Miscellaneous
September,
1932.
Dear Mr.
Jones,
I
have just returned from a Storm Attachment meeting and am just in right
mood to write to you on the political situation.
We
are all exceeding angry that the "old man" has such blind confidence on
the clique of monarchists who are now in power. These people do not
seem to know that since the war there have been great and fundamental
changes. They believe that they can drag the cart out of the rut with
their old-fashioned pre-war views. But to save Germany we must have
quite different people! We National Socialists are the young generation
and our Hitler is certain to lead us soon into the "Third Reich”, which
will be the only solution of our present distress. It is a disgrace
that the clique which has absolutely no majority behind it has such
control over Hindenburg that he allows our leader to go away
empty-handed. It was the duty of the President to recognise our
overwhelming success in the Elections by placing the political power in
Hitler’s hands. It is quite correct that in numbers we have not a
clear majority but figures are not so important here. What is important
is that out party contains all the constructive forces. We have the
elite of the German people in our ranks. All classes groups of society
and ages are represented, and the more they slander and fight us the
stronger we are bound together by the feeling that we are destined to
give all our energies for the building of a new German Fatherland which
contain all those of German blood, and in which all non-Germans will be
thrown out of positions of political and cultural work. There must be
no compromising. There is nothing we hate more than compromising. That
is the reason why we are not satisfied with the way in which our five
Upper Silesian comrades have been “pardoned”. We demand that the trial
shall be opened anew in order to prove that our comrades could simply
not have acted otherwise towards this Polish Insurgent and Communist.
Since when have we Germans put our own heroes up against the wall?
Thank God that we have amongst us enough people who are willing to lay
down their lives if necessary to rid the German people of its diseases.
We must
recognise that the Papen Government has done all it could for the
sovereignty and defense of the German people. In principle we agree with
it. But how clumsily they have done everything! Do not your countrymen
feel insulted by the démarche of the German Government at the Quai
D’Orsai? When one has such a plan to carry out surely one should first
assure oneself of the agreement of friendly powers before negotiating
with the traditional enemy. Our Adolf Hitler would have done things much
better but he is not given the possibility to show what he can do. But
his day will come. We are convinced of this, and we are prepared to
take the future of the German people into our hands.
GERMANY
AWAKE
With best
greetings,
Yours,
Carl.
TRANSLATION FROM STEEL HELMET.
Sept. 1932.
Dear Gareth,
You have
probably read about the great Steel Helmet demonstration held under the
protection of the Government, which was the most overwhelming
manifestation of the "front line" spirit which we have ever had; and I
am very proud of it. I am very sorry that I could not be there, but my
son attended and has described everything in so detailed a manner that I
seem to see it before my eyes.
Germany is now
at a turning point, both in home and foreign affairs.
In home
affairs there are two phenomena. The first is the economic crisis ,
which hits us Germans in a particular form. Since the inflation Germany
has been bled dry; our capital disappeared; there are no more reserves,
which can be called upon in times of stress. The crisis has made itself
felt in the smallest of workers' homes so cruelly that it is just as if
you cut into their living flesh. I read that the weavers of Lancashire
are striking because their wages are to be lowered
In Germany no
worker think of striking. He is glad if he is able to earn anything at
all. There have been three, four, or five reductions of salaries in
the middle classes ( officials etc.) We all live from hand to mouth.
Taxes are terrible and the standard of living has sunk so low that it
cannot go lower. We have to pay income tax here on a wage of £60
upwards, so that the masses of workers who are spared in England have to
pay taxes. Business is at a standstill. Tariff walls throttle our
exports; and in the home market there is no money to buy. It makes one
despair.
" Do you think
that a parliamentary regime can settle this situation? And here I come
to the second point the ending off the Parliamentary System. Bruning
introduced a veiled dictatorship, and von Papen is merely continuing
this. But now we are changing from the "wait and see" attitude to the
“up and do" policy. We are tired of everlasting waiting. We want to
see what is going to happen. And therefore we are for the von Papen
Government, because he is against the Parliamentary system, and because
they not only publish a fine program to overcome the crisis, but they
have the courage to provide the mechanism and to set it going. They are
risking a lot, it is true, but fortune helps the brave! ( Fortes
fortuna adjuvat.) We are now going to fight the depression, with the
weapons in our hand and we are confident of victory. The Stock Exchange
is the best barometer and that shows that hope is springing up in our
breasts.
"The Nazis
believe in the "Third Empire" and think that if they have all the power
in their hands everything will be all right.. My personal conviction is
that Hitler lost a great chance when he left the President's Palace
blushing all over. He himself would have, I believe, readily accepted
the offer, but he is too much under the influence of his Radical
leaders. The Nazis fear that they will lose a lot of their adherents if
they make compromises and they do not want a new election campaign.
Moreover, Hitler’s unwise actions in the matter of the "five heroes of
Potempa" have lost him a lot of support.
“We must soon
have a reform of the voting system and raise the age of franchise and
also introduce the personal element into politics again. We want to
vote for men of flesh and blood, not for a list of names as we do now.
“In Foreign
policy the question of re-arming is now the most important. The German
aide-memoire seems to have caused a great sensation. In England they
talk about "diplomatic clumsiness." Warsaw and Paris are angry. It is
just as if one had put one's finger into a wasps' nest. But surely
after the fiasco of the Disarmament Conference the German démarche was
the natural consequence and it is quite as natural that Germans of
responsibility should speak out their minds frankly and freely.
Schleicher is speaking what every nationally minded German feels in his
heart. We Germans have had enough of the underhanded ways of
international politics. We want to know where we stand. The patience
of our whole people is at an end. For thirteen years we have been
rigidly bound to the paragraphs of the Treaty of Versailles, which
demand a thousand and one things from us. But the Allies have
conscientiously evaded the fulfilment of the few obligations which they
took upon themselves more for the sake of the "beau geste" than in real
sincerity.
"The worst of
it all is that the French still put the sole blame for the War upon
Germany and cannot get rid of the conviction that the naughty boy must
remain branded for ever and ever. All the stipulations of the Treaty of
Versailles depend on this belief; and outside France it has been
recognized that they must be revised. Abolition of Reparations was only
a step along this path of revision; then general disarmament or German
re-arming; and then comes naturally the question of the Eastern
frontiers.
"The French
stated that no sooner would we be free of reparations than we would
spend the money (where is it?) on armaments. But it is not a question
of money. It is a question or the national honour of a great people
whose will to live cannot be suppressed for all times. What is right
for other nations, should be right for Germany. That is not chauvinism;
that is just commonsense. We do not want to make War; we feel, however,
that the surrounding of Germany by large armies is a threat of war.
Moreover, you have just to look at the map to see that readiness for
defense is a necessary tradition for the German people. We are
pacifists in the sense that we want friendly settlement of international
problem; but we are not pacifists in the sense that we must give all our
military power up and thus encourage our neighbours to hit us about,) (
look what the Lithuanians did at Memel.)
And now just a
word about the revision of the Eastern frontiers, which I call the third
step of our natural revision. The Corridor must disappear. There are
only two alternatives; either Danzig and East Prussia will become German
or they will become Polish; and we know what they ought to be.
With heartiest
greetings,
yours.
R.H.
***********
For Ivy
Lee Private
I should be
delighted if you [Dr Ivy Lee - New York Public Relations Consultant -
and a former employer of Gareth in 1931] show it to friends but some of
those I interviewed did not want it to be quoted publicly.
Gareth Jones Memorandum
- DECEMBER, 1932
The questions
which especially interested me during my few days stay in Cologne were
the following:
1.
Schleicher's programme, his character, and the attitude of the
Parties towards him.
2.
The decline of the Nazis: prospects of Monarchy and the growth
Communism.
3.
The unemployment situation and what is being done to tackle
unemployment.
4.
The general economic situation.
5.
The outlook on foreign affairs.
