Another powerful weapon in the political struggle is, obviously, education. It is absolutely necessary train the Germans from youth upwards to an absolute recognition of the rights of their own people, instead of poisoning their minds, while they are still children, with the virus of this cursed ‘objectivity’.
My view on relationships with the Church – both Catholic and Protestant – is very simple: political parties [i.e. NSDAP] have no right to meddle in religious questions except when these relate to something that is alien to the nation and thus calculated to undermine racial customs and morals.
[As Christianity is fundamentally incompatible with Nazism and racism, the second half of this statement pretty much negates the first one. So it is no surprise that Nazis were very much hostile to Christianity. Not nearly as murderously hostile as Bolsheviks, but still hostile].
To a political leader, the religious teachings and institutions of his people should be sacred and inviolable; otherwise, he should not be a statesman, but a reformer, if he has the necessary qualities for such a mission. Any other line of conduct will lead to disaster, especially in Germany.
[This statement contradicts the previous one – except for the last sentence. Knowing that, Nazis were smart enough to keep their hostility towards Christianity within reasonable limits]
The art of leadership, as displayed by really great leaders of the people throughout the ages, consists in concentrating the attention of the people against a single adversary [in his case – the Jews] and taking care that nothing will divide that attention.
The more the militant energies of the people are directed towards one objective, the greater will be its magnetic force and its striking power. The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category, for weak and wavering natures among a leader’s following may easily begin to be dubious about the justice of their own cause if they have to face several enemies.
Where there are various enemies who are split up into divergent groups it will be necessary to block them together as forming one solid front, so that the bulk of the followers in a popular movement may see only one common enemy against whom they have to fight. Such uniformity intensifies their belief in the justice of their own cause and strengthens their feeling of hostility towards the opponent.
[That’s #1 reason why Nazis were so murderously anti-Semitic. Nothing personal, just politics. Political business, to be more precise]
As for the proper foundations of the foreign policy of German statecraft, it must be based on one fundamental principle – supporting the fast-growing German population (i.e. making sure that explosive growth in German population does not lead to lower quality of life).
The annual increase in the population of Germany amounts to almost nine hundred thousand, souls. The difficulties of providing for this army of new citizens must grow from year to year and must finally lead to a catastrophe, unless ways and means are found which will forestall the danger of misery and hunger.
[It was a fundamental mistake. Adolf Hitler simply was not aware of a fundamental law of human psychology: with the increase in the quality of life and in the opportunities for personal growth, fertility rate goes down – ultimately way down, sometimes even below the replacement level. Hence the real problem is exactly the opposite – how to prevent population decline, not the explosive growth].
It is certainly true that the productivity of the soil can be increased to a certain extent, but only within definite limits and not indefinitely. By increasing the productive powers of the soil, it will be possible to balance the effect of a surplus birth-rate in Germany for a certain period of time, without incurring any danger of famine.
But we have to face the fact that the general standard of living is rising more quickly than even the birth-rate. Our demands as regards food and clothing are growing from year to year and are out of all proportion to those of our ancestors of, let us say, a hundred years ago.
It would, therefore, be a mistake to assume that every increase in the productive powers of the soil will supply the requisite conditions for an increase in the population.
That is true up to a certain point only, for at least a portion of the increased produce of the soil will be consumed in supplying the increased demands caused by the steady rise in the standard of living.
But even if these demands were to be curtailed to the narrowest limits possible, and if, at the same time, we were to use all our available energies in intensive cultivation, we should here reach a definite limit which is conditioned by the inherent nature of the soil itself.
No matter how industriously we may labor we cannot increase agricultural production beyond this limit. Therefore, though we may postpone the evil hour of distress for a certain time, it will arrive at last.
A time, will ultimately come when, even in those years of plenty, there will not be enough to go round, so hunger will dog the footsteps of the nation.
The day will certainly come when the whole of mankind will be forced to check the augmentation of the human species, because there will be no further possibility of adjusting the productivity of the soil to the perpetual increase in the population.
[In the Third World nations, yes; in Germany and Europe, no]
Nobody can doubt that this world will one day be the scene of dreadful struggles for existence on the part of mankind. In the end the instinct of self-preservation alone will triumph; before its consuming fire this so-called humanitarianism, which connotes only a mixture of fatuous timidity and self-conceit, will melt away as snow in the March sunshine.
[Prediction of the existential racial war for natural resources (which will become the core of the Nazi ideology). Nothing more, nothing less]
Man has become great through perpetual struggle. In perpetual peace his greatness must decline. [If you look carefully at our world, this is very probably true].
The extent of the national territory is a determining factor in the external security of the nation. The larger the territory which a people has at its disposal, the stronger are the national defenses of that people.
Military victories are more quickly, more easily, more completely and more effectively gained against a people occupying a national territory which is restricted in area, than against States which have extensive territories.
