Nobody wanted peace more than Adolf Hitler. Nobody needed peace more than he. He needed it in order to consolidate and to extend his great work; in order to allow the understandable but nevertheless somewhat alarming differences. in outlook between the old German ruling classes and ruling: bodies — the nobility and the wealthy higher middle class; the “intelligenzia”; the Churches; but specially the General Staff, of Prussian tradition (entirely or nearly entirely recruited among the old, land-owning nobility) — on one hand, and the Reichsleiters and Gauleiters and, in general, the leading men of the New Order, on the other, slowly to die out, and a synthesis of the best of all German national forces to take place under the Sign of the Swastika; he needed it to secure the: undisturbed growth of a healthy and uncompromising new generation of men and women — fighters and mothers — born and brought up in the glorious National Socialist atmosphere and. devoted, without any reservations whatsoever, to his ideals; to enable himself to continue carrying out his admirable social programme and — without them hardly becoming conscious of the change — gradually inducing the German people to accept the ethical and, one should add, in the deeper sense of the word, the religious revolution that National Socialism represents in this country: the return to racial i.e., natural, values and, in general, to that life-centred wisdom which the new doctrine implies, after one and a half thousand years of man-centred, equalitarian, anti-natural and anti-national Judeo-Christian superstition. He needed peace in order to bring, slowly, but irresistibly, into existence, under the leadership of the regenerate German Reich, the Greater Reich comprising all people of Germanic blood and ultimately all people of Aryan blood, in and outside Europe, and to remould the whole world according to the principle of the God-ordained hierarchy of races and of the rule of the best. And nobody strove for peace as hard and as consistently |
as he — admittedly not on account of any humanitarian prejudices, but for the sound, practical reasons that I have just mentioned: for the sake of the success of his life’s work or, in other words, in the interest of the Greater German Reich; in the interest of the Aryan Cause, i.e. in the interest of the Universe. But the everlasting forces of disintegration and death — those which I have described as forces “in Time,” and which were (and are, since 1945, more fatally than ever) leading all races to their doom, — mightily stood in the way of the Man “against Time” and of his dream of Aryan regeneration. And their agents — the Jews, as a body; and the conscious or unconscious, willing or unwilling servants of international Jewry: Free Masons of high and low grades; members and sympathisers of the most varied pseudo-spiritual societies in the service of Jewish interests or Jewish ideals (or both); believers in the most varied man-centred, equalitarian creeds of whatever origin, afflicted with a sincere but false conception of history; and all manner of people prepared to sacrifice any possibility of general regeneration to the maintenance of personal or collective advantages of a material or moral nature, — needed war, in order to nip the National Socialist revolution in the bud; in order to break its impulse before it had time to bring about the inner and definitive transformation of Germany, and before it spread to other countries of Aryan blood; the sooner, the better. They needed war, if they were not, themselves, to be compelled to abdicate all influence, and culturally — and spiritually, — no less than politically, to cease to exist. And they did everything they could to start war in spite of Adolf Hitler’s efforts to avoid it; and everything they could to prolong it, once it had started. And they succeeded; and they won the war, not because of any fault of his, but simply because the world had not — and has not, yet, — reached the end of the present Dark Age; because, as I have said before, Adolf Hitler is not the last Man “against Time,” and because it is a fact — nay, an unavoidable consequence of the laws of historical development, — that all Men “against Time” fail, save the very last one: the one whom the Sanskrit Scriptures call “Kalki.” In other words, seen from that higher standpoint from which all “politics” appear as consequences, never as causes, |
the 1939–1945 World War is, in the midst of the gigantic struggle of polar opposites, without beginning nor end, which constitutes cosmic history, a tragic local instance of the fated victory of the satanic Forces — i.e. of the Forces of untruth — near the end of an Age of Gloom. “Ribbentrop, bring me the English alliance!”1 Sincerer words than these — the last Adolf Hitler addressed to the man whom he was sending to London, as Germany’s ambassador, in 1936, to sound once more all the possibilities that could lead to an understanding with England — were never uttered in the history of diplomatic relations. Adolf Hitler had indeed been striving for “an understanding with England” nay, an “English alliance,” from the beginning of his public life. Already as early as 1924 he had, in his immortal book, “Mein Kampf,” clearly laid down the main lines of this new policy (“new,” at least after the first World War.) And, which is more, however justified it doubtless was, from a strictly political point of view, this policy had — like everything the Führer did — a definitely more-than-political meaning and more-than-political scope, and was even more justified from the point of view of Nature, i.e. of living truth. It rested upon the solid biological fact of common blood. And although it was, admittedly, something quite different from Adolf Hitler’s continental policy, — although there was, there, for instance, no question of people of the same blood coming under “the same State” — yet it could have been formulated in sentences impressively parallel to those which proclaim, on the first page of “Mein Kampf,” the legitimity of Austria’s incorporation into the German Reich; I mean: the inspired Leader would certainly have maintained that, “even if, economically, it were a matter of indifference, nay, even if it were positively a disadvantage,”2 still one should, in Germany, seek England’s alliance, for “people of similar blood” should stand together. It was, — again in perfect consistency with the tenets and general character of National Socialism, — a thoroughly revolutionary policy. Revolutionary not merely because it was a 1 J. von Ribbentrop, “Zwischen London und Moskau” (edit. 1954), p. 93. 2 “Mein Kampf,” I, p. 1. |
break with the recent past and — apparently — a return to an older political tradition, but because it was the outcome, of an attitudein complete contradiction with that of all European politicians for the last one thousand five hundred years at least, and a return to the spirit and corresponding customs of a long-forgotten age, the sanity of which other-worldly superstitions, on one hand, and all-too-worldly business considerations, on the other, had not yet destroyed, and in which common blood was, as a matter of course, — as Nature intended it to be, — the soundest thinkable basis of friendship and constructive collaboration; in other words, because it was a break with that untruth — that rebellion of man against Nature, — which is the distinctive (and increasingly visible) trait of our Dark Age. The system of political alliances that had prevailed up till then, and that yet prevailed, was indeed — like practically all human institutions of this Age — stamped with the sign of untruth. Common dogmatic faith (in the first millennium of the Christian era and somewhat later) and then, more and more, common (or supposed common) material interests, had been, irrespective of blood, and, more often than not, in flagrant opposition to any idea of natural blood-solidarity, the main bond between allied powers. Charlemagne and his warriors had fought, with the blessing of the Catholic Church, — the oldest international (and anti-national) power in Europe — against the Lombards, against the Saxons, people of Germanic stock like themselves, which was bad enough. And seven hundred years later, Francis the First, King of France — an Aryan king, at any rate — had, for the sake of dynastic greed, allied himself with the Turks against the German Reich, which was even worse, if worse could be. And in later history, calculations of mere material profit had played an ever greater part in the determination of the attitude of governments towards one another and in that of nations’ “friends” and “foes,” without the mentioned profit being, in fact, anybody’s but that of a few international — Jewish; or raceless — big-businessmen, — which meant the complete separation of “politics” from national life in the true sense of the word. The typical Dark Age mentality’ behind that unhealthy state of affairs had 1 “When society reaches a stage in which property confers rank; in which wealth becomes the only source of virtue ... then we are in the Kali Yuga or Dark Age” (Vishnu Puran). |
been, already at the close of the 19th century, that of an influential British minority, championing, in the name of a misled and pre-eminently commercial nationalism, the most extreme anti-German policy. It can hardly ever have found a dearer and more cynical expression than in Sir Philip Chalmers Mitchell’s essay “A biological view of our foreign policy, by a biologist,” published in the 1st of February issue of the London “Saturday Review,” in 1896, and recently quoted in extenso by Hans Grimm.1 There, not only are England’s commercial interests stressed as though they were everything; not only is Germany, — the prosperous, and therefore dangerous business rival — pointed out as England’s main enemy in spite of undeniable biological similitude, but that biological similitude, that community of blood and the community of nature, which is the consequence of it, that similitude in permanent, deeper qualities, is precisely the fact alleged to make war between England and Germany unavoidable, nay, to cause that war to be a war to the finish;2 it is the fact which urges Sir Philip Chalmers Mitchell, professor of biology, — and, later on, (from 1916 to 1919) member of the British General. Staff — to paraphrase, applying them to England’s sister-nation, the famous pitiless words which the Roman Cato once used to repeat, at every opportunity, against Carthago, Rome’s Semitic rival, and to say: “Delenda est Germania” — “Germany must be destroyed.” It is difficult to ascertain whether Adolf Hitler knew or not of the existence of that strangely enlightening piece of English literature. Possibly he did; the essay had been, already at the time of its publication, handed over to German diplomatic and military circles, in which, apart from a few exceptional men, such as Admiral Tirpitz, nobody had — unfortunately — then or afterwards, taken it seriously. Possibly, he did not. But even so, he was perfectly aware of the widespread attitude which it now so unmistakably expresses; of that superstitious hostility to Germany, rooted in the fear of being commercially “outdone,” which is, with minor circumstantial differences, Eyre Crowe’s attitude and, nearer to us, Sir Robert Vansittart’s, Duff Cooper’s, Eden’s and Winston Churchill’s. 1 In both his “Erzbischofschrift,” and in “Warum? Woher? aber Wohin?” 2 See the text of the essay. |
He was aware of it, and yet, from the beginning of his public life, and over and over again — nay, as we shall see, even during the war, — he held out his hand to England in a gesture of friendship — in a spirit of total, unconditional, thoroughly sincere reconciliation, without a shade of bitterness, let alone of revengefulness. He did all he possibly could, not to “placate” the mistress of the Seven Seas, whose might he neither feared not hated, but to win her confidence and collaboration, in absolute good faith; to break that superstitious dread of a powerful Germany, which clever, or, sometimes, irresponsible agents of the Dark Forces had been breathing into her people for over forty years at least, and to awaken in them the slumbering consciousness of the brotherhood of blood, deeper, truer, stronger than any commercial or narrowly political realities — everlasting, while profit and power are time-bound. Governments and Churches, inasmuch as they do not actually embody and adequately express a people’s collective soul, are also time-bound. Maybe, England was living under a political regime entirely different from — nay, the very opposite of — that which Adolf Hitler had given Germany. But that was a secondary matter. Germany herself had lived under a different regime up till 1933. And quite possibly, even a real “people’s regime” in England — in an English National Socialist State, if ever one had happened to come into existence — would have been, in many ways, profoundly different from the German National Socialist regime. Maybe, deep-rooted moral and religious prejudices (blind allegiance to time-honoured institutions and ideas) would, for years, — or for centuries — prevent the English from accepting some of the hard and simple biological truths upon which genuine National Socialism is based, and from sharing wholeheartedly that heathen scale of values which is, strictly speaking, inseparable from it. Yet even that was, from the standpoint of permanent, natural reality, i.e. from the standpoint of the Seer, a secondary matter. That did not alter the fact that, considered with her dominions overseas, England was, before the Second World War, — in spite of obvious weakness, mistakes and crimes; in spite of her having, hardly forty years earlier, waged the most disgraceful war upon the Boors, in South Africa; in spite of her having, through her missionaries and her schools, introduced the microbe of Democracy (and, |
unwillingly, that of Communism) into such a land as India, — the great ruling Aryan power. Her Empire was, as a historical reality, one of the grand material achievements of the Nordic race — unthinkable, apart from the qualities of character of the best men among those who had built it up, and among those who were running it: daring; perseverance; sense of responsibility and sense of honour; organising genius, coupled with selfless idealism: Nordic qualities. Adolf Hitler repeatedly proclaimed his determination to respect the integrity of the British Empire. He repeatedly declared that the German National Socialist State was to look upon every manner of pre-1914 colonial policy, and every form pf aggressive commercial competition with England as a thing of the past. And he fully meant what he said. He meant it because he saw, no doubt, in that “alliance with England” which he so eagerly urged J. von Ribbentrop to “bring him back,” a guarantee of peaceful development for Germany and of further unhindered evolution and expansion for National Socialism — Germany’s highest interest, immediately andin the long run. He meant it also because the friendly collaboration of the two leading nations of Nordic blood appeared to him, from a more-than-political standpoint, as the unmistakable dictate of sanity; as the course in harmony with the meaning of life (which should also be the meaning of “politics,” if the latter are to cease being mere business intrigues) and the policy which was, therefore, immediately and in the long run, in the interest of superior mankind in the biological sense of the word, and consequently, “in the interest of the Universe,” again to quote the old hallowed words of the Bhagavad-Gita. He held out his hand to England both as a wise, far-sighted statesman and as a “Man against Time.” But England’s leading men — and number of men in high office in Germany — were not only short-sighted politicians but active agents of the everlasting Dark Forces. Adolf Hitler’s efforts were systematically neutralised through their stubborn, combined hostility and through that of the unseen Powers of disintegration and death at the back of them. Had J. von Ribbentrop succeeded in bringing about that Anglo-German alliance which Adolf Hitler so eagerly wanted, |
there would have been no Second World War. And the unseen Powers of disintegration would have had to devise some other means of thrusting this present Creation a foot-step nearer its doom. The formation in Germany of an eminently efficient National Socialistruling élite would have secured the stability of the regime and, which is more, the definitive acceptance of the new scale of values and new conception of life “in harmony with the primaeval meaning of things,” first among Adolf Hitler’s people and then, also, — gradually — among all people of Aryan blood; in other words, it would have brought about a general rising of the Indo-European race (and, through the latter’s influence, of all the noble races) against the fatal, downward pressure of Time. The success of such a rising would have meant the end of this Dark Age and, under the divine Swastika, Sign of the Sun, Sign of Life in its pristine glory, “a new heaven and a new earth.” But, as I said before, this is precisely what the Death-forces were bound to try to hinder. They tried with diabolical masterfulness, knowing that it was perhaps their last chance of large scale success on earth within the present Time-cycle. J. von Ribbentrop’s experience with England’s ruling men was a steady series of disappointments. The Permanent Secretary of State, Sir (later Lord) Robert Vansittart, whom he had hoped to convince of the advantages of a close Anglo-German collaboration, proved adamant in his anti-German attitude — all the more baffling that he did not even attempt to justify it through some sort of logic.1 “In Vansittart,” was the German Ambassador to write, shortly before his martyr’s death in Nüremberg, ten years later, “I felt I had before me a man with an absolutely fixed opinion; the man of the Foreign Office, who not only supported the thesis of “balance of power” but also embodied Sir Eyre Crowe’s principle: ‘Whatever may happen, never pactise with Germany!’ I had the definite impression that this man would not even once try to bring our two countries nearer to each other. Every word was simply lost on him.”2 Winston Churchill, although admittedly more outspoken, was no less irreducibly opposed to any Anglo-German alliance. The very thought of a powerful 1 J. von Ribbentrop, “Zwischen London und Moskau,” p. 96. 2 J. von Ribbentrop, “Zwischen London und Moskau,” p. 97. |
Germany filled with bitterness, nay, with hatred. And he was determined to do all he possibly could to keep that nightmare of his from becoming a permanent reality. “If Germany grows too strong, she shall again be beaten down,” declared he bluntly, in the course of a several hours’ conversation with J. von Ribbentrop, in 1937. And he added, as the Ambassador reminded him that Germany had friends “Oh, we are pretty good at getting them around in the end,”1 thus foretelling that which was — alas! — actually to take place a few years later. Himself one of the cleverest and most efficient agents of the Forces of disintegration at the end of this Age of Gloom, he understood both the mentality of the professional politicians and that of the dull, conceited, inconsistent and gullible average man: the ultimate human factors at the back of “public opinion” and world-politics under a Democratic order. The hopes that one might have been prompted to draw from King Edward the Eighth’s friendly attitude to Germany were abruptly brushed aside through the King’s well’ known abdication in 1937. “With this abdication,” states the former German Ambassador, in the Memoirs I already mentioned, “the cause of the Anglo-German alliance had lost a possibility.”2 And the remaining possibilities were not to materialise. They rested upon the influence which a minority of racially-conscious, unprejudiced and far-sighted Englishmen, in no way connected with open or secret Jewish or pro-Jewish world-organisations — men such as Sir Oswald Mosley and some of the most enlightened members of the London Anglo-German Fellowship — could exert in Government circles, and upon the public. And that influence was practically negligible. In British Government circles, Adolf Hitler’s healthy new Germany was, — wrongly, no doubt, but all-too-actually — looked upon with mistrust, as a growing menace. And the very admiration that so many thousands of English people could not help feeling for the inspired ruler’s social achievements, was — with the help of the press, — steadily giving way to resentment at the idea of the leading position to which Germany had risen, under him, economically and politically, within but three or four years’ time and without war. The increasing prosperity 1 J. von Ribbentrop, “Zwischen London und Moskau” (edit. 1954), p. 97. 2 J. von Ribbentrop, “Zwischen London und Moskau” (edit. 1954), p. 104. |
and power of the sister nation were surely the most eloquent tribute to the proud faith in “blood and soil” that now filled the hearts and lives of her people. In England, one wanted peace, of course. Who did not, after a world war such as that of 1914–1918? And it was — or should have been — quite clear that an Anglo-German alliance would have meant lasting peace. Yet, one dimly felt that such a peace could only help Germany to become stronger and stronger, and National Socialism to win prestige within and beyond the frontiers of the Reich. Now Britons had been taught for centuries that every country which rose to prominence upon the European mainland was “a threat to England.” This was not merely the opinion of the Foreign Office; it had grown into a widespread British superstition, harder to uproot than any “opinion.” Germany was, therefore, (and whether this were or not in the interest of peace) not to be allowed to become “too strong.” It was easy — again with the help of the almighty press, — to bring the average Englishman to believe, on that point, the same as Mr. (later Sir) Winston Churchill. All the more easy that new Germany was unconceivable apart from her National Socialist creed, and that the average Englishman was from several sides, at first, discretely, and then, quite boldly, being told that the creed had a “dangerous” more-than-political bearing nay, a decidedly anti-Christian one (which no doubt was true, although in a far deeper sense than that stressed in the newspaper articles and propaganda pamphlets).1 The organisations which financed the latter were, in fact, keener on harming Germany than on saving “Christian civilisation” — let alone the essence of original Christianity (the other-wordly teaching “above Time”) which was by no means threatened. But the pious arguments were clever — the more illogical, the cleverer; — well-calculated to impress the non-thinking masses and the false-thinking half-learned. They bore fruit. In addition to that, the more and more “uncompromising attitude”2 which Adolf Hitler himself was beginning to take with regard to the Christian Churches — i.e., his very definite attempt to prevent any interference of the Churches 1 Among these one should remember the booklets published by “The Friends of Europe” and quoting extracts of National Socialist writers. 2 J. von Ribbentrop, loc. cit., p. 127. |
in State affairs, — was bound to give grist to the anti-Nazi propaganda mills. It led to the greatest tension between the National Socialist State and the Vatican “and to the mobilisation of all the energies of the Churches against us, in protestant lands also,” writes J. von Ribbentrop; “a most significant and disadvantageous development from the standpoint of foreign policy.”1 It thus became clearer and clearer that the “English alliance” which Adolf Hitler had so earnestly striven for, was a psychological impossibility. Not merely the most influential men in the British Foreign Office, but “the atmosphere” in the whole country was against it. A few weeks before his promotion from the position of Ambassador in London to that of Foreign Minister of the German Reich, i.e., already at the close of 1937,2 J. von Ribbentrop sent Adolf Hitler a detailed report3 at the end of which the following sentences are, among others, to be found: “I do not believe any longer in the possibility of an understanding with England. England does not want any mighty Germany in her neighbourhood...”; “Here one strongly believes in the efficiency of National Socialism” (i.e., one believes it will give Germany more and more power); “Edward VIII was compelled to abdicate because one was not sure whether he would lend a hand to a policy of hostility towards Germany. Chamberlain has now appointed Vansittart, our most important and toughest opponent, to such a position as enables him to take a leading part in the diplomatic play against Germany. However much one might, in the meantime, for tactical reasons, try to come to an understanding with us, every single day in the future in which our political considerations should fail to be fundamentally, determined by the thought of England as our most dangerous opponent, would be a gain for our enemies.”4 There was indeed nothing else to do but to face the fact that Adolf Hitler’s great dream of Aryan world-leadership on the basis of a solid, peaceful collaboration of the two, main European nations of Germanic stock, was not — and was, for a 1 J. von Ribbentrop, loc. cit., p. 127. 2 He was appointed Reichsaussenminister on the 4th February 1938. 3 Deutsche Botschaft, London, A. 5522. 4 Quoted in J. von Ribbentrop’s “Zwischen London und Moskau,” p. 122-123. |
