Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The Relationship Between The American Liberal Press And The German Writers In Exile, 1933-1945
(USC Thesis Other)
The Relationship Between The American Liberal Press And The German Writers In Exile, 1933-1945
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AMERICAN LIBERAL
PRESS AND THE GERMAN WRITERS IN EXILE,
1933-1945
by
Carol Louise Paul
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(German)
September 1972
INFORMATION TO USERS
This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While
the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent
pages to insure you complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it
is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have
moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a
good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being
photographed the photographer followed a definite method in
"sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper
left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to
right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is
continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until
complete.
4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value,
however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from
"photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver
prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing
the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and
specific pages you wish reproduced.
5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as
received.
Xerox University Microfilms
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
74-9082
PAUL, Carol Louise, 1938-
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AMERICAN
LIBERAL PRESS AND THE GERMAN WRITERS IN
EXILE, 1933-1945.
University of Southern California, Ph.D., 1972
Language and Literature, modern
University Microfilms, A XEROX Company , Ann Arbor, Michigan
© 1974
CAROL LOUISE PAUL
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED.
U N IV E R S IT Y O F S O U T H E R N C A L IF O R N IA
TH E G R A DU A TE SC HO O L
U N IV E R S IT Y PARK
LOS A N G ELES. C A L I F O R N IA 9 0 0 0 7
This dissertation, written by
Carol...Louise..Paul..............
under the direction of h.^Jf... Dissertation Com
mittee, and approved by all its members, has
been presented to and accepted by The Gradu
ate School, in partial fulfillment of require
ments of the degree of
D O C T O R O F P H IL O S O P H Y
\J Dean
T i n t * Septem ber. 1972
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
v J C h a irm a n
...
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Although the creation of this paper has been at times
I
a severely taxing and arduous task, it has also proven it
self to be a stimulating and rewarding one. Its genesis and
completion are due in large measure to the encouragement of '
i
i
my advisor, Dr. John Spalek, without whose infinite patience!
I
|
and considerable aid it would not now exist. It was he who
fired my interest in the political, cultural, and literary
situation of the exiled German writers and intellectuals —
an area which I have found to be not only fruitful in a
scholarly sense, but also extremely relevant to larger ques
tions such as the relationship between responsibility and
freedom and the place of the artist in society. I owe many
thanks to Mrs. Lion Feuchtwanger, who graciously consented
to several interviews during the initial phases of this
study and whose first-hand knowledge imparted to the exile
situation a vitality and resonance not otherwise obtainable.
I also wish to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Harold
Ivon Hofe, Chairman of the German Department, and to the
!
‘ Graduate School of the University of Southern California for
their steadfast cooperation in this seemingly endless proj
ect. My parents also deserve many thanks for their un
stinting moral support during this trying period. While the
devotion of various friends has been sorely tried during the
writing of this study, one friend in particular never I
I
swerved in her faith and confidence in me. For her opti- j
mism, true loyalty, and active support and interest, I owe
June Penningroth my undying gratitude. And to my helpful
and outstanding typist, Marcella Curtright, I would like to
give my heartfelt thanks, not only for her ability in the
I
difficult task of integrating my sometimes very lengthy
footnotes into aesthetic harmony with the whole, but also
|for her unwavering patience and enthusiasm, which provided
much-needed sustenance during these past two years and made
possible the final realization of this project.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................
1
jChapter
I. RESEARCH METHODS AND SOURCES . . . .
II. WRITERS' CONGRESSES, CONFERENCES, AND
| ASSOCIATIONS: THEIR RELATIONSHIP
; TO AND RECEPTION BY AMERICAN
INTELLECTUALS AND PRESS...........
; The American Scene
The Drama Begins: Ragusa, 1933
to New York, 1935
Ragusa: Eleventh Annual P.E.N.
Congress
j Edinburgh: Twelfth Annual P.E.N.
i Congress
j Moscow: First All-Union Congress
i of Soviet Authors
j Prelude to New York, 1935
New York: First American Writers'
Congress
III. WRITERS' CONGRESSES AND ASSOCIATIONS.
INTERLUDE: NON-INVOLVEMENT, AWARENESS
AND CONFLICT. BARCELONA TO NEW YORK
1935-1937 .............................
Barcelona: Thirteenth Annual P.E.N.
Congress
jchapter
Paris : First International Writers '
Congress for the Defense of Culture
Buenos Aires: Fourteenth Annual P.E.N.
Congress
Madrid/Valencia: Second International
Writers' Congress for the Defense of
Culture
Paris: Fifteenth Annual P.E.N. Congress
New York: Second American Writers'
Congress
IV. WRITERS 1 CONGRESSES AND ASSOCIATIONS:
INTENSIFICATION AND ALARM. PARIS
TO NEW YORK 1938-19 39 ..................
Paris: Third International Congress
of Writers for the Defense of Culture
Prague: Sixteenth Annual P.E.N. Congress
New York World's Fair: World Congress
of Writers under Auspices of American
P.E.N. Center
New York: Third American Writers'
Congress
V. THE CONCEPT OF EXILE AS VIEWED BY
THE PRESS ..................................
Problems of Alienation
Phases of Exile Consciousness: The
Early Period 1933-1937
The Middle Phase 1938-1941:
The Refugee Controversy
Phase Three 1941-1944: The "Problem"
of Germany. The Role of the Writer
APPENDIX
Appendix A: International List of Authors Whose
Books Have Been Banned and Burned
in Nazi G e r m a n y ...................
Page
I
357
471
691
; BIBLIOGRAPHY 696
CHAPTER I
RESEARCH METHODS AND SOURCES
The subject of the relationship of the American press
to exile literature and its related aspects in the United
States during the period of National Socialist rule in
Germany and ultimately in Europe (1933-1945) is rather a
complex one, due in no small measure to two factors, one of
external origin and one of internal derivation, namely, the
great variety of American publications which dealt to some
degree with aspects of exile and Nazi-related affairs, as
well as the subjectivity required in evaluating the politi
cal, social, and literary orientation of the periodicals in
question.
It must be stated at the outset of this study that the
breadth of coverage will of necessity be dictated by con
siderations of time and space, which is to say that while
this topic will be quite thoroughly treated in terms of
specific events, these events themselves have been selected
1
2
from among a number of possibilities on the basis of the
importance of their contribution to the creation of an
"exile aura" in the American literary milieu of this period.
Furthermore, these events have been chosen to a certain
degree from the standpoint of the amount of exposure granted
them by only certain periodicals, periodicals which in turn
have been selected in terms of their value as, initially,
publications of quality in their own right., i.e., those
which were somewhat solidly ensconced on the American pub
lishing scene for at least a portion of the years under
consideration and which maintained a fairly high consistency
of editorial policy and literate, well-organized presenta-
tionj and second, as publications which devoted a relatively
equitable amount of space to the timely question of not only
the developing situation in Germany and Europe, but also—
and chiefly, as implied above— to that of German writers
forced into exile for reasons of political, social, and
moral/ethical persuasion and the reception awaiting them and
their works in the United States. For example, some peri
odicals covered certain aspects of the exile question while
totally omitting others, while other periodicals provided
exposure to nearly all phases of the issue— but only from
or until a certain month or year, their initial and/or final
jpublication dates notwithstanding.
Since, of course, all of the publications which handled
the subject did so from their own point of political or
literary view, none proved to be what might be termed purely
^objective in their reportings; here, naturally, is where the
Element of subjective evaluation of the material at hand
must come into play. |
In light of the above-mentioned factors, we have con-
i
eluded that some twelve periodicals belong essentially in a
"primary source" category^ and nine others in a "secondary
source" group; in addition, three newspapers have been used
as checkpoints against which to measure the validity and/or
iappropriateness of the selection of events chosen for cover
age in this paper. The periodicals themselves are fairly
Evenly divided on the chronological basis of length of
Establishment on the American publishing scene, as follows:
four primary sources were in existence for at least nineteen
■*At least four of these primary sources devoted one of
their issues or a special section of an issue of the late
1930's or early 1940's to the subject of German exile liter
ature per se and/or to German writers whose continued ex
istence had in the not too distant past been predicated upon
;the act of exile: Twice A Year, III-IV (Fall-Winter 1939-
|1940) ; Direction. II, No. 8 (December 1939); The Saturday
Review of Literature, XXII, No. 26 (October 19, 1940); De-
icision, II, No. 4 (October 1941) .
4
years and an additional two for at least seven years prior
to the ascension of Adolf Hitler to the chancellorship of
Germany on January 30., 1933 and the ensuing establishment
of the Third Reich; and six primary sources were founded
after 1933, continuing in existence for a minimum of one
year and a maximum of ten years, although not necessarily
in correlation with the duration of the Third Reich.
The longest-established sources are the following:
(1) The Christian Century, a weekly nondenominational jour
nal of religion begun in 1884 and printed in Chicago; (2)
The Living Age, a New York-based journal of foreign and
domestic politics and news founded in 1844 and published
weekly until September 1926, semi-monthly until April 1928,
monthly until August 1929, again semi-monthly until July
1930, and finally monthly until its demise in August 1941.
The Living Age differs from the other sources used in that
it served as a sort of clearinghouse for articles, speeches,
and reports published in both foreign and American periodi
cals and newspapers, as well as some not first printed in
other journals, publishing these in accordance with the
dictates of its editorial policy and the timeliness of the
5
2
information; (3) The Nation, a New York-based journal which
prided itself on being "America's Leading Liberal Weekly
3
since 1865"; (4) The New Republic, "A [weekly] journal of
interpretation and opinion which seeks to meet the Challenge
4
of a New Time," published in New York and comparable in
2
A partial list of its sources includes the following:
Die Neue Weltbuhne, Prague German-language liberal weekly;
Sunday Times, London conservative Sunday paper; Frankfurter
Zeitung, Frankfurt National-Socialist daily; Die Rote Fahne,
Berlin Communist daily; Die Literatur, Berlin literary
monthly; Manchester Guardian; and Pester Lloyd, German-
language daily, Budapest.
Alan Grimes, The Political Liberalism of the New York
"Nation" 1865-1932, The James Sprunt Studies in History and
Political Science, 34 (Chapel Hill, N. C., 1953) [p. v] .
The subtitle of The Nation during much of the period under
consideration was "A Liberal Weekly devoted to Politics,
Economics, Science, Foreign Affairs, Literature, Drama and
the Arts." An article published on the occasion of the
seventy-fifth anniversary of the journal is rather illumi
nating for the differences between the "old" Nation and the
"new"— which coincides closely with the advent of the New
Deal and "the triumph, at least temporarily, of progressiv-
ism in American politics" (Grimes, p. vi); the article in
question also discusses The Nation as a reflector of the
liberalism of the nineteenth century and that of the twen
tieth, the latter being closely allied with social legisla
tion and the labor movement; see I. F. Stone, "'Free Inquiry
and Free Endeavor, 111 The Nation, CL, No. 6 (February 10,
1940), 158-161.
^1, No. 1 (November 7, 1914), 3. The New Republic ob
served its twenty-fifth anniversary with a special issue
dated November 8, 1939. It is rather revealing to compare
the views of a moderate Christian journal such as The
Christian Century with those of New Masses. a publication on
the other end of the journalism spectrum. According to the
6
many respects to The Nation.
Century, the Republic serves an extremely valuable function
in the very strength of opposition which it stimulates;
further, "in an age when the word 'journalistic' has become
a term of reproach to designate sloppy writing and badly
organized material, it is fortunate that there are still a
few journals— of which the New Republic is conspicuously
one— which are also literature" ("A Quarter-Century of The
New Republic" [editorial], LVI, No. 46 [November 15, 1939],
1397). The Communist journal, conversely, sees both The
Nation and The New Republic as serving unequivocally the
interests of capitalistic imperialism--indeed, as "support
ing one imperialist group against another"--this comment
refers to the severe criticism of these periodicals of the
German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of August 1939. New
Masses feels that these liberal journals epitomize "fumbling
and confusion" and no definitive political or editorial
policies— inconsistency and contradiction run rampant
through their pages. (As will be shown later, the Commu
nist-oriented journals also have no consistent viewpoints;
the turns and twists of crucial world events necessitate a
continual shift of editorial ideology, as dictated by the
Kremlin. Of course, this is never admitted; instead, justi
fications are created for each change of the Communist
course, and these justifications are woven together in a web
of superficial consistency.) The title of the article in
which the two liberal publications are reviled is in itself
indicative of the view of the New Masses; see A. B. Magil,
"Virtuosi of Confusion. The 'Nation' and the 'New Republic'
reflect their own bewilderment. Through the storm of events
without chart or compass. The contradictions of liberal
ism," NM, XXXIII, No. 3 (October 10, 1939), 13-15. We find
it most enlightening to note that the issue of the Republic
of the week after the Masses article was published carried
a full-page advertisement for New Masses; see NR, C, No.
1298 (October 18, 1939) [323] . This seems to be a manifes
tation of the observation made by the Century that "Probably
few papers have a loyal constituency with a wider spread of
opinions" ("A Quarter-Century," p. 1397). In the early
1930's, the Republic was much farther left than in the later
portion of the decade; in 1934, for example, many of its ads
were pro-Russia and anti-capitalism; see NR, LXXVII, No.
7
One of the two sources established at least seven years
before the founding of the Third Reich is The Saturday Re
view of Literature, a politically moderate and barely— if at
all— left of center weekly publication devoted mainly to
reviews of currently published books and secondarily to
articles dealing with all facets of literature, including
interpretation, history, and writers. The first number of
the Review appeared on August 2, 1924, and while the issues
of the earlier years were rather strictly limited to lit
erary questions, those of the middle and later years encom
passed in this study presented an increasing awareness of
political and cultural-social questions stimulated by the
5
spread of repressive rule throughout Europe. The sixth
periodical in this category, New Masses, published by mem
bers of the American Communist Party as a "cooperative ven
ture, " was initiated in New York as a monthly in May 1926,
998 (January 17, 1934), 290. A number of factors contrib
uted to the change in this orientation after 1935-36, as
will be indicated later.
5In fact, Henry Seidel Canby, editor from 1924 to 1936
and later a member of the editorial board, was moved to com
ment in 1941 that "The Saturday Review has been criticized
by some, and praised by others for carrying its editorials,
its essays and its reviews into the fields of politics,
ideology and the world emergency" ("Books in the Arsenal of
Democracy" [editorial], SR, XXIII, No. 13 [January 18,
1941] , 8) .
8
continued on this basis to September 1933, and was published
iweekly from January 1, 1934 to January 13, 1948. New
Masses must be recognized as significant for purposes of
political and social contrast, as well as in terms of the
number of applicable articles, editorials, and advertise
ments which it printed. An announcement of 19 34 labeled the
Masses the "central organ of revolutionary culture, [which]
in its brief existence [has become] the most significant and
7
influential weekly in the United States."
^No numbers were issued for May 1928j March and October
1932; March and October-December 1933. It is of interest to
note that New Masses was barred from Germany in April 1933
([Announcement], NM, VIII, No. 9 [May 1933], 29). The New
York Times Index for 1933, in fact, under its heading "News
papers, Germany," lists about 100 articles dealing with as
pects of press censorship in that country, many of which
cite the prohibition— particularly in February and March— of
various domestic and foreign publications in the Third Reich
(Index, pp. 1950-1951). A rather amusing sidelight is pro
vided by a letter from a Los Angeles reader of the Masses,
in which it is stated that the Los Angeles Public Library is
not certain that it could and/or would include this journal
at its Central Branch, since it is such a radical magazine
([Correspondence], NM, XIV, No. 11 [March 12, 1935], 20).
^New Theatre, I, No. 9 (October 1934), 38. An inter
esting comment referring by implication to New Masses was
discovered in an article about Max Eastman who, as editor of
The Masses and The Liberator from 1913 to 1922, "was one of
the dominant figures of the intellectual life of New York."
The impression received from this piece was that Eastman's
journal became transmuted eventually into New Masses; "The
editors of The New Masses [sic] themselves whose boss behind
the Kremlin walls was recently denouncing . . . Eastman . . .
9
As previously mentioned, the second group of primary
sources comprises six journals established after 1933, and
with the exception of one of these publications, they tended
to incline in the literary and theatrical direction with
overtones of greater or lesser degrees of political liberal-
8
ism. The first, Anti-Nazi News, initiated on October 20,
1936, is the above-named exception in that it dealt in a
newspaper-like format with the following areas: (1) politi
cal and military developments on the international scene,
with much emphasis on Germany and Spain; (2) the domestic
situation in regard particularly to activities of pro-
Fascist organizations and agents, the watchword here being
that warning leads to awareness; and (3) legal and cultural
would not have their magazine with whatever is individual in
its format and its tone if Max had not created it for them"
(Edmund Wilson, "Max Eastman in 1941," NR, CIV, No. 6 [Feb
ruary 10, 1941], 173). Later in the same article, Wilson
states that Eastman was "a journalist who had allowed his
magazine to be captured by an opposition that parodied it in
the interests of everything which [he] most desired to
fight" (p. 176).
O
This publication is known by several other titles: as
News of the World, beginning on March 20, 1937, and as
Hollywood Now from January 26, 1938 until February 2, 1940,
at which time it ceased publication. For purposes of sim
plicity, however, it will henceforth be referred to by the
title under which it appeared initially, i.e., Anti-Nazi
News .
10
anti-Nazi activities in the United States, headed mainly by
the New York-based Non-Sectarian Anti-Nazi League to Cham
pion Human Rights, Inc., of which this publication was an
9
official voice. (The News itself was printed by the Holly
wood Anti-Nazi League for the Defense of American Democ
racy, ^ which was in turn affiliated with the National
9The official publication of the Non-Sectarian Anti-
Nazi League to Champion Human Rights, Inc. was the Anti-Nazi
Bulletin, established in New York in 1934. As far as could
be ascertained, the Bulletin was published until July 1937;
its final issue is indicated as IV, No. 6 in the card cata
logue of the main library of the University of California at
Los Angeles (hereinafter abbreviated as UCLA).
-^New Theatre, a periodical of far left orientation,
announced the formation of the Hollywood League in mid-1936,
calling it "the Hollywood League Against Nazism" and noting
that it had been formed "to defend American democratic
rights against Nazi influences" ("So It Won't Happen Here"
[cultural news column], NT, III, No. 7 [July 1936], 4). The
offices of the League were located at 6914 Hollywood Blvd.,
and its officers were as follows: Donald Ogden Stewart,
Chairman; Marian Spitzer, Vice-Chairman; Alan Campbell,
Secretary; Ben Bernard, Treasurer. Among the sponsors were
The Most Reverend John J. Cantwell (Archbishop of Los Ange
les), Eddie Cantor, Oscar Hammerstein II, Rupert Hughes,
Ernest Lubitsch, Frederic March, Judge Isaac Pacht, Dorothy
Parker, Gloria Stewart (I, No. 1 [October 20, 1936], 8).
According to Senator Jack B. Tenney, Chairman of the Joint
Fact-Finding Committee on Un-American Activities of the
California Legislature during the mid-1940's, "Anti-Nazi
leagues flourished in the United States and the Anti-Nazi
League of Hollywood grew to considerable proportions. The
comrades in America and California exploited to the fullest
the growing horror in the minds of all Americans of the
brutality rampant in Hitler's Third Reich. The ruthless and
barbarous persecution of the Jews by Hitler and his bloody
11
Committee on Justice for Victims of Nazism.) The fourth
minions,, the unspeakable and unbelievable tortures inflicted
on the innocent scapegoats of 'Fuehrer Aryanism,' stirred up
a righteous indignation in the heart of every liberty-loving
American citizen" (Red Fascism. Boring from Within . . . by
the Subversive Forces of Communism [Los Angeles (c. 1947)],
p. 75). Tenney states that* according to the findings of
his Committee, the Anti-Nazi leagues of America were basi
cally Communist-front organizationsj he notes that V. J.
Jerome, who "personally supervised the organization of the
Hollywood . . . League[,] . . . had been sent to Hollywood
some time before by the Communist Party Central Committee to
take over the duties of Stanley Lawrence in 'improving cul
tural work' in California" (p. 75). Jerome allegedly also
brought to Hollywood John Howard Lawson, who became a screen
writer, as well as associate editor of the Daily Worker (pp.
75, 287). Lawson was also one of the editors of the Commu
nist quarterly, Mainstream, which was founded in January
1944 (p. 642). In fact, New Masses merged with Mainstream
to form Masses and Mainstream; its first issue appeared in
March 1948. Due to the appeal made by Communist-front
organizations to the most noble ideals of Americans, many
well-known and prominent individuals lent their names to
causes and groups of whose true nature they were unaware.
In his article, "Stalin's American Power," Max Eastman dis
cusses this phenomenon in some detail, citing three organi
zations taken from a list of more than 100 "dedicated os
tensibly to all sorts of noble purposes, but operated by
communist nuclei with but two ends in view: defense of the
Soviet Union and extension of Stalin's brand of pseudo
socialist totalitarian gang-rule into the United States.
Almost every one of them represents the drawing in to the
communist network of hundreds of prominent Americans, and
the use of their names and money for causes they actually
despise. These organizations have a rank-and-file member
ship of millions who are equally innocent of the real pur
poses behind them" (The American Mercury, LIII, No. 216
[December 1941], 678) . It might be simple to write off
Eastman as another witch-hunting "Red Baiter" if it were not
for the fact that he spent many years studying the Communist
phenomenon, some of them in Russia, and devoted his earlier
years to personal involvement with that cause— albeit iden-
side of the Stalin-Trotsky split.
12
area to which the Anti-Nazi News devoted its efforts was
that of the activities of noteworthy and always exiled
German-speaking artists, writers, and politicians in the
United States insofar as they pertained to the general goals
supported by the League.'*''1 ' While not appearing on a
strictly regular basis, the News was published in general
which caused him to be boycotted by many members of the
intelligentsia who joined the Stalinist-oriented left-wing
movement of the thirties. He did, however, continue his
analysis of communism, and in 1940-41 made public two ap
parently incisive studies of that movement; both published
by W. W. Norton and Co. of New York, they were entitled
Stalin's Russia and the Crisis in Socialism, and Marxism:
Is It Science? (Wilson, p. 173). A word should be added
here about Tenney's publication, Red Fascism. While this
lengthy and extremely detailed report of the findings of
his Un-American Activities Committee is in some ways very
sensationalistic— and might be construed by many intellec
tuals as lacking in "professionalism" due to its quite emo
tional tone at times— this work must be recognized as the
result of diligent and well-substantiated effort. Although
admittedly and clearly one-sided, it is no more so than a
number of the periodicals with which this study deals.
Tenney's report has proved helpful, not only as a counter
balance, but also as a source for comparison and verifica
tion of many journals and organizations which appeared to
this writer to be of left-wing, and particularly Communist,
coloration.
■'■■'"Some of the better-known German-speaking exiles whose
activities were publicized in the News— and some of whose
speeches, art shows, and concerts were sponsored in part by
the Hollywood Anti-Nazi League— were Ernst Toller, Ludwig
Renn, Klaus Mann, Thomas Mann, Fritz Lang, Erich Rix, Kaethe
Kollwitz, and Friedrich Wolf.
13
12
on a more or less bi-weekly schedule. In its inaugural
issue were printed the tenets upon which the existence of
the League— and therefore, that of the News— was predicated.
These are illuminating as an illustration of the direction
taken in America by the organization with which the Anti-
Nazi leagues were in reality associated:
Because Nazism is committed to the destruction of
Democracy, the League is committed to the defeat of
Nazism's campaign in America and Europe.
Because Nazism begins by stirring up bigotry against
minorities, the League begins by defending minority
rights and educating public opinion to the destructive
methods of Nazi dictatorship.
Because Nazism spends millions of dollars in America
to malign religious groups, the church, the democratic
ideal, the organization of labor, individual liberty,
the League creates a powerful, militant public opinion
to oppose these Nazi agents.
Because Nazism ridicules and destroys culture, the
arts, science, scholarship and personal freedom, and
fosters respect only for war and aggression, the League
maintains a cultural measure for national development,
disseminates to teacher, professional, artist, trade-
unionist, women and youth the true picture of Nazi
moral and cultural impoverishment, and bands these
groups together in cultural activity to defeat the
spread of Nazi destructive propaganda in America.
1 O
J “l i The source m the Southern California area, the Spe
cial Collections Room of the Powell Library at UCLA, pos
sesses copies only through Vol. Ill, No. 13 (April 14,
1939), despite the fact that, according to the card cata
logue in the University Research Library, the News was pub
lished through February 2, 1940.
14
Because Nazism assaults its citizenry with the most
bestial, punitive attacks, because the map of Germany
is black with dots representing concentration camps,
dungeons, gigantic whipping posts and execution yards,
the League organizes world-wide and nation-wide support
of the underground movement in Germany against Hitler
ism and Nazism.
Because Nazism flaunts its goal of destroying the demo
cratic association of individuals, we, the democratic
individuals, openly associate to preserve our laws,
institutions, culture and highly-praised humanity from
Nazism's rapacious attacks.13
One further point of information deserving of mention is
that Anti-Nazi News reminded its readers with a fair degree
of frequency that while some 119 pro-Nazi organizations were
in operation in the United States during even its early pub
lication period, "Only one organization is devoted exclu-
14
sively to fighting Hitlerism in America," this being the
Anti-Nazi League.
The remainder of the primary sources established after
15
1933 include Decision, a rather short-lived monthly
13"Why the League Was Formed," A-NN, I, No. 1 (October
20, 1936), 8.
14"119 against One," A-NN, I, No. 6 (January 5, 1937),
2 .
^ Decision appeared from January 1941 (I, No. 1) until
January-February 1942 (III, Nos. 1-2) and then disappeared
from view due to various factors, the most urgent being
financial difficulties (Klaus Mann, "Issues at Stake," De
cision, III, Nos. 1-2 [January-February 1942], 3-6).
15
16
"Review of Free Culture" edited by Klaus Mann for the
purpose of creating an independent forum upon which writers
and thinkers might present a challenge to the destructive
totalitarianism threatening the right of men to be free, as
well as a constructive alternative to that chaotic madness}
From September 1933 to August 1935, Mann had edited Die
Sammlunq, a literary monthly which undertook to combine
politics and literature through the mirror provided by Ger
man exiled writers and writers of other nationalities who
were opposed to Fascist rule, among the latter being Andre
Gide, Aldous Huxley (both of whom, in addition to Heinrich
Mann, had helped sponsor this journal), Andre Maurois,
Schalom Asch, Benedetto Croce, Jean Cocteau, Boris
^''Issues at Stake: Decision," Decision, I, No. 1
(January 1941), n.p.
- * - 7Among the editorial advisors were Max Ascoli; W. H.
Auden, to whom Erika Mann was married; Edward [sjlcJ BeneS,
President of Czechoslovakia at the time of the Nazi inva
sion; Stephen Vincent Benet; G. A. Borgese, the prominent
Italian poet to whom the youngest Mann sister, Elisabeth,,
was married; Bruno Frank; Frank Kingdon, former President of
Newark University and founder of the Emergency Rescue Com
mittee; Freda Kirchwey, editor of The Nation and an officer
in the International Relief Association; Somerset Maugham;
Robert E. Sherwood; and Stefan Zweig. The Chairman of the
Board of Editorial Advisors was Klaus' father, Thomas Mann
(Decision, I, No. 1).
16
18
Pasternak, and Ernest Hemingway. In 1940, after some
years in America, during the course of which he became an
American citizen, Mann decided to establish another literary
review; as he wrote in his autobiography, Per Wendepunkt,
this journal
mufite natiirlich in englischer Sprache erscheinen und
durchaus internationalen Charakter haben; eine Spezia-
lisierung auf die Problematik der deutschen Emigration,
etwa im Stil der "Sammlung", ware heute unbefriedigend,
ja gefahrlich. Ich bin kein Deutscher mehr. . . . Mein
Ehrgeiz ist, ein Weltburger amerikanischer Nationalitat
zu werden. In diesem Geiste ware die Revue zu fiihren —
weltburgerlich-amerikanisch.^
1 f t
See Klaus Mann, Der Wendepunkt. Exn Lebensbericht
(Frankfurt a/M, 1952), pp. 315-316: "... ich grundete
auch noch meine eigene Zeitschrift, eine literarische (aber
doch nicht rein literarische!) Revue namens 'Die Sammlung',
die ab September 1933 beim Querido-Verlag zu Amsterdam mo-
natlich herauskam. . . . zu den Mitarbeitern gehorten fast
alle exilierten deutschen Dichter und Literaten, auBerdem
aber auch eine ziemlich stattliche Reihe nicht-deutscher
Autoren von internationalem Prestige. . . . Mein Ehrgeiz
war, die Talente der Emigration beim europaischen Publikum
einzufuhren, gleichzeitig aber die Emigration mit den gei-
stigen Stromungen in ihren Gastlandern vertraut zu machen".
Der Wendepunkt will hereafter be cited as DWp.
-*-9p. 424. Mann devotes a fairly large portion of the
eleventh chapter of DWp to the problems and questions he
encountered in establishing Decision; understandably, this
chapter is entitled "Entscheidung 1940-1942." Note also the
twelfth chapter of The Turning Point. Thirty-Five Years in
This Century (New York [c. 1942]), pp. 327-366; it too is
called "Decision." In the "Nachbemerkung" of DWp. Mann ex
plains that these two books, despite their nearly identical
titles, are in reality two different works written for
17
In his editorial to the inaugural issue, Mann sets forth
some of the ideals toward whose realization his journal
would strive:
Another literary magazine? Just now, in the midst of
a terrific ordeal— while the planet is convulsed in a
paroxysm of agony?
Yes I A new forum for the creative spirit— now, at pre
cisely this moment of fatal decisions; and precisely
here.
Needless to say, we do not want this magazine to become
just another Ivory Tower. We shall try, on the contrary,
to approach the great problems of modern life, not with
the perfunctory curiosity of reporters nor with the rou
tine pathos of politicians, but with the consuming fer
vor a good philosopher experiences in examining the in
tricacies of some vitally significant moot question. . . .
The most distinguished representatives of European cul
ture are at this very moment foregathering in these
United States. They came, first from Russia and Italy,
then from Germany, Austria, Czecho-Slovakia and Spain;
next from Poland, Finland, the Scandinavian and the Low
Countries: finally from France. This plethora of fine
minds is doomed to languish and fade away . . . indeed,
to perish— unless given a productive contact with the
youth and vigor of American literature.
This magazine is not meant to be a "mouthpiece" for
European refugees; it is designed to become instrumental
in intensifying the relations between the American and
European spirit— in proving and improving a solidarity
between progressive minds that transcends all national
boundaries.
readerships of two distinct language-cultures. He touches
briefly on some specifics of their differences (p. 544).
18
We want to make an independent magazine but not an
impartial one. Nobody interested in culture can afford
to be impartial now. Culture must take sides and turn
militant, or it is bound to perish. But it will perish
also if it becomes either narrow-minded or fanatic dur
ing the fight for its life.
We call this magazine Decision— not because we have a
clean-cut political or intellectual program. This title
means rather that we have decided to seek a program, to
go on, to meet the challenge of humanity's retrogression,
to overcome the general dismay with the weapons of con
structive thinking. ("Issues at Stake: Decision," pp.
6-8)
The next periodical is Direction, an independent maga
zine of the arts published sometimes monthly and sometimes
seasonally which "has no affiliations with any political
party or group and, as a free agent, is dedicated to the
fight against reaction in all its forms. Its interest is
both in a literature and in an American Democracy that will
20
be free to develop their best potentialities." Direction
2 0
Editors [J. H. Preston, Thomas Cochran, others la
ter], "Introduction" (to a "Special Issue" devoted to work
of the members of the Federal Writers' Project], I, No. 3
(February 1938), 3. Many issues of Direction throughout its
years of existence devoted at least a paragraph, and often a
page, to the presentation of its editorial creed. In Vol.
I, No. 7 (June 1938), for example, the editors stated their
objectives in an "Open Letter from the Public Use of Arts
Committee" as follows:
To reflect the influence of progressive social thought
upon living literature and the arts in America.
To awaken the people to an understanding of the arts as
19
was first published in December 1937 in Darien, Connecticut
and continued on a more or less regular basis until its Fall
1945 issue, the final number.
The fourth periodical of this group is New Theatre
magazine (known also as New Theatre and Film), founded in
January 1934 in New York and published generally on a
monthly basis as an organ of the New Theatre and New Dance
21
League. The fact that the strength of these leagues was
strong allies in their world-wide struggle for social
justice.
To encourage the efforts and champion the rights of all
progressive workers in politics— literature, painting,
the theater, music, the dance, photography, etc. (p. 29)
O I
We note a reference to revolutionary cultural activi
ties in America, for whose development and maintenance an
increasing number of organizations and publications were
founded in the early 1930's, due to the growing number of
disillusioned middle-class intellectuals who felt that the
answers to the social and economic ills stemming from the
Depression were to be found in workers 1 movements and pro
letarian agitation. The reference is made by Joseph Freeman
at the First American Writers' Congress in June 1935; speak
ing on "The Tradition of American Revolutionary Literature,"
he noted: "These [revolutionary] ideas were prevalent in
left-wing literary circles in this country in the early
twenties. During the boom period, many intellectuals who
had allied themselves with the workers under the impact of
the war and the October Revolution, were absorbed into the
then prosperous middle classes. A small group of left-wing
writers, influenced by the Communist movement . . . agitated
for a revolutionary art and literature in America. . . .
They wrote, lectured and organized with a view to circulat
ing basic Marxian ideas in literature. They founded the New
Masses. the Theatre Union, the New Theatre, Partisan Review,
20
concentrated in the hundreds of workers' theatres throughout
22
the United States further indicates to some degree the
the John Reed Clubs, the Film and Foto League" (Proceedings,
First American Writers' Congress, in Tenney, pp. 421-422).
2^The idea of workers' theatres gained considerable
momentum from the Federal Theatre Project which, in the
words of Jane De Hart Mathews-— whose study of this subject
is extremely lucid and incisive— was "The largest, perhaps
the most productive, and certainly the most socially com
mitted and controversial of the WPA [Works Progress Admin
istration] Arts Projects" (The Federal Theatre, 1935-1939.
Plays, Relief, and Politics [Princeton, N. J., 1967], p.
viii). Launched as one of the economic relief measures of
the New Deal, its aim was to establish a nationwide feder
ally subsidized theatre employing destitute actors; even
tually thousands of workers connected with all phases of the
theatre were employed, for "with the advent of the Federal
Theatre came money . . . time . . . and above all, the pro
fessional opportunities heretofore lacking" (p. 298). The
Project was ultimately placed under the direction of Mrs.
Hallie Flanagan, director of the Vassar College Experimental
Theatre, who had acquired an international reputation as one
of the leaders in the experimental theatre in the United
States, having been strongly influenced by the theatre of
the mid-twenties flourishing in Soviet Russia under men such
as Constantine Stanislavsky, founder of the Moscow Art The
atre, and Vsevolod Meierhold, his former student: ". . .in
the Russia of 1926, Hallie Flanagan had discovered a theatre
of great artistry and tremendous vitality, a theatre which
seemed to serve a force beyond itself— one which had dared
to respond to a changing world" (p. 19). Mrs. Flanagan's
goal as director of the Project was to make the theatre so
cially relevant to current issues; in a Washington Address
to Regional and State Directors of the Federal Theatre pre
sented in October 1935, she declared: "We live in a chang
ing world: man is whispering through space, soaring to the
stars. . . . Shall the theatre continue to huddle in the
confines of a painted box set? . . . In an age of terrific
implications as to wealth and poverty, as to the function of
government, as to peace and war, as to the relation of an
artist to all these forces,_the theatre must grow up. The
21
political inclinations of this journal, which constantly
reiterated the theme that the function of art is to be a
weapon for change in the arsenal of society. For instance,
in an editorial of an early issue, we find the following
opinion:
The increasing importance of the dramatic arts as a
stimulus to thought and action is evidenced by the
remarkable growth of the revolutionary theatre, film,
and dance during the past year. The strength and grow
ing influence of the workers' theatre has alarmed the
ruling class of every bourgeois country . . . for the
slogan, "Art is a weapon in the class struggle," has
penetrated the broadest strata of worker-artists the
world over. . . .
The fascist governments and governing fascists have
issued their challenge in terms of terror. . . . They
seek to intimidate workers and intellectuals who are
fighting on the cultural front. . . . Despite the com
bined onslaught of that unholy trinity, Capital, State
and Church, revolutionary theatre workers the world
over will continue the fight against war and fascism,
for a social system in which the arts and sciences
serve not the Morgans and the Mellons, the Rockefellers
and the Rothschilds, the Krupps and the Comite des
Forges, but the mass of mankind. Revolutionary workers,
not idealists, these workers know what they are after—
peace and security, bread and beauty. And they know
that without revolutionary practice, revolutionary
theory isn't worth a damn.23
theatre must become conscious of the implications of the
changing social order, or the changing social order will
ignore, and rightly, the implications of the theatre" (pp.
42-43).
23NT, I, No. 8 (September 1934), 3.
22
In a later issue we find a discussion of the significance
of the New Theatre movement in America:
The New Theatre movement, supported by tens of thou
sands of workers, middle-class people, intellectuals,
and professionals increases every day its physical
strength and artistic quality. Our new social theatre
is a people's theatre, vividly conscious of its role
in society, seeking to take over the best of the cul
tural heritage of the past and weld this heritage into
new forms, expressing the flow of life and art today.
Just as at the end of the Dark Ages, theatre art began
to flourish despite the then-established powers, so
today in spite of suppression[,] workers and intellec
tuals, amateurs and professionals, are creating their
own theatre. A united theatre front in America can
save the cultural traditions of the past and the vital
new art of the present^ can proclaim in the face of
fascism the unity and strength of a mass theatre for
socii. 1 justice.
Already three hundred of these New Theatres exist. . . .
Everywhere the new theatres struggle against poverty,
lack of equipment, inability to pay full-time workers
enough to live on.^
"Against Fascism," NT, II, No. 3 (March 1935), 25.
Just two months prior to this statement, New Theatre had
published a "Soviet Issue" dedicated to the ideals of the
proletarian movement as initiated in the USSR. This issue
was compiled in Moscow by Jay Leyda, with the assistance of
Pearl Attasheva. Among the contributors was Erwin Piscator,
former director of the Berlin Zentra1theater and eventually
the founder of the Dramatic Workshop at the New School for
Social Research in New York ("Our Contributors," NT, II,
No. 1 [January 1935], 5). In honor of this issue, the edi
torial staff of the Sovietskoe Kino and Cinema Workers sent
a congratulatory radiogram from Moscow greeting the New
Theatre and Workers Cinema League and urging a great push
forward of the "UNITED FRONT AGAINST FASCISM AND WAR FOR
REVOLUTIONARY ART" (p. 6). Cf. the favorable review of this
23
The fifth magazine in this second portion of our pri
mary source category is perhaps the most politically radical
of this group— if not, then it is certainly not far behind
New Theatre. This is the Partisan Review, certainly the
sleekest and most sophisticated of the radical journals em
braced by this study. Its initial issue appeared early in
1934, and the subtitle given at that time was "A Bi-Monthly
of Revolutionary Literature Published by the John Reed Club
25
of New York." The following intention is verbalized in
the "Editorial Statement" of the first issue:
Partisan Review appears at a time when American litera
ture is undergoing profound changes. The economic and
political crisis of capitalism, the growth of the revo
lutionary movement the world over, and the successful
building of socialism in the Soviet Union have deeply
affected American life, thought and art. They have had
far-reaching effects not only upon the political activi
ties of writers and artists, but upon their writing and
special number by Michael Blankfort in NM: "New Theatre has
done its readers a service with this Soviet issue. And al
though I hoped for more detail in the articles, nevertheless
I congratulate its editors on a difficult job well done"
("The Theatre," NM, XIV, No. 4 [January 22, 1935], 28).
^The John Reed Club was dedicated to Soviet-style
socialism— i.e., Stalinism— and published a number of other
revolutionary magazines, none of which, however, were of the
stature and/or breadth of influence of the Partisan Review.
However, the Review apparently did not continue its affilia
tion with the Club after its April-May 1935 issue (II, No.
7), for with Vol. II, No. 8 (July-August 1935), its subtitle
appeared simply as "A Bi-Monthly of Revolutionary Litera
ture . "
24
thinking as well. For the past four years the move
ment to create a revolutionary art, which for a decade
was confined to a small group, has spread throughout
the United States .
We propose to concentrate on creative and critical
literature, but we shall maintain a definite viewpoint—
that of the revolutionary working class . Through our
specific literary medium we shall participate in the
struggle of the workers and sincere intellectuals
against imperialist war, fascism, national and racial
oppression, and for the abolition of the system which
breeds these evils . The defense of the Soviet Union
is one of our principal tasks.
We shall combat not only the decadent culture of the
exploiting classes but also the debilitating liberalism
which at times seeps into our writers through the pres
sure of class-alien forces. . . . [Further,] we shall
resist every attempt to cripple our literature by
narrow-minded, sectarian theories and practices.
We take this opportunity to greet the various magazines
of revolutionary literature already in the field, es
pecially the New Masses whose appearance as a weekly,
like the present issuance of Partisan Review, is evi
dence of the growth of the new within the old.2^
From February 1934 through November 1935 this periodical
appeared on a bi-monthly basis; then, after a hiatus from
publishing between December 1935 and February 1936, the
Review was reissued as "a new literary monthly [which,]
though continuing the traditions of its predecessors . . .
27
will be broader in scope and . . . more mature." Then,
26PR, I, No. 1 (February-March 1934), 2.
27"This Month," PR, III, No. 1 (February 1936), 2 . The
25
in December 1937, the editors— F. W. Dupee, Dwight Mac
donald, Mary McCarthy, George L. K. Morris, William Phillips
and Philip Rahv— alerted their readers to a quite different
orientation based on a reinterpretation of the role of
Marxism in culture, i.e., "[as] first of all an instrument
of analysis and evaluation . . . [but] through the medium
28
of democratic controversy." The key words were now "in
dependence" and "objectivity," and the editors railed
against not only the "more conscious social writers [in
America, who were now tending] to identify themselves with
a single organization, the Communist Party[, thus growing]
automatic in their political responses but increasingly less
responsible in an artistic sense," they also attacked the
literary critics of the Party who, "equipped with the zeal
of vigilantes, begin to consolidate into aggressive politi
cal-literary amalgams as many tendencies as possible and to
29
outlaw all dissenting opinion" (p. 3). The editors
new format was prompted by the combining of Partisan Review
with Anvil, a somewhat minor revolutionary left-wing jour
nal. Like the Anti-Nazi News, it is to be found in the
Special Collections Room of UCLA's Powell Library.
28"Editorial Statement," PR, IV, No. 1 (December 1937),
4.
29
This deep split in the forces of the Left was stimu
lated by various factors which began to operate around 1935
26
express their position clearly:
Formerly associated with the Communist Party, Partisan
Review strove from the first against its drive to
equate the interests of literature with those of fac
tional politics. Our reappearance on an independent
basis signifies our conviction that the totalitarian
trend is inherent in that movement and that it can no
longer be combatted from within.
But many other tendencies exist in American letters,
and these, we think, are turning from the senseless
disciplines of the official Left to shape a new move
ment. The old movement will continue and, to judge by
present indications, it will be reinforced more and
more by academicians from the universities, by yester
day's celebrities and today's philistines. Armed to
the teeth with slogans of revolutionary prudence, its
official critics will revive the petty-bourgeois tradi
tion of gentility, and with each new tragedy on the
historic level they will call the louder for a litera
ture of good cheer. Weak in genuine literary authority
but equipped with all the economic and publicity powers
of an authentic cultural bureaucracy, the old regime
will seek to isolate the new by performing upon it the
easy surgery of political falsification. . . . Every
effort . . . will be made to excommunicate the new
generation. . . .
But Partisan Review aspires to represent a new and
dissident generation in American lettersj it will not
be dislodged from its independent position by any politi
cal campaign against it [e.g., a series of attacks al
ready carried out in the Communist Party press]. . . .
Conformity to a given social ideology or to a prescribed
attitude or technique, will not be asked of our writers,
(pp. 3-4)
and crystallized in 1937. Our discussion of the Second
American Writers' Congress of June 1937 will point out some
of the elements involved in this situation, for that Con
gress served as a kind of pivot around which the dissenting
forces revolved and from which they diverged.
27
I t m u st b e s t r e s s e d t h a t , d e s p it e th e c la s h w i t h r e p r e s e n t a
t i v e s o f s t r i c t e r , i . e . , d o g m a t ic a lly S o v i e t - o r i e n t e d i d e o l -
o g y , th e R e v ie w d id n o t d i s c l a im " i t s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o th e
r e v o l u t i o n a r y m ovem ent i n g e n e r a l , [b u t r a t h e r ] . . . o b l i
g a t io n t o an y o f i t s o r g a n iz e d p o l i t i c a l e x p r e s s io n s " (p .
Smooth sailing, however, was not in the cards for the
Review: in 194 3 Dwight Macdonald, who had been one of the
chief editors for over six years, severed his relationship
•^Apparently this revised orientation paid off, for the
liberal, non-dogmatic publications such as The Nation evalu
ated the Review favorably as being "in a category by it
self [:] its point of view in both literature and politics
is Marxist[, and while] Marxist literary criticism has hit
some very low points in literalness [s_icj and ignorance in
the past decade . . . the articles in the Partisan Review by
such writers as Philip Rahv, Meyer Schapiro, and others
demonstrate once more how fruitful and illuminating the
Marxist approach to the arts can be in the hands of intelli
gent writers. The poems and stories printed in the Review
are original and experimental. On the literary side there
is the sense of a fresh wind blowing through; fewer windows
are open on the political side, but . . . its occasional
editorials on current issues have the merit of being well
written— usually by Dwight MacDonald [sic], who is one of
the few bright young men to have escaped alive from Time,
Inc." ("Notes by the Way" ["Books and the Arts"], The Na-
tion, CLII, No. 1 [January 4, 1941], 22). See also "Notes
by the Way," idem. CXLIX, No. 23 (December 2, 1939), 613.
For a rather illuminating discussion of the aspects, pro and
con- mostly con— of Marxist writing and criticism, see Ed
mund Wilson, "Marxism and Literature," The Atlantic Monthly,
CLX, No. 6 (December 1937), 741-750.
28
w it h th e j o u r n a l . I t was h i s f e e l i n g " t h a t t h e d iv e r g e n c e
b e tw e e n my c o n c e p tio n o f th e m a g a z in e a n d y o u r own h as b e
come to o g r e a t t o b e b r id g e d a n y lo n g e r ." N o t in g t h a t t h i s
d iv e r g e n c e was " p a r t l y c u l t u r a l " — t h e R e v ie w h a v in g becom e
" r a t h e r a c a d e m ic . . . an d [ q u i t e ] e x c l u s i v e l y ' l i t e r a r y ' " —
M a c d o n a ld e m p h a s iz e d t h a t i t was b a s i c a l l y " p o l i t i c a l " i n
n a t u r e :
When we revived Partisan Review in 1937, it was as a
Marxian socialist cultural magazine. This was what
distinguished it from other literary organs like South
ern Review and Kenyon Review, and this orientation, in
my opinion, was responsible for much of the magazine's
intellectual success. The war, however, has generated
sharp political disagreements. Not only has the Marx
ist position been reduced to a minority of one— myself—
but since Pearl Harbor there has been a tendency on the
part of some editors to eliminate political discussion
entirely. For my part, I have opposed this retreat and
I have insisted that precisely because of the urgency
of the crisis, social questions should bulk even larger
in the magazine. . . .
What interests me . . . is a magazine which shall serve
as a forum and a rallying-point for such intellectuals
as are still concerned with social and political issues.
A magazine which, while not ignoring cultural matters,
will integrate with them— and yes, subordinate them to
the analysis of those deeper historical trends of which
they are an expression.
In their answer to Macdonald's letter, the editors in
turn enunciated the basic orientation of the Review adopted
•^"Letters," PR, X, No. 4 (July-August 1943), 382.
29
some years earlier. It was their opinion that Macdonald had
wished to "abandon the cultural policy of P.R. and . . .
transform it into a political magazine with literary trim
mings "--they indicated their awareness of the use of litera
ture "as bait," calling this "a familiar strategy of left-
wing politicians." When he did not succeed in converting
the journal to "his special political uses," he had no
choice but to resign. They submitted rather adamantly that
Macdonald's aim had been to transmute the Review into a
------------------ i
vehicle which could take over the functions of "the old
revolutionary movement [which is sliding into] a state of
decline." By contrast, they felt— and had "always main
tained [--] that no magazine . . . [could] put itself forward
as a substitute for a movement[— particularly the Review,
which from its inception had been edited primarily by lit
erary men]":
We could never agree to "subordinate" art and litera
ture to political interests. It is precisely this sort
of disagreement which led, in 1937, to our break with
the Stalinists. For it is one thing to introduce the
Marxist point of view into the analysis of culture, and
something else again to impose it on culture in a total
fashion. We all should be impatient these days with
those attempting to set up an ideological or any other
type of monopoly. Macdonald speaks of the magazine's
"intellectual success"; but he shows his bias in ascrib
ing it largely to the Marxist slant rather than to the
specific modulation achieved in combining socialist
ideas with a varied literary and critical content. This
30
will continue to be the policy of this magazine (pp.
382-383)
The last journal in the primary source category, the
New York-based Twice A Year, was a particularly distin-
32
guished semi-annual in book form whose first issue ap
peared in the fall of 1938. Devoted to civil liberties as
well as to literature and the arts, it was published for at
33
least ten years and, in the opinion of this writer, con
tributed significantly to the creation of an American cul
tural epoch during the war years. The editors clearly ex
pressed their purpose in the following introductory remarks
to Volume I:
Twice A Year wishes to attempt a clarification of those
problems relating to man's struggle to attain a balance
between the good of the individual and that of society.
Twice A Year affirms that the individual should be given
the opportunity to maintain his integrity, not only
where matters of "speech, conscience, press," work, war
. . . are concerned, but in every realm of experience
^In the July-August 1939 issue of Direction magazine,
the editors make the following comment regarding Twice A
Year: "... Dorothy Norman, the editor, and Mary Lescaze,
assistant editor, have here started a really important work,
which can be compared in quality and high purpose to no
other American magazine" ("Cultural Front," II, No. 4, 19).
The l a s t num ber r e c o r d e d i n t h e UCLA R e s e a rc h L i b r a r y
i s V o l . X V I - X V I I j a c t u a l l y is s u e d w it h o u t n u m b e rin g , i t was
c a l l e d A r t an d A c t i o n , t e n t h a n n iv e r s a r y is s u e , T w ic e A
Y e a r . 1938-1948.
31
and expression.
i
Twice A Year therefore opposes all political dictator
ship; affirms the democratic method of government; af
firms the spirit of a John Brown,— forced to defend a
principle,— as well as the Tolstoyan tradition of non-
resistance: according to the spirit of the individual
and the nature of the principle or oppression involved.
Twice A Year prefers, however, that the material it
print speak for itself. . . . Therefore a title has been
chosen that shall neither label nor limit the contents.
Even a broadly suggestive term might tempt one to judge
what one reads on the basis of whether it corresponds
to the title, rather than for itself. Twice A Year
wishes to remain free of all restricting formulae.34
The following nine magazines have been placed within
the framework of the secondary source category because,
while they contributed some useful articles and viewpoints,
they did so on a somewhat lesser scale in relation to their
frequency and size than did the previously mentioned publi
cations. They are as follows: (1) The Atlantic Monthly, a
magazine of literature, science, art, and politics founded
in Boston in November 1857 and published in Boston and New
York as of 1908; (2) The Commonwea1, a weekly review of
literature, the arts, and public affairs; of predominantly
Catholic orientation, it was established on November 12,
■ 1924; (3) Forum and Century, variously a quarterly and a
34
J I, No. 1 (Fall-Winter 1938), 9.
32
monthly publication covering topics of cultural and politi
cal interest; rather moderate in tone, it was tinged with a
35
certain amount of philosophical detachment; (4) The Liter-
ary Dicrest, inaugurated on March 1, 1890 and published by
the Funk and Wagnalls Company of New York. It dealt, usu
ally in brief, with topics ranging from foreign affairs
through science and business to letters and art. During its
forty-eight years of existence as a separate entity, it both
absorbed and merged with other publications: it absorbed
Public Opinion in July 1906 and Current Opinion in May 1925;
on July 17, 1937, it and The Review of Reviews were united,
and until November 16, 1937, this combination bore the cum
bersome title, The Digest, Review of Reviews Incorporating
the Literary Digest. Hereafter, however, the original
title, The Literary Digest, was restored, remaining thus
until the journal merged into Time magazine in May 1938.
■^Established in March 1886, The Forum was an indepen
dent journal until June 1930. With its absorption of The
Century, an illustrated monthly magazine, in the following
month, it became known as Forum and Century through June
1940. In July of that year it merged into Current History;
this combination was entitled Current History and Forum.
F o r t h r e e m onths i n 1945— S e p te m b e r th r o u g h N o v e m b er— i t was
known as Forum and C olum n R e v ie w . Upon i t s m e rg e r w it h
C u r r e n t H i s t o r y i n M a rc h 1950, i t l o s t a l l t r a c e s o f i t s
o r i g i n a l Forum t i t l e an d c e a s e d , t e c h n i c a l l y , t o e x i s t .
33
Additional secondary source periodicals are the follow-
36
ing: (5) Newsweek, "the magazine of news significance,"
whose first issue appeared barely two weeks after Hitler had
assumed the leadership of Germany, and which was published
in New York; (6) One-Act Play Magazine, which originated in
Boston and was published monthly from May 1937 to February
37
1940 and bi-monthly from March 1940 to 1942. According
to William Kozlenko, its editor from 1937 to April 1940, it
was founded to fill "the need for an organ devoted solely to
the one act play [due to a] . . . renascence in the [Ameri
can] theatre." This rebirth of the theatre was itself a
reflection of new forces, both social and economic, and
created the need for "the smaller form . . . [which] con
tained the nucleus of fresh forces and vital tendencies.
. . . [and so] returned to shoulder part of the onus of a
38
new ideology." The editorial policy was broad, since it
36I, No. 1 (February 17, 1933), 2.
^ One-Act Play Magazine was suspended from publication
between April and December of 1939. It was also known by
several other titles: One-Act Play Magazine and Theatre
Review (1940), and One-Act Play Magazine and Radio-Drama
Review (1941-1942). It eventually merged into Plays: the
Drama Magazine for Young People.
38"Editorial," I, No. 1 (May 1937), 2-3.
34
was felt by the founders that "the theatre should not depend
only on one school of thought or of technique for its dra
matic expression^ therefore, the Magazine 1 has no political
ax to grind, though it is genuinely interested in plays of
tendency" (p. 3). The seventh journal is The Publishers1
Weekly, the publication of the American book trade estab
lished in New York in 1872, which dealt with all aspects of
that endeavor, including the question of freedom of the
press from censorship and its ethical implications. As the
next periodical we selected Time magazine, which, despite
its flippant and frequently satirical tone, provided at
least a modicum of (fairly accurate) information on not only
activities of various exiled writers, but several American
Writers' Congresses. The ninth and final publication is the
Wilson Library Bulletin, a monthly established in September
1921 in New York and including numerous facts, figures, and
articles on topics useful to librarians, such as references,
reference works and lists of "best" books.
Several newspapers serving in a "checkpoint" capacity
were selected on the basis of their geographical locations
in centers of exile activity, as well as for their divergent
35
39
v ie w p o i n t s : The New Y o r k T im es as a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f
m o d e ra te and som ew hat i n t e l l e c t u a l l i b e r a l i s m ; th e Los
Angeles Times as an example of rather more conservative
liberalism; and The Daily Worker, the official publication
o f th e C om m unist P a r t y o f th e U n it e d S ta te s ., as an e x a m p le
40
o f e x tre m e r e v o l u t i o n a r y o r i e n t a t i o n .
I n s o f a r as t h e p r e s s c o v e ra g e o f s p e c i f i c e v e n ts o r
t o p ic s a ro u n d w h ic h t h i s s tu d y m u st o f n e c e s s it y r e v o lv e is
c o n c e rn e d , we fo u n d i t m o s t f e a s i b l e , a f t e r u s in g th e New
39
The Times Index for the years 1933-1945 was used as a
concise reference for topics and names such as the follow
ing: "American Press"; "Authors"; "Benn, Gottfried";
"Books"; "Books-Censorship-Germany"; "Brecht, Bert"; "Cul
ture -German -American League for"; "Feuchtwanger, Lion";
"Frank, Leonhard"; "Freedom of the Press"; "German Culture";
"Literary"; "Literature-German"; "Mann" (Erika, Klaus, Hein
rich, Thomas); "Minorities and oppressed groups"; "News
papers"; "New School for Social Research"; "PEN"; "Remarque,
Erich Maria"; "Toller, Ernst"; "Wolf, Friedrich"; "Writers-
American League of"; "Writers, Exiled"; "Writers-German-
American Association"; "Zweig, Arnold"; "Zweig, Stefan."
Certain events were checked in the Index only for the Times
coverage for the year in which they occurred, such as "Aus
tria" (AnschluIS in March) in 1938--it is interesting to note
that whereas eight pages had been devoted to Austria in the
1938 Index, only slightly more than a half page was spent on
Austria in the 1939 Index; and "France-Politics and Govern
ment" (fall of France in May-June) in 1940.
^This newspaper was published in New York, where it
was established in 1919; after January 19, 1958, it was
known simply as The Worker. For purposes of comparison, The
Militant, official organ of the left-wing branches of the
Socialist Party of New York, will occasionally be cited.
36
Y o rk T im es In d e x as a s o r t o f s k e l e t a l o u t l i n e b y w h ic h t o
41
v e r i f y th e e x t e n t o f th e e x p o s u re w h ic h t h e y w e re g r a n t e d ,
t o co m p ress t h e i r s h e e r q u a n t i t y i n t o s e v e r a l p r i n c i p a l
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , e a c h i n t u r n c o n t a in in g v a r io u s s u b h e a d in g s
d e te r m in e d b y t h e i r m e a s u re o f p e r t in e n c e t o t h e l a r g e r
d i v i s i o n .
I n o r d e r t o f o r m u la t e a b a s is f o r d e c id in g w h ic h names
an d t o p ic s t o lo o k up i n th e In d e x , i t was n e c e s s a r y t o
e s t a b l i s h a b a c k g ro u n d o f g e n e r a l k n o w le d g e on th e t o p i c o f
e x i l e l i t e r a t u r e . The r e f e r e n c e w o rk s u s ed w e re a r r a n g e d
‘^■'"Another in d e x p r o v id in g a u s e f u l o v e r v ie w o f e x i l e -
r e l a t e d t o p ic s t r e a t e d i n t h e A m e ric a n p re s s o f m o d e r a t e ly
l i b e r a l an d m o d e r a te , i . e . , r e l a t i v e l y n e u t r a l , o r i e n t a t i o n
was th e R e a d e r s ' G u id e t o P e r i o d i c a l L i t e r a t u r e , i n w h ic h
s u b je c t s c h e c k e d i n th e T im es In d e x w e re f u r t h e r s u b s t a n t i
a t e d . O f o u r s o u rc e s in d e x e d i n th e G u id e w e re in c lu d e d
The New R e p u b lic , T h e N a t i o n , The C h r i s t i a n C e n tu r y , The
S a tu r d a y R e v ie w , The A t l a n t i c M o n th ly , T im e , N ew sw eek, The
P u b lis h e r s ' W e e k ly , The L i t e r a r y D i g e s t , an d a lt h o u g h th e
f i r s t t h r e e i n t h i s g ro u p a ls o p u b lis h e d a n n u a l in d e x e s , th e
G u id e was h e l p f u l f o r a s o m etim e s m ore e f f i c i e n t — b u t n o t
n e c e s s a r i l y c o m p re h e n s iv e --s u m m a ry o f p ie c e s a p p e a r in g i n
th e s e p e r i o d i c a l s . I t was p a r t i c u l a r l y h e l p f u l f o r a r t i
c le s d e a lin g w i t h c e r t a i n C o n g re s s e s h e ld b y P .E .N . an d th e
L eag u e o f A m e ric a n W r i t e r s , as w e l l as v a r io u s a r t i c l e s on
th e c o n c e p t o r a s p e c ts o f e x i l e i t s e l f . Among t h e p u b l i c a
t i o n s n o t in d e x e d w e re D e c is io n , D i r e c t i o n . New M a s s e s ,
P a r t is a n R e v ie w , New T h e a t r e , an d T w ic e A Y e a r , tw o p o s s ib le
re a s o n s f o r t h i s b e in g t h a t th e s e w e re e i t h e r n o t lo n g e s
t a b l i s h e d on t h e A m e ric a n s c e n e a n d /o r t h a t th e y a p p e a le d
n o t t o a mass a u d ie n c e , b u t t o a s p e c i a l i z e d and l i m i t e d
r e a d e r s h ip , n a m e ly one o f i n t e l l e c t u a l a n d /o r f a r - l e f t
o r i e n t a t i o n .
