In 1919-20
and also in 1921 I attended some of the bourgeois meetings.
Invariably I had the same feeling towards these as towards the
compulsory dose of castor oil in my boyhood days. It just had
to be taken because it was good for one: but it certainly
tasted unpleasant. If it were possible to tie ropes round the
German people and forcibly drag them to these bourgeois
meetings, keeping them there behind barred doors and allowing
nobody to escape until the meeting closed, then this procedure
might prove successful in the course of a few hundred years.
For my own part, I must frankly admit that, under such
circumstances, I could not find life worth living; and indeed I
should no longer wish to be a German. But, thank God, all this
is impossible. And so it is not surprising that the sane and
unspoilt masses shun these 'bourgeois mass meetings' as the
devil shuns holy water.
I came to
know the prophets of the bourgeois philosophy, and I was not
surprised at what I learned, as I knew that they attached
little importance to the spoken word. At that time I attended
meetings of the Democrats, the German Nationalists, the German
People's Party and the Bavarian People's Party (the Centre
Party of Bavaria). What struck me at once was the homogeneous
uniformity of the audiences. Nearly always they were made up
exclusively of party members. The whole affair was more like a
yawning card party than an assembly of people who had just
passed through a great revolution. The speakers did all they
could to maintain this tranquil atmosphere. They declaimed, or
rather read out, their speeches in the style of an intellectual
newspaper article or a learned treatise, avoiding all striking
expressions. Here and there a feeble professorial joke would be
introduced, whereupon the people sitting at the speaker's table
felt themselves obliged to laugh – not loudly but
encouragingly and with well-bred reserve.
And there
were always those people at the speaker's table. I once
attended a meeting in the Wagner Hall in Munich. It was a
demonstration to celebrate the anniversary of the Battle of
Leipzig. The speech was delivered or rather read out by a
venerable old professor from one or other of the universities.
The committee sat on the platform: one monocle on the right,
another monocle on the left, and in the centre a gentleman with
no monocle. All three of them were punctiliously attired in
morning coats, and I had the impression of being present before
a judge's bench just as the death sentence was about to be
pronounced or at a christening or some more solemn religious
ceremony. The so-called speech, which in printed form may have
read quite well, had a disastrous effect. After three quarters
of an hour the audience fell into a sort of hypnotic trance,
which was interrupted only when some man or woman left the
hall, or by the clatter which the waitresses made, or by the
increasing yawns of slumbering individuals. I had posted myself
behind three workmen who were present either out of curiosity
or because they were sent there by their parties. From time to
time they glanced at one another with an ill-concealed grin,
nudged one another with the elbow, and then silently left the
hall. One could see that they had no intention whatsoever of
interrupting the proceedings, nor indeed was it necessary to
interrupt them. At long last the celebration showed signs of
drawing to a close. After the professor, whose voice had
meanwhile become more and more inaudible, finally ended his
speech, the gentleman without the monocle delivered a rousing
peroration to the assembled 'German sisters and brothers.' On
behalf of the audience and himself he expressed gratitude for
the magnificent lecture which they had just heard from
Professor X and emphasized how deeply the Professor's words had
moved them all. If a general discussion on the lecture were to
take place it would be tantamount to profanity, and he thought
he was voicing the opinion of all present in suggesting that
such a discussion should not be held. Therefore, he would ask
the assembly to rise from their seats and join in singing the
patriotic song, Wir sind ein einig Volk von Brüdern. The
proceedings finally closed with the anthem, Deutschland
über Alles.
And then they
all sang. It appeared to me that when the second verse was
reached the voices were fewer and that only when the refrain
came on they swelled loudly. When we reached the third verse my
belief was confirmed that a good many of those present were not
very familiar with the text.
But what has
all this to do with the matter when such a song is sung
wholeheartedly and fervidly by an assembly of German
nationals?
After this
the meeting broke up and everyone hurried to get outside, one
to his glass of beer, one to a cafe, and others simply into the
fresh air.
Out into the
fresh air! That was also my feeling. And was this the way to
honour an heroic struggle in which hundreds of thousands of
Prussians and Germans had fought? To the devil with it all!
That sort of
thing might find favour with the Government, it being merely a
'peaceful' meeting. The Minister responsible for law and order
need not fear that enthusiasm might suddenly get the better of
public decorum and induce these people to pour out of the room
and, instead of dispersing to beer halls and cafes, march in
rows of four through the town singing Deutschland hoch in Ehren
and causing some unpleasantness to a police force in need of
rest.
