"No guns for the Huns" is a striking slogan attributed by Aneurin Bevan to Hugh Dalton, a strenuous opponent of German rearmament after the Second World War. Roy Jenkins recalls that German rearmament was opposed in the 1950's by the Left "as well as some (mostly First World War) German-haters of whom Dalton was the most dedicated". Dalton, then, is a promising candidate for a study of Vansittartism in the immediate post-war years, and German re-armament, which crystallised anti-German feeling, an issue of particular interest with respect to this theme.
(this article will be published by Rouen University and I have therefore withdrawn it here. However I have removed from the article a number of references to the anti-German feeling of the 1990s and these are left here:
Anti-German feelings revisited - German reunification
Almost 50 years later, Margaret Thatcher was to show a rugged anti-German feeling in response to the prospect of a very different change: not a working-class revolution this time, but the reunification of West and East Germany into an economically powerful rival. A kind of "neo-Vansittartism"? In December 1989, the Prime Minister invited the members of the board of directors of the Centre for Policy Studies to lunch. One of the guests, George Urban, has recently published extracts from his diary which reveal a form of anti-German feeling which harks back to the war and beyond. He describes how they were really there to listen, not to contribute very much. And what he heard astonished him. MT was opposed to reunification for reasons of old-fashioned nationalism. She did not need to disguise her views:
She felt she was among friends and could let her hair down. I was amazed to hear her uttering views about people and countries, especially Germany, which were not all that different from the Alf Garnett version of history.xl
When one or two of the guests dared to express a different view, she made some disturbing comments to Urban:
'You know, George,' she said coming quite close to me, 'there are things
that people of your generation and mine ought never to forget. We've been
through the war and we know perfectly well what the Germans are like, and
what dictators can do, and how national character doesn't basically change
...' and so on. This was disturbing. If the British prime minister feels
these things to be true, then we are heading for an unregenerate Europe,
and most of our work over the last thirty or forty years, from Monnet to
the present day, will have been wasted. I only hope my fears are unfounded.
Otherwise we will find ourselves back in 1910, and I said so to her in
guarded language. We were in for a lively lunch.
At table the German question was in the forefront of MT's mind again. Oliver
Knox came out on the PM's side: 'Yes, indeed,' he said, 'the Germans have
to be watched.' Mrs Thatcher's words on Germany went on being loaded with
anger - assertions rather than arguments: 'once a German, always a German';
'You can never trust them', and so on. It is, she said, now within the
Germans' power to expand into an economically dominant empire, and what
they could not attain through world wars they would try to achieve through
economic imperialism. The whole of Eastern Europe is going to be their
bailiwick; they are already taking over East Germany; all of which is going
to create a menace for Britain.
Hugh Thomas and I tried to put in a corrective: 'My impression has been',
Hugh said, 'that NATO and our defences have been created because we were
threatened by the Soviet Union. Have we switched enemies? Do we suddenly
have a threat facing us in the centre of Europe, from Germany, our ally?'
MT said: 'Well, we have always fought for a balance of power in Europe
and that has to be established again and again; don't be deceived by words.
As soon as the Germans have fully recovered they will reassert their hegemonic
interests throughout Eastern Europe,' and she went on representing the
British populist view of foreign affairs in disarmingly simple, not to
say simplistic language. I was distressed and so, I noticed, was Hugh Thomas.
She was a long way away from any informed analysis of what Europe is now
about, what the West German people and opinion-making Germany are like,
and what hope resides in a unified Europe. Here was offshore thinking with
a vengeance."xli
Urban remarks that he had the impression the PM and her friends had been unaffected by half a century of a very different world. They would, he thought, be happiest if they could turn the clocks back to Edwardian times. Hugh Thomas, the historian, who was also present, tried to put the view that there was, to use Braunthal's phrase, another Germany, which would emerge from reunification.
It [the prospect of reunification] was also a victory for the Germany of Bach, Beethoven, Goethe and Schiller and other writers and thinkers without whom European culture was unimaginable.xlii
However, this line of argument cut no ice with the Iron Lady. Urban was no more successful - and Thatcher no less distrustful of the German people - when she invited a group of advisers to a seminar at Chequers in March 1990. Urban again tried to put a more balanced view of Germany, one that was not wholly focused on the experience of two World Wars. His own view was quite different:
The German past is made up of a number of formative elements. The paintings
of Durer, the music of Bach, the achievements of Frederick Barbarossa and
the semi-barbarian culture which Tacitus found beyond the Rhine when he
wrote his Germania have all gone to shape German culture. Hitler is only
one element in that picture. Let us remember that in the mid-nineteenth
century (that is, not very long ago) the image which the rest of the world
had of the Germans was that of a pleasant, hopelessly inefficient, mild
lot of people with whom one could spend hours talking philosophy and drinking
good wine ...
