Back Door to War: The Roosevelt Foreign Policy 1933-1941

XVI Hitler Takes over Austria as a Long-Delayed Step towards Anschluss

THE PLANS of President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Chamberlain for effecting some sort of agreement with Chancellor Hitler were merely expressions of wishful thinking. The Chancellor had plans of his own which partial appeasement would not satisfy.

a. The Viennese Waltz Takes on Macabre Overtones

Austro-German relations from 1936 to 1938 afford an excellent example of the devious procedures of Nazi diplomacy. The agreement of July 11, 1936, was the opening wedge in the process of Austrian disintegration. Behind a façade of friendly phrases the Nazi propaganda machine was duly installed and, with the aid of numerous bunds, the gospel of National Socialism was spread far and wide. The agreement explicitly stated that both countries belonged within the German cultural orbit, and all existing restrictions on “cultural exchanges” were to be promptly removed. Both nations should “influence their respective press” so that “its objective criticism of conditions in the other country” should not be “offensive.” The Austrian Government should conduct its foreign policy “in the light of the peaceful endeavors of the German Government’s foreign policy.” It should also appoint in the near future “representatives of the so-called ‘National Opposition in Austria’ to participate in political responsibility.”1

Between every line of this agreement stalked the grim fact of eventual Nazi absorption of Austria. Political pressures in Europe would not permit any long postponement of this union. Franz von Papen and other diplomats might indulge in double talk that evaded any clear statement of this fact, but General Göring was quite frank in expressing the real implications of Nazi policy. In October 1936 he had an important conversation with Kurt von Schuschnigg, the Austrian Federal Chancellor, and after sounding him out on the Austrian situation, he reported that he had a certain “confidence” in the “aims” of Schuschnigg.2

But Schuschnigg destroyed a large part of this confidence when, on November 26, at Klagenfurt, he delivered a speech which opposed any further advance of National Socialism in Austria. Von Neurath instructed the German Legation in Vienna to express “astonishment” at such a tirade. Did the Federal Chancellor “really believe” that he could continue “ruthlessly to take measures against National Socialism?”3 This hostile attitude of Schuschnigg led Hitler in January 1937 to send a protest to the Austrian Government with special reference to the punitive action that had been taken against persons who were members of a “National Socialist organization.”4 The explanation of the Federal Chancellor was not entirely satisfactory to the German Foreign Office.5

It was now entirely clear to Hitler that he could not count upon Schuschnigg to lend any support to Nazi plans for expansion. The Federal Chancellor would have to be eliminated, but it would be expedient first of all to see how close the ties were between Mussolini and the Austrian leaders. In January 1937, Göring was sent to Rome to explore the situation. In his usual blunt way he inquired if the Duce was willing to admit that Austria was within the “German sphere of interest” and therefore “even an Anschluss could be carried out” if Hitler desired it.6 Mussolini did not rush to grab this bait. He did, however, finally assure Göring that he would exert pressure upon the Austrian Government so that the agreement of July 11 would be faithfully executed. Also, in the event of “a conflict in Austria, Italy would not resume . . . the ‘Watch on the Brenner’ against Germany.”7

Göring realized that Mussolini had been too wary to underwrite Nazi schemes for aggression unless he received a substantial quid pro quo. This could be given in the form of potent German support of Italian ambitions in Ethiopia. In the face of strong League opposition, this action would soon convince the Duce that German friendship was worth far more than Austrian independence. When he arrived at this point of view the German Army could move into Vienna with confidence.

Germany was careful not to press this matter on Mussolini with too much haste. In May 1937, von Neurath visited Rome and reassuringly told the Duce that Germany still honored the Austro-German Agreement of July 11, 1936, and did not “intend any surprises or rash actions.”8 But Schuschnigg became increasingly hard to handle, and von Papen soon confided to the Italian Minister in Vienna that the actions of the Federal Chancellor were so disturbing that unless the tension were relieved “we might easily find ourselves in a situation highly detrimental to the interests of the Berlin-Rome Axis.”9

It was soon evident to the German Foreign Office that time and British ineptitude were on the side of Hitler. The Ethiopian adventure and the civil war in Spain had thrown Mussolini deeper and deeper into Hitler’s arms while Anthony Eden was lecturing him on the sins of aggression. When Germany moved ahead and recognized the Italian conquest of Ethiopia while also sending armed assistance to Franco, the Duce completely forgot his former interest in Austrian independence. Realpolitik became the watchword of the hour in the Wilhelmstrasse.

