1
O que dizem de “Raça, Evolução e Comportamento”
de J. Philippe Rushton
“(Uma) tese incendiária... a de que as diferentes raças de seres humanos desenvolveram
diferentes estratégias de reprodução para enfrentar diferentes ambientes, e que estas estratégias
originaram diferenças físicas no tamanho do cérebro e, portanto, em inteligência. Os seres
humanos que evoluíram no quente mas muito imprevisível ambiente de África adoptaram uma
estratégia de alta reprodução, enquanto os seres humanos que emigraram para o frio hostil da
Europa e do norte da Ásia adoptaram uma estratégia de ter menos crianças mas cuidar delas
com mais dedicação.”
-- Malcolm W. Browne, New York Times Book Review
“Rushton é um investigador sério que coligiu dados sérios. Considere-se apenas um exemplo:
O tamanho do cérebro. A realidade empírica, verificada por numerosos estudos recentes,
incluindo vários baseados em Imagem por Ressonância Magnética (“Magnetic Resonance
Imaging”), é de que existe uma relação significativa e substancial entre a dimensão do cérebro
e a inteligência medida, após se ter em conta o tamanho do corpo, e de que as raças têm
diferentes distribuições de tamanho do cérebro.”
-- Charles Murray, Póstfácio a “The Bell Curve”.
“Descreve centenas de estudos efectuados em todo o mundo e que mostram um padrão
consistente de diferenças raciais humanas em características como inteligência, dimensão do
cérebro, tamanho dos órgãos genitais, intensidade do impulso sexual, potência reprodutiva,
espírito empreendedor, sociabilidade e predisposição para respeitar leis. Em cada uma destas
variáveis, os grupos estão alinhados da seguinte forma: Orientais, Caucasianos, Negros,”
-- Mark Snyderman, National Review
“Raça, Evolução e Comportamento ... é uma tentativa para compreender as diferenças
[raciais] em termos da evolução da história de vida (“life-history”)... Talvez um dia apareça
alguma contribuição séria das ciências sociais tradicionais, com os seus truques de espelhos e
cortinas de fumo, para o tratamento do QI, mas por enquanto, o enquadramento de Rushton é
tudo o que temos”.
-- Henry Harpending, Evolutionary Anthropology
“Este livro brilhante é o mais impressionante estudo, baseado numa teoria … das diferenças
psicológicas e comportamentais entre os principais grupos raciais, que eu encontrei na
literatura mundial sobre o assunto.”
-- Arthur R. Jensen, University of California, Berkeley
“A notável resistência à ciência racial nos nossos dias já levou a comparações com a
Inquisição de Roma, activa durante a Renascença... A astronomia e as ciências físicas tiveram
os seus Copérnico, Kepler, e Galileu há uns séculos atrás; a sociedade e o bem estar da
humanidade estão hoje melhores por isso. De uma forma directamente análoga, a psicologia e
as ciências sociais têm hoje os seus Darwin, Galton e Rushton.
-- Glayde Whitney, Contemporary Psychology
2
“Os dados são espantosos para o não-iniciado ... “Raça, Evolução e Comportamento”
confronta-nos, como poucos livros o conseguem, com os dilemas tecidos numa sociedade
democrática por diferenças entre indivíduos e grupos em traços e características humanas
chave”.
-- Linda Gottfredson, Politics and the Life Sciences
“O Professor Rushton é amplamente conhecido e respeitado pela combinação pouco habitual
de rigor e originalidade no seu trabalho... Poucos dos que se preocupam com a compreensão
dos problemas raciais se podem dar ao luxo de desdenhar esta bem integrada fonte de
informação, que leva a uma síntese notável.”
-- Hans J. Eysenck, University of London
“Deveria, se existisse alguma justiça, receber o prémio Nobel.”
-- Richard Lynn, Spectator
3
Raça, Evolução e Comportamento:
Uma perspectiva de História de Vida (“A Life History Perspective”)
2ª Edição Abreviada
J. Philippe Rushton
4
O autor
J.Philippe Rushton é professor de psicologia na Universidade de Ontário Ocidental,
Ontário, Canadá. Rushton possui dois doutoramentos pela Universidade de Londres (Ph.D e
D.s.c.), é conselheiro da Fundação John Simon Guggenheim, e membro da Associação
Americana para o Desenvolvimento da Ciência e das Associações de Psicologia da América,
Grã-Bretanha e Canadá. É também membro da Associação de Genética Comportamental, da
Sociedade Evolução e Comportamento Humano e da Sociedade para a Neurociência. Rushton
publicou seis livros e aproximadamente duzentos artigos. Em 1992 o “Institute for Scientific
Information” – EUA colocou-o em vigésimo segundo lugar como psicólogo mais publicado
e em décimo primeiro como o mais citado. O professor Rushton é mencionado em "Who's
who in Science" (Quem é quem na Ciência), "Who's who in International Authors" (Quem é
quem nos Autores Internacionais) e "Who's who in Canada" (Quem é quem no Canadá).
5
Conteúdo
Prefacio 6
1-A Raça não é apenas uma questão de cor de pele 8
2-Maturação, Crime e Apoio Familiar 16
3-Sexo, Hormonas e SIDA 22
4-Inteligência e volume cerebral 26
5-Genes, ambiente ou ambos? 32
6-Teoria da história de vida 39
7-Fora de África 44
8-Perguntas e respostas 48
6
Raça, Evolução e Comportamento
Prefácio à 2ª Edição Condensada Especial
A primeira impressão desta edição especial surgiu em 1999 pela mão da Editora
Transaction. Esta edição seguiu-se às publicações bem sucedidas, nos anos 1995 e 1997, das
1ª e 2ª edições não-condensadas e à tradução japonesa publicada pela editora Hakuhin-Sha,
em 1996.
Contudo, quando a editora Transaction distribuiu milhares de cópias da edição
condensada especial pelo correio à comunidade académica, uma tempestade de controvérsia
acabou por envolvê-la. Embora a edição condensada apresentasse o mesmo estudo num estilo
de escrita popular e condensado semelhante aquele que é usado em artigos na Discover
Magazine, Reader´s Digest e Scientific American, os “Sociólogos Progressistas” e alguns
outros auto-intitulados "anti-racistas", ameaçaram a Transaction com a perda do expositor em
encontros anuais, espaços publicitários em jornais e acesso a listas de endereços se
continuasse a enviar o livro.
A Transaction submeteu-se a esta pressão, suspendendo a publicação do livro e
pedindo mesmo desculpas. A carta com o respectivo pedido de desculpas da Transaction
apareceu no verso interior da primeira página da sua importante revista "Society"
(Janeiro/Fevereiro de 2000). Notícias sobre o assunto em questão surgiram no "The Chronical
of Higher Education" (14.01.00), no "National Post", Canadá (31.01.00), no "National
Report" (28.02.00) e ainda noutras publicações.
Porquê esta tentativa de esmagar ou fazer desaparecer este pequeno livro? Porque,
hoje em dia, não existe maior tabu do que falar sobre raça. Em muitos casos, basta ser
acusado de "racismo" para se ser despedido. Apesar disso, os professores na América sabem
que as raças diferem quanto aos seus desempenhos escolares; a polícia tem conhecimento de
que as raças se diferenciam no que respeita aos índices de criminalidade; os assistentes
sociais sabem que as raças diferem quanto ao grau de dependência da segurança social e
quanto ao número de infectados pelo HIV/SIDA. Os adeptos de desporto sabem que os
negros são excelentes no boxe, basquetebol e corridas de pista e todos se admiram porquê.
Alguns responsabilizam a pobreza, o racismo dos brancos e, finalmente, o legado da
escravatura. Embora muitos duvidem de que o "racismo dos brancos" seja o verdadeiro
responsável de toda esta realidade somente alguns ousam partilhar as suas dúvidas. Quando o
assunto é a raça, alguém se atreve a dizer o que realmente pensa?
Os grupos raciais diferem muito mais do que a maioria da pessoas pensa. No entanto,
certos grupos de opinião muito activos nos meios académicos e nos meios de comunicação
social proíbem, pura e simplesmente o público de participar numa discussão franca sobre o
assunto. Para muitos, é inquietante, que o facto de se mencionar que as raças diferem, possa
levar à criação de estereótipos e limitar oportunidades. Mas o facto de olharmos a raça como
um todo, não significa que ignoremos os indivíduos como tal. Isso pode até ajudar a que
melhor nos inteiremos dos seus anseios pessoais.
Este livro apresenta a prova científica de que a raça é uma realidade biológica com
implicações na ciência e na vida quotidiana. Outros livros recentes sobre o assunto são: "The
Bell Curve" ( A Curva de Bell), o êxito editorial de 1994 escrito por Richard Herrnestein e
Charles Murray; "Why Race Matters" ( Porque é que a Raça Importa), livro publicado em
1997 pelo filósofo Michael Levin; "The G Factor" ( O Factor G), um livro do psicólogo
Arthur Jensen, de 1998 e " Taboo : Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We are
Afraid to Talk About It" ( Tabu: Por que é que os atletas negros dominam o desporto e por
que é que temos receio de falar nisso), um livro recente do jornalista premiado Jon Entine.
Para uma informação mais pormenorizada sobre qualquer um dos tópicos desta edição
condensada especial, por favor leia as secções correspondentes numa das edições não
7
condensadas, nas quais se pode ler mais de mil referências de bibliografia académica, um
glossário e um índice completo de nomes e assuntos abordados e sessenta e cinco gráficos e
números. Pode também aceder à página da www.charlesdarwinresearch.org,que publicou este
pequeno livro, para obter mais informação.
Maio de 2000 J. Philippe Rushton
Departamento de Psicologia
Universidade de Ontario Ocidental
London, Ontario, Canadá
8
1
A Raça é mais do que uma mera questão de pele.
Será que a raça é uma realidade? Será que as raças se
diferenciam no comportamento, como acontece com o aspecto
físico? Será que tais abordagens resultam do racismo dos
brancos? A ciência moderna apresenta-nos um padrão de
diferenças raciais com três zonas distintas, nos aspectos físicos
e comportamentais. Em média, os Orientais são mais lentos a
atingir a maturidade, são menos férteis e sexualmente menos
activos, são menos agressivos, possuem cérebros maiores e um
QI mais elevado. Os Negros estão exactamente no pólo oposto.
Os Brancos situam-se no meio, mas mais próximos dos
Orientais do que dos Negros.
Os Homens brancos não saltam muito (Referência a “White men can’t jump” – título
de um filme popular) . Os Asiáticos também não. Mas, de acordo com Jon Entine, no seu
novo livro," Taboo : Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We Are Afraid to Talk
About It" (Tabu : Por que é que os Atletas Negros Dominam no Desporto e Por Que é Que
Nós Temos Receio de Falar Nisso), os homens negros - e as mulheres - de certeza que podem
fazê-lo. A razão mais comum para explicar o sucesso dos atletas negros é de que estes têm
poucas hipóteses de alcançar bons desempenhos noutras áreas. Todavia, o novo livro de
Entine mostra-nos que no desporto, os Negros têm uma vantagem genética.
Os factos físicos apresentados por Entine são sobejamente conhecidos. Comparados
com os Brancos, os Negros possuem ancas mais estreitas, o que lhes proporciona uma
passada mais eficiente na corrida. A sua altura quando sentados é relativamente menor o que
lhes proporciona um centro de gravidade mais elevado e melhor equilíbrio. Possuem ombros
mais largos, menos gordura corporal e mais massa muscular. Os seus músculos incluem mais
fibras de contracção rápida, do que resulta mais energia. Os negros têm de 3 a 19% mais
testosterona - uma hormona sexual - do que os brancos ou asiáticos do Extremo-Oriente. A
testosterona traduz-se em energia mais explosiva.
Entine explica-nos que estas vantagens físicas dão aos Negros a supremacia no boxe,
no basquetebol , no futebol e nos “sprints”. Contudo, algumas destas diferenças raciais
colocam um problema aos nadadores Negros. Uma estrutura óssea mais pesada e uma caixa
toráxica mais pequena limitam o seu desempenho.
As diferenças raciais aparecem muito cedo na vida. As crianças Negras nascem, em
média, uma semana mais cedo do que as crianças Brancas, e no entanto já são mais maduras
a avaliar pelo desenvolvimento dos ossos. Com cinco ou seis anos, as crianças Negras já se
distanciam nos “sprints” curtos (“dash”) , no salto em comprimento e no salto em altura,
actividades que requerem uma libertação rápida de energia. Por altura da adolescência, os
Negros têm reflexos mais rápidos como se pode avaliar pelo conhecido teste de bater
suavemente no joelho.
Os Asiáticos do Extremo-Oriente ainda correm menos do que os Brancos. As mesmas
ancas estreitas, pernas longas, mais músculo e mais testosterona que dão aos Negros uma
vantagem sobre os Brancos, dão aos Brancos uma vantagem semelhante em relação aos
Asiáticos. Mas admitir que estas diferenças, raciais de origem genética têm consequências no
desporto, conduz-nos a uma área onde impera um tabu, ainda maior - as diferenças raciais na
dimensão do cérebro e no crime. É por essa razão que até é tabu afirmar que os Negros são
melhores em muitos desportos.
9
A razão porque os Brancos e os Asiáticos do Extremo-Oriente possuem maiores
ancas do que os Negros, e por isso corredores mais fracos, é porque isso lhes permite dar à
luz bebés com cérebros maiores. Durante o processo evolutivo, o aumento do volume
craniano implicou um alargamento do pélvis das mulheres. Mais ainda, as hormonas
concedem aos Negros uma supremacia no desporto, tornam-nos inquietos na escola e mais
propensos ao crime.
A Raça na História
Mesmo antes de existirem quaisquer testes de inteligência, filósofos, estadistas,
mercadores, etc., acreditavam na existência de uma ligação entre raça, inteligência e
realizações culturais. Aristóteles, Platão, Voltaire e David Hume acreditavam no mesmo.
Assim também pensavam Broca, Darwin, Galton e todos os fundadores da teoria da evolução
e da antropologia. Até mesmo Freud acreditava que existiam diferenças raciais até certo
ponto. Todavia esta situação começou a alterar-se em 1920, com Franz Boas e James
B.Watson, que acreditavam que a cultura poderia alterar praticamente tudo. Hoje em dia,
escritores como Jared Diamond em "Guns, Germs and Steel" (1997) e S .J. Gould em "The
Mismeasure of Man" (1996) dizem-nos que não existem relações entre raça, inteligência e
cultura. As diferenças que observamos são produto de meros acidentes de percurso ou do
racismo dos Brancos.
Os primeiros exploradores da África Oriental, escreveram que ficaram chocados com
a nudez, o paganismo, o canibalismo e a pobreza dos nativos. Um afirmou que os Negros
possuíam a natureza "de animais selvagens...a maioria anda nu...a criança não conhece o seu
pai, e eles comem pessoas". Outro defendeu que eles possuíam um sentido tão natural do
ritmo que se um Negro "caísse do céu em direcção à terra marcava o compasso até tocar o
chão." Alguns até escreveram livros e ilustraram-nos com pinturas e desenhos de Africanos
com órgãos sexuais desproporcionados.
Parece-vos familiar? Ou será tudo isto um reflexo de racismo? Talvez, mas estes
exemplos não vêm dos colonialistas europeus do séc.XIX ou da literatura odiosa do KKK.
Eles reportam-se aos árabes muçulmanos que foram os primeiros a chegar à África Negra,
aproximadamente há 1200 anos, (nos anos 700) como é relatado por Bernard Lewis, no seu
livro "Race and Slavery in the Middle East" de 1990.
Centenas de anos mais tarde, os exploradores europeus tiveram as mesmas
impressões. Eles relataram que os Africanos pareciam ter pouca inteligência e poucos
vocábulos para expressar pensamentos complexos. Elogiaram algumas tribos pela qualidade
da sua cerâmica, por forjarem o ferro, pelos seus trabalhos artísticos em madeira e por
construírem instrumentos musicais. Mas mais frequentemente, ficaram chocados com a nudez
das pessoas, os seus deficientes hábitos de higiene, as casas simples e a pequenez das aldeias.
Não encontraram rodas para olaria, para moagem dos cereais ou mesmo para transporte, não
encontraram animais de criação, nem escrita, nem dinheiro nem sistemas de numeração.
Os Brancos que participaram em viagens de exploração à China eram tão racistas
como aqueles que exploraram a África, mas as suas descrições eram diferentes das que, quer
eles quer os árabes, escreveram sobre os Africanos. Em 1275, Marco Polo chegou à China
deixando a sua nativa Itália, a fim de iniciar relações comerciais com o Império Mongol. Ele
descobriu que os Chineses tinham construído boas estradas, pontes, cidades ligadas por
canais, um sistema de recenseamento, mercados, padrões de pesos e medidas, e não apenas
moedas mas também dinheiro em papel. Até um sistema de comunicação por via postal já
existia. Tudo isto fê-lo quedar-se maravilhado quando comparava os chineses com o que
tinha visto na Europa e no Médio-Oriente. Ainda sabendo-se que era Italiano, orgulhoso do
10
seu povo e consciente da grandeza da Antiga Roma, Marco Polo escreveu: " Certamente que
não existe raça mais inteligente na Terra do que os Chineses."
A pesquisa histórica confirma as impressões de Marco Polo. Já em 360 A.C., os
Chineses usavam a besta, o que alterou a técnica de guerra. Por volta de 200-100 A.C., os
Chineses utilizavam exames escritos para seleccionar os funcionários da administração
pública, dois mil anos antes de os Britânicos fazerem o mesmo. Os Chineses já utilizavam a
impressão por volta do ano 800 A.C., alguns 600 anos antes da Europa poder confrontar-se
com a primeira Bíblia de Gutenberg. O papel moeda era usado na China em 1300, mas não
na Europa até aos séculos XIX e XX. Perto de 1050, os químicos chineses preparavam a
pólvora, granadas de mão, flechas incendiárias, foguetes de petróleo e gás venenoso. Em
1100, fábricas na China com 40.000 trabalhadores já fabricavam foguetes lança-chamas,
armas de fogo e canhões eram usados na China, no séc. XIII, cerca de 100 anos antes da
Europa.
Os Chineses usavam a bússola e o compasso já no século I. Esta não é encontrada nos
registos Europeus senão em 1190. Em 1422, setenta anos antes de os três pequenos barcos de
Colombo terem atravessado o Atlântico, já os chineses tinham atingido a costa oriental de
África. Chegaram com uma grande armada de 65 barcos aptos a cruzar oceanos transportando
27.000 soldados, os seus cavalos e provisões por um ano, compostas de trigo, carne e vinho.
Com as suas armas de pólvora, perícia de navegação, mapas exactos e bússolas, os Chineses
poderiam facilmente ter dado a volta a África e ter "descoberto" a Europa!
Nos últimos cinco séculos, as nações europeias superiorizaram-se em relação aos
chineses na ciência e tecnologia. Desde 1950, contudo, o Japão ultrapassou o Ocidente no
fabrico de produtos de alta tecnologia. Outros países do Arco do Pacífico (China, Taiwan,
Singapura e Coreia do Sul) seguem as pisadas do Japão.
A África, por outro lado, tem ficado bastante para trás. As condições de pobreza dos
países africanos e da América negra têm-se tornado uma preocupação para muitas pessoas.
Muito do optimismo do Movimento pelos Direitos Cívicos, nos Estados Unidos dos anos
sessenta, acabou por desaparecer, juntamente com as elevadas esperanças depositados nos
países africanos independentes. Milhares de milhões de dólares em ajuda externa têm sido
injectados em África. Ainda assim, as economias africanas têm regredido desde que os
Europeus deixaram o continente.
Negligência e decadência são visíveis por toda a África e na maior parte das Antilhas.
As empresas internacionais têm frequentemente de providenciar a sua própria energia
eléctrica, a sua própria água e o seu próprio sistema telefónico. Na época dos computadores,
dos telefaxes e da Internet, obter uma comunicação telefónica em muitas cidades africanas
torna-se muito difícil.
A Raça no Mundo Actual
Durante os últimos vinte anos, tenho estudado as diferenças raciais, no que respeita à
dimensão do cérebro, à inteligência, sexualidade, personalidade, taxa de crescimento,
esperança de vida, crime e estabilidade familiar. Em todas estas características, os Orientais
colocam-se num dos extremos do espectro, os Negros situam-se no outro extremo e os
Brancos quedam-se pela posição intermédia.
O quadro 1 apresenta-nos as diferenças entre as três grandes raças. Orientais
(Asiáticos do Extremo-Oriente, Mongolóides) Brancos (Europeus, Caucasianos ) e Negros
(Africanos, Negróides ). A fim de tornar as coisas mais simples utilizarei esta terminologia,
mais comum, em lugar das científicas e não discutirei os sub-grupos dentro das raças.
11
Quadro 1
Diferenças médias entre Negros, Brancos e Orientais
Característica Negros Brancos Orientais
Dimensão do Cérebro
Capacidade craniana 1267 1347 1364
Neurónios corticais (milhões) 13185 13665 13767
Inteligência
Resultados em testes QI 85 100 106
Realizações Culturais Baixo Alto Alto
Reprodução
Emissão simultânea de 2 óvulos
(por 1000 nascimentos)
16 8 4
Níveis Hormonais Maiores Intermédios Menores
Características Sexuais Mais Intermédio Menos
Frequência de relações sexuais Maiores Intermédias Menores
Permissividade de atitudes Maior Intermédia Menor
Doenças sexualmente transmissíveis Mais Intermédio Menos
Personalidade
Agressividade Maior Intermédia Menor
Prudência Menor Intermédia Maior
Impulsividade Maior Intermédia Menor
Auto Conceito Maior Intermédia Menor
Sociabilidade Maior Intermédia Menor
Maturação
Tempo de gestação Mais Curto Mais Longo Mais Longo
Desenvolvimento do esqueleto Mais Cedo Intermédio Mais tarde
Desenvolvimento Motor Mais Cedo Intermédio Mais tarde
Desenvolvimento Dental Mais Cedo Intermédio Mais tarde
Idade da 1ª relação sexual Mais Cedo Intermédio Mais tarde
Idade da 1ª Gravidez Mais Cedo Intermédio Mais tarde
Longevidade Mais Curta Intermédia Mais Longa
Organização Social
Estabilidade Familiar Menor Intermédia Maior
Predisposição para respeitar a lei Menor Intermédia Maior
Saúde Mental Menor Intermédia Maior
Fonte: Versão não condensada de Raça, Evolução e Comportamento (p. 5).
Em média os Orientais são mais lentos em atingir a maturidade, menos férteis, menos
activos sexualmente e apresentam mais altos QI. Os Negros estão exactamente na posição
oposta em cada uma destas características. Os Brancos situam-se numa posição intermédia,
frequentemente perto dos Orientais. Os danos disponíveis mostram que isto é devido à
influência dos genes e do ambiente. Eu tenho sugerido uma teoria evolucionista para explicar
este padrão de três componentes.
É óbvio que estas diferenças são médias. Toda a gama de comportamentos, bons e
maus, está presente em todas as raças. Nenhum grupo tem o monopólio da virtude ou do
vício, da sabedoria ou da loucura. No entanto, este padrão mantém-se válido ao longo do
tempo, e através das nações, o que significa que não podemos ignorá-lo.
12
Plano do Livro
Este capítulo descreve brevemente o padrão de 3 vias em que se enquadram as
diferenças raciais (“3-way pattern of race differences”). Os capítulos seguintes dar-nos-ão
mais pormenores.
Muitas das estatísticas do Quadro 1 vêm dos Estados-Unidos, onde os Orientais são
uma "minoria modelo". Têm menos divórcios, menos nascimentos fora do casamento, e
menos casos reportados de abusos de crianças do que aqueles registados entre os Brancos.
Proporcionalmente, mais Orientais formam-se nas universidades e menos vão para a prisão.
Por outro lado, os Negros representam 12% da população americana mas
correspondem a 50% da população prisional. Nos Estados-Unidos, um em cada três homens
Negros, ou está na prisão, ou em liberdade condicional ou à espera de julgamento. Este
número é muito maior do que aquele que representa os negros licenciados pelas
Universidades.
O capítulo 2 mostra-nos como este padrão racial de criminalidade pode ser encontrado
em todo o mundo. A Interpol, nos seus anuários, mostra-nos que a taxa de incidência de
crimes violentos (assassinatos, violações e assaltos violentos) é quatro vezes menor na Ásia e
nos países do Arco do Pacífico do que em África e nos países das Caraíbas. Os Brancos nos
Estados Unidos e nos países Europeus colocam-se numa posição intermédia. A taxa de
incidência de crimes violentos da INTERPOL em 1996 mostra claramente este padrão: nos
países Asiáticos, o acontecem 35 crimes violentos por cada 100.000 pessoas, nos países
europeus esse número já é de 42 e nos países Africanos é de 149.
O capítulo 2 também nos revela que as crianças Orientais têm uma velocidade de
maturação mais lenta do que as crianças Brancas, enquanto que as Negras são mais rápidas.
Isto é verdade para a taxa de crescimento de ossos e dentes e para a idade em que a criança
pela primeira vez se senta, anda e se veste sozinha. As crianças Orientais não começam a
andar geralmente senão a partir dos 13 meses, as crianças Brancas aos 12 meses e as crianças
Negras aos 11 meses.
O capítulo 3 debruça-se sobre as diferenças raciais na perspectiva da actividade
sexual. Os Orientais são os menos activos sexualmente, quer quando avaliados pela idade em
que têm a primeira relação sexual, quer pela frequência com que mantêm relações sexuais ou
pelo número de parceiros sexuais. Os Negros são os mais activos em todas estas situações.
Mais uma vez os Brancos ocupam um lugar intermédio. Estes contrastes na actividade sexual
levam a diferenças nas taxas de incidência de doenças como a sífilis, gonorreia, herpes e
clamídia. Existem altos níveis de ocorrência de SIDA em África, nos Negros Americanos e
nas Caraíbas e baixos níveis na China e no Japão. De novo os países Europeus situam-se a
meio dos indicadores.
As raças diferem quanto à taxa de ovulação (Capitulo 3). Nem todas as mulheres
produzem apenas um ovo durante o ciclo menstrual. Quando dois ou mais ovos são
produzidos simultaneamente, a probabilidade de ocorrência de uma gravidez é superior.
Também maior é a probabilidade de conceber gémeos fraternais (i.e. gémeos a partir de dois
ovos). O numero de gémeos dados à luz é de 16 por cada 1000 nascimentos entre os negros, 8
em cada 1000 para Brancos e 4 ou menos entre os Orientais. Nascimentos triplos e outros
nascimentos múltiplos são mais raros entre os Orientais e mais frequentes entre os Negros,
ficando os Brancos numa posição intermédia.
O capítulo 4 é dedicado ao tema da raça e inteligência. Centenas de estudos
efectuados sobre milhões de pessoas mostram-nos um mesmo padrão de 3 vias. Os testes de
QI são geralmente concebidos de forma a obter-se um valor médio de 100, com um gama
“normal” compreendida entre 85 e 115. A média entre os Brancos varia de 100 a 103. Os
Orientais da Ásia e dos Estados Unidos tendem a alcançar elevados resultados, cerca de 106,
13
mesmo tendo em conta que os testes foram elaborados para serem aplicados numa cultura de
tipo ocidental, como a Euro-Americana. Os Negros nos EUA, nas Caraíbas, na Grã-Bretanha
e em África obtêm resultados em média mais baixos – cerca de 85. Os QI médios mais baixos
podem ser encontrados nos Africanos Sub-Sárianos, -- de 70 a 75.
No capítulo 4 também se aborda a dimensão do cérebro. Cérebros maiores possuem
mais células cerebrais o que será de esperar que conduza a mais elevados QI. As raças
variam também quanto ao tamanho do cérebro. O Projecto Perinatal Colaborativo seguiu
mais de 35.000 crianças desde o nascimento até aos sete anos de idade. Os Orientais tinham
cérebros maiores do que os Brancos aquando do nascimento, aos quatro meses, quando
atingem um ano e aos sete anos. Os Brancos tinham maiores cérebros do que os Negros em
todas as idades ( veja-se o quadro 2). Os dados sobre os adultos no quadro 2 foram extraídos
duma amostra de 6.325 pessoas pertencentes ao exército dos Estados Unidos.
No capítulo 5 perguntamo-nos em que medida as diferenças de tamanho do cérebro,
dos nossos corpos e de comportamento são devidos aos nossos genes, ao ambiente ou a
ambos. Também indagaremos em que medida as diferenças individuais nos dizem algo sobre
as diferenças raciais.
Porque é que Existem Diferenças Raciais?
Porque é que a História nos mostra a África sempre atrás da Europa ou da Ásia? Porque é que
os Brancos, em média, se situam entre os Orientais e os Negros em tantas áreas? Porque é
que os grupos com cérebros maiores possuem taxas baixas de ocorrência de dois óvulos
gémeos (“two-egg twinning”)? Para se conhecerem as respostas dever-se-á olhar para todas
as características em simultâneo ( Quadro 1).
As características apresentadas no Quadro 1 formam um padrão. Nenhum factor
ambiental conhecido consegue explicá-los quando considerados em conjunto. Contudo existe
uma explicação baseada nos genes. Os padrões estabelecem o que é denominado por uma
História de Vida (“life-history”). Eles evoluíram em conjunto para enfrentar os desafios da
existência -- sobrevivência, crescimento e reprodução.
O capítulo 6 aborda a teoria, baseada nos genes, da História de Vida (“life –history
theory”), que eu propus para explicar o padrão racial no que se refere à dimensão do cérebro,
inteligência e outros traços. Os biólogos evolucionistas chamam-lhe a escala r-K de
estratégias reprodutivas. Num dos pólos desta escala está a estratégia r que se baseia em altas
taxas de reprodução. Na outra ponta desta escala, estão as estratégias K que se baseiam em
níveis elevados de cuidados parentais. Esta escala é usada geralmente para comparar as
Histórias de Vida de diferentes espécies de animais. Eu utilizei-a para explicar as pequenas,
mas reais, diferenças entre as raças humanas.
Nesta escala, os Orientais têm uma orientação mais K (são mais K-seleccionados) do
que os Brancos, enquanto que estes são por sua vez têm uma orientação mais k (são mais Kseleccionados)
do que os Negros. As mulheres muito K-seleccionadas produzem menos
óvulos ( e têm maiores cérebros) do que as mulheres r-seleccionadas. Os homens muito Kseleccionados
investem mais tempo e energia nos seus filhos do que na busca de aventuras
sexuais. São mais "pais" e menos "progenitores" (“Dads rather than Cads”).
O Capítulo 7 mostra que as diferenças raciais nas estratégias reprodutivas fazem
sentido em termos de evolução humana. Os seres humanos modernos evoluíram em África há
200,000 anos atrás. Africanos e não-Africanos acabaram por se separar há 100,000 anos. Os
Orientais e os Brancos separaram-se há 40,000 anos.
14
Quadro 2
Volume craniano médio para Negros, Brancos, e Orientais nos E.U.A.
a 5 idades diferentes
315
557
801
1134
332
578
806
1154
1378
335
586
819
1167
1362 1392
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Nascimento 4 Meses 1 Ano 7 Anos Adultos
Negros
Brancos
Orientais
Fonte: Capacidades cranianas em centímetros cúbicos. Dados desde o nascimento até aos 7
anos obtidos do “U.S. Perinatal Project”; dados de adultos obtidos do exército dos EUA. De
J.P. Rushton, 1997, Intelligence, 25, p. 15.
Quanto mais as pessoas se deslocavam para o Norte, para Fora de África ("Out of
Africa"), mais difícil se tornava obter comida, abrigo, fazer roupas e criar as crianças. Por
esse motivo, os grupos que evoluíram no sentido dos actuais Brancos e Orientais,
necessitavam de cérebros maiores, maior estabilidade familiar e maior esperança de vida. No
entanto, desenvolver um cérebro maior consome tempo e energia durante o processo de
desenvolvimento de uma pessoa. Por consequência, estas mudanças foram equilibradas por
mais baixas taxas de crescimento, menores níveis de hormonas sexuais, menor agressividade
e menos actividade sexual.
E porquê? Porque a África, a Europa e a Ásia têm diferentes climas e geografias que
apelam a diferentes capacidades, diferente uso de recursos e diferentes estilos de vida. Os
Negros evoluíram num clima tropical que contrasta com o meio frio da Europa em que os
Brancos evoluíam e mais ainda com as terras frias do Árctico onde evoluíram os Orientais.
Porque a inteligência aumentava as possibilidades de sobrevivência em ambientes
caracterizados por invernos rigorosos, os grupos que deixaram África tiveram que
desenvolver maior inteligência e estabilidade familiar. Isto por sua vez implicava cérebros
maiores, menor potência sexual, menor agressividade e menor impulsividade. A capacidade
de planear de antemão, o autocontrole, a propensão para seguir regras, e a longevidade, todas
aumentaram nos não-africanos.
Eu compreendo que estes tópicos são controversos e que os leitores quererão colocar
muitas questões. O Capitulo 8 lista as questões que me são colocadas mais frequentemente
sobre Raça, Evolução e Comportamento, e as minhas respostas a elas.
15
Conclusão
A Raça é mais do que uma questão de pele. O padrão de diferenças entre Orientais,
Brancos e Negros é observado ao longo de toda a história, através das fronteiras geográficas e
sistemas político-económicos. Tal prova a validade biológica da raça. As teorias
exclusivamente baseadas na cultura não conseguem explicar os dados apresentados no quadro
1. Os próximos três capítulos descrevem as descobertas científicas sobre diferenças raciais
(resumidas no Quadro 1) em maior detalhe. Os últimos capítulos explicam a razão pela qual
estas diferenças seguem um padrão.
Leituras Adicionais
Entine, J. (2000). Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why we are afraid
to Talk about It. New York: Public Affairs Press.
Lewis, B. (1990). Race and Slavery in the Middle East. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Rushton, J.P. (1997). Cranial Size and IQ in Asian Americans from birth to age seven.
Intelligence, 25,7-20.
16
2
Maturidade, Crime e Paternidade
As diferenças raciais começam no ventre. Os Negros
nascem mais cedo e crescem mais rapidamente do que os
Brancos ou os Orientais. O mesmo padrão de 3 vias ocorre em
importantes marcos tais como maturidade sexual, estabilidade
familiar, índices de criminalidade e a taxa de crescimento
populacional.
Os Bebés Negros amadurecem mais rapidamente do que os bebés Brancos e enquanto
os bebés Orientais o fazem de forma mais lenta. Os bebés Africanos, quando sentados
conseguem manter a cabeça e as costas direitas desde pouco depois do seu nascimento. Os
bebés Brancos frequentemente precisam de seis a oito semanas para conseguir fazer o mesmo
(ver Quadro 3). É improvável que factores sociais sejam responsáveis por estas diferenças.
Um lei básica da biologia mostra que uma infância mais longa está relacionada com um
maior crescimento do cérebro (ver Capítulo 6).
Estas diferenças nas taxas de crescimento significam que as raças tendem a diferir na
altura em que atingem importantes marcos tais como o fim da infância, o início da puberdade,
a idade adulta e a velhice. As raças também diferem quanto ao índice de criminalidade, tipo
de meio familiar e até no crescimento populacional.
Quadro 3
Os Bebés Negros Desenvolvem-se Fisicamente mais Cedo do que os outros Bebés
Com apenas nove horas de vida já é capaz de
evitar que a cabeça caia para trás.
(As crianças brancas precisam de 6 semanas)
Com dois dias, mantém a cabeça estável e
olha para o examinador.
(As crianças brancas precisam de 8 semanas)
Fonte: Geber, M. (1958). Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 185-195.
Taxa de Maturação
Os bebés Negros são os que passam menos tempo no ventre materno. Nos EUA, 51%
dos bebés Negros nascem antes da 39ª semana de gravidez comparados com 33% para os
bebés Brancos. Na Europa, mesmo os bebés de mulheres Negras com profissões liberais
nascem mais cedo do que os bebés brancos.
Estes bebés Negros não são prematuros. Nasceram mais cedo, mas biológicamente até
têm mais maturidade. O tempo de gestação depende dos genes.
17
A maior rapidez no crescimento dos Negros continua ao longo da infância. Os bebés
Negros possuem maior força muscular e agarram melhor os objectos. Os seus músculos do
pescoço estão frequentemente tão desenvolvidos que conseguem levantar a cabeça apenas
após 9 horas após o parto. Ao fim de alguns dias, já se conseguem virar sobre si próprios.
As crianças Negras sentam-se, gatinham, andam, e vestem-se mais cedo do que as
Brancas ou Orientais. Estes resultados provêm de testes tais como o “Bayley’s Scales of
Mental and Motor Development” e o “Cambridge Neonatal Scales”.
As crianças Orientais, por outro lado, amadurecem mais lentamente do que as crianças
Brancas. As crianças Orientais frequentemente não começam a andar antes dos 13 meses.
Andar começa aos 12 meses para as crianças Brancas e aos 11 meses para as crianças Negras.
Os raios -X mostram que os ossos crescem mais rapidamente nas crianças Negras do
que nas Brancas, enquanto que o crescimento ósseo dos Brancos é mais rápido do que o dos
Orientais. Os padrões das ondas cerebrais revelam-se mais cedo nos recém nascidos negros
do que nos brancos.
Os Negros têm um maior desenvolvimento dental do que os Brancos que por sua vez
têm uma taxa de maturação mais rápida que os Orientais. As crianças Negras começam com
o crescimento dos primeiros dentes definitivos em média aos 5,8 anos e o seu termo dá-se aos
7,6 anos. Os Brancos começam aos 6,1 anos e terminam aos 7,7 anos enquanto nas crianças
Orientais inicia-se aos 6,1 anos e termina ao 7,8 anos. Os Negros tem maiores maxilares e
maiores dentes. Possuem também um maior número de dentes e possuem frequentemente o
terceiro e quarto molares. Os Brancos têm os dentes maiores e em maior numero que os
Orientais.
Os Negros alcançam a maturidade sexual mais cedo que os Brancos, e estes últimos
mais cedo do que os Orientais. Isto aplica-se a acontecimentos como a idade da primeira
menstruação, a idade da primeira experiência sexual e primeira gravidez.
Um estudo envolvendo mais de 17000 (dezassete mil) raparigas americanas,
publicado na revista Pediatrics de 1997, revelou que a idade da puberdade nas raparigas
Negras ocorre um ano mais cedo do que nas raparigas Brancas. Com 8 anos de idade, 48%
das raparigas Negras (mas somente 15% das raparigas Brancas) iniciou o desenvolvimento do
peito, dos pelos púbico ou ambos. Nas raparigas Brancas tal não acontece antes dos 10 anos
de idade. A idade da primeira menstruação nas raparigas Negras é entre os 11 e os 12 anos,
nas raparigas Brancas é um ano mais tarde.
A maturidade sexual dos rapazes também difere entre as raças. Com 11 anos de idade,
60% dos rapazes Negros atingem o estado da puberdade caracterizado pelo rápido
crescimento do pénis. E 2% destes rapazes já tiveram relações sexuais. Os rapazes Brancos
tendem a alcançar este estádio após 1 ano e meio depois. Os Orientais apresentam um atraso
de 1 a 2 anos quer em desenvolvimento sexual quer no início do interesse sexual.
Crime
Nos EUA, os Negros representam menos de 13% do total da população, mas são
responsáveis por 50% das detenções por homicídio e roubo e por 67% das detenções por
furtos. 50% das vítimas de todos os crimes combinados também reportam que o seu agressor
era Negro, o que afasta a possibilidade das estatísticas da Polícia serem tendenciosas.
Os Negros também são responsáveis por uma grande parte dos crimes ditos de
"colarinho branco". Assim 33% das pessoas presas por fraude, falsificação, contrafacção, e
recepção de objectos roubados são Negras, bem como 25% das pessoas presas por desvio e
apropriação de dinheiro. Os Negros só estão sub-representados no que toca aos crimes e
delitos fiscais e financeiros, os quais geralmente são praticados por pessoas em ocupações de
elevado estatuto social.
18
Por outro lado, os Orientais estão sub-representados nas estatísticas criminais norteamericanas.
Isto levou algumas pessoas a argumentar que os "ghettos" asiáticos terão evitado
influências exteriores nocivas. Para os Negros, no entanto já se defende que é o “guetto” que
promove a criminalidade, pelo que as explicações puramente culturais não são suficientes.
As homicidas femininas contam a mesma história. Num estudo sobre mulheres
detidas por este crime, 75% eram Negras. Apenas 3% eram Brancas. Nenhuma mulher
Oriental foi presa por este tipo de crime. A explicação cultural defendida por algumas
pessoas para a taxa de criminalidade entre os homens Negros não é aplicável às mulheres
Negras, de quem não se esperaria que se entregassem a comportamentos criminosos com a
mesma intensidade. Não existe qualquer imagem de "gangster" entre as mulheres Negras.
O mesmo padrão verifica-se noutros países. Em Londres, na Inglaterra, os Negros
correspondem a 13% da população mas respondem por 50% da taxa de criminalidade. Em
1996, uma comissão governamental de Ontário, no Canadá, reportou que os Negros tem 5
vezes mais probabilidade de ir parar à prisão do que os Brancos e 10 vezes mais do que os
Orientais. No Brasil existem 1,5 milhões de Orientais, na sua grande maioria de origem
japonesa descendentes de trabalhadores que imigraram no séc.XIX os quais são os menos
representados nos números sobre criminalidade.
O Quadro 4 é baseado no Anuário da Interpol e mostra que este padrão racial no que
toca à criminalidade é consistente numa escala global. As taxas de incidência de assassinatos,
violações e Assaltos Graves (“serious assault”) são quatro vezes mais elevadas nos países
Africanos e das Caraíbas do que nos países da Ásia ou do Anel do Pacífico. Os países
europeus situam-se num nível intermédio. O Anuário da Interpol de 1993-1996 mostra que
por cada 100 000 (cem mil) pessoas, o número de crimes violentos é de 35 para os Asiáticos,
42 para os Europeus e 149 para os Africanos.
Personalidade, Agressividade e Auto-Estima
Diversos estudos mostram que os Negros são mais agressivos e sociáveis que os
Brancos, enquanto que os Brancos são mais agressivos e sociáveis que os Orientais. Os
Negros são também mais instáveis do ponto de vista mental do que os Brancos. Os níveis de
dependência do álcool e das drogas por parte dos Negros são também os mais elevados. Mais
uma vez os Orientais, estão sub-representados no que toca às estatísticas de saúde mental.
Um estudo levado a cabo no Quebeque francófono incidiu sobre 825 crianças do 4 aos
6 anos provenientes de 66 países. 50 professores do ensino pré-primário avaliaram estas
crianças imigrantes e concluíram que existia melhor adaptação e menos hostilidade entre as
crianças Orientais do entre as crianças Brancas e também descobriram maior adaptação e
menor hostilidade entre as crianças Brancas do entre as crianças Negras.
Diferenças raciais no que toca à personalidade podem ser avaliadas recorrendo a testes
tais como o Questionário da Personalidade de Eysenck e o Questionário de Dezasseis
Factores de Personalidade de Cattel. Os Orientais em qualquer lugar do mundo são sempre
menos agressivos, dominadores e impulsivos do que os Brancos e estes menos do que os
Negros. Os Orientais são também mais cautelosos do que os Brancos ou os Negros.
Existem também importantes diferenças raciais no que diz respeito à orientação
temporal e à motivação. Num estudo realizado, perguntou-se a crianças das Caraíbas se
preferiam que lhes fosse oferecido uma pequena tablete de Chocolate agora ou uma grande
tablete uma semana depois. A maioria escolheu receber a pequena tablete logo. Uma focagem
no imediato, em oposição a um benefício a prazo (“delayed gratification”) é um tema central
na investigação da psicologia dos Negros.
19
Quadro 4
Taxas de criminalidade da INTERPOL para as três raças
(Assassinio, Violação e Assaltos Graves)
por cada 100 000 pessoas.
49
32 35
72 75
42
132
240
149
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1984 1990 1996
Orientais
Brancos
Negros
Fonte: Terceira edição não abreviada de “Raça Evolução e Comportamento” (pp. P-24, 159,
287).
Pode parecer surpreendente mas é um facto que os Negros tem uma auto-estima
superior aos Brancos ou aos Orientais. E isto verifica-se mesmo tratando-se de Negros mais
pobres e com menos cultura. Num extenso estudo que incidiu sobre jovens dos 11 aos 16
anos, os Negros classificaram-se a si próprios como sendo atraentes com maior frequência do
que os Brancos. Os Negros também se auto-classificaram como sendo melhores em leitura,
ciências e estudos sociais, embora não a matemática. Os Negros afirmaram isto apesar de
saberem que os seus resultados escolares reais demonstrarem que o seu desempenho
académico era inferior ao dos Brancos.
Paternidade e Filhos Fora do Casamento
Diferenças raciais na personalidade e na predisposição para seguir regras também se
manifestam através das taxas de divórcio, do número de filhos fora do casamento, de
violência sobre crianças e de delinquência. Os Orientais são mais bem sucedidos do que os
Brancos ou os Negros. Têm menos divórcios, menos filhos fora do casamento e menos
violência sobre crianças do que os Brancos. No lado oposto, a estabilidade da família Negra
é motivo de preocupação. Em 1965, o Relatório Moynihan mostrou que os mais elevados
índices de separação entre casais de famílias em que a mulher é a única cabeça-de-casal e de
filhos fora de uma relação se encontravam entre os Negros. Desde então os números
triplicaram! Cerca de 75% dos filhos de adolescentes Negros nascem fora do casamento em
comparação com apenas 25% dos adolescentes Brancos.
A família encabeçada por uma mulher só, não é uma realidade exclusiva dos EUA.
Nem é resultado do legado da escravatura, nem da decadência de certas zonas urbanas. É uma
realidade que se encontra generalizada na África Negra.
Em África, a família encabeçada por uma mulher é um componente de um padrão
social mais geral. Consiste num início precoce da actividade sexual, fracos laços emocionais
20
entre cônjuges, e uniões sexuais e procriação com diferentes parceiros. Adicionalmente, as
crianças são frequentemente criadas por terceiros, longe de casa, às vezes por períodos de
vários anos, o que possibilita que as mães se mantenham sexualmente atractivas.
Similarmente, os homens competem mais pelas mulheres e os pais envolvem-se menos na
criação das crianças.
Comparadas com as mulheres de países igualmente pobres, as mulheres Africanas
deixam de amamentar os seus filhos mais cedo. Tal permite que a ovulação seja retomada,
pelo que as mães podem conceber novamente, o que se traduz numa taxa de natalidade mais
elevada. Logo que uma criança perfaz um ano de idade, os irmãos e os avós que passam a
tomar conta dela a maior parte do tempo. E à medida que as crianças vão crescendo, elas
procuram as crianças mais velhas para a satisfação de necessidades básicas. Quer na África
Negra, quer nas Caraíbas Negras, assim como nos ghettos das classes baixas (“underclass”)
da América do Norte, bandos de pré-adolescentes e adolescentes são deixados em liberdade
sem qualquer supervisão parental.
Esperança de Vida e Crescimento Populacional
As taxas de mortalidade reflectem o mesmo padrão de diferenças raciais. Os Negros
sofrem mais de doenças e têm uma taxa de mortalidade mais elevada qualquer que seja a
idade considerada. Os Orientais tem a taxa de mortalidade mais baixa e uma esperança de
vida superior aos Brancos de 2 anos, em média, quase o mesmo tempo de esperança de vida a
mais que os Brancos têm em relação aos Negros.
Os bebés Negros americanos tem 2 vezes maior probabilidade de morrerem durante a
infância do que os bebés Brancos americanos. Famílias monoparentais, pobreza ou falta de
educação não são, no entanto, as únicas causas. Um estudo que incidiu sobre pessoas
licenciadas e que dispõem de acesso a bons cuidados médicos revelou que, mesmo assim, a
taxa de mortalidade das crianças Negras é quase o dobro da das crianças Brancas.
As diferenças na taxa de mortalidade continuam na idade adulta. Num estudo
realizado pela Marinha Norte-Americana, as taxas de mortalidade dos Negros são as mais
elevadas no que respeita a mortes por acidente ou mortes violentas, quaisquer que sejam as
causas. Um outro estudo revelou que os Negros têm taxas de mortalidade mais elevados por
acidentes de viação.
Este é um padrão global. Países do Extremo-Oriente como o Japão ou Singapura tem
taxas de mortalidade mais baixas do que os países europeus, assim como os países da Europa
tem taxas de mortalidade mais baixas do que os países da África ou das Caraíbas Negras. No
que se refere à taxa de suicídio, o padrão é o inverso. Os países do Extremo-Oriente detêm os
níveis mais elevados com cerca de 15 suicídios por cada 100.000 habitantes. Nos países
europeus a taxa é de 12 por cada 100.000 habitantes, enquanto que nos países da África
Negra e Caraíbas a taxa é a mais baixa de todas com cerca de 4 por 100.000 pessoas.
Uma taxa de natalidade mais alta mais do que compensa uma menor esperança de
vida dos Negros. O crescimento da população africana tem sido um motivo de preocupação,
dado que atinge 3,2% ao ano. A mais alta do mundo! Na Sul da Ásia e na América Latina, as
taxas de crescimento de 2,1 % e 2,5% permitiram uma redução no crescimento da população
desde 1960. Nos EUA, em média cada mulher americana terá cerca de 14 descendentes
incluindo filhos, netos e bisnetos. Uma mulher africana média terá por sua vez 258
descendentes! A população do continente africano representava cerca de 9% da população
mundial em 1950. Apesar da SIDA, guerras, epidemias, secas e fome, a África cresceu ao
ponto de conter hoje já 12% da população mundial.
21
Conclusão
O padrão de três vias das diferenças raciais é válido para as taxas de crescimento
populacional, esperança de vida, personalidade, funcionamento da família, criminalidade e
capacidade de organização social. Os bebés Negros têm uma taxa de maturidade mais rápida
do que os bebés Brancos, os bebés Orientais têm uma taxa de maturidade mais lenta do que
os bebés Brancos. Constata-se o mesmo padrão no que concerne à maturidade sexual, filhos
fora do casamento e até mesmo na violência sobre crianças. Em qualquer parte do Mundo os
Negros têm as mais altas taxas de criminalidade, os Orientais a mais baixa, os Brancos uma
posição intermédia. O mesmo padrão é válido no respeitante à personalidade. Os Negros são
os mais extrovertidos (“outgoing”) e aqueles que têm a mais alta auto-estima. Os Orientais
são os que apresentam maior disponibilidade para adiar a satisfação, Os Negros os menos e
os Brancos situam-se entre os dois. Os Negros são os que morrem mais cedo, seguem-se os
Brancos e os Orientais por último, mesmo quando todos têm acesso a boa assistência médica.