very long time at least, not likely to become, — England’s dream It was, no doubt, a pity a greater pity even than the few racially-conscious Englishmen probably realised at the time. But it was a fact. England’s ruling classes were completely in the grip of international Jewry, which cunningly used, in its own interest, both their business-like fear of a powerful Germany, and their moral objection (or so-called such one) against the National Socialist view of life, in particular, against National Socialist anti-Semitism. And the British people, robbed, through the whole modern conditioning apparatus, of their natural capacity of doubt, analyse, and free choice, believed what they were told, and reacted to world events as their unseen masters — the Jews — expected them to. One day, perhaps, they would wake up — when it would be too late. (And Adolf Hitler, the Man “against Time,” first a seer and then a politician, never left off feeling sure that such a day would come). In the meantime, however, their masters saw to it that the sight of Germany’s grand awakening did not raise them out of their comfortable apathy — at least, not quickly enough for them to discover the tricks that were being played upon them, and to refuse to follow their wicked shepherds on the path of fratricidal war. Unable to break Jewish influence in England, Adolf Hitler strengthened his bonds with the two nations with which Germany was in ideological agreement: Japan, and fascist Italy, who both had — the former in November 1936, the latter a year later, — signed with him the Anti-Commintern Pact, which England had steadily refused to sign.1 Yet, again because he was first a Seer and then a politician; because he felt real, eternal England, in spite of all, behind the judaised England of to-day, and the essence of hallowed Aryandom behind eternal England, he never abandoned the old dream of friendship, and never gave up watching for a “change of heart” on the British side. The germs of the Second World War lay in the Versailles Treaty. And, not merely in a complete revision of that shameful 1 J. von Ribbentrop, “Zwischen London und Moskau” (edit. 1954), p. 112. |
piece of work, but in the definitive suppression of the spirit which had produced it — i.e., in the abolition of that old, morbid fear and gratuitous hatred of a strong Germany in the hearts of most Europeans, — lay the only possibility of a lasting peace. In fact, the infamous Treaty was never revised, and the political map of Europe never given back the outlines of sanity on the basis of that “right of people to dispose of themselves” which the victors of 1918 had so often and so loudly proclaimed. And instead of being suppressed, or at least left to die out, fear and hatred were systematically and most cunningly cultivated in England, in France, in the smaller European countries that had fought on the Allied side, during the First World War in those that had remained neutral; in the United States of America — of all lands, the one which had the least reason to feel “menaced” by a Greater German Reich beyond the Atlantic Ocean-and, strange as this may seem, in a number of non-European countries such as India, whose people had nothing whatsoever to do with the frontier problems of Central and Eastern Europe, and did not (apart from one or two resplendent individual exceptions) possess the slightest idea of European history;1 countries which, moreover, Germany had never harmed, while England had... and how! Under the influence of those agents of the Dark Forces who had prepared the yet greatest crime in diplomatic history and who were now supervising its consummation, the people of the whole world outside the “fascist countries” were systematically made to forget or kept from learning the fact that “Austrians” — representatives of the small German nucleus that had, for ages, held together, and ruled the many and varied national groups comprised within the “Kingdom of Austria and Hungary” — were and always had been Germans; and that their Parliament had, immediately after the splitting up of the Austro-Hungarian State at the end of the First World War (long before Adolf Hitler had come to power; nay, before his Party had taken shape) unanimously voted the fusion of Austria with Germany. They were made to forget or kept from learning the fact that there had never existed and could 1 To be fair, one should point out that many of the “Americans” — sons of European emigrants — and Western Europeans who helped in the concoction of the Versailles Treaty, knew no more about the history and geography of Central Europe than any Indian coolie is likely to know. |
never exist any such creatures as “Czechoslovaks” and that “Czechoslovakia” was an entirely artificial State, set up, at the Allies’ command, in 1919, out of Czechs, and out of Slovaks, Ruthenians, Carpatho-Ukrainians, etc., all unwilling to come together under Czechic rule, and of over three million most unwilling Germans, torn away from their fatherland thanks to the Versailles Treaty, and more resentful of Czechic domination than all the other components of the ridiculous State, rolled in one; and the fact that the onlyreason for the concoction of such a State — against biology, against history, against geography, against economics, against Nature — lay in its appointed action as a permanent thorn in the flesh of the already mutilated German Reich. They were purposely kept in ignorance of the daily provocations of the Czechs in German Sudetenland and wherever Germans lived within the new State; kept in ignorance, also, of the oppression the Czechs exerted upon the other, non-Czechic elements of “Czechoslovakia”: Slovaks, Ruthenians, Carpatho-Ukrainians etc. The people of the world were systematically kept in ignorance of the fact that the “newt Poland” that the victors of 1918 had brought back into existence after over hundred and fifty years, far from being homogeneously polish, comprised important German and Russian minorities; of the fact that the “corridor” linking the bulk of it to the Baltic Sea — and separating East Prussia from the rest of Germany, — was German territory, the inhabitants of which were submitted to continual vexations on the part of the Poles, and that Danzig was a German town. They were made to forget — or kept from learning — that Saarland, and the territory on the Memel were parts of Germany; that Rhineland — occupied by the French since 1923 — was also a part of Germany. And every effort which Adolf Hitler made to break without war the belt of hostile States and hostile armed forces that the victors of 1918 had tightened round the German Reich; every effort he made to win for Germany without war a status of “equal treatment” —Gleichberechtigung — among the leading nations of the West, — the re-annexion of the Saar, after a plebiscite in which ninety-nine per cent of the inhabitants had voted for Germany, in 1935; the peaceful reoccupation of Rhineland in 1936; the re-incorporation of 1 “A historical lie,” to quote Hans Krebs’ words. |
Austria (in March 1938) and, a few months later, of Sudetenland into the Reich, not to speak of Germany’s earlier withdrawal from the League of Nations and her decision in favour of conscription after all Adolf Hitler’s honest proposals of a general disarmament had been turned down; was presented to them everywhere — be it in the London newspapers, an those of New York or in those of Calcutta, — as the outcome of a revival of “German militarism” and as the evidence of a “menace to civilisation.” As already stated, far from accepting the friendly hand that Adolf Hitler stretched out to her, England became more and more unbending in her resolution not to treat with Germany, happen what might, i.e., more and more fatally launched in the direction Sir (later Lord) Robert Vansittart and Mr. (later Sir) Winston Churchill etc., were striving to give her foreign policy. Nay, there are serious grounds to believe that the vexations that the German population in Sudetenland and in the Polish “corridor” suffered on the part of Czechs and Poles, were, more often than not, encouraged, when not actually provoked by secret agents of the British “Intelligence Service.” In other words, England was not only doing all she could to create such conditions as were the most likely to lead to war, but also, seeing to it, before hand, that she could, one day, — again as in 1918 — throw the blame for it upon Germany, as a matter of fact, this time upon Nazi Germany. Her most important European satellite — France — and the world-power of which she was herself (quicker than she expected) to become a satellite — U.S.A. — helped her efficiently in this dirty game. Still, war would — perhaps — not have become unavoidable, had it not been for a well-organised set of German traitors in high position — van Weizsäcker and Kordt, both holders of leading posts in the German Foreign Office; General Beck and General Halder, both in turn Chiefs of the German General Staff; Oberstleutnant H. Boehm-Tettelbach and other first rank officers of the German Army; Wilhelm Canaris, head of the German Military Intelligence, and a number of others, some of whose names were to become widely known overnight, in connection with the attempt on Adolf Hitler’s life, on the 20th of July 1944; and also a few militant Christians, priests |
and lay men, all-too-conscious of the fact that a definitive victory of National Socialism could mean nothing less than the end of Christianity and of “Christian civilisation,” and determined to prevent such a happening at any price, even at the cost of Germany’s destruction; men to whose feelings Bonenhöfer was, during the war, to give expression, in a very clear sentence: “Better a devastated Germany than a National Socialist one!” Such elements were far more important than one is generally inclined to believe. Post-war political literature — and, to begin with, in various detailed “Memoirs,” the surviving traitors’ own description of their past doings, — goes to prove that the whole machinery of the National Socialist State was simply with them. And the fellows were active long before the war; in fact, from the very day Adolf Hitler rose to power. And they were in constant secret touch with Germany’s bitterest enemies in diplomatic circles abroad. They did all they possibly could to encourage the foreign and specially the English politicians in their stubborn and short-sighted will to hinder at all costs any further materialization of Adolf Hitler’s territorial programme — in their determination to “stop Hitler,” as they used to say, as the six million Germans of Austria had, after those of Saarland, greeted with unprecedented enthusiasm, their integration into the common motherland. They kept the men of the British Foreign Office regularly informed about Adolf Hitler’s plans,1 and gave them, at the same time, the false impression that the National Socialist regime expressed by no means the German people’s actual choice, and that it would be most easily overthrown at the outbreak of war. And whenever tension arose between Great Britain and Germany, they sent secret envoys to London, with precise instructions to prompt the British Government “not to give in.” Thus were, for instance, Ewald von Kleist-Schmenzin, in August 1938, and Oberstleutnant Hans Boehm-Tettelbach, a fortnight later, dispatched, the former on behalf of General Beck, the latter on behalf of General Halder (General Beck’s successor as Chief of the German General Staff) in order to come in touch “with the men the most closely connected with the Foreign Office” and “to request the British Government to 1 See von Weizsäcker’s “Erinnerungen,” published in Munich in 1950. |
oppose a categorical ‘no’ to all Hitler’s further claims,”1 in particular, “to cause England to remain adamant in the Sudeten question.”2It is now known that Elwin von Kleist-Schmenzin paid visits to several notoriously anti-German leading British politicians, — in particular to Sir Robert Vansittart and to Winston Churchill — between the 17th and the 24th of August, and that he brought back a “private” letter of Winston Churchill to Wilhelm Canaris, one of the most powerful German traitors, already mentioned.3 It is now known that the German Secretary of State, von Weizsäcker, — who himself boasts of his “constant activity” consisting of “obstruction with regard to foreign policy,” in the Memoirs he was to write twelve years later, — also did his very best, in early September 1938, to impress upon the British Government (through Carl Burckhardt, Commisionary of the League of Nations for Danzig, who at once sent on the message to Sir G. Warner, British envoy in Bern, who in his turn telegraphed to the British Foreign Office) the necessity of sending to Germany not Chamberlain, but “some energetic military man, who can shout and bang his walking-stick upon the table, when he must”4 — i.e., a man who, instead of signing with Adolf Hitler the well-known Munich Agreement, would have broken off the negotiations and, apparently, caused war: the common aim of all the enemies of the National Socialist New Order. This much — which is just a sample out of the enormous (and ever-increasing) amount of evidence to-day available — goes to show that, if, in fact, such a supple person as Mr. Chamberlain was twice sent from London to meet Adolf Hitler, and given power to sign the Munich Agreement, securing peace (at least for another year), it was certainly not the fault of the German Anti-Nazis. The reasonwhy the British Cabinet sent Chamberlain — and not the “energetic military man” whom Herr von Weizsäcker would have preferred — and the reason why Chamberlain finally acknowledged the integration 1 Hans Boehm-Tettelbach declares so himself. See the “Rheinische Post” of the 10th July, 1948. 2 J. von Ribbentrop, “Zwischen London und Moskau” (edit. 1954), p. 141. 3 See Jar. Colvin’s “Master spy; the incredible story of Wilhelm Canaris, who, while Hitler’s Chief of intelligence, was a secret agent of the British” (New York, 1952). 4 See Holldack “Was wircklich geschah” (Munich 1949), p. 95. |
of Sudetenland into the German Reich, is the very same one which had, two months earlier, — i.e., before the last intrigues of the German traitors with a view to provoke war — caused the despatch of Lord Runciman to Prague, as a possible mediator between the Czechs and the German Sudeten Party, to the satisfaction of both (and of the German Reich); namely: the necessity for England to gain time; — “once more to do some thing for peace” — because she was not yet ready for war,1 or, more exactly, because the leaders of international Jewry behind the British politicians had not yet completed their preparations for a world war. Which did not mean that the British Government was not bent on war, sooner or later; war to “stop Hitler” because he had made Germany — the dreaded commercial rival, — free and powerful; and war to “stop Hitler” because he had put Germany’s power to the service of such more-than-political truth as this advanced Dark Age hates the most. Adolf Hitler was happy to interpret the Munich Agreement as the first decisive step towards that broader, lasting Anglo-German collaboration which he so sincerely desired. Was it not emphatically stated in the “Common Declaration” which both he and the English Premier had signed on the 30th of September, as an additional document stressing the meaning and importance of the Agreement: “We look upon the Agreement signed yesterday evening and the (earlier) Anglo-German Fleet Agreement as symbols of the desire of both our people never again to wage war upon each other. We are determined to handle also other questions which interest our countries by way of negotiation and to brush aside eventual causes of divergences in opinion, so that we might contribute to secure peace in Europe”?2 The German traitors were less pleased with the result of the Munich Conference. Their hopes of “putting Hitler aside” had to be given up — for how long? They did not know.3 But they continued their shadowy intrigues, in Germany and in every foreign land the policy of which they could directly or indirectly influence, relentlessly trying to provoke or strengthen every manner of hatred against 1 J. von Ribbentrop, “Zwischen London und Moskau” (edit. 1954), p. 140. 2 J. von Ribbentrop, “Zwischen London und Moskau” (edit. 1954), p. 310. 3 Erich Kordt, “Wahn und Wircklichkeit” (edit. 1948), p. 128 and following. |
the Man to whom their lips had sworn allegiance, and against the regime they outwardly professed to serve. As for England, her attitude towards new Germany — the State against Time — grew, in spite of all Adolf Hitler’s honest and earnest efforts, less and less friendly, not to say more and more hostile. Only three days after the solemn Declaration just quoted, Chamberlain announced in the House of Commons the decision of the Government of Great Britain to arm at any cost. Then, “on the 7th December 1938, the Munich Agreement was, through the veto of the British State Secretary for Colonies — doubtless not without the approval of his Government — denied all validity in connection with the question of Colonies and Mandate territories, and the ‘way of negotiation’ between England and Germany closed with regard to the same.” ... “At the same time,” writes J. von Ribbentrop in his Memoirs, “the British Government started a policy of still closer collaboration with France, and the United States of America were clearly invited to join in a coalition against Germany. The aim of this new policy consisted quite openly in an encirclement of Germany. War psychose was cultivated in England already before the integration of the remnant of Czechoslovakia into the Reich. The European political horizon was systematically swept in search of possibilities of anti-German alliances. What Churchill had prophesied to me (von Ribbentrop) in 1937 was now happening. Germany had, according to British opinion, become too strong and was again to be beaten down.”1 The German traitors in high office have, I repeat, no small responsibility in this tragic development. I am personally convinced that, without the knowledge of their activity, England would not have declared war on Germany in 1939 and that “the people would have remained satisfied with a solution of the Corridor question imposed through violence.”2 In other words, war between Germany and Poland would not have extended into war between England and Germany. But I am also convinced that war between England (with 1 J. von Ribbentrop, “Zwischen London und Moskau” (edit. 1954), p. 146-147. 2 Friedrich Lenz, “Der ekle Wurm der deutschen Zwietract” (edit. 1952), p. 100. |
her European satellite: France) and Germany, could have (and would have) been localised and ended in 1940, after the victorious campaign in France, had it not been for an enemy immeasurably more powerful than all the frustrated German officers (and intellectuals) and short-sighted, old-style British politicians and businessmen rolled in one, namely: the leader of the anti-Nazi forces (openly or secretly) all over the world; the enemy: the Jew. That one — and whoever, in any part of the world, allowed himself to be, directly or indirectly, influenced by him — is responsible for the fact that the war between England and Germany did not — could not — end in 1940 with the honourable peace which Adolf Hitler generously offered the sister-nation, which he did not hate, but that it spread further and further, becoming the Second World War. There was, (originally) be it in Adolf Hitler’s own mind, be it in that of any of his disciples who had a say in the interpretation and application of his teaching, not the slightest intention of persecuting the Jews. There may, of course, have been, on the part of rank and file National Socialist fighters, individual cases of violence against specimens of that particularly obnoxious and thoroughly unwanted variety of foreigners — sporadic instances of long-repressed (and quite understandable) national hatred or less laudible personal revenge, neither encouraged by the leaders of the young Movement nor justified in the light of the National SocialistWeltanschauung. There was no systematic molestation of Jews — not to speak of planned extermination of them. Such drastic steps as mass “liquidations” — or mass sterilisations — were not foreseen. All what Adolf Hitler had done was to point out international Jewry — international Jewish finance, surely; yet not international Jewish finance alone, but the Jews (and half-Jews) themselves, and the Jewish spirit, — as the sinister force at the back of Germany’s betrayal during the first World War, of her defeat in 1918 and subsequent humiliation and misery, and as the soul of the whole Versailles policy — which was indeed, historically speaking, absolutely true. And all he wanted was to rid Germany (and, if possible, Europe) of the |
Jewish pestilence — under all its forms and in all domains: politically and economically, no doubt, but also biologically, and spiritually. (He acknowledged, in fact, from the beginning — and that, because he was infinitely more than “a politician” — that biological separation from the Jews and freedom from their influence in the moral and spiritual domain, meant automaticallypolitical and economical riddance of them also). In Point Four of the famous Twenty-five Points — the unshakable basis of the National Socialist Party Programme, — he did away with that old and all-too-wide-spread lie which consists in calling a Jew, who speaks the language of a foreign people in whose midst he was born and brought up, a man of that people. And he boldly proclaimed that, on account of his blood, no Jew, — whatever be his capabilities or achievements, and however long his family be settled in Germany, — can be a German citizen. He thus laid — for the first time in the West since the decline of the Greco-Roman world (i.e. since a non-Aryan could, if he liked, become a Roman citizen), and since Theodoric the Great’s healthy Gothic kingdom, — the foundations of a natural and rational State; of a State according to the dictates of Life. In that long, dull process of decay which is, (with a short, very short halt under that exceptional Germanic king) the history of the West from the day Roman citizenship lost its meaning and value, this was a revolution — and what a one! But it was not an act of hostility towards the Jews. It was a healthy and enlightened reaction against the folly of every “naturalisation to the extent the latter is an insult to biology; a proclamation of the eternal truth of blood against the long-accepted but nevertheless shocking lie embodied in all such man-made regulations as defy it. In other words, it was an act “against Time”; against the ever-increasing untruth of our Age of Gloom. (The fact that Jews, and neither Negroes nor Hottentots nor Papuans are mentioned in Point Four is simply due to the presence of the former as the only non-Aryan community living in Germany and playing a part in German life.) Already in the days of the struggle for power, every National Socialist fighter called upon the German people not to buy from Jewish shops, not to believe the newspapers. |
