00088 Vlgilance Pamphlets .. The price of liberty is Eternal Vigilance."

NUMBER ONE THE SOURCES OF EXTREMISM

, ..,

NATIONAL CONS11;nmON DEFENCE MOVEMENl zS", ~1p"ORIA. STREIlT, LONDON, S.W.I.

U . ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY LIBRARY Synopsis of Vigilance Pamphlets

L The Sources of Extremism. Meaning of democracy. Changes since classical times. Dictatorship always the same. The Roman Empire and its persecutions: Theory of authority. French Revolution the first modern triumph of extremism. Origins of Fascism, of Bolshevism, and of Nazism.

II. Extremism in Britain. Foreign origin of British extremism. Story of British Fascism. Communism a stronger growth. Its methods and ambitions. Its unconscious assistants. The I.L.P. and the Socialist League. Dangers of such movements.

ID. Extremist Finance. Financial damage here so far small. Soviet pioneer. Reliance on confiscation, forced labour, and State profits. Nazis and reparations. Nazi currency. Effect ofarmament costs. Military character of expenditure and suppression of accounts. Fascist financial reforms. Destroyed by expensive adventures. All dictatorships under War conditions.

IV. Individual Liberty. What it means in Britain. Executions, purges, and secret police under dictatorships. The Soviet massacres. Party monopoly in Germany. Concentration camps. The Reichstag fire. Massacre of June 30. Fascist political murders. The persecution of the Jews.

v. Extremist Militarism. Militarisation of the young. Effect on national character. Concealment ofcost. Soviet militarism and the reasons for it. Fascist militarism-its cost and character. Hitler on Nazi objects. Was Germany disarmed? How she has re-armed. Continued on page 3 if caver FOREWORD

These publications are intended to reinforce the lessons which Lord Baldwin-how much better known as Mr. Stanley Baldwin !-endeavoured throughout his active political life to teach his fellow-countrymen. His main doctrine, which he reaffirmed nowhere more solemnly than in his final impressive series of speeches as Prime Minister, was that the British people should hold fast to the love of liberty and to the pursuit of conditions essential to peace. "There are no two things so alien to our people" he said in a speech delivered in 1926 "as tyranny and intimidation." But precept, however eloquent and elegant, loses half its force unless it can point to practice; and the determination to uphold democracy needs the reinforcement of know­ ledge of the inevitable consequences of undemocratic Government. The reader will find the history of the triumph of extreme political views and the consequences to every kind of public and of individual life described in this series. He will not find any attack upon autocratic systems as such. They may suit the nations which endure or condone them, and what other nations may choose is no business of ours. He will find no trace of greater partiality for the Right than for the Left, or for the Left than for the Right. The work is designed to be practical rather than political, and to draw deductions ofadvantage to all classes ofour people instead of deductions to the disadvantage of any class among other peoples. Each publication will be Complete in itself, but the series as a whole will give a complete picture of the practical reasons for devotion to democratic institutions. THE SOURCES OF EXTREMISM

