{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_14058/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_14058","id":"gutenberg_14058","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14058","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Fascism","National socialism"],"text":"READINGS ON FASCISM AND NATIONAL SOCIALISM\n\nSelected by Members of the Department of Philosophy, University of\nColorado\n\nALAN SWALLOW\n\nDenver\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPREFATORY NOTE\n\n\nThe ensuing readings are presented to encourage the student to clarify\nhis thinking on social philosophy. He will accordingly need to\ndetermine whether the readings contain a more or less coherent body of\nideas which constitutes a social philosophy. He will also need to\nraise the more far-reaching question whether the ideas are acceptable.\nTo arrive at any satisfactory answer to this latter question, he will\nnecessarily have to compare the ideas of fascism and their practical\nmeanings with the alternatives, real and ideal, that are the substance\nof live philosophical issues.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n     The Doctrine of Fascism by Benito Mussolini\n\n     The Political Doctrine of Fascism by Alfredo Rocco\n\n     The Philosophic Basis of Fascism by Giovanni Gentile\n\n     National Socialism by Raymond E. Murphy, Francis B. Stevens,\n       Howard Trivers, Joseph M. Roland\n\n     National-Socialism and Medicine by Dr. F. Hamburger\n\n     Selected Bibliography\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM\nBy\nBENITO MUSSOLINI\n\nFrom the ENCYCLOPEDIA ITALIANA. Vol. XIV\n\n     The English translation of the \"Fundamental Ideas\" is by Mr.\n     I.S. Munro, reprinted by his kind permission from \"Fascism\n     to World-Power\" (Alexander Maclehose, London, 1933).\n\n\nFUNDAMENTAL IDEAS.\n\n1. Philosophic Conception.\n\n\nLike every concrete political conception, Fascism is thought and\naction. It is action with an inherent doctrine which, arising out of a\ngiven system of historic forces, is inserted in it and works on it\nfrom within. It has therefore a form co-related to the contingencies\nof time and place; but it has at the same time an ideal content which\nelevates it into a formula of truth in the higher region of the\nhistory of thought.\n\nThere is no way of exercising a spiritual influence on the things of\nthe world by means of a human will-power commanding the wills of\nothers, without first having a clear conception of the particular and\ntransient reality on which the will-power must act, and without also\nhaving a clear conception of the universal and permanent reality in\nwhich the particular and transient reality has its life and being. To\nknow men we must have a knowledge of man; and to have a knowledge of\nman we must know the reality of things and their laws.\n\nThere can be no conception of a State which is not fundamentally a\nconception of Life. It is a philosophy or intuition, a system of ideas\nwhich evolves itself into a system of logical contraction, or which\nconcentrates itself in a vision or in a faith, but which is always,\nat least virtually, an organic conception of the world.\n\n\n2. Spiritualised Conception.\n\nFascism would therefore not be understood in many of its\nmanifestations (as, for example, in its organisations of the Party,\nits system of education, its discipline) were it not considered in the\nlight of its general view of life. A spiritualised view.\n\nTo Fascism the world is not this material world which appears on the\nsurface, in which man is an individual separated from all other men,\nstanding by himself and subject to a natural law which instinctively\nimpels him to lead a life of momentary and egoistic pleasure. In\nFascism man is an individual who is the nation and the country. He is\nthis by a moral law which embraces and binds together individuals and\ngenerations in an established tradition and mission, a moral law which\nsuppresses the instinct to lead a life confined to a brief cycle of\npleasure in order, instead, to replace it within the orbit of duty in\na superior conception of life, free from the limits of time and space\na life in which the individual by self-abnegation and by the sacrifice\nof his particular interests, even by death, realises the entirely\nspiritual existence in which his value as a man consists.\n\n\n3. Positive Conception of Life as a Struggle.\n\nIt is therefore a spiritual conception, itself also a result of the\ngeneral reaction of the Century against the languid and materialistic\npositivism of the Eighteenth Century. Anti-positivist, but positive:\nneither sceptical nor agnostic, neither pessimistic nor passively\noptimistic, as are in general the doctrines (all of them negative)\nwhich place the centre of life outside of man, who by his free will\ncan and should create his own world for himself.\n\nFascism wants a man to be active and to be absorbed in action with all\nhis energies; it wants him to have a manly consciousness of the\ndifficulties that exist and to be ready to face them. It conceives\nlife as a struggle, thinking that it is the duty of man to conquer\nthat life which is really worthy of him: creating in the first place\nwithin himself the (physical, moral, intellectual) instrument with\nwhich to build it.\n\nAs for the individual, so for the nation, so for mankind. Hence the\nhigh value of culture in all its forms (art, religion, science) and\nthe supreme importance of education. Hence also the essential value\nof labour, with which man conquers nature and creates the human world\n(economic, political, moral, intellectual).\n\n\n4. Ethical Conception.\n\nThis positive conception of life is evidently an ethical conception.\nAnd it comprises the whole reality as well as the human activity which\ndomineers it. No action is to be removed from the moral sense; nothing\nis to be in the world that is divested of the importance which belongs\nto it in respect of moral aims. Life, therefore, as the Fascist\nconceives it, is serious, austere, religious; entirely balanced in a\nworld sustained by the moral and responsible forces of the spirit. The\nFascist disdains the \"easy\" life.\n\n\n5. Religious Conception.\n\nFascism is a religious conception in which man is considered to be in\nthe powerful grip of a superior law, with an objective will which\ntranscends the particular individual and elevates him into a fully\nconscious member of a spiritual society. Anyone who has stopped short\nat the mere consideration of opportunism in the religious policy of\nthe Fascist Regime, has failed to understand that Fascism, besides\nbeing a system of government, is also a system of thought.\n\n\n6. Historical and Realist Conception.\n\nFascism is an historical conception in which man could not be what he\nis without being a factor in the spiritual process to which he\ncontributes, either in the family sphere or in the social sphere, in\nthe nation or in history in general to which all nations contribute.\nHence is derived the great importance of tradition in the records,\nlanguage, customs and rules of human society. Man without a part in\nhistory is nothing.\n\nFor this reason Fascism is opposed to all the abstractions of an\nindividualistic character based upon materialism typical of the\nEighteenth Century; and it is opposed to all the Jacobin innovations\nand utopias. It does not believe in the possibility of \"happiness\" on\nearth as conceived by the literature of the economists of the\nSeventeenth Century; it therefore spurns all the teleological\nconceptions of final causes through which, at a given period of\nhistory, a final systematisation of the human race would take place.\nSuch theories only mean placing oneself outside real history and\nlife, which is a continual ebb and flow and process of realisations.\n\nPolitically speaking, Fascism aims at being a realistic doctrine; in\nits practice it aspired to solve only the problems which present\nthemselves of their own accord in the process of history, and which of\nthemselves find or suggest their own solution. To have the effect of\naction among men, it is necessary to enter into the process of reality\nand to master the forces actually at work.\n\n\n7. The Individual and Liberty.\n\nAnti-individualistic, the Fascist conception is for the State; it is\nfor the individual only in so far as he coincides with the State,\nuniversal consciousness and will of man in his historic existence. It\nis opposed to the classic Liberalism which arose out of the need of\nreaction against absolutism, and had accomplished its mission in\nhistory when the State itself had become transformed in the popular\nwill and consciousness.\n\nLiberalism denied the State in the interests of the particular\nindividual; Fascism reaffirms the State as the only true expression of\nthe individual.\n\nAnd if liberty is to be the attribute of the real man, and not of the\nscarecrow invented by the individualistic Liberalism, then Fascism is\nfor liberty. It is for the only kind of liberty that is serious--the\nliberty of the State and of the individual in the State. Because, for\nthe Fascist, all is comprised in the State and nothing spiritual or\nhuman exists--much less has any value--outside the State. In this\nrespect Fascism is a totalising concept, and the Fascist State--the\nunification and synthesis of every value--interprets, develops and\npotentiates the whole life of the people.\n\n\n8. Conception of a Corporate State.\n\nNo individuals nor groups (political parties, associations, labour\nunions, classes) outside the State. For this reason Fascism is opposed\nto Socialism, which clings rigidly to class war in the historic\nevolution and ignores the unity of the State which moulds the classes\ninto a single, moral and economic reality. In the same way Fascism is\nopposed to the unions of the labouring classes. But within the orbit\nof the State with ordinative functions, the real needs, which give\nrise to the Socialist movement and to the forming of labour unions,\nare emphatically recognised by Fascism and are given their full\nexpression in the Corporative System, which conciliates every interest\nin the unity of the State.\n\n\n9. Democracy.\n\nIndividuals form classes according to categories of interests. They\nare associated according to differentiated economical activities which\nhave a common interest: but first and foremost they form the State.\nThe State is not merely either the numbers or the sum of individuals\nforming the majority of a people. Fascism for this reason is opposed\nto the democracy which identifies peoples with the greatest number of\nindividuals and reduces them to a majority level. But if people are\nconceived, as they should be, qualitatively and not quantitatively,\nthen Fascism is democracy in its purest form. The qualitative\nconception is the most coherent and truest form and is therefore the\nmost moral, because it sees a people realised in the consciousness and\nwill of the few or even of one only; an ideal which moves to its\nrealisation in the consciousness and will of all. By \"all\" is meant\nall who derive their justification as a nation, ethnically speaking,\nfrom their nature and history, and who follow the same line of\nspiritual formation and development as one single will and\nconsciousness--not as a race nor as a geographically determined\nregion, but as a progeny that is rather the outcome of a history which\nperpetuates itself; a multitude unified by an idea embodied in the\nwill to have power and to exist, conscious of itself and of its\npersonality.\n\n\n10. Conception of the State.\n\nThis higher personality is truly the nation, inasmuch as it is the\nState. The nation does not beget the State, according to the decrepit\nnationalistic concept which was used as a basis for the publicists of\nthe national States in the Nineteenth Century. On the contrary, the\nnation is created by the State, which gives the people, conscious of\ntheir own moral unity, the will, and thereby an effective existence.\nThe right of a nation to its independence is derived not from a\nliterary and ideal consciousness of its own existence, much less from\na _de facto_ situation more or less inert and unconscious, but from an\nactive consciousness, from an active political will disposed to\ndemonstrate in its right; that is to say, a kind of State already in\nits pride (_in fieri_). The State, in fact, as a universal ethical\nwill, is the creator of right.\n\n\n11. Dynamic Reality.\n\nThe nation as a State is an ethical reality which exists and lives in\nmeasure as it develops. A standstill is its death. Therefore the\nState is not only the authority which governs and which gives the\nforms of law and the worth of the spiritual life to the individual\nwills, but it is also the power which gives effect to its will in\nforeign matters, causing it to be recognised and respected by\ndemonstrating through facts the universality of all the manifestations\nnecessary for its development. Hence it is organization as well as\nexpansion, and it may be thereby considered, at least virtually, equal\nto the very nature of the human will, which in its evolution\nrecognises no barriers, and which realises itself by proving its\ninfinity.\n\n\n12. The R\u00f4le of the State.\n\nThe Fascist State, the highest and the most powerful form of\npersonality is a force, but a spiritual one. It reassumes all the\nforms of the moral and intellectual life of man. It cannot, therefore,\nbe limited to a simple function of order and of safeguarding, as was\ncontended by Liberalism. It is not a simple mechanism which limits the\nsphere of the presumed individual liberties. It is an internal form\nand rule, a discipline of the entire person: it penetrates the will as\nwell as the intelligence. Its principle, a central inspiration of the\nliving human personality in the civil community, descends into the\ndepths and settles in the heart of the man of action as well as the\nthinker, of the artist as well as of the scientist; the soul of our\nsoul.\n\n\n13. Discipline and Authority.\n\nFascism, in short, is not only a lawgiver and the founder of\ninstitutions, but an educator and a promoter of the spiritual life. It\naims to rebuild not the forms of human life, but its content, the man,\nthe character, the faith. And for this end it exacts discipline and an\nauthority which descend into and dominates the interior of the spirit\nwithout opposition. Its emblem, therefore, is the lictorian _fasces_,\nsymbol of unity, of force and of justice.\n\n\nPOLITICAL AND SOCIAL DOCTRINE\n\n1. Origins of the Doctrine.\n\nWhen, in the now distant March of 1919, I summoned a meeting at Milan,\nthrough the columns of the _Popolo d'Italia,_ of those who had\nsupported and endured the war and who had followed me since the\nconstitution of the _fasci_ or Revolutionary Action in January 1915,\nthere was no specific doctrinal plan in my mind. I had the experience\nof one only doctrine--that of Socialism from 1903-04 to the winter of\n1914 about a decade--but I made it first in the ranks and later as a\nleader and it was never an experience in theory. My doctrine, even\nduring that period, was a doctrine of action. A universally accepted\ndoctrine of Socialism had not existed since 1915 when the revisionist\nmovement started in Germany, under the leadership of Bernstein.\nAgainst this, in the swing of tendencies, a left revolutionary\nmovement began to take shape, but in Italy it never went further than\nthe \"field of phrases,\" whereas in Russian Socialistic circles it\nbecame the prelude of Bolscevism. \"Reformism,\" \"revolutionarism,\"\n\"centrism,\" this is a terminology of which even the echoes are now\nspent--but in the great river of Fascism are currents which flowed\nfrom Sorel, from Peguy, from Lagardelle and the \"Mouvement\nSocialiste,\" from Italian syndicalists which were legion between 1904\nand 1914, and sounded a new note in Italian Socialist circles\n(weakened then by the betrayal of Giolitti) through Olivetti's _Pagine\nLibere_, Orano's _La Lupa_ and Enrico Leone's _Divenire Sociale_.\n\nAfter the War, in 1919, Socialism was already dead as a doctrine: it\nexisted only as a grudge. In Italy especially, it had one only\npossibility of action: reprisals against those who had wanted the War\nand must now pay its penalty. The _Popolo d'Italia_ carried as\nsub-title \"daily of ex-service men and producers,\" and the word\nproducers was already then the expression of a turn of mind. Fascism\nwas not the nursling of a doctrine previously worked out at a desk; it\nwas born of the need for action and it was action. It was not a party,\nin fact during the first two years, it was an anti-party and a\nmovement.\n\nThe name I gave the organisation fixed its character. Yet whoever\nshould read the now crumpled sheets with the minutes of the meeting at\nwhich the Italian \"Fasci di Combattimento\" were constituted, would\nfail to discover a doctrine, but would find a series of ideas, of\nanticipations, of hints which, liberated from the inevitable\nstrangleholds of contingencies, were destined after some years to\ndevelop into doctrinal conceptions. Through them Fascism became a\npolitical doctrine to itself, different, by comparison, to all others\nwhether contemporary or of the past.\n\nI said then, \"If the bourgeoisie think we are ready to act as\nlightning-conductors, they are mistaken. We must go towards labour.\nWe wish to train the working classes to directive functions. We wish\nto convince them that it is not easy to manage Industry or Trade: we\nshall fight the technique and the spirit of the rearguard. When the\nsuccession of the regime is open, we must not lack the fighting\nspirit. We must rush and if the present regime be overcome, it is we\nwho must fill its place. The claim to succession belongs to us,\nbecause it was we who forced the country into War and we who led her\nto victory. The present political representation cannot suffice: we\nmust have a direct representation of all interest. Against this\nprogramme one might say it is a return to corporations. But that does\nnot matter. Therefore I should like this assembly to accept the claims\nput in by national syndicalism from an economic standpoint....\"\n\nIs it not strange that the word corporations should have been uttered\nat the first meeting of Piazza San Sepolcro, when one considers that,\nin the course of the Revolution, it came to express one of the social\nand legislative creations at the very foundations of the regime?\n\n\n2. Development.\n\nThe years which preceded the March on Rome were years in which the\nnecessity of action did not permit complete doctrinal investigations\nor elaborations. The battle was raging in the towns and villages.\nThere were discussions, but what was more important and sacred--there\nwas death. Men knew how to die. The doctrine--all complete and formed,\nwith divisions into chapters, paragraphs, and accompanying\nelucubrations--might be missing; but there was something more decided\nto replace it, there was faith.\n\nNotwithstanding, whoever remembers with the aid of books and speeches,\nwhoever could search through them and select, would find that the\nfundamental principles were laid down whilst the battle raged. It was\nreally in those years that the Fascist idea armed itself, became\nrefined and proceeded towards organisation: the problems of the\nindividual and of the State, the problems of authority and of liberty,\nthe political and social problems, especially national; the fight\nagainst the liberal, democratic, socialistic and popular doctrines,\nwas carried out together with the \"punitive expeditions.\"\n\nBut as a \"system\" was lacking, our adversaries in bad faith, denied to\nFascism any capacity to produce a doctrine, though that doctrine was\ngrowing tumultuously, at first under the aspect of violent and\ndogmatic negation, as happens to all newly-born ideas, and later under\nthe positive aspect of construction which was successively realised,\nin the years 1926-27-28 through the laws and institutions of the\nregime. Fascism today stands clearly defined not only as a regime, but\nalso as a doctrine. This word doctrine should be interpreted in the\nsense that Fascism, to-day, when passing criticism on itself and\nothers, has its own point of view and its own point of reference, and\ntherefore also its own orientation when facing those problems which\nbeset the world in the spirit and in the matter.\n\n\n3. Against Pacifism: War and Life as a Duty.\n\nAs far as the general future and development of humanity is concerned,\nand apart from any mere consideration of current politics, Fascism\nabove all does not believe either in the possibility or utility of\nuniversal peace. It therefore rejects the pacifism which masks\nsurrender and cowardice. War alone brings all human energies to their\nhighest tension and sets a seal of nobility on the peoples who have\nthe virtue to face it. All other tests are but substitutes which never\nmake a man face himself in the alternative of life or death. A\ndoctrine which has its starting-point at the prejudicial postulate of\npeace is therefore extraneous to Fascism.\n\nIn the same way all international creations (which, as history\ndemonstrates, can be blown to the winds when sentimental, ideal and\npractical elements storm the heart of a people) are also extraneous to\nthe spirit of Fascism--even if such international creations are\naccepted for whatever utility they may have in any determined\npolitical situation.\n\nFascism also transports this anti-pacifist spirit into the life of\nindividuals. The proud _squadrista_ motto \"_me ne frego_\" (\"I don't\ngive a damn\") scrawled on the bandages of the wounded is an act of\nphilosophy--not only stoic. It is a summary of a doctrine not only\npolitical: it is an education in strife and an acceptance of the risks\nwhich it carried: it is a new style of Italian life. It is thus that\nthe Fascist loves and accepts life, ignores and disdains suicide;\nunderstands life as a duty, a lifting up, a conquest; something to be\nfilled in and sustained on a high plane; a thing that has to be lived\nthrough for its own sake, but above all for the sake of others near\nand far, present and future.\n\n\n4. The Demographic Policy and the \"Neighbour.\"\n\nThe \"demographic\" policy of the regime is the result of these\npremises. The Fascist also loves his neighbour, but \"neighbour\" is not\nfor him a vague and undefinable word: love for his neighbour does not\nprevent necessary educational severities. Fascism rejects professions\nof universal affection and, though living in the community of\ncivilised peoples, it watches them and looks at them diffidently. It\nfollows them in their state of mind and in the transformation of their\ninterests, but it does not allow itself to be deceived by fallacious\nand mutable appearances.\n\n\n5. Against Historical Materialism and Class-Struggle.\n\nThrough this conception of life Fascism becomes the emphatic negation\nof that doctrine which constituted the basis of the so-called\nscientific Socialism or Marxism: the doctrine of historical\nmaterialism, according to which the story of human civilisation is to\nbe explained only by the conflict of interests between the various\nsocial groups and by the change of the means and instruments of\nproduction.\n\nThat the economic vicissitudes--discovery of prime or raw materials,\nnew methods of labour, scientific inventions--have their particular\nimportance, is denied by none, but that they suffice to explain human\nhistory, excluding other factors from it, is absurd: Fascism still\nbelieves in sanctity and in heroism, that is to say in acts in which\nno economic motive, immediate or remote, operates.\n\nFascism having denied historical materialism, by which men are only\npuppets in history, appearing and disappearing on the surface of the\ntides while in the depths the real directive forces act and labour, it\nalso denies the immutable and irreparable class warfare, which is the\nnatural filiation of such an economistic conception of history: and it\ndenies above all that class warfare is the preponderating agent of\nsocial transformation.\n\nBeing defeated on these two capital points of its doctrine, nothing\nremains of Socialism save the sentimental aspiration--as old as\nhumanity--to achieve a community of social life in which the\nsufferings and hardships of the humblest classes are alleviated. But\nhere Fascism repudiates the concept of an economic \"happiness\" which\nis to be--at a given moment in the evolution of economy--socialistically\nand almost automatically realised by assuring to all the maximum of\nwell-being.\n\nFascism denies the possibilities of the materialistic concept of\n\"happiness\"--it leaves that to the economists of the first half\nof the Seventeenth Century; that is, it denies the equation\n\"well-being-happiness,\" which reduces man to the state of the animals,\nmindful of only one thing--that of being fed and fattened; reduced, in\nfact, to a pure and simple vegetative existence.\n\n\n6. Against Democratic Ideologies.\n\nAfter disposing of Socialism, Fascism opens a breach on the whole\ncomplex of the democratic ideologies, and repudiates them in their\ntheoretic premises as well as in their practical application or\ninstrumentation. Fascism denies that numbers, by the mere fact of\nbeing numbers, can direct human society; it denies that these numbers\ncan govern by means of periodical consultations; it affirms also the\nfertilising, beneficient and unassailable inequality of men, who\ncannot be levelled through an extrinsic and mechanical process such as\nuniversal suffrage.\n\nRegimes can be called democratic which, from time to time, give the\npeople the illusion of being sovereign, whereas the real and effective\nsovereignty exists in other, and very often secret and irresponsible\nforces.\n\nDemocracy is a regime without a king, but very often with many kings,\nfar more exclusive, tyrannical and ruinous than a single king, even if\nhe be a tyrant. This explains why Fascism which, for contingent\nreasons, had assumed a republican tendency before 1922, renounced it\nprevious to the March on Rome, with the conviction that the political\nconstitution of a State is not nowadays a supreme question; and that,\nif the examples of past and present monarchies and past and present\nrepublics are studied, the result is that neither monarchies nor\nrepublics are to be judged under the assumption of eternity, but that\nthey merely represent forms in which the extrinsic political evolution\ntakes shape as well as the history, the tradition and the psychology\nof a given country.\n\nConsequently, Fascism glides over the antithesis between monarchy and\nrepublic, on which democraticism wasted time, blaming the former for\nall social shortcomings and exalting the latter as a regime of\nperfection. We have now seen that there are republics which may be\nprofoundly absolutist and reactionary, and monarchies which welcome\nthe most venturesome social and political experiments.\n\n\n7. Untruths of Democracy.\n\n\"Reason and science\" says Renan (who had certain pre-fascist\nenlightenments) in one of his philosophical meditations, \"are products\nof mankind, but to seek reason directly for the people and through the\npeople is a chimera. It is not necessary for the existence of reason\nthat everybody should know it. In any case if this initiation were to\nbe brought about it could not be through low-class democracy, which\nseems to lead rather to the extinction of every difficult culture and\nof every great discipline. The principle that society exists only for\nthe welfare and liberty of individuals composing it, does not seem to\nconform with the plans of nature: plans in which the species only is\ntaken into consideration and the individual appears sacrificed. It is\nstrongly to be feared that the last word of democracy thus understood\n(I hasten to add that it can also be differently understood) would be\na social state in which a degenerated mass would have no preoccupation\nother than that of enjoying the ignoble pleasures of the vulgar\nperson.\"\n\nThus Renan. In Democracy Fascism rejects the absurd conventional\nfalsehood of political equality, the habit of collective\nresponsibility and the myth of indefinite progress and happiness.\n\nBut if there be a different understanding of Democracy if, in other\nwords, Democracy can also signify to not push the people back as far\nas the margins of the State, then Fascism may well have been defined\nby the present writer as \"an organised, centralised, authoritarian\nDemocracy.\"\n\n\n8. Against Liberal Doctrines.\n\nAs regards the Liberal doctrines, the attitude of Fascism is one of\nabsolute opposition both in the political and in the economical field.\nThere is no need to exaggerate the importance of Liberalism in the\nlast century--simply for the sake of present-day polemics--and to\ntransform one of the numerous doctrines unfolded in that last century\ninto a religion of humanity for all times, present and future.\nLiberalism did not flourish for more than a period of fifteen years.\nIt was born in 1830 from the reaction to the Holy Alliance which\nattempted to set Europe back to the period which preceeded '89 and had\nits years of splendour in 1848, when also Pius IX was a Liberal. Its\ndecadence began immediately afterwards. If 1848 was a year of light\nand poesy, 1849 was a year of weakness and tragedy. The Roman Republic\nwas killed by another Republic, the French Republic. In the same year\nMarx issued his famous manifesto of Communism. In 1851 Napoleon III\nmade his anti-Liberal _coup d'\u00e9tat_ and reigned over France until\n1870. He was overthrown by a popular movement, following one of the\ngreatest defeats registered in history. The victor was Bismarck, who\nalways ignored the religion of liberty and its prophets. It is\nsymptomatic that a people of high civilisation like the Germans\ncompletely ignored the religion of liberty throughout the whole\nNineteenth Century--with but one parenthesis, represented by that\nwhich was called \"the ridiculous parliament of Frankfurt\" which lasted\none season. Germany realised its national unity outside of Liberalism,\nagainst Liberalism--a doctrine which seemed alien to the German spirit\nessentially monarchical, since Liberalism is the historical and\nlogical ante-chamber of anarchy.\n\nThe three wars of 1864, 1866 and 1870 conducted by \"Liberals\" like\nMoltke and Bismarck mark the three stages of German unity. As for\nItalian unity, Liberalism played a very inferior part in the make-up\nof Mazzini and Garibaldi, who were not liberals. Without the\nintervention of the anti-Liberal Napoleon we would not have had\nLombardy, and without the help of the anti-Liberal Bismarck at Sadowa\nand Sedan it is very likely that we would not have got Venice in 1866,\nor that we would have entered Rome in 1870.\n\nDuring the period of 1870-1915 the preachers of the new Credo\nthemselves denounced the twilight of their religion; it was beaten in\nthe breach by decadence in literature. It was beaten in the open by\ndecadence in practice. Activism: that is to say, nationalism,\nfuturism. Fascism.\n\nThe \"Liberal Century\" after having accumulated an infinity of Gordian\nknots, sought to cut them in the hecatomb of the World War. Never did\nany religion impose such a terrible sacrifice. Have the gods of\nLiberalism slaked their blood-thirst?\n\nLiberalism is now on the point of closing the doors of its deserted\ntemples because nations feel that its agnosticism in the economic\nfield and its indifference in political and moral matters, causes, as\nit has already caused, the sure ruin of States. That is why all the\npolitical experiences of the contemporary world are anti-Liberal, and\nit is supremely silly to seek to classify them as things outside of\nhistory--as if history were a hunting ground reserved to Liberalism\nand its professors; as if Liberalism were the last and incomparable\nword of civilisation.\n\n\n9. Fascism Does Not Turn Back.\n\nThe Fascist negation of Socialism, of Democracy, of Liberalism, should\nnot lead one to believe that Fascism wishes to push the world back to\nwhere it was before 1879, the date accepted as the opening year of the\ndemo-Liberal century. One cannot turn back. The Fascist doctrine has\nnot chosen De Maistre for its prophet. Monarchical absolutism is a\nthing of the past, and so is the worship of church power. Feudal\nprivileges and divisions into impenetrable castes with no connection\nbetween them, are also \"have beens.\" The conception of Fascist\nauthority has nothing in common with the Police. A party that totally\nrules a nation is a new chapter in history. References and comparisons\nare not possible. From the ruins of the socialist, liberal and\ndemocratic doctrines, Fascism picks those elements that still have a\nliving value; keeps those that might be termed \"facts acquired by\nhistory,\" and rejects the rest: namely the conception of a doctrine\ngood for all times and all people.\n\nAdmitting that the Nineteenth Century was the Century of Socialism,\nLiberalism and Democracy, it is not said that the Twentieth century\nmust also be the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, of Democracy.\nPolitical doctrines pass on, but peoples remain. One may now think\nthat this will be the century of authority, the century of the \"right\nwing\" the century of Fascism. If the Nineteenth Century was the\ncentury of the individual (liberalism signifies individualism) one may\nthink that this will be the century of \"collectivism,\" the century of\nthe State. It is perfectly logical that a new doctrine should utilise\nthe vital elements of other doctrines. No doctrine was ever born\nentirely new and shining, never seen before. No doctrine can boast of\nabsolute \"originality.\" Each doctrine is bound historically to\ndoctrines which went before, to doctrines yet to come. Thus the\nscientific Socialism of Marx is bound to the Utopian Socialism of\nFourier, of Owen, of Saint-Simon; thus the Liberalism of 1800 is\nlinked with the movement of 1700. Thus Democratic doctrines are bound\nto the Encyclopaedists. Each doctrine tends to direct human activity\ntowards a definite object; but the activity of man reacts upon the\ndoctrine, transforms it and adapts it to new requirements, or\novercomes it. Doctrine therefore should be an act of life and not an\nacademy of words. In this lie the pragmatic veins of Fascism, its will\nto power, its will to be, its position with regard to \"violence\" and\nits value.