Germany itself, and that if the German people overthrow Hitler they
will receive milder treatment at the hands of their liberated victims.
The danger of going on with Hitler has to be very imminent and great
to move the German people to revolt, because the crimes of the Nazis
have been so atrocious that the Nazis know they will be killed if they
are overthrown. There must be ten thousand Nazis who anticipate death
if they lose their power either by revolt or by loss of the war. They
will meet any attempt at revolt with the utmost mercilessness. In the
last war there were no Germans who expected to be killed if Germany
lost. The Nazi gang whose life and death hang on the outcome of the
war is larger than the clique of the German ruling class which had an
urgent, though not life-and-death interest, in seeing the last war to
a successful conclusion. Any hopes that a German revolt would end the
war if the deadlock lasts long enough are based on wishful thinking.
Q. _What makes you think Hitler would want to destroy us?_
A. First, because he could not afford to allow any democracy, any free
state, to exist in his totalitarian world. In his world there would be
only one kind of freedom, the freedom of the German to do as he likes
with all other varieties of men. If Hitler is not interfered with and
has time to accustom his slaves to slavery, his dynasty of tyrants
might last far beyond our lifetime, but not if a single democracy
persists to tempt and challenge his slaves to revolt. Witness today how
for a long time the subjugated peoples of Europe seemed sunk in abject
apathy, but awakened to demonstrate against their despot the moment
Russia’s resistance awakened the hope of eventual victory. If Hitler
wins over the rest of the world, he must destroy us in order to be safe
in his own Empire.
As long as a democracy exists on earth it will hold out before the eyes
of hundreds of millions of Hitler’s subjects the vision of a place on
earth where the body and soul of a man belong to himself and there
are no masters and slaves. Especially dangerous to his rule would be
a democracy which not only offered this vision but was potentially
powerful enough to be a positive threat, as the United States. For this
reason alone Hitler could not allow us to continue to exist, a free
oasis in his vast helot Reich.
Second, Hitler could not afford to give us time to translate our
potential into real strength. He professes two opinions of America.
One is that we are negligible; the other is that as the last war was
decided by America, this one may be. He once told a diplomatic official
of his who still occupies a high post in this country: “The United
States is a degenerate democracy in the backwash of civilization
and too demoralized by pacifism to play any important role in the
war to come.” He is truly contemptuous of our democracy, as of all
democracies, which he judges on the basis of those he has overthrown or
conquered, from the German to the French. He concludes that we must be
weak, since our democratic system dispenses justice, as far as humanly
possible, to the weak as well as to the strong, and because since the
conquest of the continental United States we have shown little or no
interest in building an empire. To the Nazi heart justice to the weak
is a proof of weakness; and to the Nazi mind only one thing prevents
a human being from seizing the property of a neighbor, weakness.
So Hitler on the one hand thinks us weak, but on the other hand he
recognizes that we could become strong.
As he once told me that he admitted the entry of the United States into
the last war had decided the struggle, so now when America is preparing
to throw its whole weight against him, he shows signs of wishing to
keep us out. By now Britain has taught him that even a democracy can
become tough if it has time. Would Hitler, after he had crushed the
British, willingly give us time to become morally strong enough to
fight him as the British fought him? Could he afford to let us have the
two years or more still necessary for the physical job of creating the
cannon, tanks, airplanes, and naval vessels and for the training of the
officers and men for an armed force strong enough to face his?
The third simple reason for his wishing to subjugate the United States
is that he wants the loot of America, richest on earth, and wants us
to pay tribute to the Greater German Reich as France and the other
conquered countries are doing now.
Fourth, and not the least, important reason to believe that Hitler
wishes to destroy the United States, is because he has said so. You
remember his speech in the second year of the war when he said, “We
shall destroy Britain and every country which has fed Britain.” To whom
do you suppose he referred if not to the United States? And do you
not think now that it is high time to pay attention to this no longer
funny little man when he announces what he intends to do? He is unique
among conquerors, because he always, by one means or another, warned
his victims of what he intended to do to them, and in most cases, the
Lindberghs of the world have looked up appeasingly and archly inquired,
“Oh no, Mr. Hitler, you surely don’t mean that, do you?”