37
into two basic groups: (1) exile-oriented histories, which
included analyses, bibliographies, and collected correspon
dence and essays of exiled writers; and (2) autobiographies
and personal accounts by the individuals who experienced
exile.
The first category is fairly circumscribed; among the
more helpful sources must be included the following works:
Hildegard Brenner, "Deutsche Literatur im Exil," in Handbuch
der deutschen Gegenwartsliteratur (1965); Alfred Doblin, Die
Deutsche Literatur (im Ausland seit 1933) (1938); Klaus
Jarmatz, Literatur im Exil (1966); Hermann Kesten, ed.,
Deutsche Literatur im Exil. Briefe europaischer Autoren
1933-1949 (1964); Kurt Koster, ed., Exil-Literatur 1933-
1945. Eine Ausstellunq aus Bestanden der Deutschen Biblio-
thek, Frankfurt am Main (1967); William Pfeiler, German
Literature in Exile. The Concern of the Poets (1957); Egon
Schwarz and Matthias Wegner, eds., Verbannung. Aufzeich-
nungen Deutscher Schriftsteller im Exil (1964) ; Giinther
Soffke, ed., Deutsches Schrifttum im Exil (1933-1950). Ein
Bestandsverzeichnis (1965); Wilhelm Sternfeld and Eva Tiede-
mann, eds., Deutsche Exil-Literatur 1933-1945. Eine Bio-
Bib liographie (1962); Matthias Wegner, Exil und Literatur.
Deutsche Schriftsteller im Ausland 1933-1945 (1969). It is
| 38
Worth observing that of the ten works cited, four-fifths
I i
were published within the last ten years— even their initial
publication dates notwithstanding (for example, the first
edition of the catalogue of the Frankfurt Ausstellung
I
appeared in 1965, and of Wegner's study in 1967). Of these
eight works, a total of five, or more than half, were pub
lished as of 1965 . Our reason for pointing out these sta- j
i
tistics is simply to indicate the relative newness of the |
i
topic of German exile literature as a legitimate research
’ j
area. For even though the above list is not exhaustive —
approximately five to seven additional published books come
quickly to mind— it is fairly representative of the type and
range of research which has been done to date .
With the exception of Pfeiler's study, these works were
published in Germany; furthermore, all are fairly general
and deal more with the literary aspects of the world-wide
emigration than with the political, and although these as
pects frequently overlap and cannot be fully separated from
one another, the former has attracted considerably more
scholarly interest— almost as an entity unto itself— with
the result that treatment of the actual relationship between
the two is practically nonexistent, both in the United
|
jStates and Germany. Of this phenomenon, Joachim Radkau
39
o b s e r v e s , " B e id e B e r e ic h e d e r E m ig r a t io n [ d . h . das i n t e l -
lektuelle und das politische] sind bisher [1969] fast ohne
Beziehung zueinander behandelt worden, obwohl sie sich in
den Exilzeitschriften, die mehr noch als die Organisationen
die Mittelpunkte des Exils darstellten, teilweise iiber-
42
scheiden." Using the socio-political situation in the
United States as his backdrop, Radkau deals comprehensively
with the part played on this scene by German writers, in
tellectuals, artists, and scientists who emigrated to Amer
ica during the Hitler period.
His work is one of the very few written in Germany
which treats exclusively this chapter in the German emigra
tion, and without doubt it provides the most thorough cover-
43
age hereof to date. As he points out, only a handful of
books and dissertations have been published in Germany on
the political aspects of exile, and these concentrate on the
4 2 ■ •
Die deutschen Emigranten und die Ara Roosevelt:
Gruppierungen und politische Tendenzen in der USA-Emigration
1933-1945," diss. Hamburg 1969, p. 5b.
4 " 3
Radkau notes, "Eine Darstellung der USA-Emigration
unter politischem Aspekt gibt es noch nicht, ebensowenig wie
ausfiihrliche Arbeiten iiber einzelne Bereichej ein For-
schungsbericht uber dies Thema lafit sich noch nicht schrei-
ben" (p. 10).
40
44
activities of Socialist groups. Prior treatment m Ger
many and America of the emigration to the United States is
an even greater rarity: several dissertations which are
limited either to the perception of America in the works of
exiled writers (Paul Dickson, "Das Amerikabild in der deut
schen Emigrantenliteratur seit 1933, " Miinchen 1951) or to
the periodicals and publishing houses of the German emigra
tion to America (Robert Cazden, "The Free German and Free
Austrian Press and Booktrade in the United States 1933-1950
in the Context of German-American History," University of
45
Chicago, 1965). An additional dissertation is that of
^He cites five works which research aspects of the
political emigration, including two books: (1) Erich Mat
thias, Sozialdemokratie und Nation. Beitrag zu einer Ideen-
geschichte der sozialdemokratischen Emigration in der Prager
Zeit des Parteivorstandes (Stuttgart, 1952), and (2) Lewis
Edinger, Sozialdemokratie und Nationalsozialismus. Der Par-
teivorstand der SPD im Exil von 1933 bis 1945 (Hannover/
Frankfurt, I960; American edition, Berkeley, 1956); and
three dissertations: (1) Kurt Kliem, "Der Sozialistische
Widerstand gegen das Dritte Reich dargestellt an der Gruppe
'Neu Beginnen'," Marburg 1957; (2) Hanno Drechsler, "Die
Sozialistische Arbeiterpartei Deutschlands (SAPD). Ein Bei
trag zur Geschichte der dt. fsicl Arbeiterbewegung am Ende
der Weimarer Republik," Meisenheim 1965; and (3) Werner
Roder, "Die dt. rsicl sozialist. fsicl Exilgruppen in GroB-
britannien 1940-1945. Ein Beitrag zur Gesch. rsicl des
Widerstandes gegen den Nationalsozialismus," Miinchen 1967.
^■^Radkau calls this dissertation "Die bisher umfang-
reichste wissenschaftliche Arbeit iiber die USA-Emigration"
(p. 11). Although he praises Cazden1s knowledge and use of
41
Bertha Augusta Mueller * "American Criticism of Recent German
Literature" (University of Wisconsin), but since this was
written in 1935, it is only incidentally relevant to the
topic; further, the time-distance factor so helpful in the
establishment of an objective perspective is lacking.
A study made by Charles Whitney Carpenter in 1952,
"Exiled German Writers in America 1932-1950" (unpub. M.A.
thesis, University of Southern California), approaches per
haps most closely some of the basic aims under discussion in
the present study, foremost among them being the reactions
of American critics to the works of certain German authors
46
in America, as reflected xn the American press. While we
obscure source materials as illustrated in his presentation
of the "Emigrantenorganisationen," he finds that his "Ent-
deckerfreude"--by no means, of course, unusual in a scholar
of library science— becomes somewhat overzealous: "[Cazden]
neigt [dazu] , allzu ausfiihrlich und unkritisch jene verleum-
derischen Pamphlete auszuschreiben, die fur die gereizte
Atmosphare einer Emigration typisch sind: Rudolf Brandi
attackiert den 'Aufbau' und Manfred George als kommunisti-
sche fellow traveller fsicl, R. Bek-Gran zieht gegen den
kommunistisch infiltrierten Deutsch-Amerikanischen Kultur-
verband zu Felde, [u.s.w.] . . ." (p. 12).
AC
Carpenter describes the task of his thesis as fol
lows : "Inasmuch as such German writers as Thomas Mann and
Franz Werfel are already well known in this country, the
task . . . will be to ascertain the American critics 1 reac
tions to the works of certain of the less well known . . .
German authors in America, namely, Alfred Doblin, Leonhard
Frank, Heinrich Mann, Bruno Frank, Eric [sic] Maria Re-
marque, and Lion Feuchtwanger" (p. iv). His sources were
42
are only secondarily concerned with the specifics consti
tuting Carpenter's thesis, the fact that he recognizes the
existence of a relationship between the American press and
exiled German writers is worth noting. Again, his investi
gation is primarily literature-oriented; press reception is
merely a convenient vehicle, rather than an object of eval
uation per se. The orientation of a second thesis, "The
Anti-War Drama on the American Professional Stage from World
War I to World War II" by Catharine Oberle (University of
Southern California, 1945), is of similar character; here
also, however, is indicated some awareness of a relationship
between certain German artists (especially Ernst Toller and
Friedrich Wolf) and the American scene, notably that repre
sented by the theatre-— which, as will be indicated, was one
of the significant stimuli for the creation of a more lib
eral tone in American culture of the 1930's, as well as an
important factor in a relatively sympathetic American
g le a n e d p r e d o m in a n t ly fro m The Book R e v ie w D ig e s t an d The
R e a d e rs 1 G u id e an d in c lu d e d a l a r g e num ber o f f a i r l y p o p u la r
n e w s p a p e rs and p e r i o d i c a l s r a t h e r th a n th o s e o f a n y p a r t i c u
l a r p o l i t i c a l o r s o c i a l o r i e n t a t i o n . C a r p e n te r e x p la in s
t h a t h e l i m i t e d h i s t o p i c b y c o n s id e r in g o n ly t h e w o rk s o f
t h e s i x a u th o r s w it h whom h e d e a ls w h ic h "w e re o f f e r e d t o
th e A m e ric a n p u b l i c a n d w h ic h w e re t r a n s l a t e d fro m th e
o r i g i n a l G erm an" (p . i v ) .
43
reception of European exiles during that period.
A few books were also written on the subject of the
exiles and America--Radkau mentions Heinrich Hauser's
"pamphlethaftes und arrogantes Buch 'The Germans Talk Back'
([New York] 1945)" and Leon Lawrence Matthias' "negatives
Amerikabuch . . . 'Die Kehrseite der USA'" (Reinbek bei Ham
burg., 1964); it is obvious that these are considered either
too one-sided or negative to provide a worthwhile contribu
tion to this area of research (p. 11). By far the most
comprehensive book to date on the movement to America from
the 1930's on is the collection edited by Donald Fleming and
Bernard Bailyn, The Intellectual Migration: Europe and
America 1930-1960 (Cambridge* Mass.* 1969)*
. . . ein Sammelband . . . der mit 748 Seiten an Umfang
alle bisherigen Veroffentlichungen iiber dies Thema weit
uber tr if ft und . . . auch das beste Buch iiber die in-
tellektuelle Emigration ist[* denn er beriicksichtigt]
. . . nicht nur die Sozial- und Geisteswissenschaftler*
sondern auch die Mathematiker* Naturwissenschaftler und
nicht zuletzt die Atomphysiker
47
Pp. 5a-5b. Laura Fermi's book* Illustrious Immi
grants. The Intellectual Migration from Europe 1930-41, was
published the previous year* and although it is by no means
as lengthy a work as the Bailyn-Fleming project, it should
not be entirely discounted; it is an ambitious endeavor of
440 pages treating not only musicians* novelists* artists*
and architects* but also philosophers, mathematicians* theo
logians* and scientists (Chicago and London* c. 1968). A
rather popularly-oriented overview of Mrs. Fermi's work--she
44
The topic of the relationship between the American
liberal press and the German writers in exile during the
period of the Third Reich has not yet been investigated,
48
e i t h e r m G erm any o r i n th e U n it e d S t a t e s ; a n d a lt h o u g h ,
was the widow of Nobel Prize winner Enrico Fermi— and also
of the Bailyn-Fleming collection is to be found in the Los
Angeles Times: Irving S . Bengelsdorf, "How America Gained
from Refugee Flood," June 24, 1969, sec. 2, p. 8.
^Radhau's dissertation inclines fundamentally in a
political-historical direction, even though the cultural,
scientific, and literary elements of the German emigration
to the United States play no small part in his study. His
press sources naturally reflect this inclination: they are
German and American, including, for example, American Polit
ical Science Review, Jahrbuch fur Amerikastudien, Der Spie
gel; they also include certain exile periodicals, such as
Der Aufbau (New York), Das Neue Tagebuch and Pariser Tage-
blatt. This brings us to a brief mention of several peri
odicals published under exile circumstances which supple
mented, on occasion most usefully, the American journals
used; they were particularly helpful in filling in certain
gaps as far as several writers' congresses were concerned,
as will be indicated in the next three chapters. Two in
particular proved useful: the Communist literary review Das
Wort, edited by Brecht, Bredel, and Feuchtwanger in Moscow
and appearing monthly from 1936 to 1939, the year of the
Hitler-Stalin Non-Aggression Pact; and Neue Deutsche Blat
ter , a short-lived monthly (1933-1935) published in Prague
and edited by Graf, Herzfelde, and Seghers . "In Wirklich-
keit ist die Zeitschrift eine Veroffentlichung des 1933 mit
Wieland Herzfelde aus Berlin nach Prag emigrierten Malik-
Verlags" (Kurt Koster, ed., Exil-Literatur 1933-1945. Eine
Ausstellung aus Bestanden der Deutschen Bibliothek, Frank
furt am Main. Sonderveroffentlichungen der Deutschen Bib
liothek, Nr. 1, 3rd ed. (Frankfurt a/M, 1967), p. 296.
Hereinafter cited as Exil-Literatur, Frankfurt a/M. The NDB
also leaned toward the Communist ideology.
45
as already indicated, the presence of several links between
the emigrated Germans and America has been dealt with to
varying degrees of effectiveness, no attempt to assess and
perhaps establish the possibility of existence of an "exile
atmosphere" in America through the use of a broadly effec
tive vehicle of communication such as the press has hereto
fore been initiated. The reasons for this can only be sur
mised on the basis of the type of research which has already
been undertaken, which, if recent, inclines in the direction
of an overview of the whole phenomenon as viewed chiefly
from the literary aspects— exceptions being the works of
Radkau, Fermi, and Bailyn and Fleming. The relatively older
research suffers, in general, from the lack of historical
perspective, due perhaps to the inability of the investiga
tors to detach themselves from emotionally tinged prejudices
and preconceptions— we note that a number of them were ex-
49
lies or emigrants themselves.
^For example, Walter A. Berendsohn, who went into ex
ile in Denmark in July 1933, was "denationalized" by the
National Socialists in July 1936 and fled to Sweden in 1943;
the first volume of his history of exile literature, Die
Humanistische Front, was published in Zurich in 1946; the
second volume was not published— its manuscript is located
in the German Library in Frankfurt (Exil-Literatur, Frank
furt a/M, p. 172). Radkau criticizes his division of exile
literature into two main streams as being "nicht plausibler"
46
The very dearth of material in Germany on the topic of
exile is itself indicative of an attitude; as Radkau theo
rizes, it is possible that "[die Emigration vielleicht] fur
die Deutschen ein Tabu war" (p. 6); he notes also the at
tachment of a certain stigma to the act of emigration (and/
or exile), particularly in the United States, citing as
reasons the identification of emigration with such factors
as contribution to unemployment— which he labels "eine in
der Tat unsinnige Behauptung, schon in Anbetracht der zah-
lenmafiigen Geringfiigigkeit der Emigration" (p. 7); political
failure; agitation for war— "[man glaubte,] sie wollten die
USA in den Krieg hetzen"; and the infiltration of the host
country with Communistic, Prussian (i.e., militaristic) or
otherwise "un-American" ideas (p. 7). In addition, the
emigrants who returned to Germany after the war were suspect
than the three groups into which the Norwegian, Odd Eidem,
separated it in his work Diktere e Landflyktighet (Oslo,
1937), p. 14. For a somewhat more detailed discussion of
Eidem's work, see William K. Pfeiler, German Literature in
Exile. The Concern of the Poets, University of Nebraska
Studies: New Series, No. 16 (Lincoln, Neb., c. 1957), pp.
8-9. Pfeiler also discusses Alfred Doblin's theories on the
topic, as presented in Die Deutsche Literatur (Im Ausland
seit 1933), Schriften zu dieser Zeit, Nr. 1 (Paris, 1938),
and labels his survey as "almost debonair" in tone, implying
that Doblin was really rather presumptuous in calling his
perspective "a 'historical point of view1" (p. 10).
47
on two counts: firsts that they had betrayed their home
land; and second, that they had led an easy life while their
fellow-Germans were suffering all of the hardships attendant
upon war. As a result, pratically no work published in
Germany on the subject
konnte . . . an der Aufgabe vorbeisehen, an diesen
beiden Klischees Korrekturen auszubringen und darauf
hinzuweisen, daB es . . . in der Emigration viel mehr
Heimweh, Anhanglichkeit an die deutsche Kultur und so-
gar Nationalismus gab als erklarten DeutschenhaB; und
[weiter], daB die Emigranten mit schwersten psychologi-
schen und auch physischen Belastungen verbunden war.
(p. 7)
As far as comprehensive research in the United States
is concerned, we would observe that an active interest is in
its beginning stages and is for the most part very recent—
Cazden, 1965; Fermi, 1968; Bailyn and Fleming, 1969. Again
one can only theorize as to the reasons for this situation:
the investigations of the political activities, real or
alleged, of Germans and Americans by the House Un-American
Activities Committee in the 1940's and 1950's no doubt
50
placed the stigma of suspicion upon both the emigrants and
50
We have seen earlier in this chapter that the Cali
fornia State Legislature conducted investigations of Un-
American activities in the later 1940's; Senator Tenney's
book delineating the results of these investigations was
published in 1947. We find his description of Thomas Mann--
48
those who were associated with them, with the result that
he calls him "Tom Mann" (!)— as an "Internationalists Com
munist organizer . . . [who was] permitted by the United
States Department of Labor to come from abroad to assist in
launching [the] movement [of the American League Against War
and Fascism]" (p. 546), to be both hilarious and sinister;
it is an example of how misguided zeal can, if not con
stantly balanced by a certain amount of objectivity, lead to
highly dangerous and defamatory overgeneralizations stemming
merely from the combination of one bit of knowledge with
another— which may or may not be necessarily associated with
the first. (See Radkau, p. 478, for a discussion of reasons
why Mann was considered a Communist by American anti-Commu-
nists.) The consequences of such procedures are extremely
grave. It is most unfortunate that well-intentioned men
allow themselves to fall prey to the same shortcomings, the
same "illogical logic" of which they accuse their opponents.
In such cases, the side of "light and justice" often loses
a great deal more than that of "darkness and oppression,"
for a kind of reverse reaction takes place which changes
victim into victor and oppressor— if we consider represen
tatives of Communist ideology to be such— into oppressed, at
least in the eyes of those unthinking, easily influenced,
and/or ignorant persons— of whom there exist a vast number
— who do not look beneath the surface of a given action,
slogan, or headline. It was in many cases a tragic concomi
tant of the "Red Scare Era" of the late 1940's and early
1950's in the United States that numerous European and Amer
ican artists and intellectuals who had lent their names
and/or monetary support to noble-sounding causes during the
previous decade, often from a purely humanitarian desire to
aid victims of Fascist brutality, themselves became the vic
tims of a more subtle, but just as deadly brutality, namely
that of the witch-hunting anti-Communists who persecuted,
often relentlessly and cruelly, innocent persons who were
guilty of nothing more than idealism. The list of exiled
Germans alone who were "suspect" could fill pages; however,
a few examples will suffice: in 1953 Salka Viertel, the
wife of the Austrian poet Berthold Viertel, was denied a
passport to see her husband, who was seriously ill in Swit
zerland, due to her alleged pro-Communist sentiments— she
had been associated with the Hollywood Arts, Sciences and
49
research in this area would be similarly stigmatized. Also*
the lack of cohesive and/or comprehensive source materials
would prevent that dissemination of knowledge and informa
tion which is so often an impetus to further research: if a
given area or field has not been investigated, it frequently
leads to the supposition— conscious or subconscious— that
nothing exists to be researched. There is a chainlike pro
gression from publicized knowledge through recognition to
awareness and legitimization, i.e., acceptance, not only in
the area of academic endeavor, but in all other realms of
Professions, which "had been accused of following the CP
[Communist Party] line." (Whether or not that organization
did follow the Party line is somewhat irrelevant at this
point; that Mrs. Viertel was unaware of its ideological
direction--if indeed, such existed— seems certainly true.
Yet, because of a delay lasting months and motivated only
by suspicion, not proof, when she was at last able to reach
Europe, her husband had died (see Salka Viertel, The Kind-
ness of Strangers [New York, Chicago, and San Francisco, c.
1969], pp. 324-327) . A review of her autobiography was
published in the Los Angeles Times: Robert Kirsch, "Salka
Viertel— Member of a More Reckless Race," May 4, 1969, "Cal
endar" sec., p. 36. Bertolt Brecht was called before the
Committee on Un-American Activities as early as October
1947; he left America in the same year— shortly after a
successful testimony before that body— arriving first in
Zurich, where he quickly dove into the practical work of
the theatre. (Amusingly, he managed to wholly fool his
interrogators, due to their "utter innocence . . ., their
inability to understand an intellectual, and . . . the [odd]
sketchiness of the preparation of their case" [Martin Ess-
lin, Brecht. The Man and His Work (Garden City, N. Y.,
1961), p. 76] .)_____
50
human effort as well.
All these elements necessitated the use of primary
works as the research backbone of the topic under considera
tion; indeed, even those cited in our first group of sources
— the exile-oriented histories— include a proportionately
large number of basically primary studies: Kesten, Schwarz
and Wegner, Soffke, and Sternfeld and Tiedemann; and tech
nically, the Ausste1lungskatalog of the German Library in
Frankfurt would also have to be considered a primary source.
And herein lies the explanation for our use of autobiogra
phies and personal accounts written by various German
speaking exiles. This group of references was selected on
the basis of two criteria: first, as illustrations of exile
experiences and activities on as broad a spectrum as pos
sible, both in the United States and in Europe; and second,
as illuminations of the perceptions and convictions of the
exiles on a widely representative scale of political, so
cial, and literary orientation and involvement. These
works, while serving in an adjunctive capacity— they sup
plied verification and on occasion, further details in re
gard to a disputed or ambiguous point--presented valuable,
though by definition subjective, insights into the "exile
condition" as revealed by those who experienced its various
51
facets. ^
52
This category was finally narrowed to twelve books:
Lion Feuchtwanger, Moskau 1937. Ein Reisebericht fur meine
Freunde (1937)* also Unholdes Frankreich (1942)— this title
became metamorphosed into the barbed Der Teufel in Frank
reich (1954); Martin Gumpert, First Papers (1941); Arthur
- ’•'-Naturally, this type of source was not limited to
books alone; various essays and articles written by exiled
writers on aspects of the situation were also used. Some
of these, while not dealing exclusively with the personal
experience of one writer, did provide additional information
of this nature, as well as of a more inclusive sort; a wide
variety of such articles appeared in numerous American peri
odicals, e.g., Ernst Bloch and Wieland Herzfelde (the "Spe
cial Exile Issue" of Direction, December 1939); Harry Slo-
chower (New Republic, 1934); Klaus Mann (Saturday Review,
1936); Oskar Maria Graf (New Republic, 1939); Ernst Toller
(New Masses, 1939); G. A. Borgese (Saturday Review, 1939;
Twice A Year, 1939-1940); F. C. Weiskopf (Direction, 1940;
Books Abroad, 1941). This is not an exhaustive list; it is
merely an indication that a number of articles on exile by
exiles were published in the American press. This will be
discussed in greater detail in Chapter V.
tr n
For a brief yet fairly representative list of auto
biographical works, see Wegner, pp. 235-237. The catalogue
Exil-Literatur, Frankfurt a/M devotes a chapter to "Auto-
biographien"; occasionally an excerpt is included, as for
Toller's Eine Jugend in Deutschland (Amsterdam, 1933); for
Stefan Zweig's Die Welt von Gestern. Erinnerungen eines
Europaers (Stockholm, 1941); and for Carl Sternheim's Vor-
kriegseuropa im Gleichnis meines Lebens (Amsterdam, 1936).
This chapter did not seem very complete; in fact, most of
the better-known exiled writers were not represented— of the
dozens of possibilities, only Toller, K. Mann, S. Zweig,
Schickele, Zuckmayer, Renn, and H. Mann were included (pp.
248-262).
52
Koestler, Ein Spanisches Testament (1938); Prince Hubertus
Friedrich zu Lowenstein, Towards the Further Shore (1968),
also On Borrowed Peace fThe Autobiography. Ill (1943);
Klaus Mann, Der Wendepunkt. Ein Lebensbericht (1952)— we
are reminded that his first version, The Turning Point, was
first published in the United States in 1942 (see note 19
53
above); Erika and Klaus Mann, Escape to Life (1939);
“^See DWp, pp. 402-403, 417, for a discussion of the
circumstances engendering creation of this book: among
other factors, it was commissioned by Houghton Mifflin Com
pany of Boston— Klaus Mann calls it "eines der angesehensten
amerikanischen Verlagshauser"--basically for the purpose,
one would assume, of realizing a profit by capitalizing on a
"hot issue." Several elements were undoubtedly involved in
this publisher's commission of the Manns: first, they were
the well-known progeny of an illustrious father— well-known
through their lecture tours in America during the later
1930's; and second, Houghton Mifflin must have believed that
a book on the subject of German emigration would have a wide
enough appeal to sell well, which in itself indicates a cer
tain degree of American awareness of and interest in the
exiles from Hitler's terror. Mann describes the type of
work which Mifflin desired: "... ein moglichst umfassen-
des, moglichst informatives Buch iiber die kiinstlerischen,
wissenschaftlichen und politischen Reprasentanten der deut
schen Emigration, eine Art von 'Who's Who in Exile'; Lebens-
abrisse, Charaktersketche, dazu Intim-Anekdotisches, wohl
auch Kritik oder doch wertende Analyse"; the result was "ein
stattlicher Band mit dem etwas euphemistischen Titel 'Escape
to Life', 375 Seiten, reich illustriert, opulent ausgestat-
tet; ubrigens recht erfolgreich" (p. 402). In referring to
it slightly later, Mann airs his feeling that this joint
venture was "freilich ein Erzeugnis von nicht sehr dauer-
hafter Substanz"; he noted further that progress on it had
been slow, due in part to the fact that "unsere Emigranten-
Galerie sich standig vergroBerte, wahrend wir sie in
53
Ludwig Marcuse, Mein 20. Jahrhundert. Auf dem Weq zu einer
Autobiographie (1960); Ernst Toller, Prosa, Briefe, Dramen,
Gedichte (1961); Berthold Viertel, Dichtungen und Dokumente
(1956); Salka Viertel, The Kindness of Strangers.
After having established the extent of coverage granted
to the chief aspects of the exile situation by works already
published, we were able to ascertain which writers were more
prasentable Form zu bringen suchten, 1 1 the reason being that
with each of Hitler’s "successes," German-speaking emigrants
of other lands had to be added, i.e., first the Austrians
and then the Czechs (p. 417) . The Marins also had a second
project published the following year: The Other Germany,
trans. Heinz Norden (New York, c. 1940); this was based on
speeches presented throughout the Unite,d States by the sib
lings— it had been their purpose to publicize the Germans
in a proper perspective: not all are Nazis, etc. It is
of some interest to note a full-page review of this book
appeared in Saturday Review shortly after the book was pub
lished. This is a satirically written piece which expresses
an almost condescending view toward "The two eldest Mann
children," whose effort is labeled a "lively little book"—
it is 318 pages in length. The basic contention of the
reviewer, Toni Stolper, is that the Manns exhibit a "trust
ing faith" in another Germany, which is "sedulously fighting
and sabotaging under cover today, and only waiting to resume
its fine role as a worthy member of Western civilization."
The tone of the review is such that one is rather surprised
to find it printed in this periodical--it is basically
closer to the type of writing found in the New Masses, whose
distaste for most middle-class values and activities was
frequently manifested in bitingly sarcastic— although some
times consequently rather sophomoric— terms. That the Manns
are also politically ignorant is almost a foregone conclu
sion, according to this review ("Germans against Hitler,"
SR. XXI, No. 16 [February 10, 1940], 10).
54
significantly involved on the exile scene in the United
States and in Europe, and which ones to a lesser degree, as
well as the events in which they participated and the situa
tions they experienced. On this basis we proceeded to se
lect the American periodicals dealing, in our opinion, to
a greater than average degree of cogency and coherence with
the subject; these were weeded out from among the many
54
merely hinting at it in occasional articles or notes. And
while certain of the twenty-one publications and several
newspapers which ultimately emerged as cardinal sources may
be disputed— indeed, could be, and with considerable justi
fication— it must be stated that each of them was found to
fulfill a valuable function in its own way and was therefore
included. It was determined that the more likely choices
~*^It will be observed that other American, as well as
European periodicals are occasionally referred to in subse
quent chapters, e.g., American Mercury, The Scotsman, Man
chester Guardian (weekly), and Internationale Literatur
(German ed.; also English ed., International Literature).
Two reasons are involved here: (1) American Mercury and IL
---both languages— are found useful as sources of more com
plete information in a few specific areas, i.e., Communist
methods, activities, and attitudes within the United States
— but only in relation to a very limited number of writers'
conferences and associations; (2) they are also helpful as
definitive contrasts to various other press sources, as will
be indicated at a later point. The Scotsman and the Guard
ian each supplied information on a specific writers' con
gress which was not discovered in the regular sources.
55
were, in general, those of a politically liberal or left-
wing slant, as well as those of a somewhat more intellectual
55
or contemporary literary orientation. A bit of a problem
was encountered in the existence of occasional dichotomies
between degree of coverage granted a given event, activity,
and/or exiled writer and the apparent lack of a specific
political or literary direction of certain periodicals se
lected, e.g., Time and the Wilson Library Bulletin: Time
could not be considered liberal, nor could it be accurately
labeled conservative either; and the Bulletin, although of
a contemporary--in the sense of up-to-date--literary orien
tation, could not be truly called contemporary in the more
progressive sense of that word. The criteria for source
selection have earlier been discussed in some detail, and
this discussion should have made clear that it was
5 5
A quick summary of the selected sources as they fit
generally into three categories is as follows: (1) left-
wing journals: New Masses. New Theatre, Partisan Review,
Anti-Nazi News; (2) liberal journals, literary and/or polit
ical: The Nation, New Republic, Living Age, Decision, Di
rection , Twice A Year, One-Act Play Magazine (the Atlantic
Monthly and Publishers 1 Weekly belong more or less in this
group— theirs is not a definitive direction); (3) moderate
periodicals, perhaps slightly liberal, yet often construed
as conservative and even reactionary, especially by the
left-wing press: Saturday Review, Christian Century, Liter
ary Digest, The Commonweal, Forum & Century, and Newsweek.
56
imperative to strike some sort of balance in our subjectiv
ity; certain compromises had to be made, resulting in deci
sions which were not always in complete harmony with the
ideal toward which we were striving.
The determination of the main categories of research
was of necessity predicated on the quickly discernible fact
that all aspects of exile activity covered by the sources
could not realistically be included in this study. An
evaluation of the relative importance of one facet of exile
to another, as well as the relevance of each individual one
to the American cultural and political scene, as reflected
in the editorial policies of each American publication being
considered, was therefore in order. It was decided to deal
with the following major classifications of activity:
first, and chiefly, fourteen writers' congresses, both
foreign and domestic, sponsored by four organizations:
P.E.N., Union of Soviet Authors, League of American Writers,
and International Association of Writers for the Defense of
Culture; the participation by exiled writers in these con
gresses naturally provided the fundamental denominator for
our discussion, although a secondary link proved to be the
preparation by several congresses— notably the first two
American Writers' Congresses in 1935 and 1937— of an
57
American climate conducive to reception of exiled writers
and intellectuals in the United States. The most efficient
method of organization— and in our view, also the clearest—
was found to be the simplest one, namely, chronological,
since the progression of world events determined to a great
degree not only the locations in which many of the con
gresses were held and the topics or themes with which they
dealt, but also which German writers were in attendance.
This chronological discussion begins, accordingly, with the
eleventh International Congress of the P.E.N. Clubs, held
in Ragusa, Yugoslavia in the summer of 1933; it concludes
with that sponsored by the League of American Writers in
New York during the late spring of 1939.
The second major area was the concept of exile as
viewed by the American press. It was felt imperative to
delineate certain factors which created and contributed to
press awareness thereof, and so various events were again
selected as stimuli for such awareness, e.g., the book burn
ings of May 1933; the expulsion of writers and artists from
the Prussian Academy of Arts; the loss of citizenship by
various, usually well-known, authors; the Spanish "Civil"
War; the Anschlufi of Austria; the German-Soviet Non-
Aggression Pact; the fall of France; and the declaration of
58
war by England and France and later by the United States .
Of course, these events also figured prominently in the
activities connected with writers' conferences, with the
result that they were discussed in greater detail in this
context than in the exile context as such. Several basic
areas entered into the concept of exile, among them the fol
lowing: (1) certain associations, organizations, and com
mittees with which the writers were affiliated, such as the
American Guild for German Cultural Freedom, the German-
American Writers' Association, and the Emergency Rescue Com
mittee; (2) benefit dinners and manuscript sales on behalf
of the "exile cause," sponsored by journals and organiza
tions; and (3) the view of the place of the artist in soci
ety, i.e., his duties and functions as a creative individual
— a topic which proved to be an emotionally charged point
among writers and intellectuals of widely diverse opinions.
This organizational decision having been reached, we
then imposed questions pertinent to the topic under consid
eration: (1) What was the approximate ratio of coverage
extended by the publications to a given event at a given
time, that is, were some events and some time periods more
thoroughly covered than others? (2) What might be the rea
sons for this? Did any correlation exist between extent of
59
coverage and the international or domestic situation and/or
editorial policy? (3) Which individual journals covered
which events and to what extent? (4) Which ones published
articles written by exiled writers themselves? In what
years— was any sort of pattern discernible? (5) Was there
any change in emphasis in American journals, quantitatively
or qualitatively, after certain events, such as the An-
schlufi, the Hitler-Stalin Pact, the fall of France, or the
entrance of the United States into the war?
It should be apparent by now that there were numerous
factors to be evaluated in the answering of these questions
--more accurately, in the attempt to answer them— for all
lean to a greater or lesser degree in the subjective direc
tion. While it is impossible, due to the nature and scope
of this topic, to arrive at a simplistic, cause-and-effeet
conclusion insofar as an objectively measurable degree of
relationship between the American press and the German writ
ers in exile is concerned, it is our purpose in the present
investigation to establish, by means of as cohesive a pres
entation as possible of the topic, at least some guidelines
which will aid in further study of this colorful and complex
chapter in the history of German literature.
CHAPTER II
WRITERS' CONGRESSES, CONFERENCES, AND
ASSOCIATIONS: THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO AND
RECEPTION BY AMERICAN INTELLECTUALS AND PRESS
As noted in Chapter I, one of the most meaningful areas
of exile activity was to be found in the various congresses
and conferences of writers held throughout the world between
1933 and 1939. This is true for several reasons: (1) these
congresses brought together writers of numerous and diver
gent viewpoints from many nations, a most important factor
in keeping the problems— and indeed the existence— of exiled
writers at least somewhat in the forefront of American cul
tural awareness; (2) they provided sounding boards for
opinions and ideas, as well as stages upon which these ideas
could be discussed and exchanged; and (3) the staging of
these meetings created a focus upon which news coverage
could be concentrated, thus providing a valuable source of
publicity for the activities of writers and intellectuals.
60
61
I n s o f a r as o u r t o p i c is c o n c e rn e d , we s h a l l f i r s t p r e
s e n t a b r i e f s u r v e y o f s e v e r a l a s p e c ts o f th e A m e ric a n c u l
t u r a l s c e n e --w h ic h c a n n o t p r o p e r ly be s e p a r a t e d fro m th e
d o m e s tic p o l i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n — i n o r d e r t o e s t a b l i s h t h e mood
o f th e p e r io d u n d e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n , 1' f o l l o w i n g t h i s w it h o u r
c e n t r a l d is c u s s io n o f th e r e c e p t io n b y th e A m e ric a n p re s s o f
b o th t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l w r i t e r s 1 c o n g re s s e s an d o f th e A m e r i
c a n w r i t e r s 1 c o n g re s s e s w h ic h d e a l t w i t h o r a llo w e d r e p r e - i
2 I
s e n t a t io n b y G erm an e x i l e s o f t h e w r i t t e n w o r d . We s h a l l j
A discussion of more specific political coloration
will preface our presentation of the first American Writers 1
Congress in 1935, held under the auspices of the League of
American Writers, a Communist-inspired organization founded
in that year. This was deemed necessary in order that the
Congress be understood in the context of historical perspec
tive, for the creation of the League precludes separation of
literature from politics, as well as from the socio-politi
cal situation in the United States during the mid-thirties.
' 0 ' '
Since some fourteen congresses are treated, it was
obviously impossible to cover them in a single chapter.
Consequently, they are divided into three chapters as fol
lows: four conferences, starting with the eleventh annual
P.E.N. Congress of 1933 and ending with the first American
Writers’ Congress of 1935; six conferences, headed by the
thirteenth annual P.E.N. Congress of 1935 and concluded by
the second American Writers’ Congress of 1937; and four
conferences, initiated by the sixteenth annual P.E.N. Con
gress of 1938 and culminating in the crucial third American
Writers’ Congress held in New York three months prior to the
official declaration of war by the Allies in September 1939.
This division was based primarily on the trend of world
ievents, and secondarily on the length which each chapter
came to assume: it had been hoped initially that all
62
also consider various associations, organizations * and
groups founded by or for German writers in exile and how
these, through the medium of the press, contributed to and/
or participated in the creation of an exile era in both the
three conferences of 1935 could be included in the second
chapter; however, this would have created an unwieldy bulk,
as it turned out, with the result that the crucial year in
which Hitler's Realpolitik first became transformed into
Aufienpolitik with the Saar plebiscite of January 13, 1935,
had to be organizationally divided as indicated above. The
early period, 1933 to 1935, thus spills over into Chapter
III, which might otherwise have been properly considered the
middle period of 1936-1937. In 1935 too, the seventh con
gress of the Comintern, meeting in Moscow during July and
August, formally proclaimed a new policy of the "united
front from above," i.e., cooperation with leaders of the
Socialist party, thus ushering in a new era of Communist
policy which had significant repercussions both politically
and culturally, as will be indicated in the third chapter.
Chapter IV begins with 1938, this being the year which
marked the intensification of Hitler's drive for European
dominion with the annexation of Austria in March, which in
turn settled the fate of Czechoslovakia, this republic now
being surrounded on three sides by Nazi-ruled lands. The
actualization of that fate occurred, of course, in October
of that year with Hitler's bloodless occupation of the Sude-
tenland, which had been handed to him on the silver platter
of the Munich Agreement of September 29-30, 1938, which it
self made smooth the path to the "total solution" of the
Czechoslovakia question in the spring of 1939. A new at
mosphere pervades the writers' congresses and press coverage
of them as of 1938. We realize that our divisions of these
congresses may be disputed, for the above-mentioned events
are somewhat arbitrary delineations--happenings of world
wide consequence occurred during every year of the thirties
and early forties— but all of the organizational divisions
made obviously had to be subjective, due to the nature of
the material with which we are dealing.
63
social/intellectual history of the United States and a lit-
3
erary history— albeit in exile— of Germany itself.
It is of interest to note that the social and political
situation in America was such for some years prior to the
outbreak of world war that the generation of a climate con
ducive to a fairly favorable reception of European intellec
tuals, writers, and artists, not to mention scientists and
musicians, was already in the air by the time some of the
4
first emigres departed from Nazi Germany. This liberal
3
These exile-oriented associations and groups will be
treated in the fifth chapter of this study, "The Concept of
Exile as Viewed by the Press," and will be approached mainly
from this direction, since their coverage by the American
press was one of the indicators of its awareness of the ex
ile s ituat ion.
^With the burning on the night of May 10, 1933, of over
25,000 "un-German" books in a square on Unter den Linden in
Berlin— ironically, opposite the University— which was fol
lowed by book burnings in Heidelberg and Frankfurt, among
other cities, as well as the blacklisting of their authors
by the Reichskulturkammer, numerous writers chose to leave
Nazi Germany for— as it turned out— only temporarily safer
lands, initially France, Czechoslovakia, Russia, Switzer
land, and Scandinavia. When these countries became similar
danger areas, notably as of 1938, the ever-growing numbers
of exiles found refuge in Mexico, South America, Britain,
and the United States, which became the more popular areas
of exile activity. These, of course, were not the only
stimuli— the sheer number of repressive measures taken in
1933 against the "enemies of Germany" after the establish
ment of the Third Reich would fill pages. A few examples
will illustrate the direction followed by Hitler's regime:
on March 23, the Reichstag was dissolved; on June 22, the
64
atmosphere might explain why so many periodicals and
Social Democratic Party (SPD) was declared subversive and
therefore illegal; on July 14, a law was formalized which
decreed the National Socialist German Workers' Party to be
the only political party in Germany; on August 25, the first
list of "denationalized" Germans was issued— among the ene
mies of the state as defined under the July 14 law were Lion
Feuchtwanger, Heinrich Mann, Alfred Kerr, Willi Munzenberg,
Leopold Schwarzschild, Ernst Toller, and Kurt Tucholsky; see
Frederick T. Birchill, "Nazis Seize Goods of 33 Foes in Ex
ile; Annul Citizenship. Hitler Decree Proscribes His Most
Prominent Enemies for Outspoken Criticism. Scheidemann Is
Included. Bernhard, Feuchtwanger and Heinrich Mann Are Also
Among Those Affected. List of First of Series. All Whom
the Regime Regards as Inimical to Its Interests Are Slated
for Ban," New York Times, August 26, 1933, sec. 1, pp. 1, 3.
(Heinrich Mann, in fact, was expelled on February 15— barely
two weeks after Hitler became Chancellor--from the Prussian
Academy of the Arts, of which he had been President just the
previous year.) Many American reactions were noted in the
press: on May 2, the moderate Authors' League of America,
Inc., made public a resolution urging steps by the State
Department and the Department of Labor to allow German au
thors to enter the United States as political refugees ("Aid
to Germans Urged. Authors League Wants Writers Admitted as
Refugees Here," New York Times, May 3, 1933, sec. 1, p. 11);
a few days later the American branch of the Jewish Agency
for Palestine called for the creation of a League of Nations
commission "to finance and execute a plan for the coloniza
tion of Palestine by expatriated Jews" ("League Aid Asked
for Exiled Jews," New York Times, May 7, 1933, sec. 1, p.
13); and in September, the Christian Century made one of the
earliest pleas for an easing of the immigration laws to
allow refugees from the Nazis to enter America: "In view of
the proscriptions now being announced in Germany, and the
way in which the infatuated nazis [sic] are driving out of
that country hundreds of its most gifted citizens, is not
the time here [for the President to make clear that America
is] ready to welcome those who flee from tyranny?" ("Main
tain the American Tradition!" [Editorial], L, No. 36 [Sep
tember 6, 1933], 1099). The restrictive immigration quotas
of America, incidentally, engendered a good deal of contro-
versy as the world conflict gained momentum.__________________
65
journals could spring into existence shortly after Hitler's
assumption of power in Germany; it is also the reason for
the interest taken by a host of previously established maga
zines in questions pertaining to exile activity. These
questions, after all, were seized upon as focal points for
expression and expansion of anti-Nazi views. As previously
indicated, one denominator which the journals in both the
primary and secondary source categories possessed in common
was their avowedly anti-Fascist and frequently anti-war
sentiment, to whatever degree this may have manifested it
self.
The American Scene
In the 1930's the atmosphere in the United States was
charged with excitement, both positive and negative, for the
forces leading to the great economic disaster of 192 9 en
gendered not only new vehicles of expression such as politi-
5
cal, literary, and theatrical journals, through which both
5Some not yet mentioned are the following: Common
Sense, established in 1932 and presenting "undogmatic posi
tive discussion of social and economic subjects side by side
with the best creative writing being done in America" [ad
vertisement] , SR, XX, No. 6 (June 3, 1939), 17— in the mid
forties, Common Sense merged with the American Mercury;
revolutionary magazines such as Blast, Scope, The Monthly
Review, The New Quarterly, also such organs of the John Reed
66
the disenchanted and the aware could vent their frustrations
and express their views, but also new groups and organiza
tions whose activities helped to bring about changes— not
all of which were necessarily constructive— on sundry fronts
of American life. The complexities of the interrelationship
between the economic, social, and artistic/creative spheres
of activity of necessity lie only indirectly within the
Clubs as Leftward (Boston) and The Left Front (Chicago). We
should point out that of the great number of magazines
founded in the early thirties, a large number soon foundered
and died on the rocks of financial despair, and nearly every
month one could read of the demise of yet another enthusias
tic project. For a good discussion of the new magazines,
right, left, and center, see "The Little Magazines" [Books
in Review], New Republic, LXXIX, No. 1025 (July 25, 1934),
295-297. International Literature published lists of revo
lutionary publications at the end of 1934; of our sources it
cited Partisan Review. New Theatre, New Masses, and The An
vil— this last-named journal merged with PR in 1936; see
Chapter I, note 27 (IL ["Chronicle" section], No. 5 [11]
[November 1934], 149-151, and No. 6 [12] [December 1934],
148-149; also "Revolutionary Literature Grows. New Masses
Becomes Weekly" ["Chronicle"], idem, p. 146: "In the Sep
tember 1933 issue, the American New Masses publishes an
editorial announcement of the greatest interest to the revo
lutionary cultural movement"; the editors of International
Literature then express their belief that this change from
a monthly to a weekly appearance "is sure to make [NM] . . .
not only one of the most important publications on the Amer
ican scene, but also one of the most vital in the Interna
tional cultural movement" [p. 147]) . For a brief summary
and evaluation of twelve "publications of an experimental
and non-commercial nature . . . which we would recommend to
our readers," see "Literary Notes," Direction, V, No. 3
[Siammer 1942), 33. (Twice A Year is the only periodical of
our sources on this list.)
67
jscope of this paper.
I
| A few points might, however, be noted in this regard.
i
iThe theatre became in many ways an early nucleus around
'which large numbers of artists and intellectuals rallied in
ithe hope of creating a substantial "new direction" for the
'arts of the thirties. As an embodiment of the reform-
inspired dreams of "the newly radicalized depression intel
ligentsia," it pulled into its orbit those writers— and
their numbers were legion— who, "surprised by the economic
'crisis of the early 30's . . . discovered politics"^— both
of the Marxist and the non-Marxian leftist variety— and in
iso doing, attempted increasingly to forge of art a weapon
with which to combat the soul-destroying social consequences
7
of the Depression. Of course, the hard-core Communists
; C .
1 "This Quarter" [Editorial], Partisan Review, VI, No. 1
; (Fall 1938), 8.
^In an "Editorial Appeal" for contributions appearing
'in an early number of New Theatre, the following impassioned
;call is issued: "Fascism, the leprosy of a rotten, dying
'system, is spreading in America as well as in Europe. . . .
'Yet the American theatre, as represented by Broadway and
Hollywood, has nothing to offer but sex-dramas, historical
pastiches, and other forms of theatrical marshmallow. But
jwhile Broadway runs away from reality, a new and powerful
jtheatre of social protest is making itself felt throughout
jthe country. . . . Help us to build a united theatre front
jin America— to set up footlights against War and Fascism
'throughout the United States!" (II, No. 4 [April 1935], 23).
68
were quick to see a golden opportunity to turn the mounting
dissatisfaction with the existing social order to their ad
vantage , and so, by capitalizing on both the depression
evils and the reform hopes of the liberal intellectuals,
they attempted "to infiltrate and control the American stage
during [this period, in the belief] that the theatre could
help foment their revolution against American capitalism and
8
all of its . • . evils."
The resulting "new theatre movement" thus encompassed
dramas written from various political viewpoints:
There were the liberal dramas, as left-wing as the New
Deal. There were the Marxist plays that explained the
Depression problems by the philosophy of economic deter
minism. There were liberal plays with Marxian overtones.
And, finally, there were Communist dramas that not only
followed the Marxian analysis of American society but
also called for the violent "transition" to a Soviet
America. Because there were virtually no plays advocat
ing a right-wing revolution, the new theatre movement
acquired the alternate name— theatre of the left.9
While many of the left-oriented intellectuals, to be sure,
were eventually swayed from their early extremist convictions
O
Morgan Himelstein, Drama Was a Weapon, The Left-Wing
Theatre in New York 1929-1941 (New Brunswick, N. J., 1963),
p. 3.
9Himelstein, p. 4; he noted that this was a commonly-
used term, and refers to Bosley Crowther, "Theatre of the
Left," New York Times, April 14, 1935, sec. 9, p. 2.
69
as fascism continued to ravage Europe, and the grand-slam
power politics of Hitler and Stalin shocked their sensi
bilities,'1 '0 their initial involvement was sufficient to
alter the heretofore relatively passive and neutral position
of the arts in America and thus pave the way for sympathetic
association with and action on behalf of the artists and
writers who fled their European homeland in the name of
moral freedom. A statement by Herbert Kline, the first edi
tor of New Theatre, is indicative of this change: "A new
theatre is being welded out of the suffering and struggles
of the American people, a theatre of insurgents who are
sensitive to every shading and development of the life about
them." Kline goes on to discuss the social conditions which
were forcing people to assume more radical positions.
^®In a slightly later portion of the previously cited
column, "This Quarter," of the Partisan Review, we find this
unhappy observation: "Six years have sufficed to reconcile
these irreconcilable revolutionaries [Granville Hicks, Sid
ney Hook, Lewis Corey, Malcolm Cowley, Isidor Schneider,
John Dos Passos, Edmund Wilson, Waldo Frank, Sherwood Ander
son, Robert Cantwell, Ella Winter, to name a few] to the
existing order. And so complete is their change of heart
that they now make it their duty to identify the 'values' of
Western culture with the continued domination of the world
by the Anglo-French bloc of imperialists. And let us not be
thrown off guard by the anti-fascist mask of these liberal
and 'Communist' defenders of culture. The more cowardly
they, if they think the victories of fascism can be arrested
by an abject surrender to bourgeois democracy" (PR, VI, No.
1 TFall 1938] , 9) . _______________________________________________
70
perceiving herein the growing struggle of class against
class.In the following issue of New Theatre, H. W. L.
Dana declares unabashedly, "The Theatre [s_icj is a weapon, "
and contrasts the new movement with the theatre which ex
isted during the First World War, at which time it had been
used as a weapon "in the hands of the militarists, the muni
tion profiteers, and the bankers— a weapon for war propa
ganda." He feels that now there is hope that the theatre
will become a different kind of weapon; the creation of "a
United Front of dramatists with the working-class [and] . . .
the building up of large audiences everywhere for workers 1
theatres, [plus] . . . the uniting [of] these efforts in
ternationally . . . [will make of the theatre] . . . a pow-
12
erful weapon in the fight against fascism and war."
H"The New Plays," New Theatre, II, No. 3 (March 1935),
22 .
- * - 2"Drama on the Western Front," NT, II, No. 4 (April
1935), 10-14, 32. In her discussion, "The Los Angeles WPA
Theatre Project," Sanora Babb elucidates the view of the
revolutionaries that the established minority, "the reac
tionaries [,] fear[s] the new theatres' portrayal of their
surfeited and decadent [group], and the alive and vigorous
themes of the oppressed, stirring with a sense of their
right to a decent life" (NT, III, No. 6 [June 1936], 22-23).
For further details see Michael Blankfort's three-part ser
ies, "Sketches Toward an Aesthetic for the Revolutionary
Theatre," NT, I, No. 6 (June 1934); I, No. 7 (July-August
1934); I, No. 10 (November 1934).
71
The s o c i a l o r i e n t a t i o n o f t h e t h e a t r e was r e f l e c t e d i n
t h e f o r m a t io n o f su ch g ro u p s as th e ( n o n - l e f t i s t ) T h e a t r e
G u ild , th e ( l e f t - w i n g ) New T h e a t r e L e a g u e , th e L eag u e o f
W o r k e r s ' T h e a t r e s , th e T h e a t r e U n io n and th e T h e a t r e C o l l e c -
13
t i v e , as w e l l as th e (m o d e ra te ) "Neue T h e a t e r G ru p p e ,"
w h ic h i s a c k n o w le d g e d i n an e a r l y is s u e o f New T h e a t r e as
r e p r e s e n t in g th e G erm an p o p u la t io n o f A m e r ic a , w h ic h " f o r
m ore th a n a d e c a d e . . . h as b e e n w it h o u t a t h e a t r e o f an y
14
a r t i s t i c o r c u l t u r a l q u a l i t y . " The c o n t r o v e r s i a l F e d e r a l
13
As John Gassner very ably points out in his Foreword,
"Politics and Theatre," to Himelstein's Drama Was a Weapon,
the leftism of the theatre of this period "was many things
at the same time, if it was not indeed many different things
to many different people. Depending upon the way one looked
at it, it was Marxist and non-Marxist, foreign to American
culture and native, large in compass and small, influential
and uninfluential, productive and sterile. It started with
the Depression or it started long before. It ended with the
end of the Depression and the start of World War II or it
never died. . . . One may . . . consider the esthetic prob
lems highlighted, although hardly resolved, by the leftist
theatre movement. Where, for example, does propaganda start
or stop in a dramatic work? And how is it to be served
best? . . . The socially slanted theatre of the thirties had
a long background of journalistic topicality and democratic
sentiment, although both friends and foes tended to overlook
this fact, the friends acclaiming leftist social drama as a
noble Marxist invention while the foes called it an alien
abomination. . . . Yet the label of 'leftism' got attached
to the entire serious-minded stage in America. And the
label . . . was not used pejoratively, as it came to be used
in the 1950's, but in a vaguely complimentary sense by pro
ponents of liberalism" (pp. vii-ix).
14"Backstage" [Column], NT, I, No. 9 (October 1934),
72
Theatre Project of the WPA (see Chapter I, note 22) con
tributed rather substantially to the new orientation of the
theatre. It is of interest that the Project was discontin-
ued--as Jane De Hart Mathews observes, it was "consigned 'to
the ashcan of oblivion--in 1939, ostensibly because of the
r e f u s a l o f C o n g re s s t o a p p r o p r ia t e m oney f o r "an i l l - r u n ,
15
inefficient, and presumably un-American institution." The
conservative legislator Martin Dies of Texas, whose anti
communist sentiments found perhaps their most effective out
let in his zealous "Dies Committee"--which was therefore
heartily hated by all left-wing and revolutionary groups and
individuals— was apparently quite instrumental in having the
Federal Theatre Project disbanded: in December of 1938, the
New York Times published an article on the huge slashes on
30. See also "Shifting Scenes" [Column], NT, II, No. 1
(January 1935), 27, and III, No. 11 (November 1936), 32.
J-^The Federal Theatre, 1935-1939, p. 299. Mrs. Mathews
comments: "Subversive tendencies, unreasonable costs . . .
and 'trashy' productions were the specific charges made by
the House Appropriations Committee spokesman, Clifton A.
Woodrum" (p. 299). On the other hand, Hallie Flanagan, its
director, "was convinced that the Federal Theatre was abol
ished primarily because of the 'vicious report of a biased
committee and the mass action of a great many other people
in Congress . . . taken in by false fears [of communism]'"
(Flanagan, Arena, pp. 335, 353; Flanagan, "Congress Takes
the Stage," New York Times, August 20, 1939, sec. 9, p. 1,
in Arena, p. 313).
73
other WPA projects made in New York alone— the total cul
tural workers were to be reduced by about 25 per cent, and
the writers by slightly less; we note that in July 1937,
nearly 30 per cent of the staff of the Federal Theatre Proj
ect and 25 per cent of the personnel of the other arts proj
ects had been dropped in a similar drive, which had engen
dered such vigorous protests that the Administration had
threatened to shut down the WPA projects altogether. Ac
cording to the Times, "The disproportionately heavy cuts on
the theatre and writers' projects, which have been denounced
as centers of Communist activity in testimony before the
D ie s c o m m itte e , b r o u g h t fro m W i l l i s M o rg a n , p r e s id e n t o f t h e
16
Workers' Alliance, the comment that 'the Administration is
■^The Workers' Alliance was one of many groups brought
into being during the New Deal era; whether it may be viewed
either as a symbol of the social and economic conditions
which stimulated the New Deal or of its sociological and
political results is not in question, for "The WPA [created
or at least allowed the existence of] the . . . Alliance,
whose leaders— some of them members of the Communist party —
were agitating noisily for more and bigger work projects"
(James MacGregor Burns, Roosevelt: The Lion and the Fox.
The first political biography of Franklin Delano Roosevelt
[New York, c. 1956], p. 351). The point which might be
noted here is that there has been dispute among historians
as to whether a coalition of labor and farm groups created
the New Deal, or whether, conversely, the Deal helped create
a new labor and farm movement in America, "along with a
dozen other immensely strengthened groups" (p. 350). In any
case, it is a fact that during this period various
! 74
I
i
Iquite obviously backing water in the face of the attack of
17
the Dies committee and others.1"
Thus, just as the demise of the Federal Theatre Project
was linked to the more public general disfavor into which
communism fell as the Depression deepened and the fortunes
■of fascism rose— we note the recession of 1938 (in March the
stock market went suddenly into a panicky downward spiral,
j
other indices slumped badly, and unemployment was still ris-j
ing— in fact, "the decline from the previous September was }
I
18
the sharpest the country had ever known"); as late as j
C o m m u n is t - in it ia t e d a n d /o r i n f i l t r a t e d g ro u p s w e re e n g e n
d e re d an d i n v ig o r a t e d , f o r a num ber o f r e a s o n s . B u rn s n o te s
— an d we s h a l l i l l u s t r a t e a t a l a t e r p o i n t — t h a t th e A m e r i
c an C o m m u n is ts , who e a r l i e r h a d b e e n " f r i e n d l y o r a t l e a s t
in d u lg e n t to w a rd th e a d m in is t r a t i o n b e c a u s e o f p o p u l a r - f r o n t
t a c t i c s d i c t a t e d fro m M oscow , h a d done a f l i p - f l o p d o m e s ti
c a l l y as w e l l as i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y a f t e r t h e N a z i - S o v i e t p a c t ,
[a n d c o n s e q u e n tly v i l i f i e d th e P r e s id e n t t o v a r io u s d e g r e e s ,
: a l l o f th e m u n p l e a s a n t ] . The P r e s id e n t d id n o t m in d t h e
a b u s e , f o r he kn ew t h e v a lu e o f C om m unist o p p o s it io n . B u t
he c o u ld n o t — and d id n o t — ig n o r e th e C om m unist i n f i l t r a t i o n
o f s e c t io n s o f la b o r , y o u th g r o u p s , th e p r e s s , WPA w o r k e r s ,
an d government. . . . He p u t s u s p e c te d g o v e rn m e n t e m p lo y e e s
u n d e r s u p e r v is io n , an d h e a n d E le a n o r R o o s e v e lt h e lp e d th e
n o n -C o m m u n ist le a d e r s o f t h e W o r k e r s ' A l l i a n c e fo rm a new
o r g a n i z a t io n o f WPA w o r k e r s " (p p . 417-418).