\n\n\n10. The Value and Mission of the State.\n\nThe capital point of the Fascist doctrine is the conception of the\nState, its essence, the work to be accomplished, its final aims. In\nthe conception of Fascism, the State is an absolute before which\nindividuals and groups are relative. Individuals and groups are\n\"conceivable\" inasmuch as they are in the State. The Liberal State\ndoes not direct the movement and the material and spiritual evolution\nof collectivity, but limits itself to recording the results; the\nFascist State has its conscious conviction, a will of its own, and for\nthis reason it is called an \"ethical\" State.\n\nIn 1929 at the first quinquiennial assembly of the Regime, I said: \"In\nFascism the State is not a night-watchman, only occupied with the\npersonal safety of the citizens, nor is it an organisation with purely\nmaterial aims, such as that of assuring a certain well-being and a\ncomparatively easy social cohabitation. A board of directors would be\nquite sufficient to deal with this. It is not a purely political\ncreation, either, detached from the complex material realities of the\nlife of individuals and of peoples. The State as conceived and enacted\nby Fascism, is a spiritual and moral fact since it gives concrete form\nto the political, juridical and economical organisation of the\ncountry. Furthermore this organisation as it rises and develops, is a\nmanifestation of the spirit. The State is a safeguard of interior and\nexterior safety but it is also the keeper and the transmitter of the\nspirit of the people, as it was elaborated throughout the ages, in its\nlanguage, customs and beliefs. The State is not only the present, but\nit is also the past and above all the future. The State, inasmuch as\nit transcends the short limits of individual lives, represents the\nimmanent conscience of the nation. The forms in which the State\nexpresses itself are subject to changes, but the necessity for the\nState remains. It is the State which educates the citizens in civic\nvirtues, gives them a consciousness of their mission, presses them\ntowards unity; the State harmonizes their interests through justice,\ntransmits to prosperity the attainments of thoughts, in science, in\nart, in laws, in the solidarity of mankind. The State leads men from\nprimitive tribal life to that highest expression of human power which\nis Empire; links up through the centuries the names of those who died\nto preserve its integrity or to obey its laws; holds up the memory of\nthe leaders who increased its territory, and of the geniuses who cast\nthe light of glory upon it, as an example for future generations to\nfollow. When the conception of the State declines and disintegrating\nor centrifugal tendencies prevail, whether of individuals or groups,\nthen the national society is about to set.\"\n\n\n11. The Unity of the State and the Contradictions of Capitalism.\n\nFrom 1929 onwards to the present day, the universal, political and\neconomical evolution has still further strengthened the doctrinal\npositions. The giant who rules is the State. The one who can resolve\nthe dramatic contradictions of capital is the State. What is called\nthe crisis cannot be resolved except by the State and in the State.\nWhere are the ghosts of Jules Simon who, at the dawn of Liberalism,\nproclaimed that \"the State must set to work to make itself useless and\nprepare its resignation?\" Of MacCulloch who, in the second half of the\npast century, proclaimed that the State must abstain from ruling? What\nwould the Englishman Bentham say today to the continual and\ninevitably-invoked intervention of the State in the sphere of\neconomics, while, according to his theories, industry should ask no\nmore of the State than to be left in peace? Or the German Humboldt\naccording to whom an \"idle\" State was the best kind of State? It is\ntrue that the second wave of Liberal economists were less extreme than\nthe first, and Adam Smith himself opened the door--if only very\ncautiously--to let State intervention into the economic field.\n\nIf Liberalism signifies the individual--then Fascism signifies the\nState. But the Fascist State is unique of its kind and is an original\ncreation. It is not reactionary but revolutionary, inasmuch as it\nanticipates the solution of certain universal problems such as those\nwhich are treated elsewhere: 1) in the political sphere, by the\nsubdivisions of parties, in the preponderance of parliamentarism and\nin the irresponsibilities of assemblies; 2) in the economic sphere, by\nthe functions of trade unions which are becoming constantly more\nnumerous and powerful, whether in the labour or industrial fields, in\ntheir conflicts and combinations, and 3) in the moral sphere by the\nnecessity of order, discipline, obedience to those who are the moral\ndictators of the country. Fascism wants the State to be strong,\norganic and at the same time supported on a wide popular basis. As\npart of its task the Fascist State has penetrated the economic field:\nthrough the corporative, social and educational institutions which it\nhas created. The presence of the State is felt in the remotest\nramifications of the country. And in the State also, all the\npolitical, economic and spiritual forces of the nation circulate,\nmustered in their respective organisations.\n\nA State which stands on the support of millions of individuals who\nrecognise it, who believe in it, who are ready to serve it, is not the\ntyrannical State of the mediaeval lord. It has nothing in common with\nthe absolutist States before or after '89. The individual in the\nFascist State is not annulled but rather multiplied, just as in a\nregiment a soldier is not diminished, but multiplied by the number of\nhis comrades.\n\nThe Fascist State organises the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin\nafterward to the individual; it has limited the useless or harmful\nliberties and has preserved the essential ones. The one to judge in\nthis respect is not the individual but the State.\n\n\n12. The Fascist State and Religion.\n\nThe Fascist State is not indifferent to the presence or the fact of\nreligion in general nor to the presence of that particular established\nreligion, which is Italian Catholicism. The State has no theology, but\nit has morality. In the Fascist State religion is considered as one of\nthe most profound manifestations of the spirit; it is therefore not\nonly respected, but defended and protected. The Fascist State does not\ncreate its own \"God,\" as Robespierre wanted to do at a certain moment\nin the frenzies of the Convention; nor does it vainly endeavour to\ncancel the idea of God from the mind as Bolschevism tries to do.\nFascism respects the God of the ascetics, of the saints and of the\nheroes. It also respects God as he is conceived and prayed to in the\ningenuous and primitive heart of the people.\n\n\n13. Empire and Discipline.\n\nThe Fascist State is a will expressing power and empire. The Roman\ntradition here becomes an idea of force. In the Fascist doctrine,\nempire is not only a territorial or a military, or a commercial\nexpression: it is a moral and a spiritual one. An empire can be\nthought of, for instance, as a nation which directly or indirectly\nguides other nations--without the need of conquering a single mile of\nterritory. For Fascism, the tendency to empire, that is to say the\nexpansion of nations, is a manifestation of vitality, its contrary\n(the stay-at-home attitude) is a sign of decadence. Peoples who rise,\nor who suddenly flourish again, are imperialistic; peoples who die are\npeoples who abdicate. Fascism is a doctrine which most adequately\nrepresents the tendencies, the state of mind of a people like the\nItalian people, which is rising again after many centuries of\nabandonment and of foreign servitude.\n\nBut empire requires discipline, the coordination of forces, duty and\nsacrifice. This explains many phases of the practical action of the\nregime. It explains the aims of many of the forces of the State and\nthe necessary severity against those who would oppose themselves to\nthis spontaneous and irresistible movement of the Italy of the\nTwentieth century by trying to appeal to the discredited ideologies of\nthe Nineteenth century, which have been repudiated wherever great\nexperiments of political and social transformation have been daringly\nundertaken.\n\nNever more than at the present moment have the nations felt such a\nthirst for an authority, for a direction, for order. If every century\nhas its own peculiar doctrine, there are a thousand indications that\nFascism is that of the present century. That it is a doctrine of life\nis shown by the fact that it has created a faith; that the faith has\ntaken possession of the mind is demonstrated by the fact that Fascism\nhas had its Fallen and its martyrs.\n\nFascism has now attained in the world an universality over all\ndoctrines. Being realised, it represents an epoch in the history of\nthe human mind.\n\n\n\n\nTHE POLITICAL DOCTRINE OF FASCISM[1]\nBY HIS EXCELLENCY ALFREDO ROCCO\nPREMIER MUSSOLINI'S ENDORSEMENT OF SIGNOR ROCCO'S SPEECH\n\n\nThe following message was sent by Benito Mussolini, the Premier of\nItaly, to Signor Rocco after he had delivered his speech at Perugia.\n\n\n     Dear Rocco,\n\n     I have just read your magnificent address which I endorse\n     throughout. You have presented in a masterful way the\n     doctrine of Fascism. For Fascism has a doctrine, or, if you\n     will, a particular philosophy with regard to all the\n     questions which beset the human mind today. All Italian\n     Fascists should read your discourse and derive from it both\n     the clear formulation of the basic principles of our program\n     as well as the reasons why Fascism must be systematically,\n     firmly, and rationally inflexible in its uncompromising\n     attitude towards other parties. Thus and only thus can the\n     word become flesh and the ideas be turned into deeds.\n\n     Cordial greetings,\n     MUSSOLINI.\n\n\n\n\nFascism As Action, As Feeling, and As Thought\n\nMuch has been said, and is now being said for or against this complex\npolitical and social phenomenon which in the brief period of six years\nhas taken complete hold of Italian life and, spreading beyond the\nborders of the Kingdom, has made itself felt in varying degrees of\nintensity throughout the world. But people have been much more eager\nto extol or to deplore than to understand--which is natural enough in\na period of tumultuous fervor and of political passion. The time has\nnot yet arrived for a dispassionate judgment. For even I, who noticed\nthe very first manifestations of this great development, saw its\nsignificance from the start and participated directly in its first\ndoings, carefully watching all its early uncertain and changing\ndevelopments, even I do not feel competent to pass definite judgment.\nFascism is so large a part of myself that it would be both arbitrary\nand absurd for me to try to dissociate my personality from it, to\nsubmit it to impartial scrutiny in order to evaluate it coldly and\naccurately. What can be done, however, and it seldom is attempted, is\nto make inquiry into the phenomenon which shall not merely consider\nits fragmentary and adventitious aspects, but strive to get at its\ninner essence. The undertaking may not be easy, but it is necessary,\nand no occasion for attempting it is more suitable than the present\none afforded me by my friends of Perugia. Suitable it is in time\nbecause, at the inauguration of a course of lectures and lessons\nprincipally intended to illustrate that old and glorious trend of the\nlife and history of Italy which takes its name from the humble saint\nof Assisi, it seemed natural to connect it with the greatest\nachievement of modern Italy, different in so many ways from the\nFranciscan movement, but united with it by the mighty common current\nof Italian History. It is suitable as well in place because at\nPerugia, which witnessed the growth of our religious ideas, of our\npolitical doctrines and of our legal science in the course of the most\nglorious centuries of our cultural history, the mind is properly\ndisposed and almost oriented towards an investigation of this nature.\n\nFirst of all let us ask ourselves if there is a political doctrine of\nFascism; if there is any ideal content in the Fascist state. For in\norder to link Fascism, both as concept and system, with the history of\nItalian thought and find therein a place for it, we must first show\nthat it is thought; that it is a doctrine. Many persons are not quite\nconvinced that it is either the one or the other; and I am not\nreferring solely to those men, cultured or uncultured, as the case may\nbe and very numerous everywhere, who can discern in this political\ninnovation nothing except its local and personal aspects, and who know\nFascism only as the particular manner of behavior of this or that\nwell-known Fascist, of this or that group of a certain town; who\ntherefore like or dislike the movement on the basis of their likes and\ndislikes for the individuals who represent it. Nor do I refer to those\nintelligent, and cultivated persons, very intelligent indeed and very\ncultivated, who because of their direct or indirect allegiance to the\nparties that have been dispossessed by the advent of Fascism, have a\nnatural cause of resentment against it and are therefore unable to\nsee, in the blindness of hatred, anything good in it. I am referring\nrather to those--and there are many in our ranks too--who know Fascism\nas action and feeling but not yet as thought, who therefore have an\nintuition but no comprehension of it.\n\nIt is true that Fascism is, above all, action and sentiment and that\nsuch it must continue to be. Were it otherwise, it could not keep up\nthat immense driving force, that renovating power which it now\npossesses and would merely be the solitary meditation of a chosen few.\nOnly because it is feeling and sentiment, only because it is the\nunconscious reawakening of our profound racial instinct, has it the\nforce to stir the soul of the people, and to set free an irresistible\ncurrent of national will. Only because it is action, and as such\nactualizes itself in a vast organization and in a huge movement, has\nit the conditions for determining the historical course of\ncontemporary Italy.\n\nBut Fascism is thought as well and it has a theory, which is an\nessential part of this historical phenomenon, and which is responsible\nin a great measure for the successes that have been achieved. To the\nexistence of this ideal content of Fascism, to the truth of this\nFascist logic we ascribe the fact that though we commit many errors of\ndetail, we very seldom go astray on fundamentals, whereas all the\nparties of the opposition, deprived as they are of an informing,\nanimating principle, of a unique directing concept, do very often wage\ntheir war faultlessly in minor tactics, better trained as they are in\nparliamentary and journalistic manoeuvres, but they constantly break\ndown on the important issues. Fascism, moreover, considered as action,\nis a typically Italian phenomenon and acquires a universal validity\nbecause of the existence of this coherent and organic doctrine. The\noriginality of Fascism is due in great part to the autonomy of its\ntheoretical principles. For even when, in its external behavior and in\nits conclusions, it seems identical with other political creeds, in\nreality it possesses an inner originality due to the new spirit which\nanimates it and to an entirely different theoretical approach.\n\n\nCommon Origins and Common Background of Modern Political Doctrines:\nFrom Liberalism to Socialism\n\nModern political thought remained, until recently, both in Italy and\noutside of Italy under the absolute control of those doctrines which,\nproceeding from the Protestant Reformation and developed by the\nadepts of natural law in the XVII and XVIII centuries, were firmly\ngrounded in the institutions and customs of the English, of the\nAmerican, and of the French Revolutions. Under different and sometimes\nclashing forms these doctrines have left a determining imprint upon\nall theories and actions both social and political, of the XIX and XX\ncenturies down to the rise of Fascism. The common basis of all these\ndoctrines, which stretch from Longuet, from Buchanan, and from\nAlthusen down to Karl Marx, to Wilson and to Lenin is a social and\nstate concept which I shall call mechanical or atomistic.\n\nSociety according to this concept is merely a sum total of\nindividuals, a plurality which breaks up into its single components.\nTherefore the ends of a society, so considered, are nothing more than\nthe ends of the individuals which compose it and for whose sake it\nexists. An atomistic view of this kind is also necessarily\nanti-historical, inasmuch as it considers society in its spatial\nattributes and not in its temporal ones; and because it reduces social\nlife to the existence of a single generation. Society becomes thus a\nsum of determined individuals, viz., the generation living at a given\nmoment. This doctrine which I call atomistic and which appears to be\nanti-historical, reveals from under a concealing cloak a strongly\nmaterialistic nature. For in its endeavors to isolate the present from\nthe past and the future, it rejects the spiritual inheritance of ideas\nand sentiments which each generation receives from those preceding and\nhands down to the following generation thus destroying the unity and\nthe spiritual life itself of human society.\n\nThis common basis shows the close logical connection existing between\nall political doctrines; the substantial solidarity, which unites all\nthe political movements, from Liberalism to Socialism, that until\nrecently have dominated Europe. For these political schools differ\nfrom one another in their methods, but all agree as to the ends to be\nachieved. All of them consider the welfare and happiness of\nindividuals to be the goal of society, itself considered as composed\nof individuals of the present generation. All of them see in society\nand in its juridical organization, the state, the mere instrument and\nmeans whereby individuals can attain their ends. They differ only in\nthat the methods pursued for the attainment of these ends vary\nconsiderably one from the other.\n\nThus the Liberals insist that the best manner to secure the welfare of\nthe citizens as individuals is to interfere as little as possible with\nthe free development of their activities and that therefore the\nessential task of the state is merely to coordinate these several\nliberties in such a way as to guarantee their coexistence. Kant, who\nwas without doubt the most powerful and thorough philosopher of\nliberalism, said, \"man, who is the end, cannot be assumed to have the\nvalue of an instrument.\" And again, \"justice, of which the state is\nthe specific organ, is the condition whereby the freedom of each is\nconditioned upon the freedom of others, according to the general law\nof liberty.\"\n\nHaving thus defined the task of the state, Liberalism confines itself\nto the demand of certain guarantees which are to keep the state from\noverstepping its functions as general coordinator of liberties and\nfrom sacrificing the freedom of individuals more than is absolutely\nnecessary for the accomplishment of its purpose. All the efforts are\ntherefore directed to see to it that the ruler, mandatory of all and\nentrusted with the realization, through and by liberty, of the\nharmonious happiness of everybody, should never be clothed with undue\npower. Hence the creation of a system of checks and limitations\ndesigned to keep the rulers within bounds; and among these, first and\nforemost, the principle of the division of powers, contrived as a\nmeans for weakening the state in its relation to the individual, by\nmaking it impossible for the state ever to appear, in its dealings\nwith citizens, in the full plenitude of sovereign powers; also the\nprinciple of the participation of citizens in the lawmaking power, as\na means for securing, in behalf of the individual, a direct check on\nthis, the strongest branch, and an indirect check on the entire\ngovernment of the state. This system of checks and limitations, which\ngoes by the name of constitutional government resulted in a moderate\nand measured liberalism. The checking power was exercised only by\nthose citizens who were deemed worthy and capable, with the result\nthat a small \u00e9lite was made to represent legally the entire body\npolitic for whose benefit this r\u00e9gime was instituted.\n\nIt was evident, however, that this moderate system, being\nfundamentally illogical and in contradiction with the very principles\nfrom which it proceeded, would soon become the object of serious\ncriticism. For if the object of society and of the state is the\nwelfare of individuals, severally considered, how is it possible to\nadmit that this welfare can be secured by the individuals themselves\nonly through the possibilities of such a liberal r\u00e9gime? The\ninequalities brought about both by nature and by social organizations\nare so numerous and so serious, that, for the greater part,\nindividuals abandoned to themselves not only would fail to attain\nhappiness, but would also contribute to the perpetuation of their\ncondition of misery and dejection. The state therefore cannot limit\nitself to the merely negative function of the defense of liberty. It\nmust become active, in behalf of everybody, for the welfare of the\npeople. It must intervene, when necessary, in order to improve the\nmaterial, intellectual, and moral conditions of the masses; it must\nfind work for the unemployed, instruct and educate the people, and\ncare for health and hygiene. For if the purpose of society and of the\nstate is the welfare of individuals, and if it is just that these\nindividuals themselves control the attainment of their ends, it\nbecomes difficult to understand why Liberalism should not go the whole\ndistance, why it should see fit to distinguish certain individuals\nfrom the rest of the mass, and why the functions of the people should\nbe restricted to the exercise of a mere check. Therefore the state, if\nit exists for all, must be governed by all, and not by a small\nminority: if the state is for the people, sovereignty must reside in\nthe people: if all individuals have the right to govern the state,\nliberty is no longer sufficient; equality must be added: and if\nsovereignty is vested in the people, the people must wield all\nsovereignty and not merely a part of it. The power to check and curb\nthe government is not sufficient. The people must be the government.\nThus, logically developed, Liberalism leads to Democracy, for\nDemocracy contains the promises of Liberalism but oversteps its\nlimitations in that it makes the action of the state positive,\nproclaims the equality of all citizens through the dogma of popular\nsovereignty. Democracy therefore necessarily implies a republican form\nof government even though at times, for reasons of expediency, it\ntemporarily adjusts itself to a monarchical r\u00e9gime.\n\nOnce started on this downward grade of logical deductions it was\ninevitable that this atomistic theory of state and society should pass\non to a more advanced position. Great industrial developments and the\nexistence of a huge mass of working men, as yet badly treated and in a\ncondition of semi-servitude, possibly endurable in a r\u00e9gime of\ndomestic industry, became intolerable after the industrial revolution.\nHence a state of affairs which towards the middle of the last century\nappeared to be both cruel and threatening. It was therefore natural\nthat the following question be raised: \"If the state is created for\nthe welfare of its citizens, severally considered, how can it tolerate\nan economic system which divides the population into a small minority\nof exploiters, the capitalists, on one side, and an immense multitude\nof exploited, the working people, on the other?\" No! The state must\nagain intervene and give rise to a different and less iniquitous\neconomic organization, by abolishing private property, by assuming\ndirect control of all production, and by organizing it in such a way\nthat the products of labor be distributed solely among those who\ncreate them, viz., the working classes. Hence we find Socialism, with\nits new economic organization of society, abolishing private ownership\nof capital and of the instruments and means of production, socializing\nthe product, suppressing the extra profit of capital, and turning over\nto the working class the entire output of the productive processes. It\nis evident that Socialism contains and surpasses Democracy in the same\nway that Democracy comprises and surpasses Liberalism, being a more\nadvanced development of the same fundamental concept. Socialism in its\nturn generates the still more extreme doctrine of Bolshevism which\ndemands the violent suppression of the holders of capital, the\ndictatorship of the proletariat, as means for a fairer economic\norganization of society and for the rescue of the laboring classes\nfrom capitalistic exploitation.\n\nThus Liberalism, Democracy, and Socialism, appear to be, as they are\nin reality, not only the offspring of one and the same theory of\ngovernment, but also logical derivations one of the other. Logically\ndeveloped Liberalism leads to Democracy; the logical development of\nDemocracy issues into Socialism. It is true that for many years, and\nwith some justification, Socialism was looked upon as antithetical to\nLiberalism. But the antithesis is purely relative and breaks down as\nwe approach the common origin and foundation of the two doctrines, for\nwe find that the opposition is one of method, not of purpose. The end\nis the same for both, viz., the welfare of the individual members of\nsociety. The difference lies in the fact that Liberalism would be\nguided to its goal by liberty, whereas Socialism strives to attain it\nby the collective organization of production. There is therefore no\nantithesis nor even a divergence as to the nature and scope of the\nstate and the relation of individuals to society. There is only a\ndifference of evaluation of the means for bringing about these ends\nand establishing these relations, which difference depends entirely on\nthe different economic conditions which prevailed at the time when the\nvarious doctrines were formulated. Liberalism arose and began to\nthrive in the period of small industry; Socialism grew with the rise\nof industrialism and of world-wide capitalism. The dissension\ntherefore between these two points of view, or the antithesis, if we\nwish so to call it, is limited to the economic field. Socialism is at\nodds with Liberalism only on the question of the organization of\nproduction and of the division of wealth. In religious, intellectual,\nand moral matters it is liberal, as it is liberal and democratic in\nits politics. Even the anti-liberalism and anti-democracy of\nBolshevism are in themselves purely contingent. For Bolshevism is\nopposed to Liberalism only in so far as the former is revolutionary,\nnot in its socialistic aspect. For if the opposition of the Bolsheviki\nto liberal and democratic doctrines were to continue, as now seems\nmore and more probable, the result might be a complete break between\nBolshevism and Socialism notwithstanding the fact that the ultimate\naims of both are identical.\n\n\nFascism as an Integral Doctrine of Sociality Antithetical to the\nAtomism of Liberal, Democratic, and Socialistic Theories\n\nThe true antithesis, not to this or that manifestation of the\nliberal-democratic-socialistic conception of the state but to the\nconcept itself, is to be found in the doctrine of Fascism. For while\nthe disagreement between Liberalism and Democracy, and between\nLiberalism and Socialism lies in a difference of method, as we have\nsaid, the rift between Socialism, Democracy, and Liberalism on one\nside and Fascism on the other is caused by a difference in concept. As\na matter of fact, Fascism never raises the question of methods, using\nin its political praxis now liberal ways, now democratic means and at\ntimes even socialistic devices. This indifference to method often\nexposes Fascism to the charge of incoherence on the part of\nsuperficial observers, who do not see that what counts with us is the\nend and that therefore even when we employ the same means we act with\na radically different spiritual attitude and strive for entirely\ndifferent results. The Fascist concept then of the nation, of the\nscope of the state, and of the relations obtaining between society and\nits individual components, rejects entirely the doctrine which I said\nproceeded from the theories of natural law developed in the course of\nthe XVI, XVII, and XVIII centuries and which form the basis of the\nliberal, democratic, and socialistic ideology.\n\nI shall not try here to expound this doctrine but shall limit myself\nto a brief r\u00e9sum\u00e9 of its fundamental concepts.\n\nMan--the political animal--according to the definition of Aristotle,\nlives and must live in society. A human being outside the pale of\nsociety is an inconceivable thing--a non-man. Humankind in its\nentirety lives in social groups that are still, today, very numerous\nand diverse, varying in importance and organization from the tribes of\nCentral Africa to the great Western Empires. These various societies\nare fractions of the human species each one of them endowed with a\nunified organization. And as there is no unique organization of the\nhuman species, there is not \"one\" but there are \"several\" human\nsocieties. Humanity therefore exists solely as a biological concept\nnot as a social one.\n\nEach society on the other hand exists in the unity of both its\nbiological and its social contents. Socially considered it is a\nfraction of the human species endowed with unity of organization for\nthe attainment of the peculiar ends of the species.\n\nThis definition brings out all the elements of the social phenomenon\nand not merely those relating to the preservation and perpetuation of\nthe species. For man is not solely matter; and the ends of the human\nspecies, far from being the materialistic ones we have in common with\nother animals, are, rather, and predominantly, the spiritual\nfinalities which are peculiar to man and which every form of society\nstrives to attain as well as its stage of social development allows.\nThus the organization of every social group is more or less pervaded\nby the spiritual influxes of: unity of language, of culture, of\nreligion, of tradition, of customs, and in general of feeling and of\nvolition, which are as essential as the material elements: unity of\neconomic interests, of living conditions, and of territory. The\ndefinition given above demonstrates another truth, which has been\nignored by the political doctrines that for the last four centuries\nhave been the foundations of political systems, viz., that the social\nconcept has a biological aspect, because social groups are fractions\nof the human species, each one possessing a peculiar organization, a\nparticular rank in the development of civilization with certain needs\nand appropriate ends, in short, a life which is really its own. If\nsocial groups are then fractions of the human species, they must\npossess the same fundamental traits of the human species, which means\nthat they must be considered as a succession of generations and not as\na collection of individuals.\n\nIt is evident therefore that as the human species is not the total of\nthe living human beings of the world, so the various social groups\nwhich compose it are not the sum of the several individuals which at a\ngiven moment belong to it, but rather the infinite series of the past,\npresent, and future generations constituting it. And as the ends of\nthe human species are not those of the several individuals living at a\ncertain moment, being occasionally in direct opposition to them, so\nthe ends of the various social groups are not necessarily those of the\nindividuals that belong to the groups but may even possibly be in\nconflict with such ends, as one sees clearly whenever the preservation\nand the development of the species demand the sacrifice of the\nindividual, to wit, in times of war.\n\nFascism replaces therefore the old atomistic and mechanical state\ntheory which was at the basis of the liberal and democratic doctrines\nwith an organic and historic concept. When I say organic I do not wish\nto convey the impression that I consider society as an organism after\nthe manner of the so-called \"organic theories of the state\"; but\nrather to indicate that the social groups as fractions of the species\nreceive thereby a life and scope which transcend the scope and life of\nthe individuals identifying themselves with the history and finalities\nof the uninterrupted series of generations. It is irrelevant in this\nconnection to determine whether social groups, considered as fractions\nof the species, constitute organisms. The important thing is to\nascertain that this organic concept of the state gives to society a\ncontinuous life over and beyond the existence of the several\nindividuals.\n\nThe relations therefore between state and citizens are completely\nreversed by the Fascist doctrine. Instead of the liberal-democratic\nformula, \"society for the individual,\" we have, \"individuals for\nsociety\" with this difference however: that while the liberal\ndoctrines eliminated society, Fascism does not submerge the individual\nin the social group. It subordinates him, but does not eliminate him;\nthe individual as a part of his generation ever remaining an element\nof society however transient and insignificant he may be. Moreover the\ndevelopment of individuals in each generation, when coordinated and\nharmonized, conditions the development and prosperity of the entire\nsocial unit.\n\nAt this juncture the antithesis between the two theories must appear\ncomplete and absolute. Liberalism, Democracy, and Socialism look upon\nsocial groups as aggregates of living individuals; for Fascism they\nare the recapitulating unity of the indefinite series of generations.