No. That type
of citizen is of no use to anyone.
On the other
hand the National Socialist meetings were by no means
'peaceable' affairs. Two distinct outlooks enraged in bitter
opposition to one another, and these meetings did not close
with the mechanical rendering of a dull patriotic song but
rather with a passionate outbreak of popular national
feeling.
It was
imperative from the start to introduce rigid discipline into
our meetings and establish the authority of the chairman
absolutely. Our purpose was not to pour out a mixture of
soft-soap bourgeois talk; what we had to say was meant to
arouse the opponents at our meetings! How often did they not
turn up in masses with a few individual agitators among them
and, judging by the expression on all their faces, ready to
finish us off there and then.
Yes, how
often did they not turn up in huge numbers, those supporters of
the Red Flag, all previously instructed to smash up everything
once and for all and put an end to these meetings. More often
than not everything hung on a mere thread, and only the
chairman's ruthless determination and the rough handling by our
ushers baffled our adversaries' intentions. And indeed they had
every reason for being irritated.
The fact that
we had chosen red as the colour for our posters sufficed to
attract them to our meetings. The ordinary bourgeoisie were
very shocked to see that, we had also chosen the symbolic red
of Bolshevism and they regarded this as something ambiguously
significant. The suspicion was whispered in German Nationalist
circles that we also were merely another variety of Marxism,
perhaps even Marxists suitably disguised, or better still,
Socialists. The actual difference between Socialism and Marxism
still remains a mystery to these people up to this day. The
charge of Marxism was conclusively proved when it was
discovered that at our meetings we deliberately substituted the
words 'Fellow-countrymen and Women' for 'Ladies and Gentlemen'
and addressed each other as 'Party Comrade'. We used to roar
with laughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeoisie and
their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions and our
aims.
We chose red
for our posters after particular and careful deliberation, our
intention being to irritate the Left, so as to arouse their
attention and tempt them to come to our meetings – if only
in order to break them up – so that in this way we got a
chance of talking to the people.
In those
years' it was indeed a delightful experience to follow the
constantly changing tactics of our perplexed and helpless
adversaries. First of all they appealed to their followers to
ignore us and keep away from our meetings. Generally speaking
this appeal was heeded. But, as time went on, more and more of
their followers gradually found their way to us and accepted
our teaching. Then the leaders became nervous and uneasy. They
clung to their belief that such a development should not be
ignored for ever, and that terror must be applied in order to
put an end to it.
Appeals were
then made to the 'class-conscious proletariat' to attend our
meetings in masses and strike with the clenched hand of the
proletarian at the representatives of a 'monarchist and
reactionary agitation'.
Our meetings
suddenly became packed with work-people fully three-quarters of
an hour before the proceedings were scheduled to begin. These
gatherings resembled a powder cask ready to explode at any
moment; and the fuse was conveniently at hand. But matters
always turned out differently. People came as enemies and left,
not perhaps prepared to join us, yet in a reflective mood and
disposed critically to examine the correctness of their own
doctrine. Gradually as time went on my three-hour lectures
resulted in supporters and opponents becoming united in one
single enthusiastic group of people. Every signal for the
breaking-up of the meeting failed. The result was that the
opposition leaders became frightened and once again looked for
help to those quarters that had formerly discountenanced these
tactics and, with some show of right, had been of the opinion
that on principle the workers should be forbidden to attend our
meetings.
Then they did
not come any more, or only in small numbers. But after a short
time the whole game started all over again. The instructions to
keep away from us were ignored; the comrades came in steadily
increasing numbers, until finally the advocates of the radical
tactics won the day. We were to be broken up.
Yet when,
after two, three and even eight meetings, it was realized that
to break up these gatherings was easier said than done and that
every meeting resulted in a decisive weakening of the red
fighting forces, then suddenly the other password was
introduced: 'Proletarians, comrades and comradesses, avoid
meetings of the National Socialist agitators'.
The same
eternally alternating tactics were also to be observed in the
Red Press. Soon they tried to silence us but discovered the
uselessness of such an attempt. After that they swung round to
the opposite tactics. Daily 'reference' was made to us solely
for the purpose of absolutely ridiculing us in the eyes of the
working-classes. After a time these gentlemen must have felt
that no harm was being done to us, but that, on the contrary,
we were reaping an advantage in that people were asking
themselves why so much space was being devoted to a subject
which was supposed to be so ludicrous. People became curious.
