Bonus: G. S. Viereck's 1923 interview with Adolf Hitler

Published by carolyn on Sun, 2018-12-02 20:42

I thought this edited interview of Adolf Hitler by George Sylvester Viereck that took place in 1923 was so wonderful to read that I wanted to post it along with the two previous articles. The interview appears here as it was republished in Liberty magazine in July 1932.

I have added my comments in red and also the boldface. -Carolyn

By George Sylvester Viereck

"WHEN I TAKE CHARGE OF GERMANY, I shall end tribute abroad and Bolshevism at home."

Adolf Hitler drained his cup as if it contained not tea, but the lifeblood of Bolshevism.

"Bolshevism," the chief of the Brown Shirts, the Fascists of Germany, continued, gazing at me balefully, "is our greatest menace. Kill Bolshevism in Germany and you restore 70 million people to power. France owes her strength not to her armies but to the forces of Bolshevism and dissension in our midst. 

"The Treaty of Versailles and the Treaty of St Germain are kept alive by Bolshevism in Germany. The Peace Treaty and Bolshevism are two heads of one monster. We must decapitate both."

When Adolf Hitler announced this programme, the advent of the Third Empire [Reich] which he proclaims seemed still at the end of the rainbow. Then came election after election. Each time the power of Hitler grew. While unable to dislodge Hindenburg from the presidency, Hitler today heads the largest party in Germany. Unless Hindenburg assumes dictatorial measures, or some unexpected development completely upsets all present calculations, Hitler's party will organise the Reichstag and dominate the government. Hitler's fight was not against Hindenburg but against Chancellor Bruening. It is doubtful if Bruening's successor can sustain himself without the support of the National Socialists.

Many who voted for Hindenburg were at heart with Hitler, but some deep-rooted sense of loyalty impelled them nevertheless to cast their vote for the old field marshal. Unless overnight a new leader arises, there is no one in Germany, with the exception of Hindenburg, who could defeat Hitler - and Hindenburg is 85! Time and the recalcitrance of the French fight for Hitler, unless some blunder on his own part, or dissension within the ranks of the party, deprives him of his opportunity to play the part of Germany's Mussolini.

The first German Empire came to an end when Napoleon forced the Austrian emperor to surrender his imperial crown. The second empire came to an end when William II, on the advice of Hindenburg, sought refuge in Holland. The third empire is emerging slowly but surely, although it may dispense with sceptres and crowns.

I met Hitler not in his headquarters, the Brown House in Munich, but in a private home - the dwelling of a former admiral of the German Navy. We discussed the fate of Germany over teacups.

"Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"

"Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.

"Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.

"We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one." [Meaning the state belongs to the people/volk, the state works for the people, it does not rule over them in the sense of being subjects]

Hitler himself is not a purely Germanic type. His dark hair betrays some alpine ancestor. For years he refused to be photographed. That was part of his strategy - to be known only to his friends so that, in the hour of crisis, he could appear here, there, and everywhere without detection. Today he could no longer pass unrecognised through the obscurest hamlet in Germany. His appearance contrasts strangely with the aggressiveness of his opinions. No milder mannered reformer ever scuttled ship of state or cut political throat.

"What," I continued my cross-examination, "are the fundamental planks of your platform?"

"We believe in a healthy mind in a healthy body. The body politic must be sound if the soul is to be healthy. Moral and physical health are synonymous." "Mussolini," I interjected, "said the same to me." Hitler beamed. (This is controversial, but it is very German to value physical fitness, outdoor activity, hiking, biking and all sports very highly. Germans had no argument with that statement; Jews and some Catholics did.)

"The slums," he added, "are responsible for nine-tenths, alcohol for one-tenth, of all human depravity. No healthy man is a Marxian. Healthy men recognise the value of personality. We contend against the forces of disaster and degeneration. Bavaria is comparatively healthy because it is not completely industrialised. However, all Germany, including Bavaria, is condemned to intensive industrialism by the smallness of our territory. If we wish to save Germany we must see to it that our farmers remain faithful to the land. To do so, they must have room to breathe and room to work." [It was not even as small then as it is now! That's why the German birthrate is so low – there is not enough room for German-blooded people as non-German foreigners are forced into the territory by the Globalists.]

Viereck: "Where will you find the room to work?"

"We must retain our colonies and we must expand eastward. There was a time when we could have shared world dominion with England. Now we can stretch our cramped limbs only toward the east. The Baltic is necessarily a German lake."

"Is it not," I asked, "possible for Germany to reconquer the world economically without extending her territory?"

Hitler shook his head earnestly.

"Economic imperialism, like military imperialism, depends upon power. There can be no world trade on a large scale without world power. Our people have not learned to think in terms of world power and world trade. However, Germany cannot extend commercially or territorially until she regains what she has lost and until she finds herself. [This type of talk was noted by certain British, and reinforced their determination to destroy Germany altogether, so as not to face the commercial and military competition. The Wilson and Roosevelt administrations joined them in this determination on economic grounds, not because of “freedom” and “democracy” as the slogans proclaimed.]