financed by Jews, etc., in one word, to free themselves by every possible means from the Jewish bondage, be it through individual initiative, without the help of laws that did not exist. One must admit that this was natural in a campaign led in the name of national freedom — natural, and neither new nor unique. Yet the reaction to it was, all over the world, (and not only in Communist circles) a louder and louder outcry against National Socialist “anti-Semitism.” Curiously enough, in far-away India, Mahatma Gandhi, the prophet of “non-violence” — a man in many ways in glaring contrast to Adolf Hitler, but still, like him, a man “against Time” — was also, from 1919 onwards, urging his disciples to “boycott British goods” no less than “Western” — i.e. Christian-capitalistic — education and customs; to spin their own cotton, to weave their own clothes, and return to the simple life of older days; to free themselves from both the economic dependence and the moral corruption resulting from foreign yoke. Nobody blamed him for it. Many, in England itself — and some among the most prominent Englishmen in India, whose job it was to hinder his action, — could not help admiring him. The only criticism he attracted himself (mostly frond Marxists or sympathisers of Marxism) was that of being an enemy of “progress” and an utopist, whose passive resistance was not the proper answer to “colonial oppression.” But nobody blamed him for seeking to rid his people of foreign rule — nobody; not even the English themselves. Jewish rule in Germany (and in Europe at large) was, however — and is, once more, since 1945, — far worse than British rule in India or, by the way, than any obvious and brutal foreign rule in any conquered land. It was — and is — invisible and anonymous, not felt by the masses (who have neither leisure nor inclination to seek out subtle evils and their hidden causes) nor even by most of the so-called thinking people, and thereby all the more dangerous; all the more soul-killing. (In fact, England’s real crime against India was not so much her unheard-of exploitation of the land’s resources as the introduction — or strengthening — of that silly exaltation of “man” in opposition to Nature, which is, as I said before, the essence of the Jewish spirit compared to the Aryan, and which was to pave the way for later Marxist influence.) Still, Mahatma Gandhi’s struggle was looked |
upon with sympathy or at least with indifference; Adolf Hitler’s, with increasing uneasiness, mistrust, and soon positive hostility. Point Four of the Party Programme, and all Adolf Hitler’s bold — and so accurate! — statements about the nefarious part played in world history by the Jews, were quoted (half the time without their context) and hammered upon as ominous signs of a regression into “barbarism.” And, although no harm had yet been done to them, number of Jews residing in Germany left the country of their own accord, their hearts filled with hatred for that new, free Aryan world which they felt growing all round them and in spite of theme; for that new world which they would soon no longer be able to corrupt and to exploit at will. And they carried their hatred wherever they went and started, by every means within their reach — every means which hatred can devise and which money can secure, — a world-wide campaign against National Socialism-already then, before Adolf Hitler’s rise to power. Any true National Socialist who, at the time, happened to be living outside Germany anywhere in the wide world where there exist such things as newspapers, magazines, books, cinemas and public lectures (wireless sets were not yet so popular as they soon became) remembers this fact all-too-well.1 Other people, — ninety-nine per cent of whom were to be, in some way or another, influenced by the Jewish propaganda, — may not necessarily remember it — a circumstance which only goes to prove how subtle and clever the latter was. Every racially-conscious Jew — and every Jew of the world (whether pure-blooded or not) is racially-conscious — experienced the news of Adolf Hitler’s legal and perfectly democratic victory in the last Reichstag elections of the Weimar Republic, and his no less legal and democratic appointment as Chancellor of the German Reich on the 30th of January 1933, as a personal insult from the whole German Nation (the overwhelming majority of which obviously stood behind the National Socialist Leader) and as a defeat of the Jewish people: 1 I myself spent those years before the Machtübernahme partly in France, partly in Greece, partly in South India — and remember the atmosphere (and a few incidents in support of what I have here written) Most vividly. |
their first glaring defeat for many centuries, and an eloquent warning to them. Everyone was decided to do his best to unsettle that now settled fact of Aryan rule in Germany (for Adolf Hitler’s rise to power meant, first and foremost, that) and to destroy at any cost any possibility of German rule in Europe (which would have meant the end of the long, unseen Jewish domination of the West, nay, of the Jew’s secret influence in the world.) Hans Grimm has, in a recent book, quoted the words which a “prominent English-speaking Jew in Australia” addressed “a well-known German admiral” on the 31st of January, 1933, i.e. the very day after the “Seizure of power”: — ”You have heard that President Hindenburg has, in accordance with the results of the Reichstag elections, made the National Socialist Hitler Reich Chancellor. Well, I give you my word in this connection, and think of me later on: we Jews will do everything to wipe this fact out of existence!”1 And an organisation was actually founded under the name of “International Jewish economic Federation to combat the Hitlerite oppression of Jews,” and, in July, 1933, in Amsterdam, Samuel Untermeyer was elected president of it. Samuel Untermeyer’s speech in New York, less than a month later, is the first official] declaration of war on Adolf Hitler’s new Germany. And, in perfect keeping with the character and purpose of his people — the very brood of the “Father of lies,”2 — and with the spirit of this Dark Age in which all natural values are reversed, the Jew calls this war, which is to be conducted relentlessly, “to the finish” against the young State “against Time,” a “holy war”... “for the sake of humanity.” And he mentions the “millions of non-Jewish friends” whose collaboration he knew all-too-well his people could expect. And he forgets to mention the real and only motives of his campaign: hatred and fear of any genuine Aryan awakening — the only motives, indeed, for all the other ones (which he stresses) namely the desire to prevent “starving and extermination” of Jews, and to “bang the last nail into the coffin where bigotry and fanaticism are to disappear” were spurious ones. As Hans Grimm — who never was a follower of Adolf Hitler — 1 Hans Grimm, “Warum? Woher? aber Wohin?” (edit. 1954), p. 187. 2 The Gospel according to Saint John, 20, verse 44. |
clearly points out, “not a single responsible word had been uttered in Germany about starving, killing or exterminating (Jews) till after 1938, and not a single action had been taken in that direction.”1 And the National Socialist attitude to Jewry before or after 1938 had — and has — anyhow, nothing to do with “bigotry” or “fanaticism.” In 1938 — i.e., before the war with Poland — the newly founded State of Israel officially declared war on Germany, again on behalf of all the Jews of the world. This second act of open hostility was, like the first, presented as an answer to Adolf Hitler’s supposed “persecution of the Jews,” which had not yet begun. It aimed in reality at impressing once more upon the minds of the Jews far and wide (through the enormous prestige of the State of Israel, symbol of their unity and centre of their hopes) that National Socialist Germany, the proud citadel of awakening Aryandom, remained their enemy number one; their enemy, whatever she did or did not do, simply because she was the stronghold of those forces which were, are, and always will be the polar opposite of their collective self. It also aimed at impressing upon the minds of those “millions of non-Jewish friends” of the Jews (whose obedience Samuel Untermeyer had so rightly surmised) that the first cry of the people of Israel — “God’s own people,” according to the sacred book of all Christians, — out of Palestine, — the “Holy Land” — after two thousand years of silence, was a curse against “the Nazis,” both “godless” and “inhuman.” (And such a cry could only be a cry of justice; or at least the “millions of non-Jewish friends” — Christians; lovers of “man”; haters of all revolutions in the domain of fundamental values — were expected to believe it was.) In fact, a lot had been done for the Jewish cause since the first Jews of Germany — far-sighted people who (also) could afford to travel — had judged that things were, there, likely to become, one day, too hot for them, and gone abroad, with their whole fortunes before 1933. A lot had been done, thanks to the undue, yet almost magical effect of certain empty and yet extremely popular words such as “mankind,” “freedom,” “Democracy,” etc.; thanks to the fathomless 1 Hans Grimm, “Warum? Woher? aber Wohin?” (edit. 1954), p. 187-188. |
gullibility of most people who can read; and thanks to the masterful suppleness with which the Jews took advantage of both these negative traits of this end-period of our Dark Age. “Humanity” and “freedom of the individual” and “respect of the human person” were, in the West, at once linked with Christianity and with the “cultural tradition of Europe,” dear to all (or supposed to be.) As I said, the Jews were not — yet — in the Third Reich, the object of any particularly drastic measures. They just were no longer legally looked upon as “Germans.” They were no longer allowed to teach in schools and Universities, or to finance newspapers for German readers; to be actors, lawyers, professional musicians, writers, etc., for the German public — i.e., to influence that which Germans were expected to call art or literature, to consider as “good” or “bad” or as morally right or wrong. In one word, it was, now, since the establishment of National Socialist rule, forbidden to them to poke their noses into the actual life of the country in which they lived but which never had been and never could be theirs. It was, also, since September, 1935 — since the proclamation of the admirable Nüremberg Laws for the preservation of racial purity — forbidden to them to marry Germans or, by the way, to have, be it outside the bond of marriage, sexual relations with them. (Under National Socialist rule, abortion was, in the case of a pure-blooded Aryan child, looked upon as murder and severely punished, while the yet unborn product of a shameful union was — and rightly so, — to be destroyed. And a German who, before the Nüremberg Laws, had taken a Jewess to wife, was either to divorce her or to have her sterilised.) But, as Hans Grimm says, “these regulations had nothing to do with a malignant Anti-Semitism.”1 They applied, in fact, not only) to Jews, but to all people of non-Aryan race, as the systematic sterilisation of the half-German half-Negro children, shameful traces of the occupation of Germany by African mercenaries after the first World War, goes to prove. And the Jews should have been the last people on earth to criticise the new laws, they who, contrarily to so many better races, have remained faithful to their tribal God, Jehovah, who — like all tribal gods of all lands and of 1 Hans Grimm, Warum? Woher? aber Wohin?” (edit. 1954), p. 188. |
all times — is said to hold blood-mixture in abomination;1 they who were, themselves, in 1953, to forbid by law, in the State of Israel, marriages between Jews and non-Jews.2 And yet... The wise “Nüremberg Laws” were, whenever possible, presented in the whole world as an attempt to “curtail the freedom of the individual” — as an “insult to the human person,” etc.; the dismissal of Jewish or half-Jewish Government clerks and Government officials, journalists, actors, theatre-managers, judges, doctors, professors, etc. — specially that of Albert Einstein, whose “Relativity Theory,” “explained” to lay people in thousands of cheap booklets, was said to be the marvel of our times — as acts of wild racial hatred, which they were not. A couple of German songs, admittedly anti-Jewish, but by no means more bloodthirsty than certain Greek songs I know against the Turks or against the Bulgarians (or Turkish songs against the Greeks) or than the well-known French national anthem “La Marseillaise,” or any war-songs of this planet, were translated into number of languages and repeatedly quoted as “proofs” of the “murderous spirit” of National Socialism. Even the suppression of “kosher” slaughter-houses, — that standing Jewish horror — was often criticised as an “attack against religious freedom” — criticised, nay, by many of those who looked upon the suppression of the old Indian Sati rite by the British, as a laudible step. Societies composed not of Jews, but of well-meaning Aryans under the double misguiding influence of their contemporary Jew-ridden press and of centuries of a man-centred religion, rooted in Judaism, sprang up here and there, with the definite purpose of saving the world’s soul from Adolf Hitler’s grip — in fact, of preventing Adolf Hitler from saving Aryan man, body and soul, in all countries, from the ever-tightening grip of international Jewry. One of these societies, — the “Friends of Europe” — published in booklet form, in or about 1935, series of extracts of the works of National Socialist writers, with comments showing that Adolf Hitler’s Weltanschauung is a denial of the fundamental scale of values which Europe has accepted 1 See the Old Testament, Ezra, Chap. 9. 2 The actual Jews of Cochin on the Malabar Coast do not marry their correligionists of local blood, the so-called “black Jews.” |
along with the Christian faith (which indeed it is). The Jews and their “millions of non-Jewish friends” did not, however, lay stress upon this fact in order to save Christian love (which, being “above Time,” cannot be threatened) or historical Christianity (which has played its part, and is dying out, anyhow — or gradually merging into its natural and logical earthly successor: Marxism) but merely with a view to hindering by any means the healthy (when tardy) reaction of the better West against the Forces of decay, — the ruling Forces of the Dark Age and originators both of the old and of the new form of the everlasting Jewish lie. In the East, the Jews had to be more subtle. Christianity is, there, less popular, And there are countries such as India in which a life-centred scale of values is (theoretically at least) the fundamental one — nay (in India’s own instance) where a deep-seated belief in the natural hierarchy of races and in the God-ordained superiority of the Aryan is the belief of millenniums, backed by the unshakable metaphysical dogma of endless re-birth. I think it is not superfluous to say, here, a few words about what was destined, in my humble estimation, to have a decisive bearing upon the turn events were to take in subsequent years, namely, about the part played in India by the Jews and their friends during the years before the Second World War. Most of those Jews from Germany who, in Bombay, as a rule after 1933, but still — strange as this may seem, — with all their possessions, poured out of the first class cabins of the great liners, had little knowledge of the history and religions of Asia in general or of India in particular, and little desire to bother to acquaint themselves with either. The mysterious sub-continent of many races, upon which they had landed, then under British rule, looked anyhow too miserable and powerless to be worth winning over as an ally in Untermeyer’s “holy war” against the Third German Reich. Its half starving millions could not possibly have an opinion about anything outside their own daily struggle for life, least of all about distant nations’ problems. And in |
admitting they could have, that opinion did not count, for they were poor. But there were rich and influential Europeans, and a few rich Indians, too, in whose hands lay the economy of the dumb sub-continent. The Europeans, mostly Englishmen (or Scotchmen) were white, wore European clothes, lived in fine houses, had clubs of their own into which Indians were not admitted, played golf — or bridge — and read newspapers in their spare time. The Jews from Germany were also white (more or less) and were dressed in European clothes and could afford to live in fine houses. And, curiously enough, those proud English merchants and Civil Service officials, who kept aloof from the Indians, — who looked upon them as “coloured people” even when they happened to be of Aryan blood and no darker than many an Italian — were not unwilling to welcome as “Europeans,” despite the obviously non-Aryan features most of them had, rich men and women of fair or tolerably fair complexion, who had been “German citizens” till 1933. The cotton and jute bosses, members of Clubs “for Europeans only,” and the officials themselves, had little interest in racial characteristics deeper and more significant than “white” or “coloured.” The spirit of the great Aryan revolution that was taking place in Europe against all undue acts of “naturalisation” was totally foreign to them. Had they not already welcomed rich English-speaking Armenian residents of India — “British subjects” — as fit to enter that exclusive society — that tropical Europe — which they formed? And not only Armenians, but also rich English-speaking Jews, some of whom belonged to that titled nobility of money which is, in Great Britain, slowly displacing the old nobility of warrior-like merit!1 (Well, Queen Victoria had set the example in granting such favour to Disraeli, hadn’t she?) ‘Then why not also welcome those “persecuted” Jews, who had come — first class! — all the way from Germany, to tell them that Adolf Hitler’s repeated expressions of admiration for the British Empire as an achievement of the Nordic genius, and his regard for England, and his desire to live in peace with her, nay, to have her as his most trusted ally, were all quatsch — a mere trick to gain time 1 Example: Sir David Ezra, resident of Calcutta; and Lord Reading, at one time viceroy of India. |
and that his aim was “world domination” at England’s expense? The cotton and, jute bosses — simple souls, with a very poor historical background, despite all their show of pride and power, — believed the Jewish bankers and night-club owners who spoke of “England’s interest” in the same tone as Winston Churchill and Sir Robert Vansittart, and who interrupted the boredom of tropical Europe with juicy descriptions of “Nazi tyranny.” They never bothered to find out whether the descriptions were true to fact or not. In tropical Europe, one is lazy... outside business hours; too lazy to think, let alone to criticise... Soon the new-comers — every month more numerous — got in touch with other rich Jews, residents of India, who knew more than they did about the country, and started planning with them the best contribution they could bring the “holy war.” And articles expressing doubts about Adolf Hitler’s sincerity in his dealings with England; articles accusing him of “aggression” every time some German land, which had been set under foreign administration by the Versailles Treaty, gladly and peacefully returned to the Reich; articles presenting him more and more openly as the enemy, appeared in the Calcutta “Statesman” and other papers in English language for British and Anglo-Indian readers. But that is not all. The islands of tropical Europe in Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, never were India. On the contrary, there was a permanent tension between India and them who embodied foreign rule and (which was much worse) a way of life shocking, from the standpoint of a Hindu, in many of its aspects. In case of war between England and the Third Reich — and nobody knew better than the Jews that war would one day break out: they were themselves preparing it — India would (should, logically) stand against England, that is to say on Germany’s side. The problem for the Jews was to have English (and Anglo-Indian, — tropical European,) opinion on their side, without, for all that, setting India herself automatically against them. (There were Jews who knew better than to underestimate the weight the Hindu millions could throw into the scale of fate.) It would have remained an unsolvable problem, had it not been for two facts: first, India’s own, age-old reaction against Aryan influence — probably as old as Aryan conquest |
itself, and certainly detectable in all those ancient and modern Indian religions and teachings of “non-violence,” which either reject the caste system altogether or rob it of all racial significance; and, in addition to that, among the official and non official representatives of the Third Reich in India, a regrettable lack of insight into (and perhaps even an underestimation of) the other — the Aryan — side of Indian Tradition and the astounding possibilities that lay within it. What I have just called “India’s own reaction against Aryan influence” is nothing else but that deep-rooted reluctance to any struggle “against Time,” which seems to underlie an enormous amount of Indian experience (and culture) throughout history. It is anything but aggressively, or even pe4tively, anti-Aryan — so little so, that some of the most perfect masters in whose lives, religious teachings or literary works it has found expression, were Aryans by blood: men of the warrior-like, princely caste — Kshattriyas, — such as the Buddha or Mahavira, or Brahmins, such as Chaitanya, or, in our times, the outstanding poet Rabindranath Tagore. It is just the attitude of men who live or aspire to live “above Time” either because this is the last resort of whoever carries logical thinking to its end after having lost faith in this earth, or because it is the spontaneous attitude of peace-loving and life-loving dreamers, or because it represents, for some sections of humanity, — as I believe it does for the extraordinarily sensitive and intuitive Dravidian race, whose masses have always exalted the saints and poets of non-violence, when not also of renunciation, — the sole natural alternative to purely sensual life “in Time.” But it is — and has always been, for the two and a half or three last millenniums at least, — by far the most popular in India, whatever may be the proper explanation for it from the standpoint of ethnology or psychology, or both. And it certainly is quite a different thing from that bold philosophy of action considered as “better than inaction,” and of serene but resolute acceptance of violence as a necessity of this earthly life in our Age, which appears to be the most substantial gift of the young Aryan race to the already old sub-continent, in Antiquity, and which is, no doubt, the other side of India’s classical Tradition. This remarkable duality in India’s outlook on life and this tendency of the older mystical and moral attitude, congenial |
to the enormous non-Aryan substractum of the Indian population, to gain more and more prominence at the expense of the other, has been masterfully exploited by the agents of the Dark forces in the course of centuries. The Jew’s subtle action in certain influential Indian circles — in particular, in Indian Congress circles, — before and during the war, is merely the latest phase of that exploitation. Much the same thing has happened, in practice, to the other-worldly, Indian philosophies and religions of nonviolence as, in the West, to the original Christian faith, that spiritual path for people who strive to live, like their Master, “above Time”: they have become, in this world of the Dark Age, an excuse for disregarding the Nature-ordained separation of races, for neglecting the duty of keeping one’s blood pure, and, in addition to that — and far more so than Christianity in Europe, — for taking up an hypocritical attitude to violence. Buddhists and, later on (in Bengal at least) Vaishnavas, started despising not merely the letter but also the spirit of the caste system, in the name of universal love. And this old propensity gained new tempo already in the first half of the nineteenth century among the so-called “educated” Hindus, i.e., among certain Hindus who had undergone “Western,” or, to be more accurate, Judeo-Christian, influence, and in particular, (more often than one cares to believe) the influence of World Freemasonry. This most dangerous secret organisation of our Dark Age, controlled by Jews ever since the day Jews were admitted into it, was (as it still is) entirely devoted to the promotion of the one aim of international Jewry: the permanent and peaceful — economic and cultural — domination, of the Jew over a world robbed of all racial pride no less than of all desire to fight. It would be of great interest to note how many of the prominent leaders of the Brahmo-Samaj and other such bodies of “reformed” Hindus, were, for the last hundred years and more, directly or indirectly connected with Freemasonry, or with the Rosicrucian Order, or any such other “spiritual” society of similar type, under philosophical (and financial) Jewish leadership. In the second half of the same century, the Theosophical Society, an international body having (ultimately) the same secret aims and the same leadership as Freemasonry (to which an enormous proportion of its members are also affiliated), was |
