Chapter XVII

1 One should not entirely forget that in the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries Prague had been repeatedly the capital of the first German Reich, where the Holy Roman Emperors (of the Luxemburg and Hapsburg dynasties) resided. Prague had a Germanic character and, before Luther’s translation of the Bible, standard German was the language used by the Imperial Chancellery in Prague (Prager Kanzleisprache). Czech history is an integral part of German history—Polish, Hungarian, Croat history is not.

2 Cf. Winston S. Churchill, The Second World War, Vol. 1, p. 252. Czechoslovakia, created only in 1918, (and without historic precedent) had been considered by Hungary and Poland a merely temporary arrangement. The Teschen region occupied by Poland in October 1938 had a clear Polish majority (Polish deputies in Vienna and later in the Prague parliaments!) and had been adjudicated to Czechoslovakia by the conference of the ambassadors on July 28, 1920 when the Red army was marching on Warsaw. Poland protested in vain. The Hungarians reoccupied Magyar-inhabited areas which had belonged to Hungary for over 1,000 years until 1920 (Treaty of Trianon). Not to occupy these areas would have meant leaving them to the Nazis. If the French had annexed Kent and Sussex at the time of the Congress of Vienna, would it have been immoral for Britain to invade these undoubtedly British areas in 1871 from a “prostrate France”?

We now know from Lord Moran how gravely ill Churchill was during and after World War II and should view his actions and words with a certain leniency. Cf. his Churchill (London: Constable, 1966). The fact that in the Great Emergency there was nobody else around endowed with manliness, authority, and courage is merely one more proof that the qualities of the pre-World War I generation had not been in our times. Around 1960 we still saw in Europe the rule of septuagenarians and octagenarians. They are now all being succeeded by “small fry.”

As to the Teschen (Cieszyn) area, cf. the letter of Ignacy Jan Paderewski, addressed on July 28, 1920 to the President of the Council of Ambassadors, A. Miller, and quoted by W. Kulski and M. Potulicki in Recueil de textes de droit international (Warsaw, 1939) pp. 278ff.

3 Polish Jews did not live in ghettos prior to World War II: there were, quite naturally, Jewish quarters or rather neighborhoods predominantly populated by Jews, a phenomenon one also can witness in Western Europe and in North America—just as there are in Dutch cities predominantly Catholic or in New York predominantly German quarters. Nor was the medieval Jewish quarter in its origin an institution imposed by the Christian authorities. Jews, according to their religion, were not permitted to live in trefen, gentile houses. Cf. Guido Kisch, The Jews in Medieval Germany (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1949) p. 292: “There can no longer be any doubt that the separation of the Jewish from the general settlements in medieval cities had its origin in the free will of the early Jewish settlers and by no means in compulsory measures imposed on them. Such measures would be absolutely contradictory to the alluring conditions of settlement offered at times to Jewish immigrants, such as those included in the old Rhenish Jewry privileges. . . . Inclosure within walls or behind a gate was at first considered a particular favor by the Jews.”

4 The Polish “Fascist aristocratic landowner” (with monarchist, clerical, and plutocratic innuendos) is a bugbear in the Western world. Yet large landownership in Poland prior to 1939 was by no means substantial. Before the agrarian reform, enacted by the old “reactionary” government, 73 percent of the arable land belonged to the peasants, rich or poor, i.e., to persons holding less than 100 hectares or 247 acres. After the land reform which divided just over eight million acres or 47 percent of the bigger holdings, more than 87 percent of the arable territory belonged to small and middle-size holders of not more than the aforementioned 247 acres. These data do not include forests. Cf. R. Krygier, “Poland’s Agrarian Policy,” The Polish Review (New York), vol. 3, no. 38 (October 18, 1943), p. 11.

5 This is the real Prussia. (West Prussia was a nonhistorical name given to the lands which had been Polish between 1446 and 1776.) East Prussia is a much maligned area of Germany. Cf. the nice sentence, “In view of East Prussia’s long history of leadership in German militarism its complete euthanasia is, on the whole, justifiable.” Where do we find this bright remark? In John Kenneth Galbraith’s Reconstruction in Europe, (Washington, D. C.: The National Planning Association, 1947), p. 21. What about Kant, Herder, Simson, Hamann, and Wiechert? Were these militarists? The so highly humanitarian wisdom of Mr. Galbraith, an economist of note, has its counterpart in the representation of East Prussia in the New Yorker’s “Our Own Baedeker” (vol. 20, no. 23, July 22, 1944, p. 12). These facetious irresponsibilities often have disastrous effects in the long run.

6 On Anglomania cf. Chapter VII, note 20. Hitler’s anglomania knew no bounds. This much emerges clearly from his “Table Talks.” Cf. Dr. Henry Picker, op. cit., passim. Take, for instance, p. 145 (September 8-10, 1941) when Hitler spoke about the glorious day he probably would not live to see, when the British and the Germans, shoulder to shoulder, would be fighting against the United States. Needless to say he knew neither England nor America.

7 Cf. Dr. Paul Schmidt, op. cit., pp. 473-474. Ribbentrop despised England and was deeply impressed by Russia. He was desperate when Hitler declared war upon the USSR. Cf. Henry Picker, op. cit., pp. 238-239, and Valentin Byerezhkov, “Na rubyezhe mira i voyny (S diplomaticheskoy missiyey v Berlinye 1940-1941).” Novy Mir, vol. 41, no. 7 (July 1965), pp. 143-184.

8 Cf. Joseph C. Harsch, Germany at War (New York: Foreign Policy Association, 1942), pp. 7-8, and Albert Speer, op. cit., pp. 180-181. Since I spent the first three days of World War II in Germany and saw the general despair (comparing it with the genuine enthusiasm and the clear conscience in 1914) I told everybody upon my return to the United States that such a melancholy nation could not possibly win a war. I was basically right. Yet while it is relatively easy to foretell events, it is most difficult to forecast their timing. I could not guess that defeat would come as late as 1945 (nor could I guess its main cause-to-be: unconditional surrender).

The lack of enthusiasm was especially strong in the army. Harsch (op. cit., pp. 46-47) said rightly, “Thinking back over a year and a half in wartime Germany, I am impressed by the fact that the most intelligent, the most interesting, the most fair-minded—in fact, in all respects the most honorable—men I met were in the army, serving people they despised to an end in which they did not believe, but welcoming the opportunity to forget their feelings about these men and those ends in what seemed to them a last means of serving their country.” This frightening dichotomy under which the army suffered is highlighted by a conversation which Ernst Jünger had in Russia with Colonel Ravenstein, a man he knew from World War I. “I asked him about the massmurder caves and how he could square their evidence with the honor of arms and the wearing of military decorations. Without entering into the matter he gave me a reply which to me came unexpectedly: ‘For this, perhaps, my youngest daughter will have to pay some day in a Negro brothel.’ ” Cf. his Strahlungen, p. 330.

9 Another American observer was convinced that the generals were more bitter enemies of Hitler than the Communists: Cf. Howard K. Smith, Last Train from Berlin (New York: Knopf, 1942), p. 280. Hitler suspected quite rightly that nobody among the bourgeoisie or the Marxists would dare to assassinate him. (Dr. Henry Picker, op. cit., p. 307, May 3, 1942). Actually the man who came nearest to killing him was a Catholic Officer, Count Klaus Schenk von Stauffenberg, indeed neither a bourgeois nor a Marxist.

Another good account of Germany during the war was given by the Swedish journalist Arvid Fredborg in his book Bakom Stålvallen, American edition: Behind the Steel Wall (A Swedish Journalist in Berlin 1941-1943) (New York: The Viking Press, 1944), especially pp. 74-75, 239, 241, 248, 275.

10 The diaries of Ulrich von Hassell, a German diplomat executed by the Nazis, make the most melancholy reading. Every victory of Hitler, every success of his country (“My country wrong, not right!”) plunged him into a new fit of depression. Cf. his Vom anderen Deutschland. Aus den nachgelassenen Tagebüchern 1938-1944 (Zürich: Atlantis, 1946).

11 By far the best biography of Canaris is K. H. Abshagen, Canaris, Patriot und Weltbürger (Stuttgart: Union Deutsche Verlagsgesellschaft, 1949). This splendid book not only brings out the facts, but also presents the man’s character. It sounds incredible, but I heard about Canaris’ role in New York in 1943, while the Admiral was still active. His widow was invited by Franco to come to Spain where she was given a pension.

12 See his book, Die Zweite Revolution (München-Zwickau: Franz Ehek, 1927), p. 47, where he writes, “We are looking to Russia because she is most likely to march with us in the direction of socialism—because Russia is for us the natural ally against the diabolic infection and corruption coming from the West.”

13 Hitler repeatedly boasted about the speed with which the opinion of his press on political matters could “make a 180 degree turn.” He cited the case of his attack on Russia, Cf. Henry Picker, op. cit., p. 344. Yet one should not forget that the press can change public opinion so swiftly only because the masses are so fickle, their loyalties ephemeral, their convictions not grounded. The people of Milan had wildly cheered Mussolini only in January 1945. A few months later they spat at his corpse. Cf. Luigi Barzini, The Italians (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1964), p. 155

14 Joachim Ribbentrop was adopted by a titled aunt and used the name “von Ribbentrop.” He figures in the Genealogisches Handbuch der adeligen Häuser (Limburg: Starke, 1961), vol. 5, p. 306 as “nonnoble user of the name.” This means that in the defunct monarchy he would have been prosecuted for using a title without the monarch’s patent or permission.

15 Cf. Paul Schmidt, op. cit., p. 481.

16 While the western border of Poland was fixed at Versailles, the eastern one was the result of the Treaty of Riga (1921) between Poland and Soviet Russia. The Versailles Treaty, American and British readers (and news editors) should bear in mind, dealt only with Germany—and with no other country. Many other treaties were made in the 1919-1923 period: St. Germain-en-Laye (Austria), Neuilly (Bulgaria), Sèvres (first treaty with Turkey), Trianon (Hungary), Lausanne (second treaty with Turkey).

17 Molotov’s speech was made before the Ts.I.K. (Central Executive Committee of the USSR) on October 31, 1939. It was reprinted in Soviet Russia Today (New York), November 1939.

18 Not only Portuguese and Spanish volunteers went to fight with the Finns, but even Britishers. (One of my English friends lost a leg in Karelia.) Actually London and Paris were preparing an expeditionary corps to come to the aid of Finland, when the armistice was declared.

19 The relatively largest organized Communist parties west of the Iron Curtain are those of Iceland and Finland. Iceland is a very prosperous country with high living standards and so is Finland, which even “enjoys” the immediate neighborhood of Russia. Yet ideology is blind to experience. It is autonomous. And Nordic communism (as in Swedish Lapland) is based on convictions, not, as in Italy, on mere grudges or some sort of collective blackmail—believing that a big Red vote means better wages and salaries.

Without the German army assisting Baron Mannerheim’s “White Guard” in 1917-1918, Finnish communism would have won out in the Civil War. The Finnish Communists were famous for their unparalleled cruelty—especially, however, the Red women’s regiments from Tampere (Tammerfors) who tortured their prisoners to death. The Red “General” Antikainen, who had a special dislike for students, apparently had them boiled in large kettles. These delirious horrors of Europe’s most literate nation just show that the beast is always right in us—which should give little comfort to our “humanist” Roussellians.

20 Terijoki is a resort about halfway between Viborg (Viipuri) and Leningrad on the Karelian Isthmus. It now belongs to the USSR. Here was established the first “People’s Democratic Republic,” a delightful pleonasm coined by an illiterate. The next step would be a “Popular People’s Democratic Republic”—with no rights for the people whatsoever.

21 Sir Owen O’Malley, British minister to Hungary, was also evacuated through Vladivostok, making the trip from Hungary through the Soviet Union eastward. He and his party were treated like criminals in early 1941 whereas the Germans trying to reach their fatherland were practically guests of honor.

22 Cf. Georgi Dimitroff, Der Kampf gegen den imperialistischen Krieg, (Stockholm: Weltbibliothek, 1940), p. 14. On Georgi M. Dimitrov cf. The Fate of East Central Europe (Notre Dame: The University of Notre Dame Press, 1956), pp. 275-276. The late Georgi Dimitrov, like all the Communists of the older generation, had been a Social Democrat in his earlier years.

23 An anonymous German author wrote in 1949, Cf. “La responsabilité des officiers,” in Temps Modernes, 5. year, no. 46-47, August-September 1949, pp. 495-496.

National Socialism could have been overcome from inside, by a revolution only if a very important opposition had existed among the lower layers, prepared to sacrifice everything to the revolution, to follow the officers, flag-bearers of the revolt. Any other attempt at rebellion would have been considered reactionary by the masses and passionately resisted. . . . There is no revolution of leaders without the people. Yet, for the fact that an ideology favoring an uprising was lacking among the people, the very men should feel responsible who today think they must put the entire blame on the German officer: Also one must assume that they believe it would have been possible for a new revolutionary uprising to mature only then, years after the events of 1933.

24 If one reads about the plans of Himmler for the time after victory—these included periodic shooting parties with human victims in the Eastern Marches of the great German Reich—one has to come reluctantly to such a conclusion. I admittedly reason as a Christian that the liquidation of Christianity was a definite Nazi plan. On February 2, 1942 Hitler declared he would exterminate Christianity—just as the superstition of witchcraft had effectively been wiped out. He called Christianity eine Kulturschande, a “cultural scandal.” Cf. Henry Picker, op. cit., p. 176.

25 Cf. letter in The Commonweal, March 12, 1965, p. 751. Cf. The Journals of Soren Kierkegaard, A selection of Alexander Dru, ed. (London-New York: Oxford University Press, 1938), no. 1210 (April 1951).

26 A complete English translation of Mein Kampf did not exist before 1941. Of course, the modern statesman cannot (or hardly could be) a scholar or at least a real student of world affairs: vote-getting consumes half of his time. Nor, we must confess, were all leading Nazis avid readers of Mein Kampf. Fritz Wiedemann says that many people in Hitler’s entourage had never perused this fateful book. (op. cit., p. 56). Göring also admitted this in 1946 during the Nuremberg trial. We obviously are going through an interesting period of semiliteracy, where everybody can write, but few people will or can read.

27 Cf. Chapter XVI, Note 107. And, as Robert Murphy pointed out, “Hull was often depicted as the most anti-Soviet member of the Roosevelt cabinet, whereas he was virtually cocreator with the President of the ‘Grand Design’ for the postwar world, a plan which assumed that the United States and Soviet Russia could become partners in peace because circumstances had made them partners in war.” Murphy quotes Hull’s address to Congress after his return from the Foreign Ministers’ Conference in Algiers during which the Secretary of State said, “There will no longer be need for spheres of influence, for alliances, for balance of power, or any other of the special arrangements through which, in the unhappy past, the nations strove to safeguard their security or to promote their interests.” Cf. Robert Murphy, Diplomat Among Warriors (London: Collins, 1964), p. 259. For such a brilliant mind the Nobel Peace Prize was indeed a shabby reward.

28 Cf. Jan Ciechanowski, Defeat in Victory (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1947), p. 223.

29 Cf. Graf Hermann Keyserling, Das Spektrum Europas (Heidelberg: Niels Kampmann, 1928), pp. 23-33.

30 Cf. Jan Ciechanowski, op. cit., pp. 330-331.

31 Vide, for instance, The Stilwell Papers (New York: William Sloane, 1948), pp. 251-254.

32 Cf. The Economist (London), vol. 152, no. 5393 (January 4, 1947), pp. 20-21.

33 Cf. Robert I. Gannon, S. J. The Cardinal Spellman Story. (New York: Doubleday, 1962), pp. 222-225. See also Note 66 of this Chapter.

34 Cf. Elliott Roosevelt, As Father Saw It (New York: Duell, Sloane and Pearce, 1946), p. 117. On Churchill and unconditional surrender cf. also Emry Hughes, Winston Churchill in War and Peace (Glasgow: Unity Publishing, 1950), pp. 206ff. The formula, of which Roosevelt thought that it had terminated the War between the States, was actually used by U. S. Grant in February 1862 during the siege of Port Donelson in Tennessee. One would think, quite naturally, that the unconditional surrender formula today would hardly find a defender in the West, but as late as 1955 an American scholar could write (and publish) an essay about this calamity, terminating with the words, “On all counts and contemporary criticisms notwithstanding, it was one of the most effective achievements of American statesmanship of the entire war period.” Cf. John L. Chase, “Unconditional Surrender,” The Political Science Quarterly, Summer 1955, p. 279. No wonder that, reacting to such academic wisdom, we also have an anti-intellectualism of the right!

35 Cf. General Albert C. Wedemeyer, Wedemeyer Reports! (New York: Henry Holt, 1958), pp. 90-91. Churchill’s quoted remark was made on February 27, 1945, in the House of Commons. (Cf. also his speech on September 31, 1943).

36 Cf. David Irving, The Destruction of Dresden (London: William Kimber, 1963) pp. 20-25. Irving points out that under the terms of Article 25 of the 1907 Hague Convention Rotterdam could be attacked because it was not an undefended city. (The same could be said of Warsaw.) Only forty of the 100 attacking planes heard the signal cancelling the attack. The number of people killed according to the American press was 40,000. The rectified data were supplied to David Irving by Rotterdam authorities in 1962.

37 Cf. Winston S. Churchill, The Second World War, vol. 2. p. 567.

38 Cf. Chapter XVI, Note 118.

39 Cf. J. M. Spaight, The Battle of Britain 1940 (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1941), pp. 22-24, 30, 34, 217, 220.

40 Cf. J. M. Spaight, Bombing Vindicated, (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1944), p. 74.

41 Cf. Basil Liddell-Hart, “War Limited,” Harper’s, March 1946, pp. 198-199.

42 Cf. J. C. F. Fuller, The Second World War, 1935-1945 (New York: Duell, Sloane and Pearce, 1949), pp. 222-223.

43 In Buchenwald concentration camp Princess Mafalda, daughter of King Victor Emmanuel III and wife of Prince Philip of Hesse, was severely wounded and died a few days later. In an Allied attack on the Hague 800 Dutchmen were killed (almost as many as by the Germans in Rotterdam!) and 20,000 were left homeless. Cf. The New York Times, March 25, 1945. The Easter Sunday Massacre of Belgrade in 1943 turned many Serbs against the Western Allies. Only one-half of the Allied bombs were dropped on Germany, one-eighth on Italy, one-fifth on France. More Frenchmen were killed by the Allies than by German bombs. According to a semiofficial statistic, no less than 67,078 Frenchmen were killed and 75,660 wounded by the Allied air warfare between 1941 and 1944. Cf. Robert Aron, Histoire de Vichy 1940-1944 (Paris: Fayard, 1954) p. 604.

44 Cf. Bernard Iddings Bell, Crowd Culture (New York: Harper, 1952), pp. 25-26.

45 Even Sir Compton MacKenzie did. This great Conservative, Scottish Nationalist, and Catholic convert suddenly developed pro-Soviet sympathies, as can be seen in the last volume of his Winds of Love. The fascination undoubtedly transcended the leftist camp.

46 As quoted by Oswald Garrison Villard in the Christian Century, March 14, 1945, p. 334. (Speech of December 5, 1939.)

47 This is the reason why the Socialist (Social Democratic) parties are always susceptible to the “Call of the Wild.” (The term Social Democrat has been coined by the near-anarchist Bakunin.) It is true that the East German, Hungarian, Czech, Polish, Rumanian, Socialists have often fled the dominions of Moscow, but the Communists have forced Socialists (Social Democrats) into the camp of “Socialist Unity”—not other parties. Among the run of the mill Socialists there are two kinds: those who really have watered the Marxist wine, and those who have remained Marxists but want to achieve the Great Goal democratically by parliamentary majorities. In an emergency, i.e., in case of a Communist takeover, the former usually emigrate and the latter collaborate. Yet Socialists who want to establish a collective state and society by persuasion (i.e., by “cerebral conquest”) are just as much enemies of the right order as the revolutionaries who want to achieve an evil social system by the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” The ends always remain reprehensible, only the means differ morally. And, in a deeper sense, popular feelings notwithstanding, the seducer is more diabolic and destructive than the rapist.

48 Eugene Lyons called this film the intellectual abdication of America. It probably was the grossest piece of propaganda ever projected on the American screen.

49 Miss Lillian Hellman also helped to direct a film with idyllic scenes of Russian collective farms.

50 Cf. Quentin Reynolds, Only the Stars Are Neutral (New York: Random House, 1942).

51 Ibid., p. 284.

52 Ibid., p. 207.

53 Ibid., p. 98. If one knows the highly critical public utterances of Father Braun after his return, one really wonders what he told or did not tell Mr. Reynolds. As to religion in the USSR, the recent authoritative books of Walter Kolarz, (Religion in the Soviet Union, London: Macmillan, 1962) and Nikita Struve (Les chrétiens en USSR, Paris: Seuil, 1964) paint a depressing and frightful picture.

54 Only Rhode Island among the original States had no establishment or religious tests for office. Disestablishment in Massachusetts came only in 1833. In New Hampshire until 1877 only “Protestants” could be elected for Congress, in New Jersey until 1844 nobody but a “Protestant” could hold political office. Congress also continued to vote public funds for “Protestant” missions among Indians. Here again is a potent myth! Cf. also Joseph McSorley CSP, Father Hecker and His Friends (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1952), p. 69. See also the letter by Mr. H. J. Freeman in The Commonweal, vol. 76, no. 20, September 7, 1962, pp. 495-496 full of specific data and referring to a recent decision of the Supreme Court proving its irrational stand on the First Amendment. “If the Black-Rutledge interpretation of the amendment was correct,” he wrote, “then Congress had been acting unconstitutionally for 160 years during which it passed law after law concerning religion or religious institutions, and Madison did not know the meaning of the amendment he himself had drafted.”

55 Those who read Alexander Solzhenytsin’s splendid novel The First Circle about a “swank” concentration camp (for technological specialists) in 1949 should also delve into the even more terrifying account of Anatoli Marchenko, My Testimony, which deals with concentration camps today. Only the very naive think that they have disappeared with Stalin’s death.

56 Cf. the terrible statistics of Nikita Struve’s op. cit., Annex IV, dealing with the martyred bishops of the USSR.

57 Cf. Quentin Reynolds, op. cit., p. 173.

58 Ibid., p. 110.

59 Cf. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Black Banners (Caldwell, Idaho: Caxton Printers, 1954), pp. 279-280. The brazen lies, needless to say, are usually the most successful ones, especially if they are stupid and most obviously contradict truth. Take for instance, the review of Abel Plenn’s Wind in Olive Trees by W. E. Garrison in the Christian Century, June 1946, p. 781. There we find the statement that “most Spanish liberal leaders, including 30,000 Protestants, had been exterminated” (i.e., by the Franco regime). Mr. W. E. Garrison was literary editor of the Christian Century and I immediately hastened to write a letter to the editor of this left-of-center weekly, inquiring why nobody had previously reported the biggest “sectarian massacre” in all history. I never got a reply and my letter, naturally, never appeared in the worthy paper.

60 In 1914 people in England stoned dachshunds and burnt German pianos, a Russian mob stormed the German embassy in St. Petersburg, in Paris German-owned shops were destroyed, in Germany patriots greeted each other with “Gott strafe England!” and in the United States sauerkraut was re-named “liberty cabbage”—phenomena unthinkable in the earlier eighteenth century.

61 Miss Lisa Sergio was probably one of the most fanatical “anti-Fascist” and leftist radio commentators, yet in a book which she had published a few years earlier in Italy—From Intervention to Empire (Rome: Novissima, 1937)—she wrote, “Notwithstanding the many deficiencies in this first book of Fascist Dates I dedicate it to the memory of all the Black Shirts who, within Italy and abroad, have written in their blood the glorious dates of the Fascist Era.” This historic calendar is not uninteresting. Thus we read on page 177 under the heading July 25, 1934: “Herr Dollfuss, Austrian Chancellor, is assassinated by the Reds in Vienna.” That these Reds were Nazis is a piece of newspeak.

