[Part 10]

 

 

 

“I am deeply stirred by the word which Ulrich Hutten wrote the last time he seized his pen: — Germany.”

ADOLF HITLER

January 30th, 1937

 

 

 

The Case for Germany 

 

A Study of Modern Germany 

 

by

A. P. Laurie

M. A. Cantab., D. Sc., LL. D. Edin., F. C. S., F. R. S. E.

With a Preface by Admiral Sir Barry Domvile

K. B. E., C. B., C. M. G.

Berlin W 15

Internationaler Verlag

1939

FIRST EDITION ………… JUNE 1939

SECOND EDITION ……. JULY 1939

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

PRINTED IN GERMANY

DEDICATION

It is with admiration and gratitude for the great work he has done for the German people that I dedicate this book to the Fuhrer.

A. P. L.

TO THE READER

There are two sides to every question. You have read one side in our Press for six years.

This book gives the other side.

A. P. L.

 

PREFACE

 

It is a great pleasure to me to introduce the public to Dr. Laurie’s valuable book on modern Germany. He is best known to the world as a brilliant scientist, but he has found time in the intervals of his work to pursue with ardour the task upon which every sensible member of the British and German races should be engaged — namely the establishment of good relations and a better understanding between these two great nations.

Dr Laurie knows full well that this friendship is the keystone to peace in Europe — nay, in the whole world.

He is one of the small group who founded the Association known as “The Link”, whose sole aim is to get Britons and Germans to know and understand one another better. He is one of the most zealous workers in this good cause in the country.

He writes of the National Socialist movement with knowledge and great sympathy.

The particular value of this book lies in the fact that it is written by a foreigner, who cannot be accused of patriotic excess in his interpretation of the great work done by Herr Hitler and his associates. I recommend this volume with confidence to all people who are genuinely impressed with the desire to understand one of the greatest — and most bloodless — revolutions in history.

BARRY DOMVILE

Robin’s Tree

8th May 1939.

 

 

“As we advance in our social knowledge, we shall endeavour to make our governments paternal as well as judicial; that is, to establish such laws and authorities as may at once direct us in our occupations, protect us against our follies, and visit us in our distresses; a government which shall repress dishonesty, as now it punishes theft; which shall show how the discipline of the masses may be brought to aid the toils of peace, as the discipline of the masses has hitherto knit the sinews of battle; a government which shall have its soldiers of the ploughshare as well as its soldiers of the sword, and which shall distribute more proudly its golden crosses of industry — golden as the glow of the harvest — than it now grants its bronze crosses of honour — bronzed with the crimson of blood.”

RUSKIN. Political Economy of Art.

 

 

“All front fighters fought side by side and went through an inferno. They are all comparable to the heroes of the ancient world. It was the manhood of the nations in their prime who fought and experienced the horrors of modern war.

In another war the flower of the nations’ men and women will have to fight. Europe will be destroyed if the best in all of the nations are wiped out. A new conflict will exceed even the ghastly tragedies of the Great War.

I believe that those who rattle the sabres have not participated in war. I know that war veterans speak and think differently.

They energetically desire to prevent another conflict. I hope that the men who are standing before me can contribute to preserve the peace of the world — a peace of honour and equality for all.

Let us not talk of prestige as between the victors and the defeated. This is my one request: Forget what has divided the nations before and remember that history has advanced.”

Field Marshal GOERING addressing the British

and German war veterans.

 

 

CONTENTS

 

CHAPTER ……………………………………………………………. PAGE

 

Dedication

To the Reader

Preface

Field Marshall Goering’s Address

I.   DER FUHRER ……………………………………………………….. 11

II.   THE BELEAGUERED CITY ……………………………………. 21

III.   NATIONAL SOCIALISM ……………………………………… 25

IV.   THE NAZI RALLYS AT NUREMBERG ……………………. 34

V.   THE FOREIGN POLICY OF GERMANY ……………………. 41

VI.   ENGLAND AND GERMANY ………………………………….. 49

VII.   MARCH 7th, A MOST IMPORTANT DATE …………… 54

VIII.   THE REAL ENEMY OF EUROPE ……………………….. 58

IX.   COMMUNISM VERSUS NATIONAL SOCIALISM …… 62

X.   THE UNION OF THE GERMAN PEOPLE …………………. 68

XI.   ACTS OF “AGGRESSION” BY GERMANY ……………… 79

XII.   THE DANCE OF DEATH ……………………………………… 85

XIII.   OUR FUTURE POLICY TOWARDS GERMANY ……. 93

XIV.   THE HITLER YOUTH MOVEMENT ……………………… 100

XV.   THE WINTER HELP ORGANIZATION ………………….. 104

XVI.   NATIONAL SOCIALISM AND THE PROTESTANT

CHURCH ……………………………………………………………………… 109

XVII. ECONOMICS …………………………………………………….. 118

XVIII. THE FOUR YEARS PLAN …………………………………… 138

XIX.   THE GERMAN COLONIES …………………………………. 141

XX.   THE LABOUR FRONT ………………………………………….. 146

XXI.   AGRICULTURE …………………………………………………. 155

XXII. MUNICH AND AFTER ………………………………………… 167

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter Twentyone

 

 

AGRICULTURE

 

 

I have already dealt briefly in the chapter on Economics with the agricultural problem, but it is so important, being the foundation on which everything rests, that I propose to discuss it here in more detail. It is also of interest as showing the way in which the National Socialist Government approaches an economic problem. They begin by approaching it as a social problem, the well being of the agriculturist and his family and their recognition as a living and essential part of the community being the first question to be considered. In no case do they indulge in revolutionary economics. They have not only accepted the existing economic structure in Germany, but they go further than that and search into the past history to find a solid foundation on which to build. Germany has her big land owners but she also has her peasant proprietors amounting to more than 500,000 families among whom the custom of inheritance from father to son is very largely prevalent.

