[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.]
Sin,—One can only.feel sorry that Mr. R. G. Wahnsley, who writes a letter to you about conditions in Germany, should not find a better use for his reasoning powers than that of seeking an excuse for Nazi. brutality. His defence is that the hypothesis, that the troubles of post-War Germany are
directly due to an excessive and baneful -influence of the Jews upon German public -life," is genuinely credited in Germany. But the theory- of Germany's :War-guiltlessness is
also genuinely credited in Germany, and its most ardent preacheM are the identical people who have for years used anti-Semitism as their political ladder. Does your corre- spondent accept the theory of Germany's War-guiltlessness? If he does, let him say so. if not, why does he overlook the central factor in the explanation of Germany's after-War difficulties—namely, that the latter. are the natural conse- quences of Germany's policy before the War and of her actions during the War ?
" The evidence is fairly impressive," says Mr. Walmsley. Where is it ? He keeps it up his sleeve. The evidence, that has so far been adduced points impressively in the opposite direction and shows the large share which individual Jews have played in whatever greatness Germany has in the past achieved. " But it is a question," he goes on to say, " which required thorough investigation," and argues from that that the Nazis were justified in eliminating Jews from public life. In other words, punish your victim first and prove his guilt afterwards. Then Mr. Walmsley becomes pontifical. " This is an experiment which presumably any Sovereign State is legally entitled to make." What in the world does this mean ? We are not told whether we are to take this strange doctrine as true (a) absolutely, or (b) if the " baneful influence ".is sus- pected, or (c) if the " baneful influence " is proved. In the absence of evidence as to Mr. Wahnsley"s qualifications for presuming such a doctrine, one is constrained to ask on what authority he presumes it. And does the authority define where the line, if any, is to be drawn ? Would it justify, for example, the killing of Jews, instead of merely leaving them to starve (which is the policy ,Mr. Walmsley apparently up- holds) ? And how do pacifists fare under the doctrine ? Does it justify what the Nazis have done to them ? Is the autho- rity a higher and more reputable one than the Institute of international Law which has laid it down as a fundaMenial .principle that it is the duty of every State to allOw the indi- vidual equal rights of life, liberty and property without dis- tinction of nationality, race or religion ? And this last-named principle is incorporated in the Covenant, of the League nf Nations and has been accepted by the members of the League Of whom Germany is one !..
Lastly, Mr. Walmsley refers to the `` embittered atmosp4ere gratuitously created by a certain section.of our Press." Will he say which section of our Press has not been compelled by the facts to give the- lie to the German Government's stupid denials of atrocities ? The falsity of these denials has been exposed by The Times and the Madchester Guardian (to mention only two) ; it would be of interest to learn which section of our Press Mr. Walmsley will invoke to his support. When the truth is disclosed, the embitterment of those who stand to lose by the disclosure is not a " gratuitous creation " of the British Press, but a natural consequence.—I am, Sir,
Previous page