founded upon the double basis of an arbitrary, syncretic doctrine, partly of Indian origin, and presented as “occult,” and... of the belief in the equal rights of “all men” regardless, of race — the old Jewish lie for non-Jews. It has to this day its, head-quarters in India — in Adyar, near Madras, — and stands for a close collaboration between so-called “enlightened” Hindus and no less “enlightened” Westerners — Westerners supposed to understand “India’s message,” but who, in reality, interpret the Hindu Scriptures in the way the most suitable to the Society’s secret aims, and who, (whenever they can) have a say in Indian politics.1 Like the Hindu “reformed” bodies, products of Judeo-Christian influence upon India’s intelligenzia, it has done whatever it could to deny the importance of the idea of race in Hindu Tradition, to combat the interpretation of the word “Aryan” in the racial sense, wherever it is to be found in Hindu Writ, and to rob the teaching of Detached Violence — the Teaching of the Bhagavad-Gita — of its true scope; to give this sacred Book — against the spirit of India’s greatest hero both “above” and “against Time,” Lord Krishna, — such a “strictly symbolical” meaning as cannot justify that raw, material violence which the fighters “against Time” (be they also “above Time,” as all such greatfighters necessarily are) need to display, to-day, near the end of the Age of Gloom. Well did the orthodox and really enlightened, racially-conscious and God-conscious Brahmin, Lokomanya Tilak, whose whole work bears witness to the unity of Eastern and Western Aryandom and to the power of Aryan genius, liken Dr. Annie Besant to the legendary female demon Putna, whose poisoned milk was intended to kill Krishna, the predestined Warrior and Teacher of detached Violence, when He was still a child. The Theosophical Society itself may well have played but a secondary part in India (despite the public prayers its President, Dr. Arundale, was to offer there for the victory of the anti-Nazi forces, during the Second World War). But the spirit embodied in it and in the other so-called “spiritual” organisations which claim to do away with the God-ordained inequality both of men and of human races no less than with the law of violent Action, (now, in this Dark Age); in other 1 Annie Besant, for years President of the Theosophical Society, was elected President of the Indian National Congress for 1917. |
words, the spirit of all groups which deny or reject the perennial struggle “against Time” has corrupted to a great extent the conscious strata of the country. It has taught thousands of Hindus to lie to themselves and to the world, and to accept only such forms of the Struggle “against Time” as use moral violence as a weapon (calling it “non-violence,” as Mahatma Gandhi did — in fact, had to, for the sake of his success in contemporary India) and to hate any frank acknowledgement of the necessity of material violence in the service of the Cause of Life no less than any frank acknowledgement of the life-bound and life-ordained inequality of races and inequality of birthrights-including the so-called “right” of “all men” to live. In the end, no doubt, the divine Child — the growing Forces of Light and Life, will, like in the Hindu legend, kill the poisonous demoness of untruth. But in the meantime, the poison has gone very far. It has, slowly but steadily, set before hand thousands of “educated Hindus” against any living — contemporary — Incarnation of Him Who comes, back, over and over again, to fight the forces of decay and death and to “establish on earth the reign of Righteousness,” through openly accepted Dark Age methods — the only expedient ones in the times in which we live. It has prepared them to swallow the clever moral and cultural Jewish propaganda of the years before 1939 and all the lies of the following moral and political campaign against National Socialism and the Third German Reich, to this day. It has enabled the Jews to win over to their cause, before, during, and after the war, thought-forces and will-forces which would, otherwise, have worked in support of the Aryan awakening in the West, or at least remained neutral. The Jews from Germany who, already before the war, were beginning to gain credit amidst certain groups of Hindus, were not the same ones as those who met the rich Europeans — and pro-British Armenians, and Jewish residents of India, all termed as “British” — in clubs and at bridge parties. They had less money. Some (so, at least, they said) had even no money at all, and begged the kind-hearted Hindus to help them to get work, if possible in their own line. They had “lost everything” — lost, at any rate, their former right to carry on their job as doctors, lawyers, actors, professors or journalists in the once so tolerant “Land of thinkers and poets” which |
had, through the victory of National Socialism, suddenly become a vast soldiers’ camp where nothing was to be heard save the regular stamping of jack-boots and the awe-inspiring repercussion of war-songs; where there surely was no longer any place for their refined intellectuality or their sensitive care for “mankind.” They were “persecuted” — or said they were, — even more so than the other Jews. And, in contrast to these, most of them were “learned,” when not erudite, — or pretended to be; — had, at least some summary knowledge of Indian philosophy and Indian customs, of which they drew the utmost advantage. They were to be found in places in which one was the most likely to come in touch with “educated” or, which is more, influential Hindus: Hindus, on one hand broad-minded enough to welcome the friendship (and admiration) of Indianised foreigners, on the other sufficiently Tradition-bound to be regarded, by a few people or by many, as true champions of Hinduism: — places such as Adyar, Shantiniketan, or Sabarmati (and later, Sevagram) Gandhi’s abode. Some of them visited the three and stayed there for a fairly long time, establishing further connections for themselves or for their friends. (One — Margaret Spiegel, alias Amala Bhen — spent two years at Gandhi’s feet, clumsily spinning cotton yarn, thoroughly learning Gujurati, and telling people every time she could what a flat denial of the Mahatma’s doctrine Adolf Hitler’s new Germany was, and then, — in 1935 — came to Shantiniketan to infuse further hatred of National Socialism into the students whose “German teacher” she was, and ended up as a professor in the Elphinston College in Bombay.) Others would just secure themselves comfortably settled Hindu husbands or — in the case they were men, — became “holy men” Buddhist monks, Vaishnava devotees, harmless and solitary Theosophists committed to the “Hindu way of life,” aspiring after nothing but “spirituality.” Jewish females who lacked sex-appeal also turned holy, or charitable — or both. They offered their loving zeal (and technical efficiency, whenever they had any) to Hindu organisations connected with social belief, and became popular as friends of the poor, comforters of the sick, foster-mothers and teachers of orphans — angels of pity! The orphans belonging to the most far-apart castes would naturally be brought up to eat and work and play together, against the custom of orthodox Hindus, but in accordance |
with the views of “reformed” Hindu leaders. And it was secretly hoped that some of them — as many as possible — would one day also marry against the time-honoured custom and the old aspiration towards blood-purity thanks to which there are, six thousand years after the Aryan settlements of Vedic days, still Aryans in India. The bitterest enemies of the modern Aryan faith would undo what the Vedic Aryans had done; destroy, to the extent they could, the stamp of Aryan rule in Asia. Thus, in the distant Indian sub-continent, — which should, logically, have been a bastion of the Aryan forces against the machinations of both — the less rich Jews played as important a part as their apparently more influential racial brothers. Silently, — humbly, one could say, — but relentlessly, they were contributing to the formation of that bastardised world in which the consciousness of the “dignity of man” is expected to replace former racial pride; they were dragging whatever they could of India’s better substance into that world. And they were making themselves popular among the Hindus — at least among certain Hindus — because they helped them (or seemed to help them) and because they flattered them. And when, from 1933 and specially from 1935 onwards, — thanks to the Jewish press and literature and to, the efforts of Mr. Untermeyer’s “millions of non-Jewish friends” — (Free Masons and such ones) — it became, from one end of the earthly sphere to the other, more and more obvious that Adolf Hitler was “persecuting the Jews,” many Hindus among those who had a say in India’s affairs were at once prepared to look upon him if not — yet — as “a monster,” at any rate as a dangerous tyrant Jews! — such good and kind people as “Amala Bhen,” Gandhi’s devoted disciple, whose photo at the side of the prophet of non-violence every newspaper-reader had seen; or as Miss Gomparst, the efficient social worker of the Bengal Relief Association, who was (and, as far as I know, still is) running a children’s home and a dispensary amidst the slums of North Calcutta; or as that fair-complexioned monk, Govinda, who wrote learned articles about Buddhist metaphysics and could be seen walking through the lawns of Shantiniketan in yellow robes, under, an impressive Burmese parasol!... or as those sympathetic sari-wearing “mem-sahibs” who gave Hindu names to their half-Indian half-Hebrew children, and had taken to |
Indian ways to such an extent that some of them had even become tolerable members of “joint families”!1 Really, how could he! — how dared he! May be the British themselves were also tyrants (and which national-minded Indian looked upon them as anything else?). But surely they were right when calling the world — louder and louder — to “stop Hitler.” Of course, all Hindus were not taken in by the Jews’ clever adaptability to Indian ways, by their real or supposed interest in “Indian philosophy” and by their comments upon new Germany. Millions, unable to read, and completely indifferent to the outside world, were never even aware of the anti-Nazi campaign of hatred. Some saw through it and despised it. One at least — a worthy Brahmin little known to the public at large, yet one of the finest characters of modern Aryavarta, Sri Asit Krishna Mukherji — fought against it “with tooth and claw” from the start, through the fortnightly magazine “The New Mercury” which he published in Calcutta from 1935 to 1937 (in collaboration with the German Consulate), and was, later on, — throughout and after the war, to this day — to prove his unfailing loyalty to the Aryan cause. Others, simple folk lacking such political consciousness, and often illiterate, yet felt that the inspired Western ruler whom so many sahebs seemed to hate was the one ruler in the world who professed and lived the doctrine of Detached Action preached in the Bhagavad-Gita. And they admired him. They related that he had come to replace the Bible by that most hallowed Book of Aryan Wisdom, among the Aryans of the West. But they were powerless, the lot of them. Powerless, while isolated; disconnected from the revolutionary forces of Life at work in the West. The support given to “The New Mercury” represented practically the only tangible attempt ever made by the authorities of the Third Reich to collaborate on the ideological plane with the racially-conscious Aryan minority of India. And I do not know a single European National Socialist, besides myself, who made it a point to beat the Jews on their own ground and to try to win over India — including non-Aryan India — to the Pan-Aryan 1 A “joint family” is, in India, a family in which several brothers all live together — under the same roof — with their parents, wives and children. |
cause, preaching the modern philosophy of the Swastika — the unity of Life, within diversity; the divine hierarchy of races; the ideal of blood-purity and the selfless struggle for the creation of a higher mankind; Adolf Hitler’s wisdom and that of the ancient Aryan Conquerors of Aryavarta — in Indian dress, in Indian languages, and from the standpoint of Indian Tradition; presenting his or her effort as the will to free India from, the influence of the anti-racialist doctrines of equality: misrepresented Christianity and Islam; and Marxism (all three, in fact, more or less deeply rooted in Jewish thought.) The international, ubiquitous Jew did not restrict his far-sighted propaganda to the Hindus. He carried it on among Mohammedans also — despite the old hostility between Hindus and Mohammedans (which was no concern of his) and, which is more, despite the permanent tension between Arabs and Jews in and around Palestine ever since the famous Balfour Declaration, and the natural sympathy of every follower of the Prophet for the Arabs. He carried it on — in a different way, and with increasing help from his friends the Marxists — among the Chinese and Annamites and other people of the yellow race; among Filipinos and Malays, and “educated” Negroes and half-Negroes. He carried it on everywhere, and always concentrated his efforts upon the proper men, i.e., upon those who were, at the same time, sufficiently gullible to take for granted whatever they were told about the Third German Reich and its “racial hatred,” and sufficiently influential for others to hold whatever opinion they might express, for the right one. The slogan of “humanity” and of the “rights of man” — the old slogan of the French Revolution — acted as a spell. With its help, the Jew overcame all difficulties, rousing, out of light-hearted indifference, feelings of aggressive indignation which verged more and more on crusaders’ zeal. The little one did to counteract his game (when one did anything at all) remained without a lasting effect. The visit of a few prominent members of the National Socialist Party, headed by the leader of the Hitler Youth, Baldur von Shirack himself, to Damascus, in 1937, was (to mention that one instance) but a partial success. It disturbed for a few days the peace of mind of the French High Commissioner |
in Syria, who was no Nazi, and who tolerated the honourable guests more than he welcomed them. And it was the occasion of valuable personal contact with several Arab personalities, some of whom were to help Germany during and, maybe, also after the war, none of whom was, however, powerful enough to throw the weight of the whole Moslem world on Adolf Hitler’s side, — a difficult task from the standpoint of Islam, admittedly, for how can, after all, believers in even a warrior-like faith which any man can join, wholeheartedly stand for Aryan racialism (or for any racialism, by the way?). The utmost which the sincerest anti-Jewish Arab — including the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem — could do, was to be Germany’s political ally against the Jews. And he was, thereby — in spite of the difference of race — perhaps a step nearer German National Socialism than even the well-known Indian nationalist Subhas Chandra Bose or any of Adolf Hitler’s other political allies against England ever were to be.1 But those thousands of well-meaning but ill-informed Hindus, Mohammedans, Chinese, Indo-Chinese, Malays, literate Central Asian steppe-dwellers and “educated” Africans, who were impressed by the cheap anti-colonialism, preached to them in the name of the “rights of man” by the international Jew and his friends (specially the Marxists) and who, on the ground of clever misquotations from and misinterpretations of “Mein Kampf,” held National Socialism to be a new form of “abominable imperialism,” were, — unfortunately — more solidly bound to the sinister anti-Nazi forces, than any of the non-Aryan (nay, than many of the Aryan) friends of new Germany to the forces of Light and Life. And, I repeat, nothing or practically nothing was done, to my knowledge, on the part of the official representatives of the Third Reich, or through the private initiative of full-fledged European followers of Adolf Hitler (with one individual exception) to win over those millions of dull, perhaps, but nevertheless existing, and therefore — in the Invisible realm — to some extent effective human centres of psychic energy and willpower. (Now, in the one or two European papers that stand for the real interests of Aryandom, and in the catacomb gatherings of the German National Socialists of 1955 — the 1 An agreement between Adolf Hitler and England against Russia, at the eleventh hour, would have sufficed to detach from his alliance those Indians who were merely anti-British without being Aryan-conscious. |
genuine ones, who stood the test of defeat — it is for the first time openly proclaimed that colonialism in its old accepted form is incompatible with a true “ethnic” — völkisch — attitude to, life and to politics. Then, — twenty years ago, and more, — I was myself, in India, as far as I know, the only European. National Socialist who stressed that truth, and pointed out, in Adolf Hitler’s ideologicalpact with Japan,1 the first step towards the collaboration of the racially-conscious aristocracy of Aryandom and that of the noblest, non-Aryan races in the new world that was taking shape under the sign of the Swastika.) Among the nations of the yellow race, Japan, protected by her immemorial Shinto philosophy — the East Asiatic equivalent of the National Socialist cult of Blood and Soil — and by Toyoma’s silent but far-sighted and far-reaching activity, was, in fact, the only one to escape the infection of anti-Nazi propaganda more or less entirely. Japan remains, however, a non-Aryan nation. Her ideological sympathy for that Aryan way of life which a Japanese was, in 1941, so accurately to characterise as “Western Shintoism,” did not bind her to Germany in the manner England could have felt herself bound, had she only been able to shake herself free from the influence of Sir Eyre Crowe, Sir Robert Vansittart and Winston Churchill etc., and from that of those hundreds of rich Jews from Germany who positively “invaded” London and all the large British towns from 1933 to 1939. Japan went her own way — even though she had, on the 25th of November, 1936, signed the Anti-Kommintern Pact; even though she was, later on, — on the 27th September, 1940 — to sign an actual Treaty of friendship with Adolf Hitler. Precious as it was, her alliance stood merely as a “second best” after the long-desired “English alliance” had — thanks to the atmosphere created in England and practically all over the world by the Jews and their friends, — revealed itself as a psychological impossibility. Germany’s other partner, Fascist Italy, was unreliable, as further history was so tragically to prove. And the Dark forces “in Time” — the self-same ones as are embodied in international Jewry — were there, in spite of Fascism, tremendously active through the Catholic Church: that twin-sister of Freemasonry 1 The Anti-Kommintern Pact, signed in 1936. |
(shocking as these words may sound to pious Catholics, and contrary as they may be to all public statements, both of the Catholic leaders and of the Masters of the Lodges, concerning the separation of the two organisations, nay, their mutual hostility). The one powerful man in Rome with whose unfailing collaboration Adolf Hitler could reckon absolutely — Mussolini, his personal friend, — was not Fascist Italy; and was, in fact, less powerful than he looked. And Fascism itself was not National Socialism, contrarily to what so many haters of both seem to think. It was a political — and economical — system; not a more-than-political creed; and it inspired a Movement of practical and immediate — of time-bound — significance, not one of cosmic scope. It did not lay stress upon the all-important idea of race and the ideal of racial purity as National Socialism does. In other words, notwithstanding the Anti-Kommintern Fact and her further bond with Italy and Japan, National Socialist Germany was practically alone; alone at least in the invisible realm of quality and purpose — of aspiration and willpower and meaning; in that realm of “energy” in which material happenings are mysteriously but mathematically — unavoidably — determined; the only Aryan power as conscious of its natural mission as the leading agents of the Dark forces — the Jews — were (and are) of theirs; the only Aryan State “against Time.” More so: the Führer and, I would not say “the men of his entourage” (for there were, among these, persons of different shades of National Socialist orthodoxy and also of different degrees of loyalty), but “his true disciples” (whether they were to be found in his immediate entourage or elsewhere) were alone: a minority in Germany itself, despite Adolf Hitler’s immense popularity, and, in the world at large, an unbelievably small number of dedicated revolutionaries, at arms against both the obvious and the deeper characteristics of this end-period of the Dark Age. The Jews had, on the other hand, — thanks to the untruth into which the West and the East have been sinking for centuries; thanks to that silly superstition of “man” which has everywhere replaced healthy reverence of the Divine as manifested within all life but specially within the “hero like unto the Gods” — the whole world more or less on their side; “passively” on their side, when not “actively.” The Christian Churches and |
anticlerical Freemasonry; the Communists and all those who still stand for bourgeois Capitalism; the gullible pacifists and the cleverest of all war-mongers; all internationalists and all anti-German (or anti-European) short-sighted nationalists were gradually to coalesce with them, in the name of “humanity,” against the more-than-human Wisdom embodied in the revolutionary State “against Time.” This astounding success of the Dark Forces was due — partly, — no doubt, to the suppleness of their agents who, like Paul of Tarsus — one of the most remarkable of them in world history, — acted “as Greeks with the Greeks and as Jews with the Jews.” (One should give the devil his due and admit that he — the Lord of the sinister Powers — is a businessman of genius, and that his children take after him!) The main and deeper cause of their victory lies however in the fact that, in this last period of the Dark Age, this worldbelongs more and more irredeemably to the forces of deceit; in the fact that this is their time par excellence — to which the last Man “against Time (Whom the Hindus call “Kalki”) can alone put an end — and their domain, slowly conquered through lies and trickery in the course of millenniums; their domain, which Kalki alone can win back to the Powers of Light and Life; and that Adolf Hitler was not “Kalki”; — not “the” one; the last one. He knew it, being, however, the one-before-the-last Embodiment of Him Who comes back. And he admitted it in his own way, as early at least as 1928, in that significant conversation of his with Hans Grimm, which I have already mentioned. In November 1938, i.e., after the Munich Agreement, and before the developments that were to lead to the Second World War, Oswald Pirow, then Defence Minister of the South African Union, paid a visit, on behalf of General Smuts, both to Chamberlain and to Adolf Hitler. He was to mediate in order to bring about a lasting understanding between England and Germany. In the report which he published, in 1951, about his undertaking, under the title “Was the Second World War unavoidable?”, one reads these most enlightening sentences “Already through my first conversation with Chamberlain it became clear to me why the two governments did not understand each other. It was not lack of good will on the part of |