"WPA t o D ro p 1,500 i n A r t s W ork H e r e . C u t fro m 8,496
E m p lo ye d on P r o je c t s i n C i t y O rd e re d f o r F i r s t o f Y e a r .
T h e a t r e t o O u s t 1,000. S la s h Is L in k e d t o C h a rg e s o f Com
m unism B e fo r e t h e D ie s C o m m itte e ," New Y o r k T im e s , D ecem ber
10, 1938, sec. 1, p. 4.
18
B u rn s , p . 327. A t th e c o n c lu s io n o f t h i s c h a p t e r ,
75
spring of 1940, unemployment was at the seven to ten million
level; further, in August 1939, Hitler signed his "Non-
Aggression" Pact with Stalin, which sent huge numbers of
heretofore optimistic liberals into paroxysms of confusion
and despair— so there became apparent the development of a
rather close relationship between these events and the in
creasing numbers of intellectuals whose alignment changed.
Where it had been one of revolutionary political activism,
it became in the late 1930's one of more moderate— and thus
more publicly acceptable— liberalism, a liberalism, however,
mainly in the political sphere and not necessarily in the
military realm. Dwight Macdonald and his Marxist col
leagues, for example, felt that their cause was being stead
ily sold out by formerly sympathetic groups and publications
as the clamor for involvement in the European war reached a
fever pitch. Macdonald stated that all sections of the in
telligentsia were "swinging in behind the New Deal in its
drive towards a second world war to save democracy." He
"The Roosevelt Recession," Burns states, "It was a major
failure of American democracy that it was not able in the
late 1930's to show that a great nation could provide jobs
for its workers and food, clothes, and houses for its peo
ple. What Roosevelt could not achieve World War II would
achieve as a by-product enabling Republicans to charge later
that the New Deal could end depression only through war"
(p. 336).
76
categorized and summarized the alignments as follows:
The Communist Party, through its League of American
Writers, American Artists Congress, and other cultural
organizations, gathers the leftish intellectuals into
the war fold. Dorothy Thompson and Walter Lippmann
shepherd the rightish intellectuals. The liberal week
lies, The Nation in particular, whose war line has be
come a scandal, see to it that the great middle bulk
of the intelligentsia tread the path of righteousness.^
Nonetheless, despite the presence of disparate politi
cal and ideological views among members of the culturally
■^"War and the Intellectuals: Act Two" ["This Quar
ter"], Partisan Review, VI, No. 3 (Spring 1939), 3-4. Mac
donald also directed his annoyance at several prominent
writers: "Thomas Mann turns out flimsy propaganda tracts on
the beauties of democracy and the horrors of fascism. And
Van Wyck Brooks, of all people, proposes in a letter to Time
that our reply to Hitler's book burnings should be a series
of public bonfires of things Made In Germany" (p. 4).
(Thomas Mann's position in regard to world events was often
questioned and/or attacked, and many American intellectuals
and writers took issue with his activities and writings.
See, for example, "Reflections on a Non-Political Man"
["This Quarter"], PR, VI, No. 1 (Fall 1938), 15, for a brief
discussion of the "embarrassments . . . in Thomas Mann's
career as a political thinker." However, not all intellec
tuals viewed him in an unfavorable light; only a few months
before, the Review published an article, "Thomas Mann: Hu
manism in Exile," in which he was lauded as "one of the few
antifascists who has raised his voice against the growing
dictatorship of the lie, in the domain of 'progressives' as
well as reactionaries," and in which his "predicament" was
called "the predicament of the intellectual conscience,
clinging to the conditions of its own enslavement . . .
[his] program becomes an agony of the individual conscience
— one more symptom of the tragic state of our world" (Wil
liam Phillips, PR. IV, No. 6 [May 1938], 10).
77
and intellectually "elite," one factor gradually emerged to
bind the world of the artist and the intellectual together
with the world of events, namely, the personal involvement
in and commitment to a cause--the cause being initially both
anti-war and anti-fascism and eventually, anti-fascism
20
alone. As Macdonald observed xn 1939, "The major force
20
Max Eastman's summary of the minimum of five name
changes which the Communist-created American Committee for
Struggle Against War of 1932 had undergone through the end
of 1941 well illustrates the confusion which reigned in the
camps of intellectuals from the early 1930's to the mid-
1940's. Wishing to involve themselves in active vehicles of
social and/or political change, many of them were inadver
tently sucked into groups with apparently noble ideals, only
to become sadly disillusioned in cases where a given organi
zation suddenly and sometimes without apparent reason
changed its philosophy and tactics. The above-named com
mittee, for example, became the League Against War and Fas
cism when it was realized that fascism, as embodied by Hit
ler, was a war threat against the Soviet Union; in 1936 it
was changed to the American League for Peace and Democracy,
due to the strong world-wide indignation stimulated by the
Stalin purges of that year— in fact, the withdrawal of the
Communist Party as an affiliate was announced in the Commu
nist press, and now Communist representation was presented
through non-party organizations; with the Hitler-Stalin
pact, which increased the threat to peace and democracy, but
decreased the Fascist threat to the USSR--the League died,
soon to be replaced with a new national body, the American
Peace Mobilization, which lasted just as long as the peace
between the two dictators; the thunderbolt of the Nazi at
tack on Russia in June 1941 abruptly terminated that group,
and so the American People's Mobilization was born, which
stood in favor of war, but in opposition to fascism ("Sta
lin's American Power," The American Mercury, LIII, No. 216
[December 1941], 676-678). It is interesting to note these
changes as reflected in the left-wing periodicals,
78
that is pulling the intellectuals into the orbit of war . . .
is not their sympathy for the Soviet Union but their fear
21
and hatred of fascism." Gassner succinctly evaluates the
emotional factors involved in the "cause orientation" of the
decade:
A great fear of social acedia, of evading or having
evaded one's social responsibility, pervaded the world
of the artist and the intellectual. . . . The one thing
the artist and the intellectual feared most from an
embattled leftist critic was the charge of "escapism"
frequently thundered at them from the doctrinaire left.
especially New Masses and New Theatre; just a few represen
tative articles and editorials are the following: "The
Anti-War Congress," NM, VIII, No. 11 (July 1933), 26 (the
call for this Congress was issued by Sherwood Anderson,
Theodore Dreiser, and Upton Sinclair, and the event was
planned for September 2-4 in New York); "Against Fascism"
[editorial statement], NT, II, No. 3 (March 1935), 25; the
entire number of New Theatre for April 1935 was dedicated
to the opposition of war — "This anti-war issue of New The
atre and the wide activities of the New Theatre League are
dedicated to [the] fight [to prevent war]" ("Editorials,"
NT, II, No. 4 [April 1935], 3); "For Neutrality," NM,
XXXIII, No. 5 (October 24, 1939), 15 (a great many articles
pushing neutrality appeared in the autumn and winter of 1939
in revolutionary journals); in 1942, by contrast, we found
numerous articles devoted to the creation of a "second
front" against Hitler; see, for example, the "Western Front
Issue" of New Masses (XLIII, No. 8 [May 26, 1942]), which
expounded on the idea that a second (united) front must be
created immediately--in the next issue were published Hein
rich Mann's views on this topic, as well as the editors'
response to his ideas (NM, XLIII, No. 9 [June 2, 1942], 9-
10) .
^"Where Is the Enemy?" Partisan Review, VI, No. 3
(Spring 1939), 14-15.
79
j Engagement to a cause became a guilt-enforced virtue
| that was to lead to some kind of activism such as sign-
| ing a petition or a protest, marching in a parade, and
! writing a story, poem, or play of so-called social con-
i sciousness. Thus enthusiasm, an important factor in the
practice of the arts, became a ferment in the depressed
! nineteen-thirties just as depression concerning humani-
I ty's condition and prospects became de rigueur for the
I intelligentsia of the prosperous nineteen-fifties ....
I A veritable longing for heroism or the heroic gesture
| was apparent in circles that in the blase nineteen-
twenties would have brazened out a modish scepticism
and diffidence. (Himelstein, p. xi)
Gassner's observation regarding "engagement to a cause"
was quite clearly manifested in the innumerable exhorta
tions, recommendations, advocations, and admonitions which
found their way into the editorials and messages of all
types of journals and newspapers. In his "Appeal to Play-
jwrights," for example, Virgil Geddes, one of the radical
Iplaywrights of this period, sent forth an eloquent appeal
i
!for new scripts in the ideological context of revolutionary
i
'art:
!
Revolutionary dramaturgy offers a challenge, and it is
the duty of American playwrights to meet this challenge,
i When the power of the theatre is being used only by the
| bourgoisie [sic] for making profits, when its use as such
is not only perverted but a social crime, the only method
of correction is the method of revolutionary action and
pressure. But action and pressure are not enough: fresh
; dramatic intelligence is demanded also.
| When the proletarian masses are rising to power, when the
| level of intelligence among [them] has taken on a new
| temper and strength, when the structure of our entire
80
civilization is being altered thereby . . - the theatre
cannot stupidly take a defensive attitude: it must
reach out and embrace, be a part of the offensive van
guard .
The relation of dramatic art to these new masses is,
then, the playwright's important problem[, and] . . .
the fundamental principles of dramatic art must be rec
ognized, reaffirmed and put into action. This is our
dramatists' major task. . . . Theatre Workers of the
World are Uniting! Dramatists, see what you can do 1^2
In an editorial by Archibald MacLeish in an early issue
of New Theatre, we find the following statement, which is
fairly typical of the views already indicated by the ideal
istic left: "For the first time since I have known anything
about such matters there exists a theatre in which dishon
esty is not demanded, in which hokum is not a compulsory
ingredient. There is offered, in other words, a theatre for
art." MacLeish seems fully enamoured of the potential he
feels is embodied in the new theatre when he says, "There is
offered an opportunity to affect the life of our time[, for]
there is no greater persuader than art when it is permitted
to touch the vital nerves." The workers' theatres allow art
to "touch and reach [and] it may be more powerful than the
possessors of power, more serious than the creators of
9 9
New Theatre, I, No. 9 (October 1934), 5. See also
Geddes, Left Turn for American Drama. The Brookfield Pamph
lets, No. 5 (Brookfield, Conn., c. 1934).
81
knowledge* more persuasive than the actions of armies."
MacLeish concludes with a comparison of "the false and
journalistic emotions of fascism" and "the real and human
emotions of art" and declares his belief that the workers 1
theatres have a crucial role to play in the contemporary
world: "There therefore exists in [these] theatres . . . an
opportunity for the delivery of that impact [of an honest
art upon the life of this generation] at the precise point
where it is most essential that the life of this generation
23
should be influenced."
Two years later* Gassner's awareness of "engagement" is
manifested in the inaugural number of Direction, in which
the editors describe the importance of the arts as a vehicle
for social change. In answering their question as to
whether man is "caught in the net of his own miracles [or
whether] he can oppose War [sic]* poverty* cynicism* in
tolerance with the benefits of the machine age* technology*
medicine [and] architecture*" they state firmly* "We believe
he can." They then explain their purpose in creating this
new magazine: "And so we will present writers* artists*
2 3
"Theatre Against War and Fascism" [Editorial], New
Theatre, II* No. 8 (August 1935)* 3.
82
scientistsj constructive thinkers in all fields who express
the needs and emotions of the day and take some part in the
building of the future, indirectly through their art, or
24
directly through ideas and plans." These convictions are
strongly reiterated on the occasion of the fourth anniver
sary issue of Direction:
But wars and rumors of wars will not kill the growing
love for the arts in our country. Indeed, we believe
that this search for new values in art and through art,
is our surest defense against the spirit of cynicism
and destruction in the world today. It is our purpose
to aid in this defense by providing a place for the
free expression of the arts, by bringing them, through
words and pictures, to as many people as possible, by
seeking and explaining . . . the most vigorous and hope
ful manifestations of creative life.25
In its first issue after the United States entered the
global disruption, this periodical voiced its continuing
policy of providing an active forum in the battle of freedom
versus oppression, stating that it now hoped "to serve as a
medium for mobilizing and giving expression to the cultural
forces now joining in the war effort. . . . and [so] strive
. . . to help people find new values and spiritual strength
24
"A New Magazine . . . Why?" [Announcement], Direction
I, No. 1 (December 19 37), 32.
25"A Special Announcement," Direction, III, No. 7
(October 1940), 12.
83
to carry them through the difficult days ahead." A contrast
was then drawn to the Ehscist nations, which "do not have
this reservoir of creative force on which to draw [because]
they do not believe in culture," having either dammed up the
vigor of their arts through censorship and repression, or
driven their talented and creative citizens to other lands:
But they have not the sustaining, human wells of honest
thinkers, educators, writers, musicians, painters, de
signers, actors, and other interpretive artists, working
along, with all their differences, in a free country,
toward the accomplishment of a national culture. All
this they have despised, and in so doing . . . have lost
the respect of every enlightened mind now in the world,
or that will ever come into the world.
The place of the artist in the scheme of the contemporary
situation is then affirmed; based on a combination of "man's
intellectual need for truth . . . [and] his natural desire
for freedom and survival. . . . [it is] in the middle of the
ranks" and is of a militant nature, for the artist is now
2 6
"willing to fight with his head or with his hands."
The theme of fascism's assault on culture was a very
popular one; it was perhaps the most frequently discussed
idea in our sources, particularly as the Fascist power plays
2 6
"We're in the Army Now" [Editorial], Direction, V,
No. 1 (February-March 1942), 3.
84
increased the threat to world peace during the late 1930's.
Early in 1941, for example, Klaus Mann eloquently expressed
his awareness of the implications of the broader questions
involved in the European conflict as they pertained to the
moral and ethical planes of man's existence:
All of us feel and know that more is at stake in the
present war than political systems or imperialist inter
ests. The crisis through which we are passing is more
crucial and more profound than any event on the purely
political plane could possibly be. Ideas and values of
supreme magnitude are involved--conceptions are threat
ened that form the very basis of our civilization. What
we are witnessing is nothing more nor [sicj less than a
decisive struggle over the spiritual destiny of the
planet.
The ferocious assault of totalitarian barbarism . . .
is directed against culture itself. Since the ultimate
aim of our enemy is the dehumanization of man, our fore
most concern must be the ideal of a new humanism— a moral
and intellectual task of inspiring gravity.27
He exhorted rational men everywhere to comprehend the chal
lenge being flung at the very wellsprings of their exis
tence, as well as to re-examine "the intrinsic value of the
ideas and institutions we have been accustomed to cherish"
and then decide which aspects of the present order should be
retained and which ones altered and improved. He concludes
that "There will be no 'new order' except the one we are
^"Issues at Stake" [Editorial], Decision, I, No. 1
(January 1941), 6 .
85
able to create[, for] ours is the task; ours, the responsi
bility; ours is the decision" (p. 6).
In summarizing the factors contributing to their grad
ual shift from an attitude of pacifism in 1937 to one of
more direct militant action in 1943,, the editors of Twice A
Year also indicate an awareness of the need for involvement
by artist and politician alike, if the spirit of freedom
imperative for creativity, growth, and constructive change
is to be maintained; since totalitarianism is aggressive by
nature, it cannot be contained indefinitely by nonaggressive
means— no matter how much one may abhor the need to use for
self-preservation the same weapons which provide basic sus
tenance for the system whose very existence offends one's
innermost sensibilities. As the editors put it,
A dual approach to the necessary preservation of the
democratic spirit seemed to us to be of growing impor
tance. The challenge of those who have, throughout the
history of the world, taken the extreme position of
refusing to kill under any circumstances, has served
as a light for the future. . . . But, despite one's
horror at war in any form, without those who have fought
for their ideals, one cannot tell what the history of
the world might . . . have b e e n . ^ 8
2 8
"Introductory Note for Double Number X-XI. Twice A
Year. Editors' Statement," Twice A Year (Spring-Summer
1943/Fa11-Winter 1943), 12.
86
The point is made that the person who requires freedom in
order to live, such as the artist— no doubt the most extreme
type of individual— is not justified in simply accepting the
condition essential to his existence without participating
in its maintenance: he "cannot fail to take responsibility
for creating and preserving for all [men] that freedom with
out which he cannot himself function— and which must exist
beyond national boundaries" (p. 13). Reaffirming the pur
pose of this periodical as being
to include work . . . that combines a humanistic with
a realistic approach to the problems that confront us;
work that is anti-Nazi, anti-Fascist, anti-tyrannical
in spirit* work that attempts to clarify how best to
achieve a world in which both the human being as indi
vidual, and as member of society, can fulfill . . .
himself and others most successfully; [and] work that
. . . inspires the will further to create such a world
with as much integrity, vision, sense of beauty . . .
and courage . . . as the human being is capable of doing,
the editors affirm their sense of "privilege and . . .re
sponsibility" in being able to continue the realization of
this aim "while so much of the world lies in ruins" (p. 17).
It should be noted that all of the views cited up to
this point— which of necessity have been culled from among
the many at our disposal— reflect and share a common belief
in, as Malcolm Cowley so aptly expresses it, the "humanizing
87
29
function" of art. And precisely this faith in the human
izing function of art is the factor which attracted so many
American men and women of letters to the camp of the "cul
tural emigres," who by virtue of their decisive act of emi
gration, became transfigured into a collective symbol of the
ideals for whose realization the Americans were themselves
struggling. As we shall indicate, this perception was a
highly significant element in their energetic concern with
exile activities in the arenas of both journalism and dis
course, leading to involvement in not only congresses of the
30
League of American Writers and the P.E.N. Club, but also
in the founding and/or subsequent proceedings of such widely
diversified groups as the American Guild for German Cultural
“ ^"Art Tomorrow," New Republic, LXXIX, No. 1016 (May
23, 1934), 34-36.
3^P.E.N. is the abbreviation for Poets, Playwrights,
Editors, Essayists, and Novelists and is a world association
of writers "dedicated to the freedom of literature and the
friendship of nations" (C. V. Wedgwood, "Foreword," Mightier
Than the Sword, The P.E.N. Hermon Quid Memorial Lectures,
1953-1961 [London, c. 1964], p. viii). The organization was
established shortly after the first World War by Mrs. C. A.
Dawson Scotty and two eminent writers who became Interna
tional Presidents, John Galsworthy and later H. G. Wells,
"bestowed on the young P.E.N. the prestige of their names
and influence" (p. viii). At the fourteenth International
Congress of September 19 36 in Buenos Aires, Jules Romains
was elected as Wells' successor.
88
jFreedom, Inc.3 the American League Against War and Fascism,
the Association of Writers for the Defense of Culture, the
i
German Academy of Arts and Sciences in Exile, the German-
American League for Culture, the Hollywood League against
j i
Nazism, the Protective Association of German Writers
i(Schutzverband Deutscher Schriftsteller), the Emergency
Rescue Committee, and the University in Exile of the New
! \
School for Social Research. !
j
Participation in the congresses and meetings of these j
i
leagues, clubs, and associations made possible, generally
speaking, a feeling of active and cohesive involvement
against the encroaching threat of the common foe, fascism;
and frequently the exiles from Europe provided a sort of
bridge anchored in reality by means of which the American
jintellectuals and artists could connect their reaction of
Irevulsion at the happenings on the European scene with their
desire to take aggressive steps to prevent or at least to
obstruct to a degree the persistent march of tyranny, both
:physical and moral, across the spirits of nations and men.
;The American press seemed to be affected in a similar man
ner, and it will be one of the chief aims of this study to
i
indicate the various attitudes reflected by the press in its
jcoverage of the exiles and their concerns, not the least of
89
which by any means being the view--conscious or not— of that
singular brotherhood as both a symbol for freedom and a
catalyst for action.
A certain sense of the dramatic also elicited the in
terest taken by the intellectuals and the press in the cause
of the German exiles. Martin Gumpert, an emigre physician
and writer in New York, captured the drama of the situation
very well. In a condensation in The Publishers 1 Weekly of
the chapter "Writer and Exile" from his book First Papers,
composed of a series of rather random impressions of and
experiences in America, we find the following particularly
arresting statements:
There is perhaps no precedent for an entire literary
generation leaving its homeland almost in a body. . . .
The exodus has extended all over the earth. Many had
remained in Germany for the nonce, but then the total
collapse of tolerance drove them all out of their hid
ing places. The physical rescue of our literature has
been accomplished— it is a Dunkirk adventure of immeas-
O 1
urable cultural consequences
And Erika and Klaus Mann, in discussing the emigration of
the representatives of what was once called "German culture"
31
"Exiled Writers and America," The Publishers' Weekly,
CXL, No. 14 (October 4, 1941), 1376. (This quotation ap
pears in Chapter VII of First Papers, trans. Heinz and Ruth
Norden [New York, 1941], p. 107.)
90
in the Introduction to their book. Escape to Life, make the
point that their aim has been "to demonstrate and describe
in a graphic manner not individual persons banished . . .
but rather an entire complex culture--the true German cul
ture that has at all times been a creative part of world
32
culture— now the victim of Nazi fanaticism." It should be
clear by now that with the entrusting by President General
Paul von Hindenburg of the chancellorship of Germany to
Adolf Hitler on January 30, 1933, a chain of consequences
was set in motion which was to prove nearly disastrous to
the total free world, as well as to almost the "entire lit
erary [and otherwise creative] generation" which was a part
of the German scene in the 1920's and 1930's. It may well
be true that never before in history has the artist been
placed in a situation at once so precarious and yet so
potentially trenchant as that into which the majority of the
great and not so great German men of letters found them
selves for the most part so unceremoniously and unwittingly
dumped on that wintry day. This, of course, is the reason
for the choice of the year 1933 as one end of our frame of
reference for this study. We must, however, agree with the
•^Escape to Life (Boston, 1939), p. viii.
91
Manns' statement that "It would be erroneous to assume that
in the year 1933 a certain group of people left Germany and
found a permanent haven in other countries. It is more true
to fact to say that since 1933 this movement, this tendency
of 'Away from Nazi barbarism!' has increased" (p. vii).
The Drama Begins: Ragusa, 1933
to New York, 1935
As has been indicated in Chapter I, since it is obvi
ously impossible to deal with all that transpired in the
area of exile activity, we have selected for discussion, as
the chief focal point for noteworthy exile-related events,
the series of international writers' congresses held in
various cities of the world between 1933 and 1939 and spon
sored by three quite different groups: the P.E.N. Clubs,
the International Association of Writers for the Defense of
Culture, and the Union of Soviet Authors. However, the
League of American Writers also devoted increasing attention
to issues concerning exiled writers, particularly during the
later thirties and early forties when its interest was ex
pressed not only in benefit drives and sales to raise funds
for their cause, but also in the cooperation with groups
whose aim it was to rescue writers from the Gestapo as the
Nazis increased their hold on Europe and thus ever
92
diminished the number of "safety lands" available to the
exiles. In addition, since biennial conferences both re
flected and illuminated the liberal atmosphere in American
intellectual thought— manifested in part by conference dis
cussion of exile-related questions by Americans and Euro
peans alike— these American writers 1 meetings will be inter
posed in the presentation of the international congresses at
whatever point they chronologically coincide.
It will be observed that the amount of coverage granted
the congresses of the European groups specifically, particu
larly in the first four or five years of the continental
33
struggle, was relatively meagre compared with that ex
tended them as the thirties drew to a close and events in
Europe forced American attention to be directed ever more
sharply toward them, which in turn also stimulated closer
interest in the writers' conferences. While it would appear
superficially that these conferences barely occurred between
Two exceptions are the 1933 P.E.N. Congress— quite
possibly the most dramatic P.E.N. meeting ever held— to
which considerable press coverage was given, no doubt due to
the almost immediate effects of Nazi Socialist rule which
generated world-wide reaction; and the Soviet Writers' Con
gress, which was quite well covered by several very liberal,
i.e., left-wing, American journals, as well as the New York
Times.
93
1935 and 1938, using press coverage as an "interest meter,"
it is a fact that events on the European scene— with a few
notable exceptions— did not really attract American atten
tion until after the Anschlufi of Austria in March of 1938,
after which the writers' meetings seemed to be pulled into
the international sphere as a sort of cultural counterpart
to the political and military emergencies. The American
journals and periodicals especially seemed quite suddenly
to discover their newsworthy qualities.
Raqusa: Eleventh Annual P.E.N. Congress
This area of discussion will be headed by the P.E.N.
Club Congress held several months after the National Social
ist Party assumed leadership in Germany. The most complete
American immediate press coverage of its proceedings which
we have found is in the New York Times, plus a somewhat
biased article in The Saturday Review of Literature one
month after the congress, and one editorialized article
each— colored either by political viewpoint and/or by de
grees of satire— in The Literary Digest, The Living Age, and
The Nation several months afterward.
This was the meeting of May 25-27, 1933, held in Ragusa
(Dubrovnik), Yugoslavia, a meeting which, as Henry Seidel
94
C anby fo r e s a w , a n d — i n l i g h t o f w h a t to o k p la c e t h e r e —
34
r a t h e r m i l d l y p u t i t , was in d e e d t o b e "a h i s t o r i c o n e , "
i n i t i a l l y b e c a u s e o f th e s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n an d l i m i t a t i o n t o
N a z i r e q u ir e m e n ts o f t h e P .E .N . b ra n c h i n G erm an y, and
s e c o n d b e c a u s e o f th e c o n f l i c t b e tw e e n d e le g a t e s s t im u la t e d
b y th e r e c e n t e v i c t i o n o f su ch e m in e n t G erm an a u th o r s as
E r ic h M a r ia R e m arq u e, L io n F e u c h tw a n g e r, Thomas M ann, and
35
E m il L u d w ig fro m t h e Germ an g r o u p . C an b y c o n tin u e d , " I t
was Jo h n G a ls w o r th y who c o n c e iv e d o f t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f
' P . E . N . 1 as s t r i v i n g f o r b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d in g b e tw e e n a u
t h o r s o f v a r io u s c o u n t r i e s , a n d t h e u p h o ld in g o f th e members
i n an a lo o fn e s s fro m w a r an d s e c t i o n a l h y s t e r i a . T h is ,
G erm any i s n o t d o in g ." He s t a t e d t h a t i f th e Germ an P .E .N .
34"Canby Sees Action on German 'P.E.N.1 Sailing for
the International Literary Group's Meeting. He Cites 'Undue
Nationalism.' Book Burning 'Absurd.' American Delegate
Explains the Resolution of Branch Here as Supporting British
Stand," NYT, May 7, 1933, sec. 1, p. 12. Canby, indefati
gable editor of The Saturday Review for over twelve years,
in 1933 was the sole delegate from the American P.E.N. Cen
ter; he attended numerous international P.E.N. congresses in
this capacity.
O C
In a sympathetic obituary published shortly after
Ernst Toller's suicide, Canby refers to the 1933 P.E.N. Con
gress— which Toller very audibly attended as a representa
tive of the exiled Germans— as having been the "first en
counter between the new forces of repression in the . . .
Reich and the outside world of artists and intellectuals"
("Ernst Toller" [editorials], SR, XX, No. 6 [June 3, 1939],
8) . _______________________________
95
section persisted in its "undue nationalism . . . discipli
nary action [would] be necessary" (NYT, May 7, 1933).
This statement, then, set the stage for events which
transpired at the eleventh International Congress of P.E.N.
Clubs. Two additional previous events in Germany contribu
ted importantly to the atmosphere prevailing at this meet
ing. The first was the "retirement" of most of the distin
guished members from the Prussian Academy of Arts, brought
about, as the Times succinctly phrased it, "as a result of
the nationally minded reorganization of the literary section
of the . . . Academy . . . which has now [May 6] been accom
plished." (The list of retiring members included Thomas
Mann, Jacob Wassermann, Franz Werfel, Georg Kaiser, Alfred
Doblin, Ludwig Fulda, Bernhard KeHermann, Rene Schickele,
and Fritz von Unruh.)
Heinrich Mann was forced out some weeks ago [actually
on February 15--see p. 63, n. 4]. Almost the only
writers of international reputation left of the old
membership are Gerhart Hauptmann and Ricarda Huch.
Bernhard Rust, the Prussian Education Minister, prom
ises that reorganization of the composers and graphic
arts will come next. ^
Prussian Arts Academy Loses Most of Its Noted Mem
bers" [special cable to the New York Times], NYT, May 7,
1933, sec. 1, p. 13. This was perhaps the earliest step in
the Nazification of culture in the Third Reich. For an ex-
planation of the organization of the Reichskulturkammer,
96
The other event, of course, was that of the infamous book
burnings of May 10, in the course of which over 20,000
volumes— by some estimates, as many as 25,000— were con-
37
signed to the pyre. The ramifications and implications of
established by law on September 22, 1933, under the direc
tion of the Reichskulturminister (i.e., Reichspropaganda-
minister) Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels, see William L. Shirer,
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. A History of Nazi
Germany (New York, 1960), pp. 241-248. As Shirer states,
"Seven subchambers were established to guide and control
every sphere of cultural life: the Reich chambers of fine
arts, music, the theater, literature, the press, radio and
the films. All persons engaged in these fields were obli
gated to join their respective chambers, whose decisions and
directives had the validity of law. Among other powers, the
chambers could expel— or refuse to accept— members for
'political unreliability,1 which meant that those who were
even lukewarm about National Socialism could be, and usually
were, excluded from practicing their profession or art and
thus deprived of a livelihood" (pp. 241-242). We note that
before the establishment of the Kulturkammer. Bernhard Rust,
the Prussian Minister of Science, Art and Education since
February 1933--and who was elevated to Reich Minister of
Science, Education and Popular Culture in April of the next
year— was empowered to voice the official policy on matters
of culture and education (see Shirer, p. 248).
-^The Times obviously deemed this occurrence as suffi
ciently important to warrant headline exposure on its first
page. See "Nazis Pile Books for Bonfires Today. 25,000
Volumes Gathered by Berlin Students— Other Cities to Follow
Suit. A New Code for Schools. Dr. Frick Tells the Minis
ters of Education Present System Is Unfit for Reich," NYT,
May 10, 1933, sec. 1, pp. 1, 11. Several related articles
were printed in that newspaper on the same day: Frederick
T. Birchall, "Propagandist Art Is Nazis' Demand. Goebbels
Tells German Stage Leaders Artist Must March at Head Poli
tically. No Art for Art's Sake. Minister Also Thinks the
Jews Will Be Eliminated from the Field 'without Legisla-
tion,'" NYT, May 10, 1933, sec. 1, p. 10; also "Helen Keller
97
the burnings will be dealt with in greater detail in Chap
ter V, "The Concept of Exile as Viewed by the Press."
That all was not totally serene on the German side of
the P.E.N. matter is evidenced in an article appearing in
the Times two days prior to the start of the congress:
Berlin, May 22— The Nazi-controlled German P.E.N. Club
has decided to send a delegation to the international
P.E.N. meeting at Ragusa, Yugoslavia, to defy world
criticism of the Nazi attitude toward liberal authors
and fight the disciplinary action that may be proposed.
The German delegates will be Edgar Schmidt-Pauli, Hans
Martin Elster and Fritz Otto Busch. Herr Schmidt-Pauli
is the author of several books on politics, but the
works of the others are less well known.
The German delegation . . . has been instructed to issue
a proclamation "in the spirit of the new Germany and its
leader, Adolf Hitler," to enlighten the meeting regard
ing the significance of the "national revolution and its
aims" and to refute all "malicious attacks, especially
atrocity agitation."
Herr [Hans] Hinkel^® hotly refuted foreign attacks on
Warns Germany's Students; Says Burning of Books Cannot Kill
Ideas," NYT, May 10, 1933, sec. 1, p. 10. See also "Join
Fight on Hitlerism, United Synagogue and Women's League
Support Protest," NYT, May 10, 1933, sec. 1, p. 10.
3%linkel was the Nazi State Commissar for special duty
in the Prussian Ministry of Culture and Education, also head
of the Militant League for German Culture; in addition, he
was chairman of the meeting which had appointed the German
delegates to P.E.N. Karl Langer, writing in The Nation,
noted that the German section of the P.E.N. Club, after hav
ing been purged of "all radical and Semitic elements in the
initial stages of National Socialist rule for its 'racial,
98
the Nazis' cultural policy- At the same time he denied
that Thomas and Heinrich Mann and others had been ex
pelled from the German P.E.N- Club, and asserted that
Alfred Kerr, its former head, had resigned voluntarily
because he withdrew to live in Switzerland.-^
In this article, the Times also mentioned that several
national sections of the P.E.N. were "'prepared to urge that
the meeting adopt a resolution openly condemning the Nazi
cultural, and political purification,' was [now] represented
by Schmidt-Pauli, Elster, and Captain Busch, writers whose
names are little known outside of Germany, but who make up
for their obscurity by their absolute subservience to the
Fascist cause" ("The Intellectuals of the World and Hitler,"
Nation. CXXXVII, No. 3550 [July 19, 1933], 72).
39"Nazi Authors Plan to Combat World. German Section
Will Send a Defiant Group to Ragusa for P.E.N. Club Meeting.
Three Delegates Named. Instructed to Fight Disciplinary
Action on Hitlerite Treatment of Liberal Writers," NYT, May
23, 1933, sec. 1, p. 3. It is revealing to consider the
tone of this headline, and no doubt illustrative of the
general disrepute into which the Nazis fell early in the
establishment of their party as official organ of Germany.
The headline is calculated to incite by suggesting delusions
of grandeur and a will to power, whereas in reality the con
tent of the story is quite unemotional and straightforward,
not supporting the scare tactic used to introduce it. See
also Henry Canby's comment regarding the German delegation,
the recent happenings within the German P.E.N. Club, and
the prominent German writers: "This delegation [from the
Berlin P.E.N. Club] had been 'harmonized' by order of Hit
ler. Members of the German P.E.N., whose races or opinion
did not conform to the Nazi principles, had been ordered
dropped. With one exception, Herr Elster, the secretary,
no one of the Germans present had ever appeared at a P.E.N.
. . . Congress, and the really distinguished members of that
organization— Heinrich and Thomas Mann, Feuchtwanger, Re
marque, Zweig, Hauptmann— were all silenced, or in exile and
absent" ("The P.E.N. Club Conference," SR, IX, No. 49 [June
24, 1933], 667) .
99
intolerance toward Emil Ludwig, Lion Feuchtwanger, and
others'" (p. 3). Karl Langer was rather more specific— and
decidedly critical of the resolution which was read to the
assembly for adoption, not only because he felt its contents
40
to be of an appallingly vague and compromising nature, but
also because it was selected for consideration in place of
two other, more conclusively anti-Nazi resolutions: that of
the French, Polish, and Belgian delegations which registered
an "indignant protest against German terrorism" (p. 72); and
that of the Society of Socialist Authors in Austria (it had
been signed by Oskar Maria Graf, Hermynia zur Muehlen,
D. I. Bach, Fritz Bruegel, Josef Luitpold, among others),
40
He drew a sharp contrast between what he felt should
have seemed "self-evident": that the congress "should take
a stand on the ousting by Hitler Germany of some of the Ger
man Pen rsicl Club's most distinguished members, on its
suppression of all independent literary activity, on its
burning of the works of Germany's foremost writers, and on
the persecution of its outstanding artists, authors, and
scientists for reasons of race and conviction"; and what
actually transpired: "Preposterous to relate, the threat of
the cultural barbarians who have so successfully suppressed
all opposition within the Reich was no less effective beyond
national borders. Influential circles did their utmost to
prevent an open break with the Nazi regime"— this being a
direct reference to the fact that the American resolution
submitted for approval by the congress would, "it was pi
ously hoped . . . uphold the standards of [P.E.N.] without
precipitating it into 'political altercations'" ("Intellec
tuals of the World," p. 72).
100
which warmly reiterated "'the loyalty and . . . friendship
of the assembled delegates to all writers and others who
have had to suffer for their words and works 1 and sent
'greetings to Karl von Ossietzky, Ludwig Renn, Erich Mueh-
sam, Sigmund Freud, Heinrich Mann, Alfred Kerr, Jakob
Wassermann, and all those other comrades who have been per
secuted, banned, and burned in Germany'" (pp. 72-73).
Langer saw the executive committee of P.E.N. as having
been derelict in its duty by choosing the least offensive of
the resolutions, i.e., that submitted by the American P.E.N.
Club through its delegate, Henry Canby. It is most enlight
ening to note the different presentation of this situation
given by Canby himself in the article he wrote for his
Saturday Review; in fact, the contrast between his descrip
tion and Langer's seems to epitomize not only the difference
between the two periodicals, but— and more significantly—
the biased subjectivity with which an identical subject can
be treated in the communications media, depending on the
orientation and the attitudes of its representatives and its
official voices . For instance, instead of bothering to
explain the difference in the three resolutions available
for selection, Canby simply notes that "The Chairman, Mr.
Wells, had chosen, from the numerous resolutions submitted,
101
41
the American motion for submission to the Congress."
After giving the text of the resolution, he emphasized its
meaning: "It will be noted that this resolution is a man
date upon the Executive Committee to expel all member cen
tres who do not conform to the principles of the Club" (p.
667). Lacking comparison, this resolution naturally sounds
noble and quite firmly committed; what Langer pointed out,
however— and what Canby rather conveniently omitted to men
tion— was the fact that the German government had allowed
^"The P.E.N. Club Conference," p. 667. Early in his
report, Canby manages to convey his view that the American
resolution did play a decisive role in the success of the
P.E.N. conference: "The United States . . . was repre
sented, I regret to say, only by myself; but thanks to the
acumen of our New York Executive Committee, and especially
Will Irwin, Robert Nathan, and Alfred Dashiell, I was able
to present a Resolution [sicj which kept the Conference from
being one more disaster on the rocks of Chauvinism" [s_ic_]
(p. 667). A quite uniquely illuminating addendum is men
tioned in The Literary Digest: At a P.E.N. dinner held in
London after the eleventh annual congress had adjourned,
Dr. Canby "disclosed the fact that he had been instructed
by the United States P.E.N. Club to withdraw from the or
ganization if his 'anti-chauvinistic' resolution condemning
'intellectual nationalism' were not adopted" ("H. G. Wells
Raises a Storm in the P.E.N. Congress. Evidences of Intel
lectual Nationalism Disturb the Literary Leaders of Forty
Nations as They Study the Trend of the World's Political
Thought," LD, CXVI, No. 3 [July 15, 1933], 18). A revela
tion of this type would lead one to question who exactly was
the more chauvinistic in attitude, the Fascists or the free
intellectuals . One might go so far as to wonder whether
such a disclosure might not be an example of the pot calling
the kettle black— at least insofar as so-called "undue
nationalism" was concerned.________________________________
102
participation in the international congress "only on the
condition that the . . . congress take no formal action
against its persecution of German authors and that the offi
cial delegates remain in constant touch by telephone with
the proper authorities at home" (p. 72).
We would observe at this point that Canby, while not
stating word one about the first condition, mentioned the
second, even citing in addition the fact that the German
delegates had been ordered "to accept without protest a
general resolution, but [to] allow no discussion which would
give the opponents of German handling of German writers in
the past few months a chance to get on the record" (p. 667).
In all fairness, perhaps we should verbalize our suspicion
that Canby1s addendum to the second condition was in reality
Langer's first-named condition, but in differently stated
terms: where Langer uses the words "no formal action,"
Canby says "no discussion." It should certainly be obvious
that these phrases convey two entirely separate implica
tions .
Another example of subjective presentation is illus
trated by Canby1s cleverly worded description of the fracas
resulting when it was discovered that the American resolu
tion had been chosen over the others; rather than clearly
! 103
idefining--in fact, obviously sidestepping, through attempted
i
[
;humor and a tone of almost pious innocence— the basis for
I
jthe first session's altercation, Canby attempts to be casu
ally witty without really saying anything: "The first morn
ing was enlivened by one of those Parliamentary riots with
Vhich Americans who have attended a session of the French
chamber of deputies may be familiar" (p. 667), after which
he launches into his statement regarding Wells' choice of
the American motion. He then cites the existence of a con
flict, but does not actually label it such- presenting the
[intention of the French-Polish-Belgian bloc to make public
;its own resolution— described by Langer, as will be re-
; called, in terms of an "indignant protest against German
jterrorism"— as follows, "Unfortunately [that bloc] was
! 42
[determined that another resolution, this time of direct
42
Canby had previously stated that the French, Poles,
and Belgians, "although they had no plan ready, had come
[prepared to force an accounting from the Germans" (p. 667);
Langer, by contrast, noted that they "came prepared to sub-
imit a resolution" (p. 72). In its previously cited article
published two days prior to the opening session, we recall
that the New York Times stated, "Several sections are pre
pared to urge that the meeting adopt a resolution openly
I condemning the Nazi intolerance toward Emil Ludwig, Lion
jFeuchtwanger and others" ("Nazi Authors Plan to Combat
jWorld. . . .," May 23, 1933, sec. 1, p. 3); interestingly,
jthis sentence does not actually clarify whether these sec
tions came armed with their own resolutions.
| ._
104
protest against the German Inquisition, should be debated at
the same time"— Canby graciously acknowledges that the group
was "allowed to present [its] resolution as part of the
discussion," after which the American resolution was unani
mously approved (p. 667). His phraseology and placement of
these two sentences almost exactly in the middle of their
paragraph further diminishes their importance, particularly
since they are bounded above and below by statements which
reinforce Canby1s intended meaning: the preceding state
ment— and opening sentence of the paragraph— expressed the
feeling that it was "a gratification to national pride that
this resolution was the only action, only principle, brought
before the Conference which commanded general approval"; and
the subsequent statement was a reiteration of this idea, but
in specific terms: "The American Resolution was then car
ried unanimously" (p. 667).
Langer naturally viewed these proceedings in a totally
different light, as has been shown. His opinion and indeed
his entire article were flavored with disillusionment, that
bitter fruit so often resulting from what is deemed by some
observers to be a compromise between moral integrity and the
demands of an immediate and urgent exigency. In fact, the
opening statement of his article clearly establishes its
f “ ' ' ' 105
l
I
Idominant tone: "This year's annual congress of the Inter
national P.E.N. Clubs which met during the last week in May
in the Jugoslav town of Dubrovnik . . . presented a sorry
picture of the lack of moral stamina and convictions of the
i
;literary world" (p. 72) . j
! I
I
On the first day of the Congress, May 25, the scene was
thus already charged with all the components necessary to a
first-class confrontation, not only between the representa
tives of dictatorship and oppression and those of freedom,
:but also between various members of the latter group them
selves . On the one hand, for example, exiled Jewish radical
Iwriter Ernst Toller made his appearance with the aim of
43
giving a speech on behalf of the exiled writers; on the
A 7
^Toiler was definitely one of the most militantly
jenergetic anti-Nazi exiles and thus most hated by his foes.
fHe wrote innumerable articles, gave hundreds of speeches and
traveled thousands of miles on his crusade until his death
iin May 1939. In three months of 1936-37, in fact, he no
doubt set some sort of record in that he gave 100 lectures
in that short period. This tour is discussed by John M.
Spalek and Wolfgang Fruhwald, "Ernst Tollers amerikanische
Vortragsreise 1936/37 . Mit bisher unveroffentlichten Texten
und einem Anhang," Literaturwissenschaftliches jahrbuch der
Gorresgese llschaf t , N.F., VI (1965), 267-311. Although he
:was never a Communist, he was published and hailed in many
Heft-wing journals and newspapers, including New Masses, New
Theatre, Anti-Nazi News, United Progressive News and the
■ Daily Worker . An example of the exuberance with which he
iwas treated is to be found in Anti-Nazi News, which— within
the span of just a one-month period— devoted three front-
106
other, the German delegates presented their position in a
page articles to a single speech of January 12, 1937, when
Toller was the principal speaker at a mass meeting sponsored
by the Hollywood Anti-Nazi League and held at the huge
Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles: "Ernst Toller— Dr. Dubois
to Speak in Los Angeles," A-NN, I, No. 5 (December 20,
1936), 1; "Ernst Toller Speaks at Shrine, Tuesday, Jan. 12,"
1, No. 6 (January 5, 1937), 1-2; "Ernst Toller Flays Nazism
in Stirring Shrine Speech," I, No. 7 (January 20, 1937), 1-
2. The definitive bibliography of both primary and secon
dary works by John M. Spalek, Ernst Toller and His Critics
(Charlottesville, Va., 1968) not only lists, but also anno
tates succinctly yet thoroughly some 3,764 references, of
which almost 2,700 are secondary sources, including books,
dissertations, and publications which devote a chapter or
section to him, as well as more than 200 articles in jour
nals and newspapers— both foreign and domestic— dealing with
Toller's political activities (speeches, interviews, arti
cles, essays) alone, which seemed to increase markedly from
1936 on. Extremely comprehensive, this bibliography creates
a fascinating picture of the radical playwright, who was
always a militant humanist and ultimately a dedicated cru
sader in exile; it also performs an invaluable service for
any student of the exile period between 1933 and 1939, in
that it illuminates— albeit through the activities primarily
of one man— the attitudes and policies of publications of
various political colorations throughout the world toward
the Fascist regime. Of particular use in the present study
was the United States section of the chapter, "Articles."
It is the view of Bertold Hack that Professor Spalek's book
sets a precedent in the field of bibliographical research:
"Wie sehr wiirden wir uns wiinschen, eine derartige vorbild-
liche Bibliographie auch fur andere, moglicherweise noch
wichtigere deutsche Autoren des 20. Jahrhunderts zu besit-
zenl" ("Eine Ernst Toller-Bibliographie," Borsenblatt fur
den Deutschen Buchhandel, Frankfurter Ausgabe, Nr. 61 [Au
gust 1, 1969], 1827). Hack concludes, "Das imponierende
Werk, das vor uns liegt, verdient nicht nur Beachtung, son-
dern unseren Dank und unsere aufrichtige Bewunderung[, denn]
. . . Bibliographie erweist sich hier als ein hervorragendes
Mittel zum Sichtbarmachen einer iiberaus komplexen Person-
lichkeit und ihrer Resonanz, eines Dichters, der als Ex-
pressionist und Arbeiterdichter bedeutend bleiben wird,
107
statement to the effect that they would discuss Hitlerism,
indicating, predictably, that the outside world had a com-
44
pletely false idea regarding recent events m Germany.
Other forces, of course, included H. G. Wells, Chairman of
the English P.E.N. Club, who, as President of the Interna
tional Organization, was cast into the difficult role of
mediator of the many conflicting attitudes— in his opening
speech he declared that the aim of the P.E.N. Clubs was "to
unite all peoples on a common goal, which could only be
reached if freedom of thought and publication were guaran
teed"; the Jewish P.E.N. Club from Palestine, which affirmed
that it would protest the exclusion of writers from the
German Centre; and Jules Romains, chairman of the French
branch, who indicated to the press that it would be useful
eines Revolutionars mit hohen, idealen und ethisch fundier-
ten Zielsetzungen. Sie dient in dieser Form der Erhellung
einer geistig-politischen Landschaft, die in einem spezifi-
schen Sinne und gerade in ihrer Tragik sehr 'deutsch' ist"
(p. 1829). It is Hack's considered opinion that "in Glucks-
fallen" such as this, the bibliography as an individually
creative deed stands on an equal level with works of pres
entation and interpretation, for it is not only a craft to
be mastered, but an art which simultaneously demands and
proclaims its master (p. 1829).
44"Nazi Debate Faces the World P.E.N. Club. Session
Opens in Yugoslavia— Wells Stresses Freedom of Thought and
Publications," NYT, May 26, 1933, sec. 1, p. 9.
108
if representatives from both the "old" and the "coordinated"
German Clubs could appear in order to clarify the situation
in their country (NYT, May 26, 1933) .
That this apparently irreconcilable situation was so in
fact was clearly demonstrated two days later on May 27, when
the German delegation in great indignation departed the con
ference to protest the emphatic criticisms leveled against
the Hitler regime in discussions of May 26— which had al
ready stimulated a temporary German walk-out on that day.
The May 27 departure was presumably triggered by renewed
condemnation by the assembly of the suppression of free
expression in Germany and included denunciation by Toller
and Sholom Asch, the distinguished Yiddish-American poet and
writer who had lived for years on European soil, of the
burning of their books in Berlin.45
"Germans Quit P.E.N. Club. Walk Out in Ragusa to
Protest Discussions of Hitlerism," NYT, May 28, 1933, sec.
1, p. 5. In the session of May 26, the German delegation
had declared itself ready to reply to any charges which
these men and others might bring; on the basis of this prom
ise, Toller and Asch had willingly postponed their ad
dresses, which had been scheduled for the earlier session.
However, "much to the amazement of the delegates, the chair
man opened the next day's meeting by reading a statement
from the German delegation in which the latter announced,
obviously under instructions from Berlin, its refusal to
attend further sessions of the congress in view of the at
tacks upon Germany" (Langer, p. 73). For a detailed report
on this last gathering of the German P.E.N., which included
109
The Living Age, basing its judgment on the Hitlerized
Literarische Welt of Berlin, felt that German fascism was to
blame for the fact that the eleventh International Congress
had turned "into a rough and tumble farce," and delineated
the cast as follows: "The leading characters included the
German, Swiss, and Italian delegations, representing Fas
cism, Ernst Toller as the spokesman of the anti-Fascists,
H. G. Wells as the anything but impartial chairman, and
Benjamin Cremieux and Jules Romains as the middle-Ground
46
representatives of France." The description of events by
Wladimir von Hartlieb, special correspondent for the Welt,
was chosen by the editors of the Age as "the best account
47
of the goings on that we saw" (p. 544). Von Hartlieb's
story is an amusing mixture of straight reportorial writing
(minimal), tongue-in-cheek description, and a certain amount
representatives both of the Nazi government and of anti
fascism, see Josef Wulf, Literatur und Dichtung im Dritten
Reich. Eine Dokumentation (Giitersloh, 1963), pp. 60-87.
^"The P.E.N. Clubs and the Nazis," The Living Age,
CCCXLIV, No. 4403 (August 1933), 544.
47
^'Apparently, the editors of The Living Age were un
familiar with Langer's article, which detailed the Congress
in a comparatively more objective and direct manner. It is
also possible that the deadline for the August issue of The
Living Age precluded inclusion of or reference to the Nation
article.
110
of somewhat flowery party line rhetoric:
After excited preliminary discussions, a conciliatory
atmosphere prevailed. One had the feeling that diplo
matic procedure would keep up appearances and minimize
the conflicts between the two intellectual worlds of
our time. When the congress again assembled, the Ger
mans and French agreed to modify the text of a resolu
tion that had been drawn against Germany and change it
to a harmless statement to which the Germans were able
to agree.
Then the bomb that broke up the congress exploded.
The Germans had stipulated that there should be no
more speeches without a preliminary vote because they
feared an attack from adherents of the extreme left,
who were unwilling to compromise. At once it became
evident that Wells . . . did not accept this condition.
Suddenly, to everyone's consternation, Herr Ernst
Toller jumped up on the platform, although he had not
appeared on the scene before. . . . In the midst of
. . . incredible uproar from all sides, the German
delegation got up, protested against the procedure of
the chair, since giving Herr Toller the floor amounted
to breaking up the congress, and left the room. (pp.
544-545)
Von Hartlieb prefaces his sarcastically vitriolic
attack on Toller with a comment regarding the general accep
tance of the view that the liberal dramatist had been
"brought secretly to Ragusa by the English in an automobile
in order to make his surprise appearance and carry out his
attack on the German delegation" (p. 545); of course, one
has only his word for both the existence of this belief and
its prevalence. He notes in passing that "even the French,"
due to their compromise with the Germans, "behaved quite
Ill
fairly" (p. 545). It would appear further that he was
fairly vocal during this entire episode, for according to
his story he repeatedly braved "all the fanaticism of the
enemies of present Germany [which was] concentrated against
[him]" (p. 545) each time he interrupted the speaker with
objections in his zeal to see parliamentary justice upheld.
But this correspondent's energy was expended in vain, for
Toller did gain and hold the floor; his evaluation of the
liberal spokesman is worth quoting:
. . . Toller surprised me. Though I had never over
estimated his intellectual qualities, I had considered
him a real fanatic. But the man I saw and heard was
nothing but a poseur, a routine comedian to whom noth
ing seems genuine because he is a litterateur in the
worst sense of the word and thinks only of effect and
applause. The content of his speech was pathetic and
parts of it were ridiculous. Nothing would be easier
than to reduce his statements to absurdity. Of course,
he was overwhelmed with applause. The Italian, Mari
netti, however, did not clap, but kept scratching his
head while Toller was speaking. (p. 545)^®
4 .0
I t does n o t a p p e a r t h a t v o n H a r t l i e b a llo w e d th e
r e a d e r s o f h is n e w s p a p e r t o ju d g e T o l l e r ' s w o rd s f o r th e m
s e lv e s . H o w e v e r, th e e d i t o r s o f T h e L i v in g A g e , a p p a r e n t ly
i n th e i n t e r e s t s o f o b j e c t i v i t y , d id i n s e r t a p o r t i o n o f th e
s p e e c h i n t h e i r c o v e ra g e o f th e c o n g r e s s ; i t h a d b e e n
p r i n t e d i n i t i a l l y i n th e Neue W e ltb iih n e , a l i b e r a l w e e k ly
p u b lis h e d b y Germ an e m ig re s i n P r a g u e . To e n a b le th e r e a d e r
t o c o n s id e r f o r h i m s e l f th e o b j e c t w h ic h e l i c i t e d s u ch a
h ig h d e g re e o f p o s i t i v e an d n e g a t iv e e m o tio n a l r e a c t i o n a t
th e c o n g re s s , we q u o te h e r e some e x c e r p t s i n d i c a t i v e o f th e
g e n e r a l t e n o r o f T o l l e r ' s s p e e c h : " L a s t y e a r i n B u d a p e s t
H e r r e n S c h m id t - P a u li and E l s t e r , who a r e now o f f i c i a l
112
I
The heroic reporter for the Literarische Welt concludes
his story with his encapsulated view of the necessarily
diminishing role of literature in the realm of politics by
delegates to the P.E.N. . . . Congress, voted in behalf of a
resolution against persecuting books and writers for their
opinions. What did they do when the German writers, Ludwig
Renn, Ossietsky, Muhsam, Duncker, Wittfogel, as well as tens
of thousands of German workers, were imprisoned? What has
the German P.E.N. Club done by way of protest against the
dismissal of the most important German professors and
scholars, who must now live abroad, in exile, away from
jtheir work, and are no more able to serve Germany and human-
iity? People in Germany will attack me and say that I have
(spoken against Germany, That is not true. I am attacking
I the methods of the men who are now ruling Germany but who
[have no right to identify themselves with Germany. Millions
of people . . . cannot speak and write freely. When I speak
here I am speaking for these millions who have no voice of
their own. . . . Madness rules our time, and barbarism rules
humanity. . . . Any man who rebels to-day [sicj is in dan
ger. . . . We fight in many ways and we may find ourselves
fighting against each other, but in all of us there dwells
the knowledge of a humanity that is free from barbarism,
lies, social injustice, and oppression" (pp. 545-546). See
also Langer, p. 7 3, for more of the speech. According to
John Spalek, a further useful article dealing with this
meeting is that by Wilhelm Sternfeld: "Wie es zum Austritt
Ides ersten deutschen PEN-Klubs aus der Internationale und
I
zur Grundung des Emigrantenzentrums kam," Die Kultur (Stutt
gart), IV, Nr. 56 (December 1955), 12. Spalek labels this
"an informative article about the history of the German
section of the P.E.N. Club in 1933-1934," stating that the
Ragusa congress "is described by the author as the most
important meeting in the history of the . . . Club, and
Toller's speech as the highpoint of the meeting." He fur
ther notes that Sternfeld not only cites portions of Tol
ler's speech, but also gives "the text of the petitions and
resolutions which dealt with the secession of the Nazi-
dominated section from the International P.E.N. and the
formation of the German Emigrant section" (Ernst Toller and
His Critics, p. 373)._____
113
stating that "the liberal, rationalistic period, the period
iof opportunistic belief in progress is ended [, for while]
i
!
jthe Ragusa congress heard a great deal of the vocabulary of
the French Revolution . . . the big words sounded empty"
(p. 546). In his view, the particular form of the French
language in which the statutes of the P.E.N. Clubs were
written was simply "the bombastic ideology of freedom and
Philistinism (which has quite definitely] . . . outlived its
jday" (p. 546). He ends with an opinion and an indirect
|
warning:
Do the P.E.N. Clubs still exist? Yes, if they do not
take themselves too seriously and give themselves over
to Olympian gestures . For there is no Olympus higher
than the nations, and there is no nation that would be
so absurd as to say, "First literature, and then I."
(P. 546)49
In this regard, the New York Times published an edi
torial in which the problem of the relationship of politics
| 49For a blacklist of "un-German" German writers whose
works were to be barred from the German book trade, as com
piled by the German Bookdealers1 Association and the Mili
tant League of German Culture, see "German Bookdealers Ban
Works of 12 Noted Authors" [special cable to the New York
Times], NYT, May 17, 1933, sec. 1, p. 3. Included in this
list were Emil Ludwig, Heinrich Mann, Erich Maria Remarque,
Lion Feuchtwanger, and Arnold Zweig, as well as Egon Erwin
Kisch, Ernst Glaeser, and Kurt Tucholsky and various others.
According to this article, a joint resolution adopted by
these two organizations indicates that the authors cited
"must be regarded as damaging Germany's reputation" (p. 3).
114
and literature was discussed on the basis of H. G. Wells'
jkey speech at the conference. The crucial question seemed
i
to be whether it were possible "to separate scientific and
'creative work from the education of the world community at
j
large." In summarizing Wells' speech, the Times observed
that he
was too polite to say that in the republic of letters
| there must be freedom of opinion [and that he stressed
instead] the oppositions between his idea of a world
! commonwealth and the idea of discipline and force, the
diminution or suppression of liberty and the direction
j and unification of the national will by monopoly of
j the press, of education, of literature, of the pulpit,
i of all channels of information: Are we to march to
world union and world peace, or are we to be marched
back to perpetual separation and endless warP^O
Although a basic tenet of P.E.N. had been always to
remain aloof from political commitments and embroilments,
Wells indicated that the time had come to take a moral stand
against oppression, for when several of the member centers
Iof P.E.N. were representatives of a system which was ac
tively denying free expression to artists of all types, how
in the name of all that was ethical could this organization
stay apart on its pedestal of abstract righteousness and not
50
"Letters without Liberty" [Topics of the Times (Edi
torial)], NYT, June 17, 1933, sec. 1, p. 12. See also "The
P.E.N. Club and the Nazis," The Living Age, p. 546.
115
become involved in questions of urgent political reality?
Wells presented the issue in the form of a choice:
"It seems to me that the time has come for our federa
tion to choose definitely between making the world
commonwealth the guiding conception of its organization,
j or relapsing into a mere meeting ground for the mutual
I complements of narrow and repressive cults. What line j
| are we to take?" (p. 546) ~^ i
I !
! i
j i
(He felt that P.E.N. had reached a crossroad and that the
I
(current congress was destined to be a kind of open forum
iupon which the alternatives could be placed, viewed, weighed
j !
|
iand evaluated, culminating ultimately in a decision for the
jpath of reaction or that of the world commonwealth: "...
|the real issue is not between discipline and liberty, but
j
(about the objective toward which our discipline ought to be
i
jdirected" (p. 546).
i
| The Times observed simply, "If race is to be a cause of
I
'exclusion from intellectual pursuits* if freedom of expres
sion is forbidden, what becomes of art, literature, science?"
j("Letters without Liberty," p. 12). These sentiments were
i
(expressed also by Henry Canby, the American delegate, who
I
(summarized the matter facing the congress as follows:
51
Mr. Wells' speech was reported in full by The Man
chester Guardian: "Storms at World P.E.N. Conference. Ger
mans Walk Out. Efforts to Stop Discussion," June 3, 1933.
116
The sole issue before the Conference, indeed, was the
question of chauvinism vs. [sicj internationalism in
literature, forced upon the Congress by events and by
the delegation from the Berlin P.E.N. Club.
