His Second Book (11)

IMG_1034

Marxism itself knows only the goal of destroying Germany

[And the whole Western Civilization as we know it. And the whole human civilization. Although technically Russian Marxism (Bolshevism) not Marxism in general]

But as long as this whole political life is not governed by one guiding objective, the individual actions will not have the character of utilizing all possibilities to achieve a certain result; instead, they are then always only individual stations along the path of aimless and purposeless struggling from one day to the next.

[Sounds exactly like what happens in Europe and North America these days. And in Australia. And in New Zealand. Only the State of Israel seems to be an exception as it does have one guiding objective.

Survival in a highly hostile environment, where just about everyone – Palestinians, Iranians, Syrians, etc. want to destroy Israel and finish what Reinhard Heydrich had started]

The German people, which has neither a foreign policy tradition nor a foreign policy goal, will in principle always be easily prone to endorse utopian ideals

[Such as the National-Socialism in 1933 – in Germany and Austria – and its version of Marxism in East Germany after 1945]

And thus to neglect its real vital interests.

[Monstrous crimes committed by the Nazis were definitely not in the interests of the German people. Neither was the practical implementation of the completely erroneous racial theory]

Thus the relationship with Austria, as was emphasized with particular pride, was not one of hardheaded reason, but a true inner bond of affection.

[Which led to a horrible disaster in 1918 and beyond]

If only the head had spoken instead of the heart at that time, and reason had decided, then [Imperial] Germany would be saved today.

[Absolutely. All the German leaders have to do was to enter into a strategic partnership with Russia and to allow Austria to disintegrate – with subsequent Anschluss of its German lands into the German Empire]

The goal [of the foreign policy] must be established, once and for all, as unalterable

[And of the domestic policy as well, of course]

Only under the sledgehammer of world history will the eternal values of a people become the steel and iron with which history is then made. But those who avoid battles will never attain the strength to fight battles.

And those who never fight battles will never be the beneficiaries of those who engage each other in swordplay. Because the beneficiaries in world history to date have never been peoples with cowardly views of neutrality, but rather young peoples with the better sword.

Neither in antiquity, nor in the Middle Ages, nor in the present time has there been even one example of powerful states emerging in any other way than through constant conflict.

[True]

The peoples who have been the beneficiaries of history, however, have always been powerful states.

[Not necessarily. Sweden and Switzerland are two notable exceptions. Another one is Ireland after it got its independence from Britain]

Those who remain neutral in the great conflicts of world history may perhaps initially be able to carry out a little trade; in terms of power politics, however, they will for that reason ultimately be excluded from participating in the determination of the fate of the world.

[True]

If the American union had remained neutral in the Great War, regardless of whether England or Germany had emerged victorious the American union would today be viewed as a second-rate power.

[No. That would have happened if the USA decided to isolate itself completely from the war (and that’s isolationism, not neutrality). Had it used its political, economic and naval muscle to force the Central and the Allied Powers to sign the peace treaty and return to the 1914 borders, the USA would have become the dominant power in the world.

This scenario was actually realistic because by the beginning of 1917 the belligerents found themselves in a stalemate – no side had the resources to win the war. Had the USA forced them to declare the armistice, both the Bolshevist coup in Russia and the Nazi dictatorship in Germany could very well have been avoided]

One does not obtain freedom through begging or cheating, or through labor and industriousness either, but exclusively through fighting—fighting one’s own battles.

[This is obviously true – although fighting does not necessarily needs to be done with a sword. Sometimes political and economic tools are much more efficient]

Beginning with the birth of the human until his death, everything is doubtful. The only thing that seems certain is death itself.

[I’d say that everything is risky. Even if you do not take risks, you are at risk anyway]

In the case of a conflict with any naval power, not only is German trade immediately halted, but the danger of landings is also present

[Hence the repeat of the blockade and the Great Hunger is guaranteed]

This fundamental recognition is important because in Germany today there are still well-intentioned national men who believe in all seriousness that we must enter into an association with Russia [the Soviet Union actually]

[And they were right – although it depends on the definition of “association”, of course. In fact, the Soviet Union and Germany simply had to cooperate in economic and military projects – whether they wanted it or not; whether they liked it or not.

They had a lot in common – both nations suffered the defeat in the Great War and subsequent economic devastation; both lost substantial territories in the aftermath of World War I; both were considered pariahs by the Great Powers. They also complemented each other – Germany had the technologies and the professionals (engineers, designers, managers, etc.) and Russia had enormous human and natural resources.

This cooperation, however, was doomed to be inevitably short-lived as the Soviet leader – the “Red Tamerlane” Joseph Stalin – and his regime was committed to invading, conquering and destroying the Western Civilization (and subsequently the whole human civilization). And to its subsequent replacement with the universal totalitarian state – the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Germany (then Imperial Germany – the Second Reich) should have entered into a strategic partnership with Russia in late 19th century. With a powerful synergy between German technologies, industry and professionals, on one side and immense Russian resources, on the other, this alliance would have inevitably dominated Europe.

Germany and Russia were politically similar – both were monarchies; their emperors were cousins; in the 19th century they fought on the same side against France (that once invaded and occupied both Prussia and Russia)… in short, they had enough in common to enter into partnership that would have saved both empires and prevented the Great War – and consequently the horrors of Bolshevism and Nazism. Unfortunately, it did not happen.

However, I would agree with Adolf Hitler that “the idea of association (i.e. cooperation) with the Soviet Union was unfeasible or disastrous for Germany”. Because ultimately it led to World War II (which would not have begun without the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact), defeat of Germany and the demise of the Third Reich.

Instead of entering into a cooperation with the Soviet Union which presented a genuinely existential threat to Germany, Europe and the whole Western Civilization, Germany should have pushed for the Anti-Comintern Pact right after the Comintern was created in 1919 (it was formed 30 years later anyway – as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization).

Had Germany (i.e. the leaders of Weimar Republic) managed to convince Britain, France, the USA, Poland, Czechoslovakia and a few other key nations to form such a pact, Nazis would have never come to power and there would have been no World War II. Which would have saved tens of millions of human lives and most of the European infrastructure]

 

France will always be our enemy

[Obviously – because Germany and France were engaged in a continuous battle for domination of continental Europe]

The central idea of French foreign policy is still the conquering of the Rhine border; the tearing up of Germany into individual states, as loosely attached to one another as possible [to ensure the permanent domination of the continental Europe by France].

[Yes, but after enormous devastations and loss of life caused by the Great War, there was no appetite in France for waging a war against Germany to achieve this objective. Hence for all practical purposes Germany was safe from the French aggression]

French foreign policy has always obtained its inner drive from this mixture of vanity and megalomania.

[Probably a correct assessment]

The belief in a German-Russian understanding is fanciful as long as a government that is preoccupied with the sole effort to transmit the Bolshevist poison to Germany rules in Russia.

[Another 100% correct assessment]

It is incomprehensible when nationalist Germans believe that they can arrive at an understanding with a state whose highest interest includes the destruction of precisely this nationalist Germany.

[It is]

If such an alliance were to materialize today, its result would be the complete dominance of Judaism in Germany, just as in Russia.

[Of Bolshevism, not Judaism]

The Soviet Union is indeed a country that has destroyed its own national economy, but only in order to safeguard the possibility of absolute dominance by international finance capital.

[No. In reality, to create a military-industrial colossus and then use it to conquer Europe and the whole world. International finance capital had nothing to do with that whatsoever]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s