62 When I asked a Hungarian refugee and noted Iranian scholar of whom I heard that he was working in the O.W.I. (Office of War Information), whether he was in the German department, he answered sombrely, “Je ne suis pas encore tombé si bas”—“I have not fallen as low yet.”

63 Cf. Gustav Stolper, This Age of Fable (New York: Reynal and Hitchcock, 1942), p. 328, “The position of Hitlerism in public discussions has been largely fixed by the fact that the bulk of anti-Hitler literature . . . was written by Marxist authors of various denominations. As their political thinking was tied down to the Procrustean bed of primitive social philosophy, all they had to do was to fit the phenomenon of Hitlerism into their ready-made scheme. Since Hitler was anti-Marxist—whatever that meant—he must be the puppet of Capitalists. Once that was taken for granted, the details of the story were freely invented.” Here again one has to bear in mind that the connection between class and ideology or financial interest is most flimsy. The three “Angels” of the New York Daily Worker were wealthy ladies: Susan Homans Woodruff, a D.A.R.; Anne Whitaker Pennypacker, daughter of Samuel Pennypacker, Governor of Pennsylvania; and Mrs. Fernanda W. Reed, daughter of a Cambridge physician.

64 In the earlier 1940s General Electric published in leading American periodicals a full page ad featuring a miserable crowd of women and children dragging a plow. The text said that this was a common sight in Central Europe. A poster showing American schoolchildren, two of them barefoot, drew violent protests. And I know of American teachers who tried to bolster the patriotism of their pupils by telling them that their ancestors in Europe ate black bread! As indeed they did; but it is now sold in America as a delicacy.

65 Ribbentrop had been neither a nobleman nor a noble man. Cf. Note 14 of this Chapter. Two of the accused were acquitted, the silly reactionary and the shrewd financier—Franz von Papen and Hjalmar Greeley Schacht (born in Brooklyn). But Papen, after all, had been nearly killed by the Nazis and Schacht had been liberated from a concentration camp in 1945.

66 Cf. Note 33 of this Chapter. We also get some nice tidbits about Roosevelt’s near-insanity from the Eden Memoirs, vol. 3, p. 464 (the Mikolajczyk wild goose chase), and p. 373. We hear about the president’s plan to carve out a new state to be called “Wallonia” consisting of Southern Belgium, Luxembourg, Alsace-Lorraine, and parts of Northern France. Eden “politely poured water on it.”

67 Cf. Walter Lippmann, op. cit., p. 21: “The masses have first to be frightened . . . the enemy has to be portrayed as evil incarnate, as absolute and congenital wickedness. The people wanted to be told that when this particular enemy had been forced to unconditional surrender, they would reenter the golden age. This unique war would end all wars. This last war would make the world safe for democracy. This crusade would make the whole world a democracy.” Let us remember Lord Bryce who warned against the idea that democracy is “here to stay.” Cf. Viscount Bryce, Modern Democracy (London: Macmillan, 1921), vol. 1, p. 47.

68 Cf. his Time for Decision (New York: Harper, 1944). The following year another volume came out, a sort of guide to the postwar world, written more or less by two confirmed leftists and merely “edited” by the old gentleman. It was Muscovite propaganda pure and simple. (An Intelligent Man’s Guide to the Peace, Sumner Welles, ed, New York: Dryden, 1945).

69 Cf. Henry Morgenthau, Germany Is Our Problem (New York: Harper, 1945). In his book we find a map showing a partitioned Germany. Yet Morgenthau’s propositions from a purely territorial viewpoint were far less harsh than the reality: Morgenthau gave only Upper Silesia and East Prussia to Poland. Typical is the remark (p. 57) that the Junkers were “backward in their social outlook.”

70 Cf. Theodore N. Kaufman, Germany Must Perish! (Newark: Argyle Press, 1941), particularly pp. 97-98. This book was a “godsend” to Goebbels. But in a preface written for Men at War, an anthology, Ernest Hemingway also proposed the sterilization of all Germans.

71 By 1939 the New Leader was, to be true, a socially-minded rather than a Socialist paper. It had shed its original Marxism.

72 Cf. William H. Chamberlin, “The Tragic Case of Finland,” The American Mercury, vol. 59, no. 247, July 1941, pp. 7-15.

Here is the record in the New York Times: Monday, June 23, 1941, p. 2, Finnish Communiqué; Soviet flyers start bombing, A.P.; Clashes not yet recorded, U.P.; Russians violate Finnish territory. P. 3: Finland declared not to be at war. U.P. relates interview of Soviet Minister Orlov in Helsinki: “We are convinced that neither side wants to fight.” Tuesday, June 24, 1941: Gripenberg, Finnish Minister in London, enlightens Eden as to Russian attacks. P. 5: Finland professes neutrality in war. Wednesday, June 25, 1941: p. 2: Continuous aerial bombardments in the entire south of Finland. (Informations of the New York Times correspondent.) Thursday, June 26, 1941, pp. 1 and 2: Associated Press describes the big damages caused by Soviet bombardments. Friday, June 27, 1941: Five days after German attack Finland declared war (on June 26). The declaration is decided upon after a plenary session of the Eduskunta (parliament). Soviets protest against Finnish “Fascist militarism.”

73 Cf. Fitzroy How MacLean, Escape to Adventure: Eastern Approaches (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1951), pp. 309-312. Another observer, the American Leigh White, wrote, “Surely the Serbs were as precious as the lives of Britons and Americans—or were they? Let us face it: they were not. We fought the war according to a double standard of human values. In Western Europe we afforded the guerrilleros to husband their resources, human lives included, until the eve of victory. In Eastern Europe we demanded increasingly suicidal adventures in the unexpressed conviction that Slavic and Balkan blood was less valuable than the blood of Saxons, Latins, and Scandinavians.” Cf. Balkan Caesar (New York: Scribner’s, 1951).

74 On Mussolini’s authoritative views on the collectivist and leftist nature of fascism cf. Hans Sennholz, “Who Is the Fascist?” Human Events, December 25, 1965. This essay is carefully documented.

75 Cf. Harold Nicolson, Curzon: The Last Phase, pp. 205-207: H. W. V. Temperley, op. cit., vol. 6, pp. 267, 275; Ferdinand Lot, Les invasions barbares et le peuplement de l’Europe (Paris: Payot, 1937), p. 191n. Leszek Kirkien, Russia, Poland and the Curzon Line (London: Caldra House, n.d.); Stanislaw Grabski, The Polish-Soviet Frontier (London: 1943, no publisher mentioned); Hans Roos, Geschichte der polnischen Nation 1916-1960 (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1961), pp. 78-79.

There seems to exist, however, an old British-Polish incompatibility of character and outlook also affecting the political scene. This mutual incomprehension is partly the result of the confrontation of the Catholic thirst for the Absolute and the post-Protestant delight in justemilieu and compromise. Already Disraeli disliked the Polish refugees and resented their activities. Cf. W. F. Monypenny and G. E. Buckle, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 71. Yet the great “professional” hater of the Poles was Lloyd George, the friend of Hitler, great Franco-baiter and erstwhile protector of Winston Churchill. In all Polish border questions Lloyd George opposed them violently and in the Polish-Soviet war of 1919-1920 the Premier stood solidly on the side of Bolshevism. Cf. Lord Riddell’s Intimate Diary of the Paris Peace Conference 1918-1923 (New York: Reynal and Hitchcock, 1934), pp. 221-224. When the Poles defeated the Red army Lloyd George (who had danced with joy when he heard in Chequers that the Reds were in the suburbs of Warsaw), was deeply disappointed. (Ibid., p. 233). To him the Poles were mad and arrogant, they were hopeless, they were a menace to the peace of Europe. (Ibid., pp. 191, 227, 198). His hatred for the Poles never abated, Count Kessler heard him (March 24, 1925) rant against the Poles in the House of Commons and was disgusted by the “grotesque sight of an old ham actor demagogically attacking his own work.” Cf. Graf Harry Kessler, Tagebücher 1918-1937 (Frankfurt: Insel-Verlag, 1961), p. 427. The (London) Sunday Express published on September 24, 1939 (!) an article by Lloyd George entitled “What is Stalin up to?” in which the former Premier reviled the “class-ridden” Polish government and “Polish Imperialism” and praised the Soviets for “liberating their kinsmen from the Polish yoke.” Cf. Count Edward Raczyński, In Allied London (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1962), p. 37. Worse still, on September 27 Lloyd George attacked prostrate Poland in the House of Commons as the “worst feudal system in Europe,” a line which his friend Adolf Hitler took up on October 7 in the Reichstag calling Poland a country “ruled by aristocrats since 1919.” Cf. the New York Times, September 28, 1939, p. 5:6 and October 7, 1939, p. 8:3. The root of this attitude is to be found elsewhere. When Virginia Cowles asked him why he was so anti-Franco while approving of Hitler, he replied with a twinkle, “I always line up on the side against the priests.” Cf. Virginia Cowles, Looking for Trouble (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1941), p. 107.

76 Cf. Sumner Welles, op. cit., p. 310. Malcolm Muggeridge, one of the wittiest of contemporary British writers, wrote a brilliant parody on Winston Churchill’s attitude towards Poland in Punch (1953), Cf. Burling and Lowrey, eds. Twentieth Century Parody: American and British Anthology (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1960), pp. 133-135.

77 Once a member republic of the USSR has its artificially boosted Russian majority, it is regularly disestablished. Thus the Karelo-Finnish Soviet Socialist Republic was first deprived of Eastern Karelia and the rest then placed under the RSFSR, the Russian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic. One wonders what will happen (in the near future!) once Kazakhstan will have a Russian majority. In the years 1945 to 1948 the area in Europe incorporated into the USSR or occupied by it was about 700,000 square miles (1,757,500 square kilometers) which is about the size of New England, the Middle Atlantic States, the South Atlantic States down to Key West, Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia. Subsequently only Eastern Austria was lost and, in a way, Yugoslavia.

78 Cf. Concise Statistical Year Book of Poland (London, 1941), p. 9, F. A. Doubek, “Die Ostgrenze der polnischen Volkstumsmehrheit,” Jomburg (Leipzig), vol. 2. no. 1. Among eminent Poles born west of the Hitler-Stalin Line we shall mention a few: King Jan III Sobieski who saved Vienna and Europe in 1683; the painter Henryk Siemiradzki; the two national heroes Kościuszko and Pulaski; the pianist and statesman Paderewski; Poland’s two greatest poets Mickiewicz and Slowacki; the writer Joseph Conrad (Korzeniowski); the philosopher Cieszkowski; and General Pilsudski. We can say without exaggeration that very few of the Poles known to educated Americans or Britishers are born west of the Hitler-Stalin line. (Sienkiewicz and Sikorski were the exceptions proving the rule.)

79 Indeed the great liberal, Franz Grillparzer, was right when he wrote in 1849 under the impact of the Revolution:

The way of civilization goes
For humanitarianism
Over nationalism
To beastliness.

80 Peoples speaking an identical (or very similar) language often fought bitterly wars among themselves: the Irish and the English, the Americans and the British, the Union Forces and the Confederates, the Austrians and the Prussians, the Chileans and the Peruvians, etc.

81 On the natural borders of Poland with Russia Cf. Albrecht Penck, “Die natürliche Grenze Russlands,” Meereskunde (Berlin, 1917), vol. 12, no. 1.

82 Cf. Viscount d’Abernon, The Eighteenth Decisive Battle of the World, Warsaw, 1920 (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1931), p. 81; Harold Nicolson, Curzon: The Last Phase, p. 205; H. W. V. Temperley, op. cit., vol. 6. p. 320; Stanislaw Grabski, op. cit., pp. 21-25; Hans Roos, op. cit., pp. 79-80.

83 Hetman Simon Petlyura was assassinated years later in Paris by a Jewish emigrant in revenge for the pogroms carried out by Ukrainian troops during the war. The Ukrainian troops were certainly not innocent in the sacking of Jewish quarters, yet also the Polish army was guilty of about thirty, the Red army of no less than 106 pogromy. (Cf. The Jewish Encyclopedia, New York, 1943, vol. 8, p. 562). Did the Jews in these borderlands prefer Red Freedom to Polish “Military Facism”? Between November 11, 1918 and June 30, 1924 no less than 33,000 “ethnical” Jews fled from the East to the West. This number excludes Jews considering themselves Poles, Ukrainians, Russians, etc. Cf. Maly Rocznik Statystyczny, Warsaw, 1939, p. 52. (There were also 122,000 Ukrainians, 492,000 White Ruthenians, and 121,000 Russians fleeing in the same direction.)

84 Cf. Note 75 of this Chapter. Also Frank H. Simonds, in the (London) Times, April 25, 1919.

85 Cf. Viscount d’Abernon, op. cit., pp. 20-21.

86 General Weygand always disclaimed a share in the victory. Cf. Winston S. Churchill, The World Crisis (London: Thornton Butterworth, 1929), vol. 5, pp. 271-272; Ferdinand Lot, op. cit., p. 194; Général Camoin, La Maneuvre libératrice du maréchal Pilsudski contre les bolchéviks en août 1920 (Paris: 1929); Hans Roos, op. cit., pp. 88-89. Roos says that the idea of Weygand’s exclusive merits came from the Polish National Democrats who hated Pilsudski. De Gaulle, who accompanied Weygand on his mission, was deeply impressed by the strategic genius of Pilsudski, and General Hans von Seeckt, the reorganizer of the German army, saw in him a “Polish Frederick the Great.”

87 Cf. Bolshaya Sovyetskaya Entsiklopediya (Moscow: Gossudarstvenny Institut, 1940), vol. 46, p. 247.

88 Cf. Note 83 of this Chapter.

89 Cf. Vnyeshnaya politika sovyetskogo soyuza v periodye otyechestvennoy voiny (Moscow: Ogiz, 1944), vol. 1, p. 121.

90 Typical was an editorial in the New Republic on February 20, 1943 dealing with the Soviet claims on the Baltic States: “Yet, however forceful or dubious the Russian legal claims, the crux of the problem must be sought not in legal genealogies, but in the need of an enduring friendship between Russia and America.” Today the United States is being asked by our leftists to make other human sacrifices on the altar of an enduring friendship between Washington and Peking.

91 The Ukrainians in Poland had just grievances, such as a university of their own. They wanted a university in Lwów (Lviv, Lemberg), but the Polish government offered one elsewhere. Still the Ukrainian language was even taught in certain ethnically Polish schools. The literary life of the Ukrainians in Southeast Poland was flourishing. Take only the number of Ukrainian periodicals: sixty-four in 1932, seventy-two in 1934, 116 in 1936. Cf. Bochénski, Loś, and Baczkowski, Problem polsko-ukrainski w Zemiej Czerwieńskiej (Warsaw, 1938). On the schools cf. Stanislaw Sobiński, L’enseignement public en Petite Pologne orientale au point de vue national (Lwów, 1923), especially p. 12 and Tables 1, 2, 3. These two books represent a Polish viewpoint. Still Professor Chubatyj was right when he said in 1944 that no more than 5 percent of the population of East Poland would freely vote for the USSR. Cf. “The Ukraine and the Polish-Russian Boundary Dispute,” The Ukraine Quarterly, vol. 1 (October 1944), p. 70.

92 Here we must not forget that the Ukrainians (Ruthenians) from Polish-dominated Eastern Galicia were in many ways different from the Ukrainians who had been for a long time under Russian rule. (Those from Eastern Galicia were predominantly Catholics of the Eastern Rite, those from the “Russian” Ukraine were “orthodox.” The Russian Entsiklopeditcheski Slovar (St. Petersburg, 1892), vol. 7-A, p. 907 insisted that these differences were marked. It added that many Jews in that area considered themselves to be Poles (p. 908). The Ukrainian Encyclopedia Ukrainska Zagalna Entsiklopediya (Lviv), vol. 2, p. 567, dealing with Lwów, provides the following statistics: 50 percent Poles, 35 percent Jews, and 15 percent Ukrainians.

93 From being a minority in Poland these people would merely have become minorities in the USSR. Today, due to the Soviet demographic policies, the Ukrainians are a minority even in Kiev, their own capital.

94 As a matter of fact, none of the more respectable American papers expressed positive belief in Soviet innocence. At the Nuremberg trial, the accusation that the Nazis had perpetrated the crime was quietly dropped. In view of the Katyn crime Ernst Jünger could write about the Nuremberg trial: “The worst thing of all is to put yourself into the wrong vis-à-vis a scoundrel. He will talk to you of morals and there is no more pitiless judge than one who is in the right, and a scoundrel to boot. Shylock gives us a pale notion of such a person.

“In this respect the non-plus-ultra is a court consisting of murderers and puritans. Then the slaughter knife is given a moral handle.” Cf. his Strahlungen III (Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuchverlag, 1966), p. 254.

95 The Katyn crime was discovered at a rather early date by the German occupants. The janitor of the GPU-NKVD building in Smolensk, where the German staff was quartered, babbled about it once when he was drunk. Only upon an order from Berlin to make an inquiry into Soviet atrocities was a regular investigation started. Actually nobody had originally believed the janitor’s story, but now he furnished the details. First the German authorities tried to determine the date of the mass murder by analyzing the decomposed brains of the victims, but the age of the trees planted over the huge mass graves gave a more exact clue. (Information was given to the author by the late Prince Erich Waldburg zu Zeil.) When the Poles demanded an impartial inquiry through the International Red Cross, the Soviets broke off with the Polish Government in Exile. The number of the murdered officers, the cream of the Polish Army, was between 9,000 and 12,000—a piece of genuine class genocide. The discussion between Sikorski, Anders, Stalin, and Molotov about the fate of the missing officers a year earlier (as reported by Anders) must have been amazing. Stalin maintained that these officers must have fled somewhere, perhaps to Manchuria. The older lie, that the boats carrying them to Solovki had been torpedoed in the White Sea, had then already been dropped. Cf. General W. Anders, Mémoires (Paris: La Jeune Parque, 1948), trsl. I. Rzewuska, pp. 119-120. Anders’ book cannot be read but with an intense feeling of moral nausea.

96 There is no reason to assume that Andrzej Wyszyński, the Soviet prosecutor and delegate at the United Nations, one of the vilest creatures in modern history, is in any way related to Cardinal Wyszyński. Andrzej Wyszyński, also of Polish extraction, was a Menshevik and joined the Bolsheviks only in 1920. Thus he had to make extraordinary efforts to prove his loyalty—to the Soviet Union and to communism.

97 Cf. The Case of Henryk Erlich and Victor Alter, foreword by Camille Huysmans (New York: General Jewish Workers’ Union of Poland, 1943).

98 One of the most moving documents on these efforts to escape from the huge Soviet dungeon is Slawomir Rawicz’s book, The Long Walk, (New York: Harper and Row, 1956) describing the flight of three Poles, two men and one girl, from Siberia over Mongolia and Tibet to India.

99 A big mass rally of the “Congress of American Soviet Friendship” was held in New York’s Madison Square Garden on November 7, 1942, to celebrate the 25th birthday of the Soviet Union. Congratulations came in from President Roosevelt and General Eisenhower. There were 20,000 delegates. Thomas W. Lamont (of J. P. Morgan) spoke for greater tolerance, William Green of the A.F. of L. gave a speech and Senator Pepper explained that “It behooved the United States to be worthy of such a friend as Russia.” Professor Ralph Barton Perry of Harvard “warned against a policy of first trying to destroy the Soviets, then ignoring them and, finally, treating them as poor relations.” Cf. Foster Rhea Dulles, The Road to Teheran, p. 245.

100 In a letter to Eden (dated December 3, 1944) Churchill had called Stalin a “great and good man”—fully realizing that man’s crimes. Cf. Winston S. Churchill, The Second World War, vol. 6, p. 616.

101 David Irving in op. cit., p. 112, talking about the high degree of saturation bombing: “Every time it had been employed before, it had caused a fire-storm of some degree. Previously the fire-storm had been merely an unfortunate result of the attack: In the double-blow on Dresden the fire-storm was to be an integral part of the strategy.” And let nobody believe that Mr. Churchill was innocent about the A-Bomb on Hiroshima. He agreed upon its dropping. Cf. The Earl of Avon, The Eden Memoirs, vol. 3, p. 547. However, he knew nothing about Harry S. Truman’s additional designs on the cradle of Christianity in Japan, about the impending devastation of Nagasaki.

102 Cf. Albert C. Wedemeyer, op. cit., pp. 416-418.

103 On these efforts cf. Allen Welsh Dulles, Gerhart Ritter, Eberhard Zeller, op. cit.

104 Cf. B. H. Liddell-Hart, The German Generals Talk (New York: Morrow 1948), pp. 292-293, referring to Germans and the German troops during the war; “ ‘black-listening’ to the Allied radio service was widespread. But the Allied propaganda never said anything positive about the peace conditions in the way of encouraging them to give up the struggle. Its silence on the subject was so marked that it tended to confirm what Nazi propaganda told them as to the dire fate in store for them if they surrendered. So it greatly helped the Nazis to keep the German troops and people to continue fighting—long after they were ready to give up.” Thus Roosevelt’s “originality” cost the lives of countless Americans. Government-by-brainwaves sometimes is murder.

The U. S. army was anything but enthusiastic about the unconditional surrender formula as it had to pay its price in blood. Cf. Captain Harry C. Butcher, My Three Years with Eisenhower (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1946), Entry of August 12, 1943. The real beneficiaries were the Nazis and the USSR.

105 The efforts of Louis P. Lochner, an American journalist (Associated Press) to inform President Roosevelt in 1942 about the German conspiracy against Hitler proved totally abortive. The President refused to receive him because such a meeting would have been “highly embarrassing.” Cf. H. Rothfels, Die deutsche Oposition gegen Hitler (Krefeld: Scherpe, 1949), p. 166sq. One might add almost cynically the well-known adage, “Don’t confuse me with facts, I have already made up my mind.” This, however, was an indoctrinated leftist mind.

106 Cf. Allen Welsh Dulles, op. cit., p. 42; George A. Bell, Bishop of Chichester, in the Contemporary Review (London), October, 1945. Eden’s reply to the Bishop can be found in 20. Juli 1944 (Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1961) “Herder-Bücherei,” vol. 96, p. 52. Regrettably we do not find it in the Eden Memoirs.

107 Churchill, in his speech to the Commons on August 2, 1944, declared that the only point of interest in the July Conspiracy was the spectacle of “Nazis” murdering each other. (Gerhard Ritter, op. cit., pp. 333-334.) Yet Churchill was ceaselessly informed about the German opposition by Dr. Bell, Anglican Bishop of Chichester, Dr. Bell in turn was in permanent contact with the now famous German theologian, Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, via the latter’s brother-in-law, Dr. Leibholz, a refugee in Britain. (Bonhoeffer, now erroneously claimed by God-is-dead theologians abroad, was an intimate friend of the conspirators and was executed in Flossenbürg.) The Bishop of Chichester wrote to Leibholz on August 8, 1944: “I heard Churchill . . . but he is living in a world of battles only, and seeing time with the mind of a child with regard to deep policy—for Home affairs as well as the far graver matters. And disaster gets nearer and nearer. One feels so powerless. . . .” Cf. Eberhard Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Theologe, Christ, Zeitgenosse (Munich: Chr. Kaiser-Verlag, 1967), p. 1004.

108 I spoke with Cardinal Count von Preysing in Berlin a few weeks before his death. He assured me that neither he nor Cardinal von Galen had known concrete facts about the extermination camps in the East. They had information about the extermination of the insane and thus they protested against this kind of leftist-humanitarian atrocity which sails under the label of “euthanasia” in the West. Had they known about genocide in Polish camps, they would have done the same. The German philosopher Karl Jaspers and Herr Rudolf Augstein, editor-in-chief of the leftist Der Spiegel were similarly ignorant. They only had vague notions of the horrors and knew the truth only in 1945. Cf. Karl Jaspers, Wohin treibt die Bundesrepublik? (Munich: R. Piper and Co., 1966), p. 36. Albert Speer admitted to have heard rumors but failed to have them confirmed or denied—for which he feels guilty. Cf. op. cit., pp. 385-386.