\nFor Liberalism, society has no purposes other than those of the\nmembers living at a given moment. For Fascism, society has historical\nand immanent ends of preservation, expansion, improvement, quite\ndistinct from those of the individuals which at a given moment compose\nit; so distinct in fact that they may even be in opposition. Hence the\nnecessity, for which the older doctrines make little allowance, of\nsacrifice, even up to the total immolation of individuals, in behalf\nof society; hence the true explanation of war, eternal law of mankind,\ninterpreted by the liberal-democratic doctrines as a degenerate\nabsurdity or as a maddened monstrosity.\n\nFor Liberalism, society has no life distinct from the life of the\nindividuals, or as the phrase goes: solvitur in singularitates. For\nFascism, the life of society overlaps the existence of individuals and\nprojects itself into the succeeding generations through centuries and\nmillennia. Individuals come into being, grow, and die, followed by\nothers, unceasingly; social unity remains always identical to itself.\nFor Liberalism, the individual is the end and society the means; nor\nis it conceivable that the individual, considered in the dignity of an\nultimate finality, be lowered to mere instrumentality. For Fascism,\nsociety is the end, individuals the means, and its whole life consists\nin using individuals as instruments for its social ends. The state\ntherefore guards and protects the welfare and development of\nindividuals not for their exclusive interest, but because of the\nidentity of the needs of individuals with those of society as a whole.\nWe can thus accept and explain institutions and practices, which like\nthe death penalty, are condemned by Liberalism in the name of the\npreeminence of individualism.\n\nThe fundamental problem of society in the old doctrines is the\nquestion of the rights of individuals. It may be the right to freedom\nas the Liberals would have it; or the right to the government of the\ncommonwealth as the Democrats claim it, or the right to economic\njustice as the Socialists contend; but in every case it is the right\nof individuals, or groups of individuals (classes). Fascism on the\nother hand faces squarely the problem of the right of the state and of\nthe duty of individuals. Individual rights are only recognized in so\nfar as they are implied in the rights of the state. In this\npreeminence of duty we find the highest ethical value of Fascism.\n\n\nThe Problems of Liberty, of Government, and of Social Justice in the\nPolitical Doctrine of Fascism\n\nThis, however, does not mean that the problems raised by the other\nschools are ignored by Fascism. It means simply that it faces them and\nsolves them differently, as, for example, the problem of liberty.\n\nThere is a Liberal theory of freedom, and there is a Fascist concept\nof liberty. For we, too, maintain the necessity of safeguarding the\nconditions that make for the free development of the individual; we,\ntoo, believe that the oppression of individual personality can find no\nplace in the modern state. We do not, however, accept a bill of rights\nwhich tends to make the individual superior to the state and to\nempower him to act in opposition to society. Our concept of liberty is\nthat the individual must be allowed to develop his personality in\nbehalf of the state, for these ephemeral and infinitesimal elements of\nthe complex and permanent life of society determine by their normal\ngrowth the development of the state. But this individual growth must\nbe normal. A huge and disproportionate development of the individual\nof classes, would prove as fatal to society as abnormal growths are to\nliving organisms. Freedom therefore is due to the citizen and to\nclasses on condition that they exercise it in the interest of society\nas a whole and within the limits set by social exigencies, liberty\nbeing, like any other individual right, a concession of the state.\nWhat I say concerning civil liberties applies to economic freedom as\nwell. Fascism does not look upon the doctrine of economic liberty as\nan absolute dogma. It does not refer economic problems to individual\nneeds, to individual interest, to individual solutions. On the\ncontrary it considers the economic development, and especially the\nproduction of wealth, as an eminently social concern, wealth being for\nsociety an essential element of power and prosperity. But Fascism\nmaintains that in the ordinary run of events economic liberty serves\nthe social purposes best; that it is profitable to entrust to\nindividual initiative the task of economic development both as to\nproduction and as to distribution; that in the economic world\nindividual ambition is the most effective means for obtaining the best\nsocial results with the least effort. Therefore, on the question also\nof economic liberty the Fascists differ fundamentally from the\nLiberals; the latter see in liberty a principle, the the Fascists\naccept it as a method. By the Liberals, freedom is recognized in the\ninterest of the citizens; the Fascists grant it in the interest of\nsociety. In other terms, Fascists make of the individual an economic\ninstrument for the advancement of society, an instrument which they\nuse so long as it functions and which they subordinate when no longer\nserviceable. In this guise Fascism solves the eternal problem of\neconomic freedom and of state interference, considering both as mere\nmethods which may or may not be employed in accordance with the social\nneeds of the moment.\n\nWhat I have said concerning political and economic Liberalism applies\nalso to Democracy. The latter envisages fundamentally the problem of\nsovereignty; Fascism does also, but in an entirely different manner.\nDemocracy vests sovereignty in the people, that is to say, in the mass\nof human beings. Fascism discovers sovereignty to be inherent in\nsociety when it is juridically organized as a state. Democracy\ntherefore turns over the government of the state to the multitude of\nliving men that they may use it to further their own interests;\nFascism insists that the government be entrusted to men capable of\nrising above their own private interests and of realizing the\naspirations of the social collectivity, considered in its unity and in\nits relation to the past and future. Fascism therefore not only\nrejects the dogma of popular sovereignty and substitutes for it that\nof state sovereignty, but it also proclaims that the great mass of\ncitizens is not a suitable advocate of social interests for the reason\nthat the capacity to ignore individual private interests in favor of\nthe higher demands of society and of history is a very rare gift and\nthe privilege of the chosen few. Natural intelligence and cultural\npreparation are of great service in such tasks. Still more valuable\nperhaps is the intuitiveness of rare great minds, their traditionalism\nand their inherited qualities. This must not however be construed to\nmean that the masses are not to be allowed to exercise any influence\non the life of the state. On the contrary, among peoples with a great\nhistory and with noble traditions, even the lowest elements of society\npossess an instinctive discernment of what is necessary for the\nwelfare of the race, which in moments of great historical crises\nreveals itself to be almost infallible. It is therefore as wise to\nafford to this instinct the means of declaring itself as it is\njudicious to entrust the normal control of the commonwealth to a\nselected \u00e9lite.\n\nAs for Socialism, the Fascist doctrine frankly recognizes that the\nproblem raised by it as to the relations between capital and labor is\na very serious one, perhaps the central one of modern life. What\nFascism does not countenance is the collectivistic solution proposed\nby the Socialists. The chief defect of the socialistic method has been\nclearly demonstrated by the experience of the last few years. It does\nnot take into account human nature, it is therefore outside of\nreality, in that it will not recognize that the most powerful spring\nof human activities lies in individual self-interest and that\ntherefore the elimination from the economic field of this interest\nresults in complete paralysis. The suppression of private ownership of\ncapital carries with it the suppression of capital itself, for capital\nis formed by savings and no one will want to save, but will rather\nconsume all he makes if he knows he cannot keep and hand down to his\nheirs the results of his labors. The dispersion of capital means the\nend of production since capital, no matter who owns it, is always an\nindispensable tool of production. Collective organization of\nproduction is followed therefore by the paralysis of production since,\nby eliminating from the productive mechanism the incentive of\nindividual interest, the product becomes rarer and more costly.\nSocialism then, as experience has shown, leads to increase in\nconsumption, to the dispersion of capital and therefore to poverty. Of\nwhat avail is it, then, to build a social machine which will more\njustly distribute wealth if this very wealth is destroyed by the\nconstruction of this machine? Socialism committed an irreparable error\nwhen it made of private property a matter of justice while in truth it\nis a problem of social utility. The recognition of individual property\nrights, then, is a part of the Fascist doctrine not because of its\nindividual bearing but because of its social utility.\n\nWe must reject, therefore, the socialistic solution but we cannot\nallow the problem raised by the Socialists to remain unsolved, not\nonly because justice demands a solution but also because the\npersistence of this problem in liberal and democratic r\u00e9gimes has been\na menace to public order and to the authority of the state. Unlimited\nand unrestrained class self-defense, evinced by strikes and lockouts,\nby boycotts and sabotage, leads inevitably to anarchy. The Fascist\ndoctrine, enacting justice among the classes in compliance with a\nfundamental necessity of modern life, does away with class\nself-defense, which, like individual self-defense in the days of\nbarbarism, is a source of disorder and of civil war.\n\nHaving reduced the problem of these terms, only one solution is\npossible, the realization of justice among the classes by and through\nthe state. Centuries ago the state, as the specific organ of justice,\nabolished personal self-defense in individual controversies and\nsubstituted for it state justice. The time has now come when class\nself-defense also must be replaced by state justice. To facilitate the\nchange Fascism has created its own syndicalism. The suppression of\nclass self-defense does not mean the suppression of class defense\nwhich is an inalienable necessity of modern economic life. Class\norganization is a fact which cannot be ignored but it must be\ncontrolled, disciplined, and subordinated by the state. The syndicate,\ninstead of being, as formerly, an organ of extra-legal defense, must\nbe turned into an organ of legal defense which will become judicial\ndefense as soon as labor conflicts become a matter of judicial\nsettlement. Fascism therefore has transformed the syndicate, that old\nrevolutionary instrument of syndicalistic socialists, into an\ninstrument of legal defense of the classes both within and without the\nlaw courts. This solution may encounter obstacles in its development;\nthe obstacles of malevolence, of suspicion of the untried, of\nerroneous calculation, etc., but it is destined to triumph even though\nit must advance through progressive stages.\n\n\nHistorical Value of the Doctrine of Fascism\n\nI might carry this analysis farther but what I have already said is\nsufficient to show that the rise of a Fascist ideology already gives\nevidence of an upheaval in the intellectual field as powerful as the\nchange that was brought about in the XVII and XVIII centuries by the\nrise and diffusion of those doctrines of _ius naturale_ which go under\nthe name of \"Philosophy of the French Revolution.\" The philosophy of\nthe French Revolution formulated certain principles, the authority of\nwhich, unquestioned for a century and a half, seemed so final that\nthey were given the attribute of immortality. The influence of these\nprinciples was so great that they determined the formation of a new\nculture, of a new civilization. Likewise the fervor of the ideas that\ngo to make up the Fascist doctrine, now in its inception but destined\nto spread rapidly, will determine the course of a new culture and of a\nnew conception of civil life. The deliverance of the individual from\nthe state carried out in the XVIII century will be followed in the XX\ncentury by the rescue of the state from the individual. The period of\nauthority, of social obligations, of \"hierarchical\" subordination will\nsucceed the period of individualism, of state feebleness, of\ninsubordination.\n\nThis innovating trend is not and cannot be a return to the Middle\nAges. It is a common but an erroneous belief that the movement,\nstarted by the Reformation and heightened by the French Revolution,\nwas directed against mediaeval ideas and institutions. Rather than as\na negation, this movement should be looked upon as the development and\nfulfillment of the doctrines and practices of the Middle Ages.\nSocially and politically considered the Middle Ages wrought\ndisintegration and anarchy; they were characterized by the gradual\nweakening and ultimate extinction of the state, embodied in the Roman\nEmpire, driven first to the East, then back to France, thence to\nGermany, a shadow of its former self; they were marked by the steady\nadvance of the forces of usurpation, destructive of the state and\nreciprocally obnoxious; they bore the imprints of a triumphant\nparticularism. Therefore the individualistic and anti-social movement\nof the XVII and XVIII centuries was not directed against the Middle\nAges, but rather against the restoration of the state by great\nnational monarchies. If this movement destroyed mediaeval institutions\nthat had survived the Middle Ages and had been grafted upon the new\nstates, it was in consequence of the struggle primarily waged against\nthe state. The spirit of the movement was decidedly mediaeval. The\nnovelty consisted in the social surroundings in which it operated and\nin its relation to new economic developments. The individualism of the\nfeudal lords, the particularism of the cities and of the corporations\nhad been replaced by the individualism and the particularism of the\nbourgeoisie and of the popular classes.\n\nThe Fascist ideology cannot therefore look back to the Middle Ages, of\nwhich it is a complete negation. The Middle Ages spell disintegration;\nFascism is nothing if not sociality. It is if anything the beginning\nof the end of the Middle Ages prolonged four centuries beyond the end\nordinarily set for them and revived by the social democratic anarchy\nof the past thirty years. If Fascism can be said to look back at all\nit is rather in the direction of ancient Rome whose social and\npolitical traditions at the distance of fifteen centuries are being\nrevived by Fascist Italy.\n\nI am fully aware that the value of Fascism, as an intellectual\nmovement, baffles the minds of many of its followers and supporters\nand is denied outright by its enemies. There is no malice in this\ndenial, as I see it, but rather an incapacity to comprehend. The\nliberal-democratic-socialistic ideology has so completely and for so\nlong a time dominated Italian culture that in the minds of the\nmajority of people trained by it, it has assumed the value of an\nabsolute truth, almost the authority of a natural law. Every faculty\nof self-criticism is suppressed in the minds and this suppression\nentails an incapacity for understanding that time alone can change. It\nwill be advisable therefore to rely mainly upon the new generations\nand in general upon persons whose culture is not already fixed. This\ndifficulty to comprehend on the part of those who have been thoroughly\ngrounded by a different preparation in the political and social\nsciences explains in part why Fascism has not been wholly successful\nwith the intellectual classes and with mature minds, and why on the\nother hand it has been very successful with young people, with women,\nin rural districts, and among men of action unencumbered by a fixed\nand set social and political education. Fascism moreover, as a\ncultural movement, is just now taking its first steps. As in the case\nwith all great movements, action regularly outstrips thought. It was\nthus at the time of the Protestant Reformation and of the\nindividualistic reaction of the XVII and XVIII centuries. The English\nrevolution occurred when the doctrines of natural law were coming into\nbeing and the theoretical development of the liberal and democratic\ntheories followed the French Revolution.\n\nAt this point it will not be very difficult to assign a fitting place\nin history to this great trend of thought which is called Fascism and\nwhich, in spite of the initial difficulties, already gives clear\nindication of the magnitude of its developments.\n\nThe liberal-democratic speculation both in its origin and in the\nmanner of its development appears to be essentially a non-Italian\nformation. Its connection with the Middle Ages already shows it to be\nforeign to the Latin mind, the mediaeval disintegration being the\nresult of the triumph of Germanic individualism over the political\nmentality of the Romans. The barbarians, boring from within and\nhacking from without, pulled down the great political structure raised\nby Latin genius and put nothing in its place. Anarchy lasted eight\ncenturies during which time only one institution survived and that a\nRoman one--the Catholic Church. But, as soon as the laborious process\nof reconstruction was started with the constitution of the great\nnational states backed by the Roman Church the Protestant Reformation\nset in followed by the individualistic currents of the XVII and XVIII\ncenturies, and the process of disintegration was started anew. This\nanti-state tendency was the expression of the Germanic spirit and it\ntherefore became predominant among the Germanic peoples and wherever\nGermanism had left a deep imprint even if afterward superficially\ncovered by a veneer of Latin culture. It is true that Marsilius from\nPadua is an Italian writing for Ludwig the Bavarian, but the other\nwriters who in the XIV century appear as forerunners of the liberal\ndoctrines are not Italians: Occam and Wycliff are English; Oresme is\nFrench. Among the advocates of individualism in the XVI century who\nprepared the way for the triumph of the doctrines of natural law in\nthe subsequent centuries, Hotman and Languet are French, Buchanan is\nScotch. Of the great authorities of natural law, Grotius and Spinosa\nare Dutch; Locke is English; l'Abb\u00e9 de St. Pierre, Montesquieu,\nd'Argenson, Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot and the encyclopaedists are\nFrench; Althusius, Pufendorf, Kant, Fichte are German.\n\nItaly took no part in the rise and development of the doctrines of\nnatural law. Only in the XIX century did she evince a tardy interest\nin these doctrines, just as she tardily contributed to them at the\ndose of the XVIII century through the works of Beccaria and Filangeri.\n\nWhile therefore in other countries such as France, England, Germany,\nand Holland, the general tradition in the social and political\nsciences worked in behalf of anti-state individualism, and therefore\nof liberal and democratic doctrines, Italy, on the other hand, clung\nto the powerful legacy of its past in virtue of which she proclaims\nthe rights of the state, the preeminence of its authority, and the\nsuperiority of its ends. The very fact that the Italian political\ndoctrine in the Middle Ages linked itself with the great political\nwriters of antiquity, Plato and Aristotle, who in a different manner\nbut with an equal firmness advocated a strong state and the\nsubordination of individuals to it, is a sufficient index of the\norientation of political philosophy in Italy. We all know how thorough\nand crushing the authority of Aristotle was in the Middle Ages. But\nfor Aristotle the spiritual cement of the state is \"virtue\" not\nabsolute virtue but political virtue, which is social devotion. His\nstate is made up solely of its citizens, the citizens being either\nthose who defend it with their arms or who govern it as magistrates.\nAll others who provide it with the materials and services it needs are\nnot citizens. They become such only in the corrupt forms of certain\ndemocracies. Society is therefore divided into two classes, the free\nmen or citizens who give their time to noble and virtuous occupations\nand who profess their subjection to the state, and the laborers and\nslaves who work for the maintenance of the former. No man in this\nscheme is his own master. The slaves belong to the freemen, and the\nfreemen belong to the state.\n\nIt was therefore natural that St. Thomas Aquinas the greatest\npolitical writer of the Middle Ages should emphasize the necessity of\nunity in the political field, the harm of plurality of rulers, the\ndangers and damaging effects of demagogy. The good of the state, says\nSt. Thomas Aquinas, is unity. And who can procure unity more fittingly\nthan he who is himself one? Moreover the government must follow, as\nfar as possible, the course of nature and in nature power is always\none. In the physical body only one organ is dominant--the heart; in\nthe spirit only one faculty has sway--reason. Bees have one sole\nruler; and the entire universe one sole sovereign--God. Experience\nshows that the countries, which are ruled by many, perish because of\ndiscord while those that are ruled over by one enjoy peace, justice,\nand plenty. The States which are not ruled by one are troubled by\ndissensions, and toil unceasingly. On the contrary the states which\nare ruled over by one king enjoy peace, thrive in justice and are\ngladdened by affluence.[2] The rule of the multitudes can not be\nsanctioned, for where the crowd rules it oppresses the rich as would a\ntyrant.[3]\n\nItaly in the Middle Ages presented a curious phenomenon: while in\npractice the authority of the state was being dissolved into a\nmultiplicity of competing sovereignties, the theory of state unity and\nauthority was kept alive in the minds of thinkers by the memories of\nthe Roman Imperial tradition. It was this memory that supported for\ncenturies the fiction of the universal Roman Empire when in reality it\nexisted no longer. Dante's _De Monarchia_ deduced the theory of this\nempire conceived as the unity of a strong state. \"Quod potest fieri\nper unum melius est per unum fieri quam plura,\" he says in the XIV\nchapter of the first book, and further on, considering the citizen as\nan instrument for the attainment of the ends of the state, he\nconcludes that the individual must sacrifice himself for his country.\n\"Si pars debet se exponere pro salute totius, cum homo siti pars\nquaedam civitatis ... homo pro patria debet exponere se ipsum.\" (lib.\nII. 8).\n\nThe Roman tradition, which was one of practice but not of\ntheories--for Rome constructed the most solid state known to history\nwith extraordinary statesmanship but with hardly any political\nwritings--influenced considerably the founder of modern political\nscience, Nicolo Machiavelli, who was himself in truth not a creator of\ndoctrines but a keen observer of human nature who derived from the\nstudy of history practical maxims of political import. He freed the\nscience of politics from the formalism of the scholastics and brought\nit close to concrete reality. His writings, an inexhaustible mine of\npractical remarks and precious observations, reveal dominant in him\nthe state idea, no longer abstract but in the full historical\nconcreteness of the national unity of Italy. Machiavelli therefore is\nnot only the greatest of modern political writers, he is also the\ngreatest of our countrymen in full possession of a national Italian\nconsciousness. To liberate Italy, which was in his day \"enslaved, torn\nand pillaged,\" and to make her more powerful, he would use any means,\nfor to his mind the holiness of the end justified them completely. In\nthis he was sharply rebuked by foreigners who were not as hostile to\nhis means as they were fearful of the end which he propounded. He\nadvocated therefore the constitution of a strong Italian state,\nsupported by the sacrifices and by the blood of the citizens, not\ndefended by mercenary troops; well-ordered internally, aggressive and\nbent on expansion. \"Weak republics,\" he said, \"have no determination\nand can never reach a decision.\" (Disc. I. c. 38). \"Weak states were\never dubious in choosing their course, and slow deliberations are\nalways harmful.\" (Disc. I. c. 10). And again: \"Whoso undertakes to\ngovern a multitude either in a r\u00e9gime of liberty or in a monarchy,\nwithout previously making sure of those who are hostile to the new\norder of things builds a short-lived state.\" (Disc. I. c. 16). And\nfurther on \"the dictatorial authority helped and did not harm the\nRoman republic\" (Disc. I. c. 34), and \"Kings and republics lacking in\nnational troops both for offense and defense should be ashamed of\ntheir existence.\" (Disc. I. c. 21). And again: \"Money not only does\nnot protect you but rather it exposes you to plundering assaults. Nor\ncan there be a more false opinion than that which says that money is\nthe sinews of war. Not money but good soldiers win battles.\" (Disc. I.\nII. c. 10). \"The country must be defended with ignominy or with glory\nand in either way it is nobly defended.\" (Disc. III. c. 41). \"And with\ndash and boldness people often capture what they never would have\nobtained by ordinary means.\" (Disc. III. c. 44). Machiavelli was not\nonly a great political authority, he taught the mastery of energy and\nwill. Fascism learns from him not only its doctrines but its action as\nwell.\n\nDifferent from Machiavelli's, in mental attitude, in cultural\npreparation, and in manner of presentation, G.B. Vico must yet be\nconnected with the great Florentine from whom in a certain way he\nseems to proceed. In the heyday of \"natural law\" Vico is decidedly\nopposed to _ius naturale_ and in his attacks against its advocates,\nGrotius, Seldenus and Pufendorf, he systematically assails the\nabstract, rationalistic, and utilitarian principles of the XVIII\ncentury. As Montemayor justly says:[4] \"While the 'natural jurists',\nbasing justice and state on utility and interest and grounding human\ncertitude on reason, were striving to draft permanent codes and\nconstruct the perfect state, Vico strongly asserted the social nature\nof man, the ethical character of the juridical consciousness and its\ngrowth through the history of humanity rather than in sacred history.\nVico therefore maintains that doctrines must begin with those subjects\nwhich take up and explain the entire course of civilization.\nExperience and not ratiocination, history and not reason must help\nhuman wisdom to understand the civil and political regimes which were\nthe result not of reason or philosophy, but rather of common sense, or\nif you will of the social consciousness of man\" and farther on (pages\n373-374), \"to Vico we owe the conception of history in its fullest\nsense as magistra vitae, the search after the humanity of history, the\nprinciple which makes the truth progress with time, the discovery of\nthe political 'course' of nations. It is Vico who uttered the eulogy\nof the patrician 'heroic hearts' of the 'patres patriae' first\nfounders of states, magnanimous defenders of the commonwealth and wise\ncounsellors of politics. To Vico we owe the criticism of democracies,\nthe affirmation of their brief existence, of their rapid\ndisintegration at the hands of factions and demagogues, of their lapse\nfirst into anarchy, then into monarchy, when their degradation does\nnot make them a prey of foreign oppressors. Vico conceived of civil\nliberty as subjection to law, as just subordination, of the private to\nthe public interests, to the sway of the state. It was Vico who\nsketched modern society as a world of nations each one guarding its\nown imperium, fighting just and not inhuman wars. In Vico therefore we\nfind the condemnation of pacifism, the assertion that right is\nactualized by bodily force, that without force, right is of no avail,\nand that therefore 'qui ab iniuriis se tueri non potest servus est.'\"\n\nIt is not difficult to discern the analogies between these\naffirmations and the fundamental views and the spirit of Fascism. Nor\nshould we marvel at this similarity. Fascism, a strictly Italian\nphenomenon, has its roots in the Risorgimento and the Risorgimento was\ninfluenced undoubtedly by Vico.\n\nIt would be inexact to affirm that the philosophy of Vico dominated\nthe Risorgimento. Too many elements of German, French, and English\ncivilizations had been added to our culture during the first half of\nthe XIX century to make this possible, so much so that perhaps Vico\nmight have remained unknown to the makers of Italian unity if another\npowerful mind from Southern Italy, Vincenzo Cuoco, had not taken it\nupon himself to expound the philosophy of Vico in those very days in\nwhich the intellectual preparation of the Risorgimento was being\ncarried on.\n\nAn adequate account of Cuoco's doctrines would carry me too far.\nMontemayor, in the article quoted above, gives them considerable\nattention. He quotes among other things Cuoco's arraignment of\nDemocracy: \"Italy has fared badly at the hand of Democracy which has\nwithered to their roots the three sacred plants of liberty, unity,\nand independence. If we wish to see these trees flourish again let us\nprotect them in the future from Democracy.\"\n\nThe influence of Cuoco, an exile at Milan, exerted through his\nwritings, his newspaper articles, and Vichian propaganda, on the\nItalian patriots is universally recognized. Among the regular readers\nof his _Giornale Italiano_ we find Monti and Foscolo. Clippings of his\narticles were treasured by Mazzini and Manzoni, who often acted as his\nsecretary, called him his \"master in politics.\"[5]\n\nThe influence of the Italian tradition summed up and handed down by\nCuoco was felt by Mazzini whose interpretation of the function of the\ncitizen as duty and mission is to be connected with Vico's doctrine\nrather than with the philosophic and political doctrines of the French\nRevolution.\n\n\"Training for social duty,\" said Mazzini, \"is essentially and\nlogically unitarian. Life for it is but a duty, a mission. The norm\nand definition of such mission can only be found in a collective term\nsuperior to all the individuals of the country--in the people, in the\nnation. If there is a collective mission, a communion of duty ... it\ncan only be represented in the national unity.\"[6] And farther on:\n\"The declaration of rights, which all constitutions insist in copying\nslavishly from the French, express only those of the period ... which\nconsidered the individual as the end and pointed out only one half of\nthe problem\" and again, \"assume the existence of one of those crises\nthat threaten the life of the nation, and demand the active sacrifice\nof all its sons ... will you ask the citizens to face martyrdom in\nvirtue of their rights? You have taught men that society was solely\nconstituted to guarantee their rights and now you ask them to\nsacrifice one and all, to suffer and die for the safety of the\n'nation?'\"[7]\n\nIn Mazzini's conception of the citizen as instrument for the\nattainment of the nation's ends and therefore submissive to a higher\nmission, to the duty of supreme sacrifice, we see the anticipation of\none of the fundamental points of the Fascist doctrine.\n\nUnfortunately, the autonomy of the political thought of Italy,\nvigorously established in the works of Vico, nobly reclaimed by\nVincenzo Cuoco, kept up during the struggles of the Risorgimento in\nspite of the many foreign influences of that period, seemed to exhaust\nitself immediately after the unification. Italian political thought\nwhich had been original in times of servitude, became enslaved in the\ndays of freedom.\n\nA powerful innovating movement, issuing from the war and of which\nFascism is the purest expression, was to restore Italian thought in\nthe sphere of political doctrine to its own traditions which are the\ntraditions of Rome.\n\nThis task of intellectual liberation, now slowly being accomplished,\nis no less important than the political deliverance brought about by\nthe Fascist Revolution. It is a great task which continues and\nintegrates the Risorgimento; it is now bringing to an end, after the\ncessation of our political servitude, the intellectual dependence of\nItaly.\n\nThanks to it, Italy again speaks to the world and the world listens to\nItaly. It is a great task and a great deed and it demands great\nefforts. To carry it through, we must, each one of us, free ourselves\nof the dross of ideas and mental habits which two centuries of foreign\nintellectualistic tradition have heaped upon us; we must not only take\non a new culture but create for ourselves a new soul. We must\nmethodically and patiently contribute something towards the organic\nand complete elaboration of our doctrine, at the same time supporting\nit both at home and abroad with untiring devotion. We ask this effort\nof renovation and collaboration of all Fascists, as well as of all who\nfeel themselves to be Italians. After the hour of sacrifice comes the\nhour of unyielding efforts. To our work, then, fellow countrymen, for\nthe glory of Italy!\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 1: Translated from the Italian.]\n\n[Footnote 2: \"civitates quae non reguntur ab uno dissenionibus\nlaborant et absque pace fluctuant. E contrario civitates quae sub uno\nrege reguntur pace gaudent, iustitia florent et affluentia rerum\nlaetantur.\" (De reg. princ. I. c. 2).]\n\n[Footnote 3: \"ideo manifustum est, quod multitudo est sicut tyrannuus,\nquare operationes multitudinis sunt iniustae. ergo non expedit\nmultitudinem dominari.\" (Comm. In Polit. L. III. lectio VIII).]\n\n[Footnote 4: Rivista internazionale di filosofia del diritto V. 351.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Montemayor. Riv. Int. etc. p. 370.]\n\n[Footnote 6: della unit\u00e0 italiana. Scritti, Vol. III.]\n\n[Footnote 7: I sistemi e la democrazia. Scritti, Vol. VII.