O padrão racial de 3 vias mantêm-se válido desde o berço ao túmulo.
Leitura Adicionais
Herman-Giddens, M. E. and others (1997). Secondary Sexual characteristics and
menses in young girls seen in the in the office practice. Pediatricas, 99, 505-512.
Rushton, J. P. (1995). Race and crime: International data for 1989-1990. Psychological
Reports,76, 307-312.
22
3
Sexo, Hormonas e Sida
Existem diferenças raciais no comportamento sexual. As
raças diferem na frequência com que sentem desejo de praticar
relações sexuais. Tal afecta as taxas de incidência das doenças
sexualmente transmitidas. Em todos os casos os Orientais são
os menos activos sexualmente, os Negros os mais activos e os
Brancos situam-se a meio As raças também diferem quanto ao
número de gémeos e de nascimentos múltiplos, nos níveis
hormonais, nas atitudes sexuais e até na sua anatomia sexual.
As raças diferem quanto aos níveis de hormonas sexuais. Os Negros possuem os
níveis hormonais mais elevados e os Orientais os mais baixos. Talvez isto explique porque é
que as mulheres Negras sofrem do Síndroma Pré- Menstrual (PMS) com a maior frequência
e as Orientais com a menor.
As raças também diferem quanto aos níveis de testosterona o que ajuda a explicar o
comportamento dos homens. Num estudo efectuado em estudantes universitários, observouse
que os níveis de testosterona eram 10% a 20% mais elevados nos Negros do que nos
Brancos. Numa amostra de uma faixa etária mais velha, constituída por veteranos das forças
armadas americanas, os Negros tinham níveis mais elevados que os brancos em cerca de 3%
(ver o número de 1992 da Steroids). Num estudo com estudantes universitários, os
Americanos Negros tinham níveis 10 a 15% mais altos que os brancos. Os Japoneses (no
Japão) tinham níveis ainda mais baixos.
A testosterona actua como interruptor principal. Ela afecta coisas como o conceito de
si próprio (“self-concept”), a agressão, o altruísmo, a criminalidade e a sexualidade, não
apenas nos homens, mas também nas mulheres. A testosterona também controla a massa
muscular e a alteração da voz na adolescência.
Comportamento Sexual e Atitudes
Os Negros tornam-se sexualmente activos mais cedo do que os Brancos. Estes, por
seu turno, tornam-se sexualmente activos mais cedo do que os Asiáticos. Inquéritos feitos
pela Organização Mundial de Saúde mostram-nos que o padrão racial de três vias se mantém
válido globalmente. Inquéritos nacionais efectuados na Grã-Bretanha e nos Estados Unidos
revelam-nos os mesmos resultados.
Um estudo efectuado em Los Angeles e incidindo sobre estudantes do ensino
secundário, mostrou que a idade em que ocorre a primeira experiência sexual nos Orientais
foi de 16,4 anos, de 14,4 para os Negros, situando-se os Brancos no meio. A percentagem de
estudantes já sexualmente activos era de 32% para os Orientais e de 81% para os Negros. De
novo, os Brancos quedam-se entre as duas outras raças. Um estudo canadiano revela que os
Orientais são mais controlados (“restrained”), mesmo nas fantasias e masturbação. Os
Orientais nascidos no Canadá eram tão controlados como os recentes imigrantes asiáticos.
Em todo o mundo, a actividade sexual entre casais segue o mesmo padrão racial de
três vias. Um inquérito feito em 1951, perguntava às pessoas qual a frequência com que
tinham sexo. Os habitantes das Ilhas do Pacífico e os índios americanos informaram que a
frequência era de 1-4 vezes por semana, os Brancos norte-americanos 2-4 vezes por semana,
enquanto que os Africanos praticavam sexo 3-10 vezes por semana. Inquéritos feitos
posteriormente confirmaram estes resultados. A média de frequência semanal de coitos para
23
casais de vinte anos é de 2,5 vezes por semana para os japoneses e chineses na Ásia. É de
quatro vezes para os americanos Brancos. Para os americanos Negros é de 5.
As diferenças raciais são também visíveis na permissividade sexual, no interesse pelo
sexo e até mesmo nos níveis de culpabilidade sexual. Num estudo, três gerações de japoneses
americanos e de estudantes japoneses no Japão mostraram que estes têm menos interesse pelo
sexo do que os estudantes europeus. No entanto, qualquer destas gerações de japonesesamericanos
possuía mais sentimentos de culpabilidade sexual (“sex guilt”) do que os
americanos Brancos com a mesma idade. Outro estudo mostrou que os homens e mulheres
britânicos têm fantasias sexuais com uma frequência três vezes superior à dos homens e
mulheres japoneses. Os Orientais foram os que tinham mais tendência a considerar que o
sexo tem um efeito enfraquecedor. Os Negros tinham relações sexuais casuais mais
frequentemente e mostravam menos preocupação por esse facto do que os Brancos.
Psicologia Sexual e Anatomia
As taxas de ovulação média diferem entre as raças, assim como a frequência com que
surgem gémeos. As mulheres Negras tendem a ter ciclos menstruais mais pequenos do que as
mulheres Brancas. Frequentemente produzem dois óvulos num ciclo. Isto torna-as mais
férteis.
A taxa de gémeos provenientes de dois óvulos é menor do que 4 em cada 1000
nascimentos para os Orientais. É de 8 para os Brancos, mas para os Negros é de 16, ou mais.
Triplos e quádruplos são muito raros em todos os grupos raciais, mas mostram a mesma
ordem de três componentes – Os Negros têm um maior número, depois vêm os Brancos e
finalmente os Orientais.
Desde o século VIII até ao século XVI, a literatura Arábica-Islâmica transmitia a
imagem de que os Negros Africanos, homens e mulheres, tinham uma maior potência sexual
e maiores órgãos. Os antropólogos europeus do século XIX informaram-nos da posição dos
órgãos genitais femininos (Orientais na posição mais alta, as Negras no mais baixo, Brancas
numa posição intermédia) e o ângulo da erecção masculina (paralelo ao corpo nos Orientais,
em ângulo recto nos Negros). Também alegaram que eram os Orientais que possuíam as
características sexuais secundárias menos desenvolvidas (músculos visíveis, nádegas e seios),
e os Negros o grupo que as possuíam mais desenvolvidas. Outros antropólogos dessa época
constataram que as pessoas mestiças tendiam a situar-se no meio.
Será que devemos levar a sério estas crónicas antigas, feitas por estrangeiros sobre um
assunto tão sensível? Dados contemporâneos parecem confirmar estas observações antigas.
Por esse mundo fora, as agências responsáveis pela saúde pública fornecem preservativos
gratuitamente para tentar abrandar o crescimento da epidemia da SIDA e ajudar a salvar
vidas. Um tamanho de preservativo inadequado pode fazer com que este não seja utilizado ou
seja ineficaz se o for e, por esse motivo, estas mesmas agências tomam em consideração a
dimensão do pénis quando fornecem os preservativos. As orientações da Organização
Mundial de Saúde especificam preservativos com uma largura 49 mm para a Ásia, de 52 mm
para a América do Norte e Europa e 53 mm para a África. A China está actualmente a
fabricar os seus próprios preservativos com 49 mm.
As diferenças raciais quanto ao tamanho dos testículos também foram medidas
(asiáticos = 9 gramas, europeus = 21 gramas). Este número não se deve somente ao facto de
os europeus possuírem um corpo de dimensão ligeiramente superior. A diferença é
demasiado grande. Num artigo de 1989, publicado na "Nature", a mais difundida revista
britânica sobre ciência, afirma-se que a diferença de tamanho dos testículos poderá significar
que os Brancos produzem duas vezes mais esperma por dia dos que os Orientais. Até ao
momento não temos informação acerca do tamanho relativo dos testículos dos Negros.
24
SIDA e HIV
As diferenças raciais no que concerne ao comportamento sexual têm consequências
na vida quotidiana. Elas afectam as taxas de incidência das doenças sexualmente
transmissíveis. A Organização Mundial de Saúde acompanha a ocorrência das doenças
sexuais, tais como a sífilis, gonorreia, herpes e clamídia. Ela reporta baixos níveis destas
doenças na China e no Japão e altos níveis em África. Os países europeus estão no meio.
O padrão racial dessas doenças também se aplica nos Estados Unidos. Em 1997, a
taxa de sífilis nos Negros era 24 vezes maior que a dos Brancos. A taxa de sífilis para os
Negros era de 22 casos por 100.000 pessoas, enquanto que era de 0,5 casos por 100.000 nos
Brancos e ainda mais baixo nos Orientais. Um recente relatório constatou que 22% das
raparigas dos bairros problemáticos das cidades americanas (na maioria Negras) sofria de
clamídia.
As diferenças raciais também são visíveis na actual crise epidémica da SIDA. Mais de
30 milhões de pessoas em todo o mundo vivem com HIV ou SIDA. Bastante Negros nos
Estados Unidos contraem o HIV através do uso de drogas , no entanto infectam-se mais ainda
pela via sexual. No extremo oposto estão os doentes da China e do Japão que foram
infectados com o vírus da SIDA e que são na sua maioria hemofílicos. Os países europeus
têm taxas intermédias de infecção pelo HIV, a maioria entre homens homossexuais.
O quadro 5 mostra-nos as estimativas mais recentes das taxas de infecção pelo vírus
HIV em várias partes do mundo, a partir das informações das Nações Unidas. O surto
epidémico começou na África Negra no final dos anos 70. Hoje, 23 milhões de adultos vivem
com HIV/SIDA. Mais de cinquenta por cento destes são mulheres. Isto revela-nos que a
transmissão é maioritariamente heterossexual. Actualmente, 8 em cada 100 africanos estão
infectados com o HIV e a epidemia é considerada fora de controlo. Nalgumas áreas do
continente, a taxa de HIV/SIDA atinge os 70%. Na África do Sul, um em cada dez adultos
vive com o HIV.
A taxa de infecção pelo HIV também é elevada nas Caraíbas Negras. Cerca de 2%!
Trinta e três por cento dos casos de SIDA ocorre em mulheres. Esta elevada incidência entre
as mulheres mostra-nos que a expansão deve-se a relações heterossexuais. A elevada taxa de
incidência de HIV numa banda de 2000 milhas entre os países das Caraíbas estende-se da
Bermuda até à Guiana, e parece atingir o valor mais elevado no Haiti com uma taxa próxima
dos 6%. É a área mais infectada fora da África Negra.
Números publicados pelo Centro de Prevenção e Controle de Doenças nos Estados
Unidos mostram-nos que os afro-americanos têm taxas de infecção pelo HIV semelhantes às
dos Negros das Caraíbas e de certas partes da África Negra. Três por cento dos homens
Negros e 1% das mulheres Negras nos Estados Unidos vivem com o HIV (quadro 5). A taxa
para os Brancos americanos é de menos de 0.1%, enquanto que a taxa para os asiáticosamericanos
é inferior a 0,05. As taxas na Europa e no Anel do Pacífico são também baixas. É
óbvio que a SIDA é um problema de saúde pública muito sério para todos os grupos raciais,
mas especialmente para os Africanos e pessoas de origem africana.
25
Quadro 5
Taxas de infecção com HIV/SIDA (%) para pessoas entre
os 15 e os 49 anos em 1999
0.07
0.05
0.57
1.96
0.40
0.20
8.00
2.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Asiaticos
Asiaticos Americanos
Europeus
Brancos Americanos
Latino Americanos
Nativos da Caraibas
Negros Americanos
Africanos
Fonte: Terceira edição não abreviada de “Raça Evolução e Comportamento.”
Conclusão
O padrão de diferenças raciais de três vias encontra-se nas taxas de nascimentos
múltiplos (gémeos de dois óvulos), níveis hormonais, atitudes sexuais, anatomia sexual,
frequências de relações sexuais, doenças sexualmente transmissíveis (DST's). Tanto nos
homens como nas mulheres os níveis das hormonas sexuais são mais elevados nos Negros e
mais baixos nos Orientais, com os Brancos em posição intermédia. As hormonas sexuais
afectam não somente os nossos corpos, mas também a forma como actuamos e pensamos. Os
Negros são os mais activos sexualmente, têm o maior número de nascimentos múltiplos e
possuem as atitudes mais permissivas. Os Orientais são os menos activos sexualmente e
apresentam menos fantasias sexuais e um maior sentido de culpabilidade sexual. Os Brancos
situam-se no meio. As doenças sexuais são mais comuns nos Negros, menos nos Orientais,
com os Brancos a ficarem entre os dois. A elevada taxa de HIV/SIDA em África, nos Negros
das Caraíbas e nos Negros americanos é alarmante.
Leituras Adicionais
Ellis, L., & Nyborg, H. (1992). Racial/ethnic variations in male testosterone levels: a
probable contributor to group differences in health. Steroids, 57, 72-75.
UNAIDS (1999). AIDS epidemic update: December 1999. United Nations Program on
HIV/AIDS. New York.
26
4
Inteligência e Dimensão do Cérebro
Os testes de QI (quociente de inteligência) medem a
inteligência e prevêem o sucesso na vida real. As raças diferem
quanto à dimensão do cérebro e nos testes de QI. Em média, os
orientais têm maiores cérebros e mais altos QI. Os negros em
média têm os menores, os brancos colocam-se numa posição
intermédia. As diferenças no tamanho dos cérebros explicam as
diferenças de QI quer dentro dos grupos quer entre grupos.
Os psicólogos usam testes de QI a fim de avaliarem o que chamamos de "inteligência"
ou "capacidade mental" . Pessoas mais inteligentes obtêm resultados mais altos nos testes de
QI. As pessoas menos inteligentes têm resultados menos bons. Os testes de QI não são
perfeitos, no entanto eles são úteis e podem dizer-nos muito.
Os testes de QI são concebidos de tal forma que o resultado médio numa amostra
representativa seja 100. O padrão normal vai de não-muito-inteligente (QI cerca de 85 –
“dull”) até brilhante (QI cerca de 115 – “bright”). Um QI de 70 sugere-nos alguma
deficiência, enquanto que QI’s de 130 ou mais indicam-nos os superdotados. A média de QI
nos orientais é de cerca de 106, nos brancos por volta de 100, e o QI dos negros cerca de 85.
Este padrão é verificado em todo o mundo, tendo os negros, em África, um mais baixo QI do
que os negros da América.
O “best seller” de 1994, "The Bell Curve" mostrou-nos como o QI pode prever o
sucesso académico e profissional. Baixos QI predizem abuso infantil, crime e delinquência,
má saúde, propensão para acidentes, geração de crianças fora do casamento, divórcios antes
de decorridos cinco anos de casamento e mesmo o acto de fumar durante a gravidez. Grupos
com QI elevados possuem mais pessoas de capacidades superiores. Enquanto os Orientais
desenvolveram sociedades complexas na Ásia, e os brancos produziram civilizações
complexas na Europa, os africanos não o fizeram.
A diferença entre brancos e negros em termos de QI surge cedo, logo aos três anos de
idade. Se os elementos das raças são seleccionados de forma a estarem no mesmo nível
educacional e de rendimento, o desnível desce apenas 4 pontos QI. Por consequência, as
diferenças entre brancos e negros não são somente devidas a diferenças de classe social. É um
facto menos conhecido que os orientais têm um QI médio mais elevado do que os brancos.
O livro “The Bell Curve” reforçou o resultado obtido pelo psicólogo Britânico
Richard Lynn, cuja compilação de dados obtidos ao longo de 20 anos resultaram num padrão
global dos resultados de QI. Observa-se que os orientais do Anel do Pacífico têm QI entre
100 a 111. Os Brancos da Europa possuem QI de 100 a 103 e os negros em África têm um QI
de cerca de 70 (veja-se o Quadro 6).
A média de QI de 70 para os Negros que vivem em África é a mais baixa até hoje
registada. O teste das Matrizes Progressivas de Raven mede o raciocínio e não a informação
cultural específica. Usando este teste, Kenneth Owen obteve um QI de 70 para africanos
negros de 13 anos que frequentavam o sistema escolar sul-africano. Também o constatou
Fred Zindi, um zimbabueano negro, num estudo feito com jovens de 12-14 anos do seu país.
É interessante sublinhar que os estudantes Mestiços da África do Sul têm um QI de
85, o mesmo que o dos Negros nos Estados Unidos, Grã-Bretanha e Caraíbas. Métodos
genéticos (tais como os utilizados em testes de paternidade) Indicam-nos que estes Mestiços
têm cerca de 25% de antepassados Brancos (25% White Ancestry). Os seus QI situam-se no
meio, entre Negros “puros” (70) e Brancos “puros” (100).
27
Quadro 6
Resultados médios de testes de QI para as várias raças
70
85
100
106
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Africanos Negros
Americanos
Brancos Asiáticos
Fonte: Terceira edição não abreviada de “Raça Evolução e Comportamento” (pp. P-15 a P-16,
135-137, 278-280).
Testes Culturalmente Isentos
É justo comparar raça e QI? Sim. Em primeiro lugar, os testes de QI prevêem o
sucesso académico e profissional tão bem para os Negros como para os Brancos ou Orientais.
Em segundo lugar, as mesmas diferenças raciais aparecem tanto em testes que foram feitos
para ser culturalmente isentos, como nos testes de QI comuns. Na realidade, os Negros até
obtêm resultados ligeiramente mais altos nos testes de QI comuns do que naqueles que são
“culturalmente isentos”. Este facto está em oposição com a teoria cultural.
Os Negros têm mais sucesso em testes verbais do que em testes não-verbais, e
conseguem melhores resultados em testes de conhecimento escolar do que em testes de
capacidade de raciocínio. Desde o 1º ao 12º ano, a diferença de rendimento escolar entre
Negros e Brancos é a mesma que se observa nos testes de QI. Os Negros classificam-se
mesmo abaixo de grupos ainda mais desfavorecidos, tais como os índios americanos. De
novo isto está em oposição com o que a teoria da cultura prevê.
As diferenças entre Brancos e Negros atingem o máximo em testes de raciocínio e
lógica. Os Negros obtêm os melhores resultados em testes que apelam somente à memória.
Por exemplo, os Negros desempenham quase tão bem como os Brancos nos testes “Foward
Digit Span”, nos quais se pede à pessoa para repetir uma série de dígitos na mesma ordem em
que os ouviram. Os Negros obtêm resultados muito piores do que os Brancos em testes
“Backward Digit Span”, nos quais as pessoas têm de repetir os números na ordem inversa.
Centenas de estudos compilados no livro de Arthur Jensen “The G Factor”, mostram-nos
quão difícil é explicar as diferenças raciais nos testes de QI, apenas a partir de diferenças no
ambiente cultural.
Provavelmente, o tempo de reacção é o mais simples teste mental culturalmente
isento. No teste "odd -man -out", crianças de 9 a 12 anos olham para um conjunto de luzes.
Elas têm que escolher a que acende em primeiro lugar e pressionar o botão que está mais
28
próximo da mesma. O teste é tão fácil que todas as crianças podem fazê-lo em menos de um
segundo. Mesmo aqui as crianças com QI mais altos, são mais rápidas do que aquelas com
um QI mais baixo. Em todo o mundo as crianças Orientais são mais rápidas do que as
Brancas, que por seu turno são mais rápidas do que as crianças Negras.
Inteligência e Dimensão do Cérebro
O meu artigo com C.D. Ankney "Tamanho do Cérebro e Capacidade Cognitiva", no
número de 1996 da revista "Psychonomic Bulletin and Review", abordou toda a pesquisa
publicada sobre este tópico. Incluiu estudos que utilizaram a recente técnica (“state-of-theart”)
conhecida como Imagem por Ressonância Magnética (“Magnetic Resonance Imaging” -
MRI) que nos dá uma muito boa imagem do cérebro humano. Foram feitos oito estudos
destes envolvendo um total de 381 adultos. A correlação em termos gerais entre QI e
dimensão do cérebro medido por MRI é de 0,44. Esta é mais elevada do que a correlação de
0,20 observada em pesquisas anteriores utilizando simples medidas do tamanho da cabeça
(apesar de 0,20 ser significativo). A correlação entre o tamanho do cérebro e o QI de 0,44
obtida por MRI é tão alta como a correlação entre a classe social na qual se nasceu e o QI
quando adulto.
Diferenças Raciais em Tamanho do Cérebro
O Quadro 7 mostra que existem diferenças raciais no tamanho do cérebro. Os
Orientais têm em média mais uma polegada cubica da matéria cerebral do que os brancos que
por sua vez têm em média mais 5 polegadas cubicas do que os negros. Já que uma polegada
cúbica de matéria cerebral contêm milhões de células cerebrais e centenas de milhões de
conexões, as diferenças de tamanho cerebral ajudam-nos a explicar as diferenças raciais em
QI.
O resto deste capitulo documenta o facto de que quatro métodos diferentes de medir o
tamanho do cérebro convergem nos mesmos resultados. Esses métodos são o MRI, pesar o
cérebro na autopsia, medir o volume de crânios vazios e medir o exterior da cabeça. Note que
as diferenças raciais em tamanho do cérebro permanecem mesmo após serem feitos
ajustamentos para compensar diferenças de corpulência.
Imagens por Ressonância Magnética
Um estudo de diferenças raciais no tamanho do cérebro, utilizando MRI foi efectuado
em 100 pessoas na Inglaterra. (Foi publicado na edição de 1994 da “Psychological
Medicine”). Os africanos Negros e nativos das Caraíbas (“West Indians”) tinham em média
cérebros menores do que os Brancos. Infelizmente, o estudo não oferecia muita informação
sobre a idade, sexo e tamanho do corpo das pessoas testadas.
O Peso do Cérebro na Autópsia
No século XIX, o famoso neurologista Paul Broca constatou que os Orientais tinham
cérebros mais pesados e mais volumosos do que os Brancos, e estes, por sua vez, tinham
cérebros mais pesados e volumosos do que os Negros. Broca também descobriu que os
cérebros dos Brancos tinham mais convoluções do que os cérebros dos Negros (quanto mais
convoluções tem a superfície dum cérebro, mais células cerebrais ele pode conter). Os
cérebros dos Brancos têm também lóbulos frontais maiores que são usados no auto-controle e
planeamento.
29
Quadro 7
Volume cerebral médio para as três raças (cm3)
1267
1347
1364
1200
1220
1240
1260
1280
1300
1320
1340
1360
1380
Negros Brancos Orinetais
Fonte: Terceira edição não abreviada de “Raça Evolução e Comportamento” (pp. P-13, 113-
133, 282-284).
No início do século XX, anatomistas reportavam os pesos dos cérebros aquando da
realização de autópsias, em revistas académicas, tais como a "Science" e a "American Journal
of Physical Anthropology". Estes estudos iniciais sublinhavam que o peso dos cérebros dos
japoneses e coreanos eram aproximadamente o mesmo dos europeus, apesar de os orientais
serem mais pequenos e mais magros.
Em 1906, Robert Bean publicou um relatório sobre 150 cérebros de Negros e
Brancos autopsiados, no “American Journal of Anatomy”. O peso dos cérebros variava
segundo o grau de ancestralidade Branca desde casos em que esta era zero (=1157 gramas)
até aos casos em que existia 50% de ancestralidade Branca (=1347 gramas). Ele constatou
que os cérebros dos Negros tinham menos convoluções do que os dos Brancos e possuíam
menos fibras a ligar aos lóbulos frontais.
Muitos outros estudos sucederam-se. Em 1934, Vint anotou os resultados de um
estudo dos pesos dos cérebros de Negros africanos, obtidos durante a autopsia no “Journal of
Anatomy”. Ele descobriu que os cérebros dos africanos eram 10% mais leves do que o dos
Brancos. No número de 1934 da “Science”, Raymond Pearl coligiu os dados existentes de
autópsias efectuadas em soldados Negros e Brancos que tinham morrido na Guerra Civil
Americana (1861-1865). Ele descobriu que os cérebros dos Brancos pesavam mais 100
gramas do que os cérebros dos Negros. E também entre Negros, Pearl descobriu que o peso
do cérebro aumentava de acordo com a percentagem de ascendência branca.
Num artigo de 1970, publicado no” American Journal of Physical Athropology”,
Philip V. Tobias afirmou que todos estes estudos estavam errados. Ele disse que eles
ignoraram factores tais como "sexo, volume do corpo, idade da morte, nutrição durante a
infância, origem da amostra, ocupação e causa da morte". No entanto, quando eu próprio
calculei as médias a todos os dados do artigo de P. Tobias, observei que mesmo assim eles
indicavam que os Orientais e os Brancos têm cérebros mais pesados que os negros. Até
mesmo P. Tobias teve finalmente de admitir que os Orientais têm “milhões” de neurónios
extra quando comparados com os Brancos, e que estes têm “milhões” a mais que os Negros.
Em 1980, a equipa de Kenneth Ho confirmou as diferenças entre Negros e Brancos. O
seu estudo de autopsias foi publicado na “Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine”.
30
Ele evitou os possíveis erros apontados por P. Tobias. Dados para o peso do cérebro obtidos
em primeira mão para 1261 americanos adultos mostraram que os Brancos têm em média
mais 100g de massa cerebral que os Negros. Uma vez que os Negros incluídos nesse estudo
eram de corpulência semelhante aos Brancos , diferenças nas dimensões corporais não
explicam estas diferenças raciais no tamanho do cérebro.
Medindo o Tamanho do Crânio
Outra forma de avaliar o volume cerebral consiste em colocar material de enchimento
no interior de crânios. No século XIX, mais de 1000 crânios foram estudados pelo
antropólogo americano Samuel George Morton. Ele observou que os crânios dos negros são,
em média, 5 polegadas cúbicas mais pequenos que os dos Brancos.
Em 1942, a anatomista Katherine Simmons publicou o resultado dos seus estudos de
mais de 2000 crânios no jornal “Human Biology”. Ela confirmou os resultados anteriores de
Morton reportando que os Brancos têm crânios maiores que os Negros. Como os Negros da
sua amostra eram mais altos que os Brancos, essa diferença nas dimensões médias dos
crânios não pode ser devida a diferenças no tamanho do corpo.
Kenneth Beals e a sua equipa forneceram confirmação adicional destes resultados, na
edição de 1984 da “Current Anthropology”. Eles reportaram os dados obtidos de medições
efectuadas em mais de 20000 crânios de todo o mundo. As dimensões dos crânios variavam
conforme o lugar de origem. Crânios da Ásia Oriental eram 3 polegadas cubicas maiores que
os Europeus, que por sua vez eram 5 polegadas cubicas maiores que os originários de África.
Medição da Cabeça de Sujeitos Vivos
O tamanho do cérebro pode ser estimado a partir das medidas exteriores da cabeça. Os
resultados obtidos desta forma confirmam aqueles obtidos pelo método de encher crânios
com material de enchimento.
Eu relatei (no jornal “Intelligence”, 1992) os resultados de uma amostra de milhares
de militares do exército americano. Mesmo efectuando correcções pelas diferenças de
tamanho corporal, as cabeças dos Orientais tinham dimensões superiores aos Brancos que por
sua vez tinham dimensões superiores aos Negros (Ver quadro 2). Em 1994, eu relatei
(também na “Intelligence”) os resultados de um estudo de centenas de milhares de homens e
mulheres coligido pela “International Labour Office”, em Geneva, Suiça. As dimensões da
cabeça (corrigidas pelo tamanho do corpo) eram maiores para os nativos da Ásia Oriental. Os
Europeus tinham cabeças maiores que os Negros.
Noutro estudo (na edição de 1997 da “Intelligence”), eu escrevi sobre os resultados de
medições efectuadas em 35000 crianças que foram seguidas desde o nascimento até aos 7
anos pelo famoso “Collaborative Perinatal Study”. Logo no nascimento, aos 4 meses, um ano
e sete anos, as crianças Orientais tinham dimensões do crânio superiores às crianças Brancas
que por sua vez tinham dimensões cranianas superiores às crianças Negras (Ver Quadro 2)
Estas diferenças não eram causadas por diferenças no tamanho do corpo, porque as crianças
Negras eram mais altas e mais pesadas do que quer as crianças Brancas quer as crianças
Orientais.
Efectuando um Sumário das Diferenças de Tamanho do Cérebro
O Quadro 7 mostra o tamanho médio do cérebro para as três raças usando todas as
quatro técnicas de medição e também corrigindo (sempre que possível) de forma a compensar
as diferenças de corpulência. Os Orientais obtiveram em média 1364 cm3, os Brancos em
31
média 1347 cm3 e os Negros em média 1267 cm3. Naturalmente que as médias variam de
uma amostra para outra e que existe sobreposição entre as raças. Mas os resultados dos
diferentes métodos em diferentes amostras convergem para o mesmo padrão médio –
Orientais > Brancos > Negros.
Conclusão
Estudos de diferenças raciais no tamanho do cérebro são feitas usando um conjunto de
métodos, incluindo Imagens por Ressonância Magnética (“MRI”). Todos os métodos
produzem o mesmo resultado. Os Orientais têm (em média) os maiores cérebros, os Negros
os mais pequenos e os Brancos situam-se no meio. Estas diferenças no tamanho do cérebro
não são devidas a diferenças de dimensão corporal. Compensando as diferenças de tamanho
corporal ainda se obtêm o mesmo padrão. Este padrão de 3 vias é também válido para o QI
Estas diferenças raciais no tamanho do cérebro significam que os Orientais têm em média
mais 102 milhões de células cerebrais que os Brancos que por sua vez têm cerca de 480
milhões de células cerebrais mais que os Negros. Estas diferenças no tamanho do cérebro
provavelmente explicam as diferenças raciais no QI e nas realizações culturais.
Leituras Adicionais
Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g Factor. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Rushton, J.P. & Ankney, C.D. (1996). Brain size and cognitive ability: Correlations
with age, sex, social class, and race. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 3, 21-36
32
5
Genes, Ambiente ou Ambos?
Numerosos estudos revelam-nos que as diferenças
raciais são causadas pela acção simultânea dos genes e do
ambiente. Hereditabilidades, adopções transraciais, pesos
genéticos, regressão à média, tudo nos diz o mesmo. As
adopções entre raças dão-nos algumas das melhores provas de
que os genes causam as diferenças raciais no que respeita ao
QI. Crescer num ambiente familiar da classe média Branca,
não faz baixar o QI médio dos Orientais nem faz aumentar o QI
dos Negros.
Poderá algum factor ambiental explicar todos os dados sobre a rapidez do
desenvolvimento dental, idade da maturidade sexual, volume do cérebro, QI, nível de
testosterona e o número de nascimentos múltiplos? Os genes parecem ser determinantes. Mas
como é que podemos ter a certeza?
Algumas características são claramente hereditárias. Por exemplo, nós sabemos que as
diferenças raciais nas taxas de gestação de gémeos são devidas à hereditariedade e não ao
ambiente. Estudos realizados em crianças Orientais, Brancas e Mestiças no Hawai e de
crianças Brancas, Negras e Mestiças no Brasil mostram que é a raça da mãe e não do pai que
é o factor determinante. Todavia o papel da hereditariedade racial também é encontrada
noutras características.
Estudos Sobre a Hereditabilidade
Hereditabilidade é a fracção da variação de uma característica que é devida aos genes.
Uma hereditabilidade de 1.00 (um) significa que as diferenças são inatas e que o ambiente
não teve qualquer efeito. Uma hereditabilidade de 0.00 (zero) significa que a característica
em questão decorre apenas do ambiente e que os genes não têm qualquer efeito. Uma
hereditabilidade de 0,50 significa que as diferenças provêem de ambos : genes e ambiente.
A hereditabilidade é útil para os criadores de animais. Eles gostam de saber até que
ponto os genes influenciam coisas como, a capacidade de produção de leite, a qualidade da
carne no gado ou seleccionar quais os cães que são mais aptos a caçar e quais os que são
bons com as crianças. Quanto mais alta é a hereditabilidade, maiores são as semelhanças com
os progenitores e as crias. Por outro lado, baixas hereditabilidades significam que factores
ambientais tais como a dieta e a saúde são mais importantes.
No que toca às pessoas, mede-se a hereditabilidade comparando os membros da
família, especialmente os «verdadeiros gémeos» com os «falsos gémeos», crianças adoptadas
com os seus irmãos não-biológicos. «Gémeos verdadeiros» (gémeos monozigóticos)
partilham 100% dos seus genes, enquanto os «falsos gémeos» (gémeos dizigóticos) partilham
somente 50% dos genes, irmãos e irmãs normais também compartilham 50% dos seus genes,
enquanto que as crianças adoptadas não partilham genes. Se os genes são importantes, os
«gémeos verdadeiros» deveriam ser duplamente semelhantes um ao outro quando
comparados com os «falsos gémeos» (gémeos dizigóticos) ou irmãos normais - e de facto
assim são.
Alguns gémeos idênticos são separados no início das suas vidas e crescem separados.
O famoso Estudo sobre os Gémeos de Minnesota, feito por Thomas J.Bouchard e outros,
comparou muitos destes casos (veja-se o Quadro 8).
33
Ainda que tenham crescido em diferentes lares, os «gémeos verdadeiros» (gémeos
monozigóticos) crescem com tendência a tornarem-se muito semelhantes entre si. Eles são
parecidos nas características físicas (como o peso e as impressões digitais) e nas
características comportamentais (como o QI e a personalidade).
Os «gémeos verdadeiros» que crescem em lares diferentes partilham todos os seus
genes, mas não partilham os efeitos do meio familiar em que foram criados. Como se pode
ver no Quadro 8, a hereditariedade explica 97% das diferenças nas impressões digitais e o
ambiente somente 3%. As atitudes sociais estão repartidas em 40% para a hereditariedade e
60% para o ambiente. O QI distribui-se entre 70% para hereditariedade e 30 % para o
ambiente.
Os «gémeos verdadeiros» (gémeos monozigóticos) são frequentemente tão iguais que
nem mesmo os amigos mais chegados os conseguem diferenciar. Apesar de os gémeos do
Projecto Minnesota terem vidas separadas, eles partilhavam muitos gostos e tendiam a não
gostar das mesmas coisas. Frequentemente tinham os mesmos passatempos (hobbies),
apreciavam o mesmo tipo de música, comida e roupas. As suas formas de estar e gestos eram,
frequentemente, os mesmos. Os gémeos eram muito parecidos na idade em que se casavam (e
algumas vezes quando se divorciavam) e no tipo de emprego que escolhiam. Eles até davam
nomes semelhantes aos seus filhos e animais de estimação.
Um destes pares, os "gémeos Jim", foram adoptados ainda crianças por duas famílias
diferentes da classe trabalhadora. No entanto, eles marcaram as suas vidas com um rasto de
nomes parecidos. Ambos chamaram “Toy” ao seu animal de estimação de infância. Ambos
casaram-se e divorciaram-se com mulheres chamadas Linda e mais tarde voltaram a casar-se
com mulheres chamadas Betty. Um dos gémeos chamou o seu filho de James Allen, o outro
chamou o seu filho de James Alan.
Um outro par de gémeos separados tinha como característica o facto de desatarem a
rir ao mínimo pretexto. Cada um dos gémeos disse que os seus pais adoptivos eram muito
sérios e reservados. Cada um deles afirmou que nunca havia encontrado alguém que risse
com tanta facilidade até encontrar o seu irmão gémeo.
A hereditariedade também afecta a conduta sexual. A idade da nossa primeira
experiência sexual, a periodicidade da actividade sexual e o número total de parceiros sexuais
todos têm hereditabilidades de 50%. Assim como a probabilidade de nos divorciarmos.
Vários estudos constataram que a homossexualidade, lesbianismo e outras orientações
sexuais são 50% genéticas.
Os estudos sobre os gémeos mostram que mesmo as atitudes sociais têm uma origem
parcialmente genética. Um estudo australiano que teve por base 4.000 pares de gémeos
verificou que existe uma influência genética em questões particulares no âmbito político, tais
como: pena de morte, aborto e imigração.
Também se observa que as tendências para o crime têm uma componente hereditária.
Em cerca de 50% dos «gémeos verdadeiros» (gémeos monozigóticos) com cadastro criminal,
o outro irmão gémeo também tinha cadastro criminal, o que apenas acontecia com 25% dos
“falsos gémeos”.
Os genes influenciam a predisposição para ajudar os outros e a agressão. Um estudo
extenso, envolvendo gémeos Britânicos descobriu que o desejo de ajudar ou agredir os outros
tem uma hereditabilidade de cerca de 50%. Para os homens, envolver-se em lutas, usar armas,
estar envolvido em incidentes dom agentes da polícia todos têm uma hereditabilidade de
50%.
34
Quadro 8
Similitude entre Gémeos Idênticos criados separadamente
40
50
70
90
97
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Atitudes
Sociais
Personalidade Q.I. Ondas
Cerebrais
Impressões
Digitais
% Genéticas
Fonte: Terceira edição não abreviada de “Raça Evolução e Comportamento” (pp. 45-47).
O meu artigo, na edição de 1989 da “Behavioral and Brain Sciences”, mostra que as
pessoas com quem casamos e quem escolhemos para amigos é também em parte genética.
Quando os grupos sanguíneos e as hereditabilidades de amigos e cônjuges são comparados,
descobrimos que as pessoas escolhem parceiros geneticamente semelhantes a si. A tendência
para o semelhante atrair semelhante está enraizada nos genes.
Estudos de Adopção
Uma boa verificação dos estudos efectuados com gémeos veio dos estudos de
adopções. Um estudo dinamarquês (publicado no numero de 1984 da “Science”) examinou
14427 crianças separadas à nascença dos seus pais biológicos. A probabilidade dos rapazes
terem cadastro criminal era maior quando os seus pais biológicos também o tinham, do que
quando isto acontecia com os pais adoptivos. Embora tenham sido criados em casas
diferentes, 20% dos irmãos e 13% dos meio-irmãos tinham registos criminais semelhantes.
Apenas 9% dos rapazes sem relação de parentesco criados na mesma casa tinham
simultaneamente cadastro.
O “Colorado Adoption Project” descobriu que a influência dos genes aumenta à
medida que envelhecemos. Entre as idades de 3 e 16 anos, as crianças tornaram-se
progressivamente mais semelhantes aos seus progenitores em altura, peso e QI. Pela idade de
16 anos as crianças adoptadas já não se assemelhavam às pessoas que as criaram. A
hereditabilidade da altura, do peso e do QI na infância são todos de cerca de 30%. Pela
adolescência, ela já é de 50% e na idade adulta de 80%. Assim, à medida que as crianças
crescem, o ambiente domestico vai tendo cada vez menos impacto, e os genes vão tendo cada
vez mais, exactamente o inverso do que a teoria cultural prediz.
Raça e Hereditabilidade
Pode a hereditabilidade dizer-nos algo sobre as diferenças entre as raças? Sim, e
muito! Os estudos mostram-nos que quando uma determinada hereditabilidade é alta nos
35
Brancos, ela também alta nos Orientais e nos Negros. Quando é baixa nos Brancos, ela
também é baixa nos Orientais e nos Negros. Por exemplo, a hereditabilidade do QI é de cerca
de 50% para Negros, Orientais e outros grupos , tal como o é para os Brancos. Por isso existe
uma base genética para a inteligência em todas as 3 raças.
Um estudo utilizou o “Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery” (ASVAB),
usado para muitos homens e mulheres que pretendem ingressar nas forças armadas. Este
estudo descobriu que em todas as 3 raças a similitude entre irmãos era a mesma. A influencia
genética dos genes no QI é semelhante para Orientais, Brancos e Negros. Não existe nenhum
factor especial, como o legado da escravatura ou o racismo Branco, que faça com que as
influências culturais sejam mais fortes numa raça do que noutra.
Estudos sobre Adopções Trans-raciais
A melhor prova para explicar que as diferenças de QI têm uma base genética resulta
dos estudos sobre adopções trans-raciais em crianças Orientais, crianças Negras e crianças
Mestiças. Todas estas crianças foram adoptadas em tenra idade por pais Brancos e foram
criadas nestas famílias Brancas da classe média.
Um estudo trans-racial de adopção muito conhecido é o do “Minnesota Project” de
Sandra Scarr. Os adoptados eram bebés Brancos, Negros e Mestiços (de pais Brancos e
Negros). As crianças realizaram testes de QI quando fizeram 7 anos de idade e novamente
aos 17 anos.
No seu relatório inicial, os autores pensavam que o seu estudo provaria que um bom
lar poderia aumentar o QI das crianças Negras. Aos 7 anos de idade o seu QI era de 97, muito
acima da média dos Negros que é de 85 e quase igual à média dos Brancos que é de 100.
Todavia, quando as crianças voltaram a fazer os testes de QI aos 17 anos os resultados
contavam uma outra história (publicado na edição de 1992 da revista “Intelligence” ).
Aos 7 anos de idade, as crianças adoptadas Negras, Mestiças e Brancas, tinham todas
resultados de QI mais elevados do que a média dos grupos raciais a que pertenciam. Terem
crescido num bom ambiente familiar tinha ajudado todos. Mesmo assim, o padrão racial era
tal e qual o previsto pela teoria genética e não pela teoria cultural. As crianças Negras
educadas nesses bons ambientes familiares tinham, em média, um QI de 97, as crianças
Mestiças um QI de 109 e as crianças Brancas um QI de 112.
As provas a favor da teoria genética tornaram-se ainda mais evidentes à medida que as
crianças cresceram. Aos 17 anos de idade, o QI das crianças adoptadas aproximou-se da
média do QI dos respectivos grupos raciais. Assim, aos 17 anos de idade, as crianças Brancas
adoptadas tinham um QI de cerca de 106, as crianças Mestiças adoptadas um QI de cerca de
99 e as crianças Negras adoptadas um QI de cerca de 89. Os resultados dos testes de QI não
são a única prova neste relatório. A performance académica, as suas classificações dentro das
turmas (“class ranks”), e os testes de aptidão evidenciaram esse mesmo padrão.
Quando Sandra Scarr obteve os resultados do seu relatório de acompanhamento aos
17 anos de idade, mudou de opinião acerca da causa pela qual os Brancos e os Negros
diferem. Ela escreveu « os adoptados provenientes de ambos os pais Afro-Americanos
revelaram um QI que não era especialmente superior aos das crianças Negras que cresceram
em famílias Negras .» Crescer numa família Branca da classe média produz pouco ou
nenhum aumento duradouro no QI das crianças Negras.
Alguns psicólogos discordaram dela. Argumentaram que foram os "efeitos de
expectativa", e não os gene,s que explicaram o padrão obtido. Argumentaram que as crianças
Brancas e Negras não foram tratadas da mesma maneira. Mesmo que os pais tenham tratado
bem as crianças Negras adoptadas, as escolas, os professores e a sociedade no seu conjunto
discriminam contra as crianças Negras o que afectaria o seu QI. Porque nós esperamos que as
36
crianças Negras sejam medíocres na escola elas vivem de acordo com as nossas baixas
expectativas.
Haverá alguma forma de decidir entre a teoria genética e a teoria da expectativa?
Sim, existe. Uma análise especial do estudo Scarr compara os pais que acreditavam que
tinham adoptado um bebé Negro quando na realidade tinham adoptado um bebé Mestiço. O
QI médio destas crianças Mestiças era idêntico ao das outras crianças Mestiças adoptadas e
superior ao das crianças Negras adoptadas. Este facto também se aplicava aos casos das
crianças que os pais adoptivos pensavam serem Mestiças quando na realidade eram crianças
filhas de pais Negros.
O Quadro 9 resume os resultados em crianças Orientais adoptadas por casais Brancos
da classe média. As crianças coreanas e vietnamitas de origem humilde, muitas delas
encontradas mal nutridas foram adoptadas por famílias de americanos Brancos e de famílias
belgas. Quando cresceram evidenciaram-se nos resultados escolares. Os QI das crianças
Orientais adoptadas eram 10 pontos mais altos do que a média nacional dos países onde
cresceram. A adopção trans-racial não faz aumentar ou diminuir o QI. O modelo padrão de 3
vias relativo às diferenças raciais permanece intacto.
O “Minnesota Tranracial Adoption Study” também revelou que existem diferenças
raciais no que toca à personalidade. Os jovens Negros de 17 anos são mais activos e
desordeiros do que um jovem Branco de 17 anos. As crianças coreanas criadas em famílias de
Americanos Brancos são mais sossegadas e menos activas do que as crianças Brancas.
Quadro 9
QI’s de Crianças Adoptadas de Várias Raças Após Terem Sido Criadas em Lares de
Brancos de Classe Média. (Média dos resultados nas idades de 7 e 17 anos).
93
104 109 112
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Negro de país
biológicos
Mestiço (Branco-
Negro) Pais
Biologicos
Branco Pais
Biologicos
Asiatico Pais
Biologicos
QI
Fonte: Terceira edição não abreviada de “Raça Evolução e Comportamento” (pp. 187-194).
As Hereditabilidades Predizem as Diferenças Raciais
Existem outras formas de testar a influência dos genes e do ambiente nas diferenças
raciais no que respeita ao QI. Alguns itens dos testes possuem uma mais alta hereditabilidade,
i.e. estão mais dependentes de hereditariedade do os outros itens. Se os genes são
responsáveis pelas diferenças de QI entre Negros e Brancos, então os Negros e Brancos
também deveriam diferenciar-se nos itens com maior componente hereditária. O livro de
Arthur Jensen, publicado em 1998, "The g Factor" revela-nos que na realidade, as diferenças
37
raciais são maiores nos testes com maior predominância do factor hereditário, inclusive nas
crianças que mal começam a andar (“toddlers”).
A depressão consanguínea (“Inbreeding Depression”) permite também testar o facto
de os genes explicarem as diferenças entre Brancos e Negros. Ela ocorre quando os genes
recessivos nocivos se combinam entre si e provocam uma diminuição na altura, no estado de
saúde e no QI. A depressão consanguínea é mais provável quando as crianças nascem de
relações de parentesco, como, por exemplo, entre primos. A maioria dos testes de QI são
realizados a partir de sub-testes tais como: vocabulário, memória e capacidade de raciocínio
lógico.
Os filhos de pais que são primos entre si têm um menor QI do que as outras crianças,
e os seus resultados são piores em alguns dos sub-testes de QI do que nos outros. Quanto
mais a depressão consanguínea afecta um sub-teste, mais ficamos a saber que os genes
afectam o desempenho nesse sub-teste. Consequentemente, a teoria genética prediz que os
testes que mostram de forma mais clara a depressão consanguínea são também os testes em
que deveriam ser mais evidentes as diferenças entre Brancos e Negros.
Num estudo publicado em 1989 pela revista “Intelligence”, observei em que medida a
depressão consanguínea afectava os resultados de 11 sub-testes de um conhecido teste de QI
incidindo sobre casamentos entre primos ocorridos no Japão. Em seguida, comparei os subtestes
que mais salientavam a ocorrência da depressão consanguínea com os sub-testes que
nos EUA mais evidenciam as diferenças raciais entre Negros e Brancos. Os sub-testes que
mais fazem sobressair o efeito da depressão consanguínea são também os mesmos que
melhor mostram as diferenças entre Negros e Brancos. Considerando que os dados da
depressão consanguínea provêem de um estudo efectuado sobre o casamento entre primos no
Japão, as diferenças culturais entre Brancos e Negros nos EUA não podem explicar porque é
os Negros teriam mais dificuldades com alguns dos sub-testes de QI.
Regressão em Relação à Média
A Regressão em relação à Média fornece-nos um outro meio de testar se as
diferenças raciais têm uma base genética. Os filhos de pais muito altos são mais altos que a
média. Contudo são mais baixos que os seus pais e estão mais próximos da média da sua
própria raça. Da mesma maneira, os filhos de pais muitos baixos são mais baixos do que a
média, mas mais altos do que os seus pais. Esta é a chamada Lei de Regressão em Relação à
Média. Ela não é somente verdadeira para a altura, mas também para o QI. A maioria das
características físicas e psicológicas evidenciam algum efeito de regressão.
A Regressão em Relação à Média sucede quando pessoas muito altas (ou com elevado
QI), procriam e transmitem apenas parte, mas não a totalidade dos seus genes excepcionais
aos seus descendentes. O mesmo sucede com as pessoas muito baixas (ou de baixo QI). É
como lançar um par de dados e saírem dois 6 ou dois 2. As probabilidades são de que num
próximo lançamento, obter-se-á um valor que não é tão alto ou tão baixo.
Aqui se pode ver o porquê da regressão ser tão importante para os nossos estudos.
Porque os Brancos e Negros são oriundos de raças distintas têm muitos genes diferentes. A
Lei da Regressão prevê que, para uma determinada característica influenciada pela
hereditariedade, as medições dessa mesma característica apresentarão resultados que se irão
aproximando da média do grupo. A Lei da Regressão prevê que nos EUA, crianças Negras
cujos pais têm um QI de 115, regressarão à média dos afro-americanos que é de 85, enquanto
que as crianças Brancas com pais com QI de 115 regressarão á média dos Brancos que é de
100.
A Lei também se aplica no lado inverso da escala. As crianças Negras com pais de QI
de 70 tendem a subir na direcção da média de QI de 85 dos Negros, mas as crianças Brancas
38
com pais com um QI de 70 tenderão a atingir a média dos Brancos que é um QI de 100.
Quando testamos estas previsões com o que acontece entre pais e filhos observamos que são
verdadeiras.
A Lei da Regressão à Média também é válida entre irmãos. Assim, em crianças
Negras e Brancas escolhidas de forma a ambas terem um QI de 120, os respectivos irmãos
demonstram níveis diferentes de Regressão à Média. Os irmãos das referidas crianças Negras
tendem a regressar em direcção a um QI de 85, enquanto que os irmãos das crianças Brancas
tendem a regredir para um QI de 100. Em relação ao outro extremo da escala, o inverso
também é verdadeiro. Crianças Brancas e Negras que coincidam num QI de 70 têm irmãos
que regridem de forma diferente. Os irmãos das crianças Negras tendem a alcançar uma
média de 85, enquanto que os irmãos da crianças Brancas tendem a atingir a média de 100.
A Lei da Regressão à Média explica também um outro resultado curioso. Crianças
Negras nascidas de pais ricos tem QI que são 2 a 4 pontos inferiores aos das crianças Brancas
filhas de pais pobres. Os pais Negros com elevado QI não conseguiram transmitir a
vantagem do respectivo QI aos seus filhos, mesmo considerando que lhes deram boa
alimentação, boa assistência médica e escolas de qualidade. Somente a combinação de genes
e do ambiente permite uma explicação completa.
Conclusão
Os genes desempenham um papel muito importante no QI, na personalidade, nas
atitudes e em outros comportamentos. Tal é inteiramente verdade seja para os Orientais,
Brancos ou Negros. Os estudos de adopção trans-racial (em que crianças de uma determinada
raça são adoptados e educados por pais de outra raça), os estudos sobre a regressão para o