Cf. also George N. Shuster (former President of Hunter College and U. S. Commissioner of Bavaria), “Catholic Resistance in Nazi Germany,” in Thought, vol. 22, no. 84 (March 1947), p. 13, talking about Msgr. Johann Neuhäusler’s book Kreuz und Hakenkreuz: “He goes on to conclude that if the bishops were not afraid to attack euthanasia as a means for disposing of the mentally sick, they most assuredly would have spoken out against the gas ovens of Auschwitz had they known of their existence. With this I am in agreement. The Cardinal of Cologne as well as the late Cardinal of Münster, whose courage none will doubt, assured me that they were without an inkling of the nefarious acts committed during the final years of the Third Reich.”

109 Cf. Léon Blum, in the New Leader (New York:) July 21, 1946. Constantin Silens in Irrweg und Umkehr. Betrachtung über das Schicksal Deutschlands (Basel: Birkhäuser, 1946), p. 216, thinks that Niemoeller’s assumption of one in 100,000 Germans knowing about the extermination camps is an overstatement. There were fewer. The bulk of the personnel in the extermination camps was undoubtedly East European.

110 The “Gerstein Report” (a German translation from the French, the German original having been lost) had been published for the first time by the Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, vol. 1, (Stuttgart, 1953). Gerstein was a former SS man who before the war had left this organization, became a devout Lutheran and was redrafted after the outbreak of the war. Arrested by the French, he gave a full description of the horrors of the extermination camps. Brought to Paris he perhaps committed suicide by hanging, but there is a distinct possibility that he was murdered by other Nazis in the jail.

111 Cf. the letter by William N. Harrigan in Commonweal, April 3, 1964, p. 48. In this letter the official publication Foreign Relations 1942 (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1961), vol. 3, pp. 772-778 is cited. Cardinal Maglione insisted that the Vatican had no detailed or certain knowledge about large-scale Nazi atrocities. Cardinal Tis-serand insisted that the Vatican knew nothing about the mass slaughters and mass cremation of Jews until the advancing Allied Armies began to reach Rome. Cf. N. C. “Cardinal Says He Criticized Curia, Not Pius, on Hitler,” in The Catholic Universe Bulletin, April 3, 1964, (vol. 90, no. 51), pp. 1-2. It is perhaps necessary to bring up this matter because a German playwright, Rolf Hochhuth, has fabricated a drama which rather conveniently makes Pius XII morally the most responsible man in that terrible slaughter. It is significant for the radical ignorance of the period in which we live, that a play such as Der Stellvertreter (“The Deputy”) can be staged all over the world without the public seeing immediately the total ignorance, the silliness, and the inanity of the text. Cf. my review of this play in The Timeless Christian (Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1969), pp. 184-194. (German original: Hirn, Herz and Rückgrat, Osnabrück, Fromm, 1968, pp. 221-233.) Yet the audience of a modern theater in our age of affluence and illiteracy is made up of people unable to judge history, past or contemporary.

Pius XII had done his level best to save Jewish lives: he had no concrete knowledge about the extermination camps, but even had he been informed, what could he have done? One has to remember the protest of the Dutch Catholic bishops against the deportation of Jews to an unknown destination. The Nazis retaliated by rounding up Catholics of Jewish descent—and sending them to Auschwitz. In this group the Carmelite nun and philosopher Edith Stein (a disciple of Husserl) perished. The Church (in the words of St. Augustine) is always pauper et inops, poor and helpless . . . and this certainly includes the Middle Ages when the “power” of the Church was also an optical illusion, like the light of the moon which is nothing but reflected sunlight. Not Canossa is the end of the struggle between Henry IV and the Church, but the bitter end of Gregory VII in exile, who, when dying, repeated the words of the Psalm: “Dilexi iustitiam et odi iniquitatem propterea morior in exilio.”

112 I was present when one of my Jewish friends debated this issue in New York with a Red Cross delegate who had come out of Germany in late 1943. The Red Cross official, a man of unquestionable anti-Nazi conviction, poo-poohed the idea that extermination camps existed. Euthanasian measures such as death in a gas chamber he considered more humane than slow death by beatings and attrition in a concentration camp, but he warned my friend not to spread false information which would merely aid the Nazis.

113 Cf. Chapter VII, Note 136. At the same time one wonders what was known—and duly noted—about the Soviet concentration camps by the USSR’s Western Allies. Vide the rather comprehensive picture in Robert Conquest’s account The Great Terror: Stalin’s Purge of the Thirties (New York: Macmillan, 1968). And that horror still continues.

114 Even today these wounds are far from healed. The old hatreds, as I could find out during a recent trip through Yugoslavia, still have lost nothing of their hideous strength. As a matter of fact, the resistance against the Communist regime is paralyzed by the subconscious (and sometimes conscious) fear that with the collapse of the Red dictatorship the various artificially united nationalities and nations of Yugoslavia would again be at each other’s throats. Thus the foundation of Yugoslavia in 1918 actively fosters the survival of communism today.

The worst mutual massacres, however, did not take place between Serbs and Croats, but between Albanians and Serbs in the Kossovo Region which had been annexed by Serbia in 1912-1913, but got a “breathing spell” under German occupation. Then the Albanian minority saw the fine opportunity for revenge. In 1944 the Serb Communists took their revenge and slaughtered about 40,000 to 50,000 Albanians, and another massacre took place (this time methodical and organized) in the winter 1955-1956 under the “Stalinist” Minister of the Interior, Ranković. The details of these crimes were only revealed at the session of the Savez Komunista (League of Communists) in 1966 in Priština.

115 This does not mean that situations do not arise in which a man of integrity and knowledge is incapable of finding a way out. Count Paul Teleki, a great scholar and statesman, my former teacher and personal friend, was forced by the Nazis, while he was Hungarian Prime Minister in 1941, to choose between dishonor and the ruin of his country. In a fit of depression this devout Catholic committed suicide.

116 Though I was not a political refugee in the United States, (having left Austria for Hungary in 1929, I had gone there from Britain in 1937, before the Anschluss), I still regret that I did not stay in Europe—whatever the cost—to resist the evil on the spot.

117 I think of authors such as Frank Thiess (Das Reich der Dämonen), Ernst Wiechert, Werner Bergengruen (Im Himmel und auf Erden), Reinhold Schneider, Ernst Jünger (Auf den Marmorklippen), Friedrich Georg Jünger (Der Mohn), and above all, Fritz Reck-Malleczewen who wrote a bit too obviously. His Bockelsohn: Geschichte eines Massenwahns is a description of Hitler under the mask of Jan van Leiden. He perished heroically in a concentration camp.

118 When Baron Leonrod, a member of the July 20 conspiracy, admitted that he had asked a priest whether tyrannicide was morally permissible, the Nazi authorities were able to trace the priest. Leonrod as well as the priest were hanged. Cf. Allen Welsh Dulles, op. cit., pp. 115-116. Tyrannicide has been part of traditional (but never “officially accepted”) Jesuit moral theology. Cf. Documents historiques, critiques, apologétiques concernant la Compagnie de Jésus (Paris: Carié, 1828), vol. 2, pp. 83ff. Naturally, the originator of this theory is Juan de Mariana S.J. who dealt with it in De Rege et Regis Institutione. St. Thomas opposed tyrannicide, but permitted rebellion—and the killing of the tyrant in a rebellion. Cf. Fernando d’Antonio, “Il tirannicidio nel pensiero dell’acquinate,” Annali di Scienze Politiche (University of Pavia, 1939), vol. 12, fasc. 1-2. John of Salisbury took a positive attitude towards tyrannicide. Cf. his “Policraticus sive de nugis curialium et vestigiis philosophorum,” book 3, ch. 4 in Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol. 199, col. 512. The same opinion was defended by Joannes Parvus. Cf. Ionnis Gersonis Opera Omnia (Antwerp, 1706), vol. 5, p. 27. Luther naturally opposed it. Cf. his “Ermahnungen zum Frieden.” Krit. Gesamtausgabe (Weimar), vol. 18, p. 303. So also did Calvin, who called a tyrant un ire de Dieu who should not be resisted. (Institutions, IV, xx, 25)

The views of the South American political theorists in the colonial period were also directly or indirectly favorable to tyrannicide. Cf. Agustin de Assis, Ideas sociopoliticas de Alonso Polo (el Tostado) in the series “Estudios Hispano-Americanos”, (Seville, 1955), vol. 94, pp. 57-61.

119 Robert Green Ingersoll (1833-1899) was that professional atheist, author, and lecturer who, as proof for the nonexistence of God, placed his watch on a lectern and gave his Creator three minutes to strike him dead. God failed to comply with this somewhat peremptory demand.

120 “I am afraid of liberalism,” Samuel Butler wrote in 1893, “or, at any rate, of the people who call themselves liberal: They flirt with radicals who flirt with socialists who flirt with anarchists who do something a deal more than flirt with dynamite.”

121 Mrs. Roosevelt participated in the United Nations’ Commission for Human Rights. She obviously had all the intellectual and ideological qualifications to cooperate in important ventures of this august body.

122 Nobody asked what they were fleeing from. Obviously not from Nazism which had been defeated. Many of them were Jews who knew that they had no chance of a decent life under communism. Without this highly justified fear Israel as we know it today would hardly exist.

123 Mrs. Roosevelt might have received this idea from one of her good leftist friends, Louis Adamič, a Slovene immigrant and a White House habitué who wrote, “Stalin is apt to insist on outright Sovietization of all Eastern Europe and the chances are he will achieve this end. The majority of the Slavic peoples in the region would be for it. Under those circumstances so would I.” Cf. his My Native Country (New York: Harper, 1943), p. 483. He spoke in a similar vein in his The Native’s Return: “America will have to go Left. . . . She will go Left, too, because Americans, like Slavs, are essentially constructive—people of the future. I guess my job in the next few years, perhaps for the rest of my life, will be to harp on that idea.” He had not much opportunity to do a lot of harping because soon after the war—in a fit of complete disillusionment, one could assume—he took his own life. Yet it was certainly tragic that there was nobody else to interpret Southeastern Europe to Americans but Mr. Adamič, author of Dinner at the White House.

124 Separation of State and Church (which certainly was not the issue over which Cardinal Mindszenty was tortured) can assume all sorts of forms—peaceful—neutral or hostile. In a totalitarian state it makes little difference (if any) whether Church and State are separated or not, just as it makes no difference to a man in a straitjacket whether its fabric is glued to his body or not. (“Largest landowner?” Well, obviously no single landowner had more acreage than the Church which had big obligations—buildings, salaries, schools, hospitals, cemeteries, etc.)

It is interesting to note, however, that Red tyrants in persecuting the Church have repeatedly and hypocritically invoked the example of the United States.

125 When I returned to Austria in 1947 an American friend said mournfully to me, “I suppose you go back where the two One Worlds meet.”

126 How did Mr. Willkie know? He should have read Manya Gordon’s Workers Before and After Lenin to learn the contrary. Mr. Willkie’s bestseller—a dollar apiece—was filled with one delightful boner after the other. In the chapter dealing with Egypt he inquires into the reason for Egypt’s cultural sterility. Why, for instance, were there no outstanding Egyptian painters? Obviously because Egypt lacked a sound middle class! It never dawned upon Mr. Willkie that Moslems (unless they are Shiites) are traditionally forbidden by their religion to depict the human or animal figure.

127 The meaning of an oath in the case of a theist is clear to me. But why should an agnostic not commit perjury in good faith since he is skeptical about the human attainability of truth? And whom does he invoke as a witness? Mr. Alger Hiss, moreover, had been secretary to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (1929-1930) and taking Holmes’ Weltanschauung into consideration we have no reason to believe that Mr. Hiss—if he followed his late employer’s argumentation—could have condemned perjury. Still, a society living from the “Whiff of an empty bottle” (of Christianity, that is) for a long time refused to believe in Hiss’ guilt. Cf. E. Digby Baltzell, The Protestant Establishment: Aristocracy and Caste in America (New York: Random House, 1964), pp. 282-283.

128 The term “National Socialist” was inadmissible to the Soviets. In official parlance there were only Germans, Hitlerites (gitlerovtsi), or “Fascists,” but never National Socialists or Nazis. Is it now not perhaps the “German Democratic Republic,” the Soviet satellite, which represents “real National Socialism”?

129 Cf. The Memoirs of Cordell Hull (New York: Macmillan, 1948), vol. 2, p. 1297. In his memoirs, Hull stated (p. 1293) that Eden was the driving force in the “Austrian Declaration.” And James F. Byrnes in his Speaking Frankly (New York: Harper, 1947), p. 161, could not refrain from remarking, “It is not unfair to describe this policy now as one that seems to punish the Austrians for their association with the Germans during the Nazi occupation, and one that tries to make Austria an economic if not political dependency of the Soviet Union.” The Austrian resistance, coming mainly from Monarchists and Catholics, was very substantial and, in the meantime, a number of books have been published on that subject. The first coherent account was given by Wilhelm Schmidt SVD in Gegenwart und Zukunft des Abendlandes (Luzern: Stocker, 1949), pp. 214-322. More detailed: Otto Molden, Der Ruf des Gewissens (Vienna: Herold, 1959). The weakest resistance came from the Social Democrats, (p. 226). Cordell Hull excused the recognition of Nazi Germany’s grab with the fact that the United States wanted to collect the Austrian debts from Germany, the “incorporator.” (The Memoirs, pp. 575-576). Naturally, the main culprit in the Anschluss (after the Nazis themselves) were the Western Powers, mainly England. Cf. also L. v. Tončić Sorinj (the present Chairman of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg), “Die Kollaboration Europas. Die unteilbare Schuld der Mächte am Aufstieg Hitlers,” Berichte und Informationen, vol. 2 (1947), no. 59.

When I protested after the “Declaration” in a letter to the New York Times (signed by my pen-name F. S. Campbell), I was contradicted by the editor of the pro-Communist Austro-American Tribune who pointed out that Austrian ammunition plants worked for the Germans. (And what about the Skoda Works in Czechoslovakia, Schneider-Creuzot in France, and so forth?) These and other criticisms infuriated Cordell Hull to the extent that he became violently anti-Austrian. On this subject matter George Creel had an acrimonious discussion with him. (Verbal communication of the late G. Creel.) Eden was right when he wrote about Hull: “Yet it was impossible to forget the beak and the claws. I could never watch him without recalling the song of his native Tennessee about the Martins and the Coys. I felt that he too could pursue a vendetta to the end.” (The Eden Memoirs, vol. 3. p. 380). His vindictiveness fully centered on Austria.

130 The involuntary French contribution to the German war effort was considerable. Not only did a French Legion fight in Russia, but the French war industry was working full blast for Germany.

131 One of the last public acts of Mr. Hull was to remind the Austrians that they had to rebel openly against Germany, as an active contribution to their liberation, because the final judgment of the Allies would depend upon whether Austria in some way atoned for “having participated in the war on Hitler’s side.” He ended by remarking, “I want to say that the time for Austria to make that contribution is almost up.” (Cf. the New York Times, September 12, 1944, p. 6:1). One really wonders whether the inertia of the Austrians dreading the Soviet steamroller more than anything else, could have resulted in a continuation of the Anschluss. “You won’t knife German soldiers? All right, then you’ll keep your present status.” Anything was possible on this leftist-dominated globe! General Eisenhower was boiling mad about this political interference which was contrary to his plans. He sent a blistering note to Washington and a spokesman for the General exhorted the Austrians over the radio to dissociate themselves from their Nazi masters, to form clandestine committees, to gather food in order to help later the Allied administration—but not to revolt. (Cf. the New York Times, October 2, 1944, p. 3). A few days later Cordell Hull resigned and was replaced by Edward R. Stettinius, Jr.

132 There is a good psychological thumbnail sketch of the Potsdam Conference in Robert Murphy, Diplomat Among Warriors (London: Collins, 1964), pp. 326-343.

133 Soon after he became President, Mr. Truman pardoned his former associates in the Pendergast administration of Kansas City (Mo.) who thus were released from jail. Yet reading Jack Lait’s and Lee Mortimer’s U.S.A. Confidential (New York: Crown, 1952), pp. 232-241, one should think that Mr. Truman would have had the right training to deal with a man like Stalin.

134 Cf. Winston S. Churchill, The Second World War, vol. 5, p. 320.

135 Ibid., p. 351.

136 Cf. Jan Ciechanowski, op. cit., pp. 332-335.

137 Cf. Note 35 of this Chapter. When General Anders, the admirable Polish leader who with his valiant men had fought on the Italian front for the greater glory of the Western democracies, pointed out to Churchill that the mass migrations would be inhuman to the Germans as well, Churchill remarked cynically that six million Germans already had perished and some more would soon be biting into the grass. Cf. Wladyslaw Anders, op. cit., p. 308.

138 Cf. Jan Ciechanowski, op. cit., p. 249.

139 Cf. William L. Neumann, “How American Policy Toward Japan Contributed to War in the Pacific,” in Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, H. E. Barnes, ed., p. 306: “Hull was hell-bent for War. The constant needling by Chiang Kai-shek had gotten under his skin and President Roosevelt felt pressured from his administrative assistant, Lauchlin Currie, also a warm admirer of Soviet Russia. At this point Owen Lattimore, American adviser to Chiang Kai-shek sent a strongly worded cablegram against any modus vivendi or truce with Japan.” (This cable was received on November 26, 1941.) The next day Cordell Hull handed to the Japanese diplomats, Kurusu and Nomura, the ultimatum which—in the words of Albert Jay Nock—would have been a deadly insult even to a state such as Luxembourg.

Also Cf. Harold L. Ickes, “The Lowering Cloud, 1939-1941,” vol. II of The Secret Diaries of Harold L. Ickes (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1954), p. 630: “For a long time I have believed that our best entrance into the war would be by way of Japan. . . . And, of course, if we go to war against Japan, it will inevitably lead to a war against Germany.” The sequitur, however, was provided by Hitler who arbitrarily and with no cogent reason declared war against the United States. There might have been, at the same time, two separate wars going on. Actually the Germans hoped that Japan would attack the USSR.

140 This is the thesis in the well-reasoned article of Gar Alperovitz “Why We Dropped the Bomb,” The Progressive, August 1965, pp. 11-14. On page 12 Alperovitz cites Admiral William D. Leahy, Admiral Ernest J. King as well as Generals Henry A. Arnold, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Curtis E. LeMay as convinced that the actual dropping of the bomb on an inhabited center was perfectly superfluous. Einstein himself was opposed to the Atomic Board in 1945 and declared: “We can only hope that we have not put dynamite into the hands of children.” He was a religious man, believed in God, and was profoundly afraid of the technological development. Cf. Antonina Vallentin, Das Drama Albert Einsteins (Stuttgart: Günther Verlag, 1955), pp. 259, 261, 149-150, 163, and Graf Harry Kessler, op. cit., p. 242.

141 Cf. Walter Lippmann, op. cit., p. 24.

142 There were more than 100,000 cases of rape in Vienna and surroundings. Females between the ages of three and ninety were the victims.

143 If only the Elbe had been the demarcation line up to the Czech border! But it is actually a boundary only for thirty-nine miles—then the Soviet controlled area extends way west and comes within 180 miles of the Netherlands.

144 General Eisenhower, by refusing to advance on Berlin and, later, by evacuating Thuringia and parts of Saxony, not only did great disservice to his country, but also struck a mighty blow against the Free West. It will be argued that he did not do anything but obey a Commander-in-Chief. Another one gave an analogous order to General MacArthur a few years later in the Korean War. Did General Eisenhower have to obey the President? If so, then what about the German generals who were tried in Nuremberg because they obeyed Hitler?

145 Robert Murphy told us how the Czechs implored the Americans to advance even further, when they were within sight of Prague. But Eisenhower, knowing that the commander of the Russian troops had demanded that the American Army be halted, declared at a staff meeting, “Why should we endanger the life of a single American or Briton to capture areas we shall soon be handing over to the Russians?” (R. Murphy, op. cit., pp. 312-313). The matter, unfortunately had been settled by the politicians in Yalta with Mr. Alger Hiss advising the President.

146 Robert Murphy informs us how he brought up the subject of a formal definition of the Western Allies’ rights to their communication routes to Berlin. Whereupon Ambassador John Winant exclaimed vehemently that the Russians were “inclined to suspect our motives, and if we insisted on this technicality, we should intensify their distrust.” Thus this crucial matter could not be settled. Not much later Ambassador Winant committed suicide. (Cf. R. Murphy, op. cit., pp. 285-286.)

147 Cf. Winston S. Churchill who (The Second World War, vol. 5, p. 359) insisted that the Allies envisioned the Eastern Neisse, not the Western Neisse as a boundary line, and “This is still our position.” The evil might have been lessened (the main bulk of the city of Breslau would have been retained by Germany), but rivers—as geographers know only too well—never are ideal boundaries. Rivers not only sometimes change their course, but they are means of communications and thus they unite: they do not divide. With the exception of a longer stretch of the Lower Danube between Bulgaria and Rumania, no river ever separated language groups. (Thus the boundary between the German and the French idioms are the Vosges mountains, not the Rhine.)

148 If the reader thinks that this, at least, was some sort of punishment for the Germans who, after all, “had turned Nazi en bloc,” he is very much mistaken. Let us consider East Prussia, whose center was German, Catholic, and (as the last free election proves) anti-Nazi. The highest Nazi percentages in the Wiemar Republic could be found in Southern East Prussia where the people are Lutheran by religion, but Polish by language. Yet while the anti-Nazi Germans were expelled, the pro-Nazi Masurian Poles could stay in their ancestral homes.

149 It is difficult to verify whether cannibalism was actually practiced during these terrible months. Cf. also the authentic report “Germania Deserta” in The Catholic World (New York), April 1947, pp. 17-25. About this tragedy Bishop (later Cardinal) Muench of Fargo, Papal Co-ordinator of Catholic Affairs and later Nuncio to Germany wrote, “The one thing which is perhaps even a greater atrocity than the Allied looting and expulsion of twelve million people is the conspiracy of silence about it.” (Cf. The Catholic Action News, Fargo, N.D., November 1946).

150 We put the world “reasonably” in quotation marks. Politics is the art of the possible, Christianity the art of the impossible.

151 Cf. Friedrich Engels, Der Ursprung der Familie, des Privateigentums des Staates (Stuttgart; Dietz, 1894), p. 181. The idea, however, that democracy is in an evolutionary and/or revolutionary way the matrix, the preparatory school of tyranny was already expressed by Plato, Aristotle, and Polybius. In our time the fear of a natural metamorphosis has been expressed by a host of writers, concretely dealt with in my Freiheit oder Gleichheit? To their number I would like to add: Gustav Gundlach, “Von Wesen der Demokratie,” Gregorianum, vol. 28 (1947), pp. 572-573; Werner Kägi, op. cit., pp. 119-120; Winfried Martini, Das Ende aller Sicherheit, pp. 79-82; Thomas Gilby O. P., Between Community and Society: A Philosophy and Theology of the State (London: Longmans, Green, 1953), pp. 171ff. ; Angel López-Amo, op. cit., pp. 89, 152; Jürgen Rausch, In einer Stunde wie dieser (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, 1955), p. 424, and of the last century two rather divergent thinkers with acute observations; Bismarck in his Gedanken und Erinnerungen (Stuttgart: Cotta, 1898), vol. 2, p. 60; and Rosmini-Serbati, La società e il suo fine (Milan: Edizioni di Uomo, 1945), p. 102.