"We are in the position of a man whose house has been burned down. He must have a roof over his head before he can indulge in more ambitious plans. We had succeeded in creating an emergency shelter that keeps out the rain. We were not prepared for hailstones. However, misfortunes hailed down upon us. Germany has been living in a veritable blizzard of national, moral, and economic catastrophes. (The Versailles 'Peace' Treaty -cy)

"Our demoralised party system is a symptom of our disaster. Parliamentary majorities fluctuate with the mood of the moment. Parliamentary government unbars the gate to Bolshevism."

Viereck: "Unlike some German militarists, you do not favour an alliance with Soviet Russia?"

Hitler evaded a direct reply to this question. He evaded it again recently [1932] when Liberty [magazine] asked him to reply to Trotsky's statement that his assumption of power in Germany would involve a life-and-death struggle between Europe, led by Germany, and Soviet Russia.

"It may not suit Hitler to attack Bolshevism in Russia. He may even look upon an alliance with Bolshevism as his last card, if he is in danger of losing the game. If, he [Hitler] intimated on one occasion, capitalism refuses to recognise that the National Socialists are the last bulwark of private property, if capital impedes their struggle, Germany may be compelled to throw herself into the enticing arms of the siren Soviet Russia. But he is determined not to permit Bolshevism to take root in Germany."

He responded warily in the past to the advances of Chancellor Bruening and others who wished to form a united political front. It is unlikely that now, in view of the steady increase in the vote of the National Socialists, Hitler will be in the mood to compromise on any essential principle with other parties.

"The political combinations upon which a united front depend," Hitler remarked to me, "are too unstable. They render almost impossible a clearly defined policy. I see everywhere the zigzag course of compromise and concession. Our constructive forces are checked by the tyranny of numbers. We make the mistake of applying arithmetic and the mechanics of the economic world to the living state. We are threatened by ever increasing numbers and ever diminishing ideals. Mere numbers are unimportant."

"But suppose France retaliates against you by once more invading your soil? She invaded the Ruhr once before. She may invade it again."

"It does not matter," Hitler, thoroughly aroused, retorted, "how many square miles the enemy may occupy if the national spirit is aroused. Ten million free Germans, ready to perish so that their country may live, are more potent than 50 million whose will power is paralysed and whose race consciousness is infected by aliens.

"We want a greater Germany uniting all German tribes. But our salvation can start in the smallest corner. Even if we had only 10 acres of land and were determined to defend them with our lives, the 10 acres would become the focus of regeneration. Our workers have two souls: one is German, the other is Marxian. We must arouse the German soul. We must uproot the canker of Marxism. Marxism and Germanism are antitheses. [Notice he is always speaking of 'Germans' and 'Germanism'. But our enemies change it to 'Nazism.' This is a very important part of “The Big Lie.” Hitler was easily within the bounds of the German traditions.]

"In my scheme of the German state, there will be no room for the alien, no use for the wastrel, for the usurer or speculator, or anyone incapable of productive work." [Germany at this time had an inordinate amount of foreign Jews taking advantage of its destroyed Reichsmark, plus disabled, diseased and defective individuals that were draining the resources of the struggling nation. Hitler actually looked to how the USA was handling their own problem with the latter.]

The cords on Hitler's forehead stood out threateningly. His voice filled the room. There was a noise at the door. His followers, who always remain within call, like a bodyguard, reminded the leader of his duty to address a meeting.

Hitler gulped down his tea and rose.


Another bonus: Excerpts from Viereck's magazines, must be read on site. http://americainclass.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/viereck-writings1.pdf

I found another one! Viereck's editorials from The Fatherland magazine: http://americainclass.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/viereck2.pdf

Comments

Excellent research, Carolyn. And, a better source (Viereck) would be hard to find. I regret my books and articles of information on Viereck were lost while in storage for over 17 years. Not lost in the sense of unable to find - but ruined by moisture, bugs, and rodents, in spite of my efforts to prevent that.
 
Viereck was a true patriot and very courageous. Thank you for this article.
 
Ray  

That's too bad, Ray. This man has a great appeal to me also. Funny, I had never heard of him before I read that Lundeen article - of course, I had never heard of Lundeen either! I'm finding more by going way down in the search engines. The first page never offers much in cases like these.

I noticed some interesting coincidences because I'm so drawn to Viereck. His son Peter was born and died in the same years as my mother, 1916 to 2006. He died almost exactly one month after she did. They were 90. Then my mother's mother's family name was Reck, the last four letters of Viereck. Those are considered related names. The Reck's are the ones I know came from Bauerbach in Baden. These Vierecks were in Bavaria, still in the south. I'm not saying we are related, except spiritually, but if anyone in my family could be said to resemble G.S.V., it would be my mother. And me! 

