Chancellor Adolf Hitler

addressing the German Reichstag on 17 May 1933

Men and Women of the German Reichstag,

In the name of the German Government I have asked the President of the Reichstag to convene the Reichstag in order to make a statement before this assembly on the questions which are agitating not merely our own people but the whole world.

The problems, with which you are familiar, are of such importance that not only political peace but also economic salvation for all depend on their successful solution.

If, in the name of the German Government, I express the wish that they shall be treated in a completely dispassionate manner, I do so mainly in the conviction, which is weighing on all, that the deepest causes of the present crisis lie in the passions which clouded the judgment and wisdom of nations after the war.

For all the problems which are causing such unrest today lie in the deficiencies of the Treaty of Peace which did not succeed in solving in a clear and reasonable way the questions of the most decisive importance for the future. Neither national nor economic— to say nothing of legal—problems and demands of the nations were settled by this treaty in such a way as to stand the criticism of reason in the future. It is therefore natural that the idea of revision is not only one of the constant accompaniments of the effects of this treaty, but that it was actually foreseen as necessary by the authors of the Treaty and therefore given a legal foundation in the Treaty itself.

If I deal briefly with the problems which the Versailles Treaty ought to have settled, I do so because its failure in this respect has inevitably given rise to the later situations under which the political and economic relations of States have since then been suffering.

The political problems.

For many centuries European States and their frontiers developed from conceptions which were only concerned with the State as such. With the triumph of the national conception and of the principle of nationality in the course of the last century, the seed of many conflicts was sown by the failure of States, which had come into existence under other conditions, to take into account these new ideas and ideals. At the end of the World War there could have been no nobler task for a real peace conference than to undertake—in the clear recognition of this fact—

a territorial and political reorganisation of the European States

which should in the highest degree possible do justice to this principle. The more such a settlement succeeded in making the frontiers between peoples coincide with the frontiers between States, the more it would have eliminated a whole series of future possibilities of conflict. Indeed, this territorial reorganisation of Europe, taking account of the real and historical frontiers between peoples, would have been a far-sighted solution which would perhaps have made the sacrifice of life during the Great War appear to conquerors and conquered alike not to have been made in vain, because it would have given the world a basis for a real and lasting peace.

As it was, through ignorance, passion and hatred, decisions were taken which, in their injustice and lack of logic, bore the seeds of fresh conflicts.

The economic problems.

The main characteristics of the present economic situation of Europe are the overcrowding of the west of Europe and the poverty of its soil in certain raw materials which are essential to the standard of life which has grown up in those territories with their ancient culture. If the statesmen at Versailles wanted to bring lasting peace to Europe, they should have recognized and followed, instead of the dangerous and sterile conceptions of expiation, punishment and reparation, the profound truth that

the lack of the necessities of life has always been a source of conflict between peoples.

Instead of preaching the idea of extermination, they should have embarked upon a reorganisation of international political and economic relationships, so as to do justice, to the fullest possible extent, to the vital needs of each nation.

It is not wise to deprive a people of the economic resources necessary for its existence without taking into consideration the fact that the population dependent on them are bound to the soil and will have to be fed. The idea that the economic extermination of a nation of sixty-five millions would be of service to other nations is absurd. Any people inclined to follow such a line of thought would, under the law of cause and effect, soon experience that the doom which they were preparing for another nation would swiftly overtake them. The very idea of reparations and the way in which they were enforced will become a classic example in the history of the nations of how seriously international welfare can be damaged by hasty and unconsidered action.

As a matter of fact, the policy of reparations could only be financed by German exports. To the same extent as Germany, for the sake of reparations, was regarded in the light of an international exporting concern, the export of the creditor nations was bound to suffer. The economic benefit accruing from the reparation payments could therefore never make good the damage which the system of reparations inflicted upon the individual economic systems.

The attempt to prevent such a development by compensating for a limitation of German exports by the grant of credits, in order to render payments possible, was no less shortsighted and mistaken in the end. For the conversion of political debts into private obligations led to an interest service which was bound to have the same results. The worst feature, however, was that the development of internal economic life was artificially hindered and ruined. The struggle to gain the world markets by constant underselling led to excessive rationalisation measures in the economic field.

The millions of German unemployed are the final result of this development. If it was desired, however, to restrict reparation obligations to deliveries in kind, this must naturally cause equally serious damage to the internal production of the nations receiving them. For deliveries in kind to the amount involved are unthinkable without most seriously endangering the production of the individual nations.

