HITLER’S PLAUDIT TO THE DEMOCRACIES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23637, 22 October 1938, Page 9

HITLER’S PLAUDIT TO THE DEMOCRACIES

By Gugllelmo Ferrero, Professor at the University of Geneva.

In the speech he made on Monday, September 26, Herr Hitler paid an extraordinary tribute to the democracies. The paradox is worthy •of note. The Chancellor’s statement terminated as follows:— '* I march now in the vanguard of my people as their first soldier; behind me—that the whole world may know — is now a whole people, another people, another people than that of 1918. We are no longer infected by the democratic ferment, and the whole German people is now behind me. My will is its will.” What does this mean? That if there were any such thing as liberty in Germany, if all those who wish for peace (the “democratic ferment ” in the words of Herr Hitler) could express their opinion the National Socialist Government would have not been able to pursue so easily a policy which has pushed Europe and Germany to the edge of the abyss. Its tendencies would have encountered serious obstacles: and we should not have been menaced by a catastrophe exceeding that of 1914. This is the actual truth and the greatest plaudit that can be laid to the account of the democratic Powers.

The problem is simple. The majority of the peoples desire peace in all countries. The democratic regimes, which permit of a free expression of opinion in all circumstances, represent the only factor that can achieve a reasonable equilibrium inside and outside, and assure stable peace in Europe. In those countries peace is based on more stable fundaments than the varying policy of one party or of one man. In the totalitarian countries, on the other hand, pacific currents can only reveal themselves insofar as permitted by the prevailing system; they do not exist of themselves; they are merely the instruments of a national policy and, in, this, are assimilated to the more bellicose tendencies. If the Government believes that it is to its interest to engage in war, it abolishes the pacific currents of opinion, and it takes its own line. The brakes are rlocked.

This is the case in Italy of the present day. Everyone queries: “What will Italy do in the case of a general conflagration in Europe? It is difficult and at the same tune easy to reply to this question. As in 1914, the majority of the people is now desirous of a favourable neutrality to the advantage of the adversaries of Germany. If Italy had not a Government similar to that of England or France, but its Louis-Philippe regime of the prewar —-a system which would have enabled the so-called democratic ferment to manifest itself—no Government could have even dreamed of taking Germany’s side. But the “ democratic ferment ” is reduced to silence in Italy as in Germany. Italy is governed by a totalitarian regime, and everything depends upon the will of certain leaders. If they consider that their interest—the interest of their party or group—demands an active alliance with Germany, they will compel the whole country to fellow them.

During the past ten years, France and England have made considerable efforts to reach an agreement with the totalitarian States, to settle through diplomatic channels the questions in dispute and to establish in Europe, by common agreement, a pacific balance taking all interests into account. These efforts have never culminated in concrete and definite results, and have finally been confronted by fhe terrible crisis of to-day Why? Because the pacific policy of France and England was sustained by a powerful and resolute current of opinion; and because a similar tendency was not to be

found in Italy and Germany. It may have actually existed, but it has been reduced to silence.

Generally speaking, I believe that no one in France and England has absolutely realised this difference and the consequence that might ensue. Certain statesmen and pressmen have had a vague idea of the situation: thev thought that the difference could be removed by negotiations with the leading circles. I have frequently tried to explain the position to French and English statesmen. Thev have replied: “All the better, it will be easier to reach an agreement with the totalitarian States. All that is to be done is to have an understanding with the dictator. This is easier and more final than in democratic countries. In our countries, there is so much discussion, so many interventions and currents of opinion that it is extremely difficult to reach any conclusion whatsoever,” But this was another of the many illusions. Democratic peoples easily incline to two opposite mistakes when they endeavour to realise the effect of a current of opinion in the totalitarian countries. At one moment, they argue as if public opinion was as free in totalitarian countries as in their own States. At another, they imagine that in these countries public opinion does not exist, and that the dictator can do what he likes. The truth is that public opinion does exist, in the totalhanan States as in the democratic States, but in a different form. Instead of being free, spontaneous, and shared among different viewpoints. it is an artificial and forced creation of the Government —an apparent unanimity, a monopoly of manifestations to one sole end, that which the Government believes to be politically useful. But, in this form of artificial unanimity, public opinion may become more powerful in the totalitarian States than in the democracies, and finally dominate the Government itself. This is the old story of “Hoist with our own petard”; we can set'the mine but not quench it. . This is the great danger in Germany; to-morrow probably the great danger in Italy. There can be no doubt that the majority of Germans desire peace as do all Frenchmen and Britons. Is it possible to conceive of any greater madness than to sacrifice Europe for the salvation of a few millions of German Bohemians who have never been attached to Germany? But the Na-tional-Socialist Government has succeeded in creating an artificial and passionate unanimity in respect of this conflict and in preventing the manifestation of any reasonable opposition to this policy. Although the majority of Germans may be opposed to this unanimity at heart, there is still a small German minorit which supports it fervently. This minority is the nearest to the Government and may eventually compel the latter to exceed' its original intentions. The only hope of stability and peace in Europe lies in the possibility of the establishment of Governments in all the great nations under which public opinion can express itself freely and on an equal footing—in all nations, even .hose p J icked by the so-called “ democratic ferment.” This is an idea which I have submitted on several occasions, I apologise for repeating it again, but I have the impression that it is at present the “ delenda cartago,” not only for Europe, but also for the -whole civilisation of .the West.,

[World copyright by Co-operation.] [Reproduction even partially strictly forbidden.]