Watch videos with subtitles in your language, upload your videos, create your own subtitles! Click here to learn more on "how to Dotsub"

To be a National Socialist today (1)

0 (0 Likes / 0 Dislikes)
VINCENT REYNOUARD EDITORIALS To be a National Socialist today (1 - Concentration camps) Does National Socialist struggle still make sense today? On a strictly human point of view, no. National Socialism has been decimated by force in 1945 and after 70 years of ideological war it is rejected by the vast majority. But the human view is singularly limited, as it is far from being able to appreciate all the parameters. As I always say it: Who in 1926 could have been able to predict the state of Germany in 1936? And who, in 1936, could have been able to predict the state of Germany in 1946? "History is the theater of the unexpected", the saying goes. Therefore, let's protect ourselves from easy hopes, as well as from just as easy despairs. Give up on the grounds that we "can't change anything" is not only betraying humanity, but also betraying Providence. "The one who fights can lose, the saying goes, the one who doesn't fight, has already lost." Certainly, I am in the camp of the defeated, but the wheels always turn and the fury of our opponents against us demonstrates it; although they hold everything - the media, education, Justice, Police, the Army - they pass laws against us, they chase and censor us. Beyond the endless invoked causes, this relentlessness demonstrates that the ideological debate continues. To be National Socialist today, therefore, makes sense. More than ever, moreover. But, what is this sense? For my part, I think that the most concise explanation was given by Hermann Göring. Speaking on March 13, 1946, in the dock at the Nuremberg trials, he said: "It goes without saying that, for us, if we got the power, we were determined to keep it in all cases and at all costs. We didn't want the government for the power itself, but we wanted the government and the power to free Germany and make it great. We didn't want to let this one game of chance, elections and parliamentary majority, but we wanted to carry out this task to which we considered being called for." In this explanation are two passages to remember: "We didn't want the government for the power itself, but we wanted the government and the power to free Germany and make it great." We find two characteristics here which a National Socialist must have: 1) Not wanting power for himself, that is, the benefits or honors it may procure, because, then it will be only for egoistical goals, but 2) to want it to serve a greatest cause than oneself. This cause is that of the common good. A third passage is capital: "if we got the power, we were determined to keep it in all cases and at all costs." "There you go!" You will tell me. "This is dictatorship!" Allow me some explanations. What was Germany situation like, in 1933? I´ll give the floor to one who was Germany's Chancellor until the beginning of December 1932, Franz von Papen. In Nuremberg, he said: "The problem at the center of our concerns was the economic question. The great economic misery and the 1,5 million of unemployed youth, the 6 to 7 million total unemployed, the 12 to 13 million of partially unemployed, all the efforts of predecessors to address these problems, with purely governmental solutions, were absolutely insufficient. Which was encumbering finances and was without results. The situation was such, that the new measures advocated by Franz von Papen, could only give work to only 1,000,750 unemployed. In Nuremberg, still, Beldur von Schirach clarified: "The situation of the youth was as follows: The student could hope to get off the hook by working and make it somehow. But then, in all probability, he would join the proletariat of graduates, because there was no hope for him to practice his profession. The young worker had little chance of finding an apprenticeship. For him, there remained as perspective, only the squalor of unemployed people. This was a generation that no one would help, if she was not getting off the hook herself." This explains the economical chaos Germany was in. But this chaos, the parliamentarism could do nothing more about it, quite the contrary. In Nuremberg, Hermann Göring recalled that in 8 years, from 1925 to 1932, no less than 30 elections had been held with up to 37 parties competing. The consequence was a permanent political instability and, therefore, impotence in the government part. The defendant Walther Funk also stressed: "The Government or rather the governments had no authority. The parliamentary system was no longer effective." That's why the National Socialists wanted to shelve parliamentarism embodied by the Reichstag. Hence, the dissolution of this assembly shortly after their arrival to power. Today, we qualify this dissolution as a dictatorial act. Wrong: It was a democratic act. In Nuremberg, Hermann Göring recalled it, but his words are now totally obscured. Facing the judges, some of whom were American and British, he explained: "The only thing I would particularly like to emphasize, regarding the legality of our seizure of power, is as follows: If in