There are highly discreditable elements in every nation's past - the Scots
were, right up to the seventtenth century, a barbarous, savage and murderous
race who committed the most appalling crimes against one another as well
as their enemies. The creation of the modern French nation by the conquest
of the French south from the thirteenth century onwards was one of the
most brutal chains of events in recorded history ... Yet it would be quite
wrong to infer, and nobody does infer, that Scots, or Germans, or Frenchmen
are history's natural barbarians or that they possess any other unalterable
characteristics - good, bad or indifferent.
Many of his arguments recall points raised by Braunthal (though the International Socialist Braunthal and the neo-liberal Urban would have found very little common ground in politics). He was unable to make any headway in the face of the PM's robust prejudice:
" ... she made no secret of her conviction that Germany was indeed historically a dangerous power, not only because of the First and Second World Wars, but because of the sheer size of her population, the diligence and discipline of her people, the unreliability (as she called it) of the German character, the likelihood of Germany embracing another 'mission' in Europe and so on. In other words, it was fairly obvious from the moment she began speaking that her gut reactions were anti-German."xliii
and later:
She didn't hide her cordial dislike of all things German (forgetting, it seemed, the Teutonic descent of the English nation, of the English language and of the royal family), aggravated by her distaste for the personality of Helmut Kohl, whom she saw not at all as a fellow-Conservative or a Christian Democrat, but as a German deeply mired in provincialism.' The contrast between herself as a visionary stateswoman with a world-view, and Kohl the wurst-eating, corpulent, plodding Teuton, has a long history in MT's imagination. Kohl's effectiveness in Europe was, she thought, due purely to the money in his pocket and the respect money commanded in the world (could this be wrong for a true Thatcherite?). And she was wondering how long it would be before German economic might were translated into political power - in which case she felt Germany would have won the Second World War, because what 'the Germans' could not attain by force of arms 'the Germans' would now be attaining by economic clout. I was appalled. Were these the views of a responsible prime minister?
And again later:
MT kept coming back, in response to this kind of argument (for some of the others were taking a similar line), with words like: 'But can we trust them?' She would accept that the Federal Republic was a responsible, democratic state in its financial and economic policies, helpful and humane all round, but could the Germans be trusted? What about those Prussians and Saxons who were now joining West Germany but had had no experience, since 1933, of any political system other than Nazism and Stalinism? How did we know what they might do and think; and wouldn't we therefore be giving hostages to fortune if we vested too much confidence in an enlarged Germany? I detected in all this the survivals of a deep sense of national rivalry with imperial Germany. MT's distrust harked back to the build-up of the Kaiser's sea-power, and to British alarm at seeing things happening in technology and world trade that threatened to beat Britain at its own game. Long memories don't help. The cur rent phase in the Anglo-German psychodrama bodes ill for British participation in Europe, although I think MT is realistic enough to see that, like it or not, Britain will soon have to play a more positive part than it has been playing so far, or else leave the Community.xliv
Margaret Thatcher remained apparently unmoved by arguments made by, among others, Hugh Trevor-Roper (Lord Dacre), recalling the impression he had had at an Auschwitz war crimes trial in Frankfurt, where he had been delighted to see that the younger generation were "untouched by the spirit of Nazism" and shocked by what they heard. This had convinced him that there had been "a sea-change in German thinking"xlv.
Again Urban tried arguments which echo those used by Braunthal:
I said: 'Aren't we uttering collective judgements, assuming and saying
that the Germans are guilty "in the seed", as it were, collectively
guilty; and doesn't this run counter to all our professions of liberal
democracy and individual responsibility? We keep saying that the Germans
are to be suspected because of Hitler, but we don't say all Frenchmen are
suspect because of Napoleon, or all Russians because of Ivan the Terrible,
or all Jews because of the genocidal things Joshua committed in Canaan
a few thousand years ago. Isn't there a touch of racism in all this - the
very sin we condemn in the Nazis - as well as a lack of Christian forgiveness?'