152 David J. Dallin wrote in Russia and Post-War Europe (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1943) that the USSR wants a democratic order outside of its borders because “democracy provides special ways and opportunities for an unhampered building up of a Communist party—for its propaganda activity, its press, and its congresses. Not until there is formed a firm party framework will it be possible to proceed with the major task of the Communist program.” This is the reason why the Communists everywhere want a full, and unhampered democracy and prefer a republican to an authoritarian or even a constitutional monarchy. In this respect their desires only too often met and still meet with popular trends and desires in America—if not in Britain. In 1946 not only the Communists but even influential American circles fostered the cause of republicanism in the Italian referendum; and in the Austrian State Treaty of 1955 the insistence that Austria should have a republican form of government came not only from the Soviet delegation. Cf. also Walter Lippmann, op. cit., pp. 56-57. Maritain, naturally, is quite right when he says that the normal form of expression for democracy is the republic. Cf. J. Maritain, Christianisme et démocratie (Paris: Paul Hartmann, 1947), p. 65.

153 Cf. Dorothy Thompson, Listen Hans (New York: 1942), p. 117.

154 See Chapter XI, Note 27. This policy of leftist administration was evident all over American-occupied Germany. Thus Baron Franckenstein with a fine anti-Nazi record who had been elected mayor of a Bavarian village was immediately deposed by the horrified American Gauleiter who nominated (by nondemocratic fiat) a Social Democrat. However, the poor man abdicated quickly, yielding to the vox populi, and the baron with the truly monstrous name finally won out.

155 The interminable questionnaire can be looked up in Ernst von Solomon’s Der Fragebogen, published in a Ro-Ro-Ro pocket edition.

156 It is a little known fact that the British also nearly arrested Cardinal Count Galen, Bishop of Münster, probably the most outstanding anti-Nazi in the defeated country. The manly protest of a higher British officer prevented this enormous gaffe. Still, Labourite leftism had a field day in the British zone of occupied Germany.

157 Former Judge Leibowitz, interested in the reasons for the low rate of juvenile delinquency in Italy, made a personal investigation in the Appenine Peninsula. He found the surviving paternal authority a major reason for this state of affairs. The accusation that German paternal authority carried a major responsibility also was made by Bertram Schaffner in his Columbia University Press: Fatherland, a Study of Authoritarianism in the German Family (New York: 1948). We have to face it squarely: certain American influences and impacts are detrimental to Europe. (And the reverse is possible too.) A Russian proverb says, “What is healthy to the Russian is deadly to the German.” (Shto russkomu zdorovo, to nyemtsomu smert’.) Values, concepts, institutions cannot always be exchanged without detriment between Nations. An early German critic of American influences on Europe was Wilhelm von Schütze. Cf. his Russland und Deutschland oder über den Sinn des Memoirs von Aachen (Leipzig: Gerhard Fleischer, 1819), pp. 161-163.

158 Mr. Robert Hutchins, after World War II was asked in Frankfurt by American “reeducationists” to address German teachers and professors. He shocked the organizers by imploring the Germans to stick to their old, traditional ideals and not to yield to their reeducators. (Especially the classic high school-colleges, the Humanistische Gymnasien, were strongly criticized by the occupants—for strengthening “class-consciousness.”)

By far the best book on the American efforts to cast the German mind into a leftist pattern is Caspar Schrenck-Notzing’s Die Charakterwäsche (Stuttgart: Seewald, 1965). Here we find a brilliant description of the work of American leftism, partly paralyzed in their home activities by the late Truman and Eisenhower administration but all the more active in the highly malleable German postwar world. The most amusing parts of the book deal with the psychological-ideological tests used by the reeducators, the historically most valuable ones are concerned with the American-sponsored establishment of a leftist German Press which is still highly active. In 1945 and 1946 the American “reeducators” still insisted that Communist journalists be included in the editorial boards of the newly licensed newspapers. It took some time until this delightful regulation was recalled.

159 Cf. pp. 376-380.

160 President Wilson was rather eager to have William II tried. On July 1, 1919, Pope Benedict XV wrote to the President a letter and added a clipping form the Osservatore Romano of June 2, 1919. The extract from the Vatican daily reproduced the views of a professor of Bologna University who spoke about the legality of bringing the German emperor to trial. Point One of his observations was “that the accusers themselves should constitute the Tribunal of Justice is unprecedented in the history of criminal law.”

161 I know personally the man who conceived the idea of the Nuremberg trials. I am quite sure that the notion of mere revenge hardly entered his mind. He thought that a “precedent” should be set, a common law notion which has no meaning in the non-English-speaking world since most of Europe is wedded to the Roman principle of codified law and the nullum crimen sine lege concept. He stated to a mutual friend that he realized the gamble involved, but that the risk ought to be taken: he admitted that the thing could misfire. It did. Caspar Schrenck-Notzing remarks that since the amnesty of 1951 by McCloy the “Nuremberg Law, just like the Potsdam Agreement is a ‘Sleeping Beauty’ waiting for the day when a Red Prince will kiss it awake.” (Op. cit., p. 195.)

162 Cf. Winston S. Churchill, The Second World War, vol. 1, pp. 456-458.

163 The widow of one of the leading German chemical industrialists informed me that the judge told her at Nuremberg after her husband’s acquittal: “I can assure you, Madam, your husband is a most perfect gentleman.” But the aged gentleman spent four years in a very strict jail waiting for the verdict while his wife worked as a laundress. Still, she replied to the judge as a lady would—and not as a laundress. In the “little Nuremberg trials” one indeed could see the popular (folkloric and unsystematic) Marxist mind at work.

164 The Krupps died out in the male line. Bertha Krupp married a Herr von Bohlen und Halbach: the oldest son (or male heir) uses the name “Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach” while all other males are Herren von Bohlen und Halbach.

165 Cf. Thilo Freiherr von Wilmowsky, Warum wurde Krupp verurteilt? (Stuttgart: Vorwerk, 1950). This book is very informative on the ideological background of the process. Amusing is the comparison between the attorney’s “anticapitalistic” writ in the Flick trial and Andrzej Wyszyński’s tirades on pp. 37-38. Wars—who dared to doubt it?—are made by wicked capitalists.

166 Cf. Thilo von Wilmowsky, op. cit., p. 9.

167 The supporters of this theory forget that in modern wars the sons and brothers of the “war-mongering” manufacturers are drafted into the armies like everybody else—and face death. (Old Krupp von Bohlen had four sons: one had to stay behind and faced death from the skies, but three were at the front. One of them was killed, another one was a prisoner of war in the USSR for eleven years.) What is really the use of another cool million if you lose your sons . . . and other relatives? The egregious nonsense of looking for purely (or predominantly) economic reasons for wars and, particularly for the present age of continuous wars has been well dealt with by Felix Somary, op. cit., pp. 33-34; Morris Ginsberg, Reason and Unreason in Society, (London: Longmans, Green, 1947), pp. 184-185; Wilhelm Röpke, Internationale Ordnung (Erlenbach-Zürich: Rentsch, 1945), pp. 73ff; 2nd edition, 1954, pp. 101ff. Here Röpke says: “The statement that Imperialism is an unavoidable consequence of capitalism would only be convincing if an empirical proof in two directions could be offered to us: (1) that imperialism without capitalism and (2) that capitalism without imperialism never existed. One only has to ask for these proofs to know in advance that they never could be produced.” (p. 116)

168 Since I knew Yamashita personally I wrote an article about him for a “liberal” Catholic publication usually very eager to come to the aid of the innocently persecuted. The article was turned down.

169 Cf. A. Frank Reel, The Case of General Yamashita (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949). The author terminates his book with the following words: “We have been unjust, hypocritical and vindictive. We have defeated our enemies on the battlefield, but we have let their spirit triumph in our hearts.” (p. 247)

170 Mr. Bevin, who in this case was one of the most important decision makers, had a fine ultraleftist record. (Cf. Chapter XVI, Note 153.) He was not too encumbered by knowledge and preliminary studies as can be gleaned from Joseph Frayman’s sketch: “Careers of Bevin and Morrison Reveal Background Similarities,” New York Times, March 10, 1951, p. 5. Yet the decline in the quality of parliamentarians is unavoidable. Cf. René Gillouin, op. cit., pp. 142-143.

171 Even Winston Churchill protested against the renewed enslavement of the South Tyrol in a speech held before the House of Commons. Cf. New York Times, June 6, 1946.

172 Another Nazi hangover are the anti-Hapsburg stipulations in the Austrian State Treaty of 1955—interesting in the light of the democratic principle of self-determination. Yet, as we said before, the Western Powers gladly acceded to this Brown-Red demand. American antimonarchism always was a live, popular force. This attitude is well represented by Dr. Benjamin Rush, Cf. op. cit., pp. 264, 265. Yet Rush, who wanted to frighten naughty children with the specter of a king, saw the future in a rather different light. In a letter to John Adams (July 21, 1789) he admitted that “a hundred years hence, absolute monarchy will probably be rendered necessary in our country by the corruption of our people. But why should we precipitate an event for which we are not yet prepared?” (p. 522)

173 Needless to say, most of the victims were women, adolescents, and small children of the lower classes: most of them were Social Democrats who had boasted of their “proletarian status,” but this did not protect them in the least. “You want to be proletarians, but you live like bourgeoisie!” they were told in a mixture of surprise and indignation.

In the Napoleonic Wars the Russian armies fought all over Europe. At that time the majority of these soldiers were Christians and illiterate. In 1944 they were largely literate and probably without a religious faith. Friz Reck-Malleczewen speaks about the Christian spirit of Russian soldiers in World War I in his Tagebuch eines Verzweifelten (Stuttgart: Henry Goverts, 1966), pp. 80-81.

174 They were buried by Austrian peasants. Cf. pp. 328-332.

175 A description of the events near Lienz can be found in Nikolay Nikolayevitch Krasnov, The Hidden Russia (New York: Henry Holt, 1960).

176 Cf. New York Times, January 20, 1946.

177 When the British entered (Austrian) Carinthia from the South, Sir Harold Alexander issued a declaration to the local population starting with the words, “We have come as conquerors, not as liberators.” But “conqueror” (Eroberer) in German merely implies lasting territorial conquests. To make it worse, the soldiers and officers were forbidden to extend “common courtesy” to the inhabitants, i.e., to greet them, to say “thank you,” etc. A few weeks later it dawned upon the British that all this was nonsense, that such treatment of the Austrians was not at all in their interest, that they should distinguish between Austrians, Nazis, and Germans. Everything was now reversed. Austrians were told that all the Allies were their good friends and that they should not believe the nonsense told to them by the Nazis about communism in Russia and Yugoslavia. Communism was just the last stage of development in democracy.

Thus the Austrians, who as neighbors of the Communist world knew much better what communism was, finally woke up from the Nazi hell and found themselves in an insane asylum.

178 France eventually lost most of her colonial possessions but gained a few square kilometers along the Italian frontier in the Alps.

179 Cf. Louis Rougier, Les Accords Pétain-Churchill, Histoire d’une mission (Montreal: Beauchemin, 1945). As was to be expected, nobody from Britain’s Foreign Office dared testify at the Pétain trial that, behind De Gaulle’s back, Britain had made secret agreements with the Marshal.

180 There were, of course, noncommunist and even rightist groups in the résistance. One of these groups on the right was led by the ex-Maurassian Guillain de Bénouville. Cf. his Le sacrifice du matin (Paris: Laffont, 1946), especially pp. 65-69. Bénouville became a close associate of De Gaulle in the late 1940s.

Nor were the members of the House of Bourbon spared by the Nazis in their leftist furor. Prince Xavier de Bourbon-Parma was nearly beaten to pulp in the Struthof (Alsace) concentration camp. The notion that the right collaborated while the left resisted is simply not true. Laval, a Radical Socialist, for instance, came distinctly from the left.

181 Cf. Louis Rougier, La France Jacobine (Paris and Brussels: Diffusion di Livre, 1947), pp. 169-171, and Donald B. Robinson, “Blood Bath in France,” The American Mercury, April 1946.

182 Cf. Gilles Perrault, “Fallait-il sacrifier ces résistants?” Historia, June 1965, pp. 765ff.

183 Cf. Gallicus, “Terror in the Air,” Politics (New York), vol. 2, no. 11 (November 1945).

184 Cf. Thilo, v. Wilmowsky, op. cit., pp. 182-183.

185 Cf. Winston S. Churchill, The Second World War, vol. 1, p. 482. Churchill gave the following instructions to Major General Macksey, selected on April 5, 1940 to command an expedition to Narvik: “It is clearly illegal to bombard a populated area in the hope of hitting a legitimate target which is known to be in the area but which cannot be precisely located and identified.” This injunction was later blissfully overlooked.

186 After prisoners of war were repeatedly killed in Germany by Allied raids, Brigadier General B. M. Bryan declared that these incidents were regrettable, but “the pilots’ instructions are to disrupt transportation and strafe every German vehicle they can see on the road,” Cf. New York Times, April 8, 1945. A.P. Dispatch.

187 The destruction of Le Havre after the evacuation of the city by the Germans which cost the lives of 3,500 Frenchman was described by Anne O’Hare McCormick in the New York Times, October 9, 1944. De Gaulle was present at the mass burial. When he protested against this misdeed, he was informed that one thought that the Germans were still in the town and that merely their absence made the French holocaust so regrettably senseless. De Gaulle almost hit the ceiling. In acts like these one finds part of the explanation for his attitude. (And some of Couve de Murville’s actions might be explained by the treatment he received in North Africa by Messrs. Roosevelt and Morgenthau, accompanied and advised by the Soviet spy Harry Dexter White. Cf. Robert Murphy, op. cit., pp. 188-189.)

188 The wanton destruction of a French village (in Alsace) was mentioned passim in an article in the New York Times.

The villagers did not seem to have been particularly enthusiastic about their American liberators. They were on the whole “unconcerned,” but some boys were “spitting in the tracks of the Army trucks” and “there were those three blond, husky women strolling down arm in arm, singing and laughing and mocking everyone else.” When the Nazi counterpush came, the inhabitants kissed the German soldiers and removed the American and French flags. “Somehow a few soldiers got back and told the story to the colonel. The colonel suddenly remembered that there were a lot of enemy tanks in the village and told the artillery to pound it to rubble. And so they did.” Killing how many French citizens? Or only the three husky blondes? Cf. Ralph G. Martin, “What Kind of Peace? The Soldiers’ Viewpoint,” New York Times Magazine, March 11, 1945, pp. 43-44.

189 This frightening confusion was not restricted to the United States. I heard a famous French Catholic philosopher with leftist leanings speak about the “Fascist” Polish Army in Italy.

190 There were millions of “displaced persons”—an expression which marks a record in the realm of understatements, just like “relocation center” (for concentration camp).

191 It was significant that the Jewish refugees, less than anybody else, wanted to go back to the Red paradise. There were a variety of reasons for this. When the regime broke down in Odessa and Kiev, history’s most terrible spontaneous slaughter of Jews took place. Most of the Jews in the Ukraine, however, had not fled because they did not believe the Soviet tales about the Nazi anti-Semitism and considered them sheer propaganda. Tragically enough, quite a number of Jewish soldiers in the Red Army were even eager to surrender to the Germans. The pro-German sympathies of the Russian Jews had always been very marked.

192 Cf. Chapter XVI, Note 59. Also Henry Picker, op. cit., pp. 390, 394-395, 447-449.

193 An official publication of Spain on its Jews can be found in the series Temas Españoles, no. 252, “Los Sefardies” by Jesús Cantera Ortiz de Urbina (Madrid, 1958).

194 In Sweden the Jews were admitted only at the end of the eighteenth century (in Norway only by the end of the nineteenth century). Until the end of the nineteenth century Jews became Swedish citizens only in isolated cases. Jesuits were admitted to Norway only a few years ago. A greater liberalization of the civic laws pertaining to non-Lutherans in Sweden took place only in 1952. Cf. Peter Hornung, “Das schwedische Gesetz über Religionsfreiheit,” Stimmen der Zeit, vol. 150, no. 8 (May 1952), pp. 122-133.

195 The year 1924 symbolizes the expiation—with rearranged numbers—of the year of expulsion 1492. This act was an imitation of the forced exodus of English Jews in 1290. Actually only two Jewish communities had never been moved nor ransacked in past centuries, those of Rome and Avignon.

196 Sephardic descent could easily be proved by the family name. Proof of an (unbroken) genealogical tree was never required by the Spanish authorities. The cofounder of the Falange was A. García Valdescasas, until recently Rector of the University of Barcelona. Cf. Chapter XVI, Note 15. Yet he was not alone in rejecting totalitarianism and the deification of the State. The main founder, José-Antonio Primo de Rivera, had the same attitude. Cf. his speech in answering Gil Robles, held before the Cortes on December 19, 1933 in “Discursos Parlamentarios,” vol. 2. p.9. of José-Antonio Primo de Rivera, Marqués de Estrellas, Obras Completas (Barcelona: Ediciones Fé, 1939).

197 Let us admit that the camp of Miranda de Ebro, where many of the Jewish (and non-Jewish) refugees were temporarily located was anything but a swank resort. The food was miserable. But at that time much of Spain was actually starving.

198 I wrote a larger paper on the effects of the “Fascist” Spanish Government to save Jewish lives during World War II. For about half a year I “negotiated” with a leading American-Jewish “Liberal” monthly to get it accepted. Exception was taken once on this, then on that statement. I wanted to get the facts across and made compromises in style and in wording. Yet, finally, the answer was “No.” It could not be done. Spain was “Fascist” after all, and nothing more could be said about it. Thus I published the essay in France, “L’Espagne et les Juifs,” Etudes (Paris), vol. 289, no. 4 (April 1956), and in the Catholic World (N. Y.). Needless to say, I was thoroughly disgusted by the petty and, in a deeper sense, dishonest American “liberal” publication. This bit of truth nevertheless was communicated to the American public at large in 1970 when Rabbi Chaim Lipschitz divulged the facts to Newsweek magazine.

199 The French Sephardic community, about 3,000 families, thanked Franco in a letter (October, 1941) for his effective aid. The Spanish government saw to it that these Sephardic Jews with their property were placed under the protection of the Spanish consulate. They were also exempt from wearing the Star of David.

200 which resembles a statement about another republic: “Hominum confusione et divina Providentia regnatur Helvetia.” Yet Switzerland no less than the United States exercised in the eighteenth century an immense political-social fascination on romantic minds—a fascination mobilized by Jean-Jacques Rousseau who appeared as spokesman of la libre Helvétic. Cf. Gonzague de Reynold, La démocratie et la Suisse (Bern, Editions du Chandelier, 1929), pp. 191-192.

201 Mr. Owen Lattimore propagated assiduously the transformation of Japan into a democratic republic, but it was Mr. Joseph C. Grew, former United States Ambassador in Tokyo, who succeeded in preventing the worst. The trouble with Japan in the remote past was the weakness of the monarch, which resulted in an oligarchic military dictatorship (bakufu, literally: “rule of the tent”) headed by the Shôgun. The Restoration of 1868 meant the return of the emperor to full power, after his abeyance for many centuries. In the 1920s-1930s a new bakufu arose casting the emperor into the role of a sacred cow, remote and ineffective, and emasculating the parliament. At present the role of the emperor is dangerously weakened, the army is reduced to a minimum and the country is in permanent danger of being taken over by the extremist parties. Due to the nature of American intervention not only the balance of power is lost in East Asia, but also the internal balance of Japan which needs a sound imperial authority. The warnings of Gaetano Mosca in his Ciò che la storia potrebbe insegnare, pp. 289-290, 308 have not been heeded. Still the evolution (through constitutional reform) of a stronger imperial center is still possible. On Owen Lattimore’s ideological and political background cf. also the summarized Senate Report’s short section in M. Stanton Evans, A. H. Ryskind, William Schulz, The Fringe on Top, (New York: American Features Book, 1962), p. 111-112.

202 I am so frequently reminded of a conversation in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Beautiful and the Damned (Garden City, N. Y.: Perma-Books, 1951, p. 239):

MAURY: I imagined you were broad-minded.

PARAMORE: I am.

MURIEL: Me, too. I believe one religion’s as good as another and everything.

PARAMORE: There’s some good in all religions.

MURIEL: I’m a Catholic but, as I always say, I’m not working at it.

PARAMORE (with a tremendous burst of tolerance): The Catholic religion is a very—a very powerful religion.

Luckily (or unluckily) this is a very widespread illusion—an illusion related to the belief that the Church is a purely dogmatic monolith. Writes a Lutheran theologian: “There is probably no other Church which has the capacity for harboring so many widely divergent theological points of view as the Roman Church. . . . There is a fixed dogmatic limit, but within this limit there is room for divergent and often contradictory opinions.” Cf. F. E. Mayer, The Religious Bodies of America (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, n.d. 2nd ed.), pp. 32, 38.

203 The writer of this volume had been to Vietnam four times in the last fifteen years (twice during the Ngo Dinh Diem regime) and emphatically rejects the story of the “suppression of the Buddhists.” The United Nations sent a commission to Vietnam after the violent death of the Ngo brothers: this commission reported that there was not a shred of evidence as to a persecution of Buddhists in the past or present. An American reporter who “substantiated” the myth received the Pulitzer Prize for his great journalistic achievement. To a considerable part of the American public the idea to place the main burden of the war effort squarely on the shoulders of the “Buddhist majority” (instead of a Catholic minority) made sense. Yet the Buddhists do not form a majority in Vietnam—the anti-Christian Mahayana-Buddhists even plus the far more spiritual Hinayana (Teravada) Buddhists. The estimates are: 35 to 40 percent Mahayana and Hinayana-Buddhists, 12 to 18 percent Catholics, the rest Caodaists, Hao-Hoa supporters and, above all, Animists. At the present moment the Mahayana Buddhists are politically even more divided among themselves than ever before. Cf. also Piero Gheddo, Cattolici e Buddisti nel Vietnam (Florence: Vallecchi, 1968).

204 The weakness of the countries bordering on Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, is due precisely to their intensive Buddhist character—which involved peacefulness, vagueness of mind, indifference and lacking “aggressiveness.” Prince Norodom Sihanouk, the Hamlet of Cambodia, very well represents the local character of these very kind and attractive people. (Merchants and entrepreneurs in these two delightful countries are almost exclusively Chinese, Viets, Indians, or Europeans.)

205 Formosa now has a population well over fifteen million on an area 15 percent smaller than Switzerland and with a not unsimilar distribution of high mountains and lowlands. (The highest mountains in Switzerland are over 15,000, in Formosa over 12,000 feet). The Formosans have the third highest living standards in all of Asia, lower only than those of Israel and Japan.

206 Again we want to sound the warning note not to confuse the Welfare State (Wohlfahrtsstaat) with the Provider State (Versorgungsstaat). It is the latter which has common traits with the Socialist State, without being one. Sweden (and even New Zealand) are Provider States, not Socialist States in the narrow sense of the term. Yet the Provider State, no less so than the Socialist State, is a Servile State in the sense Hilaire Belloc used this term. In the final paragraph of his famous book he wrote: “The internal strains which have threatened society during its Capitalist phase will be relaxed and eliminated, and the community will settle down upon that Servile basis which has its foundation before the advent of the Christian faith, from which that faith slowly weaned it, and to which in the decay of faith it naturally returns.” (H. Belloc, The Servile State, London, 1912, p. 183). Yet under the spell of “monasticism” this process is even possible under Christian auspices.

207 Cf. Le Capitaine Charles De Gaulle, La discorde chez l’ ennemi (Paris: Berger-Levrault, 1924).

208 Cf. Economic Council Letter, (New York), no. 271, September 15, 1951, p. 1.

209 Antoine de Rivarol, who died in 1801 in his Berlin exile, was a French Royalist, the son of an innkeeper and bearer of one of the many fake French titles. He was unexcelled in his witty and profound remarks, many of a political or social nature. Ernst Jünger has written a profound book about him.