Germany, the democratic system of English and American elections had been in effect, the German National Socialist party would have already obtained, without exception, all the seats in the Reichstag, as soon as 1931, already or at the latest in 1932; as the National Socialist party was the strongest; That is to say, that according to the British and American elections, all other smaller parties would have been swept away and we would have had exclusively from that moment, only National Socialists in the Reich, in a perfectly legal manner, under the democratic principles of the two largest democracies." Yes, if an English or American democratic system had existed in Germany, the National Socialists would have come to power a year earlier and would have not even needed to dissolve the Reichstag. Therefore, no one should accuse them of having established a dictatorship. Finally, they behaved like good democrats. However, let's go further and admit that they have established a dictatorship: I will answer that the political situation in Germany imposed it. Poverty, disorder, decay, parliamentary paralyzing everything, government impotence, despair, lost youth... The Weimar Republic had completely decomposed and its decomposition would endanger the existence of the country. At such times, only a public salvation committee can save the sinking of the nation. In Nuremberg, Julius Streicher stated that "at this time, it was not the programs that counted." "The policy then consisted to create a new ideal for the German people, an ideal refusing chaos and disorder and signifying a return to order." For its part, having recalled that "one in three German families was unemployed and that the Government had neither the strength nor the courage to overcome the political problems." the defendant Walther Funk emphasized: "Besides, these economic problems couldn't be solved only by economic measures; it was first necessary to install a government of powers and the necessary authority; then we had to create among the people a unique political will." This is exactly the definition and the task of a Public Salvation Committee. This is why at the beginning of the 30´s, the Germany who wanted to live, turned to Bolchevism or to National Socialism, the two revolutionary forces of the country. Through the ballot boxes, she chose the National Socialism. Realizing what Hitler had told a hundred times to his comrades: "I want to overcome this parliamentary system by legal means, of this system of this system which, year after year, leads us a little more to bankruptcy." Hitler was appointed Chancellor on January 30, 1933. From the first session of the Ministers Cabinet, he announced the end of parliamentarism. At Nuremberg trials, the former Head of Chancellery, Hans Lammers, was questioned: "Did Hitler, in this Cabinet session, said that he wanted to change the government regime and rule as a dictator?" "Hitler, he replied, spoke in this sense, that, until then, the parliamentary system had failed." But as Hermann Göring recalled, it was not to govern for a vain personal satisfaction. Hitler wanted the restoration of Germany and the good of his people. Once appointed Chancellor, he publicly announced his program made of nationalism and socialism. On February 2, 1933, he repeated it in a small committee. The Grand-Admiral Reader was present at the conversation. Later he testified as such: "In his speech, Hitler initially spoke of his career and then explained his social and national aims. He said he wanted to put the German Reich on an equal footing with other nations and stated that he would try to rid the country from the shackles of Versailles Treaty and to give Germany its internal Sovereignty back. He spoke, furthermore, of his social goals: establishing a real community among the people, raising the workers standard of living, assistance to farmers, development of agriculture, establishment of labor service and elimination of unemployment." On March 20, 1933, an Enabling Act was passed. In Nuremberg, Franz von Papen said it "was born from the need to obtain an undisturbed period for the implementation of economic measures." On his part, speaking as a Constitutional Law Professor, the former Head of Chancellery, Hans Lammers emphasized that the concentration of power solely in Hitler's hands happened in an "absolutely legal" manner. He also reminded that this concentration of powers was approved "by a plebiscite of nearly 100% of the votes." On March 23, 1933, the special courts were established. It is often reminded, but one "forget" to say that the formation of these courts was made possible through a signed order on October 6, 1931, that is to say, under the Weimar Republic. Testifying at the Nuremberg trials, Franz von Papen emphasized that "in revolutionary periods, the delusions of political nature must be legally judged expeditiously." By creating special courts, the National Socialists had therefore not innovated. They knew in fact that the National Socialist revolution was very fragile. Because at the time, the Communist Party was very powerful. Yet, a Bolshevik coup was feared because of its history and methods. On the screen, the German Communist