nível médio (que compara pais e irmãos de grupos raciais diferentes) e os estudos sobre a
influência da depressão consanguínea ( que estudam os filhos de pais aparentados entre si por
laços de sangue) fornecem a prova de que os genes são responsáveis pela diferenças entre as
raças, em termos de QI e de personalidade. Nenhuma teoria puramente cultural pode explicar
estes resultados, os quais não só podem ser explicados mas também previstos pela teoria
genética.
Leituras Adicionais
Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g Factor. Wesport, CT: Praeger
Weinberg, R. A., Scarr, S., & Waldman, I. D. (1992) The Minnesota Transracial
Adoption Study: A follow-up of IQ test performance at adolescence. Intelligence, 16,
117-135
39
6
Teoria da História da Vida
A teoria r-K das histórias da vida explica globalmente o
padrão de três vias das diferenças raciais. A estratégia r
significa ser sexualmente muito activo, ter muitos descendentes.
A estratégia K significa ter menos descendentes, mas em
contrapartida dar-lhes mais atenção. Os humanos são, de entre
todas as espécies, a que usa de forma mais extrema a estratégia
K. Entre os humanos, os Orientais são os que seguem mais a
estratégia K, os Negros os que seguem mais a estratégia r e os
Brancos ficam numa posição intermédia.
Os capítulos anteriores mostraram que existem importantes diferenças raciais
relativamente à dimensão do cérebro, níveis hormonais, até mesmo no desenvolvimento
ósseo e dental, assim como no comportamento sexual, agressividade e criminalidade. O
padrão de três vias, no qual as raças diferem, Orientais num extremo, Negros no outro e os
Brancos no meio, é válido no mundo inteiro. Um olhar sobre a história mostra que as
diferenças raciais que observamos hoje também eram visíveis no passado.
Porque é que as raças diferem? É evidente que a pobreza, nutrição e outros factores
culturais são razões importantes. Mas também o são os genes. A teoria cultural por si só não
pode explicar todas as observações.
A Teoria r-K da História da Vida (“r-K Life History Theory”)
E. O. Wilson, biólogo da Universidade de Harvard, foi o primeiro a usar a designação
de Teoria r-K da História da Vida. Ele usou-a para explicar as variações populacionais em
plantas e animais. Eu apliquei-a às raças humanas.
Uma história de vida (“life-history”) é um conjunto de características mediadas pelos
genes e que evoluíram em conjunto para fazer face aos desafios da vida - sobrevivência,
crescimento e reprodução. Para os nossos propósitos, r é um termo que na equação de
Wilson designa a taxa natural de reprodução (o número de descendentes). O símbolo K
designa a quantidade de cuidados que os progenitores dispensam para assegurar que os seus
descendentes sobreviverão. As plantas e os animais têm diferentes estratégias de histórias de
vida. Umas são mais r outras são relativamente mais K.
Os estrategas r e K diferem quanto ao número de óvulos que produzem. Os estratégas
r são como metralhadoras. Disparam tantos tiros que pelo menos um acabará por acertar no
alvo. Os estrategas r produzem muitos óvulos e esperma, acasalam e reproduzem-se
frequentemente. Os estrategas K, pelo seu lado, são como atiradores especiais (“snipers”).
Muito tempo e esforço concentrado apenas em poucos, mas bem colocados disparos. Os
estrategas K despendem muita atenção aos seus descendentes. Trabalham em conjunto para
obterem alimentação e abrigo, ajudam os seus parentes e tem um sistema social complexo. É
por isso que os estrategas K precisam de uma sistema nervosos mais complexo e um cérebro
maior, mas produzem menos óvulos e esperma.
Esta lei básica da evolução estabelece a ligação entre a estratégia reprodutiva e a
inteligência e desenvolvimento de cérebro. Quanto menor for a complexidade do cérebro de
um animal, maior será a sua taxa de reprodução. Quanto maior for o cérebro do animal,
maior será o tempo para atingir a maturidade sexual e menor o número de descendentes que
produz (vide Quadro 10). As ostras, por exemplo têm um sistema nervoso tão simples que
lhes falta um verdadeiro cérebro. Compensam com a produção de 500 milhões de ovos por
40
ano. Em contraste, os chimpanzés tem grandes cérebros, mas dão à luz uma única cria
aproximadamente de 4 em 4 anos.
Em diferentes espécies de plantas e de animais encontramos um padrão consistente
entre 2 variáveis: inteligência e taxa de reprodução. O número de descendentes, o espaço de
tempo entre nascimentos, a quantidade de cuidados dada pelos pais, a mortalidade infantil, a
velocidade de maturação, a esperança de vida, até mesmo a organização social, altruísmo e
dimensão do cérebro são elementos que encaixam entre si como as peças de um puzzle. O
puzzle completo forma um quadro a que os biólogos chamam de Estratégia r-K de História de
Vida.
A história de vida do tipo r envolve taxas mais altas de reprodução, enquanto que a
estratégia do tipo K requer grande atenção parental e o uso de atributos mentais. Dado que
cérebros grandes precisam de mais tempo para se desenvolverem todos os estádios de
desenvolvimento são também mais lentos.
O período de gestação dos primatas dotados de pequenos cérebros (como os lémures
ou os macacos) é de 18 semanas. Mas para todos os primatas com grandes cérebros ( como os
chimpanzés ou os gorilas) o prazo é de 33 semanas. Alguns macacos tem a sua primeira
gravidez com a idade de 9 meses. Gorilas, que tem cérebros maiores e mais inteligência, tem
a sua primeira gravidez aos 10 anos.
Quadro 10
A Escala r-K Estratégias Reproductivas:
Produção de Ovos versus Cuidados Paternais
As ostras são um exemplo de uma estratégia muito r. Elas produzem 500 milhões de ovos
fertilizados por ano e não dispensam qualquer protecção paternal. Os grandes primatas são um
exemplo de uma estratégia muito K. Eles produzem um filho cada seis ou sete anos mas dispensamlhe
muita protecção paternal.
Fonte: Terceira edição não abreviada de “Raça Evolução e Comportamento” (p. 202).
Os macacos nascem com um cérebro com quase 100% do tamanho do cérebro de
adulto, enquanto que os chimpanzés e gorilas nascem com cerca de 60% do tamanho do
cérebro de adulto. Os bebés humanos nascem com um cérebro que é cerca de 30% do
tamanho do cérebro de adulto. Nos primeiros meses de vida os macacos têm um melhor
desempenho nos testes de comportamento motor e sensorial do que os chimpanzés e gorilas.
E os bebés de chimpanzés e gorilas por sua vez, são melhores do que os bebés humanos
nestas tarefas. A relação r-K é verdadeira para diferentes espécies e também se aplica aos
humanos.
41
Quadro 11
Algumas diferenças em termos de História de Vida
entre Estrategas r e Estratégas-K
Estratéga-r Estratéga-K
Características Familiares
Ninhadas numerosas Ninhadas pequenas
Pequeno intervalo entre nascimentos Grande intervalo entre nascimentos
Muitos descendentes Poucos Descendentes
Grande mortalidade infantil Pequena mortalidade infantil
Pouco cuidado paternal Muito cuidado paternal
Características Individuais
Maturação rápida Maturação lenta
Inicio cedo da reprodução sexual Reprodução sexual tardia
Vida breve Vida longa
Grande esforço reprodutivo Pequeno esforço reprodutivo
Grande utilização de energia Eficiente utilização de energia
Cérebros mais pequenos Cérebros maiores
Características Populacionais
Exploradores Oportunistas Exploradores consistentes
Colonizadores dispersos Ocupantes estáveis
Tamanho da população variável Tamanho da população estável
Fraca competição Forte competição
Características do sistema social
Baixo nível de organização social Alto nível de organização social
Baixo altruísmo Alto Altruísmo
Fonte: Terceira edição não abreviada de “Raça Evolução e Comportamento” (p. 203).
O Quadro 10 mostra uma variedade de animais inseridos na escala r-K. Espécies
diferentes só de forma relativa poderão ser consideradas r ou K. Os coelhos são estrategas K
se comparados com os peixes. Todavia os coelhos já serão estrategas r se comparados com os
primatas (macacos, chimpanzés, gorilas e humanos são os maiores estrategas K entre os
mamíferos). Os humanos serão mesmo de todas as espécies a que mais usa a estratégia K. E
alguns humanos são melhores estrategas K que outros.
O quadro11 enumera os traços típicos das estratégias reprodutivas r e K. Cada
espécie e cada raça têm uma certa história de vida que nós podemos descrever em termos de
r-K. A posição de cada espécie ou de cada raça na escala r-K mostra a estratégia que deu aos
seus respectivos antepassados as melhores hipóteses para terem conseguido sobreviver no
seu habitat.
O Quadro 12 apresenta as diferentes fases da vida e tempo de gestação ( da concepção
ao nascimento) em relação a 6 primatas diferentes. Numa escala ascendente em termos de K,
parte-se do lémure ao macaco, ao gibão, ao chimpanzé, aos primeiros homens até ao homem
actual. Cada etapa na escala mostra que a espécie em causa investe mais tempo e energia em
cuidar os seus filhos e em assegurar a sua sobrevivência. Cada etapa da escala significa
também uma menor descendência. É de notar também as diferentes durações de cada uma das
fases para cada uma das diferentes espécies. Só os humanos têm a fase pós-reprodutiva (i.e.
depois da menopausa).
As diferenças que existem mesmo entre os primatas em termos de estratégias r-K são
importantes. A fêmea lémure usa uma estratégia r no âmbito dos primatas. Tem a sua
primeira gestação com apenas 9 meses de idade e a sua esperança de vida não ultrapassa os
15 anos. A fêmea gorila é uma estratega K. Tem a sua primeira gravidez aos 10 anos de idade
42
e uma esperança de vida que pode ir até aos 40 anos. O lemure pode chegar a adulto, ter as
suas crias e morrer antes sequer da gorila fêmea ter a sua primeira cria.
Quadro 12
Aumento dos periodos de gestação, logenvidade e fases de vida nos Primates
Fonte: Terceira edição não abreviada de “Raça Evolução e Comportamento” (p. 205).
Diferenças raciais e estratégias r-K
Como é que as três raças se distribuem na escala r-K? Olhe atrás para o padrão de
diferenças raciais, no quadro 1. Compare-os com os traços distintivos r-K do Quadro 11. Os
Orientais são os mais K, os Negros os mais r e os Brancos situam-se no meio. Ser mais r
significa :
• menor tempo de gestação;
• maturidade física precoce (Controlo muscular, desenvolvimento dental e dos ossos);
• menores cérebros;
• puberdade mais cedo ( idade da primeira menstruação, da primeira relação sexual, da
primeira gravidez);
• características sexuais primárias mais desenvolvidas ( tamanho do pénis, vagina,
testículos, ovários);
• características sexuais secundárias mais desenvolvidas (voz, musculatura, nádegas e
seios);
• controle do comportamento mais biológico que social ( extensão do prazo menstrual,
periodicidade da resposta sexual, predizibilidade da história de vida desde o início da
puberdade);
• Mais altos níveis de hormonas sexuais (testosterona, hormonas gónadotrofinas, hormonas
estimulantes dos folículos);
43
• Mais altos níveis de individualidade (menor tendência para respeitar regras);
• atitudes sexuais mais permissivas;
• maior frequência de relações sexuais (pré-marital, marital e extra-marital);
• menos intensos os laços de união dos casais;
• maior numero de irmãos;
• maiores taxas de crianças abandonadas ou negligenciadas;
• maior incidência de doenças;
• menor esperança de vida;
Testosterona - o Comutador Principal (“The Master Switch”)?
A testosterona pode ser o comutador que fixa a posição das raças numa escala de r-K.
Sabemos que esta hormona sexual masculina age sobre o ego (“self-concept”),
temperamento, sexualidade, agressividade e altruísmo. Controla o desenvolvimento muscular
e a tonalidade da voz. Pode ainda contribuir para a agressão e comportamentos
problemáticos. Um estudo realizado com 4000 veteranos dos serviços militares revelou que
níveis elevados de testosterona estavam ligados a maior criminalidade, maior dependência de
drogas ou álcool, mau comportamento militar e múltiplos parceiros sexuais.
Podemos, por conseguinte, ver como é que diferentes níveis de testosterona entre as
raças podem explicar as diferenças de comportamento em termos de r-K. Com níveis mais
elevados de testosterona, os Negros terão tendência a despender mais tempo e energia a
procriar. Em contrapartida, os Asiáticos e os Brancos com menores níveis de testosterona,
despendem mais tempo e energia a cuidarem de menos filhos e em estabelecerem planos a
prazo. Mas como é que isto aconteceu? E porquê? Para obtermos as respostas devemos
viramo-nos para as origens do homem e para a teoria “Out of Africa” de evolução racial.
Conclusão
A Teoria r-k da História da Vida, um princípio básico da moderna biologia
evolucionária, permite explicar o padrão de três vias das diferenças raciais no que toca à
dimensão do cérebro, QI e comportamento, anteriormente descritas. Todas as espécies de
animais ou de plantas podem ser inseridas numa escala r-K. No extremo r da escala
encontramos mais descendência, maturidade mais precoce, cérebros mais pequenos e menor
atenção dos progenitores. No extremo K da escala temos menor progenitura, maturidade
tardia, maiores cérebros e mais cuidado parental. Os humanos são entre as espécies a mais K
de todas. Entre os humanos, os Orientais são a mais K, os Negros a mais r e os Brancos
situam-se a meio.
Leituras Adicionais
Johanson, D. C. & Edey, M. A. (1981). Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind. New
York: Simon & Schuster.
Lovejoy, C. O. (1981). The Origin of Man. Science, 211, 341-350.
44
7
Fora de África
A última teoria sobre a origem do Homem - Fora de
África (“Out of Africa”)- dá-nos a última peça do puzzle. Ela
explica porque é que a teoria r-K consegue explicar as
diferenças raciais no corpo, cérebro e comportamento. À
medida que as raças partiram para fora de África evoluíram,
afastando-se dos comportamentos do tipo r em direcção a
comportamentos do tipo K. Deixar a África significou aumentar
o tamanho do cérebro e o QI, mas diminuir os níveis de
reprodução, agressividade e de actividade sexual.
Com base na sua teoria da evolução, Charles Darwin pensava que a África era «o
berço da Humanidade». Não tinha quaisquer fósseis que lhe permitissem comprovar a sua
teoria, mas no entanto concluiu que os humanos tinham vindo de África ao observar os
chimpanzés e os gorilas. Se os grandes macacos africanos eram os nossos "parentes" vivos
mais próximos, fazia sentido considerar que os humanos teriam evoluído no único continente
onde existiam as três espécies.
Provas oriundas da genética, dos registos fósseis, e da arqueologia têm vindo a provar
que Darwin estava certo. A linha humana iniciou-se com a espécie fóssil africana chamada
Australopithecus. Antepassados posteriores do Homem como o Homo erectus e o Homo
sapiens também apareceram pela primeira vez em África.
Os Homo sapiens eram totalmente humanos. Eles existiam em África há menos de
200 000 anos. Há cerca de 100 000 partiram para o Médio-Oriente e mais tarde espalharamse
pelo Mundo. Eles substituíram os grupos do homem de Neanderthal e do Homo erectus
que encontraram através de lutas ou pela disputa de recursos.
Quando os homens modernos abandonaram África, passaram a desenvolver os traços
raciais que vemos hoje, à medida que se adaptavam às novas regiões e climas. A primeira
separação da linha humana deu-se há cerca de 100 000 anos entre os grupos que ficaram em
África (antepassados dos actuais Negros) e aqueles que deixaram África. E há cerca de 40
000 anos, o grupo que deixou África voltou a dividir-se entre os antepassados dos actuais
Orientais e Brancos.
Esta história da emigração de África primeiro para a Europa e posteriormente a Ásia
Oriental explica porque é que os Brancos se situam a meio entre os Negros e os Orientais
quanto às variáveis da história de vida. A separação entre Africanos e não-Africanos ocorreu
primeiro, há quase o dobro do tempo da que ocorreu posteriormente entre os antepassados
dos actuais Orientais e Brancos.
A teoria de "Out of Africa" (Fora de África) explica porque existe um bom ajuste
entre a História de vida em termos de r-K e as diferenças raciais. É difícil sobreviver em
África . Em África ocorrem secas imprevisíveis e epidemias mortais que alastram
rapidamente. Muitos mais africanos morrem jovens do que Orientais ou Brancos,
frequentemente devido a doenças tropicais. Nestas condições existentes em África, o cuidado
parental não é a melhor aposta para garantir que um seu filho vai sobreviver. Uma estratégia
melhor é simplesmente ter mais filhos. Isto faz tender a sua História de Vida no sentido do
extremo r da escala r-K. Uma estratégia mais r significa não só mais descendentes e menos
atenção parental como também significa menor transmissão de “bagagem” cultural de pais
para filhos e tal tende a reduzir a capacidade intelectual necessária para funcionar em cultura.
E o processo continua de uma geração para a próxima.
45
Em contraste, os humanos que migraram para a Eurasia depararam-se com problemas
inteiramente novos, como obter e conservar os alimentos, providenciar abrigos, fabricar
vestuário e criar os filhos, durante os longos invernos. Estas tarefas eram mais exigentes em
termos de capacidades intelectuais. Eram necessários maiores cérebros e menores taxas de
crescimento. Eram suficientes menores níveis de hormonas sexuais, logo menor potência
sexual e agressividade e maior estabilidade familiar e longevidade. Deixar os trópicos em
troca dos continentes a Norte significou abandonar uma estratégia r em favor de uma
estratégia K, com tudo o que isso acarretou.
A Prova
Como é que podemos saber se a teoria de "Out of Africa" é correcta? Para respondermos a
esta pergunta, temos que olhar para as provas oriundas da genética, paleontologia e
arqueologia.
O livro "The History and Geography of Human Genes" (1994), de Luigi Cavalli-
Sforza e dos seus colegas debruça-se sobre milhares de comparações do ADN relativos às
raças. Os geneticistas contaram o número de mutações de genes em cada grupo por forma
medirem os grupos que estavam mais directamente relacionados e em que momento esses
grupos se separaram uns dos outros. Estes estudos relativos ao ADN comprovaram a teoria de
"Out of Africa" que a separação entre Africanos e os restantes grupos foi a primeira a
ocorrer.
Fósseis de homens pré-históricos revelam-nos que os primeiros passos da nossa
evolução tiveram lugar em África. O Homo sapiens viveu em África entre 200 000 a 100 000
anos atrás, mas só alcançou o Médio-Oriente há 100 000 anos. Os hominídeos anteriores
como o Homem de Neanderthal eram muito diferentes dos actuais homens, tinham rostos
proeminentes e os dentes da frente maiores do que os actuais Africanos, Europeus e
Orientais. O Homem de Neanderthal tinha também ossos mais densos, crâneos mais espessos,
e arcos supraciliares mais pronunciados do que os actuais homens. Tanto assim que por
comparação, se pode dizer que hoje todos os humanos são parecidos, apesar das diferenças
raciais.
A arqueologia conta-nos a mesma história. A rude cultura da Primeira Idade da Pedra
(Paleolítico Inferior) do Homos erectus, existiu durante mais de um milhão de anos até o
aparecimento do Homo sapiens. O kit de ferramentas da primeira idade da pedra tinha
machados, cortadores e lâminas, todas muito semelhantes na forma. No entanto, o kit de
ferramentas da segunda idade da pedra (denominado Paleolítico Médio) incluía ferramentas
de pedra mais avançadas e uso de osso na construção de ferramentas.
Quando os homens modernos apareceram em cena pela primeira vez há cerca de 100
000 anos, as coisas começaram a mudar de forma substancial. O kit de ferramentas da ultima
idade da pedra (denominado Paleolítico Superior) era altamente especializado. Consistia em
lâminas mais finas que eram extraídas dos núcleos das pedras para fazer facas, pontas de
lanças, raspadores e cortadores. Ferramentas estandardizadas de osso e chifre apareceram
pela primeira vez , incluindo as primeiras agulhas para coser roupa. O kit de ferramentas da
ultima idade da pedra continha ferramentas feitas de várias partes atadas ou coladas entre si.
Pontas de seta eram montadas no corpo da flecha e as lâminas de machado eram montadas
em cabos. Corda era usada para fazer redes com que se apanhavam raposas, coelhos e outros
pequenos animais. Armas avançadas como arpões serrilhados , dardos, alavancas para lanças,
e arcos e flechas deram aos povos da ultima idade da pedra a capacidade de matar animais a
partir de uma distância de segurança.
Sobreviver no Noroeste da Ásia há 40 000 anos também requeria roupas quentes.
Arqueólogos encontraram agulhas, pinturas rupestres representando parcas, e ornamentos
46
funerários que marcavam os contornos de camisas e calças. Sabemos que usavam peles.
Esqueletos de raposas e lobos a que faltam as patas indicam-nos que estes animais eram
esfolados para fazer roupas de pele. As casas eram parcialmente subterrâneas para oferecer
melhor isolamento. Estas grandes habitações eram marcadas pela existência de furos para
postes e tinham paredes feitas de ossos de mamute. Lareiras e lamparinas de pedra eram
usadas para iluminar a longa noite do inverno Árctico.
Geografia e Raça
A África é mais quente que os continentes do Norte mas é também um ambiente
menos estável. Secas, tempestades e doenças provocadas por vírus, bactérias e parasitas
causam uma elevada mortalidade, mesmo hoje em dia. Sem a ajuda da moderna medicina,
garantir a sobrevivência em África significava ter muitos filhos (estratégia r). Nos ambientes
mais estáveis da Europa e da Ásia, a sobrevivência era garantida tendo menos filhos, mas
dando-lhes mais apoio (estratégia K).
O ambiente da Eurásia produziu diferenças físicas entre as raças. Na Europa do Norte,
frequentemente nublada, a luz do sul brilhava com pouca frequência, o que diminuía a
produção de vitamina D, por isso uma cor de pele e de cabelo teve de evoluir para aproveitar
o máximo da pouca luz Solar. Como resultado, os europeus que nasciam com uma pele e
cabelo mais claros eram mais saudáveis e tinham melhores probabilidades de terem crianças
capazes de sobreviver e, por sua vez, de se reproduzir.
A Ásia Oriental era ainda mais fria do que a Europa do Norte mas tinha menos
cobertura nublosa e mais dias de Sol. Ali, uma camada mais espessa de gordura corporal
ajudava a proteger do frio. Isto dá a muitos orientais um compleição “amarela” porque reduz
a visibilidade das veias de sangue vermelho perto da superfície da pele. Entretanto, em
África, a melanina dá à pele uma cor negra para a proteger dos raios escaldantes do Sol.
As diferenças climáticas também influenciaram as capacidades mentais. Em África,
uma temperatura amena e alimento estavam disponíveis todo o ano. Para sobreviver aos
invernos frios, as populações que imigraram para norte tiveram de se tornar mais inventivas.
Eles tiveram de encontrar novas fontes de alimento e métodos de a preservar. Tiveram de
fazer vestuário e abrigos para se proteger dos elementos. Sem eles teriam morrido. Ambos os
pais tiveram de dar mais apoio aos seus filhos para que eles conseguissem sobreviver em
climas mais agrestes.
Os Brancos e os Orientais na Eurásia tiveram de encontrar alimento e manter-se
aquecidos em climas mais frios. Nos trópicos, os alimentos vegetais eram abundantes durante
todo o ano. Na Europa e na Ásia esses mesmos alimentos só estavam disponíveis em
determinadas estações e eram impossíveis de obter durante muitos dos meses de Inverno e da
Primavera.
Para sobreviver aos longos invernos, os antepassados dos actuais Brancos e Orientais
fizeram ferramentas e armas complexas para pescar e caçar animais. Eles fizeram pontas de
lança que podiam matar animais de grande porte a maior distância e facas para cortar e
esfolar. Fogueiras, vestuário e abrigos foram construídos para providenciar conforto. Agulhas
de osso foram usadas para cozer peles de animais e abrigos foram construídos com grandes
ossos e peles.
O fabrico de ferramentas mais especializadas, lareiras, vestuário e abrigos necessitava
de inteligência mais alta. O movimento “Out of Africa” significou um movimento no sentido
de uma estratégia mais K em termos de história de vida. Isto significou mais altos QI ,
cérebros maiores, crescimento mais lento e mais baixos níveis de certas hormonas. Também
significou níveis mais baixos de sexualidade, agressão e comportamento impulsivo. Mais
47
estabilidade familiar, mais capacidade de planeamento, mais auto-controle, maior
predisposição para seguir regras, e maior longevidade foram necessárias.
Conclusão
O registo fóssil, a arqueologia, e os estudos genéticos do ADN das raças existentes
suportam a suspeita de Charles Darwin de que nós evoluímos em África. Os seres humanos
espalharam-se então para o Médio Oriente, Europa, Ásia, Austrália e depois para as
Américas. À medida que os seres humanos deixavam a África, os seus corpos, cérebros e
comportamentos alteraram-se. Para fazer face aos invernos mais frios e à menos abundante
oferta de alimentos da Europa e do Noroeste da Ásia, as raças Oriental e Branca afastaram-se
da estratégia r e no sentido de uma estratégia K. Isto significou mais apoio parental e
organização social, que por sua vez necessitavam de cérebros maiores e um QI mais elevado.
Leituras Adicionais
Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. Menozzi, P., & Piazza, A. (1994). The History and Geography of
Human Genes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Stringer, C. & McKie, R. (1996). African Exodus. London: Cape.
48
8
Perguntas e Respostas
Este capítulo final enumera as perguntas mais
importantes que me têm sido feitas a propósito da minha teoria
r-K e as minhas respostas. Também salienta tópicos dos
capítulos anteriores que abordam cada tema em maior
pormenor, e as minhas reflexões finais sobre Raça, Evolução e
Comportamento e sobre a história desta Edição Condensada.
Poderá o leitor perguntar:« Porque é que a informação sobre raça contida neste livro é
tão diferente da que vemos em revistas, textos universitários e na televisão?» A resposta é
que há cerca de 70 anos atrás as ciências sociais tomaram um rumo errado. Abandonaram o
Darwinismo e recusaram a perspectiva biológica do comportamento humano - evolução e
genética. Também se dividiram em diferentes campos académicos e passaram a tomar a
árvore pela floresta.
Neste livro tento reunificar as ciências sociais e biológicas sobre a questão da raça. As
provas que usei provêm dos melhores jornais científicos e não de fontes obscuras. Comecei a
estudar e a publicar artigos científicos sobre o tema da raça no início dos anos 80. Desde
então têm-me sido colocadas muitas questões sobre o meu trabalho. Provavelmente algumas
dessas perguntas poderão também lhe ter ocorrido.
Neste capítulo final são enumeradas as perguntas que mais frequentemente me têm
sido colocadas e as minhas respostas. Agrupei estas questões por temas e cada tema está
directamente relacionado com os capítulos desta edição onde ele é desenvolvido em mais
detalhe.
Será a Raça um Conceito útil? (Capítulo 1)
Pergunta: Escreve como se a Raça ainda fosse um conceito biológico válido. Não estará
somente a repetir os estereótipos europeus dos séculos XVIII e XIX?
Resposta: É verdade que existe uma história "europeia" de 200 anos de investigação sobre a
raça. Mas descrições semelhantes foram efectuadas por escritores Árabes e Turcos 1000 anos
mais cedo e algumas delas remontam até aos Gregos da Antiguidade. Hoje em dia, os novos
métodos de análise genética do ADN são concordantes com as classificações originais
resultantes das observações dos primeiros cientistas Europeus.
Pergunta: Mas, não será a raça uma questão meramente da pele (“just skin deep”)? Não é
verdade que hoje a maioria dos cientistas concorda que a raça é uma construção social
(“social construct”) e não uma realidade biológica?
Resposta: As evidências biológicas revelam-nos que a raça não é uma construção social. Os
especialistas em Medicina Legal podem identificar a raça a partir de um esqueleto ou até
mesmo de um crânio. Podem também identificar a raça a partir da análise sanguínea, cabelo e
esperma. Negar a existência de raças é uma atitude não-científica e irrealista. A raça é muito
mais do que uma mera "questão de pele".
Pergunta: As suas 3 principais categorias raciais sobrepõem-se e não é possível imputar uma
pessoa a uma raça. Por esse motivo o seu esquema de classificação baseada num padrão de
três vias não será artificialmente engendrado?
49
Resposta: Sim, até certo ponto é verdade que todas as raças se sobrepõem entre si. E isto é
verdadeiro em qualquer sistema de classificação biológico. Contudo, a maioria das pessoas
pode facilmente ser identificada como pertencente a uma ou outra raça. No dia a dia e na
biologia evolutiva, um "Negro" é alguém cujos antepassados são, na sua maioria,
originários da África Sub-Sariana. Um "Branco" é alguém cuja maioria dos antepassados
nasceu na Europa. E um "Oriental" é alguém cuja maioria dos antepassados nasceu na Ásia
Oriental. Modernos estudos de DNA proporcionam-nos justamente os mesmos resultados.
Pergunta: a Teoria "Out of África" (Partida/Saída de África) não nos diz que todos nós
somos afinal "Africanos por debaixo da pele”?
Resposta: Sim e não. A teoria diz-nos que o Homo Sapiens apareceu primeiro em África à
cerca de 200.000 anos atrás. Posteriormente, alguns grupos migraram em direcção ao Norte,
há cerca de 100.000 anos, para a Europa e Ásia. Mais tarde uma outra separação ocorreu
entre os "ancestrais brancos" e os "ancestrais orientais", isto aconteceu há 40.000 anos. É
verdade que todos os seres humanos são irmãos (e irmãs). Mas todos nós também sabemos
que os irmãos e irmãs podem ser muito diferentes uns dos outros.
Pergunta: Os Brancos não são todos semelhantes. Os Negros não são todos iguais. Os
Orientais também não. Não é verdade que existem mais variações dentro da mesma raça do
que entre as raças?
Resposta: Existe muita variação dentro de cada uma das três raças. Toda a gama de
variação pode ser encontrada em qualquer dos três maiores grupos raciais. Mas, as médias
dos grupos também são importantes. Cada grupo racial tem uma distribuição na forma de
uma curva normal (“bell curve”) com algumas pessoas perto do extremo superior da escala,
outras perto do extremo inferior e com a maioria no meio.
Grupos com uma média elevada têm muito mais pessoas perto do extremo superior
absoluto e não tantas perto do extremo inferior absoluto. A diferença de 6 pontos no QI entre
Orientais e Brancos e 15 pontos entre Brancos e Negros significa que uma maior
percentagem de Orientais e uma menor percentagem de Negros acabam por surgir nas mais
elevadas categorias de QI. Essas percentagens têm reais implicações na escola e no trabalho.
O mesmo é verdadeiro para os índices de crime. A maioria das pessoas de qualquer
raça são trabalhadores árduos e respeitadores da lei. Não existe uma "raça criminosa".
Todavia, a diferença na taxa média de crime diz-nos que uma muito mais elevada
percentagem de Negros pode cair na vida criminosa. A média de 85 em termos de QI dos
criminosos, é quase idêntica à média de 85 de QI dos Negros, consequentemente o QI está
directamente relacionado com o crime. Apesar de os Negros representarem somente 12% da
população dos EUA, eles cometem em cada ano cerca de metade de todos os crimes.
Pergunta: Porque é que baseia a maioria dos seus argumentos nas diferenças existentes entre
as três principais raças? Não está a ignorar as divisões e sub-grupos existentes entre as três
principais raças?
Resposta: Concerteza que existem subdivisões nas três principais raças. O grupo Oriental
pode ser subdividido em Asiáticos do Nordeste; - tais como chineses, japoneses e coreanos -
e Asiáticos do Sudeste - tais como Filipinos e Malaios. Os grupos Negros e Brancos podem
também ser subdivididos da mesma forma. No entanto, a minha divisão simplificada das três
vias tem um objectivo. Em ciência, um conceito só é útil se conseguir agrupar factos de modo
50
que deles se possam extrair leis gerais e conclusões. A classificação de três vias é
cientificamente justificada porque nos mostra um padrão consistente para muitos traços
(características) diferentes, com os Orientais num extremo, os Negros no outro, e os Brancos
no meio.
São Verdadeiras as Diferenças entre as Raças?
(Capítulo 2 até 5)
Pergunta: Não será que escolheu apenas aqueles estudos que corroboram a sua teoria do
padrão de três vias, ignorando todos os outros que o contradigam?
Resposta: Se isso fosse verdade, então onde estão os estudos que eu ignorei? Não ignorei
nenhum estudo importante. Sempre que são efectuadas médias em vários estudos o mesmo
padrão de três vias das diferenças raciais aparece.
Pergunta: Não são alguns dos estudos apresentados por si, particularmente aqueles sobre a
dimensão do cérebro, demasiado antigos? Não terão sido já denunciados como exemplos de
tendências racistas e não como descrições honestas de factos científicos?
Resposta: Não. Mesmo os mais recentes estudos, utilizando a mais recente tecnologia (como
a Imagem por Ressonância Magnética para medir o tamanho do cérebro) fornecem-nos os
mesmos resultados que os estudos mais antigos. Estes estudos feitos com a melhor tecnologia
(“state-of-the-art”) da dimensão do cérebro são descritos no Capítulo 4. São estudos muito
mais precisos do que os antigos, mas apresentam quase exactamente os mesmos resultados.
Somente o "politicamente correcto" fez desaparecer esses resultados anteriores do écran do
radar científico. Se existem algumas tendências obscuras, elas vêem da parte daqueles que
optam por não representar correctamente nem os estudos mais antigos nem as mais recentes
descobertas sobre raça e dimensão do cérebro, a fim de justificar a agenda social que
pretendem promover.
Pergunta: Não estará criando as diferenças de raciais ao elaborar médias a partir dos
resultados de muitos estudos? Não seria melhor observar somente os melhores estudos?
Resposta: Utilizando uma média de todos os dados é muito melhor do que utilizar uma única
medida ou um estudo. Quando se considera uma média, os erros desaparecem e as diferenças
reais surgem. Centenas de estudos publicados nos melhores jornais mostram o padrão de 3
vias de diferenças raciais.
Pergunta: Não será possível obter um padrão de diferenças raciais no que concerne ao
tamanho do cérebro (ou QI ou outra característica), usando simplesmente estudos que apoiam
a tese que está tentando defender?
Resposta: Essa é exactamente a razão pela qual é melhor calcular médias de todos os dados.
As médias são utilizadas em muitos desportos de competição, incluindo alguns eventos
Olímpicos, sondagens na opinião pública acerca de próximas eleições ou no desempenho do
mercado de acções com o índice Dow Jones. O mesmo é verdadeiro quando se estuda, o
tamanho do cérebro, o QI ou o crime.
51
Será válida a Relação entre Raça e Crime?
(Capítulo 2)
Pergunta: O seu padrão racial de três vias quanto às diferenças raciais no que respeita à
criminalidade baseia-se em relatórios oficiais de detenções e condenações. Mas os estudos
baseados em relatórios cujo preenchimento é efectuado pelo próprio não mostram que não
existem diferenças raciais no tocante à criminalidade?
Resposta: Os relatórios preenchidos pelo próprio indicam uma menor diferença racial em
relação à criminalidade. Todavia estes relatórios só são válidos como avaliação para crimes
pouco violentos. Frequentemente incluem somente itens como, por exemplo, "Alguma vez
participou numa luta?" Ou, "Ficaria preocupado se estivesse em dívida"? Contrariamente aos
relatórios de crimes oficiais, eles muitas vezes não nos informam sobre a frequência do
comportamento criminal. Os relatórios preenchidos pelos próprios não permitem distinguir
entre criminosos reincidentes e aqueles que cometem delitos pela primeira vez.
Pergunta: Mas não será que as estatísticas de detenções e condenações nos E.U.A dos
departamentos da polícia e do FBI, reflectem a história Americana de racismo?
Resposta: Os relatórios anuais da INTERPOL mostram o mesmo padrão de três vias de
diferenças raciais em criminalidade. Os países africanos e das Caraíbas têm o dobro do
numero de crimes violentos por pessoa quando comparados com os países Europeus e três
vezes mais que o dos países dos Anel do Pacífico, tais como o Japão e a China.
Pergunta: Não serão realmente os Negros Americanos as vítimas do crime e não a causa?
Resposta: Muitos negros são de facto vítimas da actividade criminosa. E existem muitos
brancos e orientais criminosos. No entanto, os criminosos são desproporcionalmente negros.
As estatísticas do Departamento de Justiça dos EUA, mostram que os negros têm 60 vezes
mais probabilidades de atacar os brancos do que estes atacarem os negros. Vinte por cento
dos crimes violentos são inter-raciais, 15% envolvem vítimas brancas e criminosos negros, só
2% envolvem criminosos brancos e vítimas negras.
Será Válida a Relação entre Raça e Reprodução?
(Capítulo 3)
Pergunta: Não será que os dados sobre raça e o tamanho do pénis emana de histórias do
século XIX contadas por europeus racistas na África colonial?
Resposta: As primeiras constatações vieram de exploradores árabes em África e dum estudo
feito por um cirurgião do exército francês originalmente publicado em 1898. Informação
mais actualizada é fornecida pela Organização Mundial de Saúde. Os seus estudos revelamnos
o mesmo padrão de três vias das diferenças raciais.
Pergunta: Não será o material apresentado sobre a raça e sexo uma espécie de pornografia?
Não será o tema da raça já suficientemente controverso sem que seja necessário trazer para a
discussão o sexo e a Sida?
52
Resposta: Um estudo feito pela Organização Mundial da Saúde e que eu mencionei na
resposta anterior, examinou o tamanho do pénis a fim de se conhecer o exacto tamanho dos
preservativos com o intuito de abrandar o surto epidémico da Sida. Verificando-se quais os
grupos que estão mais em risco no que respeita às doenças sexualmente transmissíveis, será
possível poder-se-á refrear a expansão da doença e salvar vidas.
Serão as Provas Genéticas erróneas?
(Capítulo 5)
Pergunta: Como pode falar numa causa genética para a inteligência, criminalidade ou
sexualidade? Ninguém até agora descobriu um gene responsável por qualquer destes três
aspectos. A dimensão do cérebro e a sua estrutura podem ter uma base genética, mas ainda
não sabemos exactamente quais os genes importantes para explicar o QI e como é que
funcionam.
Resposta: As pesquisas mais recentes estão a proporcionar-nos a resposta. Todos os dias os
jornais ou programas televisivos revelam-nos que alguém descobriu um gene que poderá
explicar o alcoolismo, a inteligência, a impulsividade, a agressividade, longevidade ou outro
comportamento humano. Quando o Projecto do Genoma Humano tiver concluído o
mapeamento dos nossos genes, saberemos ainda mais sobre a base genética do nosso
comportamento.
Pergunta: Não será isso determinismo genético?
Resposta: Eu nunca afirmei que as diferenças raciais são 100% genéticas. É óbvio que os
factores ambientais e culturais são importantes. A discussão científica é verdadeiramente
entre os "hereditaristas" e os "igualitaristas". Os hereditaristas, como eu próprio, pensam que
a melhor explicação para as diferenças raciais observadas é o facto de quer os genes quer o
ambiente estarem envolvidos. Os igualitaristas dizem que as raças diferem por razões 100%
ambientais e alguns deles acreditam tão fortemente nisso que tentam impedir qualquer
discussão ou pesquisa sobre a genética da raça.
Pergunta: Utiliza os estudos feitos em gémeos para mostrar o quanto é determinado pelos
genes e quanto é resultado do ambiente. Não será realmente a interacção dos dois que
importa?
Resposta: É claro, qualquer traço característico é resultado da interacção entre a
hereditariedade e o ambiente. Mas se a interacção é tão importante porque é que gémeos
idênticos que são criados em lares diferentes, ao crescerem tornam-se tão parecidos? Isso
deve-se ao facto da hereditariedade desempenhar um enorme papel no desenvolvimento.
Quanto mais envelhecemos, mais são os nossos genes, e não as condições ambientais da
nossa infância, que assumem o controle.
Pergunta: Ainda que a hereditariedade seja importante para os indivíduos, será que ela nos
diz realmente alguma coisa sobre as diferenças entre as raças?
Resposta: Os dados do Capítulo 5 mostram-nos que os genes contribuem imenso para as
diferenças raciais. Esta prova é nos fornecida pelos estudos feitos em adopções inter-raciais.
As crianças Orientais, Mestiças (negro-branco) e Negras que foram adoptadas por famílias
brancas da classe média crescem no sentido de se parecerem mais com os seus pais
53
biológicos do que as famílias brancas que os criaram. As crianças mestiças têm QIs situados
entre o QI das crianças negras puras e o das crianças brancas puras. As crianças Orientais
educadas em lares brancos obtêm QI's mais elevados do que as crianças Brancas, mesmo em
casos em que estavam mal nutridas antes da adopção.
Pergunta: Mas não é verdade que a maioria dos especialistas acreditam que a causa das
diferenças raciais em QI é o ambiente e não a genética?
Resposta: Num inquérito feito por Mark Snyderman e Stanley Rothman no “American
Psychologist” de 1987 verifica-se que a maioria (52%) dos cientistas afirmam que as
diferenças de QI existentes entre brancos e negros é, em parte, devida a causas genéticas.
Somente 17% dizem que é inteiramente cultural. Mais recentemente, uma “task force”
especial da Associação Americana de Psicologia concordou que existe um padrão de três vias
de diferenças raciais, no que se refere ao tamanho do cérebro e ao QI. Talvez por causa do
"politicamente correcto" a “task force” lavou as suas mãos acerca das causas e decidiu jogar
seguro dizendo que "ninguém sabe o porquê" (vejam-se os números do "American
Psychologist” dos anos 1996 e 1997).
Estará a teoria r-k correcta?
Capítulo 6
Pergunta: Utiliza a Teoria História-vida r-k para explicar as diferenças raciais. Diz-nos que
os Negros são menos k do que os Brancos, que são por sua vez, menos k do que os
Orientais. Não terá distorcido a teoria r-k a fim de a adaptar às suas ideias acerca das
diferenças raciais?
Resposta: De maneira nenhuma. A chave para a compreensão da selecção K é a
previsibilidade do ambiente. As áreas tropicais, como as de África são menos previsíveis por
força dos parasitas e secas inesperadas. Por essa razão é seleccionada a estratégia r em lugar
da estratégia k.
Pergunta: Não será que a teoria r-k se aplica somente às diferenças existentes em diferentes
espécies e não às raças da mesma espécie?
Resposta: Aplica-se a ambos. Os seres humanos são muito k quando comparados com
outras espécies. Mais ainda, algumas pessoas são mais k do que outras. Os homens muito kseleccionados,
investem tempo e energia nas suas crianças, em vez de seguirem os seus
apetites sexuais. Eles são "pais" em lugar de "progenitores". A teoria r-k foi primeiro
utilizada para explicar as diferenças no seio das espécies. Eu apliquei-a às diferenças nas
raças entre os seres humanos.
Não serão as Explicações baseadas no Ambiente suficientes?
(Capítulo 5)
Pergunta: Não poderão as diferenças na História de Vida de que nos fala serem a melhor
resposta às condições culturais? A partir do momento em que os Negros vivem em ambientes
ambientais pobres, não terá sentido a estratégia r? Como é que se pode investir, se não se tem
nada para investir?
54
Resposta: Isso poderia acontecer, mas os factos dizem-nos que não. Mulheres Negras de
elevado estatuto social e com formação universitária têm mais relações sexuais a partir duma
idade muito jovem e sofrem de maior mortalidade infantil do que mulheres brancas pobres e
que nunca frequentaram a universidade. Orientais oriundos de ambientes mais pobres que os
brancos, têm relações sexuais com menor frequência, começam a vida sexual mais
tardiamente, e têm menor mortalidade infantil. Este facto concorda com a teoria r-k das
diferenças raciais, mas não com a teoria ambiental r-k.
Será a Ciência Racial Imoral?
(Capítulo 1)
Pergunta: Porque é que não temos lido e visto esta informação sobre as diferenças raciais
nos jornais ou na Televisão? Não será imoral estudar as diferenças raciais?
Resposta: Nos anos 50, os movimentos de libertação no Terceiro-Mundo e o Movimento dos
Direitos Cívicos nos EUA, convenceram muitas pessoas, incluindo jornalistas e políticos, de
que era errado ter em conta as diferenças entre as raças. O objectivo de conseguir direitos
iguais para todos parecia exigir não somente a igualdade política, mas também a igualdade
biológica. Muitos desejavam querer acreditar que as diferenças raciais não eram, de nenhum
modo genéticas, e alguns pretenderam distorcer as ciências sociais separando-as das ciências
biológicas. Este livro tenta colocar todas as ciências sobre o comportamento de novo juntas.
Pergunta: Poderá algo de útil vir da sua teoria das diferenças raciais, mesmo se ela for
verdadeira? Não foram teorias sobre diferenças raciais que estiveram na base do racismo,
genocídio e Holocausto?
Resposta: Os nazis e outros utilizaram a sua suposta superioridade racial a fim de
justificarem a guerra e o genocídio. Mas justamente qualquer ideia -nacionalismo, religião,
igualitarismo, mesmo a legítima defesa - têm sido usadas como desculpas para iniciar
guerras, opressão e genocídio. A ciência, contudo, é objectiva. Ela não nos pode dar os
nossos objectivos, mas pode nos dizer o quanto é fácil ou difícil atingir esses objectivos. Um
melhor conhecimento sobre as diferenças raciais poderá ajudar-nos a oferecer a todas as
crianças a melhor educação possível e ajudar-nos a compreender melhor alguns dos nossos
crónicos problemas sociais.
Pergunta: Não seria melhor ignorar a raça e limitarmo-nos a tratar cada pessoa como um
indivíduo?
Resposta: Tratar os outros como gostaríamos que nos tratassem a nós é uma das regras éticas
mais nobres. Outra é dizer a verdade. O facto é que cada um de nós é influenciado pelos
nossos genes e pelo nosso ambiente. Tratar as pessoas como indivíduos não significa que
ignoremos ou mintamos acerca das diferenças raciais. Os cientistas têm o dever particular de
examinar os factos e dizer a verdade.
Pergunta: Porque é que o Instituto de Pesquisa Charles Darwin publicou esta versão 2000
(“y2k”) da edição condensada? O que é que aconteceu com a editora original?
Resposta: A editora Transaction publicou 100.000 cópias ao abrigo dos seus direitos de
impressão (“copyright”). Enviaram 35.000 a Académicos (Professores Universitários) em
todo o mundo - membros da Associação Antropológica Americana, Associação Psicológica
55
Americana, Associação Sociológica e a Sociedade Americana para a Criminologia. Foi então
que os Sociólogos Progressistas, um auto-proclamado grupo radical dentro da Associação
Americana de Sociologia, conjuntamente com outros grupos "anti-racistas" ameaçaram a
editora Transaction com a perda do seu expositor nos seus encontros anuais, espaço
publicitário nas revistas da especialidade, e acesso a listas de endereços, se eles continuassem
a enviar a edição condensada. A Editora sucumbiu perante esta pressão, retirando das suas
publicações a edição condensada, e até pedindo desculpas. Disseram que a indicação
“Transaction Copyright” nunca deveria ter aparecido no livro e que tudo "tinha sido um
engano".
Estes acontecimentos confirmam tristemente o que eu escrevi na primeira edição
condensada - que alguns grupos de opinião, muito activos, nos meios académicos e nos
média proíbem uma discussão aberta sobre a questão da raça. Receiam qualquer discussão
franca sobre a pesquisa do tema raça, que tenha sido publicada em jornais científicos
especializados onde é sujeita à critica da comunidade científica (“peer-reviewed scientific
journals”). A verdade, contudo, sempre acabará por prevalecer a longo prazo.
Considerações Finais
A informação contida neste livro mostra-nos que existem diferenças raciais
importantes. Diferem, em média, no tamanho do cérebro, inteligência, comportamento
sexual, fertilidade, personalidade, maturidade, tempo de vida, crime e estabilidade familiar.
Os Orientais situam-se num extremo do padrão de três vias das diferenças raciais, os Negros
no outro extremo e os Brancos geralmente a meio. Somente uma teoria que leve em conta os
genes e o ambiente de acordo com a teoria de evolução de Darwin pode explicar a razão
porque as raças se diferenciam de uma forma tão consistente em todo o mundo e ao longo do
tempo.
Tanto a ciência como a justiça, exigem-nos que procuremos e digamos a verdade, e
não que digamos mentiras nem induzamos em erro. Embora a pesquisa que serve de base a
este livro tenha aparecido primeiro em jornais académicos da especialidade, muitos pessoas
nos meios de comunicação, no governo e infelizmente até mesmo em escolas e universidades
deliberadamente tentam evitar estas evidências. Esperamos que esta edição abreviada ajude a
repor a verdade e a permitir que as últimas descobertas sobre a raça, evolução e
comportamento fiquem à disposição de todos.
Se queremos compreender o comportamento humano, as ciências sociais e as ciências
da biologia devem caminhar juntas de novo. Este livro é um passo nessa direcção. Quando
consideramos os genes e o ambiente em conjunto, então estaremos aptos a compreender os
problemas humanos. Com esse conhecimento a sociedade poderá então tentar resolvê-los.
Para todos nós, o primeiro passo é ser honesto tanto quanto possível acerca das raças, da sua
evolução e do seu comportamento.
Leituras Adicionais
Levin, M. (1997). Why Race Matters. New York, Praeger.
Rushton, J.P. (2000). Race, Evolution and Behavior (3d edition). Port Huron, MI:
Charles Darwin Research Institute.

