The Crisis and the Construction of a New Europe

 

by Reichsleiter Alfred Rosenberg

 

The Great War of 1914-1918 was a deep chasm between two great eras. Many who returned from it, many around the globe who watched it from the sidelines, millions believed that after the cessation of hostilities it would be possible to return to their homes and to their work. Many statesmen also believed in this. In reality, however, the very fact of events such as the World War is already a symbol of an unhealthy situation. It was a catastrophe, the collapse of the old world, and millions of people who are now re-entering life are now trying to explain the trends and prerequisites that led to this great collision and collapse.

 

Many people turned to the past decades, they began to deeply explore the life of the previous century. And, oddly enough, everywhere, now in one nation, then in another, there were people who gave answers to the burning questions of our time. In those November days of 1918, not only social legislation, not only dogmas of a social, political and ideological nature collapsed, but also the state systems of countries that emerged victorious from the war. They have also suffered, and now, fifteen years later, it is becoming increasingly obvious that they have undergone a deep internal transformation, and even those who are now reluctant to do so will also be forced to carry out practical transformations.

 

In particular, a large-scale criticism of all social charters and the whole way of life of our time began in Germany. We must say that it is impossible to reconcile this criticism from the old point of view on politics, society and worldview; after all, the essence of all the great turns of history is precisely that the old assessments of any events almost completely cease to find application. And now, as in all great epochs, the questions of the few in front of millions who do not know the answer are resolved and approved by the few. A ideological, external and internal political struggle flares up between these statements, until finally the opinions expressed by a few become the foundations of future scientific knowledge. That this is exactly the course of events, we could see in our Germany. People with certain beliefs began to rally around these few, gradually turning into a large group ready to fight for their own beliefs, until, finally, a new Power (Reich) grew out of one of these groups. Even after the end of the internal political struggle, these beliefs are at the heart of the foreign policy course.

 

If today you can be convinced of the rebirth of modernity, feel the measured growth of the state, see a new perception of life, then in this case you can re-evaluate the past. To turn our eyes to the history of our own nation, to the history of Europe, to the history of the world. The personalities who used to stand in darkness will appear before us in a new light. The other side of this process will be that people who enjoyed respect in early school and university life will lose the respect they enjoyed before, will „retire“. If, for example, we raise the question of who was the bearer and founder of the German state idea, we will immediately find serious discrepancies with the traditional science of the past, which claimed that it was Charlemagne. Not in Charlemagne, but in his opponent, the Saxon leader Widukind, we see the founder of the German empire, and the bearer of the German sovereign idea. Now, speaking of Blood and Soil (Blut und Boden), we see in this Saxon heretic leader the first fighter for this Blood and this Soil. What Charlemagne did was the work of Varus’ legions, and what Vidukind fought for was the work of Arminius. And if we trace this dichotomy deep into the centuries, then Barbarossa will be seen by us as a rebel, and the leader of the German state and the representative of our national idea will again be a Saxon:

 

Henry the Lion3! Of course, we do not dare to think about somehow belittling the august persons of the Hohenstaufen family. In both Henry VI and Frederick II we see two great figures of the German past. But they were in the service of a global idea: Germany was not its center. That is why the revolt against this universalism seems to us to be the basis of German history, and the path that leads to Adolf Hitler today went from Widukind through Heinrich Leo, the Elector of Brandenburg, through Frederick II, and through Bismarck! Such is a different assessment of many figures of history, such are other principles, such is a different assessment of the German past. I think something similar is happening with other nations. If earlier in Italy they worshipped Graccham4, then Italy now likes Sulla5 more for sure. And just as today’s Italy dreams of a Third Rome, today’s Germany dreams of a Third Reich. In the new life of the peoples of Europe, we see parallels everywhere. And I hope that when you talk about Europe today, you no longer understand it as a construction within a universalist system. It is impossible to present the idea of Europe somehow in such a way as to convey it to every house in black and white. Once it was believed that there could be such a Europe:

referring to the Middle Ages, some argued that for centuries there had been a Europe united by one thought and worldview. But I think that if we delve into the history of the past now, it will turn out that this so-called unified Europe of the Middle Ages will turn out to be a construct from later times. Even at a time when the Kaiser’s empire really dominated Europe from the standpoint of power politics, when a single worldview determined people’s lives, in this rather explosive unity there were many ideological and political clashes; not always major, but between city and city, between rich and rich, the struggle never ended, and the dream of European unity was really a fantasy of retrospective historical interpretation with certain goals.

