This document is held in the Hoover Institution Archives, Stanford, USA, and appears to be intended by Stephanie as an introduction to her memoirs, which were never published. Written in her own English, with its breathless punctuation preserved, it probably dates from 1940, soon after she emigrated from Britain to the United States. Tr.
Ah … oh … ah … What is it, Anna? … Ah … the mail … What’s the time? … Nine, already? … Really? … Well, I suppose, another day … Ah, what a heap of letters …! And probably not a letter in it … not what I call a letter … No … no … no … just some orange-juice and coffee … Printed Matter, Printed Matter, Printed Matter … Four-fifths of my so-called mail … What a waste! … Does anyone ever read this rubbish? … Well, I suppose the post-office and the printers must live … Ah, a letter …! No … bills, bills, bills … I’m not in a paying mood … alas. I shall have to, some day … noblesse oblige … What does the world want of me, day after day …? They want me to buy, or they want me to pay … to buy, to pay … Another business letter … Well, at least something different … A literary agency … Ah … the story of my life … my memoirs? … ‘Of great interest … some inquiries …’
They want my memoirs … well … am I so old already? What is the proper age for looking back …? When I was fifteen I loved to sit at a window in the sunset, to remember … to remember … I don’t know what I remembered then, but I loved those hours of sweet melancholia. I felt so deep and wise and I meditated on the vanity of all things … vanitas vanitatum … It’s a long time since I indulged in those evening moods of looking back …
My memories … How old am I really …? Without the benefit of the doubt … just facing the stern realities of documents … I was born in Vienna in September 1899 [in fact, it was 1891. Tr.]. But they must think me much older, if they want ‘the story of my life’ … How pompous, anyhow … Of course, I have a grown-up son … an Oxford graduate … That dates me, definitely … But still – my memoirs … ‘As a political woman.. .’ A political woman … a political woman … how heavy! A political woman …! Am I a political woman? What is a political woman??
Let’s begin at the beginning … the Bible … well, there was Potiphar [she presumably means Potiphar’s wife, who tried to seduce Joseph. Tr.] … a woman in her dangerous age … that’s all … The Queen of Sheeba [sic] … Judith, cutting off the head of Holofernes … patriotic, by all means … but more characteristic of an angry woman than of a political woman … Queen Esther intervened … intervened gloriously, on behalf of her persecuted nation, but she is more like a lovely phantom out of ‘A Thousand and One Nights’ than a political schemer … And as to all others out of both Testaments … well, they are just lovers, mothers, sisters, daughters … They are all so feminine, because the Bible is so masculine … Written by men, of course …
Aspasia1 … was she a political woman? What was she anyhow? The Greeks had a word for it … [Stephanie adds the word hetaira, meaning ‘female companion’ or ‘courtesan’, but has crossed it out.] … The friend or the mistress of statesmen, philosophers, poets and rich men … Was she a bluestocking, because she allowed poets to lie at her feet, or was she a political woman, because she let statesmen do likewise? … Who can tell? … Then there was Lysistrata … Was she a real person, or just a character in a comedy?2 Anyhow, she was a practical pacifist … Her idea to get the boys out of the trenches by bedtime, was eminently more political than Henry Ford’s idea to get them out by Christmas … It was political all right … And what about the Amazons?3 Mythological or real – it was politics to organize a state of women … I wonder if they really existed …?
The empress Theodora [of Byzantium] was certainly a political woman … Lucrezia Borgia …? She was for the Borgias, that was all. Did she really use poison …? Was it politics, or was it murder for profit? … No, she was not a political woman … Catherine de Medici4 … Yes! … All the French ladies of the French Louis? Decidedly, no! … They were interested in Kings, but not in political ideas or systems … Court intrigues – yes; politics, no! … Joséphine Beauharnais [Napoleon’s first wife] … a courtesan amongst politicians, but was not a ‘political woman’ … the Empress Eugénie [wife of Napoleon III] … perhaps …?
The Empress Maria-Theresa [of Austria] … She preserved an embattled empire … She fought several wars … She withstood Frederick the Great [of Prussia] … But was she a political woman? No, she was a mother, a mother of her family, a mother of her country, always the mother … If she had inherited a laundry instead of an empire, she might have been Madame Sans-Gêne,5 if she had inherited a restaurant, she might have been Frau Sacher,6 smoking a cigar … How amazingly like her was Queen Victoria! The same motherly virtues, the same amorous devotion to the husband, the same jealousy of her power and divine rights, the same puritanism and the same vast progeny … Surrounded by statesmen for more than sixty years, she still remained the woman Victoria … Both used the best political minds of their age, but both remained almost naively apolitical …
But Queen Elizabeth, the Virgin Queen … Yes, a thousand times, yes! … The political woman, par excellence … Obviously I cannot formulate a definition … Yet, I feel somehow the meaning of the phrase … Elizabeth was political! In instinct, in desire, in thought, in action … Perhaps because she was childless … perhaps because she was a virgin … even if she wasn’t one …
And the suffragettes …? I’m probably wrong, but they seem to me more hysterical than political … Isn’t it telling that they achieved the vote, but not the power …? How strange that hardly one of the militant suffragettes ever received the votes they secured! Wherever the women’s suffrage movement succeeded, the suffrage leaders disappeared. Where are the Pankhursts e tutti quanti …? Gone with the votes …
Is Margot Asquith, Lady Oxford, a political woman? … No, she was merely devoted to her husband7 … Is Lady Astor8 a political woman …? No, she is simply annoyed by tobacco and alcohol … Are Lady Snowden9 and Mrs Sidney Webb10 political women? Was Mrs Woodrow Wilson11 a political woman? Perhaps, although … no offence meant … I suspect she only wanted to be cheered in the Champs Elysées … what about Miss Perkins, Mrs Roosevelt, Dorothy Thompson?12 … I wonder … And the Duchess of Atholl, Lady Londonderry, Mrs Greville13 … I don’t know … Political hostesses are not necessarily political women, nor are wives concerned with the political careers of their husbands, nor trade union leaders or officials of similar pseudo-political [sentence unfinished] …
Damn that letter … Who wrote it anyhow? … How like a businessman … utterly illegible signature … Ah … I beg your pardon, sir … the name is typed as well as written … My mistake, Mr Thompson … Who are you, Mr Thompson? … What are you like? … Apart from being a Vice-President of a literary agency … And why in heaven’s name do you consider me a political woman?!? … Am I? …
Well, I am at a loss … When might I first have felt or thought politically? … certainly not as a ‘flapper’ … As a war nurse, perhaps? … I was only seventeen … There was no time for thinking … I am sure my disposition was not cerebral … Cursing the war was not exactly thinking … I was a Red Cross nurse … My soul, my heart, my mind were just Red Cross … nothing else … I wanted to help and I did help … It hardly mattered on which side I nursed …