Suddenly there was a change of tactics and for a time we were
treated as veritable criminals against mankind. One article
followed the other, in which our criminal intentions were
explained and new proofs brought forward to support what was
said. Scandalous tales, all of them fabricated from start to
finish, were published in order to help to poison the public
mind. But in a short time even these attacks also proved
futile; and in fact they assisted materially because they
attracted public attention to us.
In those days
I took up the standpoint that it was immaterial whether they
laughed at us or reviled us, whether they depicted us as fools
or criminals; the important point was that they took notice of
us and that in the eyes of the working-classes we came to be
regarded as the only force capable of putting up a fight. I
said to myself that the followers of the Jewish Press would
come to know all about us and our real aims.
One reason
why they never got so far as breaking up our meetings was
undoubtedly the incredible cowardice displayed by the leaders
of the opposition. On every critical occasion they left the
dirty work to the smaller fry whilst they waited outside the
halls for the results of the break up.
We were
exceptionally well informed in regard to our opponents'
intentions, not only because we allowed several of our party
colleagues to remain members of the Red organizations for
reasons of expediency, but also because the Red wire-pullers,
fortunately for us, were afflicted with a degree of
talkativeness that is still unfortunately very prevalent among
Germans. They could not keep their own counsel, and more often
than not they started cackling before the proverbial egg was
laid. Hence, time and again our precautions were such that Red
agitators had no inkling of how near they were to being thrown
out of the meetings.
This state of
affairs compelled us to take the work of safeguarding our
meetings into our own hands. No reliance could be placed on
official protection. On the contrary; experience showed that
such protection always favoured only the disturbers. The only
real outcome of police intervention would be that the meeting
would be dissolved, that is to say, closed. And that is
precisely what our opponents granted.
Generally
speaking, this led the police to adopt a procedure which, to
say the least, was a most infamous sample of official
malpractice. The moment they received information of a threat
that the one or other meeting was to be broken up, instead of
arresting the would-be disturbers, they promptly advised the
innocent parties that the meeting was forbidden. This step the
police proclaimed as a 'precautionary measure in the interests
of law and order'.
The political
work and activities of decent people could therefore always be
hindered by desperate ruffians who had the means at their
disposal. In the name of peace and order State authority bowed
down to these ruffians and demanded that others should not
provoke them. When National Socialism desired to hold meetings
in certain parts and the labour unions declared that their
members would resist, then it was not these blackmailers that
were arrested and gaoled. No. Our meetings were forbidden by
the police. Yes, this organ of the law had the unspeakable
impudence to advise us in writing to this effect in innumerable
instances. To avoid such eventualities, it was necessary to see
to it that every attempt to disturb a meeting was nipped in the
bud. Another feature to be taken into account in this respect
is that all meetings which rely on police protection must
necessarily bring discredit to their promoters in the eyes of
the general public. Meetings that are only possible with the
protective assistance of a strong force of police convert
nobody; because in order to win over the lower strata of the
people there must be a visible show of strength on one's own
side. In the same way that a man of courage will win a woman's
affection more easily than a coward, so a heroic movement will
be more successful in winning over the hearts of a people than
a weak movement which relies on police support for its very
existence.
It is for
this latter reason in particular that our young movement was to
be charged with the responsibility of assuring its own
existence, defending itself; and conducting its own work of
smashing the Red opposition.
The work of
organizing the protective measures for our meetings was based
on the following:
(1) An
energetic and psychologically judicious way of conducting the
meeting.
(2) An
organized squad of troops to maintain order.
In those days
we and no one else were masters of the situation at our
meetings and on no occasion did we fail to emphasize this. Our
opponents fully realized that any provocation would be the
occasion of throwing them out of the hall at once, whatever the
odds against us. At meetings, particularly outside Munich, we
had in those days from five to eight hundred opponents against
fifteen to sixteen National Socialists; yet we brooked no
interference, for we were ready to be killed rather than
capitulate. More than once a handful of party colleagues
offered a heroic resistance to a raging and violent mob of
Reds. Those fifteen or twenty men would certainly have been
overwhelmed in the end had not the opponents known that three
or four times as many of themselves would first get their
skulls cracked. Arid that risk they were not willing to run. We
had done our best to study Marxist and bourgeois methods of
conducting meetings, and we had certainly learnt something.
