By the Right Honourable David Lloyd George
(British Prime Minister in WWI)
“One man has accomplished this miracle.
He is a born leader of men.”
“I
Talked to Hitler” by the Right Honourable David Lloyd George (Daily Express, September
17, 1936)
I
HAVE just returned from a visit to Germany.
In
so short a time one can only form impressions or at least check impressions
which years of distant observation through the telescope of the Press and
constant inquiry from those who have seen things at a closer range had already
made on one’s mind.
I
have now seen the famous German Leader and also something of the great change
he has effected.
Whatever
one may think of his methods—and they are certainly not those of a
parliamentary country—there can be no doubt that he has achieved a marvelous
transformation in the spirit of the people, in their attitude towards each
other, and in their social and economic outlook.
He
rightly claimed at Nuremberg that in four years his movement has made a new
Germany.
It
is not the Germany of the first decade that followed the war—broken, dejected,
and bowed down with a sense of apprehension and impotence. It is now full of
hope and confidence, and of a renewed sense of determination to lead its own life
without interference from any influence outside its own frontiers.
There
is for the first time since the war a general sense of security. The people are
more cheerful. There is a greater sense of general gaiety of spirit throughout
the land. It is a happier Germany. I saw it everywhere and Englishmen I met
during my trip and who knew Germany well were very impressed with the change.
One
man has accomplished this miracle. He is a born leader of men. A magnetic,
dynamic personality with a single-minded purpose, a resolute will and a
dauntless heart.
He
is not merely in name but in fact the national Leader. He has made them safe
against potential enemies by whom they were surrounded. He is also securing
them against that constant dread of starvation, which is one of the poignant
memories of the last years of the War and the first years of the Peace. Over
700,000 died of sheer hunger in those dark years. You can still see the effect
in the physique of those who were born into that bleak world.
The
fact that Hitler has rescued his country from the fear of a repetition of that
period of despair, penury and humiliation has given him unchallenged authority
in modern Germany.
As
to his popularity, especially among the youth of Germany, there can be no manner
of doubt. The old trust him; the young idolise him. It is not the admiration
accorded to a popular Leader. It is the worship of a national hero who has
saved his country from utter despondency and degradation.
It
is true that public criticism of the Government is forbidden in every form.
That does not mean that criticism is absent. I have heard the speeches of
prominent Nazi orators freely condemned.
But
not a word of criticism or of disapproval have I heard of Hitler.
He
is as immune from criticism as a king in a monarchical country. He is something
more. He is the George Washington of Germany—the man who won for his country
independence from all her oppressors. To those who have not actually seen and
sensed the way Hitler reigns over the heart and mind of Germany this
description may appear extravagant. All the same, it is the bare truth. This
great people will work better, sacrifice more, and, if necessary, fight with
greater resolution because Hitler asks them to do so. Those who do not
comprehend this central fact cannot judge the present possibilities of modern
Germany.
On
the other hand, those who imagine that Germany has swung back to its old
Imperialist temper cannot have any understanding of the character of the
change. The idea of a Germany intimidating Europe with a threat that its
irresistible army might march across frontiers forms no part of the new vision.
What
Hitler said at Nuremberg is true. The Germans will resist to the death every
invader at their own country, but they have no longer the desire themselves to
invade any other land.
The
leaders of modern Germany know too well that Europe is too formidable a
proposition to be overrun and trampled down by any single nation, however
powerful may be its armaments. They have learned that lesson in the war.
Hitler
fought in the ranks throughout the war, and knows from personal experience what
war means. He also knows too well that the odds are even heavier today against
an aggressor than they were at that time.
What
was then Austria would now be in the main hostile to the ideals of 1914. The
Germans are under no illusions about Italy. They also are aware that the
Russian Army is in every respect far more efficient than it was in 1914.
The
establishment of a German hegemony in Europe which was the aim and dream of the
old pre-war militarism, is not even on the horizon of Nazism.
As
to German rearmament there can be no question of its existence. All the victors
of the great war except Britain having overlooked the obligations of their own
treaty as to disarmament, the Führer has deliberately smashed the remnant which
bound his own country.
He
has followed the example of the nations responsible for the Versailles Treaty.
It
is now an avowed part of the Hitler policy to build up an army which will be
strong enough to resist every invader from whatever quarter the attack may
come. I believe he has already achieved that measure of immunity. No country or
combination of countries could feel confident of overwhelming the Germany of
today.
Three
years of feverish preparation have so strengthened the defenses of Germany as
to make them impenetrable to attack except at a sacrifice of life which would
be more appalling than that inflicted in the great war.
But,
as any one who knows war can tell, there is a great difference between a
defensive and an offensive armament. On the defensive the arms need not be as
powerful and the troops that wield them need not be as numerous or so well
trained as in attack. A few selected machine-gunners skillfully hidden and
sheltered can hold up a division backed up by shattering artillery.
Germany
has constructed strong defensive positions and has positions and has, I have no
doubt, a sufficient number of trained or rather half-trained men with enough
machine-guns and artillery to hold these positions against attack. She has also
a very efficient and powerful air fleet.
There
is no attempt to conceal these facts. Re-armament proceeds quite openly, and
they vaunt it. It accounts for the outburst of defiance hurled against Russia.
They feel safe now.
But
it will take Germany at least 10 years to build up an army strong enough to
face the armies of Russia or France on any soil except her own. There she can
fight successfully, because she can choose battlefields which she has carefully
prepared and fortified, and she has plenty of men trained sufficiently to
defend trenches and concrete emplacements.