Did political passion surge up in me at the fall of Austria-Hungary? Did I thirst for revenge? … Did I think about ways and means of reconstructing the stricken monarchy? … Did I think at all? … No, I didn’t … My mind was fully occupied with the day-to-day problems of any individual in a defeated and starving country … First I had to get back from the Isonzo front to Vienna … That was not as simple then as it sounds … Thereafter came the hourly problems of lighting, heating, feeding … of money and a thousand other necessities in the dying, decomposing capital of a state that had suddenly vanished … Like millions of others I was just a stunned human being … a stunned human being, yes … but not a ‘political animal’ …
Then came love … marriage … childbirth … No time for politics … The horizon seemed to be clouded by nasty monsters called the succession states14 … but that was all … Names like Versailles, St Germain, Trianon15, filled the air … but when did I find myself first directly concerned with a political problem? I suppose it must have been much, much later … probably in London … probably in the late Twenties … at the time when the propaganda for the resurrection of Hungary first started … the reunion of the lands of the crown of St Stephan [sic] …
Strange … I was born in Vienna … I grew up in Vienna … I loved Vienna … I was a Vienna girl … And like all the others I sang: ‘Wien, Wien, nur Du allein.. .’ at my most sentimental … Yet it never occurred to me to dream or to think of a reborn Austria-Hungary … An almost pleasant nostalgia for the past filled our hearts and eyes … but the future never reached our imagination … My family and my friends certainly desired the return of the Hapsburgs [sic, the correct spelling is ‘Habsburgs’, something an Austrian ‘princess’ should surely have known] … but it was more the proper façon de parler than the expression of political thoughts or emotions … There was no backbone to it … The renaissance of a Danubian empire or, at least, an economic federation of the Danubian countries was a frequent conversational topic … but hardly more than that …
I had married a Hungarian prince … that is to say my husband belonged to the Hungarian branch of a mediatized16 German dynastic family … Thus I became a Hungarian citizen, which I still am … But when I found myself agitated by the bleeding frontiers of Hungary, when I began myself to agitate for the healing of ‘the wounded land’ … why, at that time I had already been divorced from my husband for several years … Would I have acted for Tschecho-Slovakia [sic] if I had married a Prince Lobkowitz instead of a Prince Hohenlohe? … It might have happened … No, no … my language was Viennese, my sentiments were Austrian, my tastes were cosmopolitan and my reactions were humanitarian … The political intermezzi in my life, such as they were, must have been due to circumstances, but not to political impulses … No, no, I don’t think I am a political woman, Mr Thompson … You probably think so because my name has been linked with Lord Rothermere and other such celebrities or notorieties as Adolf Hitler, Admiral Horthy, Gömbös17 … Isn’t that a little superficial? … I believe that I have a friendly and helpful disposition … I like human beings … I enjoy helping others … and, God knows, this is a time when help is needed … but …
What, Anna? … It’s eleven?! … I hate you, illegible Mr Thompson … Your letter set me day-dreaming … I missed my manicure and my massage … memories … I shall have to forego a good deal of my present, if I am to start remembering … What indulgence! … Do you want me to? Even if I am not really a political woman?
I must admit that there is much to remember … My years of maturity fell into a most turbulent period … I happened to be near the whirlpool … and I escaped … But there are many things I wish I could forget … You want me to remember them particularly? … I’ll try.
It should be noted that Hitler wrote this letter only a few weeks after taking Germany out of the League of Nations and the Disarmament Conference in October 1933. There is evidence that Hitler feared sanctions by the League of Nations, in the form of physical invasion of Germany by France, Poland and Czechoslovakia. Had this taken place, Germany would not have been strong enough at that time to repel it.
This helps to explain Hitler’s uncertain tone, a mixture of injured innocence and veiled threats.
It was Hitler’s custom to dictate or draft a letter in German and then have it translated by one of his staff, often his interpreter, Paul Schmidt. The English is far from perfect. Tr.
Dear Lord Rothermere,
You have been good enough to communicate to me through Princess von Hohenlohe a number of suggestions for which I wish to express to you my most sincere thanks. I would furthermore like to give expression to the feelings of numberless Germans who consider me as their spokesman, for the journalist support, both wise and happy, of the policy of which we all hope that it will contribute to the final liberation of Europe. Princess von Hohenlohe gave me a translation of the great article written to which I took the liberty of referring already some time ago. I particularly welcomed the reference contained in this article with regard to the usefulness of an Anglo-French defensive alliance. I am convinced that an Anglo-French friendship for the maintenance of a real peace can be very useful. Germany herself has no aggressive intentions against France; however fanatically we may be resolved to defend ourselves against an attack we are against any idea of provoking, ourselves, a war. As old soldiers of the world war – I was myself in the front line for four and a half years facing British and French soldiers – we have all of us a very personal experience of the terrors of a European war. Refusing any community with cowards and deserters we freely accept the idea of duty before God and our own nation to prevent with all possible means the recurrence of such a disaster. This cannot be definitely achieved for Europe unless the treatment of the critical problem, whose existence cannot be denied, is transferred from the atmosphere of hatred in which victors and vanquished face each other, to a basis on which nations and countries deal with each other on a footing of equality. This equality for Germany does not involve any danger for French security, for:
In the first place this equality of rights is at the same time connected with a solemn recognition of the territorial situation as created between Germany and France by the world war subject to the return of the Saar Territory.1
In the second place I am moved by the idea to attempt thereby to put an end, once and forever, to the fruitless struggle of the two nations against each other. Nobody can deny that the importance of the objects and the greatness of the results which might in all cases be achieved, would be in no proportion to the consequences of a war between the two nations, which might only too easily degenerate also in future into a new world war. Even if the parts were equally distributed, any possible gain would not be justified if compared with the unspeakable sacrifices. A reconciliation of these two nations however would take a burden from everybody except perhaps a small international clique, who wants fighting and disagreement among the nations because it may require these for political and other transactions.2 In particular however I want to express my conviction that no soldier who served during the Great War at the front, of whatever nationality he may be, desires another war.
Such reconciliation would however presuppose the removal of the defamatory provisions of the peace treaties. Material differences can be discussed objectively but dishonourable defamations and insults cannot.
