The following text is a translation of a speech Adolf Hitler gave to to German workers on December 10, 1940. By this time the WW2 had been raging for more than a year, English bombers had made ten illegal bombing raids on Civilan parts of Berlin, which resulted in German retaliation for a few weeks, often referred to as “The Blitz”.
At the bottom of this page is a link to a ten minute video clip with Hitler’s own words, the following is a transcript in english:
So-called democracy exists in this Anglo-French world, which means the rule of the people by the people. Now, the people must possess some means of giving expression to their thoughts or their wishes.
Upon examining this problem more closely, we see that the people themselves have no original convictions of their own. Their convictions are formed, of course, just as everywhere else. The decisive question is who enlightens the people; who educates them?
Capital actually rules in those countries; that is, nothing more than a clique of a few hundred men who possess untold wealth and, as a consequence of the peculiar structure of their national life, are more or less independent and free. They say: ‘Here we have liberty.’
By this they mean, above all, an uncontrolled economy. And by an uncontrolled economy, the freedom not to acquire capital but to make absolutely free use of it. That means freedom from national control or control by the people both in acquisition of capital and its employment. This is really what they mean when they speak of liberty.
These capitalists create their own press and then speak of ‘freedom of the press.’ In reality, every one of the newspaper has a master, and in every case this master is the capitalist, the owner. This master, not the editor, is the one who directs the policy of the paper.
If the editor tries to write other than what suits the master, he is ousted the next day. This press, which is the absolutely submissive and characterless slave of his owners, molds public opinion. Public opinion thus mobilized by them, is in its turn, split up into political parties.
The difference between these parties is small, as it formerly was in Germany. You know them, of course – the old parties. They were always one and the same. In Britain, matters are usually so arranged that families are divided up, one member being conservative, another liberal, and a third belonging to the labour party.
Actually, all three sit together as members of the family, decide upon their common attitude and determine it. A further point is that the ‘elected people’ actually form a community which operates and controls all these organizations.
For this reason, the opposition in England is really always the same, for on all essential matters in which the opposition has to make itself felt, the parties are always in agreement. They have one and the same conviction and through the medium of the press mold public opinion along corresponding lines.
One might well believe that in these countries of liberty and riches, the people must experience an unlimited degree of prosperity. But no! On the contrary, it is precisely in these countries that the distress of the masses is greater than anywhere else.
Such is the case in ‘rich Britain.’ They control sixteen million square miles. In India for example, a hundred million colonial workers, with a wretched standard of living, must labour for her. One might think, perhaps, that at leas in England itself every person must have his share of these riches. By no means! In that country, class distinction is the cruellest imaginable.
There is poverty – incredible poverty – on the one side, and equally incredible wealth on the other. They have not solved a single problem. The workmen of that country which possess more than one-sixth of the globe, and of the world’s natural resources, dwell in misery and the masses of the people are poorly clad.
In a country which ought to have more than enough bread and every sort of fruit, we find millions of lower classes who have not even enough to fill their stomachs and go about hungry. A nation which could provide work for the whole world must acknowledge the fact that it cannot even abolish unemployment at home.
For decades this rich Britain has had two and a half million unemployment; rich America, ten to thirteen millions, year after year; France, six, seven, and eight hundred thousand. Well, my fellow-countrymen – what then are we to say about ourself?
It is self evident that where this democracy rules, the people as such are not taken into consideration at all. The only thing that matters is the existence of a few hundred gigantic capitalists who own all the factories and their stock and, through them, control the people.
The masses of the people do not interest them in the least. They are interested on them just as were our bourgeois parties in former times – only when elections are being held, when they need votes. Otherwise, the life of the masses is a matter of complete indifference to them.
To this must be added the difference in education. It is not ludicrous to hear a member of the British Labour Party – who of course, as a member of the Opposition is officially paid by the government – say : ‘When the war is over, we will do someting in social respects’?
Well, it must now be made possible for British worker to travel. It is remarkable that they should at last hit upon the idea that traveling should be something not for millionaires alone, but for the people too.
In this country, the problem was solved some time ago. In the other countries – as is shown by their whole economic structure – the selfishness of a relatively small stratum rules under the mask of democracy. The egoism of a relatively small social class.
It is understandable when an Englishman says: ‘We do not want our world to perish in any way at all.’ They know all too well: we are not threat to their empire. But they also say to themselves, and rightly so. ‘If the ideas which are popular in Germany are not eliminated, and eradicated, they will come to our people, and this is most dangerous. This we do not want.’
And if it did come this way, it would do no harm. But they are as narrow-minded as others used to be over here with us once. In this respect they prefer to remain bound to their conservative methods. They do not wish to depart from them and do not conceal the fact.
They say: ‘The German methods do not suit us at all.’ And what are these methods? You know, my comrades, that I have destroyed nothing in Germany.
I have always proceeded very carefully, because I believe – as I have already said – that we cannot afford to wreck anything. I am proud that the Revolution of 1933 was brought to pass without breaking a single windowpane. Nevertheless we have wrought enormous changes.
Adolf Hitler Explains Democracy
I apologize for the misleading title of this article, thus is the case of the censoring climate of the Industrial Nations, ruled by Democracy – or shall we say Demonicrazy – and when writing about the most demonized political figure in history, one must be careful.