 

The Bauer, the Peasant Proprietor is the solid foundation Hitler says, on which to build a state, and he must be established and protected by law so as to form a Peasant Aristocracy, proud of their position in the commonwealth and recognition by the State. It is a class alas absent in this country except where a county council has established small holdings. The English yeoman and peasant farmer was destroyed by the robbery of the commons and the enclosure act.

 

In France, in Germany and in Austria, the farm house of the peasant is familiar in the landscape, sometimes clustered in villages, in other places far apart. Under one roof is the family house, and storage for hay, and room for all the pigs and cattle during the hard continental winter, when everything must be gathered under one roof. The peasant is an interesting feature of most continental countries. In Italy he scorns to marry a townsman and it is among them that you find purity of race and handsome men and beautiful girls. The castle on the mountain side has long been a ruin. The peasant’s home continues from one generation to another.

 

[Page 156]

 

In Spain the population of the cities have no national characteristics or race features, and are poor undergrown specimens of humanity. I have never forgotten seeing the peasants riding into Toledo in their picturesque costumes. These were the men who had conquered Mexico and Peru and showed race in every feature.

 

Hitler is right, therefore, when he builds the German State on the peasant, a race which we destroyed in the 18th century to satisfy the greed of our land owners.

 

While in Russia the Soviet have been striving to destroy the peasant and convert him into a communal wage slave, a struggle in which millions have died of starvation, Hitler has built his State on the peasant as its foundation.

 

The contrast between Communism and National Socialism could not be more marked. The National Socialist builds on a long tried system of land ownership; Communism sweeps it all away in the name of an untried economic theory. Under the law establishing the peasant it has been made illegal to lend money on the security of the house and land and they cannot be sold in payment of debts.

 

Another interesting provision is that any destitute member of the family has the right to claim the shelter of the ancestral home.

 

We shall never solve our agricultural difficulties in this country until the man who tills the soil owns the soil or has it in perpetual lease direct from the State.

 

Another important principle established in Germany is that the land yields its best return to the intense cultivation of the small unit of land. The application of mass production ideas to the land has already in the U.S.A. and in Australia converted millions of acres into a desert. The small economic unit is the right principle for cultivation but it is at a disadvantage in selling the product, and this is where the second part of the organisation comes in.

 

[Page 157]

 

On the 13th September, 1933, the German Government enacted as the basic law for agriculture, the National Food Corporation Act which decided the provisional constitution of this organisation. Thus the Corporation was lifted from the level of a voluntary organisation to the position of a public body. The National Food Corporation became a compulsory institution for the persons affected, and is subject to official supervision. Therefore the National Food Corporation includes not only the productive group — that is agriculture itself — but also all those groups which are in any way concerned with providing the German nation with food. They comprise the groups engaged in the manufacture of various commodities out of these products as well as those concerned with the distribution to the consumer. By reason of this co-operation, the National Food Corporation forms a body consisting of producers, manufacturers and distributors all of whom are of equal importance within this organisation.

 

The following is a rough outline of the organisation of the National Food Corporation.

 

At the head of the whole organisation of the National Food Corporation is the National Peasants Fuhrer, R. Walther Darre with his deputy.

 

To assist him the Peasants Fuhrer has an advisory body, the Reichsbauernrat (National Peasants Council), membership of which is purely honorary. Its members are nominated by the Peasants Fuhrer.

 

In the Stabsamt (Planning Dept.) the Peasants Fuhrer has created an institution where the work is planned for many years ahead by several main sections which deal with questions of trade and industry, law, comparative agriculture, training in agricultural practice and theory, the introduction of up-to-date working methods, peasant customs and racial matters.

 

[Page 158]

 

In the Verwaltungsamt (Executive Department) the plans already decided on by the Stabsamt are put into operation.

 

Section I of the Verwaltungsamt is concerned with the welfare of the individual, be he the owner of an agricultural estate, that is to say peasant or agriculturist, tenant farmer or agricultural labourer. All questions bearing on the rural population are treated here.

 

Section II of the Verwaltungsamt deals with all questions of rural economy, with the homestead, with the estate, in short with everything connected with the peasant’s calling. It comprises, besides the technical side, all matters connected with soil, crops, and plant life, training, forestry. agricultural implements and machinery as well as with domestic economy.

 

Section III of the Verwaltungsamt is responsible for the organisation of the market, e. g. for questions of the distribution of supplies for the utilization or processing of agricultural produce. The economic bodies concerned are grouped in eighteen associations which — under their own administration have been assigned special duties to the community but are under the direction of Section III. The following are the most important organisations:

 

Hauptvereinigung der Deutschen Getreidewirtschaft.

(National Union of Corn Producers and Distributors).

Hauptvereinigung der Deutschen Viehwirtschaft.

(National Union of Live-stock Breeders and Dealers).

Hauptvereinigung der Deutschen Milchwirtschaft.

(National Union of Milk Producers and Distributors).

Hauptvereinigung der Deutschen Eierwirtschaft.

(National Union of Egg Producers and Distributors).

Hauptvereinigung der Deutschen Gartenbauwirtschaft.

(National Union of Market Gardeners).

Reichsverband Deutscher landwirtschaftlicher Genossenschaften.

(National Union of German Agricultural Co-operative Societies).

Hauptvereinigung der Deutschen Brauwirtschaft.

(National Union of the German Brewing Industry).

Wirtschaftliche Vereinigung der Deutschen Susswarenwirtschaft.

(Economical Union of Confectioneries).

Hauptvereinigung der Deutschen Fischwirtschaft.

(National Union of the Fishing Trade).

 

[Page 159]

 

Wirtschaftliche Vereinigung der Margarine-und Kunstspeisefettindustrie.

(Union of the Margarine and Artificial Fat Industry).

Hauptvereinigung der Deutschen Kartoffelwirtschaft.

(National Union of Potato Growers and Distributors).