The PM wouldn't have that. She interjected, 'Yes, but in the cases of Napoleon
and Ivan the people didn't have a free vote. Hitler, however, was voted
into power.' Stone cut in to correct her, and I reinforced what he was
saying. We told her (although not precisely in these words) that, before
their 'Seizure of Power' on 30 January 1933, the Nazis never attained anything
like a majority either at national or local elections. Running against
Hindenburg for the presidency in March 1932, Hitler's share of the vote
was only 30.1 per cent against Hindenburg's 49.6 per cent, and when the
election had to be repeated in April, because Hindenburg had fallen short
of an absolute majority, Hindenburg won with an absolute majority of 53
per cent as against Hitler's 36.7 per cent. Even at the 5 March 1933 Reichstag
elections, conducted under a reign of terror following the Reichstag fire,
the Nazis won only 43.9 per cent of the vote, and had to face a large though
disunited and demoralized oppositionxlvi. But MT held on to the 'Hitler
was elected' argument regardless, ascribing in effect a kind of collective
guilt and unalterable national character to the Germans because of this
imaginary popular vote for Hitler in a free election.
None of this could shake her:
Margaret Thatcher was certainly assertive and refractory. Before anyone could finish an argument she would butt in and say something assertive like: 'Ah well, but not when you are talking to Germans. They will always be the same,' or 'How could they have done it? This was a civilized, highly cultured nation, Goethe and Beethoven being among their cultural heroes; how could they have incinerated people in Auschwitz?' etc. All of which is, of course, very true and no one would wish to deny the Nazis' guilt, least of all the Germans themselves. Gordon Craig pointed out that one couldn't make any criticism of the Nazi past that had not been made by the Germans themselves a thousand times over. Some of the breast-beating was almost embarrassing. But I think the prime minister was not quite aware of this. She seemed to have no knowledge of the strength of the anti-Nazi element in German politics, or of the power of self-incrimination in the whole of post-war German political culture.
None of this might have been disclosed had there not been a leak of the 'confidential memorandum' prepared for the meeting by Charles Powell, and published in the Independent on Sunday, 15 July 1990. Urban was deeply disturbed , because he felt that the views expressed did not represent the outcome of the discussions, but resembled rather the minutes for the meeting that the same Charles powell had prepared and circulated beforehand.
'We started by talking about the Germans themselves and their characteristics,' Powell minuted. 'Like other nations they had certain characteristics, which you could identify from the past and expect to find in the future. It was easier - and more pertinent to the present discussion - to think of the less happy ones: their insensitivity to the feelings of others (most noticeable in their behaviour over the Polish border), their obsession with themselves, a strong inclination to self-pity, and a longing to be liked. Some even less flattering attributes were also mentioned as an abiding part of the German character: in alphabetical order, angst, aggressiveness, assertiveness, bullying, egotism, inferiority complex, sentimentality. Urban and other participants were not at all happy about the leak: When all is said and done, Powell's much-quoted account is a piece of special pleading. Unquestionably, the PM - and Powell were anxious to have confirmation from us of all the things Powell had implied in his questionnaire, but we just didn't oblige. Some of his themes were challenges or moots rather than considered statements a scholarly group could be expected to spend time discussing. Nor have I any recollection of serious thought being given to Powell's by now famous 'characteristics' the Germans are supposed to have: 'Angst, aggressiveness, assertiveness, bullying, egotism, inferiority complex, sentimentality ... capacity for excess, kicking over the traces', etc. These saloon-bar clich*s were simply not discussed and would have been politely dismissed had any attempt been made to subject them to serious consideration. Of course, MT herself is not at all unwilling to talk about the Germans (and other foreigners) in such portmanteau terms, and it may well be that over lunch or tea she did so privately, though not within my earshot. Only last Friday one of her (unnamed) senior colleagues was quoted in the papers as having said: 'Anyone who has attended ministerial meetings with the Prime Minister, as I have, will tell you that if it's not the unspeakable crimes of the German people, it's the perfidy of the French, the idleness of the Mediterraneans, the slit eyes of those to the East, the blackness of those elsewhere, the views of her brother-in-law on his farm in the South of England, or those of the people in the flats of Finchley." (Anthony Bevins Independent, 13 July 1990).