But
her conscript army is very young–there is a gap of years to fill up in the
reserves and particularly in officers. As an offensive army it would take quite
10 years to bring it up to the standard of the great army of 1914.
But
any attempt to repeat Poincare’s antics in the Rühr would be meet with a
fanatical resistance from myriads of brave men who count death for the
Fatherland not a sacrifice but a glory.
This
is the new temper of the German youth. There is almost a religious fervor about
their faith in the movement and its Leader.
That
impressed me more than anything I witnessed during my short visit to the new Germany.
There was a revivalist atmosphere. It has had an extraordinary effect in
unifying the nation.
Catholic
and Protestant, Prussian and Bavarian, employer and workman, rich and poor,
have been consolidated into one people. Religious, provincial and class origins
no longer divide the nation. There is a passion for unity born of dire
necessity.
The
divisions which followed the collapse of 1918 made Germany important to face
her problems, internal and external. That is the clash of rival passions is not
only deprecated but temporarily suppressed.
Public
condemnation of the Government is censored as ruthlessly as it is in a state of
war. To a Briton accustomed to generations of free speech and a free Press this
restraint on liberty is repellent, but in Germany, where such freedom is not as
deeply rooted as it is here, the nation acquiesces not because it is afraid to
protest, but because it has suffered so much from dissension that the vast
majority think it must be temporarily called off at all costs.
Freedom
of criticism is therefore for the time being in suspense. German unity is the
ideal and the idol of the moment, and not liberty.
I
found everywhere a fierce and uncompromising hostility to Russian Bolshevism,
coupled with a genuine admiration for the British people with a profound desire
for a better and friendlier understanding with them.
The
Germans have definitely made up their minds never to quarrel with us again. Nor
have they and vindictive feelings towards the French. They have altogether put out
of their minds any desire for the restoration of Alsace-Lorraine.
But
there is a real hatred of Bolshevism, and unfortunately it is growing in
intensity. It constitutes the driving force of their international and military
policy. Their private and public talk is full of it. Wherever you go you need
not wait long before you hear the words “Bolshevismus”and it recurs again and
again with a wearying reiteration.
Their
eyes are concentrated on the East as if they were watching intently for the
breaking of the day of wrath. Against this they are preparing with German
thoroughness.
This
fear is not put on. High and low they are convinced there is every reason for
apprehension. They have a dread of the great army which has been built up in
Russia in recent years.
An
exceptionally violent anti-German campaign of abuse printed in the Russian
official Press and propelled by the official Moscow radio has revived the
suspicion in Germany that the Soviet Government are contemplating mischief
against the Fatherland.
Unfortunately
the German leaders set this down to the influence of prominent Russian Jews,
and this the anti-Jewish sentiment is being once more stirred up just as it was
fading into turpitude. The German temperament takes no more delight in persecution
than does the Briton, and the native good humor of the German people soon
relapses into tolerance after a display of ill temper. Every well-wisher of
Germany—and I count myself among them—earnest pray that Goebbels’s ranting
speeches will not provoke another anti-Jewish manifestation. It would do much
to wither the verdant blades of good will which were growing so healthily in
the scorched battleground which once separated great civilised nations.
But
we should do wisely not to attach extravagant importance to recent outbursts
against Russia. The fact of the matter is, the German Government in its
relations with Russia is now in the stag: from which we ourselves have only
just emerged.
We
can all recall the time when Moscow, through its official publications, Press
and radio, made atrocious personal attacks on individual British
Ministers–Austen Chamberlain, Ramsay MacDonald and Churchill–and denounced our
political and economic system as organized slavery. We started this campaign of
calumny by stigmatising their leaders as assassins, their economic system as
brigandage, their social behaviour as an orgy of immorality and atheism.
This
has been the common form of diplomatic relationship between Communist Russia
and the rest of the world on both sides. We must not forget that even when we
had a Russian Minister here we actually sent the police to raid one of the
official buildings of the Russian Embassy to rummage for treason in their
hampers of frozen butter.
No
one imagined that was intended as a preliminary or a provocation to war on
either side. The slinging of scurrilities between Germany and Russia is only
the usual language of diplomacy to which all countries have been accustomed
during the last 20 years where Communist Russia is concerned.
It
is important we should realise for the sake of our peace of mind that a
repetition of this unseemly slanging match does not in the least portend war.
Germany is no more ready to invade Russia than she is for a military expedition
to the moon.
What
then did the Führer mean when he contrasted the rich but under-cultivated lands
of the Ukraine and Siberia and the inexhaustible mineral resources of the Urals
with the poverty of German soil? It was simply a Nazi retort to the accusation
hurled by the Soviets as to the miseries of the peasantry and workers of
Germany under Nazi rule.
Hitler
replied by taunting the Soviets with the wretched use they were making if the
enormous resources of their own country in comparison with the Nazi achievement
in the land whose natural wealth was relatively poor.
He
and his followed have a horror of Bolshevism and undoubtedly underrate the
great things the Soviets have accomplished in their vast country. The
Bolsheviks retaliate by understating Hitler’s services to Germany. It is only
an interchange of abusive amenities between two authoritarian Governments. But
it does not mean war between them.
I
have no space in which to give a catalogue of the schemes which are being
carried through to develop the resources of Germany and to improve the
conditions of life for her people. They are immense and they are successful.
I
would only wish to say here that I am more convinced than ever that the free
country to which I have returned is capable of achieving greater things in that
direction if its rulers would only pluck up courage and set their minds boldly
to the task.
No comments:
Post a Comment