 

We have all witnessed an attempt at the end of the last century to present Pan-Europe as a solution to all atomized political and sociological problems in order to create so-called European unity. Having followed all these ideologizations of Count Coudenhove-Kalergi6, we saw how these attempts continue in the League of Nations, and saw that in practice no real European idea was expressed, and the one that was expressed only theoretically strengthened the dominance of the French Republic. If we look at the map of this Pan-Europe, we will see that England is excluded from it, however, a completely opposite fate befell all French colonies in Africa and Asia. This Pan-European project caused lively joy in all our Jewish newspapers, and in practice we were dealing not with pan-European ideas, but, to put it succinctly, with Franco-Judea.

 

We do not believe that all the peoples of Europe would share some common European idea, as well as if the universal idea would be distributed among nations according to the degree of their giftedness. Rather, we believe that the mystery of Europe lies in its multiplicity,7 and that pan-European ideologies of former times were confused with the idea of unity. Unity presupposes a certain set that will make up the whole. This is a deeper attempt to form this diversity, because it cannot be described without resorting to abstract dogmas. Today we have to say: the point, the idea, and the fact from which we proceed today is the nation. Today nationalism is more alive than ever in previous centuries, and it is deeper, much deeper than the nationalism of the XIX century, and its essence appears to us more multifaceted. This versatility has roots in different folk characters. I believe that the way an individual nation forms its idea of nationalism is the defining fact of the cultural, historical and political history of Europe.

 

I believe that there are four nations that were the first to produce a defined and minted national idea.

 

Fascist Italy understands the state by the nation. Everywhere in today’s Italy, these two concepts are equated with each other, and in this we see a conscious return to the iron Roman state system. Again and again one can contemplate the veneration of ancient Rome, its power, its discipline, its capacity for self-sacrifice, its absolute subordination of the individual to an abstract state idea. This idea seems to have come back to life despite the fact that for many centuries it nested only in the souls of the best of Italians; from this national-state principle, the amazing creative abilities of the fascist state arose.

 

France has a significantly different point of view on what it wants to associate with the idea of a nation. If we turn to French literature (Balzac or Zola), we will find in them images of stingy peasants who are inextricably tied to their Soil.

 

The French have always fought hard for their land. This veneration, adoration of their land, even connected the French clergy with French freethinking. This is the riddle of French nationalism, which strengthened it in numerous trials, from which this people was not spared.

 

English nationalism also differs from others. British citizenship means rather what we call „society“, Society. Whoever submits himself to the British unwritten laws, who does not violate these laws in any way, can be British. For centuries, this British view of nationalism has shown a special capacity for assimilation. This ability was so strong that it Anglicized even a small part of the Jews. Nowhere has a Jew been able to assimilate as much as in the UK. This secret exerted the power of selection, which is still noticeable today all over the world, and this shows the secret of the country’s security on an island position, and this secret was able to penetrate many more places in the world.

 

And the fourth: German nationalism. It always came from blood. Perhaps it was also partly due to the historical situation, to the geographical situation, to the fact that the German people had been torn apart for centuries. But whenever Germany woke up, this idea of blood was alive. Even the „Kölnische Volkszeitung8“, the main organ of the former center, concluded that the secret of the German national feeling is actually rooted in the feeling of blood.

