Hitler’s first concern, after coming into power, was to crush opponents in Germany and consolidate the Nazi Party. Having “Nazified” Germany, he decided to end the leftist tendencies within the Nazi ranks, which had been looking forward to a second and anti-capitalist revolution. The Brown-shirts were disbanded and their leaders shot down on June 30, 1934. Many others were also killed off, including General von Schleicher, who had once been Chancellor.
In August 1934 President von Hindenburg died, and Hitler took his place, becoming the Chancellor-President. He was all-powerful in Germany then, the Fuehrer or Leader of the German people. There was great distress among the people and private charity was organized, almost compulsorily, on a vast scale to relieve distress. Compulsory labour camps were also started where the unemployed were sent to work. Large numbers of Jews, who had been forcibly removed, gave place to Germans. The economic condition of Germany did not improve, indeed it grew worse, but unemployment, as such, disappeared. Meanwhile secret rearmament went on, and the fear of Germany grew.
Early in 1935 the plebiscite in the Saar basin went overwhelmingly in favour of union with Germany, and this area was joined on to Germany. In May that year, Hitler publicly repudiated the disarmament clauses of the Treaty of Versailles and decreed compulsory military service. A huge rearmament programme was launched. None of the League Powers did anything; fear gripped them, especially France. France negotiated an alliance with Soviet Russia. The British Government preferred to line up with Nazi Germany and signed a naval pact with her in June 1935.
This had curious consequences. France, feeling that England was deserting her, made overtures to Italy, and Mussolini, thinking that the moment was opportune, launched the invasion of Abyssinia.
In March 1938 Hitler marched into Austria and proclaimed the anschluss or union with Germany. Again the League Powers submitted. In Austria an aggressive and brutal anti-Jew campaign was launched by the Nazis.
Czechoslovakia now became the target for Nazi aggression, and for several months the problem of the Sudeten Germans agitated Europe. British policy helped the Nazis greatly, and France dared not go against this policy. Ultimately, under threat of immediate war from Germany, France deserted her ally Czechoslovakia and England was a party to the betrayal. By the Pact of Munich between Germany, England, France, and Italy, the fate of Czechoslovakia was sealed on September 29, 1938. The Sudeten areas and much else were occupied by Germany, and, profiting by the occasion, Poland and Hungary took parts of the country.
A new division of Europe was thus begun, a Europe in which France and England were becoming second-class Powers, and Nazi Germany, under Hitler, was triumphantly dominant.
191
Disarmament
August 2, 1933
I have told you of the failure of the World Economic Conference which met in London. The Conference was wound up and its members went home, expressing the pious hope that they might meet again under more favourable circumstances.
Another great failure at world efforts at co-operation has been the Disarmament Conference. This conference was the outcome of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Treaty of Versailles had decided that Germany (as well as the other defeated Powers like Austria, Hungary) was to disarm. She was not to keep a navy or air force or have a big army. It was further proposed that other countries should also gradually disarm, so that armaments might be reduced everywhere to the lowest point consistent with national safety. The first part of the programme—German disarmament—was immediately enforced; the second part—general disarmament —remained, and still remains, a pious hope. It was to fulfil this second part of the programme that the Disarmament Conference was ultimately called nearly thirteen years after the Treaty of Versailles. But before the full conference met, Preparatory Commissions explored the whole subject for years.
The World Disarmament Conference met at last early in 1932. Month after month, year after year, it went on, considering many proposals and rejecting them, reading innumerable reports, listening to interminable arguments. From being a disarmament conference it almost became an armaments conference. No agreement could be reached, for no country was prepared to consider the question from the wider international point of view; for each country disarmament meant that other countries should disarm or lessen their armaments while it kept up its own strength. Nearly all countries adopted a selfish attitude, but Japan and Great Britain were pre-eminent in this respect, and put great difficulties in the way of any agreement. While this Conference was proceeding, Japan was defying the League and carrying on a bloody and aggressive war in Manchuria, two South American Republics were fighting each other, and Britain continued to bomb the tribesmen on the north-west frontier of India. American opposition to Japanese aggression in China was largely neutralized by the British attitude, which was consistently friendly to Japan.
Of the many proposals made, three of the most important came from Soviet Russia, the United States of America, and France, respectively. Russia proposed that there should be a 50 per cent, reduction of armaments all round. America suggested a general reduction of one-third. But Britain opposed both these proposals, maintaining that she could not reduce her forces, and especially her navy, as these were meant for police purposes only.
France, with past memories of German aggression, has always laid stress on “security”—that is, some arrangement which would make aggression difficult, if not impossible. She suggested the creation of an international force under the League of Nations, which could be used against the aggressor, each nation keeping small and lightly-armed forces only; all air forces to be under the League. But this proposal was objected to on the ground that it would give all power to the great Powers that controlled the League, and in effect France would dominate Europe.