 

In addition to the sections enumerated, the Verwaltungsamt has three more sections. Two of these are concerned with financial matters and questions of personnel while the section “Public Enlightenment” is responsible for the press, broadcasting, the organisation of exhibitions, films, lectures, agricultural market information, advertising, literature, publishing, archives, and libraries.

 

An Inspector-General has been appointed to superintend the setting into operation of special schemes and to control the offices of the Landes-und Kreisbauernschaften (Regional and District Peasant Associations).

 

The National Food Corporation is subdivided into Landesbauernschaften (Regional Peasant Associations) whose area generally coincides with that of the various German Federal States or the Prussian provinces. The Landesbauernfuhrer (Regional Peasants Fuhrer) and his deputy are responsible for the work of the Regional Associations. The organisation is similar to that of the Verwaltungsamt for the whole of the Reich, though on a smaller scale. There are in all twenty Regional Associations which are in turn subdivided into Kreisand Ortsbauernschaften (District and Local Peasant Associations).

 

The Districts Association are, in the main, in close touch with the peasants and land owners and supply them with such advice as cannot be supplied by the Local Associations.

 

Each District Association is headed by a District Association Fuhrer who holds an honorary position.

 

The administration of the Local Associations is also an honorary function. The Fuhrer of the Local Association is in uninterrupted touch with each peasant and thus holds a particularly responsible office.

 

[Page 160]

 

Finally, it should be mentioned that the National Food Corporation also supervises the peasants’ schools, the agricultural schools and colleges, and the stock breeding boards, so that it includes in its sphere of activity everything connected with the task for which it is competent.

 

 

Marketing regulations

 

It has already been intimated that the National Socialist agrarian policy has abandoned (in the case of particularly important food products) the capitalistic maxim that the price is dependent on supply and demand. In this way not only the distributors and manufacturers but also the producers of our food supplies are no longer forced to go in for financial speculation. In this respect, the poorer classes were at the greatest disadvantage; for, lacking the necessary capital to await favourable times, they had to sell their goods prematurely in order to obtain ready money. The peasant as a rule, belonged to the class of speculators with limited capital, for he can generally turn over his capital only once a year. The same applied to the middle-sized industries immediately connected with agricultural produce, such as flour mills and breweries. As a result, many of the small and middle-sized concerns were taken over by larger firms with considerable capital, a development unfavourable to national economy. The harmful influence of this speculation was counteracted by the marketing regulations laid down by the National Socialist agrarian policy which introduced fixed prices, and fixed prices means fair prices.

 

A fair price must fulfil the double condition of protecting both the producer and the consumer. The peasant and the agriculturist must be protected against the necessity of having to sell their products at cut prices if they are to sell them at all; whereas the consumer’s interests must be guarded against being robbed at times when, owing to seasonal changes, production falls off. The fixed price should be high enough to cover the cost of production and to guarantee the proper continuance of agricultural work.

 

[Page 161]

 

On the other hand, it must be low enough to exclude the possibility of the consumer’s being robbed; the consumer, in fact, should always be able to rely on stable prices which are in proportion to his income. In this way the prices of bread, milk and butter, for example, have remained stationary for years, though, from a speculative point of view, price fluctuations would have been technically justified by the variation in the yield of the annual crops etc. The fixing of the prices has, however, prevented this to the benefit of both parties. With regard to the necessities of daily life, the prices have also been fixed, generally speaking, for the dealers’ trade as well as for the trader utilizing or processing agricultural produce. In fixing the rate of the middleman’s margin it was not intended to kill this trade since it has long shown its value as a machinery for private distribution. The idea was simply to remove any possibility of financial speculation on the part of anyone concerned.

 

But the marketing regulations have other important functions apart from mere price regulation. In the first place they regulate the functioning of the entire system of manufacture and distribution. Furthermore, by means of the marketing regulations a systematic organisation of the sale of agricultural products is secured. This shall here under be demonstrated by an example taken from the dairy business.

 

Before the agricultural marketing regulations were introduced, the milk market was in a chaotic state. Obviously, everyone wished to share in supplying milk to the big towns, because the best prices were to be obtained there. The milk supplied to Berlin, for instance, did not all come from the surrounding districts, but was in part sent hundreds of miles, even from the Allgau, a district situated in the extreme south of Germany. This is explained by the fact that the Allgau peasant received locally for his home made butter and cheese such a poor return that he found it a better paying proposition to send his milk to Berlin, in spite of the distance. Apart from the middleman’s profit there was the enormous cost of haulage over some 435 miles to be paid. Things went from bad to worse, and no solution appeared possible. At the same time it was found impossible to lower the retail price because the unproductive middleman’s charges prevented any reduction. When marketing regulations were introduced, the dairy business throughout Germany was divided into certain milk supply regions, an arrangement which has proved extremely beneficial to the entire dairy trade.

 

[Page 162]

 

Similar arrangements have been made for the supply of other commodities.

 

The marketing regulations also endeavour to improve the quality of all products of German soil. The price of superior qualities cannot be demanded for inferior qualities; the idea of improving the quality is therefore not penalized but encouraged. For purposes of research in the direction of the improvement of quality the National Food Corporation is provided with all manner of research and teaching institutions. Hence marketing regulations imply not stagnation but increased efficiency.

 

Where necessary, the marketing regulations also help to secure order and discipline in the market. The problem of food supplies cannot be allowed to depend on the arbitrary action of individuals to the extent of affecting the common interest. The private individual’s initiative is in no way restricted, but competition must be kept within bounds, so as not to become harmful to the national economy. In cases of harmful and unnecessary competition the National Food Corporation can take decisive action by licensing only such a number of businesses in any locality or districts as may be reasonably expected to make a living.

 

It may be pointed out once more that marketing regulations are not identical with “planned economy”. Nobody intends to limit the area under the plough or to enforce certain rules concerning cultivation. There is a fundamental difference between marketing regulations and “planned economy”.