Party headquarters, the Karl Liebknecht house in 1931. The Bolcheviks made no secret that they wanted to impose the "dictatorship of the proletariat". And they had the means. The Red Front with its millions of members was an undeniable political force. In Nuremberg, Hermann Göring recalled it: "At the time (...) the Communist Party was extraordinarily strong. They had more than 6 million voters and had in its Red Front units a leading instrument of revolutionary power. It was very natural for the Communist Party to think that if we stayed in power longer, they would eventually lose theirs." And indeed, unlike a thesis according to which, Hitler would have been the agent of the big capital against the proletarian masses, if the National Socialists rejected the class struggle, it was not to hand over the worker to the boss, but, as we have seen it, to achieve a true social justice. In Nuremberg, Fritz Sauckel explained to have been seduced by Hitler, when he heard him explain "that the German factory worker, the German worker, must make common cause with the German intellectual worker; discrepancies between the proletariat and the middle class were to be resolved by overcoming them in an attempt of mutual understanding. The blossoming of a new community would follow and only such a community, having no attachment, nor with the middle class or with the proletariat could overcome the terrible intellectual misery and avoid the division of the German people into parties (political) and coteries (ideological)." The cleverness of National Socialism was to establish a message of social peace out of selfishness, the egoistic capitalism and the mortifying class struggle. The Communists, therefore, knew that if Hitler's policy worked, all hope of taking power would be gone forever. "The danger was there." Göring later explained. One has to consider the political tension at the time, of the atmosphere of conflict created by the opposing parties; all this could lead to revolutionary attacks from the Communist Party, especially since, even after the seizure of power, murders and assassinations of National Socialists and police officers didn't stop. They even increased." Lies intended to justify a repressive policy? Absolutely not! I call to mind that in the 20's and 30's, the Weimar Republic didn't cease the struggle against the Communist danger. Weapons and items seized during arrests of Communist activists -as here, in August 1931, on Tilsiter Strasse, in Berlin- had resulted in many lawsuits. On the screen, part of the military and ideological arsenal seized from the activist Nicaulos Ueberbrück, after his arrest on October 31, 1931. The man was sentenced to 8 years in prison and loss of his civil rights for 4 years. His accomplice, Arthur Rabenmüller, was sentenced to 4 years in prison and 5 years of loss of civil rights. This book, although forgotten today, identifies the legal actions engaged in Germany between 1930 and 1932 i.e. before Hitler, against Communist activists accused of weapons trafficking and other civil war material. Note the staggering increase in the number of cases for the year 1932. One can naturally see the cause in a strengthening of police measures, but these measures were apparently successful. The number of arrests followed by sentences multiplied while Germany was sinking into chaos. Add to this that some of the weapons seized had been used or were going to be used as part of attacks against National Socialist activists or National Socialist institutions. The spreadsheet on the screen shows the number of National Socialist activists killed by the Communists between 1920 and January 1933. Note the staggering increase from 1930. In 1932, up to seven activists were killed each month. The year 1933 was starting at the same pace. This other spreadsheet shows the number of National Socialist activists wounded by the Communists. Not surprisingly, the same dramatic increase can be observed from 1930. And to believe that all this had miraculously stopped from January 1933 would be wrong. On January 1933, the day of the takeover, Eberhard Maikowski, a Berliner in charge of the Assault Section, was killed by Communist activists. When he was quietly returning from the victory parade. In February 1933, Communist activists were arrested for stealing from an armory in Leipzig: 36 machine guns and 217 handguns. In March 1933, six other activists were arrested at the Czechoslovak border while attempting to import arms and Communist literature. Far from being purely ideological, that literature dealt with the manufacturing and handling of weapons of war. It is interesting to note that among the material seized, since 1931, there was quite often explosives, that is to say, which would enable attacks as part of an uprising. All these facts are hidden today... Whereas it's them which led to the establishment of the concentration camps. In this case, the Reichstag fire, on the night of February 27 to 28, 1933, was only a trigger. The headquarters of the Communist Party, Karl Liebknecht house, were searched thoroughly. The searches allowed the discovery of many secret places where weapons were hidden as well as documents related to a