Chapter XVIII

1 Walter Sulzbach in Afrika und seine Probleme, A. Hunold, ed. (Erlenbach-Zürich: Rentsch, 1965), pp. 16-17 informs us that according to J. R. McCullock England’s trade with India around 1811 was not greater than with Jersey or the Isle of Man. Exports to the Thirteen Colonies just before 1776 amounted to around 15 million dollars, but had reached 61 million dollars to the United States in 1806. (Ibid., p. 21) Bismarck in a letter to War Minister von Roon expressed his conviction that economic gains from colonies would remain illusory. Cf. Alfred Zimmerman, Geschichte der deutschen Kolonialpolitik (Berlin: Mittler and Sohn 1913), p. 6. The profit desired by France from trading with and investing in her colonies amounts according to the most liberal estimate, to not more than one-fourth of her original investment. Cf. letter of Constant Southworth in the New York Times, July 13, 1960.

2 In a discussion following a lecture I gave in an American university I was asked whether I sincerely believed in my statement to the effect that the European colonies in their majority were not profitable. That there could be other than commerical reasons for the acquisition of colonies seemed incredible to these young (subconscious) Marxists. Naturally, in the past Conservatives as well as Liberals opposed “colonialism.” In 1852 Disraeli spoke about the “miserable colonies” and Richard Cobden (who thought strongly in economic terms) asked: “Where is the enemy who will do us the favor to steal these possessions?”

3 Cf. Chapter V, Note 14.

4 On the abuse of the United States development aid read Helmut Schoeck’s brilliant essay “Die USA und die Entwicklungsländer—Geschichte einer Ernüchterung,” in Afrika und seine Probleme, A. Hunold, ed.

5 The overseas aid given by the United States worked in many cases as an inducement to “prove” the receiver’s independence from the Big Friend. Curiously enough, it is always far easier to give than to receive . . . from a psychological, not from a material point of view, to be sure. The trouble with the “underdeveloped” (or “emerging”) nations also lies partly in their prelogical mentality. See, for instance, a piece of news in the Times of India, February 4, 1962 (dateline: Trivandrum, February 3): “The Government of Kerala delayed the filing of the defamation case against the Communists on account of Ashtagrahi, i.e., bad constellation of planets which has caused all over India a real hysteria.” The reason for “backwardness” lies partly in the squandering of public monies for purely representative purposes. The marble palace for President Houphouet-Boigny of the Ivory Coast gobbled up ten million dollars. Pieces of marble had to be brought from Italy by airlift. A few years ago no less than 50 percent of the budget of the Central Africa Republic was still paid by France, which now puts more money up for its former colonies than in the darkest days of “colonialism.” Things were not brighter in Ghana during the N’krumah regime. His Minister of Industry, Krobo Edusei, had built for himself a luxurious villa for 180,000 dollars and his wife bought herself in London a golden bed for 9,000 dollars. Mr. Edusei was made to resign. (Cf. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, August 21, 1962, p. 17.) The trouble is partly also a lacking readiness for systematic hard work. In Guatemala City there are 10,000 licensed (and how many unlicensed?) lottery ticket vendors among a population of over 300,000 people. Cf. Carlo Coccioli, “Come i cittadini di Guatemala vengono distratti dai loro guai,” Corriere della Sera (Milan), March 28, 1962, p. 3. In the same city bingo parties are held with as much as eight thousand participants. Whoever thinks that the problem is merely a matter of “Social Reforms,” of re-distribution of wealth, is very much mistaken. Especially in the Catholic Church such is the prevailing view as regards Latin America. See, however, the excellent essay of Professor Fredrick B. Pike, “The Modernized Church in Peru: Two Aspects,” The Review of Politics, vol. 26, no. 3. (July 1964), pp. 307-308. Richard F. Behrendt is very right when he says that our material superiority engendered in the backward nations envy and the urge to imitate only the most superficial elements of our civilization. Solidarity with or friendship for the West is very rare among them. (Cf. his compendium Soziale Strategie der Entwicklungsländer (Frankfurt: S. Fischer, 1965), p. 33. Hence the immense difficulty of getting recognition in return for the aid given.

6 One Bharat, two Pakistans separated by the Bharat, and Burma.

7 Cf. E. v. Kuehnelt-Leddihn, “Christentum, Technik, ‘Kolonialismus’ und die Entwicklungsländer,” Ordo, XIII (1962), pp. 41-85. Vide also Denis de Rougemont, L’Aventure occidentale de l’homme (Paris: Albin Michel, 1957), p. 186sq.

8 Yet Labourites and, naturally, Communists, made concerted efforts in British universities to convert them to their own ideologies.

9 There was only one racial “by-law” in the Lovanium: all ball teams had to be “racially mixed.” Africans could not play against Europeans. This, however, might have been changed since I was there in early 1960.

10 Yet even the new investments did not always pay off. (Sir) Denis W. Brogan in The Price of Revolution (New York: The Universal Library, 1966), p. 147-148, has pointed out that colonial investments never bring an early return to the private investor. Of all Belgian exports only 3 percent went to the Congo, of the imports 5.5 percent went to the Congo, of the whole national income 5 percent were derived from the Congo. (Cf. New York Times, August 7, 1960). During the entire colonial period the Belgians invested 280,000,000 gold francs in the Congo and earned 25 million gold francs. Cf. William L. Langer, “Farewell to Empire,” Foreign Affairs, October 1962. See also William Woodruff, Impact of Western Man (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1966), especially pp. 51-52, 293-294.

11 A note like this can merely hint at the enormity of the problem which turns on the question of work ethics in the underdeveloped countries. The inclination of free man for hard and systematic work is to be found only in a large part of Euramerican and East Asian civilization—and even there only in relatively recent times. (In Euramerica since the Reformation, in Japan since the Tokugawa regime, etc.) In Africa, to make matters worse, physical labor is considered to be a woman’s domain. René Dumont in L’Afrique noire est mal partie (Paris: Seuil, 1966), p. 188 tells about agricultural labor in a part of the Congo where men work on the average of fifteen hours a week in the fields. Since they were forced to pay equal wages by their own law, the Belgians imported bricklayers from the homeland. The average African laid 750 bricks daily, and the Belgian laborer 2,400 and more.

In Latin America people (as Keyserling had already remarked in his Südamerikanische Meditationen) are pushed by Lust, (inclination, fancy), by gana, and not by a sense of duty or ambition. Cf. also José Gutierrez, De la pseudo-aristocracia a la autenticidad (Bogotá, Tercer Mundo, 1966), p. 85. Compare also with Fredrick B. Pike, The Modern History of Peru (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1967), p. 122. The Argentine proverb: “El vivo vive del tonto, el tonto vive del trabajo—The intelligent man lives from the stupid man, the stupid man from work,” is not uncharacteristic. The same phenomenon can be found in India. Cf. Jean Gebser, Asienfibel (Ul-steinbuch, No. 650, n.d.), pp. 21-22. There the lack of sense of time renders the situation even more difficult. Dr. J. S. Kanwar from the Indian Council for Agrarian Research in New Delhi has stated that if only two of India’s 16 states were to exploit the soil with intelligence and diligence, all of India could be fed: if, however, this were done in all of India, two-thirds of the agricultural products could be exported. Cf. Kontinente, 3 year, no. 4, August 1968. On the same problem in Russia vide Erwin Sinkó, op. cit., p. 143. Of course, in the USSR the lack of “Protestant work ethics” is made more keenly felt through collectivism, socialism, and the dearth of consumer goods.

12 I take this idea from the title of Léon Ferrero’s wise book, Amérique, mirroir grossissant de l’Europe (Paris: Rieder, 1939). (This son of Guglielmo Ferrero died young in an automobile accident in New Mexico.)

13 In Francis Móra’s beautiful novel Enek a búzamezökröl, a leftist propagates the republic in a Hungarian village inn towards the end of World War I. He explains that there should be and that there would be no king. An old peasant shakes his head: “But then,” he cries out, “if there is no king, whose head would one see on the coins?” “There would be no head on the coins.” “But that’s impossible, such a coin would be no good,” the old man retorted, and everybody agreed. The agitator was licked. The possibility, nay, the likelihood of a return to monarchy lies in the human heart’s rejection of anonymity: monarchy, therefore, often comes back in republican guise to satisfy cerebral postulates. Cf. Ernst Jünger, Der Waldgang (Frankfurt: Klostermann, 1951), p. 135, and Otto Seeck, Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt (Berlin: Siemenroth und Tröschel, 1897), vol, 1. pp. 11-12.

14 Hence the long drawn out article is as typical for the Continental press as the short, cabled report is for the American or British one. Today (for the same reason) many Continental papers subscribe to the services of American press agencies.

15 This term has been coined by Alexis de Tocqueville. Cf. De la démocratie en Ameŕique, vol. 1, p. 277: “Une idée fausse, mais claire et précise, aura toujours plus de puissance dans le monde qu’une idée vraie, mais complexe.”

16 The American Indian has not only a grave educational, but also a moral problem. Only 5 percent of the population of Utah are Indians, but among the inmates of the penitentiaries 34 percent, of the boy reformatories 25 percent, and of the girls’ reform schools 50 percent are Indian. Cf. Lawrence E. Barry, “The Indian in a Cultural Trap,” America, vol. 112, April 10, 1965, pp. 482-484.

17 The worst and most sadistic crimes were committed by the Simbas of Gbenye and Mulele in the Stanleyville and Kivu regions. Further south we had the case of the Italian Red Cross volunteers eaten by cannibals. Unfortunately such happenings are not only confined to darkest Africa. Even in Ghana young men often live in fear of being buried with deceased chieftains, so they go into hiding. Highly “advanced” Nigeria has seen delirious horrors in the last ten years—not only in the civil war, but also in the various revolutions. There was the Mau-Mau movement in Kenya whose nauseating details I would like to spare my readers. They might gather them from Robert Ruark’s outstanding novel, Something of Value. Yet it is interesting to see how the frightfulness of that large-scale conspiracy is played down in the Socialist Albert Meister’s L’Afrique noire peut-elle partir? (Paris: Seuil, 1966), pp. 172-173. Better is F. D. Corfield, The Origins of Mau-Mau (Nairobi: Colony and Protectorate of Kenya, 1960), p. 163sq. One can understand the nervousness of South Africans (and Rhodesians) about the possibility of “full democracy” in their country. In 1960 they took care of the wounded and the maimed shipped down from the Congo. And in 1952 a Catholic medical sister, Dr. Elsie Quinlan, was not only murdered in East London (South Africa) but even partly eaten by members of the African National Congress Youth League. Her car was stopped, she was knifed to death, the vehicle was set afire. (Cf. the two Capetown papers, The Argus and Die Burger on November 10, 1952.) Yet it would be erroneous to draw “racist” conclusions from such events. Man is a predatory animal and only ideas will limit his beastliness. If these ideas (like Christianity) fail, then the return to savagery is close at hand.

18 A girls’ convent school of the lycée level which I visited in Brazzaville had never had an African graduate. In the Lovanium there was not a single African female student in 1960, though there were a number of (very popular) European girls.

19 Professor Robert Maistriaux of the “Institute St. Louis le Grand” in Brussels, who worked for years in Elizabethville, told me of fairly numerous cases of Belgian civil servants adopting black babies in the Congo. If they grow up from earliest infancy in a European milieu (in the Congo or in Belgium) their intelligence is vastly superior to that of Africans. Of importance is his analysis of the African intelligence in “La sous-eimageolution des Noirs d’Afrique. Sa nature, Ses causes, Ses remèdes,” published in Revue de Psychologie des Peuples, vol. 10 (1955), no. 2 and 4, vol. 11 (1956), nos. 1. and 2. Of political importance is the African’s difficulty in abstracting with which Maistriaux dealt principally in the last instalment of his essay.

20 This qualification has been dropped in the United States so that (certain) Americans can with “good conscience” condemn the Rhodesians for not giving the vote to illiterates. To the democratist (who, indeed, is a leftist), voting assumes a quasi-religious character. The American polling booth with its well-oiled machinery and ritualistic curtain shown at the U. S. Exhibition in Moscow was half-tabernacle, half-confessional, and had pseudoreligious significance. Thus the modern leftist, opposed to all hierarchies, no longer laughs about naked natives voting for animal symbols. In the nihilism of perfect equality reason comes to an end and superstition takes over. It is evident that the “native” intelligence of persons is not always the same. Cf. Prof. Arthur J. Jensen, “Nature and Nurture,” The Harvard Educational Review, Winter 1969. Then shall we be surprised if there are such differences also between races? At least Pierre Teilhard de Chardin thought so, emphasizing that he was a “universalist,” but not a democrat. Cf. Robert Speaight, Teilhard de Chardin (London: Collins, 1967), p. 220.

21 If on a map of Europe we would paint red the regions which knew the institution of serfdom, we would not get a large area, merely a slowly broadening belt from Central France to Central Russia. And what was really the iniquity of serfdom? Not so much that the serf was glebae adstrictus (tied to the soil). The lacking communication system made it easy to run away, to take abode in a city, and to acquire the freedom of the city, i.e., “citizenship” after a year and a day. The drawback of serfdom was the obligation to work one or two days a week for the manorial lord (the monastery, etc). But what does the modern American city dweller do in many cases? He works on Mondays and half of Tuesday for his landlord; and on Tuesday afternoon and half of Wednesday for a mythological figure called Uncle Sam. (According to an estimate the average American citizen starts to work for himself on April 16th!) And if he does not comply, he will be in much deeper water than the serf who could never be dispossessed. Yet political propaganda has misrepresented the European past even in Europe. Modern man is “unhistorical” and therefore he can be told every imaginable nonsense which he readily will believe. How many Hungarians, for instance, are convinced that their country went through a period of feudalism? It never did. Cf. Károly Eszláry, “Propaganda és valóság,” Unio, (Munich) vol. 6, no. 3 (March, 1955), pp. 1-3.

22 Mussolini insisted that per il fascismo lo stato è un assoluto, “for Fascism the state is an absolute.” (Cf. Enciclopedia Italiana, vol. 14, p. 850). Fascism was to him a democracy—una democrazia organizzata, centralizzata, autoritaria (p. 849). The Jacobins would have made an analogous claim: they also believed in superorganization, centralization, authoritarianism. Of course, both Jacobinism and fascism took their inspiration from the Roman Republic—the fasces (i.e., the beating rods of the lictors) with the axe was their common symbol. The inner relationship between “national democracy” with its distinctly Jacobin roots and the modern totalitarian state is best analyzed in Heinz O. Ziegler, Autoritärer oder totaler Staat (Tübinger: J. C. B. Mohr, 1932), another brilliant book which has never been translated into English.

23 Witchcraft is by no means based purely on superstition. In the nineteenth century, at the time of our grandparents who were exceedingly “enlightened,” black magic was relegated to the realm of fairy tales. Modern ethnologists and anthropologists of the first order accept it. Cf. for instance Hans Findeisen, Schamanentum (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1957), pp. 13-14. The cases of Navaho witchcraft which I have told or alluded to in Die Gottlosen (Salzburg: Berglandbuch, 1962), are also authentic. Compare also with André Dupeyrat, Savage Papua, trsl. E. and D. Demauny (New York: Dutton, 1954), pp. 145ff. At the same time we should not close our eyes to the fact that genuine superstition might live side on side with the truly supernatural. The partly ludicrous, partly tragic “Cargo-Cult” in New Guinea is a point in question. Cf. Joseph Höltker SVD, “Der Cargo-Kult” in Neuguineas lebt noch,” Neue Zeitshrift für Missionswissenschaft, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 223-226. The same: “Die Mambu-Bewegung in Neuguineas. Zum Prophetentum in Melanesia,” Annali Lateranensi, vol. 5, (1941), pp. 181-219.

24 Cf. André Dupeyrat, op. cit., pp. 217ff. and 246ff.

25 For this very reason an honest man such as President Tubman of Liberia admitted that many of Liberia’s ills stem from the fact that his country never had “the benefits of colonialism.” (Time, January 17, 1969, p. 28). Emperor Haile Selassie expressed himself in a similar way.

26 Cf. Sigrid Undset, Selvportretter og Landskapsbilleder, (Oslo: H. Aschehoug, 1938), pp. 195-196.

27 Cf. Jacob Burckhardt, Briefe an seinen Freund Friedrich von Preen 1864-1893 (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, 1922), p. 248 (letter dated Baden, July 24, 1889).

28 Big Apartheid stands for the territorial separation of Negroes and non-Negroes in South Africa. One can question—and very much so—its practicality, but it is not so easy to attack it on moral grounds. It is different with the Little Apartheid which regulates the “coexistence” between the various racial groups, involving separate schools, buses, elevators, postoffice windows, etc. This is a costly setup and involves real discrimination which is to be rejected. Yet for a full understanding of the Afrikaaner (Boer) mentality one has to take all sorts of psychological factors into consideration.

29 As Senator, John F. Kennedy delivered a blistering speech in early 1957 against the continued French presence in Algeria. One wonders what specific knowledge he had of the Algerian situation. The result? An increase of anti-American feelings in France and no gratitude whatsoever from a “New Algeria” which still follows a strongly anti-American foreign policy. In order to assure the survival of French cultural influence (above all the French language), France is still paying enormous subsidies to her ex-colonies, i.e., between 1 and 2 percent of its GNP. Algeria, for instance, is wholly dependent upon France. If, in the case of a serious economic crisis, France were to send home her Algerian workers, Algeria would quietly collapse. Cf. Germaine Tillion, L’Algérie en 1957 (Paris: Minuit, 1957), p. 99.

30 The Swiss diplomat and scholar Jacques Albert Cuttat, a man with the greatest knowledge and affection for Asia, in his lecture “Die geistige B. deutung Asiens und es Abendlandes für einander,” in Münchner Universitätsreden, (Munich: Max Hueber, 1961), pp. 26-27’, pointed out the danger of a sterile guilt complex on the part of the West. Having studied conditions in Southern Italy with the aid of the Cassa per i mezzogiorno and knowing Nigeria, I can sympathize with Naomi Mitchison who said that living standards in Eastern Nigeria (the ill-fated Biafra) were higher than in Southern Italy. Cf. her Other Peoples’ Worlds: Impressions of Ghana and Nigeria (London: Secker and Warburg, 1958), p. 94.

31 Original text: “Estamos pobres porque un estado traidor entrega los bienes del pueblo argentino como un tributo colonial a su majestad británica!” Hardly had Perón nationalized British-owned railroads when they went into a decline from which they have not recovered to this day.

32 This remark might be extended to the United States. Although Americans of part-African ancestry are emphatically not Negroes, Peter F. Drucker is right when he says that “Black Harlem is one of the world’s wealthiest communities—fifth or so in per capita income of all communities outside of North America and Europe, and easily the richest of all Negro communities in the world.” Cf. his The Age of Discontinuity (New York: Harper and Row, 1968), p. 123.

33 But what happens if one person is very industrious and the other one “takes it easy”? The ambitious man automatically creates an “undemocratic” situation. In Austria at present the law foresees the 40-hour week for the working class after 1971. I work 80 hours a week. A statistic compiled in 1969 revealed that the self-employed in Austria work an average of sixty two-and-a-half hours a week. To remedy the consequently almost unavoidable increasing financial inequality one has to punish the ambitious worker through progressive taxation, thus rendering intensive or extensive work materially unattractive.

34 The Soviets, one need hardly emphasize, do not suffer from the widespread modern evil of Western masochism. Cf. Helmut Schoeck, “Der Masochismus des Abendlands” in Europa—Besinnung und Hoffnung, A. Hunold, ed. (Erlenbach-Zürich: Rentsch, 1957), pp. 221-256. These brilliant pages require a supplementary reading of H. Fortmann’s book on “cultures of shame” and “cultures of guilt.” (Cf. H. Fortmann, Schuldcultuuren en Schaamtecultuuren, Hertogenbosch, 1962). Ours obviously is a culture of guilt, and our “friends” and enemies know very well how to exploit this.

35 Cf. Chapter XVII, Note 208.

36 To embassies (representing the heads of states) as well as legations (representing merely the heads of governments). Before World War I only world powers (including the Vatican and Turkey) had mutual representations with embassy rank. (Thus the United States had an embassy in Paris, but only a legation in Brussels or Monrovia.) During and after World War II the megalomania of newly created nations changed the order. There are very few legations left. It is delightful to see an Embassy of Trinidad and Tobago in Addis Ababa, but one sincerely wonders what enormous sums are squandered by the new small nations for their diplomatic service—and where these monies originally came from.

37 This little word “they” (oni) is the one constantly heard in all political conversations with Moscow’s “man in the street.”

38 Almost immediately after the Six-Day War in the Near East, Mrs. Indira Gandhi handed a check of 50 million U. S. Dollars to the Government of the United Arab Republic. It is surprising to see an emerging nation, plagued by bitter poverty, and clamoring for aid being able to give such generous handouts.

39 I am referring to the already once mentioned novel, Die Gottlosen. (A Dutch translation was published in 1965.) Hemingway, of course, was careful. His main hero in European background novels was always an American.

40 One of the most priceless books of this sort is Dmitri Sergeyevitch Na golubom Dunaye (Odessa: Oblastnoye Izdatelstvo, 1955), a novel about postwar Vienna concocted with the help of encyclopedias. It is even funnier than Hochhuth’s The Deputy. It is certainly a book which ought to be published in English with the help of a foundation. Even to those not knowing Austria it would be an exhilarating experience. Americans might be more amused by the play of an Esthonian Communist, Jacobson, Shakaly, trsl. into Russian by L. Toom (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1953) because it represents the South of the United States. The villain is an American general with the name of McKennedy and he is assisted by an evil college professor who with his wealth and power dominates a whole city. Phrases like “Now they go to the lynchings in their smart sports cars while their ancestors went with covered wagon” add flavor to the play. (And so do the “Imperialist War Hymns” in praise of the A-bomb sung by the Salvation Army.) A Western reader could also derive the most devastating fun from Ivan Kurchavov’s Moskovskoye Vremya (Tallin: Estonskoye Gosudarstvennoye Izdatelstvo, 1956) which describes an Estonian ne’er-do-well being trained in the Vatican to disrupt labor organizations. He becomes a friend of the Pope, learns to use poison, pistols and false signatures, studies the history of the Inquisition and makes himself very popular by shouting: “We have to burn them all on the stake—from the Communists to the Metropolit of Moscow” (p. 293). Yet all this is not so very surprising if one looks at the sources. The article “Jesuits” in the Bolshaya Sovyetskaya Entsiklopediya (Moscow, 1952), vol. 27, pp. 341-342 is also a priceless piece—it could have been printed in any Nazi magazine.

41 Before his death the liberator Simon Bolivar fell into utter despair and admitted that Spanish rule had been superior to the “freedom” he brought about. Cf. also Chapter XIX, Note 6.

Chapter XIX

1 As to the Old World aspects of this phenomenon, cf. my essay “Student Revolts—European Version” in Seeds of Anarchy: A Study of Campus Revolution, F. Wilhelmsen, ed. (Dallas: Argus Academic Press, 1969), pp. 91-105.

2 Cf. Wilfred van Oven, Argentinien, Paraguay, Uruguay (Nuremberg: Glock und Lutz, 1969), p. 98.

3 Cf. Fredrick B. Pike, The Modern History of Peru (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1967), pp. 211, 223. From the beginning on the cogobernación was fought by the great conservative educator and thinker, José de la Riva-Agüero. Cf. his Afirmación del Perú (Lima: Pontificia Universidad, 1960), vol. II, pp. 164-166.

4 On the “anarchical” character of the Catholic (and Greek-Orthodox) nations cf. my Freiheit oder Gleichheit?, pp. 285-321. It is worthwhile to keep in mind that the New Left is better anchored in the Catholic countries (and in those with large Catholic minorities), while hippieism pure and simple finds a greater echo in the world of the Reformation. The New Left and hippieism are naturally not identical but they do overlap.