The Treaty of Versailles is to blame for having inaugurated a period in which financial calculations appear to destroy economic reason.

Germany has faithfully fulfilled the obligations imposed upon her, in spite of their intrinsic lack of reason and the obviously suicidal consequences of this fulfilment.

The international economic crisis is the indisputable proof of the correctness of this statement.

The chances of restoring a general international legal sentiment have also been no less destroyed by the Treaty.

For, in order to justify all the measures of this edict,

Germany had to be branded as the guilty party.

This procedure is, indeed, just as simple as it is, however, in-admissable. In any future cases of conflict the vanquished will always be the guilty party, because the victor can establish this fact in the easiest manner possible.

This procedure therefore assumes a terrible significance, because it gave at the same time an excuse for the conversion of the power ratio existing at the end of the war into a permanent legal status. The conception of conqueror and conquered thus literally became the foundation of a new international legal and social order.

The degradation of a great people to a second class nation was proclaimed at the same moment as a League of Nations came into being.

This treatment of Germany could not lead to the pacification of the world. The disarmed state and defenselessness of the conquered parties which was thus considered necessary—an unheard of procedure in the history of the European nations—was still less calculated to diminish the general dangers and conflicts, but merely led to that condition of constant menaces, demands and sanctions which, by the unrest and insecurity which they give rise to, threaten to undermine the entire economic structure of the world. If no consideration is given by the nations to the danger of certain actions, reason may easily be overcome by unreason. At any rate up to the present, the League of Nations has been unable to grant any appreciable assistance to the weak and unarmed in such cases. Treaties concluded for the pacification of the nations only possess an inner meaning when they are based on real and honest equality of rights for all. This is the main reason for the state of unrest which has been weighing on the world for a number of years.

It is, however, in the interests of all that present day problems should be solved in a reasonable and final manner. No new European war could improve the unsatisfactory conditions of the present day.

On the contrary, the application of violence of any kind in Europe could have no favourable effect upon the political or economic position which exists to-day. Even if a fresh European act of violence had a decisive result, the ultimate effect would be to increase the disturbance of European equilibrium and thus, in one manner or another, to sow the seed of further conflicts and complications.

The result would be fresh wars, fresh uncertainty, and fresh economic distress. The outbreak of such infinite madness, however, would necessarily cause the collapse of the present social and political order. A Europe sinking into communistic chaos would bring about a crisis, the extent and duration of which could not be foreseen.

It is the earnest desire of the National Government of the German Reich to prevent such a disturbing development by means of its honest and active cooperation.

This is also the inner meaning of the revolution which has taken place in Germany; the following three aims of our revolution are in no way opposed to the interests of the rest of the world:

Firstly: To prevent the threatened Communist revolution, to build up a national state which shall unite the interests of the different classes and castes and to maintain the idea of property as the basis of our culture. Secondly: To solve the most difficult of social problems by bringing back the millions of our unfortunate unemployed into productive work. Thirdly: To re-establish a stable and authoritative government, supported by the will and confidence of the nation, which shall make our great people an acceptable partner of the other States of the world.

Speaking deliberately as a German National Socialist, I desire to declare in the name of the National Government, and of the whole movement of national regeneration, that we in this new Germany are filled with deep understanding for the same feelings and opinions and for the rightful claims to life of the other nations. The present generation of this new Germany, which, so far, has only known in its life the poverty, misery and distress of its own people, has suffered too deeply from the madness of our time to be able to contemplate treating others in the same way.

Our boundless love for and loyalty to our own national traditions makes us respect the national claims of others and makes us desire from the bottom of our hearts to live with them in peace and friendship.

We therefore have no use for the idea of Germanisation. The mentality of the past century which made people believe that they could make Germans out of Poles and Frenchmen is completely foreign to us; the more so as we are passionately opposed to any attempt on the part of others to alienate us from our German tradition. We look at the European nations objectively. The French, the Poles, etc. are our neighbours, and we know

that through no possible development of history can this reality be altered.

It would have been better for the world if in Germany's case these realities had been appreciated in the Treaty of Versailles. For the object of a really lasting treaty should be not to cause new wounds and keep old ones open, but to close wounds and heal them. A thoughtful treatment of European problems at that time could certainly have found a settlement in the east which would have met both the reasonable claims of Poland and the natural rights of Germany. The Treaty of Versailles did not provide this solution. Nevertheless no German Government will of its own accord break an agreement which cannot be removed without being replaced by a better one.