In London, British diplomats regarded with deep concern this Italo-German rapprochement, and some of them believed that British acquiescence in Hitler’s demands for expansion in Central Europe might weaken these recent ties. One of these apostles of appeasement was Sir Nevile Henderson, the British Ambassador to Germany. Shortly after he arrived in Berlin he received an invitation from von Papen to visit Austria. In Vienna he quickly exchanged intimate confidences with the Nazi Ambassador. He entirely agreed “with the Führer that the first and greatest danger to the existence of Europe was Bolshevism and all other viewpoints had to be subordinated to this view.” After von Papen outlined the Nazi way of looking at the Austrian problem, he remarked that he was convinced that “England fully understood the historical need for a solution of this question in the Reich-German sense.” He was entirely opposed to the efforts of the British Ambassador in Vienna to preserve Austrian independence, and he was certain that his own opinions in that regard would “prevail in London.” He hoped, however, that Germany would not “rush the solution of this problem.”10

Hitler had no intention of seeking an immediate answer to the problem of Austria. During a conversation with General Göring and Foreign Minister von Neurath he stressed the belief that Germany should refrain from causing any “explosion” in Austria in “the forseeable future. We should continue to seek an evolutionary solution.”11 But the processes of evolution soon proved too slow to suit the Nazi program of expansion. In December 1937, von Papen warned Schuschnigg that the relations between Austria and Germany were not “developing favorably.” The Federal Chancellor should realize that the German Reich was embarked upon a movement of the “greatest historical significance.” Austria, “with heart and soul,” should “support this struggle of the German world for its existence.”12

In order to insure victory in this struggle, the Führer decided to make some changes in important official positions. At the historic meeting in the Reich Chancellery on November 5, 1937, when Hitler’s plan of aggression in Central Europe had first been broached, opposition had been voiced by Marshal von Blomberg, Reich War Minister, Colonel General von Fritsch, Commander in Chief of the Army, and Baron von Neurath, the Foreign Minister. On February 4, 1938, an announcement was suddenly made in Germany that all three of these important leaders had been removed from office. Hitler himself became the Chief of the High Command; Ribbentrop replaced von Neurath; Colonel General Walther von Brauchitsch assumed the office recently held by Baron von Fritsch, while Göring was promoted to the office of Field Marshal.13

The American chargé in commenting upon these changes indicated that “the underlying causes of these changes” went much “deeper” than the much-discussed unfortunate marriage of Marshal Blomberg to the notorious Eva Gruhn. The sudden shift in personnel might well mean the beginning of a “more radical tendency in the conduct of German foreign affairs.” In some quarters there were “strong apprehensions concerning some immediate move with especial reference to Austria.”14

The German Ambassador in Washington assured Sumner Welles, the Under Secretary of State, that the recent replacement of von Neurath by Ribbentrop implied no change “whatever in German foreign policy.” He admitted that Ribbentrop was “young and impulsive,” but he would have the experienced von Neurath available for consultation on difficult problems that demanded careful consideration.15

From Berlin, Prentiss Gilbert, the American chargé, expressed the opinion that the “influence of Ribbentrop will be largely dominant in the advices in foreign affairs given to the Chancellor.” He then alluded to the fact that Ribbentrop’s character and the “past expressions of his policy” suggested that Germany had turned to a “more radical, a more active and thus a more ‘dangerous’ policy.”16

Ambassador Wilson’s first interview with Ribbentrop was brief and not very illuminating. The new Foreign Minister complained that the hostility of the British and French press made it difficult to carry on satisfactory relations with those countries.17 With von Neurath it was a very different story. The former head of the Foreign Office was friendly and loquacious. He spoke of his desire for retirement and Hitler’s refusal to permit him to leave office. This situation had been completely changed by von Blomberg’s marriage to Eva Gruhn who had loved too much and too often. When Hitler learned that the door of Eva’s heart had been opened to many men long before von Blomberg had rapped his aged knuckles upon its well-worn portals, he summoned von Neurath to the Chancellery. Neurath found the Führer

in tears, very much cut up by the fact that von Blomberg had misled him as to the wedding and put him [Hitler] in a disgraceful position. Von Neurath says that Hitler is extremely sensitive, especially as to what he considers anything that looked like betrayal of his friendship by his friends. He had been deeply fond of Blomberg and felt that the latter had let him down badly. He then said to von Neurath that he needed his post. Von Neurath said: “It is, of course, at your disposition.” Hitler went on to say that he wanted to keep Neurath near him, nearer than before, and nearer than was possible when von Neurath was charged with an administrative position; but that he, Hitler, felt that something had to be done to divert public opinion, especially abroad, from the “shameful position” in which the Blomberg wedding had placed the Chancellor.18

b. Schuschnigg Pays a Visit to Berchtesgaden

Sir Nevile Henderson makes much of the von Blomberg affair and states that it precipitated a “fit of uncontrolled rage” on the part of Hitler which darkened the atmosphere in Berlin for a long period. It was convenient to find a scapegoat on whom much of the load of the Führer’s wrath could be unloosed. The sinister von Papen suggested that Schuschnigg would be just the victim for such an ordeal by verbal fire. The Austrian Federal Chancellor was at once summoned to Berchtesgaden to meet Hitler in one of his nastiest tempers. Schuschnigg arrived on February 12 and was immediately subjected to a long ritual of indignities. He was always addressed as “Herr” or “Doktor” and not by his official title. Although he was an inveterate smoker he was not permitted to indulge in this habit in the presence of the Führer.