DEMOCRACY, a word which has come down to us from Ancient Greece, means literally " the supreme power or authority of the people," and it embodies the political conception expressed by Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg in his famous declaration that " Government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from this earth." But though democracy is an old word, the sense in which we use it today is new. Communities of free people ruled by leaders elected at frequent intervals are not unknown in ancient history, and the most commonly quoted examples are the Roman Republic and the Greek City States. But these early instances of democracy are not really comparable with our own system, if only because all of them sooner or later, and some from the very beginning, were founded upon slavery, upon a gradation of political rights between various classes, and upon the complete exclusion of women from all political rights. Democracy in the modern sense is no more Government by a class or by a sex than it is Government by a single individual. On the other hand autocracy or dictatorship in the modern sense is as old in practice as it is in name. Xerxes watching the assault upon Thermopylae may be accurately compared with Wilhelm II watching the assault upon Douaumont. Nero burning the Christians for burning Rome has been not inaptly compared with the Nazis executing 8 Van der Lubbe for burning the Reichstag. Tarquin cutting off the heads of the tallest poppies has a close spiritual affinity with Stalin cutting off the heads of the most prominent Bolshevist adminis­ trators and Generals. It can be proved that the course of extreme political systems follows the same dangerous and disastrous lines no matter under what provocation or with what benevolent intentions they may have been started. And in order to show the dangers into which modern democracy may so easily slip through indifference or over-confidence, it may be useful to trace the origins ofsome of these extreme systems both in ancient and in modern times. The facts of the past may serve to teach us not to make or to leave any ground suitable for the growth oftyranny and intolerance. The history of all extreme forms of Government is practically a history ofpersecution. Any Government not founded upon the principle of popular control is bound to resort to practices which offend modern ideas by their ferocity, their stupidity, or their triviality. For example, Gibbon declared that the age of the Antonine Emperors of Rome (roughly the second century A.D.) was probably the happiest in the history of the human race. And yet we find Pliny, the Governor of a province, writing to the Emperor Trajan to know whether a town should be allowed to have a fire-brigade, and being told that such a body was politically too dangerous. Such were the absurdities of an enlightened autocracy. More­ over, it must be remembered that the Roman Empire began under republican forms. Augustus was only Emperor because he gradually combined in his own 4 person all the highest republican offices, military, judicial, and religious. He was allowed to do so because of the war-weariness of a people distracted by a century of civil wars sandwiched with foreign conquests. But within fifty years of his death, the civilised world had endured the excesses of three madmen and one dotard, and had got rid of some of them not by a popular uprising but by palace con­ spiracies or by military revolts. The same fifty years produced all the symptoms familiar to students of modern dictatorships the secret police, known as delators or informers, the selection of scapegoats, unpleasant sycophants clustering round the head of the state, and a hectic pursuit of excitement and of adventure in foreign policy. Certain municipal and individual rights survived, but they were easily over­ ridden whenever it suited the Emperors to do so. A Roman citizen had the right of appeal to the chief magistrate CH Hast thou appealed unto Caesar? Unto Caesar shalt thou go "), but he could easily be induced to commit suicide without formal trial, and there were legal forms, corresponding to familiar modern prac­ tices which enabled tyrants like Nero and Domitian to practice indiscriminate terrorism. Again, the Emperor Caracalla extended Roman citizenship throughout the Empire, but he did it not because he was a democrat but because he wanted to increase the number of taxpayers. On the whole, however, the Roman persecutions were not religious nor racial, but political. These ancient dictators thought it as dangerous to allow any divergences from the official view as modern dictators think it dangerous to allow anybody to read or to 5 hear anything which does not conform to the official doctrine of the moment. The Roman Emperors insisted that one kind of incense should be burned in their honour; modern dictators insist upon having the incense of universal conformity and flattery. There is very little difference between the treatment of dead Augustus in Italy and the treatment of dead Lenin in Russia. Ancient dictators when they were alive claimed to be divine. Modern dictators claim to be divinely inspired. "Some time ago" says the writer of a special article in the"Sunday Times," "listeners to the German radio were surprised to hear coming over the air a queer low chant which resolved itself into a sort of invocation, wherein the Fuhrer was hailed as the saviour of the German people and his continued protection implored. One Roman Emperor at least announced his impending demise to his Court by saying that he felt he was be­ coming a god. Herr Hitler will