Hitler then raised another issue ‘in which Poland and Germany had common interests’, the ‘Jewish problem’. According to the minutes, he said that he was ‘determined to get the Jews out of Germany . . . if the western powers had shown more sympathy for Germany’s colonial demands, he might have . . . provided a territory in Africa that could have been used for settling not only the German, but also the Polish Jews’.94
The following day Ribbentrop once again set out Germany’s list of proposals: ‘Return of Danzig to Germany’, ‘guaranteeing all Poland’s economic interests in the Danzig region as well as an extraterritorial link through the Corridor; in return: recognition of the Corridor by Germany and permanent mutual recognition of their borders’. However, Ribbentrop mentioned another point on which he made himself much clearer than Hitler had done. He could imagine that, if these problems could be satisfactorily resolved, Germany would be willing ‘to regard the Ukrainian question as a matter for Poland and to give it its full support in dealing with this question. However, this would involve Poland adopting a very clear anti-Russian position, since otherwise their interests would hardly coincide’. In this context Ribbentrop returned once more to the question of Poland’s adherence to the Anti-Comintern Pact. Beck, however, had no intention of committing himself to a common policy towards the Soviet Union.95
Beck continued to stick to this position when Ribbentrop travelled to Warsaw at the end of January, in order to renew the German ‘offer’ of a settlement of the Danzig/Corridor issue together with a common approach to the Soviet Union and Poland’s annexation of the Soviet Ukraine.96 However, the Polish foreign minister was not prepared to make any concessions involving the subordination of his country to a risky alliance policy dictated by Germany.
Thus, the project for a joint war against the Soviet Union, which Germany had been proposing to Poland for years, had finally collapsed. Hitler, however, had already made clear to Beck that his regime did not need Poland’s cooperation in order to use Carpatho-Ukraine to form the nucleus of a Ukrainian state. As we have seen, Germany had frequently revealed this ambition during the preceding weeks and months, and it had preoccupied not only the international press, but also neighbouring states. Both King Carol II of Romania and the Hungarian Regent, Horthy, had already spoken to the German government about its plans for Ukraine.97 At the end of January 1939, Goebbels learnt from Hitler that he wanted to spend time on the Obersalzberg ‘reflecting on his next diplomatic moves. It might be Czechia again, for this problem has only been half solved. But he’s not quite certain. It might also be the Ukraine.’98
If Hitler was still contemplating taking over the Ukraine in whatever form, it indicates that at this juncture he was already considering the prerequisite for this step, namely the crushing of Poland. It is possible that he thought that, by attacking Poland, he could prompt the Ukrainian minority to start an uprising and, with solid German backing, extend it into the Soviet Ukraine. In any case, at this point he certainly did not have a concrete plan. His comment to Goebbels, however, shows that, apart from destroying Czechoslovakia, he was contemplating other options of how to reorder the political landscape of eastern Europe, now in flux, and believed that the issue of Carpatho-Ukraine could be exploited vis-à-vis Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, and Romania, as well as the Soviet Union. This is a good example of the extent to which Hitler’s foreign policy, particularly during this critical phase, was marked by multiple approaches and an unwillingness to commit himself, in short by an intentional unpredictability.
On 16 January, he rebuked the Hungarian foreign minister, Count István Csáky, for his government’s behaviour during the Sudeten crisis and for its attempt in November, despite the Vienna Award, to take over Carpatho-Ukraine. However, Hitler was magnanimously prepared to give Hungary a second chance to prove itself a loyal ally by participating in the final destruction of Czechoslovakia, a move which would involve departing from ‘ethnographic principles’. Now that the German, Hungarian, and Polish claims on Czechoslovakia, based on bringing home the respective minorities, had been met, another justification had to be found, a ‘political-territorial one’, for forcibly occupying and directly subjecting it to his rule.99 In the second half of December, Hitler had rejected a treaty that had been prepared in the Foreign Ministry following the Munich Conference with the aim of subordinating Czechoslovakia to the Reich.100 He was not interested in a dependent relationship based on a treaty.
