Tags

, , , ,

The 21st of May.

Thursday May 21st, around 12:15, Mr Hess, Adolf Hitler’s personal secretary, called me to arrange a meeting with Mister Hitler at one at the Hotel Sanssouci. I was about to leave for Oranienburg in order to reorganize our weekly paper. I nevertheless accepted the invitation, which could permit the settling of old policies.

The meeting between Hitler and myself took place at 1, without witness, in his private room in the Hotel Sanssouci.

Mister Hitler welcomed me with a flood of reproach regarding the attitude of the Editions Combat press. Many articles, notably the ones published in April, were, according to him, against the program of NSDAP and the most elementary rules of discipline, and required his intervention against Editions Combat and the opinions expressed there.

Mr Hitler indicated to me that these attacks, prejudicial to the party, were too harsh. His patience was at an end, and he demanded after my repeated refusals, my final acceptance of the dissolution of Editions Combat, without which he would be forced to take all necessary measures.

Before this threat, I rose and said that I had expected this meeting would help clarify our differences, but that I could not accept an ultimatum.

Mr Hitler agreed that he wanted this explanation. He attached the greatest price to my work, he fully acknowledged my work and wanted to keep me in the party. That was the reason for his invitation. I was young, a front line veteran and an old National Socialist, so I could be convinced. On the other hand, a conversation with Count Reventlow would have been superfluous, as this caricature of a journalist was incorrigible, he reiterated the same theories for decades. I replied that his criticisms were too general for me to respond to them concretely. Regarding the articles of the last few weeks, we could say two things. Firstly regarding the formalities: except for two articles, A New Biedermeier by Wendland in NS Letters and Unfaithfulness and Infidelity by Herbert Blank in The NS of April 22nd, all the texts were reprinted by the very official NSDAP press bureau. The ND was only following the example of many other party journals. Then regarding the fundamentals: I entirely shared the opinions defended in these different articles and desired that they be at the center of our meeting.

On the first point, Hitler formally agreed with me, I was right, and that these men of the NSPK would be held responsible; in particular Stöhr would be removed from his role as director of editing. He raised his voice with much force against the two articles on the subject, about which he expressed the following opinion: “The article in NS Letters is an infamous attack against Mr Frick, the National Socialist prime minister. The nomination of Schulze-Naumburg is of high cultural significance, as Schulze-Naumburg is a first rank artist. Only a few artistic notions are sufficient to see that Schulze-Naumburg knows how to teach German art better than anyone. And you join the Jewish press to shove the dagger in our backs by your attacks against the nomination of a National Socialist minister!”

I replied that in a magazine of debates such as NS Letters, it was my duty to let the young National Socialist artists grouped around Wendland, himself an active artist, express themselves. And moreover this article, while fully recognizing the merits of Schulze-Naumburg, expressed a fear I shared. In the cultural scheme, National Socialism should not reject the current of modern art that seeks to come to light. It must not repress its precious and youthful forces by clinging to outdated models.

Hitler replied: “All that you’ve said only shows that you have no idea about art. There is not ancient and modern art, anymore than there is revolution in art. There is only eternal art, Greek art, Nordic art, and any other appellation: Dutch art, Italian art, German art, is illusory. Moreover, Gothic art doesn’t exist in isolation, it responds to the ancient canons. All that I claim for art necessarily claims its origin in Greece.”

I responded that actually, I was not competent to state definitive opinions in the matter of art, but that naturally, I saw in art the expression of the soul of the people. I only recognized rooted art. Art that could never lose its character through decadence, through phases of sickness. Naturally, and not by virtue of a theory of knowledge, I thought that the popular expression of art followed the mutations of dominant ideas, and thus by a sense of the world at the time. I then briefly replied that Chinese, Egyptian, etc art were expressions of different peoples.

On this point Hitler said: “You hold liberal opinions, there is no Chinese or Egyptian art. I already told you, there is only Greek and Nordic art. You should know that the Chinese and moreover the Egyptians are not homogeneous peoples. Dominating these composite and inferior populations, there is always a Nordic elite that created the master works we admire today under the name of Chinese or Egyptian art. And each time this Nordic minority disappears, the Manchus for example, art declines.”

Mister Hitler elaborated for a long time on the subject of art, the different styles, etc. I can only repeat that the importance of this question assuredly merited a discussion of which the incriminating article was only an introduction.

