kills the conscious, national, hence nationalistic spirit in its own ranks, and removes its representatives, in order to give their posts to democrats and altogether ordinary ambitious persons, all the more will it become alien to the Folk. Let the sly gentlemen not fancy that they can make contact with the Folk by concessions to the pacifistic democratic part of our Folk. Any military organisation as such is deeply hated by this part of the German Folk, as long as it is indeed military and not the burglar protection agency of international pacifistic stock exchange interests. The only part to which an army can have an inner relationship in a militarily valuable sense, is that nationally conscious core of our Folk which not only thinks in a soldierly manner out of tradition, but rather, out of national love, is also the only part ready to wear the grey tunic in defence of honour and freedom. It is necessary, however, that a military body maintain intimate relations with those from whom it itself in the hour of need can supplement itself, and not with those who betray it at every opportunity. Hence the present leaders of our so called Reich Defence can act as democratically as they please; nevertheless, they will thereby never attain to a closer bond with the German Folk, because the German Folk for which this is appropriate is not to be found in the democratic camp. Since, however, the former Chief Of The German Reich Defence especially, General von Seeckt, not only did not put up any resistance to the removal of hardened, deliberately national minded Officers, but rather even [himself] advocated it, they themselves finally created the instrument which dropped him with a relatively light heart.
Since General von Seeckt’s retirement, however, the democratic pacifistic influence has been tirelessly active in order to make out of the Defence Force that which the present rulers of the State have in their minds as the most beautiful ideal: a republican democratic parliamentary guard.
Obviously a foreign policy cannot be conducted with such an instrument.
Hence today the first task of German domestic policy ought to be that of giving the German Folk a military organisation suitable to its national strength. Since the forms of the present Defence Force could never suffice for this goal, and, conversely, are determined by foreign policy motives, it is the task of German foreign policy to bring about all the possibilities that could permit the reorganisation of a German National Army. For that must be the immovable aim of any political leadership in Germany, so that one day the mercenary Army will again be replaced by a truly German National Army.
For just as the purely technical military qualities of the present are superior, so must the general qualities of the German Defence Force deteriorate in their development in the future. The former without doubt is to be credited to General von Seeckt and to the Defence Force’s Officers’ Corps altogether. Thus the German Defence Force could really be the Army framework for the future German National Army. Just as, in general, the task of the Defence Force itself must be, by the educational stress placed on the national fighting task, to train the mass of Officers and Sergeants for the later National Army.
No true national thinking German can dispute that this aim must be held immovably in sight. Even less can he dispute that its execution is possible only if the nation’s foreign policy leaders assure the general necessary prerequisites.
Thus the first task of German foreign policy is primarily the creation of conditions which make possible the resurrection of a German Army. For only then will our Folk’s vital needs be able to find their practical representation.
Fundamentally, however, it must be further observed that the political actions which are to guarantee the resurrection of a German Army must lie in the framework of a necessary future development for Germany as such.
Hence there is no need to stress that a change of the present army organisation, wholly apart from the present internal political situation as well as for reasons of foreign policy, cannot materialise as long as purely German interests and German viewpoints alone speak for such a change.
It lay in the nature of the World War and in the intention of Germany’s main enemies, to carry out the liquidation of this greatest battle action of the Earth in such a way that as many States as possible would be interested in its perpetuation. This was achieved through a system of distribution of territories, in which even States with otherwise divergent desires and aims were held together in a solid antagonism by the fear that they could in that case suffer losses through a Germany once more become strong.
For, if ten years after the World War it is still possible, against all the experience of world history, to maintain a kind of coalition of the victor States, the reason lies only in the fact, glorious for Germany, of the recollection of that struggle in which our Fatherland had stood up to twenty six States all together.
Thus it will also last as long as the fear of suffering losses through a resurrected German power Reich is greater than the difficulties between these States. And it is further obvious that it will last as long as no will exists anywhere to allow the German Folk a rearmament which can be viewed as a threat by these victor States. On the basis of the knowledge that, first, a real representation of German vital interests in the future cannot take place through an inadequate German Defence Force but rather only through a German National Army, that, second, the formation of a German National Army is impossible for as long as the present foreign policy strangulation of Germany does not slacken, third, that a change of foreign policy obstacles to the organisation of a National Army appears possible only if such a new formation is not in general felt as a threat, the following fact emerges with respect to a German foreign policy possible at this time: Under no circumstances must presentday Germany see her foreign policy in terms of a formal border policy.
Once the principle of the restoration of the borders of the year 1914 is laid down as the set goal of foreign policy, Germany will face a closed phalanx of her former enemies. Then any possibility is excluded of setting up another Army which serves our interests more, as against the one whose definite form was determined by the peace treaty. Hence the foreign policy slogan of restoration of the borders has become a mere phrase, because it can never be realised for the lack of the necessary strength for this.
It is characteristic that precisely the so called German bourgeoisie, again headed by the patriotic leagues, has made its way to this most stupid foreign policy aim. They know that Germany is powerless. They know further that, wholly apart from our internal decline, military means would be required for the restoration of our borders, and they know further that we do not possess these means as a result of the peace treaty, and also that we cannot acquire them in consequence of the solid front of our enemies. But nevertheless they proclaim a foreign policy slogan which precisely because of its essential character forever removes the possibility of achieving those means of power which would be necessary in order to carry out the slogan.
This is what is called bourgeois statesmanship, and in its fruits that we see before us it exhibits the incomparable spirit that dominates it.
The Prussia of that time required only seven years, from 1806 to 1813, for her resurgence. In the same time bourgeois statesmanship, in union with Marxism, has led Germany up to Locarno. Which is a great success in the eyes of the present bourgeois Bismarck, Herr Stresemann, because it offers the possible, which even the above mentioned Herr Stresemann could achieve. And politics is the art of the possible. If Bismarck had ever imagined that fate would have damned him to endorse with this utterance the statesmanlike qualities of Herr Stresemann, he would have surely omitted the utterance, or in a very small note he would have denied Herr Stresemann the right to refer to it.
Thus the slogan of the restoration of the German borders as an aim for the future is doubly stupid and dangerous, because, in reality, it in no way encompasses any useful aim worth striving for.
The German borders of the year 1914 were borders which presented something incomplete in exactly the same way as the borders of all nations are at all times incomplete. The territorial distribution of the world at any time is the momentary result of a struggle and a development which by no means is concluded, but one which clearly continues further. It is stupid to take the border of any sample year in a nation’s history, and, offhand, to represent it as a political aim. We can, of course, present the border of the year 1648, or that of 1312, and so on, just as well as the border of the year 1914. This all the more so as indeed the border of the year 1914 was not satisfactory in a national, military or geopolitical sense. It was only the momentary situation in our Folk’s struggle for existence which has been going on for centuries. And even if the World War had not occurred, this struggle would not have had its end in 1914.
If the German Folk had in fact achieved the restoration of the borders of the year 1914, the sacrifices of the World War would have been no less in vain. But also, there would not be the slightest gain for our Folk’s future in such a restoration. This purely formal border policy of our national bourgeoisie is just as unsatisfactory in its possible end result as it is intolerably dangerous. Indeed it need not even be covered by the dictum of the art of the possible, for this is, above all, only a theoretical phrase, which nevertheless seems suitable to destroy every
