The New York Times Book of World War II, 1939-1945
Page 5
Ever since Hitler first refused the Chancellorship in a Coalition Cabinet in August, 1932, there has been a constant dribbling away from his party.
The elections in Thuringia, which followed the losses suffered by the party in the last Reichstag elections, served to emphasize this point.
A powerful group of industrialists in the Federation of German Industries recently gave indications of a sharp change of attitude toward the National Socialists because of their radical trend. This group in the Federation of German Industries has been inclined in recent months to withdraw its support from the party and return to a policy of understanding with the German trade unions.
At the same time, however, a group of Nazi industrialists in the Rhineland and the Ruhr, who have been among Hitler’s chief financial backers, have urged him to drop his uncompromising attitude and join the government. According to recent dispatches from Berlin, former Chancellor von Papen was the “friendly broker” between the National Socialists and this group of industrialists.
Recent Berlin dispatches indicate also a deal between Papen and Hitler for the overthrow of General von Schleicher, who roused the displeasure of the Rhineland-Ruhr industrialists by his inclination to deal leniently with labor and to seek the support of the trade unions. In this policy, these industrialists foresaw the abandonment of the economic program laid down by Papen as Schleicher’s predecessor in the Chancellorship.
LONG WITHOUT CITIZENSHIP
Outstanding is the dramatic element of Hitler’s accession to power at the age of 43. The new Chancellor began as the son of poor parents in Austria. For a long time he was not even a German citizen, but a man without a country. His political career began in a very un-promising manner in 1921.
The Nazi leader went to Germany in 1914 at the outbreak of the war and enlisted in the German Army. By this act he sacrificed his Austrian citizenship. He had a good war record, being gassed, wounded and winning a silver war service medal.
The advent of the German Revolution with the military collapse of Germany in 1918 found him a bitter opponent of the revolutionary upheaval. He hated the republic from the day it was horn and vowed that he would never rest until he had brought about a counterrevolution against the men and the parties whom he considered responsible for the downfall of the empire.
With General Erich von Ludendorff, who was one of his early supporters but with whom he parted company in later years, he attempted a revolution in Munich, which was easily suppressed by the Bavarian Government on Nov. 8, 1923.
The uprising was to have been the signal for a general monarchist revolution. The collapse of the movement led to the sentencing of Hitler to five years in prison. He was liberated after serving a year in a Bavarian fortress.
He resumed activities on a large scale in 1928. From that time his movement, stimulated by the economic depression, progressed fast. By 1930 the National Socialist party had won 107 seats in the Reichstag. In July, 1931, this number was increased to 230.
Hitler received his first official political recognition in 1932 when Chancellor Heinrich Bruening consulted him on a proposal to extend the term of President von Hindenburg by act of Parliament to avoid the disturbance of a Presidential contest. The Nazi flatly refused. He became a candidate against von Hindenburg but was defeated by more than 6,000,000 votes.
In that election Hitler reached the peak of his strength, polling more than 13,000,000 votes. The reversal of the tide came with the Reichstag elections a few months later, when the National Socialists suffered a loss of about 2,000,000 votes.
MARCH 2, 1933
FRENCH BLAME NAZIS FOR REICHSTAG FIRE
Papers Regard It as A Crude Excuse to Crush Opposition Before the Election.
Wireless to The New York Times.
PARIS, March 1.—With growing anxiety the French are watching events across the Rhine and Chancellor Hitler’s repressive measures, in which they see a determined intention to achieve a Fascist dictatorship.
France, judging by today’s press, even seems distinctly inclined to blame the Nazis themselves for the fire that wrecked the Reichstag Building, and sees in it simply a crude excuse on Herr Hitler’s part to crush the Opposition just before the elections.
