Publications Index | Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’s Internet Archive
Socialist Review Index (1993–1996) | Socialist Review 183 Contents
From Socialist Review, No. 183, February 1995.
Copyright © Socialist Review.
Copied with thanks from the Socialist Review Archive.
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for ETOL.
Henry Maitles’ article on how Western governments collaborated with the Nazis (January SR) demonstrated their vicious racism, but gave little explanation as to why. Undoubtedly, all the leading British participants – particularly Halifax and Henderson – couldn’t have cared less about the Jews, but British policy wasn’t determined by anti-Semitism. The main issue was one of national interest and the revitalisation of European capitalism.
Germany was considered to be the key country in the struggle for European economic stability and if the chaos of Weimar could be solved, markets, it was thought, might be restored. The Tories were drawn to supporting Hitler because Germany was prepared to take huge inflows of capital which might create these markets. There was also the secondary but important consideration that the National Government did not want capital utilised in Britain due to the policy of rationalisation (cartelisation) of what remained of British industry.
Credit was therefore limitless. Throughout the 1920s and early 1930s many powerful British companies were up to their necks in German economic affairs.
By the time of Hitler, London banking houses were competing with other financial centres for the issuing of both national and state loans. The Bank of International Settlements – which dealt with reparations – itself renewed an $86 million loan.
Moreover, the governor of the Bank of England had regular meetings with his Nazi Reichsbank counterpart and according to the Times had ‘prepared the way for a closer cooperation of the English and German credit institutions.’
The extent of this policy can be seen when we realise that the Nazis could have been financially toppled as early as 1934. Overburdened with huge public spending and a growing arms industry, they defaulted on external debt repayments.
The possibilities of previously invested capital going to the wall was not considered, irrespective of the obvious nature of the regime. Chamberlain even offered a deal, hoping that it would lead to both countries affirming their ‘earnest desire that trade and financial arrangements ... continue on a ... most friendly basis, and that the volume of mutual trade should be maintained and as far as possible increased.’
In that sense, Britain bailed out the Nazis whilst the Tory press – as Henry rightly points out – tried to whip up the old Jewish conspiracy myth. The Times, of course, later simply ignored the brutality taking place as Hitler’s troops marched through Europe.
Even by the time of the Evian and Bermuda Refugee Conferences, there was still an ardent hope within government circles that perhaps a deal with Hitler could be struck.
This explains the high-sounding public statements coming out of the conferences which sat unhappily with the behind-closed-doors stonewalling.
These were the central reasons for the appalling disinterest in the fate of the Jews. It is a reason that we still see today whether we examine Britain’s refusal to condemn the fascists in the Italian government, or the West’s silence over Yeltsin’s murderous policy in Chechnya.
Profits matter. People don’t.
|
|
Ged Peck |
Socialist Review Index | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 30 November 2017