In the third place: From the military point of view, France would not be menaced either by such a development. France has surrounded herself with a system of fortification3 which can even resist the material means of attack used in a world war. The fact is that without the most enormous sacrifices and without the heaviest offensive arms any attack against this system would be absolute madness. Germany has not the slightest intention of attacking. This is also the reason why we are ready in principle to renounce the possession of such aggressive arms, which might perhaps appear dangerous to France. But even if France is anxious to strengthen her security when Germany is no less anxious, we are therefore not inclined to renounce the possession of defensive arms. Germany would have more reason to feel herself menaced by France’s offensive armaments than France has to fear Germany’s defensive arms. France has a common frontier with Germany of hardly 400 kilometres [240 miles].4 Behind that front there is the greatest instrument of war of all times. Germany has a frontier of over 3,000 kilometres [1,800 miles], and what is there behind it? We are not inclined to recognise the situation as permanent, nay even as one corresponding to the laws of nature. We are ready to disarm to the last, but only subject to the condition that the other nations will do the same. If they don’t, we are not prepared to allow ourselves to be permanently treated as a second-rate nation. Nor can we admit this in the interest of the guarantee of peace. A country like Germany which has economically such an important element constitutes, if it is completely defenceless, by the mere fact of its existence in disturbed times, a certain incentive to become the object of an attack!
In the fourth place: The demand for an army of 300,000 men, particularly when it is put forward together with a renunciation of heavy aggressive arms, and if account is taken of Germany’s situation in regard to her military defence, constitutes a menace to nobody. Across her frontier, Germany has France with over 600,000 men, Poland with 370,000 men, Czechoslovakia with 250,000 men.
All these nations possess offensive arms of the heaviest kind. Apart from the wholly inadequate fortress of Königsberg,5 Germany does not even possess defensive works at her frontiers. To speak of a menace means deliberately mis-stating the truth.
In the fifth place: Germany has no more ardent desire than to achieve with the other European nations a situation excluding the use of force in Europe for the future, possibly by a system of non-aggression pacts, in order thereby to relieve the economic life which is suffering from depression in all countries from the nightmare of warlike complications.
The objection according to which we would thereby separate France from her allies is not intelligible. Germany has no reason to oppose alliances which, in so far as they are defensive, only constitute an increased guarantee of peace. In the same way it is wrong to object that, by an anticipated settlement of the Saar problem, we would be depriving France of one of her rights. For, in the first place, this solution can only be found by agreement among the two countries, and in the second place it is not a right which France holds in respect of the Saar Territory, but Germany was given a concession in so far as the population of the Saar territory would be placed in a position in 1935 to decide upon their future. This decision will be almost 100 per cent in favour of Germany.6 Now I believe that in these circumstances a settlement of this problem before 1935 would already mark a beginning of détente in Europe and above all [would] be liable to influence most favourably the relations between France and Germany. If I wished for triumph, then I could only want the plebiscite because it will involve a heavy defeat for France. I could therefore quietly wait another 18 months. But I want understanding and conciliation and therefore I believe that precisely this problem should already be dealt with in the spirit of this new development. The allegation, however, that I need this or a similar success for reasons of internal policy can only be made in complete ignorance of the situation in Germany.
I can assure your Lordship that I and the present German regime do not need such cheap successes of popularity. Our regime cannot be destroyed in Germany, not because we are holding the power, but because the hearts of the whole nation belong to us. The nation cannot give me in future more confidence than it has given me on 12 November.7 If I favour the settlement of Franco-German relations I do so merely because I desire to substitute a real peace of conciliation for a situation overladen with hatred. Finally it must also be borne in mind that I am offering the friendship of a nation of 66 million and which is not valueless in other respects. And just as I see no reason for the war in the west, I don’t see any in the east. The endeavour to reach an understanding between Germany and Poland springs from the same desire to exclude force and to approach soberly and dispassionately the various tasks set to us. In how far however, the re-establishment of equality of rights for Germany should affect Great Britain in her relations to France I am all the more unable to understand. I believe on the contrary that equality of rights to Germany could only enhance the value of an Anglo-French friendship or alliance.
If I have thus submitted quite frankly these ideas to your Lordship, I have done so in order to give proof of my appreciation of the high value of the journalistic attitude adopted by your Lordship in the British press.
Thanking you again most sincerely for the support which you are giving to a truly European policy of peace, I am
Yours faithfully
Adolf Hitler
Prince Wilhelm (1882–1951) was the eldest son of Kaiser Wilhelm II, who abdicated in 1918. This document is written in English, from Unter den Linden, Berlin W8. Its unidiomatic language suggests that it was written by the crown prince in his own English. There is no royal crest on the copy document, it is not hand signed, and it comes from a central Berlin address, not from his Cecilienhof palace in Potsdam. All this suggests that the crown prince typed it himself as secretly and anonymously as possible, in case the letter was intercepted. Following the abdication and exile of his father, the crown prince had no royal or even official status, still less after Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933. For Prince Wilhelm to write a letter like this was risky. Only days after this letter was written, Hitler had hundreds of his political opponents and rivals, including conservatives like ex-Chancellor Schleicher, murdered in cold blood. Tr.
Dear Lord Rothermere,
Princess Hohenlohe’s visit gives me the opportunity to send you a letter safely, a letter which might possibly interest you. It is hardly necessary to accentuate, that the contents of this letter are meant only for you personally.
In my life until now I have always held to it, to try at certain periods of time to render account to myself about my own existence, but also, and perhaps particularly so, about the great issues of the age and the problems concerning my fatherland. I was trying to do the same thing, as it were, that a business man does, who, at certain periods, is determining the balance, or, what we army leaders during the world war did, when we prepared reports on the general situation at certain moments. At such stops I have always found it very valuable to discuss my findings with some person, who seemed certain to possess enough knowledge and experience of his own, to make an exchange of one’s views with his, helpful to both. For some time I have also felt the desire to express to you frankly my thoughts about the situation here in Germany, and to beg you then to communicate to me just as frankly – applying your great experience in political matters and your deep knowledge of human beings and of social interdependencies – your own reaction to my views.