Chamberlain: the latter had made his whole future political career dependent upon an understanding with Germany, and he was ready to make great concessions to that end. But, between Chamberlain’s good will and positive reality, stood, as firm as a rock, the Jewish question. The British Prime Minister had to reckon with a party — his own Conservative Party — and specially with a public that world-wide Jewish propaganda had influenced to the utmost. Unless this agitation could be cooled down, concessions to Germany were unthinkable for Chamberlain” ... “The factors which stood against Chamberlain’s peace policy were: the world-wide propaganda of the Jews, bitter beyond all measure; the political selfishness of Churchill and of his followers, the half-Communist tendencies of the Labour Party, and the war-mongery of the British chauvinists, encouraged by German traitors. In November 1938, this remarkable coalition had not yet succeeded in shattering Chamberlain’s political position, as it was to later on. But it had convinced the British public that Adolf Hitler was the greatest persecutor of man of all times, and that any pactising with him could only lead to further humiliation.”1 And, I repeat — for this can never be, now-a-days, sufficiently stressed, up till then, the Jews in the Third Reich had not been persecuted. Eugen Kogon himself, — that fanatical hater of National Socialism if there ever was one, admits, in the virulent book — “The S.S. State” — which he published in 1946 against the Hitler regime, that up to November 1938 there had only been “individual instances” of molestation of Jews within new Germany. And, which is more, Adolf Hitler had no intention whatsoever of “persecuting” — let alone of “exterminating” — the nefarious foreigners whom he knew to be the agents of Germany’s defeat in 1918 and the deadliest enemies of her people and of Aryan mankind as a whole. He had — unfortunately! — allowed thousands of them to leave the country with all their property. And he was prepared to arrange for them all to go, taking with them that much of their money as could suddenly be withdrawn from Germany without tragic consequences for German economy.1 He was 1 Oswald Pirow, “Was the Second World War unavoidable?” (quoted by H. Grimm, in “Warum? Woher? aber Wohin?” p. 192). 2 Jewish property in Germany was estimated a thousand million pounds. |
not unaware of the mischief they could work against Germany, once abroad. The world-wide propaganda which those of them who had already emigrated were financing, was too obvious for him not to have known of it. But he was generous. And he believed in the loyalty of his own people, whom he loved. And he trusted the strength of that splendid German youth that was growing under his eyes, full of faith in him and in his eternal ideals; full of the will to live as a dedicated élite in the service of the latter, and ready to die, if necessary, so that new Germany might live. He knew that, provided they stood like one man behind him, and stuck to his principles, the German people had nothing to fear from the outer world. He did not know how many influential traitors of German blood were already in the service of the Dark forces, — against him, and against their own people, — nor how far Jewish influence was at work, secretly, subtly, (and all the more efficiently) through the occult bodies that he had forbidden (Freemasonry and all societies affiliated to it) and through the Christian Churches, in Germany herself. His constructive plans — in the biological, social, economic and cultural, not to say also religious, spheres — which could indeed only lead to the invincibility of the German Reich, needed time to be carried out. The eternal truths he preached (after one and a half thousand years of false doctrine) needed time to become once more, first among the Germans, and then among all people of Nordic blood, undisputed, self-evident articles of popular faith.... The Dark Forces were determined anyhow not to leave Adolf Hitler time — nor peace. Working from all sides, they did their best to make a permanent understanding between England and Germany impossible, in particular, to prevent all further personal contact between Adolf Hitler and Neville Chamberlain: the one development which, according to Oswald Pirow, might have, still at the eleventh hour, changed the whole atmosphere (and that, too, provided Chamberlain managed to remain in power.) It looked, for a time, as though they would, in spite of all, not succeed. Then, suddenly, an apparently unexpected — in fact, cleverly prepared — incident came to their rescue: an attaché of the German Legation in Paris, von Rath, was, on the 7th of November, 1938, for no accountable reason at all, murdered by a Jew. |
This was not the first act of provocation on the part of the sworn enemies of the Third Reich as the leading power of regenerate Aryandom. Some time before, Gustlow, Landesleiter of the N.S.D.A.P. in Switzerland, had also fallen the victim of a Jewish murderer. And there were the daily insults of the Jewish press of the whole world, against all that the Germans held sacred. And there was Untermeyer’s formal declaration of war — on mendacious grounds — already in August 1933. This was but “the last straw” which “broke the camel’s back.” Up till then, the many and varied — louder and louder — expressions of Jewish hostility to Germany had, save for a few bloodcurdling articles (and eloquent caricatures) in “Der Stürmer,” remained without an answer. This provocation roused, throughout the Third Reich, an uproar of indignation, taking advantage of which some of the most impulsive among the leaders of the National Socialist fighting formations organised, in the night of the 8th to the 9th of November, under the direction of no lesser a man than Dr. Goebbels, what is known as the “Kristallnacht”: breaking up of Jewish shops, burning down of synagogues, with all the rough handling of individual Jews that one can imagine; from evening to dawn, all over Germany, a proper orgy of Jew-baiting. The next day, the Führer burst out in righteous indignation at the news of this useless and anything but detached violence, the repercussion of which he could well foresee. I have already1 quoted the words he addressed Dr. Goebbels: “You people have thrust back National Socialism and spoilt my work for many years, when not for good, through this nonsense!” His unmitigated disapproval of the pogrom did not, however, hinder or lessen the explosion of hatred which the news of it provoked in the whole world. It was surely not the first time in history that the murder of a man — in fact, of two men, — in high position, at the hands of a foreigner, had be came the occasion of tough reprisals against the murderer’s compatriots.2 Up till then, unconcerned nations had generally kept aloof from such affairs. But this time, the murderer’s compatriots were Jews. And in this Jew-ridden world of the 1 See above, p. 226. 2 For example, the scenes of violence that took place in Lyons against Italians, after an Italian, Caserio, had murdered Carnot, President of the French Republic, in 1905. |
end of the Dark Age, whatever is done to Jews is the whole world’s business. Not only did the Jews literally “foam with rage” (to quote O. Pirow’s words), but the newspaper-reading population of the most varied lands reacted as though the most horrible event within ten thousand years had just taken place under their eyes. In England and in U.S.A. “public opinion” — so important, in Democracies! — flared up in an anti-Nazi outcry and thundered against all collaboration with the Third German Reich — that exponent of “barbarism” in the midst of our “civilised” century! The British Ambassador in Berlin was called back “to report about the happenings.” Chamberlain’s position was shattered, the days of his political career, numbered. Oswald Pirow’s official mission to Berlin as a mediator was now out of question. And the unofficial journey which he undertook there — in agreement with Chamberlain, in spite of all, — was before hand stamped with the sign of failure. By the time Oswald Pirow came back to London to tell the British Premier of Adolf Hitler’s unaltered good will, and readiness to treat with England, “Chamberlain’s position had become so difficult that he dared not take the initiative of approaching Hitler.”1 The two men, whose collaboration could, according to Oswald Pirow, “have saved Europe” were never to see each other again. On the other hand, the American ambassador in Berlin was recalled on the 13th of November, 1938, and diplomatic relations between U.S.A. and Germany, suspended. The Second World War, — for which, as we shall see, the U.S.A. bear the responsibility at least as much as England herself, if not even more — was now unavoidable. Maybe, it was not yet clear which local conflict would become the occasion and the pretext of it. But it was already certain that nothing could prevent it. An exceptionally prominent freemason,2 Franklin Roosevelt, had been elected President of the U.S.A. in January 1933, i.e. at the time of Adolf Hitler’s rise to power. With him, the hidden agents of world Jewry, — and, behind them, the everlasting 1 Oswald Pirow, “Was the Second World War unavoidable?” 2 He had reached the “32nd degree” of initiation — the very highest which any man who is not of Jewish blood can reach in that world brotherhood. |
lasting Dark Forces “in Time” — the self-same ones that were already building up, in Russia and beyond Russia, Marxist Eurasia, — took over the government of the United States of America. Knowing this, it is interesting to follow from the start the signs of increasing hostility which the U.S.A. showed National Socialist Germany: at first, mere acts of unfriendliness — full support of the French standpoint against the German, in every Disarmament Conference; and the dispatch of a notorious hater of Germany, William Dodd, to Berlin, as American Ambassador — then, on the 5th of April 1937, Roosevelt’s well-known “Quarantine” speech in Chicago against the “aggressive” authoritarian States: Japan, Italy, Germany, but not Soviet Russia; then, in early 1938, his plea for intensified armament (to “defend the world” against an eventual “return to barbarism,” as the American newspapers stressed); then, the break of diplomatic relations which I have mentioned, and the feverish activity of both the American Ambassadors in London and in Paris in order to bring about war between England (with France at her side) and the Third Reich — war at any cost; war before National Socialism (cosmic Wisdom applied to modern political and more-than-political problems) had time to make the Third Reich invulnerable. “In the U.S.A. powerful forces had been at work for a long time, urging the country to wage war on Germany,” writes J. von Ribbentrop in his Memoirs.1 And he shows, as plainly and clearly as can be, from official documents seized by the Germans in Warsaw and in Paris, — in particular, from the reports full of “very enlightening details” dispatched by the Polish Ambassador in Washington, Count Jerzy Potocki, to his Government, — that, as early as spring 1939, President Roosevelt had already, to a great extent, completed his preparations in view of America’s participation in a coming war against Germany”2 and that he had decided “not to take part in the war from the start but to bring it to an end, after England and France would have begun it.”3 William C. Bullitt, the U.S.A. Ambassador in Paris and his London 1 J. von Ribbentrop, “Zwischen London und Moskau,” p. 165. 2 J. von Ribbentrop, “Zwischen London und Moskau,” p. 165-166. 3 Report of the 16th Jan. 1939 (from Count Jerzy Potocki). Report 1-F-10, Feb. 1939 (from Lukasiewicz, Polish Ambassador in Paris). |
colleague, Joe Kennedy, were instructed to exert pressure upon both Governments (the French and the British) and to insist that they “put an end to every policy of compromise with the totalitarian States and do not enter with them into any discussion aiming at territorial changes.”1 They were, in addition, to give “the moral assurance that the U.S.A. had forsaken their isolation policy and were ready, in case of war, to stand actively on the side of England and France, putting all their money and raw materials at their disposal.”2 In the light of these and other no less eloquent and authoritative documents, one is, — irrespective of whatever attitude one might personally have towards National Socialism, — compelled to see in the European developments of the fated year 1939, the product of an actual world-conspiracy against National Socialist Germany. Every talk about “Hitler’s policy of aggression” is either a shameless, blatant lie or... silly women’s babble. Adolf Hitler remained, in his dealings with the outer world, after his rise to power, — before and during the war, as he had, during his struggle against the rotten Weimar Republic, “within legality unto the bitter end.” And his policy was one of active and sympathetic protection of all real national communities, i.e. of all ethnical communities, not one aiming at their destruction. And such leaders of non-German minority-groups as were sufficiently wise to understand that the Versailles Treaty was, through its scorn of ethnography, history and geography — its scorn of Nature itself — an insult to their own people’s dignity at the same time as a crime against Germany, readily beheld in the greatest of all Germans the supporter of every genuine, healthy nationalism. President Tiso appealed to him, in March 1939, to protect the new Slovakian State which had, on the 6th of October, 1938, proclaimed its independence from the Czechs. And a month earlier Professor Tuka, another Slovakian leader, had vehemently implored his help against the Government of Prague: “I lay my people’s fate into your hands, my Führer! My people await from you their complete liberation”3 (from Czechic rule). And, which is more, placed before the fact 1 Report 3/SZ tjn 4 of the 16th Jan. 1939 (Count Jerzy Potocki). 2 Same report 3/SZ tjn 4, of the 16th Jan. 1939, dispatched from the Polish Embassy in Washington. 3 J. von Ribbentrop, “Zwischen London und Moskau,” p. 148. |
that the artificial Czechoslovakian State was breaking up from within, (though the sheer unwillingness of its elements to pull together), Hacha, its President, and Chwalkowsky, its foreign Minister, and the whole Czechic Government, which Hacha had consulted, were in agreement with Adolf Hitler’s decision to declare “Bohemia and Moravia” a “Protectorate of the Reich” and to send German troops to occupy the land. “Not a word of protest was raised on behalf of the Czechs, and Hacha gave instructions that the German Army should be received with friendliness.”1 The only protest came, on the 18th of March, from Paris and from London — three days after Chamberlain had clearly declared before the Chamber of Commons that the happenings were in no way a violation of the Munich Agreement, and that Great Britain could anyhow riot deem herself bound to defend the existence of a State which had from within broken to pieces. The British and French ambassadors were called back from Berlin “to report upon the situation.” And in U.S.A. and in all countries vehement newspaper articles and radio comments stressed once more the necessity of “stopping Hitler” in the interest of the “free world.” The sincere indignation of millions of people of all races was systematically roused and directed against the Third German Reich, bringing the world another step nearer the war which the Dark forces were preparing. The long tension between Germany and Poland — another consequence of the nonsensical situation created by the Versailles Treaty, — was, ultimately, to lead to war. It could have come to an end through an honourable agreement. And Adolf Hitler had done everything within his power so that it might. The proposals he had made to Poland, through the Polish Ambassador Lipski, in view of an honest treaty of good neighbourhood, were not merely reasonable but generous. Admittedly, he had insisted that Danzig — that old German town — should be recognised as part and parcel of the German Reich. But he was, on the other hand, prepared to give up all claims upon the “corridor” linking Poland to the sea through German territory, provided an extra-territorial autobahn, and an extra-territorial railway of several lines, running through it, would assure the undisturbed connection of East Prussia 1 J. von Ribbentrop, “Zwischen London und Moskau,” p. 150. |
with the rest of the Reich. And he offered the Poles an extra-territorial road and railway of their own, as well as a free port, in the Danzig region.1 The one fact that stood in the way of further negotiations between him and the Polish Government (despite the failure of J. von Ribbentrop’s mission to Warsaw in January 1939) was England’s sudden “guarantee” of the integrity of the Polish frontiers as they had been fixed by the Versailles Treaty. From a report sent by Raczynski, the Polish Ambassador in London, to his Government, on the 29th of March 1939, and found in Warsaw by the Germans during the Poland campaign in the autumn of the same year, it is clear that England’s promise of help in case of “attack” on Poland (i.e. England’s promise to declare war on Germany — and to start a world war — if Germany were to occupy Danzig) “was given him, orally at any rate, as early as the 24th of March.” On the 26th of March — two days later — Lipski, the Polish Ambassador in Berlin, handed over to J. von Ribbentrop a “Memorandum” in which he rejected in the name of his Government all the suggestions Germany had made concerning Danzig and the “corridor.” “Any further attempt to bring the German plans to materialisation, and specially any further attempt to incorporate Danzig into the Reich, means war with Poland” declared he.2 On the 6th of April, the Polish foreign Minister Beck signed in London, with England and France, a “temporary agreement” which was soon to be replaced by the permanent Pact which everyone remembers. That Pact, directed against Germany alone and not against any other possible “aggressor” of Poland, was England’s moral excuse, — and the German occupation of Danzig, the occasion England chose — for declaring the Second World War. In reality, however, as so many documents published after the war abundantly prove, England’s “guarantee of the integrity of Poland’s frontiers” had been dictated to her (as Poland’s own stubbornness in the Danzig question, to 1 J. von Ribbentrop, “Zwischen London und Moskau,” p. 155-156. Adolf Hitler’s final proposals were that a plebiscite should take place in the “Corridor,” and that the State that the population would not choose to belong to — be it Poland or Germany — would receive in compensation an extra-territorial autobahn and a railway through the contested area. 2 J. von Ribbentrop, “Zwischen London und Moskau,” p. 162. |
Poland) by the pack of Jews and of slaves of Jewry which had been ruling the U.S.A. ever since Roosevelt’s election to presidency.1 It had no meaning and no purpose other than that of being the best thinkable pretext for a second World War against Germany. The real cause of the second World War was and remains the hatred of the Jews and of their “millions of non-Jewish friends” and willing or unwilling tools — the hatred of every simpleton who had been impressed by the Jewish lies — for the Man and for the State “against Time” who embodied the true Aryan spirit, and were the forerunners of a world-wide Aryan awakening. The only thing Adolf Hitler could do in order to avoid the complete encircling of Germany was, indeed — in spite of the profound differences that had, from the beginning, opposed National Socialism and Marxism, — to turn to Russia. He had no choice. Had it not been for England’s nonsensical attitude towards him and his people — nay, for the actual madness which she had succeeded in breathing into political life, under the constant pressure of Roosevelt’s agents, — it may be that he “would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England,”2 as Joe Kennedy, the American Ambassador in London, himself seems to have believed. Itmay be, I say, for the young Reich needed space for its growing population; and also because there was no possible co-existence of true National Socialism and of its sharp and ruthless contrary, true Marxism, for ever. As things stood, the Führer was compelled to accept that co-existence for the time being, so that he might try to hold back in 1939 that which was fated to take shape in 1941, namely: the formidable coalition of capitalism and Marxism (or rather, of the Jew-ridden Western plutocracies and of the also Jew-ridden Soviet State) against Germany, the fortress of National Socialism and the hope of awakening Aryandom. One may deplore the fact that he could not accept it or, at any rate, that it did not last, for a longer span of time: no external force could have shattered the mighty bloc formed by 1 See Professor Charles Callan Tansill’s “Back Door to War” (Chicago, 1952). Also “The Forrestal Diaries” (New York, 1951), p. 121. 2 “The Forrestal Diaries” (New York, 1951), p. 121. Quoted by J. von Ribbentrop, “Zwischen London und Moskau,” p. 168. |
Germany, Soviet Russia, and Japan. Such a bloc, economically self-supporting, would have been invincible, had it not been bound to fall to pieces, sooner or later, from within; being the outcome of an unnatural alliance. It is a tragedy that its dislocation could not be postponed at least till after a definitive victorious end of the war with England (and then, probably, with U.S.A.) The fact that Stalin and Molotov were not Jews; nay, the fact that they were — perhaps — more Russian (and Pan-slavist, in the old sense of the word) than Marxist, made the signature of the Russo-German Pact of the 23rd of August 1939 possible. The fact that Jewish influence was as powerful (even when not always as obvious) in Russia as in England or in U.S.A. and that it exerted itself within Stalin’s most immediate entourage, lies behind Russia’s stubborn attitude with regard to territorial questions from the start, and explains her breaking of the Pact and all the marks of growing hostility that were to bring the Führer to declare war on his ally within less than two years. The Pact was, politically speaking, a wise act. It meant the realistic recognition of common interests despite widely diverging faiths. It had to be broken if the enemies of National Socialism were to win the war. And the Jew ultimately exploited Russia’s old pan-slavistic tendency against the Third German Reich — apart from any Weltanschauung, — as cleverly as he had used British and French and Norwegian and Dutch misconceived and misguided patriotism against the same. But in the meantime, as long as the unnatural but politically masterful alliance lasted, Adolf Hitler had only one enemy to fight, namely the Western brand of Anti-Nazism embodied in Jew-ridden England... for the unpleasant Polish affair was brilliantly settled within three weeks, and France brought to her knees within about six months. This chapter is not a history of the Second World War, but merely a humble attempt at detecting and pointing out, in the light ofcosmic evolution, the unseen but all-important — the real — factors behind the succession of events. Many of the facts themselves, purposely suppressed by the Allies at the time of the Nüremberg Trial, have, since then, been mentioned by soldiers and diplomats — Germans and others, — in |
serious technical memoirs without a shadow of passion. All go to support the thesis I have already put forth, namely, the one that, far from being Adolf Hitler’s “crime” or even, in any way the result of his policy, the Second World War is the outcome of a world-conspiracy of the Forces “in Time,” i.e. of the Dark Forces, against him and his Golden Age ideals; against his consistent effort to “establish on earth the reign of righteousness” with the methods of this Age of Gloom, i.e. to build a State, and, through that State, a world-order “against Time.” It is now proved that Adolf Hitler’s last desperate efforts to avoid war with Poland — his last and generous proposals, sent forth from all German wireless stations on the 31st of August 1939 at 21-15 o’clock, and known as the “Sixteen Points” — were made useless through a British declaration to the Warsaw Government, that England considered any further visit of the Polish Foreign Minister, Beck, to Berlin, — i.e. any further negotiations with Adolf Hitler, — as “undesirable.”1 It is now proved that Great Britain alone stood in the way of Mussolini’s attempt to secure peace, be pit at the eleventh hour, through an international Conference, on the basis of a general revision of the Versailles Treaty, that primary source of the whole political tension.2 It is now proved that Germany’s occupation of Denmark on the 9th of April 1940, and that of Norway, were but temporary and necessary military measures forestalling and hindering the previously planned occupation of the same by British troops, and that, moreover, both Norway and Denmark had, before the 9th of April, given up their neutrality through the conclusion of secret agreements with England.3 It is proved that the so-called German “attack” on Holland and Belgium was no “attack” at all, but a sheer act of self-defence, considering that the two States had already resorted to “steps of a military nature” aimed at forwarding aid to England and France, which were at war with Germany. It is now proved that not a single military decision in the name of the Third Reich — not the German intervention in Greece, on the 27th of March 1941, to prevent a renewal of 1 J. von Ribbentrop, “Zwischen London und Moskau,” p. 200. 2 J. von Ribbentrop, “Zwischen London und Moskau,” p. 201. 3 J. von Ribbentrop, “Zwischen London und Moskau,” p. 213. |