The question . . . was this— could one of the centers
of an organization formed to promote international
amity and to uphold the principle that art knows no
boundary lines or prejudices, expel its members for
being Jews or liberals, and allow without protest the
! burning of all "non-Aryan" books and the exile or dis-
| ciplining of writers whose art was not propaganda for
i the State?^2
1
;It is worth noting that the American resolution, as intro
duced by Canby, was "a mandate upon the Executive Committee
;to expell [sicj all member centers which do not conform to
i 53
ithe principles of the Club." Simultaneously, the French-
i
i
iPolish-Belgian bloc was determined that another resolution
52"H. G. Wells Raises a Storm," p. 17. See also Canby,
;"The P.E.N. Club Conference," p. 667.
i
■^"H. G. Wells Raises a Storm," p. 17. The following
iis the text of the resolution submitted by the American Club
;through Mr. Canby: "We, the members of the American P.E.N.
:Club, call upon all other centers to affirm once more those
Jprinciples upon which the structure of this society was
raised and call particular attention to those resolutions
presented by the English, French, German, and Belgian dele
gates at the Fifth International Congress of P.E.N. Clubs in
Brussels in 1927 and passed there unanimously: 1. Litera
ture, national though it be in origin, knows no frontiers,
and should remain common currency between nations in spite
of political or international upheavals. 2. In all circum
stances, and particularly in time of war, works of art, the
patrimony of humanity at large, should be left untouched by
national or political passion. 3. Members of the P.E.N.
will at all times use what influence they have in favor of
117
of direct and indignant protest against the German Inquisi
tion should be debated.
|
At Wells 1 request, the French and German delegations
and their allies met during one lunch hour to attempt some
i
modification of the more rigid phrases in the latter reso
lution. However, as the price of German acquiescence, the
French and their allied representatives appear to have
lagreed that Toller should not speak and that discussion of !
j 54
itheir emasculated amendment be nonexistent. Wells,
| t
igood understanding and mutual respect between the nations. j
jWe likewise call upon the international Congress to take
'definite steps to prevent the individual centers of the
jP.E.N., founded for the purpose of fostering good-will and ;
^understanding between races and nations, from being used as j
[weapons of propaganda in the defense of persecution in- j
jflicted in the name of nationalism, racial prejudice, and
[political ill will (Langer, p. 72). See also Canby, "The
jP.E.N. Club Conference," p. 667.
i
j 54
I "H. G. Wells Raises a Storm," p. 17. This part of
the report is based on an account rendered by Wells to The
Manchester Guardian. See also Canby, p. 667: "... the
iFrench bloc and the German group were sent out of meeting to
[agree, if possible, upon a form of protest which could be
ipassed without driving the Germans from the Congress ....
[The joint committee returned with a somewhat softened reso
lution (which was later adopted) protesting the burning of
jthe books and the German injustices to art, but with a pro
vision that the German delegation, while they would not vote
I for it, would not oppose it, provided there was no discus
sion of the resolution to be allowed; provided, in other
words, that Sholom Asch and Toller should not be allowed to
speak. It looked like a triumph for conciliation. Actually
the Germans had blocked the French, the Poles and the Bel
gians, and got precisely what they wanted, a cork in the____
118
obviously, could not agree to sanction this bargain* which
was basically contrary to the spirit of free expression j
j
represented by P.E.N., and thus he declared the revised
motion open to discussion— to the tune of loud protests from
the French delegation. According to Langer1s account of the
ensuing squall, a "heated altercation" (p. 73) developed j
I
between the representatives of the forces of freedom and
Itolerance (Cremieux of France, Thomas of Belgium) and those j
: j
;of oppression (Marinetti of Italy, Felix Salten of Austria, j
1 !
jBusch of Germany). Cremieux's declaration that "it was an j
jmouth of dangerous speech. The Congress also was for the
imoment blocked— until H. G., in that squeaky Cockney French
jof his, his thin voice surmounting a storm, announced that
{discussion would not be shut off while he remained in the
ichair and the presidency, that Toller, even if the German
jp.E.N. had expelled him, should speak, and could speak at
the request of the President, in behalf of the long list of
German writers and scholars in jail or in exile. Such a
verbal riot followed as no Anglo-Saxon country can provide."
;See also Langer, p. 73: "H. G. Wells, the chairman of the
{congress, declared that no group of delegates would be per-
{mitted to deprive the congress of the right of free discus
sion and threw the floor open to the meeting." The Times
described the German-French compromise in a rather more
pointedly sarcastic tone: "A more definite resolution,
objected to by the Germans as 'political,' was patched up
so as not to offend their sensibilities. General in its
language, it did refer specifically to the May book-burnings
in Germany. The Germans agreed to accept it on condition
that there were no discussion. This condition Mr. H. G.
Wells, president of the English P.E.N. and of the World
Federation, wouldn't accept" ("Letters without Liberty,"
June 17, 1933) .____________________ ___________________
119
intolerable affront to every cultured human being to know
that somewhere a fellow-man [sjlcJ was being deprived of
|
physical and spiritual liberty" stimulated Marinetti to
remind the congress that Fascist Italy had "always observed j
i |
jscrupulous tolerance toward all religious faiths and took |
j i
jsharp issue with anti-Semitic intolerance in Germany."
Salten then cast his vote of support for the position of t h e
j I
iGerman delegation by stating that "'German Austria and Ger- j
imany are one people, whose culture springs from the begin- i
i !
! 55
nings of the old Germanic race.'"
I j
i I
! !
j Thomas . . . protested with such telling effect j
against the measures taken by the German government to j
suppress the freedom of thought and action of the ■
literary progession that Busch . . . rose to protest j
and threatened in the name of his delegation to leave
the congress if this discussion of German conditions
were permitted to continue. The debate was thereupon
| shut off and the resolution adopted. (Langer, p. 73)
i
' The upshot of this discussion was the German walk-out
; 56
on May 27, which, not surprisingly, coincided with the
55
Langer, p. 73. Mr. Salten had resigned the presi
dency of the Vienna P.E.N. Club at its last general meeting
on June 27, 1932, after his attitude at that congress had
been severely criticized.
66
On November 14, 1933, the German branch of P.E.N.
formalized this action with its official notice of with
drawal from the international parent association. The rea
son given was the refusal of the international Executive
120
questions asked by Mr. Herman Ould, English delegate, re
garding what steps the Germans proposed to take upon their
return to Germany in relation to the officially sanctioned
jbook burnings and the reinstatement of creative persons
jexpelled from their country and the German P.E.N. organiza-
57
tion.
Edinburgh: Twelfth Annual P.E.N. Congress
The next P.E.N. Club meeting of note was held in Edin
burgh, Scotland, on June 17-22, 1934; it was here that the
;exiled German writers were granted formal recognition as an
jautonomous group by means of the creation of a German exile
iCommittee to exclude Communists from membership, as proposed
jby Schmidt-Pauli, the head of the German delegation to the
jRagusa congress. ("Germans Quit P.E.N. Club. Protest at
jRefusal of World Writers to Exclude Communists," NYT, Novem-
iber 15, 1933, sec. 1, p. 4.) It is interesting to note the
jsentiments expressed in the statement tendered by the German
Isection to the Executive Committee: "'In view of the decla
ration by the executive committee . . . we see for the mo-
Iment no possibility or hope for cooperation with the Inter
national P.E.N. Club. We writers of Germany shall continue
|to work for world peace, but in the way we feel right and
promising of success'" (p. 4).
57"H. G. Wells Raises a Storm," p. 17. According to
the Times editorial, "Letters without Liberty," "an English
delegate asked some unpleasant questions. Had the German
P.E.N. Centre made any protest against the mistreatment of
German intellectuals and the book bonfires? Had the Berlin
Centre expelled Communists and other members of 'similar'
views, thereby breaking the primary rule against the intro-
duction of politics?" _ _______
121
section within P.E.N.
Unfortunately, the coverage to be found of this con-
!
ference among the sources upon which this paper is based was
jconsiderably more limited than that for the first conference
held after the National Socialist Party came to power— some j
|
four articles and one editorial in the New York Times. j
Since the P.E.N. was an organization devoted to culture and j
| i
not to extremist politics under the guise of culture, it j
Iwould seem that at least a few of the moderate or even I
jmoderately liberal periodicals would devote some space to
; !
jthe rather noteworthy 1934 conference. This was not the j
case, perhaps because that year was not as dramatically
critical a year as 1933 had been. The only really detailed
I
I
coverage of the Edinburgh meeting, outside of the somewhat
sporadic reportage in the Times, was found in the Scottish
5 8
I paper, The Scotsman, and this was no doubt due to the
:combination of Scotland's comparatively insignificant posi-
I
I
ition on the international scene and the honor accorded it
|
when Edinburgh was chosen by a distinguished literary
organization as the site of its annual international
i
~*^The Scotsman is available neither at USC nor UCLA*
it is, in fact, not readily accessible in the United States.
Dr. John Spalek graciously made his personal copies of the
articles in that newspaper available for my^use.
122
conference.
Prior to the date of the 1934 meeting, however, an
event transpired which is worth mentioning for the light it
casts upon the position of the Nazi government in its rela
tionship to writers as a particular group and to culture as j
a general entity, namely, the formation in Berlin in Febru
ary 1934 of a new German organization calling itself the j
Union of National Authors, one of whose aims was to estab- !
llish an international body of writers as a sort of rival !
I |
|counter-group to the more liberal P.E.N. association. On j
i i
f !
iFebruary 18, 1934, the Union "issued a call to authors in j
! I
other countries to cooperate with it m founding an inter
national organization of the same name. Apparently, the new
union is to consist of strictly nationalistic writers
59
only." Signed by Hans Johst, president of the group and
poet laureate of Nazi Germany, and by Gottfried Benn, vice-
ipresident, the call opened with an attack on "'the commu-
I
nistic literati who unloosed a fanatical campaign of slander
against Germany . . .1" and continued with an accusation of
i
"Nazis Would Unite Writers of World. New German
Union of National Authors Issued Call for an International
Body. For Nationalists Only. Seeks to Form Rival to P.E.N.
Club— Warns That Culture of Occident Is in Peril," NYT,
February 19, 1934, sec. 1, p . 6 .
123
the P.E.N. Club, whose support of these "literati" was felt
to constitute "'a sentiment that in its consequences must
|
forever annihilate the rank and future of [the white] race"
(p. 6). In addition to barring from membership all commu
nistic and "Asiatic," i.e., Jewish, writers, the Union in-
i t
I j
jtended also to remove from the ranks of German authors all |
i
! i
ithose who did not actively subscribe to Nazi doctrine. i
i
; Among the points made by the Union's appeal are the |
j
ifollowing two, instructive for a view of the National
i
!
ISocialist attitude and illuminating from the perspective of
j
hindsight on the broader historical canvas: (1) authors of
i
jother lands should "'no longer . . . believe the outbreaks
| I
] 6 Q
of hate of an emigre literature doomed to death but . . .
hear from us the voice of German history'" and (2) the cul
ture of the Occident is in grave danger of collapse- its
only salvation lies in raising "'the high conception of the
Fatherland as theological fact, as moral heritage and as
60In a Times editorial which appeared on the day after
the publication of the article announcing the clarion call
of the Union of National Authors, this term was deemed wor
thy of "a moment's reflection" ("Many Different Emigres"
[editorial], February 20, 1934, sec. 1, p. 20). The con
clusion reached here was that in the Europe of that day,
". . . it is obvious that one man's hero and victim may be
another man's emigre. It is a term that right-feeling
people will learn to dispense with."
124
linguistic mystery, to the supreme responsibility of the
commanding conception of the future'" (p. 20). The irony of
|
|these points, of course, lies in the fact that not only has
the emigre literature not been "doomed to death," but it has
jbecome increasingly recognized as a worthwhile entity in its
\
own right, as well as an accepted and significant chapter in
German literature,^ whereas the Nazi literature has been !
[relegated to the realm of historical-political curiosity, to
: I
[which the label of "literature" would be generously applied,!
|if at all. Furthermore, not only has the culture of the
i
[Occident not collapsed, it is flourishing with a vigor and
I
! |
[variety rarely witnessed m recent centuries; the culture of!
j |
jthe Nazi Fatherland, conversely, far from enduring for a
*l
[ Chapter V will briefly discuss the subject of speci-
jfic works written in exile as reviewed by the American
;press; while many of these works were of acceptable and even
outstanding literary merit, some of them were not, but they
;were frequently accorded enthusiastic critical acclaim none
theless— possibly due to the unusual circumstances which
[engendered their creation. Indeed, for a period of about
ififteen years after the end of the war, literature produced
|by Germans under conditions of exile was hardly acknowledged
to exist; the question of its legitimacy as German litera
ture could therefore, by virtue of its distance from the
basic question of existence, not enter the realm of discus
sion. For a presentation of the arguments and counter
arguments on this subject, see William K. Pfeiler, German
Literature in Exile, pp. 19-23. See also Joachim Radkau,
"Die deutschen Emigranten und die Ara Roosevelt," pp. 14-16.
125
jthousand years, disintegrated barely twelve years after its
i
! . . 6 2
gloriously acclaimed conception and birth.
In addition to the walk-out by the German delegation at
the P.E.N. Conference in Ragusa on May 27, 19 33., and the
! , I
iofficial withdrawal of the German section of P.E.N. from ltsj
' i
t
parent association on November 14, one other event of 1933
i
aided directly in building the foundation for the formation j
i
!of the new German Union of National Authors and its subse- !
iquent call for a nationalistically oriented International j
! i
iUnion. This was the decree of September 22, 1933, estab- j
jlishing a Reichskulturkammer under the directorship of Dr. !
j
IPaul Joseph Goebbels, for the purpose of gathering together
j"the creative artists in all spheres into a unified
I shirer has described this phenomenon rather
|effectively: "The Third Reich which was born on January 30,
11933, Hitler boasted, would endure for a thousand years, and
iin Nazi parlance it was often referred to as the "Thousand-
Year Reich." It lasted twelve years and four months, but in
I that flicker of time . . . it caused an eruption on this
!earth more violent and shattering than any previously ex
perienced, raising the German people to heights of power
they had not known in more than a millennium, making them at
one time the masters of Europe from the Atlantic to the
Volga, from the North Cape to the Mediterranean, and then
plunging them to the depths of destruction and desolation at
Ithe end of a world war which their nation had cold-bloodedly
provoked and during which it instituted a reign of terror
over the conquered peoples which, in its calculated butchery
of human life and the human spirit, outdid all the savage
oppressions of the previous ages" (Rise and Fall of the
Third Reich, p. 5) .___________ _________________________________
126
organization under the leadership of the Reich . . . in
I 0 ^
lorder to pursue a policy of German culture." This view
i !
was based on the underlying conviction that it was the
responsibility of the Reich alone to determine "the lines of
'
jprogress, mental and spiritual, [as well as to] lead and
I
organize the professions" (p. 241). Hereby was established
the machinery necessary for the state control of not only ;
I
literature, but also of the press, radio, theatre, music, j
] |
ipainting, and film, labeled in the words of Eric R. Bentley,!
i"the seven illiberal arts of Nazism. Thus, with one !
i
i 1
iswift, clean stroke, "the German writer [became] a civil j
I |
jservant" (p. 206), for not only did the seven subchambers
i i
!of the parent Reichskulturkammer require membership in their
i
[respective groups by all persons engaged in these fields,
i
but the directives of the chambers possessed the validity of
absolute authority. Naturally, the Union of National Au-
I I
Ithors was a predictable offspring of the combination of such
|
juniform and one-dimensional philosophy with the creation of
I
i
i
an officially sanctioned national machine for the control
^Shirer, p. 241. See also note 36 for further de
tails .
^"Literature of the Third Reich," Nation. CLVI, No. 6
(February 6, 1943), 206.
127
and channeling of culture.
| It was not surprising, therefore, that the Twelfth
International P.E.N. Congress should witness the formation
of a section for exiled German writers, for these were now
men uprooted from the soil of their birth whose numbers were
becoming scattered throughout the world and whose only alli-i
]
ance, outside of a common need to leave Germany, was to be |
I
. t
found in their geographical and/or linguistic national ori- !
; i
|gin, an origin which had ceased to exist in their minds and
jspirits as a cultural entity and which could only endure in
! 6 5
I their memories and hopes.
The theme of the Edinburgh Congress, which was attended
|
jby some 400 delegates from thirty countries, was the crucial
and very timely one of literary freedom.^ In the opinion
j
|of the Times, it was expected that this conference would
I
I
;witness discussions "equally [as] exciting" (p. 7) as those
6 5
Klaus and Erika Mann clearly picture the foes of
Hitler, most of whom were members of that band of outcasts,
as follows: "... all the nobler elements of the German
spirit, the conservative and the progressive, the religious
and the intellectual, are united in their unconditional,
passionate repudiation of Nazi unspirituality" (Escape to
Life, pp. 369-370).
66"Nazis Face Attacks at Writers' Meeting. P.E.N.
Congress in Edinburgh to Debate Literary Freedom Today—
German Exiles Arrive," NYT, June 18, 1934, sec. 1, p. 7.
128
Which had occurred at the Ragusa meeting with regard to the
German Nazi delegation. Among the writers attending in the I
name of writers banned by the Nazis were Emil Ludwig, Dr.
Rudolf Olden, former editor of the Berliner Tageblatt, and
Ernst Toller, who said that many "men without a country"
i
|
(p. 7) who had hoped to appear were prevented from so doing
by the lack of a passport.
|
I On the first actual day of the conference, June 18,
iPresident H. G. Wells in his opening address urged the rep-
i
jresentatives to unite in "a common action for freedom of
| 6y
jspeech and pen"j indicating that freedom of expression was
I
|to be the keynote of the three days of discussions, he flungj
i
a solemn question at the assembled delegates: "Can P.E.N. j
I
still remain serene and have nothing to do with politics?"
(p. 17). This question, already a hotly debated issue, was
to become more so as the reign of National Socialist totali
tarianism widened in scope and breadth, and as the man of
letters came to be given ever more cause to consider and
reflect upon his position and duty in the world of
^"Wells Denounces Curb on Free P.E.N. He Tells World
Writers They Dare Not Stay Calm in the Face of Oppressive
Acts. Asks Fight on Fascism. Urges Resistance to Movement
in Britain--Tells Meeting to Combat Political Foes," NYT,
June 19, 1934, sec. 1, p. 17.
129
Realpolitik. Wells felt that the only choice open to P.E.N.
was that between becoming either a mere tourist agency or a I
vital international force and declared that it was asking
too much to expect P.E.N. to sit quietly on the sidelines
while writers were being "waylaid and beaten up" (p. 17) at
official instigation in certain countries. With graphic
directness, he indicated that P.E.N. would not be found
I
^'disregarding the mutilated bodies lying on the threshold."
iThat the congress was in enthusiastic accord with his senti-i
i i
jments was demonstrated when a burst of applause followed his
|
|statement that "I submit we cannot ignore it when politics
Jreaches up and assaults literature" (p. 17).
i
Wells then continued with a comparison of the chau
vinistic activities of the Berlin P.E.N. and the signifi-
i
Icance of the German mind, which "we cannot do without" (p.
17); this was followed by a brief description of the battle
to maintain a genuine P.E.N. in Austria, where efforts were
I
being made to exclude all persons not sympathetic to the
I 68
regime. This day1s meeting ended with the presentation of
(IQ
u Compare this effort with that (successfully) made in
April 1933 by the Society of German Authors, i.e., the Ger
man P.E.N. branch: "Society of German Authors Ousts Writers
Lacking 'National Mindedness,'" NYT, April 8, 1933, sec. 1,
p . 8 .
130
a resolution by the British novelist Ernest Raymond affirm-
jing the position of P.E.N. in upholding universal liberty of
expression and in viewing with apprehension the continual
attempts to encroach upon that liberty in the name of social
security or international strategy. The resolution also
i
expressed the belief that it was necessary to advance the j
i
world toward a more highly evolved political and economic |
i
iorder which must be free to criticize institutions and
: I
I
^administrations. Among those supporting this resolution
|
jwere Ernst Toller* Louis Pierard of Belgium* Beatrice Kean
i
jSeymour of Great Britain* and Mrs. William Brown Meloney of
! ncw York* who also assured the congress of the approval of
f
!the United States P.E.N.
Toller* in fact* was enthusiastically received when he
spoke on the suppression of free thought in Germany and the
book burnings . He presented a supplementary resolution to
I Raymond's* after illuminating in specific detail the plight
|
i
of non-Nazi writers in Germany* many of whom* he stated* had
69
been under arrest for seventeen months already. According
j
to the report in The Scotsman, "They were in prison simply
f\Q
"Freedom of Literature. Mr. H. G. Wells and Danger
of Political Persecution. German Dramatist on Nazi Tyranny.
P.E.N. Congress Opens in Edinburgh*" The Scotsman, June 19*
1934, sec. 1* p. 12. ____
131
because in former years they wrote what had displeased the
present masters of Germany. . . . abandoned to the hate of
tyrants, exposed to the violence of their servile agents,
these men lived a life of daily physical, intellectual and
jspiritual privation, often the victims of brutal ill- j
!
70
treatment." Toller pointed out that their fate had all j
I
|
jbut been forgotten by a world already supersaturated with I
:daily "new . . . outrages . . . cruelties fand] . . . j
; I
^oppressions" (p. 12). The power of the Nazi persecutions j
j I
|was increasing tenfold by the fact that this dictatorship,
|
i
!not content with suppression within its national borders,
i
Iwas constantly attempting to expand its influence to coun- j
I |
itries in which exiles now dwelled; special measures taken by
i
j
jthe Hitler regime threatened those men "who had fled from
iits wrath to foreign countries" (p. 12), and pressure was
exerted on each government in the world, the chief goal
i
Ibeing deportation of the emigre writers to Germany.
i
j Toller cited examples such as the following: (1) one
7 0
We are reminded of his speech at the 1933 P.E.N.
Congress, when he spoke of the imprisonment of Renn, Miihsam,
Ossietzky, and Wittfogel, and asked what steps the official
German delegates to that conference had taken when these
writers— and thousands of German writers— had been so un
justly treated by the Nazi regime (see note 48, this chap
ter) .
132
of the large bookshops in Madrid now refused to sell or even
display books published by firms which published works of
exiles; (2) Polish booksellers stopped selling books of the
exiles' publishers after the treaty between Germany and
Poland was signed; (3) Italian booksellers were under diplo
matic pressure to cease the sale of exiles' works; (4) the
jpublisher of the translation of the Braunbuch in Greece was j
;condemned in a court trial at the demand of the German Con-
!sul (p. 12) . It was obvious, said Toller, that this syste- |
j j
I j
jmatic, well-organized and far-reaching persecution of
i
jauthors, publishers, and booksellers who displeased the
I
jpresent German regime constituted the gravest of threats to
I
the freedom of the writer throughout the entire world. To
loud applause, the liberal dramatist asked of the P.E.N.
delegates that, in the name of "goodness, humanity, and
justice" (p. 12) they declare their support of and unity of
:spirit with men who were unjustly persecuted, as well as
i
their lack of tolerance for the oppression of the spirit
"by the forces of materialism" (p. 12).
That not quite all delegates were in accord with this
resolution was bombastically demonstrated the following day
when the head of the Italian delegation, Signor Marinetti—
who had also represented Italy in 1933— indignantly
133
protested the manner in which Raymond's resolution was being
"railroaded" through the congress and demanded that the
71
delegates vote individually. According to the Times,
Marinetti's viewpoint and behavior caused the second day's
meeting to conclude "in a near free-for-all" (p. 6). It is
I
clear why Marinetti's impassioned speech was the main fea-
|ture at the June 19 meeting: to follow the powerful exhor-
|
jtation of Toller with an explanation— indeed, almost a jus-
I i
jtification— of the Fascist position was tantamount to strik-j
1 I
|ing a match under the tinder of the already brittle and
i
jemotionally charged atmosphere permeating the conference;
to pile this defense on top of an opposition to Raymond's
resolution affirming universal liberty of expression simply
brought the spark and the tinder together in the inevitable
jconflagration. Not only did Marinetti explain fascism and
(oppose Raymond, but he also made an appeal for the avoidance
iof politics in the P.E.N. discussions, criticizing the "war
like tone" of other addresses delivered to the congress
71
J. Donald Adams, "Italian Causes Row at the P.E.N.
Congress. Is Sole Dissenter in Vote on a Freedom of Ex
pression Resolution in Edinburgh," NYT, June 20, 1934, sec.
1, p. 6 . See also "Fascism and Literature. Italian and
Belgian Delegates in Heated Scene. Case of Benedetto Croce.
Scotland as an Inspiration," The Scotsman, June 20, 1934,
sec. 1, p. 11.
134
(The Scotsman, June 20, p. 11).
j Of itself, such an appeal might be logical, since the
i
P.E.N. was not a political or politically motivated organi
zation* but we note Wells' statements of the previous day
regarding P.E.N.'s obligation to act when politics "as-
i
saults" literature. When combined with a defense of fas-
i
cism, however, Marinetti's appeal not only neutralized its
jown meaning, it contradicted it as well, fascism being a
i
‘ political ideology, regardless of the context in which it is
mentioned. It was therefore almost anti-climactic— more
i
jaccurately, paradoxical— when Marinetti attempted to present
the position of writers under Italian fascism by saying that
the spirit of his country was sympathetic to literature and
the arts (p. 11) .
j The other noteworthy event which transpired at the
Isecond day's session was Hermann Ould's presentation of a
^resolution that the members of the German P.E.N. branch now
banned from Germany, a branch constituting "the only part of
German mental expression at the present time conforming to
P.E.N. ideals" (p. 11) be recognized as an independent
P.E.N. Center and that— whether it be quartered in London
135
72
or in Paris — it be accorded all the respect due to any
other P.E.N. Center. This resolution was seconded and de
clared carried.
The events of the third and final day are perhaps most
pertinent to this study and will therefore be discussed in
some detail. Centered around the imminence of war and the
possible part in its prevention that could be played by the
jworld's writers, the initial proceedings of June 20 are best
;mirrored in the speech given by Emil Ludwig; in attendance
i
I
jas a representative of Austria, he pointed out the necessity
i
!for writers to establish their position in case of war and
to take the place of the impotent League of Nations by
"acting with the strong, direct medium of the written
73
word." It was his view that since none of the other or
ganized forces of the world, such as labor and the church—
and in some countries, the universities— seemed able, either
70
Shortly thereafter, the Center was established in
London with Heinrich Mann as its first president. Alfred
Kerr, as president of the organization from 1941-1947,
worked to reestablish a P.E.N. Club in Germany after the
war; he was aided in his efforts by Richard Friedenthal, the
general secretary. (See the catalogue for the exhibition of
the Deutsche Bibliothek, Frankfurt am Main in Koster, Exil-
Literatur, Frankfurt a/M, p. 190.)
73j. Donald Adams, "Writers Doubtful on Stopping Wars.
Wells Threatens to Quit P.E.N. Post If Ludwig's Parlay Plan
Is Adopted." NYT, June 21, 1934,sec. 1, p . 4. ____
136
prior to the first world war or in the present circum
stances, to maintain their integrity in the face of en- j
croaching war, perhaps the writers of the world as a united
I
i
body could take a stand, if not to prevent war, then to j
i
i
diminish its effects, by preparing a manifesto to induce j
conflicting powers to appear before a court of arbitration.
Ludwig's plea was followed by a long resolution sub- !
I
[
Imitted by Ernst Toller, in which the Nazi government was
; i
'criticized and called upon to release certain German writers]
I 74 i
jWho had been deprived of their liberty. Debate on this
resolution "became heated" following the speech by a Swiss
delegate, who presented his personal view that the right of
I
I
Toller to pose as a champion of freedom was of no value in
|the face of his destruction of other people's books fifteen
i
years previously— an opinion causing loud protests from
various delegates. The Swiss delegate also thought that
;P.E.N. was overstepping its bounds by interfering with in
ternal German affairs— the responsibility of P.E.N. was to
see the situation objectively and not as a simplistic black
and white issue in which one group stood for "war and
74
"P.E.N. Discusses War Danger. Herr Emil Ludwig on
'A Trembling World.' Geneva Dream at an End. Mr. H. G.
Wells Refuses Role of Savior," The Scotsman, latest ed.,
June 21, 1934, sec. 1, p . 12. _______________________________
137
injustice" and the other against (p. 12) .
Dr. Rudolf Olden* however* one of the three delegates
representing the exiles* who supported Toller's resolution
75
with "the most fervent speech at the congress*" declared
that the German situation would provide the chief issues
i
determining the course of the world* observing that the
reason many Germans* regardless of their racial* religious*
[or political affiliations* were now in exile was that they
|favored peace. In the Germany of 1934* he asserted* anyone
I
jwho wished to reorganize the world on a peaceful basis was
[considered and would be labeled a traitor. Following
i
jolden's passionate speech, Emil Ludwig affirmed his agree-
I
i
ment with the Toller resolution* stating that there was "no
better man than Herr Toller to speak there for the exiled
j
Germans" (p. 4); he then praised Olden's speech as the best
heard at the congress.
However* confusion soon reigned again temporarily* due
jpartly to the assertion of a Scottish delegate* Mr. Will
l
[Darling* that P.E.N. required no politically tainted reso
lutions to resolve internal and personal quarrels* i.e.*
such as that between Toller and the German government: the
75NYT* June 21* 1934* sec. 1* p. 4.
138
potential international implications and effects of Toller's
l
resolution by far transcended the scope of the P.E.N. or-
!
ganization, since not a government in the world existed
which did not in some way or to some extent inhibit its
writers (p. 4). The upshot of all this controversy was an
amended resolution calling on the congress to declare that
since the arrival to power of the National Socialist govern
ment in Germanyj writers had been imprisoned without trial,
Without having committed any offense against the laws of
i !
j i
Itheir land, and for no other reason than that they had, i
i
junder former governments and in former years, written books
(whose intellectual content was not to the taste of the pres-
j i
jent regime. The resolution further called on the congress
j
|to demand the release of those men who had been deprived of
j
jtheir liberty (p. 4). With the exception of a dissenting
j
Vote by the Swiss delegate and several abstentions— includ
ing one by the Italian delegate— the amended resolution was
i
■ unanimously approved.
A rather astonishing resolution was introduced by
Ludwig during the final day's session, a resolution which
had extremely broad implications for P.E.N.'s role as an
international organization. For it provided that the presi
dent of P.E.N., the Executive Committee or the International
139
Committee be empowered in the event of imminence of war to
icall together delegates to consider measures "to safeguard
freedom of expression, and to guarantee that the principles
of P.E.N. will be upheld" (p. 4). At this point an immov
able roadblock was encountered in the figure of the Inter-
!
I
national P.E.N. President himself, H. G. Wells, who gra
ciously acknowledged his regard for Herr Ludwig's opinions, i
then proceeded most unambiguously to his own: this proposal
[was wholly impractical— indeed, impossible during wartime--
[and he intended to resign if it were approved. In Wells'
I
[opinion, war would never seem more imminent than it was
I
(right now, and if P.E.N. passed this resolution, it would
make itself, as he so neatly put it, "just a trifle ridicu
lous" (p. 4). The suggestion that the P.E.N. president
[would have to decide if and when war were imminent and act
by calling a meeting of all P.E.N. centers, was too un
realistic to take seriously. He reminded the delegates that
i
I"if war came we would forget P.E.N. and writing men would
become simply men" (p. 4).
But obviously some delegates thought otherwise, for
more discussion, suggestion, counter-suggestion, and dis
agreement followed, with everyone getting into the act, in
cluding Auernheimer, Ludwig, Toller, Ould, and Wells.
140
Finally, after the approval by a large majority of Ould1s
proposal that the Ludwig resolution be withdrawn and Wells 1
i
1
Jreiteration of his attitude--" ' I do not see . . . why the
i
(poor president of the P.E.N. Club should be picked out for
(saving the world1" (p. 4)--the way was paved for the unani
mous reelection of Wells as International President.
One other matter of relevance to the exiled writers was
i
I
jbrought up by M. Cremieux of France, who announced that he
(had proposed to the Executive Committee the formation of a
1
i
Jcentral fund to aid poor writers in various countries. Cit-
i
jing the example of the German writers stranded in unfamiliar
(lands and frequently unable to communicate in the vernacular,
he pointed out the problems involved in their finding a
i
means of subsistence. Although no official action on this
matter was taken by the congress, it was agreed to submit it
|to the Executive Committee for consideration (p. 4). The
significance of Cremieux's statement was simply that the
j
isituation of exiled writers was brought more clearly into
focus and that an international body felt it to be of suffi-
7 6
cient weight to make a recommendation on it.
^As will be seen, a number of groups, both in America
and abroad, began— prior to the actual outbreak of war in
Europe— to take an interest in the problems of the exiled
141
Moscow: First All-Union Congress of
Soviet Authors
; j
j Not quite two months after the P.E.N. congregation in
Edinburgh, another conference of writers took place which
warrants presentation in some detail because of its value as
j i
I
a forum for the ideological, political, and literary convic-i
i
tions and theories of various German emigre writers. This j
!
j
was the First Congress of the Union of Soviet Authors held i
|
jin Moscow between August 17 and September 1, 1934. in fact,,
jthe Times Index for that year lists nine articles, letters,
' . .
;and editorials dealing with the Moscow Congress, as con-
i
jtrasted with only five cited for the P.E.N. Congress of
|
11934• even the Readers Guide for 1932-1935 lists three
!
!
i
|fairly lengthy articles, as versus none for that P.E.N.
j
imeeting. The importance of the Soviet Authors Congress lies
|not only in its being the first held in the USSR since the
; 77
Revolution, but also in its attracting to the assembly
authors and indeed in that of refugees in general, as Na
tional Socialist control fell over an ever larger portion of
Europe. These groups and their activities will be more
fully discussed in a later chapter.
j ^According to Walter Duranty, the Soviet Press dealt
with this first All-Union Congress of Writers "as an event
of outstanding national importance. . . . Thus Pravda . . .
which is probably read by 20,000,000 Russians daily, devoted
six full pages yesterday [August 23] to a report of the
discussions of the Congress" ("Realism Is Urged in Soviet
142
hall and discussion rooms a number of German writers in
exile, whose political idealism and/or liberal, Socialist,
or Communist orientations must be counted among the stimuli
which prompted them to attend and participate in this his-
I
t o r i c a l e v e n t . M a t t h ia s W egner h a s t h e f o l l o w i n g t o s a y j
i
r e g a r d in g t h e fo r c e s w h ic h in f lu e n c e d th e Germ ans t o a t t e n d
t h e c o n g re s s : "D e r Z w e i f e l am S ie g d e r w e s t lic h e n D e m o k ra - !
j t i e n iib e r H i t l e r , d e r W unsch n ach e in e r p o l i t i s c h e n V e r a n t -
I
Iwortung der Literatur im Kampf gegen den Faschismus, die j
I
Jstarke der Sowjetunion— all dies mufite eine Annaherung an
7 8
;den Kommunismus b e g iin s tig e n . "
i
A fairly large number of prominent non-Soviet writers
was present, among them the following: from Denmark, Hans
Anderson-Nexo; from France, Andre Malraux, Louis Aragon,
IPaul Nizan, Jean-Richard Bloch; from Spain, Rafael Alberti
jand Maria Teresa Leon; from the United States, Ben Field and
iRobert Gessner; from England, Anabel Williams-Ellis; from
Germany, Theodore Plivier, Oskar Maria Graf, Johannes
Writing. Less Propaganda and Fuller Portrayals Forecast by
Authors' Congress. Satire Also Emphasized. Moscow Press
Gives Greatest Prominence to Proceedings of the Convention,"
NYT, August 26, 1934, sec. 4, p. 3). The dateline of this
article was August 24, 1934.
^ Exil und Literatur. Deutsche Schriftsteller im Aus-
land 1933-1945 (Frankfurt a/M, Bonn, 1967), p . 135.
143
Becher, Willi Bredel, Friedrich Wolf, Wieland Herzfelde,
Ernst Toller, Klaus Mann; also writers from China, Cuba, |
I
79 !
S w eden, I t a l y , H o lla n d , J a p a n , and o t h e r c o u n t r i e s .
As Wegner with considerable insight points out, the
!
German visitors— and by inference, we would assume many
other foreign participants— hoped to gain from the congress j
I
I
some enlightenment as to the duties and achievements of
I
J
creative writing "in einer weltpolitisch katastrophalen j
' 80 i
[Epoche" (p. 136). It is understandable that they should j
i !
i
[seek their answers at a Communist conference, for in the
I 7 Q I
j ^This list is incomplete; no one source offered any- |
[thing other than a partial listing of foreign visitors . The!
German and some European names were gleaned from various
sources, among the most thorough being International Litera
ture (English), No. 4 (10) (September 1934), 154; and Neue
Deutsche Blatter. I, Nr. 12 (September 1934), 738-742.
These presented also the most thorough presentation of
speeches. In this conference, all further references to
speeches in these journals will be to these specific issues.
i
SOllya Ehrenburg had the following to say regarding the
jimportance of the congress for non-Soviet writers: "'. . .
the western writers, who understand the tragedy of their own
position, expect so much from our forthcoming literary con
gress . This congress must remind the world that Soviet
literature is not only a weapon to be used in time of war
but a warm hearthstone that draws its heat from our love.
. . . In 1934 it is impossible to write magnificently
against socialism, because such creations will either be
powerless and dead or, against the author's own intent, will
proclaim themselves on our side'" ("Russia's Literary Con
gress," The Living Age, CCCXLVII, No. 4416 [September 1934],
82-83) .
144
M a r x is t o r d e r o f s o c i e t y t h e s p e c i f i c an d c l e a r l y d e l in e a t e d
f u n c t io n a s s ig n e d t o t h e man o f l e t t e r s and th e a r t i s t s to o d
i n s t r o n g c o n t r a s t t o t h e s i t u a t i o n o f i s o l a t i o n i n w h ic h
I
the exiles, for example, found themselves— as represented by!
| |
ja d im in is h e d Germ an m a r k e t f o r t h e i r w o rk s due t o g o v e rn m e n tj
! i
! I
i
censorships, plus the small number of publishers as yet j
available for their writings. The control of creative ex
pression by the State in the USSR represented (ironically,
I
i
!we are compelled to add, in view of the state control which
|
t h e Germ ans h a d r e c e n t l y f l e d ) a k in d o f s o l i d a n c h o r w h ic h
h a d a p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y s t a b i l i z i n g e f f e c t on t h e i r p r e s e n t
r o o t l e s s s t a t u s .
H o w e v e r, th e r e a l i t y an d e x t e n t o f s t a t e c o n t r o l i n
i
R u s s ia , w h ic h h a d s e r v e d i n i t i a l l y as a p o s i t i v e sym b o l o f
d e f i n i t i v e p u rp o s e f o r m any G erm an w r i t e r s , e v e n t u a l l y b e
came f o r m any o f th em a h a r s h ly n e g a t iv e f a c t o r — a d m it t e d l y ,
la horse of a different color from that which they had left
i
i
behind in their homeland, but a horse nevertheless. Accord
ing to Wegner, "Somit hinterliefl der Kongrefl bei Klaus Mann
wie auch bei den meisten anderen nichtmarxistischen Emigran-
ten, die nach Moskau gekommen waren, mehr Zweifel aIs Gewifi-
heit" (p. 137). It is one of the aims of the present dis
cussion to consider the reasons for this attitude of doubt
145
and in some cases, ambiguity, and to evaluate some of the
(factors which contributed to its creation.
I
The great theme of the congress, which was attended by
i
approximately 1,000 delegates from most European countries j
81 !
and Russia, as well as South and North America and Asia, j
|
was that of "Socialist Realism," and its slogan was taken I
j
from Josef Stalin's statement, "The writer is the engineer j
82 !
of the spirit." As Robert Gessner, one of the United j
j ]
jStates delegates, observed in a report he wrote a number of ;
I . i
imonths after his return to America, "the truthfulness of !
! i
i j
(socialist realism is to [the Soviet writers] a more con- j
i i
| j
jscious and consistent truthfulness [than non-social-minded !
| I
j t r u t h ] b e c a u s e i t is f i r m l y g ro u n d e d i n th e o u t lo o k o f t h e
8 3
revolutionary working class." Gessner was favorably im
pressed with the "spontaneity in the discussions, which were
marked by the utmost frankness" (p. 307) throughout the
i 81
; Wieland Herzfelde, "Geist und Macht. Zum ersten
Unionskongreft der Sowjetschriftsteller, Moskau, 17.8 bis
1.9, 1934," NDB, p. 714. According to IL, p. 153, some 500
delegates alone were present from all parts of the USSR.
®^Duranty, "Realism Is Urged in Soviet Writing," p. 3.
See also Klaus Mann, "Notizen in Moskau," Die Sammlung, II,
Nr. 2 (October 1934), 82.
83"The Funeral of the R.A.F.P.," The New Republic.
LXXXII, No. 1064 (April 24, 1935), 308.
146
sessionsj attributing this new tone to the death some two
years earlier (April 23, 1932) of the Association of Prole
tarian Writers, the R.A.P.P., which had been much more dog-
j
matic and strictly Party-oriented in its official attitude:
"Not since that bureaucratic organization was liquidated has
there been a bugle call sounding the character for new !
j
Soviet letters" (p. 307). j
j Two interrelated factors seemed to explain the freer j
jmood prevailing at the congress, both of which were social !
; i
land cultural manifestations : the more relaxed atmosphere ofj
j |
the Russian cities, which in turn stimulated the "increas
ingly defined culture of the proletarian masses" (p. 307).
i j
iThe greater interest of the working classes in all types of
I
i
|literary expression was shown by the large numbers of per
sons (18,000) who applied for spectator passes to the con
gress (IL, p. 153), as well as the suggestions addressed to
the writers in the meeting hall by the spectator-audience.
i
lAs Gessner observed, "it was not a curiosity crowd. . . .
I
They were there simply to catch a glimpse of the men who
were writing about them. They were the heroes of the books
that these authors had been writing" (p. 308).
Describing the "modification" occurring in Soviet
literature and drama as "one of the most remarkable phases
147
of the new spirit in Soviet Russia . . ., " Walter Duranty,
who covered the congress for the New York Times, saw this
spirit as both the result and partial cause of a "double
process .... On the one hand the change of popular men
tality demands a corresponding change in literature and
drama. On the other hand the change in literature and drama
84
tends to accentuate the change in popular mentality." Thej
I
ichange reflected in Russian literature during this period j
; i
; s
was significant— not only for the sake of improved quality i
jin itself, but also for the greater appeal of the literature
j
jto revolutionary writers in the rest of the world; Soviet
i
i
jwriting seemed to be approaching a plane parallel with that
of the writing produced by foreign writers of similar mind
or disposition.
Herein lay one of the deeper implications of the so-
|
Icalled "new spirit." Non-Soviet writers found it much eas
ier to relate to and identify with the USSR and communism
i
|
because of the bridge now being provided by Soviet letters .
No doubt this played a big role in attracting hundreds of
84
"Soviet Literature Sign of New Spirit. Freed from
Restricted Field of Propaganda, It Is a Vital Cultural
Force. Drama Also Is Changing. Writers' Congress in Moscow
This Week Hailed by Izvestia as Unique in World," NYT,
August 15, 1934, sec. 1, p. 19.
148
foreign writers to the congress. As Duranty points out,
Soviet literature and drama had previously been concerned
"with some notable exceptions . . . with the duty toward the
State* that is . . . devoted exhaustively to propaganda"
(p. 19).
Circa 1934, however, both the Kremlin and the public
were demanding greater reality in art: "They demand color,
ihumor, humanity and pictures of things as they are, not as
ithey ought to be. Joseph Stalin himself gave the lead along
I
!
ithe new line which writers must follow" (p. 19). (The use
i
jof the word "must" is rather revealing; it would seem to
i
lindicate a dichotomy between the "new spirit" of realism and
I
freedom in Soviet letters and the spirit which stimulated
it.)
Exemplary of the changed official attitude toward
writers was the fact that it was Maxim Gorki under whose
[leadership the congress convened; for, despite his being the
! 85
most eminent living Soviet writer and wholly supportive of
85
For a telling description of the high esteem in which
Gorki was held in the USSR, see Klaus Mann, "Notizen in
Moskau," pp. 76-77: "Die Stellung des Schriftstellers Maxim
Gorki in der Sowjet-Union ist mit der Situation irgendeines
anderen Schriftstellers in irgendeinem andren Lande nicht
zu vergleichen. . . . Gorki gehort zu den popularsten, den
verehrtesten Figuren des Landes. . . . im Kongreft-Saal hing
149
the Soviet cause, he was nonetheless "far from . . . an
jideal exponent of that 'Bolshevik ideology' of which the
[world heard so much in earlier years" (Duranty, p. 19).
In his opening statement to the assembled delegates,
Gorki seemed to pinpoint some of the reasons--colored, not
unexpectedly, by the ideological interpretations of commu
nism— which acted as stimuli in bringing many foreign writ-
|ers to the Hall of Trade Unions in Moscow:
j We are appearing in an epoch of the general savagery,
| brutality and despair of the bourgeoisie; despair called
! forth by a feeling of its ideological impotence, its
i social bankruptcy, in an epoch of its bloody attempts to
; return, by means of fascism, to the fanaticism of the
J feudal middle ages.
| We appear as judges of a world doomed to destruction, as
men who affirm the true humanism of the revolutionary
proletariat, the humanism of a force which is called
upon by history to emancipate the whole world of toilers
I from dependence, greed, vulgarity and stupidity, from
all the monstrosities which have distorted the labor of
men for ages ....
! We are appearing in a country where the proletariat and
| the peasantry, led by the Party of Lenin have conquered
! the right to develop all their abilities and gifts, and
where the workers and collective farmers are proving
sein Bild in Riesenformat neben dem Bilde Stalins: der
Dichter neben dem Leiter des Staates." See also Herzfelde,
"Geist und Macht," NDB, pp. 714-715: "Eine Sonderstellung
nahm Maxim Gorki ein, ihm zollt man eine Liebe und Vereh-
rung, wie man sie nur einem Menschen entgegenbringt, der
zum Symbol geworden ist."
150
daily in various ways their capacity to utilize this
right. . . . (IL, pp. 153-154)86
This speech set the mood for the formulation of the
doctrine of Socialist Realism which was the keynote of the
!
gathering. That doctrine, however, was not totally upheld j
j
by all writers present, a situation causing not only a cer
tain amount of friction, but aiding also in clearing the
I
I
vision of some writers who had come m the hope of finding i
ja panacea for their own problems. Karl Radek's speech on j
: i
! I
!"Contemporary World Literature and the Problems of Prole
tarian Art" was based on the thesis that the majority of the
best writers outside of Russia, faced with a choice between
fascism and liberalism, were choosing the latter and should
therefore be encouraged and viewed as friends and allies,
despite the fact that they were far removed from pure
socialism; he declared that any writer on the side of prog-
i
jress as versus reaction— these two positions creating the
UNDB, pp. 713-753, printed numerous speeches and ex
cerpts of speeches presented at the congress . This was the
best total coverage which we were able to find among the
various American journals under consideration, as well as
some four European exile periodicals used of necessity to
fill in various gaps in this section (Das Wort, Die Samm-
lung, Das Neue Tagebuch, Neue Deutsche Blatter). As noted
previously, the Times provided relatively comprehensive
coverage of general events, but did not print speeches in
any detail.
151
basic conflict in the world of that day— was in a sense an
87
ally of the USSR.
The two groups whom this rather broad-minded thesis
offended were "the very deep-dyed Communists . . . who found
this [view] conflicting with the slogan [adopted by] the !
!
Bolsheviki . . . from an earlier authority: 'He that is not
with us is against us'" (Duranty, p. 19); and the ex-Rappist
jsection, who felt that the thesis of an extension of a
;united front against reaction was an indignity which did not
|
idistinguish between "'true proletarian writers' and
87
Duranty, "Literary Freedom a New Soviet Aim. Radek
Creates Stir by Thesis That Best Writers Are Not Necessarily
|Propagandists. Some at Parley Object. But He Echoes Krem
lin's Views at Authors' Congress as He Urges More Toler- |
ance," NYT, August 28, 1934, sec. 1, p. 19. In commenting
on Radek's speech, Klaus Mann stated unequivocally that it,
after Gorki's introductory speech, was "das zentrale Ereig-
nis des Kongresses" ("Notizen," p. 78), but evaluated it as
very disappointing: "Seine Darstellung der weltliterari-
ischen Situation war roh und schematisch; ubrigens enthielt
isie Unrichtigkeiten. Sowohl was die Leistungen der deut-
|schen proletarischen Literatur . . ., als auch was die Hal-
jtung der 'links-burgerlichen' Schriftsteller wahrend des
Krieges betrifft, widersprachen ihm deutsche Delegierte:
Plivier und Willi Bredel" (p. 78). By contrast, Mann felt
that the topic of world literature would have been better
handled by a more competent man, e.g., Ilya Ehrenburg:
"Seine Rede auf dem Kongreft schien mir die substanziellste,
ernsthafteste und mutigste zu sein" (pp. 79-80). In the
discussion following Gorki's speech, Ehrenburg placed him
self on the side of individual writing and against collec
tive writing, which came as "little surprise to anyone at
the Congress," according to Gessner ("Funeral of the
R.A.P.P., " p. 308) ■ ______________________________________________
152
'bourgeois or semi-bourgeois intellectuals 1 in the united
front army" (p. 19). According to a New York Times inter
pretation of this liberalized appeal to revolutionary writ
ers , the foreign writers present "were told that it was
their duty to subvert their own governments and uphold the
U.S .S .R.1,88
As has already been indicated, the most complete cover-
iage of the congress, from the standpoint of speeches
iprinted, was found in Neue Deutsche Blatter of September
1934. In order to evaluate the position of the Germans, it
is necessary to review briefly the gist of their speeches —
which, unfortunately, were not printed in their entirety
i
here either. As Herzfelde pointed out, if just all of the j
main speeches had been printed in full, each would have
comprised one full issue of the Blatter ("Geist und Macht,"
p. 716) .
i
I Discussing his editing procedure, he stated, ". . .
i
wenn . . . aus den Reden der westeuropaischen Gaste verhalt-
nismaftig grofie Teile zitiert werden, so deshalb, weil sich
88
"Literature under Communism" (editorial), NYT, Sep
tember 16, 1934, sec. 4, p. 4. We are not in a position
either to refute or agree with this interpretation, since
the sources available to us did not refer to this type of
advice being given to non-Soviet delegates.
153
in ihnen die Bedeutung des Kongresses fur das internationale
89
Kulturleben besonders deutlich ausdriickt." It is in con
sideration of this interpretation of priorities that we
shall examine some views expressed by the Germans present at
the congress.
Of the five German exiles represented in the Blatter
(Becher, Bredel, Plivier, Toller, Herzfelde), the first
three mentioned were closely associated during the major
90
portion of their adult lives with communism, and their
^ NDB, p. 717- The Western European writers from whose
speeches long excerpts were quoted were the following:
Johannes Becher, Theodor Plivier, Wieland Herzfelde, Ernst
Toller, and Willi Bredel (Germany); Jean-Richard Bloch and
Andre Malraux (France); Germanetto (Italy); and Jef Last
(Holland).
^®In 1928 Becher was a co-founder of the Association of
Proletarian-Revolutionary Writers (Bund Proletarisch-
revolutionarer Schriftsteller); his exile of 1933 took him
to Prague, Vienna, and Paris . He lost his citizenship on
|March 24, 1934, as did Plivier; Bredel was denationalized
later, on November 1, 1934. In 1935 Becher moved to Moscow,
where he was chief editor of the German language edition of
Internationale Literatur from 1935 to 1945. In 1945 he re
turned to East Berlin, where he received the Lenin Peace
Prize in 1953 and became Minister of Culture in 1954. In
1933, Plivier (this was the spelling he adopted in exile;
his name was originally Plievier) went into exile through
Czechoslovakia, Sweden, and Switzerland into Russia. He
returned to Germany with the Soviet Army and was a publisher
and chairman of the Cultural Association in Weimar. How
ever, in 1947 he moved to West Germany. Bredel was affilia
ted with Communist activities and groups from his mid-teens
on. In 1919 he joined the Communist Party of Germany (KPD);
154
speeches reflected this association. Although obviously
all five writers, by virtue of their very presence at the !
i
i
congress, were united in their opposition to the Fascist
ideology, each of their speeches emphasized a slightly dif-
l
I
ferent aspect of this opposition, ranging from fairly ex- |
treme militancy to idealistic humanism. j
Both Becher and Plivier, for instance, felt that all j
anti-Fascist writers must be united in support of the strug-|
i !
igle for self-assertion m which the proletarian masses were
I j
jengaged at the present time. Becher labeled these writers j
' i
; i
i"die realistischen Schriftsteller" (NDB, p. 738) and indi-
j
Seated that they--in whose camp he included himself— held out
j i
i _ |
jtheir hands to all literary representatives of realistic |
'
judgment ("der realistischen Vernunft") and to all seekers
of truth. He added that all these writers requested, with
the full power of their revolutionary appeal, a decision of
Ithose many misguided men who, beguiled by propagandistic
after several prison terms for his revolutionary activities
(in 1923, 1930, and again in 1933), he fled the next year to
Prague and shortly thereafter to the USSR, where he became a
co-editor with Brecht and Feuchtwanger of Das Wort. He was
a Kommissar in the Spanish Civil War for two years, then in
1939 returned to Russia, from where he moved some six years
later to East Berlin. Here he became President in 1962 of
the German Academy of Arts (Exil-Literatur, Frankfurt a/M,
pp. 202-203, 207-208, 228).
155
slogans and torchlight parades, even now carried the hope of
national and social freedom in their hearts— a decision to
turn away from the state which stood for reactionary force
and for the most infamous deception of all time (p. 739). !
j
Becher felt— correctly so— that the National Socialists!
!
were distorting the thoughts and words of great German writ-j
I
erSj such as Goethe and Holderlin, to suit their own pur-
i
poses and to justify their methods of brutal suppression of
i 91 !
;free speech, thought, and action. This he saw as a pros-
i
I
i
ititution and total negation of the accomplishments of a
previously enlightened civilization. In his view, only one
i
jpath was open for the restoration and further development of
I
Ithe finest elements of the cultural heritage from the Ren
aissance through the nineteenth century, and this was the
pledge provided by the "Sieg der Arbeiterrevolution" (p.
I ®^ln his previously cited article, "Literature in the
Third Reich," Eric Russell Bentley discusses some examples
of Nazi distortion and misuse of Germans such as Schiller,
Goethe, and von Kleist. He states that the reason for this
is the unpopularity and poor quality of Nazi literature and
notes that "For lack of new Nazi writers the party was
obliged to hunt through the histories for proto-Nazis.
Books appeared with such titles as 'Goethe's Mission in the
Third Reich,' 'Schiller as Hitler's Buddy' (Kampfgenosse),
'Heinrich von Kleist, Poet of the Folk,' 'Nietzsche and
National Socialism.' Probably every classic German writer
except Heine has been exploited in this way" (Nation, CLVI,
No. 6 [February 6, 1943], 207).
| 156
i
1739) .
Plivier also saw fascism as leading only to barbarism
and non-culture ("Kulturlosigkeit," NDB, p. 740), indeed to
a cultural nadir of human society; and he reminded his audi
ence that Lenin had prophesied this more than a decade ago.
;He regarded the denationalization of revolutionary and bour
geois writers as a sharp criticism of the National Socialist
!
system, as were the flaming pyres on which thousands of
books had been consigned to physical oblivion; these events
iwere "Alarmzeichen" (p. 740) for the entire world of cul
ture— a call to arms, as it were— and he felt that from the
charred debris in the Third Reich would arise a stronger and
[infinitely more self-aware proletarian literature.
A revolutionary literature must be able to point the
i
|way, must look ahead and must be able to disclose future
i 92
prospects; for Plivier, revolutionary literature was the
hope of the new world.
Bredel's speech was perhaps the most distinctly mili
tant in tone, one possible reason being his prison experi
ence in Germany, most recently a thirteen-month stint in the
|
! 92
j 3 "Eine revolutionare Literatur muB vorauseilen, sie
|muB voraussehen und kiinftige Perspektive enthiillen konnen"
| (p. 7 39) ._____________________
157
concentration camp in Fuhlsbiittel in 1933-1934. After hav-
!ing greeted his colleagues in the name of all those still
I
’ incarcerated in the Reich, he stated flatly that fascism was|
attempting to silence revolutionary writers and intellec- j
! j
tuals by means of imprisonment, torture, and murder. He
voiced his deep conviction that both the Soviet and the
iGerman proletarian writers were involved in a common battle,;
even if on different fronts, namely, the powerful class
struggle currently tearing the world apart. It knew no
boundaries, for it was cutting a wide swath through all
nations, cities, and villages. Stating that the German j
proletarian writers were fully cognizant of their duty, he
ipromised that they would not rest until the many anti- j
Fascists still in prison— among them Ludwig Renn, Karl
jOssietzky, Klaus Neukrantz— were freed from the "fascisti-
schen Morderhande" (NDB, p. 742), until fascism itself lay
in shards on the ground and Germany belonged to the working
man, becoming once again a civilized land of science and the
|arts, a "Volk" of poets and philosophers.
| Toller and Herzfelde did not present as extremely mili-
itant an orientation as Bredel, nor quite as strongly a
political-social front as Becher and Plivier. Both writers
appeared more concerned with freedom of expression in the
158
realm of letters per se. Toller— whose speech, as printed
93
in the Blatter, was considerably shortened --spoke in
rather abstract terms about the danger of underestimating
the creative imagination of the proletarian classes, men
tioning the fact that many of their works— he was referring j
I
here to Expressionist dramas— had been presented throughout
jthe world, opening new vistas and directions for the revo
lutionary dramaturgy of many countries. He spoke of the
; i
|impact of this movement, whose contribution it had been to j
make available new social material as a legitimate dramatic
|theme. Even though Expressionism, in his view, had not been
i
j
lable to conquer this material artistically ("nicht imstande ;
war, dieses neue Material kunstlerisch zu bewaltigen," NDB,
94
p. 741), it had shown the way, and from the synthesis of
revolutionary idea and reality there had developed in
| longer version of his speech— it seemed to be the
jentire text, but we were not positive, since the general
^heading read "Aus den Reden der Auslandischen Gaste"— was
printed in the German language edition of IL, IV, No. 5
(1934), 42-44).
^Note Samuel Putnam's satirical description of German
Expressionism: "For Germany was the home of Expressionism,
the Teutonic correspondent of Cubism, a highly subjective
individualism in art that attained its slithering depths in
the murky mysticisms of a Kandinsky" ("Exiles from Reality"
[review of The Forty Days of Musa Dagh by Franz Werfel and
Tabaras, a Guest on Earth by Joseph Roth], Partisan Review,
II. No. 6 (January-February 1935 ) , 86) .______________________
159
Germany a revolutionary realism in the drama.
| This brief overview led to his conclusion that it was
i
imperative to open wide the doors to artists who were fight
ing bravely against the Fascist ideology, even if their
jcreations did not fulfill all of the ideological require-
i
jments posited by communism and socialism. Their works
appealed to those bourgeois and intellectual classes, en- ;
s
jcompassing also large numbers of the youth, which proletar- j
I '
jian art seldom managed to penetrate (due to its lack of I
!
I comprehension of inner workings of those classes).
| Toller saw the non-ideological anti-Fascist writers,
95
e.g., Heinrich Mann, Dos Passos, Sinclair Lewis, as per-
I j
forming two valuable interrelated services: by illustrating
!the emptiness, frustration, and exhaustion of the middle
|
|class, they stimulated insight leading toward reflection and
re-evaluation which, in turn, made them pioneers of a new
iworld. Toller astutely acknowledged that the only tendency
i
inot permitted the artist (and by implication, we might add,
i
i
j
I ^^See Putnam's comment on Becher1s treatment of the
non-Marxist writers at the congress: "As for the outstand
ing non-Marxist exiles of today, Johannes Becher, in his
address to the All-Union Congress of Soviet Writers, has
subjected them--such writers as Heinrich Mann and Lion
Feuchtwanger— to a kindly but unsparing criticism" (pp. 86-
87). Becher1s attitude contrasts rather sharply with Tol
ler's view of these men.