How things in Germany appear to me today, I shall try to set forth as follows:
Hitler came into power at the right psychological moment. A lost war with its tremendous sacrifices, the revolution following it, all the humiliations of the Peace Treaty of Versailles, the senseless destruction of our entire war material, the degrading reparation payments, which burdened our people with insane debts, the consecutive inflation, which ruined the most valuable parts of the nation, the middle classes, the incredible confusion and corruption amongst the bosses of the Red regime, the inwardly utterly decayed democratic parliamentarism under the perilous leadership of the Social Democrats and the Zentrum [centre parties] – all this had created an atmosphere enveloping the whole German people, within which all faith had disappeared, all authority of the State had been undermined, and where only the individual as such was still trying, in crassest egotism though, to provide for its existence somehow. Such was the mood, when Adolf Hitler, whose genius had understood [how] to hammer into the broad masses of the workers the faith in a new National Socialist Germany, began his ascent. Hitler found his followers not only among labourers; every decent German, who had hated and despised the black-red-gold [Weimar] republic from the innermost of his soul, saw in him the saviour of our people. The more so as even men like General von Seeckt, Stresemann, Brüning and also General von Schleicher,1 to all of whom I cannot deny the recognition of their great abilities and best intentions, had never shown the will and the energy, required for really thoroughgoing action. Thus I also joined Adolf Hitler, already at a time, when wide circles of the Stahlhelm2 and particularly of the German nationalists refused to recognise him. May I remind you of our last conversation at Cecilienhof and of the things I had to say in favour of Hitler? May I summarise it once more shortly:
I had tried repeatedly to induce already Chancellor Brüning to retire voluntarily, and to recommend Hitler as his successor, to the Field-Marshal [President Hindenburg]. I continued these attempts under the Chancellorship of General von Schleicher. At the Presidential elections I stated publicly that I would vote for Adolf Hitler and against the Field-Marshal. I believe to have thus secured for Adolf Hitler about two million votes3 from my Stahlhelm comrades and from the German nationalists. I also intervened personally to obtain the cancellation of the interdict against the National Socialist formations. – At last the old Field-Marshal, after the negotiations of Franz von Papen, entrusted Adolf Hitler with the leadership of the Reich, as its Chancellor. All I can say is that on that day indescribable jubilation went through the whole German nation. Then came the day at Potsdam (Church of the Garrison), a speech deeper and more moving than any I had ever heard from a German statesman. Only one who has been present on that occasion can realise the sublime mood of the Germans in those hours. Large parts of the nation expected already then that Adolf Hitler would express on that day the reunion with the monarchy in some form.4
The first actions of the new government were highly satisfying; they showed the determination to penetrate all spheres without any inhibition. They launched their program of work, magnificently and brilliantly. The corruption of the Red bosses was thoroughly exterminated. Social Democrats, Communists and the Zentrum were liquidated. The rearmament of the nation was recognised as a necessity. The withdrawal from the League of Nations and from the Disarmament Conference announced to the world at large the determination of the new German government, behind which, for the first time, the whole nation was concentrated, not to tolerate any longer [being] treated as a second-class people. At the same time everything was done to re-start [the] German economy. The motor-car industry experienced an unparalleled expansion. Monumental road-building was begun; the ‘labour service’ undertook the profitable task of cultivating unused and, until then, uninhabitable land. And German aviation was revived under a new impulse.
All these things filled every sincere German with pride and joy. And thus the respect for, and the confidence in the personality of the Führer Adolf Hitler grew from month to month. That was also the time when my personal relations with Adolf Hitler were friendly and enjoyable.
Slowly, and hardly noticeably at first, shadows began to fall upon this scene so full of light. To understand why it was possible at all that such clouds should invade the sky of the Third Reich, one must realise that it was not Hitler alone who determined the policy of the National Socialist Party. His pure intentions and his occasional greatness of thought cannot be disputed. But the National Socialist Party consists, as you know, of the most variegated elements. In their ranks you can find the formerly German nationalist land-owner, as well as the formerly Communist mechanic; naturally, the best friends and advisers of the Führer, who have been at his side since the time of their earliest struggle for power, are of equally different coinage. The names of Hess, Röhm, Göring, Goebbels, Darré, Baldur von Schirach5 and others represent – although they are all National Socialists, and although they are certainly faithful followers of the Führer – just as many programmes. Each of them according to his inclination and to his predisposition. And thus one can distinguish clearly two different trends within the movement; the one which accentuates the word ‘National’ and the other which accentuates the word ‘Socialist’ in their party’s name. One of the representatives of the second trend, or rather its spiritual leader, is the Minister of the Reich, Dr Goebbels, an exceptionally intelligent man, a former pupil of the Jesuits, who is a master of all the arts of demagogy. Everything in the Germany of today that we can only contemplate with grave concern, such as the ever growing radicalisation of the movement, the continual catering to the masses, the fight against Judaism, against the Catholic Church, against the intellectuals, against the ‘Reaction’ (which comprises all the parts of the nation, which are today still monarchistic) – is the work of the Minister of Propaganda and of the men of his spiritual orientation.
Conditions are now such that the entourage of the Führer is isolating him more and more, and that men of independent opinion are rarely or never admitted to his presence. On the other hand, the influence of the Minister of the Reich, Dr Goebbels, who spends his days and nights with the Führer, appears ever-increasing. The greatest part of the German people have today only one desire: tranquillity. To pursue one’s trade or occupation undisturbedly, to earn one’s living in a way securing a fairly decent existence – that is the general hope of all sober Germans. This mentality does not suit at all the men who think as the Minister of Propaganda does. They thrive on conflict and unrest. The people must be whipped up again and again, must never settle down to start thinking. And that’s why we have to witness these everlasting parades and mass meetings, why we have to listen to all the demagogic speeches against the Jews, against the Churches, against foreign countries and against the past. Therein lies the danger: the young generation is being more and more brought up in the radical spirit of the Left. Within the ‘Hitler Youth’ the authority of the parental home is being undermined systematically. Children, who have learned yet nothing, are told continually that they represent the most valuable part of the population. All men over thirty are represented as oldsters, already senile, who have no longer any right to exist. This tendency, crystallised in the person of the Minister of Propaganda, disquiets deeply all of us, who are sincerely concerned with the welfare of the fatherland, and who are today still standing solidly behind our Führer, Adolf Hitler. Recently I have discussed frequently the present situation and my anxieties with various men, whose judgement means a great deal to me. The result of all these conversations was always the same: it will be possible to overcome the great difficulties of the immediate future only if one should succeed in opening the eyes of the Führer to the development of the ‘movement’ in Germany – a development certainly much against his intentions – and to growing discontent. He must be told the truth about the doings of the so-called Nazi bosses, and be convinced that the zero hour has arrived for him to intervene drastically – particularly in matters of the personnel – and to remove all the crowd unfit for their positions and of direct menace.
In my personal view the Führer would strengthen and fortify his own position in the German nation to a quite extraordinary extent, if he could bring about a union with the monarchy in some form or other. How this is to be done is a question of staging. But for the time being it does not seem as if the Führer has arrived already at the recognition of such a necessity. In view of your great experience and of the respect which you enjoy in Germany, it might be of great profit to our fatherland, but also to the whole world, I think, if you, dear Lord Rothermere, would acquaint the Führer with some of these observations and thoughts, provided that you also consider them as true, and that an opportunity for doing so should arise. Only quite independent men like you, Lord Rothermere, who are also elements of power in themselves, can afford to tell the Führer the truth frankly.
That’s how I see the situation as a whole. It would interest me more than I can say, to hear how our affairs appear to you, an observer under no influence.