 

To sum up, the following are the functions assigned to the marketing regulations:

 

I. Protection of the producer

Fair, fixed prices.

Assured sales.

II. Protection of the consumer

Fair and stable prices for the consumer.

Fair supply even in case of scarcity.

Guaranty of quality.

Control of supplies.

III. Organised movement of goods, organised manufacture

Compulsory Pools (Andienungspficht).

Sensible distribution of goods.

Fixing of quotas.

Fixing of a fair margin of profit.

Principle of efficiency.

 

[Page 163]

 

 

Establishing a New German Peasantry

 

The term landliche Siedlung (rural settlement) is more generally used than Neubildung Deutschen Bauerntums (Establishing a New German Peasantry); the latter, however, gives a clearer idea of the actual facts. Miniature and suburban settlements will not be considered here, nor for that matter cottage settlements which, from small beginnings, develop into peasant holdings.

 

It is the aim of the National Food Corporation to create as many new peasants’ estates as possible, particularly in thinly populated districts. They must have the size of at least one Ackernahrung (i. e. sustaining a man, his wife and two children), thus guaranteeing a livelihood from the soil worked.

 

The success hitherto attained in establishing a new German peasantry is, strange to say, hard to express in figures. Thus, not much is gained by stating that, in 1934, nearly 5,000 new estates were set up. Neither can a clear idea of the development in this direction be gathered from the fact that 144,617 hectares (approximately 357,000 acres) of land in all parts of Germany were provided for purposes of internal colonisation in 1934. But in comparison with the fact that, during the years 1919 to 1932, on the average only 67,184 hectares (approximately 165,000 acres) per year were provided for the same purpose, it will easily be seen that the establishment of new peasants’ estates is proceeding rapidly.

 

[Page 164]

 

There are three ways for providing land for this purpose.

 

A certain acreage will be provided out of the large landed estates. It should, however, be made clear that this does not mean any compulsory expropriation of large properties, but that the owners will be compensated for the land acquired for this purpose. Besides privately owned land, government property also will be utilized for internal colonization, as far as technical conditions permit. The Reichssiedlungsgesetz (Reich Act to make provision for Internal Colonization) provides the possibility of obtaining from private and public estates in the manner described an acreage of nearly 1.7 million hectares (approximately 4.2 million acres) with a view to creating new agricultural land. It is, however, not yet possible to say when the whole of this land will be available.

 

A second possibility of providing land for agricultural purposes is the cultivation of waste land, bogs, fens and swamps. This method of obtaining arable soil is particularly important since in this way useless land is turned into useful land. In contrast to the cultivation of bogs we cannot base exaggerated hopes on the cultivation of waste land, because there is only a limited quantity of the latter available. It must also be borne in mind that certain stretches of waste land can never be made productive owing to peculiarities of conditions such as climate, altitude, nature of the soil, etc., which cannot very well be changed. The total area in Germany utilisable from an agrarian point of view is about 30 million hectares (approximately 73 million acres). It would be unlike the German peasant to have allowed millions of hectares of waste land to lie idle beside his good fields. In the case of bogs and swamps, the conditions, as already pointed out, are entirely different. Here, in contrast to the case of waste land, the individual has generally no possibility of undertaking by himself any successful and comprehensive reclamation. Results can only be realised when a large part or the entire area of the bog is tackled at the same time.

 

For this reason it has been advisable to make use of the Arbeitsdienst (Labour Service) for the cultivation of waste land. We may estimate the area of bog and waste land capable of being cultivated at about 2 million hectares (approximately 5 million acres). It is, of course, impossible to achieve great results at short notice. Nevertheless, extensive reclamation of bog and waste land, amounting to over 200,000 hectares (approximately 500,000 acres) has already begun. This land is situated in all parts of Germany. The most important reclamation would appear to be the Rhin and Havel swamps near Berlin, the Sprotte fens in Silesia, the Ried marshes in Hesse, the Chiemgau bog and the Danube marshes in Bavaria and the swamps on the left bank of the river Ems in North West Germany. In the Labour Service young Germans of all classes have an opportunity of becoming acquainted with and acquiring respect for the work involved in the reclamation of the German bogs and marshes.

 

[Page 165]

 

Unfailing energy and tenacity have been and will be called for in order to make use of this possibility of obtaining new land, namely by reclamation from the sea. Extensive dykes are required. Since the German nation, the “People without Space” needs new land, they will not shrink even from the most difficult tasks. Within a 50-year programme, the North Sea on the West coast of Schleswig-Holstein alone is to yield up 100,000 hectares (approximately 250,000 acres) of new land. Good results have already been obtained. In 1935 the Adolf Hitler polder, 1,334 hectares (approximately 3,300 acres) in area, and the Hermann Goring polder, 550 hectares (approximately 1,300 acres) in area, were inaugurated. In this way land for nearly one hundred peasant estates under the new Act has been provided. A considerably greater number of hand-craftsmen’s settlements have also been formed here.

 

The selection of new peasants depends on certain conditions. It goes without saying that they must be of German descent. The peasant and his wife must be valuable individuals from a racial point of view and come from healthy stock, so that a guaranty is provided for healthy offspring. Families with many children are given preference when new land is being distributed. It is also of primary importance that the applicant should be able to prove that he himself as well as his family are suited to the life. These new peasant estates must not be regarded as a practising ground for all and anyone to try their hands at experimenting, nor as an instructional institution for those who consider themselves fitted for agricultural work. Technical qualifications are therefore required under all circumstances. Only where these primary conditions are satisfied the financial situation of the applicant is considered. For financing these undertakings definite rules have been drawn up on lines which make it possible even for persons of moderate means to take over one of those new estates.