As someone expressed it, Hitler has never kept a promise but never
failed to carry out, or at least try to carry out, a threat. His threat
to destroy us has been documented scores of times. Hermann Rauschning
quotes Hitler as declaring privately to friends that he would conquer
the United States first from within, with his Fifth Column, and
Walther Darre, his Minister of Agriculture, has developed the topic
thus: “I have been asked about my opinion of America, especially the
United States, and the danger of this pseudo-democratic Republic’s
possible attempts to hinder us in our historical development. There
is no fear that this demoralized country will mix in this German war.
In the first place, as in France and other countries, also in the
United States, we have many of our compatriots and even more friends
among the citizens of the United States. Many of the latter hold the
most important positions in political and economic life and will not
permit public opinion to allow something so senseless and insane as war
against Germany.... The United States is at present so demoralized and
so corrupted that, like England and France, it need not be taken into
consideration as a military adversary.... The United States will also
be forced by Germany to complete and final capitulation.”
Finally, as we discussed before, Hitler as every conqueror, cannot stop
trying to conquer, and after he had finished with the Old World, his
momentum would force him to attack the New.
Q. _Haven’t we plenty to do at home, without getting into a foreign
war? Why don’t we try to make a real democracy in America before we go
out to try to improve the rest of the world?_
A. This argument that we should pay no attention to the fire in the
house next door because we are busy cleaning the windows of our house,
polishing the floor, and cleaning up the kitchen has the same amount
of logic and common sense as the doctrine that we ought not to fight
on our enemy’s territory but only on our own. President Hutchins of
the University of Chicago has put this argument of perfectionism in
scholarly form. He maintains that we are going to war to establish
throughout the world the Four Freedoms--of speech, of worship, from
want, and from fear--but he says we have no right to crusade for them
until we have established them at home. But we are not going to war to
crusade for the Four Freedoms; as we have pointed out before, we are
going to war to make the world safe for the United States, and at the
same time or thereafter do what we can to establish the Four Freedoms
elsewhere as well as in America. If we do not go to war, we risk losing
even what we have of the Four Freedoms, even the small quantities of
them measured by Dr. Hutchins.
Something of what he says about the failure of the Four Freedoms in
this country to reach perfection is true; not all of it. He says we
have freedom of speech to say only what everybody else is saying, but
Dr. Hutchins will admit we have more of this kind of freedom than any
other country at this moment. He will also admit that everyone else is
not saying the things Dr. Hutchins is saying and yet he may say them
without let or hindrance. He says we have “freedom of worship if we
don’t take our religion too seriously,” but one must ask oneself what
examples of religious intolerance have given rise to such a statement?
Where are the persecuted religionists and to what country would they
flee to escape from the alleged deficiency of freedom of worship in
America?
Dr. Hutchins says that as for freedom from want and freedom from
fear, so long as one-third of the nation is ill-fed, ill-clothed,
and ill-housed, as Roosevelt says it is, we have no right to try to
establish these freedoms in other countries. Again, we can admit that
the matter is precisely as President Roosevelt has stated it, and yet
assert that the people of the United States have as a whole better
food, clothing, and living conditions than those of any other country
with comparable climatic conditions. He says that as for democracy, “we
know that millions of men and women are disfranchised in this country
because of their race, color, or condition of economic servitude.”
But if by reason of the passive attitude toward the war advocated by
Dr. Hutchins, this country should fall under Hitler’s power, whether
directly, with der Fuehrer in Washington, or indirectly with der
Fuehrer’s Gauleiter, chosen from the America First Committee as our
President, all of America’s 133,000,000 men and women would be wholly
disfranchised.