He was first scolded because Austria had not left the League of Nations, and his whole policy was condemned as a long betrayal of Germany’s interests. It would be well for the Chancellor to realize that Austria’s puny armed forces could not stem the advance of Hitler’s legions if they should be ordered to march: “I may be in Vienna overnight like a storm in the spring! Then you will experience something!” He was warned that after the entry of German troops in Vienna the S A and the Austrian Legion would take over and no one would be able “to prevent their revenge.” It should be obvious to most Austrians that no power in the world could “impede” Hitler’s progress.19

After some eleven hours of such pressure, Schuschnigg broke down and signed an agreement that was the prelude to the absorption of Austria by Nazi Germany. First of all it was agreed that Dr. Artur Seyss-Inquart would be taken into the Austrian Cabinet as Minister of the Interior and Public Security. Under his constant supervision it would be possible to develop a National Socialist program that would eventually put Austria under German domination. Other items in the agreement had similar implications.20

Schuschnigg’s return to Vienna marked the beginning of twilight in the Austrian capital. This was apparent to Mussolini who did not approve of the abrupt manner in which Hitler had treated Schuschnigg, and he resented the fact that Italy had not been consulted in the whole affair. Ciano read Philip of Hesse a lecture on German neglect of simple diplomatic courtesy and Mussolini sent some meaningless assurances to Schuschnigg, but it should have been obvious to most Austrian officials that the sands of their country’s independence were fast running out. President Miklas made a brief, futile stand against the Nazi demands, but he was finally forced to agree to a new cabinet that contained not only Dr. Seyss-Inquart but three other members friendly to Germany.21

On February 20, Hitler made a speech to the Reichstag that sounded like a requiem for Austria. There was no assurance of Austrian independence. Instead, Hitler merely expressed his “sincere thanks” to Schuschnigg for his “great understanding and the warm-hearted willingness with which he accepted my invitation [to Berchtesgaden] and worked with me so that we might discover a way for serving the best interests of the two countries.” The real meaning of his words was disclosed by his fervid statement that it was “intolerable for a self-respecting world power to be permanently deprived of its entity,” and to know that “across the frontier are kinsman who have to suffer severe persecution simply because of their sympathy . . . with the whole German people.”22

c. Lord Halifax Learns the Price of Appeasement

In London there was great indecision concerning the best method of handling Hitler. In December, Chamberlain told Ribbentrop that Britain would be ready to make some proposals to the German Government in February or March with special reference to the colonial question. Ribbentrop then remarked that only a “very generous attitude toward German interests could finally lead to an understanding.” Chamberlain, after weighing this statement, remarked that he would give his “full support” to a “German-British understanding.”23

Chamberlain’s conciliatory assurances led the German Foreign Office to prepare a memorandum which summarized British policy as follows: “British policy today proceeds on the thesis that it is possible to do complete justice to German grievances by peaceful means.”24 Ribbentrop, however, disagreed with this Pollyanna interpretation of the situation. In January he prepared a memorandum of his own in which he frankly stated that he placed little faith in Britain’s desire for a real understanding with Germany. Britain was merely wearing a mask of friendship so that she could gain time for the preparation of a large armament. It would be unwise to put any dependence upon an “understanding” with England. In reality she was Germany’s “most dangerous enemy.”25

Hitler probably had this memorandum in mind when, on March 3, 1938, he had a fruitless conference with Sir Nevile Henderson. Henderson struck a high note that must have sounded a little ridiculous to Hitler. The British Government, Henderson remarked, believed that any understanding with Germany could be reached if the negotiations proceeded on the “principle of higher reason as distinct from the use of mere force.” Hitler listened to this high-level talk with a “ferocious scowl on his face,” and then broke out into an impassioned harangue about the “sad fate of Nazi-loving Germans in Austria.” After two hours of discussion which covered a multitude of topics, Henderson left the Reich Chancellery without having accomplished anything.26

A week later (March 9), the uneasy solution in the Austrian test tube was precipitated by an announcement of Schuschnigg that on the following Sunday (March 13) a plebiscite would be held on the issue of Austrian independence. His announcement was the death knell of Austrian sovereignty.

Hitler was thoroughly angered by any thought of a plebiscite in Austria and he at once began to exert pressure to prevent it. These tactics were regarded with deep disapproval by Lord Halifax. During a conversation with Ribbentrop on March 10 he indicated that His Majesty’s Government was greatly disappointed at the attitude

of Herr Hitler towards their conciliatory and constructive approach but at the same time [he pointed out] that this disappointment made no difference to our firm desire for a better understanding with Germany. But if we were to succeed that could not be by unilateral effort on our part and all must make their contribution. . . . With regard to Central Europe we had not tried to “block up” Austria, but had rather tried to steady European opinion shaken by the Berchtesgaden interview [February 12]. . . . But we should be less than frank if we did not make it clear to the German Government the danger we saw in the expression that responsible leaders in Germany were giving in public to German policy and to the spirit in which that policy was being pursued. . . . The last thing we wanted was to see a war in Europe. But if once war should start in Central Europe it was quite impossible to say where it might not end or who might not become involved.

