1 Röpke, Wilhelm, Die deutsche Frage (2nd ed., Zurich-Erlenbach, 1946).Google Scholar The first edition appeared early in summer 1945. An English translation, prefaced by F. A. Hayek and supervised by the author, has been published in 1946 by Allen & Unwin (London). Besides that there are French, Italian and Danish translations.

2 Anybody trained in historical thinking will not take this as a libel on the French Revolution and on Napoleon. What connects these latter events with the totalitarian revolutions of our time has been pointed out particularly by the late Guglielmo Ferrero in his great trilogy (Aventare, 1936; Reconstruction, 1940; Pouvoir, 1942). It is not by accident that one of the best books on totalitarianism was published in 1814 by Benjamin Constant (De l'esprit de conquête et de l'usurpation). What this man of genius said after the experiences of the Napoleonic Empire applies almost word for word to National Socialism and Hitler's World War. I confess that I began to understand some puzzling aspects of National Socialism only after I had studied in 1938 Benjamin Constant's book for the first time. Nor should anyone miss Halévy's, E. book which bears the significant title L'ere des tyrannies (Paris, 1938).Google Scholar (The books of Ferrero and Constant are available in English translations.—Ed.)

3 Thieme, Karl, Das Schicksal der Deutschen, ein Versuch einer geschichstlichen Erklärung (Basle, 1945).Google Scholar It would be a great injustice to this very stimulating book to forget that its author set himself only a limited task which he fulfilled remarkably. I share most of his views, including his criticism of Foerster's, F. W. well known book Europa und die deutsche Frage (Luzern, 1937).Google Scholar (English translation available.—Ed.)

4 It is fortunate that we now have in Eyck's, E.Bismarck (3 vols., Erlenbach-Zurich, 1941–1944)Google Scholar a scholarly biography which breaks up the monopoly of Prussian historiography. An English translation of this important work will be published by Allen & Unwin (London).

5 Let us remember that, in the pre-Bismarckian era, there have been far-sighted Germans who were under no illusions as to what a strongly united Germany meant, not only for the liberty of Germany but also for the peace of Europe. Foremost among these has been the great Hanoverian historian, A. H. L. Heeren, who, in 1817, wrote that a centralized German monarchy, equipped with all the economic resources of Germany, could not long resist the temptation to acquire European supremacy. (Historische Werke, II, pp. 423 ff.Google Scholar). The conclusion he draws is that the political structure of Germany must be such as to make it weak for the offensive but strong for the defensive and thus to establish it as the “stronghold of peace in Europe.”

6 Lavisse, E., in the Revue del deux mondes, 09 15, 1873.Google Scholar

7 First in my study Das Zeitalter der Tyrannis, (Friedenswarte, Geneva, No. 5/6, 1939)Google Scholar and then in my books International Economic Disintegration (London, 1942),Google Scholar the trilogy Die Gesellschaftskrisis der Gegenwart (4th ed., Zurich, 1943),Google ScholarCivitas humana (2nd ed., Zurich, 1946),Google ScholarInternationale Ordnung (Zurich, 1945)Google Scholar and finally in my book The German Problem. English translations of Die Gesellschaftekrisis der Gegenwart and Civitas humana are about to be published.

8 This has been stressed already by Max Weber in his description of the “charismatic leader” (Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, Grundriss der Sozialökonomik, Vol. III, Tübingen, 1921), pp. 140–148).Google Scholar “Il faut donner aux Français tous les trois mois, disait un homme qui s'y entend bien, quelque chose de nouveau: il a tenu sa parole,” said Benjamin Constant of Napoleon in his De l'esprit de conquête et de l'usurpation (Hanover, 1814).Google Scholar That is exactly what distinguished a regime like that of Salazar in Portugal from the genuine tyrannies of the totalitarian type.

9 On this point again no better reading could be recommended than Benjamin Constant's De l'esprit de conquête et de l'usurpation. It is also what Jacob Burckhardt, the great Swiss historian, whose letters reveal an amazing insight into the impending doom of our civilization, seems to have had in mind when he said in his letter of April 13, 1882 to v. Preen that the “absolute lawless despotism to which democracy is drifting will not be carried through by dynasties because they are too good-hearted but by allegedly republican military commandos.”

10 I remember that an American diplomat indignantly severed his relations with me during the war when I developed my analysis of totalitarian tyranny in order to enable him to grasp the so-called “enigma” of Soviet policy. The error involved is on the same level with the other illusion that a genuine conservative must be nearer somehow to totalitarianism while one moves further away from it the more one goes to the Left. These pernicious fallacies, however, are part and parcel of modern Jacobinism and all tendencies favoring a Popular Front, nationally and internationally, that is a front including the Communists.

11 I tried to explain this in my article “Totalitarian Proaperity—Where does it end?” Harper's Magazine, 07, 1939,Google Scholar which in its substance has now been incorporated in my book Civitas humana.

12 On this point I must refer again to my own book The German Problem. It is Jacob Burckhardt who, immediately after the foundation of the Bismarck Reich in 1871, saw the future development with uncanny perspicacity, e.g. when he wrote to v. Preen on April 26, 1872: “The most curious lot will fall to the workers; I have a presentiment which at present looks absolutely foolish but of which I cannot rid myself: the military state must become a large-scale manufacturer. Those human agglomerations in the big shops cannot be left forever to their misery and greed; a definite and wellcontrolled measure of misery, with promotion and uniforms, begun and closed every day with drum-beating, that is what is bound to come by force of logic.”

13 We say “Antinazis” instead of “Antifascists” because we cannot include the Communists in this group if we do not want to exchange one variety of totalitarians for another.

14 See now especially: Gisevius, H. B., Bis zum bitteren Ende, 2 volumes, Zurich, 1946;Google ScholarFabian v. Schlabrendorff and Gero v. Gaevernitz, Offiziere gegen Hitler, Zürich, 1946Google Scholar. Both books have been written by men who, because of their leading position in the various plots, give first-hand information. I do not know the author of the first book (Gisevius) but I have the feeling that his book ought to be accepted with some reservation in contrast to the second book which inspires confidence.

15 In his article on “Collective Guilt and German Resistance” (Neue Schweizer Rundschau, 08, 1946)Google Scholar Professor Roepke mentions that Jung, C. G. has in his book of 1946 Aufsaetge zur Zeitgeschichte implicitly abandoned his views of 1945.Google Scholar—Ed.