Margaret Thatcher was not the only Conservative to have expressed, albeit in private, a certain anti-German prejudice. In an interview given over lunch with the editor of The Spectator, Nicholas Ridley was unwise enough to give vent to his views. The editor published them, and Ridley's political career came abruptly to an end. Urban recalls:
In July 1990, Nicholas Ridley, secretary of state for trade and industry, and a close friend of the prime minister, was forced to resign from Margaret Thatcher's government because of certain comments he had made about Germany in the weekly journal the Spectator (14 July 1990). On Monetary Union: 'This is all a German racket designed to take over the whole of Europe. It has to be thwarted.... The deutschmark is always going to be the strongest currency, because of their habits.' On European integration: 'I'm not against giving up sovereignty in principle, but not to this lot. You might just as well give it to Adolf Hitler, frankly.' On Europe's post-communist architecture: 'It has always been Britain's role to keep these various powers balanced, and never has it been more necessary than now, with Germany so uppity,' etc. Dominic Lawson, editor of the journal, commented: 'Mr Ridley's confidence in expressing his views on the German threat must owe a little something to the knowledge that they are not significantly different from those of the prime minister ... even though in public she is required not to be so indelicate as to draw comparisons between Herren Kohl and Hitler.'
In an article in the THES a couple of weeks ago, Richard Crockett of Holloway College ponders Britain's outdated perceptions of Germany. In this respect, he feels that Britain has become a prisoner of history. Britain's interest in Germany begins and ends with the Nazis. Anything before 1933 or after 1945 is of only minor interest. Crockett quotes both Charles Powell/MT and Nicholas Ridley. He finds an "unhealthy obsession" with Nazism, as evidenced in British television (and Hollywood films like Indiana Jones), in the most popular choice of Inter-Rail itinerary through Germany (Berlin (for Hitler's bunker), Dachau, the Eagle's Nest, Nuremberg (for the rally, not for the trial), and, most interesting of all, in the fact that Nazi Germany is far and away the most popular special subject/option among A-level history students. For three years he has been admissions tutor for History at Holloway College:
I have yet to meet one (out of about 50) who has not done a special paper in Nazi Germany at GCSE or A level. I gave up some time ago trying to steer the conversation on to France or Spain. They know a lot about Hitler, but nothing about the achievements of postwar Germany. Mention of Erhard, Adenauer, Brandt or the "social-market economy", elicits a range of blank expressions. [ ...] Fearing that our applicants might be uniquely fascinated by black leather and arm bands, I phoned the examination boards. They told me that Holloway applicants are representative, because school history students study Nazis to the exclusion of almost anything else. At the biggest board, the Midlands Examining Group, 50,000 GCSE students take the modern world history paper, almost all taking "Inter-War Germany'' as one of two options from ten. Of 15,000 taking A-level history in 1997 with another board, 10,000 are doing the option on Nazi Germany. The examiners say they are responding to demand-these "are things that teachers want to teach", because that's what the students are interested in. The range of options will narrow in the next few years-but you can guess which one will stay in plaÏ. There are no opportunities to study Germany or modern Europe, because papers in these subjects do not exist. There is a vicious circle at work here. Students study Nazi Germany because that is what everyone else in Britain seems to be interested in, schools shoehorn students into taking the exam options because that is what holds their attention, and exam boards provide the papers because that is where the "demand" lies. So they all come out as experts in Nazi Germany, viewing modern Eurape through a prism which reinforces the generational obsession with Germans as Nazis.xlvii
The article is illustrated by a "cut-out" front page published by the Mirror on the occasion of the Euro 96 semi-final last year. Echoing the language of countless war comics, it says "Achtung! Surrender! For you fritz, ze Euro 96 Championship is over." The witty little article accompanying the picture, under the headline "Mirror declares football war on Germany", is embarrassing in the extreme:
Last night the Daily Mirror's ambassador in Berlin handed the German government a final note stating that, unless we heard from them by 11 o'clock that they were prepared at once to withdraw their football train from Wembley, a state of football war would exist between us. I have to tell you now that no such undertaking was received and that consequently we are at soccer war with Germany."
The article continues with a similar "skit" on the entire text of Chamberlain's sombre radio broadcast, referring to our loyal forces who are "bravely resisting this unprovoked assault in their determination to liberate the European Championship trophy". Proof indeed that Britain is stuck in a time-warp!
Urban, 103 xli Idem, 105 xlii Idem, 111 xliii Idem, p. 124 xliv Idem, p. 133 xlv Idem, p. 134 xlvi Perhaps it was a little tactless to make this point to Margaret Thatcher, who had won two general elections in extremely similar circumstances! xlvii Richard Crockett. "Please don't mention the war", THES April 25 1997, p. 18-19
Dernière mise à jour 23 1 98