The Marxists
had always exercised a most rigid discipline so that the
question of breaking up their meetings could never have
originated in bourgeois quarters. This gave the Reds all the
more reason for acting on this plan. In time they not only
became past-masters in this art but in certain large districts
of the Reich they went so far as to declare that non-Marxist
meetings were nothing less than a cause of' provocation against
the proletariat. This was particularly the case when the
wire-pullers suspected that a meeting might call attention to
their own transgressions and thus expose their own treachery
and chicanery. Therefore the moment such a meeting was
announced to be held a howl of rage went up from the Red Press.
These detractors of the law nearly always turned first to the
authorities and requested in imperative and threatening
language that this 'provocation of the proletariat' be stopped
forthwith in the 'interests of law and order'. Their language
was chosen according to the importance of the official
blockhead they were dealing with and thus success was assured.
If by chance the official happened to be a true German –
and not a mere figurehead – and he declined the impudent
request, then the time-honoured appeal to stop 'provocation of
the proletariat' was issued together with instructions to
attend such and such a meeting on a certain date in full
strength for the purpose of 'putting a stop to the disgraceful
machinations of the bourgeoisie by means of the proletarian
fist'.
The pitiful
and frightened manner in which these bourgeois meetings are
conducted must be seen in order to be believed. Very frequently
these threats were sufficient to call off such a meeting at
once. The feeling of fear was so marked that the meeting,
instead of commencing at eight o'clock, very seldom was opened
before a quarter to nine or nine o'clock. The Chairman
thereupon did his best, by showering compliments on the
'gentleman of the opposition' to prove how he and all others
present were pleased (a palpable lie) to welcome a visit from
men who as yet were not in sympathy with them for the reason
that only by mutual discussion (immediately agreed to) could
they be brought closer together in mutual understanding. Apart
from this the Chairman also assured them that the meeting had
no intention whatsoever of interfering with the professed
convictions of anybody. Indeed no. Everyone had the right to
form and hold his own political views, but others should be
allowed to do likewise. He therefore requested that the speaker
be allowed to deliver his speech without interruption –
the speech in any case not being a long affair. People abroad,
he continued, would thus not come to regard this meeting as
another shameful example of the bitter fraternal strife that is
raging in Germany. And so on and so forth
The brothers
of the Left had little if any appreciation for that sort of
talk; the speaker had hardly commenced when he was shouted
down. One gathered the impression at times that these speakers
were graceful for being peremptorily cut short in their
martyr-like discourse. These bourgeois toreadors left the arena
in the midst of a vast uproar, that is to say, provided that
they were not thrown down the stairs with cracked skulls, which
was very often the case.
Therefore,
our methods of organization at National Socialist meetings were
something quite strange to the Marxists. They came to our
meetings in the belief that the little game which they had so
often played could as a matter of course be also repeated on
us. "To-day we shall finish them off." How often did they bawl
this out to each other on entering the meeting hall, only to be
thrown out with lightning speed before they had time to repeat
it.
In the first
place our method of conducting a meeting was entirely
different. We did not beg and pray to be allowed to speak, and
we did not straightway give everybody the right to hold endless
discussions. We curtly gave everyone to understand that we were
masters of the meeting and that we would do as it pleased us
and that everyone who dared to interrupt would be
unceremoniously thrown out. We stated clearly our refusal to
accept responsibility for anyone treated in this manner. If
time permitted and if it suited us, a discussion would be
allowed to take place. Our party colleague would now make his
speech.... That kind of talk was sufficient in itself to
astonish the Marxists.
Secondly, we
had at our disposal a well-trained and organized body of men
for maintaining order at our meetings. On the other hand the
bourgeois parties protected their meetings with a body of men
better classified as ushers who by virtue of their age thought
they were entitled to-authority and respect. But as Marxism has
little or no respect for these things, the question of suitable
self-protection at these bourgeois meetings was, so to speak,
in practice non-existent.
When our
political meetings first started I made it a special point to
organize a suitable defensive squad – a squad composed
chiefly of young men. Some of them were comrades who had seen
active service with me; others were young party members who,
right from the start, had been trained and brought up to
realize that only terror is capable of smashing terror –
that only courageous and determined people had made a success
of things in this world and that, finally, we were fighting for
an idea so lofty that it was worth the last drop of our blood.
These young men had been brought up to realize that where force
replaced common sense in the solution of a problem, the best
means of defence was attack and that the reputation of our
hall-guard squads should stamp us as a political fighting force
and not as a debating society.