The Hitler’s criticism was just as vehement, regarding the second article, Unfaithfulness and Infidelity by Herbert Blank. According to him, the article incited party members to rebellion. Actually, it deliberately dissociated itself from the idea of fidelity to the Führer and prioritized faithfulness to the idea over the faithfulness due to the Führer.

Firstly I defended myself from wanting to denigrate his personality, that was not the intention of the article. And I added, “However, it’s a German Protestant trait that holds the idea in the highest esteem. All his acts are guided by his conscience. In the practical scheme, the Führer could fall ill, he could die, or become estranged from the idea. Thus conscience must rely on the idea, the directors of the party, at any level, are only its executors. Such is the cornerstone of German Protestantism in my opinion. Ideas are the divine essence, they are eternal. On the other hand, men are only bodies in which the Word was made flesh.”

Hitler: “You hide your ineptitude under pious discourse. In reality, you pretend to give to each member of the party the right to decide the idea, and even to decide if the Führer is faithful to the idea or not. But democracy has no place in our ranks. With us, the Führer and the idea are one, and each member of the party must do what the Führer, who is the is the embodiment of the idea and the only one who knows the ultimate goal, commands.”

Me: “Mister Hitler, your statements denote the Roman Papist vision of the world like Fascist Rome, and I can only respond with the words of Luther: Here I stand, I cannot help it! I must reaffirm that in my eyes, the idea, here the National Socialist idea, is essential, and that my conscience is ready to make a choice when it arises or the divide between the idea and the Führer increases.”

Him: “Yes, we diverge here considerably. You bring us back to democracy, and democracy is dissolved. Our organization is founded on discipline, and I will not let it be dismembered by a handful of writers. You yourself knew the army. See how your brother although he is not always in agreement with me, he bends to this discipline, for him I have much esteem. And I ask you if accept this discipline, yes or no.”

Me: “Discipline is only an instrument in order to lead a community in a direction, not to educate it in a single way. The world war sufficiently taught it. In the last months of the conflict, it was not discipline that lead us to accept the hardest tests of the soul and heart, it was an imperative of our conscience, the feeling of duty. Do not be mislead by the easy approval of the creatures that surround you…”

Him: “I cannot tolerate such calumnies against my collaborators!”

Me: “Mr Hitler, do not give us illusions! They have enough intellectual capacities to forge their own opinion, and the sufficient character to express it when it differs from yours. And do you really think that my brother would bend to this discipline if he wasn’t financially dependent on its mandate?”

Hitler swore that if he extended me his hand today, it was precisely in memory of my brother who had suffered greatly from our differences and for himself.

Him: “Once again, I offer you the post of national press leader. You will come with me to Munich, where you will be directly under my authority. You could put all your work and intelligence, which I esteem, in the service of the movement.”

I responded that I could only accept this offer if we were in fundamental agreement regarding political goals. I added verbatim: “If it turns out that our views still differ, you will have the impression that I have deceived you, and I myself the feeling of having been betrayed. The most important thing seems to me that we have a deep discussion on political objectives. I would be ready to return to Munich for four weeks and discuss all the questions with you and eventually with Rosenberg, whose hostility towards me I am aware of, and primarily the questions of foreign policy and socialism as in my opinion, Rosenberg is the most distant from my conceptions.”

Thereafter, Mr Hitler told me that this proposal had come too late, that I should decide for myself now, failing that he would take the necessary measures on Monday. That is to say he would declare that Editions Combat had brought harm to the interests of the party, that all members of the party would be banned from the dissemination and propagation of the Edition Combat’s magazines, that he would exclude me and the people surrounding me from the party.

I responded that Mr Hitler did indeed have the opportunity to take these measures, but he had thus proved something that I never believed was possible until now: his total disagreement with our revolutionary socialist will, as expressed for five years in Editions Combat, where it was the goal and essential object.

I roughly said this: “Mister Hitler, I have the impression that you forgot to say the true reasons that push you to destroy Editions Combat; the real stake is this revolutionary socialism we advocate, you desire to sacrifice it to establish the legality of the party and in order to cooperate with the bourgeois right (Hugenberg, Stahlhelm, etc)”

Mister Hitler rejected this opinion very quickly: “Unlike people such as the wealthy Count Reventlow, I am socialist. I started as a simple worker, and today still, I do not allow my chauffeur to receive another meal than me. But your socialism is Marxism pure and simple. You see, the great mass of workers only wants bread and circuses. Ideas are not accessible to them and we cannot hope to win them over. We attach ourselves to the fringe, the race of lords, which did not grow through a miserabilist doctrine and knows by the virtue of its own character that it is called to rule, and rule without weakness over the masses of beings.”