Leon Blum, the Socialist leader, is particularly outspoken. He calls the fire “a gross, cynical camouflage that could not fool the public in any other country but Germany,”
The semi-official Temps likewise throws considerable doubt on the authenticity of the charges against the Communists concerning the fire. It points out certain weaknesses in the story, as well as the Nazi’s interest in making the most of it. The paper particularly expresses worry over the similarities that it sees between Herr Hitler’s actions now and those of Premier Mussolini of Italy in 1922, and states that the German Chancellor has the same policies, ideas and methods.
“All that can be clearly said is that the German crisis, which has been developing for months, is now degenerating into civil war and pushing a great nation more and more toward anarchy and political chaos,” the Temps concludes. “No one in history has yet been able to succeed in achieving a durable State and order by means of disorder.”
MARCH 3, 1933
WEIZMANN ASSAILS REICH ANTI-SEMITES
Jewish Leader Tells London Friends of Palestine Of ‘Barbarism’ In Germany.
Wireless to The New York Times.
LONDON, March 2.—The plight of Jews in Germany was emphasized tonight by Dr. Chaim Weizmann, presiding at a dinner to the “friends of Palestine in the British Parliament” given by the British section of the Jewish Agency.
No unbiased observer with any respect for justice and fair play, Dr. Weizmann declared, could remain indifferent to the situation in Germany, where the “economic and political existence of all Jews is imperiled by the policy which had inscribed anti-Semitism in its most primitive form as an essential part of its program.”
It has been only a few days, he added, since Captain Hermann Wilhelm Goering, Minister without portfolio, accused the Jews of “organizing the cultural disruption of Germany” and it was a severe shock to civilized people to discover that it was possible for a great people like the Germans to relapse into barbarism in its attitude toward a small, law-abiding minority of its citizens.
“To our people in Germany, whose position, by all accounts, is becoming daily more intolerable,” declared Dr. Weizmann, “we can only counsel courage and endurance. I feel our sympathy is shared by all friends of progress, worldwide. In the hour of their trial it is well that our fellow-Jews in Germany should know they do not stand alone but that the full weight of enlightened opinion in all civilized countries, especially in England, is behind them in their struggle against the forces of reaction.”
There were 500 guests at the dinner, including 100 members of Parliament.
MARCH 6, 1933
HITLER’S VICTORY SHOCK TO FRENCH
They Hoped for Repudiation of Dictatorship by Germans In Yesterday’s Elections.
Wireless to The New York Times.
PARIS, March 5—Frenchmen eagerly snatched the special editions of the Paris dailies from the hands of shouting news vendors late tonight, then in most cases threw down the papers with expressions of disgust. It was obvious they expected or at least hoped for a popular electoral reaction against the Hitler dictatorship in Germany.
A few hundred Communists began a march down the grand boulevards, singing the “Internationale.” When they reached the offices of Le Matin police reinforcements were waiting for them and broke up the demonstration. The crowd reading newspaper bulletins was left unmolested. Reflecting the attitude of many Frenchmen, Leon Blum, the Socialist leader, declared in a speech tonight:
“The Fascist activities of the Hitlerites hold for France no immediate danger of war. These activities will logically be directed toward the rearmament of Germany, which will constitute for her a symbol of revival and liberation. The danger then will lie with the counter-measures of the neighboring States, wh
ich are capable of dragging all of us into an armament race, and we know where that will lead.
“We must forbid the rearmament of Germany and push to a successful conclusion the work of the Disarmament Conference. But I fear first war, then ensuing misery, will be required to reforge the unity of the workers.”
MARCH 28, 1933
JAPAN QUITS LEAGUE TO ‘INSURE PEACE’
Emperor and Premier Promise Continued Cooperation in International Affairs.
By HUGH BYAS
Wireless to The New York Times.
TOKYO, March 27—Count Ya-suya Uchida, the Foreign Minister, notified the League of Nations today of Japan’s decision to withdraw because of “irreconcilable” differences with the League over Manchuria.
