10 January 2025

The following column was published in The Indianapolis Times on July 2, 1934. At this time, there seemed to be a desire to portray Hitler as having been bruised, and not seen as the threat to Europe that he would demonstrate himself to be over the coming years. Broun called Hitler's anti-Semitism was based on "ludicrous conceptions ever offered to a civilized people."

It Seems to Me by Heywood Broun

Time does not march on in Germany but proceeds at a reckless and a breathless sprinting pace. When this column comes to type the aspect of the situation may have changed all along the line from Hitler to drummer boy. Yet in a gambling spirit I am willing to draw a few lessons already and trust history will back me up. It seems to me that whatever the outcome may be the cause of Fascism has received a black eye.

All across the world, including America, the argument has run that even if you personally did not like the rule of the strong man it must be admitted that it was a system which made the trains run on time. Democracy has lost popularity because of the contention that it never could work save under the leadership of men of genius. Many were swinging around to the belief that there was some safety in a lack of numbers and that Babbitt was more desirable than a legion of the commonplace.

Few have contended that Hitler was among the great intellectuals developed in the long history of civilization but he became a symbol of the potential efficiency of dictatorship in the minds of many. Often and late have I sat under the irritating itch of the argument, "Whether you like or dislike Hitler is relatively unimportant. The fact is that he represents the will of the overwhelming number of the German people. Therefore his policies, right or wrong, are no particular business of any outsider."

A Post-War Development

In answer to this particular approach I have been willing to make just one concession. I have felt and still do that whatever strength Hitler has, or had (to be on the safe side), was presented to him by outside agencies. The treaty of Versailles is an instrument designed to provide Germany with an unstable government. It was inevitable that a regime would rise drawing support on the ground of its intention to throw off the accusation of war guilt and to refuse the penalties assessed under this fantastic theory.

But, after all, this was merely a facet in the Hitler philosophy of government and economics. The most serious charge which could, or can, be made against his leadership is that he never did have any philosophy.

His anti-Semite drive was based upon one of the most ludicrous conceptions ever offered to a civilized people. In effect, Hitler said to the Germans, "Your enemies are the Jewish capitalists who control big department stores and other industries. And they are allied with Jewish leaders who largely control the Communist party of Germany and other radical groups." In other words Hitler roused up his people against the Jews on the ground that they were too eager for personal profit and too hostile to institutions of private property.

Promises Inflated

To my mind this just doesn't make sense. Edmund Burke once said in a famous oration that you could not indict an entire people. It seems to me even more monstrous to try to bring such an indictment on two counts which are exclusive.

As a matter of fact, Hitler accused his foes of holding to a philosophy which he himself pursued. Never has there been a leader who was so many warring things to so many people. The promise is a coin not unknown in American politics, but Adolf Hitler inflated this particular kind of currency to a point never before reach in any nation.

To the big industrialists he promised protection from the demands of union labor and a chance to increase profits. To the workers he gave jobs in every oration and the bright hope of better conditions. Among the stern moralists Hitler was an uncompromising puritan. In his official attitude toward licentious followers he proved to be the not very critical chief.

Again and again I have heard it said, "Well, at least you must grant that the man is sincere."

But I want to know just what he is sincere about. As I see it he is sincere about one thing and one alone. I think he never wavers from the notion that it would be an excellent thing for Adolf Hitler to have Adolf Hitler remain in power.