160
the critic?) was that of strict and simplified categoriza
tion of human beings; after all, the artist's function is to
breathe life into persons, figures, and examples, not to
expound on abstract theses . He told the Soviet writers that
they, after years of heroic asceticism and denial, were in
the process of rediscovering the private life of man, that
they were attempting to recreate the external human concerns
iof love, marriage, and mother on the basis of a classless |
jsociety. He warned that while many great artistic creations!
i i
were political works, care must be taken not to confuse j
Ipolitical works with propaganda which makes use of artistic-i
poetic methods; he then explained why such propaganda was
i
both more and less than poetry.
Toller's main thesis seemed to be that true art by its
very nature is a subjective matter, that it cannot be clas
sified as useful or useless simply because its creator is an
|adherent, by accident or by design, of a given political or
economic ideology, and that all artists must try to learn
from one another, for all have something to contribute; they
i
must share each other's sorrows as well as their joys. He
noted that those writers living in capitalistic countries,
especially those who had been driven from their homelands,
needed the support and aid of Soviet writers. He advised
161
the Communist writers to attend literary congresses of
ibourgeois writers, to give witness abroad of their own lives
i
i
f
and work, and also to study the problems of the West in
order to truly comprehend the Western man. For they had a
jgrave responsibility as representatives and pioneers of a
{world which aimed to make a great and fruitful contribution
to social and cultural life. They must take care, he
'warned, to avoid the temptation to schematize arbitrarily
|on the basis of political ideology.
j
i Ending his speech with an impassioned greeting to all
1 those imprisoned comrades-in-arms who were not even allowed
j
|to know that they were remembered in both sorrow and out-
i
Irage, he promised that the writers in exile would not forget
Ithem, keep silent, or tire until that hidden Germany which
I
96
was fighting for freedom became victorious.
j ^There seems to be considerable debate on the question
of whether a "hidden Germany" in the sense of an actual
underground did exist in the Third Reich. Relatively few
references to its presence were found in American journals
and periodicals, particularly in the first five or six years
after the establishment of the National Socialist dictator
ship. One of the earliest found was "German Theatres Under
ground. From an Interview with Rudolf Wittenberg," in which
the point was made that while overt opposition to the Hitler
regime would be impossible, numerous anti-Fascists were
working in Goering's recreation groups (the "Kraft durch
Freude" movement), as well as in amateur theatres, present
ing sketches and skits which frequently contained covertly
162
Wieland Herzfelde spoke of the contributions of the
allegorical references to the situation in Germany. "The
cultural front is a political front. The theatres know it,
and the police know it. The outstanding professional . . .
iwho took leadership in the union opposition work, and who
advised and helped the workers' theatres, was Hans Otto . . .
the Nazis tried to win him over. . . . But he continued the
opposition work, and [they] murdered him" (New Theatre, II
■ No. 3 [March 1935], 12-13). A number of articles appeared j
in 1939 on the subject of opposition within Germany: "Ger- j
mans against Hitler," in which is stated that "Good news j
about the opposition movement inside Germany comes with our j
friends arriving from Europe. Opposition to Hitler has in- i
creased, as is shown by the constant references to the need
for 'unity' among the German people in the recent speeches
of Hitler and Goering" (New Republic, XCIX, No. 1276 [May
11, 1939], 34); a piece by Stefan Heym, "Behind the German
Lines," dealing with signs of opposition within Germany
among members of the working class (NR, C, No. 1294 [Sep
tember 30, 1939], 180-181); several articles by Franz C.
Weiskopf, himself an exile who had gone to Prague in 1933
:and New York in 1938, where he was a co-founder of the j
'Aurora-Verlag: "The Battle Front Inside Germany," in which
!he poses this question with regard to Heinrich Himmler's
Secret Police and officers of the Reich Army, "Will this
ipowerful array of men be able to master the danger that is
Iripening underground? (Direction. II, No. 6 [October 1939],
2)• "A Little Package of Tea," treating subversive material
idistributed secretly within Germany with the aid of such
leading German writers as Brecht, Kisch, Leonhard Frank,
Oskar Maria Graf, Heinrich Mann, and others (Direction. II,
No. 7 [November 1939], 9); and "The Bomb in Germany's Stom
ach," in which he states of the situation in Bohemia, Mora
via, and occupied Slovakia: "Tension is increasing. Oppo
sition is gathering its forces, but the situation is not yet
ripe for greater outbursts. The zero hour for the fall of
the hated regime and the setting up of a new order has not
yet come. . . . The hour for the explosion has not yet been
reached. But the clock ticks on" (Direction, III, No. 2
! [February 1940], 10-11); "Inside Germany Reports," a summary
iof opposition actions compiled by the Friends of German
jFreedom, of which Dr. Reinhold Niebuhr was chairman (Direc
tion, II, No. 7 [November 1939], 8); Paul Hagen, "How to
163
bourgeois writer and class in a manner comparable to the j
I
fairly balanced tenor of Toller's speech. His statement, j
; |
for instance, that "Die herrschende Klasse ist kein ein- j
heitliches Ganzes" (NDB, p. 741), was clearly not a condem
nation or a stereotyping of the middle class; it was an j
I i
accurate observation based, as were Toller's views, on the
nature of human nature, which cannot be placed neatly in a
| ;
'box, tied up with a ribbon and then tagged with one sim- I
iplistic label. Herzfelde continued with the point that art j
l '
I j
jof the bourgeoisie is often most revealing by its expressionj
i I
• |
of the hidden side of its life— providing, of course, that !
j |
jan artist is strong enough to portray the truth, though it j
1 j
|may contradict his personal views . j
i
I Using the art of James Joyce as the unifying example
[Prepare Collaboration with the Anti-Nazi Underground Move
ment, " in which he notes that "There is an anti-Nazi poten
tial in Germany, which up till now has not been utilized
I [and which, further] . . . has hardly been recognized in its
(importance for political warfare" (Twice A Year, X-XI
[Spring-Summer, Fall-Winter 1943], 102). See also Editors'
Note, "Additional Facts About America and the Anti-Nazi
Opposition in Germany," Twice A Year, idem, pp. 105-108. It
was William Shirer's view, however, that "Though much would
later be written about the German 'resistance' movement, it
remained from the beginning to the end a small and feeble
thing, led, to be sure, by a handful of courageous and de
cent men, but lacking followers. The very maintenance of
its bare existence was, admittedly, difficult in a police
state dominated by terror and spying" (Rise and Fall of the
Third Reich, p. 372) .
164
of his speech, Herzfelde analyzed the external and internal
elements involved in creative vision, stating that while an
|
artist must rely on the five senses, he must come to terms
also with all the arts, as well as consider the insights
into the nature of the world provided by technological ad-
i
jvances such as the microscope, telescope, X-rays, and
97
film. Defending Joyce's stream of consciousness method
of viewing and describing the world as an artistic
; q7
This was obviously a reference to Karl Radek's open- I
ing speech, in which Radek described various bourgeois writ-
|ers, among them Proust and Joyce, as occupying themselves
|with minutiae which had no relevance to the really important
Iquestions of man's existence. Joyce, for example, "halt es
ifur die Aufgabe des Kiinstlers, Diingerhaufen durch das Mik- i
jroscop mit Hilfe eines Filmapparats zu photographieren.
! Joyce huldigt die Ansicht, man musse die Wahrheit zeigen
j. . . ob es sich nun um Bewegungen der Gedanken oder Be-
jwegungen der Menschen handelt, und daft so schlieftlich ein
IgroSes Gemalde entsteht. Aber gibt uns etwa Joyce eine
iwahre Filmaufnahme des Lebens? Nein." Radek then presented
iwhat he felt were the crucial questions with which an artist
ihad to deal, following this with the single important con
tribution which an artist could make to the world. This was
\a fairly typical Communist exhortation to deal with the
'realities of the "Volkmassen"--their emotions and motiva
tions— for they would be the basis of the approaching new
order. The artist requires no microscope; he needs only the
ability to observe and understand— it is his function to
describe the death of capitalism and the birth of socialism
with all of their fundamental contradictions ("mit all ihren
hauptsachlichen Widerspriichen") . This is called Socialist
Realism, because it is "nicht einfach eine Photographie des
Lebens." The world, said Radek, is rushing toward the vic
tory of socialism, and only the artist who perceives this
fact will be able to present the "Grundlinien dieser Ent-
wicklung" (NDB. p . 72 0). _________________________________________
165
experiment necessary for a greater understanding of man's
nature and place in the world* Herzfelde cogently pointed
out that the artist's right to explore new paths must not be
forbidden* even if the value of his experiments appears
questionable.
Again the question of what constitutes freedom of
artistic expression comes to the fore. This seemed to be j
I
I
the basic stumbling block preventing real communication be- |
|tween those writers oriented primarily in the direction of i
I ]
(socialist Realism and those dedicated to a more broadly
i
i
(based view of the function of the creative man. The talks
of numerous foreign writers dealt with various aspects of j
one or the other of these orientations; in our opinion* this
was the largest single factor leading to the disillusionment
98
experienced by many with the Congress of Soviet Authors.
j 98According to Alfred von der Heydt, Oskar Maria Graf
Iwas one of those who "returned quite disappointed to Prague"
after discovering at the congress that Tolstoi's theories
"were neither preached nor practiced in Russia" ("Oskar
Maria Graf*" The German Quarterly, XLI, No. 3 [May 1968]*
402) . Interestingly, some three years later, in the issue
of JEL (English) dedicated to the Twentieth Anniversary of the
Russian Revolution* a glowing letter from Graf appeared
praising the achievements and amazing accomplishments of the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics since its inception in
1917; his closing comment reads as follows: "The Twentieth
Anniversary of the Soviet power* by the mere fact of its
existence, acts as an inspiring example for all who desire
166
Herzfelde then posited several questions pertinent to
the contributions of Joyce— and we would assume, of other
bourgeois writers: first, is Joyce a strong enough artist
to be able to present truth, even if contrary to his own
|convictions? Second, does he represent that part of the
l
middle class which still dares to think and whose uneasinessj
stemming from the misery caused by capitalism, has not yet
ibeen overturned into a cynical negation of reason? Third,
idoes he really seek truth? Fourth, does he work honestly j
i !
jwith his microscope within the limited framework created by
^this narrow horizon? The answer to these questions must be
I
|yes, according to the speaker, for the real culprit in the
I
distortions and mutilations ("Verzerrungen und Verstumme-
lungen" [NDI3, p. 741]) of Joyce's picture of man is not a
dishonest or conceited genius, but the social station of
Joyce the man. Obviously, this is not an uncommon station
|for many Western writers, and in this sense Joyce's name
could be considered a collective label for such men, both
that our collapsing world may become more beautiful, happier,
more joyous, and more just. No barbaric violence will be
able to destroy the creative vital will of emancipated
peoples. Friends, comrades, is there not really grounds
for optimism in these days?" ("Oskar Maria Graf, Germany,"
["From Letters of Our Foreign Friends"], No. 10-11 [October-
November 1937], 204).
167
gifted and mundane.
Herzfelde explained their creative predicament as an
unnaturally rigid seeking caused by the insanity which sur
rounded then^ threatening ever to drive them mad, a seeking
which in turn expressed itself in cramped forms and figures.
But a sickness does not in itself make one worthless; in
fact, "Manche Krankheiten sind Vorboten einer Neugeburt"
i(NDB, p. 741). His final statement indicates agreement with
i
iToller's thesis: much can be learned from every genuine
i
j
jartist. One must, however, remain conscious of the limits,
I
as well as the dangers, which the methods of the bourgeois
artist conceal.
i
One other German writer who made a contribution to the
congress, although unable to attend in person, was Heinrich
Mann, who had been in exile since February 1933. Sympa
thetic to the Soviet Union and the ideals of the Communist
99
jParty m Russia, he wrote a letter from Nice dated June
17, 1934, which was read to the assembled delegates. The
essence of his words was that the only German literature was
^Nice and Sanary-sur-mer were the two centers of
literary emigration in Southern France. See Klaus Mann,
DWp, pp. 337-340, for an enlightening and personal discus
sion of the German exiles there. Mann also discusses the
members of the "Pariser Emigranten-Kreisen," many of whom
were still Communists in 1935-1936 (p. 337).
168
anti-Fascist in nature, chiefly because it had retained
freedom of thought and conscience and also because it pos- j
sessed that strength which comes from suffering. As Mann
pointed out, talent is heightened by banishment, distress,
and pain, irrespective of the fact that writers themselves !
j |
may be put under severe stress in such a situation. He j
i
stated clearly that the "antifaschistischen" writers were j
i I
|those men who based their work upon achievement, rather than!
1 j
|on the encouragement of the Fascist regime.
| I
| Acknowledging that the majority of these men would
I
Ithink along socialistic lines, he indicated that the main
|
jpoint was that they would want to think at all, adding that
!
the anti-Fascist literature was basically so because of its
insistence on moral freedom. This was the feature which
differentiated "die emigrierte Literatur" from whatever was
being produced in Germany with Nazi approval; for "exile
|
[literature" also included the work of "einige in Deutschland
Verbliebene" ("Brief an den KongreB der Sowjetschriftstel
ler," NDB, p. 799). This insistence on freedom was also the
reason for the disproportionate quality between Fascist
writing and anti-Fascist literature: the work officially
acceptable in Germany had already surpassed any normal level
of idiocy, whereas exile literature was rising to a level
169
considerably beyond the average of the pre-Nazi era. Mann
hoped that if the future Germany were to become better than j
j
the past, this new literature would prove to be an intellec
tual forecast of the achievement to come (NDB, p. 799).
I
j In summary, two great themes dominated the First Con- I
j
gress of Soviet Authors: the official theme of "Socialist |
i
Realism" which was propounded by Gorki and endlessly ex- |
] i
ipounded by most Soviet and some non-Soviet writers to vary-
iing degrees; and the unofficial, but potentially more j
I trenchant theme of freedom of expression in art which under-
I
I lay many talks by foreign writers, including those of some
i
! !
IG erm an e x i l e s . Some d o u b ts w e re e x p re s s e d as t o t h e e x i s - I
i !
!
tence of such freedom in Russia, for although, as Klaus Mann
observed, "Die Literatur steht hier im Mittelpunkt des
offentlichen Lebens" ("Notizen," p. 81), one basic question
I could not be ignored: "... was ist denn hier die Funktion
i
! ■ * ' ( ” ) < “ , In his introduction to the coverage of the Soviet
[Congress, "Geist und Macht," Herzfelde notes his conclusions
of the unity of purpose and outlook presented by the Russian
writers: "... hier, wo die entfesselte Kraft der werk-
tatigen Massen alle Machte der Vergangenheit niedergeschla-
gen hat, hier sind, und nur hier konnen die Schriftsteller
wirklich einig sein. Der erste Unionskongreft hat diese
Einigkeit auf iiberwaltigende Art bewiesen. Das war keine
kiinstliche Harmonie, erkauft durch Schweigen iiber die Fra-
gen, die jeden und alle am tiefsten angehen. Das war die
Einigkeit gemeinsamer Uberzeugungen, Aufgaben und Ziele"
Jp_, 714) . ______________ __________________________ _________________
170
der Literatur? [d.h.] "Will man wirklich nur, dafi sie den
jsozialistischen Aufbau schildert, kritisiert, feiert? . . .
i
Ware alles andre verspatet burgerlicher Schnickschnack?"
("Notizen," p. 81).
A problem which disturbed him concerned the spirit of
i
i
jopposition: is it beneficial or detrimental to literature?
I
I
\
!Both fascism and communism allege it to be detrimental be-
jcause the bourgeois, i.e.* capitalistic and/or democratic,
‘ writers must expend much energy in constantly rejecting the j
i '
i
i
jexploitive, socially negative reality surrounding them.
’ Socialist writers, by contrast, may attain the highest
|levels of creativity since they are not hampered by a de
structive relationship to their world and can thus strive
to affirm the order and form of their society. (We might
note that fascism lacks such justifications; opposition is
simply a threat to the status quo and is therefore not tol-
ierated.) Mann then contrasts the literary realism of the
" * ■ ^Whether or not a totalitarian regime disguises in
noble phrases the conformity to ideology required of its
citizens is quite immaterial, since dissent in such regimes
jis directly antithetical to the well-being of the State.
Note the analysis of Socialist Realism presented by Czeslaw
Milosz, one of the best-known modern Polish poets who broke
with the Eastern bloc in February 1951 and took up permanent
residence in Paris . As he states in the preface to his
book, The Captive Mind (New York, c. 1951, 1953), "In the
171
nineteenth century (of pessimistic orientation) with that of
;the twentieth (optimistic* in the service of social con
struction) . While he did not doubt that the man who por
trays a beloved social reality may be subjectively happier
than the social critic who only indicts and ridicules* he
{end* I found myself driven to the point where a final choice
{had to be made. This was when 'socialist realism' was in
troduced into Poland. This is not . . . merely an aesthetic
I theory to which the writer* the musician* the painter or thei
{theatrical producer is obliged to adhere. On the contrary* j
jit involves by implication the whole Leninist-Stalinist doc-|
{trine. . . So long as [writers and painters] act in ac- j
jcordance with [this] 'realism,' they are automatically and {
|inescapably enrolled among the followers of Stalin. 'So
cialist realism' is much more than a matter of taste* of
preference for one style of painting or music rather than
another. It is concerned with the beliefs which lie at the
foundation of human existence. In the field of literature
it forbids what has in every age been the writer's essential
task— to look at the world from his own independent view
point* to tell the truth as he sees it, and so to keep watch
and ward in the interest of society as a whole. . . . I seek
to create afresh [in my book] the stages by which the mind
{gives way to compulsion from without* and to trace the road
I along which men in people's democracies are led on to ortho-
Idoxy" (pp. ix-xi). For descriptions of the post-Stalin era*
!see also Edward Crankshaw* "Russia Again Exerts Deadly
Pressure on Free Minds," Los Angeles Times, August 10* 1969*
sec. G* pp. 1-2* for a discussion of the censorship imposed
by the USSR on contemporary writers and thinkers. See also
Robert Kirsch* "Oppressive Censorship Growing in Czecho
slovakia* " Los Angeles Times. May 12* 1969* sec. 4* p. 16*
for a description of events in the intellectual sphere fol
lowing the Russian invasion of that country. Kirsch quotes
one novelist--for obvious reasons not identified— who spoke
of censorship of the press: "'That is only the beginning.
It will soon spread to the theatre and to books. Censor
ship is like pregnancy; you can't be a little pregnant.'"
172
wondered if this happiness would also stimulate an increase j
in his creative force: "Ein andres Problem ist es, ob
dieses Gluck auch gleichzeitig eine Steigerung seiner kiinst-
lerischen Potenz bedeuten wird" ("Notizen," p. 80).
H e r z f e ld e may h a v e i n a d v e r t e n t l y p r o v id e d a p a r t i a l
a n s w e r when h e s t a t e d i n r e f e r e n c e t o th e c r e a t i v e s i t u a t i o n
j
iin the Soviet Union, "Heute wird die Masse in ihrer Gesamt- j
j I
I I
i h e it z u r K u l t u r s c h o p f e r m . D e r S c h r i f t s t e l l e r und s e x n e [
i i
iL e s e r s in d zu e in e m i n s t a n d ig b e f r u c h t e n d e r W e c h s e lw irk u n g j
i
I
jmiteinander verbundenen Organismus geworden" (ND.B, p. 715).
|We s a y i n a d v e r t e n t l y b e c a u s e t h i s s ta te m e n t was h is p r e lu d e
t o a p a e a n o f jo y on th e u n i t y b in d in g o n e - s i x t h o f th e
! |
j e a r t h 's in h a b it a n t s t o g e t h e r i n b l i s s f u l com m unal c r e a t i v i t y !
| - - a s i t u a t i o n d e s c r ib e d as c o n t r i b u t i n g t o " d ie b e g liic k e n d e ,
i
wunderbare Erkenntnis, die jeder auslandischer Besucher
dieses Kongresses gewonnen hat" (p. 716). However, that
istatement fulfilled a second function, namely, to intensify
i
i
i — i f o n ly b y o m is s io n — th e n eed f o r a n sw e rs t o q u e s tio n s
i
i
su ch as th o s e p o s ed b y Mann m th e " N o t iz e n " a n d t o s h a rp e n
t h e u rg e n c y o f c r u c i a l q u e s tio n s o f c r e a t i v e fre e d o m , a r t i s
t i c q u a l i t y , and th e n a tu r e o f m an— a l l o f w h ic h w e re o f
c o n c e rn t o e x i l e d an d n o n - e x ile d w r i t e r s a l i k e .
I n t h i s c o n n e c tio n , Mann p o in t e d o u t a d ic h o to m y
173
developing in Soviet art: since the official "Kulturkritik"
i
: ("Notizen," p. 82) now demanded artistic quality above all
in creative works— and so by definition, beauty, an integral
element of which is the irrational and the mysterious (p.
82)— how could the inevitable consequences of this demand be
j
reconciled with the social ideology of the State? Were the
existential and so-called "illogical" problems such as man's:
I
jawareness of his fundamental loneliness and the transitory j
I i
Istate of the human condition merely the decadent disposition!
i !
f \
\of late-bourgeois generations? Mann seemed to feel that thej
I
new Soviet attitude was opening a Pandora's box of highly
dangerous questions which might not be answerable by the
tenets of traditional Communist philosophy and which might,
indeed, prove embarrassingly contradictory to official
dogma.
He thought it most unfortunate that in the present day
the concepts of the "irrational" and the metaphysical were
irrevocably linked with the forces of reaction, due to their
misuse for propaganda purposes by the Fascist enemies of
102
progress ("Notizen," p. 81); he saw this situation as the
102
We are reminded here of the Nazi appeal to meta
physical "truths" to justify their philosophy and actions,
such as the "Ubermensch" concept of Nietzsche. As Harry
174
reason for Soviet derision of all non-materialistic and non-
irational notions . He wondered whether the non-materialistic
writer were not already reactionary and working unknowingly
in the service of fascism: "Es gibt heute keine andre
103
iFrage^ die mich so tief beunruhigt wie diese" (p. 82) . j
It was his hope that some day., when the earth was more
rationally organized, one would be able to speak of the !
j |
! i
■mysterious without being considered a reactionary— and with-|
j i
;out fear of being one (p. 82). I
[ |
Although Mann's need to find a tangible symbol for a j
jSlochower stated in an early article contrasting Nazi and
]exile literature, "The idea of the superior purity of the
Germanic blood dominates all the writers favored by the
Nazis." He noted in summary that German literature under
the Third Reich was "Fed on a mythical and reactionary
anthropology and politics [and] engulfed by a spectacular,
nation-tight propaganda [and that, further,] its writers
have been led to abandon reason and understanding, substi
tuting for them blood and iron, Soil and Folk. The veil of
mysticism has blinded them to the realities of political
oppression" ("Literature in Exile" [Books in Review], New
' Republic, LXXVII, No. 1000 [January 31, 1934], 340-341). In
regard to the concept of racial purity, we quote from a
speech of Hitler to representatives of the Medical Associa
tion as cited in The London Times of April 17, 1933: "The
greatest achievements in the intellectual world have never
been accomplished by race-foreign elements, but by strictly
lAryan and German intellectuals" ("A Mirror of Nazi Marvels,"
I NR, LXXIX, No. 1022 [July 4, 1934], 203).
103As Mann said in the "Notizen," p. 82: "Ich weiB,
daB man mir keine Antwort geben kann. Eine lange Entwick-
lung wird mir die Antwort geben."
175
better future seemed finally to gain dominance over his con
cern with philosophical and humanistic questions as he pon
dered his disquieting reactions to the new culture of Soviet
Russia, his concern could not be fully alleviated either.
This conflict resulted in an idealistic synthesis of the two
emotions, in which Moscow became the symbol of hope for a j
i
I
humane and civilized future: "Moskau hat die Kraft, alle j
junsre Gedanken auf die Zukunft zu konzentrieren. . . . Ja, j
i
: auf die europaische Zukunft, auf unsere Zukunft konzentrie-
! |
ren sich meine Gedanken" (p. 83).
This view of Russia as a beacon of light in the gloom j
of world conditions, while not restricted to the German j
i
exiles, was shared by a large number of them, liberals and
Marxists alike, particularly in the early period of exile
when their despair and desire still seemed resolvable in the
realization of a single goal. It will be seen that as the
jstruggle for world dominion continued, their despair found
a greater variety of outlets. In 1934, however, Mann's con
cluding statement, "ich spure doch wieder, dafi es eine Zu
kunft gibt" (p. 83), typified the feelings of many exiled
writers who saw in Russian Socialism the panacea for their
recently shattered world.
176
Prelude to New York, 1935
Just as a new mood had been apparent in the Moscow
Writers 1 Congress of 1934, reflected not only in the
speeches and the reception accorded them by fellow-writers,
the Soviet public, and the Communist government, but also in
i
I
the enthusiastic coverage granted the conference by the
Russian press particularly and various elements of the world
I
jpress to a lesser degree, so "a new Renaissance [was felt to
104 i
ibe] upon the world" m the mid-thirties by American left-J
| |
wing and even liberal journals, insofar as the relationship j
between creative writers and the revolutionary spirit was
i
concerned. I
This feeling was especially apparent in several arti-
!
cles proposing an American Writers' Congress to be held for j
the purpose, according to New Masses, of the "exposition of
all phases of [the revolutionary] writers' participation in
jthe struggle against war, the preservation of civil liber
ties, and the destruction of fascist tendencies everywhere"
(p. 20); such a congress would also solidify the ranks of
these writers by presenting an opportunity for analysis and
discussion of problems facing them, e.g., the literary
10^"Call for an American Writers Congress," New Masses.
XIV, No. 4 (January 22, 1935), 20.
177
applications of Marxist philosophy, wider distribution of
revolutionary boohs, greater development of the revolution
ary press, and the improvement of relations between the
writers and bourgeois publishers and editors. It would
jappear that the Moscow congress had provided a stimulus of
sorts for the materialization of an official program to
which writers of Marxist-socialist orientation were now able
j
jto rally publicly and en masse.
I -*-O^The editors of New Masses, an avowedly Communistic
periodical, introduced the "Call"; it was supported by Waldo!
Frank, Isidor Schneider, Edwin Seaver, Claire and Paul Sif- j
ton, George Sklar, John L. Spivak, Michael Gold, Granville |
Hicks and Langston Hughes, to name only a few writers activej
in the revolutionary cause: "This Congress, we believe, canj
effectively counteract the new wave of race-hatred, the
organized anti-Communist campaign, and the growth of Fas
cism, all of which can only be understood as part of the
Administration's war program. . . . the American Writers'
Congress will not be a delegated body. Each writer will :
represent his own personal allegiance. With hundreds of
writers attending from all sections, however, and united in
a basic program, the Congress will be the voice of many
thousands of intellectuals, and middle class people allied
jwith the working class" (p. 20). That the Moscow conference
jdid not actually provide the initial stimulus for such a
program was implied by S. Ludklewicz in an analysis of ele
ments involved in the formation of a world-wide literary and
intellectual front against reactionary forces: he stated
that the RAPP (the Russian Association of Proletarian Writ
ers of the 1920's and early 1930's which had been supplanted
by the Union of Soviet Writers in 1934) had "unquestionably
. . . exercized [s_icj a tremendous influence on the develop
ment of proletarian literature far beyond the borders of the
USSR" and had, despite its limited policies and outlook,
contributed indirectly to the "turning of many progressive
178
As has already been indicated, the intellectual climate
in the United States was becoming ever more conducive to the
reception of the problems as well as the works of exiled
i
writers and intellectuals, due in no small measure to the
atmosphere of ideological liberalism stemming from the
i I
I
social and economic manifestations of the Depression, plus
i
the political and moral repercussions of the rise of fas- j
jcism. In this context, the "Call for an American Writers'
iCongress" may be regarded also as an embryonic crystalliza-
i !
i i
ition of the views held independently by diverse intellec
tuals and artists . Although the effects of the many-pronged
I
I
jevents of the 1930's ought not— indeed, cannot— be summar-
I
ized categorically with any degree of accuracy, numerous
contemporary analyses were made which may help illuminate
some dominant emotions of that time and so bring them into
a fairly workable perspective for our purposes.
' Henry Seidel Canby offered some rather incisive ideas
i
;on that subject, basing his reflections on contemporary
literature, "which as always is a sensitive machine for
German writers towards the German 'Union' [of Proletarian
Writers]" ("The Anti-Fascist Cultural Front," IL [England],
IV [October 1933], 93) . Other contributing factors will be
discussed at a later point.
179
recording the emotions It was his opinion that the
iprevailing time-current of the decade was fear and its re
lated emotion, panic:
This fear is sometimes conscious, sometimes unconscious. I
3 i
It ranges from a skeptical inquiry into the possible |
disintegration of culture as we have known it, to the i
deep pessimism of convinced alarm. Sometimes the writer i
is inspired by what he may call the decline of capital
ism. Sometimes, and very commonly, the writer is con
cerned with the revival of the brutality of more desper- j
ate ages . Sometimes the unrest which spreads through a j
! book is a reflection of the author's belief that democ- j
j racy is bankruptj sometimes jubilantly or fearfully he |
| hails the rise of the proletariat, or the reappearance j
1 of the strong arm and submission to the state. . . .
! Again, this fear is only the weariness of a trading
| civilization. . . . Any of these fears, skepticisms,
distrusts may be justified or unjustified. The fear
remains. (Canby, "The Threatening Thirties," p. 3)
| •'•°^"The Threatening Thirties. How Books Record the
[Dominant Emotion of the Current Decade," Saturday Review,
j x v i , No. 4 (May 22, 19 3 7 ), 3.
1 07
! Thomas Cochran of the University of Pennsylvania
[describes rather well the pervasive cultural effect of the
(Depression as the basis for this panic in most segments of
|the American population: "By 1932 the Great Depression had
become a new and shocking experience for Americans, one not
falling within the range of their earlier political think
ing." He expands on this theme by discussing the extent to
which "the final breakdown in the winter of 1932-1933 was
not only economic but spiritual" (The Great Depression and
World War II 1929-1945, The Scott Foresman American History
Series, 7 [Atlanta, Dallas, Glenview, Palo Alto, Oakland,
1 9 6 8 ], pp. 36, 37). It is imperative that the far-reaching
implications of this phenomenon be kept in mind in order
that its social, intellectual, and political effects may be
understood.
180
Canby1s assessment of the role of literature as a sensitive
temperature gauge for the mood of a given period seems par-
j
ticularly valid: "Literature . . . reflects the troubled
imagination, with its fears, its suspicions, its strong de
sires . It is closer to what men are actually feeling than !
| |
i
carefully reasoned discourses on how to save the state"
108
(p. 14). While he was generalizing primarily on the
1 08 ■
All genres of the literature of this period showed ’
Ja marked emphasis on social issues, such as racial discrimi
nation, unemployment, labor unrest, and social inequality.
iAlso, the treatment of human emotions in their most elemen
tal and unadulterated forms should be mentioned in order to
jindicate the change in literary orientation which became de
Irigueur for this period. Canby felt that while the break
ifrom the "genteel tradition in American literature" was in-
jevitable, it had overstepped all bounds of taste. He asks,
"Would it have gone so far, had there been no war, no de
pression, no weakening of the tradition by which at least we
thought we lived?" ("The Threatening Thirties," p. 4). He
should have realized that in the face of a traumatic social
upheaval such as America had experienced, the initial reac
tion could be no other than an extreme and often militant
^reaction to previously accepted traditions. Since pages
would be required to even list the works of this type writ
ten in the Thirties, a few (somewhat) characteristic exam
ples not necessarily in chronological order must suffice:
the dramas Waiting for Lefty, recreating the strike of the
New York taxi drivers and its attendant labor-capitalist
clashes; Till the Day I Die, on Nazi Germany; Awake and
Singl, a study of the American middle class caught up in the
confusion of financial disaster, all by Clifford Odets, who
was a zealous revolutionary playwright for years; Peace on
Earth, a condemnation of the munitions manufacturers for
fomenting wars, by George Sklar and Albert Maltz; Judgment
Day, on the evils of Nazi Germany by Elmer Rice; and the
plays of the Americans Paul and Clare Sifton. In the realm
181
[basis of contemporary American literature, his observations
I
[apply equally accurately to a great deal of fiction and
poetry written by the exiled German authors, notably the
less politically committed, of whom many created works deal
ing with the theme of exile as they had frequently all too j
[harshly experienced it. It would not be incorrect to sayj
! I
i |
Ithat, although Canby's "troubled imagination" tended some- :
i !
| |
[times to overshadow considerations of style and continuity j
[in these books, they often more forcefully mirrored the j
[of the novel, works such as Steinbeck's powerfully disturb- '
jing The Grapes of Wrath, James T. Farrell's Studs Lonigan, j
[and Erskine Caldwell's God's Little Acre cannot be omitted, j
| j
j 109a somewhat indicative, although by no means complete
[list of fiction might encompass the following works: Lion
[Feuchtwanger's Die Geschwister Oppermann (19 33, 1934) and
j Exil (1940); Oskar Maria Graf's Der Abqrund (1936); Bruno
[Frank's Der ReisepaS (1937); Friedrich Wolf, Zwei an der
iGrenze (1938); Klaus Mann's Der Vulkan. Roman unter Emi-
granten (1939); and Carl Zuckmayer's autobiographical Second
Wind (1940) . Amy Loveman, one of the members of the Edi-
jtorial Board of the Saturday Review, summarized the general
[problems facing the writer under traumatic circumstances
[rather well when she noted, "It is frequently said today
. . . that the creative writer is one of the most general
casualties of the war. Events have overwhelmed him and made
paltry the problems and relationships which are the stuff of
his art. Being by the token of his calling a man of speci
ally sensitive perceptions, he is also particularly vulner
able to the maladjustments of his world. The calamities he
is daily called on to read of have discouraged as well as
sickened him" ("The Writer's Opportunity" [Editorial], SR,
XXIII, No. 1 [October 26, 1940], 8). See also F. C. Weis-
kopf, "Novel Writing in Exile," Direction, III, No. 6 (Sum-
mer 1940) , 31._____ ___
182
essential tragedy, nobility, and even pettiness of the
"exile condition" than did the somber or impassioned analy
ses, treatises, and exhortations produced by exiles of (usu
ally) stricter ideological conviction.
Canby went on to discuss aspects of the general thrust
lof the new American literature which had appeared during the
first seven years of the "decade of fear." Concluding that
I
jone of the most salient features was a distrust of civili
sation as it had been previously known, he posed the ques- j
i i
I
jtion, "Is Western civilization really crumbling?" (p. 14).
I
jAlthough he did not arrive at a definitive answer ("For the
future is always unexpected and only the loftiest imagina-
i i
I
tion forecasts the lines of its emotional thinking")(p. 14),
the fact that so reasoned a voice as his was even projecting
such a grave question must be seen as indicative of the
general tenor of this period.
I
The more extreme, i.e., revolutionary thinkers and
writers naturally posited a viewpoint commensurate with
their orientation, and the more reactionary spoke and acted
in tune with their particular disposition. Although Jane
DeHart Mathews is speaking more from a social-sociological
than an intellectual standpoint in her excellent study of
the Federal Theatre, the following observation is quite
183
r e v e a li n g f o r th e fo r c e s a f f e c t i n g th e A m e ric a n s c e n e :
I
j . . . g ro u p s a t b o th ends o f th e p o l i t i c a l s p e c tru m
| b e g a n t o d i s p la y a v i t a l i t y o f t h e i r ow n. . . . W h ile
j t h e n e w ly fo rm e d L i b e r t y L e a g u e , a n o r g a n i z a t io n o f
j c o n s e r v a t iv e D e m o c ra ts and c e r t a i n w e a lt h y b u s in e s s m e n ,
I c ru s a d e d on b e h a l f o f p r o p e r t y r i g h t s an d p r i v a t e e n t e r -
I p r i s e , an o d d ly a s s o r t e d b and o f p r o p h e ts on th e l e f t
won h u g e f o llo w in g s w it h schem es f o r new an d r a d i c a l
! d e p a r t u r e s . . . . th e s e p r o m o te r s , w h a te v e r t h e i r p r o
p o s a l, fo u n d r e a d y s u p p o r te r s i n a n a t io n n e w ly a l i v e
w it h f e r m e n t , i n d i g n a t i o n a n d d i s c o n t e n t . (p .
i
i
i |
In h i s b o o k , Das A m e r ik a n is c h e D ram a d e r D r e iS ig e r |
IJ a h r e , E b e rh a rd B r u n in g , w h ile a ls o e v in c in g a n a d e p t ly b a l -
i
la n ce d v ie w --m a d e p o s s ib le , no d o u b t, p a r t l y b y a tim e la g of!
j j
Isome t h i r t y y e a r s - - r e v ie w s t h e d e c a d e fro m h is p a r t i c u l a r |
j j
i p o l i t i c a l an d p h i l o s o p h ic a l p o s i t i o n : j
j
P r o g r e s s iv e , R e n e g a te n und R e a k tio n a r e i n d en USA b e -
z e ic h n e n h e u te iib e re in s tim m e n d d ie d r e i S i g e r J a h r e a Is
d i e " e n ts c h e id e n d e n und k r i t i s c h e n J a h r e " d e r a m e r i-
k a n is c h e n G e s c h ic h te des 20. J a h r h u n d e r t s . W ah ren d d ie
e in e n m it S t o l z a u f d ie s e Z e i t z u r iic k b lic k e n und vo n
e i n e r " g ro fie n und f r u c h t b a r e n Z e i t " s p re c h e n , d en ken
i a n d e re n u r m i t U n b eh ag en an d ie s e s " r o t e J a h r z e h n t"
I (Red D e c a d e ), w e i l s ie d a b e i an i h r e e ig e n e " l i n k e
j P e r io d e " e r i n n e r t w e rd e n . . . . W ie d e r a n d e re s c h l i e B -
j l i c h h a b e n s ic h g e s c h w o re n , e in e s o lc h e G e fa h rd u n g
i h r e r M a c h t p o s it io n e n , w ie s ie s ic h i n je n e n J a h re n
a n b a h n te , f u r d ie Z u k u n ft m it a l i e n ih n e n z u r V e rfu g u n g
^See a ls o W i l l ia m E . L e u c h te n b u rg , F r a n k l i n D . R o o s e
v e l t an d th e New D e a l, 1932-1949 (New Y o r k , 1963), p p . 9 3 -
106; and A r t h u r M . S c h le s in g e r , J r . , The P o l i t i c s o f U p
h e a v a l (B o s to n , 1960), p p . 3, 15, 69.
stehenden Mitteln zu verhindern.
184
Difficult though it may be to assess succinctly the j
|
factors involved in the formation of an anti-Fascist cul
tural front in the America of the 1930's, as well as to
divide these into "cause" and "effect" categories, we feel j
j
(impelled to attempt some sort of explanation for the diver-
I
gent moods pervading the American intellectual scene of this
|time, if only to establish a more concrete foundation for
( j
idiscussion of the role played by American writers— chiefly j
jbut not exclusively left of moderate-liberal— in the general
I
I
isocial framework, a role permitting their reception of the
exiled German writers and thinkers. j
The variety of groups sympathetic to the plight of the
men and women dislocated from their countries cannot be
112
reduced to a common heading, but it is probable that the
j ■ * ‘‘ ^1. Aufl. (Berlin, 1966), p. 7. Briining1 s study was
based mainly on a "Habilitationsschrift" which was under
taken in 1961 by the Philosophische Fakultat of the Karl-
Marx University in Leipzig.
IIP
As the European war gained momentum and exiles and
refugees became a more commonly recognized phenomenon, ever
larger numbers of Americans began to show a public interest
in them— even if indirectly. In 1938, for example, about
3,000 delegates from organizations representing some 30,000
persons in the New England and New York areas adopted a
resolution extending sympathy to "the millions of German
people who still cherish the German ideals of freedom,
185
brutal methods used by the National Socialists in their rise
to power contributed to the creation of a commonly shared
emotional impetus for a positive reception of the exiles —
justice and toleration" ("Greet Tolerant Germans. 3,000 at j
Hartford Back Those in Reich Holding to Ideals," NYT, Novem-!
ber 28, 1939, sec. 1, p. 9). Although this article did not !
state specifically which organizations these delegates rep- J
resented, it was written in such a way as to indicate that j
they were not of one specific political persuasion and
is imply wished en masse to express their revulsion, in the
iwords of Howard Pierce Davis, foreign correspondent for j
I Newsweek and the Columbia Broadcasting System, at the "hur- j
jricane of barbarism and . . . resurgence of medieval besti- j
iality" which was running rampant through the lives of mil-
ilions of Europeans and threatening all facets of their !
| lives . An organization which was founded in 1938 for the j
express purpose of saving anti-Nazi intellectuals from the j
Gestapo was the Emergency Rescue Committee, headed by Dr .
! Frank Kingdon, former president of Newark University, and
composed of nine prominent, and for the most part moderately
political Americans, including Dorothy Thompson, Dr. Robert
M. Hutchins of the University of Chicago, and Elmer Davis
and Raymond Gram Swing, radio commentators. According to
Newsweek, as of October 28, 1940, the Committee had saved
more than 100 persons from the National Socialists and had
information on the locations of over 500 more ("Saving
Writers from Hitler," XVI, No. 18 [October 28, 1940], 53-
54). See also "Trade Winds," SR., XXIII, No. 1 (October 26,
J1940), 22. Other groups which played a decisive role in the
evacuation and specific support of refugees from Hitler's
terror, from non-sectarian humanitarian or ethical motives,
were the American Friends Service Committee (see "Refugee
Facts: American Friends Service Committee: How Many Refu
gees Are We Taking?" Twice A Year, IIl/lV [Fall-Winter
1939/Spring-Summer 1940], 150-154); and the American Center
of the P.E.N. organization in conjunction with the Emergency
Rescue Committee, which extended aid "to a large number of
refugee writers" upon their arrival in the United States
(see "P.E.N. in the U.S.," Publishers' Weekly, CXXXIX, No.
25 [June 21, 1941], 2472).
186
sometimes labeled "political refugees"— in the United
113
States - In general, American press coverage of this
I
[reaction would seem to indicate that the organizations and
jthe individuals of a more liberal persuasion--meaning here
!
both political and humanitarian— were either more vocal,
jthus garnering greater publicity for their views and activi-
i
ties, or that they were simply more active in their efforts j
on behalf of the exiles. Naturally, since we are chiefly
[concerned with the liberal press, the above observation must
i
I
;be recognized as colored by that concern. Even so, it ap~
i
jpears fairly accurate to say that there existed a rather
I
[predictable ratio of "diminishing returns" between degree of
political conservatism and attitude toward political emi-
!
[grants, i.e., the greater the conservatism, the less the
'desire to allow refuge in the United States.
I
j
We do not propose to launch into a discussion of the
113
i As early as May 1933, even before the book burnings
jof May 10, the Authors' League of America, Inc., an orgarii-
jzation of somewhat moderate political leanings representing
[about 2,000 American writers, adopted a resolution addressed
to the State and Labor Departments of the United States gov
ernment: "Resolved, That the council of the Authors' League
of America request the State Department and the Department
of Labor to take whatever steps may be necessary to permit
German authors who so desire to come to America as political
refugees" ("Aid to Germans Urged. Authors League Wants
Writers Admitted as Refugees Here," NYT, May 3, 1933, sec.
1, p. 11).
187
role of American conservatism in this period; for present
purposes we note that conservatism was important as a coun
terpoint to the more liberal forces which played on the
American political-intellectual stage. In fact., a bitter I
I
land often vicious battle was waged by the left-wing press ini
i I
I i
particular against the "forces of reaction"— the "enemies of
the people"— as symbolized most popularly by William Ran-
j
jdolph Hearst, the Communist-hunting Dies Committee, a large j
ipart of the American Congress and assorted "tycoons," "war- I
! |
jmongers," and munitions manufacturers. j
i i
! Of our sources, New Masses and New Theatre were among j
(the most unyielding and sensationalistic in their accusa-
i
|tions, caricatures, and satirical attacks. Informing its
readers of the latest anti-refugee and anti-alien legisla
tion in 1935, New Masses published the following item— quite
typical of its attitude and editorial style:
Legislators, driven into paroxisms [s_icj of fright by
| the bedtime stories Hearst and his confreres are tell-
j ing them about the imminence of revolution, are fever
ishly pouring bills into their respective Houses to
crush every phase of the movement of the working class
. . . to improve its lot. The attack is, as usual,
being made especially on the foreign born and deporta
tion bills of every size . . . and shape are flooding
Congress. The most important . . . is the administra
tion bill which grants the right to the government to
arrest without a warrant any "alien subject to deporta
tion. . . ." There are . . . others of varying strin-
gency. One would force all "aliens" to take out___________
r
188
naturalization papers within twelve months after the
passage of the bill. Another is the notorious Dies
Bill, defeated last year, that would deport all alien
Communists. A third would cut off all immigration for
ten years. (NM, XIV, No. 8 [February 19, 1935], 4.)
I !
There was a tendency for conservatively oriented groupsj
i
and individuals to distrust refugees (we recall that foreign
artists and writers were called "political refugees," see n.
i
1 113) and often associate them with communism. Thus, the |
'flip side of the coin showed that this suspicion of Commu-
; 114 I
jnists coupled with a national tradition of isolationism !
■ 114 . I
Some conservative groups, such as the American Le
gion, opposed the entrance of refugees to America, osten- !
sibly for economic reasons. Stephen F. Chadwick of Seattle,!
I i
the National Commander of this organization, speaking at an !
annual mid-winter conference of the Kentucky branch some j
five years later, expressed the following, apparently offi
cial, viewpoint: "While the Legion sympathizes with these
oppressed people . . . it is opposed to admitting immigrants
at this time because of our economic situation and the fact
that many aliens already here have not been assimilated,"
vindicating further that the Legion, although not a "selfish"
iorganization, was nonetheless "interested in preserving for
'future generations the things we have enjoyed" ("Would Bar
^Refugees. Legion Head Opposes Immigration under Present
Conditions," NYT, December 5, 1938, sec. 1, p. 10). We
would note here also the influence of the Nye Committee in
its investigations of the munitions industry in the United
States. In 1934 Senator Gerald P. Nye and "other idols of
American isolationism" probed such dramatic charges as that
"Arms makers had bribed politicians, shared patents, divided
up business, reaped incredible profits, evaded taxes— all in
the sordid trade of death weapons, [and] even worse, [that]
munitions makers helped foment wars to boost their profits."
These charges and resulting verification of them to varying
degrees all "coincided with and contributed to a deep
189
in America (see Cochran, pp. 134ff.) could hardly work in
the best interests of even the more highly talented and cul-
i
tured exiles.
In his rather lengthy article published quite early in
the maze of events which led eventually to the attachment of
i
the label "Red Decade" to the Thirties, S. Ludklewicz pro-
|
vided a rather profound, though clearly communistically-
Icolored assessment of the factors contributing to the forma-
!
jtion of the (initially) united wave of anti-Fascist revul-
ision sweeping through the ranks of many workers and liberal
j
:intelligentsia in the United States.
i -
i I
J He saw the basic stimulus for "the unfolding of [this]
i
i 115
(mass . . . cultural movement in the victory of fascism in
jrevulsion against entanglement in European quarrels," hence
|strengthening isolationist sentiment to a great degree. As
jJames MacGregor Burns states, "Given the powerful ground
!swell of isolationist feeling, the brilliance of the isola
tionists in marshaling their forces, the passivity of the
; administration, and the tension in Europe, only one outcome
'was possible-— a national stampede for a storm cellar to sit
jout the tempests ahead" (Roosevelt, pp. 253-255).
H5"The Anti-Fascist Cultural Front," IL, p. 92. This
journal described itself as "The central organ of the Inter
national Union of Revolutionary Writers— published in four
languages: Russian, French, German, and English. The only
international publication devoted to the proletarian and
revolutionary literature of all countries. An organ of
revolutionary militant thought. The magazine will provide a
comprehensive Marxist analysis of the cultural life of all
countries, including the Soviet Union, the land of the______
jGermany— . . . the fascism of the epoch of the universal
crisis of the capitalist system; of the epoch of monstrous
I
unemployment and pauperization of not only the masses of |
i !
workers . . . hut also of wide strata of the intelligentsia |
. . . [particularly] those active on the cultural front" j
116 ' ■
(p. 92). He felt that the truly "decisive factor for
'many writers in choosing the future line of political and j
creative activity" (p. 95) was the presence of a strong body
i
of proletarian writers which had survived the initial revo- l
: j
lutionary struggle and managed "to attract new forces of
1
proletarian and peasant writers" to its ranks (p. 95). It j
was his contention that the primary need at the present time;
was the broader development of an ideological basis upon
^hich the (frequently) newly radicalized intelligentsia
proletarian dictatorship. Special attention will be devoted
to questions of Marxist literary criticism" (p. 3).
116
°If one cuts through Ludklewicz1 flamboyant political
rhetoricj it becomes clear that he is referring here to the
economic effects of the Depression, i.e., unemployment with
;its resulting hardships on millions of Americans. It is a
historical pattern that in times of economic— and subsequent
jsocial— crisis nations tend to revert to isolationist posi
tions . New Theatre showed particular devotion to the cause
iof unemployed artists of all types as a matter of official
publishing policy, and Jane DeHart Mathews delved in con
siderable depth into the specific problems involved in fed
eral patronage of the theatre, as well as by implication in
federal patronage of the arts in general.
191
could gather and strengthen their influence— for, in fact,
large numbers in this "advanced cultural strata far beyond j
the borders of Germany . . . until quite lately [had been]
prepared to consider the position of the revolutionary move-
!
jment, as expressed m the slogan, 'Communism versus Fas-
|cism,1 [to be] a mere 'hoax' [perpetrated by] the Commu-
j
Inists" (pp. 93-94). While he acknowledged that the methods j
j i
jof German fascism had certainly stimulated these circles to !
| i
turn toward the anti-Fascist front, Ludklewicz believed that!
S I
i |
jfurther development of the movement would be contingent on
‘ the intensification of its revolutionary ideological basis.
| It is interesting that Ludklewicz himself seemed to be
i
jguilty of the same type of over-simplified thinking of which
|
jhe accused the "imperialistic" and "petty-bourgeois" members
j
of capitalistic society, for he permitted his idealistic
dedication to his cause to draw the curtain of wishful
ithinking over the realities of the independence of thought
i
I
land the tradition of individualism upon which the United
States had been founded— and which were still very much part
117
of its political and social heritage in the Thirties .
I
117
As indicated in Chapter I, the united ideological
basis which Ludklewicz saw as imperative to the further
development of the anti-Fascist cultural front was not
192
While he was busily categorizing all so-called "democratic
destined to materialize fully in the United States. Too
many tenaciously held independent viewpoints hopelessly
divided into divisions and subdivisions (e.g., the editorial
policies and often ensuing editorial squabbles between
American periodicals supposedly aligned on the same side of
[the ideological fence) made impossible the emergence of a j
really unified left-wing ideology among the intellectuals
and writers who were basically united in their opposition to!
fascism: witness the internal power struggle which occurred!
in the editorial offices of the Partisan Review (see Chapter!
I, pp. 25-29) . In discussing the phenomenon of "leftism" asj
'generally used in the 1930's; John Gassner points out that i
ithis label was employed "in a vaguely complimentary sense by!
iproponents of liberalism. 'Leftism,1 for them, was the j
Ibanner under which one fought against fascism and Nazism and)
| for human decency and social reforms soon to be incorporated!
| in the law of the land without commitment to the overthrow
|of capitalism and the establishment of a 'dictatorship of
jthe proletariat.' Men of good will and . . . sound (if
|politically limited) intelligence ranged themselves around
jthis banner, and what they had in common may be lumped to
gether as a sentiment, or a collection of sentiments, im
portant politically because sentiments affect politics.
. . . A moderate optimism, consisting of a belief that
'social evil could be destroyed, injustices eliminated, in-
|equities eradicated, humanity saved, and the 'good society'
ierected, was shared by all contributors to leftist theatre.
!But if this optimism was derived in the case of Marxist
bellwethers from the gospel of dialectical materialism, it
[came, in the main, from distinctly different sources to the
majority of the theatre's liberals and radicals" (Foreword,
"Politics and Theatre," in Himelstein, Drama Was a Weapon,
pp. ix-x). Gassner continues with his theories as to the
factors in the rather naive involvement of so many "Ameri
cans of good will" in the leftist camp: "[Their optimism]
came from the sanguine American temperament, from native
movements of reform, the spacious tradition of the frontier,
and ultimately no doubt, from the eighteenth-century En
lightenment that had pervaded American life from the very
beginnings of the Republic" (p. x). We must agree with his
conclusion that "If Marxism was an element in the more or
less uncommitted thinking of the sympathizers of the left,
193
imperialists" as supporters of Fascist reaction, he failed
to see the fallacy in his own classification of "liberal"
writers and intellectuals as prospective, if not already
118
actual converts to revolutionary ideals (pp. 97-98).
|
; I
i
i I
] New York: First American Writers' Conference j
! j
j Not unexpectedly, in light of the aforementioned as-
|pects shaping the American intellectual scene, the First
’ American Writers 1 Congress held in New York City during the j
i |
j
ilast week of April 1935 did not really provide a forum—
i
|despite the optimistic forecasts made by magazines such as
New Masses and Partisan Review— for the consolidation of a
united revolutionary line against war, fascism, and bour
geois anti-intellectualism. As John Chamberlain, who re
viewed the Congress for The Saturday Review, noted, the
general orientation and tenor of the gathering was decidedly
non-political, despite the fact that the moving spirits in
it was frequently parroted rather than understood by them;
had its implications been grasped, Marxism would have
frightened them away almost as much as fascism did" (p. xii) ,
1 I Q
In all fairness, we should mention that Ludklewicz
did warn of the dangers to a united revolutionary movement
by citing the need for the revolutionary cultural front to
"shake . . . off from its shoulders the uncalled for 'also
anti-fascist friends 1 from the bourgeois SD [social demo
crat icj__camp" (p. 99) .
194
calling the congress were the American Communist party and
the editors and contributors to the Communist literary peri
odicals : "So far as the literature goes, the speakers at
the various sessions certainly showed no willingness to
accept any 'party line' for criticism, the drama, the novel
m119
and poetry.
The title of Chamberlain's quite detailed review of the
congress, "The Literary Left Grows Up," is itself indicative
iof the politically modified orientation which was being
i i
!
[displayed in the mid-Thirties by formerly extremely radical
jAmerican writers. Chamberlain's reaction was one of pleased
i
i
jsurprise: "I had gone expecting a lot of dismal and empty
italk about 'art as a class weapon,' with the cliches of I
! I
!
jMarxism beating a rat-tat-tat upon the tympani, but it was
|apparent from the start that the RAPP period in American
j 120
'literary communism had been liquidated."
I ^ 9"The First American Writers' Congress," SR, XII, No.
|1 (May 4, 1935), 4. Even Earl Browder, an official delegate
of the Communist party, stated that the Communists had no
desire to create "'bad strike leaders'" out of good writers,
to impose any methods or subjects upon them, or "to put
artists into uniform" (p. 4).
^•^SR, XII, No. 2 (May 11, 1935), 3. That Chamberlain
was not alone in his impression was indicated by Kenneth
Burke in an article appearing in The Nation: "The first
American Writers' Congress . . . turned out to be an ex-
tremely impressive matter. . . . the internal sectarian
195
His explanation for the absence of radicalism among the
irepresentatives at the congress was that the extreme Left,
j
basically still a minority group despite its far-reaching
and vociferously blatant rantings, had sensed the need to i
i j
Jjoin together against the forces of reaction with all who I
i i
I
even "more or less agree[d] with them that war and fascism j
j
| [were] terrible things, and that even bourgeois democracy j
i ;
| j
; [was] to be preferred to a 'naked' dictatorship of the j
jRight" (p . 3) . \
j j
In this regard it should be mentioned that there ex- i
: I
i I
|isted at this time considerable agitation on the Left for a j
| j
| "united front" of all those members of the intelligentsia |
[ !
jand the working classes who opposed war and fascism' in mid-
1934, for example, New Masses was proposing in its editorial
columns that the Socialist and Communist parties join ranks
to strengthen the opposition to these soul-destroying
‘ distinctions derived their whole point, their entire shap
ing, from a still broader basis, a basis on which the diver
gencies merged into unity" ("The Writers' Congress," The
Nation, CXL, No. 3645 [May 15, 1935], 571).
^■'•Cochran points out that in America no group advo
cating radical change, such as Socialists or Communists,
"was strong enough to become a rallying point for the dis
contented" (The Great Depression, p. 15). Of course, he was
referring here to the mass of the American population; in
our estimation, this observation applies equally well to the
Imicrocosm of the writers' world.
196
122
institutions and so prevent their further development.
It.was felt that now was the time to stop "American Fascism"
— as embodied in "West Coast capitalists," including notably
William Randolph Hearst— which had already made strong in
roads into society: workers must be warned that "Vigilantes
123
. . . are the potential Storm Troopers." Of Hearst, it
was stated that
i
No one should underestimate [his] power for evil. He
has been screaming for war, race hatred and violence
all his life and very soon we may be hearing him talk
ing about purges and heads rolling in the sand. Behind
his wealth and power there lies the immediate threat of
Fascism in this country, a threat which makes the united
1 24
front criminal to ignore.
122"Editorial Comment," New Masses, XII, No. 5 (July
igreater detail the so-called "Red scare" permeating the
jUnited States at this time and warned of its potentially
'serious consequences, soon launching into a predictable
jtirade against the Fascist agitators fanning the flames of
anti-revolutionary and anti-labor sentiment: "Notwithstand
ing the absurdity of the charges which have been directed
against the Reds, the seriousness of the drive against them
should not be underestimated. Behind it there is evidently
an organization which has marshaled all the fascist forces
of journalism in this country to discredit or repress any
attempt to change our economic system in favor of the poor
man and the worker. Men like Hearst, like Roy Howard, like
Macfadden, whose journals and newspapers are carrying on the
31, 1934), 4.
j 123'^^ ipime to Fight Is Now," New Masses, XII, No. 5
| (July 31, 1934), 6 .
124"Editorial Comment," New Masses. XIV, No. 3 (January
'15, 1935), 6 . Just one week later, New Masses discussed in
axe_„_me,n___Qf_ power and wealth, but
197
Some months later, when a coalition seemed actually to
he in the process of materializing, articles and editorials j
appeared praising the cooperation of Communists and Social-
125
ists in the United States. In reviewing the Art Young
benefit celebration of November 18, 1934, at the Civic i
j
Repertory Theatre in New York, Stanley Burnshaw wrote, "For |
l
i
the first time on any platform in America. . . . [these two |
I
'groups are working together] on a common project." It was j
|his opinion that the most positive aspect of the project was!
i
l
[that it was "one wholehearted effort by working-class groups
there is every likelihood that they are being abetted by j
even greater power and wealth than they themselves control. !
Wall Street, the House of Morgan, the vested interests of
Pittsburgh, Detroit and other great industrial centers, are
beginning to realize that with millions of people faced with
(Starvation and unemployment . . ., with strikes for living
iwages sweeping through the country, with desolation and un
rest everywhere, they must turn their fury upon the party
which seeks to overthrow a system that feeds the rich at the
expense of the poor. . . . Capitalism is united in its drive
: against labor, and if labor in all its branches, if the
[trade unions, the Socialists, the professional classes do
[not form a united front they will bring upon themselves a
[catastrophe no less devastating to them than the Third
Reich" ('Editorial Comment," NM, XIV, No. 4 [January 22,
1935], 3) .
12 5
^JIn a note concerning the Art Young benefit of Novem
ber 18, New Masses stated that this event was the "result of
a united front between Socialists and Communists" ("Editor
ial Comment," NM, XIII, No. 8 [November 20, 1934], 6). The
sponsors included the John Reed Clubs and the Socialist Club
of America, as well as the following magazines: New Leader,
Arise, New Theatre, and New Masses.