 

[Page 166]

 

The establishment of these new peasant estates is undertaken by estate companies under the supervision of competent authorities, an arrangement which guarantees close co-operation with the National Food Corporation. The new agricultural estates are got ready up to a point from which it is possible to begin to work them properly where after every peasant is free to make the best use possible of the opportunity afforded him for improving his position according to his personal energy and for endeavouring to do his best for his own welfare and that of his descendants. Only by struggling to succeed will he become attached to the soil. Not only younger sons of peasants are to be provided with a new estate, but everyone capable of fulfilling the required conditions, particularly agricultural labourers. Since these latter cannot, as a rule, compete with the others financially, especially favourable conditions will apply in their case, and they will thus be provided with the possibility of rising in the social scale.

 

Besides these fundamental matters a certain number of other points have to be considered in connection with the planning of houses, schools, and with similar questions. Their solution will, as a rule, be arrived at in practice. As a result of the close co-operation between the competent authorities, the National Food Corporation and the estate companies, the conditions laid down by the National Food Corporation will always be carefully observed.

 

This great work of settlement and internal colonization going on in Germany serves the end of national reconstruction. Where reconstruction is taking place, peace must prevail. Hence Germany too needs peace for her work.

 

[Page 167]

 

 

 

 

Chapter Twentytwo

 

 

MUNICH AND AFTER

 

“Why do the heathens rage and the people imagine a vain thing”

 

 

Since the signing of the Peace Pact between Chamberlain and Hitler in September events have moved rapidly in Europe. The reply in Great Britain to the Peace Pact was a violent campaign in the British Press against Germany, and an attack on Chamberlain’s policy both by the Opposition in Parliament and by many members of his own party. The Peace Pact was ignored and war with Germany discussed as a matter of course. Chamberlain was only able to save his position by increasing enormously the expenditure on armaments.

 

The large number of people in this country, who believe a good understanding with Germany essential had no opportunity of putting forward their point of view in the press. The members of Parliament were intimidated by the press campaign. The only institution left where a free expression of opinion was possible was the House of Lords. The warmongers controlled both the press and the B. B. C.

 

The final victory of Franco enormously strengthened the position of the Axis in Europe to the great astonishment of our press who, having pursued him with a vile campaign of calumny during the war, assisted by a political agitation in this country, imagined that he would join with us. Franco’s reply to our advances was to join the anti-Comintern Pact and France, who had taken the side of the Communists, found herself with three potential enemies on her three frontiers.

 

Hungary also joined the anti-Comintern Pact, and Jugoslavia entered into the closest friendship with Germany and Italy, so that Great Britain and France found themselves faced with a formidable bloc in Europe, of nations they had treated with hostility or indifference.

 

[Page 168]

 

President Roosevelt next joined the campaign against Germany and Italy. The Press and the wireless had been used for months to spread lies about Germany and when the ground had been prepared Roosevelt made a violent attack on Germany and Italy, and proposed a combination of the Democracies against them and a trade boycott. As Senator Pittman put it clearly,

 

“Why kill them when we can starve them?”

 

These proposals by Roosevelt were acclaimed by our Press but it soon became evident that the people in the U.S.A. were not going to be drawn into another European war and that Roosevelt would find it very difficult to get the Neutrality Law altered so that he could if he chose supply munitions to one side and not to the other, thus putting into the hands of the President the decision of Peace or War.

 

It was obvious that Germany and Italy could not continue to ignore the feverish preparations for war in Great Britain, France and the U.S.A., and consequently two dramatic events took place, one quickly following on the other.

 

Slovakia separated herself from Czechoslovakia, claiming independence. The Czech Government, faced by internal revolution, asked Germany to intervene and Germany occupied Bohemia and Moravia incorporating them as a Protectorate in the Reich. It was impossible any longer to tolerate this promontory penetrating deep into Germany and governed by people who were largely communistic and hostile to Germany, an area which French military authorities had openly stated would be used as a base for bombing planes, aiming at destroying the cities of Germany.

 

It was evident from the replies made by Mr. Chamberlain and Lord Halifax that they did not regard the occupation of Bohemia and Moravia as a matter affecting our interests, as, owing to the break away of Slovakia, Czechoslovakia had ceased to exist and an occupation by German troops made at the request of the Czech Government could hardly be described as an act of military aggression.

 

[Page 169]

 

Then the storm cloud, organised by those working for war, burst and has swept the Government like helpless logs in its torrent towards war. The public excitement was increased by the publication in the London Press of a message purporting to come from Rumania — but now believed to have been concocted in London — to the effect that Germany had threatened Rumania with war if she did not give her a complete monopoly of all her external trade.

 

The British Ambassador in Berlin was instructed to lodge a protest with the German Government, and to tear up the Peace Pact signed by Herr Hitler and Mr. Chamberlain.

 

This was followed later by the occupation of Albania by Italy thus securing the Adriatic from the hostile fleets of England and France bombarding Italian towns.

 

According to Mr. Chamberlain these two necessary acts of self defence filled the whole world with “horror”. I have been young and now am old and in my lifetime I have seen Great Britain wage war after war to “extend” the Empire. It is not for us, satiated with conquest, and oppressing today by force the Arabs in Palestine — a country in which we are interlopers, and which incidentally occupies a strategic position on the Mediterranean, — to criticise the actions of other nations.

 

These two inevitable acts were received quite calmly in Europe but were made the excuse for a fresh campaign here and in the States in which it was stated that Germany and Italy meant to invade and annex all the small nations in Europe as a preliminary to world conquest, and our Press arranged for alarmist messages from every capital in Europe. An imaginary crisis was created and the enemies of Chamberlain gathered their forces to turn him out of office. Churchill, Eden, and their friends worked night and day to organise a revolt in the Conservative Party, and Fleet Street said he would not remain in power for another week. If he fell Eden, who cannot speak without showing his insolent attitude to the German people, Churchill and their friends would form a government.

 

Chamberlain saved himself by his speech in Birmingham attacking Hitler, and by proposing to resuscitate the old plan which he had only a year ago condemned as unworkable — a coalition of the small nations in Europe against Germany.

