by Martha Schad
I believe, dear Lord Rothermere, that if it does not emanate from England or Germany, one might as well bring [does he mean ‘abandon’?] any hope for the future, at least for the duration of our own life expectancy.
Of course, one cannot behold these problems with the eyes of day-by-day politicians, whose horizon is frequently limited by the smallest types of interests. In any event, I have attempted not to look for compromises in certain things, but instead to consider the fundamentals as real and determining. Consequently I have been ridiculed for 15 years by day-to-day politicians, who had no understanding for the fundamental handling of the problems and I have been lamborsted [sic] as a dreamer. But right continued on my side, and these small opponents recognised that their concepts were wrong and mine right. In the end they could no longer dispute my success. But this experience of the last 15 years gives me hope that it will be the culmination of the next 15 or 20 years, provided the work is equally fundamental, right and solid in principle, to help the natural interests to break through in a larger framework, and to get the small naggers to keep silent.
As already stated, Lord Rothermere, if today I stand for an Anglo-German understanding, this does not date from yesterday or the day before. During the last 16 years I have spoken in Germany at least 4,000 to 5,000 times before small, large and immense mess [sic] audiences. There does not, however, exist a single speech of mine, nor a single line ever written by me, in which I have expressed myself, contrary to this opinion, against an Anglo-German understanding. On the contrary, I have during all this time fought for it by word and in writing. Before the war, I had this conception of the necessity of the collaboration of the Germanic peoples against the rest of the awakening world, and was profoundly unhappy when the events of August 4th 1914 led to Anglo-German hostilities. I never saw in this war anything but a desperate, Niebelung-like war of annihilation, rising to frenzy, between the Germanic peoples. Since the War, as an active politician, I have preached unswervingly the necessity of both nations burying the hatchet for ever. Anyhow, I am convinced that such an understanding can only take place between honourable nations. I hold that there is no possibility of concluding agreements with a people without honour, and I regard such agreements as entirely worthless. I have derived from Fate the heavy task of giving back again to a great people and State by every means its natural honour. I see in this one of the most essential preparations for a real and lasting understanding, and I beg you, Lord Rothermere, never to regard my work from any other point of view.
The world may, however, for what I care, reproach me with what it will. One reproach they certainly cannot level at me: that I have been vacillating in my views and unreliable in my work. If an unknown man with such weaknesses set out to win over a nation in 15 years he would meet with no success. Herein resides perhaps the faith – exaggerated, as many believe – in my own personality. I believe, my dear Lord Rothermere, that in the end my unchanging standpoint, undeviating staunchness and my unalterable determination to render a historically great contribution to the restoration of a good and enduring understanding between both great Germanic peoples, will be crowned with success. And believe me, Lord Rothermere, that this is the most decisive contribution to the pacification of the world. All the so-called mutual-assistance pacts which are being hatched today will subserve [sic] discord rather than peace. An Anglo-German understanding would form in Europe a force for peace and reason of 120 million people of the highest type. The historically unique colonial ability and sea-power of England would be united to one of the greatest soldier-races of the world. Were this understanding extended by the joining-up of the American nation, then it would indeed be hard to see who in the world could disturb peace without wilfully and consciously neglecting the interests of the White race. There is in Germany a fine saying: that the Gods love and bless him who seems to demand the impossible.
I want to believe in this Divinity!
I have just read the manuscript of Viscount Snowden under the title ‘Europe drifts towards war’, which Princess Hohenlohe has brought me.
While I understand the difficulty of speaking such a language, I am strengtened [sic] in my conviction that in the end both recognition and truth still find their courageous champions, even today.
In approximately 10 days, I shall hold a big comprehensive and detailed survey of my understanding and the understanding of the political problems which are presently engrossing all of us. I believe that this speech will be mailed [sic, does he mean published?] by these Englishmen whom you have invited, my dear Lord Rothermere, in the Daily Mail, to take an official stand.
To you yourself, dear Lord Rothermere, I should like to express my thanks once again with all my heart, for the attempts which, should these things come to pass, will be looked upon as one of the most felicitous developments which the people could aspire to thanks to their leadership of State.
With sincere friendship
Adolf Hitler
V: LETTER FROM ADOLF HITLER TO LORD ROTHERMERE, 19 DECEMBER 1935
This document is marked as being the draft translation of Hitler’s German text, made by his interpreter, Paul Schmidt. It is certainly rough, with many crossings-out. It would not have been sent to Rothermere in this form. Tr.
Dear Lord Rothermere,
You were good enough to communicate to me [deleted] Princess Hohenlohe a letter in which you expressed the desire to be informed of my views on some of the burning questions of the day. Owing to the great pressure of work which has steadily increased towards the end of the year, I have been quite unable, in spite of every good will, to reply at once to your letter. In replying to you now I ask you, dear Lord Rothermere, not to make any public use of my reply because it contains opinions which I would otherwise express in a different wording or probably not express at all. This letter contains only opinions and I have not the slightest doubt that they are entirely unsuited to influence public opinion or to make it change its own views in a world and at a time in which public opinion is not always identical with the innermost insight and wisdom.