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nTHE PHILOSOPHIC BASIS OF FASCISM\nBY GIOVANNI GENTILE\n\n\nFor the Italian nation the World War was the solution of a deep\nspiritual crisis. They willed and fought it long before they felt and\nevaluated it. But they willed, fought, felt and evaluated it in a\ncertain spirit which Italy's generals and statesmen exploited, but\nwhich also worked on them, conditioning their policies and their\naction. The spirit in question was not altogether clear and\nself-consistent. That it lacked unanimity was particularly apparent\njust before and again just after the war when feelings were not\nsubject to war discipline. It was as though the Italian character were\ncrossed by two different currents which divided it into two\nirreconcilable sections. One need think only of the days of Italian\nneutrality and of the debates that raged between Interventionists and\nNeutralists. The ease with which the most inconsistent ideas were\npressed into service by both parties showed that the issue was not\nbetween two opposing political opinions, two conflicting concepts of\nhistory, but actually between two different temperaments, two\ndifferent souls.\n\nFor one kind of person the important point was to fight the war,\neither on the side of Germany or against Germany: but in either event\nto fight the war, without regard to specific advantages--to fight the\nwar in order that at last the Italian nation, created rather by\nfavoring conditions than by the will of its people to be a nation,\nmight receive its test in blood, such a test as only war can bring by\nuniting all citizens in a single thought, a single passion, a single\nhope, emphasizing to each individual that all have something in\ncommon, something transcending private interests.\n\nThis was the very thing that frightened the other kind of person, the\nprudent man, the realist, who had a clear view of the mortal risks a\nyoung, inexperienced, badly prepared nation would be running in such a\nwar, and who also saw--a most significant point--that, all things\nconsidered, a bargaining neutrality would surely win the country\ntangible rewards, as great as victorious participation itself.\n\nThe point at issue was just that: the Italian Neutralists stood for\nmaterial advantages, advantages tangible, ponderable, palpable; the\nInterventionists stood for moral advantages, intangible, impalpable,\nimponderable--imponderable at least on the scales used by their\nantagonists. On the eve of the war these two Italian characters stood\nfacing each other, scowling and irreconcilable--the one on the\naggressive, asserting itself ever more forcefully through the various\norgans of public opinion; the other on the defensive, offering\nresistance through the Parliament which in those days still seemed to\nbe the basic repository of State sovereignty. Civil conflict seemed\ninevitable in Italy, and civil war was in fact averted only because\nthe King took advantage of one of his prerogatives and declared war\nagainst the Central Powers.\n\nThis act of the King was the first decisive step toward the solution\nof the crisis.\n\n\nII\n\nThe crisis had ancient origins. Its roots sank deep into the inner\nspirit of the Italian people.\n\nWhat were the creative forces of the _Risorgimento_? The \"Italian\npeople,\" to which some historians are now tending to attribute an\nimportant if not a decisive role in our struggle for national unity\nand independence, was hardly on the scene at all. The active agency\nwas always an idea become a person--it was one or several determined\nwills which were fixed on determined goals. There can be no question\nthat the birth of modern Italy was the work of the few. And it could\nnot be otherwise. It is always the few who represent the\nself-consciousness and the will of an epoch and determine what its\nhistory shall be; for it is they who see the forces at their disposal\nand through those forces actuate the one truly active and productive\nforce--their own will.\n\nThat will we find in the song of the poets and the ideas of the\npolitical writers, who know how to use a language harmonious with a\nuniversal sentiment or with a sentiment capable of becoming universal.\nIn the case of Italy, in all our bards, philosophers and leaders, from\nAlfieri to Foscolo, from Leopardi to Manzoni, from Mazzini to\nGioberti, we are able to pick up the threads of a new fabric, which is\na new kind of thought, a new kind of soul, a new kind of Italy. This\nnew Italy differed from the old Italy in something that was very\nsimple but yet was of the greatest importance: this new Italy took\nlife seriously, while the old one did not. People in every age had\ndreamed of an Italy and talked of an Italy. The notion of Italy had\nbeen sung in all kinds of music, propounded in all kinds of\nphilosophy. But it was always an Italy that existed in the brain of\nsome scholar whose learning was more or less divorced from reality.\nNow reality demands that convictions be taken seriously, that ideas\nbecome actions. Accordingly it was necessary that this Italy, which\nwas an affair of brains only, become also an affair of hearts, become,\nthat is, something serious, something alive. This, and no other, was\nthe meaning of Mazzini's great slogan: \"Thought and Action.\" It was\nthe essence of the great revolution which he preached and which he\naccomplished by instilling his doctrine into the hearts of others. Not\nmany others--a small minority! But they were numerous enough and\npowerful enough to raise the question where it could be answered--in\nItalian public opinion (taken in conjunction with the political\nsituation prevailing in the rest of Europe). They were able to\nestablish the doctrine that life is not a game, but a mission; that,\ntherefore, the individual has a law and a purpose in obedience to\nwhich and in fulfillment of which he alone attains his true value;\nthat, accordingly, he must make sacrifices, now of personal comfort,\nnow of private interest, now of life itself.\n\nNo revolution ever possessed more markedly than did the Italian\n_Risorgimento_ this characteristic of ideality, of thought preceding\naction. Our revolt was not concerned with the material needs of life,\nnor did it spring from elementary and widely diffused sentiments\nbreaking out in popular uprisings and mass disturbances. The movements\nof 1847 and 1848 were demonstrations, as we would say today, of\n\"intellectuals\"; they were efforts toward a goal on the part of\na minority of patriots who were standard bearers of an ideal\nand were driving governments and peoples toward its attainment.\nIdealism--understood as faith in the advent of an ideal reality, as a\nmanner of conceiving life not as fixed within the limits of existing\nfact, but as incessant progress and transformation toward the level of a\nhigher law which controls men with the very force of the idea--was the\nsum and substance of Mazzini's teaching; and it supplied the most\nconspicuous characteristic of our great Italian revolution. In this\nsense all the patriots who worked for the foundation of the new kingdom\nwere Mazzinians--Gioberti, Cavour, Victor Emmanuel, Garibaldi. To be\nsure, our writers of the first rank, such as Manzoni and Rosmini, had no\nhistorical connection with Mazzini; but they had the same general\ntendency as Mazzini. Working along diverging lines, they all came\ntogether on the essential point: that true life is not the life which\nis, but also the life which ought to be. It was a conviction essentially\nreligious in character, essentially anti-materialistic.\n\n\nIII\n\nThis religious and idealistic manner of looking at life, so\ncharacteristic of the _Risorgimento_, prevails even beyond the heroic\nage of the revolution and the establishment of the Kingdom. It\nsurvives down through Ricasoli, Lanza, Sella and Minghetti, down, that\nis, to the occupation of Rome and the systemization of our national\nfinances. The parliamentary overturn of 1876, indeed, marks not the\nend, but rather an interruption, on the road that Italy had been\nfollowing since the beginning of the century. The outlook then\nchanged, and not by the capriciousness or weakness of men, but by a\nnecessity of history which it would be idiotic in our day to deplore.\nAt that time the fall of the Right, which had ruled continuously\nbetween 1861 and 1876, seemed to most people the real conquest of\nfreedom.\n\nTo be sure the Right cannot be accused of too great scruple in\nrespecting the liberties guaranteed by our Constitution; but the real\ntruth was that the Right conceived liberty in a sense directly\nopposite to the notions of the Left. The Left moved from the\nindividual to the State: the Right moved from the State to the\nindividual. The men of the left thought of \"the people\" as merely the\nagglomerate of the citizens composing it. They therefore made the\nindividual the center and the point of departure of all the rights and\nprerogatives which a r\u00e9gime of freedom was bound to respect.\n\nThe men of the Right, on the contrary, were firmly set in the notion\nthat no freedom can be conceived except within the State, that freedom\ncan have no important content apart from a solid r\u00e9gime of law\nindisputably sovereign over the activities and the interests of\nindividuals. For the Right there could be no individual freedom not\nreconcilable with the authority of the State. In their eyes the\ngeneral interest was always paramount over private interests. The law,\ntherefore, should have absolute efficacy and embrace the whole life of\nthe people.\n\nThis conception of the Right was evidently sound; but it involved\ngreat dangers when applied without regard to the motives which\nprovoked it. Unless we are careful, too much law leads to stasis and\ntherefore to the annihilation of the life which it is the State's\nfunction to regulate but which the State cannot suppress. The State\nmay easily become a form indifferent to its content--something\nextraneous to the substance it would regulate. If the law comes upon\nthe individual from without, if the individual is not absorbed in the\nlife of the State, the individual feels the law and the State as\nlimitations on his activity, as chains which will eventually strangle\nhim unless he can break them down.\n\nThis was just the feeling of the men of '76. The country needed a\nbreath of air. Its moral, economic, and social forces demanded the\nright to develop without interference from a law which took no account\nof them. This was the historical reason for the overturn of that year;\nand with the transference of power from Right to Left begins the\nperiod of growth and development in our nation: economic growth in\nindustry, commerce, railroads, agriculture; intellectual growth in\nscience, education. The nation had received its form from above. It\nhad now to struggle to its new level, giving to a State which already\nhad its constitution, its administrative and political organization,\nits army and its finance, a living content of forces springing from\nindividual initiative prompted by interests which the _Risorgimento_,\nabsorbed in its great ideals, had either neglected or altogether\ndisregarded.\n\nThe accomplishment of this constitutes the credit side of the balance\nsheet of King Humbert I. It was the error of King Humbert's greatest\nminister, Francesco Crispi, not to have understood his age. Crispi\nstrove vigorously to restore the authority and the prestige of the\nState as against an individualism gone rampant, to reassert religious\nideals as against triumphant materialism. He fell, therefore, before\nthe assaults of so-called democracy.\n\nCrispi was wrong. That was not the moment for re-hoisting the\ntime-honored banner of idealism. At that time there could be no talk\nof wars, of national dignity, of competition with the Great Powers; no\ntalk of setting limits to personal liberties in the interests of the\nabstract entity called \"State.\" The word \"God,\" which Crispi sometimes\nused, was singularly out of place. It was a question rather of\nbringing the popular classes to prosperity, self-consciousness,\nparticipation in political life. Campaigns against illiteracy, all\nkinds of social legislation, the elimination of the clergy from the\npublic schools, which must be secular and anti-clerical! During this\nperiod Freemasonry became solidly established in the bureaucracy, the\narmy, the judiciary. The central power of the State was weakened and\nmade subservient to the fleeting variations of popular will as\nreflected in a suffrage absolved from all control from above. The\ngrowth of big industry favored the rise of a socialism of Marxian\nstamp as a new kind of moral and political education for our\nproletariat. The conception of humanity was not indeed lost from view:\nbut such moral restraints as were placed on the free individual were\nall based on the feeling that each man must instinctively seek his own\nwell-being and defend it. This was the very conception which Mazzini\nhad fought in socialism, though he rightly saw that it was not\npeculiar to socialism alone, but belonged to any political theory,\nwhether liberal, democratic, or anti-socialistic, which urges men\ntoward the exaction of rights rather than to the fulfillment of\nduties.\n\nFrom 1876 till the Great War, accordingly, we had an Italy that was\nmaterialistic and anti-Mazzinian, though an Italy far superior to the\nItaly of and before Mazzini's time. All our culture, whether in the\nnatural or the moral sciences, in letters or in the arts, was\ndominated by a crude positivism, which conceived of the reality in\nwhich we live as something given, something ready-made, and which\ntherefore limits and conditions human activity quite apart from\nso-called arbitrary and illusory demands of morality. Everybody wanted\n\"facts,\" \"positive facts.\" Everybody laughed at \"metaphysical dreams,\"\nat impalpable realities. The truth was there before the eyes of men.\nThey had only to open their eyes to see it. The Beautiful itself could\nonly be the mirror of the Truth present before us in Nature.\nPatriotism, like all the other virtues based on a religious attitude\nof mind, and which can be mentioned only when people have the courage\nto talk in earnest, became a rhetorical theme on which it was rather\nbad taste to touch.\n\nThis period, which anyone born during the last half of the past\ncentury can well remember, might be called the demo-socialistic phase\nof the modern Italian State. It was the period which elaborated the\ncharacteristically democratic attitude of mind on a basis of personal\nfreedom, and which resulted in the establishment of socialism as the\nprimary and controlling force in the State. It was a period of growth\nand of prosperity during which the moral forces developed during the\n_Risorgimento_ were crowded into the background or off the stage.\n\n\nIV\n\nBut toward the end of the Nineteenth Century and in the first years of\nthe Twentieth a vigorous spirit of reaction began to manifest itself\nin the young men of Italy against the preceding generation's ideas in\npolitics, literature, science and philosophy. It was as though they\nwere weary of the prosaic bourgeois life which they had inherited from\ntheir fathers and were eager to return to the lofty moral enthusiasms\nof their grandfathers. Rosmini and Gioberti had been long forgotten.\nThey were now exhumed, read, discussed. As for Mazzini, an edition of\nhis writings was financed by the State itself. Vico, the great Vico, a\nformidable preacher of idealistic philosophy and a great\nanti-Cartesian and anti-rationalist, became the object of a new cult.\n\nPositivism began forthwith to be attacked by neo-idealism.\nMaterialistic approaches to the study of literature and art were\nrefuted and discredited. Within the Church itself modernism came to\nrouse the Italian clergy to the need of a deeper and more modern\nculture. Even socialism was brought under the philosophical probe and\ncriticized like other doctrines for its weaknesses and errors; and\nwhen, in France, George Sorel went beyond the fallacies of the\nmaterialistic theories of the Marxist social-democracy to his theory\nof syndicalism, our young Italian socialists turned to him. In Sorel's\nideas they saw two things: first, the end of a hypocritical\n\"collaborationism\" which betrayed both proletariat and nation; and\nsecond, faith in a moral and ideal reality for which it was the\nindividual's duty to sacrifice himself, and to defend which, even\nviolence was justified. The anti-parliamentarian spirit and the moral\nspirit of syndicalism brought Italian socialists back within the\nMazzinian orbit.\n\nOf great importance, too, was nationalism, a new movement then just\ncoming to the fore. Our Italian nationalism was less literary and more\npolitical in character than the similar movement in France, because\nwith us it was attached to the old historic Right which had a long\npolitical tradition. The new nationalism differed from the old Right\nin the stress it laid on the idea of \"nation\"; but it was at one with\nthe Right in regarding the State as the necessary premise to the\nindividual rights and values. It was the special achievement of\nnationalism to rekindle faith in the nation in Italian hearts, to\narouse the country against parliamentary socialism, and to lead an\nopen attack on Freemasonry, before which the Italian bourgeoisie was\nterrifiedly prostrating itself. Syndicalists, nationalists, idealists\nsucceeded, between them, in bringing the great majority of Italian\nyouth back to the spirit of Mazzini.\n\nOfficial, legal, parliamentary Italy, the Italy that was\nanti-Mazzinian and anti-idealistic, stood against all this, finding\nits leader in a man of unfailing political intuition, and master as\nwell of the political mechanism of the country, a man sceptical of all\nhigh-sounding words, impatient of complicated concepts, ironical,\ncold, hard-headed, practical--what Mazzini would have called a \"shrewd\nmaterialist.\" In the persons, indeed, of Mazzini and Giolitti, we may\nfind a picture of the two aspects of pre-war Italy, of that\nirreconcilable duality which paralyzed the vitality of the country and\nwhich the Great War was to solve.\n\n\nV\n\nThe effect of the war seemed at first to be quite in an opposite\nsense--to mark the beginning of a general _d\u00e9b\u00e2cle_ of the Italian\nState and of the moral forces that must underlie any State. If\nentrance into the war had been a triumph of ideal Italy over\nmaterialistic Italy, the advent of peace seemed to give ample\njustification to the Neutralists who had represented the latter. After\nthe Armistice our Allies turned their backs upon us. Our victory\nassumed all the aspects of a defeat. A defeatist psychology, as they\nsay, took possession of the Italian people and expressed itself in\nhatred of the war, of those responsible for the war, even of our army\nwhich had won our war. An anarchical spirit of dissolution rose\nagainst all authority. The ganglia of our economic life seemed struck\nwith mortal disease. Labor ran riot in strike after strike. The very\nbureaucracy seemed to align itself against the State. The measure of\nour spiritual dispersion was the return to power of Giolitti--the\nexecrated Neutralist--who for five years had been held up as the\nexponent of an Italy which had died with the war.\n\nBut, curiously enough, it was under Giolitti that things suddenly\nchanged in aspect, that against the Giolittian State a new State\narose. Our soldiers, our genuine soldiers, men who had willed our war\nand fought it in full consciousness of what they were doing, had the\ngood fortune to find as their leaders a man who could express in words\nthings that were in all their hearts and who could make those words\naudible above the tumult.\n\nMussolini had left Italian socialism in 1915 in order to be a more\nfaithful interpreter of \"the Italian People\" (the name he chose for\nhis new paper). He was one of those who saw the necessity of our war,\none of those mainly responsible for our entering the war. Already as a\nsocialist he had fought Freemasonry; and, drawing his inspiration from\nSorel's syndicalism, he had assailed the parliamentary corruption of\nReformist Socialism with the idealistic postulates of revolution and\nviolence. Then, later, on leaving the party and in defending the cause\nof intervention, he had come to oppose the illusory fancies of\nproletarian internationalism with an assertion of the infrangible\nintegrity, not only moral but economic as well, of the national\norganism, affirming therefore the sanctity of country for the working\nclasses as for other classes. Mussolini was a Mazzinian of that\npure-blooded breed which Mazzini seemed somehow always to find in the\nprovince of Romagna. First by instinct, later by reflection, Mussolini\nhad come to despise the futility of the socialists who kept preaching\na revolution which they had neither the power nor the will to bring to\npass even under the most favorable circumstances. More keenly than\nanyone else he had come to feel the necessity of a State which would\nbe a State, of a law which would be respected as law, of an authority\ncapable of exacting obedience but at the same time able to give\nindisputable evidence of its worthiness so to act. It seemed\nincredible to Mussolini that a country capable of fighting and winning\nsuch a war as Italy had fought and won should be thrown into disorder\nand held at the mercy of a handful of faithless politicians.\n\nWhen Mussolini founded his Fasci in Milan in March, 1919, the movement\ntoward dissolution and negation that featured the post-war period in\nItaly had virtually ceased. The Fasci made their appeal to Italians\nwho, in spite of the disappointments of the peace, continued to\nbelieve in the war, and who, in order to validate the victory which\nwas the proof of the war's value, were bent on recovering for Italy\nthat control over her own destinies which could come only through a\nrestoration of discipline and a reorganization of social and political\nforces. From the first, the Fascist Party was not one of believers but\nof action. What it needed was not a platform of principles, but an\nidea which would indicate a goal and a road by which the goal could be\nreached.\n\nThe four years between 1919 and 1923 inclusive were characterized by\nthe development of the Fascist revolution through the action of \"the\nsquads.\" The Fascist \"squads\" were really the force of a State not yet\nborn but on the way to being. In its first period, Fascist \"squadrism\"\ntransgressed the law of the old r\u00e9gime because it was determined to\nsuppress that r\u00e9gime as incompatible with the national State to which\nFascism was aspiring. The March on Rome was not the beginning, it was\nthe end of that phase of the revolution; because, with Mussolini's\nadvent to power, Fascism entered the sphere of legality. After October\n28, 1922, Fascism was no longer at war with the State; it _was_ the\nState, looking about for the organization which would realize Fascism\nas a concept of State. Fascism already had control of all the\ninstruments necessary for the upbuilding of a new State. The Italy of\nGiolitti had been superceded, at least so far as militant politics\nwere concerned. Between Giolitti's Italy and the new Italy there\nflowed, as an imaginative orator once said in the Chamber, \"a torrent\nof blood\" that would prevent any return to the past. The century-old\ncrisis had been solved. The war at last had begun to bear fruit for\nItaly.\n\n\nVI\n\nNow to understand the distinctive essence of Fascism, nothing is more\ninstructive than a comparison of it with the point of view of Mazzini\nto which I have so often referred.\n\nMazzini did have a political conception, but his politic was a sort of\nintegral politic, which cannot be so sharply distinguished from\nmorals, religion, and ideas of life as a whole, as to be considered\napart from these other fundamental interests of the human spirit. If\none tries to separate what is purely political from his religious\nbeliefs, his ethical consciousness and his metaphysical concepts, it\nbecomes impossible to understand the vast influence which his credo\nand his propaganda exerted. Unless we assume the unity of the whole\nman, we arrive not at the clarification but at the destruction of\nthose ideas of his which proved so powerful.\n\nIn the definition of Fascism, the first point to grasp is the\ncomprehensive, or as Fascists say, the \"totalitarian\" scope of its\ndoctrine, which concerns itself not only with political organization\nand political tendency, but with the whole will and thought and\nfeeling of the nation.\n\nThere is a second and equally important point. Fascism is not a\nphilosophy. Much less is it a religion. It is not even a political\ntheory which may be stated in a series of formulae. The significance\nof Fascism is not to be grasped in the special theses which it from\ntime to time assumes. When on occasion it has announced a program, a\ngoal, a concept to be realized in action, Fascism has not hesitated to\nabandon them when in practice these were found to be inadequate or\ninconsistent with the principle of Fascism. Fascism has never been\nwilling to compromise its future. Mussolini has boasted that he is a\n_tempista_, that his real pride is in \"good timing.\" He makes\ndecisions and acts on them at the precise moment when all the\nconditions and considerations which make them feasible and opportune\nare properly matured. This is a way of saying that Fascism returns to\nthe most rigorous meaning of Mazzini's \"Thought and Action,\" whereby\nthe two terms are so perfectly coincident that no thought has value\nwhich is not already expressed in action. The real \"views\" of the\n_Duce_ are those which he formulates and executes at one and the same\ntime.\n\nIs Fascism therefore \"anti-intellectual,\" as has been so often\ncharged? It is eminently anti-intellectual, eminently Mazzinian, that\nis, if by intellectualism we mean the divorce of thought from action,\nof knowledge from life, of brain from heart, of theory from practice.\nFascism is hostile to all Utopian systems which are destined never to\nface the test of reality. It is hostile to all science and all\nphilosophy which remain matters of mere fancy or intelligence. It is\nnot that Fascism denies value to culture, to the higher intellectual\npursuits by which thought is invigorated as a source of action.\nFascist anti-intellectualism holds in scorn a product peculiarly\ntypical of the educated classes in Italy: the _leterato_--the man who\nplays with knowledge and with thought without any sense of\nresponsibility for the practical world. It is hostile not so much to\nculture as to bad culture, the culture which does not educate, which\ndoes not make men, but rather creates pedants and aesthetes, egotists\nin a word, men morally and politically indifferent. It has no use, for\ninstance, for the man who is \"above the conflict\" when his country or\nits important interests are at stake.\n\nBy virtue of its repugnance for \"intellectualism,\" Fascism prefers not\nto waste time constructing abstract theories about itself. But when we\nsay that it is not a system or a doctrine we must not conclude that it\nis a blind praxis or a purely instinctive method. If by system or\nphilosophy we mean a living thought, a principle of universal\ncharacter daily revealing its inner fertility and significance, then\nFascism is a perfect system, with a solidly established foundation and\nwith a rigorous logic in its development; and all who feel the truth\nand the vitality of the principle work day by day for its development,\nnow doing, now undoing, now going forward, now retracing their steps,\naccording as the things they do prove to be in harmony with the\nprinciple or to deviate from it.\n\nAnd we come finally to a third point.\n\nThe Fascist system is not a political system, but it has its center of\ngravity in politics. Fascism came into being to meet serious problems\nof politics in post-war Italy. And it presents itself as a political\nmethod. But in confronting and solving political problems it is\ncarried by its very nature, that is to say by its method, to consider\nmoral, religious, and philosophical questions and to unfold and\ndemonstrate the comprehensive totalitarian character peculiar to it.\nIt is only after we have grasped the political character of the\nFascist principle that we are able adequately to appreciate the deeper\nconcept of life which underlies that principle and from which the\nprinciple springs. The political doctrine of Fascism is not the whole\nof Fascism. It is rather its more prominent aspect and in general its\nmost interesting one.\n\n\nVII\n\nThe politic of Fascism revolves wholly about the concept of the\nnational State; and accordingly it has points of contact with\nnationalist doctrines, along with distinctions from the latter which\nit is important to bear in mind.\n\nBoth Fascism and nationalism regard the State as the foundation of all\nrights and the source of all values in the individuals composing it.\nFor the one as for the other the State is not a consequence--it is a\nprinciple. But in the case of nationalism, the relation which\nindividualistic liberalism, and for that matter socialism also,\nassumed between individual and State is inverted. Since the State is a\nprinciple, the individual becomes a consequence--he is something which\nfinds an antecedent in the State: the State limits him and determines\nhis manner of existence, restricting his freedom, binding him to a\npiece of ground whereon he was born, whereon he must live and will\ndie. In the case of Fascism, State and individual are one and the same\nthings, or rather, they are inseparable terms of a necessary\nsynthesis.\n\nNationalism, in fact, founds the State on the concept of nation, the\nnation being an entity which transcends the will and the life of the\nindividual because it is conceived as objectively existing apart from\nthe consciousness of individuals, existing even if the individual does\nnothing to bring it into being. For the nationalist, the nation exists\nnot by virtue of the citizen's will, but as datum, a fact, of nature.\n\nFor Fascism, on the contrary, the State is a wholly spiritual\ncreation. It is a national State, because, from the Fascist point of\nview, the nation itself is a creation of the mind and is not a\nmaterial presupposition, is not a datum of nature. The nation, says\nthe Fascist, is never really made; neither, therefore, can the State\nattain an absolute form, since it is merely the nation in the latter's\nconcrete, political manifestation. For the Fascist, the State is\nalways _in fieri_. It is in our hands, wholly; whence our very serious\nresponsibility towards it.\n\nBut this State of the Fascists which is created by the consciousness\nand the will of the citizen, and is not a force descending on the\ncitizen from above or from without, cannot have toward the mass of the\npopulation the relationship which was presumed by nationalism.\n\nNationalism identified State with Nation, and made of the nation an\nentity pre\u00ebxisting, which needed not to be created but merely to be\nrecognized or known. The nationalists, therefore, required a ruling\nclass of an intellectual character, which was conscious of the nation\nand could understand, appreciate and exalt it. The authority of the\nState, furthermore, was not a product but a presupposition. It could\nnot depend on the people--rather the people depended on the State and\non the State's authority as the source of the life which they lived\nand apart from which they could not live. The nationalistic State was,\ntherefore, an aristocratic State, enforcing itself upon the masses\nthrough the power conferred upon it by its origins.\n\nThe Fascist State, on the contrary, is a people's state, and, as such,\nthe democratic State _par excellence_. The relationship between State\nand citizen (not this or that citizen, but all citizens) is\naccordingly so intimate that the State exists only as, and in so far\nas, the citizen causes it to exist. Its formation therefore is the\nformation of a consciousness of it in individuals, in the masses.\nHence the need of the Party, and of all the instruments of propaganda\nand education which Fascism uses to make the thought and will of the\n_Duce_ the thought and will of the masses. Hence the enormous task\nwhich Fascism sets itself in trying to bring the whole mass of the\npeople, beginning with the little children, inside the fold of the\nParty.\n\nOn the popular character of the Fascist State likewise depends its\ngreatest social and constitutional reform--the foundation of the\nCorporations of Syndicates. In this reform Fascism took over from\nsyndicalism the notion of the moral and educational function of the\nsyndicate. But the Corporations of Syndicates were necessary in order\nto reduce the syndicates to State discipline and make them an\nexpression of the State's organism from within. The Corporation of\nSyndicates are a device through which the Fascist State goes looking\nfor the individual in order to create itself through the individual's\nwill. But the individual it seeks is not the abstract political\nindividual whom the old liberalism took for granted. He is the only\nindividual who can ever be found, the individual who exists as a\nspecialized productive force, and who, by the fact of his\nspecialization, is brought to unite with other individuals of his same\ncategory and comes to belong with them to the one great economic unit\nwhich is none other than the nation.\n\nThis great reform is already well under way. Toward it nationalism,\nsyndicalism, and even liberalism itself, were already tending in the\npast. For even liberalism was beginning to criticize the older forms\nof political representation, seeking some system of organic\nrepresentation which would correspond to the structural reality of the\nState.\n\nThe Fascist conception of liberty merits passing notice. The _Duce_ of\nFascism once chose to discuss the theme of \"Force or consent?