the Allied tactics of 1915–1916; not even the “attack” on Russia, on the 22nd of June 1941, — was taken in a spirit of “aggression,” but that all were motived (and justified) by previous and easily traceable marks of gratuitous hostility on the part of Germany’s alleged “victims.” “God knows I have striven for peace!” declared the Führer before the German Reichstag, in that memorable speech of the 4th of May 1941, in which he left no doubts about the reasons that had compelled him to order the occupation of Greece. “God knows I have striven for peace! But when a Master Halifax sarcastically states that everyone agrees that I have, and boasts of the fact that we were forced into war as of a special triumph of British statesmanship, I can, in answer to such wickedness, do nothing else but protect the interests of the Reich by all means which are, thank God, at our disposal !”1 Whatever may be the comments of propaganda in the service of the Dark forces, dispassionate history — nay, the merciless logic of life itself, which underlies that endless net of causes and consequences which history describes — will one day confirm these words of the one-before-the-last divine Man “against Time.” The everlasting Powers — the Shining Ones, Who worked through him, and the very Powers of Darkness and Death, the Powers “in Time,” whom he fought, knew that he was right; knew that the interest of his young Reich was and remains the interest of higher Creation. But, as I said before, practically the whole world was coaxed into believing him to be a deceiver and a tyrant. And not merely the sheepish average man, who does not think, and who takes all he reads in his morning paper for Gospel truth, but many an otherwise remarkable person, who should have known better, was taken in by the accusation of “wanton aggression” brought against Germany and the broader (and vaguer) accusation of “inhumanity” brought against the proud new Creed of the Swastika. Such an outstanding man as Gandhi, — a rare blending of business-like shrewdness and saintly aspirations, — declared at the outbreak of the war that his sympathy lay with England and Trance “from a purely humanitarian standpoint.” And in the resolution which the All-India Congress Committee 1 Adolf Hitler’s Reichstag speech, 4th of May, 1941. |
passed at Wardha, on the 8th of August 1942, insisting upon the withdrawal of British rule from India, it was stated that “a free India would assure success in the struggle against Nazism, Fascism and Imperialism,” and that “free India” (whose provisional Government was immediately to be formed, in case of non-compliance with the withdrawal demand) would “be an ally of the United Nations.” Buttressed by Gandhi’s moral authority, such declarations as these determined the attitude of millions of men towards Adolf Hitler and National Socialism. They wrought incalculable mischief. The wonder is not that, less than five years after Adolf Hitler’s splendid Leibstandarte — glorious foreshadowing of the Golden Age mankind of his dreams, — had marched along the Avenue des Champs Elysées in conquered Paris, National Socialist Germany was forced to capitulate “unconditionally.” The wonder is that, facing practically alone the frenzied hatred of the whole earthly sphere, she resisted its assaults as long as she did. The wonder is that, in spite of the enemy’s open fury and secret machinations; in spite of the impact of the Red Army (as fanatically convinced of its “truth” as every German soldier of his); in spite of the traitors on the front and at home (all of them, from the anti-Nazi diplomats and generals and princes of the Church — the men of the 20th of July, and Dibellius, and von Gallen, Archbishop of Münster, and the sinister theologian Bohnenhöffer and all the leading Freemasons — down to the humblest simple squeamish old woman who was horrified at her grandson’s harshness towards the “poor Jews”); in spite of the two gigantic hostile power-blocs — the Communist world and the Capitalist world — closing in, tighter upon her, every day, National Socialist Germany did not capitulate earlier. The wonder is that her armies marched as far as they did into so many conquered lands; and that they and the German people kept their faith in Adolf Hitler till the end and — to a great extent — despite ten years of systematic “re-education,” after the end, to this very day. Not only had Adolf Hitler done all he possibly could to avoid war, but he did everything he possibly could to stop it. Again and again — first, in October 1939, immediately after the victorious end of the Polish campaign; then, on the 22nd of |
June 1940, immediately after the truce with defeated France — he held out his hand to England; not the hand of a supplicant, still less that of a man afraid, but that of a far-sighted and generous victor whose whole life was centred around a creative idea, whose programme was a constructive programme, and who had no quarrel with the misled blood-brothers of his own people, nay, who saw in them, despite their hatred of his name, his future friends and collaborators. And nearly a month before his second peace offer to England, the Führer had already given the Nordic sister-nation a tangible sign of his generosity — nay, of his friendship, in spite of all, in the midst of the bitterest struggle — and such an extraordinary one that history-writers have not hesitated to characterise it as “a wonder.” The Allied armies — the British Expeditionary Corps and a remnant of the French troops, — were fleeing towards Dunkirk as fast as they possibly could before the German advance; fleeing from the Germans towards the sea. And the German Commander in Chief, General von Brauchitsch had, on the 23rd of May, given the order to press them in from all sides and take the lot of them prisoners before they had time to embark. It was, from the military point of view — and from the normal political point of view; from the point of view of immediate success, — the thing to do. But Adolf Hitler appeared unexpectedly at General von Rundstedt’s Headquarters in Charleville, and cancelled the order of attack on Dunkirk. The German armoured divisions — the “A” Heeresgruppe, as well as the “D” Heeresgruppe, which was, under General von Bock, pressing towards Dunkirk from the East, — where to slow down their speed and leave ten kilometres between their foremost ranks and the fleeing enemy. These counter-orders, “that held back the German advance for two days, and gave the British time to bring home safe and sound the most valuable section of their army,” are utterly ununderstandable unless one boldly admits that they were dictated by considerations which exceed by far the domain of “politics” no less than that of strategy; considerations not of a statesman but of a seer. The generals did not know what to think, but they obeyed: orders were orders. 1 Kleist, “Auch du warst dabei,” p. 278 (Quoted by Hans Grimm, “Warum? Woher? aber Wohin?” edit. 1954, p. 364-365). |
To anyone who, in the name of a pan-Aryan view of things (or merely in the name of “Europe’s” interest) stood — and stands — without reservations, on the side of National Socialist Germany, the tragedy of the situation was, — and remains, retrospectively, — maddening. The capture or destruction of the whole British Expeditionary Corps at Dunkirk, and the immediate invasion of Great Britain — by parachuted troops, if a proper landing was, on account of the British fleet, impossible, — could have, one feels, put an end to the war: crushed rotten, Jew-ridden, West European Democracy before the U.S.A. had time to save it, and united all Europe under the strong hand of the greatest European of all ages. And that new unity in the spirit of National Socialism would have made Europe the bulwark of higher mankind, not “against Asia,” but against the Dark forces “in Time” embodied in the latest and lowest form of the old superstition of the “value of every man”: Marxism; against the Dark forces which are, with the help of the Marxist doctrine, threatening Europe and Asia and the whole world. And the Führer himself destroyed that possibility with one word. That is, at least, the spontaneous (and superficial) view of the average racially-conscious Aryan, Adolf Hitler’s German or foreign disciple. But that was not Adolf Hitler’s own view. The Führer’s more-than-political and more than strategical intuition reached “far beyond any quickly concluded, timely peace.”1 It grasped — whether he was himself in a position to exteriorise that vision of things or not — the only real earthly peace that ever was and ever can be: the peace of the coming Golden Age, of the far-gone latest one, and ofall successive Golden Ages; the peace of this earth whenever the visible world-order is in full harmony with “the original meaning of things,”2 i.e., with the invisible and eternal cosmic Order, as it is, in fact, at every great new Beginning and at no other time. Thatpeace excludes such bitterness as is bound to arise as the consequence of the humiliation of a great people. Adolf Hitler, did, therefore, all he could to spare England the humiliation of total defeat. The baffling orders he gave on that fatal 23rd of May 1940, — the date Germany “began to lose the war”3 — and the astoundingly generous peace proposals he 1 Hans Grimm, “Warum? Woher? aber Wohin?” (edit. 1954), p. 367. 2 “Mein Kampf” (edit. 1939), p. 440. 3 Hans Grimm, “Warum? Woher? aber Wohin?” (edit. 1954), p. 367 |
laid a month later before the English, have no other significance. Rudolf Hess’ much misunderstood, lonely heroic flight to, Scotland as a desperate, self-appointed peace-maker, on the 10th of May 1941, has also no other significance. It was, on Hess’ part, neither the rash action of a man half-insane (as it had to be described, officially, for the sake of convenience, and as Rudolf Hess himself wished it to be described, in case of failure) and still less an attempt at rebellion against the Führer’s policy; an effort to end the war against his will. Quite the contrary! Rudolf Hess undertook his long-planned flight, doubtless without Adolf Hitler’s knowledge, as all the details of the event (and specially Hess’ own last letter to the Führer), clearly show. But he was guided from the start by the unfailing certitude that his was the supreme chance — if any — to bring about, in the teeth of the most adverse circumstances, that which the Führer had, in vain, always wanted, and always striven for: lasting peace with England — the sister-nation, in spite of all the insults of her Jew-ridden Government and press; the great Aryan power, in spite of her betrayal of the Aryan Cause; — constructive collaboration with England, first step towards the constructive collaboration of all peoples of the best Nordic blood. Rudolf Hess failed — in the realm of visible facts, at least — as Adolf Hitler himself was destined to fail, and for the very same basic reason: namely because he is, like he, one of those uncompromising idealists and men of action whose intuition of permanent earthly realities exceeds and overshadows the vision even of the most compelling emergency; one of those men, “against Time” — both “Sun” and “Lightning” — who have in their make-up too little “lightning” in proportion to their enormous amount of “sun.” (In fact, of all the Führer’s paladins, none — not even Hermann Göring; not even Geobbels, who was so passionately devoted to him — seems to be so, deeply like him as Rudolf Hess.) England’s answer to Adolf Hitler’s repeated peace proposals was, after a categorical “no,” an intensification of her war effort and a hardening of her war methods.1 England’s answer to Rudolf Hess’ supreme appeal to her sense of responsibility 1 It is now proved that England began her mass-bombing of civilian populations on the 11th of May 1940; see on that point Spaight’s book — “Bombing vindicted.” |
before the dead, before the living and before the yet unborn was... a cell in the Tower of London (and, later on, in Nüremberg, and finally in Spandau, to this day) for the daring self-appointed messenger of peace. England’s answer to all the understanding and friendliness that National Socialist Germany had showed her from the very beginning, her answer to Adolf Hitler’s sincere profession of faith in Anglo-German collaboration; her answer to his unheard-of generosity at Dunkirk was... war to the finish: hundreds and thousands of bombers — one wave after the other, in tight formations — pouring night after night (and often in the day-time) streams of fire and brimstone over the German towns, and on the other hand — illimited, enthusiastic aid to Soviet Russia, no sooner Adolf Hitler had declared war on her. England’s answer to the German Führer’s repeated plea for honest pan-European anti-bolshevistic solidarity rooted in the consciousness of common Aryan blood (or of a high proportion of it at least) resounded in Churchill’s jubilation at the news of the “second front,” thanks to which the German forces were now divided. Churchill — the Anti-Communist, but still wilder Anti-Nazi, — declared: “The cause of Soviet Russia is now the cause of every Englishman.” England’s answer was, in August 1941, the Atlantic Charta, — an open alliance with the main tool of Jewry in U.S.A., President Roosevelt, who (although the U.S.A. were not yet at war with Germany) now ordered actual firing at every German ship the Americans met on the high seas. England’s answer was two years later, the Yalta, and then the Potsdam Agreements between Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin: the sinister coalition of the Western plutocracies and of the Marxist Empire — of all the forces “in Time,” — against National Socialist Germany; the cold-blooded planning of Germany’s dismemberment and enslavement for ever; and the relentless advance, of the crusaders of hatred from the East and from the West, until their two hosts of hundreds of thousands, in one of which there were Englishmen, had met and merged into each other over the martyred Land. England’s answer was, through British accusers along with others, the shameful distortion of history in the Nüremberg Trial, the condemnation of the peace-maker Rudolf Hess for “crime against peace,” and the prolongation of the whole propaganda of infamy against both |
the National Socialist doctrine and the German Nation, to this day. Maybe, the Jew-ridden United States of America have, under the Freemason Franklin Roosevelt, played an even greater part than that of England in the preparation, conduct and gruesome conclusion of the Second World War. But England is the nation to which Adolf Hitler had, over and over again, the most sincerely, the most appealingly held out his hand, in the name of the natural brotherhood of Nordic blood, in the name of the peaceful regeneration of the West. Her crime against him, against his people, against herself and the whole Aryan race, is therefore greater than that of any other of the Allies of 1945. And nothing — absolutely nothing — can ever make good for it. It is, as I said before, a tragedy, that the unnatural but, for the sake of immediate expediency, brilliantly conceived alliance of Germany, Soviet Russia and Japan did not endure at least till the war with England — and, if necessary, with the U.S.A., — was brought to a victorious end. But, whatever many people (and, more specially, the sympathisers of Communism) may think, it is notthrough Adolf Hitler’s fault that it did not. Russia — not Germany — first broke the Pact of August 1939. She broke it in her haste to expand westwards and southwards, towards the Baltic coast and towards the Balkans and the Mediterranean (the Adriatic and the Aegean Sea); in other words, in the resumption of her old tendency to Pan-Slavism, be it at the expense even of non-Slav populations. Or perhaps would it be more accurate to state that the coalesced forces of world-Jewry, nearly as powerfully represented in Soviet Russia as in the U.S.A., used that old Russian tendency (as they had used England’s short-sighted chauvinism and commercial jealousy) in order to reach their own end: the encirclement and destruction of National Socialist Germany — which was Adolf Hitler’s personal opinion.1 The occupation of the Baltic States2 and their final in 1 J. von Ribbentrop, “Zwischen London und Moskau,” p. 242. 2 Lithuania, — including the part of it designed, in the Pact, as German “sphere of interests” — in June 1940, and, soon afterwards, Lettonia and Estonia. |
corporation into the Soviet Union on the 3rd, 5th, and 6th of August 1940, contrarily to Stalin’s agreement with J. von Ribbentrop “not to change the inner structure” of such lands as he would take into his “sphere of interests”; the Russian occupation of the whole of Bessarabia — including North Bukovina, with its mainly German population; — and then, the exorbitant conditions which Molotov put, (during his visit to Berlin in November 1940) to Russia’s proposed adhesion to the Axisl and, last but not least, the support which Stalin gave Simovitch and the other members of the anti-German conspiracy who, in March 1941, seized power in Yugoslavia, and soon declared war on Germany, all contributed to renew and, gradually, to increase to the breaking point the tension which the Pact signed on the 23rd of August 1939 had temporarily suppressed between the Third Reich and the leaders of the Marxist Empire. The last interference, immediately following the signature in Vienna of the treaty which was to make Yugoslavia a member of the Axis, was particularly resented by the Führer as an act of hostility.2 It certainly was, both in fact and in spirit, a flagrant violation of the Pact of 1939. It is, however, Adolf Hitler’s refusal to accept Molotov’s conditions in November 1940, which made that unfriendly Communist interference possible, by cancelling all hopes of closer collaboration with Soviet Russia. The truth is that such collaboration could only have lasted as long as political (and more specially, strategical) necessities were sufficiently compelling to overshadow the profound opposition between the two regimes, nay, between the two faiths, of new Russia and new Germany: Marxism, and its contrary, National Socialism. It could hardly have been expected to endure more than a short time after a victorious conclusion of the war with the Western slaves of world-Jewry. The problem was, at most, how to make it endure till then. And the only practical way, to make it endure was to give in — for the time, at least, — on all the line; to accept the Russian Ambassador’s conditions without even discussing them. Exorbitant as they were, those conditions: — withdrawal of all German troops from Finland; conclusion of an additional 1 See Chester Wilmet’s book: “The Struggle for Europe,” (1952). 2 J. von Ribbentrop, “Zwischen London und Moskau,” p. 225. |
pact between Russia and Bulgaria (i.e., gradual absorption of Bulgaria into the Marxist Empire); strategical basis on the Bosphorus and Dardanelles to be granted to Russia; recognition of a Soviet sphere of influence South of the Caucasus; and Japan’s renunciation of her privileges in North Sakhalin — may well seem to-day, to many an average observer, be he himself a sincere National Socialist, ridiculously mild in comparison with the terrible consequences of the disaster of 1945. Apparently — one is, retrospectively, tempted to think, — was it not worth while accepting even such conditions, rather than running the risk of opening a second front, and what a gigantic one? The right answer — the only answer — to that question, is: “From a purely political (or military) standpoint — from the standpoint ofimmediate necessity, regardless of further consequences, — yes; it was, no doubt; from the more-than-political standpoint of the selfless seer — i.e., “in the interest of the universe,” to use the language of the immemorial Book of Aryan Wisdom, the Bhagavad-Gita, the spirit of which is, in our times, embodied in genuine National Socialism, — no, and a thousand times no. It is notable that, by choosing war with Russia instead of a Russian alliance at the expense of Finland and Bulgaria and all the countries menaced by the undue expansion of the Marxist Empire (ultimately, at the expense of the whole world) Adolf Hitler acted, as he had already in several important circumstances, against the suggestions of his entourage, and not merely of most of his generals, but also of his Foreign Minister, J. von Ribbentrop, who had signed the Pact of August 1939. “During these months” (preceding the declaration of war on Russia) says the latter, in his Memoirs, “I missed no opportunity of trying to bring about a definitive Germano-Russian alliance, in spite of all. I believe I would have reached that goal, whatever might have been the difficulties, had it not been for the opposition of the two philosophies, opposition on account of which no foreign policy could be carried out. First from an ideological point of view, and then because of Russia’s attitude, because of her military preparations coupled with her demands, the vision of an enormous danger imposed itself upon Adolf Hitler’s mind. In addition to that, the news of Anglo-Russian conversations, of |
Sir Stafford Cripps’ visit and of his negotiations with the Kremlin Government, acted upon, him in a disquieting manner.”1 In other words, the Führer took the terrible risk of a second front rather than become — and make the German people, in whose name he was conducting the war — responsible for such an expansion of Soviet influence as, even after a complete German victory in the West, would automatically have placed half the world under the control of the mighty citadel of Marxism. He acted in full consciousness of Germany’s natural mission as bulwark both of the Aryan race and of the eternal Aryan values, rooted in the race, against every possible threat of the Forces of disintegration, be it from the East or from the West. Such a threat was, in June 1941, admittedly more apparent in the West than in the East; Russia was preparing herself for war, but England was at war with the Third German Reich. Nay, it was becoming more and more obvious that the U.S.A. would soon join the struggle on England’s side. And the Führer knew in what danger Germany would be, when America and Russia would “simultaneously throw in against her the whole bulk of their power.”2 Yet, he knew also that a Russian alliance, sealed through his acceptance of the co-existence of a National Socialist Germany — be it of a National Socialist Europe, — and of a tremendous Marxist Empire stretching from the Aegian Sea to the Bering Straits, would be, in the long run, no guarantee against the absorption of Aryan man into that ugly, raceless and characterless sub-humanity typical of the end of this Dark Age. He knew it precisely because, being himself infinitely more than a politician, he thoroughly understood the more-than-political meaning of the war which was imposed upon him: not the usual clash between rival ambitions of a similar nature, but a world-wide coalition of all the forces that I have called “in Time” against the one modern State “against Time”: the National Socialist State. He knew that Marxism — and not the diluted (and, moreover, obsolete) forms of Jewish poison for Aryan consumption known as Christianity and Western Democracy, — is the final man-centred faith in the service of the 1 J. von Ribbentrop, “Zwischen London und Moskau,” p. 237. 2 J. von Ribbentrop, “Zwischen London und Moskau,” p. 239. |