You ask me, dear Lord Rothermere, whether in my opinion oil sanctions against Italy will put an end to the Italo-Abessynian [sic] war.1
It is impossible to reply to this question apodictically.2 But I would like to seize this opportunity to explain to you, as fully as is possible in a short letter, my views on the principles underlying this problem:
(1) Governments very often err as regards the percentage of raw materials which a nation requires for military purposes. The percentage is very low compared to the total requirements of a population for non-military purposes – 15 per cent [rather] than 95 per cent of all necessary raw materials. I admit that in the case of oil this percentage may not be quite exact in a war. However, a restriction placed on the non-military uses will certainly enable [i.e. not prevent] an army for a long time to cover its own requirements.
(2) Sanctions naturally lead to restrictions and in consequence to certain tensions. Weak systems of government may perhaps be defeated by such tensions. But a strong regime will hardly be exposed to that danger. It is even possible that a powerful regime will, on the contrary, receive fresh and increased strength as a consequence of such tensions. At any rate, time and perseverance play a decisive part on both sides.
(3) Sanctions are not only a burden upon those against whom they are directed, but also upon the powers applying the sanctions. And here again, time and perseverance have a decisive influence.
(4) In the Great War Germany was not defeated by the sanctions but exclusively by the internal process of revolutionising. If I had been in Bethmann-Hollweg’s place in 1919 as Chancellor of the German Reich, no revolution would ever have occurred. The collapse in 1918 would have been avoided. I presume that the Great War would ultimately have reached its end without victors or vanquished.3 I know, dear Lord Rothermere, that you as an Englishman, will have a different opinion but I am merely explaining my own conviction. Today an oil sanction against German
y would be of no avail, as our own oil-fields can produce an annual quantity several times as much as we needed in 1914–1918 during the Great War.
I do not know the conditions in Japan. For it is obvious that the question of existing stocks is also in all these cases of decisive importance.
(5) In my opinion the decisive factor is only a question of systems of government and thus of personalities. Who governs in the sanctionised countries [i.e. countries on which sanctions are imposed] and who governs in Italy? I would like to say here that the man who is today Italy’s leader will be one of the rarest and most important personalities of world history, whatever may happen. Much that may appear bad in English eyes in this man finds its simple explanation in the different mentality of the two nations. And a great man will almost always be the most characteristic representative of the innermost character of his own nation.
In making these sober statements I ask you, dear Lord Rothermere, not to forget that I as a German cannot take any real interest in this conflict. You know that we are the nation concerning which a more than stupid treaty said that it did not belong to the ‘progressive’ nations, which had a right to administer colonial territories.4 In addition I can say that from the human point of view there is much that attracts us to the English, while on the other hand, from the political point of view, we have a good deal in common with present-day Italy. Obviously the German nation will not today be able to give noisy expression to its enthusiasm for a nation which, only a year ago, referred in its press to Germany very unfavourably, not to say rudely. On the other hand, we cannot forget that, years before that, Italy and Signor Mussolini in particular have given us many proofs of a reasonable and often more than decent sympathy with our fate. We cannot be ungrateful. There are people in Europe [who] believe that we [have] every reason as Germans to welcome this conflict. They say that it provides for us the best opportunity to rearm. My dear Lord Rothermere, these people know neither me nor the Germany of today. Since the outbreak of this conflict I have taken a single step which cannot be planned long before and which I [would] not have taken otherwise. The decision to restore the German position was taken, initiated and carried through at a time when nobody could have the slightest inkling of this sad conflict. There is nobody in Germany with any political insight who welcomes this conflict, except perhaps some enemies of the State who may cherish the hope that it might constitute an international example which could one day also be applied to Germany. But these elements must not be confused with the German people. The only thing which fills us with certain satisfaction, I must admit, is the revelation of the true value of all so-called collective agreements. For here we are concerned with two collective agreements which have ultimately both failed: the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Stresa Alliance,5 and it is the only pleasure we have in this matter to know that we are outside the agreements and that we have no longer anything to do with the League of Nations.