need all his common sense not to feel that he is being defied while still in excellent health." But it is indeed necessary to have these supernatural mysteries in a dictatorship for when there is any kind of metaphysical sanction behind a Government, it is held to justify any kind of excesses by that Government. Some little time has been spent in sketching the peculiarities of the Roman Empire, because through­ out subsequent ages it has stood for much that attracts men when they are weak or miserable. Its central conception was the conception of authority. It embodied the view that anything is better than confusion and corruption; and though in fact it avoided neither for more than a few brief periods, 6 men always hoped and always have hoped to find some superman who would relieve them of responsi­ bility and who might even make them happy. The appeal of this hope to men distracted by endless wars or by some ever-present danger of starvation is irresistible. It gave the Empire such prestige that even those who destroyed it felt bound to call themselves Roman generals, though they were no more Romans than the modern Italians. It has been responsible for the toleration of intolerance in all subsequent ages. It invented the belief that the end justifies the means, the fine flavour ofwhich can be found in Machiavelli's book "The Prince." Of course, there is something noble in the conception of authority. Under any system of Government some have to give orders and others have to obey. To be a democrat, it is not necessary to be an anarchist; but the difference between authority under democracy and authority under dictatorship is that the former rests upon guidance and persuasion by leaders who agree to submit themselves ultimately to the judgment of others, whereas the latter rests upon imposition and upon suppression by leaders who acknowledge no final judgment but their own. Thus the hall-mark of all dictatorships is the persecution of all that is different, whether the difference is one of opinion or of race. There are many examples in history of the horrible and terrible consequences ofthis intolerance in a ruler or in a ruling cast. Intolerance of religious belief led to the extermination by De Montfort, (a predecessor of the De Montfort who called the first English Parliament) of the Albigenses, a sect in the south of France who may be considered as the first Protestants. 7 It led to the expulsion ofthe Huguenots by Louis XIV which was largely responsible for the beginning of industrial production in England, and for the settle­ ment of French Canada. It was responsible for the Thirty Years' War which halved the population of Germany. It was partly to blame for the expulsion of the Jews from Spain by Ferdinand and Isabella. In­ tolerance of religious beliefs has, indeed blazed a trail of blood and disaster throughout the history of civilisation. Millions died because of the quarrels between Arians and Athanasians, and millions more because ofthe quarrels between Pagans and Christians, or between Catholics and Protestants; yet it cannot be shown that any of these quarrels was of the slightest benefit to either side. Such quarrels are not, of course, confined to dictatorial countries, but they are differently treated under a dictatorship and under a democracy. A democratic Goverment devotes itselfto keeping the peace, as we do in the matter ofthe recurring riots in India between Hindus and Moslems. A dictatorship takes sides, because it is always afraid that independence or division even of thought will lead to the weakening ofthe authority of the dictator. A second type of persecution is that which consists of intolerance of differences of race. This intolerance sometimes has a religious origin, as previously ex­ plained, but more often the origin is economic or political. The Jews have, of course, been the chief sufferers. Deliberate policy in many states during the middle ages debarred them from many pursuits and professions, and notably from agriculture and from military service, which were the two chief professions of those times. They were compelled to become self- 8 contained urban communities, within yet not a part of the countries in which they lived ; and to earn a living they were thrown back largely upon two professions, those ofthe middleman and ofthe money lender. The segregated type of their life and the un­ popular nature of their professions made them easy victims to any Government which wished either to raise money or to divert unpopularity from itself. Sometimes they were periodically exploited and massacred, as in Tsarist Russia and in Plantagenet England; sometimes they were actually expelled ; but both processes led to great and often irreparable dislocation. The Jews have no monopoly of racial persecution. Equally horrible things have been done for long periods to the Poles and to the Armenians in quite modern times over long periods. Indeed wherever a race has been in a minority within an area governed by a dictatorship persecution, either intermittent or continuous, has been a feature of official policy. That is why the protection of minori­ ties was given such prominence by the original architects of the League of Nations, which, it was hoped, would start a new and better era. It is interesting to note, however, that the detestation of intolerance in this country is ofvery long standing. In our history we have had one self-made dictator, Oliver Cromwell. The form of his Government was dictatorial, though 'his career began in rebellion against another form of dictatorship. But this military dictator was a tolerant