I'm just feeling very happy since I learned about him and his wonderful publication, 'The Fatherland.' And grateful that I found some of it's contents online. I am feeling voraciously hungry for more. Just like you did. We are all spiritual kin together, aren't we. I salute you.

Thank you for sharing this material with us, Carolyn. Every German should know the truth about Hitler and National Socialism to save our country.

Great piece. Concise on the nature of Fascism and how a movement goes forward. 

Really. How so? I bolded the words on 'elections,' voting and 'parliament" with you in mind.  And what about all the talk about the support of the people?

Furthermore, Hitler never called himself a fascist and claimed his party wasn't.

"...election after election. Each time the power of HItler grew." Yes, but in a parliamentary system he didn't need to win a majority (and he never did); and he nearly destroyed his movement in the process. To his credit he wouldn't take power by compromising because he knew it was a losing game. He recognized the real problem of alliances and numbers here, "The political combinations upon which a united front depend," Hitler remarked to me, "are too unstable. They render almost impossible a clearly defined policy. I see everywhere the zigzag course of compromise and concession. Our constructive forces are checked by the tyranny of numbers. We make the mistake of applying arithmetic and the mechanics of the economic world to the living state. We are threatened by ever increasing numbers and ever diminishing ideals. Mere numbers are unimportant." ...Winning by majority is even less likely here, today, with the media and money that control the politicians. You see the spectacle of Trump back-tracking on most of what he campaigned on. If he was a real leader and not a cheap little bourgeois, he would have took the patriotic military elements and stage a coup and shutdown the Whorehouse (Congress). It will take a solid cadre that will fight on principle and will (hopefully) educate and inspire the significant minority. As the attacks come politically and physically (as we see with Antifa), hopefully people will understand that local/regional defense forces will be needed; out of that will come the leadership to administer and challenge the authority of Washington. Which is why I like to say, Build armies, not parties.

None of what you pointed to in Hitler's interview has anything to do with Fascism. Fact is Hitler created a political party and spent years driving and flying around Germany giving talks and campaigning for elections. He participated in electioneering! Everything you say about majorities is irrelevant. Then you start bashing Trump -- where did he come into it? That's just easy to do.

Then you say a solid cadre will fight and (hopefully) things will turn out well and hopefully people will understand what's needed and from that a leader will emerge. Hopefully ...

Oh yeah, you've got it all figured out.

Hitler's definition of Socialism is the same as Fascism, minus the racial component. As for elections, you don't want to recognize that the NSADP was starting to fall apart just before Hindenberg appointed him.  None of the Fascist movements got elected; they came to power by coups of one sort or another. Interesting that Mosley, in Britain, failed, relying on the democratic process...I use Trump as an example of the impossibility of the democratic process, today; Trump is all theater--and BS....So, why is what I say about majorities irrelevant, when Fascists never came to power with it? It is especially impossible in America, without a parliamentary system.

I think I have you confused with someone else ... because of the email address you're using. I wish you people would use real names so that you take some responsibility for what you're saying.

I wrote the above in a hurry late last night - I will later try to be more specific.

"Hitler's definition of Socialism is the same as Fascism, minus the racial component."

No, it isn't. Hitler didn't just practice 'socialism' but National Socialism, a brand of his own that he designed specially for Germany and Germans. And race is an essential component. Mussolini said the people can be anyone but they must be subordinate to the state. Hitler said the people must be German by blood, language and history, and the state is subordinate to them. Race and nation are one. 

Mostly in this interview he's being specific about National Socialism, which he definitely distinguished from Facisim. For that reason you can't come along and say he's explaining Facism just because you can find some similarities. So many young men want to use the term Fascism, but not National Socialism. It's more universal and open to interpretation. That's fine, but don't confuse the two.

"you don't want to recognize that the NSADP was starting to fall apart ..."

It was not; it had just lost some parliamentary seats in the last election. Those things fluctuate. Hindenberg appointed Hitler based on of his strength in the Reichstag, so it paid off. It's very important that it was LEGAL and approved by officialdom. That's why arresting the appointed govt. leaders (Doenitz, etc.) following the death of Chancellor/Fuehrer Hitler was not legal, and can still be disputed. Only the military surrendered. No treatly of any kind was concluded with the government.

"None of the Fascist movements got elected ..."

That doesn't mean that none could. And hardly any took power either, so there's not a good track record other than in Italy.

The U.S. has chosen its goverments by election of the electorate from Day One -- the populace won't accept any other way without a whole lot of preparation, which takes time. And which the people you associate yourself with are not doing, by the way. Or if you think you are, you're doing a lousy job of it.

"So, why is what I say about majorities irrelevant, when Fascists never came to power with it?"