Dark forces; the doctrine destined to urge mankind to take its last step along the old way leading from primaeval Perfection to the fated depth of degeneracy, and ultimately to death. Surely there could be — and can be — no definitive co-existence of a powerful National Socialist Order either with a Marxist Order or with a Capitalistic one of the Western type. But, of the two, the Marxist Order, being, according to the hard logic of increasing decay, the vigorous young successor of the other, is the most dangerous. To strengthen Russia’s position as the conquering Marxist power, in order to buy her temporary alliance against the West, could have seemed, to a statesman (were he of genius), who would have been a statesman and nothing more, — let us say, to a German counterpart of Winston Churchill, — merely an unpleasant political necessity within a clever diplomatic game. To Adolf Hitler, the Seer, the Man “against Time,” — the One-Who-comes-back in His modern garb, — it appeared as the very betrayal of Germany’s mission, nay, as the very denial of Germany herself. For no spectacular victory over England and the U.S.A. would have spared new Germany, real Germany — Germany, the fortress of the National Socialist faith; the one modern Nation “against Time,” — the assaults of a Marxist Empire bent on ideological and political expansion, which the possession of key-positions in Europe and Asia would have rendered formidable. A German counterpart of Winston Churchill would doubtless have been hypnotised by the immediate interest of the Reich (or what appeared as such) and have lost sight of the Reich’s significance. The Man “against Time” knew that the two were not to be separated. He knew that, precious as it surely was in the practical field, the Russian alliance was not to be bought at the cost of the possibility of crushing Marxism in the future; for the regeneration of Aryan man implies the defeat of the agents of the Dark forces on all fronts, and the end of all forms of the age-old Jewish lie. And, accepting the responsibility and risks of the double struggle, he took, the tragic decision of declaring war on the expanding Soviet Union, on the 22nd of June 1941. He hoped, no doubt, to reduce it to submission within a few months, after which he would have been free to continue to fight the slaves of world-Jewry in the West, with endless resources at his disposal. He was, however, aware of the gravity |
of his decision. “If ever we be compelled to break through the door in the East, we do not know what power lies behind it,” had he told J. von Ribbentrop.1 And yet, he gave the word to “break through” — for it was the only thing he could do, in keeping with the unbending, more-than-political, nay, more-than-human logic of his personality, of his mission, and of Germany’s; in keeping with the cosmic logic “against Time,” which had determined the growth and success of National Socialism, and which was now provoking this fatal turn in history. The Russian campaign presented undeniable natural difficulties. One had, among other things, to reckon with the terrible conditions created by the Russian climate — the bitter winter that had protected Russia against all invaders (save the Mongols.) And the inexhaustible man-power which the Soviet Union could afford, regardless of losses, to throw into, the battle, — that fanaticised Red Army composed of all the races of North and Central Asia (and of Russia herself) under very efficient Russian command — was doubtless a tremendous force. A force, also, those hundreds of thousands of partisans who, full of the same unwavering faith in the Marxist ideology, or simply in “Mother Russia,” led a relentless guerilla war against the German occupation troops. Yet, during the particularly severe winter of 1941–1942, the German Army victoriously stood the test of unheard-of hardships; exceedingly low temperatures, — 35 and 40 degrees under the freezing point, — coupled with unusually primitive indoor conditions of life in isbas full vermin. And although it was, on account of hostile weather, prevented from capturing Moscow, it reached, in the course of 1942, such a remote front-line as no European invaders pushing Eastwards on that latitude had yet attained. The Swastika Flag fluttered above the everlasting snows of the Caucasus, at the top of Mount Elbruz, and on both sides of the Volga, and on the shores of the Caspian Sea. And the activity of the Russian partisans had yet anything but developed into a menace. A normal evolution of the campaign would doubtless have 1 J. von Ribbentrop, “Zwischen London und Moskau” (edit. 1954), p. 240. |
reduced it to nought and secured Germany a complete victory over the Marxist Empire and a lasting control of the limitless Eastern expanses, source of no end of raw material for the growing industry of the Greater Reich. On the other hand, Japan — who, through her well-known attack on Pearl Harbour had stepped into the war on the 7th of December 1941, — had conquered the Isles of the Pacific and all South-East Asia: Indo-China, Malaya, with Britain’s great Eastern stronghold, Singapore, and Burma, up to and even past the border of Assam and Bengal. And for a time the hope that the two advancing armies, bearers of the two banners of the Sun, would meet and greet each other upon Indian soil, and that Adolf Hitler would soon receive in old Indraprastha, the seat of legendary Aryan Kings — now imperial Delhi — the solemn allegiance of the whole Aryan world (Europe and Aryan Asia) while leaving his Japanese allies to organise the Far East, that unbelievable hope, I say, that superb dream of glory, did not seem unjustified. No amount of desperate efficiency on the part of the fanatical, disciplined, but unsufficiently equipped Red Army, — and surely no number of ill-inspired Indian Congressmen’s resolutions condemning in one breath “Nazism, Fascism and Imperialism,” and no “free India’s willingness to become the ally of the United Nations”1 — could have, apparently, stood in the way of its materialisation. In fact, however, the splendid hope was a short-lived one. Instead of a rapid and definitive victory over the Marxist Empire, — a victory which would have allowed Germany to concentrate her whole war-effort upon the Western front, — came, in January 1943, the disaster of Stalingrad, where the Sixth Army and many thousands of auxiliary troops (twenty-two divisions in all) were trapped and cut to pieces, despite acts of super-human heroism. And then, after this tragic turning point in the evolution of the war in Russia, a series of set-backs: the immobilisation of the German forces before Leningrad, the stemming of the German offensive in the Caucasus, and the recapture of Kursk, Belgorod, Rostov, Kharkov Krasgorod, and Pavlograd, one after the other by the Russians, in the course of February 1943. 1 See the resolution of the All-India Congress Committee, of August 1942 |
With the sincerity and detachment that characterise him, Adolf Hitler could not help seeing in that desperate and successful reaction of the toughest of all Germany’s enemies a further glaring proof of “what a single man can mean to a whole nation.” Any people, declared he to his Foreign Minister, J. von Ribbentrop, “would have broken down after such defeats as the German Army had inflicted upon the Russians in 1941–1942. The present Russian victories are the work of an iron personality, that of Stalin himself, whose unbending will and courage have called his people to a renewed resistance.” ... “Stalin” said he, was “the great opponent” he had, “both ideologically and in the military realm.” And he added, with the natural chivalrousness of a real warrior, that, were that irreducible opponent ever to fall into his hands, he “would respect him, and assign to him as a residence the most beautiful castle in Germany”1(One cannot help comparing that treatment reserved to Stalin in the case of a National Socialist victory, with the one that the coalesced leaders of Democracy and of Marxism — the crusaders of world-Jewry — were actually to inflict upon the members of the German Government after the war, not to mention the no less atrocious manner in which they would have handled Adolf Hitler himself, had they succeeded in capturing him. Nowhere, perhaps, does the contrast between the inspired Man “against Time” and the mean, short-sighted men “in Time” of the end of this Dark Age, appear more clearly.) There is truth — and a lot of truth — in the Führer’s generous homage to Stalin’s greatness as a determining factor in the evolution of the Second World War. That greatness does not, however, suffice to account for the fatal change of fortune of which the tragedy of Stalingrad is but one of the first signs. Nor can, I repeat, Russia’s inexhaustible man-power coupled with harsh climatic conditions account for it. The complete and cynical explanation of it has been given on several occasions, and, among others, on that of the American “Independence Day,” 4th of July, 1950, by Mr. (since then, Sir) Winston Churchill himself: “Alone America and England have prevented Hitler from Pushing Stalin behind the Ural.”2 1 J. von Ribbentrop, “Zwischen London und Moskau,” p. 263. 2 Churchill’s speech, 4th of July, 1950. It is quoted by Hans Grimm in his book “Warum? Woher? aber Wohin?” (edit. 1954), p. 385. |
In other words, no amount of man-power organised in a spirit of desperate resistance could have kept the German Army from conquering Russia (and pursuing its triumphant march through Central Asia and Afghanistan, to and beyond the easternmost limits of Alexander’s empire) had it not been for America’s and England’s direct and indirect help to the Communists; had it not been for the fantastic quantity of arms, ammunitions and equipment that the U.S.A. sent over, in order to make the Russian (and other) partisans increasingly dangerous, and the Red Army irresistible; had it not been for an ever closer and more effective collaboration of the two sinister tools of world-Jewry in the West — Roosevelt and Churchill — and of their misled people with the Marxist Empire, in the political, strategical and psychological realm: the intensified bombing of the German civil population by British and American planes, and the intensified anti-German propaganda financed by England and the U.S.A. (and more specially by the Jews of those countries) in all lands occupied by the German Army and in others also, all over the world, calling the whole world to take part in the “Crusade” against National Socialism; the British landing in Libya; the Allied landing in Sicily and, a year later, in Normandy; and the stubborn refusal of the Western Democracies to put an end to the war until Germany had surrendered “unconditionally”; in one sentence, had it not been for the readiness with which England and the U.S.A. — and practically the whole earth, under the influence of their tremendous propaganda — accepted (and acted up to) the statement broadcasted by Winston Churchill at the news of Adolf Hitler’s declaration of war on Russia (and all the more impressive that the British Prime Minister was universally known to be an anti-Communist) “The cause of Soviet Russia is now the cause of every Englishman, nay, that of the entire freedom-loving world.” The historical landmarks in the development of the combined “crusade” against National Socialist Germany — the hypocritical Atlantic Charta, as early as mid-August 1941; and then, the well-known successive agreements of Casablanca, in January 1943, of Teheran, in November of the same year, of Yalta, in February 1945, and finally Potsdam, in August 1945, destined to tighten the grip of the death-forces upon the world from pole to pole, — are all immediate and logical consequences of |
the spirit of that sentence. And so are the no less historical horrors that were to take place on German soil and elsewhere after the two victorious waves of destruction — the Red Army, and Eisenhower’s “crusaders to Europe” (and their British and French, and Belgian and Polish and Czechic satellites) — had met and mingled upon the smoking ruins of the proud Third Reich: in Dresden, overcrowded with refugees, the murder of half a million men, women and children under Anglo-American bombs, on that dismal night of the 13th of February 1945; the lamentable exodus of eighteen million Germans — also men, women and children, — from the eastern provinces torn away from the Reich to be given to the Poles, the Russians or the Czechs, with the full approval of Soviet Russia’s Western allies; the atrocities of the Red Army and of the soldiers of the capitalistic Democracies of the West in Germany, and of the anti-German partisans in all countries of Europe; the arrest, torture and murder (or long imprisonment) of thousands of National Socialists, from the martyrs of Nüremberg to the humblest of Adolf Hitler’s followers, for having done their duty thoroughly and faithfully; and, until 1948, the criminal attempt to kill Germany’s industry and to starve her people or force them to emigrate; and, until this very day, — in fact, when no longer in name, — that sinister farce known as “de-nazification” and “re-education” of the German people: the systematic attempt to crush the pride, nay, to kill the soul, of the finest Nation of the West. Soon after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, which had prompted Germany’s declaration of war on the U.S.A. i.e., more than a year before the war was to enter its critical and decisive phase, J. von Ribbentrop told Adolf Hitler “We still have one year’s time to cut Russia off the supplies she receives from America through Murmansk and through the Persian Gulf, while Japan must take Vladivostock. If that cannot be done, and if American armaments and Russian man-power succeed in coming together, then the war will enter a stage in which it will be very difficult for us to win it.”1 And the Führer had “taken this remark in silence and made no comments.”2 He made no comments because there were 1 J. von Ribbentrop, “Zwischen London und Moskau,” p. 260. 2 J. von Ribbentrop, “Zwischen London und Moskau,” p. 260. |
none to make. J. von Ribbentrop had spoken the truth — a tragic truth, indeed. And Adolf Hitler knew it. And he knew also that nothing could alter it. J. von Ribbentrop had seen and described the situation from a political and strategical point of view. Adolf Hitler saw it, or rather felt it, intuitively, as the result of the inter-action of forces infinitely more than political. It is foolish to believe that he could have avoided the difficulties the diplomat was pointing out to him, by not declaring war on the U.S.A. The U.S.A. had declared war upon him and upon National Socialist Germany, in fact, when not officially, as early as 1937,1 and had increasingly and openly been helping England’s war-effort since 1939. They actually were England’s allies — and Russia’s — before Adolf Hitler’s formal declaration of war came as an answer to that alliance and as an act of solidarity with Japan. There was nothing which the German Führer could do, save to face the great event of our epoch with all his — and all his people’s — determination, and to fight to the bitter end a war in which Germany’s existence was at stake. By “the great event of our epoch” I mean the coalition of the Dark forces of the whole world — of those forces which I have called forces “in Time” — against the one living reminder of all the glorious great Beginnings of the past, and the one living herald of the coming one: the State “against Time” at the very end of this Age of Gloom. And Adolf Hitler, the Seer, the Man “against Time” — the creator, nay, the soul of that extraordinary State, — knew that this coalition, of which the Jews were, no doubt, the earthly instigators, but nothing more than the mere instigators, was and remains a cosmic fact; a sign of times. And that is precisely why he faced it as he did: refusing to the end all compromise with Soviet Russia, in spite of J. von Ribbentrop’s repeated suggestions,2 and all compromise with the Western agents of world-Jewry, in spite of the repeated suggestions of other important men of the National Socialist Party and, which is more, of his generals; and treating with more and more mercilessness — through the Reichsführer S.S. Heinrich Himmler, to whom he gave increased growers, — all actual or 1 J. von Ribbentrop, “Zwischen London und Moskau,” p. 164. 2 J. von Ribbentrop, “Zwischen London und Moskau,” p. 236-239. |
potential enemies of the New Order, and, among these, (apart from the German traitors that one was lucky enough to detect) the two main varieties of moral slaves of Jewry — the Christians and the Communists — and specially the Jews themselves. “As the war followed its course,” states J. von Ribbentrop, “the Führer became more and more anchored in his view of it as the result of an international Jewish conspiracy against Germany.”1 I would say more: not only did Adolf Hitler see in the Jews as a nation the secret instigators of this as well as of the last World War, but (and his writings and his whole career go to prove it) he thoroughly understood their real, deeper meaning in world history; their cosmic meaning as hereditary embodiment of the darkest forces “in Time,” foremost agents of that more and more rapid corruption and downfall of the naturally higher races, so impressive as the end of the present Time-cycle draws nigh. And that is why he knew — and proclaimed at every opportunity, from the start, — that the struggle he was conducting in Germany’s name was, for the German people and for Aryan humanity at large, a life and death struggle. It proved materially impossible to prevent, within a year, American supplies from reaching Russia. And far from capturing Vladivostock, Japan did not even declare war on Germany’s most irreducible opponent (with whom she had, on the 13th of April 1941, sealed a non-aggression pact.) Japan, as I said in the beginning of this study, went her own way — the way she deemed the most likely to secure her domination over Fast and South-East Asia and to solve her own “living space” problem — without realising that her active contribution to Russia’s defeat, in co-ordination with Germany’s new war effort, would have brought her, in the long run, nearer to her goal than all her spectacular victories in the South Seas, Malaya and Burma. As for Italy, — whose partnership had been for Germany, from the start, more of a liability than of an advantage, — less than six weeks after Mussolini’s fall from power she hastened to betray her great ally in her “most criticial 1 J. von Ribbentrop, “Zwischen London und Moskau,” p. 211. |
hour,”1 as she had in the first World War. The formation of a new — separate — Fascist Government in North Italy (after Mussolini’s dramatic rescue from captivity, by Skorzeny) was of no practical avail. By the end of 1943, Nationad Socialist Germany was alone — pressed between the two coalesced halves of a world in rebellion against the eternal, Idea that she had, more or less consciously embodied throughout history, and that she now proclaimed, louder and more defiantly that ever, through Adolf Hitler’s voice; alone to fight not on “two” but on a thousand fronts: against regular armies and against partisans in Russia, in Greece, in Italy, in Africa, in France, in Belgium, in Holland, in Norway — everywhere — and, at home, against increasingly destructive British and American bombers and increasingly active and arrogant German traitors, anti-Nazis of all descriptions; alone to stand against the thought-power and will-power and power of hatred of millions and millions of men, women and children of all nationalities and of all races; of a whole Dark Age humanity, bent upon its own degeneracy and doom; marked with the sign of perdition and, for that very reason, blind and mad: exalting its enemies and holding its true saviours in abomination. And it is difficult to say which one of the hostile factors — the “crusaders” from the East and from the West; the German traitors at home and on all fronts; the relentless streams of fire which men of Anglo-Saxon blood poured night after night upon the helpless German civilians, killing over three million of them; or the silly, but sincere (and therefore efficacious) indignation of millions of apparently powerless people of all lands, as they repeatedly heard on the wireless about the “Nazi monsters” — played the crucial part in the disaster of 1945. To the extent the happenings of the invisible realm determine those of the visible, one can safely state that untiring hatred is, from the cosmic point of view, as efficient as power of arms. The victorious Allies — or rather the Jews, who animated the whole show, — were, at the Nüremberg Trial, after the war, to put forth the principle of “collective responsibility” and (strange as this may sound from someone who has exposed the famous Trial as one of the greatest infamies of history) they 1 Mussolini fell from power in July 1943; Italy capitulated an entered the war on the side of the United Nations (under the Badoglio Government) on the 8th, of September 1943. |
were, in that connection, again from the cosmic point of view, rigorously right. Anyone whose heart and will have carried Adolf Hitler to power, whose voice has hailed him as Founder and Leader of a new world, was and remains morally responsible for all that has been is or ever will be done in his name and in his spirit. I am the first one to accept this fact. And I accept it joyfully, with pride, as far as I am personally concerned. On the other hand, the principle of collective responsibility cannot be restricted to any particular group of people to the exclusion of other groups. It holds good for all those who admit a bond of solidarity with brothers in faith — or be it brothers in hatred — and, in particular, for all Anti-Nazis, whether they be ill-informed or not, intelligent or not, capable or not of judging in full liberty. A child of ten who sat before his parents’ wireless in Calcutta or Shanghai, and was glad to hear the news of the Allied landing in Normandy — 6th of June 1944, — is responsible for the world-disaster of 1945. A child of ten who, in Sidney or Melbourne or San Francisco, added his voice to the chorus of hatred against the accused of Nüremberg, is responsible for the death (or long imprisonment) of those men, and bears his share of the infamy of the historic Trial. As I said before, the Second World War is nothing less than a monstrous crime for which practically the whole world is collectively responsible — a collective crime of the whole world against its Saviour, Adolf Hitler, against National Socialist Germany, against Aryan man and the possibilities that lie within him. It is the crime of the whole world which has completely yielded to the law of Time, i.e., the law of decay and death, against the last — or one before the last — grand scale expression of the age-old counter-tendency “against Time,” which the natural aristocracy of blood and character — the élite of the Aryan race — has been embodying, more and more consciously, for centuries already. Among the millions who bear the guilt of it, the German Anti-Nazis — from those high officers who, on the 20th of July 1944, attempted Adolf Hitler’s life, to the most unimportant and inactive opponents of the National Socialist régime — occupy a special place, or rather, have a special significance. Being Germans, — the Führer’s own countrymen, whom he so loved — they represent more than any others the waste of natural Aryan virtues in the service of untruth; the grip of the |
Dark Age even upon the finest race of this earth; the defiling of the Aryan mind through false teachings of “humanity” and principles in contradiction with the laws and purpose of Life. And one should add that, along with them, and to a hardly lesser degree, all Anti-Nazis of Nordic stock — Norwegians, Danes, Dutchmen or Britishers (or Americans of Nordic origin, such as the sinister “Crusader to Europe,” Dwight Eisenhower, himself) — represent the same. For National Socialist Germany was not fighting the war imposed upon her for herself alone, but for the whole of higher mankind; for the reassertion of the eternal natural values and of the natural human hierarchy, i.e. for the rule of truly higher mankind upon this earth (irrespective of “nationality” in the narrow sense of the word). Speaking of the future Europe of his dreams and of the splendid Aryan élite that was to lead it, Adolf Hitler said that it “mattered little” whether a member of that élite were “an Austrian or a Norwegian.”1 All that counted in his eyes was that the ruling aristocracy be, physically, morally and culturally, a real Aryan one. The same idea, namely that National Socialist Germany was but the first step towards a regenerate National Socialist Europe, is most clearly expressed in the last known text dictated by the Man “against Time”: his “political Testament.”2 And one may add that a National Socialist Europe is, logically, but a first step towards a racially-conscious and legitimately proud Pan-Aryandom, organised according to Adolf Hitler’s principles — accepting him as its everlasting Leader — and occupying in the world the place Nature has assigned it. As I wrote in another book3, every person of Aryan blood, — be he or she a thoroughbred European or a high-caste Indian — who fought Germany during the Second World War, and thus hindered the materialisation of that glorious programme, is, hardly less than the German Anti-Nazis themselves, a traitor to his or her own — to our common — race. Others have described — or tried to describe — far better 1 Adolf Hitler’s “Tisch Gespräche,” published after the war. 2 Published by L. Battersby. 3 In “Pilgrimage,” written in 1953-1954 (Introduction). |