198
126
to make a revolutionary weapon of the theatre."
That, however, relations between the two dominant
groups of the Left were not all rosy during this period is
indicated in various editorials of late 1934 and early 1935.
Norman Thomas was particularly disliked; apparently it was
his aim to make communism "both unnecessary and impossible,"
ifor according to New Masses, which called him a "'leader'"
j
;of the Socialist party, he and others in his position were
afraid that too many of the "rank and file" would want to
i
I
ijoin with the Communists in a united front. In the uniquely
jdistorted logic of the Masses, the problem was presented in
|
!the form of a conflict in which the members of the Socialist
party stood against war and fascism and for joining the
Communists, whereas the leaders were firmly opposed to such
a union, which meant that they were relegated to the posi
tion of fighting against the cause of anti-war and anti-
127
fascism.
The United Front, known in party parlance as the Popu
lar Front, was officially adopted by the Communists at the
126"The First United Front," NM, XIII, No. 9 (November
27, 1934), 27-28.
1 7 7
"Editorial Comment," NM, XIII, No. 7 (November 13,
1934), 3-4.
199
Seventh World Congress of August 1935 in Moscow, at which,
according to the testimony of a former party member, "the
old policy of 'world revolution' by violence, 'rum, riot,
and rebellion,' as voiced by Communist orators in [the] ;
United States, was merely suppressed in propaganda and ora- |
128 i
tory in order to deceive." This informant noted that in
discussions about Popular Front policies with various party
’ leaders, he learned "the information that the Popular Front
Itactic was 'a means to an end,' and along the lines of |
! I
i i
Revolutionary strategy laid down by Lenin, and the ethics ofj
!
isuch deception were summed up in Lenin's words that 'the end
Jack B. Tenney, Red Fascism, pp. 349-350. As noted
in Chapter I, note 10, Tenney was Chairman of the Committee
on Un-American Activities in California during the 1940's;
his book resulted from his investigation of the Communist
conspiracy in that state. His twelfth chapter, "Expose of
Communism," from which this quotation is taken, is based on
sworn statements collected from Communists past and present.
lAnother rather interesting testimony is presented in this
jchapter: "That when I read the speech of Georgi Dimitroff
Igiven to the Seventh World Congress of the Communist Inter
national . . . and the discussions of it in the various
Communist Party publications . . ., I formed the opinion,
which I now know to have been erroneous, that the . . .
International intended to permit each . . . country to work
out its own salvation by Democratic [sic] processes and that
the . . . International would assist, encourage and lead in
such processes of . . . reform as sprang up in every coun
try; that, in other words, the Communist International had
abandoned the old policies of Lenin and Trotsky of creating
world revolution, and had decided to cooperate with, instead
of oppose, the Democratic [sicj organizations and govern-
ments of the world" (p. 328) . ________________________________
200
justifies the means'" (p. 349). Burns discusses the Popular
Front phenomenon in rather less sensationalistic terms. In
i
l
evaluating the position of the Communists during the first
two years of Roosevelt's presidency, he observes that they
I
denounced the New Deal program as "a capitalistic ruse, as j
129
fascism disguised in milk-and-water liberalism" (p. 243).
129 !
| New Masses and other extremist publications tended, j
jit appeared, to become quite carried away on waves of polit-j
jical emotionalism; the rhetoric used in their columns did
:not attempt to disguise capitalistic fascism, American
istyle, as any type of liberalism: "The dominant political
characteristic in America today is the trend toward fascism,
toward the outright dictatorship of the most powerful sec
tion of monopoly capitalism. All the politico-economic fac
tors preparatory to fascism have crystallized out of the
policies of the New Deal: the rich have gotten richer and
the poor poorer. The prerequisites for an American Hitler
are here; they have matured at great speed since the bank
ruptcy of the N.R.A. [National Recovery Administration] be
came clear to every working man and his family in America.
Joseph Stalin, in commenting on the victory of fascism in
Germany, said it must not only be regarded as a symptom of
the weakness of the working class, and of its betrayal by
iSocial Democracy, which smoothed the way for Hitler: Fas-
ijcism's success must also be regarded as capitalism's weak
ness . The ruling class can no longer rule by the old meth
ods of 'parliamentarism and bourgeois democracy.' It is
compelled to resort to 'terrorist methods of administra
tion'" ("Editorial Comment," NM, XIV, No. 5 [January 29,
1935], 3). See also the party's interpretation of the New
Deal achievements— prior, of course, to the inauguration of
the Popular Front line: "As wages go sliding down and taxes
go soaring up, even the blind can see that governments based
on exploitation and greed will only protect the interests of
capitalism" ("Two Years of the New Deal," NM, XIV, No. 11
[March 12, 1935], 6) .
201
[But] then came a flip-flop. Shaken by Hitler's loom
ing power Moscow put aside revolutionary tactics and |
called for a popular front of Socialists and bourgeoisie |
| against the Fascists . Obediently the American Communists j
wheeled around a 180-degree turn. Roosevelt now must be j
supported as a leader of anti-Fascist forces. The re- |
versal was useful to the Communists, for popular-front j
tactics helped them to infiltrate the burgeoning trade
unions and other progressive groups. But it was an
acceptance of Roosevelt on opportunistic, not doctrinal,
grounds. (p. 243)
I
I One other reason for the "about-face" or at least modi-
i
Ification within the ranks of the intelligentsia and literati
j
jwhich is more directly relevant to the situation of the
I
Iwriters was that the literary Left had recently been joined
by men such as Henry Hart, Matthew Josephson, and Malcolm
Cowley, "fellow travellers"— a commonly used synonym for
!
Communist "brothers"— who still favored literary quality
("Henry James and Proust and Joyce," as Chamberlain ex-
plained it) (p. 3) to politically tainted literary medioc
rity .
The basic themes and problems dealt with at the con
gress were fairly consistent with the leftist orientation
which had engendered its organization. Michael Blankfort
summarized them in the form of four questions:
What shall my political orientation and participation
be? What is my economic outlook and how may I broaden
my audience? What are the pressing literary problems
related to the struggle against War and Fascism? And
202
finally* how can I help in creating the League of Ameri
can Writers* a section of the International Union of
I
Revolutionary Writers whose foremost voices are Henri
Barbusse* Maxim Gorki* Romain Rolland* Andre Gide*
Theodore Plivier* and John Strachey?130
Blankfort felt* as did many revolutionary writers during
this period, that
The left-wing playwright is in a position to bring
strong pressure to bear on the American theatre. If a
working-class play is competent it must be given to an
| audience. Concerted action and influence must be ex-
| erted to see that it is produced. . . . Through New
I Theatre, and by other means* the contributory theatre
j throughout the country can be influenced so that our
I plays do not gather dust. But these plans are effec-
j tive only when they are considered collectively.
i
There is no art which contains within it so many as
pects of collectivism as the theatre. We can broaden
these still further by collectively crystallizing our
problems* artistic* economic* and political. (p. 29)
Kenneth Burke in The Nation evaluated this first Ameri
can Writers' Congress as having "turned out to be an ex
tremely impressive matter" (p. 571)* due chiefly to a sense
iof deep involvement and concern--"the congress had . . . a
j
note of vitality* of deep engrossment"— which permeated its
proceedings and which in some way affected the multitude of
4*000 who had come to the Mecca Temple "to consider the
110
"Writers' Congress*" New Theatre, II* No. 4 (April
1935)* 29.
203
problems of literature" (p. 571). He noted that the parti
cipants indicated much awareness of the connection between
j
their work and historic movements and were conscious of the
fact that their integrity depended upon their realization of
this connection. Burke then discusses a second attitude
which played a large part
in vitalizing the congress[, namely,] . . . the general
feeling that all these writers must somehow enlist them-
I selves in a cultural struggle; that however meager their
individual contributions may be, their work must be
formed with relation to historic necessities; that what
| they say . . . must involve fundamentally a concept of
I social responsibility. (p. 571)
!
i
Among the writers and left-wing representatives con
tributing to the congress most notably were the following:
Michael Gold, who was introduced as "'the best-loved Ameri
can revolutionary writer,1" and who expressed the hope that
this event would "'be the beginning of a great new litera
ture . . . another of the landmarks in American history by
which our happier descendants will discern the steps in our
progress toward a richer and more social and a more intelli-
131
gent America'"; Edwin Seaver, who spoke on the "Prole
tarian Novel," and who stated that the most valuable recent
I O 1
J James T. Farrell, "The Last Writers' Congress. An
Interim Report on Its Results," Saturday Review. XVI, No. 6
(June 5, 1937), 10.
204
contributions to the American novel had been made by the
132
Left (p. 10); Earl Browder, Secretary of the American
Communist party, who discussed the role of the party as "a
force in every phase of life of the masses, even that of
poets, dramatists, novelists and critics," and then extended
the party's greetings to "this historic Congress," expres
sing the hope that the efforts of the working classes and j
I
the intelligentsia would "be united in fraternal solidarity"!
! (Tenney, p. 423); and Granville Hicks, who "contended that a|
|
|new sensibility was being revealed in American fiction by
i
Ithe younger American writers" (Farrell, p. 10). Others
included John Howard Lawson; Waldo Frank; Joseph Freeman,
who spoke on "The Tradition of American Revolutionary Lit
erature"; Moissaye J. Olgin, who read a report on the First
132ACCOrding to Tenney, whose committee was in posses
sion of a photostatic copy of the proceedings of this con-
igress, Seaver defined the purpose of the gathering as fol
lows: "'What are we here for? . . . What do we believe in?
The fight against war and fascism? True enough. But this
is largely a negative statement. Are we not here because we
believe in forming a new and Communist ideology within the
shell of the old and decaying capitalist society, because we
seek the way out of capitalist anarchy toward that socialist
order which is now in the process of construction in the
Soviet Union, because in essence we subscribe to the Marxian
revolutionary analysis of historical change?'" (Tenney, p.
423). It seems clear from these words at least that the
first American Writers' Congress was not as non-ideological
and non-political as Chamberlain indicated in his article,
"The Literary Left Grows Up."
205
All-Union Congress of Soviet Writers and also glorified Karl
jRadek and Nikolai Bukharin— who, incidentally, were liqui
dated during the Stalin purges of 1937-1938; and Clarence
Hathaway, editor of the New York Daily Worker, who greeted
the congress in the name of the entire staff of his publi-
133
cation (Tenney, p. 422).
A further aspect of the first American Writers 1 Con- j
! |
Igress deserving of mention was the official creation there 1
i |
! 134
|of the League of American Writers, which did much, as the
-*-^^Hathaway1 s enthusiasm about the American Writers'
iCongress was expressed in the following terms: "I greet
(this Congress of writers in the name of the entire staff of
the Daily Worker. From the outset of the preparations of
your Congress the . . . Worker has given the closest atten
tion to preliminaries required to bring together the cream
|of American writers. . . . The Daily Worker . . . [is] con-
jscious that we must not only win the overwhelming mass of
|the American workers and farmers for the revolutionary posi
tion, but that the writer, the intellectual generally, and
|the middle class, must be made active allies of the working
jclass in its struggle against Capitalism."
! "1 04
J In their endorsement of the Writers' Congress, edi-
jtors of the Partisan Review quote in full the Call to the
Congress, as published by New Masses. Referring to the pro
posed League of American Writers, the Call indicated the
desirable affiliation of this organization with the Inter
national Union of Revolutionary Writers, citing as authori
tative justification the position of the I.U.R.W. "in the
vanguard of literature and political action" in Europe and
mentioning such prominent leaders in "the magnificent fight
of the united militant working class against Fascism" as
Romain Rolland, Andre Gide, and Louis Aragon in France ("The
Coming Writers [sjlc] Congress," PR, II, No. 6 [January-
February 1935], 95). It has been noted that Michael_____ ___
206
world struggle wore on, to advance the cause of German
135
exiles of the written word. The tentative raison d'etre
Blankfort, in an article announcing the congress, included
names of several other prominent writers from various lands
whose voices were among the foremost in the I.U.R.W.: Maxim
Gorki, Theodore Plivier, John Strachey ("Writers' Congress,"!
New Theatre, II, No. 4 [April 1935], 29). (See note 130.) I
135 Tha t, nearly a year prior to the formation of the I
League, American liberal writers were already deeply and |
publicly concerned with the plight of "scores of outstandingj
imen who are denied the most elementary justice" in Nazi Ger-1
jmany was illustrated in a letter to Thomas Mann delivered toj
ihim when he was visiting the United States in 1934, and !
|signed by men such as Sherwood Anderson, John Chamberlain, j
iMalcolm Cowley, Waldo Frank, Granville Hicks, John Dos Pas- j
Isos, Oswald Garrison Villard, and Harry Slochower. This
letter requested Mann to give his support in demanding "the
removal of the ban against the writers, intellectuals and
artists who have not submitted to Nazi coordination, the
jrestoration of civic rights to all minorities, including the
Jews, an open, public trial for Thalmann and for other
political prisoners, with free choice of attorney, the lib
eration of those prisoners whose only crime consists in
their support of a political program other than that of the
Nazi party." According to Harry Slochower, spokesman for
the group, this letter was released for publication because
Mann failed to comply with an answer ("An Open Letter to
Thomas Mann," New Republic, LXXIX, No. 1021 [June 27, 1934],
i185). A rather intriguing analysis of the refugee problem—
|and by association, the exile problem— in the United States
was given some five years later by Thomas Mann in an article
printed, interestingly, in the same periodical which pub
lished the "Open Letter," New Republic, in which he stated—
using numerous letters sent him by refugees in America as
his authority--that "fundamentally . . . we are not wanted
even here [despite the fact that the Americans] . . . behave
magnificently toward us" ("America and the Refugee," NR,
Cl, No. 1301 [November 8, 1939], 38). By way of explanation
Mann offered the thesis that the national character of the
United States, although created initially by hordes of
immigrants— a "mosaic of peoples [— has taken on] . . . a
207
for the League was set forth in some seven goals, which in
cluded— predictably, since the League proposal was initiated
through Communist and Socialist journals— to fight against
"Capitalist aggression"; to develop the "revolutionary labor
movement"; to oppose "white chauvinism" against not only the
Negro race, but all other minority groups as well, including
the foreign-born; to battle "the influence of bourgeois
iideas in American literature"; and— possibly most directly
japplicable to the present study— to struggle against "the
jimprisonment of revolutionary writers and artists, as well
j
136
as other class-war prisoners throughout the world."
quite definite and unalterable . . . form in the course of
generations, which like every other product of historical
evolution insists on the maintenance of its physiognomic
character. The idea of an over-infiltration of foreign ele
ments . . . has . . . its justification in America as well
[as Switzerland, in which this idea plays a prominent part]"
(p. 39), so how can it surprise any refugee if a lcng-
iestablished American feels somewhat resentful, however
vaguely, at his arrival and optimistic expectations of an
(Unequivocal welcome? (p. 39). It should be pointed out that
!a difference existed in many minds between the concepts
"refugee" and "exile," and the reaction toward members of
each group was consequently quite different.
1
"The Coming Writers Congress," p. 96. See also
"Call for an American Writers' Congress," New Masses. XIV,
No. 4 (January 22, 1935), 20. Interestingly, there existed
a discrepancy in the phraseology of one of the points listed
in both periodicals: where PR printed the phrase "against
the influence of bourgeois ideas in American literature,"
NM wrote "against the influence of bourgeois ideas in Ameri-
can liberalism" (p. 20).________________________________________
208
In fact, this last point comprised a large portion of
the theme of the speech presented at the congress by Fried
rich Wolf, revolutionary playwright and member of the German
Communist party (KPD) since 1928, who had gone into exile in
137
1933 and who arrived in America, enthusiastically her-
!
aided by the literary Left, on March 19, 1935, on a lecture
tour of the country. His first public appearance on April 6\
was sponsored by the New Theatre League and the Partisan j
i
^ Review, when he spoke on the role of the underground work-
i
j 138
jers' theatres in Germany, and on the Soviet theatre.
j
'Basically an impassioned greeting to all revolutionary
137Woif entered various countries during exile: first
Switzerland, then France, then the Soviet Union. He was
denationalized by the National Socialist government on
June 8, 1935; in 1945 he returned to Germany— to the Soviet
zone; in 1949 and 1950 he received the National Prize of the
German Democratic Republic. Three years later he died in
Lehnitz near Berlin. Among his dramas were Die Matrosen von
Cattaro (1930), which received wide acclaim in the revolu
tionary theatre of America; Professor Mamlock (1935); and
various Agitprop dramas for theatre workers (Exil-Literatur,
Frankfurt a/M, pp. 198-199).
138,.Editorials," New Theatre, II, No. 4 (April 1935),
4. In discussing the theatre in Germany, the editors noted
that "a pall of death and inanition has descended over all
the stages of the Reich. The same barbaric, dark forces are
now coming out into the open here in America. Dr. Friedrich
Wolf, the author of Sailors of Cattaro, arrived in America
March 19. This courageous revolutionary playwright is
brilliantly equipped to tell us of the fight that is being
waged against Fascism in the European theatre today" (p. 4) .
209
theatre workers and writers in America on behalf of all
iethically and morally conscientious German writers, im-
139
prisoned or in exile, dead or alive, Wolf's address in
dicated strong hope that one day the Nazi barbarians and
sycophants would be eradicated and that the American com
rades could then be invited to participate in a German
140
Writers' Congress. It was Wolf's belief that m 1935
I -1-39"ich griifte Sie . . . im Namen aller deutschen
jSchriftsteller, die vor den Henkergerichten des Dritten !
jReiches standen und die ermordet wurden, ohne daB sie ein
IJota ihrer revolutionaren Uberzeugungen ableugneten. Ich
jgriiBe Sie, Kameraden, im Namen der deutschen revolutionaren
jSchr iftsteller Bert Brecht, Johannes Becher, Adam Scharrer,
jKarl Billinger, Walter Schoenstadt und Ernst Ottwald, deren
[Bucher verbrannt wurden, und die furchtlos gegen den Betrug,
Idie Sklaverei und die Kriegshetze Hitlers kampfen. Ich
griiBe Sie im Namen Willi Bredels und Wolfgang Langhoffs . . .
die brutal gepriigelt und gelahmt wurden in den Konzentra-
tionslagern, aus denen sie schlieBlich entkamen, nur urn
schon am nachsten Tage ihr Werk als Schriftsteller und Revo-
lutionare wieder aufzunehmen. Ich griifie Sie im Namen des
kampferischen burgerlichen Schriftstellers Ossietzky . . .
Ider trotz aller MiBhandlungen und Leiden, die er im Konzen-
|trationslager erdulden muBte, durch seine Uberzeugungen dazu
jgefiihrt wurde, weiterhin fur die Entscheidungsfront gegen
jKrieg und Faschismus zu kampfen. Ich griiBe Sie im Namen
Ludwig Renns, des mutigen, wohlbekannten Autors von 'Krieg',
das in alle Sprachen der Welt ubersetzt ist. . . . Ich griiBe
Sie im Namen von Erich Miihsam und Hans Otto, die bestialisch
und sadistisch zu Tode gemartert wurden" (Friedrich Wolf,
"Schriftsteller und Politik. Rede vor einem amerikanischen
SchriftstellerkongreB," in Verbannung, pp. 256-257). It
should be noted that Wolf's speech as printed here was orig
inally presented in English; it was translated into German
by Walter Pollatschek (Wegner, p. 61).
140
"Und wenn diese Zeit kommt--die Zeit, fur die wir
210
every German writer knew that only two paths were open to
him: for Hitler or against Hitler; compromise and neutral-
141
lty were now impossible.
His opening remarks were quite commensurate with the
attitude the American revolutionary writers were hoping to
generate among their compatriots throughout the world, for
after saying that he had been requested to bring fraternal
greetings to the first American Writers 1 Congress by the
'.Secretariat of the International Confederation of Workers '
I
! Theaters and by the German section of the Confederation,
]
|Wolf continued with the observation that he and his fellow-
i
members, having heard of the great initial progress being
made in America on the theatrical and cultural fronts, were
convinced that in the entire capitalistic world the Ameri-
]cans were one of the most important bulwarks in the battle
alle wirken, werden wir Sie, Kameraden, einladen zu unserem
deutschen SchriftstellerkongreB" (Verbannung, p. 259).
• * - 4-*-"Jetzt, nach zwei Jahren Hitlerherrschaft, weili
jeder deutsche Schriftsteller, daB es nur zwei Wege gibt:
dafur oder dagegen. Fur Goebbels, Goring, Hitler und all
die anderen kleinen deutschen Feldwebel, auf ihren Befehl
unter den Tisch kriechen, und nur schreiben, was erlaubt ist
--fur den nachsten Krieg; oder--mit uns kampfen, mit dem
letzten Atemzug gegen diese Barbarei und fur eine Einheits-
front der linken Schriftsteller mit der kampfenden Arbeiter-
klasse, mit dieser Klasse, die der Hauptfeind des Faschismus
ist, und die allein fahig ist, ihn zu besiegen und ein neues,
freies Deutschland, unser Deutschland zu schaffen" (p. 259).
against war and fascism and were determined to be the con-
_ ,, _ , 142
science of the world.
The revolutionary trend in American letters as acknowl
edged by Wolf and his comrades was clearly the decisive
factor in the creation of the new League of American Writ
ers, for, as New Masses noted, the total energies of the
League's members would be devoted to the aim of discovering |
"the most effective ways in which writers, as writers, j
I 143 I
| [could] function m the rapidly developing crisis."
I
;Kenneth Burke summed up rather well the foundation from
I
jwhich the League would operate: "Out of the congress a
League of American Writers has been formed to consolidate
I
in one organization the efforts of those who, whatever their
positive divergencies, can at least unite on the basis of
negatives, as enemies of fascism and war" ("The Writers'
Congress," p. 571). He felt that the fact that "a writer
|of such broad sympathies as Waldo Frank" had been elected
secretary, i.e., chairman, of the organization would insure
the maintenance of the League's "avowed policy of latitude"
142
i P. 256. This motto was initiated by the comrade
Anatole France: "[Die amerikanischen Schriftsteller sind
entschlossen], 'Das Gewissen der Welt zu sein.'"
14 ?
J"Call for an American Writers' Congress," New
Masses, p. 20.
212
(p. 571), despite the reality that the guiding light for the
'initiation of the congress itself had been provided— indeed,
"unquestionably made possible"— by the "vitality and organi
zational ability of the Communist Party" alone (p. 571).
Although Burke acknowledged that he was decidedly not a
member of the party and was generally distrustful of its
ideological principles and methods, he was impelled to admit
I
!
jthat at this point of time in the United States no other
'group in the nation could have organized and followed
i
i
I
jthrough to its completion a congress of this type. As he
'put it, "The results justify the assertion that those who
approach the issues of today from the standpoint of cultural
i
survival must have sympathy at least with communism as a
historical direction" (p. 571). On the basis of our obser
vations of the prevailing social conditions and resulting
intellectual mood in America at that time, we must concur
i
jwith Burke's general conclusion.
j
Insofar as the amount of press coverage granted to this
first— and, one would therefore assume, socially significant
— Congress of American Writers was concerned, we found only
four articles listed under "American Writers' Congress" in
the Readers 1 Guide for the years 1932-1935: Chamberlain's
two reviews in The Saturday Review. Burke's piece in The
213
N a t io n an d an a r t i c l e b y M a lc o lm C o w le y i n The New R e p u b lic ,
Jplus one a r t i c l e u n d e r "L e ag u e o f A m e ric a n W r i t e r s " i n t h i s
is s u e and one i n th e f o l l o w i n g is s u e . As p r e v i o u s l y m en
t io n e d , p e r i o d i c a l s s u c h as New M a s s e s , P a r t is a n R e v ie w , and
New T h e a t r e a r e n o t in d e x e d i n t h e G u id e , and th e a r t i c l e s
d e a lin g w i t h th e c o n g re s s i n th e s e p u b l i c a t i o n s w e re d i s
c o v e re d o n ly b y s y s t e m a t i c a l l y c o m b in g th e is s u e s a p p e a r in g
I
I
I
jd u r in g th e y e a r i n w h ic h i t to o k p l a c e . The T im es In d e x was
|o f e v e n le s s h e l p , f o r a f t e r c h e c k in g a l l p o s s ib le in d e x
I
headings, we found three articles under "Writers, League of
‘ American" which had no bearing whatsoever on either the con-
Jgress itself or on the program of the League— providing that
one discounts the specific (although insistent) attitude
expressed in the protest of the organization to President
jR o o s e v e lt r e g a r d in g th e la c k o f WPA a i d t o w r i t e r s .
i
j
! I t is n o t p a r t i c u l a r l y s u r p r is i n g t h a t su ch a r e l a t i v e
'd e a r th o f c o v e ra g e was in d e x e d i n th e a b o v e tw o s o u r c e s ,
i
!
js in c e th e c o n g re s s was i n s t i g a t e d b y t h e C o m m u n ist p a r t y ,
a n d w h ile th e T im es was o f a m ore l i b e r a l d i s p o s i t i o n th a n
t h e R e a d e rs 1 G u id e — w h ic h m ig h t b e la b e le d as p u r e m id d le -
c la s s A m e ric a n a — b o th in d e x e s w e re r e f l e c t i o n s o f e f f o r t s
d i r e c t e d to w a rd p r e v a i l i n g p u b l i c o p in io n , w h ic h was a n y
t h i n g b u t e x t r e m e ly l i b e r a l . A f u r t h e r p o s s ib le e x p la n a t io n
214
might be provided by the realization that precisely because
this first Congress of American Writers was held under the
auspices of the Communist party and was thus of a highly
suspect nature, the indexes and the periodicals and news
papers which they represented demonstrated a negative emo
tional reaction which was discernible in a lack of press
coverage. This might indicate on the one hand a non-accep-
i
tance of the reality of that political and social phenom
enon, and on the other a "wait and see" attitude coupled
with the desire that this event would be a single manifes
tation which would die a quiet death and soon fade entirely
from the American scene. In contrast to the Congress of
Writers held the year before in Moscow which received quite
extensive coverage, a congress of American writers motivated
by similar ideology, but held in New York City was a quite
different matter, in that this was far too close to home,
lit is our view that this event would engender another reac
tion altogether, and the lack of press coverage in America
may be considered an illustration of this reaction.
CHAPTER III
WRITERS' CONGRESSES AND ASSOCIATIONS
INTERLUDE: NON-INVOLVEMENT, AWARENESS AND CONFLICT
BARCELONA TO NEW YORK 1935-1937
Barcelona: Thirteenth Annual P.E.N. Congress
Less than one month after the American Writers 1 Con
gress, the annual conference of the P.E.N. Clubs was held in
i
Barcelona, Spain, during the week of May 20, 1935. The
amount of press coverage available for this event was listed
in the Times Index under the established heading "P.E.N.";
and of the four articles indexed in the Guide for 1932-35,
not one dealt with this congress— probably because its cut
off point was June, and the congress took place in late May.
lit would be natural to assume, therefore, that the next
issue would cover the 1935 gathering, but here again, al
though 50 per cent of the articles did apply, the total num
ber cited was a mere four. In checking under the names of
speakers at the thirteenth conference, such as H. G. Wells
215
216
and Henry S . Canby, we found nothing of use for present
purposes.
No doubt the numerous domestic problems with which
America was plagued during this period played a role in the
lack of interest shown by the American press in such a
specialized subject as a literary congress. This, coupled
with the fact that P.E.N. was basically a non-political
organization, would explain the paucity— indeed, to our
i
knowledge, the non-existence— of articles in liberal and
left-wing periodicals dealing with its meetings. It has
been our observation that almost the only journals granting
any coverage to the P.E.N. congresses were those of defi
nitely moderate political persuasion. As already indicated,
the left-wing and liberal publications concerned themselves
only with the activities of literary groups which reflected
at least a progressive, if not an explicitly revolutionary
!
|orientation, such as the Union of Soviet Authors, the League
of American Writers, and the International Association of
Writers for the Defense of Culture— which received much of
its organizational impetus and support from the League of
American Writers.
One further possible explanation concerns the situation
of Spain itself during the decade of the Thirties, a
217
situation whose foundations, although established prior to
that time, culminated in the Spanish "Civil" War of July
1936-March 1939, which became such a vital issue with num
erous European and American intellectuals and epitomized for
the Western world "the confrontation of democracy, fascism,
and communism."'*' As will be indicated, the Spanish War was
considered by many liberals to be the first battleground of
jthe World War. Indeed, this may well be true, for the
I
jelected government of the Spanish Republic, dominated as it
was by a loose coalition of Anarchists, Communists, and
Socialists, soon became the object of General Francisco
Franco's Fascist attach, which resulted in an international
contest pitting volunteers from America, Europe, and Russia
against regular Fascist troops from Germany and Italy.
Just why the P.E.N. had voted to hold its 1935 congress
in Barcelona is not clear; it would seem that one of the
i
most unwise choices of a site for a literary congress—
especially of a moderate group--would be anywhere in Spain,
since that country was already at this time in the throes of
fierce internal upheaval, supported in addition by a long
standing interest of the Communist International— which
■^Gabriel Jackson, The Spanish Republic and the Civil
War 1931-1939 (Princeton, N. J., 1965), p. v.
218
became ever more actively transmuted into direct participa-
tion--in Spain, long considered a breeding ground ripe for
2
revolution of the Communist variety. Cattell observes that
the result of the growing antagonism of the peasants and
workers against the ruling circles in Spain had become
polarized chiefly within two groups: the moderate Marxian
Socialists and the Anarchists. Although the Socialists were
a separate group--because more Soviet-oriented, i.e., revo
lutionary— from the long-established Spanish federation of
trade unions, the Union General de Trabaiadores (UGT), the
i
|two had grown ever closer together after 1931, the year in
I
9 .
As David T. Cattell points out m his study, Communism
and the Spanish Civil War (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1955),
the frequency and content of articles appearing in the Com
munist International, the official organ of the Soviet Com-
jintern, during the 1920's and 1930's, indicated "that the
Communists considered the prospects of revolution better in
Spain than in most countries of the world, except for China
and perhaps India. In the unsettled conditions and extreme
jpoverty and repression of the masses, the Communists saw a
jrevolutionary situation similar to Russia in prerevolution-
jary days" (p. 23). Jackson does not appear to concur fully
with Cattell's appraisal, for he states that most books on
the Spanish Civil War have "emphasized its international
ramifications and have discussed its political crises en
tirely in the vocabulary of the French and Russian revolu
tions." He does, however, evaluate the situation in Spain
prior to the war in a similar vein: "Relatively few of the
foreign participants realized that the Civil War had arisen
out of specifically Spanish circumstances. Few of them knew
the history of the Second Spanish Republic, which for five
years prior to the war had been grappling with the problems
of what we now call an 'underdeveloped nation'" (p. v).
219
which the landholders lost their control of the government.
iThe unity of the Socialists and the UGT, coupled with the
gradual movement of the Anarchists— also linked with a band
|of trade unions, the Confederacion Nacional del Trabajo
I
I
j(CNT)— toward the philosophy and methods of the Socialists,
i
resulted in a cooperation of the Left "which turned the
balance of power against the upper classes in favor of the
3
jmasses and ultimately produced the Civil War in 1936."
‘ It is not necessary here to discuss in detail the many
3
j Cattell, p. 6 . In his preface, Cattell notes that the
Spanish conflict, beginning in July of 1936, provided "the
first real opportunity for the Comintern to put the United
Front tactics into practical operation" (p. vii). Prior to
the revision and adoption of the United Front policy which
allowed for the temporary alliance of all anti-Fascists
against fascism, the Soviet Union "had viewed the world
generally as split into two hostile camps— the Communists
and the non-Communists" (p. vii). It should be noted fur
ther that the Communist party of Spain was a minority group
in 1934 and thus not really in a position to lead or force
;the other two leftist parties to cooperate. "The last fail-
!ure of the Left at the polls in 1933 had shown the need of
some kind of working agreement [of the forces of solidarity
in Spain, which were working independently of Russia's for
eign policy]. Cooperation had begun to develop early in
1934, but the Communists had only adhered to the alliance in
September, 1934" (p. 29). However, as Jackson points out,
there was between December 1936 and May 1937 an amazing
growth of the Party's membership and power, due to its wide
spread advocacy of the Popular Front, which permitted it to
represent itself as a symbol of loyal cooperation between
middle-class liberals and the working class (pp. 360-361).
Indeed, on February 16, 1936, the Popular Front had won an
electoral victory at the polls.
220
civil factors or their international implications involved
in the unrest in Spain during the Thirties; this is far too
i
complex a theme to treat in the short space available. The
point is simply that Spain in general, and Barcelona in par
ticular, did not seem to be very appropriate for the P.E.N.
Congress of 1935--unless, of course, the delegates of that
august body felt a need to demonstrate by their choice of
Isite their desire for some sort of definitive engagement in
|the political events of the period. Such a need was not,
j
jhowever, indicated in any of the articles treating the con-
I
igresses of either 1934 or 1935. Spain was undergoing a
i
|life-and-death struggle, and Barcelona itself was in com
plete organizational disarray, if not paralysis, having been
unsuccessfully declared in October of 1934 a center of a
j
democratic "government in exile" by Luis Companys, who had
been appointed civil governor of that city after the victory
!of the Republican liberals in April 1931.
"Hundreds of mixed juries and municipal governments,
including those of Madrid, Barcelona, and Valencia were sus
pended [as part of the "liquidation" of the October revolt]"
(Jackson, p. 161). Indeed, the whole Spanish scene pre
sented a constantly changing kaleidoscope of conflicting
forces in 1935, with the result that Spanish political
221
opinion in that year was "dominated by two completely nega
tive emotions: fear of fascism and fear of communism [and]
in the presence of continued censorship and parliamentary
sterility, direct action groups of both the Right and the
Left [were preparing] for a coming test of strength" (p.
485) .
Apparently, the complicated political ferment and
strife taking place in Spain was not deemed pertinent enough
jto the conference atmosphere to warrant mention, even inci
dentally, by either of the two journals which printed arti
cles on the congress--with the sole exception of a closing
comment made by Henry Canby regarding the fact that the
President of the Catalonian Center (not named in the arti
cle) had recently been released from prison after an attempt
by Catalonia to secure the rights of a federated state in
the Spanish Republic. Canby acknowledged his efforts in
helping to make the P.E.N. Congress successful, "interesting
4
and enjoyable." And, m contrast to the turbulent Con
tinental gathering held two years earlier in Dubrovnik, when
the German delegates had stormed out over an issue of free
^"The P.E.N. Club Meeting," Saturday Review, XII, No.
15 (August 10, 1935), 19.
_
222
speech, the Barcelona meeting did ripple along with hardly
so much as a breeze of dissension to disturb its calm sur
face. Nonetheless, according to Canby, "There were evident
opportunities for international dispute, and many were
taken" (p. 19).
Three major topics were discussed, the most important
of which, unfortunately but not too surprisingly, received
,the least attention. This was the issue with which Presi
dent Wells confronted his colleagues in his opening address,
namely, that P.E.N. should reconsider and evaluate its pur
poses and its very reason for existing, a quite unexpected
challenge which in Canby1s words, "startled the delegates"
(p. 19). Wells questioned the relevance of the original aim
of the organization to the political, social, and cultural
exigencies of the present time, citing the fact that at the
time of the Club's founding in the 1920's, the world situa
tion was such that the concepts of both freedom of literary
expression and better international understanding could be
considered not only valid, but also obvious goals toward
whose realization politicians and economists, as well as
writers, might strive. In the ensuing decade or more since
then, freedom of speech in much of Europe had become synon
ymous with an attack upon the state, and individual rights
223
had become obsolete and non-existent. In addition, the con
cept of internationalism was disintegrating into a power
struggle, in which the national state was in mortal combat
with "the equally dictatorial leadership of the proletariat"
(p. 19).
Such dynamically critical circumstances no longer al
lowed, in Wells' opinion, an organization such as P.E.N. to
pursue an uncommitted policy. This observation, naturally,
!
|elicited the question of the place of the man of letters in
I
society: could such a man, committed by his very nature to
intellectual and creative pursuits, operate effectively in
the political sphere? Several factors had to be considered
in this regard: (1) he was ill-equipped by training and
temperament to exercise the influence of his literary world
directly, i.e., by means of protest and partisanship: "No
matter how good a writer might be, he was likely to prove
Ihimself a poor politician" (p. 19); (2) since it is an ob-
i
servable law of the nature of man that he possesses a ba
sically limited amount of energy, regardless of which direc
tion or in whatever area he chooses to apply it, it was a
foregone conclusion that the more energy he expended in the
realm of (no doubt ineffective) politics, the less would be
224
retained for productive and vigorous writing.
I r
| - ’ We are reminded at this point of James Farrell's arti
cle dealing with the developments in American revolutionary
and proletarian literature between the first American Writ
ers 1 Congress in 1935 and the second congress in 1937. It
was his conclusion that those writers who were "the white
hope of American literature" in 1935 had produced very lit
tle in the ensuing two years: "A review of what has ap
peared in left-wing and revolutionary fiction since the last
Congress is meagre. . . . They [the young writers] are liv
ing in one of the most interesting periods in the entire
history of the world. They are writing of characters and
events in a country that is very dynamic. They have mate
rial to utilize which has hitherto not been adequately
[treated in American literature. They are in a country which
jis at the beginning of its literary tradition rather than at
Ithe end." Farrell felt that the dearth of literary output
jwas a significant social manifestation and wondered where
the answer to this general phenomenon lay ("The Last Writ
ers' Congress. An Interim Report on Its Results, " Saturday
Review, XVI, No. 6 [June 5, 1937], 10-11). The explanation
provided by William Saroyan— although quite sarcastic in
tone— in a later issue of SR is illustrative for the objec
tions raised at the 1935 P.E.N. Congress regarding the re
lationship between a writer's political and/or social in
volvement and his literary productivity- it must be kept in
mind that Saroyan was referring specifically to the situa
tion of the American "proletarian writers," but his obser-
jvations may be considered fairly applicable to that of any
^politically involved men of letters. He objected to Far
rell's criticism of their lack of literary production, not
ing that the purpose of the 1935 American Writers' Congress
was not to serve as a stimulus for more books, but rather to
"fight war and fascism, protect culture, teach people to
read proletarian books, and enable writers to meet one an
other and talk." With tongue in cheek, he noted that what
the proletarians had done in the interim "may be for all I
know, and for all Farrell knows, a lot more important than
to have written a few miserable great books" ("Reply to Mr.
Farrell" [Letters to the Editor: "William Saroyan on the
Writers' Congress"], SR, XVI, No. 8 [June 19, 1937], 9).
The point here is simply that the objections raised to a
writer's immersion in causes of a non-literary nature are
225
Wells postulated the available choices regarding the
i
continued raison d'etre of P.E.N. in the following terms:
either the Club and its various national centres should
"'become a sort of intellectual Internationale, or it should
stand aside from such questions and become an international
club which confines its function to the organizing of din-
, . ,„6 |
ners and excursions.
j Canby reported that this suggestion "was not well re-
!
iceived," pointing out that a request that a successful or
ganization evaluate its very reason for existing "seldom
|
jis." This issue was therefore "successfully evaded until
the last session," (p. 19) when a motion was made and unani
mously carried that each individual branch discuss the i
tenets and implications inherent therein and come duly pre-
i
pared to the next International Congress in Buenos Aires,
where this would be a major item of business. The following
I resolution was adopted as a general— although evasively
i
!
vague— expression of fundamental P.E.N. convictions:
That this conference reaffirms its conviction that
generally valid, in that deep involvement of this sort usu
ally precludes creative output to any prolific degree.
6"P.E.N. Club Holds Congress," Publishers' Weekly,
CXXVIII, No. 2 (July 13, 1935), 95.
226
freedom of expression and publication is an inalienable
right of all creative workers; that any censorship of
literature hinders authors in their work, and is treason
to the rights of conscience, and should be resisted by
all authors, whatever the nature of the censorship. And
this conference believes that the first duty of every
author is the pursuit of truth, and the first duty of
governments to the author is to see that he is not ham
pered in that pursuit.
I
This Congress recognizes that in a certain number of
countries, authors, members of the Federation of the
P.E.N., are not in a position to put the foregoing prin
ciples into practice. It calls upon the Executive Com
mittee to make such protests or demands as may be neces
sary whenever the occasion arises in these countries.
i ("P.E.N. Club Holds Congress," pp. 95-96)
This resolution was actually a result of discussion of
one of the other major topics covered at the conference,
namely, the issue of intellectual freedom, which was one of
the chief continuing concerns of P.E.N. It had been pro
posed by the English and American Centres and amended by the
French Centre, so as to affirm the determination of the
|clubs to maintain sympathetic relations with writers who
iwere unable, due to the conditions of hardship existing in
i
I
Europe, to practice in reality that independence of expres
sion which P.E.N. represented. As Canby put it, "This reso-
|
lution was only a pious aspiration for Central Europe, yet
it is significant, when one considers the number of coun
tries represented, that it was unanimously carried [which
meant that Marinetti, the Italian delegate, also concurred].
227
It represents a principle more lasting than governments1 1
(p. 19) .
The remaining issue of business was a long-debated
project, namely, that of an international literary review.
Apparently this was now close to realization, since the
Flemish delegation proposed to take on the responsibilities
of editorship, with publication to be in Holland. The only
problem yet unsolved was that of language, which led to a
jtwo-day controversy involving suggestions of the interna-
I
I
jtional trio of English, French, and German, with transla-
|
jtions from any other languages to be indicated by the
jauthors themselves; a second contention that Spanish replace
i
German as one of the three chief languages; and a third
opinion that no one language be discriminated against. Not
much was accomplished, and "the debate . . . proved nothing
except a general agreement that English was international,
jFrench was still international, and the rest of the lin
guistic world likely to be a dog-fight" (p. 19). As The
Publisher1s Weekly rather humorously put it, ". . .a reso
lution was adopted instructing this Center [the Flemish] to
pursue the plan [of an International Review] further and to
work it out, if possible" (p. 96).
The picture presented by an erudite international
228
literary body spending two of the three days available for
jits annual congress in debating an issue as relatively
trivial as that of which language or languages in which to
print a pro-literary journal, while in the midst of a nearly
beleaguered city located in a nation undergoing the begin
ning stages of a literally tumultuous civil war, would be
hilarious if it were not so sadly typical of many writers
I
jand so-called intellectuals. Furthermore, that the question
eliciting this lengthy debate was the least immediately
crucial of the three topics discussed and that the most
i
significant issue, i.e., that of the aims and purposes of
P.E.N., should be pushed aside until at least one year
hence, seemed to indicate a certain lack of awareness of
priorities on the part of most delegates to the congress.
The apparent seriousness with which all of this was
managed is reminiscent of the well-worn, but nonetheless
applicable cliche of the scholar or artist totally immersed
in his own thoughts or imagination in ivory tower or studio
while bombs are falling all around him, threatening to
destroy the very citadel of splendid isolation he has so
carefully fashioned and without which he would be unable to
function. President Wells had the insight to see this, but
the behavior of the majority of delegates indicated their
229
lack of same. Even Canby, whose report on the congress
ishowed an awareness of basic priorities, devoted nearly two
entire paragraphs to the beauty of Barcelona, the friendli
ness and the "rich and vigorous culture" of the Catalonians,
and a comment on visits made to Montserrat, Tarragon, and
Majorca. It is quite possible that he was motivated simply
by a desire to publicize the gracious hospitality extended
by the Spaniards. P.E.N. was not, after all, a politically
oriented organization; its membership was too large and
jdiversified for the possibility of this type of unity. Nor
|
was it necessary, much less required, that P.E.N. take on
the problems inherent in such a burdensome orientation; it
might merely have been interesting, and possibly reassuring,
i
to observe some sort of awareness, ideally non-partisan, on
the part of its reporters, of the social-political environ
ment in which its meetings were held.
j Paris: First International Writers 1 Congress
for the Defense of Culture
Perhaps the first really significant gathering, insofar
as the German exiled writers were concerned, was the First
International Writers 1 Congress for the Defense of Culture,
meeting in Paris on June 21, 1935, almost exactly one month
to the day after the P.E.N. Congress in Barcelona. The
I 230
!
i
jchoice of Paris as a meeting place is in itself worth not
ing, for of the numerous German emigre writers participating
i n the conference, some had already chosen this city as a
base of operations (Egon Erwin Kisch, Gustav Regler, and
Bodo Uhse), and numerous others were residing at least in
;France at this time, for example, Lion Feuchtwanger, Alfred ;
iKantorowicz, Alfred Kerr, Rudolf Leonhard, Heinrich Mann,
i
7
Hans Marchwitza, Ludwig Marcuse, and Anna Seghers . In
I
addition, the organization at whose initiative the inter
national meeting was called was the Schutzverband Deutscher
SchriftsteHer (Protective Association of German Authors),
7
'This information was verified through the catalogue, j
Exil-Literatur, Frankfurt a/M., pp. 89, 211, 225, 197, 170, j
il90, 212, 234, 231, 235, 207, for each writer, respectively,
lother centers of emigration in the early years were Prague,
[Vienna, and London. See Wegner, Exil und Literatur, pp.
)47ff.: "Die ersten Sammelpunkte des Exils, in denen sich !
idie deutschen Schriftsteller trafen, waren Prag, Wien, Paris
und London. In Paris hatten sich zu Beginn des Jahres 1933
die meisten Emigranten niedergelassen. . . . Einer der wich-
tigsten Treffpunkte der ersten Jahre war neben den genannten
Stadten das sudfranzosische Fischerdorf Sanary sur Mer.
[Hier lebten zeitweilig viele der prominentesten deutschen
Schriftsteller, unter ihnen Bert Brecht, Lion Feuchtwanger,
iBruno Frank, Wilhelm Herzog, Alfred Kerr, Hermann Kesten,
jArthur Koestler, Rudolf Leonhard, Thomas Mann, Ludwig Mar-
icuse, Balder Olden, Rene Schickele, Ernst Toller, Franz
jwerfel, Friedrich Wolf u.a. Erst in den folgenden Jahren
[konzentrierte sich das geistige Leben der Emigranten ganz
auf die europaischen Hauptstadte" (p. 47). For further dis
cussion of the "Exil-Zentren," see also Hildegard Brenner,
"Deutsche Literatur im Exil 1933-1947," in Kunisch, Hand-
buch der deutschen Gegenwartsliteratur, pp. 681-689.
231
g
centered in Paris since the autumn of 1933, and one of
®The Schutzverband had been founded in 1908 and had
been of a liberal disposition since its inception. With the
rise to power of the National Socialist regime in 1933, the
group was dissolved and reestablished in Paris, its insti
gators and founders being, among others, Alfred Kantorowicz,
Alfred Kurella, Rudolf Leonhard, Ludwig Marcuse, Gustav
Regler, Max Schroder, and Anna Seghers. Leonhard became the
first chairman, and Heinrich Mann was elected Honorary Pres
ident. However, as Kantorowicz points out, "... dieser
Verband, den wir im Exil neu begriindeten, [war] natiirlich
nicht losgelost von der Zeit vor Hitlers Machtergreifung.
Wir suchten vielmehr die Traditionen des oppositionellen
avantgardistischen Kampfes fortzusetzen, der innerhalb des
jSchutzverbandes im Reich bereits gefuhrt worden war. Der j
jFreiheitskampf der Schriftsteller hatte seine Wurzeln im
ialten SDS" ("Fiinf Jahre Schutzverband Deutscher Schrift-
jsteller im Exil," Das Wort, III, Nr. 12 [December 1938],
61). The moving forces behind the reestablishment of the
group were basically the members of the Berlin branch of the
SDS, who in the summer of 1933 in Paris discussed the plan
to reunite the many German emigre writers into a parent or
ganization; Kantorowicz mentions Seghers, Leonhard, Kurella,
Regler, Schroder, Marcuse, and himself, as well as Theodor
Balk, Ernst Leonard, Fritz Schiff, and Hans A. Joachim (p.
62) . In the new Schutzverband, the Communists, who had been
unified in the former group within the Arbeitsgemeinschaft
Kommunistischer Schriftsteller, occupied key positions. In
ithis connection we list Kantorowicz (member of the KPD, the
i Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands. since 1931); Regler
j(member since 1928); Seghers (member since 1928); and Schro-
jder. With the burning of the Reichstag on February 27,
1933, the impetus was given for the dissolution of the KPD,
and on March 3, its leader, Ernst Thalmann, was arrested.
Naturally, the American Communists jumped enthusiastically
on the Thalmann bandwagon; we note, for example, the Commu
nist-sponsored "National Thaelmann Day" held in New York on
July 27, 1934, which included among its activities an eve
ning mass rally and a farewell banquet for Willi Muenzen-
berg, member of the Central Committee of the KPD and Reichs
tag Deputy for ten years, who reported on the situation in
Germany and gave his views on the outlook for a proletarian
revolution there. The proceeds of this event went to________
232
whose membersj Anna Seghers. had suggested in 1934 that this
meeting be held for the purpose of giving "depth and reso
nance to the significant and inevitable discussions concern
ing the literary and intellectual-political (geistespoli-
i
j tisch) situation" and so contribute to a clarification of
the objectives and methods necessary to the defense of in
tellectual and creative freedom and to the preservation of
jGermany to aid in the defense of Thaelmann (Advertisement
|for National Thaelmann Day in New York, New Masses, XII, No.
5 [July 31, 1934], 2). In the same issue of this periodical
• appeared a rather lengthy article by Muenzenberg entitled
j"After Hitler— What?"; divided into two parts, "Hitler's
•Rise and Decline" and "After Hitler— A Soviet Germany," this
piece discussed in considerable detail the reasons for Hit
ler's rise, the Communist position in this regard, and the
•optimistic possibility of a Communist Germany in the future,
due to the predictable alienation of the masses by Hitler's
minions and the growth of communism. The basic party line
of the KPD, that of battling Social Democracy as its arch
enemy, was continued by the German Communists until 1935, at
jwhich time the policy shift dictated by Moscow created a
junification of leftist groups under the banner of the Popu
lar Front. Branches of the Schutzverband were gradually
lestablished in Prague, Brussels, Copenhagen, and England;
•and in 1938 a Schutzverband Deutsch-Amerikanischer Schrift-
! steller was founded in the United States, its first Presi
dent being Oskar Maria Graf, and its Vice-President Ferdi
nand Bruckner. "Der SDS will auch in der Emigration die
wirtschaftlichen und rechtlichen Interessen seiner Mitglie-
der vertreten, sieht aber dariiber hinaus seine Hauptaufgabe
in der Bekampfung des national-sozialistischen Regimes in
Deutschland. Er veranstaltet unter anderem Autorenabende,
Vortrage, 'Montagsgesprache1, Kundgebungen (z.B. fur die
Freilassung Carl von Ossietzkys und Ludwig Renns)" (Exil-
Literatur, Frankfurt a/M., pp. 182, 209, 220). See also
Kantorowicz, p. 66, for further details on various national
branches of the SDS.
233
the great cultural heritage (Pfeiler, p. 35).
Several factors had contributed to the unity displayed
by the Schutzverband in 1935, exclusive of either the Commu
nistic political orientation held by many of its members, or
the condition of exile imposed upon all of them. One such
factor was the establishment in Paris of the Deutsche Frei-
heitsbibliothek on May 10, 1934, the first anniversary of
the book burnings; it was founded with the support of var-
i
jious "hervorragende . . . Personlichkeiten Frankreichs,
9
Englands und der deutschen Emigration," also of the SDS as
g
Kantorowicz, p. 64. Included in these renowned sup
porters of the Freiheitsbibliothek were the following:
H. G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, Professor Harold Laski, Ro-
main Rolland, Heinrich Mann, Lion Feuchtwanger, Bruno Frank,
Alfred Kerr, and Professor Georg Bernhard. (The last three
on this list all went into exile in 1933: Frank to Switzer
land and England, then the United States in 1937; Kerr to
Switzerland and France, then to England in 1936, where in
1941 he became chairman of the P.E.N. centre of German-
ispeaking authors abroad in London, retaining this post until
11947; and Bernhard to Paris, where in December 1933 he
jfounded the Pariser Tageblatt, which was a forerunner of the
Pariser Tageszeitung, a left-wing publication which existed
from June 1936 until February 1940— Bernhard came to the
United States in 1941.) Kantorowicz also mentions a group
which was founded in London concurrently with the Paris Bib-
liothek, the "Society of Friends of the Burned Book, 1 1 in
which various prominent writers and intellectuals, among
them Ernst Toller, participated, thus paying homage to the
spirit "des wahren Deutschland[s]" (p. 64). Less extrava
gant, although no less morally important acknowledgments
were made in New York, Boston, and Prague. See also the
following articles in the New York Times: "Countess of
Oxford and Asquith Heads Movement for Foundation in England
234
represented by Kantorowicz, and with the cooperation of
Willi Munzenberg, editor of the Braunbuch^ and a member of
I
I
the KPD since 1919,, who had fled to France after the Reichs
tag fire and become actively engaged in the Communist cause
in that country. Members of the steering committee of the
j Bibliothek comprised an illustrious list: Andre Gide, Ro-
j
I
jmain Rolland, Lion Feuchtwanger, H. G. Wells, and Heinrich
;Mann, who was elected its first President (Exil-Literatur,
: Frankfurt a/M., p. 183). Its purpose was to collect and
J
jmake publicly available through an International Antifascist
i
^Archive all those books burned, forbidden, and otherwise
i
defamed by the Third Reich. In fact, such international
support was garnered for this effort that the Nazi press,
according to Kantorowicz, was forced to react, thus
of Library of All Books Burned or Censored by Nazis," March
127, 1934, sec. 1, p. 19; and "Paris Library for Burned Books
lOpens on Anniversary of Bonfire," May 11, 1934, sec. 1, p.
j 10.
!
i IQ
Several of the key members of the new SDS, including
Kantorowicz, Regler, and Schroder, contributed to the Braun-
buch liber Reichstagsbrand und Hitler-Terror, which was first
published in Paris in July 1933 and soon thereafter trans
lated into fifteen languages with an estimated total publi
cation of some 600,000 copies by 1935. All of the contrib
utors belonged to the KPD at the time of publication. Ac
cording to Kurt Koster, editor of Exil-Literatur, Frankfurt
a/M., the Braunbuch made possible the transformation of "die
fiihrenden Nationalsozialisten aus Anklagern in Angeklagte"
(p- 34) . _____________________________________________________
235
informing all anti-Fascist sympathizers in Germany "daft wir
lebten und wirkungsvoll arbeiteten" (p. 65). From now on
the SDS and the Bibliothek cooperated closely in all ques
tions and actions concerning the "kampferische . . . intel-
lektuelle . . . Emigration" (p. 65).
A second unifying impetus was the participation of
various members of the SDS in the All-Union Congress of
Soviet Writers; the themes which had been discussed there
provided further grist for the mill of the anti-Fascist cul
tural front in exile represented by the SDS: "Die Verarbei-
I
jtung der Ergebnisse des Kongresses wurde wahrend der nach-
sten Zeit zum Zentrum unserer theoretischen Diskussionen"
i
(Kantorowicz, p. 65). Indeed, not only did the Soviet con
ference contribute to the ideological unity of the SDS, it
also imputed greater organizational strength to that group,
resulting in increased— and we might add, successful—
lefforts to develop a tighter association of free writers .
| A third element was the victory of the National Social
ists in the Saar region,11 and while this was certainly a
■'■■''The Saar plebiscite of January 13, 1935, which made
possible the return of this coal-rich territory to Germany
by an overwhelming vote of 477,000 to 48,000, and which gave
Hitler the opportunity to disclaim publicly any further ter
ritorial claims on France (i.e., Alsace and Lorraine), cre-
ated an optimistic atmosphere in which proposals for a_______
236
blow to the morale of all German exiles, the SDS regarded it
general settlement between the British and French and the
Nazis were renewed by the governments of England and France
in February 1935; these proposals included that of open Ger
man rearmament— which was naturally well received by Hitler.
(For further discussion of this situation, including Hit-
jler ' s gamesmanship with England which led on March 16, 1935,
to his establishment of universal military service and a
"peacetime" army, signifying, in effect, the end of the
military restrictions of the Treaty of Versailles--a most
noteworthy victory for the Fiihrer and his party— capped the
following spring by his move into the Rhineland, see Shirer,
pp. 283ff.) The Communists of all countries aired noisy
Iwarnings about the situation in the Saar in their various
journals, but to little avail, as shown by the results of
the Saar vote. Several pieces in New Masses are indicative
of the tone of this agitation, for example, an editorial of
January 1, 1935, in which the effectiveness of the League of
Nations was discounted in any consideration of serious oppo
sition to the "Nazi terror." The only hope of maintaining
the status quo, it was felt, lay in the "Saar United Front[,
which would] find its best 'guarantee of safety' in its
solidarity, and the support of the world proletariat led by
the peace policy of the Soviet Union" ("Editorial Comment,"
NM, XIV, No. 1 [January 1, 1935], 4). See also Ilya Ehren-
burg's article of two weeks later, in which he detailed in
what manner "Hitlerism" was taking over the Saarland, as
shown in the lack of opposition newspapers, the sale of ex
clusively Nazi books in twenty-nine of the thirty-two book-
istores, and the many pro-Nazi slogans adorning public build
ings: "Long Live Hitler!", "The Saar Is True to Germany!",
"Death to the Red Traitors!" He also mentioned the deporta
tion proceedings against Communists and Socialists to Ger
many and night raids on anti-Nazi leaders; it was Ehren-
burg's view that the French under Clemenceau wanted to ap
pease Germany at any cost, due partly to the fears of the
"scared middle-class" about the Marxists. He noted further
that it was very difficult to convince an ordinary worker or
peasant that if he hated fascism, "he should vote for the
status quo" ("What Is Happening in the Saar. A First Hand
Report" [trans. Leon Dennen], NM, XIV, No. 3 [January 15,
1935], 9-12). See also "The Saar Plebiscite" (Editorial
Comment), in which it was pointed out that despite___________
237
as yet another event by means of which its opposition to the
Fascist regime might be strengthened. "Wir versuchten auch
die Kollegen wieder aufzurichten, die mit den Erfolgen des
Faschismus das Ende aller Tage kommen sahen. Wir versuch
ten, Geduld, Zahigkeit und Zuversicht zu lehren. An uns war
12
es, in dieser Hmsicht Beispiele zu geben." In summary,
then, the year 1934 was highly significant for the
;affirmations to the contrary, the "1 freedom of a secret vote
j[had been] completely lacking. . . . The Saar voted under
terror,'" according to the conservative French publication,
jthe Journal des Nations. It was also noted that the Daily
Worker had called for immediate defense of the 40,000-plus
Saarlanders who had dared, "despite monstrous terrorism," to
vote against Hitler; for the right of asylum had been denied
all Saarlanders: the concentration camp at Neunkirchen had
been readied and the routine of suppression had begun.
"Only immediate concerted action can rescue the courageous
Socialists, Communists and Catholics who voted against Hit
ler" (NM, XIV, No. 4 [January 22, 1935], 6).
1 o
Kantorowicz, p. 65. In the fall of 1934 a number of
German anti-Fascist writers had become involved in the Saar
; situation. Kantorowicz mentions, for example, the Saar-
| lander Gustav Regler, who defended the concept of freedom in
his homeland; Erich Weinert, who spoke at innumerable meet
ings; Hans Marchwitza, "der Arbeiterschriftsteller, der Kum-
pel von der Ruhr," who agitated with word and conviction
among the miners of the Saar; and Max Schroder, who organ
ized an exhibition of the Deutsche Freiheitsbibliothek■
Those writers who remained in Paris busied themselves with
the publication of books, brochures, and articles. Kantoro
wicz felt that their efforts had definitely not been in
vain: "Die Freiheitsparolen . . ., die wir damals unter die
Werktatigen der Saar warfen, werden fortzeugen. Sie sind
nicht verweht, mag auch fur Jahre der organisierte Terror
sie iiberdeckt haben" (p. 65).