Dr. Hutchins says that we must abandon the Four Freedoms if we go
to war, and that “We cannot suppose, because civil liberties were
restricted in the last war and expanded after it, that we can rely
on their revival after the next one.” Why not? If we cannot rely on
experience, what can we rely on? In every war the United States has
ever fought we have delegated to the executive the powers necessary
to win victory and afterward we have always taken them back, but
without even an argument, much less any forcible attempt to prevent
such action. Dr. Hutchins says, “If we go to war we cast away our
opportunity and cancel our gains. For a generation, perhaps for
hundreds of years, we shall not be able to struggle back to where we
were. In fact, the changes that total war will bring may mean that
we shall never be able to struggle back. Education will cease. Its
place will be taken by vocational and military training. The effort to
establish a democratic community will stop. We shall think no more of
justice, of the moral order and the supremacy of human rights. We shall
have hope no longer.”
Why should these things happen to us if they have never happened in
past wars? Because, says Dr. Hutchins, “this war, if we enter it,
will make the last one look like a stroll in the park.” But has the
war done any of these things to Britain? On the contrary it is the
unanimous judgment of observers of Britain in wartime that the British
are more just, humane, democratic, and obedient to a higher moral
regime than ever before in their history. The British are nearer their
enemy and more deeply immersed in total war than we can ever be. Why
should we be expected to fare worse than the British?
Dr. Hutchins expresses concern for “suffering humanity” and declares
we could best serve it by staying out of war, and extending aid to
Britain and China “on the basis most likely to keep us at peace
and least likely to involve us in war.” Is it really helpful to
suffering humanity in Britain, China, France, Russia, Norway, Poland,
Czechoslovakia, Luxembourg, Holland, Belgium, Austria, yes and in Italy
and Germany itself, to practice a policy directed solely to avoiding
conflict with the author of the misery of half the world?
Aside from that, there is only one choice before America now and the
choice is not between going to war or not going to war. The choice
today is between going to war in time to win it, and going to war too
late to win it. We can best serve “suffering humanity” by attempting
with all the strength of our bodies and souls to destroy the prime,
immediate mundane cause of humanity’s suffering. Finally, Dr. Hutchins
declares that the argument that we should go to war now when we have
Britain to help us, to avoid having to go to war later, when we should
have to face the whole world alone, rests on the improvable assumptions
that Britain must fall and that the totalitarian powers will wish to,
and be able to, and will attack us. We could debate on these grounds
and make a strong case for even this simplest, most direct form of
possible events. But the argument for war now does not rest alone on
this succession of possible events.
Germany may not be able to conquer Britain, but Britain may become so
weary and so convinced that she cannot defeat Germany without us,
and so persuaded that we shall never come into the war, that Britain
might make a negotiated peace. Such a peace would be as disastrous to
us as a lost war; to prevent it is as strong a motive for our going
to war now as is the motive of preventing the actual fall of Britain.
Again, unless Britain falls or makes a negotiated peace, how is any
kind of peace to come to the world? By Britain’s defeating Germany?
No, if Russia falls or defects, Britain alone certainly cannot conquer
Germany; no informed person thinks it possible. Does Dr. Hutchins think
Britain could? Does he think it would be desirable to allow Bolshevik
Russia the credit and opportunity of the land conquest of Germany,
which by now is Europe?
Failing to enter the war, we have to face the alternatives; First: Fall
of Britain followed by Axis economic, political, and military attack
on the Western Hemisphere and probable American defeat by Nazis within
as well as without. Second: A negotiated peace between Britain and
Germany; followed by Nazi attack on the Western Hemisphere as before.
Third: Defeat of Germany by Britain at sea and in the air, and by
Russia on land; followed by Russian Communism throughout Europe. Does
Dr. Hutchins believe this a desirable end, or that the United States
would remain immune from its effects? Fourth: An interminable deadlock
in Europe with the entire world from year to year slipping backward
politically, economically, and morally with no prospect of anything
except more ruined cities, more starving people, more dead from battle
and bombardment, famine and pestilence. Is it helping suffering
humanity to remain aloof and permit any of these alternatives to come
to pass?