fellow. Puritanism is generally supposed to be an intolerant creed, and Cromwell's name is a traditional terror in Ireland. Yet at home, he treated the Jews well; and his is the 9 definition of a fundamental principle of democratic Govemment-" Sir, the State in choosing men to serve it, takes no account of their opinions. So but they render good service, that satisfies." Again, in his correspondence with certain churchmen, he said­ " I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, to consider whether it be not possible that you are mistaken." Dictatorship is against the grain of Englishmen, even when they are dictators. The first triumph of extreme views in the modern sense is, of course, the French Revolution. But to form a fair judgment ofthat vast event, its two phases must be distinguished. Contrary to the usual opinion held in this country, the French Revolution was not originally a proletarian revolution at all. Itwas begun and run by intellectuals and by the middle classes, and was a revolt not against liberty but for liberty. Nor in this first phase was it marked by any devotion to terrorism or intolerance. Even when, in its second phase, the revolution fell under the domination of fierce and frantic men, there were always in the back­ ground liberal and enlightened elements which sought to restrain excesses. Indeed the Terror instituted by Robespierre, Marat, Couthon, Hebert and their gang was so indiscriminate and so inexplicable that some reputable historians have detected in these wholesale massacres a deliberate attempt at the depopulation of France in order that the population might better square with her economic resources. There is thus a close analogy between the" noyades "-thedrowning in mass of political prisoners - the wholesale exile of the Kulaks, the non-destitute peasants of Russia, and the so-called "cold pogrom" in 10 Germany which cuts off the Jews from all chance of earning a living. This is not the only analogy between the French and other revolutions, for the French Revolution is the model upon which subsequent revolutions have started and developed. A com­ parison between the institutions and personalities of the revolutions in France, Germany, Russia, and Italy will show the striking similarities between them. The States-General in France= the Reichstag under the Weimar Constitution=the Duma=the Camera dei Deputati under Giolitti. The Girondins = Dr. Bruning e Kerensky e Orlando or Nitti. Danton is very like General Goering. Marat is not unlike Dr. Goebbels or Radek. Couthon has an echo in Dserjinski. The story of all these revolutions has a very similar beginning and takes a very similar tum. Out of crisis, mainly economic, is born a shaky form of representative Government. Its weakness, whether inherent or self-created, produces an impression of disorder, of which extremists (who are certainly not more immune than other people from the lust for personal power) take advantage. Under the pressure of disaffection at home and sometimes of interference from abroad, these extremists resort to terrorism. In the words of Danton, they" throw at the feet oftheir enemies " in challenge the head of a monarch or the corpse of a Parliament. Moreover the pressing neces­ sity of satisfying their adherents induces them to select some defenceless class or race, whose persons and property are thrown at the feet of the mob. Thatis as far as some revolutions have developed, but it can be said that the tendency is for the next phase to be the establishment of a military dictatorship. 11 There are, of course, differences as well as similarities between these revolutions. It has been shown that the French Revolution had an intellectual basis. So had the Bolshevik revolution, for it had a gospel in the works of Karl Marx and a complete political and economic philosophy. Both these movements had behind them years of intensive, if misguided, study and preparation. But Fascism in Italy grew out of a process more akin to " muscling in " developed to a fine art, mainly also by Italians, in Chicago. It bluffed its way to power first, and invented justifica­ tory theories afterwards. The Mussolini who led a black revolution in October, 1922, was the same Mussolini who led a red revolution in the Romagna just before the War. He went through the same transformation from an internationalist to a national­ ist as in fact happened to Lenin, and seems now on his way to a new internationalism. The origins and growth of Fascism were due to various causes, but certainly not to the spontaneous conversion of the Italian people to an illiberal creed. These causes included a certain amount of disgust at post-war instability. Government succeeded Govern­ ment in rapid succession. Giolitti, the supremely successful pre-war intriguer who kept himself of his puppets in power for years, had lost much of his influence. There was general resentment at the treatment ofItaly under the Treaty of Versailles. Her natural leaders had been decimated by the war, and there was no solid middle class to take its place. Economic distress, due partly to the War and partly to the sudden cutting off of that emigration which formerly had taken about 300,000 Italians a year 12 abroad, was rampant. The Left-wing extremists committed many excesses and even more follies, such as the occupation of the factories in Turin. All these things, combined with the fact that democratic institutions were of recent date in Italy, made the Italian people a ready prey to political hysteria. The Fascists alone seemed to know what they wanted and what to do. Nevertheless the people as a whole did not