I interviewed
the Lord Mayor, the Director of Town Planning, former Minister for the
Interior (Reich) Sollman, the three Professors at the University
specialising in economics, banking and industry, the British Consul
General (with whom I stayed), the Director for Poor Relief, the Foreign
Affairs, Economic and Political experts of the Kölnische Zeitung and of
two other papers, a Nazi, steel industrialist, Baron von Humboldt, the
head of the Banking House von Stein, and others.
Since my stay
was too short to make a real study of the situation and to draw
conclusions for Germany as a whole, what follows is mainly a series of
notes of conversations with a few observations. This visit ended a
period of ten years during which I have paid one or more visits to
Germany every year.
1. SCHLEICHER‘S PROGRAMME, HIS CHARACTER
AND THE ATTITUDE OF THE PARTIES TO HIM.
The new
Chancellor of Germany, General von Schleicher’s broadcast on December
15th his declaration of policy. He said that his programme contained
only one point, the provision of work. Nothing else interested Germany,
least of all constitutional changes which filled no stomachs. He wished
to colonise 1,300,000 acres in the Eastern Frontier District. He was in
favour of compulsory service in the framework of a Militia. He stated
that the voluntary labour corps, the Reich Board for the Physical
Training of Youth, and subsidised sports clubs, which were throttling
party political spirits would receive funds for the Government,
especially for voluntary groups of young unemployed. The Chancellor
said that in economic matters he would do whatever seemed sensible at
the moment without worrying his head about dogmas.
Attitude of the Social
Democrats.
Herr Sollman,
former Minister of the Interior (Social Democrat) for the Reich, told
me: The Social Democrats stand in definite opposition to Schleicher
because he is carrying on the same policy as von Papen. The difference
is that Schleicher is much cleverer and more cunning than Papen. I have
known Schleicher for well for fourteen years. He is clever enough to
try to avoid a conflict with parliament, but he wants a defeat of the
Social Democrats. The people around Schleicher want a strong
authoritarian Government based on the Reichswehr: The Bourgeoisie, the
landowners and heavy industry.
“Schleicher’s
talks with the Trades Unions are a result of his cleverness. Papen had
a front attack on the Trade Unions and on the Social Democrats but
Schleicher is trying to split the two. The Trade Union leaders are
advising him and he will listen to them. A split between the Trade
Unions and the S. D. party is what he is aiming at. The T.U’s are in a
difficult position. If they go too much towards the right they will
push millions of S.D.’s to Communism.
“There may be a
vote of no confidence in the Reichstag in January. The S.D’s and the
Communists will certainly vote against the Government, and the Trade
Union leaders will also vote with the Party because our discipline is
very strong. What the Nazis will do is uncertain. Hitler, of course
attacks the Government but do not take his speech too seriously, he
might enter a Government Coalition. He is in a critical situation and
does not know what to do. The Nazis can only govern as a dictatorship
crushing opposition; therefore, if Hitler goes into Coalition Government
he will disappoint the voters. Still he will want to avoid new
elections because he has no money. I have just come back from Berlin
and there are 1500 men collecting for Hitler on the Berlin streets, but
they only collect altogether 80 to 100 marks a day. It is a terrible
situation for Hitler; still he might make a pact with
Schleicher.”
Just as we were
talking a messenger came in to say that in Cassel 600 storm troop men
had left the Nazi Party. Two minutes later another messenger brought
the news of local elections which showed a very sharp decline in the
Nazi vote.
I then asked
Herr Sollmam whether Schleicher would govern without the Reichstag. He
answered, “No, Schleicher will not ignore the Reichstag. If there is a
vote of no confidence he will be in favour of elections which would
strengthen his position. He would be able to have more combinations and
there would be no more Nazi Communist majority. I think Hitler might
lose 40 or 50 seats. Schleicher will maintain the constitutional
conflict as long as possible.
HE CAN REMAIN LONG IN
POWER.
A clever
Government can do almost anything with Article 48. Even the budget was
carried by Article 48.
"The
Reichbanner is not for Schleicher. They have definitely decided not to
join in the Sports Board. I am sorry personally for our Young people,
pea soup, a piece of meat - to have a full stomach - is a. sensation”.
The Centre Party and
Schleicher
The Political
Editor of the Kölnische Zeitung told me; "The Centre supports Schleicher
loyally. To us he is a man with common sense. No other man is
possible. We Catholics have an interest to support a Government with
authority which is also Democratic. The Catholic Church itself is a
mixture of Democracy and Authority. 80 per cent of our clergy come from
the people.
“We do not
think he wi1l support a Coup d’etat. He is, of course, only for a
transitional period.”
Dr. Adenauer,
Lord Mayor of Cologne, said that the Centre Party were adopting a policy
of “wait and see” towards Schleicher.
Character of Schleicher
The Berliner
Tageblatt describes Schleicher thus:- It states that Schleicher is
against constitutional experiment, that he had learned to be socially
minded in his home, and was never allowed to be rude to a servant or a
beggar. The views of Schleicher are not stable but adapted to
circumstances. Behind his frank thoughts there is a scepticism which
takes nothing too tragically, a kind of irony. He has charming
naturalness. He is a General, and the son of an officer, but also a
modern man, and has no similarity with the snobbish type of Prussian
officer. Still, there is in the General’s mentality a hatred of
pacifists, and he might well play a Cromwellian part, but he is not the
bogy and the militarist which the French imagine him to be. He is an
able army organiser, and wants a common understanding with France. He
wishes to unite the masses now split into organised political battalions
into a coalition with a common front. He is flexible and chameleon
-like. He has been moderate in canceling anti-social decrees and in
giving an amnesty for the transport strikers.
The comments of
the Frankfurter Zeitung, December 17th are interesting. This democratic
paper congratulates the new Chancellor on not promising a heaven on
earth, but in directing his aim at the Chancellor of the German people.
A man who is thus going to fight the bitter misery of unemployment has a
right to be left to his work. He is socially minded. Papen aroused the
mistrust of the nation, but Schleicher knows that the country’s
confidence is necessary. Nevertheless, the F.Z. is afraid that he has
too many tactics, but lacks far-reaching strategy. It regrets his lack
of political principles.
Schleicher and
Parliament
It is
significant that Schleicher spoke to the nation over the wireless and
not to the Reichstag. He prepared his statement himself, consulted none
of his Ministers, except to ask certain economic details and did not
submit the text for their approval.
Pertinax on Schleicher
Pertinax
commenting on the adjournment of the Reichstag to the second fortnight
of January says that Papen’s plans are being taken up a man who is far
more clever and can work with all camps. At present, says Pertinax, his
great idea is to put the different military societies into the so-called
National Sports Bureau under ex-Generals. What were formally forces for
civil war must now be regular forces obeying the Government. Soon the
same uniform, probably that of the steel helmets, will be imposed on
all. Schleicher hopes that Hitler’s Storm Troops will also be melted
into the mass.
The Christian Trade
Unions and Schleicher
Kaiser, the
leader, said in a speech, that originally the Christian T.U’s had
mistrusted the new Chancellor but now he was known as “THE SOCIALLY
MINDED GENERAL”. The T. U’s had the impression that here was a man who
understood the working class. The Christian T.U.s had a good impression
of Schleicher as did the other T.U’s, but their confidence would have to
be gained by deeds. Already, said the Christian T.U’s leader, there is
a wave of conciliation throughout the people, and the attempt of
reactionaries to seize power had failed. The man who now governed bad
turned successfully to the people and the wave of mistrust end revolt
which had made Germany revolutionary was disappearing.
Views of Steel
Industrialist.