Who was the aggressor? This was a difficult question, for it is the habit of every aggressor nation to claim that it is acting on the defensive. Japan in Manchuria, Italy in Abyssinia, did not admit that they were aggressors. In the Great War every nation referred to the enemy as aggressors. So some clear and precise definition was necessary if action was to be taken against the aggressor. Soviet Russia put forward a definition according to which if a nation sent an armed force across the frontier to another country, or blockaded the coast of another country, it would become an aggressor nation. President Roosevelt and a committee of the League of Nations also defined “aggressor” in similar terms. The Soviet definition was accepted in the non-aggression pact between Russia and her neighbours. Most of the Powers, big and small, including France, agreed to this definition. Japan of course was highly embarrassed by it, and England refused to agree to it, and wanted to leave the matter vague. Italy supported her.
The British proposal for disarmament proceeded on the basis that it was not necessary for Britain to reduce her armaments; it was for other nations to disarm. In regard to bombing from the air, everybody approved of its complete abolition, but Britain added a proviso: “except for police purposes in outlying areas”, which meant a free hand to bomb in her Empire. This proviso was not acceptable to others, and so the whole proposal for abolition fell through.
Germany, very naturally, demanded equality with the other Powers: either she must be allowed to rearm to the limit allowed to others, or the others must disarm down to her limit. This was an unanswerable argument. Had not the League Covenant said that German disarmament was a prelude to others? While these discussions were proceeding, the Nazis came into power in Germany and their aggressive and threatening attitude frightened France and hardened her as well as the other Powers. Neither of the alternatives proposed on behalf of Germany were agreed to.
To add to the difficulties of disarmament, there are numerous intrigues behind the scenes, especially by the highly paid agents of armament firms. In the modern capitalist world the business of making arms and instruments of destruction is one of the most prosperous of industries. These arms are made for the governments of various countries, for only governments
wage war as a rule, and yet, curiously enough, private firms make these arms. The principal owners of these firms grow enormously rich, and they are usually in close touch with governments. I told you something about one of these, Sir Basil Zaharoff, in one of my earlier letters. Shares in armament concerns, bringing high dividends, are often sought after; many persons prominent in public life are shareholders in these firms.
War and the preparation for war mean profit to these armament firms. They traffic in wholesale death and, impartially, they sell their engines of destruction to all who pay for them. When the League of Nations was condemning Japan for aggression in China, English and French and other armament firms were supplying arms freely to both Japan and China. It is obvious that real disarmament will mean ruin for these firms. Their trade will be gone. They try their best, therefore, to prevent what is, from their point of view, a catastrophe. Indeed, they go further. A League of Nations Commission, specially appointed to inquire into the private manufacture of arms, came to the conclusion that these firms had been active in fomenting war scares and in persuading their own countries to adopt warlike policies. It was also found that the firms spread false reports about the military and naval expenditure of various countries so as to induce other countries into increasing their expenditure on armaments. They tried to play off one country against another, and helped in promoting an armaments’ race between them. They bribed government officials and bought up newspapers in order to influence public opinion. And then they formed international trusts and monopolies to increase the price of arms, etc. The League Commission suggested that the private manufacture of armaments should be stopped. This was also proposed in the Disarmament Conference, but here again persistent opposition has come from the British Government.
These armament firms of different countries are closely associated with each other. They exploit patriotism and play with death, and yet they are themselves international in their operations—the “Secret International” they have been called. It is natural that these people should object strongly to disarmament, and they have done their best to prevent any agreement. Their agents move in the highest diplomatic and political circles, and these sinister figures have been in evidence at Geneva, trying to pull the wires from behind the scenes.
Often closely allied with this “Secret International” are the Intelligence Departments or Secret Services of various governments. Every government employs spies to get secret information from other countries. Sometimes the spies get caught, and then they are promptly disowned by their own government. Referring to these secret services, Arthur Ponsonby (who was some years ago Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs in the British Government, and who is now Lord Ponsonby) said in May 1927 in the House of Commons: “We must really face the facts, when we are getting on our high moral horse, that forgery, theft, lying, bribery, and corruption exist in every Foreign Office and every Chancellory of the world . . . I say that according to the recognized moral code our representatives abroad would be neglectful in their duty if they were not finding out secrets from the archives of those countries.”
Because these Secret Services work in secret, they are difficult to control. They influence the foreign policy of their respective countries greatly. They are widespread and powerful organizations. The British Intelligence Service today is probably the most powerful, and with the widest ramifications. There is an instance on record of a famous British spy becoming a high Soviet official in Russia! Sir Samuel Hoare, the British Cabinet Minister, was during war-time the head of the British Intelligence and Secret Service department in Russia, and he has recently stated publicly, with some pride, that his system of getting information was so good that he learnt of Rasputin’s murder long before anyone else did.