Me: “Mister Hitler, this opinion overwhelms me. A vision founded on race is erroneous. In my opinion, race is only the initial first material. For example, the German people are constituted by four or five different races. To which we add geopolitical, climactic influences, and others, external pressure, internal fusion, which forged what we call a people. The following step is born from living together and becoming aware of this life: this superior form is the nation, born for us in August 1914. The racial vision of Rosenberg that you have made yours denies the great task of National Socialism, the constitution of the German people into a nation, and will even lead to the dissolution of this people. So it denies, in my eyes, the objective and the meaning of the German revolution to come.”

Him: “You are a liberal. Every revolution is fundamentally racial. There are no social, political, or economic revolutions. Combat always opposes an inferior racial sub-stratum to a superior ruling race. When the superior race forgets this law, it loses the fight. All historical global revolutions, and I have studied many of them, are nothing other than racial combat. So read Rosenberg’s new book (Hitler meant the Myth of the 20th Century). You have all the responses there. The book has considerable breadth, even superior to the Foundations of the the 19th Century by Chamberlain. Your errors in the domain of foreign policy are explained by your ignorance of racial factors. For example, you are enthusiastic about the Hindu independence movement … you know the Anglo-Saxons have the mission to govern the people they have subdued, precisely in the name of their superiority. The Nordic race is called to dominate the world, and this right must guide our foreign policy. It’s why we cannot envision any rapprochement with Russia, which is a Slavic-Tatar body surmounted by a Jewish head. I knew Slavs from my home country. In the era where a Germanic head ruled the Slavic body, entente was possible, Bismarck outlined this rapprochement before. But today, it would be a crime.”

I retorted that it seemed to me that foreign policy could not be dictated by such considerations. “The only important thing to know in matters of foreign policy is if a population could serve Germany or harm it. In the first case, I would treat it favorably, even if I had great antipathy for that people, in the second case, it would treat it poorly, even if I was personally sympathetic to the people in question. In the matter, I am of the opinion that the first duty of Germany in regard to foreign policy is the abrogation of the Treaty of Versailles. If I go over the powers that – for purely selfish motives, of course – share this same desire, I only see Italy and Russia. That’s why I am favorable to rapprochement with Italy, although Italians are unfriendly to me, and, likewise, an entente with Russia seems possible, at least theoretically. I have as little enthusiasm for Bolshevism as I do for Fascism, and I am as indifferent to the personality of Stalin as I am to that of Mussolini, MacDonald, or Poincaré. I only see the interests of Germany.”

Mister Hitler agreed with me on the primacy of Germany’s interests in the matter of foreign policy. In his eyes, an entente with England corresponded with this imperative, the goal was the Nordic domination of Europe, and through America Nordic-Germanic domination of the world.

It was getting late – it had nearly been 4 hours – I asked to continue our conversation tomorrow, on the specific subject of socialism. He declared, “But the question of foreign policy is purely theoretical for the moment. Neither you nor me make decisions and I can satisfy myself with this formulation, that foreign policy only obeys a singular objective: the good of Germany. Cultural policy is not very important in my eyes, in any case it seems quite second rank now. In my eyes, the decisive and central question is economic organization and socialism, as it’s in this matter that I have the greatest doubts about the party’s policy.”

We agreed to resume our conversation tomorrow morning, the 22nd of May at 10.

We the undersigned declare that this account is faithful to the narrative that Dr Strasser gave of his meeting over the past few hours, the night of 21st of May.

Richard Shapke, Herbert Blank, Günther Kübler, Paul Brinkman.
Berlin, June 2
nd 1930

May 22nd

Thursday May 22nd, at 10 in the morning, after a brief meeting with my brother Gregor, I returned to the Hotel Sanssouci with Mister Hitler, as we had agree previously.

As we had outlined the plan of the day’s conversation yesterday, I had reflected on five fundamental points which I communicated to my brother in the course of our brief meeting, they were as followed:

1 We want a German revolution that fundamentally encompasses all domains and involves all means.

2 It follows from the above that we are equally opposed to bourgeois capitalism and internationalist Marxism.

3 In my eyes, property is not inalienable, we desire a German socialism, and thus participation in all the ownership, direction, and profits of the German economy.