Q. _Why do you think we ought to go to war with Germany today?_
A. Because until Nazi Germany is defeated the world will never be safe
for us to live in; because it will require the total war effort of the
United States and Britain and Russia to defeat Germany; and because our
formal declaration of war would be worth more in the struggle against
Germany than all the material aid we shall be able to send the Allies
for the next year or more.
Q. _But wouldn’t it be better to wait and let Hitler declare war on us?_
A. It would best serve our interests if Hitler would declare war,
but since he knows this is true, he is not likely to do so under any
provocation. I should think he would hesitate to declare war even if
we were to have a pitched naval battle and sink his ships and announce
it. He knows that even if our Navy is fighting his, there is still a
body of American public opinion which is opposed to the participation
of our Army in an A.E.F. He knows that if he declared war it would help
immensely to unify the American people. He might go into a fury and
declare war, but it would be unlike him. Behind all his tantrums there
is usually calculation.
Q. _But isn’t our present state of “undeclared war” just as effective
as being formally at war? Why would our declaration of war be worth so
much immediately?_
A. Because of its moral effect upon ourselves, our enemies, and our
friends. We can talk all we like about being in a state of undeclared
war, but until we are formally at war we will continue to behave
as though we were at peace. Only by going to war can we discipline
ourselves, our workingmen, and our employers to defeat the Axis in
the battle of production. At this moment when Britain and Germany are
devoting four hours of each working day to making arms, we are devoting
thirty minutes to making arms. Only by going to war can our citizens’
army get the morale to be a fighting force.
On the Germans the effect of our declaration of war would be
catastrophic. Every German would say to himself, “Now we can’t win;
we can hold on for a long time, perhaps, but we can’t win.” On the
Italians the effect would be to depress their feeble efforts still
further toward zero.
On the British the effect would be to give them what they lack and what
they most need: the assurance of victory. The British are convinced
that they cannot be defeated, but how are they going to defeat the
Germans without the United States actively in the war?
Upon the Soviet Union the effect would be to strengthen the resolution
of Stalin and the Russian people not to make a compromise peace nor
succumb to any of the temptations Hitler may offer; and the longer the
Red Army fights the Germans the fewer sacrifices will have to be made
by the United States to help win the war.
To France our declaration of war would bring the will to live again.
Belief in eventual German victory over Britain was the basis upon which
the French surrendered. It was the foundation of Vichy’s policy. Our
declaration of war might not change Pétain and his men of Vichy, for
they are prisoners of their own deeds, and probably cannot withdraw
from their fatal collaboration with the Germans, but it would move
the people of France profoundly. Pétain does not represent the people
of France. I believe far more in the spirit of my French friend who
wrote me: “Soon we shall all be starving, but send no food. When we are
starving will be a good moment to throw by parachute on every French
farm and on the suburbs of Paris thousands of small machine guns,
with the necessary bullets. Then the German Army will be in France
as Napoleon’s Army was in Spain in 1813.” America’s entry into the
war would be worth to Frenchmen like this more than machine guns. It
would give them the certainty that France will live again. General de
Gaulle’s army would swell by the tens of thousands.
We could reckon on the possibility of being able to occupy the
strategic positions we need in North Africa and on any other
advantages within the power of the French to give us. We could for the
first time anticipate serious revolt by the peoples of all the occupied
territories when the time came; and help for the Allied Expeditionary
Force which some day must invade the continent. All the enslaved
peoples would be equally affected. The Nazi Terror works perfectly so
long as its victims feel that it is hopeless to revolt. Revolt becomes
possible only when the victims feel that they can afford to risk all,
since freedom will eventually be the reward.
A very important effect of our declaration of war upon Germany would
be the effect upon Japan. The Japanese mental processes are difficult
indeed to understand but I venture to guess that if they saw us
formally aligned with the British for the duration, they would be
likely to take a milder rather than stronger attitude toward us.