And it was
extraordinary how eagerly these boys of the War generation
responded to this order. They had indeed good reason for being
bitterly disappointed and indignant at the miserable milksop
methods employed by the bourgeoise.
Thus it
became clear to everyone that the Revolution had only been
possible thanks to the dastardly methods of a bourgeois
government. At that time there was certainly no lack of
man-power to suppress the revolution, but unfortunately there
was an entire lack of directive brain power. How often did the
eyes of my young men light up with enthusiasm when I explained
to them the vital functions connected with their task and
assured them time and again that all earthly wisdom is useless
unless it be supported by a measure of strength, that the
gentle goddess of Peace can only walk in company with the god
of War, and that every great act of peace must be protected and
assisted by force. In this way the idea of military service
came to them in a far more realistic form – not in the
fossilized sense of the souls of decrepit officials serving the
dead authority of a dead State, but in the living realization
of the duty of each man to sacrifice his life at all times so
that his country might live.
How those
young men did their job!
Like a swarm
of hornets they tackled disturbers at our meetings, regardless
of superiority of numbers, however great, indifferent to wounds
and bloodshed, inspired with the great idea of blazing a trail
for the sacred mission of our movement.
As early as
the summer of 1920 the organization of squads of men as hall
guards for maintaining order at our meetings was gradually
assuming definite shape. By the spring of 1921 this body of men
were sectioned off into squads of one hundred, which in turn
were sub-divided into smaller groups.
The urgency
for this was apparent, as meanwhile the number of our meetings
had steadily increased. We still frequently met in the Munich
Hofbräuhaus but more frequently in the large meeting halls
throughout the city itself. In the autumn and winter of
1920–1921 our meetings in the Bürgerbräu and
Munich Kindlbräu had assumed vast proportions and it was
always the same picture that presented itself; namely, meetings
of the NSDAP (The German National Socialist Labour Party) were
always crowded out so that the police were compelled to close
and bar the doors long before proceedings commenced.
The
organization of defense guards for keeping order at our
meetings cleared up a very difficult question. Up till then the
movement had possessed no party badge and no party flag. The
lack of these tokens was not only a disadvantage at that time
but would prove intolerable in the future. The disadvantages
were chiefly that members of the party possessed no outward
broken of membership which linked them together, and it was
absolutely unthinkable that for the future they should remain
without some token which would be a symbol of the movement and
could be set against that of the International.
More than
once in my youth the psychological importance of such a symbol
had become clearly evident to me and from a sentimental point
of view also it was advisable. In Berlin, after the War, I was
present at a mass-demonstration of Marxists in front of the
Royal Palace and in the Lustgarten. A sea of red flags, red
armlets and red flowers was in itself sufficient to give that
huge assembly of about 120,000 persons an outward appearance of
strength. I was now able to feel and understand how easily the
man in the street succumbs to the hypnotic magic of such a
grandiose piece of theatrical presentation.
The
bourgeoisie, which as a party neither possesses or stands for
any outlook at all, had therefore not a single banner. Their
party was composed of 'patriots' who went about in the colours
of the Reich. If these colors were the symbol of a definite
philosophy then one could understand the rulers of the State
regarding this flag as expressive of their philosophy, seeing
that through their efforts the official Reich flag was
expressive of their philosophy.
But in
reality the position was otherwise.
The Reich was morticed together without the aid of the German
bourgeoisie and the flag itself was born of the War and
therefore merely a State flag possessing no importance in the
sense of any particular ideological mission.
Only in one
part of the German-speaking territory – in German-Austria
– was there anything like a bourgeois party flag in
evidence. Here a section of the national bourgeoisie selected
the 1848 colours (black, red and gold) as their party flag and
therewith created a symbol which, though of no importance from
a weltanschauliche viewpoint, had, nevertheless, a
revolutionary character from a national point of view. The most
bitter opponents of this flag at that time, and this should not
be forgotten today, were the Social Democrats and the Christian
Socialists or clericals. They, in particular, were the ones who
degraded and besmirched these colours in the same way as in
1918 they dragged black, white and red into the gutter. Of
course, the black, red and gold of the German parties in the
old Austria were the colours of the year 1848: that is to say,
of a period likely to be regarded as somewhat visionary, but it
was a period that had honest German souls as its
representatives, although the Jews were lurking unseen as
wire-pullers in the background. It was high treason and the
shameful enslavement of the German territory that first of all
made these colours so attractive to the Marxists of the Centre
Party; so much so that today they revere them as their most
cherished possession and use them as their own banners for the
protection of the flag they once foully besmirched.