\"; and he\nconcluded that the two terms are inseparable, that the one implies the\nother and cannot exist apart from the other; that, in other words, the\nauthority of the State and the freedom of the citizen constitute a\ncontinuous circle wherein authority presupposes liberty and liberty\nauthority. For freedom can exist only within the State, and the State\nmeans authority. But the State is not an entity hovering in the air\nover the heads of its citizens. It is one with the personality of the\ncitizen. Fascism, indeed, envisages the contrast not as between\nliberty and authority, but as between a true, a concrete liberty which\nexists, and an abstract, illusory liberty which cannot exist.\n\nLiberalism broke the circle above referred to, setting the individual\nagainst the State and liberty against authority. What the liberal\ndesired was liberty as against the State, a liberty which was a\nlimitation of the State; though the liberal had to resign himself, as\nthe lesser of the evils, to a State which was a limitation on liberty.\nThe absurdities inherent in the liberal concept of freedom were\napparent to liberals themselves early in the Nineteenth Century. It is\nno merit of Fascism to have again indicated them. Fascism has its own\nsolution of the paradox of liberty and authority. The authority of the\nState is absolute. It does not compromise, it does not bargain, it\ndoes not surrender any portion of its field to other moral or\nreligious principles which may interfere with the individual\nconscience. But on the other hand, the State becomes a reality only in\nthe consciousness of its individuals. And the Fascist corporative\nState supplies a representative system more sincere and more in touch\nwith realities than any other previously devised and is therefore\nfreer than the old liberal State.\n\n\n\n\nNATIONAL SOCIALISM\n\nBASIC PRINCIPLES, THEIR APPLICATION\nBY THE NAZI PARTY'S FOREIGN ORGANIZATION,\nAND THE USE OF GERMANS ABROAD\nFOR NAZI AIMS\n\nPrepared in the Special Unit\nOf the Division of European Affairs\nBy\nRAYMOND E. MURPHY\nFRANCIS B. STEVENS\nHOWARD TRIVERS\nJOSEPH M. ROLAND\n\nELEMENTS OF NAZI IDEOLOGY\n\n\nThe line of thought which we have traced from Herder to the immediate\nforerunners of the Nazi movement embodies an antidemocratic tradition\nwhich National Socialism has utilized, reduced to simple but\nrelentless terms, and exploited in what is known as the National\nSocialist _Weltanschauung_ for the greater aggrandizement of Nazi\nGermany. The complete agreement between the Nazi ideology and the\npreviously described political concepts of the past is revealed in the\nforthcoming exposition of the main tenets of Naziism.\n\n\nThe Volk\n\nErnst Rudolf Huber, in his basic work _Verfassungsrecht des\ngrossdeutschen Reiches (Constitutional Law of the Greater German\nReich_) (document 1, _post_ p. 155), published in 1939, states:\n\n     The new constitution of the German Reich ... is not a\n     constitution in the formal sense such as was typical of the\n     nineteenth century. The new Reich has no written\n     constitutional declaration, but its constitution exists in\n     the unwritten basic political order of the Reich. One\n     recognizes it in the spiritual powers which fill our people,\n     in the real authority in which our political life is\n     grounded, and in the basic laws regarding the structure of\n     the state which have been proclaimed so far. The advantage\n     of such an unwritten constitution over the formal\n     constitution is that the basic principles do not become\n     rigid but remain in a constant, living movement. Not dead\n     institutions but living principles determine the nature of\n     the new constitutional order.[8]\n\nIn developing his thesis Huber points out that the National Socialist\nstate rests on three basic concepts, the _Volk_ or people, the F\u00fchrer,\nand the movement or party. With reference to the first element, the\n_Volk_, he argues that the democracies develop their concept of the\npeople from the wrong approach: They start with the concept of the\nstate and its functions and consider the people as being made up of\nall the elements which fall within the borders or under the\njurisdiction of the state. National Socialism, on the other hand,\nstarts with the concept of the people, which forms a political unity,\nand builds the state upon this foundation.\n\n     There is no people without an objective unity, but there is\n     also none without a common consciousness of unity. A people\n     is determined by a number of different factors: by racial\n     derivation and by the character of its land, by language and\n     other forms of life, by religion and history, but also by\n     the common consciousness of its solidarity and by its common\n     will to unity. For the concrete concept of a people, as\n     represented by the various peoples of the earth, it is of\n     decisive significance which of these various factors they\n     regard as determinants for the nature of the people. The new\n     German Reich proceeds from the concept of the political\n     people, determined by the natural characteristics and by the\n     historical idea of a closed community. The political people\n     is formed through the uniformity of its natural\n     characteristics. Race is the natural basis of the people ...\n     As a political people the natural community becomes\n     conscious of its solidarity and strives to form itself, to\n     develop itself, to defend itself, to realize itself.\n     \"Nationalism\" is essentially this striving of a people which\n     has become conscious of itself toward self-direction and\n     self-realization, toward a deepening and renewing of its\n     natural qualities.\n\n     This consciousness of self, springing from the consciousness\n     of a historical idea, awakens in a people its will to\n     historical formation: the will to action. The political\n     people is no passive, sluggish mass, no mere object for the\n     efforts of the state at government or protective welfare\n     work ... The great misconception of the democracies is that\n     they can see the active participation of the people only in\n     the form of plebiscites according to the principle of\n     majority. In a democracy the people does not act as a unit\n     but as a complex of unrelated individuals who form\n     themselves into parties ... The new Reich is based on the\n     principle that real action of a self-determining people is\n     only possible according to the principle of leadership and\n     following.[9]\n\nAccording to Huber, geographical considerations play a large part in\nthe shaping of a people:\n\n     The people stands in a double relation, to its lands; it\n     settles and develops the land, but the land also stamps and\n     determines the people ... That a certain territory belongs\n     to a certain people is not justified by state authority\n     alone but it is also determined objectively by its\n     historical, political position. Territory is not merely a\n     field for the exercise of state control but it determines\n     the nature of a people and thereby the historical purpose of\n     the state's activity. England's island position, Italy's\n     Mediterranean position, and Germany's central position\n     between east and west are such historical conditions, which\n     unchangeably form the character of the people.[10]\n\nBut the new Germany is based upon a \"unity and entirety of the\npeople\"[11] which does not stop at geographical boundaries:\n\n     The German people forms a closed community which recognizes\n     no national borders. It is evident that a people has not\n     exhausted its possibilities simply in the formation of a\n     national state but that it represents an independent\n     community which reaches beyond such limits.[12]\n\nThe State justifies itself only so far as is helps the people to\ndevelop itself more fully. In the words of Hitler, quoted by Huber\nfrom _Mein Kampf_, \"It is a basic principle, therefore, that the state\nrepresents not an end but a means. It is a condition for advanced\nhuman culture, but not the cause of it ... Its purpose is in the\nmaintenance and advancement of a community of human beings with common\nphysical and spiritual characteristics.\"[13]\n\nHuber continues:\n\n     In the theory of the folk-Reich _[v\u00f6lkisches Reich_], people\n     and state are conceived as an inseparable unity. The people\n     is the prerequisite for the entire political order; the\n     state does not form the people but the people moulds the\n     state out of itself as the form in which it achieves\n     historical permanence....[14]\n\n     The State is a function of the people, but it is not\n     therefore a subordinate, secondary machine which can be used\n     or laid aside at will. It is the form in which the people\n     attains to historical reality. It is the bearer of the\n     historical continuity of the people, which remains the same\n     in the center of its being in spite of all changes,\n     revolutions, and transformations.[15]\n\nA similar interpretation of the role of the _Volk_ is expounded by\nGottfried Neesse in his _Die Nationalsozialistische Deutsche\nArbeiterpartei--Versuch einer Rechtsdeutung_ (_The National Socialist\nGerman Workers Party--An Attempt at Legal Interpretation_), published\nin 1935. From the National Socialist viewpoint, according to Neesse,\nthe state is regarded not as an organism superior to the people but as\nan organization of the people: \"In contrast to an organism, an\norganization has no inherent legality; it is dependent upon human will\nand has no definite mission of its own. It is a form in which a living\nmass shapes itself into unity, but it has no life of its own.\"[16] The\npeople is the living organism which uses the organization of the state\nas the form in which it can best fulfil its mission. The law which is\ninherent in the people must be realized through the state.\n\nBut the central and basic concept of National Socialist political\ntheory is the concept of the people:\n\n     In contrast to the state, the people form a true organism--a\n     being which leads its own life and follows its own laws,\n     which possesses powers peculiar to itself, and which\n     develops its own nature independent of all state forms....\n     This living unity of the people has its cells in its\n     individual members, and just as in every body there are\n     certain cells to perform certain tasks, this is likewise the\n     case in the body of the people. The individual is bound to\n     his people not only physically but mentally and spiritually\n     and he is influenced by these ties in all his\n     manifestations.[17]\n\nThe elements which go to make up a people are beyond human\ncomprehension, but the most important of them is a uniformity of\nblood, resulting in \"a similarity of nature which manifests itself in\na common language and a feeling of community and is further moulded by\nland and by history.\"[18] \"The unity of the people is increased by its\ncommon destiny and its consciousness of a common mission.\"[19]\n\nLiberalism gave rise to the concept of a \"society-people\"\n(_Gesellschaftsvolk_) which consisted of a sum of individuals, each of\nwhom was supposed to have an inherent significance and to play his own\nindependent part in the political life of the nation. National\nSocialism, on the other hand, has developed, the concept of the\n\"community-people\" (_Gemeinschaftsvolk_) which functions as a uniform\nwhole.[20]\n\n     The people, however, is never politically active as a whole,\n     but only through those who embody its will. The true will of\n     a people can never be determined by a majority vote. It can\n     only display itself in men and in movements, and history\n     will decide whether these men or movements could rightly\n     claim to be the representatives of the people's will.[21]\n\n     Every identification of the state with the people is false\n     from a legal and untenable from a political standpoint ...\n     The state is the law-forming organization and the law serves\n     the inner order of the community; the people is the\n     politically active organism and politics serve the outward\n     maintenance of the community ... But law receives its\n     character from the people and politics must reckon with the\n     state as the first and most important factor.[22]\n\nThe \"nation\" is the product of this interplay and balance between the\nstate and the people. The original and vital force of the people,\nthrough the organization of the state, realizes itself fully in the\nunified communal life of the nation:\n\n     The nation is the complete agreement between organism and\n     organization, the perfect formation of a naturally grown\n     being. ... _Nationalism_ is nothing more than the outwardly\n     directed striving to maintain this inner unity of people and\n     state, and _socialism_ is the inwardly directed striving for\n     the same end.[23]\n\nDr. Herbert Scurla, Government Councilor and Reich's Minister for\nScience, Education, and Folk Culture, in a pamphlet entitled _Die\nGrundgedanken des Nationalsozialismus und das Ausland (Basic\nPrinciples of National Socialism With Special Reference to Foreign\nCountries_), also emphasizes the importance of the _Volk_ in the\nNational Socialist state. Dr. Scurla points out that National\nSocialism does not view the nation in the domocratic sense of a\ncommunity to which the individual may voluntarily adhere.\n\n     The central field of force of the National Socialist\n     consciousness is rather the folk, and this folk is in no\n     case mere individual aggregation, i.e., collectivity as sum\n     of the individuals, but as a unity with a peculiar\n     two-sidedness, at the same time \"essential totality\" (M.H.\n     Boehm). The folk is both a living creature and a spiritual\n     configuration, in which the individuals are included through\n     common racial conditioning, in blood and spirit. It is that\n     force which works on the individual directly \"from within or\n     from the side like a common degree of temperature\" (Kjell\u00e9n)\n     and which collects into the folk whatever according to\n     blood and spirit belongs to it. This folk, point of\n     departure and goal at the same time, is, in the National\n     Socialist world-view, not only the field of force for\n     political order, but as well the central factor of the\n     entire world-picture. Neither individuals, as the epoch of\n     enlightenment envisaged, nor states, as in the system of the\n     dynastic and national state absolutism, nor classes, as\n     conceived by Marxism, are the ultimate realities of the\n     political order, but the peoples, who stand over against one\n     another with the unqualifiable right to a separate existence\n     as natural entities, each with its own essential nature and\n     form. [24]\n\nDr. Scurla claims that National Socialism and Fascism are the\nstrivings of the German and Italian people for final national\nunification along essentially different national lines natural to each\nof them. \"What took place in Germany,\" he asserts, \"was a political\nrevolution of a total nature.\"[25] \"Under revolution,\" he states, \"we\nunderstand rather the penetration of the collective folk-mind\n[_gesamtv\u00f6lkischen Bewusstseins_] into all regions of German\nlife.\"[26] And, he concludes:\n\n     National Socialism is no invented system of rules for the\n     political game, but the world-view of the German people,\n     which experiences itself as a national and social community,\n     and concedes neither to the state nor the class nor the\n     individual any privileges which endanger the security of the\n     community's right to live.[27]\n\nSome of the most striking expressions of the race concept are found in\n_Die Erziehung im dritten Reich_ (_Education in the Third Reich_), by\nFriedrich Alfred Beck, which was published in 1936. It is worthy of\nnote that the tendency which may be observed in Huber (document I,\n_post_ p. 155) and Neesse to associate the ideas of _Volk_ and race is\nvery marked with Beck. \"All life, whether natural or spiritual, all\nhistorical progress, all state forms, and all cultivation by education\nare in the last analysis based upon the racial make-up of the people\nin question.\"[28] _Race_ finds its expression in human life through\nthe phenomenon of the _people_:\n\n     _Race_ and _people_ belong together. National Socialism has\n     restored the concept of the people from its modern\n     shallowness and sees in the people something different from\n     and appreciably greater than a chance social community of\n     men, a grouping of men who have the same external interests.\n     By _people_ we understand an entire living body which is\n     racially uniform and which is held together by common\n     history, common fate, a common mission, and common tasks.\n     Through such an interpretation the people takes on a\n     significance which is only attributed to it in times of\n     great historical importance and which makes it the center,\n     the content, and the goal of all human work. Only that race\n     still possesses vital energy which can still bring its unity\n     to expression in the totality of the people. The people is\n     the space in which race can develop its strength. Race is\n     the vital law of arrangement which gives the people its\n     distinctive form. In the course of time the people undergoes\n     historical transformations, but race prevents the loss of\n     the people's own nature in the course of these\n     transformations. Without the people the race has no life;\n     without race the people has no permanence ... Education,\n     from the standpoint of race and people, is the creation of a\n     form of life in which the racial unity will be preserved\n     through the totality of the people.[29]\n\nBeck describes the politically spiritual National Socialist\npersonality which National Socialist education seeks to develop, in\nthe following terms:\n\n     Socialism is the direction of personal life through\n     dependence on the community, consciousness of the community,\n     feeling for the community, and action in the community;\n     nationalism is the elevation of individual life to a unique\n     (microcosmic) expression of the community in the unity of\n     the personality.[30]\n\nNational Socialist education must stress the heroic life and teach\nGerman youth the importance of fulfilling their duty to the _Volk_.\n\n     Heroism is that force and that conviction which consecrates\n     its whole life to the service of an idea, a faith, a task,\n     or a duty even when it knows that the destruction of its own\n     life is certain ... German life, according to the laws of\n     its ideology, is heroic life ... All German life, every\n     person belonging to the community of Germans must bear\n     heroic character within himself. Heroic life fulfils itself\n     in the daily work of the miner, the farmer, the clerk, the\n     statesman, and the serving self-sacrifice of the mother.\n     Wherever a life is devoted with an all-embracing faith and\n     with its full powers to the service of some value, there is\n     true heroism ... Education to the heroic life is education\n     to the fulfilment of duty ... One must have experienced it\n     repeatedly that the inner fruition of a work in one's own\n     life has nothing to do with material or economic\n     considerations, that man keeps all of his faculties alive\n     through his obligation to his work and his devotion to his\n     duty, and that he uses them in the service of an idea\n     without any regard for practical considerations, before one\n     recognizes the difference between this world of heroic\n     self-sacrifice and the liberalistic world of barter. Because\n     the younger generation has been brought up in this heroic\n     spirit it is no longer understood by the representatives of\n     the former era who judge the values of life according to\n     material advantage ... German life is heroic life. Germany\n     is not a mere community of existence and of interests whose\n     only function is to insure the material and cultural needs\n     of its members, but it also represents an elemental\n     obligation on the part of the members. The eternal Germany\n     cannot be drawn in on the map; it does not consist of the\n     constitution or the laws of the state. This Germany is the\n     community of those who are solemnly bound together and who\n     experience and realize these eternal national values. This\n     Germany is our eternal mission, our most sacred law ... The\n     developing personality must be submerged in the living\n     reality of the people and the nation from earliest youth on,\n     must take an active and a suffering part in it. Furthermore\n     the heroic life demands a recognition and experiencing of\n     the highest value of life which man must serve with all his\n     powers. This value can perhaps be recognized and presented\n     theoretically in the schools but it can only be directly\n     comprehended and personally experienced in the community of\n     the people. Therefore all education must preserve this\n     _direct connection with the community of the people_ and\n     school education must derive from it the form and substance\n     of its instruction.[31]\n\n     This nationalism, which is based upon the laws of life, has\n     nothing in common with the weak and presumptuous patriotism\n     of the liberalistic world; it is not a gift or a favor, not\n     a possession or a privilege, but it is the form of national\n     life which we have won in hard battle and which suits our\n     Nordic-German racial and spiritual heritage. In the\n     nationalistic personality the powers and values which have\n     been established in the socialistic personality will be\n     purposefully exerted for the perfection of the temporal and\n     eternal idea of life.[32]\n\nThe National Socialist idea of totality, therefore, and its\nmanifestation in life of the national community form the principal\nsubstance of education in the Third Reich:\n\n     This idea of totality must be radically distinguished from\n     the liberalistic conception of the mass. According to the\n     liberalistic interpretation the whole consists of a\n     summation of its parts. According to the National Socialist\n     organic conception the whole comes before the parts; it does\n     not arise from the parts but it is already contained in the\n     parts themselves; all parts are microcosmic forms of the\n     whole. This organic conception of the whole is the deepest\n     natural justification of the basic political character of\n     all organic life.[33]\n\nEducation, Beck continues, must present this total unity as it is\nmanifested in the racial character of the people. Race is the most\nessential factor in the natural and spiritual unity of a people, and\nit is also the main factor which separates one people from another.\nThe racial character of the people must determine the substance of\neducation; this substance must be derived primarily from the life of\nthe people.\n\nEven in the specialized field of political science, Nazi education is\nconcerned not with the structure of the state but with the role of the\nindividual in the life of the people:\n\n     National Socialist political science concerns itself not\n     with education to citizenship but with preparation for\n     membership in the German people.... Not the structure of the\n     state but the strength of a people determines the value and\n     the strength of an individual life. The state must be an\n     organization which corresponds to the laws of the people's\n     life and assists in their realization.[34]\n\nSuch indeed is the supreme goal of all National Socialist education:\nto make each individual an expression of \"the eternal German\":\n\n     Whoever wishes fully to realize himself, whoever wishes to\n     experience and embody the eternal German ideal within\n     himself must lift his eyes from everyday life and must\n     listen to the beat of his blood and his conscience ... He\n     must be capable of that superhuman greatness which is ready\n     to cast aside all temporal bonds in the battle for German\n     eternity ... National Socialist education raises the eternal\n     German character into the light of our consciousness ...\n     National Socialism is the eternal law of our German life;\n     the development of the eternal German is the transcendental\n     task of National Socialist education.[35]\n\n\nRacial Supremacy\n\nThe theory of the racial supremacy of the Nordic, i.e., the German,\nwhich was developed by Wagner and Stewart Chamberlain reaches its\nculmination in the writings of Alfred Rosenberg, the high priest of\nNazi racial theory and herald of the _Herrenvolk_ (master race).\nRosenberg developed his ideas in the obscure phraseology of _Der\nMythus des 20. Jahrhunderts_ (_The Myth of the Twentieth Century_)\n(document 3, _post_ p. 174). \"The 'meaning of world history',\" he\nwrote, \"has radiated out from the north over the whole world, borne by\na blue-eyed blond race which in several great waves determined the\nspiritual face of the world ... These wander-periods were the\nlegendary migration of the Atlantides across north Africa, the\nmigration of the Aryans into India and Persia; the migration of the\nDorians, Macedonians, Latins; the migration of the Germanic tribes;\nthe colonization of the world by the Germanic Occident.\"[36] He\ndiscusses at length Indian, Persian, Greek, Roman, and European\ncultures; in each case, he concludes, the culture is created by the\nruling Nordic element and declines through the racial decay of the\nNordics resulting from their intermixture with inferior races.\n\nIt has long been accepted, Rosenberg claims, that all the states of\nthe west and their creative values have been generated by Germans; and\nit follows that if the Germanic blood were to vanish away completely\nin Europe all western culture would also fall to ruin.\n\nRosenberg acclaims the new faith of the blood which is to replace the\nnon-German religion of Christianity. \"A _new_ faith is arising today:\nthe myth of the blood, the faith to defend with the blood the divine\nessence of man. The faith, embodied in clearest knowledge, that the\nNordic blood represents that _mysterium_ which has replaced and\novercome the old sacraments.\"[37]\n\nRosenberg accepts the classic German view of the _Volk_, which he\nrelates closely to the concept of race. \"The state is nowadays no\nlonger an independent idol, before which everything must bow down; the\nstate is not even an end but is only a means for the preservation of\nthe folk ... Forms of the state change, and laws of the state pass\naway; the folk remains. From this alone follows that the nation is the\nfirst and _last_, that to which everything else has to be\nsubordinated.\"[38] \"The new thought puts folk and race higher than the\nstate and its forms. It declares protection of the folk more important\nthan protection of a religious denomination, a class, the monarchy, or\nthe republic; it sees in treason against the folk a greater crime than\nhigh treason against the state.\"[39]\n\nThe essence of Rosenberg's racial ideas was incorporated in point 4 of\nthe program of the Nazi Party, which reads as follows: \"None but\nmembers of the nation [_Volk_] may be citizens of the State. None but\nthose of German blood, whatever their creed, may be members of the\nnation. No Jew, therefore, may be a member of the nation.\"[40] After\nthe Nazis came to power, this concept was made the basis of the German\ncitizenship law of September 15, 1935.\n\nCommenting upon point 4 of the Nazi program in his pamphlet, _Nature,\nPrinciples, and Aims of the NSDAP_, Rosenberg wrote:\n\n     An indispensable differentiation must be made sometime in\n     the German _Volk_ consciousness: The right of nationality\n     should not represent something which is received in the\n     cradle as a gift, but should be regarded as a good which\n     must be earned. Although every German is a subject of the\n     state, the rights of nationality should only be received\n     when at the age of twenty or twenty-two he has completed his\n     education or his military service or has finished the labor\n     service which he owes to the state and after having given\n     evidence of honorable conduct. The right to nationality,\n     which must be earned, must become an opportunity for every\n     German to strive for complete humanity and achievement in\n     the service of the _Volk_. This consciousness, which must\n     always be kept alive, will cause him to regard this earned\n     good quite differently from the way it was regarded in the\n     past and today more than ever.\n\n     The prevailing concept of state nationality completely\n     ignores the idea of race. According to it whoever has a\n     German passport is a German, whoever has Czech documents is\n     a Czech, although he may have not a single drop of Czech\n     blood in his veins ...\n\n     National Socialism also sees in the nature of the structure\n     and leadership of the state an outflowing of a definite\n     character in the _Volk_. If one permits a wholly foreign\n     race--subject to other impulses--to participate therein, the\n     purity of the organic expression is falsified and the\n     existence of the _Volk_ is crippled....\n\n     This whole concept of the state [parliamentary democracy] is\n     replaced by National Socialism with a basically different\n     concept. National Socialism recognizes that, although the\n     individual racial strains in German-speaking territory\n     differ, they nevertheless belong to closely related races,\n     and that many mixtures among the members of these different\n     branches have produced new and vital strains, among them the\n     complex but still _German_ man, but that a mixture with the\n     Jewish enemy race, which in its whole spiritual and physical\n     structure is basically different and antagonistic and has\n     strong resemblances to the peoples of the Near East, can\n     only result in bastardization.[41]\n\nTrue to the tradition of German imperialism, Rosenberg does not\nconfine his ideas of racial supremacy to the Germans in the Reich\nalone. He even extends them to the United States, where he envisages\nthe day when the awakening German element will realize its destiny in\nthis country. In _Der Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts_, for example, he\nwrites, \"After throwing off the worn-out idea upon which it was\nfounded ... i.e., after the destruction of the idea represented by New\nYork, the United States of North America has the great task ... of\nsetting out with youthful energy to put into force the new\nracial-state idea which a few awakened Americans have already\nforeseen.\"[42]\n\nThis idea was developed at length by the German geopolitician, Colin\nRoss. In his book _Unser Amerika_ (_Our America_) (document 4, _post_\np. 178), published in 1936, Ross develops the thesis that the German\nelement in the United States has contributed all that is best in\nAmerican life and civilization and urges it to become conscious of its\nracial heritage and to prepare for the day when it may take over\ncomplete control of the country.\n\nReference was made in the preceding section to Beck's _Education in\nthe Third Reich_. On the subject of racial supremacy Beck points out\nthat certain new branches of learning have been introduced into the\nNational Socialist schools and certain old ones have been given a new\nemphasis. The most important of these are the science of race and the\ncultivation of race (_Rassenkunde und Rassenpflege_), which teach the\npupil to recognize and develop those racial powers which alone make\npossible the fullest self-realization in the national community. An\nawakening of a true racial consciousness in the people should lead to\na \"qualitative and quantitative\" racial refinement of the German\npeople by inducing a procreative process of selection which would\nreduce the strains of foreign blood in the national body. \"German\nracial consciousness must have pride in the Nordic race as its first\ncondition. It must be a feeling of the highest personal pride to\nbelong to the Nordic race and to have the possibility and the\nobligation to work within the German community for the advancement of\nthe Nordic race.\"[43] Beck points out that pupils must be made to\nrealize \"that the downfall of the Nordic race would mean the collapse\nof the national tradition, the disintegration of the living community\nand the destruction of the individual.\"[44]\n\nUnder the influence of war developments, which have given the Nazis a\nchance to apply their racial theories in occupied territories, their\nspokesmen have become increasingly open with regard to the political\nimplications of the folk concept. In an article on \"The Structure and\nOrder of the Reich,\" published late in 1941, Ernst Rudolf Huber wrote,\n\"this folk principle has found its full confirmation for the first\ntime in the events of this war, in which the unity of the folk has\nbeen realized to an extent undreamed of through the return to the\nhomeland of territories which had been torn from it and the\nresettlement of German folk-groups. Thus the awakening of Germandom to\nbecome a political folk has had a twofold result: the unity of the\nfolk-community has risen superior to differences of birth or wealth,\nof class, rank, or denomination; and the unity of Germandom above all\nstate boundaries has been consciously experienced in the European\nliving-space [_Siedlungsraum_].\"[45]\n\n\nThe F\u00fchrer Principle\n\nThe second pillar of the Nazi state is the F\u00fchrer, the infallible\nleader, to whom his followers owe absolute obedience. The F\u00fchrer\nprinciple envisages government of the state by a hierarchy of leaders,\neach of whom owes unconditional allegiance to his immediate superior\nand at the same time is the absolute leader in his own particular\nsphere of jurisdiction.\n\nOne of the best expositions of the Nazi concept of the F\u00fchrer\nprinciple is given by Huber in his _Constitutional Law of the Greater\nGerman Reich_ (document 1, _post_ p. 155):\n\n     The F\u00fchrer-Reich of the [German] people is founded on the\n     recognition that the true will of the people cannot be\n     disclosed through parliamentary votes and plebiscites but\n     that the will of the people in its pure and uncorrupted form\n     can only be expressed through the F\u00fchrer. Thus a distinction\n     must be drawn between the supposed will of the people in a\n     parliamentary democracy, which merely reflects the conflict\n     of the various social interests, and the true will of the\n     people in the F\u00fchrer-state, in which the collective will of\n     the real political unit is manifested ...