Nemesis?

The Story of Otto Strasser

by

Douglas Reed

published: 1940

Home Page of Douglas Reed Books

Chapter:01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 Postscript Appendix I Appendix II Appendix III Appendix IV

click on the above to select required chapter - use browser's 'back' button to return to place in text

click on the pictures for the full size image

click for full size image

OTTO STRASSER

Preface

This book is about a German, Otto Strasser; having elbowed myself to the front of the stage in two books, I take the part, in this one, of compère - the man who opens the show, is often seen lurking in the wings while it progresses, and from time to time, between the scenes, comes to the front of the stage to remind you that he is there, that he holds the show together, and that it would not be complete without him.

Now that war has come, and the great question which engrossed our thoughts for many years has been answered, new thoughts crowd to the foreground of our minds, and foremost among them, the question, 'What Germany will come of this war?' In the search for the answer to it, Otto Strasser, of whom few people in Britain had heard till war came, becomes a figure of importance.

He may play a great part in answering this question. I say may, because war is less predictable than peace; it is the high-tension cable broken loose, thrashing about in all directions, you never know where, how, or whom it will strike; the switchboard is no longer in control.

Many writers have shown that the events leading to this war, and the war itself, could be exactly foretold: it was their trade, and they were as well able to do this as a doctor is able, from specific symptoms, to foretell the course of some diseases; and Lord Halifax, though he expressed in this phrase the average state of mind of many Britishers, only clothed a fallacy in words that sounded convincing when he once said 'We distrust people who forecast precisely the course of coming events'. This is a useful phrase to justify procrastination and non-exertion, nothing more.

Politics, in peacetime, are an exact science - to those who know politicians. War, 'the pursuit of politics with other means', draws a smoke-screen across the future. But this much I would wager now, at the dawn of 1940: that Germany will not emerge from this war a State ruled in absolute authority by Adolf Hitler and victorious over all enemies. Coming months or the next year or two will bring changes in Germany, and new men will begin to take a hand in the leadership of the Reich. That will not be the end of our troubles - perhaps only their beginning.

Otto Strasser has many qualifications and some chances, if he seizes them. Not many years ago Hitler, enthroned to-day on the lonely peaks of power, was obscure; Otto Strasser to-day is a little-known exile, but before long he may tread the upward path.

After reaching manhood - which for my non-stop generation meant the first outbreak of the present war, in 1914 - I lived longer, at one stretch, in Germany than in any other country, including my own. The study of that strange Jekyll-and-Hyde country, the bane of our times, engrosses me. Some months before the present instalment of the war broke out, feeling that it was certainly coming, I began to think about and read about Otto Strasser, for I believed that when it came that lost legion of the Germans, the exiles, would immediately begin to grow in importance, and among the most important of them was this Otto Strasser. At that time my mind was already browsing on conjecture about the Germany that would succeed Hitler's Germany; but at that time the British public mind did not look so far forward, or this book might have appeared earlier.

When the second outbreak of this war came, his name was, in fact, at once heard, stimulating my interest even more, and an idea became an intention. In evening strolls through subdued, but not blacked-out Paris streets, where shuttered shops showed the way that war, for the third time almost within living memory, had drained the city of its manhood; in quiet meals in Paris restaurants, among elderly gentlemen who wore fine natural tonsures and were accompanied by fur-coated blondes; in long afternoons and evenings of unremitting work in hotel bedrooms I studied and questioned and debated with Otto Strasser, learned of his struggles in the past and his plans for the future.

The result engrossed me and left me with an ungovernable itch to write. Not entirely on account of Otto Strasser's political beliefs and plans; not entirely, even, on account of his personality, though I was happy and stimulated in his company, and got along very well with him, as I often do with individual Germans; but on account of the content of his life, which aroused in me all the instincts of the teller-of-tales and made me impatient for my typewriter.

I lived again, in those Parisian hours, the life of a man of The Other Side; a life far more adventurous than my own, which has not been dull; the life of another man of our raging contemporary times, buffeted by all the winds that blow. A life, to me, far more absorbing than Hitler's life. With and through him, I felt again the pulse of that seething, turbulent Germany that gives us all no rest, of that repellent and fascinating land where I spent many years.

The tale is told in this book. Otto Strasser's adventures and his political thought interest me alike. It is for me a new undertaking to write another man's life and explain another man's mind, for I have so much to say myself. I shall probably have to restrain myself by force from rushing on to the stage from time to time and elbowing the chief player aside. Somebody wrote of an earlier book of mine that my great fault in it was to shake the fist of my personality in the reader's face, and that probably was its chief merit. Nevertheless, short of an apoplexy, I shall achieve some measure of self-effacement this time.

The tale I have to tell is an important one. Hitler has nearly played his part. He long has curdled our blood. He has been like a Silly Symphony Napoleon with a live bomb in his pocket; it was as if the grotesque child of some comic artist's pen had suddenly stepped out of the screen and advanced upon a spellbound audience, firing real bullets from his gun.

A few more melodramatic postures and gestures and harangues, and he will be gone. From the wings already peep the candidates for the succession, chief among them two men: Göring, fat, Falstaffian, Neronic, ruthless, cunning, world-famous; and Otto Strasser, poor, unknown, outlawed, undaunted. They both mean you, just as Austria and Czechoslovakia and Poland meant you. I wrote that in Insanity Fair and Disgrace Abounding, and it has come true. This is just as true.

Your courage, your resolution, your this-and-that, will not help you if your rulers lose the peace. If they do that, your last state will be worse than your first, the going of the man Hitler will not profit you, your sufferings and your sacrifices and courage in this new war will be in vain, even your victory in it will be in vain, the next twenty years will be even worse than the last. The peace-to-come is even more important than the war, and in your own lives you now have seen what it means to lose a peace, or rather, wantonly to throw away a victory, just from dislike of exertion and of a stitch-in-time, from putting your trust in a burglar out of fear of a bogyman.

This is the importance of the tale that is told in this book.

Chapter One

DESERTED VILLAGE

I homed to England, after many years abroad, in the spring of 1939. I had seen the invasions of Austria and Czecho-Slovakia and, as I came through Poland on my homeward way, clearly saw that that country would be the next victim, and I wrote this in Disgrace Abounding. I knew then, and also wrote, that our inevitable dilemma, the dilemma our foreign policy had made inevitable, now lay close before us: either we must go to war with Germany, or we must capitulate and have the Germans in London.

I saw that only a few months would pass before this decision forced itself upon us, and I decided to use that time to look at England, to try and understand the mind of a country that was my own, my native land, and yet was more perplexing to me than any foreign one. I could not begin to understand the slothful scepticism which had defeated every effort to awaken the country to the danger and thus to avert war. I could not understand the fear of exertion which seemed to underlie that state of mind. I could not understand the way the country, on the one hand, passively allowed itself to drift towards an avoidable war, and, on the other hand, permitted an enormous influx of unassimilable aliens whose intention clearly was, when that war came, to burrow into the places vacated by the young men of Britain who would again be sent to fight.

Already, the state of England after the war that loomed ahead was full of menacing shadows, but there seemed as little hope of awakening public opinion to these dangers as there had been of awakening it to the oncoming peril of war itself. The things that were best in England were being buried under an imported, alien way of life and way of thinking that made itself ever more master of literature and the Press, the stage and the films, radio and the menu, art, parliamentary debates - everything.

We were going to war again to keep England's shores inviolate, and at the same time we were opening these shores to an alien influx the like of which they had never seen. Maddest of all, the craziest thing that I ever saw even in the madhouse Insanity Fair, we were about to give these newcomers preferential treatment in our own land over the country's own sons; they were to be put into posts liberated by the young men who went off to war, and at the price of 'joining-up' themselves they could even acquire British citizenship - but the condition of that 'joining-up', set out in black and white, was that they never should be sent to the front! Their lives were to be preserved at all cost, so that they could live in peace and prosperity in England after the war; and simultaneously the lives of young Englishmen were once more to be squandered.

No words are adequate to describe this lunacy. I had seen the thing coming and written this, in Disgrace Abounding, and now it had come. Both the things I had foreseen and feared had come - the war, which would take another British generation off to battle, and the alien influx, which would rot the roots of British life still further. It was a cheerless prospect. At that rate, we should not be better off after the war, whether we won or lost it; but for the new comers, it was heads-we-win and tails-you-lose. I had seen them playing with that coin in Berlin and Vienna.

We seemed to have tied ourselves inseparably to a policy of adding one mistake to another. The state of England did not bode well.

So, in that discontented summer, I set out on a series of English journeys, and shall describe the things I saw in another book. To a patriot in search of his homeland, they were not reassuring; rather, they deepened his fears, and after this war, if the same policy be continued, you will see that they were well-founded. These journeys showed me many things, and led me to strange places, and one of these places, where I made up my mind to write a book about Otto Strasser, was the strangest of all.

Turning things over in my mind, I went along a lonely stretch of coast and suddenly came upon Goldsmith's Deserted Village, a weird, spectral place hidden beneath the cliff until you suddenly encountered it.

A ruined inn; roofless and wall-less houses; gaping and shingle-buried streets; an odd flower poking its head through the débris to show where a garden had been; fragments of ancient wall-paper; rusty grates, where fires once had warmed tired fishermen; a chicken or two pecking about; a solitary, tousle-headed woman, with a bright eye and one tooth in her head, who leaned against a wall and watched me as I came. The most uncanny place, where the crunching of my feet on the shingle took on a disturbing and disquieting sound, although the sun was still high.

I saw the longing for talk lurking like an eager dog in the old woman's eye and greeted her, and she gave me a 'Good-day, master', and told me the story, a simple one. This was a busy fishing village and one night came a great wave, the like of which none had ever seen, and just wrecked the village where it stood; nobody had been killed, but the fishermen all elected to have new houses built by the Government in a safer spot, a mile or so away up on the cliffs and out of sight, and so all had fled - all save she.

She chose, she did not tell me why, to have her house rebuilt where it stood and now she had lived these many years, all alone, in the one sound house in that wrecked hamlet. The bathing was good, and in the summer she had a few lodgers; and follow-my-nose sometimes led an odd motorist to her door, to whom she sold a cup of tea, but that was stopped now, because the authorities thought the little road down from the cliff-top dangerous and had put a bar across it, so that follow-my-nose stopped at the top and never scented the ruined village below. And now the war on top of that, and no holidaymakers. And the blackout on top of that.

The blackout! Among these ruins, her one window had shone yellow of nights, spilled its reflection into the waves that nearly lapped her door. Through that window, she could see the great light at the headland a mile distant, that now in war, as in peace, cast its rolling eye for ever round and round, winking to all who wanted to know, British fishing boat and peeping German submarine alike, 'Here I am, Shingle Head; here I am, Shingle Head; Here I am, Shingle Head ...'

The light had kept her company. But now she might see it no more, of nights. For although all the visitors had gone, and winter was nigh, and she seldom saw a soul, still the blackout man had been down and told her to douse that light. How the Big Light laughed, when the Little Light, its companion those many years, went out! Now she sat all alone, in her little room in the one sound house in the ruined village, surrounded by those brick-and-mortar ghosts, and had blacked-out her little window. She had not gas-proofed her little room; she was not educated enough for that. But how she hated the blackout.

'Do you take lodgers at this time of year?' I said, when she finished.

'Yes, master', she said wonderingly.

'Well, I'm doing nothing for a day or two, so I'll come in, said I, I have a job of thinking to do, anyway.'

It was a strange lodging. 'Well, stap me and Heil Hitler,' I thought, when I surveyed it. It was nearly as damp as a well, but then, it was not much wider than a church door, and I had been in worse, though not in stranger places.

A good place to think. I thought about the war, and what would come after it, leaned against the breakwater, stirred the shingle with my foot, watched the seagulls. And at night we talked, and how we talked.

We agreed that the fishermen were right; the Big Wave had been caused by the county authorities taking too much sand from the foreshore; hadn't we always said that would lead to no good; we talked about the German cook at the hotel up on the cliff, who had yielded to the entreaties of all who knew her not to leave them because of the war; and we agreed that, all things considered, if it had been us we would probably have gone home, no matter how they coaxed us; and the things we said about the blackout! The old lady celebrated the festival of Saint Garrulous; she liked it.

And so did I, but at last I said, 'I'm going now, I'm going to write a book, about England and Germany, and Göring and Otto Strasser, and how this war is going to end, and what will come after it, and I'll probably come and stay with you again about Christmas, so good-bye.'

'Well, I'm sorry you're going, master,' she said, 'you was good company for me. And are you going to write a book, out of your head?'

'I am, I said, 'I'm a slave to the habit. Some people can take books or leave them alone, but I'm not like that. I'm like the alcoholic subject, whose next drink is always going to be his last. I'm always full to bursting with Treppenwitze.'

'What's that?' she asked.

'The joke you think of after the party, when you're going downstairs', I said. 'The things you wish you'd said. But I have the advantage of those tardy jesters - I always go back and work off my jokes, in another book. None can escape me, and here I go.'

'Well, that's interesting,' she said, raking me with her bright but empty eye, 'good-bye, master'.

I felt that eye in the middle of my back as I walked up the cliff path. At the top I turned and waved. She stood at the door of her house, among the skeletons of the homes of her childhood's friends, and the chickens pecked about her feet.

I took train and ship for France, to seek Otto Strasser. The train dawdled. The ship waited for hours before even setting forth, and as all the cabins were monopolized I spent the night walking the deck. The next day, I was in France, revelling in a glass of Dubonnet, a mouthful of mushroom omelet, a half-pint of Clicquot, a marvellous contrecarrée, a morsel of Brie, a coffee, and a Grand Marnier. 0, land of gastronomic perfection, of the art of living.

I strolled awhile about Paris, happy as a sandboy. The streets, for me, were full of the ghosts of the British Army that rolled roaring down from the line in 1918 to celebrate victory. Victory! Holy umbrellas!

I thus took a quick, deep breath of Paris, and then wandered off to Montparnasse in search of Otto Strasser. Eventually I found him in a modest room in a small hotel in a back street.

I had seen men in exile who became kings. I had seen kings who became men in exile. I had seen presidents in palaces and in cheap lodgings. I had seen politicians rise and fall like the bobbing celluloid ball on the water-spray at the shooting galleries. Here was a man who had just missed playing a big part, a man who had called Hitler a fraud when all others were acclaiming him a genius, a man whose time to play a big part again might soon be coming.

I plunged myself into the study of this man, Otto Strasser, and here he is.

Ring up the curtain!

Chapter Two

SKETCH FOR A PORTRAIT

The man whose picture is the frontispiece to this book is Otto Strasser. It is the best one I could find. In others, which I rejected, the photographers gave him the glowering glance, the clamped lips affected by all the dictators of our and other times, the mien of the strong-man-candidate-for-the-succession.

Otto Strasser may be that, but he does not customarily wear that familiar visage. His habitual expression is one of vigour but also of smiling friendliness, and I do not mean that he smiles and smiles, but his natural disposition is a cheerful and hearty one. He has not the inner hatred of life and of his fellow men which is Hitler's driving instinct and which gives Hitler that suspicion-filled, my-hand-against-every-man's, don't-you-try-to-take-a-rise-out-of-me look.

Strasser is much more of a fighter than Hitler; no man could picture him dissolving into tearful self-commiseration at a setback or at the thought that the ultimate enemy of all men, the Marxist Death, cannot be put in a concentration camp; he revels even in a fight that is going badly, though in his heart is an unrelenting hatred of men who owe him a debt written in blood, and if they come into his power they will pay in the coin they took.

But that is not written in his face, because his inner man is not like this, and for that reason the picture is not good. Twenty-five years of struggle, betrayal, disappointed hopes, embitterment, of unflagging pursuit and narrow escape, have not chiselled hatred in his features, as it is chiselled in the features of men who have reached the highest peaks of power. He remains a merry fellow, who lives hard, loves hard, eats and drinks with enjoyment, carries on his one-man war with gusto, never forgets his revolver, has a long score to settle, loves his country, and likes to laugh.

He is the opposite of everything that Hitler is - Hitler the éclair-eater who preaches the spartan life; Hitler the celibate who preaches big families; Hitler the chauffeur-driven and chauffeur-piloted armchair-sitter who preaches sport and physical exercise; Hitler the non-smoker, non-drinker and non-meat-eater who leads one of the heaviest-eating and heaviest-drinking nations in Europe; Hitler who preaches the fight-to-a-finish and orders unbeaten battleships to scuttle themselves. Hitler, who wrote Mein Kampf, has known little struggle in his life; he was carried in a sedan chair by an Al Capone bodyguard to the summits of power. Strasser has never stopped fighting, since 1914.

I should call him a typical German - not in the sense in which the term is currently used by Britishers who do not know Germany and who have in mind something rather fat, rather coarse, and over-portentous. The term, a typical Englishman, used by people of the same kind in Germany, also has an uncomplimentary significance; English people would be genuinely startled to know that the German often finds in their physiognomy something that reminds him of the Raubtier, the carnivore.

I lived very long in Germany and mean, by a typical German, an inexplicable mixture of good and bad, of staunchness, vigour, industry, thrift, humour, talent; and of brutality, envy and insensitiveness. The Germans, incidentally, have a particularly keen sense of humour, and I often wish that my countrypeople, who almost completely lack this, would learn from them.[1]

A good pointer to the difference between the character of a Strasser and that of a Hitler, who is not typical of any one people but is more unlike the Germans than almost any other race I know, is given by Dr. Hermann Rauschning, once an intimate of Hitler, in his book Hitler Speaks, in reference to Gregor Strasser, Otto's brother.

'In Danzig and in most of Northern Germany, Gregor Strasser had always been more esteemed than Hitler himself. Hitler's nature was incomprehensible to the North German. The big, broad Strasser, on the other hand, a hearty eater and a hearty drinker too, slightly self-indulgent, practical, clear-headed, quick to act, lacking bombast and pathos, with a sound peasant judgment: this was a man we could all understand. I had been present at the last meeting of leaders before our seizure of power, in Weimar, in the autumn of 1932. Gregor Strasser gave the meeting its character. Hitler was lost in a sea of despondency and accusations on the top of the Obersalzberg. The party's position was desperate. Strasser was calm, and with assurance and quiet confidence, succeeded in quenching the feeling that the party was at its last gasp. It was he who led the party. To all practical purposes, Hitler had abdicated.'

Here you have, also, a good picture of Otto Strasser, for the two brothers were much alike. But for intrigues and stiletto-work that outdid the medieval Italian courts and the gang-wars of Chicago, the Strassers, and not Hitler, might have become the leaders of Germany. Germany would then never have known the orgasms of hysterical, mock-patriotic self-pity and self-applause which she knew under Hitler; but she and Europe would probably have been spared war. The time may be coming soon for Otto Strasser to take up his brother's work.

click for full size image

OTTO STRASSER AS A NON-COMMISIONED OFFICER, 1915

Otto was a good-looking lad and young man, as the pictures of him in his recruit and officer days will show you. Now he is in his middle age, nearly bald, but filled with that unquenchable energy which astonishes all foreigners, and exhausts many, when they deal with Germans. I am no laggard worker; but after hours and hours of discussion and debate and research and comparing notes, I often had to cry halt when Otto Strasser seemingly was just getting into his stride. I like and admire this terrific energy, which also fills Otto Strasser's greatest adversary and rival, Hermann Göring. It is some product of the German climate and the German way of life.

Consider Otto Strasser now, as he goes with a quick stride through obscure Paris streets. Average height; rather bulky, rather stocky; a heavyish, German-looking overcoat; a bow-at-the-back, German-looking hat. You would hardly notice him, yet he may force himself on your notice. In the marionette-theatre that is our world, the unseen hand, Destiny, has of late been tugging gently at the strings of this figure, testing them to feel if they are in good condition.

This man alone, among the men who left Germany, fought! The exiles dispersed to a score of countries. Some subsided quietly into complete oblivion. Others, and particularly the Jewish exiles, began a deafening war of words. None so bold as they - in the press and radio of Paris and London.

But this man took up the fight, a one-man-fight against Hitler. Whatever he is, whether he become powerful or not, he could with truth and justice write a book of his labours and call it Mein Kampf - for this was a Kampf. A fight against fog and frost, against police and passports, against secret pursuers and perjured friends, against gunmen and kidnappers, against poverty and vilification, against poison and bullets.

Whether luck and his own qualities will bring him to the place he strives for, I do not know. When I first met him, he was reading a book about Napoleon, and in a more intimate moment I said to him, I hope you are not developing Napoleonitis?' which made him smile. He often spoke of the new Germany that he would like to build as The Fourth Reich and, again, I wondered; a good new name is better than a revised edition of a discredited old one. And once he told me that his whole, carefully-thought-out and detailed plan for the structure of that new Reich came to him suddenly and vision-like, and, as we are nearly dying of a surfeit of Hitler's visions, I felt dubious.

But the future is his, to make or miss. His past story is so full of effort and courage that it commands respect and deserves its record. If he reaches his mark, it will pass into history, form the stuff of a hundred biographies. If he fails, it is nevertheless a thundering good story.

Chapter Three

THE STARTING GUN

Otto Strasser's life really began, like those of most male Europeans born around the turn of the century, with the outbreak of war in 1914. Since its adjournment, in 1918, he has had, as the little boy said, two minutes peace each year. He was carried by it into the vortex of those turbulent years which still hold us captive.

The aspect, to-day, of the quiet family circle in which he grew up is typical of the lot of that generation. His eldest brother, Gregor, is dead, killed by the man he made, Hitler. His second brother, Paul, is a Benedictine monk, until lately in Belgium; life in Germany was made impossible for him and he was fortunate to escape unscathed. Paul's experience is worth recording. After Hitler's advent to power, he took a party of young Germans on a pilgrimage to Rome, was attacked in the press for this, and on his return arrested at the frontier. Being released, he gave his captors no second chance, but went to Austria, and from there, a little before Hitler's invasion, to Belgium.

Otto himself is an exile, outlaw, hunted these many years from land to land. His youngest brother, born ten years after himself, a lawyer by profession, is an infantry subaltern in Hitler's army. His brother-in-law, the husband of his younger and only sister, is a colonel in that army. Gregor, Paul and Otto all served as officers in the 1914-18 war.

click for full size image

THE STRASSER FAMILY CIRCLE

Otto is on the right, Paul on the left, Gregor is not shown

Otto Strasser was born on September 10th, 1897, at Windsheim in Bavaria; nine years earlier, Adolf Hitler was born not far away, at Braunau, just across the Austrian frontier. Yet a world of difference separated these two men. To understand a man, you need to know his roots. No man can trace Hitler's roots. The roots of Otto Strasser were three: a deep German patriotism, an inherited religious feeling, and strong Socialist convictions, partly inherited.

These three things made the grown man. Patriotism was fostered by the country of his birth, that loveliest and noblest countryside in all Germany, the Franconian provinces of Bavaria. Here one fine town neighbours another. Rothenburg, the finest surviving example of a medieval town, with its walls and towers, lay a few miles away; his mother came from Dinkelsbühl, which in beauty vies with Rothenburg, and grew up there in the famous wooden Deutsches Haus, which tourists from all the world come to see, for her father had an inn in that ancestral home of a Bavarian noble family. Otto Strasser's grandfather was another great link with the life of Bavaria, where beer is a second religion, and marvellous beer it is too, for he was a well-to-do peasant and owned a brewery. A fine countryside, this, where Otto Strasser grew up; the foreigner may seek his life long, and fail to account for the contrast between these noble cities, this thriving and well-farmed land, and the things that the State, Germany, does.

The people of these parts are devout Catholics, and the Strassers belonged to them in this as in all else. Here grew the root of his religious feeling.

The third of Otto Strasser's roots, the political root came in a curious way.

Political thought, like the fruits of nature, flourishes in Franconia, which has supplied more famous German politicians than any other German land, among them Stein, Metternich, Baron von Dahlberg, Franz von Sickingen, Ulrich von Hutten and Florian Geyer. Otto Strasser's father was, outwardly, the model of a quiet, diligent, middle-rank civil servant in the judicial service. But in his heart he was a revolutionary Socialist - on a Christian, not a Marxist basis.

His mind, behind his sober, workaday outer man, was discontented with the things his eye saw, in a world of courts and pomp, and he wrote, and published anonymously, as a civil servant must if he wishes to print his thoughts, a book called Der Neue Weg (The New Way) which set forth his political ideas for A New Germany. Nearly all Germans, at that time and for long after, were thinking about that New Germany; not much later, young Adolf Hitler was to start thinking about it, too. The book was published under the pseudonym of Paul Weger - a half-pun on its author's name, Peter Strasser.

The political itch left him no rest, and he afterwards wrote a second book, but his wife caught him at it. She was a typical official's wife, with the passion of the female defending her young for the safe, prosaic existence, with a pension at the end of it, which her husband could look forward to, as a government servant, if he kept his mouth shut and his views to himself. The sounds of loud scolding might have been heard in the home of the Strassers at this time, and the end was that Peter Strasser, a man of peace, gave up his project and locked his manuscript away.

But here was the political germ, which, for all the good Hausfrau's antagonism, presently reappeared in the blood of his sons. Exactly the same dispute repeated itself in the life of Otto Strasser at a later date and led to his divorce from his first wife (his present marriage is his third.) Otto Strasser, unlike his father, emerged victor in this household strife, and parted company from his wife rather than abandon his political convictions. He was the revolutionary Socialist resolute; his father, the revolutionary Socialist frustrated. For these reasons Peter Strasser always took Otto Strasser's part in his later disputes.

I have recorded these things because they explain the man, Otto Strasser, of to-day: a South German homeland, a religious upbringing, an inherited political interest.

The rest, until the starting gun sounded, is almost irrelevant, but not quite. He left school in 1913 and, because his father could not afford to pay more fees than those he was already paying for Gregor at the university and Paul at a grammar school, Otto became an apprentice in a textile factory.

'A terrible year', he says, 'six months in the counting house, six months in the workshops.' In the first he learned only to fill the inkpots (typewriters had not then reached the factory), copy the letters, fetch their food for the clerks and workmen at 10 o'clock, and stick on stamps. And in the second six months, in the factory itself, he learned to pack things up. 'I can make a wonderful parcel to-day and have never forgotten this.' In September 1914 he was to have resumed his studies, for which the fees were now available - but the starting-gun sounded.

click for full size image

OTTO STRASSER AS A VOLUNTEER IN A LIGHT CAVALRY REGIMENT, 1914

Otto Strasser was 16 years and 10 months old. On August 2nd, 1914, he reported himself as a volunteer in Augsburg; Hitler reported on the same day, in Munich. Strasser wanted to be a light cavalryman - those long overcoats, those heavy sabres, those clanking spurs! - but after being locked in a riding school with 300 other volunteers for three days, and forgotten, he broke out and was accepted by the Fourth Artillery Regiment, on six weeks probation, because he was weakly! The six weeks lengthened into five years.

He was a boy of sixteen. This was the most formative period of his life. Though the war only steeled his love of Germany, and his feeling for the German army, he thinks to-day with horror of his experiences as a recruit and young soldier in Imperial Germany. His description of them deepens the eternal perplexity of the foreigner at the duality of the German character, at the Jekyll-and-Hyde nature of a people in which the highest military and civic qualities are seen side by side with a bestial brutality.

Strasser was passionately a soldier at heart, but regards the non-commissioned-officers of that day as the most repulsive beings he has known. Among the 300 men in his unit were some 180 students, and the non-commissioned-officers vented their especial spleen on these in ways which left him with an ineradicable loathing of a class of man now best represented among the senior Brown Army commanders.

Let Strasser describe some of these scenes for himself. 'One Saturday afternoon in October 1914, when we were all due for leave in the town, had our best uniforms on and the girls waiting outside, an enormously corpulent sergeant-major had us all on parade and shouted, "Those who speak English or French, parade on the right; those who play the piano, on the left". At that time Turkey had just entered the war and in our innocence we thought that men who could understand the orders, given in French or English, of Turkish officers might be wanted for service with the Orient Army, so most of us rushed to volunteer. Then the sergeant-major, inflating his paunch and regarding us malevolently, said, "So, and now the piano-players can get to work scrubbing the floors, and the conceited intellectuals on the right may spend the afternoon cleaning the closets. The others can go out. Dismiss!" From that day, I never again paraded my intellectual attainments in the army. I went off to the closets, found them stopped-up and in a disgusting condition, and asked the shoemaker-corporal to give me a long piece of strong wire with a hook at the end to help me in cleaning them. While I was doing this, a corporal came up behind me, and said: "What are you doing?" I reported most obediently, "I am cleaning the closets, according to orders". "You conceited intellectual swine, get down on your knees and do it with your hands, like a soldier." I was compelled to lie down full length in this filth and clean it with my bare hands. Since that day I have a hatred of these people which nothing can kill.

They are the SS men of to-day. The SS spirit was born there.'

(The 'SS man' of whom Strasser speaks is the black-uniformed member of the Schutzstaffel, formerly the élite corps of the Brown Army, later used for concentration camp duty, beatings-up, killings, and espionage on the home-front in general.)

'Stables' was sounded at four o'clock in the morning, and the straw had then to be cleaned. Strasser hit on the idea of taking a pitchfork and lifting the straw with it, so that the droppings fell through and the clean straw remained. Again came the corporal, with his abuse of the 'damned intellectuals', and ordered this work, too, to he done with the hands. One such man compelled a young recruit to drink from a spittoon; the lad never got over this, and shot himself.

These things are almost beyond belief, but they happened in Germany, and here you have them from the lips of a German patriot. I knew of them, and many other foreigners knew of them, and saw that this spirit, this scum, would come to the top if Hitler's National Socialism prevailed. It did; and although I do not believe that such things occur in the German Army to-day, they have reappeared, as Otto Strasser says with perfect truth, in another form - the bestialities of the SS and their concentration camps. (I wrote almost exactly the same thing in Insanity Fair.)

Strasser's worst experience was at the hands of a sergeant who particularly hated him, apparently on the same ground, that he was an 'intellectual'.

At the front, in a battery position, in April 1915, this man compelled Strasser to clean his top-boots at four o'clock every morning, first excreting in them so that he should not himself have to go out in the cold. Later, in a reserve position, he put Strasser, though he was a bombardier and had nothing to do with the horses, to cleaning horses so lice-ridden that some of them had to be destroyed. The man on this duty became covered with lice at the first stroke of the brush, with the result that his comrades would not allow him in the dugout and he had to sleep in the open. An officer found Strasser thus, trying to sleep, heard the story, gave orders that he should never he put to this duty again, and gave the sergeant fourteen days field punishment. When he came out, he encountered Strasser and advanced on him, roaring, in the untranslatable and unprintable jargon of the parade-ground terror of those days, 'I'll smear your brains on the wall for this'.

Strasser drew his revolver and was prepared to shoot, whereon the sergeant shouted, 'Now I've got you, you ----', and had him court martialled. But Strasser was acquitted and the sergeant again punished.

This story had a sequel. In January 1918 Strasser was a battery-commander at the front and received a draft, including this man. He told him, quietly, that the old incident was forgotten, but that if he ever caught him mishandling a bombardier he would have him degraded. The battery sergeant-major was given instructions particularly to watch this man, who later was caught at the same trick. He came before a court martial, was degraded, and received five years penal servitude.

Otto Strasser was seventeen years old when these things happened. They are important, in a man who may come to the forefront of affairs - because they explain and give truth to the words he utters to-day: 'Since that time I have an undying hatred of militarism, as opposed to the calling of a soldier, which is something quite different.' They also explain his hatred of Hitlerism, which for him means Germany in the grip of the men who treated him thus in 1914.

In October 1914, fearing that he would not reach the front before the war ended, he volunteered, though a trained artilleryman by now, for transfer to the infantry. At that time the Sixth Bavarian Reserve Infantry Division consisted of four regiments, the 16th, 17th, 20th and 21st. Adolf Hitler was serving in the 16th, as a headquarters orderly, behind the front. Strasser was posted to the 20th, and, just seventeen years old, went into the trenches in Flanders, with British troops, at first the Sikhs, against him, at Wytschaete and Warneton.

More than half the volunteers were students, of Strasser's age or thereabouts. They went into battle like the picture-book heroes, singing Deutschland über Alles, and at Warneton Strasser's company lost seven-tenths of its men. 'The English fire,' he says, 'was deadly.'

There he lay until March 1915. Then his battalion was rushed off towards the Russian front, in night marches so cold and exhausting that the coffee in the water-bottles froze and the men collapsed by the roadside, and the threats of officers, with brandished swords and revolvers, could not move them. They slept like the dead for twenty-four hours in a disused factory - and were rushed back to hold the great British attack at Neuve Chapelle.

In March 1915 Strasser was re-transferred to the artillery, and, after the court martial, sent up to Armentières, where he won the Iron Cross, Second Class, during a British attack in the late summer. By September 1915 he was sergeant; then in May 1916 he was seriously wounded by a shell splinter; on Christmas Eve 1916, as he was preparing to celebrate the festival, he was ordered by telegram to join a newly-formed section, the Third, of the First Bavarian Reserve Artillery Regiment. At Verdun, he was in charge of his battery's telephones; by May 1917 he was a warrant officer; and in October 1917, artillery lieutenant.

Hard fighting; on that muddy Western Front, where the great armies lay locked in each other's grip. Now began his service as a German officer, and to-day his hatred for the non-commissioned-officers of that time is equalled by his admiration for the German Officers' Corps. Here, he found in many things a truer democracy and a finer spirit. Here, he found the calling of a soldier.

His battery commander was Count von Hertling, a nephew of the German Chancellor of the same name about that time. Otto Strasser gives the following example of the spirit he admires:

'No candidate was admitted to the Officers' Corps, that is, to the rank of lieutenant, without the unanimous agreement of all officers in the unit. It was thus like a club, and the rule was most jealously held. Without such a unanimous proposal from the Officers' Corps, the King of Bavaria himself' (Strasser served throughout in the Bavarian Army) 'could not appoint an officer. The then Bavarian War Minister was much annoyed that his son, the ensign Count X, was not made an officer. The colonel of the regiment asked Count von Hertling, the battery commander, why he would not propose him, and Hertling answered "He is incapable, cowardly, of no use to us". A few weeks later came an urgent telegram from the Bavarian War Minister asking why Count X had not been nominated, as His Majesty wished to make him an officer at Christmas. Count von Hertling once more declined to nominate him. Thereupon the colonel called a meeting of all officers in the regiment; he wished to have Count Hertling voted down. The colonel addressed his officers and put his case before them, saying, "After all, gentlemen, this is the son of the War Minister, and after all, again, we have enough stupid officers in the army, one more won't make much difference, and in addition it is the express wish of His Majesty, or at any rate papa says so; it is a great scandal in the court circle at Munich". Answered Count Hertling: "I can certainly understand that Herr Papa is troubled about this, but the lives of the soldiers whom Count X would have under him as an officer are more important than the dissatisfaction in court circles in Munich." A vote was then taken of all the officers present, and with a large majority Count Hertling's attitude was endorsed and that of the colonel rejected. His Majesty the King of Bavaria and his War Minister had no choice but to take the young Count X away and transfer him to a more docile regiment - but the First Bavarian Artillery Regiment was the best in the State, and ranked with the Guards. Count X eventually obtained his lieutenancy in some remote and unsought-after regiment with a very low number - the 46th, or something of that sort.'

That is another illuminating glimpse of a country, Germany, and of a German, Otto Strasser. In the political events that followed the war, the Strassers always stood well with the army, and had friends in its highest ranks. Indeed, after Hitler came to power the Army would have liked to unseat Hitler and put Gregor Strasser in his place; that was one reason for the great clean-up of June 30th, 1934, and for the killing of Gregor Strasser. These threads have never been entirely cut, and may prove important yet.

Now came the last great convulsion of the 1914-18 war, the last great German victory in that war of great German victories but not of victory. Tsarist Russia had collapsed, and Russia was in the throes of the Bolshevist Revolution, the plague-germs of which had been sent there, in the persons of Lenin and his alien throng, by Germany. The German rear was free; all the German weight could be thrown against the West, before the mass of American troops arrived. Ludendorff made his last great throw for Victory. The British Fifth Army took the full shock of the German onslaught. Once more, the German tide set in strongly, flowing towards Paris, that strand so often lapped but never quite reached.

On that famous day, March 21st, 1918, Otto Strasser was in the front line of the attack, south of Saint Quentin. He was artillery liaison officer, with the duty of maintaining communication between the advancing infantry and the guns behind them, and on that day there was first tried a new variation of the method of throwing the infantry forward immediately behind a progressively advancing curtain of fire.

Almost without loss, and helped by fog, the German troops in Strasser's sector, the spearhead of the attack, took the first and second British lines, and found themselves four hundred yards from a British battery. The infantry commander declined to advance farther, and Strasser called for volunteers. Seventeen men responded, and with them he took the battery, shooting the British battery commander in the hip with his revolver and demanding to know from him, as he lay, the position of the next battery. 'I won't tell you,' said this officer. 'So I had him bandaged,' says Strasser, 'but I made his own men carry him off. And then I turned one of the British guns round and silenced a machine-gun nest with it.'

For this and other exploits in those fateful days, including the capture of a British brigade staff, Strasser, who in the meantime had received the Iron Cross, First Class, and the Bavarian Distinguished Service Order, was recommended twice for the Bavarian Max Josef Order. This was the rarest German decoration for valour, more highly coveted even than the Prussian Pour le Mérite which Göring wears, and carried the predicate of nobility with it. Otto Strasser would have been able to call himself Ritter Otto von Strasser, as John Brown may become Sir John Brown, K.C.B. But the German collapse and the disappearance of the Bavarian monarchy ended his hopes of receiving the award.

Those were great days for Otto Strasser. He knew the exhilaration of a big advance, victory seemed to lie behind each new objective, hope was high in him and his men. He has the greatest respect for the British Army, against which he did most of his fighting, and for Britain as a foe; 'When the British once start,' he then wrote, 'they don't let go,' and I think he is right in this: the bulldog simile has actually some truth. The commander of the Graf Spee said the same thing twenty-one years later.

But in that spring, as he pushed forward with his men, the war really seemed to be going well for Germany. Her armies held nearly all Europe; they had crushed Russia; now they were storming Paris-ward again.

That was a spring to inspire a young officer. Ludendorff would win the game yet! What a general, thought Strasser and his comrades. (To-day, Strasser says he is almost horrified to see how Hitler is repeating all Ludendorff's mistakes. Ludendorff conquered one country, vanquished one foe, won one victory after another - so many victories, but not victory. Hitler is doing the same, says Strasser. He has swallowed two countries; he may yet swallow half a dozen more; he may go from victory to victory; but never to Victory.) Looking back on those days, Otto Strasser inclines to think that Ludendorff made a mistake, after the collapse of Russia, in launching the entire remaining strength of Germany against the French and British on the Western Front. Better, he thinks, if Ludendorff had used a part of it to overrun Italy; that victory could have been had fairly cheaply and the impression it would have made would have put Germany in a better position to bargain for a favourable peace.

As to that, none can say, now. But as the summer came, the German advance slowed down, the Americans poured into France in ever greater numbers, and Otto Strasser's heart began to sink. By June 1918 the promises of the German Admiralty to prevent the transport of American troops to France through the use of the submarine, had been proved vain. Half a million Americans were already there, and each month that succeeded would bring a quarter of a million more.

'And what soldiers!' says Otto Strasser. 'I shall never forget the impression that my first encounter with the Americans made on me, on August 25th, 1918. I was defending with my battery and a few infantrymen and machine-gunners a canal-crossing near Soissons. We had been falling back for days before an urgent and superior enemy. We were without proper supplies of munitions or food, we could not get our wounded and sick away. We had no mail, no trustworthy communication with headquarters, or with our flanks. We dug ourselves in at this important bridge to hold up the advancing enemy -- black French Colonial troops -- as long as we could and cover the retreat of the main body. Some hours passed and, to our surprise, we saw no sign of the enemy. With an orderly, I rode carefully across the bridge and into no-man's land, which was a mile broad at that point.

'Suddenly I saw in front of me, about half a mile away, turning a tree-hidden corner in the road, endless marching columns of cheerful, singing troops in fours, brand-new equipment from their boots to their steel helmets. They marched and sang as if in the midst of peace, splendid young fellows. Four years earlier, in the summer of 1914, we had marched off to war looking like that!

'For the first time, as I watched them, fear rose, in me - fear that we should lose the war. What did it avail us that our shells and machine-gun fire mowed down these incautious lads in swathes, just as we were mown down by the British in Flanders in 1914? This human torrent was so mighty, so relentless, that we were bound to drown in it.

'And' -- adds Otto Strasser, and this is important -- no German soldier who had that experience, who with his own eyes saw the contrast between the starved, ragged and exhausted figures of our diminishing army, and the well-nourished, splendidly-equipped, well-trained and well-rested lads of the innumerable American armies, can ever believe in the stupid and venomous fairytale of the "Stab-in-the-back".'

(I say this is important, because Hitler succeeded, through the irresolution and passivity with which the outer world accepted his successive armed coups, in making the Germans ultimately believe that they had never been beaten in the field, but had only lost the war through the 'Stab-in-the-back' of strikers and mutineers at home.)