Herr
Pastor, the Steel Industrialist disliked Schleicher. “He is coquetting
too much with the T.U’5. He is an officer with rubber soles, not an
officer with real military boots. He is not an Iron Chancellor like
Bismarck. He is a victim of his own policy. He did not want to become
Chancellor. He is intriguing and ambitious. It is notorious that he
threw over Seeckt, Gessler, T, Bruning, Gruener, and Papen, and now he
is coming out of his role of “eminence grise” into the open. He
manoeuvres too much and is making arrangements with the left. He is
sphinx like, very clever, but I thought his broadcast was slovenly,
arrogant, and vulgar. He has got the Prussian officer’s tradition and
no great culture. Hitler should be given a chance. Schleicher is all
things to all men; a weather cook, changing with the wind.
“Some
Industrialists are opposed to Schleicher because they are afraid he is
for agricultural quotas but many say, at least he is not so bad as von
Papen. “Baron von Humbold was also afraid that Schleicher would give in
too much to the Socialists.
Economists on
Schleicher.
Professor
Eckert: “There is confidence in Schleicher and the men around him are
good, but I do not believe be will last long. He will certainly rule
without the Reichstag because he has the Reichswehr.”
Herr von Stein,
of the Banking House von Stein, said: “Business people do not reckon on
a long Schleicher reign. He only gives himself a couple of months,
watch out for January. There will be difficulties with the Nazis.“
Professor
Schöffler: “Schleicher rejects all doctrines. He is like a Englishman
in his rejection of theory.”
Another Socialist View.
The Political
Editor of the Rheinische Zeitung, which was founded by Karl Marx, said:
“We are not so bitterly opposed to Schleicher as we were to Papen. We
hated Papen but our opposition to Schleicher is only a Parliamentary
opposition, a democratic opposition. Schleicher never attacks Marxism
as Papen always did. He is a tactician and a cynic.
2. THE DECLINE OF THE NAZIS: PROSPECT OF
MONARCHY AND THE GROWTH OF COMMUNISM.
The Nazi Split
On all hands
there was evidence of a serious split in the Nazi Party of rapidly
declining influence end of a grave financial situation. Hitler is still
considered by some industrialists as a barrier against Communism, but
they are not likely to subscribe very much more to his funds, as the
steel industrialists Consul Pastor told me. “The why industrialists
supported Hitler was because he was against Communism. Half of the
people who voted for Hitler will vote for Communism. Hitler is without
means, and industry cannot help him very much.
Hitler's Move away from
Socialism.
The Rheinische
Zeitung reports that Hitler is forbidding Socialism. Hitler's new
economic advisor is to be Herr Funk, former editor of the Berliner
Borsenzeitung, a nationalistic and capitalistic paper. Hitler is moving
away from Socialism in order that heavy industry may have confidence and
enable the Nazis to pay their 12 million mark (£600,000) debt.
The
figure of £600,000 debt is confirmed from several sources. Strasser's
‘a quarrel is also a sign that Hitler is moving away from Socialism.
Disillusion of Hitler's
Followers.
Many of the
young people who joined the Nazis because they thought that they would
obtain jobs as policemen in Hitler’s Dictatorship are leaving the
Party.
Bookshops, a Clue to
German Politics.
Last year and
in 1930 I noticed that the bookshops were selling very large quantities
of books on National Socialism. They were the rage. To-day I hardly
saw any in the bookshops. There were fewer books on politics end more
on general subjects, such as travel, a sign which seems to indicate a
wave of political apathy. One favourite book, however, is 'Soldaten'
which tells of the deeds of Prussian officers and soldiers since the
wars of liberation to the present day.
Communism
A large
increase in the Communist Party is probable and it is thought by many
experts that the Communist Party vote, will reach the same level as the
Nazi vote did. The Communist International has decided upon a more
active policy in Germany Personally however, I think there is very
little danger of a political revolt. The Reichswehr is too strong, the
Communists are badly armed, and German Communists are the sort of people
who parade in the very beat clothes with clean collars, and ties.
Monarchy.
The question of
Monarchy has become less actual. A keen Monarchist said to me, “Every
respectable German is a Monarchist, and must be a Monarchist, but to
begin a Monarchy now would be a very great tactical mistake. The
intelligence of the Germans will not permit the return of the Kaiser,
and we do not think that the Crown Prince is serious minded enough.
Ruprecht of Bavaria is a Catholic and thus out of the question. A
return of Monarchy is impossible for the next few years. “
What will happen if
Hindenburg dies?
If Hindenburg
dies the President of the Supreme Court of Justice takes over
authority. This is a very important step, which has been voted by the
Reichstag recently. It stops the schemes for bringing in the Crown
Prince. It stops the Chancellor taking over complete political power
When Hindenburg
dies, therefore, Dr. Bumke, President of the Supreme Court takes over
his authority. Dr. Bumke is irremovable from his present post, and is
not old, somewhere in the fifties. He is a Judge not a politician, and
is trusted. I consider that this step is a very wise and favourable one
for German stability.
3. THE UNEMPLOYMENT SITUATION AND WHAT
IS BEING DONE TO TACKLE UNEMPLOYMENT
Unemplyment Benefit and
Poor Relief.
The City
Director for Poor Belief explained to me the situation in Cologne. She
stated that in Cologne 210,000 out of a population of 730,000, namely
28.4 % of the population are being helped.
The
unemployment benefit (Reich Insurance) only lasts 36 days, and then the
unemployed have to obtain relief from the towns. The average amount
received per head (including children) from Poor Relief is 21.9 marks
per month (not per week). The average married couple in Cologne receive
51 marks per month with 12 marks extra for each child, it they have no
other resources. Poor Relief costs the town of Cologne £3,000,000 per
year.
The City
Director gave me the following example of a family budget of a father
and mother with two children who had no other means. They would
receive 75 marks per month, of which they would have to pay about 25
marks in rent. This left 50 marks, of which 8 marks would have to be
spent on coal, leaving 42 marks. This meant 10 marks per week for tour
people, or 2/6 per week per person. Therefore, this family would have
to live on 1.50 marks per day, to be spent not only on food, but on
light clothes, shoes, etc. Bread is dear, 50 pfennigs (6d) for 3 1/2
lbs.
This family
would spend about 30 pfennigs of the 1.50 marks on wool, soap, clothes
eto, leaving 1.20 marks per day for food. This is usually divided thus.
(The meals, of course, are for four persons.)
Breakfast
30 pfennigs (3 1/2d.) Substitute coffee with a couple of slices of
black bread.
Lunch
50 pfennigs (6d.) Potatoes, with cabbage or thick soup. Bread is
too expensive for lunch.
Supper
40 pfennigs (4 1/2d) Potatoes.
This family
would have no milk.
Health
conditions are getting worse end worse. Bedclothing is short. Many
children cannot go to school because they have no shoes. Often a child
being given a free meal will eat eight plates of soup. There is a
terrible lack of warm clothing. These conditions are undermining the
morale of the nation.
Unemployment among the
older middle classes.
I was deeply
impressed by the people who came for the free meal of soup which was
being given to former middle class people. Cultured elderly people who
still maintain themselves clean and respectable, and young artists,
teachers, professors, with intellectual faces, but absolutely down and
out, came for this free meal. Some of the people there were once very
wealthy, now they have absolutely no means but they still maintain a
German pride in a respectable appearance
Unemployment among the
students
Professor
Shöffler, head of the English Department, gave me a striking picture of
the despair of the students. He said it is absolutely impossible to get
posts. Of the students from our faculty who went down last summer NOT
ONE has had a post. In the faculty of Law it is just the same. They
will probably be unemployed for ten years getting no relief. Take my
student, Miss Bredenfeld. She is pretty and clever, a Doctor of
Philosophy, of good family, but she cannot get a job. She is now a
Communist. Communism will certainly grow among the younger academic
generation.
"There is no
outlet for the 100,000 who have left college in the last the few years.
There is no army, no navy, no colonies.
“The Government
is cutting down expenses in education and increasing the number of
pupils in each class. The students have next to nothing to live on.”
Tackling Unemployment
The Director of Town Planning described to me the method
used to tackle unemployment. He said that there were three methods
(1) Land Settlement.
(2) Voluntary Labour Service.