\n\n     The F\u00fchrer is the bearer of the people's will; he is\n     independent of all groups, associations, and interests, but\n     he is bound by laws which are inherent in the nature of his\n     people. In this twofold condition: independence of all\n     factional interests but unconditional dependence on the\n     people, is reflected the true nature of the F\u00fchrer\n     principle. Thus the F\u00fchrer has nothing in common with the\n     functionary, the agent, or the exponent who exercises a\n     mandate delegated to him and who is bound to the will of\n     those who appoint him. The F\u00fchrer is no \"representative\" of\n     a particular group whose wishes he must carry out. He is no\n     \"organ\" of the state in the sense of a mere executive agent.\n     He is rather himself the bearer of the collective will of\n     the people. In his will the will of the people is realized.\n     He transforms the mere feelings of the people into a\n     conscious will ... Thus it is possible for him, in the name\n     of the true will of the people which he serves, to go\n     against the subjective opinions and convictions of single\n     individuals within the people if these are not in accord\n     with the objective destiny of the people ... He shapes the\n     collective will of the people within himself and he embodies\n     the political unity and entirety of the people in\n     opposition to individual interests ...\n\n     But the F\u00fchrer, even as the bearer of the people's will, is\n     not arbitrary and free of all responsibility. His will is\n     not the subjective, individual will of a single man, but the\n     collective national will is embodied within him in all its\n     objective, historical greatness ... Such a collective will\n     is not a fiction, as is the collective will of the\n     democracies, but it is a political reality which finds its\n     expression in the F\u00fchrer. The people's collective will has\n     its foundation in the political idea which is given to a\n     people. It is present in the people, but the F\u00fchrer raises\n     it to consciousness and discloses it ...\n\n     In the F\u00fchrer are manifested also the natural laws inherent\n     in the people: It is he who makes them into a code governing\n     all national activity. In disclosing these natural laws he\n     sets up the great ends which are to be attained and draws up\n     the plans for the utilization of all national powers in the\n     achievement of the common goals. Through his planning and\n     directing he gives the national life its true purpose and\n     value. This directing and planning activity is especially\n     manifested in the lawgiving power which lies in the F\u00fchrer's\n     hand. The great change in significance which the law has\n     undergone is characterized therein that it no longer sets up\n     the limits of social life, as in liberalistic times, but\n     that it drafts the plans and the aims of the nation's\n     actions ...\n\n     The F\u00fchrer principle rests upon unlimited authority but not\n     upon mere outward force. It has often been said, but it must\n     constantly be repeated, that the F\u00fchrer principle has\n     nothing in common with arbitrary bureaucracy and represents\n     no system of brutal force, but that it can only be\n     maintained by mutual loyalty which must find its expression\n     in a free relation. The F\u00fchrer-order depends upon the\n     responsibility of the following, just as it counts on the\n     responsibility and loyalty of the F\u00fchrer to his mission and\n     to his following ... There is no greater responsibility than\n     that upon which the F\u00fchrer principle is grounded.[46]\n\nThe nature of the plebiscites which are held from time to time in a\nNational Socialist state, Huber points out, cannot be understood from\na democratic standpoint. Their purpose is not to give the people an\nopportunity to decide some issue but rather to express their unity\nbehind a decision which the F\u00fchrer, in his capacity as the bearer of\nthe people's will, has already made:\n\n     That the will of the people is embodied in the F\u00fchrer does\n     not exclude the possibility that the F\u00fchrer can summon all\n     members of the people to a plebiscite on a certain question.\n     In this \"asking of the people\" the F\u00fchrer does not, of\n     course, surrender his decisive power to the voters. The\n     purpose of the plebiscite is not to let the people act in\n     the F\u00fchrer's place or to replace the F\u00fchrer's decision with\n     the result of the plebiscite. Its purpose is rather to give\n     the whole people an opportunity to demonstrate and proclaim\n     its support of an aim announced by the F\u00fchrer. It is\n     intended to solidify the unity and agreement between the\n     objective people's will embodied in the F\u00fchrer and the\n     living, subjective conviction of the people as it exists in\n     the individual members ... This approval of the F\u00fchrer's\n     decision is even more clear and effective if the plebiscite\n     is concerned with an aim which has already been realized\n     rather than with a mere intention.[47]\n\nHuber states that the Reichstag elections in the Third Reich have the\nsame character as the plebiscites. The list of delegates is made up by\nthe F\u00fchrer and its approval by the people represents an expression of\nrenewed and continued faith in him. The Reichstag no longer has any\ngoverning or lawgiving powers but acts merely as a sounding board for\nthe F\u00fchrer:\n\n     It would be impossible for a law to be introduced and acted\n     upon in the Reichstag which had not originated with the\n     F\u00fchrer or, at least, received his approval. The procedure is\n     similar to that of the plebiscite: The lawgiving power does\n     not rest in the Reichstag; it merely proclaims through its\n     decision its agreement with the will of the F\u00fchrer, who is\n     the lawgiver of the German people.[48]\n\nHuber also shows how the position of the F\u00fchrer developed from the\nNazi Party movement:\n\n     The office of the F\u00fchrer developed out of the National\n     Socialist movement. It was originally not a state office;\n     this fact can never be disregarded if one is to understand\n     the present legal and political position of the F\u00fchrer. The\n     office of the F\u00fchrer first took root in the structure of the\n     Reich when the F\u00fchrer took over the powers of the Chancelor,\n     and then when he assumed the position of the Chief of State.\n     But his primary significance is always as leader of the\n     movement; he has absorbed within himself the two highest\n     offices of the political leadership of the Reich and has\n     created thereby the new office of \"F\u00fchrer of the people and\n     the Reich.\" That is not a superficial grouping together of\n     various offices, functions, and powers ... It is not a union\n     of offices but a unity of office. The F\u00fchrer does not unite\n     the old offices of Chancelor and President side by side\n     within himself, but he fills a new, unified office.[49]\n\n     The F\u00fchrer unites in himself all the sovereign authority of\n     the Reich; all public authority in the state as well as in\n     the movement is derived from the authority of the F\u00fchrer.\n     We must speak not of the state's authority but of the\n     F\u00fchrer's authority if we wish to designate the character of\n     the political authority within the Reich correctly. The\n     state does not hold political authority as an impersonal\n     unit but receives it from the F\u00fchrer as the executor of the\n     national will. The authority of the F\u00fchrer is complete and\n     all-embracing; it unites in itself all the means of\n     political direction; it extends into all fields of national\n     life; it embraces the entire people, which is bound to the\n     F\u00fchrer in loyalty and obedience. The authority of the F\u00fchrer\n     is not limited by checks and controls, by special autonomous\n     bodies or individual rights, but it is free and independent,\n     all-inclusive and unlimited. It is not, however,\n     self-seeking or arbitrary and its ties are within itself. It\n     is derived from the people; that is, it is entrusted to the\n     F\u00fchrer by the people. It exists for the people and has its\n     justification in the people; it is free of all outward ties\n     because it is in its innermost nature firmly bound up with\n     the fate, the welfare, the mission, and the honor of the\n     people.[50]\n\nNeesse, in his _The National Socialist German Workers Party--An\nAttempt at Legal Interpretation_, emphasizes the importance of\ncomplete control by the party leadership over all branches of the\ngovernment. He says there must be no division of power in the Nazi\nstate to interfere with the leader's freedom of action. Thus the\nF\u00fchrer becomes the administrative head, the lawgiver, and the highest\nauthority of justice in one person. This does not mean that he stands\nabove the law. \"The F\u00fchrer may be outwardly independent, but inwardly\nhe obeys the same laws as those he leads.\"[51]\n\nThe _leadership_ (_F\u00fchrung_) in the Nazi state is not to be compared\nwith the _government_ or _administration_ in a democracy:\n\n     _F\u00fchrung_ is not, like government, the highest organ of the\n     state, which has grown out of the order of the state, but it\n     receives its legitimation, its call, and its mission from\n     the people ...[52]\n\n     The people cannot as a rule announce its will by means of\n     majority votes but only through its embodiment in one man,\n     or in a few men. The principle of the _identity_ of the\n     ruler and those who are ruled, of the government and those\n     who are governed has been very forcibly represented as the\n     principle of democracy. But this identity ... becomes\n     mechanistic and superficial if one seeks to establish it in\n     the theory that the people are at once the governors and the\n     governed ... A true organic identity is only possible when\n     the great mass of the people recognizes its embodiment in\n     one man and feels itself to be one nature with him ... Most\n     of the people will never exercise their governing powers but\n     only wish to be governed justly and well ... National\n     Socialist _F\u00fchrung_ sees no value in trying to please a\n     majority of the people, but its every action is dictated by\n     service to the welfare of the people, even though a majority\n     would not approve it. The mission of the _F\u00fchrung_ is\n     received from the people, but the fulfilment of this mission\n     and the exercise of power are free and must be free, for\n     however surely and forcefully a healthy people may be able\n     to make decisions in the larger issues of its destiny, its\n     decisions in all smaller matters are confused and uncertain.\n     For this reason, _F\u00fchrung_ must be free in the performance\n     of its task ... The F\u00fchrer does not stand for himself alone\n     and can be understood not of himself, but only from the idea\n     of a work to be accomplished ... Both the F\u00fchrer and his\n     following are subject to the idea which they serve; both are\n     of the same substance, the same spirit, and the same blood.\n     The despot knows only subjects whom he uses or, at best, for\n     whom he cares. But the first consideration of the F\u00fchrer is\n     not his own advantage nor even, at bottom, the welfare of\n     the people, but only service to the mission, the idea, and\n     the purpose to which F\u00fchrer and following alike are\n     consecrated.[53]\n\nThe supreme position of Adolf Hitler as F\u00fchrer of the Reich, which\nHuber and Neesse emphasize in the preceding quotations, is also\nstressed in the statements of high Nazi officials. For example, Dr.\nFrick, the German Minister of the Interior, in an article entitled\n\"Germany as a Unitary State,\" which is included in a book called\n_Germany Speaks_, published in London in 1938, states:\n\n     The unity of the party and the state finds its highest\n     realization in the person of the Leader and Chancelor who\n     ... combines the offices of President and Chancelor. He is\n     the leader of the National Socialist Party, the political\n     head of the state and the supreme commander of the defense\n     forces.[54]\n\nIt is interesting to note that, notwithstanding the generally\nrecognized view as expressed in the preceding citations that the\nauthority of the F\u00fchrer is supreme, Hitler found it necessary in April\n1942 to ask the Reichstag to confirm his power to be able at any time,\nif necessary, to urge any German to fulfil his obligations by all\nmeans which appear to the F\u00fchrer appropriate in the interests of the\nsuccessful prosecution of the war.[55] (The text of the resolution\nadopted by the Reichstag is included as document 5, _post_ p. 183.)\n\nGreat emphasis is placed by the Nazi leaders on the infallibility of\nthe F\u00fchrer and the duty of obedience of the German people. In a\nspeech on June 12, 1935, for instance, Robert Ley, director of the\nparty organization, said, \"Germany must obey like a well-trained\nsoldier: the F\u00fchrer, Adolf Hitler, is always right.\" Developing the\nsame idea, Ley wrote in an article in the _Angriff_ on April 9, 1942\n(document 6, _post_ p. 184): \"Right is what serves my people; wrong is\nwhat damages it. I am born a German and have, therefore, only one holy\nmission: work for my people and take care of it.\" And with reference\nto the position of Hitler, Ley wrote:\n\n     The National Socialist Party is Hitler, and Hitler is the\n     party. The National Socialists believe in Hitler, who\n     embodies their will. Therefore our conscience is clearly and\n     exactly defined. Only what Adolf Hitler, our F\u00fchrer,\n     commands, allows, or does not allow is our conscience. _We\n     have no understanding for him who hides behind an anonymous\n     conscience, behind God, whom everybody conceives according\n     to his own wishes._\n\nThese ideas of the F\u00fchrer's infallibility and the duty of obedience\nare so fundamental in fact that they are incorporated as the first two\ncommandments for party members. These are set forth in the\n_Organisationsbuch der NSDAP_ (_Nazi Party Organization Book_) for\n1940, page 7 (document 7, _post_ p. 186). The first commandment is\n\"The F\u00fchrer is always right!\" and the second is \"Never go against\ndiscipline!\"\n\nIn view of the importance attached to the F\u00fchrer principle by the\nNazis, it is only natural that youth should be intensively\nindoctrinated with this idea. Neesse points out that one of the most\nimportant tasks of the party is the formation of a \"select group\" or\nelite which will form the leaders of the future:\n\n     A party such as the NSDAP, which is responsible to history\n     for the future of the German Reich, cannot content itself\n     with the hope for future leaders but must create a strain of\n     strong and true personalities which should offer the\n     constantly renewed possibility of replacing leaders whenever\n     it is necessary.[56]\n\nBeck, in his work _Education in the Third Reich_, also insists that a\nrespect for the F\u00fchrer principle be inculcated in youth:\n\n     The educational value of the Hitler Youth is to be found in\n     this community spirit which cannot be taught but can only be\n     experienced ... But this cultivation of the community spirit\n     through the experience of the community must, in order to\n     avoid any conception of individual equality which is\n     inconsistent with the German view of life, be based upon\n     inward and outward recognition of the F\u00fchrer principle ...\n     In the Hitler Youth, the young German should learn by\n     experience that there are no theoretical equal rights of the\n     individual but only a natural and unconditional\n     subordination to leadership.[57]\n\nGerman writers often pretend that the F\u00fchrer principle does not\nnecessarily result in the establishment of a dictatorship but that it\npermits the embodiment of the will of the people in its leaders and\nthe realization of the popular will much more efficiently than is\npossible in democratic states. Such an argument, for example, is\npresented by Dr. Paul Ritterbusch in _Demokratie und Diktatur_\n(_Democracy and Dictatorship_), published in 1939. Professor\nRitterbusch claims that Communism leads to a dictatorial system but\nthat the Nazi movement is much closer to the ideals of true democracy.\nThe real nature of National Socialism, however, cannot be understood\nfrom the standpoint of the \"pluralistic-party state.\" It does not\nrepresent a dictatorship of one party and a suppression of all others\nbut rather an expression of the will and the character of the whole\nnational community in and through one great party which has resolved\nall internal discords and oppositions within itself. The F\u00fchrer of\nthis great movement is at once the leader and the expression of the\nnational will. Freed from the enervating effects of internal strife,\nthe movement under the guiding hand of the F\u00fchrer can bring the whole\nof the national community to its fullest expression and highest\ndevelopment.\n\nThe highest authority, however, Hitler himself, has left no doubt as\nto the nature of Nazi Party leaders. In a speech delivered at the\nSportpalast in Berlin on April 8, 1933, he said:\n\n     When our opponents say: \"It is easy for you: you are a\n     dictator\"--We answer them, \"No, gentlemen, you are wrong;\n     there is no single dictator, but ten thousand, each in his\n     own place.\" And even the highest authority in the hierarchy\n     has itself only one wish, never to transgress against the\n     supreme authority to which it, too, is responsible. We have\n     in our movement developed this loyalty in following the\n     leader, this blind obedience of which all the others know\n     nothing and which gave to us the power to surmount\n     everything.[58]\n\nAs has been indicated above, the F\u00fchrer principle applies not only to\nthe F\u00fchrer of the Reich, Adolf Hitler, but to all the subordinate\nleaders of the party and the government apparatus. With respect to\nthis aspect of the F\u00fchrer principle, Huber (document 1, _post_ p.\n155), says:\n\n     The ranks of the public services are regarded as forces\n     organized on the living principle of leadership and\n     following: The authority of command exercised in the labor\n     service, the military service, and the civil service is\n     F\u00fchrer-authority ... It has been said of the military and\n     civil services that true leadership is not represented in\n     their organization on the principles of command and\n     obedience. In reality there can be no political leadership\n     which does not have recourse to command and force as the\n     means for the accomplishment of its ends. Command and force\n     do not, of course, constitute the true nature of leadership,\n     but as a means they are indispensable elements of every\n     fully developed F\u00fchrer-order.[59]\n\nThe F\u00fchrer principle is officially recognized by the party, and the\nparty interpretation thereof is set forth in the _Party Organization\nBook_ (document 7 and charts 1 and 1-A, _post_ pp. 186, 488, 489).\n\nThere are also included herein, as charts 2 and 2-A and 3 and 3-A\n(_post_ pp. 490, 491, 492, 493), photostatic copies and translations\nof two charts from _Der nationalsozialistische Staat_ (_The National\nSocialist State_) by Dr. Walther Gehl, published in 1935. These charts\nclearly show the concentration of authority in the F\u00fchrer and the\nsubordinate relation of the minor leaders in both the state and the\nparty.\n\n\nThe Party: Leadership by an Elite Class\n\n_1. Functions of the Party_\n\nThe third pillar of the Nazi state, the link between _Volk_ and F\u00fchrer,\nis the Nazi Party. According to Nazi ideology, all authority within the\nnation is derived ultimately from the people, but it is the party\nthrough which the people expresses itself. In _Rechtseinrichtungen und\nRechtsaufgaben der Bewegung_ (_Legal Organization and Legal Functions of\nthe Movement_) (document 8, _post_ p. 204), published in 1939, Otto\nGauweiler states:\n\n     The will of the German people finds its expression in the\n     party as the political organization of the people. It\n     represents the political conception, the political\n     conscience, and the political will. It is the expression and\n     the organ of the people's creative will to life. It\n     comprises a select part of the German people for \"only the\n     best Germans should be party members\" ... The inner\n     organization of the party must therefore bring the national\n     life which is concentrated within itself to manifestation\n     and development in all the fields of national endeavor in\n     which the party is represented.[60]\n\nGauweiler defines the relationship of the party to the state in the\nfollowing terms:\n\n     The party stands above and beside the state as the wielder\n     of an authority derived from the people with its own\n     sovereign powers and its own sphere of sovereignty ... The\n     legal position of the party is therefore that of a\n     completely sovereign authority whose legal supremacy and\n     self-sufficiency rest upon the original independent\n     political authority which the F\u00fchrer and the movement have\n     attained as a result of their historical achievements.[61]\n\nNeesse states that \"It will be the task of National Socialism to lead\nback the German people to an organic structure which proceeds from a\nrecognition of the differences in the characters and possibilities of\nhuman beings without permitting this recognition to lead to a cleavage\nof the people into two camps.\"[62] This task is the responsibility of\nthe party. Although it has become the only political party in Germany,\nthe party does not desire to identify itself with the state. It does\nnot wish to dominate the state or to serve it. It works beside it and\ncooperates with it. In this respect, Nazi Germany is distinguished\nfrom the other one-party states of Europe: \"In the one-party state of\nRussia, the party rules over the state; in the one-party state of\nItaly, the party serves the state; but in the one-party state of\nGermany, the party neither serves the state nor rules over it directly\nbut works and struggles together with it for the community of the\npeople.\"[63] Neesse contends that the party derives its legal basis\nfrom the law inherent in the living organism of the German _Volk_:\n\n     The inner law of the NSDAP is none other than the inner law\n     of the German people. The party arises from the people; it\n     has formed an organization which crystallizes about itself\n     the feelings of the people, which seemed buried, and the\n     strength of the people, which seemed lost.[64]\n\nNeesse states that the party has two great tasks--to insure the\ncontinuity of national leadership and to preserve the unity of the\n_Volk_:\n\n     The first main task of the party, which is in keeping with\n     its organic nature, is to protect the National Socialist\n     idea and to constantly renew it by drawing from the depths\n     of the German soul, to keep it pure and clear, and to pass\n     it on thus to coming generations: this is predominantly a\n     matter of education of the people.\n\n     The second great task, which is in keeping with its\n     organizational nature, is to form the people and the state\n     into the unity of the nation and to create for the German\n     national community forms which are ever new and suited to\n     its vital development: this is predominantly a matter of\n     state formation. These two tasks, one of which deals with\n     substance and the other with function, belong together. It\n     is as impossible to separate them as it is to split up the\n     party into organism and organization, form and content.[65]\n\nHuber (document 1, _post_ p. 155) describes the tasks of the party in\nsimilar terms. He states that the party is charged with the \"education\nof the people to a political people\" through the awakening of the\npolitical consciousness of each individual; the inculcation of a\n\"uniform political philosophy,\" that is, the teaching of Nazi\nprinciples; \"the selection of leaders,\" including the choice and\ntraining of especially promising boys to be the F\u00fchrers of the future;\nand the shaping of the \"political will of the people\" in accordance\nwith the F\u00fchrer's aims.[66]\n\nThe educational tasks of the party are stressed by Beck, who develops\nthe idea that the _Volk_ can be divided into three main groups, \"a\nsupporting, a leading, and a creative class.\"[67] It is the duty of\nthe leading class, that is, the party, from which the creative class\nof leaders is drawn, to provide for the education of the supporting\nclass.\n\n     Every member of the body of the people must belong to the\n     politically supporting class, that is, each one who bears\n     within himself the basic racial, spiritual, and mental\n     values of the people ... Here no sort of leading or creative\n     activity is demanded but only a recognition of the leading\n     and creative will ... Only those are called to leadership in\n     political life who have recognized the community-bound law\n     of all human life in purest clarity and in the all-embracing\n     extent of its validity and who will place all the powers of\n     their personal lives with the help of a politically moral\n     character in the service of the formation of community life\n     ... From the politically leading class arise the politically\n     creative personalities. These are the mysterious elemental\n     forces which are beyond all explanation by human reason and\n     which through their action and by means of the living idea\n     within them give to the community of the people an\n     expression which is fresh, young, and eternal. Here is the\n     fulfilment of the highest and purest political humanity ...\n     The education of the socialist personality is essentially\n     the forming of the politically supporting class within the\n     German people and the encouragement of those political\n     tendencies which make a man a political leader. To educate\n     to political creativeness is just as impossible as to\n     educate to genius. Education can only furnish the spiritual\n     atmosphere, can only prepare the spiritual living-space for\n     the politically creative personality by forming a uniform\n     political consciousness in the socialistic personality, and\n     in the development of politically creative personalities it\n     can at the most give special attention to those values of\n     character and spirit which are of decisive importance for\n     the development of this personality.[68]\n\nGoebbels in _The Nature and Form of National Socialism_ (document 2,\n_post_ p. 170) emphasizes the responsibility of the party for the\nleadership of the state:\n\n     The party must always continue to represent the hierarchy of\n     National Socialist leadership. This minority must always\n     insist upon its prerogative to control the state. It must\n     keep the way open for the German youth which wishes to take\n     its place in this hierarchy. In reality the hierarchy has\n     fewer rights than duties! It is responsible for the\n     leadership of the state and it solemnly relieves the people\n     of this responsibility. It has the duty to control the state\n     in the best interests and to the general welfare of the\n     nation.[69]\n\nDr. Frick, German Minister of the Interior, in his chapter in _Germany\nSpeaks_ indicates the exclusive position of the party in the Third\nReich:\n\n     National Socialist Germany, however, is not merely a unitary\n     state: it is also a unitary nation and its governance is\n     based on the principle of leadership ...\n\n     In National Socialist Germany, leadership is in the hands of\n     an organized community, the National Socialist Party; and as\n     the latter represents the will of the nation, the policy\n     adopted by it in harmony with the vital interests of the\n     nation is at the same time the policy adopted by the country\n     ... The National Socialist Party is the only political party\n     in Germany and therefore the true representative of the\n     people ...[70]\n\nTo Dr. Ley, the party is identical with the F\u00fchrer. As he wrote in the\n_Angriff_ on April 9, 1942 (document 6, _post_ p. 184), \"The National\nSocialist Party is Hitler, and Hitler is the party.\"\n\nThe role of the party in legislation, in political matters, and in the\nappointment of Government officials is indicated by the F\u00fchrer's\ndecree of May 29, 1941,[71] as amplified by the order of January 16,\n1942, concerning its execution.[72] (Document 9, _post_ p. 212). This\norder provides that all legislative proposals and proposed laws and\ndecrees, as well as any proposed changes therein, must pass through\nand receive the approval of the Party Chancelry.\n\n\n_2. Party Membership_\n\nDetails concerning the qualifications and duties of party members are\ncontained in the _Party Organization Book_ for 1940 (document 7,\n_post_ p. 186).\n\n     Membership is finally confirmed by the issuance of a\n     membership card or a membership book. Anyone who becomes a\n     party member does not merely join an organization but he\n     becomes a soldier in the German freedom movement and that\n     means much more than just paying his dues and attending the\n     members' meetings. He obligates himself to subordinate his\n     own ego and to place everything he has in the service of the\n     people's cause. Only he who is capable of doing this should\n     become a party member. A selection must be made in\n     accordance with this idea.\n\n     Readiness to fight, readiness to sacrifice, and strength of\n     character are the requirements for a good National\n     Socialist. Small blemishes, such as a false step which\n     someone has made in his youth, should be overlooked; the\n     contribution in the struggle for Germany should alone be\n     decisive. The healthy will naturally prevail over the bad if\n     the will to health finds sufficient support in leadership\n     and achievement. Admission to the party should not be\n     controlled by the old bourgeois point of view. The party\n     must always represent the elite of the people.[73]\n\nGerman blood is one of the prerequisites for party membership. The\n_Party Organization Book_ for 1940 (document 7, _post_ p. 186) also\nstates, \"Only those racial comrades who possess German citizenship are\neligible for admission.\"[74]\n\nParty members shall not exceed ten per cent of the German population\nof the region. \"The ideal proportion of the number of party members to\nthe number of racial comrades is set at ten per cent. This proportion\nis to apply also to the individual Province [Gau].\"[75]\n\n\n_3. Pledges and Symbols of Allegiance_\n\nParty members take an oath of loyalty to the F\u00fchrer in the following\nterms: \"I pledge allegiance to my F\u00fchrer, Adolf Hitler. I promise at\nall times to respect and obey him and the leaders whom he appoints\nover me.\"[76]\n\n\n(a) The Hitler Salute\n\nA pledge of allegiance to the F\u00fchrer is also implied in the Nazi\nsalute, which is usually accompanied by the greeting, \"Heil Hitler.\"\nThe phrase _mit deutschen Gruss_, which is commonly used as a closing\nsalutation in letters, is another form of the Hitler greeting. _Knaurs\nKonversations-Lexikon_ (_Knaur's Conversational Dictionary_), published\nin Berlin in 1934, contains the following definition:\n\n     _German greeting_, Hitler greeting: by raising the right\n     arm; used by the old Germans with the spear as a greeting of\n     arms _[Waffengruss]._ Communal greeting of the National\n     Socialists; introduced into general use in 1933.\n\nThat this greeting was used by the Nazis as early as 1923 is\ndemonstrated by a photograph which appeared in _Das Buch der NSDAP,\nWerden, Kampf and Ziel der NSDAP_ (_The Book of the NSDAP, Growth,\nStruggle, and Goal of the NSDAP_) by Walter M. Espe (Berlin, 1934),\nillustration 34 (document 10, _post_ p. 214).\n\nIn the same book (page 23 in the supplement entitled \"_Die NSDAP_\")\nthe following distinction is made between the usual Nazi greeting and\nthe Storm Troopers' salute:\n\n     While the German greeting consists merely in raising the\n     right hand in any desired manner and represents rather a\n     general comradely greeting, the SA salute is executed, in\n     accordance with the specifications of the SA service\n     regulations, by placing the left hand on the belt and\n     raising the extended right arm.\n\n     The SA salute is to be given to all higher ranking leaders\n     of the SA and the SS and of the veterans' organization which\n     has been incorporated into the SA, as well as to the Army\n     and the national and security police forces.\n\n     The comradely German greeting is to be exchanged between all\n     equally ranking members of the SA and the SS and members of\n     a corresponding rank in the Army, the police, the veterans'\n     organization, the German air-sport league, the Hitler Youth,\n     the railway guards, and the whole membership of the party so\n     far as they are distinguishable by regulation uniforms.\n\n\n(b) The Swastika\n\nEarly in its history the Nazi Party adopted the swastika banner as\nits official emblem.[77] It was designed by Hitler himself, who wrote\nin _Mein Kampf_:\n\n     I myself after countless attempts had laid down a final\n     form: a flag with a background of red cloth, having a white\n     circle, and, in its center, a black swastika....