It is a fact,
therefore, that, up till 1920, in opposition to the Marxists
there was no flag that would have stood for a consolidated
resistance to them. For even if the better political elements
of the German bourgeoisie were loath to accept the suddenly
discovered black, red and gold colours as their symbol after
the year 1918, they nevertheless were incapable of
counteracting this with a future programme of their own that
would correspond to the new trend of affairs. At the most, they
had a reconstruction of the old Reich in mind.
And it is to
this way of thinking that the black, white and red colours of
the old Reich are indebted for their resurrection as the flag
of our so-called national bourgeois parties.
It was
obvious that the symbol of a régime which had been
overthrown by the Marxists under inglorious circumstances was
not now worthy to serve as a banner under which the same
Marxism was to be crushed in its turn. However much any decent
German may love and revere those old colours, glorious when
placed side by side in their youthful freshness, when he had
fought under them and seen the sacrifice of so many lives, that
flag had little value for the struggle of the future.
In our
Movement I have always adopted the standpoint that it was a
really lucky thing for the German nation that it had lost its
old flag. This standpoint of mine was in strong contrast to
that of the bourgeois politicians. It may be immaterial to us
what the Republic does under its flag. But let us be deeply
grateful to fate for having so graciously spared the most
glorious war flag for all time from becoming an ignominious
rag. The Reich of today, which sells itself and its people,
must never be allowed to adopt the honourable and heroic black,
white and red colours.
As long as
the November outrage endures, that outrage may continue to bear
its own external sign and not steal that of an honourable past.
Our bourgeois politicians should awaken their consciences to
the fact that whoever desires this State to have the black,
white and red colours is pilfering from the past. The old flag
was suitable only for the old Reich and, thank Heaven, the
Republic chose the colours best suited to itself.
This was also
the reason why we National Socialists recognized that hoisting
the old colours would be no symbol of our special aims; for we
had no wish to resurrect from the dead the old Reich which had
been ruined through its own blunders, but to build up a new
State.
The Movement
which is fighting Marxism today along these lines must display
on its banner the symbol of the new State.
The question
of the new flag, that is to say the form and appearance it must
take, kept us very busy in those days. Suggestions poured in
from all quarters, which although well meant were more or less
impossible in practice. The new flag had not only to become a
symbol expressing our own struggle but on the other hand it was
necessary that it should prove effective as a large poster. All
those who busy themselves with the tastes of the public will
recognize and appreciate the great importance of these
apparently petty matters. In hundreds of thousands of cases a
really striking emblem may be the first cause of awakening
interest in a movement.
For this
reason we declined all suggestions from various quarters for
identifying our movement by means of a white flag with the old
State or rather with those decrepit parties whose sole
political objective is the restoration of past conditions. And,
apart from this, white is not a colour capable of attracting
and focusing public attention. It is a colour suitable only for
young women's associations and not for a movement that stands
for reform in a revolutionary period.
Black was
also suggested – certainly well-suited to the times, but
embodying no significance to empress the will behind our
movement. And, finally, black is incapable of attracting
attention.
White and
blue was discarded, despite its admirable æsthetic appeal
– as being the colours of an individual German Federal
State – a State that, unfortunately, through its political
attitude of particularist narrow-mindedness did not enjoy a
good reputation. And, generally speaking, with these colours it
would have been difficult to attract attention to our movement.
The same applies to black and white.
Black, red
and gold did not enter the question at all.
And this also
applies to black, white and red for reasons already stated. At
least, not in the form hitherto in use. But the effectiveness
of these three colours is far superior to all the others and
they are certainly the most strikingly harmonious combination
to be found.
I myself was
always for keeping the old colours, not only because I, as a
soldier, regarded them as my most sacred possession, but
because in their aesthetic effect, they conformed more than
anything else to my personal taste. Accordingly I had to
discard all the innumerable suggestions and designs which had
been proposed for the new movement, among which were many that
had incorporated the swastika into the old colours. I, as
leader, was unwilling to make public my own design, as it was
possible that someone else could come forward with a design
just as good, if not better, than my own. As a matter of fact,
a dental surgeon from Starnberg submitted a good design very
similar to mine, with only one mistake, in that his swastika
with curved corners was set upon a white background.
After
innumerable trials I decided upon a final form – a flag of
red material with a white disc bearing in its centre a black
swastika. After many trials I obtained the correct proportions
between the dimensions of the flag and of the white central
disc, as well as that of the swastika. And this is how it has
remained ever since.