But in announcing the decision to the nation the government, through the lips of Emperor Hirohito and the Premier, Admiral Viscount Ma-koto Saito, repudiated the “Back to Asia” policy and solemnly assured the people that Japan did not seek to isolate herself in the Far East and would continue to cultivate the friendship of Western powers and to cooperate with them.
The note addressed to the League tersely repeated the contention so often heard at Geneva that, as China was not an organized State, the instruments governing the relations between ordinary countries must be modified in application to her.
The report adopted by the Assembly on Feb. 24, it is declared, besides misapprehending Japan’s aims, contained gross errors of fact and the false deduction that the Japanese seizure of Mukden in September, 1931, was not defensive. Failure to take into account the tension which preceded and the aggravations which followed the seizure was alleged.
While this was being cabled to Geneva an imperial rescript was promulgated informing the nation that Japan’s attitude toward enterprises intended to promote international peace had not changed. The official translation continues:
By quitting the League and embarking on a course of its own, our empire does not mean that it will stand aloof in the Far East nor isolate itself from the fraternity of nations.”
The same note is struck in Premier Saito’s message to the nation. As it is Japan’s traditional policy, he says, to contribute to the promotion of international peace, the government will continue to cooperate in international enterprises designed to further the welfare of mankind.
“Nor does this country propose to shut itself up in the Far East, but will endeavor to strengthen the ties of friendship with other powers,” he adds.
This double repudiation of the “Back to Asia” doctrine probably is correctly interpreted as a result, of views expressed by the Privy Council. Many of the wisest statesmen regret the course which has left Japan alone. Believing, however, in the essential justice of her cause they could but acquiesce in secession.
Lieut. Gen. Sadao Arakl, the War Minister, issued a statement declaring the nation had been reborn in moral principles. The empire’s positive policy had been definitely established, giving an opportunity for national expansion.
MARCH 30, 1933
EINSTEIN TO ALTER STATUS
Scientist Takes Steps to Renounce His Prussian Citizenship.
BERLIN, March 29 (AP)—Professor Albert Einstein has taken steps to renounce his Prussian citizenship.
Professor Einstein, who is a Jew, became a citizen in 1914 when he accepted a position with the Prussian Academy of Sciences. Upon landing at Brussels after his recent trip to the United States, he wrote to the German Consulate there for information about the steps necessary to end his citizenship. He pointed out that he formerly was Swiss.
Professsor Einstein was born in Ulm, Germany, but subsequently his family moved to Switzerland and he became a Swiss citizen.
Before sailing recently for Europe the professor said:
“I do not intend to put my foot on German soil again as long as conditions in Germany are as they are.”
OCTOBER 2, 1935
BERLIN WORKS OUT ANTI-JEWISH RULES
Wireless to The New York Times.
BERLIN, Oct. 1—The regulations governing the enforcement of the so-called Nuremberg laws adopted by the National Socialist Reichstag Sept. 15 are still being worked out at the Ministry of the Interior, and no date has been set for their promulgation.
Fundamentally these laws are in force, however, and an official communiqué today sought to correct the prevalent impression that all mixed marriages, that is, marriages between “Aryans” and Jews would be decreed void. The new statute, it was stated, outlaws only such unions as have been consummated since last Sept. 17.
Meanwhile Jewry is anxiously awaiting the final implications of the laws, which were announced only in skeleton form in Nuremberg, and it is especially with reference to their effect on Jewish economic life that definitive clarification is awaited.
The draft decree adopted by the Reichstag confined itself to the purely racial and political aspects of the situation and omitted all reference to the limits that would be allowed Jews for business and economic activities.
MODEST HOPE AROUSED
Subsequent warnings from authoritative quarters against individual anti-Jewish boycott activities have stimulated a modest measure of hope in Jewish circles of a possible moderation of the hitherto silently condoned policy of economic persecution, which is being waged with almost unrelenting fury against the Jews in rural sections although it has not yet invaded the big cities in virulent form.