popular uprising. Gendarmerie plans were found, as well as this revolutionary action plan in Berlin initially scheduled for March 5, 1933. In Nuremberg, Hermann Göring explained: "When I felt the need to create order above all and to remove the most dangerous elements of disorder directed against us in the new State, I decided the surprised arrests of the Communist officials and leaders. I made a list and I knew that arresting only the most important and the most dangerous, would still represents thousands more, because it was not necessary to apprehend the Party officials only, but those of the Red Front formations as well, because the Communists also had affiliates. These arrests took place for necessity reasons and the safety of our State. This was to eliminate the danger. For that to happen, only one possibility: the protective arrest. Regardless if we had already proved their guilt for high treason action or if it was only to be expected from them, we had to prevent it through these protective arrests. All of this was nothing new and it was not a National Socialist invention. Similar protective arrest measures were practiced before in the old Reich, partly against the Communists and partly against us, the National Socialists. The prisons were not at our disposal for this purpose and I would like to emphasize the fact that this was a political act of defense for the protection of the State. This is why I was of the opinion that these men were to be interned in camps - we suggested one or two camps at this time - because I did not know how long their arrest would be necessary for. I also didn't know how many persons would be found to be involved during these actions against the Communist Party. During the seize of the Karl Liebknecht house, we found so many weapons, equipment and preparations for a civil war, that we couldn't yet foresee the development consequences. I have already indicated - and it's natural - in these times of political tensions, as one existed between the two extremist wings in Germany and when the bitterness of the political opposition led to constant street fighting, that the situation for the internees would not be in any case very pleasant. I had given instructions to monitor, where possible, by the police. If it was not sufficient, auxiliary forces should then be requested. I stated my position on the question of the concentration camps, but I would point out that the name of concentration camp was not our invention; it appeared in the foreign press; we just reused it. The origin of this name is rather part of History." Concentration camps, therefore, were an act of defense against political enemies considered - wisely - as potentially dangerous. I recall that at the same time, the Dolfousse Austrian government also interned political opponents in a concentration camp, that of Quaésèrechtainbrour. Social Democrats, Communists were there as well as 1,800 National Socialists. In Nuremberg, Göring recalled that for Christmas 1933, 5,000 releases were decided, which concerned the "least dangerous cases or those we felt had adapted to their new situation." This book published in 2009 and hardly suspected of revisionism confirms it. The graph shows the significant reduction in the number of inmates between July 1933 and February 1934. Moreover, assuming that the National Socialists were content to detain opponents without conducting a positive social policy, their action would have rather reinforced the determination of the Communists. But, what happened is quite the opposite: during the first few months, entire masses who had fought for the Red Front, moved in the National Socialist camp. On June 1, 1933, the journal Esprit published the story of a French syndicalist who was returning from Germany. Disappointed, he recounted: "What saddened me the most in Germany was the appearance of the working class neighborhoods in Berlin. Everywhere, flags with the Swastika. In the street, so many fascist insignia worn by workers! Sometimes we recognized on them the cap that the young Communists used to wear, the Blackshirt of the anti-fascists guards. We stopped and wanted to speak to these young people, which we knew two years ago. But suddenly we remembered that in some areas of Berlin 50 to 60% of the Communist youths joined the Hitler Youth... We didn't known if the comrade from yesterday was not the enemy of today. It is not surprising that under these conditions the party (Communist) apparatus was decimated, sometimes, completely destroyed and that it was impossible to hold an illegal printing more than 15 days. Each day brought news of a lost connection and it was often impossible to reconnect." Before half year had passed, the first results of Hitler's policies had won over many former opponents, even among the most determined. In Nuremberg, the defendant Fritz Sauckel said that after the accession to power: "The core activity of the Party was recruiting. Our most intensive job was to rally our political opponents to our cause. I am very proud that, in my [district] many workers, former Communists or Social Democrats have been won over by us and have become local group leaders or Party officials." As a matter