 

We don’t want to say that any of them are absolutely right. We believe, and this is a pragmatic belief, in Goethe’s words: „What is fruitful is true in itself.“ If an Italian leader, with the help of his national ideal, fruitfully creates a great Italy with a living creative force, then his teaching is true for Italy. If England manages to deepen and strengthen its system of education, then 7 this system is true for England. And if it is possible to succeed in uniting the heterogeneous German people with a multitude of its individual impulses, and create from it a single full-blooded lump of seventy million people, then this blood faith is the only possible force for Germany, and we should adhere to it alone. This is a very practical conclusion, and we can already say that this new worldview, which has been fighting for its existence with great sacrifices for fourteen years, can be considered as a given, and that a new people with a new future will be born in these conditions. Therefore, it is no accident that fascist Italy chose a symbol whose history spans thousands of years:

a bunch of lictors, a symbol of the most brutal statehood. It is no coincidence that the newly awakened Germany has chosen the swastika as its symbol, a sign created more than five thousand years ago in Central Europe, and has always been a symbol of a nascent life full of blood feeling. These are phenomena that occur not so much consciously, as they come from the subconscious, and then this instinct is combined with a consciously chosen ideological formation.

 

Thus, the European idea has four roots. I believe that all other theories are somewhat simplified if we first turn to the roots, the species structure of these peoples, who determined the history of the entire West, whether for the benefit or to the detriment of many others. If any conflicts arise in Europe and one of these centers is destroyed, then others will suffer and be destroyed! This is not the idea that we preach to the rest of the world after gaining power, but what we said long before, unlike all those who attributed any imperialist tendencies to us. This is literally what I stated at an international conference in Rome in 1932. I tried to justify these four nationalisms there in the same way, and fascist newspapers and magazines later discovered that it was in this vein that the later pact of the four Powers was drawn up.9 We know that this pact of the four Powers is far from reality. I think I can say the following about it: if someone accepts these basic requirements in their heart, then everyone.

 

A non-utopian mind will understand that today they are more programmatic than practical, since the path from internal recognition to political activity and achievements is always extremely difficult. Just as some scientific ideas often take decades or centuries to be approved, the same applies to political ideas. It can be noticed that people get carried away with utopian ideas from purely subconscious feelings, without trying to put them to the test of reality, so they will find any balanced statement inconvenient and will fight it. But we cannot overlook the fact that just as the National Socialist awakening cultivates new forms among the peoples of Europe, so other nations and races are also undergoing an internal transformation, followed by social and political changes, the results of which cannot be ignored. However, it does not matter whether Great China will be revived in the Far East, or Japan will usurp leadership among the yellow race, or in general – that a union of strong states will arise in the Far East - what once had influence there as a European heritage will disappear from the consciousness of both Chinese and Japanese. Their renewal will grow out of their own blood, heritage, and political destiny, so naturally they will harbor a double hostility to „European spirituality.“ The fundamental requirements for all Europeans will be the rejection of any cultural propaganda out of respect for the specific morality of the yellow race of the East, and the cessation of communication in politics, technology and the economic sphere.

 

An internal renewal suitable for these peoples will mean recognition of the achievements of the yellow race without prejudice.

 

Related to this phenomenon, however, is the question of the internal dynamics of the four nationalisms briefly outlined above. In the past and now there is a tragedy in our existence, which consists in the fact that these four great nations in their development did not stand back to back, but often – against each other. If we look at the state of France now, we can see that France is a very rich country. There are more than one million immigrants in the north of France, mostly Polish workers, since the French people are not able to fill all the space at their disposal. To the southeast more and more Italian immigrants are pressing. In an already more than saturated Europe, France has set itself a great task – to use the forces available to it throughout the Mediterranean Sea to build and form its huge colonial empire. I believe that there are already a number of Frenchmen who have abandoned further attempts at expansion, and who clearly see the great task of their state. But don’t look at it the way narrow-minded politicians of the soldier’s training look at it. Because if the Paris parliament declares not about thirty-nine, but about a hundred million French speakers, it consciously equates Negroes and whites to each other. I think this is a dangerous trend for the whole of Europe, but first of all for France itself. Because on the horizon of such development is a repetition of the history of Ancient Rome and Ancient Hellas. These States died not only as a result of wars, but also as a result of racial mixing with Syrians and Africans. If France deliberately wants to develop in this way, then mulatization, as in Toulouse and Marseille, will penetrate into the very heart of „Frenchness“, and as a result, only a colonial suburb will remain from the city of Saint-Genevieve. This is something that every conscious Frenchman should think twice about. He should reject the fact that old France is now becoming the bulwark of Africa; rather, he should recognize that France’s task should be to protect white people on the African continent.