The real difficulty before the Disarmament Conference has been that there are two classes of countries—the satisfied Powers and the unsatisfied Powers, the dominant Powers and those that are suppressed, the Powers that want the present state of affairs to continue and those that want a change. Between the two there can be no stable equilibrium, just as there can be no real stability between a dominant class and a suppressed class. The League of Nations represents on the whole the dominant Powers, and so it tries to maintain the status quo. Security pacts and attempts to define an “aggressor” nation are all meant to preserve existing conditions. Probably, whatever might happen, the League will never denounce one of the Powers that control it as an “aggressor”. It will always so manoeuvre as to declare the other party as an “aggressor”.
Pacifists and others who want to prevent war welcome these security pacts, and thereby in a sense they help in the maintenance of an unjust status quo. If this is so in Europe, much more is it so in Asia and Africa, where imperialist Powers have annexed large portions of territory. The status quo thus in Asia and Africa means the continuance of imperialist exploitation.
The United States of America have been, so far, free of any alliances or commitments in Europe regarding the maintenance of this status quo.
Nothing proves the unreality and mockery of international politics today so much as the failure of all attempts at disarmament. Everybody talks of peace, and yet prepares for war. The Kellogg-Briand Pact outlaws war, but who remembers it now or cares for it?
Note:
The German proposals before the Disarmament Conference were rejected, and in October 1933 Germany walked out of the Conference, and also resigned from the League of Nations. Since then she has been out of the League. Japan also left the League on the Manchurian issue, and Italy left because of the League’s attitude towards her invasion of Abyssinia. So that three great Powers were out of the League and, under these circumstances, any international decision on disarmament, under the League’s auspices, became almost impossible. Indeed, soon after the Disarmament Conference rearmament began on an intensive scale in all countries. Germany began building up a colossal army and air force, and England, France, the United States of America, and other countries voted huge credits for additional armaments.
192
President Roosevelt to the Rescue
August 4, 1933
I want you to have another look at the United States of America before I wind up this story (and the winding up cannot be long delayed). A great and rather fascinating experiment is taking place there now, and the world is on the watch, for on its results depends the future turn that capitalism will take. America, let me repeat, is by far the most advanced capitalist country; she is the wealthiest, and her industrial technique is ahead of the others. She owes money to no other country, and her only debt is to her own citizens. Her export trade has been considerable and growing, and yet it was only a small part (about 15 per cent.) of her enormous internal trade. The country is nearly as big as the continent of Europe, but there is this big difference, that Europe is cut up into a large number of little nations, each having high customs duties at its frontiers, while the United States have no such trade barriers within their own territories. It was thus far easier for a huge internal trade to develop in America than it was in Europe. America had all these advantages over the impoverished, debt-ridden countries of Europe. She had plenty of gold, plenty of money, plenty of goods.
And yet, in spite of all this, the crisis of capitalism caught her and took all the pride out of her. Fatalism descended on a people whose vitality and energy knew no bounds. The country as a whole remained rich, money did not disappear, but it piled up in a few places. Hundreds of millions were still in evidence in New York; the great banker J. Pierpont Morgan still sported his private luxury yacht, which is reported to have cost £6,000,000. And yet New York has been described recently as “Hunger Town”. Great city municipalities like Chicago have been practically bankrupt, unable to pay the salaries of thousands of their employees. And this very Chicago is now running a magnificent exhibition or “world fair” called “The Century of Progress”.
These contrasts are not confined to America. Go to London and the overflowing wealth and luxu
ry of the British upper classes are everywhere in evidence, except of course in the slums. Visit Lancashire or northern or central England, or parts of Wales and Scotland, and you see long lines of unemployed, and pinched and haggard faces, and miserable living conditions.
A marked feature of recent years in America was the growth of crime, especially of the “gangster” variety—that is, gangs working together and frequently shooting people who came in their way. Crime is said to have increased greatly ever since a law was passed prohibiting the sale of intoxicating drinks. This “prohibition”, as it is called, became law soon after the World War, partly because the big employers wanted their workers to keep away from such drinks so that they might work better. But the rich themselves ignored the law and continued to get drinks illegally from abroad. Gradually an enormous illegal trade in alcoholic drinks was built up. “Bootlegging” this was called, and it consisted both of smuggling wines and spirits from abroad and of secretly manufacturing them. Usually this secretly manufactured stuff was far worse and more harmful than the real article. “Speak-easy” was the name for the place where such drinks could be bought at very high prices, and thousands of such private bars grew up in all the big cities. All this was, of course, illegal, and to enable it to exist policemen and politicians were bribed and sometimes terrorized. This widespread contempt of the law led to the growth of the gangster groups. Thus “prohibition” resulted on the one side in doing good to the workers and rural population, on the other it did great harm, and a very powerful boot-legging interest grew up. The whole country was split up into two parties: those in favour of prohibition called the “Drys”, and those against it called the “Wets”.
Among gangster crimes the most notorious and shocking were those of kidnapping little children of rich people and holding them for ransom. Some time ago Lindbergh’s baby son was so kidnapped and, to the world’s horror, was brutally done to death.
Glimpses of World History Page 137