I have always regretted it that until now all contacts between our family and the English Royal Family have remained entirely disrupted. The happier I was, therefore, when I heard that my son Hubertus has had the opportunity of seeing the Prince of Wales and the Duke of York. He related to me enthusiastically his impressions of the cordial and comrade-like manner of the Prince of Wales. During the present year my son Fritz is to accept the invitation of Lord Jellicoe, and to participate at the regatta in Cowes. Personally, I would consider it a great joy if I too could pay an unofficial visit to England at some time or other. My sympathies for your people have always been very great, so great that before the World War I had proposed to the Kaiser and his Government a restriction of our naval construction, and an alliance with England. Should such a visit become feasible, I would have to know, of course, what my attitude towards the Royal Family of England is expected to be. On the one hand I would not like to visit your country without paying my dutiful respects to the Royal Family; on the other hand I do not know if the King and Queen6 would feel inclined to receive me. Perhaps the situation has become more favourable – as the Duke of Braunschweig [Brunswick] and my little sister have been seen recently by your King and Queen. Incidentally I believe it would make a good impression everywhere if the old hostilities of the war were buried by such a meeting, and if the solidarity of the royal houses were thus proved anew.
Hoping to be able to welcome you soon again as a guest in my house, I remain,
In old friendship
Your
Before being sent, this letter was, like other letters from Hitler to Rothermere, translated into English by one of Hitler’s staff, whose first language was clearly not English. The translator’s original punctuation and spelling have been reproduced here. Hitler’s German text has been lost, which is unfortunate, since the translation contains some very obscure passages, which might have been clearer in the original German. Tr.
Dear Lord Rothermere,
May I thank you most sincerely for the letter which you were kind enough to send me through Princess von Hohenlohe.
For me to know that I have met you, Lord Rothermere, a sincere friend of an English-German understanding, is all the more propitious and meaningfull [sic] because therein lies the duty for which I have often fought relentlessly, long before my official political activity and my chancelorship [sic]. The rightness of these trains of thought will find no better proof than the course of the great world war, its victims and its results.
I believe that a day will come when, upon reviewing the European History of the last 300 years methodically and scientifically, it will become apparent that 9/10 of all the blood shed on the battlefields, was shed completely in vain. In vain that is compared with the naturalistic interests of the participating peoples.
I do not exclude Germany from that, on the contrary: Our country has lost at least 20–25 million people in the course of these 300 years; but probably more, through wars which, on the whole were without benefit to the nation, if one wishes to see success not in the light of dubious fame, but in that of practical utility. On occasions Europe squandered its strenght [sic] thoughlessly [sic]. The only state which had enough sense to obtain from these proceedings, at least for long intervals and which derived certain benefits from so doing, was England. Thanks to the cleverness of the English people and of many of its governments it has built the world’s biggest empire with a fiction of such victims. I do not think a cool check of the English participation in the world war, will attribute the same useful meaning to this happening, for the strengthening of the British Empire, as was indubitably accomplished by means of many actions with an infinitely better effort. Germany has lost everything through its battle with its great Germanic neighbour. England has – I dare say this in all modesty – at least not gained anything, but probably contributed towards creating expectations of a world development which does not lie within the interests of the British Empire. I do not say this in order to give sentence in the question of guilt. I believe that knowing the extend [sic] and consequences of this happening, no responsible statesman would have wished the war, just as it is certainly sure to say that no one entered upon this war, from either side, with eyes wide open, but only due to faulty failures and unfortuante [sic] prejudices combined with an incomplete knowledge of the true European interests. For 500 years the two Germanic peoples have lived close together without having become involved in any serious military difference. England opened a great part of the world to the white race. An immortal and never-ceasing service! Germany was a coloniser in Europe, whose aggregate cultural and, also, economic activities for the welfare and the greatness of this old Continent are difficult to estimate. This 41½ years’ war swept away the pick of the manhood of both nations; severely hit Germany’s influence in Europe; and by no means strengtened [sic], if it did not actually weaken, England’s importance in the world. Worst of all, however, there was left behind a legacy of prejudice and passion, which affords appropriate soil to those who aim at the sabotaging of the consolidation of Europe and to those who are inwardly hostile to the strengthening of White supremacy in the world. I believe that clever German statesmanship, and a no less calm British, in the years from 1900 to 1914 would have found ways and means not only to assure peace to the two Germanic peoples but also to bring them high advantages. The picture that the world today offers is at any rate, from the point of view of both peoples, less satisfactory than it might otherwise have been. Bolshevism tears away a mighty slice of European-Asiatic breathing-space (Lebensraum) from the structure of what is, in our conception, the only possible international world economy. The safety of the British Empire, which is to the interest of the whole White race, is weakened rather than strengtened [sic] by the lining up of, in part, new international power factors. The tendencies of a declaration of independence of former colonial territories grew in the same way as the attempts to destroy by means of an unnatural industrialisation – because it is crutificial [sic, does he mean ‘crucial’, or ‘artificial’?] – of given territories for raw materials, the order between production and consumer territories, which was built up in the course of many centuries. When will reason set in at last, and when will the white race obtain from a development which perforce would mean its end?
I believe, dear Lord Rothermere, that if it does not emanate from England or Germany, one might as well bring [does he mean ‘abandon’?] any hope for the future, at least for the duration of our own life expectancy.
Of course, one cannot behold these problems with the eyes of day-by-day politicians, whose horizon is frequently limited by the smallest types of interests. In any event, I have attempted not to look for compromises in certain things, but instead to consider the fundamentals as real and determining. Consequently I have been ridiculed for 15 years by day-to-day politicians, who had no understanding for the fundamental handling of the problems and I have been lamborsted [sic] as a dreamer. But right continued on my side, and these small opponents recognised that their concepts were wrong and mine right. In the end they could no longer dispute my success. But this experience of the last 15 years gives me hope that it will be the culmination of the next 15 or 20 years, provided the work is equally fundamental, right and solid in principle, to help the natural interests to break through in a larger framework, and to get the small naggers to keep silent.
As already stated, Lord Rothermere, if today I stand for an Anglo-German understanding, this does not date from yesterday or the day before. During the last 16 years I have spoken in Germany at least 4,000 to 5,000 times before small, large and immense mess [sic] audiences. There does not, however, exist a single speech of mine, nor a single line ever written by me, in which I have expressed myself, contrary to this opinion, against an Anglo-German understanding. On the contrary, I have during all this time fought for it by word and in writing. Before the war, I had this conception of the necessity of the collaboration of the Germanic peoples against the rest of the awakening world, and was profoundly unhappy when the events of August 4th 1914 led to Anglo-German hostilities. I never saw in this war anything but a desperate, Niebelung-like war of annihilation, rising to frenzy, between the Germanic peoples. Since the War, as an active politician, I have preached unswervingly the necessity of both nations burying the hatchet for ever. Anyhow, I am convinced that such an understanding can only take place between honourable nations. I hold that there is no possibility of concluding agreements with a people without honour, and I regard such agreements as entirely worthless. I have derived from Fate the heavy task of giving back again to a great people and State by every means its natural honour. I see in this one of the most essential preparations for a real and lasting understanding, and I beg you, Lord Rothermere, never to regard my work from any other point of view.