Lord Halifax then expressed the opinion that the Austrian plebiscite, scheduled for March 13, should

be carried out without interference or intimidation. Herr von Ribbentrop . . . said that. . . he thought the most useful contribution we [the British Government] could make would be to use our influence with the Austrian Chancellor to cancel it. I replied that it seemed astonishing to me to assert that the head of a State should not have a plebiscite if he wanted one. . . .

Subsequently, at 5:15 P.M. I myself saw Herr von Ribbentrop again and spoke to him more strongly. . . . Our approach to Germany was not encouraging. . . . Their brutal disregard for any argument but force shows the difficulty of reasoning with them and must cast doubt upon the value of agreements reached with them. . . . The world has been faced with a fait accompli: it is extremely doubtful if any threat could have averted it; and certainly no threat which those making it were prepared to support by force.27

On this same day (March 10), Lord Halifax sent two telegrams to Sir Nevile Henderson, in Berlin, in which he used much the same language that he employed in his letter to President Roosevelt.28 Henderson replied that he thought that German methods were “indefensible,” but Schuschnigg’s action in calling for a plebiscite was “precipitous and unwise.”29

With reference to the plebiscite, Schuschnigg at first refused to bend before Nazi pressure and he turned to Britain and asked “what he should do.”30 Halifax replied at once that the British Government could “not take the responsibility” of advising the Chancellor to take a course of action that might lead to war.31 All that Britain could do in this matter was to file a protest in Berlin against undue Nazi pressure.

A mere British protest to Berlin was too slender a reed for Schuschnigg to lean upon, so he resigned his office as Federal Chancellor. When this news reached London, Ribbentrop blandly remarked to Halifax that this action was “really much the best thing that could have happened.” Surely the British Foreign Office would agree that it was “the object of us all to see peaceful solutions arrived at.” Ribbentrop had no doubt that Schuschnigg was guilty of bad faith and had “completely gone back on his word from the Berchtesgaden arrangements.” This reprehensible conduct had made the situation in Austria “quite impossible.”

Lord Halifax refused to look at matters through Nazi eyes. What the world had seen in Vienna was “an exhibition of naked force,” and it should be obvious that such a dubious procedure would “seriously prejudice Anglo-German relations.” Ribbentrop regarded this Halifax statement as wide of the mark. He was confident that British opinion could be “guided to take a realist view of what had passed and not be unwilling eventually to welcome it.”32

On the following day Chamberlain had Ribbentrop as a luncheon guest and this meeting afforded another opportunity for conversation. Chamberlain very “emphatically requested” Ribbentrop to inform Hitler of his “most sincere desire for an understanding with Germany.” At this point Viscount Halifax brought several telegrams to the Prime Minister. They indicating increasing tension in Vienna and Halifax excitedly remarked that the Nazi threats of force constituted an “intolerable method” of exerting pressure upon Schuschnigg. He then inquired if a plebiscite along “the pattern of the Saar plebiscite” would be held in Austria on a later date. Chamberlain at once interjected the opinion that this procedure did not “seeem to be required by the situation.” This negative observation had a sedative effect upon Halifax who declared that he did not “insist” upon his suggestion concerning a plebiscite. Ribbentrop noted that the “usually very calm Lord Halifax” was more excited “than Chamberlain who outwardly at least appeared calm and coolheaded.” At the close of the conversation “even Halifax was calm again.”33

d. British Appeasement of Italy Is Too Little and Too Late

The formula of appeasement which Chamberlain worked out in the early months of 1938 was so dear to his heart that he clung to it with tenacity when the rest of the world saw that it could not solve the problems that threatened the peace of Europe. Anthony Eden did not share the enthusiasm of the Prime Minister in this regard and this fact put a strain upon their personal relations. The crisis came on February 18 when Chamberlain and Eden had two detailed conversations with Dino Grandi, the Italian Ambassador in London. According to Grandi, Chamberlain had already entered into an intrigue to oust Eden from office. During these important conversations among Chamberlain, Eden, and Grandi, the Italian Ambassador denied that an understanding had been reached with Germany whereby Hitler had been given a free hand in Austria in return for a promise of German support in the Mediterranean and in Europe. He did admit, however, that the Italian Foreign Office believed that a “friendly intimacy and close collaboration” between Germany and Austria was “essential to the peace and tranquility of Central Europe.” Grandi also insisted that British recognition of the Italian conquest of Ethiopia be expressly granted as a preliminary step in the direction of an eventual Anglo-Italian rapprochement.34

The London Times showed that it was in complete agreement with the Italian thesis that close collaboration between Austria and Germany was essential to the peace of Central Europe. In an editorial on February 17, the argument was advanced that Britain should not attempt to block German expansion eastward, and four days later the assertion was made that Britain had no real concern with events in Central and Eastern Europe unless they should develop into a “catastrophic conflict.”35

