was always opposed to Marxist-Bolshevism. They did NOT, however, “unfairly” blame the Marxists. The Comintern was very active in Germany (as in other countries) and contributing greatly to the chaos and Germany had been on the verge of a communist revolution or civil war. The NSDAP did not “create more wars” as the author suggests, but rather, were merely recognizing and openly acknowledging the fact that political, social, economic and cultural warfare was being waged against and amomgst the German people. They were now fighting back on behalf of the German people.
4. “…they hope to reconcile these class wars by destroying both large-scale capitalism and Marxist socialism. “Big business” must go. The day of the small independent producer must come back both in agriculture and industry. The State must plan and regulate production. The worker will be given National Socialism in place of Marxist Socialism.” … Yes, the little people, the peasants, tradesman, farmers etc were favoured, contrary to claims of being “corporatists”, but NO Big Business did NOT “have to go”, however their practices had to be brought under control and serve the national interest. Hitler was leveling the playing field and bringing German business and workers together for their mutual benefit, rather than fighting each other to their mutual (and National) detriment. Yes, this did involve “regulating production” in order to suit the current needs of the Germans in their domestic and to create jobs in the midst of massive unemployment as well as worldwide boycotts of German goods.
5. “It is admitted that this development will to some degree put back economic progress and lower the standard of living ….” NOT TRUE. The opposite occurred! “….but the Nazis contend that its removal of all the various class wars now raging will be worth it.” And they were proven to be absolute correct! Their efforts, including monetary and banking reforms, put Germany back on her feet. Within a few short years, they eliminated unemployment, and brought about the biggest economic, social and cultural recovery ever witnessed, for which their popularity continued to grow to near unanimity and remained strong to the end. The German workers received fair wages, good working conditions and unparalleled social benefits. Business also thrived, in spite of the boycotts. Germany was the envy of all nations who cared to take an honest look at what had been achieved.
Thus, Germany under National Socialism presented a threat to prevailing International Bankster Gangster World Order!
THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC
Finally I wish to leave you with a new radio radio show Rodney Martin of World View Conversations with his guest Mark Weber of the IHR discussing the true facts about the Weimar Republic and making some comparisons to modern day America (and arguably other modern western nations).