 

We don’t know if these thoughts will prevail in France. We should regret that the Foreign Minister states the need to pursue such a policy in order to create a „safety net“ in Europe. Recently, he expressed his joy that this security system of France now covers its east, but it [the network - approx. the translator] is still thin; he hoped that it could be tied tighter and tighter. This means that in Paris, they not only did not abandon the idea of defending themselves with huge concrete walls from Germany, but also wanted to call on almost all the peoples of Europe to guarantee the „security“ of France. But if we take into account that experts in the French parliament present their weapons as incomparable, they, in fact, declare that no German will be able to overcome this line of defense, and I believe that such a degree of security suits France. We talk today, the fact that the security of France is still not guaranteed, the French authorities are signing a sentence to their people that we, the Germans, would not like to sign to them!

 

The Italian vector was quite clearly marked with the beginning of Mussolini’s reign. When he went to Tripoli on a warship in 1927, he stated before leaving: „It is not by chance that I choose this route. Fate itself points to him!“. And indeed, it can be understood that Italy no longer wants its people to settle in North and South America, but wants them to rally around their metropolis. It is clear that this may cause conflicts with other States. But this Italian dynamic is natural and understandable, the Italian people need to live and prosper.

 

We believe that the mission of England has not changed at all compared to what it was in previous centuries. Great Britain set as its goal the protection of the white man on earth, and British colonial policy really remains true to this task to this day10. I believe that it is in the interests of the whole of Europe to take up this mission so that the living space that Europeans everywhere need in order to exist is not reduced, but preserved for everyone. This is the UK mission.

 

This mission is certainly in the interests of all peoples.

As for the development of Germany? Today, first of all, she is busy with domestic political affairs. If earlier we only talked about blood, today we see new German legislation, as well as racial theory, hereditary hygiene, etc., everything we have is aimed at not only nurturing those who are within German borders, but also those people with character who think in a similar direction and believe that the quality of the population should increase from generation to generation.

 

When we talk about racial theory, we are always reproached with the fact that this is a belittled assessment of other peoples and races. In fact, the opposite is true. Racial research in Germany is not racial  hatred, but racial respect, coming from the fact that there are people on Earth who are different in skin color, blood, and behavior, and this is not an accident, but a natural state of things. With such knowledge, people will be able to appreciate not only their own people, but also others.

This knowledge will also play a primary role among other peoples who will be able to assess or reassess their position.

 

The question of how culturally positive Europe is in relation to the rest of the world, especially the Asian-African part of it, is solved in one word: not at all!

 

Consequently, there is no need to reduce the various manifestations of nationalism in European countries to a common denominator. This is completely a problem for the whole of Europe. Genuine nationalism, which today appeals to the people’s physical and mental substance, consciously rejects all subjective or capitalist interests. Therefore, with further development, he will not cultivate an activity full of hatred, but rather that chivalrous nobility that has almost disappeared from the modern world. Every bearer of true values will feel respect for all other representatives of such sincere feelings, and will not experience treacherous thoughts about competition for profit. Young nationalism, therefore, is called upon to achieve what the old nationalism of all shades was unable to achieve. Never, for example, will an effective limitation of armaments be carried out through complaints and humanitarian eloquence; this will be possible only if an ardent nationalist values his people, his researchers, artists, soldiers, his youth as the most sacred good, and then he will see the use of all this together with- or against modern military equipment as the last way out. Only such a person will not look at a possible military catastrophe from the point of view of the stock exchange or the monetary capabilities of the military-industrial complex, as has been happening so far under the guise of nationalism, as well as under the guise of international propaganda. The abstract concept of a liberal state solved problems only in theory. Such a state did not dominate the economy, but was gradually privatized by large banks and corporations.

 

The most important task for all major European states. It should be the elimination from its foreign and domestic policy of speculators of all kinds, having private interests, and often related to each other. Only in this way will the creative economy regain its former, almost lost, but still existing prestige. Finding ways to solve this issue is a matter for individuals. The problem and the final solution of this question 11 is a matter for the whole of Europe.