Meanwhile the Jews throughout Germany are passing through a transitional period that cannot fail to fill them with the deepest apprehension, and until their economic fate has been decreed in finality they will be compelled to defer all consideration of plans calculated to meet any fresh emergency.
The Ministry of the Interior today reminded all Germans of the flag law adopted in Nuremberg, which makes the swastika banner the sole authorized flag of the Reich. Not only will it now be flown exclusively from official flagstaffs but citizens are admonished to discard their old black-white-red colors and the various flags of the now obsolete States and provinces.
If a nationalist diehard in a fit of nostalgia cannot resist showing the old imperial flag his lapse will be condoned, but the Ministry expresses the hope that the populace will make its choice of flags unanimous.
JEWS WARNED ON BANNERS
As the new flag law forbids Jews to exhibit the Nazi banner, the Ministry reminds them that they are not allowed by law to compromise by displaying the black-white-red emblem on official occasions but are restricted in their choice to the Zionist colors.
Discussing the national implications of the Nuremberg laws in the German Jurists’ Gazette, Professor Carl Schmitt, well-known juridical authority, asserts that these statutes after a lapse of centuries again constitute a “German constitutional freedom.”
“For the first time our conception of constitutional principles is again German and today the German people once more are a German nation with respect to their Constitution, and statutory law,” says Professor Schmitt.
German blood and German honor, he adds, have become the basic principles of German law, while the State has become an expression of racial strength and unity. “Another momentous constitutional decision was proclaimed at Nuremberg when the Fuehrer announced that if the present solution of the Jewish problem fails to achieve its purpose re-examination of the situation will come up for consideration and the solution of the Jewish problem will then be left to the party’s judgment,” he continues. “That statement must be accepted as a grave warning, for it makes the party not alone the guarantee of our racial sanctuary but also the defender of our Constitution.”
OCTOBER 13, 1935
ROOSEVELT SITS TIGHT ON NEUTRALITY TERMS
By TURNER CATLEDGE.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 12—Events revolving around the Italo-Ethiopian unpleasantness, as they occurred during the last week on this side of the water, left a clear indication with official Washington of the possible difficulties ahead in our attempt to wear the tailor-made mantle of neutrality which a
tired Congress cut out, altered slightly and pieced together in the closing hours of the last session.
One week ago tonight, Oct. 5, acting upon a direct mandate of Congress, President Roosevelt issued an embargo against American exportation of weapons and ammunition to both Italy and Ethiopia. He was following the very letter of Section 1 of Senate Joint Resolution 173. At the same time, in connection with the same proclamation, he put the American business public on notice that any trade with the belligerent nations would be at the risk of the traders. In this he went beyond the Congressional mandate, but was still within the clear intent of the authors of the resolution.
The next day, Sunday, Oct. 6, the President, by proclamation wirelessed from the cruiser Houston in the Pacific, issued a warning to all United States citizens against traveling on Italian or Ethiopian ships except at their own risk. Here he was using the discretionary authority granted by Section 6 of the resolution.
PROTEST OF TRADERS
The following day, Monday, the first business day after our new and fixed neutrality policy became effective, a protest was raised by the Conference on Port Development of the City of New York. In a cable sent directly to the President at Cocos Island the conference branded his action as “ill-advised” and a “serious blow” to the commerce of the port of New York.
On Tuesday the members of the Export Managers Club of New York rose over their coffee cups at a luncheon at the Pennsylvania Hotel to declare their intention of trading with belligerent Italy and possibly with besieged Ethiopia, regardless of the President’s proclamation.
The next day Secretary of Commerce Roper, noted for his readiness to reassure business and industry in their dealings with the unpredictable administration in Washington, sought to assure American exporters that the government had no real objections to their trading with the warring countries. In effect, he told the exporters that the President had his fingers crossed when he issued the warnings as to trade and travel except as to trade in arms, for, as a practical matter, there could be no physical risks in trading with Italy, the only one of the two with any commercial attractiveness.