Thus, hard on the heels of the triumphant spring and the summer of doubt, came the autumn of disillusionment and despair. This was the first of the really bitter periods in Otto Strasser's life.

Here you have the picture, in the words of a man who, unlike Hitler, was in the forefront of the fighting, advance or retreat: 'Wherever the Allies attacked, our High Command defended every scrap of trench at enormous cost in life, then withdrew a mile or two to ease the pressure, and made a new stand. The German guns were worn out, and the supply of new ones could not keep pace with the need. The German artillery lost irreplaceable material. The German battalions mustered less than 500 men, after two or three days fighting they were down to 300 and 200, to the strength of companies. But these men were burnt-out slack. Whole divisions were no stronger than, in 1914, had been a single regiment, sometimes even weaker than that. Reinforcements were made up of half-grown lads and fifty-year-olds, fathers, grandfathers, sick, half-invalided men. The uniforms were made of substitute materials, the boots were of odd pieces of leather held together by cobbler's thread, leather equipment gave way to hempen makeshifts. The food, already bad, diminished even in quantity.'

Germany was beaten. 'I realized by then that there was no hope left,' says Otto Strasser. 'The spirit was one of desperation. Murmurs of mutiny were in the air. The troops were inferior. The game was up.'

Retreat from glory! Strasser fought rearguard actions. His battery was the only one of the division which was not captured; he saved his own guns and three Prussian guns as well. In September he was so ill with sciatica that he could neither walk nor ride, and had to be carried. An inglorious end to that jubilantly undertaken adventure. A sick man on a stretcher returned to a chaotic Germany where a youngster burning with patriotism had left a prosperous and well-found land. As the German revolution approached, Otto Strasser lay in hospital in Munich; in another hospital, at the opposite end of Germany, in Pasewalk, was Adolf Hitler.

On November 6th, 1918, Strasser, a veteran of twenty-one, was allowed out of hospital, on crutches, for the first time. He used this opportunity to pay a quick visit to his parents, now at Deggerndorf. On November 7th he had to return. As he arrived in Munich he heard the roar of a mob. Hundreds of rioters thronged the station and stormed the train, arresting all officers save Strasser, because he was crippled. But they made to tear off the cockade from his cap and his officer's shoulder-straps.

He drew his revolver - this man has been drawing his revolver now for twenty years or more. A soldier came towards him, told him good-humouredly not to be silly, took the revolver away, and told the crowd, 'I know him, he was my officer in the war. He's all right, he's one of the best. Leave him alone'.

Strasser had never seen him before. He was a Soldatenrat, a member of the revolutionary Soldiers', Sailors' and Workmen's Councils, and wore the red armband. He accompanied Strasser to his hotel, and brought him civilian clothes there. Strasser decided to stay in Munich.

This was a very different homecoming from the one the German soldiers had pictured to themselves - the traditional, triumphal homecoming of flower-tossing maidens, cheering crowds, bands, bugles and beer. The race that began with the starting-gun seemed to have finished, but actually it was just getting under way.

Chapter Four

BELATED HOMECOMING

Otto Strasser, on two crutches, with chaos around him, took stock of his life and surveyed the future. First, he decided to resume those studies interrupted, in 1913, by lack of funds, and, in 1914, by the starting-gun. Now, he was equally short of time and of money. Curtailed courses, three-years-in-one, were available for the men whose education had been stopped by the war, but even this was too long for him. He could only count on his officer's pay as long as he was sick, and resolved to complete that one-year course, somehow, by hook or by crook, in six months.

But first, he had to nurse his health, and to that end he went to a modest Bavarian spa, Bad Eibling, and found there, as well as health, politics. Here came about, in a strange way, his first small appearance on a political stage.

Before I describe it, I want again to trace the growth of political thought in this man. In the beginning, it was inherited, this longing for a just social order that burns in so many Germans, from his father, that outwardly calm, inwardly fiery Bavarian state official.

Then, in the war, as an officer, he had to give 'patriotic instruction' to his men. This was ordered by General Ludendorff, who already scented disaster, at the end of 1917 and was intended to 'improve the spirit of the troops'. In dugouts and billets, the men gathered round their officers, who were supposed to dispel their doubts about the war and its results and the things that Germany ostensibly was fighting for, and to convince them that all questions, all doubts, all scruples, found their ultimate answer in the words 'Kaiser', 'Fatherland', 'Patriotism', and the like.

Otto Strasser was himself, in his heart, a Socialist -- a Socialist of a special kind, as I shall presently explain -- and the questions that some of his men put to him, though he turned them aside or stalled them off with patriotic eyewash, rankled and festered in his mind. Some of them, indeed, would put all the professors in the world to rout in their succinctness, in their simple expression of an unanswerable thought, and even in their language. For instance, this retort, when Otto Strasser spoke of The Fatherland:

'Sehen S', Herr Leutnant, i' bin a Taglöhner; i' hab ka' Land; mei' Vater hat ka' Land; also, was haast für mich Vaterland?'

The beauty of this unfortunately is a little lost in translation, but it means: 'Look, Herr Leutnant, I am a day-labourer; I own no land; my father owns no land; so what, for me, is Fatherland?'

And this question, put by a Bavarian private who in civilian life was a textile worker in Augsburg: 'Herr Leutnant, what is Germany to me? I earn my wage, and it is never more, though it can be less. I can earn it anywhere I go in the world. What difference does it make to me if the English capitalist, or the Italian capitalist, or the French capitalist, or the German capitalist pays me my wages. When I am old and used-up they will chuck me out anyway. So what is Germany to me?'

Picture Otto Strasser, in some candle-lit barn, or dugout parrying these questions. This life, these experiences, added to his inheritance, were forming the man who was developing into an anti-international Socialist, or, to use the term which Hitler afterwards misused,' a National Socialist.

This, in the simplest possible analysis, is the deep-lying difference in thought which for years prevented Otto Strasser from joining Hitler, which later led him to break away from Hitler, and is responsible for his subsequent long and undaunted struggle against Hitler - the difference between National Socialism and National Socialism.

For Otto Strasser, Socialism was always the noun, National merely the adjective, and he rightly foresaw disaster in the blurring of that fact. In a long altercation between him and Hitler, once, the issue was joined on this point, and Hitler, the wordy, accused Strasser of humbugging with words. But Strasser answered, again rightly, that this was no question of juggling with words, but of a fact and a truth, and of the things they were or were not working for. As stupid, he argued, to deny that a bath-chair was in fact a chair, or a lieutenant-colonel a colonel; by Hitler's argument, a field-marshal would have been a field. Socialism on a patriotic basis, Strasser wanted; not militarism with the word Socialist tacked on to it to dupe the masses. And that is exactly the issue, to-day as then.

In the officers' mess, Strasser was wont to discuss these encounters with his men, and to argue that the governing classes in Germany were wrong not to put themselves at the head of the Socialist masses, not to guide, instead of trying to repress, the longing for a just social order which was fermenting in the German soul. 'We officers, and not the Jews, should lead the workers,' he argued. This made him politically a little suspect in the Officers' Corps, and he was known as The Red Lieutenant.

But back to Bad Eibling, and Otto Strasser's first appearance in politics. The Republic had been proclaimed in Bavaria. Strasser, at his spa, had to conceal the fact that he was an officer, for the peat-workers from the neighbouring Kolbermoor were violent revolutionaries. The Jewish Communist leader from Munich, Kurt Eisner, came to Bad Eibling for this very reason.

Otto Strasser, now on two sticks, attended the meeting, a large one, held in December 1918. He looked down from the gallery, where he was accompanied by half a dozen men of his own mind, upon the crowded hall, and listened to things which 'made me almost mad with rage'.

Kurt Eisner, with long hair and beard, looked like the caricatures of a Ghetto Jew. He was, in fact, by origins a Polish Jew and spoke defective German; he had not been in the war, but had written for the Socialist Vorwärts. He was, therefore, 'a Socialist'. So was the angry man listening from the gallery. This picture will perhaps show the difference between one Socialist and another Socialist.

'Kurt Eisner spoke with a fearful Galician accent and with typically Jewish gestures. He was as clever in the methods he used with this yokel audience as any trickster at a fair. "They reproach me with being a Prussian", he said, to odd cries of Jawohl, du Saupreusse; "If my mother in her ninth month had come to Munich and I had been born here I should have been a Bavarian. But -- with spreading arms -- wäre ich ein anderer gewesem? Should I have been a different man?" One or two peasants scratched their heads at this and nodded at each other, "Yes, that's right, he's right there". Then he continued: "Secondly, they reproach me with being a Jew." (Odd cries of, Jawohl, du Saujude!) "But was not Christ a Jew? The man who vilifies us Jews, vilifies Christ." This completely flummoxed the peasants, who were devout Catholics, and they shuffled uncomfortably and looked uncertainly at each other and nodded, as if they felt there was a catch in this somewhere, couldn't for the life of them see where, but had better keep on the right side of the Church anyway.

'Then he started. He shouted that Germany was guilty of the war, that the officers had swilled and guzzled while the troops were driven into the enemy's fire. Both his speech and that of a fat cattle-dealer, Gandorfer, who followed him were directed mainly against the officers. "These officers, these Schweinehunde, went whoring and boozing, and you had to die for them."'

This was too much for the red-faced man in the gallery, who shouted repeatedly 'You liar, you liar', so that the chairman of the meeting called up, 'If you want to speak, come down and speak afterwards in the debate'. 'I will', said Strasser, and this was his first public appearance.

He had never spoken before, he was almost incoherent with indignation, he was twenty-one years old, he was sick, and he had a hostile audience. 'I spoke badly, but it took effect,' says Strasser. 'I told them that proportionately the casualties among officers had been three times as high as those among the men. Not the officers enriched themselves, I said, but the war profiteers, like this fat Gandorfer here. Where were you in the war, Herr Eisner? Where were you in the war, Herr Gandorfer? I was at the front; so were you who sit down there. Ask these loudmouthed gentlemen here where they were, and if they only had sixpence a day pay, like us.'

While he was speaking, his hosts inquired who he was, and suddenly Gandorfer sprang up, pushed him aside, and shouted, 'Comrades, now we have unveiled this fellow - he's an officer!' There was tumult in the hall, the peat-workers, who carry knives in their right boots, surged angrily towards the platform. The men on the platform seized Strasser, pushed him to the back door, threw him out and locked it.

These two men, Otto Strasser and Kurt Eisner, both called themselves 'Socialists'. I stress this point, in order to show what very different types of men may be covered by this name.

Soon after, Kurt Eisner was shot in Munich by Count Arco. Thereupon the Red Republic was proclaimed; until then, there had been a Left Coalition Government of Socialists. Independent Socialists, and Communists. Levine, a Russian Jew and emissary from Moscow, was the moving spirit in the Munich Soviet; other Jews in it were Ernst Toller and Erich Mühsam.

The most famous Bavarian soldier, General von Epp, began to recruit men to oust the Red Government in Munich. He had seen colonial service, and in the war was, first, Colonel of the Bavarian Guard and later general officer commanding the Bavarian Alpine Corps, élite troops. He had fled to Ohrdruf in Thuringia and, with one Captain Ernst Röhm as his chief-of-staff, formed the Epp Free Corps, which all patriotic Bavarians tried to join.

In Munich, the Red Government, fearing the attack, arrested hundreds of hostages, chiefly officers, and now a very sinister thing happened, which deserves a much greater place in the history of the Jews in politics than it has received. Among the hostages were twenty-two members of the 'Tulle Society', a small and unimportant body which fostered the cult of old German literature, traditions, folklore, legends, and the like. Anti-Semitism was an integral part of its teaching; so was anti-Christianity. It was an insignificant group without any power or possibility of putting its theories into practice. It had no single politician among its members, only a few old professors and noblemen.

Of all the hundreds of hostages precisely these twenty-two people, including several women, among them Countess Westarp, were taken out and shot by the alien Jewish Government of Munich!

The Epp Free Corps took shape for the expedition against Red Munich. All the figures who later played a big part in the European drama gathered for this smaller one - save Hitler!

Hitler was in Munich. He was still a soldier. He had, as he tells in Mein Kampf, taken that fearsome anti-Bolshevist oath in hospital at Pasewalk. He was already resolved to save the world from Bolshevism. Yet he did not spring to save Munich from Bolshevism. He did not make his way out and join the Epp Free Corps, although he avowedly burned to fight. He was in Munich, and he was a soldier. But the soldiers in Munich were under the orders of the Red Government, the Jewish Government ruled from Moscow. If he was in barracks, he must have been - a Red!

There was much muttering and murmuring among the National Socialist leaders, much shaking of puzzled heads, in later years, about this, but not the hint of an explanation of his doings in Munich at that time ever came from Hitler. This is a complete gap in Mein Kampf. It is one of the darkest things in all his dark history. I would give almost anything I have to know for whom that man really worked, not only then, but at all times later.

Otto Strasser first drew my particular attention to this remarkable episode in Hitler's life. Although I had closely studied these things, I had overlooked it, and I do not think any other writer has noticed its significance or discussed it. Indeed, a man who was up to the neck in the political turmoil of those days, as was Otto Strasser, is needed to put it in its true proportion, and future historians will be indebted to him for this, because it is one of the most important of the things we know, and they are too few, about the man Hitler. Later, when we know more of him, and the double or triple game he always played is clearer to see, it may prove to be the missing piece in the jigsaw puzzle.

It is worth explaining more fully, for this reason. The Red regime in Munich lasted from November 1918 until May 1st, 1919. Hitler, according to his own account in Mein Kampf, was filled with the most violent hatred of the Jewish-Communist revolution in Germany from the moment it broke out, in the first days of November. In the last days of November, cured and discharged from hospital, he reported to his regimental depot - in that very Munich where the Reds were most powerful.

His own battalion was under the orders of the revolutionary 'Soldiers' Council'. This so disgusted him, he says, that by some means he contrived to be sent to a camp at Traunstein, a few miles away. He says that he returned to Munich 'in March'. The Reds were driven out by von Epp and the Prussian troops at the end of April. For about two months, therefore,' Hitler, a serving soldier, was in Munich when the Red regime was at its height, under the rule of a Russian Jew sent from Moscow, when the hostages were being shot.

Good Bavarians who were there at the same time contrived, by hook or by crook, to get out of Munich and make their way to von Epp, returning with him to drive the Reds out. Otto Strasser did this, at the risk of his life and after surmounting many difficulties.

Hitler, who devotes so many pages in his book to windy abuse of the Reds in Moscow and of International Bolshevism in general, stayed quietly in Munich. He says no word of his life in Munich during those two months. He gives no description of the horrors he saw -- he, who later rails for pages at a time about the wholesale massacres in Moscow -- or of conditions in Munich at all.

But, and this is the vital point, he was a soldier, and soldiers who stayed in Munich were under the orders of that Red Government; if they didn't like it, they deserted by night to von Epp, in Thuringia, and Hitler did not do that. He was then - a Red! He probably wore the red arm-band. Presumably, with the rest of the Munich garrison, he took part in the fighting against von Epp's troops.

What other leader of such a party as the National Socialist Party would in a book pass over in silence such a period as this? All Hitler has to say about it is the vague and unintelligible remark that he was 'nearly arrested' three days before the Reds were driven out. From that he calmly passes on to a sentence beginning: 'A few days after the liberation of Munich I was ...' Nothing about his reasons for staying in Munich, nothing about the horrors of a Red regime which he actually knew, nothing about the severe fighting that preceded the liberation of Munich, nothing about the triumphal entry of von Epp's troops.

Every other notable National Socialist leader or Storm Troop commander, in those days, fought with one or other of the Free Corps somewhere in Germany; this was the very thing that gave them a claim to subsequent advancement in the Party. But the Führer himself, the arch anti-Red - was in Munich. He, who was always filled with a religious horror and hatred of the Bolshevists, retained from these months spent under their rule in a city that he regarded as his adopted birthplace no single memory worth putting on paper.

I believe that future historians will need to start their researches into his life in Munich, in the period between March and May 1919, and unless all the tracks have faded they will discover some strange things. Otto Strasser says that for many years afterwards -- until the advent to power placed Hitler on a pedestal elevated above all such doubts, which would have cost the audible doubter his life -- the National Socialist leaders, when they were talking together of this and that, always returned to the question 'What was Adolf doing in Munich in March and April 1919?' and the answer was always a perplexed shrug of the shoulders or shake of the head.

But all the other men concerned in these events acted as they preached. Von Epp and Röhm formed their Free Corps. Gregor Strasser, back from the war, after serious wounds, had already formed a patriotic Free Corps (the Verband Nationalgesinnter Soldaten Niederbayerns) at Landshut.

This immensely popular man, the living embodiment of the German tragedy, who had a rare gift for talking to his men on equal terms, soon had together a troop of 2000 infantrymen, three field batteries, and a 15cm. howitzer battery, with full war equipment and munitions! Such things were possible in that chaotic Germany.

Gregor Strasser was for a time lord of Lower Bavaria, but as he was an apothecary by day, and could only become a Free Corps leader by night, he took a helper, a young man called Heinrich Himmler. Himmler had not been in the war; he was too young. He reached the rank of ensign at home, but never became an officer, and suffered ever afterwards from a sense of military inferiority for this reason, which he strove to compensate through exaggeratedly coarse and loud militarist behaviour. He had vaguely studied agriculture; but his first profession was that of being adjutant to Gregor Strasser. By day, when Gregor Strasser was busy in his chemist's shop, Himmler was a great man.

Gregor Strasser and his miniature army immediately joined von Epp. (Himmler, for some reason, did not.) Otto Strasser abandoned the studies he had just taken up in Munich and with great difficulty contrived to smuggle himself out of Red Munich and join von Epp at Ohrdruf. As von Epp had too many officers, Otto Strasser served as bombardier with a mechanized battery.

The march on Munich began - the Epp Free Corps and a regular Prussian division. In Munich, the Russian Jew Levine ruled. In two days Munich was captured, after fierce fighting. Levine was court martialled and shot. Otto Strasser is entitled to wear on his left arm the golden lion of the Epp Free Corps.

This episode is also important, for students of contemporary history who seek to know what sort of a Socialist Otto Strasser is. Hitler, the anti-internationalist, the anti-Marxist, the anti-Bolshevist, the anti-Jew, the anti-Socialist, was nowhere to be found in those days. Otto Strasser, who is not only a Socialist but an anti-militarist, was dabei, he was there, he fought to turn the Reds out. If you think about these things long enough, and put them in their proper places, and study many other things that Hitler has done, many of your ideas will change.

On May Day 1919 came the triumphal entry into Munich. The Bavarian soldiers had dreamed for four years of such a triumphal homecoming after the war, but instead of that they saw a revolutionary, alien-led mob which spat at every soldier who did not wear a red arm-band and tore off the officers' shoulder-straps.

But on this day, with summer in the air, Munich was a mass of flowers and cheering people. The incoming troops did, after all, get posies for the muzzles of their rifles and for their helmets. Otto Strasser and his comrades recaptured a broken dream; a little late, the dream came true.

Chapter Five

WAY OF A SOCIALIST

Now came that frenzied, tempestuous, post-war period in Germany, when middle-aged men found their lives in ruins about them, when young men back from the army sought to find a way through chaos to an ordered existence, when lads leaving school looked confusedly, like shepherdless sheep, into a scheme of things that had been shattered to bits and offered no clear way to an assured future.

All barriers had been broken down, but so had all conventions and all standards. The regimentation of the masses, which had been far too strict, gave way to a licence that was far too libertine. Youth was the prey of the free foxes in the liberated hen-roost. Chastity was the butt of a literature and a stage that, in the land of Goethe and the Meistersingers, had come predominantly under the influence of alien cheapjacks and exploiters masquerading as great writers and inspired impresarios.

'Glamour' then had its home in Berlin; its victims, girls and lads in their early teens, were openly bought and sold in the temples of sexual perversion which flourished beneath blazing electric signs in the cities. The word 'currency' became a farce, but while the savings of hard-working people vanished overnight, the manipulators, the vultures of the inflation, grew fat; the other day in London I bought for thirty shillings a collection of German banknotes issued in those days, the nominal value of which represented more billions than the vaults of the Bank of England could hold.

One great financial scandal followed another, as profiteer after profiteer and swindler after swindler decided that the time for bankruptcy was ripe. Communists revolted here; reactionaries there; and precarious coalitions of all-good-men maintained a crazy equilibrium in the land.

Amid this turmoil, Otto Strasser, a revolutionary Socialist, began to grope his way towards the future. He affirms, indeed he insists, that he is a revolutionary Socialist, but because so large a proportion of people are incapable of distinguishing between words and things, between real and imitation pearls, between the Church and Christianity, between the bawling of Rule Britannia and patriotism, I hope to explain, as this book goes on, what sort of a man he is.

Misleading to say that Otto Strasser is a revolutionary Socialist if the reader understands by that something different from the thing that Otto Strasser means, or something different from the truth.

For instance, if I were forcibly held down and compelled by violence to take the label of any one political party, I should have to take that of Socialist, but I should feel myself politically as outcast in the company of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, Lord Snowden, and Mr. J. H. Thomas as in that of Mr. Chamberlain or Sir John Simon, as in that of any present leader of the British Socialist Party. I see no party in Britain that answers at all the longing for a better social order that fills me; they all seem to me to be groups representing special interests, without any real ideals, civic sense, or patriotism in the sense of the whole community.

Otto Strasser, as I have told, began to be a revolutionary Socialist by inheritance; he continued his revolutionary Socialism by becoming an exceptionally efficient and courageous officer in the war; he carried his revolutionary Socialism a stage further by joining in the armed liberation of his homeland from an alien regime which at first also claimed the name, Socialist; he later joined the Socialist Party; then Hitler's National Socialist Party; he is now the bitterest enemy of that party, but is also an antagonist of the Socialist Party, of Fascism, and, venomously, of Communism; because he believes that all of these have betrayed, or that none stands for, that which he wants - German Socialism.

So he is a revolutionary Socialist. The thing ought to be simple to understand, but in a world where the peoples have been brought up on catchwords and tags, it is probably difficult. Nevertheless, I hope that this book will ultimately make clear what Otto Strasser wants and what he is, for both these things are of great interest.

When Munich had been liberated, he began, once more, to strive after that coveted university degree, scrambled somehow through his exams, and in July 1919 was admitted to study at Munich University. His race was with time, and when the vacation came he rushed to Berlin to continue his studies there. He was now twenty-two.

His great problem was his daily bread. These were, as I said, the turbulent times. He had no money, and his family could give him none. The inflation was beginning. The mark was already worth but 20 pfennigs, instead of 100. He had to earn money, somehow, to pay his fees and achieve that doctorate.

This part of his life shows the enormous energy and capacity for work of which I have already spoken. It is common among Germans, but Otto Strasser has it in an exceptional degree. He studied from eight o'clock in the morning until midday at the university, and then went to the Reichstag. This sat only in the afternoon and, to earn his fees, he found a post as stenographer in the parliamentary office of the combined Socialist provincial Press; here the reports of the debates were prepared, suitably tinted with pink, the talk-of-the-lobbies summarized, and the whole sent out to the Socialist newspapers in the country.

This work lasted until 6 or 7 o'clock in the evening, which left him an hour for a simple meal at Aschinger's, one of the cheap chain-restaurants operated by that firm in Berlin. After that, from 8 till 10 o'clock, he took unpaid evening classes for workmen, to whom he taught German history and stenography; and after that, again, he had to prepare his next morning's work for the university.

After a year, the evening classes were discontinued, and he filled in the few leisure hours which this left him by studying Japanese at the Oriental Institute in Berlin. His affections might have expected a rest, in view of all this; but even they were not spared; he found time not to neglect them. Indeed, he has driven them unremittingly, all his life, and does not regret it.

All this time Strasser was on two sticks. His hunger, or mania, for work, however, was not satisfied, and the state of affairs at the university led him to organize a League of ex-Service Students to uphold the rights of men whose studies had been interrupted by the war.

The throwing-open-of-all doors had led to the flooding of the universities, and the compressed emergency courses introduced for such men were being swamped by girls, by Jews and by others who had not served. The ex-service man, as is always the way after a war, was being elbowed aside by eager interlopers. Strasser, at the head of his League, succeeded in raising a loud voice and having this evil remedied.

Another evil, at that time, was the plight of the thousands of young men who starved themselves to finish their studies and then could obtain no employment, or who could by no means raise the fees to complete these studies. This became so grave a public scandal that the leading German industrial concerns joined to form a Students Emergency Association, charged to find employment for the masses of desperate young men who were wandering aimlessly about, and the secretary of this body was Dr. Heinrich Brüning - subsequently the Chancellor who fought so hard, but failed, to keep Hitler from power, and who is now also in exile. Strasser worked in close collaboration with him.

I have mentioned these early post-war experiences and experiments of Strasser in organizing his fellows for some cause because, though they were not specifically political, they show the mind and thought of this revolutionary Socialist. They were good undertakings, of benefit to the community.

Now, for the second time, the political impulse, that broke through for the first time in the episode at Bad Eibling, began to push him into the fray. He became a registered member of the German Socialist Party - and immediately found himself in the forefront of the dissensions which racked that party.

Otto Strasser's view then is his view to-day, the view that makes of him an exile and implacable enemy of Hitler, as it finally drove him out of the Socialist Party. He could have had popularity, position and possessions by compromise, but preferred to be adamant, and this commands respect.

He sought everywhere, but found nowhere, a German Socialism; not a State Socialism, which simply meant one big Capitalist and a horde of officials in place of many capitalists; not a thing of international roots and affiliations, alien in its origins and leadership; and certainly not National Socialism as Hitler made it, which was but capitalist-militarism masquerading as a Socialist circus. He has never faltered, that I can find, from his beginnings until his present exile, and he seems to be that rare, if not unique thing, a real National Socialist.

The Socialist Party at that time -- which had committed suicide in the moment of its revolutionary triumph by calling on the regular army and the old ruling classes in general to protect it against the Communists -- had formed an Einwohnerwehr, or Civilian Defence Corps, as an instrument for the Government to use against the Communist danger. The majority of the local branches of the Socialist Party forbade their members to join it, arguing that they wanted nothing to do with 'the officers' and with militarism, since they were internationalists and pacifists. Otto Strasser strongly advocated membership of the Einwohnerwehr, arguing that if the Socialists did not take it under their wing, the reactionaries would, and in his district, that populous quarter of Berlin called Steglitz, he carried the day. Steglitz joined the Einwohnerwehr, and Otto Strasser became the commander of Steglitz's Hundertschaft, the units of the Einwohnerwehr being called by this name of 'Hundreds'.

All this was in the spring of 1920. There followed the first attempt, called the Kapp Putsch, of the old ruling classes in Germany to dethrone the Socialist-Centrist Government, to sweep away all the newcomers who had succeeded to power in Germany, by means of armed force.

The Kapp Putsch was rather like the von Epp march on Munich, save that it had not the same justification; the Government in Berlin was predominantly Socialist, and dithering Socialist at that, but it was non-Communist and anti-Communist, and had no imported Moscovites in it. By way of contrast, the Kappists imported a man of similar type with them as Press Chief - the Hungarian Jew, Anglican Clergyman, British Member of Parliament, convicted traitor, and professional swindler, Trebitsch Lincoln! This sort of man seems to pop up in every shady affair in the history of Europe. Incidentally, Hitler's professed anti-Semitism, as I have often tried to make people understand, is another lie; witness the international string-pulling Jewess who was go-between in his negotiations with British politicians.

The Kapp soldiers ruled Berlin with their machine-guns for a day or two, until the general strike called by the fugitive Berlin Government caused the collapse of their adventure and their ignominious withdrawal, but they never attacked Steglitz, where Otto Strasser and his Socialist Hundertschaft were waiting, armed, to receive them. By now, the officer who had given his men 'patriotic instruction' in the war who had challenged Kurt Eisner in the Red meeting at Bad Eibling, who had helped to drive the Communists out of Munich, was a Socialist Hundertschaftler, standing ready to give combat to the reactionaries. The Kappists preferred not to use force against the Steglitz Hundred; Steglitz, surrounded but not occupied, was left a peaceful Socialist island in Kappist Berlin.

When the Kappists withdrew, the convinced Socialists thought the day of real Socialism had come. The Government, too cowardly and too scared of the reactionaries to carry out its Socialist programme before, now had the power. At Bielefeld, an agreement was signed between the Government, represented by Karl Severing, and the delegates of the Socialists for the dismissal of the Police Minister, Noske, who had been too weak with the reactionaries and had allowed the Kapp Putsch to happen, for the socialization of heavy industry and for the partitioning of the big estates. On the strength of these promises, the Socialist workers laid down their arms.

The Communists and the Independent Socialists, who were near-Communists, did not, and were defeated by the same Kapp soldiers who had seized power in Berlin. And as soon as that was accomplished, the Government disavowed the promises made by Severing.

Otto Strasser, still following without deviation his ideal of a German Socialism, now found himself with enemies on all sides. A bitter critic of the Government's betrayal of its Socialist policy and promises, he incurred the enmity of the party bosses, intent only on keeping their jobs, and at a Socialist meeting in Steglitz was denounced from the platform as 'a police spy'. (The Police Minister and the Police Chief, so illogical was this charge, were both Socialists.)

At the university, however, where he was still struggling after that degree, he was equally unpopular among the students, the majority of whom were what we should to-day call Fascists or Nazis, and was pilloried as the leader of a 'Red Hundred'. Arriving one morning at the university, he found a notice on the board announcing that he had been debarred from further study there 'pending a disciplinary investigation', and on his furious inquiry for the reason was told that his war record was suspect. By producing the official war history of his regiment, and other documents, he was able to reduce the Rector to a state of contrition and to have the insinuation withdrawn with all ceremony in the presence of the entire Students' Corps of the university, in full regalia.

But an uncompromising man was a lonely man in those days, as now. Disgusted with everything, he left the Socialist Party. The second political period in his life came to an end. For five years he stood aloof from parties, and for three years aloof, almost, from politics; complete abstention from them would be an impossibility for this man.

In March 1921, at long last, he took his degree, at Würzburg, and is thus fated to be known to the end of his days as Doctor Otto Strasser. That opened the door to a minor appointment in the Ministry of Food, where he prosaically represented the interest of authority in artificial fertilizers and the cultivation of moors. This lasted two years. Then, one day, Count von Hertling, his commanding officer in the war, visited the Ministry. He had become head of a big industrial concern, saw Otto Strasser, and offered him an important post in it. Strasser gladly accepted. So, until 1923, as he says, 'ich sass brav in meinem Ministerium und in meiner Industriestellung, and habe eigentlich keine Politik getrieben'. 'I sat like a good boy in the Ministry and in my job, and hardly touched politics.'

November 1923 was to alter that, because it brought the Hitler Putsch in Munich and a change in Otto Strasser's views about Hitler; but a digression is necessary to keep the thread of this story unbroken.

Otto Strasser had first met Hitler in the autumn of 1920, at the time of his embitterment with all parties. He was on holiday, visiting his parents in Bavaria, when his brother Gregor invited him to Landeshut, saying that General Ludendorff, a great hero of Otto's from the war, and one Adolf Hitler, then little known, would be present. At this lunch, says Otto Strasser, 'Ludendorff made a great impression on me. Hitler did not. He was too servile to Ludendorff, and behaved himself like a battalion orderly speaking to a general. Ludendorff was like a block of granite; Hitler, like a nervous, half-hysterical spouter. He used the Jews as a common denominator for all political problems. I told Gregor that I did not want to join the party and would prefer to wait; the only thing I liked about it, I said, was the name, National Socialist, und Du ['and you', that is, his brother, Gregor]. Throughout 1921 and 1922, when I was out of politics, I had many disputes with Gregor about Hitler and the Party. I never felt drawn towards it and would not join. Hitler, after that lunch, always spoke of me as an Intellektbestie.'

Intellektbestie is difficult adequately to translate. 'One of those intellectual cranks', perhaps. It is the sort of term a man of inferior merit may use about another whose arguments have irritated and baffled him. Hitler cannot argue; the slightest hint of contradiction or challenge makes him angry and hysterical. His great good fortune, or skill, is that he never had to join in open debate with an adversary, entering Parliament and becoming dictator only when all opposition had been crushed.

But to resume the thread of the story: Gregor Strasser, several months before this lunch, had heard of Hitler, travelled to Munich, found himself in wide agreement with Hitler's views, and thereupon enlisted his little private army bodily in the National Socialist Party as its independent Gau, or regional organization, for Lower Bavaria. Until then, the National Socialist Party existed only in skeleton form in Munich alone; the recruitment of Gregor Strasser's Verband Nationalgesinnter Soldaten Niederbayerns marked its first extension outside Munich.

Gregor Strasser became Regional Leader, with Heinrich Himmler, the dreaded Secret Police and SS Chief of to-day, as his secretary. Gregor Strasser had already seen that he could not indefinitely keep his private army of foot and artillery together; those days cannot be described as piping ones of peace, but the war was nevertheless receding, the times were growing quieter, the men were getting on with their jobs and forgetting to clean their rifles or turn up on parade, and Gregor Strasser thus realized that he must either disband his organization or turn it into something political. The Reds had been driven from Bavaria, anyway; indeed, in all Germany, Bavaria alone was Red-free; everywhere else the Socialists shared power.

In Bavaria, von Epp and his chief-of-staff Ernst Röhm now ruled. After the triumphal eviction of the Reds in May 1919, instead of restoring the legal, exiled Government, they had, against the wish of Berlin and of the Reichswehr regular troops who had helped them, installed a bourgeois government without any Socialists. They wished to use Bavaria as a base from which the rest of Germany could be similarly cleansed.

click for full size image

ERNST RÖHM

Röhm, an energetic soldier of revolutionary mind, was the real ruler of Bavaria; von Epp was a fine soldier, but not a brilliant thinker. Röhm had all the politics and parties of Munich at his fingertips, and employed an army of agents. Among them was the man Adolf Hitler. One day Röhm (to whom all political meetings in Munich had to be reported) said to Hitler, 'I've an announcement here of a meeting of something called the N.S.D.A.P. (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei). Go along and see what sort of a show it is'.

Here you see how, twenty years ago as I write, the plan or plot was born in an office in Munich that now has let the devil loose on us all again. Von Epp, a remarkably fine figure of a soldier, probably never had an unworthy motive in his life, and simply burned to clean up his country, as he understood cleanliness, and make it a power among nations again. Röhm was a thought too bawdy even for a hardened mind, but by the common judgment of his acquaintances was a good and loyal companion, a brave soldier, and an exceptionally good organizer.

What freakish trick of fate caused him to pick on this epileptic mongrel Hitler, whose virtues are even less than his vices, and he has no vices, this man who cannot prove what he did in Vienna before the war, or even adequately what he did in the war, or what he did in Munich after the war - until Röhm picked on him?

Röhm, sitting at his desk, chose his own executioner in the nondescript fellow standing at attention on the other side of it. More, he chose the man who was to plunge all Europe into war again. More still, he chose the man who, as I am now coming to think, is built entirely of hatreds, but among those hatreds keeps the worst for the people whose destiny he has in his hand. For the strangest passages in the conversations with Hitler which Dr. Hermann Rauschning reports are those verbal orgasms in which he frequently speaks of 'sacrificing the lives of one or two million Germans', of his determination, in some particular circumstances, 'to sacrifice a new German generation', and so on.

Hitler went to the meeting and reported to Röhm (all this information comes from Otto Strasser): 'This is a workman's party. It's something good, the sort of thing we could use, Herr Hauptmann.' Röhm was obsessed with Germany's isolation and defencelessness in the world, with the need for a new army - a secret army. He saw that the old-soldier organizations, like Strasser's Verband and the various Free Corps, deteriorated as the war receded, and he wanted, as did Gregor Strasser, to build a political movement which would reinvigorate them. But his real aim was to create, in the guise of Storm Troopers, a new army under the cloak of that political movement.

Hitler, with his extraordinary instinct, had recognized that the little N.S.D.A.P. was the ideal instrument for the purpose he and his masters had in mind; hence the report, 'We can use this, Herr Hauptmann'. Röhm had already remarked Hitler's talent for propaganda and political agitation, and had chosen him as one of his agents for that reason, and now said to him, in effect, 'Buy the firm out; we can make something of it'.

Röhm's sole condition was the formation of the Storm Troops, the Brown Army. Through this, he counted on remaining the master of the movement. He frequently said: 'All the rest is a matter of indifference to me; I need a well-disciplined private army'.

To this end, he gave Hitler the money to have placards printed, and to buy an obscure little local sporting-sheet, which published racing-tips and football results, called the Völkischer Beobachter. As the man with the money, Hitler was able to throw out the founders of the little party. He never altered its programme, which then already existed, and would never permit any discussion of it - though hardly any of its tenets have been fulfilled by him. The Brown Army was formed, by Röhm; for it Röhm borrowed the brown shirt from one of the Free Corps (Rossbach's) and the swastika from another (Ehrhardt's).

Thus did a soldier of fortune sign his own death warrant and bring disaster on Europe again, that day in Munich twenty years ago as I write. A few other details about this birth of the Hitler Party, culled from Otto Strasser's special knowledge, deserve to be recorded here:

'One of Hitler's innumerable lies, in the legend he has built up, is that he was "the seventh member" of the N.S.D.A.P. At the time when Röhm sent him to report on it, it already had several hundred members. He became the seventh member of the executive committee, in charge of publicity. Nor did he invent "National Socialism". The party was founded by one Harrar and Anton Drexler; they copied it from an Austrian party of the same name, the National Socialist Party, founded by the Sudeten Germans Jung and Knirsch; and they in their turn took the idea from the Czechs. A young Czech labour leader, Klovacs, in about 1892, seceded with the Czech workers from the Socialist Party in pre-war Austria-Hungary because its leadership and methods were "Jewish, international and German", and founded in Bohemia the first "National Socialist Party", whose most famous members were, later, Masaryk and Benesh. The only man in the party who has no conception of real National Socialism is Adolf Hitler.'

All this information is Otto Strasser's. The last sentence is literally his. It is, in my judgment, literally true.

Such were the beginnings of the movement which took root and grew -- to the misfortune of Europe, under the leadership of a professional perjurer -- while Otto Strasser was 'sitting like a good boy in his Ministry and his job and not bothering with politics'. In 1923 came its first attempt to seize power, and one effect of this was to bring Otto Strasser back into politics.

This was the story. By 1923, von Epp and Röhm no longer ruled Bavaria, but had been displaced in favour of a regime more in sympathy with Berlin. Röhm had already been elbowed aside by Hitler (who later recalled him, from Bolivia, to take over the Brown Army). Hitler, with General Ludendorff and Göring, now Storm Troop commander, attempted to displace the Bavarian Government by force, hoping, as von Epp and Röhm had previously hoped, from Bavaria to reach out and rule the Reich. Gregor Strasser was commander of the Landeshut Battalion in this exploit. Hitler, marching with his Storm Troops in the expectation that he would not be resisted, was received by the bullets of the regular troops. He fled, was arrested and imprisoned; Ludendorff was wounded; Göring was wounded but escaped abroad; Gregor Strasser was sentenced to one and a half years imprisonment. The first Hitler Putsch collapsed.

This brought a complete change in Otto Strasser's opinions about Hitler. Until then, he had not taken the National Socialist Party seriously. He had regarded it as half-reactionary, and therefore no party for a revolutionary Socialist; or, to quote his own words, as a 'cheap edition of reaction, with a red cover on it to delude the buyer'.

But in Munich, on November 9th, 1923, the bullets of a reactionary regime were fired at Hitler and his men. 'My brother was right after all,' thought Otto Strasser. 'This is a revolutionary movement, this is a Socialist movement. Hitler's flirtations with the generals and big business will have to stop now.'

This view was strengthened by Ludendorff's famous subsequent speech -- the fascination of Ludendorff for many German officers must not be forgotten -- in which he said, 'Now I know that the salvation and reconstruction of Germany are not possible in collaboration with the reactionaries'.

Ludendorff at that time solemnly discarded all further caste-fellowship with his kind. Otto Strasser's regiment had sent a circular letter to all its officers, including Strasser, telling them that they must choose between the Crown Prince Rupprecht of Bavaria (the heir to the abolished crown) and General Ludendorff, and make a declaration of loyalty in this sense. Otto Strasser immediately plumped for Ludendorff, and was forthwith excluded from the Officers' Corps of his regiment.

By these means, Otto Strasser, the fervent admirer of the German Officers' Corps, the Free Corps, anti-Red soldier of Munich, the Socialist Hundertschaftler of Steglitz, the undaunted and undeviating seeker after 'German Socialism', was drawn again into the whirlpool of politics. He thought he had found the thing he believed in.

His brother Gregor remained in prison, with Hitler, until at the election of May 1924 he was elected to parliament and thereupon released. Hitler remained in prison, writing Mein Kampf as he says - another untruth. Hitler being in prison, Gregor Strasser took over the leadership of the entire party, including North Germany, whither it had now spread through the recruitment, en masse, of the Völkische movement of Graefe.

One of Gregor Strasser's first actions was to expel the clown Julius Streicher from the party, which he then proceeded to organize and expand. He was its head, and remained its real head for some time, even after Hitler's release from prison, for two good reasons. First, Hitler, though free, was forbidden to speak throughout the whole of North Germany, and could not have taken part in the work for this reason. Second, and this shows the financial plight of the men who made Hitler's party for him, Gregor Strasser, as a Reichstag Deputy, held the coveted free-railway-pass which enabled him to travel to and from Berlin without cost, and this was vitally important. Hitler, as an Austrian, could not, even if he would, have been returned to Parliament, and this is another example of his stupendous luck, for in open debate he would so quickly have been routed, that his rise to power and triumph would have been almost inconceivable; the myth would have been shattered too soon.

Hitler was a discredited and almost forgotten man. Gregor Strasser, far more popular, much better understood, was the leader of the National Socialist Party. But Hitler had one great source of strength. He was the only one of them all with any money. This he obtained from big-business magnates and other interested parties behind the scenes, by selling out piecemeal, in private parleys, the Socialist parts of the National Socialist programme, to which the Strassers and their friends attached vital importance. But that only became known much later.

Otto Strasser, after that Munich Putsch, gingerly began to feel the political waters again with one toe by writing leading articles under a pseudonym for the Völkischer Beobachter. Now his brother Gregor came to him and renewed his urgent appeals. 'We are independent in North Germany now', he said, 'and we can give the party substance and meaning, a countenance and an ideology. Now, lieber Otto, you will have to help me. WE will make and mould this party.'

In this way, Otto Strasser, the revolutionary Socialist in persistent search of revolutionary Socialism, joined the National Socialist Party in 1995. Not Hitler, the political foundling without a clean page in his record, but the two Strassers, men of clear ideas and unimpeachable history, were at that time the real leaders of the party. Believing that he had found the political haven where he fain would be, Otto Strasser set to work.

Chapter Six

HEIL AND FAREWELL

Five years passed from that day when Otto Strasser, joined the Heil-Hitlerists to the day when he bade Hitler farewell, telling him to his face that he was a windbag, a fraud and a humbug, and resumed his lonely fight for a German, revolutionary, Socialism. (Neither he nor his brother Gregor, incidentally, ever used the form of address, 'Mein Führer', in speaking to Hitler. They were both men of sturdy and independent character and called him 'Herr Hitler' to the end.)

These five years were filled with the struggle between the Strassers and Hitler for the power within the National Socialist Party, for the power in Germany. They did not see the struggle in that light, they did not feel themselves to be working against Hitler. They only saw that Hitler was betraying the things he claimed to represent, the promises he had made, and sought to bring him back to them. Inevitably, the men who thought as they did grouped themselves around the Strassers. But they did not consciously struggle for power, only for the soul of Hitler and the principles of the party.

This conflict of itself developed into a struggle for power, because Hitler was not interested in principles he had proclaimed to catch votes; they were for him not principles at all, but tactics, and he implacably sought to get rid of any who tried, by pinning him to principles, to cramp what he regarded as tactics.

In this way he came to look upon all men who had really believed in the professed tenets of National Socialism as his enemies, as intriguing foes within the walls, and he turned on them, to destroy them. But these men naturally resisted, feeling that they were right and that he was wrong, or misled. They had invested time, money, strength and idealism in the party, and would not give way or allow themselves to be brusquely elbowed aside. In this way, the struggle became one for power.

It ended in the triumph of Hitler and the rout of the Strassers. Otto Strasser seems to me to-day, when I look back upon those years in Germany, to be the only man among all the leading National Socialists who both saw that Hitler was a cheap cheat, and had the courage to say so and take up the struggle against him.

Even his brother Gregor seems never quite to have discerned this truth. His loyalty to Hitler survived all tests, and his persistent argument, in his innumerable discussions with the disbelieving Otto, was that 'the horse is bucking, certainly, but it is going the right way and we shall contrive to stay on it', to which Otto invariably replied. 'You are wrong; the horse is not bucking, but travelling in the wrong direction, and we cannot alter that'.

Gregor had an easy-going streak in his pugnacious nature which always led him, in the decisive moment, to give way to Hitler, and this affected the course of European history. For if he had broken away from Hitler with his brother, the National Socialist Party would certainly have split, and Germany and Europe would have been spared the militarist nightmare in which they now live; or, even if the party had not split, the claim-to-the-succession of the two Strassers, to-day, would be irresistible. The one Strasser alone, Otto, has a much harder and longer way to travel, but he is well in the running.

The whole dispute around which this quarrel and struggle revolved was the old, old doubt which had filled Otto Strasser until the day when the forces of reaction fired on Hitler at Munich - whether Hitler would be true to his Socialist professions, whether he really meant to lead Germany to a new social order and to a German Socialism, or whether he was the catspaw of the old, embattled ruling classes in Germany, big business and big landownership.

After five years with Hitler, Otto Strasser was confirmed and strengthened in the doubts he had felt before 1923, and in 1930 he accepted the logical consequence of this - he bade Hitler farewell.

His brother, easy going, not yet convinced and loth to abandon a loyalty, wandered on at Hitler's side, filled with inward misgivings, loth to break away, and saw Otto Strasser's words come true when Hitler came to power. But this was too late; Gregor was then a broken and a doomed man. Otto, clearer-sighted and more resolute, though less of a great popular figure, had cut the hawser in time, and lives to pursue his mission - that of avenging Germany and of avenging Gregor Strasser.

The story of those five years, between his half-convinced, still doubting, surrender to Gregor Strasser's persuasions, and his final breakaway is therefore more that of a direct conflict between Hitler and Otto Strasser, with Gregor continually trying to make them link arms, than between Hitler and the two Strassers. This gives Otto Strasser his claim to attention to-day, and his eligibility to a big part in the future.

For he was right; Gregor was wrong; and Hitler was wrong, or rather Hitler is so mendacious a man that we do not know yet whether he was wrong or not, because we do not know, and perhaps never shall know, what he really wanted. In any case, the struggle was joined between him and Otto Strasser. Between them, placatory, stood Gregor Strasser. In the background, sometimes advancing to the front of the stage to put in a word or two or do a little stiletto-stuff, moved other figures - the malignant hobgoblin Goebbels; the Falstaffian but vindictive Göring; the bespectacled bosom-snake Himmler.

Five stormy years!

When Otto Strasser joined his brother Gregor, and became Hitler's liege, Gregor was the real head of the party in the vital and largest area of the Reich -- North Germany -- from which Hitler was barred.[2]

The party was in a bad way -- the ignominious collapse of the Munich adventure lay but eighteen months behind it -- and the two Strassers set diligently to work to reinvigorate it. Gregor took as his personal, paid assistant an unknown man, the sycophantic dwarf who later, at his downfall, was to prance around him with waspish jeers and taunts, Doctor Joseph Goebbels. The Strassers began their work by issuing the National Socialist News-Letters, published for the officials of the party only, and in these the principles and doctrine of the Socialist, or Strasser, wing of the party were expounded and developed.

click for full size image

GREGOR STRASSER

The 'fight against Munich', that is, the fight between the tactician Hitler in Munich and the convinced Socialists Gregor and Otto Strasser in Berlin, dominated the life of the party at this time, and Goebbels, with his talent for telling rhetorical thrusts, took a leading part in it on the Strasser side. Suspicion and distrust of Hitler were widespread, and the conflict blazed into open flame at the famous 'Leaders' Meeting' at Hanover in October 1925, which was called to concert measures for improving and strengthening the party organization throughout Northern Germany, and for removing dissensions. It was attended by such notable Nazi leaders of to-day as Viktor Lutze, the present Brown Army Commander; Rust, the Schools Minister; Kerrl, the Church Minister; Robert Ley, the Labour Front Leader; Hildebrandt, the Mecklenburg Statthalter; and of course the two Strassers and Goebbels.