Needing principally smaller vessels in the Atlantic, we could base our
main Battle Fleet on Singapore and confidently await any move Japan
might make. Our declaration of war might well force Japan out of the
Axis.
China, like Britain, would be given the most precious possession in
warfare, the assurance of final victory. For even if Japan continued
to fight China, once the Allies’ main task was performed and Germany
defeated, the combined British and American navies could be counted
on to bring Japan back to reason without much difficulty. On all the
other countries, as neutral Portugal, non-belligerent Spain, encapsuled
Sweden and Switzerland, the effect of our going to war would be
revolutionary. Our South American friends would become even better
neighbors. All over the world the conviction that now Germany will
be defeated would become the decisive element in the policy of every
government.
Q. _But would we really go to work if we did declare war? Britain
didn’t at first and neither did France. What makes you think we would?_
A. You are right. It took Dunkirk to wake Britain up and France never
did awake; she passed without regaining consciousness from deep sleep
to death. Perhaps we too would not awaken even if we went to war, but
we will never awaken until we do go to war. Most nations in this war
have remained curiously apathetic until their first battle experience;
this may be true of us. But the fact of our being actively belligerent
would be bound to improve our spirit since it would put our moral
position right. Ever since the beginning of the war we Americans
have suffered from a divided personality. Half of our minds clung
to the idea that we could keep at peace if we wished for peace hard
enough, and this half declared: “It is not our war.” This half of our
minds made the Neutrality Act. The other half of our minds realized
all along that we should have been in the war from the beginning,
that Hitler was fighting to conquer the world, that it was for us a
matter of life or death to keep him from succeeding and that every
consideration of self-interest, as of honor, urged us to take our full
part in the world-wide struggle against the new Barbarism. This half
was responsible for the Lease-Lend Bill, a half-measure, condemned by
the very definition: “All aid to Britain _short of war_!” Our souls
remained divided, and this division has made us an ailing nation,
hypochondriac, complaining of low morale, nervous, and subject to fits
of depression alternating with elation. We are unreasonably discouraged
or cheered as the tide of battle ebbs and flows, and always we try to
interpret whatever happens as a sign at last that we do not have to do
our duty, that after all we can get out of this task, so onerous, so
painful, and so unavoidable.
Completely opposite arguments are employed to prove that we may escape
our obligation. If the British suffer a setback, up goes the cry: “The
British are already beaten; there’s no use trying to save them now;
let’s not throw good money after bad.” If the British win a victory,
there is a rousing cheer: “The British are winning without us; thank
God now we will not have to fight.” When I came home from the Battle
of Britain, it struck me as it had struck many others who have come to
America from the war zone, that we were far more nervous and agitated
than the peoples at war, even and especially more than those under
actual heavy bombardment. Eve Curie, that admirable French patriot and
gallant fighter for civilization, who was one of our group when we
escaped from France, put it perfectly when she said: “There is no fear
in the countries which are fighting. Extraordinarily enough, fear has
gone somewhere else, to the countries which are not menaced, to the
countries ‘at peace.’”
Is there any reason to suppose that our reactions would be
substantially different from those of the peoples at war? Once we
take a bold stand for the position we know to be just, right, and
inevitable, we shall for the first time since this war began, lose our
fear and become well, strong, hopeful, and proud. The sense of guilt
which has made us nationally unhappy will leave us and we shall rejoice
in a clear conscience.
Q. _What effect would our declaring war have upon the morale of the
Army, particularly on that of the selectees, which has been criticized
so much?_
A. Going to war would unquestionably cure all the troubles of the Army
sooner or later. It is not our soldiers’ fault if today in peacetime
they are restless and discontented at being compelled to do what must
seem to them very like playing at being soldiers. Would the spirit of a
football team be good if the team did nothing but practice football all
day long, month in and month out, and never played a game, and had no
games scheduled? What would be the spirit of a cast of players if they
had rehearsals every day for months and never staged a performance to
an audience, and had no performances scheduled?
Q. _From your travel throughout the country have you formed any
impression of what the morale of the Army actually is?_