(3) Public Works.
(1) Land
Settlement: There are about 200,000 young Germans in the Land
Settlements and the number is to be increased. The Reich government
gives 2,000 marks (£100) towards each house in a settlement. In the
first years it is given free, but later they will be a small rate of
interest to be paid.
In Cologne
individual groups of unemployed have been formed called Building Groups,
consisting of a carpenter, bricklayer, locksmith roof builder, and
unskilled workers. These groups are chosen by the poor Relief Office.
They then help each other to build houses on a settlement where each has
his pig, goats and chickens. They receive Poor Relief pay plus extra
food, and cheap tramfares. These settlements are usually in the
suburbs, and usually financed by the Reich.
In East
Prussia, as Schleicher pointed out in his wireless speech, l,300,000
acres are to be settled.
(2) Voluntary
Labour Service: These are people who voluntarily devote themselves such
works as building cycle paths, parks, etc. They are of the age of 18 to
25, and are usually in groups of people of the same views. The
Christian T.U. group; Steel Helmet Group, etc.
This is usually
work which could be given to private con tractors, who still attack it.
In the beginning there was great opposition from the Trade Unions, but
finally they became reconciled
(3) Public
Works: The Government is giving money to such works as iron-bridges,
roads,etc. The Government is to help towns which want electricity
machines but cannot pay for them
Financing of Public
Works.
The Lord Mayor
of Cologne pointed out how they were unable as a city to do much in the
way of public works because they had no capital. He demanded a strong
initiative from the Reich. He thought that there would be an expansion
of credit in new ways. But, the financing plans were not to be decided
until about a fortnight. He said that the Government was going to
advance money for necessary repairs of houses.
The economic
expert of the Kölnieche Volkzeitung explained to me his ideas on public
works as follows: It was not quite clear, he said, what measures the
Government would take, but von Papen had issued certain “Taxation Notes”
which were based upon the income if the state in future better times and
were to be redeemed from 1934 to 1939. He said that between £50,000,000
and £75,000,000 would be spent on public works. A tremendous amount of
land reclamation had been done and large stretches of moors had been
drained. Much had been done through voluntary work and he believed that
next year voluntary workers would be given one standard uniform. The
result of voluntary work had been very good. Part of it was paid from
the surplus receipts of the unemployment insurance. He was enthusiastic
about the settlements to be carried out in the east, but he said, it
must be none primitively and simply. He thought that they would settle
a million at the most within several years time.
Some of the
work was given to private firms by communes but there was a lot of work
which was too deer to be done through the ordinary economic process and
this was done by the state. The programme, therefore, seems to be a
mixture of private initiative and of state interference, which is very
similar to the system I studied in Rome in the summer.
Professor
Eckert, economist, was keen on Schleicher’s determination to carryout a
policy of public works, settling men and building roads. He said, “Our
unemployed do not starve to but they starve mentally.”
An
industrialist was doubtful whether the plans would provide work for more
than about 300,000 men, and could not see how they could be carried out
wither creating emergency currency.
A British
official said it was a deep dark mystery to him as to how they got their
funds. The Banks had been giving great credits to the towns and there
was a hidden inflation of credit.
My final conversation in Cologne was with a young fellow
selling apples and cigarettes on the station. He said, “If I lost my
job I would have to live on 4/6 a week. A married man with a family
gets about 12 marks a week.” A friend of mine, an official, had to on
an expedition to search for weapons, and said that he found in one
family the children were eating potato peelings. There is no doubt
about it, he concluded we must have a big army or a militia again.”
4) THE GENERAL ECONOMIC SITUATION
Signs of Improvement
There are
certain symptoms of improvement. The Deutsche Volkswirt writes “The
symptoms of an economic improvement in Germany are numerous and
unmistakable … Unemployment is not greatly higher than last year,
although the spectre of seven to eight millions out of work was expected
... If political calm remains an upward trend may be expected in the
spring.”
There is an
increase in the production of iron and steel. Electricity production in
October reached the same figure as last year. Shipping shows an
improvement in the last few months, but is much worse than a year ago.
Shipping laid
up.
Dec. lst.
1931 765,000 tons 19 % of total tonnage.
Sept. 1st
1932 1,425,000 “ 56 % “ “
Nov. 1st,
1932 l,194,970 “ 50.7% " “
Dec. lst,
1932 1,170,000 " 30% “ “
Unemployment
here are now 5,358,000 out of work. he seasonal increase in
unemployment has not been so large as last year.
Stock
Exchange. here has been a recovery on the Stock Exchange in the last
few months. o take two representative shares, Fereinigte Stahlwerke,
which dropped to 10 has now risen to 32, whilst Seimen and Halske
(electricity) which dropped to 95 has recovered to 124.
Herr von Stein,
of the Banking House von Stein, said, “There are slow signs of
improvement. The shops are satisfied with the Christmas business,
people are buying again, but only cheap materials are being bought.
There is more
confidence in Schleicher than in von Papen. The Stock Exchange is a
brighter sign. Moreover, as long as Luther is at the head of the
Reichsbank our currency is safe.”
Professors at
the Cologne University thought that there was a slight recovery because
stocks of goods bad declined so low, but as one of them said, “I do not
promise much from this recovery.”
The steel
industrialist, Consul Pastor, had little faith in the continuation of
the recovery. He said “There is a slight enlivening of industry and
finance, due firstly to empty stocks, and secondly to speculation. But
is it a real recovery? I do not think so. A Chinese philosopher said
twelve hundred years ago that if men could not bring their minds and
morale into line with mechanical progress they would perish. That is
where we are to-day. I see no hope, but I may be wrong.”
Inflation
Some people
thought that inflation was probable, others believed that as long as
Luther was in the Reichsbank the currency would be safe. Consul Pastor,
Industrialist, said, “I cannot see how we can avoid inflation. If we
cannot bring six million unemployed into production I cannot see where
we can get the means to keep them alive.”
Professor
Eckert said that there were two alternatives before Germany. The first
was Inflation, which would be disastrous. It would mean revolutions and
riots. He feared a great world inflation. Secondly, if Inflation were
avoided, however he saw another alternative. Perhaps they had reached
bottom. He believed there might be a slow recovery interrupted by
recessions.
Professor
Eckert pointed out the dangers before Germany. He said “The Budget” at
the Reich is in disorder. There is a large deficit and the financial
situation of the states and of the towns is very bad. Cologne and
Frankfurt cannot now meet certain bonds railing due. The burden of debt
towers more and more. Modified inflation in Germany is almost
impossible unless we tackle the burden of debts by drastic cutting down
of capital and conversions; there is no other way out except inflation.
Herr Sullmann,
former Minister of the Interior, was also afraid of Inflation. He said
“I am afraid there will be moves in the direction of Inflation. We have
got ‘Taxation Notes’ which are now to be given to the communes to pay
for public works. This will necessitate twenty notes in exchange for
these ‘Taxation Notes’; that means that the one and a half million marks
which are to be issued as ‘Taxation Notes’ will become marks in
circulation. Hilterding and I fear an inflation. In Germany every man
is an expert in Inflation. As soon as the danger is known there will be
a run on the banks, and people will take their money out end buy goods.
A sign of it will also be a rise in common stocks (shares) on the Stock
Exchange. But I should never write this in my paper.”
On the other
hand there are strong forces working for a stable currency. Professor
Walb, expert on banking, expressed this when he said, “We will right
inflation with all the weapons in our power. No, I do not think there
will be inflation. We will out down capital, out down debts, and have a
cleansing of the debt burden.”
The
irremovability of Luther is a strong factor against inflation
Quotas
There is very
bitter feeling among industrialists against the agricultural quotas.
These, said Professor Walb, sabotaged Papen’s programme and had injured
Germany exports, but certain concessions had been made by Germany.
Tariffs.