At the same
time we immediately ordered the corresponding armlets for our
squad of men who kept order at meetings, armlets of red
material, a central white disc with the black swastika upon it.
Herr Füss, a Munich goldsmith, supplied the first
practical and permanent design.
The new flag
appeared in public in the midsummer of 1920. It suited our
movement admirably, both being new and young. Not a soul had
seen this flag before; its effect at that time was something
akin to that of a blazing torch. We ourselves experienced
almost a boyish delight when one of the ladies of the party who
had been entrusted with the making of the flag finally handed
it over to us. And a few months later those of us in Munich
were in possession of six of these flags. The steadily
increasing strength of our hall guards was a main factor in
popularizing the symbol.
And indeed a
symbol it proved to be.
Not only
because it incorporated those revered colours expressive of our
homage to the glorious past and which once brought so much
honour to the German nation, but this symbol was also an
eloquent expression of the will behind the movement. We
National Socialists regarded our flag as being the embodiment
of our party programme. The red expressed the social thought
underlying the movement. White the national thought. And the
swastika signified the mission allotted to us – the
struggle for the victory of Aryan mankind and at the same time
the triumph of the ideal of creative work which is in itself
and always will be anti-Semitic.
Two years
later, when our squad of hall guards had long since grown into
storm detachments (Sturm-Abteilung), it seemed necessary to
give this defensive organization of a young philosophy a
particular symbol of victory, namely a Standard. I also
designed this and entrusted the execution of it to an old party
comrade, Herr Gahr, who was a goldsmith. Ever since that time
this Standard has been the distinctive token of the National
Socialist struggle.
The
increasing interest taken in our meetings, particularly during
1920, compelled us at times to hold two meetings a week. Crowds
gathered round our posters; the large meeting halls in the town
were always filled and tens of thousands of people, who had
been led astray by the teachings of Marxism, found their way to
us and assisted in the work of fighting for the liberation of
the Reich. The public in Munich had got to know us. We were
being spoken about. The words 'National Socialist' had become
common property to many and signified for them a definite party
programme. Our circle of supporters and even of members was
constantly increasing, so that in the winter of 1920–21 we
were able to appear as a strong party in Munich.
At that time
there was no party in Munich with the exception of the Marxist
parties – certainly no nationalist party – which was
able to hold such mass demonstrations as ours. The Munich Kindl
Hall, which held 5,000 people, was more than once overcrowded
and up till then there was only one other hall, the Krone
Circus Hall, into which we had not ventured.
At the end of
January 1921 there was again great cause for anxiety in
Germany. The Paris Agreement, by which Germany pledged herself
to pay the crazy sum of a hundred milliards of gold marks, was
to be confirmed by the London Ultimatum.
Thereupon an
old-established Munich working committee, representative of
so-called völkisch groups, deemed it advisable to call for
a public meeting of protest. I became nervous and restless when
I saw that a lot of time was being wasted and nothing
undertaken. At first a meeting was suggested in the König
Platz; on second thoughts this was turned down, as someone
feared the proceedings might be wrecked by Red elements.
Another suggestion was a demonstration in front of the
Feldherrn Hall, but this also came to nothing. Finally a
combined meeting in the Munich Kindl Hall was suggested.
Meanwhile, day after day had gone by; the big parties had
entirely ignored the terrible event, and the working committee
could not decide on a definite date for holding the
demonstration.
On Tuesday,
February 1st, I put forward an urgent demand for a final
decision. I was put off until Wednesday. On that day I demanded
to be told clearly if and when the meeting was to take place.
The reply was again uncertain and evasive, it being stated that
it was 'intended' to arrange a demonstration that day week.
At that I
lost all patience and decided to conduct a demonstration of
protest on my own. At noon on Wednesday I dictated in ten
minutes the text of the poster and at the same time hired the
Krone Circus Hall for the next day, February 3rd.
In those days
this was a tremendous venture. Not only because of the
uncertainty of filling that vast hall, but also because of the
risk of the meeting being wrecked.
Numerically
our squad of hall guards was not strong enough for this vast
hall. I was also uncertain about what to do in case the meeting
was broken up – a huge circus building being a different
proposition from an ordinary meeting hall. But events showed
that my fears were misplaced, the opposite being the case. In
that vast building a squad of wreckers could be tackled and
subdued more easily than in a cramped hall.
One thing was
certain: A failure would throw us back for a long time to come.