4 This revolutionary position forbids us from participation in a coalition government.

5 This anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist attitude means that we do not envision military intervention against Russia.

I met Mister Hitler at breakfast. On this occasion, we would only discuss general questions, the announcement of the dissolution of the Saxon parliament, and perspectives on the next election. After which we met in the room of the hotel where I found myself in the company of many. Mister Adolf Hitler, his personal secretary Rudolf Hess, Minster Amann, director of the Völkischer Beobachter, my brother Gregor Strasser, Mister Hans Hinkel, associate of the Editions Combat Society and myself. I asked Mister Hitler if our conversation would take place between four pairs of eyes, because I wanted to know the real thoughts of Hitler, without there being other people to take into consideration. This proposition was rejected by Mister Hitler, as the people present were directly concerned with the debate.

On the other hand, I was indifferent about debating the fundamental questions of socialism before a larger audience, that’s why I accepted, knowing that my interlocutors were, in any case, favorable to Mister Hitler.

At Hitler’s demand, I began in roughly these terms: “The discussion yesterday showed that important points should be clarified. Namely to know if you, like me, are of the opinion that the revolution to which we aspire must be implemented on political, economic, and spiritual level. In which case that implies that we be inflexible and fight bourgeois capitalism and internationalist Marxism with equal ardor, which leads us to the central point of this meeting. Our propaganda must not only attach itself to the anti-Marxist struggle, it must equally attack capitalism and found a German socialism.

Which necessitates that we clarify the concept of property. I believe that religious respect for private property excludes all possibility of German socialism. We naturally know that all culture rests on ownership, but recognize the extraordinary importance of this ascertainment, namely that the material foundation allows the human being to flourish and have a proud and proper bearing, thus the necessity of giving the non-property owning 80% of Germans the possibility of acquiring a form of property. Today’s capitalist system doesn’t give them this possibility. The position to-day, is like that before the Wars of Liberation. At that time Baron vom Stein said these words which inspires us today: “If the nation is to achieve freedom and honor, it will be necessary to give the oppressed sections of this nation property and the right of co-determination.”

The oppressed then were the serfs who cultivated the land without owning anything, not even their bodies. It was necessary to liberate the peasantry. Today we must liberate the working masses. In that time, they authorized the henceforth free peasants to acquire land in participate in our common destiny. Today the working masses must acquire ownership and be involved in decision making.

Private property was conceived for agriculture, as the soil is divisible into little parcels. In industrial matters, things present themselves differently, so we must opt for collective ownership of the enterprises in which people work. In order to distribute land to the peasants, Stein had to confiscate it from the large landowners, as he couldn’t find un-owned land. Today we must do the same: the entrepreneurs maintain a monopoly on industrial property, so we must seize a part of this property to give to the workers, and in a broader sense, to the people collectively. These proposals will be treated as Bolshevism, but the large landowners treated Baron Vom Stein as a Jacobin. However: the liberation of Prussia was unthinkable without the liberation of the peasantry. Likewise, the liberation of Germany happens through the liberation of the German workers.”

On the demand of Mister Hitler, I declared that in my opinion, 49% of property and wealth should remain in the hands of their current owners, 41% should return to the state which represents the nation, and 10% to the personnel of the enterprise. Decisions should be made with equal representation between the entrepreneur, the state, and the employees, in a way that reduces the influence of the state and increases that of the workers.

Hitler: “That’s Marxism, Bolshevism, pure and simple. You pretend to extend this democracy to economics, which lead us politically to Russia, and ruins the entire nation in the same stroke. Likewise, you will end all progress of humanity, which was always made by an individual, by a great inventor.”

I replied by rejecting this notion of progress. For me, the invention of toilets is not a cultural act.

Hitler: “You want to completely deny the evolution of humanity since the stone age until the formidable inventions of modern technology, erase it with a stroke of the pen in the name of a system that you’ve imagined.”