\n\n     As National Socialists we see our program in our flag. In\n     the _red_ we see the social idea of the movement, in the\n     _white_ the nationalistic idea, and in the _swastika_ the\n     fight for the victory of Aryan man and at the same time for\n     the victory of the idea of creative work, which in itself\n     always was and always will be anti-Semitic.[78]\n\nThe swastika banner came into general use after January 30, 1933 as a\nsymbol of allegiance to the Hitler regime, but not until two years\nlater was it made the German national flag by the Reich flag law of\nSeptember 15, 1935.[79] Another law, decreed on April 7, 1937,[80]\nspecified that:\n\n     The insignia which the NSDAP, its formations, and associated\n     organizations use for their officers, their structure, their\n     organization, and their symbols may not be used by other\n     associations either alone or with embellishments.\n\nIt is interesting to note that party regulations forbid members to use\npassport photographs in which they appear in party uniform or wearing\nparty insignia and that party members are forbidden to discuss foreign\npolicy with foreigners unless they are officially designated by the\nF\u00fchrer to do so. The pertinent regulations read:\n\n     _Pass Photos on Identification Cards_\n\n     Members of the NSDAP must not use pass photos which show the\n     holder of any identification card in a uniform of the party\n     or of any of its formations. It is also forbidden to use as\n     pass photos pictures which show the person wearing a party\n     button.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n     _Conversations With Foreigners_\n\n     It is forbidden to all party members to engage in\n     discussions of foreign policy with foreigners. Only such\n     persons as have been designated by the F\u00fchrer are entitled\n     to do so.[81]\n\n\nThe Totalitarian State\n\nThe Weimar Constitution, although never formally abrogated by the\nNazis, was rendered totally ineffectual by two basic laws, promulgated\nwithin two months after the seizure of power by the party. The first\nof these was the \"Decree of the Reich's President for the Protection\nof the People and State\" (document 11-I, _post_ p. 215), issued\nFebruary 28, 1933, the day after the Reichstag was burned down. It\nsuspended \"until further notice\"[82] articles of the Weimar\nConstitution guaranteeing essential democratic rights of the\nindividual. Thus, according to article I of this decree, \"restrictions\non personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion,\nincluding freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right\nof association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic,\nand telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders\nfor confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also\npermissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.\"[83] The\nabrogation by the Nazis of these fundamental rights of democracy has\nnever been repealed or amended. In fact, this decree represents the\npresupposition and confirmation of the police sway established\nthroughout Germany by the Nazis.[84]\n\nThe second basic law, known as the \"Enabling Act,\" the \"Law To Remove\nthe Distress of People and State,\" of March 24, 1933 (document 11-II,\n_post_ p. 217), swept away parliamentary government entirely. By\nabrogating the pertinent articles of the Weimar Constitution, it\nenabled the Nazi Cabinet under Hitler's chancelorship to appropriate\nmoney and legislate without any responsibility to the Reichstag or any\nobligation to respect the Constitution.\n\nThe dissolution of democracy in Germany was sealed by the unification\nof the authoritarian Nazi Party with the German state. Soon after the\nparty came to power in 1933, steps were taken to effect and secure\nthis unity. The process is described by Huber (document 1, _post_ p.\n155) as follows:\n\n     On July 14, 1933 was issued the law against the formation of\n     new parties which raised the NSDAP to the only political\n     party in Germany [document 11-III] ... The overthrow of the\n     old party-state was accompanied by the construction of the\n     new movement-state [_Bewegungsstaat_]. Out of a political\n     fighting organization the NSDAP grew to a community capable\n     of carrying the state and the nation. This process was\n     accomplished step by step in the first months after the\n     National Socialist seizure of power. The assumption of the\n     office of Chancelor by the F\u00fchrer of the movement formed the\n     basis for this development. Various party leaders were\n     appointed as _Reichsminister_; the governors of the\n     provinces were national leaders or _Gauleiter_ of the party,\n     such as General von Epp; the Prussian government officials\n     are as a rule _Gauleiter_ of the party; the Prussian police\n     chiefs are mostly high-ranking SA leaders. By this system of\n     a union of the personnel of the party and state offices the\n     unity of party and state was achieved.[85]\n\nThe culmination of this development was reached in the \"Law To\nSafeguard the Unity of Party and State,\" of December 1, 1933 (document\n11-IV, _post_ p. 221), which proclaimed the NSDAP \"the bearer of the\nGerman state-idea and indissolubly joined to the state.\" In order to\nguarantee the complete cooperation of the party and SA with the public\nofficials, the F\u00fchrer's Deputy and the Chief of Staff of the SA were\nmade members of the Cabinet.\n\nWith regard to the relation between the party and the state, Neesse\nwrites:\n\n     The NSDAP is not a structure which stands under direct state\n     control, to which single tasks of public administration are\n     entrusted by the state, but it holds and maintains is claim\n     to totality as the \"bearer of the German state-idea\" in all\n     fields relating to the community--regardless of how various\n     single functions are divided between the organization of the\n     party and the organization of the state.[86]\n\nTo maintain cooperation between the party and state organizations, the\nhighest state offices are given to the men holding the corresponding\nparty offices. Gauweiler (document 8, _post_ p. 204) attributes to the\nparty supreme leadership in all phases of national life. Thus the\nstate becomes merely an administrative machine which the party has set\nup in accordance with and for the accomplishment of its aims:\n\n     As the responsible bearer and shaper of the destiny of the\n     whole German nation the party has created an entirely new\n     state, for that which sought to foist itself upon her as a\n     state was simply the product of a deep human confusion. The\n     state of the past and its political ideal had never\n     satisfied the longing of the German people. The National\n     Socialist movement already carried its state within itself\n     at the time of its early struggles. It was able to place the\n     completely formed body of its own state at the disposal of\n     the state which it had taken over.[87]\n\nThe official party interpretation of the relation between party and\nstate, as set forth in the _Party Organization Book_ for 1940, appears\nin the Appendix as document 7 (_post_ p. 186).\n\nGoebbels in his lecture on _The Nature and Form of National\nSocialism_ (document 2, _post_ p. 170) stressed the importance of\n_Gleichschaltung_ or the penetration of Nazi ideology into all fields\nof national life. This to his mind must be the result of the National\nSocialist revolution. The same aims, ideals, and standards must be\napplied to economics and to politics, to cultural and social\ndevelopment, to education and religion, and to foreign and domestic\nrelations.\n\nThe result of this concept of the totalitarian state has been the\ncompulsory regimentation of all phases of German life to conform to\nthe pattern established by the party. The totalitarian state does not\nrecognize personal liberties for the individual. The legal position of\nthe individual citizen in the Third Reich is clearly set forth by\nHuber (document 1, _post_ p. 155):\n\n     Not until the nationalistic political philosophy had become\n     dominant could the liberalistic idea of basic rights be\n     really overcome. The concept of personal liberties of the\n     individual as opposed to the authority of the state had to\n     disappear; it is not to be reconciled with the principle of\n     the nationalistic Reich. There are no personal liberties of\n     the individual which fall outside of the realm of the state\n     and which must be respected by the state. The member of the\n     people, organically connected with the whole community, has\n     replaced the isolated individual; he is included in the\n     totality of the political people and is drawn into the\n     collective action. There can no longer be any question of a\n     private sphere, free of state influence, which is sacred and\n     untouchable before the political unity. The constitution of\n     the nationalistic Reich is therefore not based upon a system\n     of inborn and inalienable rights of the individual.[88]\n\nIn place of these rights the constitution of the Third Reich\nguarantees to the individual his place in the community of the people:\n\n     The legal position of the individual member of the people\n     forms an entirely new concept which is indispensable for the\n     construction of a nationalistic order. The legal position of\n     the individual is always related to the community and\n     conditioned by duty. It is developed not for the sake of the\n     individual but for the community, which can only be filled\n     with life, power, and purpose when a suitable field of\n     action is insured for the individual member. Without a\n     concrete determination of the individual's legal position\n     there can be no real community.\n\n     This legal position represents the organic fixation of the\n     individual in the living order. Rights and obligations arise\n     from the application of this legal position to specific\n     individual relationships ... But all rights must be regarded\n     as duty-bound rights. Their exercise is always dependent\n     upon the fulfilment by the individual of those duties to\n     which all rights are subordinate ...[89]\n\nThe concept of private property in the totalitarian state is also at\nvariance with the democratic concept of private property. In the\nThird Reich the holder of property is considered merely as a manager\nresponsible to the _Volk_ for the use of the property in the common\ninterest. Huber sets forth the Nazi view in the following words:\n\n     \"Private property\" as conceived under the liberalistic\n     economic order was a reversal of the true concept of\n     property. This \"private property\" represented the right of\n     the individual to manage and to speculate with inherited or\n     acquired property as he pleased, without regard for the\n     general interests ... German socialism had to overcome this\n     \"private,\" that is, unrestrained and irresponsible view of\n     property. All property is common property. The owner is\n     bound by the people and the Reich to the responsible\n     management of his goods. His legal position is only\n     justified when he satisfies this responsibility to the\n     community.[90]\n\nPursuant to this view of the nature of ownership, property may be\nconfiscated whenever the state decides that public management would be\nin the interests of the community, or if the owner is found guilty of\nirresponsible management, in which case no compensation is paid him.\n\nReference has been made to the appointment of party members to\nimportant state offices. Gauweiler (document 8, _post_ p. 204) points\nout that the party insured the infusion of the entire structure\nof the state with its ideology through the civil-service law\n(_Beamtengesetz_) of January 26, 1937,[91] which provides that a\nperson appointed to a civil-service position must be \"filled with\nNational Socialist views, since only thus can he be an executor of the\nwill of the state which is carried by the NSDAP. It demands of him\nthat he be ready at all times to exert himself unreservedly in behalf\nof the National Socialist state and that he be aware of the fact that\nthe NSDAP, as the mouthpiece of the people's will, is the vital force\nbehind the concept of the German state.\"[92]\n\nThe infiltration of party members into the civil service has now\nproceeded to such a point that early in 1942 Pfundtner, the Secretary\nof State in the German Ministry of the Interior, could write in the\nperiodical _Akademie f\u00fcr deutsches Recht_:\n\n     The German civil servant must furthermore be a National\n     Socialist to the marrow of his bones and must be a member of\n     the party or of one of its formations. The state will\n     primarily see to it that the Young Guard of the movement is\n     directed toward a civil-service career and also that the\n     civil servant takes an active part in the party so that the\n     political idea and service of the state become closely\n     welded.[93]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nFOOTNOTES TO FIRST SECTION\n\n[Footnote 8: Huber, _Verfassungsrecht des grossdeutschen Reiches_\n(Hamburg, 1939), pp. 54-55.]\n\n[Footnote 9: _Ibid._, pp. 153-155.]\n\n[Footnote 10: _Ibid._, pp. 156-157.]\n\n[Footnote 11: _Ibid._, p. 157.]\n\n[Footnote 12: _Ibid._, p. 158.]\n\n[Footnote 13: _Ibid._, p. 163.]\n\n[Footnote 14: _Ibid._, p. 164.]\n\n[Footnote 15: _Ibid._, pp. 165-166.]\n\n[Footnote 16: Neesse, _Die Nationalsozialistische Deutsche\nArbeiterpartei--Versuch einer Rechtsdeutung_ (Stuttgart, 1935), p.\n44.]\n\n[Footnote 17: _Ibid._, p. 51.]\n\n[Footnote 18: _Ibid._, p. 54.]\n\n[Footnote 19: _Ibid._, p. 58.]\n\n[Footnote 20: _Ibid._, pp. 54-56.]\n\n[Footnote 21: _Ibid._, p. 59.]\n\n[Footnote 22: _Ibid._, pp. 60-61.]\n\n[Footnote 23: _Ibid._, pp. 65-66.]\n\n[Footnote 24: Scurla, _Die Grundgedanken des Nationalsozialismus und\ndas Ausland_ (Berlin, 1938), pp. 10-11.]\n\n[Footnote 25: _Ibid._, p. 9.]\n\n[Footnote 26: _Ibid._]\n\n[Footnote 27: _Ibid._, p. 13.]\n\n[Footnote 28: Beck, _Die Erziehung im dritten Reich_ (Dortmund and\nBreslau, 1936), p. 20.]\n\n[Footnote 29: _Ibid._, pp. 20-21.]\n\n[Footnote 30: _Ibid._, p. 35.]\n\n[Footnote 31: _Ibid._, pp. 52-55.]\n\n[Footnote 32: _Ibid._, p. 46.]\n\n[Footnote 33: _Ibid._, p. 57.]\n\n[Footnote 34: _Ibid._, p. 118.]\n\n[Footnote 35: _Ibid._, p. 140.]\n\n[Footnote 36: Rosenberg, _Der Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts_ (Munich,\n1935), p. 28 (1st ed. 1930).]\n\n[Footnote 37: _Ibid._, p. 114.]\n\n[Footnote 38: _Ibid._, p. 479.]\n\n[Footnote 39: _Ibid._, p. 542.]\n\n[Footnote 40: Gottfried Feder, _The Programme of the Party of Hitler_\n(translated by E.T.S. Dugdale: Munich, 1932), p. 18.]\n\n[Footnote 41: Rosenberg, _Wesen, Grunds\u00e4tze und Ziele der NSDAP_\n(Munich, 1933), pp. 16-18 (1st ed. 1922).]\n\n[Footnote 42: Rosenberg, _Der Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts_, p. 673.]\n\n[Footnote 43: Beck, _op. cit._, p. 110.]\n\n[Footnote 44: _Ibid._, p. 110.]\n\n[Footnote 45: Huber, \"_Aufbau und Gef\u00fcge des Reiches_,\" published in\nthe book _Idee und Ordnung des Reiches_ (ed. by Huber: Hamburg,\nHanseatische Verlagsanstalt, 1941), p. 12.]\n\n[Footnote 46: Huber, _Verfassungsrecht des grossdeutschen Reiches_\n(Hamburg, 1939), pp. 194-198.]\n\n[Footnote 47: _Ibid._, pp. 199-200.]\n\n[Footnote 48: _Ibid._, pp. 207-208.]\n\n[Footnote 49: _Ibid._, pp. 213-214.]\n\n[Footnote 50: _Ibid._, p. 230.]\n\n[Footnote 51: Neesse, _op. cit._, p. 146.]\n\n[Footnote 52: _Ibid._, p. 143.]\n\n[Footnote 53: _Ibid._, pp. 144-147.]\n\n[Footnote 54: _Germany Speaks_ (containing articles by twenty-one\nleading members of the Nazi Party and the German Government: London,\n1938), p. 31.]\n\n[Footnote 55: _Reichsgesetzblatt_ (1942), p. 247. (All citations to\nthe _Reichsgesetzblatt_ refer to part I thereof.)]\n\n[Footnote 56: Neesse, _op. cit._, p. 150.]\n\n[Footnote 57: Beck, _op. cit._, p. 131.]\n\n[Footnote 58: _My New Order_, p. 159.]\n\n[Footnote 59: Huber, _Verfassungsrecht des grossdeutschen Reiches_\n(Hamburg, 1939), p. 410.]\n\n[Footnote 60: Gauweiler, _Rechtseinrichtungen und Rechtsaufgaben der\nBewegung_ (Munich, 1939), p. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 61: _Ibid._, p. 9.]\n\n[Footnote 62: Neesse, _op. cit,_, p. 71.]\n\n[Footnote 63: _Ibid._, p. 119.]\n\n[Footnote 64: _Ibid._, p. 126.]\n\n[Footnote 65: _Ibid._, pp. 139-140.]\n\n[Footnote 66: Huber, _Verfassungsrecht des grossdeutschen Reiches_\n(Hamburg, 1939), pp. 293-296.]\n\n[Footnote 67: Beck, _op. cit._, p. 37.]\n\n[Footnote 68: _Ibid._, pp. 37-38.]\n\n[Footnote 69: Goebbels, _op. cit._, p. 19.]\n\n[Footnote 70: _Germany Speaks_, pp. 30-31.]\n\n[Footnote 71: _Reichsgesetzblatt_ (1941), p. 295.]\n\n[Footnote 72: _Ibid._, (1942), p. 35.]\n\n[Footnote 73: _Organisationsbuch der NSDAP_ (ed. by the National\nOrganizational Director of the NSDAP: Munich, 1940), p. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 74: _Ibid._, p. 6b.]\n\n[Footnote 75: _Ibid._, p. 6d.]\n\n[Footnote 76: _Ibid._]\n\n[Footnote 77: The German pocket reference book for current events\n(_Taschen-Brockhaus zum Zeitgeschehen_: Leipzig, 1942) states that the\nswastika banner was designed by Hitler for the NSDAP in 1919.]\n\n[Footnote 78: Adolf Hitler, _Mein Kampf_ (Munich, Verlag Frank Eher,\nG.m.b.H., 1933 [copyright 1925]), pp. 556-557.]\n\n[Footnote 79: _Reichsgesetzblatt_ (1935), p. 1145.]\n\n[Footnote 80: _Ibid._ (1937), p. 442.]\n\n[Footnote 81: _Organisationsbuch der NSDAP_ (Munich, 1940), p. 8.]\n\n[Footnote 82: _Reichsgesetzblatt_ (1933), p. 83.]\n\n[Footnote 83: _Ibid._]\n\n[Footnote 84: In his book _Die deutsche Polizei_ (_The German Police_)\n(_Darmstadt_, L.C. Wittich Verlag, 1941), p. 24, the prominent Nazi\npolice official, Dr. Werner Best, wrote that this law \"is to be\nregarded not as a 'police law'--that is, as the regulation of police\nfunctions and activities--but as the expression of the new conception\nof the state as it has been transformed by the National Socialist\nrevolution, from which the new 'police' concept is derived.\" Also,\nthis law was for the police \"the confirmation that the work already\nbegun was in agreement with the law giving will of the Supreme\nLeadership of the Reich.\"]\n\n[Footnote 85: Huber, _Verfassungsrecht des grossdeutschen Reiches_\n(Hamburg, 1939) p. 288.]\n\n[Footnote 86: Neesse, _op. cit._, p. 131.]\n\n[Footnote 87: Gauweiler, _op. cit._, p. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 88: Huber, _Verfassungsrecht des grossdeutschen Reiches_\n(Hamburg, 1939), p. 361.]\n\n[Footnote 89: _Ibid._, pp. 365-366.]\n\n[Footnote 90: _Ibid._, pp. 372-373.]\n\n[Footnote 91: _Reichsgesetzblatt_ (1937), pp. 39-70.]\n\n[Footnote 92: Gauweiler, _op. cit._, p. 156.]\n\n[Footnote 93: Reported in a bulletin of the official German news\nagency, DNB, Apr. 14, 1942.]\n\n\n\n\nNAZI AIMS AND METHODS\n\nPolitical Aims\n\n\nThe political aims of National Socialism have been written so clearly\nin history in the past 10 years that it does not appear necessary to\ndiscuss them at length here.\n\nThe detailed program of the Nazi Party consists of the 25 points which\nwere adopted on February 24, 1920 at a party mass meeting in Munich.\n(The 25-point program appears in the Appendix as document 12, _post_\np. 222.) The points of particular interest in this study are the first\nfour, which are set forth below:\n\n     1. We demand the union of all Germans to form a Great\n     Germany on the basis of the right of the self-determination\n     enjoyed by nations.\n\n     2. We demand equality of rights for the German People in its\n     dealings with other nations, and abolition of the Peace\n     Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain.\n\n     3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the\n     nourishment of our people and for settling our superfluous\n     population.\n\n     4. None but members of the nation may be citizens of the\n     State. None but those of German blood, whatever their creed,\n     may be members of the nation. No Jew, therefore, may be a\n     member of the nation.[94]\n\n\n_1. Internal Objectives_\n\nA statement of the internal objectives of National Socialism is made\nby Gauweiler in his _Legal Organization and Legal Functions of the\nMovement_ (document 8, _post_ p. 204). The laws of the Reich must seek\nto establish and promote the five basic values recognized by Nazi\nideology:\n\n     1. Race: The legal protection of the race, which has created\n     a new concept of nationality [_Volkszugeh\u00f6rigkeit_], is\n     consciously put in first place, for the most significant\n     historical principle which has been established by the\n     victory of National Socialism is that of the necessity for\n     keeping race and blood pure. All human mistakes and errors\n     can be corrected except one: \"the error regarding the\n     importance of maintaining the basic values of a nation.\"\n\n     The purpose of this legal protection of the basic value of\n     _race_ must be the prevention for all time of a further\n     mixture of German blood with foreign blood, as well as the\n     prevention of continued procreation of racially unworthy and\n     undesirable members of the people.\n\n     2. Soil [_Boden_]: The living-space and the basis for the\n     food supply of the German people are its territory and soil.\n     The farmer is the first and deepest representative of the\n     people since he nourishes the people from the fertility of\n     the earth and he maintains the nation through the fertility\n     of his own family. Here National Socialism had to accomplish\n     two great legal ends: the reestablishment and the protection\n     of the farmer class and the securing of its land for the\n     farmer family.\n\n     3. Work: The nation's work as a basic national value is\n     grounded on the leading concept of \"work of the hands and of\n     the head\" within and for the community of the people and the\n     elevation of work to the only criterion for the value of an\n     individual within the community. In place of the idea of\n     class warfare, National Socialism had to establish the\n     national community legally; in place of the defamation of\n     work and its degradation to an object of barter, National\n     Socialism had to raise it to an ethical duty and the right\n     to work had to become the most clearly defined personal\n     right of the individual. The concept of the honor of work\n     had to be established as the basic concept of the national\n     honor.\n\n     4. The Reich: With the securing of the three basic values of\n     race, soil, and work arises the National Socialist Reich.\n\n     The infusion of foreign cultural and legal influences in\n     Germany was a consequence of the weakening of the central\n     authority of the German Reich since the Middle Ages. The\n     creation and insuring of a strong central authority in\n     contrast to the disorganized, federalistic system of the\n     Weimar Republic became one of the principal lines of\n     National Socialist legal policy. In consequence of the\n     National Socialist revolution, the Reich took on the legal\n     form of a totalitarian state and received a supreme and\n     completely authoritative lawgiver in the person of the\n     F\u00fchrer. The principle of a division of power could no longer\n     maintain itself: The formulation, the interpretation, and\n     the execution of the law are all performed by the F\u00fchrer\n     himself or under his authority.\n\n     5. Honor: The fifth great value of the nation is its honor.\n     The honor of the people, the Reich, the party, the F\u00fchrer,\n     and the individual citizen are all regarded as goods to be\n     protected by law. The basis of national honor is loyalty.\n     National Socialist criminal law is therefore essentially\n     organized as a system of punishment for breaches of faith.\n     Every crime and offense against the community is a breach of\n     faith which must result in loss of honor.[95]\n\n\n_2. Foreign Policy_\n\nThe close connection between the internal political program of the\nNational Socialist movement, as expressed in the foregoing paragraphs,\nand its foreign policy was indicated by Hitler when he wrote in _Mein\nKampf_ (document 13-I, _post_ p. 226):\n\n     As National Socialists we can further set forth the\n     following principle with regard to the nature of the foreign\n     policy of a folk-state:\n\n     _It is the task of the foreign policy of a folk-state to\n     secure the existence on this planet of the race which is\n     encompassed by the state and at the same time to establish a\n     healthy, viable, natural relation between the number and\n     growth of the folk on the one hand and the size and quality\n     of its soil and territory on the other hand._[96]\n\nAnd in the same work he states:\n\n     Yes, we can only learn from the past that we must undertake\n     the setting of aims for our political activity in two\n     directions: _Soil and territory as the goal of our foreign\n     policy, and a new, philosophically firm and uniform\n     foundation as the goal of our domestic political\n     activity._[97]\n\nThe political objectives of National Socialism, then, by definition of\nHitler himself, are the internal unification of the German people and\nexternal expansion.\n\nWhile the Nazis have never concealed the first of these objectives,\nthe second was the subject for a great deal of dissimulation up to the\noutbreak of the present war. Typical of the false front which the\nNazis presented to the outside world with reference to their foreign\npolicy objectives are the statements made by Dr. Scurla in _Basic\nPrinciples of National Socialism With Special Reference to Foreign\nCountries_. Dr. Scurla quotes Hitler's speech of May 17, 1933 in which\nhe said, \"We see the European nations around us as given facts.\nFrench, Poles, etc., are our neighbor peoples, and we know that no\nconceivable historic occurrence could change this reality,\"[98] and\ncomments:\n\n     This folk principle, which has grown out of the National\n     Socialist ideology, implies the recognition of the\n     independence and the equal rights of each people. We do not\n     see how anyone can discern in this a \"pan-Germanic\" and\n     imperialistic threat against our neighbors. This principle\n     does not admit the difference between \"great powers\" and\n     \"minor states,\" between majority peoples and minorities. It\n     means at the same time a clear rejection of any imperialism\n     which aims at the subjugation of foreign peoples or the\n     denationalization of alien populations. It demands the\n     unqualified acknowledgment of the right to live of every\n     folk, and of every folk-group, which is forced to live as a\n     foreign group in another state. The western European\n     national state together with its parliamentary democracy was\n     not able to do justice to the natural and living entities,\n     the peoples, in their struggle for existence.[99]\n\nFarther on in the same work Scurla states:\n\n     Out of its fundamental ideologic view, however, Germany\n     rejects every form of imperialism, even that of peaceful\n     penetration. It is unable to concede to any people the\n     authority to develop ideas and ways of living, to which then\n     another people has to subordinate itself, even if some other\n     order is suited to its essential nature ... It does not at\n     all, however, consider the German order obligatory for other\n     peoples. National Socialism, as has been said a hundred\n     times, is exclusively the sum total of the German\n     world-view.[100]\n\nSimilar assurances by Nazi leaders were frequently made in order to\ninduce a sense of security in neighboring countries. Hitler, for\nexample, in a proclamation opening the party congress at Nuremberg on\nSeptember 11, 1935 said:\n\n     National Socialism has no aggressive intentions against any\n     European nation. On the contrary, we are convinced that the\n     nations of Europe must continue their characteristic\n     national existence, as created by tradition, history and\n     economy; if not, Europe as a whole will be destroyed.[101]\n\nBut such assurances, which were intended exclusively for foreign\nconsumption, were refuted by the basic policy laid down in _Mein\nKampf_, which has been persistently pursued throughout the 10 years of\nthe Nazi regime and has been realized to the extent that Germany now\ndominates and is in control of most of the European continent. In\n_Mein Kampf_ (document 13-I, _post_ p. 226) Hitler wrote:\n\n     _Our task, the mission of the National Socialist movement,\n     however, is to lead our folk to such political insight that\n     it will see its future goal fulfilled not in the\n     intoxicating impression of a new Alexandrian campaign but\n     rather in the industrious work of the German plow, which\n     waits only to be given land by the sword._[102]\n\nHitler suggests a future foreign policy for Germany which would assure\n_Lebensraum_ and domination of the European continent. In _Mein Kampf_\nhe states:\n\n     But the political testament of the German nation for its\n     outwardly directed activity should and must always have the\n     following import:\n\n     _Never tolerate the establishment of two continental powers\n     in Europe. See an attack against Germany in every attempt to\n     organize a second military power on the German borders, even\n     if it is only in the form of the establishment of a state\n     which is a potential military power, and see therein not\n     only the right but also the duty to prevent the formation of\n     such a state with all means, even to the use of force, or if\n     it has already been established, to destroy it again. See to\n     it that the strength of our folk has its foundations not in\n     colonies but in the soil of the European homeland. Never\n     regard the foundations of the Reich as secure, if it is not\n     able to give every off-shoot of our folk its own bit of soil\n     and territory for centuries to come. Never forget that the\n     most sacred right in the world is the right to the soil\n     which a man wishes to till himself, and the most sacred\n     sacrifice is the blood which he spills for this soil_.[103]\n\nIt is impossible to adduce from the writings of Hitler, or other Nazi\nleaders direct statements indicating that they aspire to the\ndomination of the entire world. Such expressions, however, may be\ninferred not only from the direction of German foreign policy and the\neffusions of the geopoliticians but also from the following statement\nmade by Hitler in _Mein Kampf_ (document 13-I, _post_ p. 226):\n\n     ... If the German folk, in its historical development, had\n     possessed that herdlike unity which other peoples have\n     enjoyed, the German Reich would today be mistress of the\n     globe. World history would have taken another course, and no\n     one can tell whether in this way that might not have been\n     attained which so many deluded pacifists are hoping today to\n     wheedle by moaning and whining: a peace supported not by the\n     palm branches of tearful pacifistic female mourners but\n     founded by the victorious sword of a master race\n     [_Herrenvolk_] which places the world in the service of a\n     higher culture.[104]\n\nLike Hitler, Rosenberg envisaged the extension of Nazi power far\nbeyond the borders of Germany. In his _Nature, Principles, and Aims of\nthe NSDAP_ he stated, \"But National Socialism also believes that, far\nbeyond Germany's borders, its principles and its ideology ... will\nlead the way in the unavoidable struggles for power in the other\ncountries of Europe and America.\"[105]\n\n\nPropaganda\n\n_1. Professed Peaceful Intentions as a Cloak for Imperialistic\nDesigns_\n\nThe falsity of Nazi propaganda has been demonstrated repeatedly during\nthe past decade. That its keynote was set by Hitler himself becomes\nevident upon an examination of his statements on foreign policy over a\nperiod of years. Not only has his policy been marked by a series of\nshifts and turns, so that the policy of one year was frequently\ncanceled by the policy of the next, but a comparison of his words with\nhis subsequent deeds makes it evident that he deliberately sought to\nlull other countries into a feeling of security until he was ready to\nmove against them. On May 17, 1933 he asserted:\n\n     _No fresh European war is capable of putting something\n     better in the place of unsatisfactory conditions which exist\n     to-day ..._ The outbreak of such madness without end would\n     lead to the collapse of existing social order in Europe ...\n     The German Government are convinced that to-day there can be\n     only one great task, and that is to assure the peace of the\n     world ... _The German Government wish to settle all\n     difficult questions with other Governments by peaceful\n     methods._ They know that any military action in Europe, even\n     if completely successful, would, in view of the sacrifice,\n     bear no relation to the profit to be obtained ...\n\n     Germany will tread no other path than that laid down by the\n     Treaties. The German Government will discuss all political\n     and economic questions only within the framework of, and\n     through, the Treaties.\n\n     _The German people have no thought of invading any\n     country._[106]\n     (Document 14, _post_ pp. 282-233.)\n\nAnd on March 7, 1936 he stated:\n\n     After three years I believe that I can regard the struggle\n     for German equality as concluded to-day. I believe,\n     moreover, that thereby the first and foremost reason for our\n     withdrawal from European collective collaboration has ceased\n     to exist. _We have no territorial demands to make in\n     Europe._[107] (Document 14, _post_ p. 237.)\n\nMoreover, he did not shrink from giving specific assurances of\nGermany's peaceful intentions toward his subsequent victims:\n\n     There are Germans and Poles in Europe, and they ought to\n     live together in agreement. The Poles cannot think, of\n     Europe without the Germans and the Germans cannot think of\n     Europe without the Poles. (Oct. 24, 1933)\n\n     _Germans and Poles must reconcile themselves as to the fact\n     of each others' existence._ It has seemed to me necessary to\n     demonstrate by an example that it is possible for two\n     nations to talk over their differences without giving the\n     task to a third or a fourth ...