The world may, however, for what I care, reproach me with what it will. One reproach they certainly cannot level at me: that I have been vacillating in my views and unreliable in my work. If an unknown man with such weaknesses set out to win over a nation in 15 years he would meet with no success. Herein resides perhaps the faith – exaggerated, as many believe – in my own personality. I believe, my dear Lord Rothermere, that in the end my unchanging standpoint, undeviating staunchness and my unalterable determination to render a historically great contribution to the restoration of a good and enduring understanding between both great Germanic peoples, will be crowned with success. And believe me, Lord Rothermere, that this is the most decisive contribution to the pacification of the world. All the so-called mutual-assistance pacts which are being hatched today will subserve [sic] discord rather than peace. An Anglo-German understanding would form in Europe a force for peace and reason of 120 million people of the highest type. The historically unique colonial ability and sea-power of England would be united to one of the greatest soldier-races of the world. Were this understanding extended by the joining-up of the American nation, then it would indeed be hard to see who in the world could disturb peace without wilfully and consciously neglecting the interests of the White race. There is in Germany a fine saying: that the Gods love and bless him who seems to demand the impossible.
I want to believe in this Divinity!
I have just read the manuscript of Viscount Snowden under the title ‘Europe drifts towards war’, which Princess Hohenlohe has brought me.
While I understand the difficulty of speaking such a language, I am strengtened [sic] in my conviction that in the end both recognition and truth still find their courageous champions, even today.
In approximately 10 days, I shall hold a big comprehensive and detailed survey of my understanding and the understanding of the political problems which are presently engrossing all of us. I believe that this speech will be mailed [sic, does he mean published?] by these Englishmen whom you have invited, my dear Lord Rothermere, in the Daily Mail, to take an official stand.
To you yourself, dear Lord Rothermere, I should like to express my thanks once again with all my heart, for the attempts which, should these things come to pass, will be looked upon as one of the most felicitous developments which the people could aspire to thanks to their leadership of State.
With sincere friendship
Adolf Hitler
This document is marked as being the draft translation of Hitler’s German text, made by his interpreter, Paul Schmidt. It is certainly rough, with many crossings-out. It would not have been sent to Rothermere in this form. Tr.
Dear Lord Rothermere,
You were good enough to communicate to me [deleted] Princess Hohenlohe a letter in which you expressed the desire to be informed of my views on some of the burning questions of the day. Owing to the great pressure of work which has steadily increased towards the end of the year, I have been quite unable, in spite of every good will, to reply at once to your letter. In replying to you now I ask you, dear Lord Rothermere, not to make any public use of my reply because it contains opinions which I would otherwise express in a different wording or probably not express at all. This letter contains only opinions and I have not the slightest doubt that they are entirely unsuited to influence public opinion or to make it change its own views in a world and at a time in which public opinion is not always identical with the innermost insight and wisdom.
You ask me, dear Lord Rothermere, whether in my opinion oil sanctions against Italy will put an end to the Italo-Abessynian [sic] war.1
It is impossible to reply to this question apodictically.2 But I would like to seize this opportunity to explain to you, as fully as is possible in a short letter, my views on the principles underlying this problem:
(1) Governments very often err as regards the percentage of raw materials which a nation requires for military purposes. The percentage is very low compared to the total requirements of a population for non-military purposes – 15 per cent [rather] than 95 per cent of all necessary raw materials. I admit that in the case of oil this percentage may not be quite exact in a war. However, a restriction placed on the non-military uses will certainly enable [i.e. not prevent] an army for a long time to cover its own requirements.
(2) Sanctions naturally lead to restrictions and in consequence to certain tensions. Weak systems of government may perhaps be defeated by such tensions. But a strong regime will hardly be exposed to that danger. It is even possible that a powerful regime will, on the contrary, receive fresh and increased strength as a consequence of such tensions. At any rate, time and perseverance play a decisive part on both sides.
(3) Sanctions are not only a burden upon those against whom they are directed, but also upon the powers applying the sanctions. And here again, time and perseverance have a decisive influence.
(4) In the Great War Germany was not defeated by the sanctions but exclusively by the internal process of revolutionising. If I had been in Bethmann-Hollweg’s place in 1919 as Chancellor of the German Reich, no revolution would ever have occurred. The collapse in 1918 would have been avoided. I presume that the Great War would ultimately have reached its end without victors or vanquished.3 I know, dear Lord Rothermere, that you as an Englishman, will have a different opinion but I am merely explaining my own conviction. Today an oil sanction against Germany would be of no avail, as our own oil-fields can produce an annual quantity several times as much as we needed in 1914–1918 during the Great War.
I do not know the conditions in Japan. For it is obvious that the question of existing stocks is also in all these cases of decisive importance.
(5) In my opinion the decisive factor is only a question of systems of government and thus of personalities. Who governs in the sanctionised countries [i.e. countries on which sanctions are imposed] and who governs in Italy? I would like to say here that the man who is today Italy’s leader will be one of the rarest and most important personalities of world history, whatever may happen. Much that may appear bad in English eyes in this man finds its simple explanation in the different mentality of the two nations. And a great man will almost always be the most characteristic representative of the innermost character of his own nation.
In making these sober statements I ask you, dear Lord Rothermere, not to forget that I as a German cannot take any real interest in this conflict. You know that we are the nation concerning which a more than stupid treaty said that it did not belong to the ‘progressive’ nations, which had a right to administer colonial territories.4 In addition I can say that from the human point of view there is much that attracts us to the English, while on the other hand, from the political point of view, we have a good deal in common with present-day Italy. Obviously the German nation will not today be able to give noisy expression to its enthusiasm for a nation which, only a year ago, referred in its press to Germany very unfavourably, not to say rudely. On the other hand, we cannot forget that, years before that, Italy and Signor Mussolini in particular have given us many proofs of a reasonable and often more than decent sympathy with our fate. We cannot be ungrateful. There are people in Europe [who] believe that we [have] every reason as Germans to welcome this conflict. They say that it provides for us the best opportunity to rearm. My dear Lord Rothermere, these people know neither me nor the Germany of today. Since the outbreak of this conflict I have taken a single step which cannot be planned long before and which I [would] not have taken otherwise. The decision to restore the German position was taken, initiated and carried through at a time when nobody could have the slightest inkling of this sad conflict. There is nobody in Germany with any political insight who welcomes this conflict, except perhaps some enemies of the State who may cherish the hope that it might constitute an international example which could one day also be applied to Germany. But these elements must not be confused with the German people. The only thing which fills us with certain satisfaction, I must admit, is the revelation of the true value of all so-called collective agreements. For here we are concerned with two collective agreements which have ultimately both failed: the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Stresa Alliance,5 and it is the only pleasure we have in this matter to know that we are outside the agreements and that we have no longer anything to do with the League of Nations.