I heard little
which led me to hope that there will be a reduction of tariffs, but
Schleicher will probably not raise the tariff any higher. Tariffs have
made foodstuffs dear in Germany, and are one of the main causes of the
dissension between agriculture and industry.
State Control of
industry.
The economic
expert of the Kölnische Zeitung said, “It does not seem probable that
the Government will go much further in the direction of state ownership
of industry. In the aluminium industry shares are owned by the
Government.
Absence Panic
I was struck by
the absence of panic. The last time I was in Germany there were fears
of a sudden catastrophe; now no one expressed these fears, in spite of
the profound misery of the vast majority of the people.
5) THE OUTLOOK ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Germany's Future Policy
on "Equality of Rights"
It is highly
probable that Germany will demand the demilitarisation of the French
frontiers. The Germans in Cologne believe that the principle of the
Equality of Rights justifies them in claiming a zone of 50 kilometres
within the French frontier where the French shall have no weapons, or
soldiers. The Badische Presser says that now Germany has Equality of
Rights there shall be no more unilateral measures, and that Germany will
insist that France shall not only destroy her eastern fortifications but
also suppress her aviation camps munition depots, and garrisons in a
zone equivalent to the German demilitiarised zone.
I asked Herr
Borowski whether be thought this would happen. (He is the Foreign
affairs editor of the Moderate National Volkishe Zeitung). He replied,
”Certainly.. If this is not given us we will claim the right to have
troops in Cologne. It is a violation of German sovereignty not to be
able to have the Reichswehr in the Rhineland. What if there should be
riots? Germany would then have to appeal to an outside body for
permission to send troops into a part of her own territory.”
The Army.
There is strong
feeling among all classes that a large militia, or people’s army, should
be introduced as soon as possible. This feeling is shared by Socialists
and Nationalists alike. The Socialist, Herr Sollmann, for example said
“I am in favour of a smaller Reichswehr and the creation of a large
militia. The Reichswehr is a danger. This Pretorian Guard gives twelve
years training and after that soldiers get precedence everywhere posts,
in offices. It is also dangerous from a point of view of political
power.
"We must have
discipline after the young men leave school.
"A large army
is also a force for national unity. Before the war 400 men would be
receiving training in the Army. Catholics would share the same hut as
Jews; Socialists as Conservatives: and townsfolk with peasants. They
got to know each other. Germany is divided. A Nazi will not speak to a
Socialist; a Red Front Fighter thinks of the Steel Helmet an enemy. If
only the young people could work together in the army.
"Today for the
German youth the army is a romantic ideal; if the young people were
drilled and cursed at; if they had to sweat and have blisters, they
would against militarism."
If those are
the views opinion of the Socialist the opinion of Nationalists can be
imagined. Professor Schöffler said “The army is organised unemployment.
It will take 500,000 young people from the streets. Moreover, it the
state does not play soldiers the parties will.”
Disarmament.
Germany’s attainment of Equality of Status is greeted as a success, but
hopes for real disarmament are modified. I did not get the impression
that there was a tremendous wave of militarism but, of course, I was in
Catholic Rhineland demilitarized Cologne , a very bad place to judge. .
Re-armament
There is a
feeling of opposition to rearmament among many tax payers but among
steel, leather and uniform firms there is certain support. There will
be financial difficulties, nevertheless, the formation of a large
People’s Army seems inevitable.
December 20th,1932
Gareth Jones
Sunday, November 29th
1931.
Fascist Dictatorship for
Germany Now Possibility, Development
Seems Inevitable in Spring.
By Gareth Jones
Specially written for the
N. Y. American. A Paper ‘For People Who Think’
In Germany
today we are witnessing the revolt of a great nation. It is, in the
eyes of Germany, a revolt against three betrayals - against the betrayal
by German politicians, against the betrayal by Versailles and against
the betrayal by capitalism.
A great class
has been annihilated, the German middle class. Their savings swept away
by the inflation, educated Germans have been reduced to proletarian
conditions.
That is the
situation which we must bear in mind in considering the Germany of today
and the Germany of tomorrow. That is the situation which led to the
shock of the world when on September 14, 1930, the startling news was
flashed around the globe that the National Socialist party of Hitler had
gained a triumph of unforeseen magnitude.
That day set
the events moving which led to the present crisis, for the alarm caused
capital to flow from Germany and spread mistrust of Germany’s future to
London, New York and Paris. You all will remember the events that
followed: terror in France at the Austro-German customs scheme; failure
of the Credit Anstalt, threatened collapse of Germany’s finances, just
saved by Hoover’s moratorium; delay caused by the French; and that black
day, July 13, when there was a run upon German banks; calamitous
withdrawal of short-term credits from Germany; spreading of the disease
to England and the crash of the pound.
You will remember the standstill agreement by which
short-term credits were to be maintained in Germany for a period of six
months. Germany’s capacity to pay has come to an end and rapid action
must be taken to save her.
Root of Trouble.
What is at the
root of the present trouble? How far is Germany responsible?
The roots of
the trouble are foremost, the Reparations payments and, secondly,
over-borrowing by Germany, without which these Reparation payments could
never have been made.
It is true that
Germany borrowed too much - foreign investments exceeded four billion
dollars in seven years; but that was a mistake made throughout the
world. Bank credit expanded in the United States so rapidly that it was
made easy for everybody in the world to get into debt. It is false to
accuse Germany of financial bad faith, because the German Reichsbank and
the German Treasury uttered solemn warnings that too much money was
going to German states and municipalities.
It is true that German towns were reckless in their
social expenditures, but of the loans made, the great majority went to
industries and public utilities. To pay reparations the government has
imposed upon the German people an almost intolerable burden of taxation
and has had to cut down imports to such an extent as to lower still more
the standard of living. The suffering in Germany is no bluff.
Two Creditors.
Whoever may
bear the responsibility, the fact remains that Germany is faced with two
sets of creditors, on the one hand those who claim receipt of
reparations amounting to $473,000,000 each year, and on the other, those
who hold four billion dollars in private debts: And the curtain is soon
to go up to show this great fight, private debts versus reparations.
There is only
time to mention two things, firstly, that no government can exist in the
Germany of the future which is willing to pay reparations.
The moral is,
“First Against Reparations and for the priority of private, debts!”
Secondly, if tariffs throughout the world shut out German goods, she
will never be able to pay a part of the private debts. The moral is,
“Scrap Tariffs.”
Whatever
happens, however, there is a danger that all is too late. A Nazi
dictatorship in the Spring seems inevitable. Will this lead to civil
war? Will this lead in the long run to Bolshevism in Germany? Those
are problems we may soon have to face.
Western Mail October 26th 1934
Will France Withhold Lorraine Iron Ore
from the Saar?
By
Gareth
Jones
Hermann Röchling is the iron and steel king of the
Saar. He rules over a vast works employing over 4,000 workers, and is
the outstanding figure in the campaign to secure the return of the Saar
to Germany. In this he has the support of the large majority of his
fellow-Saarlanders.
I went to see him in Völklingen, the Llanelly of the
Saar territory, and talked to him in his plainly furnished office
beneath the shadow of his blast furnaces.
“What will be the economic consequences of the return
of the Saar to Germany?” I asked this ironmaster, who had once been
sentenced to imprisonment by the French.
He replied that if the French made difficulties and
refused to send iron ore from Lorraine into the Saar Germany would be
able to obtain ore from Donau-Eschlngen, where scientists were making
investigations. “They will not get me on my knees,” he declared.
Economic
Link
He thought, however, it was most unlikely that an
economic war would break out between France and Germany when the Saar
returned to the homeland. Lorraine had 1,250,000,000 tons of iron ore
lying in the earth and they would certainly deliver the ore to the Saar.
The Saar and Lorraine were economically bound
together. Lorraine needed Saar coal and the Saar needed Lorraine ore.
The French would be practically obliged to import coal from the Saar,
because that was the most suitable coal for their coke-ovens.