 

[Page 170]

 

Without waiting to be asked, we promised Poland to defend her if Germany attacked her independence, went round Europe trying to draw the small nations into a combination against Germany, and approached the Soviet for the same purpose. When Italy occupied Albania, we hastened to offer Greece and Albania our defence if their independance was attacked. The response to these efforts has been very remarkable. Ten nations in addition to France and Italy, are in contact with the German frontier. Of these Belgium is guaranteed by England France and Germany. Of the other nine, only Poland has accepted. The other eight have declined our offer of protection, saying they have no cause for alarm, and in addition, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Latvia, Estonia and Bulgaria stand aloof. A Norwegian Minister speaking the other day, declared that for three hundred years, the Scandinavian countries have been fighting with England for the right to maintain their neutrality. Rumania and Greece have thanked us for our offer to defend them, but have explained that they have no intention of entering into a reciprocal treaty and only Portugal, Poland and Turkey, have agreed to a mutually defensive treaty. Rumania has been rewarded with a loan of five million pounds, for graciously allowing us to defend her. The Soviet in spite of our beseeching attitude has so far not come to any agreement with us. The part they will play if war should come, is that of the jackal feasting on the corpses of the slain.

 

All we have done is to present Hitler with a splendid testimonial from the small nations in Europe.

 

Just as we were forced by the “City” to crush the small independant Boer Republic in order to gain control of the gold mines, so the real reason why we are interfering in Poland, Rumania and Greece, is that our financiers have large interests in the Polish coal mines, where the miners wages are disgracefully low, Rumanian oil and Greek banking. A pipe line runs from the oil fields of poverty stricken Rumania to the city of London, pouring the wealth of that country into the pockets of our financiers. They are determined that Germany be warned off these countries, where they have established a monopoly of financial control. The British public are deceived by the cry:

 

“Defend the independance of small nations”.

 

[Page 171]

 

The attempt we are making to persuade the Soviet to invade Europe pouring in hordes of barbaric troops from European and Asiatic Russia, whose advance would be accompanied by Communist risings and massacres, is probably the greatest crime against Christianity and civilization in the history of Europe.

 

By following this extraordinary foreign policy our Government has sinned against four principles which should govern the foreign policy of nations.

 

No Government has the right to pledge the lives of the people, except in self defence or defence of a vital interest. The inclusion of Bohemia in the Reich touches no interest of ours.

 

No Government has a right to hand the control of its foreign policy to another nation or nations. Let us suppose, for instance, that Greece quarrelled with Italy and they went to war; we are bound to fight for Greece whether she is right or wrong.

 

The following quotation from a speech made by Captain Euan Wallace, Minister of Transport, at Bognor, condemns the government foreign policy out of their own mouths.

 

“Let us make no mistake about it, the decision whether we will fight has been taken out of the hands of the people of this country, and out of the hands of our governors. We have made commitments which are automatic. If those commitments are broken, this country is committed for better or for worse to take up arms.”

 

It is the duty of a Government to reduce outside commitments which may lead to war, and to secure the friendship of all nations. Our Government has increased our commitments which may lead to war, and by this action caused the Peace Pact and the Naval Treaty with Germany to be torn up. We had’ torn up the Peace Pact and Germany has now quite reasonably denounced the Naval Pact which was of great value to us.

 

The final result of our action has been that Hitler is freed from his Peace Treaty with Poland and any restraint in strengthening his navy, so that he is left with a distinct diplomatic gain by our action.

 

No Government has the right to lure a nation into war with a third nation if they cannot fulfil their offers of help. If Poland, having accepted our advances, makes war on Germany, we could not by any possibility go to her assistance.

 

[Page 172]

 

As the Fuhrer pointed out in his speech on April 28, 1939, when he first signed a Peace Pact with Poland he made no objections to the existing “Mutual Security Treaty” with France; but for Poland, having signed the Peace Pact, to make a treaty with Great Britain undertaking to make war on Germany under certain conditions, is an obvious breach of the Peace Pact.

 

What does Poland imagine she gains by this move? The Polish Corridor is an injustice to Germany and many people are astonished that she has put up with it so long. Danzig is as much a German city as Liverpool is English. Suppose we had lost the War and Germany had given Liverpool to De Valera? How long would we have tolerated that state of affairs?

 

Hitler made the Peace Pact with Poland and has faithfully observed it. Now they have broken it he is free to take back the Polish Corridor and include Danzig in the Reich. If Poland imagines that she can drag England into a war with Germany about Danzig she is greatly mistaken. Our Government has been careful to guard themselves on that point. Supposing Poland declares war and does manage to bring us in it will not save her. We are as helpless to save her as if she was on the Planet Mars. For us to tempt her to make such a suicidal war is an act of mischief deliberately disturbing the Peace of Europe.

 

Roosevelt who hopes for a third term of office in spite of having landed the U.S.A. with a huge internal debt and 20 millions people on the dole, was looking out for a good slogan and thought that a call to the Democracies to defend “Christianity, Democracy and International Good Faith” would do.

 

He has had to retreat, and has thrown out a smoke screen to hide his retreat by sending to the World Press and Hitler and Mussolini an absurd document, in which they are told to pledge themselves to Peace for 25 years with a long list of nations, and then hand their future over to a world congress controlled by the three Democracies who were responsible for the Treaty of Versailles. This has been hailed as a wonderful document by the Governments of Great Britain and France.

 

[Page 173]

 

In the meantime Peace among the nations of the Danube Basin and of the Balkans is being assured by Hitler and Mussolini, who are having conference with the various Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries. There are three dangers to Peace, the territorial demands of Hungary and of Bulgaria, and the trouble with the Croatians, but with the friendly assistance of Germany and Italy both nations will doubtless be able to come to terms with their neighbours.

 

These nations are all centering round the Axis because it will give them the three things which the people of Europe most desire, — Peace, ordered stable Government, and trade.