 

After severe trials, this statement also means a rejection of the subjectivism of the ideas of 178912 – this is the necessary consequence. Today, people correctly understand the opposite, and not at all the identity of subjectivism and individuality (Persönlichkeit). In the world of liberal ideas, an individual is summed up a million times to get what is known as humanity. However, personality is the highest point of organic laws based on Blood and Soil, and the fundamental laws of elaborated and, consequently, limited growth. Only such a law can grant freedom. It is possible to guarantee the freedom of the social and personal only in the struggle against the carriers of chaos, whether these now intellectually or instinctively destroying us represent the world economy as an ideal to strive for. The truth is that there is no such thing as a global economy. Instead, today something that previously existed only nominally is being born: the people’s economy. This is just the outer side of the great process of nationalization, the revolution of the 20th century, the processes in the flow of which we are all, and which will soon fill with blood and change everything that exists!

 

If we consider all this totality of the four great European nations, and this for the most part means only a negative attitude towards other continents, then with the introduction of the concept of „big nations“ no value judgment is made about the so-called „small nations“. We are talking here only about the quantitative ratio, this is in no way a sign of their cultural potential or cultural achievements in European history. This is just an observation concerning the fact that these four great nations in the first place have the right to decide political fate. Other peoples in one form or another have developed similar nationalist ideas in the course of their history, and then created their cultural achievements from these and related forms. If we now consider this Western European complex as a whole, then, looking to the east, we can state the following fact, which, I believe, is decisive for European history. Mommsen once compared the old Russian Empire to a trash can that was supported by a rusty rim. When this tsarist state collapsed in 1917, it became obvious that Russia was not a national state like the peoples of Western Europe, but a state of nationality,13 that is, state citizenship. From the very first days, Bolshevism proclaimed the right of all peoples of Russia to self-determination, including the right to secede from the Russian state. So many peoples gradually took advantage of this right that Moscow was forced to stop this process, and now it has established a centralist dictatorship. But the fact remains: the entire west of the former Russian Empire a trash can that was supported by a rusty rim. When this tsarist state collapsed in 1917, it became obvious that Russia was not a national state like the peoples of Western Europe, but a state of nationality,13 that is, state citizenship. From the very first days, Bolshevism proclaimed the right of all peoples of Russia to self-determination, including the right to secede from the Russian state.

 

So many peoples gradually took advantage of this right that Moscow was forced to stop this process, and now it has established a centralist dictatorship. But the fact remains that the entire west of the former Russian Empire broke away as if on command, forming a whole series of so-called border states. And suddenly come back to life that sense of what was long ago forgotten: the Eastern space, formerly constituting the determining factor in the history of Europe and later lost sight of, now living back in the spotlight; all the peoples of the Baltic sea region (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) – they all turned away from communism, taking up defensive position on the political events in Eastern Europe and took the most crucial part in shaping our European continent. They devoted themselves to this Europe, creating their own states and building values and the form of their government. We know that there is some bitterness between Germany and these young states; we know that they themselves have experienced many crises in politics. But I think I can say that if there has ever been a fear of the so-called German onslaught on the East (Drang nach Osten), then now you can see that in Germany they vividly understand the fact that a number of peoples. I am ready to recognize the common destiny of all the peoples of the Baltic Sea and their certain dynamics. We believe that fate unites all these peoples and States, and that the need for mutual understanding is mutual. We also believe that we can expect that the tone and attitude shown on our part will also be mutual, and that such a great nation as the German one has the right to expect this from such young states.

 

Today, another region naturally makes itself felt – the Danube region. The former state was destroyed there14 and the people allied to us were crushed. But even here there is a certain fate from which these peoples are not destined to escape. It turns out that in the end they will all be forced to work together over the next years and decades, unless a new catastrophe strikes not only them, but the whole of Europe. In this case, the people of the coming historical review and the coming political leadership will also have to accept the seriousness of such a development of events and refrain from small, limited squabbles.

 

I believe that the Danube, this old river of the Nibelungs15, will demonstrate its strength and that there, in the Danube countries, one day they will understand that it is unnatural to allow themselves to be considered as a base for financial-capitalist investments from Paris or other countries, but that any country is organically connected with Central Europe, and this is no longer a question of financial capitalism, as in the XIX century, but an exchange between these peoples and Germany, beneficial for everyone. I would like to say that this dynamic, which may one day come from the new Germany, will by no means be aggressive or militaristic, but instead based on the knowledge that the destinies of the peoples of the Danube and Germany are inextricably linked for decades to come.