238
development of the Schutzverband as an intellectual and
social center of the German emigration.
The quality of vigor stimulating the growth of the SDS
into an exile organization of considerable authority and
influence reached a kind of zenith with the First Interna-
i
tional Congress of Writers for the Defense of Culture: "Der
Gipfelpunkt der Arbeit, der Erkenntnisse, der Produktivitat
jzweier Jahre des Kampfes in der Emigration war dann fur uns
;deutsche Schriftsteller der . . . erste 1 Internationale
i
I
jSchriftstellerkongreB' " (Kantorowicz, p. 66). It is with
i
I
Isome astonishment, therefore, that we regard the relatively
i
I
j
jmeagre acknowledgment given this congress by the American
press: the Times Index lists no articles whatever, the
Readers 1 Guide for 1932-1935 lists one in The New Republic,
land the issue for 1935-1937 lists three, one each in The
Saturday Review of Literature, The Living Age, and The New
Republic. Further, we discovered references in The New
[ Republic (a letter urging attendance by Americans, signed by
i
the American Organizing Committee of the Congress— itself
composed of members of the League of American Writers); in
jthe Partisan Review (which published, in addition to an
introductory statement, the papers presented by the English
writer John Strachey and the Frenchmen Andre Gide and Andre
239
Malraux) ; and in the English edition of International Lit
erature (a letter from Heinrich Mann). For more comprehen
sive coverage, we were forced to turn to the Neue Deutsche
Blatter of August 1935, an issue devoted almost exclusively
to the congress and including excerpts from numerous
!
I
jspeeches given. A brief, yet quite incisive report by Klaus
kann also appeared in Die Sammlung, a short-lived literary
monthly edited by Mann and sponsored by Andre Gide, Aldous
1 13
iHuxley, and Heinrich Mann.
| -^Die Sammlung was published in Amsterdam by the Que-
rido Verlag, one of the earliest and most significant pub
lishing houses of exile worksj established by Fritz Lands-
hoff, former editor-in-chief of the Kiepenheuer Verlag in
Berlin, with the quite substantial aid of the Dutch Social-
Democratic publisher Emanuel Querido, this house existed
from 1933 to 1940 (Exil-Literatur, Frankfurt a/M., p. 196).
The periodical itself existed only from September 1933 to
August 1935, and its policy was to serve literature, a task
directed toward all the peoples of the earth, in order to
insure the continued dissemination of the truth through the
jpublication of German literature undefiled by propagandistic
coloring: "Sammeln wollen wir, was den Willen zur menschen-
jwiirdigen Zukunft hat, statt dem Willen zur Katastrophe; den
Iwillen zum Geist, statt dem Willen zur Barbarei und zu einem
iunwahren, verkrampften und heimtiickischen 'Mittelalter' ; den
Willen zum hohen, leichten und verpflichtenden Spiel des
Gedankens . . . statt zum Schritt des Parademarsches, der
zum Tode durch Giftgas fiihrt im Interesse der gemeinsten
Abenteurer; den Willen zur Vernunft, statt dem zur hysteri-
schen Brutalitat und zu einem schamlos programmatischen
'Anti-Humanismus1" (Klaus Mann, Die Sammlung, I, Nr. 1
[September 1933], 1-2). Worth mentioning for its historical
interest is the rather heated reaction by Herbert Solow, a
frequent contributor to mildly liberal publications, to the
efforts in exile of various German writers. Basing the
240
An explanation for the dearth of American press cover
age of this event might be found in the fact that, although
some 250 writers representing thirty-eight countries at
tended, the most important official American speakers num-
14
bered only two: Waldo Frank, the President of the left-
title of his article on that of Gerhart Hauptmann's article
in the Berliner Tageblatt endorsing the Hitler regime and
its program ("Ich sage ja"), Solow attempted to draw a par-
alell between Hauptmann's attitude and that of several
[prominent Germans in exile, among them Thomas Mann, Rene
jSchickele, Stefan Zweig, and Klaus Mann, by accusing these i
imen of adhering to one of the two alternatives expressed in
|his opening statement, "For intellectuals to be acceptable
jto the Hitler regime they must worship or be silent." Solow
attacks in particular Die Sammlung, calling it "the least
political and the least aggressive [of the many new maga
zines established by exiles] in fighting Hitlerism." He is
quite sarcastic in his evaluation of this periodical and
attempts to discredit its contributors. He concludes his
discussion of the German writers by stating that "one thing
is clear: an overwhelming majority of writers known as
'pure artists' or as friends of liberalism, democracy, paci
fism have accepted 'coordination'" (Herbert Solow, "German
Writers Say 'Yes,'" The Nation. CXXXVIII, No. 3576 [January
17, 1934], 64-65). This article created some controversy,
jas witness the reply of B. W. Huebsch to Solow's implica
tions and accusations ("In Defense of Zweig, Mann, and Oth
ers," [Correspondence], Nation. CXXXVIII, No. 3579 [February
7, 1934], 159); as well as Solow's response to Huebsch ("Mr.
Solow Thinks Otherwise," [Correspondence], Nation, CXXXVIII,
No. 3579 [February 7, 1934], 159-160).
-*-^Not only were we unable to ascertain the number of
American writers in attendance at the congress, due to the
lack of coverage in the American press, we were also unable
to discover the names of any Americans, other than Frank and
Gold, actually present. According to Kantorowicz (p. 68),
however, Ernest Hemingway also attended. The members of the
American Organizing Committee, as printed in the New________
241
wing League of American Writers, and Michael Gold, an active
Marxist who had been elected to the Executive Committee of
|
j
the League at its inception during the First American Writ-
15
ers1 Congress several months earlier. Considering these
Republic, are of some interest; they were the following:
Isidor Schneider, Van Wyck Brooks, John Chamberlain, Malcolm
Cowley, Waldo Frank, and Lewis Mumford ("The Paris Congress
of Writers," [Correspondence], NR, LXXXIII, No. 1072 [June
19, 1935], 169). Which of these men, outside of Frank,
attended the congress was not verifiable through the means
(available to us. Also, the total number of writers present
|varied from journal to journal; according to the Neue Deut
sche Blatter, twenty-eight countries were represented, but
the total participants were not indicated ("Daten zum 1In-
ternationalen SchriftstellerkongreB' in Paris," ["Glossen
und Ausschnitte"], NDB, II, Nr. 6 [August 1935], 389); the
Partisan Review reported that over 250 writers representing
a total of thirty-eight countries attended (Editors, "The
First International Congress of Writers for the Defense of
Culture," II, No. 9 [June 1935], 28); and Malcolm Cowley in
New Republic stated that, based on his "painful . . . piec
ing together" of a picture of the conference from articles
I in the French and English press, about 200 writers from
thirty-eight countries gathered in Paris ([Books in Review],
"The Writers' International," NR, LXXXVIII, No. 1078 [July
31, 1935], 339); Amabel Williams-Ellis in the Saturday Re
view also stated that writers from thirty-eight nations
assembled in Paris ("A Parliament of Writers," SR, XII, No.
14 [August 3, 1935], 17).
15
For further details on Frank and Gold, as well as
quite detailed information regarding Communist influence on
the American literary scene of the 1930's, see the chapter
"Communist Writers— Press" in Tenney's lengthy compilation
of subversive organizations and activities within the United
States, Red Fascism, pp. 415-460, and particularly pp. 415-
434. Although Tenney's investigation, as previously noted,
is decidedly emotional in its published form, it appears to
be quite thorough, presenting innumerable helpful details
[and summaries of Communist ideology, activities, groups, and
242
facts, plus the definitely left-wing coloration of the con-
16
gress, as well as the American preoccupation at this time
with matters of immediate internal economic and social con-
17
sequence, we might conclude that the reasons for the
members, as they emerged in the United States during the
quarter-century between approximately 1920 and 1945.
•^Although we observe that the congress was of a left- j
wing political hue, Malcolm Cowley states otherwise: "Its
jonly political color lies in the fact that no invitations
jhave been sent to open fascists" ("In Congress Here Assem
bled," [Books in Review], New Republic, LXXXII, No. 1066
[May 8, 1935], 371). See, conversely, the report written by
E. M. Forster, a member of the British delegation: "I was
warned before arrival that, though the congress was adver
tised as non-party, the preponderant element in it would be
Communist. This proved perfectly correct. . . . I had to
sit through many eulogies of Soviet culture and to hear the
name of Karl Marx detonate again and again like a well-
placed charge and draw after it the falling masonry of ap
plause . So long as Communism was criticized academically
. . . the audience listened civilly enough, but they would
endure no concrete accusation" ("Writers in Paris," The
Living Age, CCCLXIX, No. 4428 [September 1935], 63-64).
This article had been published originally in the New States-
I man and Nation, an independent leftist weekly in London.
|Note, however, the comment made by Egon Erwin Kisch and Bodo
Uhse, two of the German speakers: "'Faschismus oder Kommu-
nismus? 1 So schrien die Titel in den franzosischen Zei-
Itungen und Zeitschriften den Bericht uber den Literatur-
KongreB aus. Diese Formulierung schieBt uber das Thema des
Kongresses hinaus, es war kein eigentlich revolutionares.
Der KongreB wollte 'die Kultur verteidigen', die Defensive
des am Leben bedrohten Geistes organisieren, den Humanismus
erwecken" (Kisch and Uhse, "Geist gegen Macht," [Zum "Inter-
nationalen Schriftsteller-KongreB fur die Verteidigung der
Kultur"], Neue Deutsche Blatter, p. 324).
17
Burns is rather more direct in his evaluation of the
American scene between 1932 and 1936. Discussing
243
relative scarcity of references to the event were divergent
and somewhat involved* allowing us* admittedly, the luxury
of theorizing* while denying us the comfort of truly know
ing .
Although the conference was the brainchild of the
18
SDS* it would appear that it was also co-sponsored by
Roosevelt's position as a non-foreign policy maker during
Ihis first term* he states* "The record is clear. As a for-
jeign policy maker* Roosevelt . . . was more pussyfooting
ipolitician than political leader. He seemed to float almost^
[helplessly on the flood tide of isolationism* rather than to
I seek to change both the popular attitudes and the apathy
ithat buttressed the isolationists' strength." In attempting
to clear up the mystery of FDR's virtual immobilization in
the area of foreign affairs* Burns notes that Roosevelt
could not afford to alienate either the internationalists
or the isolationists: "Part of the price of success in 1932
had been categorical opposition to United States co-opera
tion with the collective security efforts of the League [of
[Nations], and a cautious policy of neutrality based on non-
[entanglement. In the second place* [he] in his campaign had
so ignored foreign policy* or fuzzed the issue over when he
did touch on it* that he had failed to establish popular
attitudes on foreign policy that he could later evoke in
isupport of internationalism. Moreover* during his first
I term the President gave first priority to domestic policies;
[a strong line on foreign affairs might have alienated the
large number of isolationist congressmen who were supporting
the New Deal" (pp. 262-263).
I Q
■ LOAccording to Cowley* "The Congress had been organized
by a left-wing group composed for the most part of Communist
sympathizers" ("The Writers' International*" p. 339). Ei
ther there was a curious lack of agreement in various jour
nals as to who actually did organize and sponsor the con
gress* or each printed only part of the story: Williams -
Ellis indicated that this was simply a gathering of writers
— not once did she cite the official name of the assembly—
244
numerous French writers of liberal or Marxist tone who were
sympathetic either to the cause of the exiled Germans or to
the anti-Fascist doctrine which they represented. Accom
panying the invitations to non-Fascist writers was an out
line for the proposed program, which included the following
topics: "The Cultural Heritage," "Humanism," "Nation and
Culture," "The Individual," "The Dignity of Thought," "The
Writer's Role in Society," "Literary Creation," and "Writers
’ and the Defense of Culture"; the document was signed by
twenty-five prominent French literati (Cowley, "In Congress
Here Assembled," p. 371).
The basic theme unifying the 200 or more writers of
19
diverse political beliefs and literary opinions present
jwho had met "at the instigation of such French authors as
Andre Gide, Andre Malraux, and Jean Richard Bloch" (p. 17).
See also "Daten zum 1Internationalen SchriftstellerkongreS1
j . . . , " NDB, p. 389: "Die Einladung war von Andre Gide,
|Jean Giono, Romain Rolland, Henri Barbusse, Andre Malraux,
Jean-Richard Bloch . . . Aragon, Nizan . . . und anderen
franzosischen Schriftstellern an die hervorragenden Dichter
und Schriftsteller der ganzen Welt gerichtet worden."
■^Cowley reported that because writers representing all
shades of political viewpoints— excluding outright fascism—
had been invited, "The natural and healthy result was a
series of arguments, traditionalists against innovators,
liberals against Marxists .... Communists and Catholics
and believers in the aristocratic tradition" ("The Writers'
International," p. 339). See also Heinrich Mann: "In one
part of the world enslavement of the spirit prevails. And
it had to come to this before we could all see together,_____
245
was the conviction "that the defense of culture necessitates
the organization of intellectuals the world over against war
and fascism. . . . and that, in fact, the growth of fascism
20
is the immediate source of the war danger." The primary
purpose, therefore, of the congress was to discuss and to
protest against the menace to the writer's craft inherent in
■
those repressive political forces which manifest themselves
in war and fascism and their attendant, censorships (Wil-
|
jliams-Ellis, p. 17). Klaus Mann explained the congress in
I
I
jsomewhat different terms. He saw it as having had a double
jtask: on the one hand, it was a demonstration of all anti-
i
i
jFascist intellectuals against their common enemy; on the
I
i
other, it was a forum for discussion of the moral and in-
!
tellectual foundations upon which all the opponents of fas
cism found themselves and from which they could fight to-
21
gether on a united front. It was Mann's feeling that this
i
,;view of an intellectual "Einheitsfront" was most perfectly
| ________________________
before Marxists and bourgeois writers found their profound
kinship" ("A Memorable Summer" [Letters and Documents], In
ternational Literature [English ed.], I [January 1936],
114) .
o n
^u"The First International Congress of Writers for the
Defense of Culture," p. 28.
2-^"Die Schriftsteller in Paris" ["Glossen"], Die Samm-
lung. II, Nr. 12 (August 1935), 724.
246
embodied in Andre Gide's speech— its subject was "Das Indi-
22
viduum und die Gesellschaft" — in which the answer to the
discussion theme of the relationship between writer and
society was formulated as follows: "'Es [s_icj kann die
Gesamtheit am wirksamsten fordern, wer am individuellsten
ist1,1 (Mann, p. 725).
The roster of speakers was composed of seventy-six
writers from sixteen countries, the two largest groups by
|far being the French with twenty-two and the Germans with
[
seventeen— and if Robert Musil from Austria may be included,
23
eighteen. Since considerations of space prevent a
9 9 . . . .
‘ ‘ • • ‘ •The speech is printed m its entirety m Neue Deut
sche Blatter, pp. 325-330. See also the "Mitteilungen der
deutschen Freiheitsbibliothek" for June or July 1935; un-
|fortunately, we were unable to verify a current location for
jthis official organ of the Freiheitsbibliothek. According
;to the "Daten zum 'Internationalen SchriftstellerkongreB1"
| in the NDB, a comprehensive coverage in German was given in
ithe "Mitteilungen," including nearly all of the speeches
jprinted in this issue of NDB. Locations of speeches in Ger-
jman not printed in the Blatter, yet listed in the "Daten,"
jare as follows: L. Feuchtwanger in Das Neue Tagebuch; Max
Brod in Die Wahrheit (Prague); Heinrich Mann and E. E. Kisch
in Die Neue Weltbuhne; Andre Malraux in Unsere Zeit (Paris).
Although the dates and issues were not indicated, it seems
reasonable to assume that the speeches were printed shortly
after the congress ended, i.e., in the July or August num
bers (p. 390).
O -5
For the complete list, see "Daten zum 'Internationa-
len Schriftstellerkongreft,' " pp. 389-390. According to Exil-
Literatur, Frankfurt a/M., Robert Musil was a speaker at
this congress; in the course of his address he delineated
247
detailed elucidation of the many views presented at the con-
j 24
Iference, we shall simply note some titles representative
25
of speeches given and the names of those presenting them:
Ilya Ehrenburg (USSR), "Wozu schreiben wir?"; Aldous Huxley
(England), "Natur und Grenze des Einflusses der Schrift-
steller"; E. M. Forster (England), "Die Freiheit des Aus-
drucks und die kulturelle Tradition"; Johannes R. Becher
; (Germany), "Dammernde Erb-Reiche"; Bertolt Brecht (Germany),
i"Eine notwendige Feststellung zum Kampf gegen die Barbarei";
I 2 ^
jan anonymous illegal delegate from Germany,, "Deutschland
"die 'Kultur als unpolitisches Gebiet1" (pp. 269-270). No
other references to his speech were found in the sources at
our disposal.
74
Cowley stated that "It would be a difficult and not a
very useful task to summarize forty or fifty speeches, het
erodox and orthodox, witty or windy" ("The Writers' Inter
national," p. 339).
p r
These talks, or excerpts therefrom, were all printed
iin Neue Deutsche Blatter, pp. 330-349. All references to
NDB for this particular conference will be to the issue of
August 1935 . As far as could be ascertained, no American
journal published even a roster of speakers as such; the
closest approximation to such a list would be the casual
mention in several articles already cited of certain out
standing or otherwise noteworthy participants, e.g., "The
Writers' International" in the New Republic; "The First In
ternational Congress of Writers for the Defence of Culture"
in Partisan Review (in this issue are also to be found the
papers of John Strachey, Andre Gide, and Andre Malraux);
and "A Parliament of Writers" in Saturday Review.
Kantorowicz, p. 67, discusses the appearance of this
248
ist nicht Hitler"; Hans Marchwitza (Germany)j "Wir schreiben
nur unsere Erfahrungen"; and Anna Seghers (Germany), "Vater-
landsliebe."
These talks ranged in coloration from Communistic hu
manism (Ehrenburg's attempt to clarify the place of the
writer within the Soviet Union— as a mentor or guide of the
Communist conscience, by presentation of a picture of the
j
unity of physical activity [work on behalf of the State] and
ianonymous, masked German; apparently his identity was un-
Jknown to all but a few of the Germans themselves. However,
jaccording to Wegner, this mysterious participant was Jan
Petersen, who belonged to the illegal Communist party in
Berlin and finally emigrated to Switzerland in 1935; he had
been a co-publisher with Graf, Herzfelde, and Seghers of the
Neue Deutsche Blatter, published in Prague between 1933 and
1935 (p. 81). Petersen's purpose in coming was to convey
the greetings of a group of anti-Fascist writers still liv
ing and working for their cause within the German Reich;
further, he indicated that he hoped to return soon to Ger
many in order to report to his comrades-in-arms on the in
tellectual solidarity which had manifested itself so
jstrongly at this congress. He also assured the assembly
|that in the currently enslaved Germany there was developing
an underground literature which would one day publicize all
of the struggles, sufferings, and sacrifices of these coura
geous men still within the country. He then disappeared.
Kantorowicz reports that when the congress had recovered
from the shock of the translated speech— Gide read it in
French— an emotion-packed expression of brotherly feeling
shook the assembly hall en masse, uniting both delegates and
audience in an affirmation of peace and freedom and a denial
of the powers of darkness; this was followed by the heart
felt singing of the "International," the official hymn of
the Communist party. See also the discussion of the impact
made by the illegal delegate presented by Kisch and Uhse:
"Geist gegen Macht," NDB, p. 32 3._____ _______
249
[creative endeavor) ("Geist gegen Macht, " pp. 330-333),
l
jthrough militaristic anti-fascism coupled with idealized
communism (Brecht's contrasting visions of the totally de
structive effect upon culture of fascism— as well as any
other ideologies requiring a nationalistic fervor for their
support— and the incredible cultural growth engendered by a
society in which the oppressed masses comprise the ruling
power) ; here, culture can be fostered because it need not be
i
|used as a weapon with which to brainwash citizens into be-
1
jlieving that self-sacrifice for the maintenance of the State
i 2 7
!is a noble dutyj to bourgeois moderation (Forster's expla
nation of the reasons behind the considerable lack of free
thought and speech in England, as well as his concern for
j p " 7
'"Geist gegen Macht," pp. 341-343. Wegner presents an
effectively succinct picture of the views of Brecht and
Becher, two writers whom he labels "Hervorzuhebende Aus-
jnahmen" from the Marxist group of exiles (whose only aim, in
jgeneral, was the victory of Marxist Socialism, to the fairly
jcomplete exclusion of concern with the exile situation).
jBoth writers, in contrast, evinced a decided awareness of
each area, for to them, National Socialism was not a transi
tory political development or phenomenon, but a symptom of
the downfall of the middle class (pp. 61-62). Note "Riick-
blick und Ausblick" [editorial comment to first issue of
Neue Deutsche Blatter), I, Nr. 1 (September 1933), 1: "Wir
. . . sehen im Faschismus keine zufallige Form, sondern das
organische Produkt des todkranken Kapitalismus." Brecht and
Becher--also Bredel and Feuchtwanger— were among the con
tributors to this Communistically-oriented exile periodical
(Wegner, p. 81).
250
the spirit of dictatorship in Britain which, hidden behind
constitutional forms, gnaws unceasingly and unnoticed at the
basic freedoms, coupled with his affirmation of loyalty to
his country) ("Geist gegen Macht," pp. 335-337).
As Cowley pointed out, despite the variety of political
and social loyalties or non-loyalties represented, "a cur
ious unanimity in regard to the most important subjects
under discussion" is revealed if the speeches are compared
j :
("The Writer's International," p. 339). In his estimation,
the word most frequently used was "'humanism,' which was
redefined [to mean] a preoccupation with living and suffer
ing men and a hostility towards the abstractions and insti-
I
jtutions now weighing them down"; in addition, the emotion
I
jwhich underlay all of the speeches and bound "them together
more closely than any idea or slogan. . . . was . . . a deep
sense of urgency"— motivated by the knowledge and fear that
(fascism was on the move, now threatening France— "and if
i
i
France fell the rest of Europe would tumble after. The
writers here would suffer not only in their books but in
their persons" (p. 339). The stimulus for the congress was
thus the presence of a very real danger, prompting in turn
a hope founded on the decisive act of meeting together as
human beings in combatting a common foe, for "it was too
251
late now to scurry back into their ivory towers" (p. 339).
| In addition to the dramatic and unexpected phenomenon
of the illegal delegate from Berlin, two other events of
consequence took place at the conference, the first being
jthe appearance of Heinrich Mann on the tribunal of the Con-
i
gress Hall, causing the five or six thousand persons in
attendance to rise silently and simultaneously, "zu Ehren
des groften deutschen Emigranten . . . [denn in ihm ehrten
jsie] das wahre Deutschland, das Deutschland der Freiheits-
(kampfer, das Deutschland, das der Welt unverlierbare Worte
j
ider Kultur uberantwortet hat und weiterhin iiberantworten
wird" (Kantorowicz, p. 67). The spontaneous mass singing
of the Communist "International Hymn" in numerous languages
verified to the exiles, in the view of Kantorowicz, that
they were not alone in their struggle: "... unser Kampf
blieb nicht ohne Zeugnis. Wir wuBten es immer, nun besta-
Itigten es uns die besten Geister der fiinf Erdteile" (p. 67).
I
j
As Forster states, "He [Gide] had a tremendous ovation: the
whole audience rose to its feet— an honor also accorded to
Heinrich Mann, who has become the symbol in France of Nazi
,,28
persecution.
2 f t
°"Writers in Paris," p. 65. Mann had been expelled
252
No doubt Mann's popularity with the French had been
strengthened by his unconditional opposition to the National
Socialists and their ideology— ". . . his famous political
novel fDer Untertan) . , . anticipates the whole psychology
of Nazidom with almost terrifying intuition" (Escape to
Life, p. 29)— as well as his long-standing affinity for
France and his unwavering desire for reconciliation between
Germany and France (p. 30). Among the German exiled writ-
i I
iers, he was certainly one of the most ardent and active
i
I
|supporters of the Volksfront concept (modeled on the French
from the Preufiische Akademie der Kunste on February 15, 1933
--preceding some fourteen other writers by one to three
months— ostensibly because he, like the artist Kathe Koll-
witz, had signed an appeal for a united front of the Sozial-
demokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD) and the Kommunisti-
sche Partei Deutschlands. He had also been among the writ
ers whose names appeared on the initial Nazi "denationali
zation list" of August 25, 1933 (Exil-Literatur, Frankfurt
a/M., p. 62). Wegner, pp. 35-36, discusses the expulsion of
the first group from the Academy, giving names and dates .
I See also Erika and Klaus Mann, Escape to Life, pp. 27-28,
ifor discussion of their uncle's eviction from that body, as
well as of his affection for France: "Even before he left
Germany, he had always spent a great deal of time in France.
His entire moral and political way of thinking is profoundly
influenced by the intellectual forerunners of the great
French Revolution and by the French nineteenth century";
also pp. 29-30 for an overview of his political views and
growing prominence in Germany and France— both positive and
negative— during the years preceding the National Socialist
takeover. In his autobiography, Der Wendepunkt, Klaus Mann
refers to the position and insights of his uncle in regard
to National Socialism, as well as to his United Front ef-
forts— viewed here as successes (pp. 277-279)._______________
253
" f r o n t p o p u l a ir e " ) w h ic h was p r o c la im e d a t t h e S e v e n th W o rld
C o n g re s s o f t h e C o m in te rn i n 1935. I t s a im , as r e e v a lu a t e d
by G erm an o p p o n e n ts o f H i t l e r s e v e r a l m onths l a t e r , on S e p
te m b e r 26, 1935, a t th e H o t e l L u t e t i a i n P a r i s — h e n c e th e
i n i t i a l nam e, " L u t e t i a - K r e i s " — was t o u n i t e C o m m u n is ts ,
S o c i a l D e m o c ra ts , and b o u r g e o is d e m o c ra ts i n a u n it e d a n t i -
F a s c i s t f r o n t . Mann was e le c t e d c h a irm a n o f th e e x e c u t iv e
29
committee established at that time.
9 Q
^Jarmatz, Literatur lm Exil, p. 292. See also p. 294:
"Am 9. Juni [1936] findet in Paris eine Sitzung des Lutetia-
Kreises unter dem Vorsitz von Heinrich Mann statt. Es wird
beschlossen, den Lutetia-Kreis 'AusschuB zur Vorbereitung
der deutschen Volksfront' zu benennen." In his first chap
ter, "Die deutsche antifaschistische Literatur und die
Volksfrontpolitik," Jarmatz devotes several pages to a dis
cussion of the background of the Volksfront (pp. 47-50).
Numerous references to writers, journals, and events con
nected with the Volks front are also to be found in Exil-
Literatur, Frankfurt a/M.: pp. 71 (Georg Bernhard)- 128-133
(background of formation, people involved, Der Gegen-Angriff
— later Deutsche Volkszeitung— as official organ of Front);
138 (Willi Munzenberg) ; 143 (VoIks front loses meaning and
value for non-Communists after Hitler-Stalin Pact of August
|23, 1939); 145, 157 (developments after German attack on
'Russia); 183 ("Mitteilungen der Deutschen Freiheitsbiblio-
jthek" placed in service of Volks front November 1935); 203
i(Johannes Becher); 235 (H. Mann); 290 (Leopold Schwarz-
schild); 291, 297 (two exile journals, Die Neue Weltbiihne--
April 1933-August 1939, and Das Wort— July 1936-March 1939,
support efforts of Volksfront). See also Wegner, pp. 62,
65-66, 78, 130, 170-172. In discussing H. Mann's autobio
graphical report, Ein Zeitalter wird besichtigt (Stockholm,
1946), Wegner indicates that Mann expresses thanks to the
Volks front movement for involving him in practical political
activity, something he viewed as an essential task for the
intellectual (Mann, p. 420,_in Wegner, p. 172)._______________
254
Decidedly sympathetic to the ideals of communism as
manifested in the USSR, he felt that the goals of the French
30
Revolution had been realized within the Soviet State- it
on
Wegner, p. 172. Regarding these ideals, note the
viewpoint expressed by Mann in his article praising the
International Writers 1 Congress in Paris: "As things now
stand, any honest democrat must admit that Marxism furnishes
the only premise for real democracy. Anyone seriously reli
gious must see that Socialism is the realisation of his be
liefs . On the other hand, triumphant Socialism, now se-
jcurely in possession of a large section of the globe, must
!grow conscious of its human mission" ("A Memorable Summer,"
1 Internationa1 Literature, p. 114) . It is of interest to
jobserve also the glowing optimism with which the Soviet
jUnion was regarded in relation to the German exiles them-
jselves: "... die Solidaritat der Sowjetunion . . . [gab]
der deutschen Literatur nicht nur in Worten Heimstatt. . . .
Die deutsche Ausgabe der Zeitschrift 'Internationale Lite
ratur ' wurde unter der Redaktion Johannes R. Bechers erwei-
tert und ausgebaut; die Zeitschrift 'Das Wort' wurde ge-
schaffen und gemeinschaftlich von Lion Feuchtwanger, Bertolt
Brecht und Willi Bredel redigiert. Die russischen Verlage
wetteiferten mit diesen Zeitschriften, uns zu drucken und
uns materiell weiterzuhelfen. Zeitschriften in russischer
Sprache folgten diesen Beispielen. Und dann kamen die . . .
Lebensmittelpakete. . . . Die russischen Schriftsteller
jschickten ihren deutschen Kollegen in die Emigration Gaben
jihres Landes. . . . Das war eine grofie Sache: diese prak-
tische Betatigung der Solidaritat unserer sowjetrussischen
Kollegen half uns in einer sehr schweren Zeit, half uns
moralisch wie materiell" (Kantorowicz, p. 69). For further
reactions to the USSR, see the four short and extremely
laudatory testimonies by Feuchtwanger in International Lit
erature (English ed.): "Lion Feuchtwanger Address to Soviet
Teachers"; "... Feuchtwanger on the Soviet Films"; "...
Feuchtwanger's Telegram to the Union of Soviet Writers"; and
". . . Feuchtwanger Farewell Message"; in this last-named
piece, Feuchtwanger stated, "I saw the inspiring and heroic
picture of how one-sixth of the earth's surface at one and
the same time arms itself against rabid and cruel adver-
saries and creates a gigantic edifice of the triumph of
255
would appear that Mann's fondness for France and his attrac
tion to Marxism had become rather well synthesized in his
efforts within France on behalf of a Volksfront. While the
subject of the multi-hued political and/or apolitical loyal
ties of the exiled writers will be discussed briefly at a
later point, it should be noted here that the hoped-for
union in exile of all political groups into a unified cul
tural front against fascism, for which Mann worked so un-
flaggingly, was fairly short-lived; proving unworkable for
various reasons, it led to Mann's eventual disillusionment
and subsequent complete withdrawal from the politics of the
Volksfront.
reason. This unparalleled heroic picture was the most val
uable gift that I take with me from the Soviet Union into
my further life" (["Soviet Chronicle"], No. 3 [March 1937],
112-113). Note also his comment in Moscow 1937 . My Visit
Described for My Friends: "One breathes again when one
comes from this oppressive atmosphere of a counterfeit de
mocracy and hypocritical humanism [as seen in the Western
civilization] into the invigorating atmosphere of the Soviet
Union" (trans. Irene Josephy [New York, 1937], p. 150). See
also Oskar Maria Graf's letter in International Literature
(note 101); also J. Motyleva's article, "Heinrich Mann,
Anti-Fascist," IL, No. 9 (September 1937), 17-32, for an
enlightening discussion of Mann's political views, which,
according to Motyleva, include a renewed interest in com
munism.
^Wegner, pp. 65-66. ("Schon bevor der Hitler-Stalin-
Pakt die Zusammenarbeit anderer Parteien mit den Kommunisten
endgultig aufbrach, hatte sich Heinrich Mann, enttauscht von
der Undurchfuhrbarkeit eines Zusammenschlusses aller
256
A second significant event— really a result— was the
jformation at the congress of a permanent organization, the
International Association of Writers for the Defense of Cul
ture* it was to be directed by a bureau of some 112 members,
which was itself headed by a central committee composed of,
1
jamong others, Andre Gide, Romain Rolland, Heinrich Mann,
Thomas Mann, Maxim Gorki, E. M. Forster, and Aldous Hux-
32
iley. According to Forster in The Living Age,
I i
] i
The bureau will promote intercourse between authors,
issue lists of approved books [what was meant by
"approved" was nowhere clarified; it seems to have a
somewhat frightening connotation, although, no doubt,
this was unintentional— or perhaps it was a result of
Forster's possible misinterpretation], arrange where
possible for the publication of banned books of merit,
and act generally as a clearing house for information
on the struggle of culture against Fascism. It will
furthermore give a prize to a book, irrespective of
that book's tendency, and it will convene a second
congress at some future date. ("Writers in Paris," p. 65)
'deutschen Emigranten, von der 'Volksfront-Politik' distan-
jziert.") Wegner also cites for further discussion of Mann's
j relationship to the Vo Iks front Jurgen Rlihle, Literatur und
jRevolution. Die Schriftsteller und der Kommunismus (Koln,
Berlin, 1960), pp. 220ff., and Alfred Kantorowicz, Deutsches
Taqebuch, Teil I (Munchen, 1959), pp. 62ff. (p. 66). In
discussing the short life of the Volksfront. Wegner states,
"Der Fiihrungsanspruch der kommunistischen Partei und die
Differenzen zwischen Kommunisten und Sozialdemokraten er-
moglichten der Politik der 'Volksfront' allerdings nur eine
kurze Lebensdauer" (p. 65).
"The First International Congress of Writers for the
Defense of Culture," Partisan Review, p. 28.
257
Not surprisingly, considering his lack of sympathy with
communism, there appeared to be some question in Forster's
mind as to the ultimate effectiveness of the Bureau^ he felt
that it would "do good work" only if it truly expanded into
an association where all anti-Fascist authors could freely
exchange views, but that its usefulness in the anti-Fascist
struggle would be severely jeopardized if it contracted into
a mouthpiece for "the One True Revolution, where only the
jpreconvinced feel comfortable . . — in the latter case, it
i
I
jwould "do good work only for the Communist Party, and per-
i
!
jhaps not very good work for that" (p. 65) .
Slightly different opinions were expressed by Kantoro
wicz and Williams-Ellis. Kantorowicz, while admitting the
beneficial results of the union of the exiles and the SDS
with the International Association of Writers for the De
fense of Culture, saw this as only an insufficient begin-
i
Ining, in that the exiled writers themselves, by virtue of
i
jtheir peculiar situation of world-wide location, were re
sponsible for the deepening of the international ties be-
33
tween the various national literatures. Williams-Ellis,
JJ"Daft man die grofte deutsche Literatur m uns geehrt
hatte, daft wir als Schutzverband uns dem Kartell der 'Inter-
nationalen Schriftstellervereinigung zur Verteidigung der
Kultur1 anschlossen, daft man eine grofte Zahl von uns ins
258
on the other hand, expressed her views on the question which
arose at the congress concerning the relationship of the new
Association to the P.E.N. Club, due to the comment made by-
Herman Ould, International Secretary of P.E.N., that work
such as that proposed by the International Association had
been carried out by P.E.N. almost since its inception.
Williams-Ellis pointed out that the P.E.N. "has a definitely
!
jless political point of view than the . . . Association" and
j i
voiced her hope that the result of the ongoing discussions j
!
|on the feasibility of their possible collaboration would be
jfavorable. She indicated some doubt, however, that the
P.E.N. "would . . . be willing to subscribe to all of the
articles of the new organization" (p. 17).
As a final note, it is somewhat revealing to reexamine
the thrust of the reports on the First International Con
gress as printed in the American sources cited. While even
!the left-wing Partisan Review published only a one-page
overview of the general external facts, it is worth mention
ing that approximately one-fourth of this short summary was
Biiro und ins Sekretariat dieser Vereinigung wahlte, durfte
uns nicht genugen. Gerade wir mufiten auf Grund unserer be-
sonderen Situation als uber viele Lander verstreute Emigran-
ten dazu beitragen, die Internationalitat der Beziehungen
zwischen den nationalen Literaturen zu vertiefen" ("Fiinf
Jahre Schutzverband," pp. 67-68) . _______________________________
259
devoted to the main themes discussed by the Soviet delega-
|
tion. Not once, however, was acknowledgment as such given
to the exiled German writers present— some of whom were
Marxists. Of course, the Review at this time was primarily
an organ for Soviet-style socialism; the three speeches
which it did publish were given by writers of international
renown who were much better known in the United States than
most of the German Marxist exiles at the conference, and
I ’
j
jwho, additionally^ in 1935 were still strong supporters of
j
jCommunist ideology: the British writer John Strachey and
34
the two Frenchmen Gide and Malraux.
34
J The disillusionment of both Strachey and Gide with
the Communist party several years later is verified in two
articles appearing in the American liberal press: Andre
Gide, "Second Thoughts on the U.S.S.R.," Partisan Review.
IV, No. 2 (January 1938), 21-28: "There is no party which
can keep my loyalty— which can prevent me from preferring
truth to the Party itself. . . . I know well . . . that from
!the 'Marxist point of view' Truth does not exist; at least
jnot in an absolute sense; that there are only relative
truths, but it is precisely these relative truths which are
here in question; which you falsify. . . „ The U.S.S.R. is
not what we hoped it would be, what it gave promise of
being, what it still tries to appear to be; it has betrayed
our hopes. If we do not want our hopes to fail too, we must
attach them elsewhere" (p. 28). On Strachey, see "The Shape
of Things" [Brief Comments], The Nation, CL, No. 22 (June 1,
1940), 667: "John Strachey's decision to sever relations
with the Communists is more than just another casualty among
the fellow-travelers .... Strachey still maintains the
anti-war position which he has held since hostilities began,
and in his criticism of the Communists, which appears in the
New Statesman and Nation of April 27 ri940] , he agrees______
260
M o v in g i n fro m t h i s e x tre m e t o t h e l i b e r a l New R e p u b
l i c , we o b s e rv e t h a t M a lc o lm C o w le y — who a ls o c o n t r ib u t e d on
o c c a s io n t o New M asses and who h a d b e e n one o f th e s ig n e r s
o f th e " C a l l f o r an A m e ric a n W r i t e r s ' C o n g re s s " some m onths
e a r l i e r — w r o te b o th th e a n n o u n c em e n t f o r t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l
C o n g re s s and a r e p o r t o f i t . I n g e n e r a l, h i s r e p o r t was
i
f a i r l y n o n -b ia s e d to w a rd a n y p a r t i c u l a r id e o lo g y an d seem ed
— as f a r as i t w e n t— t o c o v e r t h e p ro c e e d in g s a c c u r a t e l y .
I
He a tte m p te d t o w r i t e a c o h e s iv e o v e r v ie w m e n tio n in g some o f
!
|th e m ore w e ll-k n o w n w r i t e r s p r e s e n t , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t th e
j
jGerm an d e l e g a t io n was " e n t i r e l y com posed o f e x i l e s , " and
js u m m a riz in g b r i e f l y some o f th e p o in t s made b y a f a i r l y
i
jd iv e r s e g ro u p : J u l i e n Benda ( a g a in s t com m unism ), P a u l N iz a n
i
j ( f o r co m m u n ism ), A n d re M a lr a u x ( f o r c u l t u r a l h u m a n ism ). He
I d id n o t , h o w e v e r, m e n tio n a n y p o in t s made b y G erm an s,
!substantially with them 'as to the general character of the
war.' . . . Strachey believes that the Communists have moved
from opposition to the 'imperialist war' to a definite in
terest in a German victory." (We note that the Soviet-
German Pact was signed on August 23, 1939, an alliance caus
ing great consternation and bewilderment among many American
and European Communists.) For a background viewpoint, see
"An Interview with Andre Malraux," International Literature
(English ed.), No. 5 (November 1934), 144-146, in which
Malraux discusses reasons why many of the most prominent
French writers and artists— including himself— were joining
the proletariat to defend the Soviet Union and to fight for
a Socialist society.
261
although he did include the exile delegation among those
three he considered "especially brilliant," the other two
being the French and the Soviet. The emotional tone of the
conference was also noted, as was the impetus bringing the
writers together, which led to an incisive and objective
summation of the parallels between the ideologically based
conflicts affecting the worlds of both political parties and
jintellectuals in the mid-Thirties. The only comment which
!
(might be construed as indicative of a personal interprets-
|
i
jtion was his final sentence: "Their [the writers'] only
■salvation was to establish an offensive and defensive alli
ance with their audience— on the principle that if the work
ing class successfully defended its liberties, the writers
could be sure of saving theirs" ("The Writers' Interna
tional, " p . 339).
The chief difference between the articles in the two
-'remaining periodicals, The Living Age and The Saturday Re-
i
|
view of Literature— which are both less flamboyant, politi
cally and liberally, than those cited above— is the degree
of detachment shown by their respective authors, E. M.
Forster and Amabel Williams-Ellis, both of whom attended as
members of the seven-man British delegation. Whereas
Forster succinctly described his ideological position
262
35
("vaguely liberal" [p. 64]), presenting his review from a
considerably more personal standpoint, Williams-Ellis ex
hibited a rather remarkable degree of distance, despite her
occasional personal observations or evaluations. Forster
displayed a kind of bored antipathy toward the preponder
antly Communistic tone in evidence at the hall of the Palais
de la Mutualite, and the general impression received from
his review is one of kindly sarcasm toward all of the fran-
jtic intensity evidenced there, particularly by the Commu-
|
jnists. However, he did convey rather convincingly his
•^Klaus Mann's description in Der Wendepunkt of For
ster's position seems to expand upon that author's phrase
rather accurately: "Der Autor von A Passage to India . . .
gehort zwar zu einer wesentlich alteren Generation, erfreut
sich aber besonderer Popularitat bei der intellektuellen
Avantgarde" (p. 334). Mann's book was first published in
|English as The Turning Point. Thirty-Five Years in This
[century (New York, c. 1942). As previously indicated (Chap
iter I, note 22), the German edition was not a mere transla
tion of the English; rather, each was a specifically indi
vidual literary entity. As the author points out, "...
jvielmehr habe ich ein neues deutsches Buch geschrieben,
Iwobei ich einiges Material aus der urspriinglichen amerikani-
schen Fassung verwenden konnte. Der Wendepunkt ist wesent
lich umfangreicher aIs The Turning Point. Wahrend dieser
mit einer Tagebuchnotiz aus dem Juni 1942 schlieftt, endet
jener mit einem Brief vom 28. September 1945. Die letzten
Seiten des elften Kapitels und das ganze zwolfte fehlen im
amerikanischen Original. Auch sonst wurde mancherlei hin-
zugefiigt, besonders im Kapitel liber das Exil. Andererseits
habe ich hier und dort in der deutschen Fassung gewisse
Details weggelassen, die mir fur den nicht-amerikanischen
Leser ohne Bedeutung oder schwer verstandlich schienen"
- . . ( "Nachbemerkung, " p. 544).______________________________________ .
263
a w a re n e s s o f t h e r e a l i t y o f th e F a s c i s t t h r e a t , p a r t i a l l y
th r o u g h h i s m e n tio n o f th e p re s e n c e o f m any e x i l e d w r i t e r s :
Fascism seemed very near to us . . . much nearer than
it seems in England. We met under the very shadow of
the Croix de Feu, and, if they triumph, France will
join the lengthening list of countries where free speech
is forbidden and tolerance despised. Many of the speak
ers were exiles, or poor, or in personal danger. (p. 63)
W i l l i a m s - E l l i s , c o n v e r s e ly , g a v e th e d i s t i n c t im p r e s
s io n t h a t t h i s was m o st d o m in a n tly a F re n c h c o n g r e s s ; o n ly
|once d id sh e m e n tio n th e e x i l e d w r i t e r s , and th e n i n d i -
I
r e c t l y , as th e o b je c t s o f one o f th e aim s s e t f o r t h b y th e
I n t e r n a t i o n a l A s s o c ia t io n . R a t h e r , she c o n c e n t r a t e d on th e
i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y fam ous F re n c h an d E n g lis h s p e a k e rs (H u x le y ,
F o r s t e r , G id e ) an d m e n tio n e d j u s t i n p a s s in g th e s p e e c h e s o f
th e F re n c h M a r x is t J e a n -R ic h a r d B lo c h and th e R u s s ia n s
E h re n b u rg and P a n f e r o v . She r e f e r r e d q u i t e a b s t r a c t l y t o
th e t h r e a t o f f a s c is m — a g a in s t w hose e n c ro a c h m e n ts th e c o n
g re s s h a d b e e n c a l l e d i n th e f i r s t p l a c e — an d r e f e r r e d t o
j
ith e N a z is o n ly i n r e g a r d t o h e r p r e d i c t i o n o f t h e i r c e r t a i n
la c k o f s u c c e s s , s h o u ld t h e y d e c id e t o h o ld a w r i t e r s ' c o n
g r e s s , i n a t t r a c t i n g "a b r i l l i a n t g a t h e r in g su ch as was
c o n s t i t u t e d b y th o s e n o v e l i s t s , d r a m a t is t s , and p o e ts who
s ta n d a g a in s t th em " (p . 17).
The b a s ic o p in io n e x p r e s s e d i n a l l o f th e jo u r n a ls was
264
definitely favorable: "... when the Congress ended a long
and carefully studied program had been concluded impres
sively" (Cowley, "The Writers' International," p. 339); "The
papers read were of an exceptionally high order, and at many
points the discussion reached an unprecedented level of
36
g e n e r a l i z a t i o n and d is c e r n m e n t" ; " Y e t i t re m a in e d an im
p r e s s iv e a f f a i r , w h ic h o n ly a common d a n g e r c o u ld h a v e
icreated" (Forster, p. 63).
j
| Buenos Aires: Fourteenth Annual
I P.E.N. Congress
In contrast to its total lack of reference to the In
ternational Writers' Congress of 1935, the New York Times
did devote several articles to the happenings which trans
pired at the next annual P.E.N. Congress, held in Buenos
Aires from September 5-14, 1936. Interestingly, while only
two of the three listed in the Index were pertinent— the
ithird concerned Dorothy Thompson of the American P.E.N.
Center and made no reference to the coming International
Congress— two additional reports were discovered through
perusal of the issues of the Times for the period encom
passing the conference. The Readers' Guide for 1935-1937
36"The First International Congress of Writers for the
Defense of Culture, " Partisan Review, p. 28._________ _______
265
was even less helpful, providing not even one relevant
article under its reference heading for P.E.N.; under its
heading, "Authors, German," however, the speech presented by-
Emil Ludwig on behalf of the banished German writers was
listed; originally printed in Das Neue Tagebuch, an influ
ential emigre weekly published in Paris by Leopold Schwarz-
37
schiId, it had been translated and reprinted in The Living
Age.
A lth o u g h we w e re u n a b le t o f i n d r e f e r e n c e s t o t h i s j
IP.E.N. Congress in any of the other periodicals with which
I
jwe are dealing, this was not wholly unexpected in light of
the political moderatism— indeed, almost the complete non-
I
politicalism— traditionally displayed by that esteemed body,
plus the perhaps more directly relevant fact that by 1936,
themes of a much more dramatically crucial nature were
claiming the attention of not only our previously helpful
07
J A c c o r d in g t o W e g n e r, t h e d o m in a n tly p o l i t i c a l Das
Neue T a g eb u ch was u n d e n ia b ly th e m o st s i g n i f i c a n t l i t e r a r y
fo ru m o f th e Germ an e x i l e d w r i t e r s : " M it A usnahm en e i n i g e r
m a r x is t is c h e r B l a t t e r , d ie au ch v o n a u s la n d is c h e n K om m uni-
s t e n g e le s e n w u rd e n , w a r d ie s e Z e i t s c h r i f t das e in z ig e O rgan
d e r E m ig r a t io n , das au ch b e i N ic h t - E m ig r a n t e n a u f e in s t a r -
k e s In t e r e s s e s t ie B " (p . 73). The T a g e b u c h was p u b lis h e d
fro m J u ly 1933 u n t i l May 11, 1940— i . e . , u n t i l j u s t b e f o r e
t h e N a z i a rm ie s o f f i c i a l l y o c c u p ie d F r a n c e . W eg n er p r e s e n ts
a s u c c in c t an d a c c u r a t e sum m ary o f t h i s j o u r n a l on p p . 73-
74 .
266
liberal and left-wing sources, but also that of the less
iextreme magazines, e.g., (1) the growing aggressiveness of
Mussolini's Italy, whose expansionist policies were ever
more apparent since its invasion of Ethiopia in the early
fall of 1935, thus further threatening the unstable peace of
the world; (2) the gradual increase of Roosevelt's unpopu
larity among many liberals, caused, in part, by such actions
as his application of the Embargo Act of 1935 to Italy—
j
jwhich did not, however, include oil, the chief Italian need,
!
jin its "forbidden materials" category; (3) the ineffective-
i
J
|ness of the League of Nations in preventing the imposition
of economic sanctions against Italy, due to Anglo-French
38
fear of an alliance between Germany and Italy; (4) the
3®Cochran, p. 141. This was not the sole factor con
tributing to the ineffectiveness of the League, for the
Neutrality Act, due to its lack of teeth in the area of raw
materials, soon turned into a "moral embargo" rather than
jany real hindrance to Italy, with the result that exports of
jwar materials to Italy mounted. Despite Secretary of State
|cordell Hull's stern warnings about the increase in exports
such as oil, copper, trucks, and scrap steel, it was feared
by America's allies, particularly Britain, that if the
League imposed an oil embargo against Italy, American oil
men, turning the loopholes of the Neutrality Act to their
advantage and operating on the profit motive to the detri
ment of any moral considerations, "would grab the whole
Italian oil market" (Burns, p. 258). When Britain's Ambas
sador Sir Samuel Hoare therefore asked Hull directly whether
the United States would cease increased oil exports to Italy
if the League embargoed oil, Hull evaded the question,
partly because it was not within his province to make such
267
even greater fear within the conservative ruling circles in
England and France of the influence of Russia on their
countries' internal affairs— which overshadowed rather con
siderably any concern motivated by the danger of an external
39
threat posed by Germany or Italy; (5) Hitler's occupation
I
of the Rhineland in March 1936— the first German breach of
the territorial agreements of the Treaty of Versailles; (6)
a decision— this lay with Congress; and, as Burns puts it,
|"to appeal to Congress to embargo oil in conjunction with
ithe League was to establish the fearful link between Ameri
can policy and League collective security that he and Roose-
:velt had fought so hard to avoid." The result of this
vagueness on the part of the United States was the so-called
Hoare-Laval plan, whereby Sir Samuel and the French Foreign
Minister Pierre Laval— who had wanted to appease Mussolini
for some time by dumping Ethiopia— agreed on a plan to end
the war "by dismembering Ethiopia and handing over large
chunks to Mussolini." Public outrage squelched this plan--
and with it, Hoare's ambassadorship— but it also "killed the
high hopes for effective sanctions." What happened was that
the League continued to fumble along— which meant, mainly,
doing little of use— and so "The war went on. Italian
Itroops struck deeper into Ethiopia, burning, bombing, spray
ing poison gas from the clouds" (p. 258).
i 39
Cochran, p. 142. For a discussion of the rather com
plicated and strife-torn situation in France during and just
prior to this time, beginning with the return to power of
the radicals (i.e., conservatives) under Edouard Daladier
shortly after the elections of February 6, 1934, see Andre
Beaufre, 1940, The Fall of France (London, c. 1967), pp. 55-
56, 80-81. Note also that shortly after Stanley Baldwin,
representing the conservative wing of the National Coalition
government in Britain, became Prime Minister in May of 1935,
he entered into a treaty with Germany— which in effect al
lowed it to rearm.
268
the immediate reaction generated by the start in July 1936
of the revolution in Spain* and (7) the dominant atmosphere
of moderately— and in some groups,, militantly--conservative
isolationism in the United States which precluded the taking
i
jof any steps to halt the rampages of fascism before it
I . 40
gathered yet more of Europe into its fold. Such then, m
brief, was the atmosphere in which the fourteenth !
! ^°Beaufre, who was a General in the French Army, labels
|the isolationist sentiment prevailing in the United States
las "selfish isolation after 1918" (p. 212). Cochran is
rather more objective in his references and explanations:
"... during the period from 1934 to 1939, public sentiment
was strongly opposed to any involvement abroad. Put another
way, Americans wanted to stay out of, not try to prevent,
another world war. Thus, when England made the fateful
decision to do nothing to stop the military buildup of Ger
many, neither Roosevelt nor the majority of Americans would
support active participation by the United States in the
European balance of power. Americans wanted Congressional
action to forestall such developments as had previously led
the country into war" (pp. 140-141). Cochran also notes
that Roosevelt was hampered by conflicting forces in Amer-
|ica: "Since the large, closely knit ethnic groups— the
Irish, Germans, and Italians— were either anti-British or
on the side of the Axis powers, and the isolationists op
posed vigorous action, both forces worked against a stronger
American policy to check the Axis .... as the situation
grew more tense in Europe there was not a Roosevelt foreign
policy but rather a series of reactions to European events,
with the President's response likely to be modified by
political considerations at home" (pp. 142-143). See also
Burns, p. 259: "Ethiopia's betrayal left American inter
nationalists in a sea of uncertainty and despondency. Iso
lationists jeered that once again Uncle Sam had been gulled
by European diplomats. Most Americans were merely con
fused."
269
I n t e r n a t i o n a l P .E .N . C o n g re s s to o k p l a c e .
I n a tte n d a n c e w e re n i n e t y d e le g a t e s fro m some t h i r t y -
nine nations; among the distinguished writers were the
F re n ch m en J a c q u e s M a r i t a i n , J e a n G ir a u d o u x , an d J u le s R o -
m a in s ; th e I t a l i a n F . T . M a r i n e t t i ; and t h e G erm ans S t e f a n
Z w e ig an d E m il L u d w ig — n e i t h e r o f whom i n 1936 c o u ld y e t
t e c h n i c a l l y b e la b e le d e x i l e s (Z w e ig h a d l i v e d i n S a lz b u r g
s in c e 1919, h a d h a d a sec o n d r e s id e n c e i n E n g la n d s in c e
'1934, b u t d id n o t move i n t o e x i l e i n E n g la n d u n t i l 1938;
Ludwig had been living in Switzerland since 1906, remained
41
t h e r e as l a t e as 1940, th e n came t o th e U n it e d S t a t e s . )
^-*~E x i l - L i t e r a t u r , F r a n k f u r t a / M . , p p . 252-253, 96 . I n
a n o th e r s e n s e , h o w e v e r, b o th Z w e ig an d L u d w ig w e re e x i l e s ,
n a m e ly , i n t h a t t h e i r books h a d b e e n b l a c k l i s t e d b y th e
N a z is i n 1933 . The L iv in g A g e , t r u e t o i t s p o l i c y o f c a t h
o l i c c o v e r a g e , p u b lis h e d a n a r t i c l e b y D r . W o lfg a n g H e r r
m ann, o r i g i n a l l y p r i n t e d i n th e B o r s e n b la t t f u r d en D e u t -
s c h e n B u c h h a n d e l, t h e o f f i c i a l l y s a n c t io n e d , d a i l y p u b l i c a
t i o n o f th e G erm an b o o k t r a d e , w h ic h d e l in e a t e d m o st o f th e
;a u th o r s and t h e i r books w h ic h w e re b a n n e d a t t h i s t im e ; we
n o te t h a t b o th Z w e ig and L u d w ig w e re u n e q u iv o c a lly b a n n e d —
r a t h e r th a n j u s t c e r t a i n o f t h e i r b o o k s , as was t h e c a s e
w i t h c e r t a i n o t h e r G erm an, E u ro p e a n , a n d A m e ric a n a u t h o r s ,
e . g . , o n ly Men w it h o u t Women b y H em ingw ay an d N a c h k r ie g b y
L u d w ig Renn a p p e a re d on t h i s l i s t . I t s h o u ld b e n o te d t h a t
t h i s f i r s t l i s t r e l a t e s o n ly t o a u th o r s an d b o o ks w h ic h w e re
n o t p e r m it t e d t o b e ta k e n o u t o f p u b l i c l i b r a r i e s , w h e re
t h e y w e re t o b e r e p la c e d as q u i c k l y as p o s s ib le b y p a t r i o t i c
l i t e r a t u r e (" T h e G u id e P o s t ," The L i v in g A g e , C C C X L IV , N o .
4402 [ J u ly 1933], 469) . As H e rrm a n n s t a t e s , " . . . th e
c u l t u r a l - p o l i t i c a l p u rp o s e o f th e p u b l i c l i b r a r i e s is t o
c o n s is t i n th e i n t e l l e c t u a l a rm in g and c o m p le te m o b i l i z a t i o n
o f a l l Germ an p e o p le , who a r e t o b e p r o v id e d w i t h l i t e r a t u r e
270
Two of the expected delegates, Andre Gide and International
P.E.N. President H. G. Wells, were unable to attend. Ac-
i
cording to the Times, "The chief question before the con
gress, one hotly disputed at the last three congresses, con
cerns the function of P.E.N. Clubs in this present disor-
!
dered world and the attitude toward writers in countries
42
under dictatorships." Other proposed topics included the
Sof unsullied origin. The first step in this direction is a
universal, spontaneous effort to concentrate the working
material and supply of books in each library on fundamen
tals . Everywhere that experts took action this process was
gone through in orderly fashion, and the general public soon
understood what was happening when the inquisitorial words,
'black list,1 became current. Old idols were not shattered*
instead, new principles of selection and value were intro
duced to the field of popular literature and literary criti
cism. Of course the black lists were drawn up along
literary-political lines, and the fundamental preliminary
question necessary to every political decision is: Who is
the real enemy? Against whom is the struggle directed? The
answer took the form of a declaration issued by the Prussian
Ministry for Science, Art, and Popular Education and applied
jto all state libraries. One passage read as follows: 'The
(Struggle is directed against symptoms of disintegration in
jour form-bound way of thinking and living— that is to say,
against 'asphalt literature,' most of which is written for
people who live in big cities and increases their indepen
dence of the world around them, of the people, and of any
community, so that they are finally uprooted completely. It
is the literature of intellectual nihilism'" ("Germany's
Blacklisted Books" ["Thunder from the Nazis"], The Living
Age, CCCXLIV, No. 4402 [July 1933], 430).
A 9
^"Buenos Aires Host to P.E.N. Congress. Ninety Dele
gates from Thirty-nine Countries Gather for International
Session. Noted Writers Present. Stefan Zweig, Duhamel,
Ludwig, Maritain, Giraudoux, Marinetti and Mottram Attend,"
271
international literary review established the previous year,
a project for an international institute of translations,
questions or copyright, and social assistance for writers.
At the opening business session, held on the morning of
Monday, September 8, a resolution was adopted which called
43
on world governments to safeguard peace. During the eve
ning session of the same day, however, a quarrel erupted
between the French and Italian delegations, involving
ichiefly Romains and Marinetti, and causing such turmoil that
i
I
jthe entire congress "came near disruption" (Adams, p. 14).
]
It appears that the conflict was provoked by Romains1 demand
|to Marinetti— who was presiding at the evening session— that
j
jhe disavow any statements concerning war which had appeared
j NYT, September 6, 1936, sec. 2, p. 7.
43This resolution, introduced by Jules Romains, de
clared that there existed "a grave danger of a large-scale
iwar" and urged world governments to avoid a situation "which
would result in a worse disaster than the World War." A
supplementary resolution, presented by the delegate from
Iceland, demanded that all P.E.N. executive committees "take
disciplinary action against any infringement of the duty of
writers to adhere to the spirit of the peace resolution"
(J . Donald Adams, "Peace Move Stirs P.E.N. Congress Row.