On 21 January, Hitler once again received the Czechoslovak foreign minister, Chvalkovský, whom he also berated. The Czech state had not carried out a thorough purge of Beneš supporters; it had not come to terms with the fact that Czechoslovakia’s fate was now indissolubly linked to Germany’s. He bluntly announced that ‘if there was a change of course its first result would be the destruction of Czechoslovakia’.101 Two days later, Ribbentrop also gave Chvalkovský a long list of German complaints.102 This was clearly intended as a ‘last warning’, which, when the time came, would have to serve as justification for a German attack on Czechoslovakia.
Hitler also referred to the ‘Jewish question’ in his discussions with Csáky and Chvalkovský, who did not remain silent. Csáky asked whether this question could not be ‘solved internationally’; Romania had contacted him about reaching a common solution. Hitler responded by outlining Germany’s plan ‘to solve this problem through a financial scheme’. He was, however, clear about the fact that every last Jew had to disappear from Germany.103 Chvalkovský was told: ‘Our Jews will be annihilated. The Jews did not perpetrate 9 November 1918 for nothing; this day will be avenged.’ Hitler’s subsequent comment that ‘the Jews were poisoning the people’ in Czechoslovakia as well prompted his guest to launch into a lengthy anti-Semitic diatribe.104
The threat of ‘annihilation’ evidently did not mean the physical destruction of the Jews, but rather the end of their collective existence in Germany through expulsion. At the end of January, the responsible Reich authorities prepared for the planned negotiations between Schacht and Rublee concerning the organized emigration of the Jews soon to lead to concrete results. After a series of meetings of government representatives on 18 and 19 January,105 Göring ordered the creation of a ‘Reich Central Office for Jewish Emigration’, (along the lines of Eichmann’s emigration office in Vienna) under Heydrich, and simultaneously forced all Jewish organizations to be subsumed in a new compulsory single organization. This was the origin of the ‘Reich Association of the Jews in Germany’.106
A day after the creation of the Reich Central Office, the Foreign Ministry, which had appointed a liaison officer to the new organization, informed all German missions and consular offices abroad: ‘The final goal of German Jewish policy is the emigration of all Jews domiciled in Reich territory.’107
Hitler as ‘Prophet’: War against domestic and foreign enemies
In his speech to the Reichstag to mark the sixth anniversary of the seizure of power Hitler once again took a hard line on the ‘Jewish question’. At the same time, he sketched out a war scenario similar to that in his secret speech of 10 November 1938, in which he had announced a change from talk of peace to the preparation of the population for war. The speech on 30 January 1939 marks the culmination of the anti-Semitic propaganda following the November pogrom and, at the same time, the point at which Hitler began to prepare the population for a war that might arise from the confrontation with ‘Jewry’ at an international level.
He began by dealing in detail with the negotiations concerning the organized expulsion of the Jews, joking about the ‘democracies’’ lack of enthusiasm in accepting Jews; Germany, at any rate, was absolutely determined ‘to get rid of these people’. After heaping scorn on the Jews, he came to the core of what he had to say. The following statements were influenced to a considerable extent by feelings of inferiority rooted deep in the past and a resultant unsatisfied desire for revenge. He had, he said, in the course of his life, ‘very often been a prophet and was gene
rally laughed at for it’, in particular by ‘the Jewish people’, who ‘simply laughed at my prophecies that I would one day assume the leadership of the state and thereby of the entire people and then, among many other things, achieve a solution of the Jewish problem. Their laughter was uproarious, but I think that for some time now the Jews in Germany have been laughing on the other side of their faces. Today, I want to be a prophet once again: if international Jewish financiers inside and outside Europe should succeed once more in plunging the nations into a world war then the result will be not the Bolshevization of the world and therefore the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.’
Was Hitler announcing publicly and to the whole world his intention to murder the Jews in a coming war? At this juncture, the word ‘annihilate’ cannot be unequivocally interpreted in this sense. A few days earlier, Hitler had also spoken to the Czech foreign minister about ‘annihilating’ the Jews, but had meant their expulsion, quite apart from the fact that he had also warned Chvalkovský of the ‘annihilation’ of Czechoslovakia. When interpreting this passage, as with many other Hitler statements, one should be aware that Hitler was not simply announcing a decision taken in isolation, but rather that his ‘prophecy’ had several potential layers of meaning. Above all, in the first place, one must take into account the tactical motive of his speech, which should be seen in the context of the international negotiations concerning Jewish emigration.