Hitler, banned from North Germany, sent to it a representative, Gottfried Feder. The meeting developed into an open expression of dissatisfaction with Hitler, and one resolution after another was passed which clearly showed this feeling.

The meeting was unanimous, save for Dr. Ley, who repeatedly protested that resolutions and decisions taken without reference to Hitler were invalid, whereon Rust exclaimed, 'We will not tolerate a Pope in our party', and Goebbels proposed that Hitler should be expelled. Gregor Strasser tactfully slurred over these things, stating that he was not a candidate against Hitler for the leadership, but was concerned to improve the organization in North Germany, which had been entrusted to him.

The conference then resolved that all North German branches of the party should be amalgamated in a single North German organization under Gregor Strasser; that all officials of the North German party must look to the Strasser News-Letters for their political guidance; that a publishing house should be founded in Berlin, under Gregor and Otto Strasser, which would take over all publicity and press work for the party in North Germany. Further, it was resolved, and this was vital, that the political programme (for 'real German Socialism') drawn up by the Strassers was accepted, and the entire body of North German leaders, save Ley, pledged themselves to vote, at the next National Congress of the entire party, for this programme to be substituted for the famous, but obsolete and imprecise, 'Twenty-Five Points' taken over by Hitler from the little party he had bought out, with Röhm's money, in Munich in 1919.

These Twenty-Five Points were adopted by Hitler as his programme and he had always refused to allow any discussion of them. He had, however, added a rider, which was in effect an annulment, to one of the most important of them, that which demanded the break-up of big estates for settlement purposes. This modification was made by him as a concession to big-business and big-landownership interests with which he was, so long ago, already in privy negotiation. This demand for the expropriation of land, however, was one of the most important things in the Twenty-Five Points, and one of those which justified the claim of the party to the name National Socialist. Its emendation made Hitler most suspect to such men as Otto Strasser. As this conflict of ideas and ideals between Hitler and the Strassers, between the convinced National Socialists and the merely power-seeking men in the party, plays a great part in the whole German development until the present day, and in the story which this book has to tell, I have reproduced the Twenty-Five Points as an appendix, for comparison with Otto Strasser's programme of 'A German Socialism' which is explained in a subsequent chapter.

The Hanover meeting, with its rebuff to Hitler, its endorsement of the Socialist part of the National Socialist programme, and its declaration of allegiance to Gregor Strasser, was thus a triumph for the two Strassers and their doctrines. It was followed immediately by their discomfiture, the first of the setbacks which ultimately led to Otto Strasser's breakaway from Hitler and to Gregor Strasser's dismissal and murder. Hitler out-manoeuvred them in this manner.

On receiving Feder's report from Hanover, he called a counter-meeting of all South German leaders at Bamberg, and invited the North German leaders, Strasser's men, to attend. None of them went, because at this time politics was an expensive spare-time luxury for these men, most of whom were living on the edge of poverty or had businesses which they could not leave; even the fare was a serious obstacle.

Only Gregor Strasser, who had his famous free-railway-pass, and Goebbels, who had 200 marks a month from Strasser, attended. Goebbels there first saw Hitler. He saw more. He saw Hitler's host of salaried officials from the embryo Brown House in Munich (Hitler was getting money from the magnates) and he saw swarms of Hitler's motor cars. He mentally contrasted this with the poverty-stricken picture of the North German leaders' meeting and with his own paltry 200 marks a month.

Thereon, Goebbels decided that he had been standing on his bad leg and shifted his weight on to the good one. In sonorous and repentant tones, he declared that he could not associate himself further with the decisions of Hanover, whither he had called for the expulsion of Hitler.

Gregor Strasser was left isolated. His own supporters were absent. Goebbels had publicly betrayed him. He was poor; Hitler had the money. He shrugged his shoulders and accepted defeat.

He was left at the head of the North German organization, because Hitler was not allowed in North Germany anyway, but Hitler refused to discuss the Strasser programme. The Twenty-Five Points were restored to their place as the official programme of the party.

From that day dated the deadly enmity between the Strassers and Goebbels, which may yet see a spectacular issue. Goebbels, purring, left the meeting in Hitler's motor car. Max Amann, the head of Hitler's Eher Publishing House, gazed curiously at him and murmured to Hitler: 'This is the Mephisto of our party.'

As an instance of the kind of issue which agitated opinion within the party in those days, and led to such dissensions, I may mention that the dispute about the confiscation of the property of the former reigning dynasties was in progress. On the ground that war-disabled men, inflation victims and others had had no compensation, the Strassers, and the bulk of the party were for confiscation; Hitler, who was bargaining with the magnates behind the scenes, was against it.

Nevertheless, the Strassers resumed the struggle in North Germany, and Gregor persuaded Otto, as Goebbels had left him, to give up his job in Count von Hertling's concern and devote all his time to the party. This happened at the beginning of 1926. With the money he received as compensation for surrendering a contract which still had two and a half years to run, Otto Strasser founded the North German publishing house, the Kampfverlag, and began to publish National Socialist newspapers in Berlin and throughout North Germany.

In the years 1926-28 the entire North German section of the National Socialist Party was inspired by and controlled through the Kampfverlag, of which the Strassers and a third partner, Hinkel, held the shares in equal parts. It was bigger than Hitler's own publishing house, the Eherverlag, at Munich. Through it, the great struggle for the mind of Germany was waged, a struggle of ideas, of organization, of publicity and of finance, a battle between Munich and Berlin, between Hitler and the Strassers, between Eherverlag and Kampfverlag.

In 1927 Hitler delivered his great blow, one which was eventually to prove fatal to the Strassers.

Looking round for an instrument to use against the Strassers, whose incorrigible convictions hampered his tactical ideas, he picked on Goebbels, the penitent of Bamberg, the detested enemy of the two brothers in Berlin. Goebbels he made Regional Leader of the party in Berlin, in 1927, and instructed him to begin publication of a newspaper, the Angriff, rival to those issued by the Kampfverlag. His mission was to be a thorn in the Strasser side.

It was a curious position. Otto Strasser, who held no party office, was formally entitled to publish the official party organ for Berlin; Goebbels, who was the party leader in Berlin, published a non-official paper in competition with it. Gregor Strasser was Hitler's deputy, the National Socialist leader for all North Germany; Goebbels was made leader for Berlin in order to undermine and overthrow him. This was one of the earlier examples of Hitler's methods of attaining his ends.

For three years, from 1927 to 1930, the vendetta was pursued with tremendous bitterness, at first behind the scenes, then in the open. The vendors of the rival newspapers fought each other in the streets, while the Socialists and Communists laughed and rubbed their hands; but in this feud Goebbels had the advantage, for he was the commander of the Berlin Storm Troops.

One day, Hitler himself came to Otto Strasser's well-appointed office in the Nürnbergerstrasse and tried to induce him voluntarily to suspend publication of his newspaper, which preached National Socialism, the Berliner Arbeiterzeitung. Strasser answered: 'Why should I? We were first in the field. Our papers have appeared for years. We have the official party authorization to publish. We did the spadework and broke the ground. The party and its press are now thriving, thanks to our work. Tell Goebbels to stop publication of his paper.'

Hitler answered: 'This is not a question of right, but of might. Goebbels has the Storm Troops, and what can you do if twenty Storm Troopers come here one day and smash the place up?'

Otto Strasser opened his drawer, laid his revolver on the table -- I said before that he loves this gesture -- and said, Herr Hitler, in that case you will have eight Storm Troopers the less'. Hitler shouted: 'But you can't shoot my SA men!' Said Otto Strasser: 'I thought you said they were Goebbels's SA men. If they are yours, you can stop them. Anyway, I'll shoot anybody who breaks in here with the intention of attacking me.'

'We should have broken openly with Hitler then', says Otto Strasser. 'That was the right moment, and we were in a very strong position. But Gregor always wanted to avoid the open conflict. He thought we should win in the end anyway, and should appear to give way by transferring our offices outside Berlin.'

Between 1929 and 1930 the rise of the party was so rapid that the Kampfverlag grew rapidly, and had to make daily papers out of several of its weekly papers. The friction with Hitler and Goebbels consequently increased. At last Hitler sent for the three partners in the Kampfverlag, the two Strassers and Hinkel, to come to Munich. (Hinkel is to-day Reich Commissioner for the Jewish Question, having retained Hitler's favour through his subsequent compliance in this matter.)

'Hitler behaved like a madman. He shrieked and roared at us, and then flattered us. He offered to buy the Kampfverlag from us at any price we liked to name, and offered Hinkel and myself deputy's seats in the Reichstag. [A deputy's seat in Germany was a fairly profitable thing.] Gregor was ready to sell, but his share was only a third. I refused point blank and contrived to get Hinkel to refuse also. The conversation lasted many hours and at times was conducted in a Bedlam-like atmosphere. At one point I remarked mildly, "You are mistaken, Herr Hitler", whereon Hitler shouted, "I cannot err, everything that I do and say is history".'

The tension approached explosion point. At last the breach came. The immediate cause was a metalworkers' strike in Saxony.

The Strassers and the North German section of the party supported the strikers, and the official order of the party to its members was 'strike'. The Employers' Federation then sent an ultimatum to Hitler that it would cut off its contributions to his exchequer unless the strike order were at once countermanded. Hitler ordered the Saxon Branch of the party to countermand the strike order and instruct its members not to take part. The National Socialist Leader for Saxony, Mutschmann, gave way, but the Strassers held fast, and the official press of the party urged the workers to continue the strike. Thus, the open conflict broke out - in the spring of 1930.

Hitler came to Berlin and had two long and stormy meetings with Otto Strasser, who suffered at them from his old handicap - Gregor had begged him not to provoke a split, because in that event he would stay with Hitler. Gregor's motive was always the same; he believed that the National Socialist movement was good and that the only fault was one of tactics, which could later be corrected; he did not believe that anything fundamental was wrong with the party. Otto took the opposite view.

These two encounters with Hitler are of great interest. Otto Strasser recorded them immediately afterwards, as literally as he could remember them, and published them in his Aufbau des Deutschen Sozialismus (Structure of German Socialism) in 1931.

Thus for many years the record of those two terrific conversations has been on record and in print, available to all who wanted to study the man Hitler. To-day the accounts of his hysterical orgasms in such conversations come from all sides. Ambassadors, who formerly counted among his admirers, publish them. His former lieutenants publish them. Mental specialists all agree that this man is mad. The peers who wooed him all agree that this man is mad. Everybody agrees, quite suddenly, that this man is mad.

Why? He has not done anything now that he did not do, repeatedly, in the seven preceding years of his might - save the pact with the Bolshevists. He has not said anything now that he did not say over and over again in those years and long before. He has touched no summit of delirium that then was beyond his reach.

Here, in these two protracted wrangles with Otto Strasser ten years ago, you find it all - the shouting and screaming, the half-witted jargon -- like a low music-hall comedian caricaturing a diehard major of the most exaggerated type -- even the threats and the ultimatum.

On the one side, Otto Strasser, who wanted a straight answer on an issue of major political importance. On the other side, the cheapjack ranting of Hitler, who pulverized the clearest question and the most logical argument alike with shouted retorts of 'Marxism', 'Bolshevism', 'Democratic bunkum', 'Nonsense' and so on. There it all is, the same picture, in every detail, with which the world has become familiar since the outbreak of war.

Nowadays, people think. 'Of course, a man who behaves like that is clearly irresponsible, a public danger. If the world had only known'. But the world could have known. It could have known from this account of Otto Strasser's of his two-day struggle with Hitler. But it did not want to know. Strasser's narrative would even have been discounted, as exaggerated, by anybody who took the trouble to read it. To-day, the world has become sufficiently familiar with Hitler to know that it is a life-like portrait, true in every detail.

It is, indeed, the first such portrait, painted long before Hitler came to power, at a time when the world was only languidly interested in Hitler and did not believe in his capacity to do the harm he has done. It is strange that it did not attract attention later, when Hitler had come to power, and any fifth-rate gutter-journalist from Berlin could go abroad, to England or America, and publish the 'inside story' of Hitler. Here was the inside story, and nobody bothered to read it.

I believe Strasser's book, containing the account of these two conversations, has never been translated; at any rate it has never appeared in English. If any foreign statesman, having the interests of his country really at heart, had wished to learn what sort of a man Hitler was, he could have found all he needed here. A statesman who had read these pages would not, unless he were incorrigibly wooden-headed and blind to his country's interests, have found himself years later talking about 'that eternal tendency to suspect Herr Hitler which unfortunately only breeds counter-suspicion', or suchlike twaddle.

Here he would have found, if he wished to know it, the true picture of Hitler. A thimblerigger, a three-card-trickster, a mountebank who sought to make his trashy wares look genuine by shouting them ever more loudly, as does the ranting cheapjack at the fair, a man without truth, honour or loyalty, a third-rank political swindler destined through intrigue to be borne to the loftiest heights of power.

His adversary, in those days, was a man who believed in certain things and wished to attain power in Germany in order to bring them about; Hitler, as these conversations show, believed in nothing, but thought these certain things worth professing as a means to attain power, when he meant to do something quite different.

The two men are as different as night and day, as thief and honest man, as renegade and patriot. The greatest renegades, in all countries, are those who shout their patriotism loudest, bawl their national anthem loudest, clamour loudest that they will not sheathe the sword in wars in which they do not fight, cry loudest for that patriotic conscription which will not conscript themselves.

Hitler, in this understanding of the word, is the greatest patriot of all time, a worthy crony of those in other countries who sang his praises and propped him up until he could plunge Europe in war again, and then, in their pure patriotism, began chanting 'the man is mad, we must finish with him, send the young men away to finish with him, down with him'.

He deserves, and they deserve, an honoured place in the Valhalla of such patriots. They are the men who have made Europe what Europe is, and if you like it, you like it. If only, one day, we could have just one settling of accounts with these renegades. If they have their way, they will soon be betraying us again, with and through Göring.

Such men enabled Hitler, this cesspool-product Hitler, the greatest traitor and renegade that Germany ever had, for years to pose and be accepted as a German patriot, of all ludicrous things. By similar means, men in Britain who should be pilloried as renegades are able to pose, not for years, but for decades, with the halo of a shining patriotism encircling their heads.

I shall give long extracts from the two conversations here because they so clearly illuminate the theme of this book, the method by which renegades-called-patriots succeed ever and again in bringing about war in Europe, and the characters of the two men called Adolf Hitler and Otto Strasser. For many years after the publication of these conversations, such is the level of intelligence in Europe, it was possible to present Hitler, because he was entirely and cynically and avowedly self-seeking and without any feeling for the welfare of Germany, as a patriot: Otto Strasser, because he had precisely this feeling for the welfare of Germany, and was not self-seeking, and clung to his convictions, as an anti-patriot and 'Red'; to this appalling extent is the public opinion of Europe, and particularly of Britain, slave to the millionaire-owned newspapers whose mission, as it believes in its purblindness, is to inform.

The theme of these two long verbal rencounters is the old, old dispute. Strasser asks quietly again and again, in a dozen different ways, 'Are you for Socialism; do you mean what you say; have you the ideal of a better social order in view; or are all these only phrases which you use to catch votes; is power your only real aim?'

Hitler, in reply, rants, rails, and roars: 'I am the anointed of Heaven, you are an intellectual crank' (do you remember those sergeant-majors whom Otto Strasser so loathes from his recruit days?), 'I know what is best, what you say is the purest Marxist-Bolshevist-Liberal-Democratic-Socialist-Communist-Red muck'. (It is not I, but Hitler, who marries the adjective 'pure' with 'muck'; he does it continually; he would.)

These are not direct quotations, but they give the picture. The contest is between a man of convictions, ideals, and logical mind; and a liar who believes in nothing and is prepared to use any means to counter an argument, crush an adversary, or bring about a war.

On the one side of the table sits a man of clear thought and convictions who can pungently put and counter an argument; on the other, a ridiculous tub-thumper, vain as a peacock, who can produce no answer to a direct question but a string of meaningless catchwords, who is thrown into hysterical paroxysms by any simple interrogation, because he knows himself to be a liar, and who clearly shows that he has no ideals or convictions whatever, that he is only for the means and leaves the end to look after itself.

These meetings took place on May 21st and 22nd, 1930. The first began with the familiar tirade -- Hitler's technique never changes, from Otto Strasser in 1930 to Kurt von Schuschnigg in 1938 and Sir Nevile Henderson in 1939 -- of shouted reproaches and threats, on account of the tone taken in the publications of the Kampfverlag, culminating in a demand for the immediate dissolution of that publishing house, or else ... But when Otto Strasser rose and quietly said he had come for a discussion and was not prepared to listen to an ultimatum, Hitler, as ever, became calm and friendly, and the talk began.

The battle was joined with Hitler's objections to criticisms made in Strasser's papers about the appointment, by the first National Socialist Minister, Dr. Frick, in Thuringia, of one Schulze-Naumburg to a high post in the realm of art. Strasser replied that the younger generation of artists of National Socialist sympathies held this gentleman to represent the wax-flowers-under-a-glass-bowl period in art and had the right to state its opinion. Hitler's rejoinder began, 'Everything you say proves that you have no idea of art. There is no such thing as an "older generation" or a "younger generation" in art, there is only art, and particularly Greek-Nordic art'. Strasser interjected another view and mentioned 'Chinese and Egyptian art as an expression of the souls of those peoples'. Hitler answered: 'What you say is the most obsolete Liberalism. There is no such thing as Chinese or Egyptian art, only Nordic-Greek art ...'

*

The conversation begun on this level remained on the same level throughout. Hitler's next reproach was against an article which, as he complained, 'differentiated between the Idea of National Socialism and the Führer, and even put the Idea higher than the Führer'.

Strasser, while disclaiming any disrespect for Hitler, said he held precisely that view. A Führer 'might become ill, or die, or conceivably deviate from the Idea; but an Idea was of divine origin, and eternal'.

This, said Hitler, was 'bombastic nonsense hatched out at a debating table, and the worst sort of democratic bunkum. The Führer and the Idea were one, and every National Socialist must obey the orders of the Führer, who embodied the Idea and alone knew its ultimate aim'.

'That, Herr Hitler,' said Otto Strasser quietly, 'is the doctrine of Rome, and both of Papist and of Fascist Rome. For me, the Idea is the vital thing, the Idea of National Socialism, and my conscience decides when a gap appears between Führer and Idea.'

Hitler simply cannot stand this sort of stuff; people who talk like that are for him 'intellectual cranks', and a kindly providence alone prevented the meeting from being ended by a stroke at this point. But he knew the age-old answer to this one: discipline! 'You are talking rank democracy,' he said, 'and this would lead to the break-up of our party, which is based on discipline, and I don't intend to have the party destroyed by a few conceited scribblers. Do you intend to submit yourself to this discipline, as your brother does, or not?'

Thus, at a very early stage in an argument that lasted the best part of two days, Hitler fell back on the age-old retort of 'patriots', of this kidney; 'You have put a question which I am unable to answer. I must remind you of the necessity for discipline. Yours is not to reason why, yours is to do as I tell you in the unquestioning belief that I am always right. Where should we be if you began to wonder whether I am always right. This would be intolerable. You might then want to go in a different direction, even in a better direction, than the one I want you to go. This is pure Bolshevism. Pure, I repeat, Bolshevism. Gad, sir, discipline! Only discipline can bring you where I want to go.'

Here, again, the resemblance to those encounters with the parade-ground buffoons of 1914, whom Otto Strasser so detests, is striking. 'Conceited intellectuals.' 'Conceited scribblers.' 'Piano-players to the left, those who speak French or English to the right. Now then, the conceited intellectuals who speak French or English can go and clean the closets.'

Strasser replied that he knew a deal about discipline from the war, and not discipline, but conscience and a sense of duty alone had carried him and many others like him through the last bitter months. He begged Hitler not to be deluded by the cheap plaudits of the creatures about him ...

Hitler interrupted: 'I forbid such defamation of my collaborators.'

Strasser replied: 'Herr Hitler, we need not try to fool each other. How few of these collaborators are mentally able to form their own opinion, and how few even of these have the spirit to state it, if it differs from yours. Or do you believe that my brother would be so well-disciplined if he were not financially dependent on you, through his deputy's seat?'

Thereupon Hitler invited Strasser to follow his brother's example and offered him the post of Press Chief of the party if he would come to Munich and work under his, Hitler's, supervision. Strasser said he could only do that if they agreed about the fundamental principles of policy -- about the Idea, in fact -- and first an exhaustive discussion of all questions, particularly those of foreign policy and Socialism, would he necessary; to that end he would be ready to come to Munich for four weeks and thrash these matters out with Hitler, and with Alfred Rosenberg, whose enmity, as that of the spiritual prompter of the National Socialist Party, he felt keenly.

Now came the ultimatum, in the same form that it later came in the interviews with Chancellor von Schuschnigg, and President Hacha, and many others. 'Proposals of this sort,' said Hitler, 'are too late. My patience is exhausted.'

And he threatened, if Otto Strasser did not give an immediate decision about the offer for a Press Chief's post, irrespective of his convictions or the promises of the party, to expel him and all his associates from the party and to sever all connection between the party and the Kampfverlag. Here was the same method which was later to be used in annexing countries. Otto Strasser was threatened with bankruptcy, but he would be spared if he took a bribe. Schuschnigg was threatened with invasion, but would himself have been spared if he had 'legalized' it by appealing for it.

Strasser answered that Hitler undoubtedly had the means to carry out his threats, but in doing this he would confirm Otto Strasser's suspicions, that his real motive was a fundamental antagonism to the Socialist doctrine which the Kampfverlag, in accordance with Hitler's and the party's promises, had preached for five years, and that this was the real reason why Hitler wished to destroy the Kampfverlag, its publications and its influence over the North German group of the National Socialist Party: he wished to he rid of it in order to collaborate with the Right and the reactionaries.

Hitler violently repudiated these insinuations (which were, in fact, the truth). Of course, he was a Socialist, he said, but a different kind of Socialist from Otto Strasser. The whole trouble was, that Otto Strasser did not understand these things. 'I am a far better Socialist, for instance, than your wealthy Count Reventlow' (Count Reventlow, a former naval officer, was at this time a supporter of Strasser's but afterwards seceded to Hitler). 'Even to-day, I cannot bear to see my chauffeur eating anything different from myself.'

This was a curious argument, for very few chauffeurs would be likely to covet what Hitler eats. But it shows what some people understand by Socialism, when they wish to. Hitler continued:

'What you mean by Socialism is rank Marxism. The great bulk of the workers want nothing but bread and circuses; they have no use for "ideals" and we can never count on winning over large numbers of them.'

To read these words, is to understand the sympathy that Hitler so long enjoyed, indeed until he made that pact with Bolshevy, among the ruling classes in Britain. They, too, admire Socialism, within limits, and Hitler, in this answer, precisely defines these limits.

'We want a hand-picked new ruling class,' said Hitler, 'one not moved, as you are moved, by love-my-fellow- man feelings, but one that clearly realizes that its superior race gives it the right to rule, and one that will ruthlessly maintain and ensure this rule over the masses.'

Otto Strasser, with a tenacity that commands respect, repeatedly sought to bring the conversation back to an intelligible level and to get down to an exchange of clear questions and answers about specific problems.

'Herr Hitler', he said, I am staggered by these views of yours. I hold your racial theories to be entirely false. In my view, the "race" is but the original raw material, and in the case of the German people four or five races contributed to make this. Political, climatic and other influences, together with pressure from without and assimilation within, made of this mixture a people; and the processes of history evolved the third and highest form, that which we call "a nation", which in our case was born in August 1914. Your racial theories would deny that the German people is a nation. They deny that which I hold to be the task and meaning of the coming German revolution.'

Said Hitler: 'What you say is pure Liberalism. There are no other revolutions but racial revolutions. There are no economic, political or social revolutions, there is but the struggle of the racially inferior lower class against the ruling upper race.'

This interesting passage throws a new light on Hitler's theories. Put this way, his ideas would be universally acceptable to exploiters the world over, as much to Jews as to any others. It contains, indeed, no mention whatever of Jews, this utterance of the year 1930 by the arch anti-Semite who so often used Jews as his agents. It is, indeed, an entirely new conception of race, even than that which has currently passed as his conception of it. It is that the poor are not only a lower class but an inferior race; while the rich, are not only predestined to rule, but are also a superior race. This is the best racial theory ever invented, in my recollection, and if only Hitler had made this clear to the world earlier, and had kept that stupid stuff about the Jews out of the argument, he would, in my opinion, be the adored ruler of Europe to-day. Not even the pact with Bolshevy could have shaken him - if he had propounded this fascinating doctrine earlier.

'You, Herr Strasser', roared Hitler further, beating the table with his fists until it danced, 'do not understand these racial matters. Precisely because you lack this knowledge of race, your foreign policy is so wrong. For instance, you have often spoken openly in favour of the so-called Indian freedom movement, although this is obviously nothing but a rebellion of the inferior Indian races against the high-quality English-Nordic race. The Nordic race has a right to rule the world and we must make this right the guiding star of our foreign policy.'

It is really sad that Otto Strasser's book, containing the record of these conversations, did not become widely known years ago, and that Hitler was thus deprived of the honorary memberships of the Simla, Bombay and Calcutta clubs which would inevitably have been conferred on him if these lovely words had reached the outer world. In the next sentence he continued in like vein.

'For these reasons, we can never go together with Soviet Russia, where a Jewish head rests on Slav-Tartar body. I know the Slavs from my own homeland. Earlier, when a Germanic head sat on the Slav body, co-operation with Russia was feasible, and Bismarck did this. To-day it would be simply a crime.'

Otto Strasser replied that he could not understand such views in foreign politics. The only thing that would count with him was, whether this or that line in foreign policy would benefit or harm Germany; in the first case, he held it to be the right line, and the State in question could be as repugnant to him personally as it wished; in the second case, he held it to be the wrong line, without regard to the depth of his personal liking for the State concerned and its people.

Germany's most vital aim in foreign policy was, in his opinion, to throw off the Versailles Treaty, and in the search for powers whose course might lie parallel with hers in that direction, for no matter how short a distance, he found only Italy and Russia. For that reason he held collaboration with Italy to he wise, though the Italians did not attract him, and he even held collaboration with Russia to be theoretically possible, though Bolshevism was as antipathetic to him as Fascism; where the interests of Germany were at stake, M. Stalin and Signor Mussolini, Mr. MacDonald and M. Poincaré were all one to him.

A conversation which had already lasted long and continually threatened on Hitler's side to degenerate into an unintelligible babble then continued with a speech of Hitler's about 'the coming Nordic-Germanic rule in Europe' and Strasser asked for it to be interrupted and continued the next day. Optimist that he is, he also asked that it should then be devoted to the question that particularly interested him - Socialism, as he understood it.

When the two antagonists met the next day, Strasser got his blow in first. He had prepared a lengthy explanation of his Socialist views and of the way to apply them in practice, and delivered himself of this, in order to nail Hitler to a clear statement of intentions.

'Do you agree with me,' said Strasser to Hitler, 'that the overthrow of the existing regime, which we are mutually working for, should be a complete revolution in the political, economic and spiritual fields, a revolution which must be brought about and carried through by all methods? That means, that we must be equally implacable and hostile in our attitude towards capitalism and towards international Marxism. And this is the main question at issue in our conversation to-day - that our campaign should not be confined to the "struggle against Marxism" but should also be conducted as a struggle against Capitalism. But this demands clarity under the head, Private Property. My view is that the principle of "the inviolability of private property" excludes all possibility of German Socialism. It is of course my view that all civilization rests on property. But precisely because the material circumstances of a man govern his possibilities of developing his personality and evolving a manly and upright bearing, precisely because property is thus the basis of independence, is it necessary to give those eight-tenths of the German people who are to-day without property the possibility of acquiring property. In the capitalist system, they lack this possibility.'

'The position to-day,' continued Otto Strasser, 'is like that before the Wars of Liberation. At that time Baron von Stein wisely said: "If the nation is to achieve freedom and honour, it will be necessary to give the oppressed sections of this nation property and the right of co-determination." The oppressed classes were at that time the landless peasant-serfs. Then the need of the day was to carry through the liberation of the peasants; to-day, it is to carry through the liberation of the workers; just as the goal was achieved then by giving the peasants property and the right of co-determination, so must the workers be given property and the right of co-determination now. In agriculture, it was possible to use the method of individually-held property, because the land is capable of being divided into suitably small portions. In our modern industry, that is impossible; a factory cannot be divided into a lot of small undertakings. In this case, therefore, the method of collective-ownership is needed, and the title to this property should be held in a double right - as a member of the nation, and as a member of the working-community in that particular factory. But just as Baron von Stein had to take parts of their land from the big landowners in order to make the peasants property-owners -- for then, as now, nothing was lying about ownerless -- so must we to-day take from the present owners part of their monopoly-property and give it to the workers, or in a wider sense to the nation. The property-owners of that day called Baron von Stein a Jacobin, just as they call us Bolshevists to-day, but the liberation of Prussia would have been just as impossible without this reform as the liberation of Germany is to-day without the liberation of the German workers.'

Hitler interrupted, 'Your comparison is completely false. You cannot compare the complicated industrial mechanism of to-day with the German peasant-liberation. Land can of course be divided up and given to individuals, but not a modern factory.'

Strasser broke in to say that a great difference in matters of method of course existed, but his point was that the peasant-liberation, that unloosed the mighty forces which made the War of Liberation possible, would not have been possible if the principle of 'the inviolability of private property' had remained in force.

Hitler asked Strasser how he envisaged his share-out of property in a modern industrialized State, and Strasser answered that he thought the present owners should retain 49 per cent of the capital and profits of an undertaking, while the State should receive 41 per cent as the representative of the nation, and the workers the remaining 10 per cent; but the management of the concern, as embodied in the Supervisory Board, should be divided into equal shares of one-third each among the present owners, the State, and the workers, in order that the influence of the State in its actual conduct should be reduced.

Thus Otto Strasser, in his opening speech, developed, in broad outline, his theory of a German Socialism, which I shall describe more fully later in this book. It is not, as this quotation will show, that the present owners of property in Germany should be brusquely dispossessed in favour of the unpropertied masses; or that a super-capitalist called The State should be set up in place of the body of individual capitalists of to-day; but that the unpropertied eight-tenths of the German people should be admitted to co-ownership, co-management and co-responsibility.

The result of it all was, inevitably, that Hitler told Strasser. 'What you say is rank Marxism, it is just Bolshevism. You want to introduce the democratic system, which in politics has left us with a heap of ruins, into economic life and destroy it. You would undo the whole progress that has has been made by mankind, which was always due to individual great men, to great inventors.'

It is astounding how this man, whose whole stock-in-trade seems to consist of a few phrases culled from the cheaper press of Viennese back streets, was able to dazzle and dominate his kind; how he was able to answer and annihilate practically any question with one of a dozen words: 'Marxism', Democracy', 'Liberalism', 'Intellectual', 'Scribbler', 'Bolshevism', 'Discipline'. Hardly an intelligible thought is to be found in his discourse, only a few which are comprehensible, but base.

Strasser answered the one about 'the progress of mankind' with the kind of remark that would spring to the lips of any non-cretin in a sane world. He is not a man to be overborne by phrases, but one who looks for the truth behind them, and he replied that he questioned the whole assumption about 'the progress of mankind' and by no means admitted 'that the invention of the water closet was a contribution to civilization'.

Hitler, whose every remark could be foretold by a school child of average intelligence after a six-weeks' correspondence course, answered: 'But you will not deny that mankind has undergone a gigantic development, from the Stone Age to the technical marvels of to-day, and that this entire development would be cut off by your hatched-at-a-writing-desk theories?'

Strasser, who respects the meaning of words, said he did not believe that mankind had progressed, but rather that mankind had remained unchanged for thousands of years. He asked mildly if Herr Hitler thought that Goethe had been mentally backward because he never travelled in a motor car, or Napoleon because he never listened to the radio?

Hitler answered that these were all 'arm-chair theories, and practical life daily proves the mighty progress of mankind, which receives its impulse from the achievements of individual great men'. (I once played a game, the winner of which was he who could answer the most questions with some fatuous remark in common daily use, such as 'The days are drawing in, aren't they?' Hitler should be a master of this, after a little practice.)

The one about the progress of mankind being the work of individual great men, however, let Otto Strasser in again, and he interjected pointedly that he did not accept this dogma about the part played by great leaders either, for man was neither the maker nor the inventor of historical epochs, but the tool of destiny.

Hitler looked at him with that suspicion-laden gaze born of Vienna back streets and interrupted him sharply.

Even at that time Hitler was a master of every trick of intimidation; I remember how he tried to stare me down and sat staring at me for two or three minutes without opening his lips, when I once went to see him. But in those days he had not the backing which made intimidation so easy later - the biggest army in Europe. Now he asked Strasser, with bulging eyes and thunder-laden brow:

'Do you wish to insinuate that I am not the inventor of National Socialism?'

'Certainly I deny that,' said Strasser. 'I see National Socialism as an idea born of our times and planted by destiny in one form or another in hundreds of thousands of hearts. You have it in an exceptionally sharply defined form, but the simultaneity of its appearance, and the similarity of its form, shows that it is the fruit of a historical process. It is the same with the capitalist system; apart from its merits or demerits, it is "old" now, it is in decline, while the time of Socialism is coming and it will determine the history of the next 150 years'.

'What you call Socialism,' replied Hitler angrily, 'is just Marxism, and your whole ideas are just paper theories which have nothing to do with real life. By what right do the workers demand a part in ownership or even in management? Do you think my publisher here would allow his girl typist to tell him what to do? The employer provides his workers with bread. Our big industrialists are not concerned with making as much money as possible, with living as well as they can; responsibility and power are the things that matter for them. Their brains have brought them to the top, and this process of natural selection, which again proves their superior race, gives them a right to lead.'

It is strange now to think that these words, which would make any armaments-Croesus, sweated-workshop proprietor, brothel-keeper, bottle-party Levantine, company-promoter, dividend-lizard, or war-profiteer purr with pleasure, came from a man who succeeded in making millions of Germans think that he was moved by a burning will to abolish the social evils of our times.

I have quoted only parts of these two immense conversations, but enough to show their nature. At one point Otto Strasser did contrive to transfix Hitler with his pin and hold him down for a moment. 'What would you do, if you came to power in Germany to-morrow?' he said; 'what would you do about Krupps? Would everything remain unchanged in respect of shareholders and workers, ownership, profits and management?'

'Why, of course,' said Hitler contemptuously. 'Do you think I am mad enough to destroy the economic system?'

'Then, Herr Hitler, said Otto Strasser, if you mean to maintain the capitalist system, you should not preach Socialism, for the members of our Party are in the first place Socialists and put their faith in the Party programme, which specifically demands the Socialization of jointly-owned concerns.' (Point No. 13 of the 25 Points.)

'The term Socialism,' said Hitler loftily, 'is bad in itself, but in any case the programme does not mean that such concerns must be Socialized, only that they could be Socialized if they acted in a way contrary to the interests of the nation. If they don't do that, it would be a crime to destroy the economic system.'

The conversations dragged on, but did not progress. Hitler stubbornly rejected all idea of co-ownership and co-management for the workers, and when Otto Strasser recalled the case of a famous lock-out in which, as he said, 'two or three dozen people, who were no better and no worse than their neighbours, had been able to put 250,000 Ruhr workmen on the street', Hitler said, I don't need the co-ownership or co-management of the workers to stop that sort of thing; a strong State can do that.'

The most important thing about these encounters with Hitler is that Otto Strasser did succeed in obtaining a clear negative in the matter that was vital for him - Socialism. More remarkable still, Hitler on this occasion and in this matter spoke the truth, which is very rare. Three years before he came to power, he was already willing, in such a discussion as this, to abandon all pretence in the matter of his Socialist promises and to show himself as a man of no political principle at all.

After these meetings, Otto Strasser's years of service in Hitler's Party quickly approached their end. The gap between 'Idea' and 'Führer' had become clear to see. Otto Strasser realized that his place, as he had told Hitler, was with the Idea, at no matter what cost to himself.

The open breach soon came. Hitler put into practice his threat to destroy Otto Strasser financially, to make him bankrupt, and to cast him out. He ordered Goebbels to get rid of Strasser by hook or by crook, and the little Doctor called a packed party meeting, which Strasser and his associates were prevented by various devices from attending, as rebels. Otto Strasser retaliated with a manifesto, published in his papers throughout North Germany, which were still the official organs of National Socialism. This was entitled 'The Socialists leave the National Socialist Party'.

A furious onslaught followed. Summoning to his aid his army of words and phrases, Hitler issued a scathing attack on Strasser, whom he denounced as a 'cheap scribbler' and 'parlour-Bolshevist' - the sergeant-major touch again.

Strasser retaliated by publishing, without comment, his official war record, and took this trick, for when the contest is one of facts, and not of phrases, Hitler must lose every time.

Hitler struck again, by expelling Otto Strasser and his followers throughout the country from the party. Only one position now remained - the Kampfverlag, which was still publishing the newspapers of Hitler's Party. Gregor Strasser had yielded and sold his third-share to Hitler; now, by the offer of a Reichstag seat, Hitler won over the second partner, Hinkel, who sold out. The Kampfverlag was Hitler's and he promptly closed it down.

Otto Strasser thus paid in cash also for his convictions, a thing few men do. His third share was lost; at the first attempt to buy the Kampfverlag, Hitler had offered each of the partners 80,000 marks, at that time £4000, for their share. Strasser was left penniless.

Thus came Otto Strasser's farewell to Hitler, after a good fight, lasting five years, for his Idea. Once again he had to start at the beginning, to resume his quest for 'German Socialism'. Hitler had made a bitter enemy. For the first time, a foremost leader of the Party had defied him and left him rather than compromise.

This was the moment when Gregor should have broken away too, with his brother. But Gregor never could bring himself to do that. He always thought that Hitler was sound at heart, only misguided. He believed that the horse 'was only bucking' and would return to the course, run a straight race. This self-deception cost him his life; the same self-deception, in other men, cost Europe a new war.

Now, Otto Strasser gathered his friends about him and began his war against Hitler. It is still going on. Indeed, it is only just approaching its decisive stage. Strasser, seeing that there was neither Revolutionary Socialism nor Socialism of any kind to be hoped for from Hitler and his Party, set out to corrode that party from within. The time would come, he was convinced, when Germany would insist on having Socialism, and then he and his men would take up the heritage that Hitler had mal-administered.

So, with his eye on that future day, Otto Strasser formed his Black Front - a Brown Army within the Brown Army, a Party within the Party, a Gestapo within the Gestapo. All those men who were to rule Germany through terror now had to look over their own shoulders, to look suspiciously at their own shadows. It was a bold venture, and the Black Front from the beginning worked for a distant day - the day when Hitler should have come to power, betrayed his promised Socialism, brought Germany into war, and been overthrown.

Chapter Seven

BLACK FRONT

Just ten years have passed, as I write this book in 1940, since the Black Front was founded, and during that time its name was little known, and still less understood, in the world outside Germany.

Within Germany it was well known, both before and after Hitler's triumph, but the tide was running so strongly in his favour that its struggle was one against overwhelming odds. Hitler's fame, and later his power, was growing, and the Black Front, though it carried on a stubborn fight, only attracted, outside Germany, the languid and slightly contemptuous interest with which the majority of people always regard fighters for a lost cause.

Few were then far-sighted enough to perceive that it might one day be the petard which would blow up Hitler. But it was formed of resolute men who would not compromise and clung to their beliefs, at whatever cost. Strasser himself, as I have shown, lost a small fortune through his stand against Hitler at the Kampfverlag; his leading associates also lost money, position, liberty and sometimes life.

But the fight never stopped, and neither exile, outlawry nor even the war itself could completely sever the bond that existed between them. The Black Front exists in Germany to-day, as no other organization exists, ready to spring into action, like an engine at the touch of the starter, when the moment comes. Hitler's star is waning, and with it National Socialism in the form that he gave it. The Black Front, the members of which claim that they are the real National Socialists, is preparing for the come-back, and may have the last laugh yet.

It began, after the breach with Hitler, on July 4th, 1930, as the Kampfgemeinschaft Revolutionärer Nationalsozialisten, or Union of Revolutionary National Socialists. Later, after the adhesion of rebellious Nazi Storm Troops from the Berlin district and other sympathetic groups, it became simply The Black Front.

click for full size image

HERBERT BLANK AND OTTO STRASSER

Its chief leaders were Otto Strasser himself, Major Buchrucker, Herbert Blank, and other well-known North German figures.

Major Buchrucker deserves description, for in him the discerning reader may find a pointer to the way the Black Front may in the future re-emerge, and possibly conquer. A regular officer and fiery patriot, he organized the Black Reichswehr, that secret army of 100,000 men which was formed, with the connivance of the regular German army, after the 1914-18 war, to outwit the military restrictions put on Germany by the Versailles Treaty. In lonely fortresses, in remote country districts, behind the hedges of big East Elbian estates owned by men who sympathized, this shadow army was raised out of sight of the French, British, Belgian and Italian officers sent to see that Germany respected the Treaty.

It was the first experiment in secret rearmament; the last, and greatest, was Göring's secret creation of an enormous air force between the years 1933 and 1936. Here the word 'Black' appears for the first time; it had nothing to do with the colour of the uniforms worn by this clandestine force, which were not black, but meant secret. Exactly the same thing applies to the Black Front, and this is important to understand; it has nothing to do with the Strasser 'Black Guard' afterwards raised, which actually wore black shirts. Göring's air force, until it was revealed, was a black air force.

Major Buchrucker led one of the very earliest Putsches (those post-war attempts of the Nationalists to unseat the detested Republican Government by force of arms) in Germany - the Küstrin Putsch of 1922. It might be called the first Hitler Putsch. Its aim was to overthrow the Berlin Government and set up a new regime. General von Seeckt, the head of the regular Reichswehr, knew of it and was half in sympathy with it, but lost his nerve at the last moment.

Buchrucker was left alone and the Putsch collapsed. At his trial, he kept silence about the connivance of the regular Reichswehr in the formation of the secret Reichswehr and received ten years penal servitude, five of which he served. His sentence was not commuted, like that of the allegedly persecuted, but actually fortunate Hitler.

In 1928 he was set free and joined the Strasser Group of the National Socialist Party. At the breach with Hitler, he followed Strasser, and became commander of the uniformed 'Black Guard'. After Hitler's triumph he was thrown into a concentration camp and kept there for eighteen months. There he was drilled for weeks at a time. 'Quick march. Halt. About turn. Double. Halt. About turn. Double. Halt. About turn. Double. Halt. Was, du Schwein, du willst ein Major gewesen sein? What, you swine, you mean to say you were a Major? About turn. Double.' And so on, and so on.

Major Buchrucker was released when conscription was reintroduced in Germany - and is now a senior staff officer, with the rank of colonel!

I have chosen him to try and show the kind of man who helped Otto Strasser build his Black Front.

Strasser's breach with Hitler and formation of a new organization made a deep impression on the younger, more urgent and more idealistic National Socialists, and among the younger generation in general throughout the country. The Young German Order of Lieutenant Artur Mahraun (who was also put in a concentration camp after Hitler's triumph and terribly maltreated, so that he lost an eye, and now has a little bookshop in Berlin) entered into working collaboration with Strasser. So did the revolutionary peasants of Schleswig-Holstein, under their leader Klaus Hein. So did Richard Schlapke, who had a large following among the National Socialists of Silesia. So did a coterie of rising young men called the Tatkreis, whose foremost figures were Hans Zehrer and Ferdinand Fried, author of a most celebrated book called The End of Capitalism. (Fried is to-day the right-hand man of Hitler's Minister for Agriculture, Darré, whose Hereditary Peasant Holdings Act, drafted by Fried, and other bills represent the solitary attempt to put National Socialism into practice.)

These men and their movements represented what was best in Germany at that time. They all ardently desired the liberation of Germany, but also a new social order, and their common fear, which was afterwards vindicated, was that Hitler would betray them in this and, instead of making a new Germany, would simply bring another period of militarist reaction in the place of the chaotic, licentious, alien-inspired post-war Republic they lived in and detested.

From these men and these groups Strasser made his Black Front. But, here again, the significance of the word 'Black' must be remembered.

It meant 'secret', and precisely for that reason it is not possible to say, just what men and groups were in it then, or are in it now. That will be shown when the moment comes. Otto Strasser was already working for a distant future. The visible organization - The Black Front, The Black Guard, the three weekly papers in Berlin, Breslau and Munich - comprised but a quarter of the whole. This was the outward and visible structure. The other three-quarters remained invisible; at the instruction of Otto Strasser, they remained in the parties or organizations to which they belonged, in accordance with the first clause of the Black Front programme, which stated 'The Black Front is a school for the officers and non-commissioned-officers of the German Revolution'.

Strasser deliberately chose this penetration-from-within, enemy-inside-the-walls system. Through it, he had his men in all the parties of those days, save the Communist Party; namely, in the National Socialist, Socialist, Nationalist, Democratic, and other parties.

At this very day, months after the outbreak of war, his Black Front men are in all existent organizations in Germany, but especially in the Army, the Brown Army, the National Socialist Party, the Labour Front and the SS.

This is only possible because of the 'black' method he adopted three years before Hitler came to power. Through it, the members of the Black Front were always anonymous, apart from the visible structure. For the same reason he never put up candidates at the elections, and thus there was never an open trial of strength or demonstration of the size of the Black Front and its appeal.

Otto Strasser and his men never felt that they were counter-revolutionaries. They held themselves to be the real revolutionaries. Their whole fear was that Hitler would not make a revolution, and they were right. He only destroyed, or half-destroyed, leaving it to his successors to build. Their spiritual community of views with him was that they were against the old; but they wanted something new, which he has never achieved and which, as seems clear from the conversations with Otto Strasser in 1930 which I have quoted and from Hitler's actions since he came to power, he never intended.

Perhaps I can best show the conflict of hopes and fears which tormented the mind of idealist young Germans in those days by describing a strange episode in which both Hitler and Otto Strasser figured.

Soon after he formed his Black Front came the trial, before the Supreme Court of the German Reich at Leipzig in the autumn of 1930, of three young Reichswehr officers who were accused of subversive activities in the interest of the National Socialist Party. This trial will long have been forgotten by the majority of people, but a bell will probably tinkle in their memories when I say that Hitler gave evidence at it and used the phrase 'Heads will roll' - when he should come to power.

These three young officers -- Lieutenant Wendt, Second Lieutenants Scheringer and Ludin -- were typical of the best kind of German of that period, the sort of man represented, in a rather older generation, by Otto Strasser. They wanted, ardently, fervently, and above all things that Germany should become free and mighty again, and if need be, by force of arms. But that was not all they wanted. They shared the longing of eight-tenths of the German people for a new and better and juster social order, for something which they were ready to call 'Socialism' if it were different from the Socialism of the Socialist Party and from the Socialism of Moscow, both of which they intuitively felt to be alien and false and consequently loathed.

These officers had hoped to find what they wanted in Hitler's National Socialism, they had done what they could to enlist the sympathies of their comrades and their men for that party, and they now stood on trial for this offence and Hitler gave evidence on their behalf. The whole issue on which a conviction or an acquittal turned was, whether Hitler's party was a revolutionary one or one which sought to achieve power by constitutional means, and he, in maintaining stubbornly that it would use only constitutional methods, may have wished to do what he could to get the young officers acquitted.

If that was his aim -- I doubt it, myself; he was simply using 'tactics' again -- the three lieutenants did not thank him for it. They had believed in him as a revolutionary National Socialist. His bourgeois methods and tactics in the witness-box antagonized them.