I responded to him that I did not believe in the progress of humanity. Moreover, I think that man has remained the same for millennia, even if he has modified his appearance. Mister Hitler do you believe that Goethe is obsolete because he didn’t drive an automobile or Napoleon because he didn’t have the radio? I only see stages of alteration in this pretense of progress. The 20 year old man dreams of being 30 and that is progress. The man in his forties who will turn 50 will be more circumspect, and the 60 year old would hardly see the years to come as progress. Actually, contrary to what the liberals pretend, the organism doesn’t develop in a linear fashion, by through biological cycles of life and death.

Mister Hitler responded that my statements were purely theoretical. Practical life attests day after day to the technological progress of humanity, progress that always finds its driving force in the greater individuals.

I objected that the great names of history didn’t know the meaning of the role they played. Man is not the creator of history, he is the instrument of destiny.

Mister Hitler then brusquely asked me if I also intended to deny that he had founded National Socialism. I denied it in effect, as I saw National Socialism as the fruit of destiny, an idea implanted, more or less deeply, in the hearts of hundreds of thousands of men, and with pressing consequences. It had found a perfectly strong expression with him, Hitler, but the concurrent appearance of National Socialism and the likewise proved that it was a historical process more than an affair of man or organization. This observation holds for the establishment of capitalism, beyond notions of good or bad. Today, the capitalist system is in decline, it is moribund and must cede its place to socialism, which will forge the next 150 years.

Hitler: “What you call socialism is a purely Marxist vision. The system that you erect is academic work, it doesn’t correspond to the reality of life. In this sense there is no capitalist system. The head of the enterprise is dependent on his workforce, the willingness of his workers to participate in a common effort. If they strike, his property is worthless. On the other hand, by what right could they claim a part of this property, even to participate in decisions? Mister Amann, would you accept it if your stenographers suddenly wanted to take part in your decisions? The employer is responsible for production, and assures the workers their subsistence. Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No economic leader can accept that.”

I replied that a simple look over the rulers of the capitalist system demonstrates that is exactly the opposite of natural selection in our sense. And is it natural, when selection is done by money! The acquisition of wealth is the worst criterion for a man aspiring to heroism. In contrast, the socialist system favors responsibility, service to the community, and respect for the citizens, creating an entirely different natural selection.

But when Hitler defended the idea that the economy should obey the criteria of profitability, I interjected: “In this regard, National Socialism defends a completely opposite position! In my eyes, the economy has no other meaning and no other duty besides that of assuring the nourishment, clothing, and dwelling of the nation, and securing reserves for times of war or want. But if we consider the economy as the means to cover our needs, it is indifferent to the costs of production being higher in Germany than in other countries. In a National Socialist Germany, it doesn’t matter if American farmers produce corn at half the cost, because the global market doesn’t interest us. Naturally, that implies economic autarky, and in order to implement it, a state monopoly on international exchanges that is the only guarantee of an advantageous trade policy for the nation.”

Hitler: “Your theories is disastrous and dilettantish. So do you think that we can withdraw ourselves from global commerce? We need to import the essential raw materials and export our own manufactured goods. A few months ago, I received a report from East Asia on global economic competition (Hitler was alluding to a letter from Lieutenant Kriebel, who was then in China). We cannot nor do we want to hinder this evolution. Quite the opposite, the white, Nordic, race has a mission to organize the world in such a manner that each country produces what suits it best. It is incumbent upon us to realize this grandiose project. Believe me, National Socialism would mean little if it was limited to Germany alone and did not seal the domination of the world by the white race for 1000 or 2000 years. That doesn’t mean the exploitation of other races. To put it simply, the inferior races are called to realize other destinies than the superior races. We want to assure the domination of the world in concert with the Anglo-Saxons.”

I replied that I was appalled by the definition of such an objectives that joins the ideal of high finance, which sees the world as a vast field of exchanges destructive to national economies and all differences between peoples. For me, National Socialism restrains its objectives to national autarky whose strength and vital force is the unique conditions of supply in the absence of any imperialist or capitalist objectives.

My brother intervened here in the debate in order to say to Mister Hitler that in his opinion also, we must aim for economic autarky and reduce our involvement with the global economy to the necessary minimum for the provision of raw materials.

Mister Hitler responded that autarky could be aimed for in the long term, but that wouldn’t be for 100 years, we could not subsist in the absence of external exchanges of goods.

A long economic discussion followed on that exact point, that I quickly brought back to the socialist field with a concrete question for Mister Hitler: “If you seized power in Germany tomorrow what would you immediately do with the Krupp firm? Regarding the shareholders, the workers, the property, the benefits, and the direction, would you keep things as they are?”