Hence, the magnitude of a nation’s territory is in itself a certain guarantee that an outside Power will not hastily risk the adventure of an invasion, for in that case the struggle would have to be long and exhausting before victory could be hoped for.
The risk being so great, there would have to be extraordinary reasons for such an aggressive adventure. Hence it is, that the territorial magnitude of a State furnishes a basis whereon national liberty and independence can be maintained with relative ease; while, on the contrary, a State whose territory is small offers a natural temptation to the invader.
[This is all true and correct; however, NOT for a colonial power. Because the larger is the total size of colonized territories, the more difficult it is to manage it properly and the higher is the probability of the revolt of the conquered population (especially given the murderous colonial ideology of the Nazis).
Actually, it was exactly the size of the conquered territories that created the critical mass of the complexity of a system that Nazis had to manage. Which inevitably led to colossal strategic blunders and ultimately to the defeat in World War II and the demise of the Third Reich].
Consequently, only two further ways are left open by which work and bread could be secured for the increasing population [of Germany]. The first one is continuous acquisition of new territories [vial military conquest, of course] on which a certain portion of the increasing population could be settled each year, and thus keep the nation in the position of being self-supporting at all times.
Or our industry and commerce could be organized in such a manner as to secure an increase in exports and thus be able to support our people by the increased purchasing power accruing from the profits made on foreign markets.
The sounder alternative, however, is undoubtedly the first one. The principle of acquiring new territory, on which the surplus population could be settled, has many advantages to recommend it, especially if we take the future, rather than the present, into account.
To colonize a territory is a slow process, often extending over centuries. Yet this fact is the source of its inner strength; for it is not through a sudden burst of enthusiasm that it can be put into effect, but rather through a gradual and enduring process of growth quite different from industrial progress, which can be artificially speeded up within a few years.
A solid stock of small and medium farmers have at all times been the best protection which a nation could have against the social diseases that are prevalent to-day. Moreover, that is the only solution which guarantees the daily bread of a nation within the framework of its domestic national economy.
Thus, industry and commerce would no longer constitute the basis of the national subsistence, but would be auxiliary institutions. [Dead wrong. Such a fundamentally agrarian state will not be able to create and maintain powerful armed forces – a must for survival, let alone prosperity of a nation]
Such a territorial policy, however, cannot be carried out in the Cameroons, but, almost exclusively, here in Europe. In considering this state of affairs to-day, one must not allow existing political frontiers to distract attention from those frontiers which, on the principle of eternal justice, ought to exist. We ought to be given our share of the soil which is absolutely necessary for our existence, but of course nobody will be prepared to do so.
[Justification for the aggressive colonial wars for the Lebensraum in Europe (in the East, actually). Loud and clear, cut and dry, plain and simple]
Obviously, it is no longer possible to acquire such colonies in Europe by peaceful means. Therefore, any attempt at such a colonial expansion will mean an enormous military struggle [i.e. all-out war].
Such a decision naturally demands that the nation’s undivided energies should be devoted to it. A policy of that kind which requires for its fulfilment every ounce of available energy on the part of all concerned, cannot be carried into effect by half-measures or in a hesitating manner.
The political activity of the German Reich should be directed exclusively towards this goal. No political step should have been taken as a result of any other consideration unconnected with this task and the means of accomplishing it.
Germany should be alive to the fact that such a goal could be reached only by war, and the prospect of war should be faced with calm and collected determination. The whole system of alliances should be envisaged and valued from that standpoint.
If new territory had to be acquired in Europe it could be done mainly at Russia’s expense, and once again the new German Reich should set out on its march alone the same road as was formerly trodden by the Teutonic Knights, in order to acquire soil for the German plough by means of the German sword, and thus provide the nation with its daily bread.
For such a policy, however, there would have been only one possible ally in Europe and that was Britain. [Now that was a delusion of the century! The last thing that Britain wants – or needs – is the continental Europe dominated by a monster hybrid of German technology and Russian resources. Hence Britain was a natural adversary, not an ally, of Germany in its Drang nach Osten project. Which World War II proved beyond the reasonable doubt]
No sacrifice should have been considered too great if it was a necessary means of gaining Britain’s friendship [another delusion of the century]. Colonial and naval ambitions should have been abandoned [good idea, actually – too bad Hitler abandoned it when he came to power] and attempts should not have been made to compete against British industries [now that’s a very bad idea as it imposes insane restrictions on German industry].
Such a policy would have demanded a renunciation of world trade [stupid], colonial intentions [makes sense] and naval power [ditto]. All the means of power at the disposal of the State should have been concentrated in the military forces on land.
[Unfortunately for Germany, after he came to power, Hitler radically changed his mind and waster a colossal amount of effort, money and other resources on building useless monsters such as battleships, heavy cruisers and especially aircraft carriers. And his infamous “Plan Z” for the Kriegsmarine was genuinely insane]