vote for them. At the time when they seized power, their supporters in the chamber were still only a small group-35 out of a total membership of over 500. Mussolini took advantage of the confusion, vacillation, and weakness ofhis opponents to demand power, and while negotiations were still in progress he started to move his supporters from all over Italy towards Rome. The King refused to sign a proclama­ tion ofmartial law, much as Louis XVI instructed the Swiss Guard not to fire on the assailants of the Tuileries, and for the same reason, namely, that he considered internal bloodshed the worst ofall possible developments. Who would say that he was wrong? It is the duty of the King's advisers to prevent any situation arising which offers him only a choice of evils. One other point is worth noting. There were many different parties and groups in the Italian Chamber in 1922. In such circumstances it is always easier for a coherent and resolute group to seize power, and large party units, whether composed of a single party or of closely knit and sincerely co-opera­ ting parties, are an essential bulwark of democracy. The origins of the Bolshevik triumph in Russia are a great deal simpler to follow. It took place during a war in which the Russian nation had had the most 18 ghastly experiences. Those experiences were UnI­ versally suspected to have been due to widespread corruption and ' even treachery. Foreign observers who were in Russia at the time paint terrible pictures of utterly disgraceful confusion, against which a few honest men vainly strove to make head. Troops were sent into battle armed with sticks and expected to arm themselves with the rifles of casualties. There was no means of popular redress, because Russia was in no sense a democracy. A tortured and distracted people longed for relief.-and for vengeance. Their feelings and their capacity is well illustrated by a story told by a British officer on the Caucasus front. He tells that he met one day a group of Russian soldiers carrying a paper, which they presented to him saying, " This is what we want. Will you please tell us what it is?" The first concrete effect of this unrest was an attempt to establish a democratic Government with a Parlia­ mentary system. For the moment the efforts of reformers, which had been so bloodily repressed in 1906 when the petitioners to the Tsar under Father Gapon were shot down in Moscow, seemed to have succeeded, and a Liberal Government under Kerensky was formed. But the experiment could not obtain the necessary breathing space. The War still con­ tinued, and the new Government felt obliged to show its good faith by a renewed offensive, which was accompanied by more heavy casualties. And into this seething cauldron of political immaturity and of class resentment, the Germans dropped Lenin and Trotsky, fierce, intelligent, unscrupulous, implacable, determined as only men can be who have pondered and hatched revolutionary doctrines for a generation. 14 They had fertile ground and malleable material. The Russian Liberals made the fatal mistake of under­ estimating their ability and their influence. Another British officer has told how he saw a squat fierce orator on a balcony in Petrograd rousing a vast crowd to fury, how he reported the incident to the Government and how it was lightly dismissed as negligible. That was but a few days before this , negligible' orator made himself master of the seat of Government. His method was a simple one. On the model of the French Revolution, the Kerensky Government had allowed political commissaries to be attached to the troops. The Bolsheviks took advantage of this system to organise cells of dis­ affection in many regiments, which grew until they absorbed whole military units. It was easy to direct these units, weary of war, against those who asked them to continue the war, to confound the dishonest men who had caused their comrades to be massacred with the honest men who were trying to lead them to victory, to revive the cry of the "land for the peasants," and to promise a utopia of peace, plenty, and progress. The fact which really consolidated the infant Bolshevik Government was the treaty of peace which they concluded with Germany at Brest-Litovsk. That was a merciless peace, but it had the false appearance of peace to a people aching with the horrors of war, and it was a recognition of the Bolsheviks as the Government of Russia. That gave them the claim to be a nationalist organisation, which they never dropped even when concentrating upon international activities and to which they have now returned almost to the temporary exclusion of 15 international ambitions. This claim was strengthened by the various counter-revolutions led by Koltchak, Judenitch, Denikin, and Wrangel, which were known to have foreign backing. To sum up, Bolshevism was the reaction from a dictatorship which had been proved to be inefficient, tyrannical, and corrupt. The atmosphere of a great and (to Russia) disastrous war, caused the reaction to be a complete swing over to another form of dictator­ ship, with the merest pause at an unfledged system of democracy. It may be argued that even a disastrous war could never have produced similar results in a country with an educated population, and that may well be true. But it must not be forgotten that this revolution also was started and consolidated by profoundly educated men, and that it could and did trade not only upon ignorance but also upon a long history of the suppression and oppression of all freedom. The rise to power of the Nazis in Germany has been commonly described as the reaction