LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
[Correspondents are requested to keep their letters as brief as is reasonably possible. Signed letters are given a preference over those bearing a pseudonym, and the latter must be accompanied by the name and address of the author, which will be treated as confidential.—Ed. THE SPECTATOR ]
IN DEFENCE OF GERMANY
[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR]
Sta,—The amount of space that the English Press devotes to Hitler and to Germany is appreciated in this country, as it indi- cates the measure of interest with which events over here are followed in England. Of course, it is not surprising that English comment is very often unjust, being emotionally prejudiced. I quite understand that, for an Englishman, it is more difficult now than it ever was before to arrive at an unbiased opinion about the German Government. The recent German policy with regard to the Jews is, of course, the reason for this. The English tendency to self-righteousness, mentioned even by Macaulay, brings with it an appreciable difficulty to under- stand foreign ways of thinking ; nevertheless, it seems to me that this tendency makes for strength of character, and I do not regard it as an English failing.
I have always been glad to observe how The Spectator tries to present to its readers every considerable difference of opinion on questions of the day. This has also been the case with regard to Germany until quite recently, and I do not doubt that you, Sir, will soon renew your efforts to hold the balance even, after having delighted most of your readers by articles such as the " Letter from a German Clerk," published on February loth, which is misleading, to say the least of it. Nevertheless, I regard the letter as genuine ; there are suck people in Germany, but not very many, and their opinion is entirely without weight. Now, I know very well that your readers would be inclined to say it was not possible for the opinion of even the majority of Germans to make itself heard, and it seems high time that something should be done to clear up this misunderstanding.
It is, I think, not generally known in England how our Government is informed. Nazi officials, which exist every- where, even in the remotest village, constantly have to report on the opinions which they hear about. I know that insincere and fulsome praise of the Government would almost certainly be detected and the responsible official denounced by the Government offices, which collect and forward these reports, and are, of course, constantly comparing them. In this way the authorities do get to know what the people think, and it is my considered opinion that no German Government was ever so well informed before.
No doubt your readers will object that a Government which resorts to such measures is disgusting according to all English ideas of freedom, so it will be necessary to ask for your kind consideration of the following arguments. It is, I believe, known to some even in England that a German must be a very real danger to the Government before anything untoward happens to him. After all, it must not be forgotten that Germany is now, for better or for worse, trying out a new system of government which does not officially allow any freedom of speech on Government matters. But, with regard to this rule, more freedom is often allowed than many Germans think advisable, although in this respect also careful consideration is exercised. Probably no European country except Russia could be now governed, for any length of time, against the opinion of the majority of the people, and certainly not Germany. Therefore, it is in the interest of Government, even in this country, to hear the opinions of all classes. This would be impossible if opinions were suppressed to the extent mentioned by your " Letter from a German Clerk."
Of course, we Germans know that we are sacrificing much in giving up, if only for a time, almost all the liberal ideas and institutions upon which every modern State has subsisted until recently. But it was patently impossible to go on in the old way in Germany, and the new system has, up to the present, given such results in every domain that it must be continued. Also, I would point out that any alternative does not exist. With regard to the Jews, Mr. Harold Nicolson is quite right that all sympathies for Germany, which had been care- fully built up in England, have received a tremendous set- back by our anti-Jewish policy. But it must not be forgotten that this people really constitute the only considerable number of inhabitants which are alien in race and thought, and can only be a tremendous obstacle to all national unification as now desired in Germany. The German Jew was always first a Jew and then, as far as it suited him, a German. He never ceased to injure Aryan interests if it was at all possible to give positions and influence to men of his race. Indeed, it is only the truth to say that practical race-politics were initiated by the Jews in Germany long before Hitler took up the campaign from the other side.
Of course, I know that even those Englishmen who recog- nise that our opposition to the Jews was necessary do not approve of the methods employed, and, indeed, many Germans found them little to their liking. But with regard to this I would remind you that the Nazi Government has always favoured very energetic measures as soon as a certain policy had once been decided on. Also, it is to be remembered that many achievements which have strengthened Germany could not have been so completely attained by the orthodox and hesitating methods of government still favoured in England, for instance. My country has made up its mind to get rid of a considerable part of a race which it regards as harmful, and this aim could never be achieved by way of humanitarian measures alone without prejudice to private interests.
On the other hand, I am quite ready to recognise that some incidents were deplorable, as they did less harm to the Jews than to Germany itself. Of course, many German Jews are personally much to be pitied, but, in spite of this, the action against them must be regarded as a necessity for the State, which, in time of stress, is justified in demanding even much greater sacrifices from all its citizens. These ideas may seem rather crude to you, Sir, but I am afraid that an authoritarian State cannot consider any principles which stand in the way of progress as understood in this country today. If it were otherwise, we could never have reached the present position of power. It is impossible to have it both ways, and, up to the present moment, I do not think matters generally could have been managed very much better.
I recognise that I might be asked, if the Jews were really so harmful to Germany, if it was necessary to proceed against them very harshly by law. My answer would be that the German Government must be regarded as com- petent to decide this question, and that it has decided it, braving world opinion and all resultant injury to our foreign interests.
It must not be forgotten that our present system promises a big advance in the improvement of all conditions of life. That much has been achieved already is universally recognised, and, as to the future, one of your best-known economists and an enemy of Nazi ideas has only just published an examina- tion of the German financial system, and gives it as his opinion that there are, at present, no signs of collapse for many years to come.
Would it not be better to recognise that Germany cannot alter, or even modify, her system to please foreign countries, and that all difficulties created by people with prejudiced opinions do harm to all, and not to my country alone? English- men may rest assured that their convictions are shared by many Germans, as is well known in German Government circles. These principles are even accorded a certain amount of influence, but only as long as the same objections arc not also expressed by foreign critics and in a too provocative
Previous page
