504 JUVENILE DELINQUENCY divides itself into three categories—the out-and-out idealist, the out-and-out egotist and the betwixt and betweens. If we permit the blackguard to be treated with mercy at home, while the idealists are dying in large numbers in the field, then we are paving the way for a reverse process of selectivity, and showing that we have forgotten the lessons of the world war in 1917-18. I maintain therefore that there is no alternative. The man at the front MAY die, the blackguard at home MUST die. Any State which is not prepared to accept this principle has not the right to expose its idealists to death in the field. The judges of to-day have no clear notion of their duties. For the most part they were appointed before we took power and, like the priesthood, have succeeded in maintaining their corporate entity in spite of changes of regime, and have therefore conserved all their liberal tendencies. I feel myself constrained in the circumstances to intervene, and I shall not hesitate to dismiss ruthlessly any judge who consistently gives judgment harmful to the good of the people and contrary to the national outlook; for I feel that it is my personal responsibility to see that there does not spring up a race of rascals on the home front, such as we had in 1918, while our men die heroically on the battlefield. Discipline at the front demands rules of iron, and it would be an injustice to the front line to allow mercy to hold sway at home. Also as regards young persons the methods employed in wartime must be different from those applied in times of peace, and among them leniency finds no place. In peace-time, of course, with a young fifteen- or seventeen-year-old delinquent one can substitute a damn good hiding for a period of imprisonment, because, if he has an ounce of decency in him, he will feel that prison has sullied his whole life, and, apart from that, he may well pick up all sorts of criminal tricks from the old lags. One of the young Seefelds, for example, was once condemned for offences against public decency, and while in prison learnt from other criminals how to distil a poison which left no trace whatever twenty minutes after use. As I believed that this young criminal had committed many more crimes than those to which he confessed in court, I caused him to be handed over to
THIRD DEGREE INTERROGATION 505 the Gestapo. After twelve hours in a super-heated cell without water, he not only confessed to one hundred and seven more murders, but also showed the officials the places where all the bodies were buried. Experience shows that unnatural offenders generally turn into homicidal maniacs; they must be rendered harmless, however young they may be. I have therefore always been in favour of the strongest possible punishment of these anti-social elements. 227 agth May 1942, midday Lola Montez and Ludwig I of Bavaria—Hostility of the Church—Personality of Ludwig I—Respect for racial characteristics. On a proposal by Dr. Göbbels to produce a film of LOLA MONTEZ. I welcome the idea, but you must take care that neither the fate of this woman nor the personality of King Ludwig I of Bavaria is in any way distorted. Lola Montez had nothing in common with the dancers of our times, strip-tease artists, but was a woman of exceptional intelligence with wide experience of the world. She was, too, a woman of character, as is shown by the way she resisted the Catholic Church and, in spite of enormous pressure, refused to kow-tow to it. As regards the personality of Ludwig I, you must be careful, too, not to portray him as first and foremost a "skirt-chaser" (Schürzenjäger). He was in every sense a great man, and was the finest architect of his time in Europe. The idea and execution of the Valhalla Building alone show him to have been a monarch whose vision stretched far beyond the confines of his own petty State and embraced the whole pan-German panorama. Apart from that, we have to thank him for having given, in the city of Munich, a magnificent art centre to the German nation. That he is nevertheless one of the most controversial figures among the Kings of Bavaria is attributable to the fact that the Church never ceased to harry him. The attacks of the latter on Lola Montez were only a pretext, and it was in reality the strong liberal tendencies of the King at which the attacks were aimed.