than I (who was not on the spot) ever could do, the last days of the Third German Reich: the irresistible advance of the two frantic invading armies (and of their respective auxiliaries) into the heart of the land, in which years of unheard-of bombardment had left nothing but ruins; the terror of the last and fiercest air-raids, that disorganised everything, while streams and streams of refugees kept pouring westwards (realising that they had, in spite of all, less to fear from the Americans, — enemies of National Socialism withno faith to put in its place — than from the Russians, who were fighting in full awareness of their allegiance to the contrary faith); the horror of the last desperate battles, intended to immobilise for a while an enemy that one now knew to be the winner; and the moral break-down, — the frightening, blank hopelessness, the bitter feeling of having been mocked and cheated — of millions in whose hearts faith in National Socialism had been inseparable from the certitude of Germany’s invincibility: the “moral ruins,” even more tragic and more lasting than the material ones. Others have described or tried to describe the horror of the last days of Berlin under the relentless fire of the Russian guns — Berlin, which, seen from above, “looked like the crater of an immense volcano.”1 In the midst of the capital ablaze, stood the broad and yet untouched gardens of the Chancellory of the Reich. There, surrounded by a few of his faithful ones, in his “bunker,” underground, Adolf Hitler, the Man “against Time,” lived the apparent end of all his life’s work and of all his dreams, and the beginning of his people’s long martyrdom. More or less accurate reports have reached the outer world about his last known gestures and words. I have just mentioned the publication of his “political Testament.” But nobody has described in all its more than human grandeur the last real inner phase — the tragic failure, and yet, (considered from a standpoint exceeding by far that of the politician) the culmination — of his dedicated life. Throughout the war and before the war, for two and a half decades, Adolf Hitler had conducted Germany’s struggle (and that of Aryan man) — the modern aspect of the perennial 1 These are the words of the well-known German airwoman, Hanna Reitsch, who saw it. |
Struggle for the triumph of Light and Life, — against the coalesced forces of the whole world. And he had. not lost faith in victory, not even when everything seemed to turn against him and his people: not even after Stalingrad; not even after the Allied landing in Normandy; not even after the Russians and Americans and their satellites had marched into Germany from the East and from the West, and were advancing, every day deeper into the heart of the torn and blasted land, in spite of desperate resistance and useless counterattacks. “He lived in a dream”1 has written a French author, in a heart-rending book. And that is true, in a way, — partly because deliberate traitors purposely kept him ill-informed about the actual situation on every front, in every occupied country, and in practically every essential service at home (as it clearly appears, from various most outspoken war-memoirs), and partly because he was himself more of a Seer than of a politician. He knew he was deceived and betrayed, — “See how they lie to me, and for how long already!”, declared he, in 1944, to the Luftwaffe hero, Hans-Ulrich Rudel, after a talk in which the latter had given him the right picture of a war sector where he had himself fought. — But he did not know till very late — too late — to what extent one betrayed him. (He admitted it himself in his last speech.) The confidence he put in any German who seemed entirely devoted to the National Socialist Idea was complete. And traitors took advantage of it. He also “lived in a dream” in the manner every great Seer has done, from the beginning of ages. Aware as he was of the absolute truth of his doctrine, and of the absolute genuineness of his mission and of that of his people, and knowing, as he did, that truth is bound to conquer in the long run, he was tempted to underestimate the power of the death-forces that are, in accordance with the law of evolution in Time, to drag the world to its doom before the new Golden Age (and, with it, a new Time-cycle) can dawn. The clear vision of eternal, infinitely more-than-political, earthly reality, (of earthly reality “in harmony with the primaeval meaning of things”) towards which he strove throughout his career, had made him, for years, blind to the terrible signs of impending disaster. The certitude that the German Reich, as he 1 Georges Blend, “L’Agonie de l’Allemagne.” |
had wanted it and founded it anew and organised it at the end of this Dark Age, was the first step towards the glorious earthly Reich of re-conquered Perfection, — the regenerate Aryandom of the awaited Golden Age — and that the advent of that Kingdom of gods on earth was as mathematically positive a fact as Sunrise after every night, made him, for years, at least, forget that the Third German Reich — the State “against Time,” his own creation — had to disappear before it could rise again, transfigured into a Golden Age State. He had, no doubt, in the course of the war, become more and more conscious of the enormity of the forces set against him, both abroad and at home; more and more aware of widespread, lurking treason; and specially more and more convinced of the sinister part played by world-Jewry in the conduct of events.1 From 1942 onwards, he had, nay, — with Heinrich Himmler’s ever closer collaboration, — faced and tackled the Jewish question — at last! — with some amount of that ruthlessness with which it should have been tackled years before. But it was too late. That tardy mercilessness — that delayed awakening of the righteous “lightning” side of his nature, in him who, as I said in the beginning of this book, had, in his make-up, more “sun” than “lightning” — could no longer save the Reich. The mass-liquidation of about 750.000 Jews2 from Germany and other European countries in the gas-chambers of Auschwitz and of a couple of other concentration camps did not prevent the influential Jews, living in safety in U.S.A., in England, in Russia, in India, in Palestine, — anywhere in the wide world — from directing the fury of all mankind, including that of the Aryan nations, against new Germany. (And after the war, when the fate of the few executed Jews — who were — unfortunately! — by the way, not necessarily the most dangerous ones, — became known in foreign lands, the figure of 750.000 became overnight 6.500.000 and even 8.000.000, in older to give the victorious Allies, “crusaders of humanity,” an excuse for torturing and killing as many of Adolf Hitler’s followers as they could. While thousands of the most nefarious 1 J. von Ribbentrop, “Zwischen London und Moskau,” p. 273. 2 This figure was given to me by an S.S. officer. The Jewish publication “Shem” — written for Jewish readers — states, however, about half that number only. |
Jews had, thanks to the Führer’s astounding generosity, already left Germany before the war.) Similarly, the severity with which were handled such conspirers against the National Socialist régime as were detected near the end of the war, — the men of the 20th of July, for instance, — did not prevent others from continuing, undetected, their treacherous activities. Nor could it undo all the mischief wrought, from the beginning of the régime, by those men in high position who were secretly bent upon its destruction at any cost, even at that of the destruction of Germany herself, along with it. Harsh, exemplary repression of such elements also came too late. More so: Adolf Hitler’s mistrust of all classes of his own people, save of the honest, simple-hearted workmen, faithful to him to this day,1 came too late. And that, I repeat, because, contrarily to the Prophet Mohamed, contrarily to Lord Krishna, and to all Men “against Time” — both “Sun” and “Lightning” — who died victorious, our Führer had, in his personal make-up, too much sunshine in proportion to his “lightning” power. And now, the end had come. Adolf Hitler no longer “lived in a dream.” He knew that the supreme counter-offensive — the Ardennes offensive — had failed to stem the advance of the Western Allies. He knew that the Russians had, on the other hand, broken through and crossed the Oder River and that they were massing around Berlin. In a desperate effort to hope against all hope, he kept on mentioning General Wenck’s army — which in fact no longer existed — and waiting for it to appear, and free the capital of the Reich. But he knew within his heart that General Wenck would not come; that the war was finished — and lost. And he could well imagine the atrocious ordeal that his people were now to experience at the hands of the agents of the Dark Forcestheir enemies and his. The Russian guns kept on firing without cease. And Berlin continued to burn. It had been burning for days. It had become a down-right inferno. 1 That mistrust of all but the working classes is often expressed in the Fuhrer’s “Tisch Gespräche,” — conversations of his published after the war. |
In the depth of his “bunker” under the yet untouched Gardens of the Chancellory, — Adolf Hitler could hear the thunder of the explosions and feel the death-convulsions of his capital, through the torn and battered earth. And he knew it was the end Within the “bunker,” a few faithful ones — Eva Braun, who had never thrust herself into the limelight of the great Days, but who loved him, and was now his wedded wife; Dr. Goebbels, with his family; General Krebs, Admiral Vosz, Martin Bormann, and some others, — were waiting with him to kill themselves at the appearing of the Russians. At the entrance of the Gardens and of the “bunker” — on the margin of that roaring and flaming hell that was rolling nearer and nearer, as irresistible as an ocean of lava, — S.S. men kept watch, ready to die. There they remained, with as much impassibility, as much dutiful detachment as those Roman guards of old who, in 79 A.D. had stood at the gates of Pompeii — there where their officers had ordered them to stay — under the showers of burning ash from the suddenly erupting volcano; within sight of the streams of molten rock, till the end; till they had lost consciousness and sunk to the ground under their armours, while the advancing lava rolled over them. But the stream that was to roll over the bodies of these last defenders of the Third German Reich and to submerge half (and, soon, perhaps, all) Europe, was the inexhaustible Red Army; the most formidable human instrument in the service of the levelling forces. Of the heroic State “against Time” — Adolf Hitler’s creation — no trace would be visible after its passage. And those very men of Nordic blood, traitors to their race, those “crusaders to Europe” who were, now, welcoming and helping its advance, would be, one day, — soon — wiped away before it. Unaware of that atmosphere of cosmic disaster (for such it was) which has been compared to that of a living “Twilight of the Gods,” the six Goebbels children — Helga, twelve years old; Hilde, eleven; Helmut, nine; Holde, seven; Hedda, five; and Heide, three — as prettily dressed as in peace time, thanks to their heroic mother, played hide and seek in the corridors of the last unconquered fortress of National Socialist Germany. Sometimes, the Führer, or those of the S.S. men who were not on duty, would play with them, or tell them stories. A day or two before the end, the famous airwoman, Hanna Reitsch, |
piloted General von Greim to the “bunker” and stayed there a few hours with him. Magda Goebbels told her, among other things: “They believe in the Führer and in the Third Reich; when these cease to exist, there will be no place in the world for my six children.” And she added: “Provided Heaven gives me enough courage to kill them!” The admirable woman actually did kill them. And she and Dr. Goebbels killed themselves afterwards. According to the writing that has been published as his “political Testament” and to the statements of several people who were present in the “bunker” nearly to the end, Adolf Hitler and his wife, Eva, did the same. According to other, equally plausible assumptions, they left the “bunker” in time — not in order to save themselves, but in order to continue the struggle, one day, — and the Founder of the National Socialist faith still breathes somewhere upon this earth, several years after the destruction of his life’s work, ready to inspire the new rising of his trusted ones to power and to preside over the new triumph of the Swastika, that nothing can hold back. There is no actual proof this way or that, but only, — as years pass without bringing any sign of his being alive, an increasingly strong probability that the Führer did not survive Germany’s total sacrifice. This may be, no doubt, a depressing fact for his disciples, nay, a heart-rending fact for such ones among them who never had the honour and the joy of seeing him. From the cosmic point of view, it matters little; for Adolf Hitler’s significance remains just the same whether he be, in the flesh, visible or invisible, alive or dead. Alive or dead he remains the hero who, in our atrocious epoch — very near the end of the Dark Age of the present Time-cycle, — stood alone, at the head of his privileged people, against the fiercer and fiercer downward current of Time; against the whole world that had become (as in every successive Dark Age) the domain of the forces of disintegration and death, exalting and obeying their agents while hating every genuine Messenger of Life. Alive or dead, he has sacrificed himself for his people; and his sacrifice (and that of his people for the entire Aryan race) is just as complete in either case — nay, if he be alive, his life must have been all these years, many times worse than death. Alive or dead he is He Who comes back “age after age, when justice is crushed. |
when evil triumphs, to establish upon earth the Reign of Righteousness”1; the Man “against Time” Who, again and again in the course of history, and every time with the methods of the age in which He appears, fights for that ideal of integral perfection — of absolutehealth — that no Age save a Golden Age — an “Age of Truth” — can live on a world-wide scale, in all its glory. Alive or dead, he is eternal, and will come back, for he is He: the One Who spoke for all times through the most ancient known discourse of Aryan Wisdom, the Bhagavad-Gita. In the “bunker” within the Gardens of the Chancellory, — last material bastion of National Socialism amidst Berlin ablaze, — he dictated his “political Testament.” It is difficult to say whether the wording we possess of it is the right one or not. If, as some say, the Führer survived the disaster, the mere mention of his “voluntary death” within the document would be enough to make it inaccurate. But, whatever be the wording, nay, whatever be the debated facts themselves, the spirit of Adolf Hitler’s last known message and the serenity one breathes in it — the calm, unshakable certitude, even at the darkest hour, that truth will conquer in the end, in spite of all, — are genuine. The glorious vision of a “united and National Socialist Europe,” the formation of which represents “the work of centuries to come,” is genuine. The consciousness and pride of Germany’s historic mission, in particular, of the mission of that splendid German youth who bore Adolf Hitler’s name, as forerunner, inspirer, leader and organiser of a regenerate Aryan humanity within and beyond the geographic boundaries of the Reich, are genuine. Genuine, and not new; for the Reich-Idea, in a more-than-political sense had always held the main place in Adolf Hitler’s life. In August Kubizek’s biography of him as a young man, there is a passage too significant for me not to quote it nearly in extenso. It is the description of a walk to the Freienberg (a hill overlooking Linz) in the middle of the night, just after the future Führer and his friend had attended together, at the Opera, a performance of Richard Wagner’s “Rienzi.” “We were alone,” writes Kubizek. “The town had sunk below us into the fog. As though he were moved by an 1 The Bhagavad-Gita, IV, Verses 7 and 8. |
invisible force, Adolf Hitler climbed to the top of the Freienberg. I now realised that we no longer stood in solitude and darkness, for above us shone the stars. “Adolf stood before me. He took both my hands in his and held them tight — a gesture that he had never yet made. I could feel from the pressure of his hands how moved he was. His eyes sparkled feverishly. The words did not pour from his lips with their usual easiness, but burst forth harsh and passionate. I noticed at his voice even more than at the way in which he held my hands, how the episode he had lived (the performance of “Rienzi” at the Opera) had shattered him to the depth. “Gradually, he began to speak more freely. The words came with more speed. Never before and also never since have I heard Adolf Hitler speak like he did then, as we stood alone under the stars as though we had been the only two creatures on earth. “It is impossible for me to repeat the words my friend uttered in that hour. “Something quite remarkable, which I had not noticed before, even when he spoke to me with vehemence, struck me at that moment:it was as though another Self spoke through him; another Self, from the presence of which he was as moved as I was. In no way could one have said of him (as it sometimes happens, in the case of brilliant speakers) that he was intoxicated with his own words. On the contrary! I had the feeling that he experienced with amazement, I would say, that he was himself possessed by, that which burst out of him with elemental power. I do not allow myself a comment on that observation. But it was a state of ecstasy, a state of complete trance in which, without mentioning it or the instance involved in it, he projected his experience of the “Rienzi” performance into a glorious vision upon another plane, congenial to himself. More so: the impression he had received from that performance was merely the external impulse that had prompted him to speak. Like a flood breaks through a dam which has burst, so rushed the words from his mouth. In sublime, irresistible images, he unfolded before me his own future and that of our people. “Till then I had been convinced that my friend wanted to become an artist, a painter or an architect. In that hour |
there was no question of such a thing. He was concerned with something higher, which I could not yet understand.... He now spoke of a mission that he was one day to receive from our people, in order to guide them out of slavery, to the heights of freedom.... Many years were to pass before I could realise what that starry hour, separated from all earthly things, had meant to my friend.”1 It is shattering to recall, in the light of the “political Testament,” that extraordinary episode from the time Adolf Hitler was a young man seventeen. The serenity of the Führer’s last known message, dictated under the fire of the Russians guns, becomes all the more impressive. It is the serenity of that bright starry night that had surrounded him and penetrated him as he had, forty years before, taken full consciousness of his mission for the first time. Then, the grandeur of his destiny had overwhelmed him. And the mysterious greater Self that had revealed it to him had appeared to him as “another Self,” not his own. Now he knew the two were the same. Now, the destiny was accomplished. The Way of glory and sorrow had come to its end. In a few hours — perhaps in a few minutes, — the enemy would be there, and the last symbolical bastion of National Socialist Germany — the “bunker” in the Gardens of theReichskanzelei — submerged. And yet... Calmer now, amidst the thunder of explosions and the noise of crumbling buildings — the flames and ruins of the Second World War — than then, at the top of the Freienberg, under the stars; freed from the temporary wild despair that had seized him at the news of the Russian advance West of the Oder River, Adolf Hitler beheld the future. And that future — his own, and that of National Socialism, and that of Germany, who had now become, for ever, the fortress of the new Faith, — was nothing less than eternity; the eternity of Truth, more unshakable (and more soothing) in its majesty even than that of the Milky Way. The Russians could come, and their “gallant Allies” from the West could meet them and rejoice with them upon the ashes of the Third Reich (as Winston Churchill and his daughter Sarah, who were actually to be seen, a few days later, 1 August Kubizek, “Adolf Hitler, mein Jugendfreund” (edit. 1954), p. 140-141. |
giggling with Russian officers before the skeleton of the Reichstag); Berlin could be wiped out — or “bolshevised” — and Germany, cut in two or in four, could, for years and years, suffer such an ordeal as no nation in history had yet suffered. In spite of all, National Socialism, the modern expression of cosmic Truth applied to socio-political and cultural problems, would endure and conquer. “The heroism of our soldiers, who have kept towards me feelings of unfailing comradeship, is a guarantee that a National Socialist Germany and a united National Socialist Europe will, one day, take birth,” wrote Adolf Hitler in his “political Testament.” “May my faithful ones keep in mind that it is the job of the coming centuries to establish a National Socialist Europe, and may they place collective interest always above their own! ... May they — Germans and non-German (all the forces of National Socialist Europe) —remain racially conscious, and resist without weakness the poison which is about to corrupt and kill all nations: the spirit of international Jewry.”1 The tragic State “against Time” which he had set up as the one possible dam against the everlasting forces of decay, and which now lay in the dust, would one day rise again on a pan-European (or even a pan-Aryan) scale, in all the vigour and splendour of regained youth. It would rise under the leadership of the One Who is to put an end to this Dark Age; of the One-Who-comes-back, under His last aspect — equally “Sun” and “Lightning,” whereas Adolf Hitler, more “Sun” than “Lightning,” is but His one-before-the-last Incarnation. It would rise again as the Golden Age theocracy to come — a theocracy from within; the earthly kingdom of Aryan gods in flesh and blood. And the atrocious end? The agony of the proud Third German Reich? It was but the beginning of the Via dolorosa leading to the great New Beginning. All the horror of the present and of the immediate future would pass. The hell in which the German people were to live, for years, would pass. National Socialism would rise again because it is true to cosmic Reality, and because that which is true does not pass. Germany’s Via dolorosa was, indeed, the Way to coming glory. It had to be taken, if the privileged Nation was to fulfill 1 Adolf Hitler’s “Political Testament.” |
her mission absolutely, i.e. if she was to be the Nation that died for the sake of the highest human race, which she embodied, and that would rise again to take the lead of those surviving Aryans who are — at last! — to understand her message of life and to carry it with them into the splendour of the dawning Golden Age. Oh, now — now under the ceaseless fire and thunder of the Russian artillery; now, on the brink of disaster — how the Man “against Time” clearly understood this! Above him and above the smoke of the Russian cannons and of the burning city, above the noise of explosions, millions and millions of miles away, the stars — those same stars that had shed their light over the adolescent’s first prophetic ecstasy, forty years before — sparkled in all their glory, in limitless void. And the Man “against Time,” who could not see them, knew that his National Socialist wisdom, founded upon the very laws of Life; his Wisdom that this doomed world had cursed and rejected, was, and would remain, in spite of all, as unassailable and everlasting as their everlasting Dance. |
No comments:
Post a Comment