The parliamentary system allows coalition govts. to form a majority, the American system allows run-off elections. We keep voting until there is a majority for someone. Since your idea of a coup is outside of the approved process, whether that process requires a majority or not is irrelevant. I'm sure you can see that.

Fascism, as I understand it, is instituted to protect and foster the cultural integrity of the nation. It requires that though private property is protected along with "sanctity" of the individual, the  economy doesn't exist for maximum profit, but to further strengthen the nation. Necdssarily, Fascism will take different forms reflecting those national differences. I don't think it was an accident that Hilter admired Mussolini.

Hitler admired Mussolini for the charisma and power of his personality - and for his confidence in his own ideas and leadership talents. Hitler still thought his own ideas were better. Mostly though, Hitler was grateful to have a major European nation allying with him.

[Added next day] What's important is Hitler's very strong belief in the "Personality" principle, as opposed to group think. Trump is functioning on this principle too - and constantly attacked for it, as Hitler was and is. Trump is in a system whereby he can't just overrule Congress, just as Mussolini had to share power with a King and his Court and with the Pope and Vatican. Hitler always saw that as a hindrance for M. that he himself had overcome in Germany. So it wasn't pure Fascism that Mussolini practiced, but he preached it.

You need to look beyond the surface and your fixed 'movement' ideas.

You can find Niel M. Johnson's biography of Viereck, 'George Sylvester Viereck, German-American Propagandist' (1972) selling for around $USD3 second-hand.
 
Viereck, along with H. Keith Thompson and Frederick 'Fred' C.F. Weiss, ran the American pro-Hitler Right in the 1950s. Weiss, a German-American (and veteran of WWI), was interned like Viereck during WWII and Thompson worked for German intelligence during WWII. After the war, Viereck, Thompson and Weiss, along with Thompson's close friend Francis Parker Yockey, founded two Committees to alleviate the plight of top-ranking German POWs - very top-ranking. Field Marshal Albert Kesseling credited Thompson, a tireless activist, with helping improve conditions at Spandau Prison. Upon Dönitz' release from Spandau in 1956, Thompson and Viereck sent him a congratulatory telegram.

 
Telegram to the legitimate president of Germany, Grand admiral Karl Dönitz, on the occasion of his release from eleven years of illegal confinement by the ‘allies’ for ‘war crimes’:
 
On the day of the triumph of your steeled will over the plans of your vengeful persecutors, your American friends congratulate you and wish you a long, healthy life. Throughout the entire despicable Nuremberg proceedings – brought about by the criminal co-guilt of the USA and world jewry [sic], your soldierly honor shone forth as the sole hope of those who wished to rebuild the collapsing Western World.
 
Through your personal courage, you have triumphed over the calculated plans of the destroyers of Western Culture, and you stand today as the personification of Honor, Loyalty and Faith. Let no considerations dissuade you from this position. You are unique in History! Today we also greet your courageous wife who has fought for you so valiantly through these difficult years.

 
What is called the 'Viereck circle' seemed to function as a bridge between the American Right and the post-war German nationalist movement of Remer, Skorzeny, Rudel, Von Leers. Viereck had ties as well to the revisionists Austin J. App and Harry Elmer Barnes.
 
Interestingly enough, Sanford Griffith, one of the witnesses against Viereck at the Mass Sedition Trial during the war, worked for the ADL after the war as an agent provocateur. Thompson states that Griffith and the ADL could always be reliedupon for money - any anti-Semite or 'Neo-Nazi' could obtain financing from them.
 
You can find a great interview on Thompson by the IHR's Keith Stimely at Counter-Currents, if you can get past the block which prevents you from the seeing the site. Thompson reminisces at length about his mentor Viereck and his friends Weiss and Yockey. The bizarre milieu of the American Right in that period reminds me of the TV show Mad Men, particularly in the first few seasons, when American of the sixties most resembled that of the fifties. A crazy time, and I feel a little melancholy reading about it - Americans have lost a great deal since then.

Thank you for this.
Just prior to WWI, Germanics made up the largest demographic in America – approaching 40%.  From one of your sources, note how much space is given to "German-Americans" (Viereck) for a seminar on American entry into the "Great War":
http://americainclass.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/wwi-guide-to-readin...
 
Such diminution is also apropo for a century ago.  I recall stories told in the 1950s where Americans of German descent back then were beaten, possibly even killed, for simply speaking German in public.  The meekness of the old folks in the telling told much too.
 
It appears that we were (are?) much more docile than our European brethren – until the war propagandists did their dirty work.

Hi Bob,

Your remarks here have made me think that was probably the reason my parents did not speak or know German and even my grandparents never spoke German except in private among their own generation, even though they came here average age 18 speaking only German! My father was born in 1914, my mother in 1916. Reason enough.

Thanks for the comment.

Add new comment