The Saar would have many economic advantages when it
returned to Germany. Germany already bought over half the steel, half
the glass, and half the pottery produced in the Saar. A gas conduit was
to be built to South Germany. The increase of the electricity supply
would be very great indeed. The Saar would benefit from the improving
business conditions so marked in the Germany of Hitler.
I brought up the question of German payment for the
mines now held by the French.
Security For
Mines
Herr Röchling stated that Germany could give security
for the mines. The mines had declined enormously In value, he stated.
According to the report of M.Guillaume (Director of the Saar Mines)
there had been a loss of 19,075,728 gold marks (£950,000 at par) in 1931
and of 21,813.043 marks (nearly £1,100,000) in 1932. M. Guillmehad
stated:
“If the financial results of the working of the
mines do not show a marked improvement in the years 1933 and 1934, one
can imagine how the conversations which may begin in 1935 on the
question of the re-purchase of the Saar mines will be influenced to the
detriment of the interests of the French State.”
In conclusion, Herr Röchling stated that Germany
would have to spend £5,000,000 to repair and improve the mines after the
French departure.
********
The Contemporary Review
July, 1931
By Gareth Jones
POLAND’S FOREIGN
RELATIONS.
POLAND’S policy has been determined by permanent
factors which never allow a Foreign Minister to stray far from a certain
definite path. These factors are her geographical position, her history
and her economic structure. Geography teaches Poland to be wary. Her
straddling frontiers run for thousands of miles through the flat
European plain. Not a single mountain bars the way to foreign troops;
there is hardly a hillock between Warsaw and the Urals. To the east and
to the west the frontier line winds through villages and farms and
towns. The lesson of history is still more impressive. The Partition
throws a shadow over modern Polish life. Although it was rectified in
1919, its psychological effect will not be wiped out for many a long day
and there remains a lurking fear of a new partition. Finally, Poland’s
economic structure necessitates an outlet to the sea, which raises
formidable barriers against friendship with Germany.
Two other influences play a great part in Poland’s
foreign relations. These are international finance and the Catholic
Church. One of the main aims of Polish foreign policy is to obtain a
loan. The desire to give the appearance of stability in order to
satisfy international financial circles was one of the reasons why
Marshal Pilsudski was intent upon gaining a majority in the last
elections. A two-thirds majority in the Sejm is necessary in order to
mortgage the country’s securities, which is essential in securing a
foreign loan. Polish diplomats therefore weigh carefully the effect
which their actions may have on the Paris Bourse, on the City and on
Wall Street. Poland’s position as the bulwark of Catholicism in Eastern
Europe and the hold which the Catholic religion has upon the vast
majority of her population make the bond between Warsaw and the Vatican
particularly close. Upon these permanent foundations Poland’s post-war
policy has been built. Poland owes her rebirth to the Treaty of
Versailles, which is her Magna Charta, the source of her liberty and
sovereignty. Her frontiers extend far beyond her racial boundaries. It
follows thus that Poland is one of the group of satiated states and that
the guiding factor in her foreign policy is the maintenance of the
status quo. The consolidation of peace and the integrity of her
present frontiers are two aims which determine her attitude towards the
League of Nations and its individual members. According to the Polish
conception, the task of the League should be to organise peaceful
collaboration between its members and to stabilise in a judicious manner
existing arrangements. For this reason Poland has enthusiastically
supported the Geneva Protocol and has associated herself with M.
Briand’s projected European Union.
Poland’s interest in the maintenance of the status
quo and her search for security determine her two main alliances. In
February 1921 France signed an alliance with Poland which was followed
in March of the same year by a defensive alliance between Poland and
Rumania. In 1926, under the Eastern Locarno Pact, France signed a
treaty of mutual guarantees with Poland. The two countries pledged
themselves to come to each other’s assistance in the event of German
aggression. There have recently been signs of a growing
apprehension in France as to the wisdom of backing Poland too
vigorously. This cooling off in the relations of the two countries has
been attributed partly to France’s disapproval of the violence of the
election campaign and of the treatment of minorities in Poland, and
partly to her fear of being involved in any adventures in the East of
Europe. The close alliance between Poland and her southern neighbour,
Rumania, which was renewed and enlarged in 1926, was again renewed in
January 1931. In the event of unprovoked aggression each country
undertakes to give the other immediate assistance.
Whereas Poland’s southern frontiers are guaranteed by
the alliance with Rumania, her attempts to stabilise her northern and
north-eastern frontiers and to achieve security by forming a Baltic bloc
have been hindered by the continued dispute with Lithuania. Poland has
closely collaborated with Esthonia, and the exchange of visits between
the Esthonian Chief of State and the President of the Polish Republic in
1930 showed the cordial friendship existing between the two countries.
The dreams of a Baltic alliance uniting Poland, Esthonia, Latvia, and
Lithuania have, however, never been realised. Political relations with
Latvia have been less warm than with Esthonia, and the Polish-Lithuanian
quarrel over Vilna, which is still an obstacle to communications across
the frontier, shows little sign of settlement. Recent events have
increased the anxiety for security which Poland’s geographical position
and her past inspire in her citizens. The rush of extreme nationalism
in Germany, the Nazi cry for a strong conscript Army and the revolt of
the German youth against Versailles, have made the Poles guard their
security more tenaciously than ever. No Pole, with the threats of Herr
Treviranus still ringing in his ears, can regard the Kellogg Pact as the
guardian angel of his peace. The trade war which began in 1925 has also
embittered Poland’s relations with Germany.
On her western frontier, therefore, Poland feels no
security. Neither have her relations with Soviet Russia inspired her
with great faith in her eastern neighbour, in spite of the signing of
the Litvinov Protocol (1929) for the Renunciation of War. Poland has a
propaganda value to the Communist Party. Soviet organs and theatres
never cease vilifying the Poles in caricatures and plays, in order to
provide an outlet for popular dissatisfaction and to unite the peoples
of the Union in the face of the so-called menace of intervention from
Poland. It is the belief in Moscow that war between the capitalist
states and Communist Russia is inevitable and that Poland is destined to
be the catspaw of France, America and Britain. In the Soviet Union
propaganda banners blare out the slogans “The Imperialists of the West
are preparing war on Soviet Russia.” Great stress is laid on the war
industry and everything is done to inculcate a military spirit into the
masses. The Soviet child is taught that Bessarabia is Soviet territory
temporarily in the possession of Rumania and that it was snatched away
from the socialist fatherland by the capitalists. Poland cannot remain
unperturbed by these developments in Russia, especially since most Poles
remember that ten years ago the Soviet troops came within sight of
Warsaw. Nevertheless, there is more fear of Germany than of Russia in
Poland.
The unsatisfactory relations with both Germany and
Russia do not lead Poland to envisage disarmament proposals with
enthusiasm. It is true that many observers in Warsaw consider that the
present Soviet Union is weak and would never wage war, and that only a
Bolshevik Russia would allow Poland to retain territories with a
non-Polish population. Nevertheless the existence of two hostile
neighbours makes Poland insist on there being no reduction of armaments
which might menace by one jot national security. This condition of
security could, in the Polish view, be best realised by the creation of
an organisation of peace based on three principles - arbitration, mutual
assistance, and finally disarmament such as was provided by the Geneva
protocol. Present guarantees of security are not considered sufficient
to permit Poland to make any considerable reduction in her armed
forces. She will thus not be able to play a helpful part in the
Disarmament Conference of 1932. Poland’s attitude, which can well be
understood in view of her geographical situation and of Germany’s
growing claims for revision of the frontiers, may be a serious
stumbling-block in that critical assembly.