With the London Times preaching a policy of appeasement, Hitler on February 20 delivered a speech that attacked Anthony Eden with all the fury of long-suppressed hatred. With Chamberlain convinced that appeasement was the only way to quiet the turmoil in Europe and therefore in no mood to resent this Hitler harangue, it was evident that there was no real place for Eden in the British Cabinet. On February 20 he felt constrained to resign as Foreign Minister and his office was filled by Viscount Halifax, who was willing to follow Chamberlain’s directions.36

With Eden out of the Cabinet, Chamberlain had even stronger hopes for the creation of an Anglo-Italian understanding. He was ready, of course, to pay the price. In a letter to Grandi he made the observation that he had never had the

slightest intention or plan to do anything that might weaken Italian-German solidarity. On the contrary, I consider the Rome-Berlin Axis as a reality which might represent the most valuable pillar of European peace. . . . This conviction of mine, I am happy to confirm, is shared by my friend Lord Halifax. . . . I want the Duce himself to know that while my immediate aim is a strong and permanent treaty with the Duce and Fascist Italy, my long range . . . aim is a permanent and as strong as possible a treaty with the Fuehrer and National Socialist Germany.37

But these conciliatory words made no deep impression upon Mussolini who had now climbed with great agility upon the Hitler bandwagon. There would be no Anglo-Italian understanding that would serve in any way to halt Hitler’s march into Austria. The Duce had decided that Austria should be delivered into the Führer’s eager arms as the price for German recognition of Italian conquests in Africa. Schuschnigg was slow in grasping this fact. In order to keep alive Italian dislike for German expansion in Austria, he sent his military attaché, Colonel Liebitzky, to Rome to recount to Mussolini all the contemptuous remarks that Hitler had poured out against Italy during the famous Berchtesgaden conversations on February 12. But the Duce shrugged them off and began to make elaborate plans to welcome Hitler when he arrived in Rome.38 The Austrian plum was nearly ready for the picking and Mussolini realized that no European power could hold back Hitler’s hand.

e. Hitler Marches into Vienna

Before Hitler moved into Austria he was careful to extract from Mussolini assurance that this action was fully approved. On March 11 he sent Prince Philip of Hesse to Rome with an urgent letter to Mussolini concerning the Austrian situation. This letter stated that the Austrian Government had in recent months established a close “relationship with Czechoslovakia” which was a “most serious threat to the security of the Reich.” The Austrian Government was gradually arming “all the frontiers with fortifications” to bar the progress of German military forces. In the event that war “was imposed upon Germany,” the Austrian and Czech soldiers could attack Germany’s flank. The absorption of Austria by Germany had therefore become a national imperative.39

After delivering this letter to the Duce, the Prince telephoned to Hitler from Rome and announced the glad tidings that Mussolini had “accepted the whole thing in a very friendly manner.” The impact of these reassuring words upon Hitler was so great that he became hysterical. He asked the Prince to tell the Duce that he would never forget his assistance in this hour of need: “If he should ever need any help or be in any danger, he can be convinced that I shall stick to him whatever may happen, even if the whole world were against him.”40

In Berlin, Göring telephoned to Seyss-Inquart and other Nazi sympathizers in Vienna in order to put pressure upon President Miklas. When Miklas finally succumbed to this pressure and appointed Seyss-Inquart as Chancellor, the last hour of Austrian independence was at hand.41 German troops crossed the Austrian border on March 12, and two days later Hitler entered Vienna in triumph.

f. American Reaction to Anschluss

American reaction to the absorption of Austria by Nazi Germany was recounted in considerable detail in the dispatches of Ambassador Dieckhoff. On March 12 the ambassador called at the Department of State to discuss the situation in Austria. Although Secretary Hull asked a number of questions, he did not “express any critical or even disapproving attitude.” This was also largely true of the American press on March 12 and 13, but the next day a “sudden change took place.” The absorption of Austria was now stigmatized as “a breach of treaty, as militarism, as the rape of defenceless little Austria by her big neighbor bristling with arms.” As far as the “shaping of the opinion of the American Government was concerned,” the ambassador believed that the President himself had “intervened personally and gave instructions to both the State Department and the press.” In the Department of State “they were probably, from the very outset, thinking less of Austria than of Czechoslovakia, with all the possible complications.” On March 14, Dieckhoff had another conversation with Secretary Hull who maintained a calm and courteous demeanor, but Sumner Welles received the German Ambassador with a sour expression.42 Indeed, in a dispatch to the Foreign Office on March 15, Dieckhoff complained that Welles “gave expression to a sort of malevolent bitterness” when he alluded to the Nazi absorption of Austria.43