ofa proud nation against defeat in War. As a broad generalisation, this may be true; but the origins of the Nazi system are far more ancient. In his book "Britain Faces Germany" a former assistant Foreign Editor of the Times, Mr. A. L. Kennedy, who was a prominent advocate ofgenerosity towards Germany, traces these origins back to the conquest ofGermany by the Huns under Attila the self-styled" Scourge of God" in the fifth century; and he recalls the speech of the Emperor William II to his troops as they were about to embark for China in 1900. "Just as the Huns .... under the leadership of Attila gained a reputation in 16 virtue ofwhich they still live in historical tradition, so may the name of Germany become known in such a manner in China that no Chinamanwill ever againeven dare to look askance at a German." The reputation in question was one for brutality and for bravery, and it is worth noting that at least the military caste in Germany was proud of it before the War. The devo­ tion to the memory of Frederick the Great is highly significant, for Frederick was a man, warped by ill­ treatment in childhood, who combined great military gifts with an unscrupulousness which it is difficult to parallel in all history. During the generation before the war of 1914-18 side by side with writers who upheld and illuminated a liberal and profoundly analytical school of thought, there existed others, favoured by authority, who preached and practised for a generation the doctrine that might is right. Even Bismarck described his own policy as "blood and iron." General Bernhardi, in his book" World Power or Collapse" which had a tremendous vogue in Germany during this period, explained that Germany must fight for domination or perish. The philosopher Nietsche, though he has been greatly misinterpreted, had an enormous following among his countrymen who believed that they were the "supermen" described by him as required to rule the earth. The famous or infamous Houston Stewart Chamberlain, writing his" Foundations ofthe Nineteenth Century" with all the passion of a renegade, also spread through Germany the doctrine of a superior race, with untainted "Aryan" blood. Even Von Moltke held and preached the doctrine that war was most humane when it was most ruthless, because " fright- 17 fulness" made it shorter. The direct result of this teaching was to produce in its pupils a combination ofarrogance and ofduplicity which it would be wrong to call childish only because it was cruel and dan­ gerous. There was one attitude for home consump­ tion and another for foreign consumption. Which was the true expression of pre-war Germany, the Prussian officer striking with his sword an inoffensive schoolboy in Zabern, or the Kaiser rushing tear­ fully to attend his grandmother's funeral? There is in pre-war history evidence ofat least a predisposition in some sections of the German people and of the German character to accept the theory of an elect race which is entitled to follow a purely arbitrary code of conduct. There is also undoubtedly evidence ofmore amiable qualities-for example, an elaborate system of compulsory insurance against sickness, accidents, and old age was completed in Germany by 1889-and upon this evidence rests the view that Germany would never have gone Nazi if she had been treated with more consideration. Be that as it may, for the purpose of describing the origins of the Nazi movement, it is surely important to realise that the history of Germany is a history of a ceaseless internal struggle between the ideals of liberty, morality and independence on the one hand and the conception of a fierce regimented nation with no principles except pursuit of its own interests on the other hand. At different periods each of these schools of thought have in turn prevailed, though without ever eradicat­ ing the other. The Nazi system would therefore not have been unnatural in Germany even if there had been no war. 18 This is not to deny that the rise of the Nazis was immediately due to a reaction against the con­ sequences of defeat in War. This defeat was never recognised nor accepted. The explanation consis­ tently given and believed was that an invincible army had been forced to retreat because of the collapse of the home front. By those who took over the Govern­ ment, this collapse was ascribed to the foreign blockade, by their opponents it was ascribed to the rank treachery of Socialists and of Jews. The latter theory was the more easily believed because of the pre-war conflicts between the German Government and the Socialists and because German detestation of the Jews also dates back to before the War. Mr. Wickham Steed, whose knowledge of Central Europe at that time is unrivalled, has pointed out that a book called" If I were Kaiser," which was a best-seller in 1913, advocated exactly that treatment of the Jews now practised by the Nazis. The Treaty of Versailles, though infinitely less vindictive and exacting than the peace which Germany had imposed upon Russia at Brest-Litovsk, was re-edited and distorted in order to make it appear a piece of monstrous injustice. For example, the Treaty affirms the" responsibility ofGermany and her allies" for the war; but German spokesmen have always said that the Treaty affirms the" sole responsibility of Germany." In this way what seemed to most other people a plain statement of fact became to Germans the" War Guilt Lie." Again reparations, which it may have been foolish but never unrighteous to demand, were represented to be a tribute exacted from innocent Germany by her conquerors. It was easy for the Nazis to turn