For believe me, dear Lord Rothermere, the problem is not whether this and that sanction will today bring down Italy on her knees, the real problem is whether one is [in] a position to remove the causes underlying the tensions from which the world suffers at present. For a hundred million years this earth has been moving around the sun, and during this long period it has always been filled with the struggle of living beings for nourishment and later for dwellings and clothing etc. It is certain that beings who we can call men have existed on it for many millions of years. Innumerable influences produced constant changes in the distribution of property. Just as in each nation. The economic structure is constantly changing, changes occur outside the national limits. Climatic changes, discoveries of raw materials, [produce] more or less strong increases of the nations on the one hand, while other nations become sterile, continually produce tensions which urgently require solutions. And now in a certain year after millions of years have moved around, an American professor6 proclaims the formation of a league of partly heterogeneous nations with completely opposed interests, with a view to excluding any future change in this world. That means from the year 1919 of our Christian era, or say from the 997 million 365 thousandth revolution around the sun, the whole earthly development must come to a standstill. Only one thing was forgotten: this league can perhaps prevent the adjustment of the tensions, but it can by no means prevent the tensions themselves from arising. The only consequence will be that while formerly the tensions arising out of the national laws of development were currently adjusted, at least partially, the safety valve is now abolished, which means that the tensions must accumulate. If that, however, is the ultimate result of the so-called ‘collective policy’ the end can only be disaster of the first magnitude.
I deeply regret Sir Samuel Hoare’s resignation7 because I feel that a great British patriot and an excellent man has fallen victim to public opinion and that he was one of the first to have recognised this weakness in the League of Nations system. For it is clear that the League of Nations is not governed today by the influence of wisdom but by the influence of the street, that is today by the so-called public opinion which, as history shows, hardly ever has Reason as its godmother. I would be very glad, dear Lord Rothermere, if, beyond all present misgivings, people in England were ready to study the problems from the point of view of the underlying principles and perhaps to discuss them in a small committee. I think that the English can do this better than the other nations because they are broad-minded and realistic to a greater extent than other peoples. I believe that our Anglo-German Naval Agreement8 was a striking proof of this. You will understand, however, dear Lord Rothermere, that these problems more than others are wholly unsuited to be handled in front of the masses, but that ultimately they can only be discussed in a small and select group. If you come again to Germany I would be very glad if you would see me and if I could discuss these problems with you or other Englishmen.
Whatever may happen, I want to assure you at the conclusion of this letter that I firmly believe that a time will come in which England and Germany will be the solid pillars in a worried and unstable world.
You ask me, dear Lord Rothermere, whether I do not think that the moment has now come to put forward the German colonial wishes. May I ask you, dear Lord Rothermere, not to raise this point now because, looking forward to closer collaboration with Great Britain, I do not want to give the impression as if I wanted to avail myself of the present situation of your Government and its many difficulties and of the British Empire to exercise a certain pressure.
In conclusion I send you, dear Lord Rothermere, my best wishes for Christmas and for a happy New Year.
Yours truly
(signed) Adolf Hitler
Thoughts on the Hungarian Uprising, 1956
In October 1956, Hungary attempted to throw off the yoke of Soviet communism. In Budapest students and workers toppled a giant statue of Stalin. The government briefly lost control and within hours, on 24 October, Soviet tanks were rumbling into the streets of the capital. They were attacked by civilians with Molotov cocktails. The freedom fighters called on the west for help, but none was offered. By 30 October it was all over and a new, hardline premier, Janos Kadar, had been installed.
Stephanie von Hohenlohe, nominally a Hungarian citizen, used this occasion to recall her own visit in 1938 to the Hungarian head of state, Admiral Horthy. She tries to draw a parallel by claiming that Horthy wanted to retain his independence from Hitler’s Germany. There is an element of truth in this. Nonetheless, Hungary hoped that by riding on Germany’s coat-tails it might regain some of the territory lost under the Treaty of Versailles, which transferred parts of the old Hungarian kingdom to the new states of Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Rumania.
This document, written in her own English, when Stephanie was still living in the USA, appears to have been sent to her literary agent, Curtis Brown, in New York, with a view to publication in the press. Tr.
Budapest, 1956
RUSSIAN GANGSTERS HAVE BETRAYED US; THEY ARE OPENING FIRE ON ALL BUDAPEST. PLEASE INFORM EUROPE.
In the dead of night a solitary teletypist chattered a desperate cry for help.
A FEW HUNDRED TANKS ATTACKED BUDAPEST … A THOUSAND … THERE IS HEAVY FIGHTING … WE SHALL INFORM THE WORLD OF EVERYTHING.
And then a few hours later:
ANY NEWS ABOUT HELP … QUICKLY … WE HAVE NO TIME TO LOSE … NO TIME TO LOSE … WHAT IS THE UNITED STATES DOING … GIVE US A LITTLE ENCOURAGEMENT.
Heartbreaking words, but still no help came.
Finally:
GOODBYE FRIENDS.
GOD SAVE OUR SOULS
THE RUSSIANS ARE TOO NEAR.
Yes, the Russians were too near, and for the second time in only a few years, a gallant and courageous people have had to face the awful fact of dying alone … terribly alone.
It is a chilling thing to see history repeat itself twice in one lifetime. I cannot pretend to understand, but I cannot help wondering, and being a little afraid as I remember …
Budapest, 1938
After the First World War the peacemakers and treaty-signers obliterated empires and acted as midwives at the birth of some awkward and unruly children. Nations had been truncated and carved apart like so many Christmas puddings to meet the idea of a new Europe. Millions smouldered under the pressure of unnatural boundaries, but none more so than the fiercely proud Hungarians.
The patch on the map that marked Hungary was certainly the most curious jigsaw on the continent. Countless families suddenly found themselves as citizens of a foreign nation whose language they did not speak, whose customs they did not share. Divorced from their homeland and their birthright, those people had only one thought – to become Hungarians once again. They turned eagerly and impulsively to any promising corner, without thought of immediate consequence or eventual outcome.
But in 1938 the political balance of Europe was so delicate that no nation could afford to hold out a helping hand. Of all countries, only Nazi Germany offered hope. Join our orbit, become our ally, the propagandists of Berlin said, and we will give you back your land, make you a nation once more.
This siren song from the Rhine was not entirely a gesture of goodwill and friendly interest. Germany knew that France and Britain were firm allies, and that France, in turn, was committed to the support of the Little Entente – a group of three nations, Rumania, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia – that bitterly opposed any Hungarian expansion.