For believe me, dear Lord Rothermere, the problem is not whether this and that sanction will today bring down Italy on her knees, the real problem is whether one is [in] a position to remove the causes underlying the tensions from which the world suffers at present. For a hundred million years this earth has been moving around the sun, and during this long period it has always been filled with the struggle of living beings for nourishment and later for dwellings and clothing etc. It is certain that beings who we can call men have existed on it for many millions of years. Innumerable influences produced constant changes in the distribution of property. Just as in each nation. The economic structure is constantly changing, changes occur outside the national limits. Climatic changes, discoveries of raw materials, [produce] more or less strong increases of the nations on the one hand, while other nations become sterile, continually produce tensions which urgently require solutions. And now in a certain year after millions of years have moved around, an American professor6 proclaims the formation of a league of partly heterogeneous nations with completely opposed interests, with a view to excluding any future change in this world. That means from the year 1919 of our Christian era, or say from the 997 million 365 thousandth revolution around the sun, the whole earthly development must come to a standstill. Only one thing was forgotten: this league can perhaps prevent the adjustment of the tensions, but it can by no means prevent the tensions themselves from arising. The only consequence will be that while formerly the tensions arising out of the national laws of development were currently adjusted, at least partially, the safety valve is now abolished, which means that the tensions must accumulate. If that, however, is the ultimate result of the so-called ‘collective policy’ the end can only be disaster of the first magnitude.
I deeply regret Sir Samuel Hoare’s resignation7 because I feel that a great British patriot and an excellent man has fallen victim to public opinion and that he was one of the first to have recognised this weakness in the League of Nations system. For it is clear that the League of Nations is not governed today by the influence of wisdom but by the influence of the street, that is today by the so-called public opinion which, as history shows, hardly ever has Reason as its godmother. I would be very glad, dear Lord Rothermere, if, beyond all present misgivings, people in England were ready to study the problems from the point of view of the underlying principles and perhaps to discuss them in a small committee. I think that the English can do this better than the other nations because they are broad-minded and realistic to a greater extent than other peoples. I believe that our Anglo-German Naval Agreement8 was a striking proof of this. You will understand, however, dear Lord Rothermere, that these problems more than others are wholly unsuited to be handled in front of the masses, but that ultimately they can only be discussed in a small and select group. If you come again to Germany I would be very glad if you would see me and if I could discuss these problems with you or other Englishmen.
Whatever may happen, I want to assure you at the conclusion of this letter that I firmly believe that a time will come in which England and Germany will be the solid pillars in a worried and unstable world.
You ask me, dear Lord Rothermere, whether I do not think that the moment has now come to put forward the German colonial wishes. May I ask you, dear Lord Rothermere, not to raise this point now because, looking forward to closer collaboration with Great Britain, I do not want to give the impression as if I wanted to avail myself of the present situation of your Government and its many difficulties and of the British Empire to exercise a certain pressure.
In conclusion I send you, dear Lord Rothermere, my best wishes for Christmas and for a happy New Year.
Yours truly
(signed) Adolf Hitler
VI: STEPHANIE VON HOHENLOHE: ANNIVERSARY OF DISASTER
Thoughts on the Hungarian Uprising, 1956
In October 1956, Hungary attempted to throw off the yoke of Soviet communism. In Budapest students and workers toppled a giant statue of Stalin. The government briefly lost control and within hours, on 24 October, Soviet tanks were rumbling into the streets of the capital. They were attacked by civilians with Molotov cocktails. The freedom fighters called on the west for help, but none was offered. By 30 October it was all over and a new, hardline premier, Janos Kadar, had been installed.
Stephanie von Hohenlohe, nominally a Hungarian citizen, used this occasion to recall her own visit in 1938 to the Hungarian head of state, Admiral Horthy. She tries to draw a parallel by claiming that Horthy wanted to retain his independence from Hitler’s Germany. There is an element of truth in this. Nonetheless, Hungary hoped that by riding on Germany’s coat-tails it might regain some of the territory lost under the Treaty of Versailles, which transferred parts of the old Hungarian kingdom to the new states of Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Rumania.
This document, written in her own English, when Stephanie was still living in the USA, appears to have been sent to her literary agent, Curtis Brown, in New York, with a view to publication in the press. Tr.
Budapest, 1956
RUSSIAN GANGSTERS HAVE BETRAYED US; THEY ARE OPENING FIRE ON ALL BUDAPEST. PLEASE INFORM EUROPE.
In the dead of night a solitary teletypist chattered a desperate cry for help.
A FEW HUNDRED TANKS ATTACKED BUDAPEST … A THOUSAND … THERE IS HEAVY FIGHTING … WE SHALL INFORM THE WORLD OF EVERYTHING.
And then a few hours later:
ANY NEWS ABOUT HELP … QUICKLY … WE HAVE NO TIME TO LOSE … NO TIME TO LOSE … WHAT IS THE UNITED STATES DOING … GIVE US A LITTLE ENCOURAGEMENT.
Heartbreaking words, but still no help came.
Finally:
GOODBYE FRIENDS.
GOD SAVE OUR SOULS
THE RUSSIANS ARE TOO NEAR.
Yes, the Russians were too near, and for the second time in only a few years, a gallant and courageous people have had to face the awful fact of dying alone … terribly alone.
It is a chilling thing to see history repeat itself twice in one lifetime. I cannot pretend to understand, but I cannot help wondering, and being a little afraid as I remember …