5 Cf. Graf Hermann Keyserling, Südamerikanische Meditationen (Berlin-Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, 1932), passim.

6 Here are the two famous exclamations of Bolivar shortly before his death: “There is no good faith in America, whether between individuals or between nations. Treaties are mere papers, constitutions nothing but books, elections are combats, liberty is anarchy, and life a torment.” The other one is not less depressing: “America is ungovernable. Those who have served the Revolution have ploughed the sea. The only thing to be done in America is to emigrate. These countries will inevitably fall into the hands of an uncurbed multitude, to pass later into those of petty tyrants of all colors and races. Devoured by every crime and extinguished by ferocity, they will not be worthy of conquest by Europeans. Were it possible that a part of the world should lapse into primeval chaos, that would be the last state of America.” Cf. F. Loraine Petre, op. cit., pp. 422-423. That these negative factors are not due to “Indian blood” is proved by the deep state of anarchy now prevailing in Uruguay, once Latin America’s Exhibit A for “sound democratic government.” Yet today chaos and terror have also affected many young Catholics including priests who are lustily greasing their rifles in the service of “Social Justice.” Besides the famous Camilo Torres of Columbia we have in Uruguay the murderous Father de Silva. The result are such ghastly murders as those of the German Ambassador in Guatemala, Count Karl Spreti—and many more.

7 Lykourgos once said to a man: “You want democracy? Then organize it first in your family.” This is being done today—though not too successfully.

8 See Chapter IX, Note 65.

9 Cf. Herbert Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society (Boston: Beacon Paperback, 1966), pp. xii-xiii, 19-25.

10 I have purposely not dealt with Marxian economics. Having been proved empirically wrong, they do not merit more than a footnote. (Nor is to the New Left disciple a homo economicus pure and simple.)

11 Cf. Herbert Marcuse, op. cit., pp. 256-257, where the author appeals to “the substratum behind the conservative popular base,” the outcasts and outsiders, the exploited and persecuted of other races and other colors, the unemployed and the unemployable. . . . Their force is behind every political demonstration for the victims of law and order. The fact that they start refusing to play the game may be the fact which marks the beginning of the end of a period.” A very good summing up of Marcuse’s “Critique of Society” can be found in Gerd-Klaus Kaltenbrunner’s essay “Vorbild oder Verführer?” in Wort und Wahrheit, vol. 25, 1 (January-February 1970):

1. The late capitalist society succeeded, contrary to the prognostications of Marx and Engels, in gaining stability under the conditions of increasing technological perfection.

2. Coexistence with the Communist camp fosters the stabilization of Western society under the banner of forced rearmament.

3. Thanks to their increasing access to consumer goods, the working class, once an enemy of the capitalist system, has today become one of its pillars and has lost all revolutionary potentialities.

4. Without being conscious of it and without rebellion on the part of the victims, a manipulation and instrumentalization of man has taken the place of proletarian misery, brutal terror and sexual repression in a universe without any dialectic opposition.

5. This society is characterized by a one-dimensional conscience, a non-dialectic thinking lacking utopia or transcendence, a positivistic philosophy which is the very negation of philosophy.

6. Since the discontinuation of social change is the most salient feature of modern industrial society, only those individuals, groups, and layers can be agents of fundamental change who are outside of the democratic process: the unemployed and the unemployable, the inmates of jails and lunatic asylums, etc. Obviously all the leftist movements have a purely intellectual leadership and never start from the “grassroots.” This Lenin knew only too well. Cf. his famous pamphlet Shto dyelat’? (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo politicheskoy lityeratury, 1970), p. 34.

12 The democratic age has, above all politically, no inbuilt “futurism.” One lives from one election to the other. The monarchs think about their grandchildren—and remember their grandfathers. Leftism is “antifamilistic.”

13 Cf. Theodor W. Adorno, Minima Moralia (Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1969), p. 243. It would be most erroneous to think that Marcuse has any love left for Sovietism. Cf. his Soviet Marxism: A Critical Analysis (New York: Vintage Books, 1961).

14 Cf. Der Spiegel, January 5, 1969, p. 79sq. The “shock,” however, was surprising, because in a number of publications Horkheimer had previously advertised his change of heart, thus, for instance, in Horkheimer, Rahner, von Weizsäcker, Uber die Freiheit (Stuttgart: Kreuz-Verkag, 1965).

15 On “revolutionary conservatism” cf. Armin Mohler, Die konservative Revolution in Deutschland (Stuttgart: Vorwerk, 1950.) Interesting materials also can be found in Otto-Ernst Schüddekopf, Linke Leute von rechts (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1960).

16 In this pagan and youth-worshipping age any criticism of the young seems to be taboo. Most refreshing therefore is the clever book by Robert Poulet, Contre la jeunesse (Paris: Denoël, 1963). In this connection, however, we have to bear in mind that the rebellious “kids” are rarely the offsprings of staid conservatives, but of moderately left parents (New Dealers, for instance), children who think and act consistently. This is well brought out by the novel of J. Anthony Lukas, Don’t Shoot—We Are Your Children (New York: Random House, 1971).

17 Cf. Armin Mohler, Was die Deutschen fürchten (Stuttgart: Seewald, 1965), pp. 129sq.

18 Sadistic drives against inanimate objects do exist. Vandalism directed against schools (including universities) seems to be a good preparation for the New Left way of life. At the same time it is a blow against authority. In the United States the damage done annually to schools is estimated to be between 15 and 20 million dollars. (Neither, we must add, should one force adolescents without any talents or intellectual curiosity to attend school until the age of eighteen.)

19 Of the many scandalous New Left “performances” one of the worst took place in the aula of Vienna’s university. The theme was “Art and Revolution.” Four “artists” undressed and showed—to use a circumlocution—all the varieties of their physical secretions. In a German university the rector magnificus was bound and gagged in his office and a young couple cohabited before him: “We’re begetting a little revolutionary.” These tales could be repeated literally ad nauseam. On the profound reasons for the present “sexual revolution” cf. Professor Viktor Frankl cited by C. Härlin, “Sexualität und Sinnenentleering” in Rheinischer Merkur, March 27, 1970, pp. 18-19. Frankl believes in the frequent existence of a “noögenous neurosis,” a neurosis rooted in the failure to make sense out of life. A morbid sex-centeredness is often the result. Frankl says: “As opposed to the beasts, instincts do tell man what he must do; traditions no longer tell him what he ought to do; often he therefore no longer knows what he really wants to do. As a result he merely wills what the others do, or does what the others want. This leads either to conformism or totalitarianism.”

20 New Left art is opposed to the beautiful. It represents all creation in hateful distortion, and especially so the human figure . . . an indirect form of atheism.

In its artistic aspects we see a decided connection between Dadaism (of the 1918-1922 period) and the New Left. Dadaism, however, was not only an artistic movement but also had deep political and social implications. It was at the same time libertine and antitheistic. Cf. Richard Huelsenbeck, En avant Dada (Hanover, 1920). Here we hear that Dadaism is an international, revolutionary league of all creative persons on the basis of a radical communism, that progressive unemployment should be introduced, that dadaist poems (of a “brutist nature”) ought to be read in churches, that all sexual relations ought to be organized by a sex center, etc. Dadaism, finally, influenced surrealism, and former dadaists acted in that movement (Aragon, Breton, Eluard). A pamphlet of that group issued in May 1931 applauded the burning of churches in Spain and made an appeal to the French to do likewise: “Only the proletariat has the power to sweep God from the surface of the earth.” (Aragon later become a leading Communist.)

21 On Satan and Non-Being, cf. my The Timeless Christian, pp. 173-174.

22 One of the accusations leveled by the antiauthoritarian school against “conservatives” is to the effect that they are overly clean and dress too neatly. Cf. Theodor W. Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality (New York: Harper & Row, 1950), p. 448.

23 There is obviously a sizeable amount of money which can be made by pornography. “Permissiveness” has its own vested interests.

24 On the Paris revolt cf. Patrick Seale and Maureen McConville, French Revolution, 1968 (A Penguin Special, 1968). This book is amusing to read because it is written by young Catholic leftists. Well observed is Raymond Aron’s La révolution introuvable (Paris: A. Fayard, 1968). Marcuse cited the Communist daily Humanité (Paris) on the riots which wrote: “Every barricade, every car burned gave tens of thousands of votes to the De Gaullist party.” Then Marcuse added: “This is perfectly correct—yet this risk of defeat must be taken.” Cf. H. Marcuse, An Essay of Liberation (Boston: Beacon Press, 1969), p. 68.

25 German students pay roughly forty dollars for a semester, Austrian students about twelve dollars. In other words, the universities in Europe exist almost wholly on public support. There are Sorbonne professors who think that the evil of rebellion could be alleviated by organizing private universities with very high tuition fees (while letting the public universities go to the dogs). This, I am afraid, might be another miscalculation. Columbia University with a tuition fee of roughly $2,200 per annum had just as bad riots as many a nearly gratuitous state university. As one can easily imagine, the leftist guerilleros and leading Communists in Latin America are mostly the sons and daughters of the upper-bourgeoisie and the oligarchs of those nations. Cf. Alphons Max, Guerillas in Lateinamerika (Zürich: Schweizerische Handelszeitung, 1971), also my Amerika-Leitbild im Zwielicht (Einsiedeln: Johannes Verlag, 1971), pp. 107, 143.

26 Cf. F. R. Allemann, “Adolf und die Bengel,” in Die Weltwoche, February 28, 1969, p. 5. It is, however, not wholly correct to call the National Democratic Party “neo-Nazi.” Obviously there are many ex-Nazis in it, but this is equally true of the other German parties. Adolf von Thadden has no Nazi record and he comes from a notoriously anti-Nazi family. (His aunt Elisabeth was beheaded.)

27 I heard similar talks in Spain by a high government official. In one or two years, he insinuated, workers’ brigades could be sent against rioting students. A “fascist reaction,” however, coming precisely from the working class, figures as a distinct possibility in the thought of Marcuse. Cf. his Psychoanalyse und Politik (Frankfurt: Europäische Verlagsanstalt, 1968), p. 66. As a matter of fact, this fear of a technological world dominated by an industrial society is quite characteristic of the New Left. (There is also a suspicion that technology implies a great deal of discipline and order.) Möhler is right when he says that the enthusiasm for technology has switched from the left to the right. Cf. his “Konservativ 1969” in Formeln deutscher Politik (Munich: Bechtle, 1969), pp. 110-111.

28 This long poem “Il PC ai giovani” was published 1969 in the Italian weekly Il Tempo and immediately created a big controversy. (There is, needless to say, the fear of the various Communist parties that they will lose the young generation to the New Left as Raymond Aron has stated in his Révolution introuvable.) It is obvious that the leaders and most of the rank and file of the New Left in Latin America are the negating, protesting sons of the rich and the well-to-do. A brilliant analysis of that particular state of affairs can be found in Alphonse Max’ “El comunismo latinoamericano corno fenomeno tridimensional” in Correo de la Tarde (suplemento 3), August 26, 1969. The New Left indeed is, in the words of Herbert Marcuse, “the Great Refusal.” Cf. One-Dimensional Man, p. 257: “The critical theory of society posesses no concepts which could bridge the gap between the present and its future; holding no promise and showing no success, it remains negative. Thus it wants to remain loyal to those who, without hope, have given and give their life to the Great Refusal.” This Great Refusal has been lived by the female Weatherman, Diana Oughton, whose frightening life has well been described by Thomas Powers in Diana, The Making of a Terrorist (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1971). The illustrations are even more eloquent than the text.

29 It is evident that however bright these young men of the New Left be, they do lack the experience, the very groundwork of knowledge which alone gives the possibility for real insights. A revealing experience for me was a trip to Huancayo, a provincial town in Peru with two universities and eleven bookstores. The latter were fully stocked with books of all sorts, but mostly “timely” publications of a political, sociological and psychological order. Missing were the great classics, basic works of lasting value. The counterpart to these books were the grafitti of the students of the National and the Catholic universities. They could be found everywhere, in every nook and corner. The wild battles between Apra-supporters, Maoists, Guevarists, Castroists, Muscovites, Trotskyists, and other leftists received literary and pictorial expression here.

30 JUSPAO, the American information office in Saigon, has mountains of Viet Cong horror photos, but these are often so obscene that they are just not fit for publication. American troops seeing such nauseating scenes might often lose their balance and not keep the rules of war. But surely they would not disembowel people, make them watch how pigs eat their entrails, bury them alive (as it happened to the Benedictine Father David Urbain) or only half-bury them so they were eaten alive by ants (as it happened to Father Jean de Compiegne). The Tet offensive and its gory details should have been an eye-opener to the most fanatical peacenik, denying that premature American withdrawal would involve the martyrdom of millions.

31 A former rector of San Marcos, the oldest university of the Americas, declared to me more than ten years ago that he had resigned his exalted office because either the students or the professors were on strike. Regular teaching had become well-nigh impossible. Student Comanagement destroyed whatever standards there were left. The military government now tries to effect a change.

32 In certain ways the German universities (especially in the North) are worse than their American counterparts. The picture painted by Baron Caspar Schrenck-Notzing in his Zukunftsmacher. Die neue Linke in Deutschland und ihre Herkunft (Stuttgart: Seewald, 1968) provides us with a terrible picture. Professor Helmut Kuhn of Munich University stated unequivocally: “Whether the Republic will survive the student rebellion in the universities as republic—this is the alarming question.” Cf. his essay “Die Studentenschaft in der Demokratie” in Stimmen der Zeit, vol. 183, June 1969, p. 371. As for the American scene vide the excellent article by Arthur H. Hobbs, “The SDS Trip: From Vision to Ego Shrieks,” in The Intercollegiate Review, Vol. 5 (Spring 1969), pp. 147-157. Significantly enough, the German university rebels also called themselves SDS—“Socialist German Students” (but not “Students for a Democratic Society”). Still, the German high school students (age group ten to nineteen) also have started to organize and have demanded a democratization of the schools and the parental homes. Their organization is the AUSS. (Cf. IDW. Informations-und Dokumentationszentrum West, February 23, 1968.) Such news would have gladdened the hearts of the American (leftist) reeducators in the immediate postwar years. They have left Germany in the meantime but are now reaping a rich harvest.

33 As one can see, so many of these new heroes come from the “Third World.” They indeed are “outlandish” and underline the existence of a “Masochism of the West,” a general phenomenon, but dominant in the ranks of the New Left.

Chapter XX

1 There is, to be true, in the Western Hemisphere a Conservative party in Colombia and the remnant of one in Chile.

2 The Freisinnige in Switzerland are most emphatically not “liberals” in the contemporary American sense. As a matter of fact, apart from its subtly hidden anticlericalism, a fresinnig daily with a worldwide prestige such as the Neue Züricher Zeitung would be called “conservative” in America.

3 In Central Europe Joseph II became a legendary figure surrounded with an endless number of anecdotes—many of them invented. Yet in Belgium (the “Austrian Netherlands”) his liberal reforms were furiously opposed by the people and led to serious rebellion. They wanted none of his “enlightened” ideas.

4 Unless we give credence to Alfred Noyes who presented him as an “irregular Catholic,” Voltaire was a preliberal deist. He was violently opposed to Rousseau, a genuine totalitarian democrat. About Voltaire’s reaction to Rousseau, cf. his Oeuvres complètes (Paris: Société litteraire-typographique, 1785), vol. 68-69 which contain Voltaire’s correspondence with d’Alembert.

5 The feeling of the masses was that the immensely brutal giant with bulging eyes, six feet eight inches tall, was Antichrist. These sentiments were well dramatized in Dmitri Myerezhkovski’s Pyotr y Alexey (St. Petersburg: Pirozhkov, 1905). Yet he is almost worshiped by the Soviets who also named a big Black Sea steamer after him. (Pyotr Vyeliki.) His picture hung in Stalin’s study and one can admire his terrifying effigy in Leningrad’s Winter Palace.

6 The concept of man as the measure was first used by Protagoras, but the great Nicholas Cusanus employs it also in his treatise De beryllo, ch. 5. Cf. Louis Martinez Gomez S.J. “El hombre ‘mensura rerum’ en Nicholas de Cusa,” Pensamiento (Madrid), vol. 21, no. 81, pp. 41-64.

7 Cf. Paul Dabin S.J. Le sacerdoce royal des fidèles dans la tradition ancienne et moderne (Brussels: Edition universelle, n.d.); F. X. Arnold, Mann und Frau in Welt und Kirche (Nürnberg: Glock und Lutz, 1959), pp. 81-82, 91-92. In other words, according to Catholic doctrine and traditions there exists a general priesthood of all those baptized, based on St. Peter’s concept of the basileion hieráteuma, the “royal priesthood” of all Christians. In the narrowest sense the priesthood finds its embodiment in the bishops only. Cf. also Rosmini-Serbati, “Diritto derivato, II, Diritto sociale,” Opere edite e inedite (Milan: Libreria Pogliani, 1883), vol. 17, pp. 264-266.

8 Henry Kissinger (differently from Peter Viereck) sees in Metternich an eighteenth century rationalist whose roots lie perhaps not in the spirit, but in the thinking grooves of the Enlightenment.

9 The struggle for a synthesis between heart and mind has always been very marked among Spanish and Russian thinkers. Cf. Miguel de Unamuno, Del Sentimiento trágico de la vida (Buenos Aires: Espasa Calpe, 1945), p. 152, and D. S. Myerezhkovski, Gryadushtshiy Kham i Tshekhov i Gorki (St. Petersburg: Pirozhkov, 1906), p. 33.

10 Cf. also E. I. Watkin, The Catholic Centre (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1945), pp. 101ff.

11 Luther’s antirationalism was extremely radical: he was convinced that faith and reason are real opposites. Cf. his “Tischreden,” Krit. Gesamtausgabe (Weimar), vol. 6, no. 6718 or Erlangen Edition, vol. 44, pp. 156-159. The basically irrational attitude of Calvin can be seen exemplified in passages such as Institutiones, I, vii, 5, Cf. Edgar Sheffield Brightman, A Philosophy of Religion (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1940), p. 6. Also W. H. van de Pol, Das reformatorische Christentum (Zürich, Benziger, 1955), p. 218 and Leroy Nixon, John Calvin’s Teaching on Human Reason (New York: Exposition Press, 1963), particularly pp. 31, 32, 51, 52, 59. Reinhold Niebuhr considers Calvin’s attitudes toward reason to be halfway between Luther and the Catholic viewpoint. Cf. his The Nature and Destiny of Man (New York: Scribner’s, 1941), p. 285n.

12 Cf. I. M. Bocheński, O.P., Der sowjetrussische dialektische Materialismus (Diamat) (Bern: Francke, 1956), p. 14.

13 I still remember, almost nostalgically, the fire my strictures against Thomism drew when I published an article on democracy in New Scholasticism (vol. 20, no. 3, July 1946). Today the dangers are coming from the opposite quarter.

14 The Russians have also another word for it: mirosozertsaniye. The difference is very subtle. Yet more and more the word ideologiya is adopted.

15 Cf. Unamuno, Del sentimiento trágico de la vida, p. 31.

16 Cf. Joseph de Maistre, Oeuvres complètes (Lyons, 1884-1887), pp. 155-156.

17 The “source book” on the concept of the English gentlemen is, according to Sir Ernest Barker, the translation of Castiglione’s Il Cortegiano by Sir Thomas Hoby, published in 1528. Cf. Sir Ernest Barker, Traditions of Civility (Cambridge, England: University Press, 1948), pp. 141-148. Reading Baldassare Castiglione’s Il Libro del Cortegiano (Milan: Ulrico Hoepli, 1928) one is struck by the description of the cortegiano (the “pregentleman”) as an amateur and intellectual—the term “amateur” taken in its original sense. The differences between the cortegiano and the gentlemen are thus not inconsiderable.

18 The “ideologue” of the Prussian Conservatives was the Jewish convert Friedrich Julius Stahl, a university professor, the “ideologue” of the Dutch conservatives the historian Guilleaume Groen van Prinsterer. Agrarian societies usually get their political ideas in a systematized form from “outside sources.”

19 The word “socialism” was first used by Robert Owen, the term social democracy (for socialism organized in a party) by Bakunin. Cf. Th. G. Masaryk, Zur russischen Geschichts und Religionsphilosophie, vol. 2, p. 32.

20 On this reaction, to be found particularly in Central Europe (Germany, Austria, etc.) see the letters written by A. de Tocqueville to Baron Herbert de Tocqueville on February 24, 1854 and to N. W. Senior on September 19, 1855. Cf. Oeuvres complètes, vol. 7, pp. 325 and 372.

21 How bitter these memories of the French Revolution were is proved by the custom of letting the sons and daughters of those guillotined—the jeunesse dorée—wear silk red ribbons around their necks at the balls given by French nobility after the end of the terror.

22 Here one must regretfully remember that many of the old diets were not revived in the nineteenth century. In the Tyrol, for instance, where I live, the beginnings of popular representation go back to the fourteenth, its full development to the fifteenth century when in the Tyrolean Landtag four Estates were represented: Nobility, Clergy, Burghers, and Peasantry. They were equal. Serfdom was unknown in the Tyrol. The right to bear arms was abolished by the Nazis only in 1938.

23 The Republic of Cracow existed only between 1815 and 1946 in which year it was annexed by Austria.

24 The “Dutch” Netherlands had been separated from the Spanish (later, Austrian) Netherlands by the end of the 16th century. They were united in 1815 but again broke asunder in 1830.

25 Apart from Pilsudski we find names like Jodko-Narkiewicz, Limanowski, Niedzialkowski, and many others, Pilsudski’s victory in 1926—nearly a thousand people were killed in street fighting—was made possible by the P.P.S., the Polish Socialist party which proclaimed a general strike and thus prevented the transport of loyal troops to Warsaw. Yet Pilsudski figured in the American press as a “Rightist War Lord”! Cf. Hans Roos, op. cit., p. 114.

26 The murder of August von Kotzebue gave to central European conservatism a reactionary twist. This brilliant German playwright with an adventurous mind went to Russia, became a Russian citizen, but then returned to Germany where he combatted leftist-nationalist ideas. His assassin, Karl Ludwig Sand, was an idealistic though neurotic national democrat. Kotzebue’s second son, Otto, was a famous navigator and explorer in Russian services. The town of Kotzebue in Alaska has been named after him.

27 One of Sand’s closest friends, Karl Folien, was professor of civil law at the universities of Giessen and Jena. Following the assassination of Kotzebue he took refuge in France where he became suspect after the murder of the Duc de Berry in 1820. He fled to Switzerland and from there in 1824 to the United States. Here he became professor of German at Harvard College in 1825, but resigned in 1835, his radical abolitionist stand having made him unpopular with the authorities. A year later he was ordained a Unitarian minister in Lexington, Mass. He died on a steamer between New York and Boston in 1840.

Sand and Folien were typical representatives of early German national liberalism (and not only of national democracy). The National Liberal (Nationalliberale), the protagonists of Bismarck’s Kulturkampf, as Karl Buchheim has pointed out, were in so many ways the precursors of National Socialism. Cf. K. Buchheim, “Der Ursprung der deutschen Weltanschauungsparteien,” Hochland, vol. 43, no. 6 (August 1951), p. 550.

28 Cf. Karl Euler, Friedrich Ludwig Jahn, Sein Leben und sein Wirken (Stuttgart: Krabbel, 1881), pp. 483-484. “Oddballs” such as Jahn were the precursors of twentieth-century German “democracy” and were hailed as such. (But, later, they were equally praised and worshiped by the Nazis.)

