A CATHOLIC NAZI SPEAKS FOR GERMANY

My mother writes to me that you are interested in getting a German Catholic's view on the present situation with a special regard to the Anglo-German tension.
You know that I was a journalist, as Paris and Brussels correspondent of German papers and of the German news agency, D.N.B. (corresponding to Reuter's in your country).
A few years ago I inherited land in the Sudeten territory and gave up my profession. Yet I continued publishing articles in German periodicals, and nne of them, written twelve months ago, was entitled "Days in Bohemia—Letter to a Friend in England."
Already then I had realised the deep ill-feeling that began to prevail amongst the intelligentsia of your country against. what one calls "Nazism." One of my best friends, an English painter and wood-engraver, living in Paris, considered it necessary to tell me " frankly" how awfully we bad been behaving in incorporating Austria.
Having participated myself in the march through Austria and witnessed the enthusiasm of the population I tried in vain to convince my Paris friend.
We had meant to publish together in Germany my translation of Keats' Odes and Sonnets, illustrated by him. I persuaded one of our first literary monthlies to take it and even to publish a special article on his wood engravings besides. Yet he refused to have anything published any more in Germany bemuse of our "outrageous behaviour in Austria and in Spain." So my Keats translations will be published without illustrations in an Anthology of English Poetry next year.
The Reason
Why so many personal remarks, you may ask. Just to prove to you that I do not belong either to a prejudiced crowd, worked up—as you may fancy in England — by anti English propaganda, or to the majority of people who have no personal knowledge of other countries and of their civilisation.
And secondly I mentioned the above facts to show that it has certainly not been Germany that started the "anti" campaign. I do not mean to enter into discussions on the Jewish question, but I may say without bias that an extremely bitter and nostile campaign has been waged for years against National Socialism and NationalSocialist Germany' before the Fiihrer uttered the first critical word against your country.
It is true that nowadays German reaction is very strong and perhaps violent in its arguments. Unfortunately political polemics are never characteristic for their refinement!
Or has your Press, particularly the Left one, been very careful in its use of expressions about to-day's Germany?
One Thing Remains
One thing, however, ties remained. It is at the same time an essential characteristic of our two nations and of our northern race : We do not hate individually. Germans seem to me as little able as ever to hate the British as individuals. I regret to say that it has rather been from the British camp that break of personal relations on
account moral indignation has been
la
account moral indignation has been
la Having lived through the years of emancipation of the Sudetenland on the spot, I belong to those Catholics who do not build up spiritual obstacles between creed and National-Socialism. Over here the population is 100 per cent. Catholic, practising Catholics and National-Socialist at the same time. The priests have been marching In the first ranks of the Henlein movement and have most of them joined the NationalSocialist Party. Personally I belong to the S.A.
A friend wrote to me from England a week ago that German " intolerance " against England had to be explained by the fact that Germany and every German individual were materially poorer than Great Britain and the average Englishman. And tolerance was the privilege of "people with an income above f500 a year." There is much truth in this sober statement. At the same time the writer admits that the German case, seen as that of the poor, has more moral justification than the conservative argument generally admits. Fighting against the Fascist States and their claims as revolutionary ones is certainly a truer pretence than that of standing for Peace and Freedom.
In any case it would he more accurate to own that one was fighting for the established order and distribution of wealth as a stubborn Tory (on the international ground) than pretending to be a propagator of Progress and Liberalism.
Intolerant Tolerants
Yet another word on " Tolerance." As an English Catholic you will be aware of the centuries of suppression that have been declared necessary by intolerant Tolerants in the name of Progress and Freedom. When you scratch the Englishman, the Protestant will appear. I think Bernard Shaw says so in his Joan of Arc. The Protestant has changed into the Liberal, and this Liberal will be highly tolerant and generous as long as his Liberalism is not challenged.
You see, I write fragments that come to my mind, not a well-built article. This is meant rather to give you the elements to compose yourself the article I ought to send you. Perhaps the result will be all the better. Writing in a foreign language—my English, alas, has deteriorated for lack of practice— does not only make one commit mistakes and coarseness of expression, but also causes deviations of the trend of thought. Yet you wrote to my mother that you wanted the opinion to be expressed in English rather than in German. And you need it quickly as well; so here you are!
Danzig
A word on Danzig.
I think you have chosen the worst possible ground for the "new policy" of " stopping " Hitler; for, unluckily, the Danzig issue cannot leave any doubt about Right and Wrong. And in the most decisive moment the question of moral right will weigh very heavily. Germany had to realise this in Belgium in 1914.
When it conies to the alternative of World Peace or World War, I dare say Germany will prove to be far more vitally interested in Danzig than Great Britain.
And "Stop Hitler " is a purely negative argument. Hitler certainly never meant to endanger the Empire, but realising that your Government was completely deaf to the colonial question while naively and incessantly interfering in our eastern spheres of interest, the Fiihrer probably considered the attack to be the best defence. I mean attack by argument and propaganda, not armed attack, of course.
Lack of Logic
You may say that you did not mean to interfere, but simply to defend the freedom of small States. You may also say that "spheres of interest" are indications of imperialistic mentality.
The answer is: your protective attitude for small States only comprises such nations as are utterly uninteresting for conquest (like spinsters, for offering violence, excuse this metaphor!) while protection of national freedom is not offered for coloured races and parts of the Empire, like Ireland, for centuries. Further, any indignation about Imperialism proves a considerable lack of logic on the side of Empire own ers, . . .
Lack of Life
Let me continue my fragmentary thoughts by the following: Is Western Civilisation collapsing through a lack of Nerves? No, it is dying by a lack of Life. While its science is in full flower, the world of Western Democracy is withering from below, and underneath the surface brilliance of philosophy and literature the sources of life of the people are drying up.
The strength of Western Civilisation rests on a regional and agricultural
foundation. . . . is not by me, but you will find it on page 65 of Christopher Dawson's Progress and Religion. I only put " Western " for "Hellenic " and apply the sentences to the present time. Yet the passage struck me when re-reading it the other day.
The " lack of nerves " theory is Gilbert Murray's. As early as in 1929 Dawson proved his insight into the lifelessness of a civilisation without agricultural basis. I think he is right, and Gilbert Murray has proved since by his unsuccessful attitude in international questions during the years past that " lack of nerves " is not the right diagnosis of the condition of Western Democracy.
Meanwhile National-Socialism, with a true instinct for re-discovering the sources of vitality, has made every individual and the organised community much stronger than they had been a few years ago. This process of vital regeneration seems to my mind the important thing. That it can only be attained by sacrifices—and very painful sacrifices of many aesthetic refinements indeed—cannot be denied. Yet I trust we both agree that modern aestheticism in Art and Life is morbid and does not even produce any true genius.
I hope I have not been rude or too outspoken. If that is so, please put things more mildly, as I really should hate to embitter discussions.
Editorial Comment, page 8.