 

The Totalitarian States stand for certain fundamental principles:

 

* Peace among the nations, each following out its own economic life.

* Government with only one object — the good of the people, instead of being used for the struggle for power of rival political Parties.

* The abolition of Politicians.

* The abolition of the use of the Press controlled by financial groups to promote war by spreading lies.

* A higher conception of the relation of the individual to the community, which is not merely negative — the obeying of the law — but positive, — the service of the community being the first duty.

* A stable economic and financial system and work for all.

* Freedom from control by international finance.

* Arms for defence but not for attack.

 

 

It is obvious that the European nations are grouping themselves in friendly alliance round the Axis and it is time we recognised that fact and accepted the friendship which has been offered us by Germany and Italy.

 

It is also time that France, for long under the influence of our foreign office with its pernicious traditions, reversed her policy and made friends with her neighbours who have no quarrel with her, settled the quite reasonable demands of Italy, and developed trade with the three countries on her frontiers.

 

Why should France sacrifice so much because we choose to quarrel with Germany?

 

[Page 174]

 

There will probably be no war in Europe because Hitler and Mussolini stand for Peace.

 

The Europeans are settling down to a long Peace, which clears the deck for the larger question of World Trade and the huge monopoly of Gold, Raw materials and tropical and sub-tropical products held by the three Democracies and the Soviet.

 

In every speech Hitler and Mussolini have given warning on this matter and they not only represent the needs of themselves and Japan but many other nations.

 

This of course is what Roosevelt is really thinking about. He is prepared to plunge into a World War to defend Monopoly in the name of “Christianity, Democracy and Good Faith.”

 

The power of the Monopolists is colossal. They possess the world’s wealth, rule a great part of the world’s population, and have at their command our overwhelming sea power, which enables them to control trade on the high seas, and as we have seen, Roosevelt has already proposed that a trade boycott force the Have Nots into submission.

 

It is really for this reason that Germany is seeking to develop trade on the old trade route from Asia to Europe and it is for this reason that we are trying to prevent it.

 

While in Parliament the Government talk about small nationalities, the Conservative Party organisation through its political instructors is telling us that we do not care what happens to small nationalities, but we must stop the development of Germany’s trade in the Danube Basin and the Balkans so as to be able to starve her out by a blockade. It is obviously not only in the interest of the Have Nots, but of the whole world and even of the Monopolists themselves that the trade of the world be set free. Strangely enough the Monopolists are suffering most from their own policy having huge armies of unemployed.

 

The British Empire when it was a Free Trade Empire had the goodwill of all the world. To-day when it has surrounded itself with tariffs, Ottawa agreements, quotas and international restrictions on output, it no longer has that goodwill which was its real strength, and piling armaments on armaments is not the solution of the question.

 

[Page 175]

 

Not so important but of great interest is the Gold monopoly, a monopoly not only of the Gold available but the world’s Gold mines which the Monopolists share with the Soviet.

 

The U.S.A. is still hoarding larger and larger quantities of Gold. It does not seem to occur to her economists that to exchange goods for Gold, which is buried in their Bank Vaults and is “sterilized” to use the Stock Exchange jargon, is to give away their goods for nothing. Trade is the exchange of goods which have a utility value for other goods which have a utility value, and sterilized gold has no utility value at all.

 

As long as Gold is still regarded as wealth by the mass of mankind, it is thought necessary for a trading nation to have a Gold reserve, but Germany — deprived by her creditors of all her Gold — has challenged that idea and is building up an export trade without it and is to-day our largest customer.

 

Germany has not only challenged the political system of the Democracies but the economic system of international finance and international monopolies, and it is to that challenge that all the attacks in the Press and the attempts to force the people of this country into war are due.

 

If Germany succeeds in her economic system of basing her currency on labour values and exchanging goods for goods, the whole of the Gold stored in the Bank vaults of the U.S.A. can be written off as a dead loss, and Gold mining which depends on selling Gold at a higher and higher price to the Governments who buy the Gold bars and do nothing with them, will collapse. The old story of King Midas who starved because everything he touched turned to Gold will come true.

 

The German Government has shown that Gold is not necessary and that is one of the reasons for the policy pursued against them by Great Britain, France and the U.S.A. Millions are being spent on this propaganda, but when once the peoples of Great Britain, France and the U.S.A. realise that the cry that Germany aims at universal dominion is a lie to-day just as it was a lie in 1914; that the only danger facing Democracy is its own misrule, weakness in the face of vested interests and sacrifice of public interest to the greedy scramble of politicians for power; that they are being driven like sheep to the slaughter by big finance just as they were driven into the Boer war, they will turn in revolt. The revolt has already begun in England though not reported by our Press.

 

[Page 176]

 

Germany has symbolized international finance by calling it “the Jew”. It is true Jews are to a great extent interested. International finance is the public enemy and the promoter of war among the peoples, but those controlling it belong to all nations, and it is centred in London, Paris and New York. The “City” rules this country. They threw the Labour Party out of power when it suited them, and they control our Government today. When Roosevelt and our Government say they are willing to consider how to set free the supply of raw materials they are promising what they cannot perform as they are helpless in the grip of the huge combines. Only the Totalitarian States are free states. King Midas is the Public Enemy number one.

 

While the Monopolists combine to accumulate Gold it is no longer the basis of their paper currency. We have ourselves abolished the ratio between Gold and paper, and France devalues the Franc at intervals. The confusion between the world currencies continues and will end in a collapse. The only sound currency to-day is the German currency.

 

It is also necessary for the world to return in some form or other to Free Trade, but it must be a Free Trade that does not cause a competition between different standards of living. Germany has solved these problems by exchanging goods for goods based on barter.

 

Before these international questions are discussed the Monopolists have to ask themselves why, with the world wealth in their possession, they suffer from serious unemployment, which has reached in the U.S.A. the appalling figure of 20 million people on the dole, while Germany has to hire surplus labour abroad. They must reform their own economic system before they reform the world.