In the Department of State there is a copy of the conversation between Dieckhoff and Welles on March 14. After the ambassador had turned over to the Under Secretary of State the texts of the decrees incorporating Austria into the Reich, he evidently expected Welles to make some comments upon them. When Welles remained silent, Dieckhoff, with a show of “very considerable degree of nervous excitement,” broke out with the exclamation: “This is a great day, a wonderful day for Germany.” When Welles continued to remain silent, Dieckhoff then “embarked upon a tirade” against the critics of the recent Anschluss. He was particularly disturbed over the comments in the American press which he condemned as outright “lies.” Next he sharply attacked the Jews and asked Welles why they were permitted “to dominate the press and public opinion.” The Under Secretary denied the truth of such a statement and then remarked that “the Jewish element in the population of the United States was only a small percentage of our total population, nevertheless, the people of the United States felt that that element among them was as much a part of the United States as any other element of the population.” Most Americans had Jewish friends “whom they regarded highly and whom they admired as fellow citizens.” The unjust treatment meted out to them in Germany had aroused strong indignation against the Nazi regime. When Welles finished his remarks, Ambassador Dieckhoff hastily concluded the conversation with another brief diatribe against the “malignant and malicious falsehoods” of the American press.44

Dr. Goebbels, in Berlin, was also greatly perturbed over the hostile attitude of the American press. He thought that it was

lamentable that this campaign of hatred should be carried on. He did not in any way expect that Germany would escape criticism, but. . . what he did not expect and what he deeply deplored were wilful misstatements of fact and slander and libel against the persons of the Reich Chancellor and those immediately around him. He said that the person of the Fuehrer was venerated by every German. . . . Therefore the Germans deeply resented the personal attacks upon him. . . . He was sure that in the coming months I would have frequent opportunity to talk with and know the Fuehrer, and I could not but be impressed with the singleness of purpose and the undeviating honesty of the man’s character. . . .

Many people in Germany felt that relations with America were so bad through the press that there was no use trying to do anything about it. . . . But he was not one of those and such a point of view was to him a stultifying attitude. He thought there were possibilities of making it better and believed that if we could work with some measure of confidence we could bring about an improved relationship.

Ambassador Wilson expressed the opinion that the

most crucial thing that stood between any betterment of our Press relationship was the Jewish question. . . . Hatreds so deep as those which existed in my country on this question could not be mitigated in weeks or even months. It was a matter of years before such hatreds would lessen or be forgotten, and then only if new incidents did not give fresh fuel to the flames.

Turning from this outstanding question, Ambassador Wilson then remarked that much of the existing American hostility towards Germany was the result of a Freudian complex

by which deep affection which is shattered turns inevitably to hatred. . . . Americans of my age and generation had been accustomed to see the best intellectuals in our country go to Germany for education in medicine, technical matters, arts, and so on; . . . that ten thousands of families had German relatives. Thus the bonds between the two lands went so deep that we could not regard what happened in Germany with indifference.

Goebbels confessed that this was “an entirely new and interesting point of view,” and he voiced the hope that the American Ambassador would come often to talk over matters of common interest.45

There was little doubt that Goebbels was anxious to explore the reasons that lay behind German-American hostility. He had uncovered one of the important causes for friction when he referred to the German veneration for Hitler and the ceaseless attacks in the American press upon the Führer. It was obvious to many close observers of the scene in Germany that Goebbels himself had been indefatigable in his efforts to create this veneration for the Führer. His speech on April 20, in honor of Hitler’s birthday, was a typical example of the Goebbels rhetoric in this regard. He was certain that an air of divinity surrounded the Chancellor. He recounted that after Hitler entered Austria his attendants saw a man “rush up to the Führer’s car with his hands uplifted in prayer, and we had the feeling that here the emotion of the human soul had found its consummate expression.”46 With vast numbers of Germans sharing this viewpoint it became more and more difficult to maintain friendly relations between the two countries when the American press continued its campaign of criticism and ridicule.

This matter of the hostility of the American press continually thrust itself into the diplomatic picture in Berlin. At the end of April, Ambassador Wilson had a long talk with Foreign Minister Ribbentrop and the familiar topic of press criticism inevitably came up for discussion. Ribbentrop said that he had just been looking through a mass of clippings from American newspapers and they showed

a depth of hostility which had startled and shocked him. There was a lack of comprehension of everything that Germany had done and an immense proportion of complete misstatement of fact. . . . These reports could only be based upon gossip and rumor and usually originated from those who by race or politics were hostile to the regime and therefore inclined to distort facts.

He then observed that he had

spent a long and happy time in the United States as a boy, as well as in Canada; that he had numerous American friends with some of whom he still corresponded; that no one could spend a portion of his youth in a country without leaving a bit of his heart there; . . . hence it was doubly depressing to him that this outpouring of wrath should take place against his country.

Wilson interrupted this discourse to venture the opinion that this American hostility to Germany had many causes. The persecutions of Protestants and Catholics, the intimate relations between Germany and Japan, the Jewish question, and the manner in which the Nazi Government had absorbed Austria were important factors in creating a widespread dislike in America for the Nazi Government.