Hitler: “Of course. Do you think I’m stupid enough to destroy the economy? The state will only intervene if people do not act in the interest of the nation. There is no need for dispossession or participation in all the decisions. The state will intervene strongly when it must, pushed by superior motives, without regards to particular interests.”

Me: “But Mister Hitler, if you want to preserve the capitalist system, you don’t have the right to speak of socialism! As the militants are socialists in the first rank, they refer to the program of the party, which expressly demands the socialization of enterprises of national interest.”

Him: “The expression of socialism is faulty in itself, and above all: it doesn’t imply that enterprises must be nationalized, but only that they can be, in the scenario where they operate against the interest of the nation. For a long time that hasn’t been the case, it would be criminal to destroy the economy.”

Me: “I’ve never seen a capitalist claim that he acts for the good of the nation. How do you say that from the outside? How do you think to anchor the right of state intervention, without creating a body of functionaries with limitless and arbitrary power over the economy, and moreover is that not more disruptive for it than socialism?”

Him: “Fascism offers us a model that we can absolutely replicate! As it is in the case of Fascism, the entrepreneurs and the workers of our National Socialist state sit side by side, equal in rights, the state strongly intervenes in the case of conflict to impose its decision and end economic disputes that put the life of the nation in danger.”

Me: “Fascism has not found its way between capital and labor. It hasn’t even searched for it, it limits itself to containing social struggles by maintaining the all powerlessness of capital over labor. Fascism is not the overcoming of capitalism. On the contrary, until now in any case, it has maintained the capitalist system in its power, as you would do yourself.”

Him: “That is only theory. In reality, there is only a single economic system: responsibility upwards, authority downwards. I expect that Mister Amann will have authority over his subordinates and accountability for his acts before me. Mister Amann expects his department head to act responsibly towards him and demands the obeisance of his stenographers, which in turn are responsible before their department heads and exercise their authority in their duties. It has been like that for millennia and it cannot be else-wise.”

Me: “So what is the difference between the executive responsible before the board (he must realize maximum returns) who rules over his employees and workers, and the shop foreman who responds with his team before the director of the factory (he ensures everyone works hard) and has authority over the workers?”

Him: “The system is just, and there cannot be any other. The system today only lacks responsibility before the nation. A system that rests on anything other than authority downwards and responsibility upwards cannot really make decisions, it engenders anarchy and Bolshevism. That is clear from even the nature of the production process, which knows no distinction between capitalism and socialism.”

Me: “It’s true Mister Hitler, the processes of production remain the same. The assembly of a car is not much different in the socialist system than in the capitalist system. On the other hand, the policies of production, the economic objectives are the responsibility of the system. And a few years ago, the system gave to two or three dozen men, no better or worse than others, the judicial, moral, and economic means to throw 250,000 workers in the Ruhr into the streets, a million Germans including their families, because a title of ownership conferred them unlimited decision making power, I say that it’s the system that is criminal and we must change it, and not the men. The reality of capitalism and the necessity of instituting socialism is clearly visible.”

Him: “But in order to change this institution, there is no need for the workers to become co-owners of the enterprise or participate in its decisions. It’s the role of a strong state to assure that production serves the interests of the nation. If it is lacking in certain cases, the state will take energetic measures, seizing the enterprise and putting its destiny in its hands.”

Me: “But that would not change the destiny of the workers, objects of the economy, rather than subjects. Moreover, I note that you were ready to break with the sacrosanct principle of the inviolability of private property. Then take that step, why bother with arbitrary intervention case by case by functionaries insufficiently informed of local conditions and at the mercy of personal denunciations, why not directly and organically anchor this right of intervention in the economy?”

Him: “Some fundamental differences oppose us here, as collective ownership and decision making resemble Marxism. But, for my part, I reserve the right of intervention to an elite within the state.”

The debate found itself interrupted by the arrival of Mister Stohr and Mister Buch, who accompanied Hitler to his private room, joined by Mister Hess. It was about half past one. I stayed for a moment with the remaining people, nothing decisive was said. Mister Hitler never informed me of the results of these two long meetings, neither verbally, nor by writing.

Source: https://europapatrianostra.wordpress.com/2009/03/07/hitler-strasser-lentretien-historique-des-21-et-22-mai-1930/

Advertisements