Today, another region naturally makes itself felt – the Danube region. The former state was destroyed there14 and the people allied to us were crushed. But even here there is a certain fate from which these peoples are not destined to escape. It turns out that in the end they will all be forced to work together over the next years and decades, unless a new catastrophe strikes not only them, but the whole of Europe. In this case, the people of the coming historical review and the coming political leadership will also have to accept the seriousness of such a development of events and refrain from small, limited squabbles.

 

I believe that the Danube, this old river of the Nibelungs15, will demonstrate its strength and that there, in the Danube countries, one day they will understand that it is unnatural to allow themselves to be considered as a base for financial-capitalist investments from Paris or other countries, but that any country is organically connected with Central Europe, and this is no longer a question of financial capitalism, as in the XIX century, but an exchange between these peoples and Germany, beneficial for everyone. I would like to say that this dynamic, which may one day come from the new Germany, will by no means be aggressive or militaristic, but instead based on the knowledge that the destinies of the peoples of the Danube and Germany are inextricably linked for decades to come.

 

I believe that I can also say that although the activity of the French is no longer directed to the east, but organically goes to the south, to Africa, when the development of Italy also organically moves to the central part of North Africa, when Great Britain uses its strength to protect the white man all over the globe, and Germany unfolds its economic and cultural aspirations to the northeast and to the southeast - all these currents are not opposing each other, but standing back to back. And the small nations involved in these processes will also be able to live safer and economically and culturally healthier than if someone wanted to establish the postulates of a new Pan-Europe dominated by a certain center. There is no point in these reflections ending with any abstract formula; there is no point in declaring that the European idea is this or that; rather, without any schematism, we should seriously study the history and nature of our continent.

 

We can only say that different forces of creative talent, with completely different political destinies, have formed certain types of people and types of nations, and that they must now actively act towards the realization of that great task that would correspond to their organic nature, geographical location and, most of all, their fate. I am of the opinion that if the Europeans, and especially the four great states of Europe, do not come to the differentiation and distribution of their activities, then none of us will escape the fate that befell Rome, Sparta and Athens. This great question is equally before all peoples, but nowhere is it considered as seriously as it is now in Germany. Nowhere else is there such a living spirit capable of riding these problems. Often people are mistaken about the ardent German nationalism. Our path is not a revolution of the armed fist, but a world-wide social revolution within Germany, based on the realization that peoples can be freed from the fetters of the entire XIX century, from the confrontation of Marxism and financial capitalism if they find a way to peacefully create their state, their people and their culture in a suitable mental mood for them.

 

Such thoughts are not given to peoples, but are born in urgent need. We are sometimes told that Germany has returned to the Medieval order. To this, we can proudly say that Germany had a more difficult fate than other nations, and under this pressure, Germany has taken such a step forward in 10 years, to which would otherwise take much longer, and which other nations would probably need 30 or 40 years to do.

 

This is not arrogance, but just a statement of the fact of folk psychology. That is why today’s Germany does not close itself off from foreign travelers like other countries, but on the contrary, asks as many foreigners as possible to look at Germany and stay away from hateful statements from Amsterdam, Prague or any other press, and see first-hand how today’s Germany is trying to responsibly observe the laws of its life, the laws of its culture and signs of its creative power. If many foreigners do this (and many, thank God, did it this year), then they will find themselves in such conditions on the basis of which they may be able to reconsider their views on something at home.

 

And then, perhaps, there will be a way to overcome the misunderstandings of the pre-war generation, the unintentional and deliberate misunderstandings of some diplomats who have not yet gone beyond the feelings of the pre-war and wartime, in order to understand that a new, free generation is now growing up, which explores the issues of our time, and which expresses the fact that the twentieth century also has its own way of life and its rights, and not only the nineteenth, eighteenth or fourteenth century.

 

And for such a XX century, for these ascending forms of it, we are fighting.

 

We believe that only when we comprehend the great crisis can there be a living revival of all the best on our ancient and venerable European continent!