Ribbentrop then commented upon this factor of German absorption of Austria. Britain and France were far more concerned with the Austrian question than the United States, yet the press in those countries had taken a much more objective attitude than the American press. When the German editors read the vehement criticisms in American newspapers, they promptly “pled for the right to reply to them in their press. So far the German Government had refused to permit it. He defied me [Wilson], for instance, to find a personal criticism of President Roosevelt.” Wilson made no attempt to disprove this statement. He merely confessed that he was afraid that the hostility in the American press “would not disappear for some years.” In the meantime it was obviously the “part of those dealing in foreign affairs to try” to hold “their countries in normal and friendly relationships.”47

Ambassador Wilson was entirely correct in his belief that the criticisms in the American press of Nazi Germany would “not disappear for some years.” As they continued, the reaction in Germany became more pronounced. On the night of August 10 a reception was given in the Italian Embassy in honor of Marshal Balbo. During the course of the evening, Mr. Riddleberger, a member of the staff of the American Embassy, had a talk with Marshal Göring who immediately ascribed much of the hostility in America towards Germany to the machinations of the Jews and then launched into a

discussion of the Jewish problem. He predicted that within “ten years from this night” the United States would have become the most anti-Semitic country in the world. . . . I [Mr. Riddleberger] said to General Goering that this statement respecting the possibilities of anti-Semitism in the United States had interested me although I naturally did not agree with his prediction. I said that without going into a discussion of German policy with respect to the Jews, I was sure he would understand how this policy had caused grave concern to our and other Governments within whose jurisdiction the German Jews were seeking refuge. . . .

General Goering made no answer to this, but went on to declare that the Jews must be eliminated from German economic life. . . . Returning again to the problem of German-American relations, General Goering said that although they were none too harmonious, it was not necessary to despair and that we must hope for better days. . . . He ended his remarks by stating that the combination of Negroes and Jews in the United States, with the latter furnishing the leadership, was a matter that should give rise to considerable anxiety as to our future.48

It was apparent to Ambassador Wilson that while the German Government cordially disliked the American press it was nevertheless quite anxious to remain on friendly terms with the Department of State. For this reason Wilson accepted the invitation to attend the Nazi Party celebration in September at Nürnberg. He made plans to be present “during approximately the same period as the French and British Ambassadors.”49 This decision evoked from the B’nai Israel Jewish Centre of Brooklyn, New York, a spirited protest. Attendance at the Nürnberg celebration would be a “tacit condonance of the Nazi program of racial and minority persecution.”50 The Department of State refused to accept this viewpoint,51 and Ambassador Wilson went to Nürnberg with his British and French colleagues.

It was the last Nürnberg celebration that any American Ambassador would attend. Underneath the surface of German-American relations there were many points of difference that constantly threatened to pierce the thin texture of political accord. The American press was unceasing in its attacks upon the German way of life and in many parts of the United States there were gestures of contempt that must have infuriated the Nazi leaders. On the amusement pier at Venice, California, there was an archery stand that used a life-size painting of Hitler as a target for a patronage that was “mostly Jewish, Italian and German.”52

In other cities Hitler was depicted on toilet paper and on other articles of toilet use. These forms of vulgar ridicule were infuriating to multitudes of Germans and they created a background for eventual war. Hatred is one of the heralds of conflict and already in the summer of 1938 he was busily blowing upon his trumpet all along the German-American front. After Munich his blasts would gain in volume and in tempo, but most Americans closed their ears to his din and continued to cherish the hope that President Roosevelt would keep them out of war. They did not realize that, like Lincoln, he was so fond of peace that he was ready to fight for it.