Even 'Heads will roll' he interpreted, on a question from the Public Prosecutor, not as meaning that he would work for a violent and revolutionary overthrow of the existing regime and thus seize power; but that he would take revenge, by 'constitutional means', after achieving power, by 'constitutional means'. (This is exactly what happened, incidentally; the Reichstag fire furnished the 'constitutional means' and the brutalities done to political opponents after the seizure of power, as well as the shooting of several hundred defenceless persons on June 30th, 1934, were nothing but the gangster's revenge in the coldest of blood, without any trace of white-hot revolutionary fervour or resentment-born-of-the-barricades.)

Thus the three lieutenants went to their fortress partly-disillusioned men, and in the loneliness of their imprisonment began deeply to study political questions. All three came from Ulm, in South Germany, and knew little about the North German vendetta. Ludin was sent to Rastadt in Baden; Scheringer and Wendt to Gollnow, where they had the cell once occupied by Major Buchrucker.

Searching their minds and consciences for the political truth, Scheringer and Wendt wrote to Otto Strasser, who did not know them, and asked him to visit them and explain the whole political conflict to them. He visited them three times.

But just about that time the German Communist Party sought to make use of the strong patriotic wind which was blowing by taking patriotism into their own programme and issuing a manifesto which called, not only for the social, but also for the 'national' liberation of the German people. The young officers thus began to wonder if the truth they sought were possibly to he found in the Communist Party, which also strenuously wooed them in their captivity, and during two of Otto Strasser's visits to them representatives of the executive committee of the German Communist Party were also present. The two lieutenants asked Otto Strasser if he would object to a full debate, and he agreed.

An extraordinary scene this, the struggle for the soul of two German subalterns in the dining-room of a prison. I hope it may give readers some idea of the tormenting conflict which racked the minds of such young Germans, of their dogged search for hope, for an ideal, for a better Germany. This state of mind remains; it was only chloroformed by Hitler; and soon it will awake again, more turbulent and clamant than ever.

Picture the scene. On one side of the table, half a dozen of the leading Communist prisoners and their spokesman, the emissary from Berlin. On the other, Otto Strasser. Between them, the two lieutenants. In the background, prison warders, listening enthralled.

On the first occasion the Communists sent down a Jew, Leow, a burly fellow who was commander of the uniformed Communist Storm Troop formations called The Red Fighting Front; after Hitler's triumph, he fled to Moscow and in due course was relieved of further anxieties in this world by Stalin. He was a poor debater and no match for Strasser.

So the next time the Communists sent down the very best man they could find, and an astute move this was, for he was a most remarkable figure. Captain Beppo Römer was the Communists' best show-piece. He had been a distinguished German officer in the war; after the war he had been a leader of one of the anti-Red Free Corps (the Oberland Corps), and in that capacity had collaborated with Hitler in the Munich Putsch of 1923; and now, in the course of that unending search for an ideal, he had gone over to the Communists. (Credible reports say that he too is now in the Reichswehr again to-day, a thing only explicable by the saying, on revient toujours à ses premiers amours.)

Captain Beppo Römer was no mean antagonist, and a terrific battle was joined across the deal table in the prison dining-room, with the lieutenants and warders hanging on every word. Otto Strasser violently attacked Hitler, but he attacked the Communists even more violently. The debate continued for hours, quarter neither asked nor given.

At the end of it, Lieutenant Wendt became Otto Strasser's man, and the Black Front had its representative in Gollnow Fortress. When he was released, he openly joined the Black Front and became a member of the executive. After Hitler's triumph he was arrested and no man has ever learned if he is living or dead.

Remember that these three young men, who risked their careers for Hitler, played an important part in bringing him to power; at their trial, the full light of world publicity for the first time shone on him; the party used them prodigally to make the world believe that Hitler had the army with him; but no more mercy was shown to Wendt than to a mongrel dog. Hitler's mission has always been to destroy good Germans - not Jews. Wendt heard the Viennese cheapjack ranting in the witness-box about 'Heads will roll', and didn't like it, because Hitler's conception was not of a clean fight at the barricades, but of cold-blooded vengeance after the achievement of power. But even Wendt cannot have dreamed, that day, that his own head would he among those that rolled.

Scheringer was won over by the Communists at first, by an interesting method. Captain Römer told him that he need not join the Communist Party, but could form his own 'Scheringer Group', a patriotic-Bolshevist group, in loose affiliation with it, and the Communists would finance a newspaper for him. They wished to use his name in the struggle against Hitler and Otto Strasser alike.

Scheringer agreed to this, after telling Otto Strasser privately that he was in sympathy with the Black Front but would like to wean away the most useful men from the Communists for it. Strasser told him he would fail in this, because when the Jewish leaders of the party perceived his little game they would stop publication of the newspaper they were to finance for him. This actually happened, and in 1932 Scheringer broke with the Communists and joined the Black Front. After Hitler's triumph he too disappeared from the scene, and none knows his whereabouts to-day.

The third lieutenant, Ludin, may be heard more of one day. He alone remained a Nazi, and narrowly escaped death on June 30th, 1934, but to-day he stands very high in the Party and is Storm Troop commander for the whole of South-Western Germany, Württemberg, Baden, Hesse, the Palatinate, and the Saar.

Then Otto Strasser campaigned all over Germany, north, south, east and west, speaking, organizing, and writing. He was several times hurt when Storm Troopers attacked his meetings; Major Buchrucker was knifed at Flensburg.

Strasser then introduced the platform-debate type of meeting, challenging Hitler and Goebbels by public placard to confront him at any time or place they chose, but this was ignored. He had many stormy platform-battles with the representatives of many parties: with Willi Münzenberg, the Communist leader, in a working-class district of Berlin; with Kaspar, a later Red Fighting Front leader; with Colonel Duesterberg, of the Nationalist Stahlhelm; and many others. But the Nazis refused all challenges and would never appear on a platform in open debate with the Black Front. They did, however, do their best by violence to crush the Black Front - and they marked down, for future vengeance, all the men who thus defied them.

Otto Strasser is almost the only one of all those men, his chief known helpers, who escaped death, the concentration camp, or prison.

For instance, his Black Front Leader for Schleswig-Holstein was a man who had formerly been one of the most popular National Socialist leaders, Dr. Grantz. Grantz is a small and indomitable man, with the student's slashes all over his face - 'One of the best Germans I ever knew, says Strasser. His fame in the National Socialist Party was chiefly that he had been the hero of a terrific free-fight between Nazis and Communists at Woehrden, when four Storm Troopers were killed and thirty injured.

At the burial of these men, Hitler stayed in Grantz's house and assured him in his most emotional manner ('Mussolini, I shall never forget what you have done for me to-day') that he would never forget etc. etc. and would repay and reward Dr. Grantz in the Third Reich. In March 1933, immediately after the Reichstag fire, Dr. Grantz was thrown into a concentration camp and is there now, in 1940; he has never had charges preferred against him or been tried. Seven years in a concentration camp!

But Grantz's spirit is unbroken. In 1937 a fellow-prisoner from the concentration camp, Sachsenhausen visited Otto Strasser in Prague and told him of Grantz's martyrdom. He also described this incident: The commandant told Grantz one day that he would remain in the 'camp as long as he lived. Grantz answered, 'Jawohl, I shall remain here - but as commandant with you as prisoner'. He received fourteen days 'hunger-arrest'.

The tale of Otto Strasser's men is a terrible one, even for these times, when brutality and suffering have become the norm. Dr. Becker, a lawyer who was his Black Front Leader for the populous Halle district, has also been in a concentration camp since 1933, without charge or trial. Dr. Becker, who is also in Sachsenhausen, has, in contrast to Dr. Grantz, become a better-treated prisoner, for the following strange reason. The Prussian SS guard at the camp was relieved one day by Bavarian SS men, who insisted on having their native Bavarian beer -- I said earlier that beer is a religion in Bavaria -- whereas their predecessors had made a contract for the beer supply with a Prussian brewery. An action followed, in which Dr. Becker was put up as advocate for the Bavarian SS men, and won the case. Since then, his lot has improved.

To-day, between six and seven hundred Black Front men are in the concentration camps and prisons. Many of them have been there for seven years. During these years, thousands of others were arrested and released after serving shorter terms. And all these were but the known Black Front men.

I have looked forward a little here, to show the things that happened to the men who openly supported Otto Strasser in his fight against Hitler in the years between the split and the Nazi triumph, 1930-1933. They bore the brunt of the battle, and this glimpse of the future shows how they paid for their convictions.

But most of them still live, and hold their convictions still. Before so very long, they will be free men again. And many others who think like them have always been free and even wear the brown shirt.

The conflict itself seriously shook the Hitler Party, which, indeed, came to the verge of an ignominious collapse. It was only rescued, and enthroned in power, in the nick of time, by those very forces which Otto Strasser and his men regarded as the worst enemies of the new order for which they fought - big business and big landlordry.

The conflict reached its height in 1931 and 1932. In 1931 came the second open revolt in the National Socialist Party. Captain Stennes, the Brown Army commander for the whole of North Germany, also could not stand Goebbels any longer and broke away, taking many of his brownshirts with him. He went the way of Otto Strasser, and joined Otto Strasser and the Black Front.

I shall have to look into the future again to tell the story of Captain Stennes to-day. It is another extraordinary tale; these Germans are almost incredible.

He, too, was an officer with a distinguished war record and subsequently a Free Corps commander. After Hitler's triumph, he, too, was arrested, maltreated, sent to a concentration camp and told that he was to be shot and must dig his own grave. Standing before this empty grave, he was executed four times - with blank cartridges! Later he was released at the mediation of a well-known German general, his former commanding officer, General Watter, on signing a pledge to leave Germany within twenty-four hours. After a visit to Otto Strasser, in exile, he went to China and is to-day commander of the bodyguard of Chiang Kai-shek! I have used more exclamation marks in this book than ever before, but the things I have to tell seem to deserve them.

In 1932 the Black Front was gaining ground and strength. The Hitler Party was going downhill, and fairly fast. But for the great age of Hindenburg, which made him the senile dupe of intriguers and the credulous victim of old wives' tales, it probably never would have come to power.

At the beginning of 1932 one of the first Hitlerist Ministers ever made, Dr. Franzen in Brunswick, gave up his post in protest against the reactionary tendencies of the party, as shown in the Harzburg agreement with Alfred Hugenberg, of big business and big armaments, and Hjalmar Schacht, of big banking.

In August came Hitler's rebuff by Hindenburg, who at that time seems still to have been of clear mind; he gave Hitler a parade-ground dressing-down, and vowed that he would never make him Chancellor. Goebbels, keenly watching to see which way the cat would jump, wrote in his diary of 'deep despondency' in the party; the financial position he said, was 'hopeless, nothing but debts', and so on. In November came elections and another blow for the Hitler Party, which lost over 2,000,000 votes. 'A defeat', wrote Goebbels; and Hitler threatened to commit suicide.

Otto Strasser was fighting the Hitler Party with all his might, doing his best to precipitate its downfall.

Gregor Strasser was in the party, Hitler's chief lieutenant. From the dark forest into which the German Republic had wandered, only two exits offered, as he saw. It could take the path of a Socialist revolution, which would lead to something new; or that of a return to Prussian militarism, which meant war. Some combination of forces had to be found which would give a majority in the motley Parliament, and at this point the old, old dilemma appeared: should National Socialism prove its Socialism and join hands with the Socialists, or should it betray its Socialism and join with the Nationalists?

The choice was clear. The first way would lead to a better Germany and to peace; the second to the disappointment of hopes of a better social order and to war.

Gregor Strasser -- how Goebbels vilifies his former master at this point in his diary -- was for the first way and urged that the National Socialists should follow it. It meant an alliance with the Socialist workers - not with the Communists, and not with the Socialist Party, but with the socialist-minded workers organized in the trade unions. Their representative was Leipart, the trade union leader. General Schleicher, the Chancellor of the day, had avowed himself to be 'a social general' and that meant that the army would play. This meant a Government headed by Gregor Strasser (Hindenburg had said he would never have Hitler), or General Schleicher, and with Leipart, and this was the combination which would have saved Germany.

This coalition is not dead, but only seems dead; its ghost is now appearing to haunt Hitler.

Göring was Gregor Strasser's great antagonist at this moment. He was for the second way out - the alliance with heavy industry and the big landowners which would entail the immediate jettisoning of all Socialist and social ideals, and would inevitably concentrate all Germany's thought on rearmament and militarism and lead to a new Prussian war.

These were the two courses between which a choice had to be made, while Germany's destiny hung in the balance. The vital difference between them was the old one of principles and ideals. The first way meant working for a definite aim. The second meant working to get power, without regard for what came after. This was the gap between the two camps, between Gregor Strasser and Hermann Göring. Hitler's attitude was 'Never mind about what comes afterwards; let us get the power, the rest will take care of itself.'

He allowed both Gregor Strasser and Göring to negotiate, Strasser with Schleicher and Leipart, Göring with Hugenberg and Papen. He approved of both parallel sets of negotiations. Gregor Strasser's chances of success were great. The general, Schleicher, and the trade union leader, Leipart, were in agreement with him; a great part of the Hitler Party was for him; and he was acceptable to Hindenburg, for he was an officer and normal, while Hitler was a corporal and a clown, and Röhm was homosexual, and all this counted with an Old Gentleman who had once disparaged Goethe as a man of immoral habits to Max Liebermann, the painter, and on being reminded, 'But, after all', he wrote Faust, replied, 'Yes, that is his only excuse'.

Gregor Strasser was twice received by Hindenburg in these fateful days. Germany, and the peace of Europe, was almost saved.

The real bitterness of Gregor Strasser's tragedy can only be understood if it be borne in mind that he heard from Hindenburg's own lips, at one of these meetings, that the Old Gentleman 'would never make the Bohemian Corporal Chancellor' (this was the contemptuous term that Hindenburg used for the crossbred, vague-origined Hitler). Thus his very loyalty to Hitler demanded that Gregor Strasser should strive with all his strength to achieve office himself and bring about a coalition in which the National Socialists would be predominant. It would never have occurred to him that the Old Gentleman would, barely two months later, do the very thing he had sworn never to do. This is the eternal weakness of an honest man, such as was Gregor Strasser. Having no untruth in himself, he accepts the word of others, and when they break it, he is undone. Hindenburg, by this means, made it possible for Gregor Strasser's enemies in the National Socialist Party to defame him, to Hitter, as a traitor.

The story of those eight weeks in which the fate of Germany was decided, and Europe doomed again to war, by a few men in Berlin deserves to be told in more detail. The massacre of Poles and Czechs, the blackout of England, the manning of the Maginot Line, the battle off Montevideo, the conscription of British youth - all these things, all these woes of to-day, are the children of those fateful weeks in Berlin at the turn of the year 1932.

Gregor Strasser, in November 1932, went into the fray with these thoughts in his mind: The Party was going downhill, heading for disaster. The Old Gentleman had told him he would never make Hitler Chancellor. He himself was entirely loyal to Hitler - for that reason he had not followed his brother Otto at the breakaway. The country had had a taste of government by a little group of reactionaries -- Papen and his Cabinet of Barons -- and had repeatedly shown, by overwhelmingly hostile votes, that it loathed this and was approaching the point at which it would violently erupt against them. How could the National Socialist Party and Germany be saved? Not, thought Gregor Strasser, by alliance with this self-same group. The only alternative was a coalition between the National Socialist Party and the masses of the trade-unionist workers, who must be weaned away from their discredited Socialist leaders, with the benevolent backing of the Reichswehr. Leipart and General Schleicher were willing to collaborate with him -- but not with Hitler -- in such a coalition. The way to save both country and party seemed clear.

Gregor Strasser, as the organizer of the party, knew better than any other man the disastrous plight in which it was (a plight revealed after Hitler's triumph in the diary of Goebbels). He knew that it was breaking under a load of debt, that it could not face another election -- and Germany was having an election about every three months at that time -- because nobody would even print electoral placards for it. The time had come, he thought, to save what could be saved.

At the end of November, just eight weeks before Hitler's triumph, General Schleicher brought him to President von Hindenburg, who gave his word of honour as a Prussian general that he would never make the 'Bohemian Corporal' Chancellor. Gregor Strasser immediately reported to Hitler, telling him that the Chancellorship was beyond his reach, but might possibly be obtainable for himself, Gregor Strasser. The Vice-Chancellorship, in a cabinet headed by General Schleicher, could certainly be had.

As Gregor Strasser told him of Hindenburg's pledge never to make the Bohemian Corporal Chancellor, Hitler interjected that he had different information from another source. Strasser, puzzled, informed General Schleicher of this, who expressed great annoyance - and set his private police to watch his predecessor in the Chancellorship, the man he had made and unmade, the Puckish Mephistopheles of our unhappy Europe, von Papen. (The police agents afterwards took a photograph of Papen leaving the house, in Cologne, of the banker Schroeder, where he had just had a talk with Hitler that was arranged by the present German Foreign Minister, Joachim von Ribbentrop. This was the meeting at which Papen agreed to recommend Hitler to Hindenburg for the Chancellorship, on the understanding that he would remain the prisoner in his cabinet of a majority of non-Nazi Elder Statesmen none of whom he would dismiss. Schleicher bitterly reproached Papen that he had been intriguing with Hitler. Papen gave his word of honour as a Prussian officer that he had not spoken with Hitler. Schleicher produced the photograph. General Schleicher then proposed the expulsion of Papen from the Count Schlieffen Society (the members of this body were restricted to the Officers' Corps) on the ground that he had given a perjured word. The disciplinary investigation has never been concluded: the instigator of it was shot on June 30th, 1934, as was Gregor Strasser.)

But while Schleicher was trying to defeat the intrigues of Papen, Hitler appeared to be convinced by Strasser's report and to be half-ready to accept the solution he proposed. He made certain conditions -- that the party's debts should be paid, that the Reichstag should not be dissolved without his sanction, that three other National Socialist leaders (Frick, Stöhr and Hierl) should enter the cabinet with Gregor Strasser -- and on this basis was prepared to agree to the Strasser-Schleicher-Leipart coalition, to the coalition of National Socialists, Reichswehr, and Socialist workers. All was ready for the written agreement between Hitler, Strasser and the ruling Chancellor, Schleicher. On December 7th, 1932, Gregor Strasser, in Berlin, spoke by telephone with Hitler in Munich, and Hitler agreed to come to Berlin the next day to conclude the negotiations.

On the morning of December 8th Gregor Strasser stood on the platform of the Anhalter Station and waited for Hitler. The night express from Munich arrived. Hitler's compartment was empty. The conductor explained why. 'Herr Hitler', he said, 'got out at Weimar.'

The reason why he got out was also the reason why the coalition was never made, why Germany embarked on a new period of militarism and war, and why Gregor Strasser was later killed. This reason, or rather these reasons -- for their names were Göring and Goebbels -- only became clear subsequently, but can be explained now, in Otto Strasser's words.

At Weimar, Captain Hermann Göring and Gauleiter Dr. Goebbels had intercepted Hitler's train. They saw that the formation of the coalition would mean the end of their own ambitions. In a mass coalition reaching from Leipart's trade unionists on the left by way of the Reichswehr to Gregor Strasser's National Socialists on the right, there would be no place either for a Propaganda Minister or for a terrorist.

They travelled by car to Weimar, awakened Hitler, and fetched him from his sleeping-car. The whole thing, they told him, was a plot, a plot made by Gregor Strasser and Schleicher. It was not true that Hindenburg had pledged himself not to make Hitler Chancellor. Strasser's aim was simply to become Chancellor himself, to keep Hitler on a nose-lead, and if necessary to smash the party.

Thus enlightened, Hitler came later to Berlin, hurled the accusations of Göring and Goebbels in Strasser's face and called him a traitor. Strasser asked if Hitler really thought him capable of such infamy. Hitler answered, yes. Without a word Gregor Strasser went away, wrote out his resignation from all his offices in the party, and his wish to continue as 'a private soldier' in the National Socialist Party, and went off with his family to Bavaria. He was broken-spirited from this moment, and never appeared in politics again.

Meanwhile Papen, intent on the overthrow of his detested rival Schleicher, went lobbying in Berlin with his rival proposal for a cabinet in which he should be Chancellor, Hitler Vice-Chancellor, Göring his own (Papen's) deputy as Prussian Premier, big-business Hugenberg Minister for Economics. Another word-of-honour (they were cheap) was given about this time - Hitler's word of honour that he would change nothing in the composition of such a cabinet for four years. Hitler on January 30th, the night of his triumph, reaffirmed this particular word of honour from the balcony of the Reich Chancery in the Wilhelmstrasse.

Gregor Strasser's disappearance put an end to General Schleicher's hopes of retaining power and saving Germany, though he did not realize this himself. He continued to try and build that coalition, though its main prop was gone. He placed too much faith in the fighting spirit, and anti-Nazi fervour, of Leipart's five million organized trade unionists. He announced himself to the nation by radio as 'a social General' on December 15th, 1932, and thus strengthened Papen's hand in the negotiations with the big-business group in the west of Germany and with the big-landlord group in the east.

Nevertheless, Hitler on that day -- six weeks before his triumph -- seemed to have not the remotest chance of attaining power. Goebbels on that very day wrote in his diary: 'It is high time for us to gain power; for the present, however, not the slightest prospect of that offers'. Hitler talked of committing suicide, as he had once before actually sworn to do - on November 9th, 1923, the day of his abortive Putsch in Munich.

Just at this juncture came the meeting at Cologne between Papen and Hitler. The banker Schroeder filled up the bankrupt Nazi treasury, and Goebbels's diary began again to take a more optimistic note. Now came Schleicher's fatal mistake, that helped to cost him his life.

Schleicher could probably have saved Germany and Europe at that juncture by a bold stroke. The stroke he made was not bold enough. He attacked the most powerful and vindictive groups in Germany without covering his rear.

What he did was to release, for the use of the press, material collected by a parliamentary committee of investigation into the misuse of the famous Osthilfe, or Eastern Help Fund. To make this matter clear to British readers, it is worth while remarking that 'Help for the Farmers' in Britain usually means financial subsidies at the cost of the taxpayer for great landowners who rent land to farmers. So in Germany, immense sums which had been budgeted as 'relief for suffering agriculture in Eastern Germany' (the Osthilfe) had actually gone in large part to great landowners who were already hopelessly indebted to the State and whose estates were badly run.

These facts had come out in the parliamentary inquiry but had been suppressed until General Schleicher revealed them. The investigators stated among other things that some of the great but bankrupt landowners had 'whored, drunk and gambled' away the money they received from the State. (Chancellor Brüning's downfall had been directly caused by his attempt to foreclose on these insolvent landlords and use the land for small-holdings. The Hindenburgs, father and son, themselves belonged to these squires, having been presented with a large property by them, and President Hindenburg had dismissed Brüning on a charge of introducing 'Bolshevism' in Germany, on this very account.)

Now Schleicher returned to this self-same, dynamite-laden issue. He thought so to discomfit the embattled forces of reaction by publishing this material in the press that their intrigues against him would be broken, their further opposition to his coalition-making plans neutralized. He under-estimated them. He aroused in them a mortal enmity that brought Hitler to power within a fortnight. One of the squires alone, their leading spokesman, the aged Oldenburg-Januschau, had had rather more than £30,000 from the fund for the alleviation of his distress, and such an attack on his hereditary prerogatives and perquisites was bound to make him apoplectically angry.

This card that Schleicher held was a strong card, if played properly. It was even the ace of trumps, properly played. But if he meant to play it, he should first, and before revealing his intention, have obtained from President Hindenburg power to dissolve the Reichstag, and then he should have arrested the chief intriguers, Papen, Hitler, Oskar von Hindenburg, the leading Junkers, Göring, and a few others, and have rallied the masses of Gregor Strasser's National Socialists and of Leipart's trade unionists behind him by a manifesto explaining the reasons for his action.

By such means, he might have saved Germany and Europe - for these insatiable squires were also the hereditary war-makers of Europe. Instead of giving orders to Leipart, he consulted and debated with Leipart - and the German Socialists, like all other Germans except the little militarist clique, can do nothing without a word of command. Leipart's reaction to such plans was: 'What on earth will Herr Bumke say?' The good Herr Bumke was at that time President of the Constitutional Court of the Weimar Republic, a tribunal before which all nice questions of constitutional procedure had to be brought and decided. The awful vision of an enraged and avenging Bumke was enough to destroy the last hope of a right and reasonable policy in Germany.

So the end came. At the last moment one last intrigue succeeded in obtaining for Hitler, not the Vice-Chancellorship, but the Chancellorship itself. This was the story, brought to Hindenburg by an agent of von Papen (Werner von Alvensleben) and supported by Göring; that General Schleicher intended to march on Berlin with the troops of the Potsdam garrison. After all the other bogies that had been paraded before him -- especially that bogy of 'Bolshevism on the land' -- this one was enough to stampede the old gentleman who had been presented with an estate and who, eight weeks earlier, had pledged himself never to make the Bohemian Corporal Chancellor. He signed the birth-certificate of Hitler's Government, and all was over.

President and Field-Marshal von Hindenburg signed, on the dotted line, the order for the new war, the death warrant for thousands, possibly yet millions, of Germans, Spaniards, Czechs, Poles, and, short of a miracle, Britons and Frenchmen.

I have explained these events in some detail because they explain much in the life of the two Strassers, in the death of Gregor, and in the implacable campaign against Hitler of his brother Otto.

While Gregor Strasser's last struggle with Hitler for the soul of the National Socialist Party and of Germany was in progress, Otto Strasser, Hitler's inveterate enemy, stood aside, watched, and did all in his power to thwart Hitler. A day or two before Hitler's triumph, he sat in a restaurant Unter den Linden at supper with that Madame Geneviève Tabouis who to-day writes about the political mysteries of Europe in the French and British Press. Madame Tabouis came from General Schleicher. That over-astute, and ill-fated Chancellor, a few hours before his overthrow, had held his clenched fist out for her to see, and said, 'I've got Hitler like that'. Madame Tabouis told Otto Strasser of this remark, and he answered, Well, if Herr Schleicher really has got Hitler like that, he had better be quick and crush him, or it will be too late'.

Hitler became Chancellor. Otto Strasser has not the same unrelenting personal hatred of Hitler that he has of Göring, Goebbels, and Heydrich. He does not feel the same bitter loathing of the man to whose destruction he has consecrated his life. This surprised me at first, but I think I understand it now. Strasser regards Hitler as a curiosity, a freak. He cannot take him quite seriously, in spite of everything, and cannot help laughing a little when he looks at him. Hitler is something outside Strasser's ken.

'A feminine type, with a destructive mission, not a constructive one,' he says. 'Hitler gave the best description of himself - a drummer, or showman, and a sleepwalker. Nothing is real or genuine about him. Not even the title Führer grew on him; it is not the product of any inner impulse or wish of the German people or even of Hitler himself. It is the result -- and this is so typical of Germany -- of an order couched in military language and signed by an officer, Röhm, who in the later part of 1931 issued this command to the Party: As from the Nth, the supreme commander of the SA, and Leader of the Party, Adolf Hitler, is only to be addressed or referred to as The Führer.'

Otto Strasser smiled when he told me this and added: 'And believe me, Mr. Reed, I know the Germans, and you must believe me when I say that our revolution, too, will have to be ordered, otherwise the generals and others -- I know these people -- will ask: "But who will undertake the responsibility?"'

Now, in January 1933, this man Hitler became ruler of Germany, and everything he has done since then has justified the doubts that Otto Strasser felt about him for so many years, Strasser's parting from, and Strasser's war against him.

With that day, the black years began for the two brothers. Gregor was at first allowed to feel secure in his chemical works in Berlin. He had left the Party and took no part in politics. But Hitler still saw in him a dangerous rival, particularly in the stormy first half of 1934, when dissatisfaction with the achievements, or lack of achievements, of the Hitler Party was rife, and the ghost of that old coalition of Strasser National-Socialists, Reichswehr Generals, and Socialist workers, popped its head up again. For that reason, General Schleicher, and his wife, were shot in their quiet flat in a pleasant suburb. For that reason, Gregor Strasser was dragged away from his midday meal with his family and taken to the Secret Police headquarters.

click for full size image

HIMMLER AND HEYDRICH

Otto Strasser has never succeeded in obtaining any account of his brother's death which he could completely verify. The version he believes to be true was given to him by another man who was at the Secret Police headquarters at the same time. He says that Gregor Strasser, late in the afternoon, was lying on a bench in his cell when the fair-haired Heydrich, Himmler's chief assistant, and another man, who is not known, thrust aside the grating in the door and fired through it with revolvers, missing Strasser, who jumped up and ran into a corner out of sight of the grating. The two men then opened the door and fired round it, again missing Strasser, who ran to a third corner. They fired again and hit him, so that he sank down, still alive but badly hurt. Then Heydrich entered the cell and dispatched him with a bullet in the neck.

But that, again, is a glimpse into the future, for the sake of keeping the threads of this narrative intact, which is about Otto Strasser, his life, his motives, and particularly the score which he has to settle.

During the three and a half years that elapsed between his breach with Hitler and Hitler's triumph, which began his own exile, Otto Strasser, as I have shown, had been busy with the construction of his Black Front. Its open activities I have described - the campaigning up and down the country, the anti-Hitlerist newspapers, the platform-debates. The Black Front had its own Storm Troop organization, the Black Guard, not to be confused with Hitler's SS, which is sometimes also called the Black Guard because of its black uniform. Strasser's Black Guard actually wore a black shirt, but the adjective Black, as I repeat, did not refer to this, but to the secret nature of the greater Black Front organization. The badge of the Black Front, incidentally, is a sword-and-hammer, crossed.

But these visible activities of the Black Front were the less important back of its work. The vital work was that indicated by the word Black - secret organization. In all political parties in Germany save the Communists, but particularly in the National Socialist Party and its organizations, Otto Strasser had his followers, who had been carefully instructed not to reveal their allegiance. Their part in his organization, planned against a long-distant future day, was to remain where they were, ostensibly good Nazis, enthusiastic Storm Troopers, ardent SS men, and the like, and to devote the knowledge they acquired by this method to promoting the ends of the Black Front.

They are still doing this, and much of their work, many of their exploits, can therefore only be told at a later day. But by this 'black' method, Otto Strasser was able, during the years when he worked against Hitler inside Germany and also during those years when he carried on the war from across the frontiers, to see through doors and walls, to know of orders and conversations that were never meant to be known outside very small Nazi circles.

Thus, when he made his escape from Germany, he had as his chauffeur, for long distances, a senior Storm Troop commander in the brown uniform. I have seen a letter written to him, in exile, by one of the leading SS commanders of to-day, a man famous and popular in Germany, and this letter breathes a fierce hatred of Hitler. I have seen other letters from officers now serving in the Reichswehr.

Through these invisible channels of information, Otto Strasser was able to look into Secret Police headquarters in Berlin itself, to read the report made by a man sent to kill him. He was able to identify other agents of the Gestapo who from time to time approached him, under one pretext or another, on a similar mission. He knows the contents of his own dossier at Gestapo headquarters.

These invisible supporters inside Germany have, by one means or another, supplied him with the money to carry on his campaign in exile; he spent all the money he himself possessed on it, and is, on account of one or other part of his political philosophy, cut off from the normal sources of financial support upon which Hitler's enemies in exile draw. Those friends in Germany, too, have supplied him with false passports, sheltered his emissaries. The men he has sent into Germany, to carry out some exploit against Hitler's regime, have done this at the risk of their lives and without payment.

In the course of this book, the reader will become acquainted with the men who openly helped him -- some of them have appeared already -- and may judge for himself their characters, qualities, courage and patriotism. But the legion of his unknown followers, the men inside Germany who are ready when the time comes to step out of the Brown Shirt or other ranks and avow their allegiance, is more important.

January 30th, 1933, closed a chapter in Otto Strasser's story and opened a new one. Another starting-gun sounded.

The bitterest years of his life were beginning. The man he distrusted and despised had triumphed, was Chancellor of the Reich. His brother was at last disillusioned and was soon to die. What was to become of him, Otto Strasser, of his Black Front, of his hopes, of the German Socialism for which he had laboured so hard.

What did the future now hold?

Chapter Eight

CRAZY ODYSSEY

With Hitler's arrival in the Reich Chancery in Berlin on January 30th, 1933, and the endless torchlight procession of Storm Troopers between delirious multitudes and past the two lighted windows, at one of which old Hindenburg nodded mandarin-like approval while at the other Hitler leaned far out in the spotlight, saluting, with these events another period in the life of our Revolutionary Socialist began - the period of pursuit and escape, plot and counterplot, mantrap and elusion, flight and exile, of a one-man-war waged by an outlaw from across the frontiers against the most powerful man in Europe.

Nothing in Hitler's life is so dramatic as this part of Strasser's life. It is an astounding story of adventure and hairbreadth escape; it is just Fenimore Cooper, Edgar Wallace, Phillips Oppenheim and all the others come true. It suggests that destiny must have something waiting, at the end of this road, for the man who has travelled it; why, otherwise, has destiny always intervened?

On February 4th, 1933, four days after Hitler's triumph Otto Strasser's Black Front newspapers were suppressed throughout the Reich.

For three weeks longer a false lull lay over Germany. As a precaution, all documents and weapons of the Black Front were secreted; plans were made for a second line of regional, and unknown, leaders throughout the country to spring into being, and into inter-communication, if the known leaders were arrested; and at the headquarters office of the Black Front in the Wilhelmstrasse -- not far from Hitler's Chancery itself -- only a telephonist and a couple of Strasser's Black Guards were left.

On February 27th, the docile Reichstag burned. Dr. Goebbels had written prophetically in his diary on the very morning after the National Socialist triumph:

'We set to work at once ... We discuss new measures. In a conference with the Leader we arrange measures for combating the Red terror. For the present we shall abstain from direct action. First the Bolshevist attempt at a revolution must burst into flame. At the given moment we shall strike.'

The Reichstag, as I say, obligingly 'burst into flame' four weeks later, on February 27th, was immediately proclaimed to be 'a Bolshevist attempt at revolution', and the Nazis 'struck' - at the enemies of Hitler throughout the country, not only Reds, but also pacifists, Nationalists, Catholics, Democrats, and The Black Front.

On the next morning, February 28th, the Wilhelmstrasse office of the Black Front was raided and wrecked, the few unfortunate men in it taken away, and all the known leaders and members of the Black Front throughout the country, some thousands in all, were rounded-up and taken to concentration camps, where, as I have already explained, some of them still are.

Otto Strasser, on that evening of February 27th, was on his way to the Anhalter Station to take train for his home outside Berlin, when he saw the glow in the sky, asked a taxi-driver what it was, and received the answer, 'The Nazis have fired the Reichstag'. He did not go home, but turned back and spent the night in an hotel; and in this manner began the fantastic journey which is still continuing to-day, seven years later, and at this moment after innumerable adventures has brought him to Paris.

While the Black Front headquarters in Berlin was being ransacked and demolished, Otto Strasser was on his way to a little Thuringian holiday resort which had already been chosen as the first secret headquarters in such an event as this.

From there, he issued the following order to his followers throughout the country: 'All members of the Black Front who are not known as such to the police are immediately to apply for membership of the Army, the National Socialist Party, the SA and SS, and to continue their political activity in legal guise inside those organizations.' This order became known to the Gestapo, and the members of the Black Front who were known and had been arrested underwent a martyrdom in the concentration camps to force them to betray their associates. Corrosive activity from within was the thing that the Nazis feared more than anything else, because it was so difficult to detect.

Thanks to the precautionary selection of these second-line leaders, who were not known to be his men and were therefore not arrested, Otto Strasser was able from his quiet Thuringian resort, by means of simple telephone calls, to keep all the threads of his organization in his hand, to issue orders and receive reports. The Gestapo took some time completely to clamp down the hatches of their terror, and in these early days local telephone calls were not tapped.

But after a week, he received an urgent call which told him, in a hastily improvised code intelligible to him, that one of his helpers had broken under manhandling in a concentration camp and had revealed the approximate locality of Strasser's hiding-place. This telephonic warning came from the Gestapo itself! That is, it came from one of Strasser's Black Front men who, in obedience to orders, had remained at his Nazi post.

At this moment, the hand of the Gestapo first touched Otto Strasser's coat-tails. On receipt of the warning, he fled at once by road to the second secret headquarters, also chosen long in advance, at a village in Bavaria; the next day, as he subsequently learned, the Gestapo arrived at the Thuringian inn where he had been staying under a false name, to arrest him.

Then, at the end of March, he moved to a third secret headquarters, in West Germany. It was a lonely house in the Teutoburger Forest, and from here he called a meeting of his chief helpers in West Germany, choosing for the occasion a quiet hamlet on the Steinhuder Lake. When he and his men foregathered there, they found that some thirty thousand Storm Troopers had chosen the same day and place for a Brown Army parade. With these throngs of jubilant Brown Shirts all round them, Strasser's four men (one of them himself in the Nazi uniform) calmly made their way to the lakeside, discussed the situation, agreed their plans, and parted.

The chase grew hotter, the Gestapo network ever closer, and the concentration camps ever fuller. In the middle of April, Otto Strasser made a dash for his native Bavaria - with the uniformed Nazi, a senior Storm Troop commander, now at the wheel of his car!

They had not been long on the road when they heard behind them the tara-tara -- a sound like the post-coachman's horn of old -- of the Flying Squad, and a police-tender with a Berlin number and a load of SS men drew level and overtook them. The brown-shirted Storm Trooper at the wheel gave the Nazi salute and 'Heil Hitler'; the black-uniformed SS men in the tender did not return it, but drove on. 'That's funny,' said the SA man to Strasser.

A little later, they encountered the tender again, halted on the road. The SS men, all armed, watched them intently as they drove past. 'Herr Doktor', said Strasser's brown-shirted companion, 'I don't like this. I believe they're after you'. (The car was Strasser's own, bearing the number known to be his; it was an ancient vehicle with a top-speed of fifty miles an hour presented to him by an admirer. (He had taken the Storm Troop commander, one of his Black Front men who had remained in the Brown Army in accordance with Strasser's orders, with him to disarm suspicion.)

A little further on, and tara-tara sounded again behind them; the SS men overhauled and passed them once more. This cat-and-mouse game was repeated several times, until Strasser sought to trick the pursuers by turning sharply from the main road and pulling up in the market-square of a little town, which was crowded with people come in from the countryside for a political meeting. Strasser dashed to the post office to telephone his wife and tell her of his flight; when he came out the SS tender was parked next to his own car.

The crowds of people in the market place, as he believes, alone prevented a revolver battle at this point. It was getting dark. He drove off, leaving the pursuers out of sight, and told his driver to get the last ounce of speed from the car and turn in at the first farm he came to. Eventually they found one, and swung in, through the great double-doors, into the farmyard, quickly slamming the doors behind them.

A few moments later, they heard again tara-tara, and saw the beam of a searchlight, as the tender flashed by, raking the countryside with its light to discover the fugitives if they should have left the main road. They did not think of stopping to look behind those great wooden doors. Strasser and his men lay doggo until the light and tara-tara had died away in the distance, then came out and, driving without lights and using by-roads, succeeded in reaching the Chiemsee, in Bavaria, their destination.

Afterwards, through his underground channels of information, Otto Strasser learned that these SS men had indeed been after him and had known that he was in the car. In reporting the failure to arrest him on returning to Berlin, their leader wrote that 'Otto Strasser is known as a violent man who habitually carries a machine-pistol; for that reason, my plan was to wait until darkness fell and then blind his oncoming car with the beam of the searchlight before proceeding to the arrest.'

For the last time, Otto Strasser called together his helpers in Germany - those for the South German districts. They met on the green slopes of the Bavarian Alps, within a few hundred yards of the Austrian frontier, and sat, in bathing drawers, with their papers strewn over the rough-hewn table before the Almhütte - one of those simple Alpine huts where the cowherd or the cowherdess lives during the summer, when the cattle pasture in the high meadows which in winter will be snowbound.

At this fantastic Führerbesprechung, or conference of leaders, within sight of freedom, the hand of the Gestapo again rested for a moment on Strasser's shoulder. Strasser and three of his chief South German helpers were there; and two women, his hostess at the lonely farmhouse farther down the slope where he was staying, and her servant.

While the nearly naked men were discussing plots and high politics at the table, armed SS men appeared -- auxiliary frontier guards on patrol -- came across, and demanded to know what they were doing. 'Sun-bathing and having a good time with the girls,' said Strasser, desperately anxious to prevent the SS men from examining the papers on the table. 'Girls?' said his interlocutor, 'I don't see any girls.' 'Why, there they are,' said Strasser pointing to where the two women lay, also in sun-bathing costume, two or three hundred yards away. 'And that's your girl?' asked an SS man suspiciously. 'Of course she is, said Strasser, and, raising his voice, 'Du, Annerl, komm' her. Come here. Here's a gentleman who wants to know what I'm doing and won't believe you're my girl.'

The respectable married lady who was his hostess was quickwitted enough not to be startled by the familiar Du and the insinuation, and played her part nobly. The SS men, obviously suspicious but confused, withdrew and lay down between the four men and the frontier. Then one of them sounded his Trillerpfeife, the shrill whistle they carry, and presently, from neighbouring peaks and slopes, came climbing three other SS frontiersmen. They all foregathered in a group and stood, watching and discussing the four men at the table.

Otto Strasser and his men, feigning nonchalance, sat round the table. Never had the beauties of Austria seemed so superb to them. The situation grew embarrassing, when salvation came out of a heaven that had been brilliantly blue and had contained only a blazing sun. It clouded over and released a sudden and torrential downpour of such force that little rivulets, bearing tiny avalanches of stones with them, in a few moments were careering down the mountainsides. The SS men stood their ground for a while and then suddenly decided that their suspicions were not worth getting so wet for. They made off, down the hill. Strasser and his companions dispersed their various ways, Strasser returning by devious routes to his farmhouse.

But the game was up. Four days later, on May 9th, Gregor Strasser, in Berlin, saw the Minister of the Interior, Dr. Frick, who had remained on good terms with him, and learned from him that Göring's men had wind that Otto Strasser was in the neighbourhood of the Chiemsee. He took aeroplane to Munich, sent a warning and a motor car to Otto, in his hide-out, and begged him to flee. Otto, moved by some premonition, felt he could not go without seeing his brother. He made his way in disguise to Munich and there met Gregor, whom he was never to see again, in the house of a mutual friend who was also a senior SS commander; he too retained his friendship with the Strassers from the earlier days.

Gregor Strasser, says his brother, was already a broken man. His part was played out, he could not forget the way he, who had really made the Party, had been vilified and thrown outside in the moment of its triumph, and more, he felt his coming death upon him. He told Otto: 'Göring will shoot us both.' 'Or we him, that is certain,' answered Otto, and he entreated Gregor to accompany him into exile and resume the struggle from across the frontiers. Gregor would not; he could not bring himself to leave his family and his business.

That same night of March 9th, 1933, Otto Strasser was driven to a place in the Bavarian Alps near the Austrian frontier. About midnight, led by a guide who knew every inch of the way, he began to climb, along narrow and precipitous paths made by the hooves of the chamois. As dawn broke on March 10th, 1933, he crossed the frontier.

In Berlin, an Austrian destitute and neer-do-well was absolute master of the Reich. Across the Reich frontiers, at dead of night, a German officer, anti-Red and Revolutionary Socialist made a weary way into Austria.

After a twenty-hour march, Otto Strasser came, on the evening of May 10th, 1933, into Kufstein. He was free, he had shaken off the pursuers, he could take up the fight. He was wrong in thinking this, for the pursuers had not been shaken off, but were still close behind him and were for years to stay close behind him. But he did not know that, and made his way to the new headquarters of his Black Front - Vienna.

In Vienna, the one-man-war was resumed, only three months after Hitler's advent to power and the descent of the Gestapo terror on Germany. In February, the necessary material for the preparation of Otto Strasser's anti-Hitlerist paper had already been sent to Vienna, and from the middle of that month onward it appeared there and was smuggled in thousands of copies into the Reich.

This was relatively simple because The Black Front covered not only Germany, but also Austria, and its organization there was still intact. Strasser's followers in Austria helped in the printing of the paper and in smuggling it across the frontier. It was called, in anticipation of something that afterwards came true, Der Schwarze Sender (The Black or Secret Sender).

In addition to the paper itself, small-type pamphlets on thin paper were prepared, things which could be screwed into a tiny ball and swallowed, and these were sent across the frontier, 50,000 at a time. They caused more annoyance to the Nazis there than any other form of attack upon their rule, because the author was a man who had played a leading part in their own movement, and because he could neither be called Socialist, Communist nor Jew.

Very soon, for these reasons, the arm of the Gestapo reached out across the frontier into Austria and again Otto Strasser's coat-tails slithered through its fingers. This is one of the most remarkable of his adventures.

By July 1933 he had been in Vienna for nearly two months, living with a beautifully forged passport and under a false name, with a cousin. In these few weeks, with his enormous energy, he had redoubled the anti-Hitlerist campaign of the Black Front from Vienna, and the flood of pungent literature that was pouring across the frontiers was seriously worrying the Secret Police in the Reich.

At this time, too, as I must interpolate to make the story clear, the Austrian Nazis, on orders from the Reich, were conducting their first campaign, which ended in the rising of July 24th, 1934, and the murder of Chancellor Dollfuss, to conquer Austria by terrorism. In Vienna particularly, but also in many parts of the country, bombs were exploding and violent exploits of many kinds were perpetrated; the people knew that the Nazis were the authors of these things and the feeling everywhere was of tension and suspense.

On the night of July 4th, 1933, Otto Strasser returned to Vienna from a visit to Prague, where, with his habitual foresight, he had been surveying the ground in case Austria should fall to Hitler and the Black Front need to seek yet another secret headquarters. At his dwelling in Vienna, all was dark and he found that his key failed, for some reason, to open the door; nor could he obtain any answer to his knocking.

So he went downstairs and knocked-up the porter, who opened his eyes in surprise when he saw the visitor, and said, 'But, Herr Müller, the police were here to-day and arrested your landlady'. Strasser, though he was taken aback, did not connect this incident with himself, for he was convinced that the Viennese police did not know his real identity, or even if they did, that he would be the last man they would seek - for was not the Austria of Dollfuss fighting for its life against Hitler? But he asked 'How is it that my key won't open the door?' and was told 'Oh, the police have sealed the flat'.

'So!' said Strasser, thoughtfully, and after a moment's indecision went into the street. There doubts overtook him and he made up his mind to avoid the house for that night, at least. The drawback to this was that he had returned from Prague with the sum of just one Austrian schilling in his pocket (during all these years, the money problem was an enemy only less mortal than Hitler) and could not afford a lodging. Though the month was July, the night was very cold and he had no overcoat, and not even enough money, as he says, to seek that warmth which the pleasures of the town can provide.

So he walked about all night, and dawn found him waiting eagerly for the first cheap coffee-house to open, where for half of that Austrian schilling he could buy a cup of coffee, with sugar and whipped cream, and a roll.

At last one opened. The sleepy waiter brought him the coffee and the roll and, as every well-trained Viennese Ober must, the morning paper. Otto Strasser sipped his coffee, bit the end off his roll, opened the paper, and saw written across it, in flaring headlines, the news that The Black Front had been identified as the author of the bomb outrages that were going on all over Austria; that all the leaders of this criminal organization, seventeen men and two women, had been arrested during the night; but that the Leader, one Dr. Otto Strasser, had unfortunately escaped.

Otto Strasser was an alarmed and a stupefied man. He could not, at that time, even guess at an explanation - for was not he, Hitler's arch-enemy, in the anti-Hitlerist Austria of Dollfuss? Why for anything's sake should he and his men try to destroy this Austria with bombs? The survival of this Austria meant their survival, its life or death was their life or death. What on earth was the meaning of this ridiculous story? Everybody knew who was throwing the bombs. For what conceivable reason had the anti-Nazi Black Front been saddled with the blame?