At the time, sympathy in England was strongly for the Hungarian people, and yet England certainly could not risk offending the avowed policies of France, its strongest friend on the continent. This tangle was artfully exploited by the Nazis to drive a wedge between the western democracies. They strummed on the strings of Hungarian patriotism with a heavy-handed but effective Teutonic touch – by sending thousands of smiling ‘tourists’ into the country each summer, by planting agents and spies in many key positions, by creating ever-closer economic ties with Hungarian industry, and most important of all, by masquerading as the saviour of the Hungarian nation.
This then was the situation when I visited Budapest in 1938 on a short trip. As always, I made it a point to pay my respects to the sprawling 100-year-old palace that brooded over the troubled city. At the time, Hungary was a kingdom without a king, governed by a Regent, His Highness Admiral Nicholas Horthy, a vigorous patriot who had given many years of selfless devotion to the cause of his country.
I had planned to leave Budapest the day after calling on the Regent, and I was making preparations for my departure when a telephone call interrupted me. It was a Captain Scholz,1 who was Admiral Horthy’s personal adjutant. He was calling, he said, upon the instructions of the Regent, who requested me to come to the palace at once.
It was impossible to refuse such a summons, and as I drove to keep my appointment, I speculated as to what he could want with me. I knew von Horthy could not tolerate Hitler. He realised that friendship with the Nazis meant death to his nation, but I also knew that popular pressure was slowly pushing him into an impossible situation, for he was but a single voice against national sentiment.2
When I arrived, I was immediately ushered up the magnificent stairway, past gorgeously uniformed guards into the Regent’s office.
He came forward and took my hand warmly, apologising for the urgent telephone call that had brought me to him. He wasted little time.
‘Princess Hohenlohe’, he said, ‘I want you to write me a letter.’
‘A letter?’ I echoed.
‘Yes. Several years ago Sir Austen Chamberlain,3 half-brother to the present prime minister of England, Mr Neville Chamberlain, paid me a visit. One day, before Sir Austen left, he told me how he had come to admire and deeply respect this country, this city, and our people. We discussed the melancholy situation of Hungary, and he assured me that we would eventually find friends in the west, and particularly in England. He told me that the time was not yet ripe for action, but that when the day came, I would only have to appeal to the conscience of his country, and aid would be sent.’
Admiral Horthy held up his hand. ‘I know, I know, Sir Austen is dead. But I would like to remind his brother of his promise.’
At this point, Captain Scholz entered the room to announce the arrival of a caller. I saw a look of anger pass over the Regent’s face.
‘Princess Hohenlohe’, he said, ‘our situation is becoming more intolerable every day. Only last week I was informed – unofficially, of course – that certain circles felt I was having too much social contact with Jews, that I must be careful to avoid the displeasure of the Germans.’ We smiled bitterly. ‘Yes, is that not difficult to believe? However, I immediately sent out an invitation to Mr and Mrs Manfred Weiss to attend a luncheon here at the palace. Do you know Manfred Weiss?’
Of course I knew the man. He was a Jew, an extremely wealthy manufacturer, and probably Hungary’s leading industrialist. Such a gesture on Admiral Horthy’s part was typical of his spirit.
‘And now,’ he continued, ‘do you know who this latest caller is?’
He did not wait for my answer. ‘He is the head of the Mercedes-Benz company. He has come to give me a personal gift from Hitler – an expensive automobile, which I do not want, do not need and will never use.’
With a gesture of distaste, he paced across the carpet. ‘I will now have to return this compliment by sending the Führer an equally lavish gift. I shall send him a set of Heren china, and he will be pleased. However, I shall not be pleased, but I will not be under Hitler’s obligation.’
He walked quickly to where I was seated.
‘Princess Hohenlohe’, he said earnestly, ‘I want you to write me a letter, and I want you to take that letter to the British prime minister. I do not want to send it through official channels because the Germans have too many spies in too many places and I do not want my message to be relayed to the Reichstag. I am asking you this because your English is more fluent than mine. I want you to ask Mr Chamberlain for help. Help in the name of the Hungarian people, in the name of humanity, in the name of the solemn promise given to me by his dead brother. I expect no miracles, Princess Hohenlohe, but I must reach out to someone.’
Naturally I accepted the assignment. I returned to my hotel and wrote the following letter:
Dear Mr Chamberlain,
It is not in my official capacity as the Regent of Hungary that I am writing this letter to you, but as Admiral Horthy, a Hungarian who loves this country above all.
Three years ago I had the pleasure to see your brother Sir Austen Chamberlain here as my guest.4 He showed great interest in all the questions concerning my country. He asked me to explain to him the case of my country – the wrongs and injustices done to her. Sir Austen understood that Hungary’s claims are just and fair and told me when I asked him to give me his help and advice: ‘keep quiet now. I promise you when the right moment comes, I will help you.’ The past three years are proof that I carried out Sir Austen’s advice loyally. I waited for ‘the right moment’ to come and therefore I am appealing to you – the man who has shown so much wisdom and courage lately – asking you to accept your brother’s promise to help us, as a legacy to you and to all in your own and in your great country’s power, to assist us now in this eventful hour. German insistence is mounting. I am under constant pressure from without and within. I will be unable to justify my insistence much longer without your help.
I pledge my word that you will never have to regret it and assure you of the undying gratitude of the entire Hungarian nation.
Sincerely yours,
Nicholas v. Horthy.
Later that afternoon I travelled once more to the palace. Once more I was announced immediately and ushered in to the Regent. He read over my letter carefully and gratefully took my hand in his.
‘Thank you, Princess Hohenlohe’, he said sincerely, ‘This is exactly what I wanted.’
He sat down behind his enormous desk and laboriously copied the unfamiliar English in his own hand, sealed it himself and gave it to me.
As he took me to the door of his office, he put his hand on my arm. ‘Tell Chamberlain that the Germans are too near. They must listen, for if one country goes under, all are threatened.’
That was the last time I saw Admiral Horthy.
I drove to the airport, took my plane, and the same day was back in London. A good friend, Sir Thomas Moore MP, agreed to deliver my note to the prime minister. A few hours later it was in his hands.
The rest, of course, is history. Admiral Horthy was right. The Germans were too near and absorbed his country. Within a year Britain was fighting for her life. Within two years the entire free world was engaged in that struggle.
And then again, twenty years later, I saw the messages that came from Budapest.
GOD SAVE OUR SOULS.
THE RUSSIANS ARE TOO NEAR.
Once again the world listened helplessly, unable to act because of the tangle of international conditions. It may be a fateful and prophetic message, because, except for a single word, it was the same message a very brave man had tried once before to deliver.