• 1John H. Ferguson, American Diplomacy and the Boer War (Philadelphia, 1939), pp. 208-9.
• 2February 10, 1904.
• 3February 10, 1904.
• 4February 11, 1904.
• 5Tatsuji Takeuchi, War and Diplomacy in the Japanese Empire (New York, 1936), pp. 155-57.
• 6Edward H. Zabriskie, American-Russian Rivalry in the Far East 1895-1914 (Philadelphia, 1946), pp. 101-60.
• 7Ernest B. Price, The Russo-Japanese Treaties of 1907-1916 Concerning Manchuria and Mongolia (Baltimore, 1933), pp. 34-38.
• 8A. Whitney Griswold, The Far Eastern Policy of the United States (New York, 1938), pp. 129-34.
• 9Theodore Roosevelt to President William H. Taft, December 22, 1910. Knox MS, Library of Congress.
• 10John G. Reid, The Manchu Abdication and the Powers, 1908-1912 (Berkeley, 1935), chaps. 4-10.
• 11Charles Callan Tansill, Canadian-American Relations, 1875-1911 (New York, 1944), chaps. 1-4, 10-12.
• 12Merle E. Curti, “Bryan and World Peace,” Smith College Studies in History, XVI (Northampton, 1931).
• 13Charles Callan Tansill, America Goes to War (Boston, 1938), chaps. 2-6.
• 14Edwin Borchard and William P. Lage, Neutrality for the United States (New Haven, 1937), p. 183.
• 15Tansill, op. cit., pp. 459-60.
• 16Borchard and Lage, op. cit., p. 88. It is interesting to note that in the eventful days that just preceded America’s entry into the World War, President Wilson had so little regard for Secretary Lansing that he complained bitterly to Colonel House about his shortcomings: “I [House] was surprised to hear him [the President] say that Lansing was the most unsatisfactory Secretary in his Cabinet; . . . that he had no imagination, no constructive ability, and but little real ability of any kind. He was constantly afraid of him because he often undertook to launch policies himself which he, the President, had on several occasions rather brusquely reversed.” House Diary, March 28, 1917. House MS, Yale University Library.
• 17President Wilson did not have a clear idea of the actual meaning of the Fourteen Points. In his Diary, December 20, 1918, Secretary Lansing makes the following significant comments: “There are certain phrases in the President’s ‘Fourteen Points’ [Freedom of the Seas and Self-Determination] which I am sure will cause trouble in the future because their meaning and application have not been thought out. . . . These phrases will certainly come home to roost and cause much vexation. . . . He [the President] apparently never thought out in advance where they would lead or how they would be interpreted by others. In fact he does not seem to care just so his words sound well.” Lansing Papers, Library of Congress.
• 18Oscar Cargill, Intellectual America: Ideas on the March (New York, 1941), p. 504.
• 19The correspondence dealing with the pre-Armistice agreement is printed in full in Foreign Relations, 1918, Supplement, I, The World War, I (Washington, 1933), 337-38, 343, 357-58, 379-81, 382-83, 425, 468-69.
• 20Paul Birdsall, Versailles Twenty Years After (New York, 1941), pp. 35-36.
• 21David Lloyd George, Memoirs of the Peace Conference (New Haven, 1939), I, 306-9.
• 22Harold Nicolson, Peacemaking, 1919 (New York, 1939), p. 18.
• 23The Intimate Papers of Colonel House, ed. Charles Seymour (Cambridge, 1928), IV, 343.
• 24Philip M. Burnett, Reparation at the Paris Peace Conference (New York, 1940), I, 63-64.
• 25Ibid., p. 69.
• 26Ibid., pp. 832-33.
• 27Birdsall, op. cit., p. 258.
• 28Thomas A. Bailey, Woodrow Wilson and the Lost Peace (New York, 1944), p. 240.
• 29Thorstein Veblen, The Nature of Peace (New York, 1917), p. 261. Secretary Lansing did not share the viewpoint that the Germans had forfeited their colonies through maladministration. In his Diary, January 10, 1918, he remarked: “This purpose of the retention of conquered territory is prima facie based upon conquest and is not in accord with the spirit of a peace based upon justice. . . . it is necessary for peace that the adjustment should be equitable.” Lansing Papers. Library of Congress.
• 30Edwyn Bevan, The Method in the Madness (London, 1917), pp. 305-6.
• 31Arthur P. Scott, “George Louis Beer,” in the Marcus W. Jernegan Essays in American Historiography, ed. W. T. Hutchinson (Chicago, 1937), p. 315.
• 32Ibid., p. 319.
• 33George L. Beer, African Questions at the Paris Peace Conference, ed. L. H. Gray (New York, 1923), pp. 58-60.
• 34Bailey, op. cit., p. 163.
• 35Harry R. Rudin, Germany in the Cameroons, 1884-1914 (New Haven, 1938), pp. 11, 414, 419.
• 36Bailey, op. cit., p. 167.
• 37It is significant that most of Professor Lord’s colleagues on the Inquiry thought that his zeal for Poland was “excessive.” Birdsall, op. cit., p. 178. See also, Hunter Miller, My Diary at the Conference of Paris (privately printed, 1928), I, 289.
• 38Ray S. Baker, Woodrow Wilson and World Settlement (Garden City, 1922), III, 37-38.
• 39Miller, op. cit., IV, 224-26.
• 40Seymour, op. cit., IV, 334-35.
• 41Lloyd George, op. cit., II, 637-42.
• 42René Martel, The Eastern Frontiers of Germany (London, 1930), pp. 49-50.
• 43William H. Dawson, Germany Under the Treaty (London, 1933), pp. 149-52.
• 44Diaries, Letters and Papers (London, 1935-37), II, 503.
• 45Documents on International Affairs, 1934, ed. John W. Wheeler-Bennett and Stephen Heald (New York), p. 424.
• 46Miller, op. cit., IV, 224-28; VI, 49-52.
• 47E. Alexander Powell, Thunder Over Europe (New York, 1931), p. 62.
• 48Dawson, op. cit., pp. 102-9. See also, I. F. D. Morrow and L. M. Sieveking, The Peace Settlement in the German Polish Borderlands (London, 1936).
• 49Powell, op. cit., p. 66.
• 50Baker, op. cit., pp. 482-84. Apparently, Henry White did much to give President Wilson the correct view of the situation in Upper Silesia. See Allan Nevins, Henry White (New York, 1930), p. 423.
• 51In the learned account written by Georges Kaeckenbeeck, The International Experiment of Upper Silesia (London, 1942), p. 6, the vote is given as 707,605 for Germany; 479,359 for Poland.
• 52(London, 1930), pp. 79-88.