His annihilation threat was intended, first of all, to increase the pressure on German Jews to emigrate and on foreign countries to receive them. Secondly, the announcement that the Jews in the German sphere of influence in Europe would be annihilated in the event of a world war was part of a long-term strategy for assigning blame for the outbreak of an impending war. When Hitler claimed that ‘international Jewish financiers’ within and outside Europe might attempt to bring about a world war (and not simply a war), the main target audience of his prophecy was the United States. He was contemplating a scenario in which the western powers, supported by the United States, could intervene in order to prevent him from continuing his expansionist policy in Europe, to which he was totally committed. In this case, blame for the war would rest unequivocally with the enemy, who had been incited by ‘international Jewish financiers’. And, thirdly, if a war begun by Germany turned into a world war as a result of intervention by the western powers, Jews within Germany’s sphere of influence would automatically become hostages over whom would hang the threat of annihilation. Thus, if his threats had no effect, if, in other words, emigration did not make much progress, and if, in the event of a war, the western powers were not deterred from intervening, then they would be responsible for the further intensification of Jewish persecution predicted in his ‘prophecy’. Thus, Hitler was keeping all options open for further radicalizing his Jewish policy.
Hitler made clear his determination to continue his expansionist policy over the medium and longer term in another section of his speech. Having not referred to it for a long time, he once again emphasized, and in a very prominent place in the speech, ‘how important the expansion of our people’s living space’ was in order permanently to secure their food supplies.108 However, since ‘for the time being [sic!] . . . on account of the continuing blindness of the former victor powers’ this expansion ‘is not yet [sic!] possible’, they were compelled ‘to export in order to buy food’, and they had to export even more in order to acquire the raw materials for those exports. However, it was clear from these words that, as far as he was concerned, this could not provide a lasting solution. At some point, his argument suggests, German living space would ‘expand’, and indeed elements within the Party were already making no bones about demanding it.109 This demand for living space, while simultaneously stressing Germany’s commitment to peace, soon became part of the standard repertoire of German propaganda, although Hitler kept a ‘statesmanlike’ distance from it.110
Apart from that, his speech contained a number of other important statements. Thus, in the section of the speech concerned with the Sudeten crisis, he admitted quite frankly that he had already committed himself to military action against Czechoslovakia on 28 May 1938 with the deadline of 2 October 1938, more clear evidence of his determination to go to war. In referring to ‘a serious blow to the prestige of the Reich’ and an ‘intolerable provocation’, he clearly revealed that the motive for this decision was his fear of personal humiliation as a result of the May crisis. But above all, he wanted to point out that the incorporation of the Sudetenland came about not as a result of diplomatic efforts, but rather the great powers had come to an agreement only as a result of his ‘determination to solve this problem one way or the other’ (in other words to risk a war).
The speech also contained a lengthy passage, also intransigent in tone, on the relationship with the Churches. Hitler threatened a complete separation of Church and state, with the inevitable serious financial consequences for both confessions, and he made it clear that clergy who were critical of the regime or abused children would be brought to book like any other citizen.111
Two weeks later, Hitler dealt with the internal and external enemies of his regime in another major speech. On 14 February, he spoke at the launch of the new battleship, ‘Bismarck’ at the Blohm and Voss shipyard in Hamburg. The prospect that in the ‘Bismarck’ the German navy would have the most powerful battleship in the world gave additional weight to his words. Hitler used the opportunity for a comprehensive assessment of the ‘Iron Chancellor’, of whose ‘little German’ [i.e. without Austria] policy he was in fact basically critical. Now, however, he celebrated him as ‘the pioneer of the new Reich’. He had created the preconditions for the creation of the present ‘Greater Germany’, as well as domestically laying the foundations ‘for the unity of the National Socialist state’. Essentially, this assessment implied that the ‘Iron Chancellor’s’ great historical achievement was to be the predecessor of Hitler, who was now completing his work. Bismarck had been the ‘creator of a German Reich . . . whose resurrection from deep distress and whose miraculous enlargement have been a gift of providence’. Dealing with domestic policy, in particular, in his speech Hitler portrayed himself as an Über-chancellor. Bismarck had been largely unsuccessful in his struggle against the ‘international powers’, ‘the politically engaged Centre Party priests’ and ‘Marxism’. By contrast, Nazism now possessed the ‘intellectual, ideological, and organizational wherewithal . . . required to destroy the enemies of the Reich, both now and in the future’.112