But the legal character of such a Treaty must be acknowledged by all. Not only the conqueror but also the conquered party can claim the rights accorded in the Treaty. And the right to demand

a revision of the Treaty

finds its foundation in the Treaty itself. The German Government, in stating the reasons for and the extent of its claims, wishes for nothing more than the existing results of previous experience and the incontestable consequences of critical and logical reasoning show to be necessary and just. The experience of the last fourteen years, however, is unambiguous from a political and economic point of view.

The misery of the nations has not been relieved but has increased. The deepest roots of this misery, however, lie in the division of the world into conquerors and conquered, which seems to be intended to form a permanent basis of all treaties and all future order. The worst effect of this order lies in the compulsory defenselessness of one nation as against the excessive armaments of the others. If Germany has continued for years to demand the disarmament of all, it is for the following reasons:

(1) The demand for equality of rights expressed in actual facts is a demand of morality, right and reason; it is a demand which is recognised in the Peace Treaty itself and the fulfilment of which is indissolubly bound up with the demand for German disarmament, as the prelude to world disarmament.

(2) On the other hand the disqualification of a great people cannot be permanently maintained, but must at some time be brought to an end. How long is it thought possible that such an injustice can be imposed on a great nation? What is the advantage of a moment as compared with the permanent development through centuries? The German nation will continue to exist exactly in the same way as the French nation and, as history has proved, the Polish nation.

Of what value is the temporary oppression of a nation of 65 millions as compared with the force of this incontrovertible fact? No State can possess a greater understanding for the young, newly created European national States than the new Germany which has risen out of the national revolution which was inspired by the same impulses. Germany wants nothing for herself which she is not prepared to give to others.

Germany, in demanding at present actual equality of rights such as can only be achieved by the disarmament of other nations, has a moral right to do so since she has herself carried out the provisions of the treaties. For

Germany has disarmed

and has carried out this disarmament under the strictest international supervision. 6 million rifles and carbines were surrendered or destroyed; the German people were compelled to destroy or surrender 130,000 machine-guns, huge quantities of machine-gun barrels, 91,000 guns, 38,750,000 projectiles and enormous quantities of other arms and ammunition.

The Rhineland was demilitarised, the German fortresses were dismantled, our ships surrendered, our airplanes destroyed, our system of military service abandoned and the training of reserves thus prevented. Even the most indispensable weapons of defence were denied us.

If, in the face of these indisputable facts, any one should attempt to come forward and declare with truly wretched excuses and pretexts that Germany has not fulfilled the treaties or has even rearmed, as German Chancellor speaking in the Reichstag, I must repudiate such views which are as untrue as they are unfair.

Equally untrue are the statements that Germany has not complied with the provisions of the Treaty in respect of personnel. The statement that the S.A. and S.S. of the National Socialist Party are connected in any way with the Reichswehr, in the sense that they represent formations with military training or army reserves, is untrue!

The irresponsible frivolity with which such assertions are made may be seen from the following example: Last year there was a a case before the Courts in Brünn against members of the National Socialist Party in Czechoslovakia. Military experts of the Czechoslovak army declared on oath that the defendants were in contact with the German National Socialist Party, that they were dependent on it, and that, as members of a popular sports association, they were to be reckoned as equal to members of the storm sections and storm troops of the National Socialistic Party in Germany who formed a reserve army organised and trained by the German Reichswehr.

During that period, however, neither the storm sections and storm troops nor the National Socialist Party itself had any connection at all with the Reichswehr. On the contrary they were persecuted, prohibited and finally suppressed as organisations dangerous to the State. Indeed, members of the National Socialist Party, of the storm sections and storm troops were not only excluded from all official positions, but might not even be employed as workmen in works connected with the Reichswehr. But the National Socialists in Czecho-Slovakia were condemned to a long term of hard labour on the strength of this false evidence!

In actual fact, the storm sections and storm troops of the National Socialist Party came into being without any help or financial support from the governments of the Federal States, the Reich or from the army, without any military training or equipment, but purely out of the political needs and considerations of the times. Their object was and is exclusively the removal of the communist danger; their development took place without any connection with the army, purely for purposes of propaganda and national enlightenment, psychological mass effect and the breaking down of the communist terror. They form an institution for creating a true team spirit, for overcoming former class differences and for removing economic distress.