The thirties of this century have heralded in the
campaign for the revision of the Treaty of Versailles. Last August a
speech was made by Herr Treviranus, German Minister for Occupied
Territories, in which he uttered the veiled threat that “the future of
our Polish neighbours can only be secured if Germany and Poland are not
kept in a state of unrest as a result of the unjust demarcation of
frontiers.” This seriously troubled the Polish nation. The Poles saw
that the areas which Germany claimed corresponded almost exactly with
territory lost in the First and Second Partitions. That did not augur
well for the future and the coincidence made a deep impression upon the
Polish people, who still tend to be superstitious; revision strikes the
Pole as the first step towards a new partition, as the beginning of the
end. The possession of the Polish Corridor is far more a matter of life
and death to Poland than it is to Germany. One half of Poland’s trade
goes through Gdynia and Danzig. To lose the Corridor would mean the
loss of political, economic and military independence. The refusal of
the dockworkers in Danzig to unload munitions destined for the Polish
Army when it was repelling the Bolshevik attack in 1921 drew attention
to Poland’s weakness in the Baltic, should she have no outlet to the sea
under her own control. The eternal fear of a German-Russian Alliance
makes the Poles cling more tenaciously than ever to the Corridor. “If
Germany regains her pre-war territory,” said a politician in Warsaw, “
then she will be able to join with Russia through Lithuania and we will
be like a nut in a nutcracker, surrounded on almost all sides by hostile
neighbours. We are willing to do anything to have good relations with
Germany except commit suicide.”
There is complete unity in Poland on the question of
her frontiers. Whenever Revision is mentioned, Socialists,
National-Democrats, followers of Korfanty, followers of Pilsudski, all
drop their differences and form a united national front. In Germany the
unity of opinion that Germany must change her eastern frontiers is
equally striking. No one demands, however, that the entire pre-war
territory be returned. Responsible German circles have abandoned their
claim to Posen and to the surrounding district as irrevocably as they
have to Alsace-Lorraine. Upon the Polish Corridor and Upper Silesia,
however, even moderate leaders will hear of no compromise. The threat
to the life of Danzig caused by the creation within a few miles of the
new cheap port, Gdynia, fostered by State aid, and the large measure of
Polish control over this old and proud German city, gall the Reich and
make compromise still more difficult. The points of view of the two
neighbours seem absolutely irreconcilable and the conviction is
spreading that the frontiers can only be revised by war. The Germans
invoke Article 19 of the Covenant of the League of Nations as a method
by which they can bring about Revision, namely: “The Assembly may from
time to time advise the reconsideration by Members of the League of
treaties which have become inapplicable.” The Poles retort that the
League has a prior duty to guarantee their frontiers and quote Article
10: “The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as
against aggression the territorial integrity and existing political
independence of all Members of the League.”Revision of the frontiers by
Article 19 seems out of the question. Any decision by the Assembly
would need unanimity, and even a Conference or a discussion upon
Revision would probably be rendered impossible by the refusal of the
satiated state to take part in it.
Meanwhile, Germany’s internal situation and the
distress of her eastern provinces force the Wilhelmstrasse to press
their claims for Revision. It is difficult to see by what practical
peaceful method they wish to gain this object. It is probable that at
the back of the German’s mind is the hope that one day Poland will get
into difficulties on her eastern frontiers. In such an event, some
Germans state, the price for the Reich’s neutrality would be the return
of the Corridor and of Danzig. The present Revision campaign is to
prepare the public opinion of the world for this possible course of
action. In the meantime extreme Nationalist feeling is getting red-hot
on each side of the frontier. Revision propaganda is one of the factors
which tend to damage Polish credit and to shake the belief in Poland’s
stability as a state. Any attempt at changing the frontiers at the
present moment would cause chaos in Eastern Europe into which France and
Rumania would inevitably be drawn. The Poles would fight to a man
rather than yield one inch of land. At the same time Germany will never
be reconciled to her present frontiers. Will that throw her into closer
relations with Russia and Italy? The stabilisation of the status quo
contains elements of future strife, because it will make more clear-cut
than ever the division of Europe into two camps, one seeking to revise
the Treaty of Versailles and the other aiming at the crystallisation of
the present frontiers. Revision is still more dangerous. The future is
dark and can only be brightened by economic co-operation between the two
countries and by such steps as the recent ratification by the Sejm of
the German-Polish Commercial Treaty and the Liquidation Agreement.
The treatment of minorities in Poland adds fuel to
the Revision agitation. The oppression of minorities reached its height
during the recent election campaign in November 1930 and was thus
closely connected with the present régime in Poland. Not only the
non-Poles but all opponents of the Pilsudski Government have been
treated with the utmost rigour and brutality. Since the coup d’etat
of May 1926 Poland has been governed by a hooded dictatorship and
Pilsudski has been the real force behind the scenes. His Government,
formed mainly of military men, rests not on any philosophical foundation
or practical programme but on the appeal which this historical figure
makes to the Army and to a section of the people. “Brest-Litovsk” and
the election campaign have aroused protests from all those who look
towards the West for their political ideals. “Brest-Litovsk” has become
a household word in Poland, for it was in the military fortress of that
town that some of the leading deputies were imprisoned and submitted to
physical and mental torture. They included Liebermann, the
distinguished Socialist leader, Korfanty, the national hero of the
Silesian Insurrections of 1921, and Witos, the peasant leader and former
prime minister. The outburst of moral indignation which the revelations
of the treatment of the prisoners caused shows how strong liberal and
humanitarian feelings are in Poland. The Brest-Litovsk imprisonment,
however, had no direct effect upon the minorities. It was the election
campaign which caused the minority question to flare up. Marshal
Pilsudski was determined to have a working majority in the Sejm behind
his Government, in order to introduce by legal means a new constitution
which would strengthen the hands of the President and increase the
stability and authority of government. There is no doubt that the
election was an absolute sham. All the machinery of the administration
worked at full speed to ensure the victory of the Government
supporters. Candidates were disqualified and threats and illegal
practices were not scorned. The election has given the Government a
subservient bloc in the Sejm which will carry out its orders and vote as
it is told.
The election campaign brought matters to a head in
those parts of Poland inhabited by Germans and Ukrainians. For many
years a policy of Polonisation has been hitting the Germans hard.
German schools have often been closed and parents who send their
children to these schools are liable to lose their posts or be submitted
to administrative chicanery. German-speaking people are placed under a
disadvantage in the use of their language. By the Agrarian Reform the
Polish authorities have been able to Polonise the former German
districts and to divide the estates of German landowners among Polish
peasants. Moreover, Germans are submitted to petty persecution from
small officials and from police methods. They suffer from a feeling of
legal insecurity and have not that protection of their liberty which is
accorded them by the Geneva Convention. This Convention lapses in
1937. During the election campaign party lists in some places were
confiscated and there were thus no candidates. In many towns and
villages each voter had to show openly for which party he was voting.
An ex-Servicemen’s organisation called the “Insurgents” numbering 40,000
fought vigorously for the Pilsudski Bloc and was guilty of many
violent acts. One of their election slogans was “Not a single deputy of
the national minority shall enter Parliament.” The whole attitude of
this nationalist organisation was calculated to embitter the feelings
against the Germans. The “Insurgents were presided over by none other
than the Woievode himself, Dr. Grazinski. The efforts to secure a
victory for the Government Bloc at all costs and the methods used
by the “Insurgents “ led to a considerable fall in the German vote.
In January the
League Council considered a petition from the German Volksbund and notes
from the German Government on the incidents in Polish Upper Silesia. It
was a test of the sincerity and justice of the League of Nations in its
handling of minority problems. If the League had failed, all Germany
would have been justified in calling it, as it is often called in
Germany, a “joint-stock company for the preservation of the booty won in
the War.” The League Council was pre-eminently successful in dealing
with the case. It concluded that there had been in numerous cases an
infringement of Articles 75 and 83 of the Geneva Convention. It asked
the Polish Government to furnish before May a detailed statement of the
results of the inquiries into these different cases. It expressed the
hope that the Polish Government would abolish all special links existing
between the authorities and such associations as the “ Insurgents.” The
decision of the Council was a definite rebuke to the Polish Government,
but satisfaction was expressed in Warsaw that no international
commission of inquiry was to be set up, that there was no demand for the
resignation of any person and that no special guarantees for the future
were to be introduced. Many of the inquiries recommended by the League
Council had already been undertaken by the Polish authorities. There is
every sign that the Warsaw Government is carrying out the
recommendations in a generous way. If it does so, it will be able to
count upon the sympathetic support of many states such as Great Britain,
which believe that the liberal treatment of minorities is essential for
the establishment of peace in Europe.