The occupation of Prague
At the end of January, when discussing with Goebbels whether he should move against Czechoslovakia or focus on the Ukraine, Hitler had appeared undecided. However, shortly afterwards the next foreign policy move was decided; it involved solving the ‘Slovakian question’. This was an issue that he himself did much to push forward at the beginning of 1939 and was to lead to the demise of Czechoslovakia.113 Since the beginning of the year, there had been growing collaboration with the government in Pressburg [Bratislava]114 and, on 12 February, this culminated in a meeting between Hitler and Voytech Tuka, the influential leader of the fascist wing of the Slovakian People’s Party, the most powerful political force in Slovakia, which had been autonomous since the previous autumn. Tuka was accompanied by the leader of the German ethnic group in Slovakia, Franz Karmasin. Hitler used the meeting to declare his sympathy for Slovakian demands for more independence and his mistrust of the Czechoslovak government, against which he would if necessary ‘act swiftly and ruthlessly’.115 On the following day, state secretary Weizsäcker, recorded that Hitler intended to deliver ‘the deathblow to what remains of Czechoslovakia’ in ‘about four weeks’.116
Thus Hitler was taking active steps to implement the policy of incorporating Czechoslovakia, mooted in November 1937, and finally decided on in May 1938. The unwelcome Munich Agreement had merely postponed the project; but, with the aid of the Slovak
s, he had succeeded in using the winter to further destabilize Czechoslovakia (particularly since in Hitler’s view military operations in Central Europe during the winter were inadvisable). Encouraged by Hitler’s support, the Slovak government now demanded an extension of their independence from the Prague central government, thereby provoking a political crisis. On 9 March, the Prague government dismissed the Tiso cabinet in Pressburg, in order to prevent Slovakia from finally leaving Czechoslovakia, a move that was being strongly supported by Germany. On 10 March Goebbels noted: ‘Now we can completely resolve the issue that we only half resolved in October’.117 Around midday, he, Ribbentrop and Keitel were summoned to the Reich Chancellery and it was decided to march into Prague on 15 March. The German press were now instructed openly to support Slovakia’s claims to independence, and to launch a new campaign against the government in Prague. During the following days, the Propaganda Ministry exercised tight control over the reporting of the new crisis.118
In the late afternoon of 10 March, Hitler and Goebbels drafted an announcement to the effect that, before its dismissal, the Tiso government had appealed to the Reich for help. However, in the course of the night it became clear that Tiso was not yet willing to sign it.119 During the night of 11/12 March, a German delegation of around twenty people, including the Anschluss specialists, Seyss-Inquart, Bürckel, and Keppler, arrived in Pressburg, and presented what was virtually an ultimatum to the Slovak ministers present, demanding that they declare Slovakian independence. They, however, rejected it, whereupon Tiso was summoned to Berlin.120 Heroes’ Memorial Day was being celebrated in the capital on 12 March and the atmosphere already hinted at Hitler’s impending move against Czechoslovakia. During the official celebrations, Admiral Raeder declared, in Hitler’s presence that Germany was the ‘patron of all Germans both within and beyond our frontiers’.121 On the same day, Hitler ordered the armed forces to prepare for the occupation of Czechoslovakia on 15 March.122 Simultaneously, he decided to allow Hungary to occupy Carpatho-Ukraine, which he had refused them as recently as November.123 The government of this hitherto autonomous region had declared its independence on 13 March, placing itself under the protection of the Reich.124 However, from Hitler’s point of view, during its short period of existence since October, it had already fulfilled its function of contributing to the disintegration of Czechoslovakia; now it was more important to have the gratitude of Germany’s ally, Hungary, whose troops began occupying its tiny neighbour on 14 March. It was left to state secretary Weizsäcker to inform the government of Carpatho-Ukraine on 15 March that the Reich government ‘was regrettably not in a position to establish a protectorate’.125
Hitler Page 80