The Stahlhelm arose out of memories of the great period of common experiences at the front, in order to keep alive the old traditions and the spirit of true comradeship and, lastly, to protect the German people against the danger of a communist revolution which had been threatening since November 1918; this is a danger which cannot be estimated by countries which have not, like us, millions of organised communists, and have not, like Germany, suffered from their terrorism. The real object of these national organisations is best characterised by the actual nature of their struggle and by their sacrifices. As a result of communist murderous assaults and acts of terrorism, the storm sections and storm troops of the National Socialist Party have lost more than 350 killed and about 40,000 wounded within a few years. If attempts are now made at Geneva to rank these organisations, which serve exclusively internal purposes, as military effectives, there would be an equally good reason for including the fire brigades, the athletic associations, the watch and ward companies, rowing clubs, sports associations and others in the military forces.

When, however, at the same time the trained annual contingents of the other armies of the world, in contradistinction to these men who are entirely without military training, are not included, when the armed reserves of other countries are deliberately overlooked, while the unarmed members of the political associations are in our case included, this constitutes a procedure against which I must categorically protest.

If the world wishes to destroy confidence in right and justice, these are the best means for the purpose.

On behalf of the German people and the German Government, I have to make the following statement: Germany has disarmed. She has complied with all obligations imposed upon her in the Peace Treaty to an extent far beyond the limits of equity and reason. Her army consists of 100,000 men. The strength and the character of her police are internationally regulated.

The auxiliary police established in the days of the revolution have an exclusively political character. In the critical days of the revolution they had to replace that part of the regular police force which at first was considered by the new regime to be unreliable; now, after the success of the revolution, they are already being reduced and will be completely disbanded before the end of the year.

Germany has thus a fully justified moral claim to the fulfilment by the other Powers of their obligations under the Treaty of Versailles. The equality of status accorded to Germany in December has not yet been given practical expression. With regard to the contention, repeated by France again and again, that the safety of France must be secured to the same extent as the equality of Germany, I would like to ask two questions:

1. Germany has so far accepted all the obligations with regard to security arising from the signing of the Versailles Treaty, the Kellogg Pact, the Treaties of Arbitration, the Pact of Non-Aggression, etc. What other concrete assurances are left for Germany to give?

2. On the other hand, how much security has Germany? According to the figures published by the League, France alone has 3,046 aeroplanes in service, Belgium 350, Poland 700, Czecho-Slovakia 670. In addition to these numbers there are innumerable reserve aeroplanes, thousands of tanks, thousands of heavy guns and all the necessary technical equipment for chemical warfare. Has not Germany, in her state of defencelessness and disarmament, greater justification in demanding security than the over-armed States bound together in military alliances?

Nevertheless Germany is at any time willing to undertake further obligations.in regard to international security, if all the other nations are ready on their side to do the same, and if this security is also to benefit Germany. Germany would also be perfectly ready to disband her entire military establishment and destroy the small amount of arms remaining to her, if the neighbouring countries will do the same thing with equal thoroughness. But if these countries are not willing to carry out the disarmament measures to which they are also bound by the Treaty of Versailles, Germany must at least maintain

her demand for equality.

The German Government sees in the British plan a possible basis for the solution of this question, but they must demand that the defence force existing in Germany shall not be abolished unless at least qualitative equality be accorded to Germany. She must further demand that any change in her present defence force organisation, which was not chosen by her but imposed on her from abroad, shall follow step by step in the same degree as the actual disarmament of the other States.

Germany agrees in principle to a transitional period of five years during which to build up her national security,

in the expectation that at the end of this period she will really be put on a footing of equality with the other States. She is also entirely ready to renounce all offensive weapons of every sort if the armed nations, on their side, will destroy their offensive weapons within a specified period, and if their use is forbidden by an international convention. Germany has only one desire, to be able to preserve her independence and defend her frontiers.

According to a statement made by the French Minister of War in February 1932, a large portion of the French coloured troops can be immediately used on the French mainland. He therefore expressly includes them in the forces of the home country.

It is therefore only just that the coloured troops should also be considered by the disarmament conference as forming part of the French army. While this is not being done, it is proposed that associations and organisations of a purely educational or sporting character which have no military training whatsoever should be reckoned as forming part of the army in the case of Germany. In the case of other countries, however, there is no question of such organisations being counted as military effectives. Such a procedure is, of course, quite impossible. Germany would declare herself willing at any time, in the event of a mutual international supervision of armaments and of equal readiness on the part of other States, to subject these associations to such supervision in order to prove beyond doubt to the whole world that they are of an entirely unmilitary character.

Moreover the German Government will not reject any prohibition of arms as being too drastic if it is applied in the same manner to all other States. As long as armaments are allowed to other powers, Germany cannot be permanently deprived of all weapons of defence. We are fully prepared only to make use of an equal status to an extent to be settled by negotiation.

