"STRANGERS YET": HUN

Evening Post, Volume CXL, Issue 59, 7 September 1945, Page 6

"STRANGERS YET": HUN

AND DEMOS

Are democracy and the German people incompatible? This question is raised by a Press interrogation of five German non-Nazis, as reported to the "New York Times" by a correspondent, »S. P. Brewer. The discussion between the reporters and the nonNazis was more on a philosophic than a political level, and appears to have been dominated by Pastor Niemoller, a former inmate of a Nazi concentration camp. Niemoller disclaimed for himself any political position. He was arrested by the Nazis long before the

war, presumably because in the pulpit he opposed their teachings and actions; but he told the reporters that he "does not claim any political opposition to the Nazis." He also states that when World War II began he, from his concentration camp, offered his services "in any capacity" to the German navy—in which he had served brilliantly in World War I—"but he explained that he did so as a German father whose sons had been drafted into the fighting line, . . . churchman, he was not interested in politics, but was unable to accept any authority that claimed a right to override that of the Church." In expressing the opinion that Germans are unsuited to any form of democratic Government so far tried in western countries, Pastor Niemoller was supported by the other non-Nazis, who included the head of the Reich Chancellery prior to Hitler's rise to power, Dr. Herman Puender, who was arrested by the Nazis in 1944; another Nazi "arrestee," Dr. Neuhaeuseler, Canon of Munich : Cathedral; a non-Nazi lawyer; and a son of the former Mayor of Leipzig. "The German people like to be governed, not to mingle in politics," Pastor Niemoller said. "The greatest shortcoming of the Weimar Republic was that it never could impose authority on the German people, which longed for such authority." None of the five non-Nazis would venture to say what kind of government Germany could accept and thrive on. When this conundrum was placed before them by the reporters, they politely but firmly handed it back. If they are correct, then Germans, measured by the test of Abraham Lincoln's formula, are in favour of "government of the people"; they would be a bit confused by "government for the people"; and they would run in horror from "government by the people." Such a populace would represent poor soil for the planting of seed by the "soap-boxer," as he is known at the street corners and in the parks of democracy. The Germans, as Pastor Niemoller pictures them, are not dominated by the idea of recapturing for the proletariat fabulous sums which the proletariat is supposed to be robbed of by class rule. But they are susceptible to the kind of "soap-box" oratory practised in the' tv-nties by Hitler and the Nazis, who when they came to power promised" not butter but guns, and who drew a picture of a Master Race which should be master of foreign slaves, but which should be itself mastered by a ruling clique. Hitler and his gang seem to have been convinced that if the Germans were once sure of their mastery of Europe, they would be content and would never ask to be masters in their own house; they would just march straight on and "leave it to the Fuhrer." Does not Niemoller's philosophic analysis of German submissiveness to nondemocratic government bear an uncomfortably close relationship to the Nazi conception of a conquering race managed from on top? A problem of government that cultured and liberal Germans feel they cannot solve, in respect of the German people, will not be easy of solution by foreigners; but it is to be hoped that the occupying Powers will at least try to make a uniform approach to the problem, instead of launching out in forms of administration peculiar to each zone of occupation, and possessing nothing in common. A "Dajly Herald" correspondent considers it to be implicit in the Potsdam programme that "zonal German governments" shall not arise. The problem seems to be twofold: (1) Can the occupying Powers agree on some plan of leading all the Germans, in the same way, to the same water of democracy? (2) Can the Germans be induced to drink? Unless the occupying Powers can answer the first question in the affirmative, the final answer to the second may never be known.

As a