 

They have also to ask themselves two very fundamental questions, namely, is it possible to combine the Democratic idea with the principle that the first duty of the citizen is the welfare of the community, and with honest government not controlled behind the scenes by the Financiers.

 

Democracies are in many cases financially corrupt Governments. In our case that is not true but our Government and Parliament are intellectually dishonest.

 

[Page 177]

 

Truth is sacrificed every day to a party advantage. If lies were only consciously told it would not be so serious but political life produces a mental degeneration in which it is no longer possible for the politicians to distinguish between truth and falsehood.

 

An excellent example occurred in the House of Commons the other day when the leaders of the Opposition accused Franco of dropping from his planes chocolate boxes containing infernal machines so that when children picked them up they were blown to pieces. Men who can say such things are really mentally insane and these champions of Democracy are our rulers to whom we submit the safety of our State.

 

The Parliamentary system is becoming unworkable. The Peoples of the Democracies, owing to the iron control of publicity, are dumb and can be driven to war without a protest. Even a pig is allowed to squeal before he is killed.

 

We shall owe to Germany not only the abolition of the Politician, but a new ethical conception of a community, Peace in Europe and a reformed economic and trading system which will reconstruct world economics and abolish the evil influences of international finance and huge trading monopolies.

 

The great speech made by the Fuhrer has deflated the war balloon blown out with poison gas by the Press. Germany makes no threat of war against any nation. The war anxiety among the small nations of Europe is not due to German action but to the uncertainty as to whether we do not intend to provoke war and the fear of our hysterical and unbalanced Democracy, for they know that Great Britain is dangerous when she is filled with moral indignation at the sins of her neighbours. When the giants are fighting the small nations will suffer.

 

It is true Holland is busy arming her frontier facing Germany but she is just as busy arming her harbours facing England. France is evidently hesitating between Peace, Trade and friendship with Germany and being further involved in our reckless foreign policy. It is said that our beginning of conscription is the price we are paying to keep her with us.

 

Before finally considering the two policies put before the peoples of Europe and the peoples of this country by the Fuhrer and the British Government respectively, let us briefly look at the present condition of Europe as revealed by our attempts to consolidate it in a new policy against Germany.

 

[Page 178]

 

Switzerland, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania deny that they fear any act aggression on the part of Germany, refuse to be drawn into any alliance that may commit them to war, and state that if war comes they will remain neutral.

 

Germany, Italy, Spain, Slovakia, Hungary and Jugoslavia are united in the closest bonds of friendship and mutual confidence. Rumania and Greece, while not refusing our offer of assistance if attacked, will not sign a Treaty which will in any way commit them to war.

 

A chain of Peace Pacts beginning in Italy joins Italy to Jugoslavia, Jugoslavia to Bulgaria, Bulgaria to Turkey.

 

Poland alone has formed a mutual security pact with us, and by so doing broken her Peace Pact with Germany.

 

France is isolated in Europe to-day and has chosen to quarrel with her three neighbours on her frontiers — Spain, Italy and Germany. This attitude of hostility can be ended when she chooses, and grants the quite reasonable requests of Italy.

 

Before Hitler rose to power all countries in Europe had armed and a criss-cross of mutual security pacts made war possible and no one could say where it would stop. Since Germany rose to power the consolidation of Europe into friendly nations promoting trade has proceeded apace. A central area of Europe from the frontiers of Holland to the frontiers of Rumania, and united to Italy and Spain is settled as a permanent area of Peace, — an area equal to the old Austrian Empire and united to Germany by friendship not by dominance of a central Government. If Germany and Italy acting jointly are able to settle the differences about land frontiers between Hungary and Rumania, this will extend to the Black Sea.

 

Formerly Poland could be included. Unfortunately for her she has broken away owing to our interference. This Pax Germanica which is gradually extending over Europe is the work of two men — Hitler and Mussolini.

 

Let us now consider the two policies offered by Hitler on the one hand and our Government on the other.

 

[Page 179]

 

To Hitler we owe the idea of Peace Pacts. Two nations agree not to go to war for a term of years. This does not involve any alliance against a third Power. This policy has spread over Europe and into Asia. Turkey, Iraq, Persia and Afghanistan are united by Peace Pacts.

 

The first Peace Pact between Germany and Poland resulted in the friendly settlement of very delicate and difficult points and it is disastrous for her that Poland has broken it.

 

The other policy of mutual security pacts is simply the Policy of Treaties between two nations directed against a third nation under a new name which existed before the war and had such disastrous consequences. Germany was bound to Austria, England was bound to France, and France to Russia, and so an insignificant Balkan war involved all Europe in a catastrophe.

 

This policy was tried during the reign of the League and produced unrest and fear of war all over Europe. It means the assumption by a nation of obligations to fight for a foreign policy over which it has no control, and it ensures automatically a local war between two powers involving all those linked by mutual security pacts. A break at any point in the complicated chain involves the whole in disaster. It means dividing Europe into two hostile camps, which must end in war sooner or later.

 

Hitler has always denounced mutual security and Germany beyond her guarantee of the integrity of Belgium and of Slovakia is free from all such commitments. Our alliance with France has been disastrous to both countries as neither country is free to follow the foreign policy suited to its own interests. It is, for instance, essential for France to-day to develop friendly relations with Spain and Italy, and above all with Germany. Many intelligent French men curse the alliance with us dragging France into our disastrous and reckless Foreign Policy.

 

The peoples of Europe, of Great Britain and the British Empire have the chance of adopting the policy of Hitler and Peace, or of Chamberlain who is being driven by forces hostile to Germany to war. I thank God that the Peace of Europe is in the guardianship of the Fuhrer and therefore, in spite of the frantic efforts of all those here and in Europe and America who want war, secure.

 

——————————————–

 

Printed by M. Milller & Sohn, Berlin S.W. 68

 

 

 

 

======================================