The Manchester Guardian has done a great
service in calling the attention of the world to the treatment of the
Ukrainians. It omitted, however, to give sufficient space to the
provocations which led to the Polish pacification. During centuries the
hatred between Ukrainian and Pole has flared up from time to time.
Gogol in his Tarass Bulba describes vividly the wars between the
Cossacks in the Ukraine and the Catholic Poles. The antagonism is not
only that between two nations, it is also the jealousy of one social
class for another. In Eastern Galicia the Pole has been the conqueror,
the landowner, the administrator, and the Ukrainian peasant has always
looked upon him as the oppressor; the peasant wants more land and the
land is in the possession of the Poles. Added to these sources of
grievance are the clashes and jealousies of the Catholics and the
Uniates. And so the movement for Independence flourishes. In September,
1930, after a series of fires, caused according to some by Ukrainian
revolutionaries and according to others by peasants anxious to receive
insurance money, a pacification began. Troops were sent to villages in
Eastern Galicia. Peasants were flayed; there were burnings and
searchings, and deeds of cruelty and brutality were committed. The
oppression of the Ukrainians takes on a more serious aspect when we
remember that in that remote corner is the frontier line between Soviet
Russia and the rest of Europe. The five to seven million Ukrainians in
Poland have twenty-five to thirty million fellow-countrymen across the
border. On the Soviet side of the frontier, although any anti-Communist
independence movement is instantly crushed, every effort is made to
encourage the Ukrainian language, literature, schools and art. The
Soviet Press knows how to describe in lurid terms the fate of the
oppressed peasants in Poland. A dissatisfied Ukraine smarting under the
memory of the Polish pacification can be no source of strength to
Poland. The recent events have put more barriers than ever in the way
of those who support the policy once advocated by Marshal Pilsudski of a
Polish-Ukrainian-Lithuanian Federation. To describe the oppression of
the minorities and to go no further does not give a true picture of the
situation. There have been serious provocations. In the Ukraine the
U.M.O., or the Ukrainian Military Organisation, is working by illegal
means for independence. It is accused of receiving funds from Berlin.
Last autumn it started on a campaign which led to the burning of Polish
cottages and barns. The final aim of the other main Ukrainian party,
the U.N.D.O., is also an independent Ukrainian national state.
The provocation in the German areas was the German
propaganda for revision which excited the Polish population. Another
factor which has made conciliation difficult is the psychological
attitude of the German towards the Pole. Until Germany realises that
Poland is a nation which has come to stay and until the Germans modify
their attitude of cultural superiority, which is so insulting to a
sensitive self-conscious people like the Poles, an understanding will be
difficult to reach.
It is a
pleasure to turn from the gloom of Poland’s relations with Russia and
Germany to the far brighter prospects of her relations with the
agricultural states of Eastern Europe. The depression among the
agrarian countries has speeded up co-operation between them. As a
result largely of Polish initiative a series of conferences was held
last year of which the most important were those of Bucharest and
Warsaw. Delegates from Rumania and Yugoslavia rubbed shoulders with
their former enemies, Hungary and Bulgaria; Latvia and Esthonia were
also present. The recommendations of the Warsaw Conference included
concerted-selling organisations and export institutions in each country.
The questions which caused the greatest difficulty to this agrarian bloc
were agricultural credits and the disposal of surplus grain stocks.
Agricultural credits have been discussed this year by the League of
Nations Financial Committee of grain experts, and surplus grain stocks
have been the subject of conferences held under the auspices of the
European Commission. It is significant that agricultural countries
stretching from the Baltic to the Black Sea should have come together
and this has been to no small degree facilitated by the wise and
far-sighted efforts of the Polish Government.
The Polish Republic is now in its second decade.
Certain events in the storm and stress of last year have not been
calculated to strengthen the position of its friends abroad. The
treatment of minorities has been a valuable weapon in the hands of those
who wish to change Poland’s frontiers. The internal methods of the
régime have disturbed many of the keenest supporters of Poland. A
recurrence of Brest-Litovsk or of the pacification in the Ukraine or of
the mishandling of Germans in Upper Silesia would deal a serious blow to
her prestige. A policy of tolerance towards minorities and towards
political opponents would be a powerful argument against Revision, and
would restore the confidence of all those millions who rejoice in
Poland’s rebirth and who look to her as a Western nation with a vital
part to play in the future of Europe.
*******
The Western Mail
March 22nd 1932
HOW HE HAS TRANSFORMED ITALY.
By GARETH JONES
Mussolini has
spoken. One word from him and Cabinet Ministers fall like ninepins.
This week he has dismissed five of the most outstanding men in the
Italian Cabinet, and the unexpectedness of the decision can be judged
from the fact that, although I was in Rome within the last fortnight,
not a single foreign observer even suspected that such a great change
was to take place.
This action
typical of the Italy of today, which is subjected to discipline and
obedience by the Duce. In each branch of Italian life Mussolini has
acted with vigour and ruthlessness.
Take railways.
In the beginning of this month I crossed the French-Italian frontier
near the Mont Cenis Pass and travelled through Turin to Genoa and Rome.
Every inch of the railway track on this journey was electrified, for
Mussolini is now carrying out a great programme of railway building.
Effect on
Welsh Miners
Through this
electrification of the railways Mussolini has adversely affected the
livelihood of many South Wales miners, tippers, and sailors, for the
Italian State Railways become less dependent on imported coal.
Looking out of
the train between the frontier and Rome, one could see that every patch
of land was cultivated and that up to the vary fringe of the mountains
the peasants had planted wheat or vegetables. Mussolini is fighting fox
the full use of Italian soil, against the crowding of the masses in the
great cities. A typical expression of his desire to foster agriculture
is the following Fascist quotation: “The dark and mysterious earth
yields other gifts than harvests: it gives birth to renunciation,
sell-sacrifice, and industry, the loftiest and noblest expressions of
the human spirit; Fascism seeks and finds in the fields the purest and
freshest spiritual reserves of the nation, and gathers and diffuses
these forces to revive new energy and poetry in the soul of the people.”
His “Liberal
“Policy.
Mussolini is
building roads, bridges, canals, and viaducts in many parts of Italy.
He aims at a re-building of his native country, and it is remarkable
that his programme follows the lines laid down by the Liberal party in
Great Britain. What irony that the enemy of Democracy should be
carrying out the policy advocated by British Liberals!
This programme
is being carried out by Mussolini in the same spirit in which he has
dismissed his Ministers, and it reveals his impetuous, energetic
nature. He will brook no rivals. Grandi, the Foreign Minister, who had
aroused the admiration of diplomats in all continents, must now go.
Mosconi, the Minister of Finance, is dismissed, and his place is taken
by Signor Guido Jung, an energetic, much traveled man, who received me
in Rome a fortnight ago. Little did I think that this keen, grey-haired
man who faced me would within fourteen days be Finance Minister of
Italy.
The
Searchlights.
Mussolini has
through his Dictatorial methods aroused great opposition. One evening a
German foreign correspondent and I, having dined together near the
Italian Foreign Office, walked out of the restaurant, looked up, and saw
searchlights flashing across the sky. “Do you know what that is?” asked
the journalist.
“Those
searchlights are to prevent anti-Fascist aeroplanes, coming from France
and manned by Italian exiles, from dropping a bomb on the Palazzo
Venezia, or from dropping pamphlets against Mussolini on the streets of
Rome.” Communism also is growing in the North of Italy.
|