BRITAIN AND BUCHENWALD SIR, —The gist of the already tedious argument
between Mr. Gollancz and myself seems to be this. He wrote in his pamphlet that be "rut a heavier burden of responsibility (i.e., for the horrors of Buchenwald, &c.) on the common people of England than on the common people of Germany," and that he believes in "the direct responsibility of every human being for what happens to other human beings throughout the world." I suggested, in effect, that _the atrocities of Buchenwald did rot just "happen," but were committed by specific groups of people, who must be held responsible for what they have done. Mr. Gollancz, finding this a difficult idea, contends that these groups of people are not " ordinary Germans." I replied that whatever they are, they are certainly not " ordinary Englishmen," and therefore his original contention is absurd. Finding this, it seems, a still more subtle and difficult idea, he now accuses me of " making mistakes." Since Mr. Gollancz talks so much about " responsibility," one is entitled to ask why he applies the principle enunciated in his pamphlet, that " there is no wiser rule of life than to blame ourselves and not others," to nations but not to parties within a nation. Tlyt recent publications of Gollancz, Limited, have certainly not- sought to blame the Left for past follies.—Yours
[This correspondence is now closed..:—En. The Spectator.]
Previous page