of fact, Germany was in such a state of decomposition, that Hitler hardly encountered real adversaries. The French syndicalist that I have already quoted, noted: "Hitler didn't really encountered real adversaries. His successes are primarily based on the weakness of those who said that they wanted to fight him." This is why, finally, Hitler in order to win, didn't need to establish a reign of terror. That he had established a police state; for sure. That he had reduced civil liberties; it's a fact. That he had imprisoned political enemies to prevent a possible counter-revolution; no one disputes it. But these are inevitable things in a revolutionary period, when it comes to rescuing a sinking country. The French Revolution also had its public salvation committee, led by Bertrand Barrere and which was, incidentally, far more bloody that of the National Socialist regime. Anyway, this is a very important lesson to remember: as an ideology of order, in this time of subjectivism, National Socialism is truly revolutionary. Appearing on the occasion of a serious European crisis, it will only re-emerge if a new equally serious crisis arises. Hence, this first lesson: it is pointless today to want to create a National Socialist Party. Why? Because it would be immediately banned. In fact, after 1945, Hitler's victors have learned from his coming to power. They wanted to make it impossible to play the game of democracy to non-democratic ends. This is why article 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights states: "Nothing in this Convention (that is to say none of the freedoms it grants) may be interpreted as implying for any State, a group or a person, any right to engage in an activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of the rights or freedoms recognized in this Convention or to further limitations of these rights and freedoms as those specified in that Convention." In other words: you can not invoke the human rights for purposes contrary to human rights. Therefore, you can not play democracy against itself. History does not repeat itself: if a National Socialist Party has to be recreated, it will be a group without any legal structure, which at the dawn of the crisis gathered the concerned people to build a regime of order. It will not take power through the ballot box, but it will pick it up when this power had fallen into the gutter. The plebiscite which will give it the popular legitimacy will come after. Does this means that concentration camps will have to be rebuild? Not necessarily. The existence of the camps is not intrinsic to National Socialism; It is an accident of History, due to the fact that in 1933, Hitler was facing a powerful and dangerous Communist Party. When the crisis will occur, will the society see the formation of two opposed revolutionary wings like in Germany in the 30's? The one who could guess it, would be very clever. But, if this is the case and if a real danger of a counter-revolution exists, then preventive arrests may be needed. As a non-violent person, I can accept it, as long as these arrests and preventive detentions are conducted without violence and respecting the dignity of those affected and that of their families. I add, that they must also be justified by reform policy that will give tangible results, like in Hitler Germany It is not question to establish a strong State which would not solve the problems of the people and the nation. But on what should this reform policy be based on? Would it be a matter of shouting: "Death to the Jews" or "Immigrants get out" and organized a big night? My answer is: No. A thousand times: No! Once more, nothing can be build on hatred. The objective must be to rebuild. Certainly, such a reconstruction will require to sideline opponents and even their expulsion. But, let's keep in mind the image of adjudant Dupont, one of the most colorful figure of the Wallonia SS Legion. Miner, before the war, he had fought in Marxist Unions. But when he looked at the achievements of National Socialists, and, especially, when he saw former adversaries were welcomed to cooperate in the work of national reform, he then changed his opinion, supported Hitler's cause and enlisted in the Waffen SS. Without being naïve, remember that the enemy is really defeated when he becomes a friend. Always remember this Greek proverb: "Act for that the vanquished rejoices to have you as the victor." What will, therefore, be the basis for a reform policy? Core question that I will discuss in another video. Good evening. You like our video? Please help us to continue. Give for the cause:

Video Details

Duration: 30 minutes and 14 seconds
Year: 2015
Country: Andorra
Language: English
License: Dotsub - Standard License
Producer: Vincent Reynouard
Views: 161
Posted by: didi18 on Sep 27, 2015

Does the National Socialiste struggle, today, still make sense? In this first part, I rely on a statement of Hermann Göring, at the Nurembeeg trials, to answer in the affirmative. Then, in order to parry the first objection, I explain why the concentration camps in Germany were only an accident of history.

Caption and Translate

    Sign In/Register for Dotsub to translate this video.