Otto Strasser did not know it then, but at his side in the frowsy Viennese café sat an unseen guest - the Gestapo. Its arm was longer than any man would at that time have believed. The explanation only came a year later, in July 1934, when the Nazi rising occurred, Chancellor Dollfuss was murdered, and his own Viennese Chief of Police, Dr. Steinhäusl, was found after the suppression of that revolt to have been one of the Nazi conspirators. He was sentenced to a long term of imprisonment, but after Hitler's invasion of Austria was made Viennese Chief of Police again.

Thus in Vienna, where he thought -himself safe, Otto Strasser only escaped the clutches of the Gestapo by the merest fluke. Hitler's man, Steinhäusl, was out to get him and nearly had got him. If he had been at home that day, when the police called, Otto Strasser would have been 'kidnapped' across the German frontier, or he would have been in an Austrian prison when Hitler invaded Austria, and in either case he would have been sent to join his brother. Here, again, is one of the reasons why I think that destiny must have something in store for this man; why, otherwise, has destiny so often pulled him from beneath the annihilating wheels?

But on that morning Otto Strasser could not even guess at these things and he was a flabbergasted man, who instinctively felt that he was in danger. He could not think what had happened, but his inner voice told him to get out, and get out quickly. But how? He had no money and did not know a soul in Vienna; his few acquaintances had been arrested that night. He had half a schilling, fifty groschen, say sixpence, in his pocket.

He thought, and thought, and at last hit on an idea which held out a faint hope. There was one man whom he knew in Vienna slightly - the man whose secretary his cousin and landlady was, a Jewish journalist in the employ of the Ullstein publishing firm.

To this man's office he went, a long walk right across the city, after a sleepless night and a spoiled breakfast. Giving another false name, he succeeded in gaining admission.

The man behind the table looked up, and horrified surprise suddenly spread over his face. He sprang up, with hands spread before him as if to ward off some awful apparition, and said 'Get out, get out of here, at once'. 'I want a hundred schillings and I'm not going until you give me them,' said Strasser. 'But this is blackmail,' expostulated a frightened and excited man, 'the police are looking for you. Go away.' 'I want a hundred schillings to get to Prague with,' said Strasser, 'and if you don't give them to me I shall stay here and be arrested in your office, and you will be arrested too.'

Frightened though he was, says Strasser, the Jew immediately recalled that the fare to Prague only cost sixty-nine schillings and said so. 'But I want something for a taxi and food, insisted Strasser. 'Here, said the harassed man. 'Here you are, take it and go, go quickly.' Strasser took the hundred schillings and said, 'I'll give you a receipt'. Up came the protesting hands again, 'No, no, don't give me a receipt'. 'Then I'll send you the money from Prague.' 'Do what you like, send it or not, but go away from here, go away quickly, and don't send me a receipt. Just go away, go away.'

Pushed out of the door, Strasser again found himself in the street. He was not, as he had thought, a free man in a free land; he was once again a fugitive, and at that time did not even know why. He only knew that he had to escape quickly, and that he now had the money for his fare. He set his face towards the Ring, and then remembered that he had no clothes whatever but those he wore. The others were in his lodging. He decided to take a taxi, and to drive there. If he saw anything suspicious, he would drive past. If not, he would go in and see if a chance existed to get his clothes.

At the house all was quiet. He stopped the taxi, went in, and rang at the porter's lodge, feeling prickly. The man came out, looked at him in surprise, and said 'Aber, Herr Doktor Strasser!' 'Wieso, Doktor Strasser?' said Strasser,' 'What do you mean, Doctor Strasser?' 'Na, you are Dr. Otto Strasser,' said the man. 'So, and what of it?' said Strasser. The man smiled confidentially. 'Don't worry, Herr Doktor,' he said, 'Ich bin Sozi, I'm a Socialist. I've got your clothes here, packed in a bag. The police were here again and I told them you had gone away. They left the flat open and I packed your clothes in case you came back; it's better for you not to go up.'

Only one problem remained, but a stiff one - to get out of Austria. By this time, Otto Strasser assumed that the police had identified him with Herr Müller and had warned all frontier stations to watch for a man with such a passport. The best chance, he thought, would be to try the tram.

For in the middle of Vienna, in those days, just off the main street, was a tram terminus from which trams ran, straight along the main road, to Bratislava, two hours away. Bratislava had once been Pressburg, and had been to Vienna as Windsor to London; but that was in the days of Austria-Hungary, and now Pressburg was Bratislava and lay just across the frontier, in Czechoslovakia. But - the tram still ran. It still said it was going to 'Pressburg', but it still ran, and there was very little supervision of the travellers that used it; many of them were people who came and went every day. Sometimes, passports were not even examined.

It was a chance. Otto Strasser took it. He walked down the Ring, with his bag in his hand, and got on the tram. An hour or two later, he was in Bratislava, in Czechoslovakia. Once again, he had shaken off the pursuit. He was a free man, in a free land. He had not even been asked to show his passport.

Once more the one-man-war had to be begun again at the beginning. He went to Prague. He had one great advantage - good friends, in and outside Germany, who helped with money when they could, and in other ways, particularly in the vital matter of providing him with false passports. This time, he acquired the passport of a supporter in Germany whose appearance and description approximately resembled his own. This man obtained a photograph of Strasser to substitute for his own. Unfortunately, it showed Strasser in the Brown Shirt of the Storm Troops, and this was undesirable. So the brown shirt was painted out and a white-collar and black-tie painted in; and the photograph was then re-photographed; and the ultimate photograph skilfully substituted for that of the original owner of the passport.

In Prague, where he resumed his Black Front work in the office of a friend, Otto Strasser took lodging with an unsuspecting postman and his family. In spite of the shock he had had in Vienna, he felt perfectly safe in Prague, for the Czechs were a united people. Among them were no admirers of Hitler, and it was impossible to imagine the Police Chief of Prague, or even the last errand boy in Prague, being an agent of the Nazis.

He was only left five months in this illusion of security. On the morning of November 25th, 1933, as he lay abed, his corpulent landlady came waddling in, breathless and excited, exclaiming 'Police', and close behind her pressed two Czech detectives with levelled revolvers, who addressed the sleepy Strasser in harsh and voluble Czech. He asked them to speak German, whereon they asked him, in that language, if he were Herr Müller - the name he had used in Vienna. He denied this, and they demanded his passport.

Fortunately, he had his beautiful new passport, a recent one, issued after Hitler's advent to power and bearing the Reich swastika on it. This completely bewildered the two policemen, who repeatedly exclaimed that Herr Müller must live here, and eventually retired, cursing and puzzled. Strasser's landlady, an enormously fat woman, waddled breathlessly back into the room, exclaiming in comic German, 'Outside two policemen more, with revolver, by big motor car, all very cross'.

On this occasion, too, Strasser was more puzzled than alarmed, for he had on his arrival in Prague immediately informed the authorities of his identity and of the name he was living under; as they knew this, he assumed that some mistake had been made in the address, and went off to sleep again. No Czech policeman, he knew, would want to deliver him up to Hitler.

Later, he strolled along to Police Headquarters to ask the Chief of Police why his officials had made such a mistake. On his description of the scene, this official immediately answered that some mystery must be present, because the Prague police had no motor cars whatever and never used them. Inquiry then revealed that nothing of the visit was known to the police. Then it was learned that the waiting motor car, with the four ostensible officials from the Criminal Investigation Department in it, had carried a German number, namely, the IIA of Munich; that the two officials who had waited outside had spoken German with the two who had made the raid; and that one of them had held a gag, or chloroform wad, in his hand, which he threw away in disgust when no captive was brought. This was found in the gutter.

This time the Gestapo visited Otto Strasser in his bed and held a revolver under his very nose.

The chain of events was eventually pieced together thus: Otto Strasser had evidently been seen and followed to his lodging by someone who knew him and knew that in Vienna he passed as Müller, and this man had betrayed him to the Gestapo. The familiar abduction-across-the-frontier was then planned, but the Gestapo needed men for this who spoke fluent Czech and could thus, pass themselves off as Czech detectives. To that end they used Sudeten Germans from the mixed-language belt.

These men spoke perfect Czech - but did not know Strasser. The possibility that he would by this time have acquired yet another name and passport had been overlooked, so that the sham agents were completely thrown off the trail by the production of his new, and seemingly good, National-Socialist German passport, and assumed that the informer had made a mistake.

This affair shook Prague badly. For the first time the Czechs realized, in 1933, how near and how daring the enemy was - their enemy, too. Strict precautions were taken to prevent any further exploits of the same kind. But these precautions were restricted to Prague, and for this reason another fantastic stroke of the Gestapo against Otto Strasser and his friends had a bloody end, as I shall tell.

Soon after this, another very remarkable thing happened to Otto Strasser, an adventure the end of which has not yet come, and which may eventually dovetail into the mysterious affair of the bomb explosion which occurred at Munich after the present war had begun.

About the turn of the year 1934, soon after the attempted abduction by the sham Czech detectives, a man called on Otto Strasser in Prague in whom he was astonished to recognize one Constantin, who had for many years been a member of his Black Front.

'Why, how on earth did you contrive to miss being sent to a concentration camp?' asked Strasser.

'They offered me ten thousand marks and a high post in the SA, if I could succeed in killing you,' said Constantin, and gravely handed Strasser a phial, adding 'This is the poison'.

Otto Strasser says that Constantin, whom he regarded as a loyal helper, had had a few drinks, so that he wondered if the man knew just what he was saying. To be on the safe side, he went with Constantin, later, to the political police in Prague, with whom he remained in close touch throughout his stay there, and had the contents of the phial examined. 'It was prussic acid,' he says, 'and enough to poison a regiment.'

Constantin then explained further that the Gestapo had told him Strasser would be sure to invite him to a meal and he should pour the poison in Strasser's beer or coffee. 'I thought the best thing to do was to agree to come to Prague, so that I could see you, and I guessed that you would find a way to get me out of this, for I shall have to have some plausible excuse for returning without having killed you.'

This was easily arranged. The phial was given back to Constantin and he was supplied with an order of expulsion from Czechoslovakia so worded that he appeared to have been detained at the frontier and never to have been allowed as far as Prague. With this in his possession, he went off and from that day to this Otto Strasser has never heard another word of him.

Nevertheless, there was a sequel, and a strange one. A former inmate of the Oranienburg concentration camp, now in France, saw in the press in November 1939, the pictures, issued by the Gestapo, of the mysterious man 'Georg Elser' who is supposed to have planted the bomb in the Bürgerbräukeller at Munich and was alleged by the Gestapo to have been the tool, in this act, of Otto Strasser and the British Secret Service. This man claimed to recognize in the pictures of 'Georg Elser' one Constantin, whom he had known at Oranienburg. Constantin, he said, was one of the better-treated prisoners in the camp and told him one day that he had been sent to Oranienburg by the Gestapo as punishment for his failure in a mission entrusted to him. This mission -- as Constantin told his fellow-prisoner -- was to go to Prague, to gain the confidence of Strasser, and to find out what relations Strasser entertained with the Czechoslovak Government.

If this is true, the man 'Georg Elser' is thus none other than that Constantin who went to Prague, and the handing-over of the poison was actually but another trick to get inside Strasser's guard. And if that is the case, 'George Elser' already stands revealed as an agent of the Gestapo. Unfortunately the chain cannot be quite completed. The missing link in it is that Otto Strasser either does not recognize, or will not admit that he recognizes, Constantin in the picture of 'Georg Elser'. 'I am unable to recognize Constantin in these photographs,' he says, 'but then they do not resemble each other. They give me the impression that either the man in the pictures has been made up -- he might be wearing a wig, for instance -- or that the photographs have been touched up. I cannot recognize anybody; but with the Gestapo, you never know.'

So there is an episode in Otto Strasser's tale of strange adventure that has already had one sequel, and may yet have a second sequel.

In Prague, Otto Strasser continued to work hard at his anti-Hitlerist campaign. His energy is hard to believe. During these crowded years he somehow found time to write several books, which I shall describe later. Some of them are of much interest, and I wonder that none has yet been translated into English. All this time, the production of miniature anti-Hitlerist newspapers, of pamphlets and letters, was going on apace. From Czechoslovakia, as from Austria, they were smuggled in large quantities into the Reich, by reckless men who used the most audacious methods, who continually risked, and on several occasions lost their lives, for no other payment than the hope of contributing to the end of Hitler.

click for full size image

THREE SPECIMENS OF THE MINIATURE ANTI-HITLERIST NEWSPAPERS PRINTED ON FLIMSY PAPER BY OTTO STRASSER AND SMUGGLED INTO GERMANY FROM AUSTRIA, CZECHOSLOVAKIA AND DENMARK

Germans, Sudeten-Germans, and even Czechs, helped in the work. They crossed the frontiers by secret paths at mid of night with knapsacks on their backs containing thousands of these anti-Hitlerist flimsies, already contained in envelopes, stamped with German stamps, ready for posting. When they reached Leipzig or Dresden, and had posted their burdens at some main post office, they would buy enough stamps for the next consignment and return for more.[3]

Once, Otto Strasser had an envelope of the German Medical Association sent to him in Prague and had fifty thousand facsimiles made there. These he filled with his leaflets, leaving the flap unstuck, and posted them, in Germany, as printed matter! On another occasion, he had the letterheads of the German jurists Association similarly copied; but that piously Hitlerist body must have had a shock when it learned of the literature that was being distributed in Germany on paper bearing its imprint.

Another method used by Otto Strasser in his one-man-war was to smuggle into Germany, and into the hands of his supporters there, millions of glued, stick-on labels, rather bigger than an ordinary postage stamp. These bore the sword-and-hammer badge of the Black Front and some such legend as 'The Black Front will oust Hitler'. One of them is reproduced below. These were pasted all over Germany - on doors, walls, windows, trains, trams, pavements, hoardings, National Socialist Party offices, Brown Shirt headquarters, military barracks and the like. It was so simple to hold one in the palm of the hand and swiftly stick it on in passing that it was almost impossible to catch the distributors of these stamps, which sometimes appeared in the most unexpected places - for instance, on the desks of Nazi leaders and the like.

click for full size image

At the beginning of March 1934, the shadow of the Gestapo fell across Strasser's path again. He gave a lecture on National Socialism at Prague University, which was widely reported, and the next day received the visit of a well-dressed Dutch gentleman, one Mr. Frank, who in faulty German, interspersed with Dutch and English words expressed his admiration of the lecture and offered Strasser, on behalf of an 'American anti-Nazi organization' which he did not name, his financial support. He was accompanied -- this is a particularly interesting example of the ingenuity of Gestapo methods -- by a Jewish lawyer of Prague, Dr. Soundso, to whose sister he was said to be engaged. The use of Jewish agents by the Gestapo is a chapter to itself, and one of the most interesting, in that dark story.

Mr. Frank offered, without any conditions, to pay for five thousand copies of each number of Otto Strasser's weekly paper, which was being smuggled into Germany in the manner I have described, for a period of three months, in token of his sympathy with the cause; the genuineness of this sympathy was subtly underlined by the presence of his Jewish friend. The money was paid on the spot. (At the end of this episode, Otto Strasser was thus the richer by some 60,000 Czech crowns of Gestapo money, which had gone to swell the floods of anti-Hitlerist propaganda that was crossing the frontier, and this is his happiest memory of the one-man-war.)

At the end of the three months Mr. Frank appeared in Prague again, with a pressing invitation to Strasser to come to Paris and there meet Mr. Frank's 'chief', in the middle of June 1934. In the meantime Strasser had asked the Prague police about both Mr. Frank and his Jewish lawyer, and been told that nothing was known of Mr. Frank save that he had a good British passport, while the Jewish faith of his companion, Dr. Soundso, seemed to speak for Mr. Frank's good faith.

On this, Strasser went to Paris, and met Mr. Frank, who said that his 'chief' had unfortunately had to go to Saarbrücken (in the Saar Territory, not at that time reunited with Germany) to meet Konrad Heiden (the anti-Hitlerist writer) and would await Strasser there. This seemed plausible, for Heiden lived there and an anti-Hitler-Chief might well desire to meet him.

So Strasser agreed to go to Saarbrücken, but without telling Mr. Frank that he knew Konrad Heiden well; on arrival he visited that writer and learned that he had never heard of Mr. Frank, of the anti-Hitler organization, or of his 'chief'. Strasser then went on to keep his appointment with Mr. Frank, but, having been made suspicious, he noticed with still greater suspicion that between twenty and thirty SS men, whom his expert eye at once recognized by their high boots, their husky appearance, and their general behaviour, were standing about before the hotel. He was made still further suspicious by the manner of Mr. Frank, who was in a state of extreme nervousness, and continually left the room 'to telephone', although the room had a telephone. The fact that the German frontier was but ten minutes distant recurred forcibly to Strasser at this point, and the beauties of Saarbrücken, as the beauties of Austria on a former occasion, suddenly appeared stupendous to him.

He had to think quickly and find a way out of a trap. Telling Mr. Frank that he would gladly wait for the 'chief', who still had not appeared, but must first postpone a meeting which he had previously arranged, he left the room, disarming any suspicion on Mr. Frank's part by leaving his trunk behind. Then he walked calmly down the stairs, through the surprised SS men outside, and drove away in a taxi.

But Mr. Frank was persistent, and at the beginning of the next month, July 1934, appeared in Prague again and overwhelmed Strasser with reproaches for his desertion at Saarbrücken. He invited him forthwith to accompany him in a special aeroplane to London, and Strasser, with a broad smile, declined. On this Mr. Frank said: 'If you don't trust me, I am willing for your friend Dr. Hebrew to pilot the aeroplane'.

This was another most illuminating example of Gestapo methods. Dr. Hebrew, a qualified pilot, was another Jew, the son of the proprietor of a big store in the Leipzigerstrasse in Berlin. He was in Prague as 'a fugitive from Hitlerist oppression' and had there met a school friend of his, one Franke, who was a collaborator with Strasser. By this means, he had come to know Strasser, who finds the Streicher-Stürmer form of anti-Semitism, as practised in Hitler's Germany, as stupid as it is repugnant, but in the Fourth Reich he dreams of would retain, in dignified form, measures of restriction against the excessive spread of Jewish influence. Dr. Hebrew had presented himself to Strasser as a violently resentful 'victim of Hitlerist persecution'.

Put a little off his guard, once more, by this apparent earnest of good faith -- for Dr. Hebrew seemed above suspicion in his anti-Hitlerism -- Strasser nevertheless telephoned the Chief of Police for an interview before making a decision. Dr. Hebrew overheard this telephone conversation, and when the police went to arrest Mr. Frank he was flown. Thereon Dr. Hebrew was arrested and the whole plot came to light. Mr. Frank (whose secretary was also arrested) was actually Dr. Wenzel Heindl, the head of the anti-Black Front section of the Gestapo. The abduction of Strasser at Saarbrücken had only failed through the potential victim's awakened suspicions.

The most interesting figure in this episode was that of Dr. Hebrew, who eventually confessed that he had been promised 'rehabilitation as an Aryan' for his part in the plot. On this bait, he bit. He was to have piloted the aeroplane, with Strasser and Mr. Frank in it, and to have landed in Germany. He received a long sentence of imprisonment from the Czechs, but afterwards became again a Gestapo agent and was last heard of in Copenhagen.

The sympathy which this type of man can claim, and usually enjoy, as a Jew, puts him among the most dangerous of Gestapo agents. Strasser, strangely, bears him no mortal illwill. But Strasser's hatreds are not quite clear to me. Although his war is against Hitler, his personal hatred is less for Hitler than for Göring, whom he regards as the murderer of his brother; Heydrich, the blond assistant of Heinrich Himmler, whom he believes to have been the actual gunman; and Goebbels in whom he sees the traitor who was chiefly responsible for the defeat of the Strassers in the struggle for the soul of the National Socialist Party.

click for full size image

GOEBBELS AND GÖERING

But the upshot of it all was that the Gestapo, once more, had Otto Strasser in its hands and let him slip through its fingers, and that he chortles to-day at the thought of those 60,000 Czech crowns.

Now came the most dramatic of all the acts in this vendetta of one man against a nation. It is a story that deserves a book or a play to itself.

A lonely inn, with a river flowing by. A lonely exile, fighting the men who outlawed him with the weapons of modern science. Avengers, with revolvers in their hands. The decoy, the beautiful blonde - incredible, but she was blonde and most beautiful. The trap, the exchange of shots, the dying blonde and the dying exile. The startled, cowed innkeeper. The stampeding feet of the fugitive gunmen. The staunching of the blonde's blood in the river near by. The hurtling getaway in a fast motor car. The dash across the frontier.

Does it not all sound too bad to be true? And yet it all happened, just like that, the most fantastic thing in all this crazy Odyssey. This story, alone, justifies this whole book, if nothing else does. When I heard it, I had to write it. I cannot think why anybody can be bothered to read detective stories, when the world about us offers such things. Believe it or not, but I once knew a writer, a first-class writer, who was given a contract to write a series of short stories for a periodical read by masses of English people, and though he needed the money badly he had to send back the contract because his stories were required to conform to these rules, and this side of the grave he couldn't do it: 'They should be about pleasant likeable people; they should have plenty of action; they should tell of passion without sex; they should have a metropolitan setting; and remember that this magazine is much read at Eton and Harrow.'

Can you beat it? What sort of story fits into this frame? One about a castrated Don Juan dashing along Piccadilly with a Glamour Girl in a racing motor car and an old school tie, I suppose. And in a world where such things happen as the story I have now to tell! Listen to the story of Zahori - pronounced, if I may dangerously air my little knowledge, Zahorzhi.

In the autumn of 1934, when Mr. Frank had withdrawn from the chase, the name of Otto Strasser's news paper, The Secret Sender, came true. He built secretly, and secretly operated, a Secret Sender.

At this present moment, when we are at war, this has become a commonplace. The Governments have millions to spend. From dozens of stations, every night, come voices, to which the Reich Germans eagerly listen, telling the tale of Hitler's crimes.

When I was in Paris, talking with Otto Strasser about this very book, the air was fouled every night by something called Der Freiheitssender - The Freedom Sender, or Liberty Radio. This dishonest fake pretended to be operating from within Germany. Every night you could hear the speaker telling how the Gestapo were close behind him, but to-morrow, no matter what the Gestapo did, he would pop up in Cologne, or in Hamburg, or in Breslau, or somewhere else. And anybody who cares to, and has not been in Germany, may believe this, if he be credulous enough. To anybody who knows Germany, and the closeness of the Gestapo net, the thing is farcical. Liberty Radio, when I was in Paris, was operating from Paris, and the Germans must have laughed themselves into fits when they heard it.

But for one man, poor, hunted and friendless, in 1934, to build and operate a Secret Sender, only a few miles from the borders of the Reich itself - that was a feat, if you like. This was the first Secret Sender, and the only Secret Sender that ever deserved the name, for it was operated by real men who risked their lives, as one of them lost his life, not by cosmopolitan buffoons working in the safety of a distant capital.

This was the greatest achievement of Otto Strasser in his one-man-war against Hitler. It was not his own achievement alone; it was only made possible by the skill of another brave man, Rudolf Formis, his close friend and one of the best radio engineers Germany ever had.

Formis, a small, dauntless man, did brilliant service with the Germans in Palestine in the World War (1914-18). He held a diploma for having built the first wireless reception apparatus ever used in Germany, and was the author of many inventions used by the German radio, particularly the short-wave radio, to-day.

His exceptional skill brought him to high office in the German radio organization, at last to the post of chief engineer for the Stuttgart Sender. In this post, he performed audacious exploits which made his name known throughout Germany. One of the earliest members of the Black Front, he demonstrated his contempt of Hitler, when Hitler became Chancellor, by cutting the cable during the transmission of an important speech of Hitler at Stuttgart. The entire Gestapo buzzed with feverish activity after this incident, but the culprit was never found. But when a series of 'technical defects' occurred during the transmission of Hitler's speeches from Stuttgart, Formis was dismissed and arrested. Luck enabled him to escape, and his crazy Odyssey began. It led him, by way of Austria, Turkey and Hungary, to his friend Otto Strasser in Prague. In Rudolf Formis, I commend you again to a German of the type that ought to be at the top in Germany; then, all might be well.

The result of this reunion in Prague was that in the autumn of 1934 Heinrich Himmler, the Gestapo chief, and his assistant Heydrich, an unusually handsome and revolting mass-murderer, called the senior officials of the Gestapo together and told them that The Black Front Sender, which for some time past had been dinning hatred of Hitler into the ears of millions of enchanted Germans, must at all costs be found and destroyed.

This was Formis's work. He had given Strasser the idea of a 'radio-war' against Hitler, and planned it in detail. The main obstacle was the want of money. The Black Front was a purely German organization, without the normal, usually Jewish, sources of financial support which are open to all other, internationally-affiliated, anti-Hitlerist organizations. But somehow these two men managed to smuggle funds from their friends in Germany, in spite of the stringent German supervision, and the work began.

The most important thing was the choice of a site for the Sender. It had to be technically suitable, for transmissions, and yet secret - secret from the Czech authorities, secret from the Gestapo. At last, Strasser and Formis found, about forty miles south-west of Prague, in the valley of the Moldau, that river which in such beauty runs through Prague itself, a lonely weekend inn, bearing the lovely name of Zahori. 'Behind the hills'! It was ideal. The owner did not bother himself overmuch with the strange activities of his new, and permanent, guests. He was a good Czech patriot, anyway; he died, afterwards. Autumn was taking all his other guests away; the valley grew chill. The spot was ideally lonely; or rather, that fatal loneliness then seemed ideal.

In this secluded spot, Rudolf Formis, German officer, patriot and anti-Hitlerist, built his Secret Sender. It was, as experts tell me, a technical marvel, and is -- or at any rate was, until Hitler invaded Prague and I left Prague -- one of the chief exhibits of the Czechoslovak Postal Museum. It was something entirely new. From this Sender, the news and views of The Black Front were delivered three times daily, in three transmissions of an hour each, into the heart of Hitlerist Germany. The Sender was cunningly built into the rafters of the loft of the little inn; in Formis's bedroom, only the microphone was to be seen. He could lie abed and open his heart to his fellow-Germans.

Neither Strasser nor Formis, after all they had been through, could have forgotten the danger they were in, or have gone in a sense of false security. They knew that their lives were at stake. And nevertheless - the Gestapo found them and struck. The real culprit, as Otto Strasser says, was their chronic need of money, which harassed and hampered them at every move. Formis went armed, and whenever the monetary position allowed, an armed companion went out to Zahori to stay with him, but that was seldom, and Strasser had to be in Prague.

Strasser's opinion is that the second armed companion would have saved Formis. My own opinion is that even the second armed companion, if he had been there, might not have saved Formis. These beautiful blondes! But perhaps I am wrong. Indeed, on second thoughts I think I am. What a tragedy.

On January 16th, 1935, Strasser was at Zahori, and saw Formis for the last time. He brought him new gramophone records of recorded speeches to the German people; these were changed every month.

He also asked Formis if he had noticed anything suspicious. Formis answered that on the previous day, January 15th, a German couple, a pair of lovers, had been there, one Hans Müller, a business man from Kiel, and one Edith Kersbach, who was a games-teacher from Berlin and an exceptionally beautiful girl with golden hair.

Strasser immediately told Formis that he 'didn't like the sound of it', and advised him to have the innkeeper ask the police to check their papers and have a look at them. But Formis said he thought them to have been 'nice, harmless people'.

Consider that, 'nice, harmless people'. Is it not strange that a man who has knocked about the world, and fought in Palestine, who has learned about women from 'er in this country and that, and who knows that the Gestapo is close behind him and is merciless, is it not strange that such a man should be immediately blinded and bereft of all his senses and all his caution, and despoiled of his very life, by some nitwit of a blonde who comes along and smiles challengingly at him and allows her hand artlessly to rest a moment on his arm and her thigh to rub against his and has cold murder in her heart for a man she has never seen before and is saying by signs to some other man, this is the man you want, go on, kill him, all probably because she likes some other, third man - ugh, these lice. But happily, she paid.

Because Formis did not tell Strasser -- perhaps he had forgotten it, or perhaps he held it to be unimportant, or maybe he did not want Strasser to think that he had looked upon the blonde and lo, she was good -- that on the day before she had pretended to be cross with her lover, and had snuggled up to Formis, and said 'Let's be photographed together and make this grumpy fellow jealous'. Whereon Formis and the blonde were photographed together, arm-in-arm, by the smiling, attentive waiter, and the next day, as was later ascertained, the grumpy Hans Müller flew to Berlin with the photograph to make sure that Formis was the right man, and the Gestapo examined the picture and said, 'Yes, this is the man we want, go on, get him'.

(You may be wondering how the Gestapo knew where to look and whom to seek. It is simple. The good Dr. Hebrew, who had been promised 'rehabilitation as an Aryan', told them.)

So Hans Müller of the Gestapo, accompanied now by a friend, whose passport-name was Gerhard Schubert, also of the Gestapo, took aeroplane back to Prague, and with the beautiful Edith the three -- this was also subsequently ascertained -- had a gay time in the bars of Prague, and this is only just, because Edith's gay life was to be a short one. On January 21st they stayed the night at Stechovice, not far from Zahori, and had their fast Mercedes car overhauled, and then they were all set.

On January 23rd, Edith and her Hans Müller returned to Zahori. They were received with cautious reserve by the innkeeper and Rudolf Formis, who had been put on his guard, but not enough -- this was the father and mother of all blondes -- by Strasser.

It was late. Neither the innkeeper nor the local police had a telephone, so that the police check-up recommended by Strasser could not take place that night. It would not have yielded much result, anyway; the passports of these three were as good as platinum.

Hans Müller, moreover, was terribly tired and had a terrible headache, and went immediately to bed. In the picture of the hotel, reproduced below, you will see the layout. His bedroom, which was also that of Edith, was on the first floor; two doors beyond it was Formis's room.

click for full size image

THE INN AT ZAHORI

The first floor window half hidden behind the left-hand umbrella is that of the room occupied by EDITH KERSBACH; from it she was carried, dying, down the rope ladder by her accomplices. The window beneath the letter 'N' is that of the room occupied by FORMIS. The Secret Sender was built into the loft at the extreme left. In the foreground runs the River Moldau.

Formis and Edith remained together in the Gastzimmer, or sitting-room, for an hour and a half after Müller went to bed. Edith now unburdened herself, told the whole tale of her lovelornness, of the brutality of her lover.

She did not know she was about to die, this strumpet, and she played a marvellous part. The artless pat on the hand; the accidental touch; the lingering glance. At 9.30 in the evening, when the innkeeper and his family made their way to their rooms in the far wing of the hotel, Edith and Formis sat together, the best of friends.

Nevertheless, I think Formis may have been latently suspicious, that his inner man may instinctively have distrusted the whole pantomime, but perhaps he belonged to those men who simply cannot bring themselves to box such a woman's ears. Anyway, at 10 o'clock they rose to go to bed and went upstairs, along the corridor, where Edith and her lover had room Number Three, and Formis the room two doors farther on, Number Seven.

Only Hans Müller and Gerhard Schubert know exactly what happened then; they were inside Room Number Three.

I have studied the layout and the details that are known very closely, and I think that Edith, who held one of Formis's hands in hers, opened the door of her room, as if to say good-night to him, and then tried to pull him in with her.

His latent suspicions awoke and he drew back. She drove her claws into him and tried to drag him in; the lacerations of the she-cat were found carved deep in his wrist.

And then - did he manage to draw his revolver and shoot her, or did she get one of the bullets that were meant for him? That we shall never know, unless Hans Müller or Gerhard Schubert speaks, and that is not likely.

Anyway, about 10 o'clock the obliging waiter, who slept in the basement, was awakened by the noise of many revolver shots. As he rushed upstairs, he was confronted by an unknown man with a revolver in each hand. He fell back, down the stairs, but first he saw Hans Müller dragging the body of Formis along the corridor to Room Number Seven, heard Edith herself screaming in mortal anguish. The unknown man (who was Schubert) drove the waiter and the chambermaid, who had also appeared, in curl-papers, on the scene, down the stairs and into the basement, where he locked the door on them. There, shut in, they heard further bangs and noises, but were too frightened to move. The inn-keeper and his family, in the far wing, neither saw nor heard anything of what was afoot.

Later, as rolling black smoke filled the basement, the captives, in fear of suffocation, broke out through the window and awakened the innkeeper. With the waiter, he rushed through this nightmare inn to the place of the tragedy. In Room Number Seven they found the petrol-soaked body of Formis, with two incendiary bombs, which had been prevented by the masses of smoke from taking full effect; they had only smoked and smouldered, not burst into flame. The microphone had been smashed to pieces by the murderers, but the Secret Sender itself, concealed in the loft, they never found.

A strange scene, now, in the chill and lonely valley. Clouds of smoke pouring from the inn. The waiter, rushing along the dark road to the nearest village. A sleepy and bemused village policeman, rushing back along the dark road to the lonely inn. Telephone calls from the village post office to Prague. Endless delays, before the police of the nearest town, the police at the frontier, could be reached. Meanwhile, the Mercedes car dashed through the night, dashed through the frontier posts without stopping. After that, the Czech frontier police always kept the barriers down - but only after that.

They found, the next day, a rope-ladder hanging from the window of Edith's room. That was how the unknown gunman, Gerhard Schubert, got in. They found, in Formis's head, a bullet, and in his chest two more. They found that petrol had been poured over his body, but had not caught fire. They found blood on the rope-ladder. The two gunmen had lowered Edith that way. In the river that runs past the little inn they washed her wounds; the bloodstained handkerchief was found there.

By a strange chance, the racing Mercedes was stopped in the township of Loboshitz at one o'clock in the morning, because of its excessive speed. The driver's papers were in order, and it was allowed to go. The policeman Boehm says that it only had two occupants, the two men who sat in the front seats. In the back seat was 'a mound of rugs and coats'. That was Edith.

Later inquiries revealed that the Mercedes car crossed the German frontier between 4 and 5 o'clock in the morning. In the Saxon township of Königsstein the two men brought Edith to a hospital. The doctors examined her and told them that she must be taken to Dresden immediately, for an operation. On the way there she died. (All these facts were established through Otto Strasser's subterranean channels of information.)

I apologize to all good strumpets for calling her a strumpet. I have a large vocabulary, but find no word in it for this - for Edith Kersbach, who was young, fair-haired, lovely, and a sports-mistress.

Müller and Schubert received the award of 10,000 marks which the Gestapo had put on Formis's head (as Otto Strasser's informants in Germany reported to him) and have a high place on the list of people with whom scores have to be settled when Hitler's regime is overthrown.

The methods of the German propaganda and Gestapo machine in this exploit are interesting to study. Just as Hitler's invasions and annexations were always heralded by a great press campaign of complaint about the provocation offered by the country to be attacked, whether it was called Austria, Czechoslovakia, or Poland, so was this killing of one man in another country first announced with the usual plaint about intolerable provocation, in the German press.

The passion of the German mind for self-justification-in-advance, whether the potential victim be a State or an individual, is ineradicable. It is strange that Otto Strasser and Rudolf Formis, who were Germans themselves and knew the men and the methods they had to fear, did not hear the warning bell in that violent attack on Strasser and his 'intolerable Secret Sender' which appeared in the Völkischer Beobachter on January 12th, 1935 - the day before the murderers crossed the frontier in search of Formis!

Though the number of the Mercedes car, with full details of its occupants and their papers, was given, the German Government blandly answered that it had never heard of such a car, of such persons, or of such passports and triptychs, and when the Czechoslovak Government renewed its formal protests, the reply was that all research had been fruitless; no trace whatever of such a car, or of the passengers supposed to have travelled in it, could be found.

But four and a half years later, when the present war had begun and the Munich bomb explosion occurred, the Völkischer Beobachter, in accusing Otto Strasser and the British Intelligence Service of causing this, stated that his Secret Sender 'was destroyed on January 26th, 1935, by two SS leaders in execution of their orders'.

Actually, the Sender was not destroyed, but confiscated by the Czech police. Otto Strasser lost in Formis one of his most valuable and valorous helpers, as well as a weapon against Hitler which had become the talk of Germany.

Although the Gestapo had once more failed to kill him, it had dealt him a heavy blow, and Formis was also one of his closest personal friends. In the picture below, you see Otto Strasser, and another Black Front man, at Formis's grave.

click for full size image

OTTO STRASSER (right) AT THE GRAVE OF RUDOLF FORMIS

Once again, he had to start the one-man-war from the beginning. The episodes of Dr. Pollack and Dr. Hebrew had shown him that no man was to be trusted, the murder of Formis had proved how close the Gestapo still were behind him.

In Prague, the German Minister repeatedly inquired of the Czechoslovak Government 'when Dr. Otto Strasser is to be tried for operating a Secret Sender'; the harassed Prague Government, too, was paying for the hospitality it had given such refugees-from-Hitlerist-tyranny as Dr. Hebrew.

On January 6th, 1936, Strasser was duly sentenced to four months hard labour, without alleviating circumstances. The sentence was confirmed on appeal. It was never served, because under Czech law, if a plea for the quashing of a sentence were lodged on some legal grounds, the highest authority in the State had to confirm or quash it. The law, however, apparently laid down no time-limit for such a decision, and President Edouard Benesh just put the document back in his 'Pending' file each time it was put before him.

Two Czechoslovak years remained to Strasser and he used them to the full. He continued to publish his paper, until the hard-pressed Czechoslovak Government suppressed it. He continued the leaflet-war across the frontier. Unfortunately, some of the most stirring episodes of the one-man-war in this field cannot yet be told; this would imperil the lives of men who still live. Some were caught, brought before the People's Court and sentenced to death. Some were killed. Exploits were planned and carried out which still cannot be recounted.

Strasser spared neither his nerves, his strength, nor his affections; he used them all unsparingly, as a man should, and remained in spite of everything a merry fellow, a citizen of the world, a good German, a good European, and a Revolutionary Socialist.

Then came Munich and the British ultimatum to the Czechoslovaks to surrender to the German demands. Once again, the pursuers reached out a hand that nearly touched Strasser's shoulder. If he had stayed in Czechoslovakia after that, he would six months later have been caught like a rat in a trap, on that day, March 15th, 1939, when Hitler's armies closed in on Prague from all sides; even destiny would have needed to rack its brains to get him out of that. So, while those armies were taking their first slice of Czechoslovakia -- the Sudetenland -- he took an aeroplane, together with Wenzel Jaksch, the Sudeten-German Socialist leader, and flew away, over their heads.

In the country he left behind him, the tragedy of Zahori continued. It was not finished, is not yet finished. Formis's life was not the only life that was destroyed by it. The innkeeper, already a sick man, had his death hastened by the events of that January night and the days that followed it. His wife and daughter came to Prague and leased a little inn there. When Hitler arrived, the Gestapo sought them out. The daughter, a good friend and admirer of Strasser, was put in a concentration camp. A bomb was planted in the inn.

Otto Strasser, now in almost-penury, found quarters, with his wife and children, in a little hamlet, Herrliberg, near Zürich. The German frontier was not much more than a stone's throw away, and this, again, impressed the beauties of Switzerland on his mind. Here he had, from respect for Swiss hospitality, to curtail operations in his one-man-war, though his friends in Germany continued to smuggle news and reports out to him; but the war was continued on a small scale from Copenhagen, where one of his chief helpers held the strings of the Black Front together, and issued orders to the Black Front in Germany.

From Switzerland, Otto Strasser tried vainly to get to France or England. None would have him. The 'refugees from Hitlerist oppression' were admitted and petted in thousands, everywhere. For a man like this, the doors were closed. Here was 'a Red', a man who was 'too anti-Hitler'. None would ever have dreamed of describing this man as 'a victim of persecution'. He was this, though it would never occur to him to think of himself in such terms; he is, as I say, a man.

The war came and, a few weeks after its beginning, on November 8th, 1939, when the anniversary of that first Hitlerist Putsch of 1923 was being celebrated, according to tradition, by the Old Guard of National Socialism in the Bürgerbräukeller at Munich, the bomb exploded which was either meant to kill Hitler or, like the Reichstag Fire, was the act of his own men, a new blood-curdler for the German masses, who simply cannot live without the feeling that they are being encircled and plotted against by secret and sinister foes. Like Tartarin of Tarascon, the Germans love to feel that 'they' are lurking in the shadows, waiting to spring.

Within a few hours of the bomb explosion the German police informed the Swiss authorities that Otto Strasser was the organizer of the plot (Himmler's statement issued on November 21st said that Georg Elser, the man arrested for complicity in the night of November 8th-9th, only 'confessed', and incriminated Strasser, after six days of obstinate denials, namely, on November 14th; but he apparently knew on November 9th what Elser would admit a week later.)

As I write, no light whatever has been cast on this dark affair. The German Secret Police announced that the culprits were: Georg Elser, the completely unknown individual arrested in Munich; Otto Strasser, the instigator and instrument of 'the British Secret Service'; and the 'British Secret Service' itself, which was described as having given Strasser the order to prepare the bomb explosion and the money for it; two British consular officials serving in Holland, Messrs. Richard Henry Stevens and Sigismund Payne Best, were on the day after the Munich explosion, November 9th, 1939, enticed to the German-Dutch frontier, there kidnapped by Gestapo agents, and held captive. They, Elser and Strasser were announced to be the accused men in a coming Munich Bomb Trial.

As a student of the Reichstag Fire Trial, which ended in a farce, I may draw attention to the extraordinary resemblance between that mock-trial and the Munich Bomb Trial which the German Government contemplated; whether it will actually be held, remains to be seen. In the Reichstag Fire Trial the half-witted Dutch vagrant, van der Lubbe, was the actual incendiary; in this case another equally obscure individual, Georg Elser, is supposed to have been the actual bomb-layer. In the Reichstag Fire Trail, Ernst Torgler, the German Communist Parliamentary leader, was supposed to be the German instrument of the malignant foreign foe that sought to destroy Germany - International Bolshevism. In this case, Otto Strasser is supposed to be the German instrument of the malignant foreign foe - Britain, bent on the destruction of Germany, and the British Secret Service. In the Reichstag Fire Trial, three Bulgarian Communist exiles, who chanced to be in Berlin at the time and had been earmarked for the part, were put in the dock as the actual, foreign-born representatives of the malignant foreign foe - Bolshevism. In this case, Messrs. Stevens and Best appear as the foreign-born representatives of the malignant foreign foe - Britain.

It is an extraordinary mentality, which runs in a rut. It is cunning up to a point, and childish after that point. Just as Germany, in the murder of Formis, used precisely the same method as in the invasion of Czechoslovakia, so is the same old bogyman fairytale being used for the Munich bomb plot.

I ought to add that I do not believe the Munich Bomb Trial will be held. After the farcical end of the Reichstag Fire Trial, which ordered the beheading of a mental deficient and had to acquit the other four men, because the possibility that world publicity would enable them to play the anti-Nazi trick of proving innocence had been entirely overlooked, no great mock-trial was ever again held in Germany. Instead, the People's Court, with a majority of officers, Storm Troop commanders, and high Secret Police officials among the judges, was formed, and such trials were held in secret, so that the trick of proving innocence could no longer be worked. This was much more satisfactory. I cannot believe, after that experience, that the Germans will again make themselves a laughing stock by staging another such judicial comedy.

But the Munich bomb itself remains a mystery. Otto Strasser has regretfully to deny all knowledge of a bomb which he would probably have liked to plant.

I happen to know, as I was in loose communication with him at the time about the then vague project of this book, that his financial circumstances were desperate; nobody, least of all the British Secret Service, showed any anxiety to relieve them. I know also that he had repeatedly been refused permission to come to England, and though no reason was given, it is most probable that this was withheld in the desire to avoid offending that German Government, and particularly its Führer, whose desire for peace remained until the end the incorrigible illusion of our own leaders. It is another illuminating commentary on our arrangements and our times that such a man should be implacably denied admission to England at a time when undesirables in thousands have been let through, welcomed, and even given preferential treatment over the native-born citizens.

Strasser is himself convinced that the bomb was planted by the Nazis themselves, from the same motive that led them to fire the Reichstag - to give the German people visible proof of the existence and implacable hatred of that malignant foe whom they accused of beginning the war, Britain.

The kidnapping of the two British officials is a very strange affair indeed. In its planning and execution it exactly follows the familiar methods of the Gestapo, as I have shown them in the repeated attempts to capture Strasser and in the killing of Formis. But one aspect of it is most important.

The two men, as our own authorities stated, were enticed to the frontier by the proposal of peace-parleys, put forward in the name of some important personage or group of personages in Germany. This tallies so closely with the devices used to disarm Strasser's suspicions (for instance, the offer of financial and other support in his anti-Hitlerist campaign) that I am convinced it was a Gestapo trick. A second, though less likely possibility, however, is that there was a peace offer, of which the Gestapo got wind and which they intercepted. In that case, the point of engrossing interest would be - who was the man in Germany who wanted to talk peace?

But I do not believe in this theory. All the details about former abductions point to my first explanation. In that case, the authorship of the Munich bomb explosion is clear to see. It was the work of the Gestapo, who timed the abduction of the two British officials for the very next day: they were to play the part of culprits.

For Strasser, the clutch of the Gestapo loomed murderously near, again, when the Munich bomb exploded. He was but a mile or two from the German frontier. War was in progress. The Gestapo had chosen him for the fourth man-in-the-dock, was demanding his extradition. By methods which I cannot yet describe, he succeeded, in this moment of danger, in breaking through the French refusal to have him in France. He obtained permission to go there, and in the twinkling of an eye he put Switzerland behind him and crossed yet another frontier.

He came to Paris, convinced that the end of Hitler's regime was now approaching, that the time for him to return to Germany and build his Fourth Reich was now drawing near. He had a very modest lodging, and few weapons with which to resume the one-man-war and conquer. But, bursting with energy, as ever, he set to work; wrote; negotiated; interviewed and was interviewed; tried to invigorate other men among the exiles in whom he had some faith, to form a German National Council, as a kind of shadow-government for The Day; and even found time to exercise his affections, which he never neglected. As I say, a man of enormous energy and unflagging enthusiasm.

In those circumstances, I met him. He had a crazy Odyssey behind him - well worthy of our Insanity Fair.

Chapter Nine

NEMESIS IN THE SHADOWS

In the spring of 1939, Otto Strasser, in his Swiss retreat, felt the imminence of the war he had foretold for many years as the inevitable result of Hitler's abandonment of a social policy for a militarist one. For the second time in his life, he felt, the starting-gun was about to sound. The first war found him a young man, burning to be first in the field, then shattered his scheme of things about him and left him floundering in chaos. The second war would find him an exile and outlaw, with a price on his head; but he felt, too, that it would bring him homecoming, and the belated fulfilment of his dreams for Germany.

So he set about, in that spring of 1939, to overhaul his secret organization within Germany as best he could through his headquarters in Copenhagen, to instruct those waiting shadows what they should do and how they should act when war came. The order was 'Clear decks for action'; but the captain was on a distant shore, and the crew were stowaways.

In this book, I have not been able to give more than a hint, here and there, of the kind of man, in Germany, who is pledged to Otto Strasser, but I know some of their names, and I have seen letters from others, and can say that one day, if the enemies of Germany are skilful in their handling of this war, Hitler and his henchmen may receive a most unpleasant shock.

Now the moment has come, I think, to show in these pages how the Black Front worked, when the threat of war came near.

In Great Britain, the public was completely confused until the last moment. Many people felt intuitively, perhaps, that war was coming, but did not understand why or know that it would inevitably come. This was because the public was misled or misinformed by those whose duty it is to lead and inform it - the government and the press. One newspaper until the last moment repeated, moron-like, 'There will be no war in which Britain will be involved this year, some time, any time, ever'; to-day it could better prophesy that there will be no peace in which Britain will be involved this year or next, but it does not say that. At least two other newspapers kept up the same lunatic chorus until war actually came. Orgies of ostrichism, of wishbone politics, were celebrated.

This was unnecessary, unpatriotic and mendacious. The men whose business it was to study politics knew, or should have known, long before how events would move. To show this, I am going to quote at length the Order-of-the-day which Otto Strasser, from exile, issued to his Black Front, inside Germany, long before war broke out.

The war began, or began for this country, on September 3rd, 1939, and ever since then the people of this country, misinformed now as they were before it began,