\n\n     _The assertion that the German Reich plans to coerce the\n     Austrian State is absurd and cannot be substantiated or\n     proved_ ... The assertion of the Austrian Government that\n     from the side of the Reich an attack would be undertaken or\n     planned I must emphatically reject ... The German Reich is\n     always ready to hold out a hand for a real understanding,\n     with full respect for the free will of Austrian Germans ...\n     (Jan. 13, 1934)\n\n     _The lie goes forth again that Germany to-morrow or the day\n     after will fall upon Austria or Czecho-Slovakia_. I ask\n     myself always: Who can these elements be who will have no\n     peace, who incite continually, who must so distrust, and\n     want no understanding? Who are they? I know they are not the\n     millions who, if these inciters had their way, would have to\n     take up arms. (May 1, 1936)\n\n     Germany and Poland are two nations, and these nations will\n     live, and neither of them will be able to do away with the\n     other. I recognized all of this, and we all must recognize\n     that a people of 33,000,000 will always strive for an outlet\n     to the sea ... _We have assured all our immediate neighbors\n     of the integrity of their territory as far as Germany is\n     concerned. That is no hollow phrase; it is our sacred will_\n     ...\n     (Sept. 26, 1938)[108]\n     (Document 14, _post_ pp. 233, 234, 238, 240-241.)\n\n     Yugoslavia is a State that has increasingly attracted the\n     attention of our people since the war. The high regard that\n     the German soldiers then felt for this brave people has\n     since been deepened and developed into genuine friendship.\n     Our economic relations with this country are undergoing\n     constant development and expansion, just as is the case with\n     the friendly countries of Bulgaria, Greece, Rumania, Turkey,\n     Switzerland, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden,\n     Finland, and the Baltic States. (Jan. 30, 1939)[109]\n\nIn Hitler's Reichstag speech of April 28, 1939, in which he replied to\nPresident Roosevelt's telegraphic message inviting him and Mussolini\nto pledge themselves not to attack 31 countries mentioned by name, he\nstated:\n\n     _... All states bordering on Germany have received much more\n     binding assurances, and above all suggestions, than Mr.\n     Roosevelt asked from me in his curious telegram ..._\n\n     The German Government is nevertheless prepared to give each\n     of the States named an assurance of the kind desired by Mr.\n     Roosevelt on the condition of absolute reciprocity, provided\n     that the State wishes it and itself addresses to Germany a\n     request for such an assurance together with appropriate\n     proposals.[110]\n\nAnd on September 1, 1939, with reference to the recently concluded\npact between Germany and Russia, he said:\n\n     You know that Russia and Germany are governed by two\n     different doctrines. There was only one question that had to\n     be cleared up. Germany has no intention of exporting its\n     doctrine. Given the fact that Soviet Russia has no intention\n     of exporting its doctrine to Germany, I no longer see any\n     reason why we should still oppose one another. On both sides\n     we are clear on that. Any struggle between our people would\n     only be of advantage to others. We have, therefore, resolved\n     to conclude a pact which rules out forever any use of\n     violence between us.[111]\n\nAdditional assurances of this nature are quoted in a series of\nextracts from Hitler's speeches, dating from February 10, 1933 to\nSeptember 1, 1939, which was printed in the _London Times_ of\nSeptember 26, 1939 (document 14, _post_ p. 232).\n\n\n_2. Internal Propaganda_\n\nWithin Germany the notorious propaganda machine of Dr. Goebbels,\ntogether with a systematic terrorization of oppositionist elements,\nhas been the principle support of the rise and triumph of the Nazi\nmovement. In his _Legal Organization and Legal Functions of the\nMovement_ (document 8, _post_ p. 204), Gauweiler gives an idea of the\npermeation of all phases of national life with a propaganda designed\nto make Nazi \"legal principles\" acceptable to the masses. He makes it\nclear that all of the Nazi propaganda machinery is in the service of\nthis program; political lecturers, the press, the radio, and the films\nall play a part in helping the people to understand and appreciate the\nnew legal code. The schools and Hitler Youth groups provide\ninstruction for all young people in the fundamentals of National\nSocialist law, and pupils in those schools which train the carefully\nselected future leaders are given an especially strong dose of Nazi\nlegal theory and practice.\n\nIn order to appeal to the broadest audience, Nazi propaganda has\nalways sought to present all questions in the simplest possible terms.\nGoebbels himself, in his _Nature and Form of National Socialism_\n(document 2, _post_ p. 170), wrote as follows:\n\n     National Socialism has simplified the thinking of the German\n     people and led it back to its original primitive formulas.\n     It has presented the complicated processes of political and\n     economic life in their simplest terms. This was done with\n     the well-considered intention of leading the broad masses of\n     the people once again to take part in political life. In\n     order to find understanding among the masses, we consciously\n     practiced a popular [_volksgebundene_] propaganda. We have\n     taken complexes of facts which were formerly accessible only\n     to a few specialists and experts, carried them to the\n     streets, and hammered them into the brain of the little man.\n     All things were presented so simply that even the most\n     primitive mind could grasp them. We refused to work with\n     unclear or insubstantial concepts but we gave all things a\n     clearly defined sense. Here lay the secret of our\n     success.[112]\n\nThe character and quality of Nazi propaganda was fully presaged in\n_Mein Kampf_. Here Hitler paid a striking tribute to the power of\nlies, commenting on--\n\n     the very correct principle that the size of the lie always\n     involves a certain factor of credibility, since the great\n     mass of a people will be more spoiled in the innermost\n     depths of its heart, rather than consciously and\n     deliberately bad. Consequently, in view of the primitive\n     simplicity of its mind it is more readily captivated by a\n     big lie than by a small one, since it itself often uses\n     small lies but would be, nevertheless, too ashamed to make\n     use of big lies. Such an untruth will not even occur to it,\n     and it will not even believe that others are capable of the\n     enormous insolence of the most vile distortions. Why, even\n     when enlightened, it will still vacillate and be in doubt\n     about the matter and will nevertheless accept as true at\n     least some cause or other. Consequently, even from the most\n     impudent lie something will always stick ...[113]\n\nA number of other passages display Hitler's low opinion of the\nintellectual capacities and critical faculties of the masses:\n\n     All propaganda has to appeal to the people and its\n     intellectual level has to be set in accordance with the\n     receptive capacities of the most-limited persons among those\n     to whom it intends to address itself. The larger the mass\n     of men to be reached, the lower its purely intellectual\n     level will have to be set.[114]\n\n     The receptive capacity of the great masses is very\n     restricted, its understanding small. On the other hand,\n     however, its forgetfulness is great. On account of these\n     facts all effective propaganda must restrict itself to very\n     few points and impress these by slogans, until even the last\n     person is able to bring to mind what is meant by such a\n     word.[115]\n\n     The task of propaganda is, for instance, not to evaluate\n     diverse rights but to emphasize exclusively the single right\n     of that which it is representing. It does not have to\n     investigate objectively the truth, so far as this is\n     favorable to the others, in order then to present it to the\n     masses in strict honesty, but rather to serve its own side\n     ceaselessly.[116]\n\n     If one's own propaganda even once accords just the shimmer\n     of right to the other side, then the basis is therewith laid\n     for doubt regarding one's own cause. The masses are not able\n     to distinguish where the error of the other side ends and\n     the error of one's own side begins.[117]\n\n     But all talent in presentation of propaganda will lead to no\n     success if a fundamental principle is not always strictly\n     followed. Propaganda has to restrict itself to a few matters\n     and to repeat these eternally. Persistence is here, as with\n     so many other things in the world, the first and most\n     important presupposition for success.[118]\n\n     In view of their slowness of mind, they [the masses] require\n     always, however, a certain period before they are ready even\n     to take cognizance of a matter, and only after a\n     thousandfold repetition of the most simple concept will they\n     finally retain it.[119]\n\n     _In all cases in which there is a question of the fulfilment\n     of apparently impossible demands or tasks, the entire\n     attention of a people must be concentrated only on this one\n     question, in such a way as if being or non-being actually\n     depends on its solution_ ...\n\n     ...The great mass of the people can never see the entire way\n     before them, without tiring and doubting the task.[120]\n\n     In general the art of all truly great popular leaders at all\n     times consists primarily in not scattering the attention of\n     a people but rather in concentrating it always on one single\n     opponent. The more unified this use of the fighting will of\n     a people, the greater will be the magnetic attractive force\n     of a movement and the more powerful the force of its push.\n     It is a part of the genius of a great leader to make even\n     quite different opponents appear as if they belonged only to\n     one category, because the recognition of different enemies\n     leads weak and unsure persons only too readily to begin\n     doubting their own cause.\n\n     When the vacillating masses see themselves fighting against\n     too many enemies, objectivity at once sets in and raises the\n     question whether really all the others are wrong and only\n     one's own people or one's own movement is right.[121]\n     (Document 13-II, _post_ pp. 229-231.)\n\nIt has been the aim of Nazi propaganda, then, to unite the masses of\nthe people in hatred of certain enemies, designated by such\nconveniently broad and simple terms as \"Jews,\" \"democrats,\"\n\"plutocrats,\" \"bolshevists,\" or \"Anglo-Saxons,\" which so far as\npossible were to be identified with one another in the public mind.\nThe Germans were represented to themselves, on the other hand, as a\nracial folk of industrious workers. It then became possible to plunge\nthe people into a war on a wave of emotional hatred against those\nnations which were pictured as combining to keep Germany from\nattaining her rightful place in the sun.\n\nThe important role which propaganda would have to play in the coming\nwar was fully recognized by Ewald Banse, an ardent Nazi military\ntheorist of the geopolitical school and professor of military science\nat Brunswick Military College. In his book _Raum und Volk im\nWeltkrieg_ (_Space and People in the World War_) which appeared in\n1932 (an English translation by Alan Harris was published under the\ntitle _Germany Prepares for War_ (New York, Harcourt, Brace and Co.,\n1934)), he stated:\n\n     Preparation for future wars must not stop at the creation,\n     equipment and training of an efficient army, but must go on\n     to train the minds of the whole people for the war and must\n     employ all the resources of science to master the conditions\n     governing the war itself and the possibility of endurance.\n     In 1914 we had a first-class army, but our scientific\n     mobilization was bad, and the mobilization of men's minds a\n     thing undreamed of. The unveiling of war memorials, parades\n     of war veterans, flag-waggings, fiery speeches and\n     guard-mounting are not of themselves enough to prepare a\n     nation's mind for the dangers that threaten. Conviction is\n     always more lasting than enthusiasm.\n\n     ... Such teaching is necessary at a time and in a world in\n     which countries are no longer represented by monarchs or a\n     small aristocracy or by a specialist army, but in which the\n     whole nation, from the commander-in-chief to the man in the\n     ranks, from the loftiest thought to the simplest wish, from\n     corn to coal, from the treasury vaults to the last\n     trouser-button, must be permeated through and through with\n     the idea of national defense, if it is to preserve its\n     national identity and political independence. The science of\n     national defense is not the same as military science; it\n     does not teach generals how to win battles or company\n     commanders how to train recruits. Its lessons are addressed\n     first and foremost to the whole people. It seeks to train\n     the popular mind to heroism and war and to implant in it an\n     understanding of the nature and prerequisite conditions of\n     modern warfare. It teaches us about countries and peoples,\n     especially our own country and its neighbors, their\n     territories and economic capacity, their communications and\n     their mentality--all for the purpose of creating the best\n     possible conditions for waging future wars in defense of the\n     national existence.[122]\n\n\nInfiltration Tactics\n\nThe Nazis, while entirely without scruple in the pursuit of their\nobjectives, endeavor whenever possible to give their actions the cloak\nof legality. This procedure was followed in Germany to enable them to\ngain control of the Government of the Reich and in their foreign\npolicy up to September 1, 1939. It has been a cardinal principle of\nthe Nazis to avoid the use of force whenever their objectives may be\nattained in another manner and they have assiduously studied their\nenemies in an effort to discover the weak points in their structure\nwhich will enable the Nazis to accomplish their downfall. The\npreceding pages have demonstrated that the Nazis have contributed\npractically nothing that is original to German political thought. By\nthe use of unscrupulous, deceitful, and uninhibited tactics, however,\nthey have been able to realize many of the objectives which had\npreviously existed only in theory.\n\nThe Weimar Constitution provided the Nazis with a convenient basis for\nthe establishment of the totalitarian state. They made no effort to\nconceal their intention of taking advantage of the weaknesses of the\nWeimar Republic in order to attain power. On April 30, 1928 Dr.\nGoebbels wrote in his paper _Der Angriff_:\n\n     We enter Parliament in order to supply ourselves, in the\n     arsenal of democracy, with its own weapons. We become\n     members of the Reichstag in order to paralyze the Weimar\n     sentiment with its own assistance. If democracy is so stupid\n     as to give us free tickets and salaries for this bear's\n     work, that is its affair ...[123]\n\nAnd later in the same article:\n\n     We do not come as friends, nor even as neutrals. We come as\n     enemies. As the wolf bursts into the flock, so we come.[124]\n\nHitler expressed the same idea on September 1, 1933, when, looking\nback upon the struggle for political power in Germany, he wrote:\n\n     This watchword of democratic freedom led only to insecurity,\n     indiscipline, and at length to the downfall and destruction\n     of all authority. _Our opponents' objection that we, too,\n     once made use of these rights, will not hold water; for we\n     made use of an unreasonable right, which was part and parcel\n     of an unreasonable system, in order to overthrow the\n     unreason of this system._[125]\n\nDiscussing the rise to power of the Nazis, Huber (document 1, _post_\np. 155) wrote in 1939:\n\n     The parliamentary battle of the NSDAP had the single purpose\n     of destroying the parliamentary system from within through\n     its own methods. It was necessary above all to make formal\n     use of the possibilities of the party-state system but to\n     refuse real cooperation and thereby to render the\n     parliamentary system, which is by nature dependent upon the\n     responsible cooperation of the opposition, incapable of\n     action.[126]\n\nAs its parliamentary strength increased, the party was able to achieve\nthese aims:\n\n     It was in a position to make the formation of any positive\n     majority in the Reichstag impossible.... Thus the NSDAP was\n     able through its strong position to make the Reichstag\n     powerless as a lawgiving and government-forming body.[127]\n\nThe same principle was followed by Germany in weakening and\nundermining the governments of countries which it had chosen for its\nvictims. While it was Hitler's policy to concentrate on only one\nobjective at a time, German agents were busy throughout the world in\nferreting out the natural political, social, and economic cleavages in\nvarious countries and in broadening them in order to create internal\nconfusion and uncertainty. Foreign political leaders of Fascist or\nauthoritarian persuasion were encouraged and often liberally\nsubsidized from Nazi funds. Control was covertly obtained over\ninfluential newspapers and periodicals and their editorial policies\nshaped in such a way as to further Nazi ends. In the countries Germany\nsought to overpower, all the highly developed organs of Nazi\npropaganda were utilized to confuse and divide public opinion, to\ndiscredit national leaders and institutions, and to induce an\nunjustified feeling of confidence in the false assertions of Nazi\nleaders disclaiming any aggressive intentions.\n\nOne of the most important features introduced by the Nazis into German\nforeign policy was the appreciation of the value of Germans living\nabroad and their organization as implements of the Reich for the\nattainment of objectives in the field of foreign policy. This idea was\napplied by the Nazis to all the large colonies of Germans which are\nscattered throughout the world. The potential usefulness of these\ncolonies was early recognized by the men in Hitler's immediate\nentourage, several of whom were so-called _Auslandsdeutsche_ who had\nspent many years of their life abroad and were familiar with foreign\nconditions and with the position and influence of German groups in\nforeign countries. Of particular importance in this group were Rudolf\nHess, the F\u00fchrer's Deputy, who was primarily responsible for\nelaborating the policy which utilized the services of Germans abroad,\nand Ernst Wilhelm Bohle, the leader of the Foreign Organization, who\nwas responsible for winning over these Germans to Naziism and for\ntheir organization in groups which would serve the purposes of the\nThird Reich.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 94: Feder, _op. cit._, p. 18.]\n\n[Footnote 95: Gauweiler, _op. cit._, pp. 149-151.]\n\n[Footnote 96: _Mein Kampf_, pp. 727-728.]\n\n[Footnote 97: _Ibid._, pp. 735-736.]\n\n[Footnote 98: Scurla, _op. cit._, p. 21.]\n\n[Footnote 99: _Ibid._, pp. 21-22.]\n\n[Footnote 100: _Ibid._, p. 23.]\n\n[Footnote 101: _Der Parteitag der Freiheit_ (official record of the\n1935 party congress at Nuremberg: Munich, 1935), p. 27.]\n\n[Footnote 102: _Mein Kampf_, p. 743.]\n\n[Footnote 103: _Ibid._, pp. 754-755.]\n\n[Footnote 104: _Ibid._, pp. 437-438.]\n\n[Footnote 105: Rosenberg, _Wesen, Grunds\u00e4tze und Ziele der NSDAP_, p.\n48.]\n\n[Footnote 106: _London Times_, Sept. 26, 1939, p. 9.]\n\n[Footnote 107: _Ibid._]\n\n[Footnote 108: _Ibid._]\n\n[Footnote 109: _My New Order_, p. 592.]\n\n[Footnote 110: _Ibid._, pp. 669-671.]\n\n[Footnote 111: _Ibid._, p. 687.]\n\n[Footnote 112: Goebbels, _op. cit._, p. 6.]\n\n[Footnote 113: _Mein Kampf_, p. 252.]\n\n[Footnote 114: _Ibid._, p. 197.]\n\n[Footnote 115: _Ibid_., p. 198.]\n\n[Footnote 116: _Ibid._, p. 200.]\n\n[Footnote 117: _Ibid._, pp. 200-201.]\n\n[Footnote 118: _Ibid._, p. 202.]\n\n[Footnote 119: _Ibid._, p. 203.]\n\n[Footnote 120: _Ibid._, p. 273.]\n\n[Footnote 121: _Ibid._, p. 129.]\n\n[Footnote 122: Banse, _Germany Prepares for War_ (New York, 1934), pp.\n348-349.]\n\n[Footnote 123: Goebbels, _Der Angriff: Aufs\u00e4tze aus der Kampfzeit_\n(Munich, 1936), p. 71.]\n\n[Footnote 124: _Ibid._, p. 73.]\n\n[Footnote 125: _My New Order_, pp. 195-196.]\n\n[Footnote 126: Huber, _Verfassungsrecht des grossdeutschen Reiches_\n(Hamburg, 1939), p. 31.]\n\n[Footnote 127: _Ibid._, p. 32.]\n\n\n\n\nNATIONAL-SOCIALISM AND MEDICINE\nAddress by Dr. F. Hamburger to German Medical Profession. Translated\n(in part) from _Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift_, 1939, No. 6.\n\n\nMedical men must beware of pride, a pride which is certainly\nwide-spread and which leads to the disparagement of the practical\ndoctor and medical layman, and then further to the disparagement of\nthe craft of nature healers. The practical doctor and the nature\nhealer on the one hand tend towards an understandable disparagement of\nmedical science and analysis and, on the other hand, tend towards\nsuperficiality. The superficiality of the opponents of science is,\nhowever, as unhappy an affair as the pride of the so-called\nscientists, but the one group should not demean the other. This would\nlead to successful cooperation to the advantage of the sick and health\nof the community.\n\nAcademic medicine and nature healers generally have one thing in\ncommon, that they underestimate the significance of automatism and\nsuggestion. In this regard there is an absence in both camps of the\nnecessary criticism and clarity. Successes are noted with specific\nmethods without any confirmation as to whether or not suggestion and\nfaith alone have not produced the improvement in the patient.\n\nNational-Socialism is the true instrument for the achievement of the\nhealth of our people. National-Socialism is concerned with the great\nsignificance of inherited traits and with the insight into the working\nof spiritual forces upon the body, with the study of the power of\ncustom and, along with this, of the significance of education and\nnurture. (Hamburger here complains about the luxurious arrangement for\ndealing with the mentally ill in contradistinction to the neglect of\nFolk-health. This he attributes to the era of liberalism with its\nstress upon the single individual. He here also attacks the Socialism\nof Social Democracy and its conception of a Community of Equal Men.\nThis is a false Socialism.)\n\nSo we scientists and doctors simply and soberly affirm the principle\nof strength of faith and the nationalist socialist principle of\nPositive Christianity which does not prevent us from the inspired\nconsideration of natural and divinely willed phenomena. We doctors\nmust never forget the fact that the soul rules the body.\n\nSoul forces are the most important. The spirit builds the body.\nStrength springs from joy. Efficiency is achieved despite care, fear,\nand uncertainty--We speak here of thymogenetic automatism or the\nautomatism of harmony (\"thymogenetische automatismus oder\nstimmungsautomatismus\"). The autonomous nervous system achieves, under\nthe influence of joy, the expansion of the blood vessels in skin and\nmuscle.... The muscular activity incited by joy means the use of\ncalories and stimulation of appetite. Muscular contraction pulls and\ndraws at the bones, ligaments are tensed, breathing deepend, appetite\nincreased ... A child influenced by the daily exercise of joy develops\nphysically strong and powerful. ... The Soul care (Seele Sorge) of the\npractical doctor is his most significant daily task alongside of\nprescriptions and manipulative dexterity.\n\nSoul-care in the medical sense is a concern for the wishes, hopes and\nfears of the patient, the considered participation in his fate. Such a\nrelationship leads to the all-important and generally recognized trust\nin the doctor. This faith, in all cases, leads to the improvement,\noften even to the elimination of symptoms, of the disease. Here we\nhave clearly before us the great significance of thymogenetic\nautomatism.\n\nAcademic physicians should not dismiss this because we do not know its\nbiochemical aspects. (We must beware of regarding something as\nunacceptable because it is not measurable in exact terms, he warns.)\nWe see its practical results, and, therefore, thymogenetic automatism\nmust stand in the first rank as of overwhelming significance. Thus,\nalso, the principle, strength through joy (Kraft durch Freude) stands\nfirmly as an inescapable natural law.\n\nWe see the practical country doctor spreading courage and confidence.\nFor years too few doctors have seen clearly that gymnastic tourism and\nsport do more for health than all doctors taken together. And now we\nface the fact that a single man, a non-medical man (Hitler) through\nhis great qualities, has opened up new avenues of health for the\neighty million folk of Germany.\n\nIn the majority of cases things so happen that the doctor must act\nbefore making a diagnosis, since only the mis-educated patients, the\none-sided intellectual patient, wishes in the very first place to know\nthe diagnosis. But the unspoilt and properly ordered type of person\nwishes only to be relieved of his pain. For him the diagnosis is an\ninteresting side issue but not the principle thing. We can thus also\nunderstand why we always meet the desire for a diagnosis placed first\nby the over-intellectualized Jewish patient. But that is not the case\nwith most Aryan patients. They, from the first, come to meet the\ndoctor with more trust. They do not entertain as many after-thoughts.\nAnd I cannot help but remark that after-thoughts are hardly conducive\nto right results.\n\n(After a discussion of the sterilization of the unfit and of\ninheritable diseases he turns to the subject of child bearing.)\n\nIt has been estimated that every couple should have four children if\nthe nation's population is to be maintained. But we meet already the\nfacile and complacent expression of young married people, \"Now we have\nour four children and so have fulfilled our obligations\"--What\nsuperficiality! Today we must demand a much higher moral attitude from\nthe wife than previously. Earlier it was taken for granted that a\nwoman would bear a child every one or two years. But today in this\ntime of manifold amenities of life, at a time when women is not denied\naccess to these joys it is understandable that she is eager to\nparticipate in them. Add to this that the knowledge of birth control\nis general today. Despite all this women must be encouraged to give\nbirth during twenty years of married life to eight or ten and even\nmore children, and to renounce the above-mentioned joys of life. She\nmust decide as a mother of children to lead a life full of sacrifices,\ndevotion, and unselfishness. It is only when these ethical demands are\nfulfilled by a large number of worthy wives of good stock that the\nfuture of the German nation will be assured.\n\nDoctors are leaders of the Folk more than they know ... They are now\nquite officially fuehrer of the people, called to the leadership of\nits health. To fulfill this task they must be free of the profit\nmotive. They must be quite free from that attitude of spirit which is\nrightly designated as Jewish, the concern for business and\nself-provision.\n\n\n\n\nSELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY\n\nArendt, Hannah--_The Origins of Totalitarianism_, N.Y., 1951.\n\n     Pt. III is especially directed to a discussion of the\n     principles and consequences of fascism. The author gives an\n     effective account of what \"total domination\" signifies in a\n     reign of terror. Detailed bibliography.\n\nBodrero, Emilio--\"Fascism\" in _Dictatorship on Its Trial_, ed. by Otto\nForst de Battaglia, London, 1930.\n\n     A brief, but significant, statement by a former Rector of\n     the University of Padua and a Secretary of State to\n     Mussolini.\n\nBorgese, G.A.--_Goliath, The March of Fascism_, N.Y., 1938.\n\n     Well written from the point of view of an Italian humanist.\n\nBrady, Robert A.--_The Spirit and Structure of German Fascism_,\nLondon, 1937.\n\n     An extremely thorough and documented discussion of the\n     economy of National Socialist Germany, its institutions and\n     its business practices.\n\n     See also: Brady's _Business as a System of Power_; chapters\n     on Germany, Italy and Japan. N.Y., 1943.\n\nChilds, H.L. and Dodd, W.E.--_The Nazi Primer_, N.Y., 1938.\n\n     A translation of the \"Official Handbook for Schooling the\n     Hitler Youth.\" In simple form including illustrations, it is\n     an excellent indication of the guiding principles of the\n     German educational system.\n\n     Dennis, Lawrence--_The Coming American Fascism_, N.Y., 1936.\n                       _The Dynamics of War and Revolution_, N.Y., 1940.\n\n     Two books by the only fascist theorist in America.\n\nFraenkel, Ernest--_The Dual State: A Contribution to the Theory of\nDictatorship,_ N.Y., 1941.\n\n     By distinguishing between the \"Prerogative State\" and the\n     \"Normative State,\" the author gives an effective account of\n     the attempt of the Nazis to acknowledge an indispensable, if\n     minimal, legal order, which was, comparatively speaking,\n     independent of the extra-legal realm of violence.\n\nHartshorne, E.Y.--_The German Universities and National Socialism_,\nCambridge, 1937.\n\n     A carefully documented account of what happened in the\n     various branches and departments of German universities\n     under the Nazis.\n\nHitler, Adolph--_My Battle_, N.Y., 1939.\n\n     Hitler's own vitriolic account of his attempt to rise to\n     power.\n\nLasswell, Harold D.--\"The Garrison State,\" _American Journal of\nSociology_, Chicago, Vol. XLVI, 1940-41, pp. 455-468.\n\n     A brief but incisive discussion of the structure of fascism.\n\nLilge, Frederic--_The Abuse of Learning: The Failure of the German\nUniversity,_ N.Y., 1948.\n\n     A philosophical history of higher education in Germany,\n     concluding with its fascist evolution.\n\nMatteotti, Giacomo--_The Fascist Exposed: A Year of Fascist\nDomination_, London, 1924.\n\n     A factual account by a liberal, who, until murdered, was a\n     member of the Italian Senate.\n\nMinio-Paluello, L.--_Education in Fascist Italy_, N.Y., 1946.\n\n     A detailed discussion of fascist education, including an\n     historical introduction to pre-fascist education.\n\nNeumann, Franz--_Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National\nSocialism_, N.Y., 1942.\n\n     Probably the most comprehensive and definitive statement in\n     English of the functioning of National Socialism. It\n     concentrates especially on the political and economic\n     aspects of Nazism.\n\nPinthus, Kurt--\"Culture Under Nazi Germany,\" _The American Scholar_,\nVol. IX, N.Y., 1940, pp. 483-498.\n\n     A valuable treatment of the inner character of the arts and\n     letters and of what happened to their publics under the\n     Nazis.\n\nSabine, G.H.--_A History of Political Theory_, N.Y., 1950.\n\n     A brief chapter on \"Fascism\" gives an excellent balanced\n     account of its fundamentals.\n\n     Salvemini, Gaetano--_The Fascist Dictatorship in Italy_, N.Y., 1927.\n                         _Under the Axe of Fascism_, N.Y., 1936.\n\n     An eminent Italian historian writes vividly and perceptively\n     on Italian Fascism.\n\nSchneider, Herbert W.--_Making the Fascist State_, N.Y., 1928.\n\n     An early, but well considered, account of the rise of\n     Italian fascism.\n\nSilone, Ignazio--_Fontamara_, Verona, 1951.\n\n     The best novel on Italian fascism.\n\nSpender, Stephen--_European Witness_, N.Y., 1946.\n\n     Note especially the analysis of Goebbel's novel, _Michael_.\n\nTrevor-Roper, H.R.--_The Last Days of Hitler_, N.Y., 1946.\n\n     An intimate portrayal of Hitler and his entourage from the\n     time of the beginning of the collapse of the Nazi armies.\n     Especially good on the rift between the politicians and the\n     military.\n\n\n\n\nREADINGS ON FASCISM AND NATIONAL SOCIALISM\n\nThe catastrophe and holocaust brought about by the two powerful\nmovements of fascism and national socialism will mark human life\nalways. Now, as we feel our hatred for them, we find it difficult to\nunderstand how they could have been so powerful, how they could have\nappealed so strongly to millions of people of a modern age.\n\nAnd the documents whereby we could understand these philosophies have\nbeen lost--except as they are now gathered here in one convenient\nvolume.\n\nTo understand our own times, it is necessary to understand these\nmovements. And to understand them, we must read the basic\nphilosophical and political documents which show the force of the\nideas which moved a world to the brink of disaster.\n\n\n     THE FIRST SWALLOW PAPERBOOKS:\n\n     1. A FIELD OF BROKEN STONES by Lowell Naeve.\n     A profound book written in a prison. $1.65.\n\n     2. THE WIFE OF MARTIN GUERRE by Janet Lewis.\n     One of the fine short novels of all time. $1.25.\n\n     3. READINGS ON FASCISM AND NATIONAL SOCIALISM.\n     A grouping together of authoritative readings. $1.35.\n\n     4. THE TEACHER OF ENGLISH by James E. Warren, Jr.\n     The Materials and Opportunities of the teacher. $1.35.\n\n     5. MORNING RED by Frederick Manfred.\n     The most ambitious novel by a powerful writer. $1.95.\n\n\n     ALAN SWALLOW\n     2679 So. York St., Denver 10, Colo.\n\nCover design by Lowell Naeve","title":"Readings on Fascism and National Socialism: Selected by members of the department of philosophy, University of Colorado","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":43607}