l~ public indignation as much against German Govern­ ments who showed any symptom of tolerating any provision of the Treaty as against the powers who had framed it, and fulfilment was held to be evidence of treachery. The Nazi party, much like the Fascist party in Italy, was born of resentment against defeatism. Hitler himself in his book "Mein Kampf" shows clearly his horror at the defeatist talk of his fellow soldiers, and how readily he accepted the explanation that defeat had been due to the machinations of Marxists and of Jews. He explains also how his experiences in Vienna had made him an anti-Semite and even anti-Austrian, because the Austrian Monar­ chy had ceased to insist upon the predominance of Germans everywhere in its dominions. That is why he emigrated to Bavaria before the War and joined a Bavarian, not an Austrian regiment; and that is how after the War he and a small circle of friends became the nucleus of a party burning for revenge upon foreign foes and hysterically defined domestic traitors. He worked for and with anybody who would co­ operate in this revenge. Almost by accident he became interested in the work of a small group called the " German Worker's Party," one of whose meetings he attended (while still in the Army) under orders to find out whether it was dangerous or not. He joined this party when its funds amounted to seven shillings and sixpence and its membership to a few dozen enthusiasts. Within a year he had worked it up to a political force in Munich and added to its name the prefix" National-Socialist." His agitation fell on the 20 fertile ground of a national vanity wounded by defeat and national pockets emptied by currency inflation. His party increased enormously and he trifled with the idea of a revolution against the Berlin Government. The Bavarian Government at first sympathised with him, and he thought that they would support him. But when, in company with General Ludendorff, he led his followers in a march to seize power in Munich on November 9th, 1923, the police fired on them and Hitler had to flee for his life. He was arrested, tried, and condemned by a friendly Court to five years' imprisonment, ofwhich he served eight months. There is a story, probably apocryphal, that he told a friend who visited him in prison that he now knew that he would win, because his opponents, having had him in their power and not having killed him, were clearly soft-softer than he would have been with them. In any case, emerging from prison after this escape, he found his influence greatly increased. At the elections in May 1924, his party, though under yet another name, polled nearly 2,000,000 votes and obtained 32 seats. For six years after that, however, the party was in the doldrums, for two main reasons. The first was that a more coherent attempt was made to work the republican system under stronger and more resolute men, and the second was that the leaders of Germany allowed it to be known that they were trying simultaneously to reverse the verdict of theWar by open negotiation and to evade the conditions ofthe peace by secret rearma­ ment. The writings even of Doctor Stresemann who pursued a policy of international co-operation made 21 this dual policy clear. The fortunes of the Nazis who based their every hope and argument upon the re­ pudiation of conciliation were thus temporarily obscured. But the pace of conciliation, though not negligible, was too slow. The onset of the economic depression in 1929 and the failure of Dr. Bruning to obtain more dramatic concessions gave Hitler his chance. His poll rose suddenly to nearly 6,500,000 votes in 1930, and to nearly 13,750,000 votes in July 1932. This result was achieved partly by every art of propaganda, including the popularisation of a special uniform-the Brown Shirt-and partly because the Government parties, having switched over to practi­ cally undiluted Nationalism, found themselves outbid by Hitler in their own field. President Hindenburg, who never troubled to conceal his dislike of and contempt for the party of political fireworks, was finally persuaded to make terms with its leader, and on January 30th 1933, Hitler became Chancellor of the Reich. Such in brief is the history of the origins of the three dictatorships in Russia, Italy, and Germany. It will be seen how startling are the similarities between them. All had their roots in the confusion bred of war. All based themselves upon a longing for revenge and for internal order. All used propaganda as their method and force as their instrument. All found a leader of a suitable stamp at the right moment. All grew like mushrooms from small and fragile beginnings. The lesson of all three surely is that no movement based upon a philosophy ofintolerance and an appeal to the predatory instincts of a section of the population is 22 too small to be dangerous. Such movements need, however, favourable circumstances if they are to succeed, and it should be the task of democratic statesmen to prevent such circumstances from ever arising in their own countries.

Printed by BROWN & ROWLEY. L TD.. 328. City Road. London. E .C .1. VI. Extremist Education. How dictatorships mould children. Soviet spread of schools and what is taught there. The anti-God movement. Nazi monopoly of schools. Subordination to party training. Conflict with the Churches. Fascist school system.

VTI. Social Conditions. Effect ofdictatorships upon private life; upon the family; upon the social services.

VIll. Industrial Conditions. Statement of wage rates, standards of living, working conditions, methods of production, etc. Treatment of Trade Unions.

IX. Economic Organisation. Raw materials question. Economic nationalism. Synthetic products. Relief works.

x. Extremist Propaganda. The slave press. How news is distorted. Hitler and Goebbels on propaganda. Use of the wireless.

XI. The Arts and the Law. Effect of dictatorships on literature; on science; on the theatre; on painting and sculpture. What the Courts of Law have become. Extremist theory ofjustice.

xn. An Extremist Paradise. An account ofwhat would happen here ifdemocracy were replaced by Fascism or by Communism.