These demands do not imply rearmament but only a desire for the disarmament of the other States. In this connection I again welcome on behalf of the German Government the apt and far-sighted plan of the head of the Italian Government to create, by means of a special pact, close relations of confidence and cooperation between the four great European Powers, the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Germany. The German Government is in whole-hearted agreement with Mussolini's view that this would facilitate a permanent understanding, and will show the greatest good-will, provided the other nations are prepared really to overcome any difficulties which may arise.

The proposal made by President Roosevelt, of which I learned last night, has therefore earned the warmest thanks of the German Government. They are prepared to agree to this method of overcoming the international crisis, for they are also of the opinion that no permanent economic reconstruction is possible unless the disarmament question is solved. They are prepared to take part unselfishly in this work of bringing order into the political and economic conditions of the world. As I stated at the outset, they are also convinced that there is to-day only one great task:

to safeguard the peace of the world.

I am obliged to state that the reason for the present armaments of France or Poland can under no circumstances be the fear of those nations of a German invasion, for such fear would be only justified by the possession by Germany of modern offensive weapons. Germany, however, does not possess such modern offensive weapons at all; she has neither heavy artillery nor tanks nor bombing aeroplanes nor poisonous gases.

The only nation therefore which might justifiably fear invasion is the German nation, which not only may not possess offensive weapons but is also restricted in its right to defensive weapons and is even forbidden to erect frontier fortifications.

Germany is at all times prepared to renounce offensive weapons if the rest of the world does the same. Germany is prepared to agree to any solemn pact of non-aggression because she does not think of attacking but only of acquiring security.

She would welcome the possibility suggested in President Roosevelt's proposal of bringing the United States into European relations as a guarantor of peace. The President's proposal is a ray of comfort for all who wish to cooperate sincerely in the maintenance of peace. We have no more earnest desire than to contribute to the final healing of the wounds caused by the war and the Treaty of Versailles. Germany does not wish to take any other path than that recognized as justified by the treaties themselves. The German Government wishes to come to a peaceful agreement with other nations on all difficult questions. They know that in any military action in Europe, even if completely successful, the sacrifice would be out of all proportion to any possible gains.

The German Government and the German people will under no circumstances allow themselves to be forced to sign what would mean a perpetuation of the degradation of Germany. The attempt to work on Government and people by threats will make no impression. It is conceivable that Germany might be violated in defiance of justice and morality, but it is inconceivable and out of the question that such an act should be given legal validity by our own signature.

The attempt has been made in newspaper articles and in regrettable speeches to threaten Germany with sanctions, but such a monstrous step could only be considered as a punishment meted out to Germany for having pressed for the carrying out of the treaties by her demand for disarmament. Such a measure could only lead to the definite moral and effective invalidation of the treaties. Germany, however, even in this case, would never renounce her peaceful claims. The political and economic consequences, the chaos which such an attempt would bring on Europe would be the responsibility of those who used such means against a people which is doing the world no harm.

Any such attempt or any attempt to do violence to Germany by means of a simple majority vote, contrary to the clear meaning of the treaties, could only be dictated by the intention of excluding us from the conferences. The German people, however, today possesses sufficient character in such a case not to impose its cooperation on other nations but, though with a heavy heart, to draw the only possible consequence.

It would be difficult for us as a constantly defamed nation

to continue to belong to the League of Nations.

The German Government and the German nation are only too fully aware of the crisis of the present time. For many years Germany has given warnings regarding the methods which would and did inevitably lead to these political and economic results. If the present direction and the present methods are continued, there can be no doubt as to the ultimate result. After apparent political successes of individual nations, the resultant economic and political disasters for all will be all the more severe. We regard it as our first and most important task to avoid these results.

Hitherto no effective measures have been taken. When we are told by the rest of the world that certain sympathies were felt for the former Germany, we have indeed experienced the results and effects of these "sympathies" in and for Germany.

Millions of destroyed existences, the ruin of entire professions, and an enormous army of unemployed—all these facts reflect a state of wretchedness the extent of which I should like to impress on the rest of the world by a single figure:

Since the signature of this Treaty, which was to form the foundation stone of a new and better world for all nations, 224,900 people, men, women, old people and children, have taken their own lives, almost exclusively out of distress and misery.

These unbribable witnesses condemn the spirit and fulfilment of a Treaty from which not only the rest of the world but also millions of people in Germany expected salvation and peace.

May the other nations realise the resolute will of Germany to put an end to a period of blundering and to find the way to a final understanding between all, on the basis of equal rights.