29 Jarcke saw only too clearly the danger of “national democracy” for the Germans. He considered this sort of national egoism to be French, in its more brutal form British, in its most nauseating edition—“westernized Russian.” He was sure that it would eventually spell the ruin of the German people. Cf. Carl Ernst Jarcke, Vermischte Schriften (Paderborn: Schöningh, 1854), vol. 4, pp. 448-450, 452-453. Cf. also letters of Jarcke to C. L. v. Haller, 1836-1842 in Historisch-Politische Blätter, vol. 154 (1914), pp. 402ff. C. E. Jarcke was a North German convert and a typical representative of early nineteenth-century genuine conservatism, very similar in his outlook to Gerlach and to George Phillips, son of an English merchant, born in Königsberg (East Prussia) and also a convert. Cf. Staatslexikon (Herder, 5th ed.), vol. 2, col. 1396-1400 and vol. 4, col. 189-190. For a more general outline of the conservative outlook (though in a nutshell) cf. Russell Kirk, The Conservative Mind from Burke to Santayana (Chicago: Regnery, 1953), pp. 7-8, alluding to Professor Hearnshaw’s Conservatism in England.

30 Cf. Alexander Graf Razumowsky, “Turnfest der Superlative (Impressionen von der Spartakiade in Prag),” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, July 6, 1965, pp. 7-8.

31 We all remember the outcry of the leftist press when Moise Tshombé, first in the Katanga region, then for the Central Government of the Congo, hired mercenaries—i.e., volunteers who of their own free will were ready to fight as professionals for a cause which we know was a just one. For the typical leftist, wedded to the ideals of the French Revolutionary Democracy, the soldier apparently ought to be a conscript and an amateur too who, in order to get the right fighting spirit, is “indoctrinated,” i.e., incited to group hatred.

32 Among those who regretted the transition from the professional military system based on the mercenaries to the modern “democratic” mass army of conscripts we find not only authors such as Raymond Aron and General J. C. F. Fuller, but also an American military writer of renown, the late Hoffman Nickerson. Cf. his The Armed Horde, 1793-1939 (New York: Putnam, 1940 and 1942). De Gaulle also preferred the professional army. He expressed his view in a book entitled Vers l’armée du metier. Léon Blum, the Socialist leader, naturally opposed this idea because he thought that it would endanger the republic (and or socialism?). De Gaulle refers to this in his Mémoires de Guerre (Paris 1955), vol. 1, p. 15.

33 Men such as Friedrich Julius Stahl, Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer, Benjamin Disraeli (Lord Beaconsfield), Juan Donoso Cortes Marques de Valdegamas, Carl Ernst Jarcke, George P. Phillips, Carl Ludwig v. Haller, Con-stantin Frantz, Konstantin Leontyev, Louis Veuillot, Aleksey Khomyakov, Philipp v. Segesser, Ludwig v. Gerlach, F. M. Dostoyevski. By 1890 almost all of these men had died. A new crop of conservative thinkers matured in Europe (and in North America) only after World War I.

34 The Dreyfus affair in France brought about a wave of strong anti-Jewish feelings and thus we encounter anti-Jewish conservatives such as Albert de Mun. A man such as Baron C. v. Vogelsang, however, was convinced that any “Jewish rule” would only assert itself if and when Christianity abdicated. Then the Church makes way for the Synagogue and the Jews are again the “first born” for which the Christians have to blame themselves. Cf. his article “Die Judenverfolgungen in Russland,” Das Vaterland, April 26, 1882, also in Freiherr C. v. Vogelsang, Gesammelte Aufsätze über social-politische und verwandte Themata (Augsburg: Max Huttier, 1886), vol. 1, pp. 133-134.

35 So was the murdered Walter Rathenau for a while, but then he became reconverted to the idea of a monarchy in Germany. Cf. Winfried Martini, Freiheit auf Abruf, pp. 240, 433. Also Graf Harry Kessler, op. cit., pp. 553-554.

36 Cf. Chapter XVII, Note 5.

37 And this for two reasons: (1) monarchy itself is an interethnic, interracial institution, and (2) ethnic nationalism is “identitarian.” The President of the United States must be “American born.”

38 One cardinal protested against the outlawing of the Action Française—the Jesuit Cardinal Louis Billot. Pope Pius XI forced his resignation and Billot spent the rest of his life in an Italian monastery. Cf. Adrien Dansette, op. cit., vol. 2, pp. 583-610.

39 Cf. Armin Mohler, op. cit., pp. 106ff.

40 There has been in Japan a Shintoist revival in the eighteenth century (Motoori Norinaga gave expression to it) and Shintoist feelings there have repeatedly resulted in minor persecutions of Buddhism which, after all, is for Japan an alien, Indian religion imported via China and Korea. Efforts toward a political Shinto-revival were made in the early 1960s by Professor Chikuo Fujisawa of the Nippon University (Tokyo). Cf. his essay “Der shintoistische Grundbegriff des Politischen und die existenzphilosophische Eigenschaft des japanischen Kaisers” (Tokyo: Research Institute of the New Teaching, 1957). This essay is dedicated to Martin Heidegger. I knew the late Professor Fujisawa, but was unable to find out whether he really “believed” in Shintoism. I would say, not in any Western sense.

41 We purposely do not say, “Western Civilization.” Yet Western Civilization has an essentially Christian foundation. Hilaire Belloc formulated: “Europe is the Faith and the Faith is Europe.” The first half of this statement is definitely true, even if the cultural limits of Europe are by no means its geographical boundaries. The second part can only be accepted with a number of reservations and corrections. Should Christianity conquer the world, it will still always retain qualities from its European “phase,” just as a Lithuanian or a Swede will only know it with (never without) its Jewish, Greek, and Roman elements. Christianity is not a mathematical abstraction hanging in midair, nor is the Church a chemically pure theorem. It is in space and time, in geography and history.

42 Cf. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, “Neukonservatismus und Neuliberalismus,” Neues Abendland (Munich, 1956), no. 2, p. 124. To what extent genuine conservatism is allied to the demand for personal liberty can be seen from the fact that as a young man Georges Bernanos was put into jail for his monarchist convictions and actions. (He “sat” in the cell No. 13 of the 6th division in the Santé.) At the same time he was a member of the “Cercle Proudhon” and wrote articles (his first ones!) for Soyons Libres, a periodical claiming to support “Integral Liberalism” (in the Continental sense, that is). Cf. Bernanos par lui-même, Albert Béguin, ed. (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1954), p. 89.

43 Disraeli said in 1836: “The native tendency of the Jewish race, who are justly proud of their blood, is against the doctrine of the equality of man. They have also another characteristic, the faculty of acquisition. . . . Thus it will be seen that all the tendencies of the Jewish race are conservative. Their bias is to religion, property, and natural aristocracy, and it should be the interest of statesmen that the bias of a great race should be encouraged and their energies and creative powers enlisted in the cause of the existing society.” Cf. W. F. Monypenny and George E. Flavelle, op. cit, vol. 1, p. 880. It is, of course, true that Lev Bronstein-Trotsky became a Communist, but Baron Ginsburg was a personal friend of Nicholas II, Albert Ballin of William II, Ignacio Bauer y Landau of Alphons XIII—and Disraeli—Lord Beaconsfield—of Queen Victoria.

44 We could oblige here also with an American list: Ralph de Toledano, Frank S. Meyer, Victor Lasky, Allan H. Ryskind, Max Geltman, Will Herberg, William S. Schlamm, Nathaniel Weyl. To these names could be added a list of genuine liberals who figure in America frequently as “conservatives.”

45 When the writings of Maurras (including his paper, the Action Française) were put on the index, it was argued that the Church was “playing politics” and trying to gain the favors of “official France.” We cannot go into this complex and perplexing argument here, but it is certain that in the eyes of the Church Maurras committed the unpardonable crime, i.e., to take personally an agnostic viewpoint and to declare the Catholic faith to be “useful to France.” Against such a patronizing, nationalistic pat on the back Rome would react nervously and energetically. During the war the fanatically anti-German Maurras collaborated with the Germans and narrowly escaped the death sentence after Liberation. Still, he died “in the Church.” About his death cf. Chanoine A. Cormier, Mes entretiens de prêtre avec Charles Maurras, mars-novembre 1952 (Paris: Plon, 1953). The canon kissed the hands of the dying man. Vide also Chanoine Aristide Cormier, La vie Intérieure de Charles Maurras (Paris: Plon, 1956). Paul Claudel, a man on the extreme right, a monarchist and Catholic, was strongly anti-Maurras. Cf. André Saurès et Paul Claudel, Correspondance 1904-1938, Robert Mallet, ed. (Paris: NRF-Gallimard, 1951), pp. 159-160. (Letter of Claudel, dated February 10, 1911).

46 Significantly enough the Calvinist conservative party of the Netherlands (fathered ideologically by Groen van Prinsterer) calls itself “Anti-Revolutionary.” We encounter all through the nineteenth century the term “the Revolution,” la revolution, in political writings, always referring to the French Revolution as if it were a permanent specter, an invisible, continued threat. In its derivations it indeed still is.

47 The Central and East European definition of culture and civilization has not largely entered English semantics on both sides of the Atlantic—civilization being classified as the practical-material, culture as the spiritual-intellectual order. Law and manners belong to both. Spengler was emphatic on the difference between the two but, actually, since they are “situated” in man, they are interconnected. Technology, for instance, belongs to civilization, yet it rests on philosophical-psychological and even on theological premises and foundations.

48 Unfortunately the entire sentence is rarely quoted: Enrichissez vous par le travail et l’epargne—“enrich yourselves by working and saving,” which is a very different matter. Guirot was really both, an early liberal and a conservative.

49 There really is no “First” and “Second” Estate—only a Third Estate so-called after the burghers became politically represented. There was no “hierarchy” of the Estates either. In the old French Diet the majority of the Estates decided. Today we have the concept of upper and lower classes: there were politically no “upper” or “lower” Estates.

50 Cf. Prinz Philipp zu Eulenburg, Aus fünfzig Jahren (Berlin: Paetel, 1923), p. 225; Otto von Bismarck, Gesammelte Werke, Petersdorff, ed. (Berlin: Deutsche Verlagsgesellschaft, 1923-1935). Vol. 15, p. 485.

51 Agrarian paternalism often prompted the Swedish Conservatives to vote with the Social Democrats against the Liberals, the party of the industrialists and bankers.

52 Cf. Joseph A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (New York: Harper, 1942), p. 341. Vide also Schumpeter’s remark on the quarrel between William II and Bismarck—siding unequivocally with the emperor. Cf. op. cit., pp. 342-343 and note 20.

53 The last Bourbon of the main line, the Comte de Chambord (“Henri V”) who in his exile refused the French crown because he would have had to accept the despised tricolor, and therefore figures as an arch-reactionary, was nevertheless profoundly interested in the labor question. His “Letter to the Workers” in 1865 created quite a sensation. Cf. Adrien Dansette, op. cit., vol. 2, pp. 186-187. The head of the Orléans branch of the family, the Comte de Paris (Louis Philippe Albert d’Orléans) had almost identical views. Cf. his Les associations ouvrières en Angleterre (Paris: Félix Alcan, 1884). This volume was also strongly prolabor. Of course, one can also state that the equidistance of all subjects increases and becomes more marked with the absolute power of the monarch. Hollywood notions notwithstanding, the social hierarchies, let us say in 1900, were infinitely more developed in Britain than in Russia, more so in Sweden than in Turkey.

54 Of great importance were the nobilitations of outstanding men—plutocrats, officers, civil servants, artists, scholars—because new titles fostered social mobility. It was one of the roles of the monarchs to facilitate social rise and to aid the formation of fresh elites. The social fabric becomes more easily static in a republican-aristocratic framework, vide the case of Venice and Genoa. Therefore one should not be surprised at William Dean Howells’ declaration that “Inequality is as dear to the American heart as liberty itself.” (Quoted by Cleveland Amory, Who Killed Society? New York: Harper, 1960.) F. J. Grund, who insisted that American institutions are “English, improved or mutilated,” quoted a Bostonian who complained that a “ridiculous equality pervades all classes of French society.” (Op. cit, pp. 50 and 51.) C. Wright Mills was correct when he maintained that the American upper crust becomes more and more self-perpetuating, and more and more a closed caste. Cf. his The Power Elite (New York: Oxford University Press, 1956), pp. 104-105. Naturally, American class feelings from time to time can assume curious forms (as in other places) and they will be more marked in a female than in a male ambiance. This is specifically true of American sororities. (Cf. “The Trouble with the Greeks” Time, Atlantic Edition, February 2, 1953, pp. 36-37.) Yet, on the other hand, it is equally true that the liberal, freedom-loving outlook of Americans has an aristocratic foundation. Cf. Peter Viereck, “The Aristocratic Origin of American Freedom,” Southwest Review, vol. 37, no. 4 (Autumn 1959), pp. 331-334.

55 Cf. Manya Gordon, op. cit., pp. 17, 64. Yet especially in view of the sufferings resulting from the transition from one system of production to another, one has to remember Cicero’s remark (2. Catilina) to the effect that great iniquities are frequently caused by circumstances over which governments have no control.

56 And this in spite of the fact that absolute monarchies at the end of the eighteenth century had been the pioneers of humanitarian penal legislation. (Cf. Chapter XIV, Note 36.) The guiding spirit of this change was Marchese Cesare Beccaria Bonesana (1738-1794), a native of Milan, pupil of the Jesuits, professor of law, who as an Austrian civil servant enjoyed the support of Empress Maria Theresa and of Emperor Joseph II.

57 Cf. Note 41 of this Chapter. It is precisely the waning of theistic religion which is responsible not only for the increasing criminality of our age and day, but also for most of the political horrors of our generation. In spite of all the atrocities and brutalities of religious wars in the past, we had to wait for this century to experience Auschwitz, Katyn, Dresden, Hiroshima, the illimited bestialities of the Red Chinese “purges” and the calculated fiendishness of the Viet Cong. Gaetano Mosca tells us about the hair-raising plan of an Italian anarchist to exterminate all the bourgeoisie, their women folk and children down to the age of two or three. (Elementi di Scienza Politica, p. 297.) Another anarchist published in Australia a delightful book in which he described in gory details a tremendous massacre in whose memory a huge column was erected, made of skulls and bones carrying an inscription warning all posterity not to fall back into the “old corruption, iniquity, and lies” of the bourgeois way of life. Cf. Edmund Boisgilbert, Caesar’s Column (Melbourne: Cole, 1892). Bakunin’s visions were not very different. He went on record saying that: “We see in the Revolution precisely the unleashing of what one calls today the ‘evil passions’ and the destruction of what is called in the same language ‘the public order.’” Arnold Ruge wrote to Feuerbach from Paris on May 15, 1844 that “everybody speaks here with hope and determination about the collapse of bourgeois rule as a result of sanguinary catastrophes and the beginning of a millennium of liberty and equality.” Engels too dreamed of a happy, sacred last war preceding thousand years of a Reich of freedom. Cf. Werner Sombart, Der proletarische Sozialismus (Jena: Gustav Fischer, 1924), vol. 1, pp. 165 and 322. We see here clearly from whom the National Socialists received the idea of a tausendjähriges Reich—from the Socialists rather than from the Nationalists.

These horrors were all “logical,” thanks to the grim philosophic determination of Sade, the grandfather of all leftist currents. Robert Owen who started “formal socialism” was certain that there was no liberty of volition or feeling. There would be no criminals in the new society and those who attacked it would not be treated as criminals, but as “mentally deranged,” a system now quite popular in the USSR. Cf. Thilo Ramm, Die grossen Sozialisten als Rechts und Sozialphilosophen (Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer, 1955), vol. 1. pp. 446, 449.

58 The question has not yet been fully answered whether the hardships of the Industrial Revolution were avoidable or not. In many cases they were exaggerated and the fantastic illusions about profits “especially in French Catholic leftist circles” have clearly nineteenth century origins. Cf. Goetz Briefs, Das Gewerkschaftsdchaftsproblem gestern und heute (Frankfurt a. M.: F. Knapp, 1955), p. 98. Transitions always create sufferings and the leftists everywhere offered this truism as an excuse for the sacrifices demanded by the “Soviet Experiment.” Today, however, the Red experimental stage has lasted half a century and has produced very little. The idea to live well through the agency of the State is by no means new. Frédéric Bastiat told us in the Journal des Débats (September 25, 1848) that the “State is a great fiction through which everybody is trying to live at everybody else’s expense.” Which reminds one of the dictum of V. Muthesius that “Politics is the art to get the money of the rich and, at the same time, the votes of the poor under the pretext to protect one from the other.” Cf. S. G. Fudalla, Die Gegenwart als Patient (Bern-Stuttgart: A. Scherz, 1960), p. 243. To avoid this type of demagoguery in a democracy the panacea of a Socialist system is offered, but Wilhelm Röpke was only too right when he said, “Every attempt to establish an economic system on ethics which are substantially higher than those of the average man, has to resort to force and the intoxication of the masses through lies and propaganda.” Cf. Wilhelm Röpke, Jenseits von Angebot and Nachfrage (Erlenbach-Zürich: Eugen Rentsch, 1958) p. 165. “Angelism” is a bloodbrother of “Monasticism.”

59 Karl Otten, a German author investigating the psychological roots of the brown tyranny, bluntly gave a crude list of the “demands by the masses to be fulfilled here and now”:

(1) Ample work,
(2) Ample wages,
(3) Stable prices,
(4) Recreation and pleasure:

(a) Stimulants and tobacco, ample and cheap.
(b) Ample and cheap films,
(c) Sports and opportunities for betting,

(d) Sexual pleasures, great variety, prior to and during marriage with no restrictions by judges, priests, or any other authority.

Cf. his A Combine of Aggression, Elite and Dictatorship (London: Allen and Unwin, 1942), p. 299. Franz Zweig’s Labour, Life and Poverty, (London: Gollancz, 1948) which contains seventy-five interviews with members of Britain’s laboring class, is a confirmation of Otten’s views. The rule and prevalence of materialistic mediocrity, however, is always fostered by the democratic prelude to totalitarian tyranny. John Stuart Mill emphasized this in his Representative Government, (London: Dent, Everyman’s Library, 1926), pp. 265-266: “The natural tendency of representative government, as of modern civilization, is toward collective mediocrity, and this tendency is increased by all reductions and extensions of the franchise.” On one hand this might foster the rise of a wealthy party oligarchy with little education and taste. According to a West German statistic, among the Bundestag deputies in Bonn there are twenty-one millionaires, eight belonging to the CDU, seven to the Free Democratic Party and six Socialists. Cf. Die Krone, vol. 12, no. 18 (September 15, 1964). On the other hand we see that materialistic masses are voting for extreme leftist parties without believing in their program or aims—just as means to “frighten” and to blackmail the entrepreneurs. This is the situation in Italy where the Communist vote in the last fifteen years has been rising steadily but party membership and the sale of Communist papers had continuously decreased. In 1954 the PCI had 2,145,000 members and about six million voters; in 1963 there were 1,615,000 members and 7.8 million voters. Cf. Süddeutsche Zeitung, March 14-15, 1964, p. 2. Physical wellbeing, not ideology seems to be increasingly the determining factor. Yet it matters very little whether Communist majorities are due to confused minds or of mere cupidity. The results are equally disastrous.

60 The only safeguards against the megalomania of rulers are (1) their conviction that they owe their exalted position to mere accidentals and (2) a burning theistic belief.

61 Geheimrat Alfred Hugenberg, a wealthy entrepreneur, was the chairman of the somewhat pseudoconservative Deutschnationale Volkspartei which allied itself fatally with the Nazis. Hugenberg, even more so than Brooklyn-born Hjalmar Greeley Schacht, looked like the very caricature of the German bourgeois and came to regret bitterly his policy twenty-four hours after Hitler had become Chancellor. At that time he admitted to Carl Goerdeler, the martyred resistance fighter, “I committed yesterday the greatest stupidity of my life, I have allied myself with the world’s greatest demagogue.” Cf. Gerhard Ritter, op. cit., pp. 65-66. The silly Geheimrat was indeed a worthy counterpart to the stupid Captain Franz von Papen.

62 Düsterberg, one of the leaders of the Stahlhelm, was made to quit before the death knell was dealt to this league: the Nazis had found out that he had a Jewish great-grandfather (who, by the way, had been a soldier in the War of Liberation, 1812-1815).

63 Such was the case not only in Germany (the Harzburg Front), but also in Japan, though in a much milder form. Another analogy can be found in the twentieth-century history of Indochina where conservative forces, hostile to the foreign colonizers and aiding (in some sort of national fervor) “national socialism” and “national communism,” were completely eclipsed and suppressed. For the sake of appearances the Viet Cong, rejecting fiercely this label, hypocritically still calls itself the Viet Minh (Front de Liberation Nationale).

64 Often we encounter medieval representations of the “Synagogue” as a blindfolded female figure whereas the “Church” clearly can see. (Bamberg Cathedral is a good example.) Yet in beauty and nobility they are equal. And, as a matter of fact, in countries with a very ancient Christian tradition Jews were actively aided in this century of persecution. This is especially true of the Western Mediterranean. Cf. Dino Buzzati, “Perchè una foresta in Israele ha il nome di un Italiano non Ebreo,”IlNuovo Corriere della Sera, vol. 80, no. 91, April 17, 1955, p. 3.

65 There are a variety of reasons for this state of affairs, which are of a religious, sociological, historical, “statistical,” and racial nature. Nor should the fact be overlooked that the Jews originally are a Mediterranean people.

66 This mistake is often made in the United States, more rarely in the Argentine where anti-Jewish feelings have not only been increased by Nazi immigrants, but also by the forcible abduction of Eichmann from Argentine territory, an insult to a nation extremely sensitive about its sovereignty. The Eichmann trial did not resuscitate a single murdered Jew: it gave, on the other hand, a powerful impulse to anti-Jewish feelings in a rather large and important country. As far as one can see today, it did more harm than good.

67 One cannot help but quote here Georges Bernanos, the Kierkegaard of our age: “I have dreamt about the saints and the heroes, neglecting the intermediary forms of our species, and I am aware of the fact that these hardly exist in reality and that only the saints and the heroes count. The intermediary forms are a paste, a mash: he who takes a handful of it, knows all the rest and this jelly would not even deserve a name if the saints and heroes would not provide it with one, with the name ‘man.’ In other words: it is the saints and the heroes who have in the past peopled my dreams and have preserved me from illusions.” Cf. Georges Bernanos, Les enfants humiliés (Paris: Gallimard, 1949), pp. 199-200. All this contradicts the egalitarian mania prevalent in Western civilization, but C. G. Jung was right when he said that egalitarianism is always the result of a naive, primitive, and childish mind. Cf. his Wirklichkeit der Seele (Zürich: Rascher, 1947), p. 35. Hence “simple” conditions favor democracy; emergencies, however, demanding greater maturity soon prove detrimental to it. Hence also the extraordinary importance of prosperity for the democratic system. Cf. Carl L. Becker, Modern Democracy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1941), pp. 13-14. For the same reason optimism becomes the life-blood of democracy—in a collective as well as in a personal form. Horatio Alger and Mickey Mouse symbolize thus the “little man’s” typical chance in a democratic society. Cf. C. Wright Mills, White Collar: The American Middle Classes (New York: Oxford University Press, 1951), p. 337. A different idea has been expressed by Vianna Moog in his Bandeirantes e Pioneiros. He thinks that the minor tragedies of Donald Duck are more “realistically American” than Mickey Mouse.

68 Klemens von Klemperer insists that in the nineteenth century conservatives and liberals had not been brothers, but still cousins. They had gentlemen’s agreements and did not represent systèmes absolus. (Op. cit., p. 11.)

69 Cf. Note 39 of this Chapter. It seems that the term has been used before Mohler by Hugo von Hofmansthal, Austrian poet and playwright (1874-1929). See also p. 373 on Horkheimer.

70 Nor can the Pope be treated that way, and yet he is officially the servus servorum Dei, “servant of God’s servants.” Permanence, however, helps to breed power. Power in its legitimate place obviously is as Jarcke said, a “necessary evil.” And he added, “Power which cannot possibly be abused just is not power.” (Op. cit., vol. 4, no. 28, p. 156.)