If one meeting was wrecked our prestige would be seriously
injured and our opponents would be encouraged to repeat their
success. That would lead to sabotage of our work in connection
with further meetings and months of difficult struggle would be
necessary to overcome this.
We had only
one day in which to post our bills, Thursday. Unfortunately it
rained on the morning of that day and there was reason to fear
that many people would prefer to remain at home rather than
hurry to a meeting through rain and snow, especially when there
was likely to be violence and bloodshed.
And indeed on
that Thursday morning I was suddenly struck with fear that the
hall might never be filled to capacity, which would have made
me ridiculous in the eyes of the working committee. I therefore
immediately dictated various leaflets, had them printed and
distributed in the afternoon. Of course they contained an
invitation to attend the meeting.
Two lorries
which I hired were draped as much as possible in red, each had
our new flag hoisted on it and was then filled with fifteen or
twenty members of our party. Orders were given the members to
canvas the streets thoroughly, distribute leaflets and conduct
propaganda for the mass meeting to be held that evening. It was
the first time that lorries had driven through the streets
bearing flags and not manned by Marxists. The public stared
open-mouthed at these red-draped cars, and in the outlying
districts clenched fists were angrily raised at this new
evidence of 'provocation of the proletariat'. Were not the
Marxists the only ones entitled to hold meetings and drive
about in motor lorries?
At seven
o'clock in the evening only a few had gathered in the circus
hall. I was being kept informed by telephone every ten minutes
and was becoming uneasy. Usually at seven or a quarter past our
meeting halls were already half filled; sometimes even packed.
But I soon found out the reason why I was uneasy. I had
entirely forgotten to take into account the huge dimensions of
this new meeting place. A thousand people in the
Hofbräuhaus was quite an impressive sight, but the same
number in the Circus building was swallowed up in its
dimensions and was hardly noticeable. Shortly afterwards I
received more hopeful reports and at a quarter to eight I was
informed that the hall was three-quarters filled, with huge
crowds still lined up at the pay boxes. I then left for the
meeting.
I arrived at
the Circus building at two minutes past eight. There was still
a crowd of people outside, partly inquisitive people and many
opponents who preferred to wait outside for developments.
When I
entered the great hall I felt the same joy I had felt a year
previously at the first meeting in the Munich Hofbräu
Banquet Hall; but it was not until I had forced my way through
the solid wall of people and reached the platform that I
perceived the full measure of our success. The hall was before
me, like a huge shell, packed with thousands and thousands of
people. Even the arena was densely crowded. More than 5,600
tickets had been sold and, allowing for the unemployed, poor
students and our own detachments of men for keeping order, a
crowd of about 6,500 must have been present.
My theme was
'Future or Downfall' and I was filled with joy at the
conviction that the future was represented by the crowds that I
was addressing.
I began, and
spoke for about two and a half hours. I had the feeling after
the first half-hour that the meeting was going to be a big
success. Contact had been at once established with all those
thousands of individuals. After the first hour the speech was
already being received by spontaneous outbreaks of applause,
but after the second hour this died down to a solemn stillness
which I was to experience so often later on in this same hall,
and which will for ever be remembered by all those present.
Nothing broke this impressive silence and only when the last
word had been spoken did the meeting give vent to its feelings
by singing the national anthem.
I watched the
scene during the next twenty minutes, as the vast hall slowly
emptied itself, and only then did I leave the platform, a happy
man, and made my way home.
Photographs
were taken of this first meeting in the Krone Circus Hall in
Munich. They are more eloquent than words to demonstrate the
success of this demonstration. The bourgeois papers reproduced
photographs and reported the meeting as having been merely
'nationalist' in character; in their usual modest fashion they
omitted all mention of its promoters.
Thus for the
first time we had developed far beyond the dimensions of an
ordinary party. We could no longer be ignored. And to dispel
all doubt that the meeting was merely an isolated success, I
immediately arranged for another at the Circus Hall in the
following week, and again we had the same success. Once more
the vast hall was overflowing with people; so much so that I
decided to hold a third meeting during the following week,
which also proved a similar success.
After these
initial successes early in 1921 I increased our activity in
Munich still further. I not only held meetings once a week, but
during some weeks even two were regularly held and very often
during midsummer and autumn this increased to three. We met
regularly at the Circus Hall and it gave us great satisfaction
to see that every meeting brought us the same measure of
success.
The result
was shown in an ever-increasing number of supporters and
members into our party.
