862.00/3296
The Ambassador in Germany (Dodd) to the Secretary of State
[Received July 6.]
Sir: Referring to my despatch No. 946 of June 20, 1934, pages 3 and 4, I have the honor to recall that on Sunday, June 17, Vice Chancellor von Papen delivered at the University of Marburg in HesseNassau a speech entitled “The Aims of the German Revolution”. In this address he took occasion to discuss in a frank and critical spirit certain aspects and tendencies of the National Socialist movement. As a consequence this incident has produced a profound sensation in Germany and has aroused the bitter opposition of the more radical elements of the Party, such as Goebbels17 and Rosenberg.18 Even Hitler himself is said to be greatly disturbed.
The complete text of the address was of course not permitted to reach the public. Even a condensed version which it appears was released to the press after considerable revision was afterwards recalled [Page 226] by the Ministry of Propaganda. The Consul at Frankfort reports that the edition of the Frankfurter Zeitung in which this version was printed was seized by the police after a stock of newspapers had reached the news-vendors. The search for the offending sheets was so thorough that copies were snatched from the hands of the guests of restaurants and coffee houses.
Although no portion of the speech appeared in the press of Berlin, the Embassy was able to obtain for a few hours the loan of a pamphlet containing the original text. Owing however to the limited personnel it has not been practicable to make a complete copy and translation for the Department. A translation of excerpts selected from the majority of the more important passages is transmitted herewith.19
The leading points of the Vice Chancellor’s speech, all of which touch on controversial subjects, are as follows.
It has become necessary for the nation to rid itself of certain excesses and superfluities produced by the revolution. This should be done by frank and manly discussion, which now does not exist in the German press.
The conservatives, although some had feared an anti-democratic revolution, made common cause with the Nazis on January 30, 1933, and should therefore not be called “reactionaries” by the very young revolutionists.
The one party system is justified only long enough to assure the security of the change of government and until the new people have assumed control.
Christianity is a common religious basis on which Germans can unite. The state should not attempt to bring about religious reforms by force. This would make matters more difficult. The Germans should not shut themselves off from the Christian peoples of Europe by founding a religion based on racial concepts.
In a truly united people the battle cries of domestic politics must cease. The Government should not represent separate groups. Intellect and intelligence should not be discarded by the slogan of “intellectualism.” Intellectual people are not lacking in the vitality which is necessary to govern a nation.
Education for the service of the state is obvious and natural but it has its limits. Too much force and coercion should not be used. They produce dangerous reactions. Furthermore a people cannot be united by terroristic methods.
It is unwise to talk carelessly about a second revolutionary wave. Where could it lead? There is much discussion about socialization. Have we lived through an anti-Marxist revolution in order to carry [Page 227] out the programme of Marxism? Existing social problems can be solved only by placing property under the responsible control of individuals and not by irresponsible communism.
No revolution can continue indefinitely. It must finally stop and leave behind it a firmly constructed state. Therefore if a second wave of new life should traverse the German revolution it should not be a second revolution, but should only complete the work of the first.
There can be no dual control shared by state and party. The former must govern. Upon the outcome of this question hangs the fate of Germany’s revolution.
The economic situation is serious, but no organization can maintain public confidence merely by making propaganda. Therefore the campaign against the critics should not be carried on by exciting the youth and threatening helpless people. Confidence can be restored only by friendly and trusting contact with the nation.
As might be expected, the Vice Chancellor’s speech produced a violent reaction from the more radical element. On June 19, Alfred Rosenberg published a leading editorial in the Voelkischer Beobachter in which without mentioning any names he attacked Herr von Papen’s views. Only those who really participated in the battle, he said, can perceive the meaning of the revolution. Those who joined it later can never do so, even with the best will. It is also an error to believe that certain right wing groups can ever have had the same aims as the National Socialists. Their behavior indicates that their character is quite different. The spirit of the National Socialist movement is not to bring about a restoration of any political system but to embrace the entire life of the individual. It cannot be measured with the confessional standards of the 17th century. The German state is neither “lay” nor “secularized”, it embraces all intellectual, spiritual and political life.
Dr. Goebbels has been pouring out his vituperation on Herr von Papen, although he also does not mention the latter by name. In a speech delivered at a suburb of Berlin on June 21, he referred contemptuously to the critics as persons who never had any enthusiasm for National Socialism. They had not been able to prevent the Nazis from obtaining power over Germany and they now want to prevent them from using that power. They do not regret that the workman is receiving low wages, they hope thereby to turn the workman against National Socialism. “Thank God that the gentlemen in the club armchairs do not possess all the brains. The people have not forgotten the times when these gentlemen ruled and if they were too weak then to seize the power how can they be strong enough now? We have appropriated the right to that power because there was nobody else to claim that right, no crown prince, no commercial counselor, no big banker and no parliamentary leader! All of them let matters [Page 228] take their course. We however placed ourselves in the way of the avalanche of destruction and stopped it.” On June 25, he expressed similar sentiments of hostility to the so-called reactionaries at a large party meeting in Essen.
Owing to the abnormal conditions existing in Germany it is difficult to obtain a complete picture of the situation surrounding this remarkable address and the motives which prompted Herr von Papen to deliver it at this time. It is stated that the Chancellor had not seen the text, had not known that it would be delivered and was angry when he heard of the incident. On the other hand it is rumored that Herr Hess, the representative of the Chancellor, had given his consent to the speech and that it had been prepared three weeks before it was given. If so, why was the Chancellor unaware of it? In all events it is reported on reliable authority that a heated conversation has taken place between the two men and that von Papen has submitted his resignation which was not accepted, presumably because this would have merely aggravated the already tense situation.
Herr Hitler has already seen President Hindenburg who is now at his country place in East Prussia and it is reported that von Papen will proceed thither in a few days. The attitude of the President towards the speech is not definitely known. A telegram of congratulation is alleged to have been sent by him to von Papen. A later account ascribes the source of the message to the President’s son.
That an attempt will be made at least for the present to preserve appearances of cordiality is evidenced by the fact that both von Papen and Goebbels attended a reception in Berlin several days ago where they were seen to greet each other cordially. On Sunday last they both visited the races at Hamburg and were photographed together. It is reported that the crowd gave von Papen a friendly reception but greeted Goebbels with coldness.
The motives which impelled von Papen to make the address are a matter of surmise. He may have felt that it was necessary out of loyalty to Hitler to take an open stand in favor of more conservative methods of government. On the other hand, he may have meant the speech to be an encouragement and a rallying point for the conservative elements. In either case it seems to be the consensus of opinion that von Papen has spoken too early. The conservatives are not strong enough and the mass of the people are not sufficiently uncomfortable and disillusioned to support him in a demand for the dismissal of the radical leaders. Although a large number of the Reichswehr officers are presumed to be in sympathy with von Papen it is not believed that the army would at this time take a definite stand in favor of any political group.
For the present therefore Hitler may succeed in holding the situation in check. There is no doubt, however, that there is a profound [Page 229] feeling of discontent and apprehension prevalent throughout the country and that a trend to the left may well occur if economic conditions do not improve. Although von Papen’s statements have undoubtedly been received with distinct approval in wide circles it is quite probable that his political influence in the government has been materially affected.
Respectfully yours,