71 Hence the curious but well explainable fact that many Europeans collect gold, hoard gold coins, hide them in their homes, or even bury them. Interestingly enough this is forbidden in the United States, as it is in the USSR. Man should face the state without reserves to fall back on and the value of his money (bankbills) should be under the control of the State. Here democratic totalitarianism and democratic envy meet halfway. The democratic tendency to expropriate the rich was as strong in antiquity as it is today. Cf. Aristotle, Politics, VI, 1, 12.

72 Friedrich Engels, who believed that the democratic republic was the ideal starting point for a Socialist-Communist state, nevertheless poked fun at its principle: “The idea that somebody’s liberty consists in voting and saying, ‘Look, now I control the twenty-thousandth part of a speaker in our National Blathering Institution’ . . . this sort of notion I consider one of the best jokes in the world.” Cf. Marx-Engels, Kritische Gesamtausgabe, vol. 1, p. 536. Dr. Johnson was right when he spoke with contempt about the vote and insisted that all that mattered to him was habeas corpus.

73 Herr Fischer-Karwin organized in Vienna a most devastating general quiz for the Austrian Radio Network a few years ago. (Even the university students showed an appalling ignorance.) The Germans are by no means better to judge by the quiz organized by the “Allensbach Institute” in the spring of 1953. Cf. Der Rheinische Merkur, May 1, 1953. On October 28, 1952, the Süddeutsche Zeitung (Munich) published the result of a question put to fifty people about the meaning of the then hotly debated European Defense Community. Only eight out of the fifty people knew the answer. Of the sixteen women and girls questioned only one seemed informed. In December 1952 another German demoscopic organization, E.M.N.I.D., asked 2,100 Germans about the Bundestag, the equivalent of the House of Commons or the American House of Representatives. Less than half were able to provide a correct answer (61 percent of the men, 25 percent of the women). Among the public officials 21 percent proved to be ignorant. Cf. Das ganze Deutschland, May 24, 1952. Elmo Roper’s Public Opinion Research Institute declared that among the American citizenry 10.3 percent can be called “politically very active” as far as their information and interests go, 16.8 percent “active,” 34.6 percent “rather indifferent,” and 38.3 percent “very indifferent.” Asked which Senator they considered most praiseworthy, 33 percent of the “very active” failed to name one. When invited to point out the one most negative member of the Senate, 51 percent were “speechless.” The Gallup Poll in 1951 offered six questions to a large variety of citizens: Where lies Manchuria? Where Formosa? What is the meaning of the 38th parallel? What is the Atlantic Pact? Who is Chiang Kai-shek? Who is Tito? All those questioned read newspapers daily and listened to the radio, and the questions asked pertained to problems dealt with in the headlines. Only 12 percent could answer all questions, 19 percent were not able to produce a single correct answer. (To one full third the Marshall Plan was unknown, and 34 percent had no idea who was then Secretary of State—Dean Acheson.) Under these circumstances one can easily imagine what the general political knowledge of the Cambodians, Vietnamese, Tanzanians, and Cameroonians is like. Cf. Winfried Martini, Das Ende aller Sicherheit, pp. 119ff. One of the men demonstrating against President Nixon in Salzburg told the Austrian radio when asked why he was “marching” (May 19, 1972): “Everybody knows that America is an imperialist nation which exploits the workers and peasants of Vietnam.” Wall Street will be happy to know this. Under primitive conditions democracy might therefore be perfectly natural, i.e., in a state and society where the problems are simple. The very primitive societies are usually democratic. Cf. my Freiheit oder Gleichheit? note 526. Also Bronislaw Malinowski, Kultur und Freiheit, trsl. E. Heinze (Vienna-Stuttgart: Humboldt Verlarg, 1951), pp. 212-229.

74 This, of course, raises the question why one denies the vote to the seventeen-year-old ones, to those of sixteen, ten years or even less. If knowledge, experience, and character are not imponderabilia for the vote, why an arbitrarily set age limit? Yet the one-man-one-vote dogma is so sacred today that a great many idealists propagated a crusade against Rhodesia requiring everybody to have at least six years of elementary schooling and an income of 28 dollars a month in order to be eligible for the vote. On the voting mania cf. also Eugenio Vegas Latapie, Escritos Politicos (Madrid: Cultura Espanola, 1940), pp. 183-185; Gaetano Mosca, Teorica dei governi e governe parlamentare (Turin: Loescher, 1887).

75 Unemployment, then rampant in Germany, has often been used as an “explanation” for the political radicalism of the dying Weimar Republic. Yet unemployment was also rampant in the United States in 1932 and it resulted merely, a year later, in the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt who emerged as a victor on a very moderate platform. The New Deal came later. There is an innate extremism in the Continental character (Particularly in the South and East European character) which the English-speaking nations do not share. Halifax, in his Character of a Trimmer, wrote almost 300 years ago: “Fundamentals are dangerous. There are some issues in life which are better left sleeping: we will raise only the issues on which we may disagree without imperiling our country, and even on them we will disagree with buttons in the foils.” Cf The Character of England, Sir Ernest Barker, ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1947), pp. 558-559.

76 Presidential or parliamentary elections with photogenic candidates have a strongly erotic (rather than sexual) aspect in this age of television. Here comes into action what Ernst Jünger calls der flüchtige Eros, “fleeting Eros.” The attraction of a male candidate for the ladies and of his wife for the men might be of crucial importance in a narrow vote. A deep, melodious voice or a pair of good legs might be worth 100,000 votes. (Just as a poor show on the television screen might be catastrophic even to one of the few good men entering a political career today.)

77 Cf. Pascal, Pensées, part 1, art. 10, no. 13.

78 Cf. Eliseo Vivas, “On the Conservative Demonology,” Modern Age, vol. 8, no. 2 (Spring 1964), pp. 119-133. These errors, however, make tradition not superfluous. On the necessity of tradition cf. Eugenio Vegas Latapie, Romantic ismo y Democracia (Santander: Cultura Española, 1938), p. 147; Vázquez Mella, speech of May 17, 1903, in Vázquez Mella, Rafael Gambra, ed. (Madrid: Publicaciones Espańolas, 1953), pp. 65-69; Josef Pieper, “Bemerkungen über den Begriff der Tradition,” Hochland, vol. 49, June 1957, pp. 401-413, and J. Pieper, Tradition als Herausforderung (Munich: Kösel, 1963), pp. 11-35.

79 Cf. Eliseo Vivas, loc. cit., p. 121. Armin Mohler in “Konservativ 1969,” p. 97, similarly insists that the crucial question for all conservatives is this: “What is there to keep? What to drop?”

80 Interestingly enough, relativism not only colors the intellectual scene of the English-speaking countries, but also of India—to be more precise, of India since roughly the sixteenth-seventeenth century. Today the visiting philosophy professor from the United States or Britain is often highly welcome in India (and other parts of Asia)—and this not merely because he speaks the only idiom understood by educated people in all parts of the country but because he is a relativist. Cf. also Hinduismus und Christentum, J. Neuner, ed. (Vienna: Herder, 1962), pp. 235ff. Also Raimundo Panikkar, “Zur Einführung in die indische Weltanschauung,” Stimmen der Zeit, vol. 170, no. 9 (June 1962), pp. 177-185, and Jacques Albert Cuttat, op. cit., pp. 30-31.

81 Cf. Chapter XIV, Note 12 and p. 385. Compare with Kierkegaard’s outcry: “Personality is aristocratic—the system a plebeian invention: with the help of the system [that omnibus] everybody can get about.” Cf. The Journals of Soren Kierkegaard, no. 29, p. 519. Excellent on this matter is the Hungarian exiled philosopher Tibor Hanák in his ldeológiák és korunk (London: Szepsi Csombor Kör, 1969), especially pp. 7-26. He points out that even anti-ideologism is an ideology. Marx himself furiously ranted against ideologies, but his disciples know much better.

82 As a matter of fact, the enemy could prepare the great attack on the United States precisely on the day of a presidential election, thus also creating a very involved Constitutional problem. Remember the Hungarian Revolution and the Suez War exploding—on October 26 and 31, 1956—just a few days before the presidential election in November. The confusion was indescribable, and it might have been even worse (though this is difficult to visualize) had President Eisenhower not been reelected and if another man (Adlai Stevenson) had been scheduled to take over in the near future.

83 John Adams reports that William V of Orange, Stadhouder of the Dutch Republic, after studying the American Constitution in 1788 told him bluntly: “Monsieur, vous allez avoir un roi sous le titre de président—Sir, you are going to have a king with the title ‘president.’ “ Cf. The Works of John Adams, Charles F. Adams, ed. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1851), vol. 6, p. 470. Here it must be realized that deep into the nineteenth century the leading minds in political science were in favor of monarchical government (or mixed government with a monarchical head.) This was also the opinion of theological minds—Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist, Anglican. Jaime Balmes defended monarchy in eloquent words. (Obras completas, vol. 30, pp. 153154), but so did the luminaries of the Reformed faith which he had attacked so strongly (and not always too wisely).

84 Vide Herbert Hoover’s speech at the American University, reported in the Chicago Sunday Tribune, March 25, 1951, p. 11ff; Ralph Adams Cram, The End of Democracy (Boston: Marshall Jones, 1937), pp. 216-217. Albert Jay Nock too turned sharply against political amateurism. Cf. his Our Enemy the State (New York: Morrow, 1935) p. 136. The antiexpert stand of American conservatives is predominantly (but not solely) the result of the conquest of the American administrative machinery by leftist parochialists who pose as an intellectual elite. Of course, formal ignorance plus common sense is still better than half an education with intellectual blindness. On the necessity of placing these intellectually more qualified in commanding positions (praeeminentia intellectus) in the thought of St. Thomas, cf. Summa contra gentiles, lib. 3, c. 79; Ibid., lib. 3, c. 81; St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, II, II, 10, art 1. Resp. St. Thomas was convinced that the four worst sufferings of man are: to lie in sickness, to live in great poverty, to be in prison and to be subjected to a stupid master. Cf. his Opusculum, 64, c. 6. Cf. also Jacques Zeiller, L’idée de l’ état dans saint Thomas d’Aquin (Paris: Félix Alcan, 1910) especially pp. 19-20.

85 Cf. Eduard von Hartmann, Zur Zeitgeschichte: neue Tagesfragen, Alma von Hartmann, ed. (Leipzig: Kröner, n.d.), pp. 14-15. This problem, admittedly, is not as simple, democracy having greater and lesser local affinities. In this domain American and British influence on the Continent were fatal, (though based on pure motives). A good analysis of the nature of this influence we find in the work of the French Calvinist René Gillouin—Aristarchie ou Recherche d’un Gouvernement (Geneva: Cheval Ailé, 1946), pp. 201-202.

86 Proudhon, father of socialism but truly independent in his thinking, has warned us that “those we call ‘the people’ are always necessarily the least advanced which means the most ignorant, the most cowardly, the most ungrateful part of society.” (Correspondence, V, 3, letter dated December 2, 1852, addressed to Madier-Monjau). In another letter he insisted that it is the greatest crime to idolize and to flatter this ignorance. If democracy really were reasonable it would have to be preceded by “demopedy.” Cf. Emmanuel Mounier, Liberté sous conditions (Paris: Seuil, 1946), pp. 213-214. Mounier added that democracy can easily become cratie du nombre, power of numbers, which is the opposite of a republic (p. 217). Yet how could one prevent it?

87 The Nazis and the Soviets, for purely ideological reasons, have again and again fired, expelled or murdered first rate experts because they did not “fit in” ideologically. (If the Nazis, like the Fascists until 1938, had had no anti-Jewish bias, history might have taken a very different turn.) Yet democratism—as an ism—was near fatal to the Western Powers, especially so to the United States. When back in 1945 the Soviets invited German technologists to a life in luxury, all the Americans offered them at first was work behind barbed wire in the United States, apart from their families, at a straight six dollars a day. Yet even this step was protested by the “League for the Prevention of World War III” through open letters in American dailies, and one still sincerely wonders who the men behind this spurious association really were. They certainly served the interests of the Soviet Union.

88 A startling display of ignorance happened at the interrogation of Mr. Maxwell H. Gluck who was nominated United States ambassador in Ceylon. This president of a chain store had valiantly contributed to the funds of the Republican Party. Cross-questioned by a Senate committee, he had to confess that he did not know the name of the president of either Ceylon or neighboring India. Cf. New York Times, August 1, 1957, cited by Richard Hofstadter, op. cit., pp. 10-11.

Sir Ernest Barker is right when he insists that “when the service of the state had been made a science elsewhere, Professor Pollard had remarked, Englishmen still preferred to consider it a task for intelligent amateurs.” Cf. his Traditions of Civility (Cambridge, England: University Press, 1948), p. 149. Sir Ernest thinks that this is a piece of Renaissance inheritance, and even in this he is right. The crisis of amateurism came when the scienda so brutally overtook the scita and when the Renaissance notion of the amateur (who is a “lover”) was replaced with Roussellian optimism and democratic indifference toward truth and knowledge. The amateur also was a student, though not necessarily a systematic one and he was not beset by “beastly earnestness” (tierischer Ernest), the besetting vice of “little men.” The amateur is an aristocrat according to the definition of Michel de St.-Pierre: “Un aristocrate est d’abord celui qui parle avec légèreté des sujets graves.” Cf. Les aristocrates (Paris: La Table Ronde, 1954), p. 202.

American films and comic strips love to feature the successful amateur—the man who never sat in a plane, jumps into the cockpit, almost kills himself but finally gets the Silver Cup and the girl. This sort of hero of the preindustrial and prescientific civilization is really obsolete. His time, most unfortunately, is past.

89 Richard Hofstadter, in op. cit., p. 46, cites a passage of B. R. Hall’s The New Purchase or Seven-and-a-Half Years in the Far West (originally published in 1843) in which that author tells how, in frontier life, smartness and wickedness, incompetence and goodness were equated. Cotton Mather in his Pouring Out of the Seven Vials (London, 1642) recounts that “the more learned and witty you be, the more fit to act for Satan,” and that intellectuality leads to the “learning of the Jesuits.” This strong identification of evil and intelligence belongs integrally to American folklore, and it appears often in the comics where we see “crazy professors” diabolically torturing innocent maidens on weirdly wired operating tables. I am convinced, however, that this democratic opposition against knowledge (which is intrinsically esoteric-aristocratic) does have a “Protestant” root or, rather, a “Low Church” origin. The notion that there are religious truths and insights, theological verities, and cognitions accessible only to the serious student, the scholar, is unacceptable to a certain post-Reformation “Protestant” outlook—hence the notion that everybody can understand Holy Scripture unaided. Yet the understanding of large parts of Holy Scripture is immensely difficult. And nobody knows this better than, paradoxically enough, the Bible scholars of the Reformation faiths who were the pioneers of modern Biblical studies.

On the other hand, it is untrue that Luther believed in “private interpretation,” a myth believed widely in Britain and in America. How this myth arose we can read in Albert Hartmann S.J., Toleranz und christlicher Glaube (Frankfurt: J. Knecht, 1955), pp. 11-12, and in W. E. Zeeden, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 20. Luther felt to be inspired and filled with a divine light; however, he did not concede these properties easily to others. His religious outlook was basically authoritarian.

90 The Twenty-Second Amendment, limiting the President to two terms, was favored by American conservatives because: (1) they are tradition conscious, and (2) because this particular tradition had been broken by the rather leftist Franklin D. Roosevelt. Yet it makes no sense to remove an amateur after, at long last, he has mastered his job. The removal of Adenauer was quite a calamity for Germany and in spite of our severe criticism of Churchill we would have preferred to see him in office after mid-1945. Yet there is also the question whether the masses really prefer the expert to the dilettante. Renan said that “placed between the quack and the serious physician the people will always go to the quack.” Cf. Ernest Renan, Oeuvres complètes, Henriette Psicharia, ed. (Paris: Calmann-Lévy, 1949), vol. 3, p. 1109. Still there also exists a yearning for mediocrity in politics. A British author in 1929 wrote the fallacious but soothing words terminating his treatise on democracy: “But the ice-age is passing: For not only by new laws or new institutions, but also by the acts of Nobodies the democratic ideal becomes daily more operative and the minds of men are freed from fear. In the hands of the Nobodies is the hope of the future.” Cf. C. Delisle Burns, Democracy, Its Defects and Advantages (London: Allen and Un win, 1929), p. 212. This reminds me of a conservative friend who once argued that he would prefer to be ruled by the first 500 people in the telephone book rather than by “intellectuals” like the faculty members of the University of X. Viewed superficially, this seems a counsel of despair. However, professors nowadays are by no means in their vast majority intellectuals but rather educators, compilers, examiners, and administrators.

91 A very typical case was that of Felix Somary’s book Democracy at Bay published 1952 by A. Knopf in New York. This is a translation of his Krise und Zukunft der Demokratie which originally came out in Switzerland. Somary was a financial expert and banker of Jewish (Austro-Hungarian) extraction, married to a Countess Demblin, a Swiss citizen of great political acumen and benefiting from his international connections. His book is not deep or scholarly, but wise, brilliant, and witty. Its message is frankly “libertarian” and—antidemocratic. I was most interested to see how this excellent book fared in the United States. It seems to have been reviewed only by one paper—The Nation—with a very few negative remarks. Not even the backing of such an important publisher such as Knopf could save the book in face of the Establishment. Friedrich Heer in his Grundlagen der europäischen Demokratie der Neuzeit (Vienna: Frick, Unesco, Schriftreihe, 1953) pp. 86-87, could write about the “Inner Inquisition” of European Paleoliberalism in the nineteenth century which “no longer was manipulated by Kings, Popes, or Orders,” but by society itself, which excluded all “outsiders,” all nonconformists, condemning all those who do not subscribe to its formulas, judgments, and tabus. The life history of many artists and great writers, even of a few scholars and inventors of the nineteenth century is the history of heroic efforts to resist this “Inner Inquisition” and its silent, but fast-working tribunals. (Herr’s emphasis.) This “Inner Inquisition” is very often conducted by writers and critics who always play important parts in revolutions. (Here one ought to remember the crucial role of literati in the preparation of the Russian Revolution: “Bolshevism” really begins with Chernyshevski.) Alexis de Tocqueville saw this menace in his “L’Ancien régime et la Révolution” where he said: “We will see a new and terrible thing in this world, an immense revolution in which the most illiterate and brutal classes will play a tough role and whose leaders will be gens de lettres.” Cf. Oeuvres complétes, J. P. Mayer, ed., vol. 2, p. 336. There are obvious psychological reasons for this state of affairs.

92 Which they do not always do. Conservatives in so many domains of American life still adopt clichés as if they were inverted leftists. Since the non-Marxist American leftist often raves about modern art (which, as every art, can be beautiful, mediocre, a terrible failure, or even downright diabolic), the American “conservative” occasionally falls for the line that modern art is “leftist.” Thus Representative George Dondero of Michigan repeatedly attacked modern art as “communistic.” But, first of all, it is outlawed in the Soviet Union and, second, it is highly undemocratic, highly esoteric, which is not only true of modern painting and sculpture but also of modern poetry. The fine arts are actually, even if subconsciously, revolting against the “dear people.” This does not mean that we do not have a “modern art” (as, for instance, the nonobjective school) which at best is merely “decorative art” or such pseudoart which cleverly takes advantage of the ignorant snob. Modern art, indeed, is an affirmation of the private or semiprivate world. In its perfection it is an extremely difficult achievement. Those who insist that a five-year-old boy could practice it, should take brush and colors and get going. Yet, as all higher art, it admittedly gives splendid opportunities to the phony and the faker.

93 Cf. Carey MacWilliams, “Moving the West-Coast Japanese,” Harper’s, September 1942, particularly pp. 363, 366.

94 Cf. my Amerika-Leitbild im Zwielicht, pp. 53-79.

95 This is true if we compare the European countries: the more “progressive” they are, the more race-conscious they will be. (What seems to be race-consciousness in Eastern Europe are actually religious or ethnic prejudices. In Imperial Russia the converted Jew immediately became a full citizen and Pushkin figured as a dvoryanin, a nobleman, not as a “nigger.”) “Progress” in the Moslem World was accompanied by a frightening rise of intolerance of all sorts. To be a Greek, an Armenian, a Copt, a Kurd, a Jew, or an “Assyrian” 200 years ago was much better than it is today. In this area too our blessed twentieth century has seen the most fiendish massacres. The first genocidal crime was carried out in this century in Armenia by the young Turks, the “Turkish Committee of Union and Progress” of leftist character.

The percentage of persons belonging to another race has little to do with the degree of racism. There are at least twice as many people of part African origin in Brazil than in the United States, yet racist feelings are stronger there than among the Brazilians. (And maybe they are really stronger in Chicago and Detroit than in Charleston and New Orleans.) “Eurasians,” very scarce in China, had a most miserable time, particularly in the universities where their fellow students often persecuted them mercilessly. Moslem racial tolerance is not greater or lesser than that of Christians (where the different denominations have different records). In this age more Negroes have been slaughtered by Arabs (in the Sudan) than by any lily-white group elsewhere. (But Moslem Arabs have been murdered en masse by Negroes in Zanzibar.) Yet “African solidarity” prevents this information from being appropriately dealt with in the press of “emerging” African states. All this should help to dispel the notion of anything like automatic progress. Cf. Juan Valera’s essay “La doctrina del progreso” written in 1859. Cf. Obras Completas de Juan Valera (Madrid: Enrique Prieto, 1913), pp. 63-177.

96 Professor Donald Pierson thinks that racial intolerance is Catholic rather than “Protestant,” but his explanatory arguments to the effect that Catholics are more “communitarian” and the adherents of the Reformed faiths more “individualistic” is totally erroneous. The truth is the other way round—apart from the fact that an individualist is relatively unconcerned about his qualities, physical or otherwise, of his neighbor. Cf. Donald Pierson, Negroes in Brazil, A Study of Race Contact at Bahia (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942), pp. 193-194.

97 In theory the USSR is a federation of states; in practice Russification is pushed everywhere.

98 Not such a long time ago an attempt was made to extinguish the local privileges of Navarra, but energetic demonstrations made the Madrid government change its mind. In Italy the Communists favor regionalism because, being very strong in specific areas, they hope thus to entrench themselves locally and to defy the non-Communist central power. For the same reason Spanish leftism has long supported autonomy for Catalonia. Yet nationalism (as we know from the French Revolution) will always favor centralization. It is only patriotism which delights in diversity. Cf. Maurice Blondel, Patrie et humanité (Paris: Chronique Sociale de France, 1928); Rafael Gambra, op. cit., pp. 174-181.

99 Thanks to the lacking unity of Germany and the plurality of German local dynasties, small republics and leading universities, German cultural life assumed a variety unknown in France. Whereas today French publishing is almost solely concentrated in Paris, German publishing houses of note existed in 1930 in Berlin, Jena, Leipzig, Dresden, Weimar, Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Münster, Mainz, Freiburg, Munich, and Ratisbon—today also in Nuremberg, Cologne, Hamburg, Osnabrück, Heidelberg, Würzburg, and Düsseldorf. (There are also German publishing houses in Austria, Switzerland, and Alsace.)

100 professor Wilhelm Röpke warned before his death against the specter of an overcentralized “United States of Europe.” His fears were firmly rooted in his neo-Liberal convictions. On February 20, 1946, Pius XII addressing the diplomats accredited at the Holy See praised variety among the nations and warned against “merging them all in a grey uniformity.” Cf. Acta Apos-tolicae Sedis, (vol. 38, 1946), pp. 146-147.

101 Cf. Hermann Borchardt, The Conspiracy of the Carpenters, trsl. Barrows Mussey (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1943), p. 371. This book, though not easy to read, is the work of a genius, a Jewish convert who had suffered under the Communists and the Nazis. Unfortunately it is hardly known by “conservatives” anywhere.