French and Italian Writers in Clash over War Views in Lat
ter ' s Magazine. Resolution Sees Peril. World Governments
Are Urged to Take Steps to Prevent Another Vast Conflict,"
NYT, September 9, 1936, sec. 1, p. 14). We would observe
that what precisely was meant by either the resolution or
its supplement was not made clear in this article— indeed,
perhaps not by their sponsors either._________________________
272
in the July issue of Action Nacionale, statements which,
44 i
according to Romains, who reviewed them for the assembly,
were incompatible with the P.E.N. peace resolution adopted
earlier in the day. As one of the editors of this Italian
magazine, but also as a delegate who had applauded the reso
lution, Marinetti was at this point in the delicate position
of having to make a public choice between two diametrically j
jopposed viewpoints. His regional and editorial loyalties j
^dominated, and he refused to disavow anything, stating that
jhe would accept no indictment of his country, with the re
sult that "the congress was in an uproar" (Adams, p. 14).
Apparently realizing that this was not a propitious note on
jwhich to end the day^lP^roceedings, Marinetti attempted to
jtread the fine line between commitment and opposition, say
ing that he desired peace if his nation were not invaded and
appending the accusation that France was among those coun
tries which were trying to crush Italy. The discussion was
terminated after his retraction of this charge— which was
given impetus by the demand of Dr. Charles Ibarguren,
^According to Romains, the article called for "scien
tific preparation for war[, maintaining] that Italian na
tional pride must prevail against all enemies, [and] assert
ing that was was a hygienic process" (NYT, September 9,
1936) .
273
president of the Buenos Aires P.E.N. Centre and of the
jArgentinian Academy of Letters . The ill will created by
this clash was neutralized several days later at the closing
session of September 14, when Romains was elected to the
position of International President, succeeding H. G. Wells,
followed by the apparently unanimous choice by the delegates
of Rome as the site for the next congress. The Times points
I
jout, however, that "It is probable that the French delega-
t
jtion would have opposed the choice of Rome . . . had Mr.
I
1 45
iRomains not been elected."
i
j
| The piece de resistance was given to the rehabilitation
of relations between the French and Italian delegations at
i
|the annual P.E.N. dinner on September 17, when in his speech
i
Romains referred to Rome as "the 'Cradle of Nations'" and
! expressed his pleasure that the next conference would be
held there, further declaring his conviction that the Ital-
!ian representatives were just as anxious to avert a European
i . 46
war as those of any nation. These happy observations
45
"P.E.N. Congress Picks Romains as Its Head. French
Novelist Succeeds H. G. Wells, Who Is Extolled by Zweig at
Buenos Aires," NYT, September 15, 1936, sec. 1, p. 27.
46"Next P.E.N. Congress in Rome: Italians Kiss French
men to End P.E.N. Club Clash," NYT, September 18, 1936, sec.
1, p. 26.
274
stimulated two of the more impulsive Italians to rush up to
Romains at the conclusion of his speech and implant four
kisses on his cheeks, thus signifying that friendly rela
tions had been restored and ending the fourteenth congress
"on a chord of good will" (p. 26).
It is worth noting the salient points made by Emil
Ludwig in the quite eloquent speech he gave on the first day
jof the gathering, the presentation of which, incidentally,
was acknowledged by the Times in only one brief sentence:
| "At the morning session Emil Ludwig discussed the plight of
|
jGermany's authors" (NYT, September 9, 1936). In the edi
torial introduction given his speech in The Living Age,
i
Ludwig is referred to as "perhaps the most widely read" of
the living German authors whose books have been translated
47
and published abroad. The editors thus express their
"particular interest [in regard to which] attitude Mr. Lud-
Iwig takes toward Nazi Germany" (p. 349). And this attitude
Ludwig expressed quite definitively in his opening sentence
when he stated that he had "the honor to speak to you in the
name of the banished and exiled German authors," continuing
with the statement that he had always considered himself
47
Emil Ludwig Pleads for Freedom" ["Letters and the
Arts"], LA. CCCLI, No. 4443 (December 1936), 349.
275
"a German writer," despite the fact that he had emigrated to
i
jswitzerland some thirty years previously. He felt that this
position had been authenticated when he "had the honor [on
that May afternoon of 1933] of sharing the fate of his best
colleagues on a certain funeral pyre[, on which occasion he
had] occupied a place between Heinrich Heine and Spinoza";
it was his opinion that it had been an infinitely "more
worthy death to [be] burned between two geniuses of the
jGerman race than to receive the blessing of a few experts in
I
t
i
jracial lore" (p. 349).
The basic theme of his speech was the integral rela
tionship in times such as these between politics and litera-
I
ture, and he indicted those delegates, present at every
congress, "who pretend that the P.E.N. Club has nothing to
do with politics, and that we must confine ourselves to an
academic discussion of our profession" (p. 350). He noted
I
ithe contradiction inherent in the fact that nearly all the
I
prior speakers at the congress had stresssed the non
political nature of their organization and had then pro
ceeded to speak of politics. As he put it, "we are always
being invited to linger in the paradise of the spirit.
Where is the dividing line between literature and politics?"
After citing various cultural manifestations of the Nazi
276
regime in Germany, among them the twisting of historical
facts--according to a certain Herr Blunck, President of the
Reichskulturkammer, a Dane of German origin named Dietrich
Penning had really discovered America; the German Professor
Franz von Wendrin had recently proved that Jesus was actu
ally an Aryan, having been born near Mecklenburg; and the
New German song books stated that the creator of possibly
the most popular of German folksongs, "Die Lorelei," was
|"'unknown 1" (shades of post-war Communist distortion!) —
i
I
i
jLudwig expressed his astonishment that an international
j
jcongress of writers could be indifferent to such things,
reminding the delegates that one of the fundamental tenets
of P.E.N. was the desire to activate "against barbarism and
for freedom of speech," and asking whether freedom of speech
had not indeed been demanded "by every one" of the previous
P.E.N. speakers.
Ludwig evinced a great concern with the awareness— or
possible lack of same by some delegates present-~of the
imminence of war in 1936, for "war is certainly being pre
pared today in the schools and universities," continuing
with the clear warning that "the fate of the German writers
may be your fate tomorrow, at least in Europe," and drama
tically pointing out the increase, from one P.E.N. Congress
277
to the next, in the number of countries which had fallen
under the dark night of censorship: "If we are able to meet
once more before the next war begins, this number will be
larger still. Perhaps our next Congress will be forced to
meet on an unknown island in Oceania, and perhaps the his
torians of the future will call it the last refuge of the
spirit." In addition to his urgent conviction that he had
ja duty to warn the writers of the threat of the insatiable
idictatorship mentality which threatened their very exis-
|
jtence, Ludwig indicated a second reason motivating him to
j
jspeak as he did; this was his wish to prevent some future
j
jhistorian from being able to observe the silence of an In-
j
ternational Congress of Writers and Artists in the face "of
immediate dangers which menaced the spirit and those who
48
serve the spirit" (pp. 350-351).
Whether the second prominent German attending the con-
j
i
igress presented a significant speech was not, unfortunately,
discovered in the sources at our disposal. The Times, how
ever, does mention that Stefan Zweig read a tribute to
^Shortly before this clarification, Ludwig had men
tioned that he had been "advised . . . not to breathe the
noisome word war here, so as not to disturb the idyllic at
mosphere of our gathering" (p. 350). He did not indicate
at whose behest this "advice" was given.
278
H. G. Wells at the closing session, in which he referred to
him as "'an indefatigable fighter for a better humanity'"
who embodied within himself the two ingredients necessary
for greatness, i.e., a high degree of literary talent and a
*
powerful moral force. Zweig expressed his feeling about the
contemporary significance of the writing profession: it
contained the potential to become "the highest and most
necessary [profession] in the modern world," since a direct
i
iratio existed between the growth of the writer's influence
i
i
upon the public and his debt— i.e., responsibility— to
humanity ("P.E.N. Congress Picks Romains as Its Head," p.
27) .
The general impression received about this P.E.N. Con
gress is that much time was devoted to the discussion and
affirmation of noble-sounding but vague resolutions on ques
tions with which the delegates were basically unable to deal
49
in a truly influential and/or realistic manner. Unimpor-
i
i
tant matters consumed much energy, and the delegates— as in
previous congresses— tended to circumvent in-depth
49
Note Henry Canby's evaluation of the peace resolution
adopted at the opening session of September 8: "The con
ference was given a sedative in the form of a resolution
calling for universal peace" ("Shall They Go to Rome?" Sat
urday Review, XV, No. 6 [December 5, 1936], 12).
279
discussion of crucial issues, such as the ever more real
danger of world war and the threat of Fascist totalitarian
ism. Ludwig's reference to the suggestion that he not even
state the word "war" seems indicative of this attitude of
P.E.N.: writers may expound eloquently, even endlessly on
"significant" themes, so long as they do so in the abstract
and do not shake up the status quo or their public image by
discussion of controversial issues, no matter how crucial or
timely they may be. It is obvious that the majority of
members were in accord with this policy— we note the post
ponement at the 1935 Barcelona Congress of any discussion,
much less decision, regarding the basic purpose of P.E.N.,
as initiated by H. G. Wells.
Madrid/Valencia: Second International Writers'
Congress for the Defense of Culture
The Second International Writers' Congress was quite
possibly the most dramatic of the fourteen congresses dis
cussed in this paper, for it took place in the heat of the
Spanish "Civil" War: Madrid on July 6, 1937, and Valencia
on July 10.50 The congress met in Madrid for several
50
Due to the nature of our sources on this conference,
it was necessary to piece together in a rather sporadic
fashion the details regarding the precise locations and
dates of the various meetings held in Spain. The New York
280
reasons^ one of which was a matter of reciprocal courtesy to
iTimes, for example, stated that certain British writers
planned to attend the International Writers1 Congress in
Valencia on July 5 ("Britain Bars Visas to Valencia," NYT,
July 4, 1937, sec. 1, p. 14). Malcolm Cowley in the New
Republic noted that the delegates had "assembled in Paris
. . . [gotten themselves] across the border after only a few
hours of delay . . . [and then] traveled for several hundred
miles along Spanish roads reserved for military traffic," in
order to arrive at their destination, Madrid ("To Madrid.
Ill: Offensive on Two Fronts," NR, XCII, No. 1189 [Septem
ber 15, 1937], 153). He later stated that two meetings were
|held in Madrid on July 6 (p. 154), following this with the
Inote that the congress was "Back in Valencia, on July 10"
j(p. 154) . In his opening paragraph he had observed, "A few
jhours after we first arrived in Valencia, I had begun hear-
jing that the republican army would soon be taking the of
fensive" (p. 152), indicating further on in his narrative
that he "didn't think much about it [the rumored offensive]
during the long drive to Madrid," stating thereafter that
"That same morning the writers1 . . . congress convened for
jits first session in Madrid" (p. 153). In his discussion of
Ithe various international meetings of the Schutzverband,
Pfeiler writes, "During the Spanish Civil War in 1937, when
the Loyalists still held Madrid against General Franco, a
meeting there gave especial poignancy to [the] conviction
[that the writer is an essential participant in the struggle
for humanity and progress]" (German Literature in Exile, p.
j36). Apparently, however, some meetings were held in both
Valencia and Paris, for Lion Feuchtwanger, in his letter to
jthe congress, sent his regrets that it was impossible for
!him to participate "an den Sitzungen des Kongresses in Va
lencia"; in his concluding paragraph, after noting that he
had heard that the sessions of the congress had made an
impression upon the world, he expressed the hope, "Ich
wunsche von Herzen, daS auch die abschliefienden Sitzungen in
Paris die gleiche Wirkung tun mogen" ("Lion Feuchtwanger.
Deutschland" ["Brief an den KongreB"], Das Wort, II, Nr. 10
[October 1937], 63). The impression gleaned from these
varied references was that the congress first assembled in
Paris, crossed the border to Valencia on July 5, spent the
night there— Cowley reported that "Later that evening there
was a reception at the headquarters of the Spanish writers 1
281
the Spanish delegates, who at the first writers' conference
jin Paris two years before had invited their colleagues to
i
hold a second congress in Madrid; they had reissued their
invitation in London at a meeting of the executive committee
51
m June 1936, one month before the military revolt, at
union, the Alianza" (p. 152)— then drove to Madrid where
several meetings were conducted, thereafter returning to
jvalencia on or about July 10, where there was at least one
'more meeting— Cowley labeled it "an extraordinarily fine
meeting at which Fernando de los Rios paid a tribute to his
jdead friend, the poet Lorca" (p. 154)— thence returning to
(Paris, where Louis Aragon "read an important paper in de-
ifense of literary nationalism" (p. 154).
1 51
This meeting has not been included in the group of
conferences listed for discussion because it was rather more
limited in scope, due to its nature as an executive commit
tee meeting. Interestingly, although Ernst Toller presented
the opening address, this fact was not mentioned in the
Frankfurt catalogue, Exil-Literatur; we found references
only to his participation in the congresses at Paris in 1935
and at Madrid in 1937 (p. 249) . And yet his speech was
highly literate and cohesive, stimulating one to wonder why
mention of it or the gathering at which it was presented
should be omitted from the catalogue. Entitled "Das Wort"
i[Eroffnungsrede zum internationalen Schriftsteller-Kongreft
jin London, Juni 1936], it was first printed in Das Neue
i Tacrebuch, IV, Nr. 27 (July 4, 1936), 639-641, and later
translated and printed in Life and Letters Today, XV, No. 5
(Autumn 1936), 34-36— indeed, this was the official version
printed with the permission of the author. A second ad
dress presented there was entitled "The Cultural Heritage";
given by Andre Malraux, its publication in the New Republic
was preceded by an introductory note by Malcolm Cowley, in
which he evaluated the speech as "remarkable," noting that
its subject matter was one "that has been preoccupying not
only Malraux, but the greatest of his European colleagues,
in these years when our inherited culture is definitely
threatened by new nationalisms based on the worship of_______
282
which time it had been formally accepted. The second reason
directly concerns the concept of the writer's relationship
to politics , for the meetings in Spain were a statement, as
it were, of commitment to and involvement with the Loyalist
cause:
This civil war transformed into an international war
has engaged the sympathies of writers in all countries;
and there is no doubt that most of them have taken the
government side. To hold a literary congress in Madrid
| was a means of stating this fact; it was a means of
i telling the Spanish writers and soldiers they were not
| fighting alone.^2
I
j
j
j American press coverage of this congress was even more
|
limited than that of the First International Writers 1 Con
gress in 1935: the Times Index, while it did provide a
heading ("Writers' Congress, International"), listed one
brief item dealing indirectly with the event; the other
article in the Times was discovered under the heading "Writ-
iers, American League of," and was only slightly more helpful.
'force' or 'blood,' by anti-cultural dictatorships and by
the likelihood of war tomorrow" ([Fall Book Section], NR,
LXXXVIII, No. 1142 [October 21, 1936], 315-317). Malraux's
thoughts will be discussed more fully in Chapter V, a sec
tion of which will deal more specifically with various views
on the function and responsibility of the writer.
5^Cowly, "To Madrid," p. 153. The editors note that
this article is "the third in a series of footnotes on the
Spanish war. They will be continued in succeeding issues"
(p. 155) .___________________________________________________ _
283
One article was cited in the Readers 1 Guide, and none at all
in the annual indices of The Nation and The New Republic;
Cowley's article was discovered by accident— it was not
listed in the New Republic index for 1937 . No further arti
cles were found in any of the other sources with which we
are dealing. As a result, it was again necessary to turn to
an exile periodical for more complete coverage, in this j
|instance Das Wort, a monthly German-language publication j
founded in Moscow in 1936, whose editors were Brecht,
Bredel, and Feuchtwanger, and which Wegner evaluated as "Die
wohl bedeutendste literarische Exil-Zeitschrift der Kommu-
53
nisten." The Kantorowicz article supplied useful
^^Wegner, p. 78. The duration of Das Wort, as Wegner
points out, coincided almost exactly with the years of the
"Volksfront-Politik," with the result that writers of
greatly diverse political orientations were represented in
this periodical, despite the fact that the basic Marxist
idelineation dominated each issue. On one end of the spec-
Itrum were such contributors as Thomas Mann, Joseph Roth, Max
iHermann NeiSe, Stefan Zweig, Heinrich Mann, and Alfred
jDoblin; on the other end were orthodox Marxists such as
Stefan Heym, Anna Seghers, Ludwig Renn, and Adam Scharrer.
Wegner observes that it was significant for the ideological
basis of Das Wort that the various non-Marxist exile peri
odicals were viewed as non-existent; indeed, that this
journal saw itself as the only representative organ of the
emigration is explained as due to the fact that it appeared
in Moscow. In their introduction to the first issue the
editors take cognizance of this circumstance: "Das Wort
erscheint in einem Lande, das keine Arbeitslosigkeit kennt,
wo uber eine Million Deutsche (an der Wolga, in der Krim,
der Ukraine, in Sibirien) zu intensivem nationalen___________
284
information on the SDS members fighting in Spain at this
time.
According to the Times, the American writers Waldo
Frank., Nathan Asch, Malcolm Cowley, Louis Kronenberger, John
Howard Lawson, Grace Lumpkin, and Archibald MacLeish "are
among [those] who hope to find a meeting hall left standing
54
for them in the Spanish capital." This was a reference to
the fact that in December of 1936 the cables were reporting
jone-fourth of Madrid in ruins, with the worst yet to come —
|
ICowley noted that by July 1937, Madrid had been under siege
for eight months, since November of the previous year ("To
Madrid," p. 153), and Klaus Mann, who traveled to Spain in
|
1938 as a reporter, recalled his impression of Madrid in
Kulturleben erwacht sind. In einem Lande, das die heutigen
deutschen Machthaber zwar offen verleumden und mit Krieg
bedrohen, das aber darauf nicht etwa mit Chauvinismus rea-
giert, sondern mit unveranderter Liebe und Achtung fur den
jwahren, den humanen deutschen Geist, der der Welt so viel
gegeben hat" ("Vorwort," DW, I, Nr. 1 [July 1936], 3, in
Wegner, pp. 78-80). It should be mentioned that the entire
issue of October 1937 was devoted to the Spanish Civil War;
of this, over half was spent on coverage of the Second In
ternational Writers' Congress.
54
"Taking a Chance" ["The Passing Show in New York"
(Editorial section)], NYT, December 13, 1936, sec. 4, p. 9.
As previously indicated, Cowley's attendance was verifiable
through his first-hand impressions in the New Republic.
That the American Negro poet and playwright Langston Hughes
also participated was verified through Das Wort, which
printed his speech (pp. 65-66).
285
The Turning Point of 1942:
But one must have been in the besieged city of Madrid
to grasp the elating grandeur of the Spanish example.
Throughout the siege, which lasted for more than two
years, the army of the rebels remained within sight,
just in front of the martyred city. The artillery
bombardment never ceased completely. We heard the
hollow detonations, even while sauntering through the
streets of the fortress-capital.
The general mood in the Madrid of that heroic epoch
j was one of grim, composed determination. The city
! appeared at once numbed and transfigured in its bleak,
stringent glory. Life was monotonous and austere. ... j
j The awareness of continuous danger marked and hardened
j all faces. The tragic and indomitable city seemed to
I echo the battle-cry of the Republic cause: NO PASARANI
| (pp. 310-311)
i
| I
| The hazards inherent in such an atmosphere, while j
I
fairly great, contributed in a very real sense to its su
preme appropriateness for a congress of humanists concerned
about the defense of culture; for in Spain and especially in
Madrid they were faced simultaneously with the embodiment
not only of the protagonists in the struggle to maintain
culture, but also their antagonists who were pounding re
lentlessly at the door with the weapons of its destruction.
As Cowley observed, the "martial atmosphere was strongest at
the two meetings in Madrid on July 6 [where the discussion
was sometimes] very nearly drowned out by the sound of the
guns." The meetings here were conducted under the honorary
286
chairmanship of General Miaja, Commander-in-Chief of the
Republican Army* and
soldiers stood guard at either side of the platform;
in the intense heat [one] could see the sweat rolling
down their foreheads . . . making them blink their eyes.
A good military band played selections, but played them
too often; during each rendition of the "International"
and the new Spanish anthem, we stood at attention, rais
ing our clenched fists. (p. 154)
The obstacles encountered by the approximately seventy-
five of eighty delegates from twenty-eight countries who j
jfinally made it to Madrid were not limited to physical dan
ger. Some difficulties were of a political or diplomatic
nature, such as that of the original British delegates, who
were refused passports by their Foreign Office— for it,
according to Cowley, "lean[ed] toward the Fascists" (p.
153). In a barely visible note at the bottom of a page, the
Times announced that this refusal "to a number of British
( writers" including John Strachey and W. H. Auden, had oc-
jcurred on the evening of July 3 and applied to the Writers'
55
Congress "scheduled to be held in [Valencia on July 5]."
5 5
^"Britain Bars Visas to Valencia," NYT. In the issue
of the following day, July 5, appeared an article concerning
the low ebb of British-Spanish relations (sec. 1, p. 16).
Some of the political strategy that had transpired up to
this point might here be cited. As Shirer notes, "From the
very beginning the Fuehrer's Spanish policy was shrewd, cal-
culated and far-seeing. A perusal of the captured German
287
Cowley added that "a new delegation had to be named and
smuggled across the border" (p. 153); unfortunately, we were
unable to ascertain of whom in toto (with the exceptions of
Spender and Townsend Warner) this new delegation consisted.
documents makes plain that one of Hitler's purposes was to
prolong the Spanish Civil War in order to keep the Western
democracies and Italy at loggerheads and draw Mussolini
toward him" (p. 297). And this was precisely what Hitler
accomplished, for in October of 1936, his plans bore fruit
in the form of the Rome-Berlin Axis. Shirer observes that
Britain and France, acting with their already precedented
indecisiveness— witness Hitler's Rhineland coup and their
failure to stop Mussolini in Abyssinia— "were [at the be
ginning of 1937] cutting a sorry figure by their futile
jgestures to prevent Germany and Italy from determining the
outcome of the Spanish . . . War. Everyone knew what Italy
and Germany were doing in Spain to assure Franco's victory.
Yet the governments of London and Paris continued for years
to engage in empty diplomatic negotiations with Berlin and
Rome to assure 'nonintervention' in Spain" (p. 299). What
the British and French governments and their peoples, as
well as the majority of the Germans, seemed to fail to re-
jalize as 1937 began, according to Shirer, was that "almost
jail that Hitler had done in his first four years was a
jpreparation for war"; he cites Goering's testimony at Nurem-
iberg on March 14, 1946, in which the arrogant former Number
ITwo man of the Third Reich "spoke proudly of the opportuni
ties which the Spanish Civil War [had given] for testing
j'my young Luftwaffe'" (p. 300). Shirer summarizes the im
plications of these events for the Western democracies as
follows: "It [German aid to Franco's military revolt] gave
France a third unfriendly fascist power on its borders. It
exacerbated the internal strife in France between Right and
Left and thus weakened Germany's principal rival in the
West. Above all it rendered impossible a rapprochement of
Britain and France with Italy, which the Paris and London
governments had hoped for after the termination of the
Abyssinian War, and thus drove Mussolini into the arms of
Hitler" (p. 297). Regarding the internal strife in France,
see Beaufre, pp. 55, 80-81, 148-149.__________________________
288
Even the special issue of Das Wort made only incidental
reference to British representatives, although writers of
I
various other countries were given coverage. An additional
and very crucial problem which could not be ignored was the
possibility that "Franco [might] provide his own reception
committeej" should he learn the precise date and place of
the congress. Consequently, not only was it postponed on
jmore than one occasion, but its date had to be kept secret
as well; also, great care had to be taken in the issuing of
invitations "for fear of admitting provocators or spies or
simple trouble-makers" (Cowley, p. 153).
Other writers attending the congress, "a fair sprink
ling of [whom had] international reputations" (p. 153), in-
56
eluded Rolland,* Malraux, Julien Benda, and Andre Chamson
from France; Stephen Spender and Sylvia Townsend Warner from
England; Kolzow,* Ehrenburg, Tolstoy, and Fadeyev from the
jUSSR; Karin Michaelis* and Hans Andersen-Nexo* from Denmark;
also a large contingent from Latin America which numbered
among its representatives Nicolas Guillen* of Cuba, Vicente
Saez* of Costa Rica, Paul Gonzales Tunon* of Argentina and
CC
JUThe speeches of writers whose names are starred were
printed in the issue of Das Wort dedicated to the Spanish
War.
289
Cesar Vallejo* of Peru. The delegates from Spain included
the Catholic Jose Bergamin,* head of the writers' alliance;
Alvarez del Vayo,* a former Foreign Minister; Rafael Al
berti* and Machado, who, since the death of Garcia Lorca,
were considered "the two great Spanish poets" (Cowley, p.
153) .
Various German exiles directly involved in the war were
present, such as Ludwig Renn,* Chief-of-Staff of the Elev-
57
enth International Brigade since December 1936; Gustav
^Renn became a member of the KPD in 1928; in the same
year he published his first book, Krieg. Between 1928 and
1932 he was Secretary of the Association of Proletarian-
Revolutionary Writers, as well as editor of Linkskurve and
of the militantly Communistic periodical Aufbruch. He was
arrested in 1933 directly after the Reichstag fire; and be
cause he refused to accept the National Socialists 1 bid for
his loyalty, he was sentenced to thirty months' imprisonment
for high treason. Upon his release in 1936 he fled to
Switzerland; in October of the same year he became Commander
of the Thalmann-Batallion; in December he was elevated to
Chief of Staff, and then later to Commander of the Eleventh
!International Brigade. He had been denationalized rather
late— in April of 1937 . In 1939, when the International
Brigades moved to France, he was interned, but fled to Eng-
!land, then the United States, and then Mexico. He became
President of the movement Freies Deutschland in Mexico in
1942, as well as of the Latin American Committee of Free
Germans. In 1947 he returned to Germany— to Dresden; in
1952 he became a member of the East German Academy of Arts;
and in 1955 and 1961 he received the National Prize of the
German Democratic Republic (Exil-Literatur. Frankfurt a/M.,
pp. 259-260). In his review of the Schutzverband, Kantoro-
wicz praises Renn highly: "Seine hervorragende Rolle als
erster Kommandant des Thalmannbataillons, als Stabchef der
Elften Brigade ist weltbekannt" ("Funf Jahre Schutzverband,"
290
Regler, Commissioner of the Twelfth International Brigade;5^
jone of the editors of Das Wort, Willi Bredel,* who was a
Commissioner of the Thalmann-Batallion of the International
Brigades (Kantorowicz, "Funf Jahre Schutzverband,," p. 72) j
Bodo Uhse,* who was a Political Commissioner of the Eleventh
1
p. 72). Kantorowicz also mentions Renn1s lecture tour of j
the United States after one and a half years of service on i
the Spanish front. In fact, Anti-Nazi News covered Renn's j
brief stay in Los Angeles, during which he gave several t
talks, after one of which he was feted at a social evening I
at the home of Salka Viertel, wife of playwright and poet
Berthold Viertel. As the News stated, Renn, "Through a
heroically active life . . . has continued to write his hu
man and dramatic books which have put him among the impor-
jtant writers of this generation"; it was also mentioned that
ihe planned to return to Spain and resume his military activ
ity at the culmination of his trip, for "'I am principally a
soldier, not a writer1" ("Famed Anti-Nazi Writer-Soldier
Visits Hollywood," A-NN, I, No. 25 [October 23, 1937], 1).
C Q
Regler too had been a member of the KPD since 1928
(see note 8, this chapter); he had also worked on the Braun-
buch with Miinzenberg (see note 10) . According to Exil-
Literatur, Frankfurt a/M., he had participated in the 1934
Moscow Writers' Congress; no references to him were, how
ever, found in our sources for that conference. He was
among the earlier intellectuals denationalized— November
1934. His participation in the Spanish Civil War as a mem
ber of the International Brigades--of which he later became
a Commissioner— was interrupted when he was seriously
wounded; thereafter, as Kantorowicz states, "blieb er noch
weitere Monate in Spanien als Kommissar seiner Brigade.
Noch halb gelahmt fuhr er nach Amerika, urn fur die Sache des
Freiheitskampfes dort zu werben" ("Funf Jahre Schutzver
band," p. 71). According to Exil-Literatur, Frankfurt a/M.,
however, Regler was interned in the concentration camp Le
Vernet, at which time he broke with the party, and since
1941 he made his home in Mexico (p. 212).
291
Brigade's forty-fifth Division; and Kurt Stern, a Commis
sioner in the Eleventh Brigade and later editor of the front
newspaper, "Volontaire de la Liberte" (p. 72). These writ
ers, as was noted in the discussion of the First Interna
tional Writers' Congress, were all members of the Schutz-
59
verband Deutscher Schriftsteller. Additional members of
the SDS who participated in the Second International Con
gress were Egon Erwin Kisch,* whose presence at many fronts,
I
jaccording to Kantorowicz, had strengthened "den Mut und die
i
j
jZuversicht" for thousands of men; Erich Weinert,* who to-
jgether with Ernst Busch traveled from one brigade and hos
pital to another, entertaining soldiers with their poems and
CQ
Hildegard Brenner noted that twenty-seven German
writers fought in the ranks of the International Brigades
for the cause of the Spanish republic (p. 690). Although
Kantorowicz's total agreed with hers, his addition does not
quite make sense: "An dem Freiheitskampf in Spanien waren
alle Mitglieder des SDS beteiligt. Fiinfzehn in der unmit-
telbarsten Form: als Soldaten, Offiziere, Kommissare, Arzte
des republikanischen Volksheeres; weitere funf blieben als
zivile Mitkampfer viele Monate, einige weit iiber ein Jahr in
direktem Kontakt mit den Brigaden des Freiheitskampfes . . .;
weitere neun— zumindest neun . . . — waren ebenfalls viele
Wochen oder Monate in ihrer Eigenschaft als Schriftsteller
Oder Korrespondenten in Spanien, auch sie in vielen Formen
(durch Vortrage bei der Truppe, Rundfunkansprachen, Artikel
fur die Frontzeitungen und vor allem natiirlich durch ihre
publizistische Wirksamkeit im Auslande) leidenschaftlich und
bis zu gewissem Grade dirket am Kampf beteiligt. Das sind
zumindest siebenundzwanzig deutsche Schriftsteller und SDS-
Mitgleider" ("Funf Jahre Schutzverband," p. 71).
292
j g Q
jsongs (p. 72); and Anna Seghers.*
i
i
i
S Brecht* and Feuchtwanger,* the other two editors of Das
!
Wort, also participated in this conference— Brecht appeared
personally, and Feuchtwanger sent a letter. Another German
writer who was unable to attend, but who conveyed his best j
wishes and support for the Loyalist cause was Heinrich
Mann.* Cowley explained in this regard: "The hardships of
! travel in the war zone made it physically impossible for
! |
some of the older writers, like Heinrich Mann. His brother j
j J
jThomas was ill in Switzerland." He also stated that "the
| ^Seghers also joined the KPD in 1928, in which year
she won the Kleist Prize for her tale, "Aufstand der Fischer
von St. Barbara." Arrested in 1933, she fled to France, and
j for somewhat over two years she was one of the editors of
jNeue Deutsche Blatter, which was published in Prague until
jits dissolution in 1935 (see Wegner, p. 81). She went to
Spain in 1936 where, as noted, she participated in the Sec
ond International Writers' Congress the following year. She
preceded Regler to Mexico by one year, but unlike him, she
returned to Germany— predictably, East Germany— some years
! later. Like many of the German SDS members, she too re
ceived the National Prize of the DDR— in 1951 and again in
11959. She also won the International Lenin Peace Prize of
Jthe USSR in 1951 (Exil-Literatur, Frankfurt a/M.. p. 207).
According to Exil-Literatur, Ernst Toller also participated
in the Madrid Congress--he presented a speech, as he had at
the First International Congress (p. 249); unfortunately, we
were unable to verify this assertion for either congress:
his name was not among those listed as "die wichtigsten Red-
ner" at the Paris event (NDB, August 1935, p. 389), nor was
it mentioned in any of the sources for the Madrid confer
ence . Perhaps the fact that he was not a member of the SDS
was a factor in the omission of his presence in our sources.
293
Germ an e x i l e s w e re a f r a i d o f c a r r y i n g p a s s p o r ts w it h a
S p a n is h v i s a ; th e y m ig h t b e b a r r e d fro m r e t u r n i n g t o F ra n c e
i
or Austria" (p. 153). This statement seemed, however, to
m is r e p r e s e n t th e s i t u a t i o n so m ew h at, im p ly in g t h a t no Germ an
61
e x i l e s w e re p r e s e n t ; as h as b e e n i n d i c a t e d , q u i t e th e r e -
i
v e r s e was t r u e , d e s p it e t h e f a c t t h a t a num ber o f th em w e re
a c t i v e l y e n g a g e d i n th e S p a n is h c o n f l i c t and c o u ld n o t t e c h
n i c a l l y be c l a s s i f i e d as e x i l e s who "w e re a f r a i d o f c a r r y in g
jpassports with a Spanish visa."
!
I N o t o n ly d id th e w r i t e r s th e m s e lv e s v ie w t h e i r c o n g re s s
|
las a p o s i t i v e s y m b o l o f u n i t y a g a in s t b a r b a r is m , th e L o y a l -
j
i s t g o v e rn m e n t o f f i c i a l s who w e re c o n n e c te d w it h i t a ls o
r e g a r d e d i t as an o f f e n s i v e on th e c u l t u r a l f r o n t , d e s p it e
t h e i r p r e o c c u p a tio n w it h m ore im m e d ia te p o l i t i c a l a n d m i l i
t a r y a s p e c ts o f th e c i v i l w a r . The m a j o r i t y o f th e s e S p a n
is h o f f i c i a l s w e re w r i t e r s th e m s e lv e s and t h e r e f o r e m ore
|s y m p a th e tic t o th e c o n g re s s th a n m ig h t o r d i n a r i l y h a v e b e e n
e x p e c te d i n su ch u r g e n t c ir c u m s ta n c e s as th o s e i n w h ic h t h e y
®^In the paragraph following this statement, Cowley
does mention several writers from the International Brigades
who were among the delegates, but he does not indicate their
nationalities: "They [the delegates who gathered in Paris
and the Spanish delegation] were also joined by writers from
the International Brigades: Ludwig Renn, Gustav Regler,
Ralph Bates" (p. 153).
294
found themselves. However, as Cowley pointed out, Loyalist
Spain was "determined to fight its own battles" and did not
want "the mere pity of well meaning foreigners: [if any
thing, it wanted] their admiration and . . . material aid
[for it had] become intensely and justifiably proud of it
self as a nation" (p. 153).
The addresses of the writers themselves reflected this
pride, and while it was a vicarious pride in some cases, it
lappeared sincere and heartfelt nevertheless. This feeling
j
jwas no d o u b t i n t e n s i f i e d b y th e a tm o s p h e re o f M a d r id — " t h i s
i
really heroic city trying to free itself from an eight-
months 1 siege" (p. 153)--where many of the talks were pre
sented. A different mood prevailed at this writers' con
gress— Cowley called it "a common quality of warmth and
humanness— almost of recklessness" (p. 154)--which set it
apart from other large writers' gatherings.
| The expression of attitudes in the addresses presented
i
|
is in some ways comparable to a Baroque composition, for a
few basic themes and subthemes were introduced, and varia
tions on these themes provided the point-counterpoint of the
prevalent harmonics. The thematic development was supplied
by the varying approaches of almost every speaker to these
basic motifs, of which the most dominant were the idea that
295
fascism is antithetic— indeed, destructive— to culture and
even life; and that Spain was a symbol for unity and freedom
from oppression. The resolution of these themes was pro
vided by the idea of the writer's function, i.e., action and
in v o lv e m e n t : " . . . n i c h t m ehr G e s c h ic h te s c h r e ib e n , s o n -
6 2
dern Geschichte machen" (Ludwig Renn, DW, p. 78). This
included among its variations the concept of Solidaritat
between writers and Volk— as manifested in part by this con-
i
Ig r e s s , p lu s t h a t o f th e a n t i - F a s c i s t , p r o - c u l t u r e V o lk s -
f r o n t . S e v e r a l e x a m p le s o f e a c h o f th e a b o v e -m e n tio n e d
!th em es an d n u a n c es w i l l s e r v e t o c l a r i f y o u r a n a lo g y .
i
i
| As noted, a recurring motif at the conference was that
J
fascism is antithetic to culture and life: Uhse expressed
it as "die ganze Lebensfeindlichkeit des Faschismus," and
further, "eine faschistische Kultur [ist] nicht denkbar[,
da] . . . der Faschismus vielmehr der Erzfeind der Kultur
I
j 0 2
! Jean-Richard Bloch coined this phrase in reference to
Ludwig Renn: "Die Rolle des fur die Freiheit kampfenden
Schriftstellers ist nicht, Geschichte zu schreiben, sondern
Geschichte zu machen" (Karl Obermann, "Vorwort" [zum Zweiten
Internationalen KongreB der Schriftsteller], Das Wort, p.
5). See also Heinrich Mann: "Welcher unserer Kameraden war
es, der in Madrid erklarte, daB die Rolle der fur die Frei
heit kampfenden Schriftsteller nicht darin bestehe, Ge
schichte zu schreiben, sondern Geschichte zu machen? Das
ist vollkommen richtig, denn Ludwig Renn, der also sprach,
ist Divisionskommandant an einer Front der republikanischen
Armee" ([Brief an den KongreB], DW, p. 76).
296
ist" (DW, p. 84) . Bredel called it "die faschistische Bar-
barei" (p. 61) \ and in his introduction to this issue of Das
!
Wort, Obermann stated, "Der Faschismus hat den Generalan-
griff auf die Kultur unternommen" (p. 4). Brecht had used
almost identical words in his speech: "Als der Generalan-
j
griff auf die okonomischen und politischen Positionen der
deutschen und der italienischen Arbeiterschaft erfolgte, als
d ie K o a l i t i o n s f r e i h e i t d e r A r b e i t e r , d i e M e in u n g s f r e ih e it
ider Presse, als die Demokratie erdrosselt wurde, erfolgte
jdamit der Generalangriff auf die Kultur iiberhaupt" (p.
i 63
i 59). As Uhse noted, if the great epochs of the people--
!
|" d e r V o l k e r " — w h ic h a r e s im u lt a n e o u s ly r e a l i s t i c and o p t i -
j
m i s t i c , w e re t o b e m e as u re d b y th e F a s c i s t y a r d s t i c k , t h i s
m e a s u re w o u ld be fo u n d t o be to o n a rro w f o r "das L eb en . . .
i
die Volker [und] . . . die Kultur" (DW, p. 84). These posi
tives are challenged by the three negatives in the programs
jof all Fascists, which Bredel defined as "Krieg, Tod und
Unterdriickung" (DW, p. 60).
6 3
Brecht's speech is reprinted in Verbannung, pp. 188-
190. This book contains a well chosen selection of essays
written by a representative group of exiled German writers
and is divided into six sections, each prefaced by several
pages of introduction written by Egon Schwarz: "Der Auf-
bruch," "Zeichen der Not," "Im neuen Land," "Der Sinn dieser
Emigration," "Der Schriftsteller und das Exil," and "Aus-
blick."
297
The significance of Spain as a symbol for unity and
freedom becomes clear when we note Heinrich Mann's words,
"Es sind diejenigen unter [meinen Kollegen], welche das
Schicksal ausersehen hat, die Waffen der Freiheit zu tragen
. . . Was gibt es von nun an Natiir licheres, als daft die
Schriftsteller der Sache des Volkes mit Leib und Seele er-
geben sind und daft sie ihr Blut in Spanien vergieften?" (DW,
p. 76; also p. 7). Obermann uses this idea as a stimulus
for variation and development: "Was ist natiirlicher, so
kann man hinzufiigen, als daft Spanien die Schriftsteller der
Welt im Kampfe eint?" (p. 76). A slightly different expo
sition is given this theme in Bredel's optimistic cry to his
brothers in Germany: "Seht auf Spanien, auf dies helden-
!
hafte Volk, es zeigt euch und der Welt, daft der Faschismus
nicht unbesiegbar ist!" (DW, p. 63).
The integral relationship of these concepts to their
Iresolution, which is itself inherent in the idea of the ful-
i
I
fillment of the writer's function in action and involvement,
has already been indicated. And since it is basically im
possible to categorize simplistically the concepts and the
resolution— they being inseparably intertwined by their very
nature— one can only attempt, at best, to place them in
certain perspectives as counterpoints to one another.
298
Feuchtwanger, for example, felt that the goal of the strug
gle in Spain, namely, "die Freiheit von der wirtschaftlichen
Ausbeutung durch die faschistischen Unterdriicker" was also
the basis of the writer's true freedom. He clarified this
assertion by stating that "die wahre Freiheit des Schrift-
stellers" could only flourish where the economic freedom of
the total society is guaranteed, summarizing his views as
(follows: "Wo also urn die wirtschaftliche und politische
i
jUnabhangigkeit vom Kapitalismus gekampft wird, dort wird
auch um die echte Freiheit des Schrifttums gekampft"
I
((["Brief an den KongreB"], p. 63). Bredel saw the battle
i
I
for freedom of the Spanish people, which was being waged by
I
his German compatriots, among others, as a battle for the
freedom of mankind: "Wir sind gleichfalls stolz auf alle
I. . . deutschen Briider, die hier in Spanien fur die Freiheit
des spanischen Volkes, ja, fur die Freiheit der Menschheit
jeinstehn" (DW, p. 62).
As Kisch put it, the Spanish conflict forced men to
make a commitment and take a stand— to decide on which side
they belonged:
Mit der simplen Feststellung der Sachlage [des spani
schen Biirgerkrieg] muBte die Stellungnahme jedes an-
standigen Menschen gegeben sein, welchem politischen
Lager er auch a^gehort [d.i.,] auf der . . . Seite [des
Volkes und der von ihm] gewahlte . . . [und] mit Blut
299
und Leben verteidigte Regierung[, oder] auf der . . .
Seite [der] Generale. (DW, p. 67)
In the opinion of Kisch, it was nothing less than total mis
representation that the reactionary mutiny ("diese [reaktio-
nare] Meuterei") against the Spanish nation was labeled a
I
national and religious rebellion in the name of peace and
order; that further, the treasonous intervention of Ital
ians, Africans, and Germans ("diese verraterische Interven-
I
jtion") should be called a "Feldzug fur den katholischen
Glauben" was a travesty of the highest order on all that was
true and just (p. 67).
The frequent use of the word "Solidaritat" and its re
lated form "solidarisieren" was another variation on the
theme of the writer's function, for it expressed the feeling
of unity between writers as bearers of culture and "das
Volk" as its guardian, as well as between non-Spanish and
;Spanish writers who were all fighting, on the cultural or
jmilitary fronts, for the same goals. Romain Rolland, who
greeted his colleagues in Valencia, affirmed that "wir . . .
uns engstens mit unseren kampfenden Brudern in Spanien
[solidarisieren]." He felt that the union between the
"machtigen Volksmassen und der Elite" should be a shining
example for the great democracies of America and Europe and
300
concluded enthusiastically that this unification, "die durch
den Kampf selbst entstanden ist . . . den Fortschritt und
die Freiheit der Welt sichern [wird]!" (p. 78). And Hein
rich Mann praised Malraux for glorifying "die internationale
Solidaritat zugunsten des republikanischen Spaniens." He
also saw in the presence at the congress of Gustav Regler—
who had recently been seriously wounded— an affirmation of
true awareness of the "menschliche . . . Solidaritat, die
in diesem Lande iibersprudelt" (p. 75). Indeed, one began to
get the impression that the Second International Writers 1
Congress was the very embodiment of "Solidaritat" in all its
wondrous manifestations.
It is not necessary to detail each of the references to
unity between writers and "Volk"; suffice it to say that
they were numerous and that their general theme was that
both work to maintain culture— which fascism seeks to de
stroy. In addition to Rolland and Mann, Brecht, Bredel,
Obermann, Uhse, Weinert, and Michail Kolzow of the USSR all
developed their own variations on this theme. We might
note, however, that Mann saw an ongoing life-and-death
struggle for the defense of culture taking place in Madrid;
to him, the "Volk" was the bulwark of this defense (p. 76).
And Brecht too voiced this thought when he said, "Der Gewalt
301
der einzelnen wie der priviligierten Klasse muB die Gewalt,
die voile zerschmetternde Gewalt des Volkes entgegengesetzt
werden" (p. 59).
The Volksfront theme was developed most strongly by
Bredel, whose speech was even more Communistically oriented
than Brecht's; he combined the idea of the literary congress
with that of the VoIksfront: "Dieser KongreB der Schrift
steller in Madrid steht im Zeichen der streitbaren anti-
faschistischen Volksfront." His idealization of the popular
front knew no bounds, as he continued, "Diese Volksfront
aHer Kulturfreunde und Kriegsfeinde, die in Frankreich
bereits die Mehrheit des Volkes gewann, die hier in Spanien
die Mehrheit des Volkes erobert hat und heute gegen den
WeItfaschismus heroisch verteidigt . . . erstarkt auch.im
deutschen Volke und ist dort bereits die Sehnsucht von Mil-
lionen!" (p. 62). Ludwig Renn was equally enthusiastic.
After noting the great responsibility inherent in the writ
er's weapon, the pen, he defined this duty as "alles gegen
den Faschismus! Alles fur die Volksfront! Alles fur die
Front der Volker! Alles fur die Ideen, die dem Kriege
feindlich sind!" (p. 78). He ended his speech with a plea
to fight for these ideas, to fight with pen or word, "wie
es jedem liegt! Aber kampft! (p. 79).
302
One additional point should be added as a sort of
organizational coda. This is that of the duty and/or re
sponsibility of writers as seen by the exiles themselves.
Bredel, for instance, stated that the free German writers in
exile ("wir freien deutschen Schriftsteller") had taken the
great cultural heritage of the true Germany into their own
hands and would know how to protect it against defamation
and corruption— they would care for'it as the most precious
thing ever achieved by their people and would assure its
eternal life not only by nurturing the humanistic spirit
which created it, but also by leading this spirit to victory
over the "'Dschungelmoral1 des Faschismus" (pp. 61-62). The
German writers, by virtue of their exile, are able to speak
the truth, to confront the Fascist hypocrites and to show
that all the Fascist theories are leading ultimately to
enslavement, damnation, and preparation of an imperialistic
war of conquest (p. 61). Kisch, whose address was an expo
sition not only on the true nature of the Spanish conflict,
as already noted, but also on the revolutionary spirit and
the task of the writer (i.e., to write the truth— about
Spain] and to incite support— for the Spanish cause), stated
unequivocally, "Wir Schriftsteller mussen werben fur das
Verstandnis . Wir mussen uns einsetzen dafiir, daft dem Auf-
303
stand der Kriegsschieber die Verachtung aller Gutgesinnten
zuteil wird, ihre Luge und ihre Ideologie zusammenbricht,
bevor sie noch die Waffen strecken" (p. 67). Renn's initial
paragraph was read in Spanish; this gesture was apparently
intended to show his feeling of love for the Spanish people
and their cause. He also said that he had remained a Ger
man, despite his denationalization from Hitler's Germany,
and asked his Spanish friends to forgive him his use of the
German language in the remainder of his speech. After
greeting the congress in the name of all the German writers
who were fighting against fascism in Spain, as well as in
that of the Eleventh International Brigade, he spoke of the
power and responsibility of the writer's basic weapon, his
pen (p. 78).
Erich Weinert's address was chiefly a historical jus
tification of the writer as an activist; he reminded the
delegates that great poets of the past had not considered
it undignified to participate as agitators in the events of
their ages and cited Heinrich Mann as a contemporary exam
ple, asking, "ist er etwa undichterischer geworden?" He
answered his own question: "Nein. Seine Manifeste sind
Dichtungen im edelsten Sinne" (p. 92). Weinert contended
that a prevalent feeling among writers of the past had been
304
that political involvement could only be viewed as "eine
erniedrigende und banale Entwurdigung der reinen Kunst."
He presented the thesis that these writers had been victims
of a malicious social system— capitalism— which prevented
them from being more than "pure poets" lost in their ivory
towers and out of touch with the realities of the world.
However, of the true vocation and profession of the poet
there could no longer be any doubt; this was "die Wahrheit
und das Recht zu verkiinden" (p. 91) . He concluded by saying
that the position of the true poet in the world of today, in
which "der uralt bose Feind zu den barbarischsten Mitteln
der Vernichtung greift," could no longer be ambiguous: by
joining with those in whose hands the dignity of mankind is
protected* he would enjoy the most honorable comradeship in
the world: "die Kameradschaft der Arbeiter und Bauern als
der Befreier der Welt" (p. 92).
On the basis of the speeches printed in Das Wort, one
is tempted to agree rather strongly with Cowley's observa
tion that
in the air of this really heroic city trying to free
itself from an eight-months' siege, it was almost im
possible to talk about literary questions--about realism
or the nature of the contemporary hero or the problem of
creating novels for and by the working class . Instead,
people talked about the immediate struggle, often in
terms of political slogans. (pp. 153-154)__________________
305
And actually it would have seemed quite inappropriate, even
trite, for the writers in Madrid to discuss "literary ques
tions"— this had not, after all, been their aim in holding
this congress. The one all-consuming purpose of the Inter
national Writers' Association for the Defense of Culture was
precisely that— to defend culture, and the writers involved
in this organization were fulfilling this task by whatever
means were available to them, be it in the militant wielding
of their pens, active engagement on the battlefront, and/or
participation in a writers' congress in the midst of a be
leaguered city.
The statement of Kantorowicz in regard to the policy
of the SDS no doubt applied equally well to non-German writ
ers who were supporting their convictions with action:
Wir haben uns immer gegen die Spaltung von Denken und
Tun gewandt. Wir gingen nach Spanien, urn dort an der
Front die Freiheit und Kultur verteidigen zu helfen.
Da wir wuSten, daS es Zeiten gibt, wo auch der Schrift
steller die Kultur am wirksamsten mit der Waffe in der
Hand zu verteidigen vermag, vertauschten zeitweilig
viele von uns die Schreibmaschine mit dem Maschinen-
gewehr. Aber sie horten darum nicht auf, Schriftsteller
zu sein. Keineswegs. ("Funf Jahre Schutzverband," pp.
70-71)
This is perhaps the key to the prevailing mood among liberal
writers of this period: their talent and enthusiastic
idealism found a timely and challenging outlet in the
306
Spanish conflict and the grand, even heroic, stage on which
it was being enacted. In the case of the exiled German
writersj a desire for very real engagement against the Fas
cist foe responsible for their situation was no doubt an
added ingredient in their fervent involvement in both the
war and the Second Writers' Congress.
Paris: Fifteenth Annual P.E.N. Congress
The fifteenth annual P.E.N. Congress held in Paris dur
ing the week of June 21, 1937, several weeks after the sec
ond American Writers 1 Congress in New York and approximately
the same length of time prior to the Writers 1 Congress in
Madrid, is notable on several counts, among them being the
almost total lack of conference coverage in the press, Amer
ican or other, and its apparent increased awareness of the
relevance of the world of letters to the world of reality—
admittedly a step forward for the organization, but a step
which must be qualified in terms of the resolution proposed
by J. B. Priestly of England and unanimously adopted by the
delegates. This was that the concern of P.E.N. was not with
politics but with the art that lies beyond it, surpassing
its limited domain, and demanding of governments simply the
right to freedom of expression for its own affairs. In the
307
words of H. S. Canby— whose reports on the various con
gresses of this organization during the 1930's comprise the
only thread of continuity in the coverage we found of P.E.N.
events: "In this setting aside of 'ideology' as the chief
concern of literature,, the . . . Congress sharply differ
entiated itself from the 'Left-Wing Congresses' in Paris,
New York, and the one now being prepared for at Valencia or
64
under the guns at Madrid."
While the non-ideological nature of this congress may
indeed be an element in the lack of coverage in liberal and
left-wing American publications, this does not satisfactor
ily explain the total omission of references to it in, for
example, the New York Times— whose Index for 1937 did not
even include a heading for "P.E.N."— or such relatively
neutral periodicals as Newsweek. Perhaps the fact that it
took place in Europe was a factor, for as will be indicated,
the left-wing American Writers’ Congress in New York of June
1937 received very wide coverage by an amazingly diversi
fied group of periodicals; and the P.E.N. Congress of 1939,
held in close chronologicail and geographical conjunction
64"i| he p.E.N. Congress," Saturday Review. XVI, No. 14
(July 31, 1937), 18. It is of interest to note the dateline
of this article— at least three weeks after the conclusion
of the Madrid/Valencia Writers' Congress . _____________________
308
with the third American Writers' Congress at the World's
Pair in New York, received quite broad coverage as well. It
is possible that the traditional conservatism of the P.E.N.
coupled with developments on the international scene and the
still pervasive isolationist sentiments in the United States
(see note 40, this chapter) all played a role in the almost
nonexistent representation granted the 1937 conference in
the press.
The Readers' Guide for 1935-1937 listed four articles,
two of which dealt with the 1935 conference in Barcelona and
two dealing with the controversy over the location of the
1937 conference— as noted in our discussion of the Buenos
Aires gathering in 1936, the delegates had voted unanimously
to hold the next annual congress in Rome, apparently the
result of a tacit bargain struck upon the election of Jules
Romains as International President. In the next issue of
the Guide were found two articles for the 1937 meeting, one
under "P.E.N." and one under "Feuchtwanger"— Lion Feucht-
wanger had presented a key speech in Paris, which is some
what surprising, considering his ideological orientation and
his heretofore exclusive participation in left-wing con
gresses . On the other hand, this is not so astonishing,
given the topic of his speech, i.e., the persecution of
309
German writers, and the possibility that he may have wished
to inform as many writers as possible of this situation—
regardless of their political thinking— in order that they
in turn become vehicles for the dissemination of this infor
mation to the world. In fact, according to Canby, Feucht-
wanger attended the fifteenth international P.E.N. meeting
as a representative of the exiled Germans ("The P.E.N. Con
gress," p. 18). An interesting reference to the 1937 P.E.N.
Congress was made by Kantorowicz in his review of the activ
ities of the Schutzverband; in discussing its members'
activities during the Spanish Civil War, he noted, "Wahrend
dieser Zeit beteiligte sich der SDS auch durch hervorragende
Mitglieder am PEN-Club-KongreB gegen Rassenhetze" ("Funf
Jahre Schutzverband," p. 74). Unfortunately, he did not
cite the names of any of the "hervorragende Mitglieder" who
participated in the congress. Nor were any names found in
the editors' footnote to Feuchtwanger's speech, which was
published in The Nation one month after its presentation:
"Lion Feuchtwanger, noted German author, now in exile,
headed a delegation of his countrymen to the Fifteenth In
ternational Congress of the Pen [sjlcJ Club in Paris last
310
month, on which occasion he delivered the above address."^5
Although Canby provided names of some of the more well-
known participants— Jules Romains, James Joyce, J. B.
Priestley, Karel Capek, Andre Maurois— he mentioned only two
German-language authors, Feuchtwanger and Franz Werfel (p.
18). And Werfel was considered an Austrian novelist; he did
not become an exiled writer until 1938, when he moved to
France— two years thereafter he entered the United States
via Portugal (Exil-Literatur, Frankfurt a/M., p. 226).
As is known, the Rome-Berlin Axis agreement was con
cluded in October of 1936, hardly before the applause at the
final dinner meeting in Buenos Aires had faded away. It is
therefore not surprising that articles appeared in the press
which agitated against Rome as a site for the next congress;
it is perhaps worth noting that not more articles on the
subject were published and that the ones which were printed
appeared in journals of moderate hue, namely, Saturday Re
view and Forum and Century. As might be expected, both
expressed editorial views. The basic premise of both pieces
was that since there existed a deep-rooted, inherent contra
diction between the ideals and purposes of P.E.N. and the
^Lion Feuchtwanger, "How Germany Persecutes Authors"
[Books and the Arts), Nation, CVL, No. 4 (July 24,. 1937), 103.
311
ideology and record of fascism* the holding of a literary
congress dedicated to freedom of expression and humanitarian
goals in one of the capitals of Fascist rule would consti
tute a direct antithesis between what P.E.N. represented and
its actions. As Henry Goddard Leach put it*
The record of Fascism in suppressing books and plays
and extolling war as the only true hygiene of the na
tions [no doubt a reference to Marinetti's definition
of war as "a hygienic process" in the July 1936 issue
of Action Nacionale (see note 44* this chapter)] is not
in the spirit of the resolutions declaring for the
freedom of letters from politics which the American
center has repeatedly placed on its records
And as Canby noted in his description of Rome as the
P.E.N. site choice* it was "a capital where neither peace*
nor a literature of criticism based on any ideology except
the Duce's* [had] been popular in recent years." Canby
stated further that while "A meeting of creative artists*
like a meeting of research scientists* or indeed of the
world's journalists . . . is no place to attack fascism*
communism* or democracy. . . . it may be said with equal
force that no meeting of the international literary mind is
66
"Shall We Go to Rome?" [Editorial Foreword]* Forum
and Century, XCVII* No. 2 (February 1937)* 66.
312
67
possible without freedom of explanation and discussion."
Leach made essentially the same point when he wrote, "...
Rome can hardly tolerate that free discussion— for example
the topic of literary exiles— to which Americans are accus
tomed in P.E.N. congresses. Rome can but grudgingly allow
the enthusiastic democratic utterances of American authors
wide circulation in the press (p. 66) .
This was a significant point, for Rome, by virtue of
its role as the nerve center of a Fascist country which had
recently concluded an alliance with another Fascist nation,
could be seen as representative of one political position
only, namely, that of the repression of free expression for
the good of the state. As Leach asked when he labeled the
invitation to Rome as "a startling challenge to the American
P.E.N. Center," "Can American authors who subscribe to the
freedom of literary utterance from political restraint
accept the hospitality of a country— the Soviet Union, Ger
many, Italy— where imaginative writing is restricted by
political discipline?" (p. 65) . Canby was even more blunt
when he noted that
"Shall They Go to Rome?" Saturday Review. XV, No. 6
(December 5, 1936), 12.
313
. . . the new dictators of opinion, the rulers of
propaganda, are trying to persuade the world that lit
erature is a handmaid (some would say prostitute) to
the state. . . . They dread all ideas but their own,
and will give discussion only such freedom as concerns
neither political, nor economic, nor (in some countries)
religious man. ("Shall They Go to Rome?", p. 12)
In fact, speaking of dictators, Canby made the salient
point that such men, ruling traditionally by means of fear,
suppression, and propaganda, have historically feared lit
erature— one exception to this observation would be that
they have, when possible and/or necessary, used it to fur
ther their own aims. Canby reminded his readers that lit
erature has "thriven under both republics and despotisms";
not only can it be "the most national of the arts . . . [but
it also] becomes, when at its best, irresistibly interna
tional." He correctly placed it in the same category with
"those other subjects of international controversy, [such
as] oil, munitions, colonies, and the inextinguishable de
sire of the egocentric individual to become another Darius,
King of Kings," since in "what may be called the Age of
Propaganda," its power to influence and sway men's minds
could not be disregarded, making its addition to the above-
named controversial objects "inevitabl[e]" (p. 12). We
would cite in this connection a most relevant quotation
taken from a book on modern painting:
314
Why do totalitarian dictators hate modern art?
Because the artist, perhaps more than any other member
of society, stands for individual freedom— freedom to
think and paint without the approval of Goebbels or
the Central Committee of the Communist Party, to work
in the style he wants, to tell the truth as he feels
from inner necessity that he must tell it.
[Conversely, as former President Eisenhower observed
on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the
Museum of Modern Art in New York], "But, my friends,
how different it is in tyranny. When artists are made
the slaves and tools of the state, when artists become
chief propagandists of a cause, progress is arrested
and creation and genius are destroyed." [Eisenhower
concluded with a vital principle that should be remem
bered:] "This principle is that freedom of the arts
is a basic freedom, one of the pillars of liberty in
our land."^®
Both Canby and Leach posited the question of what the
delegates, should they meet in Rome, would be allowed to
discuss. While both felt that tolerance— in this context,
by the P.E.N. Clubs— was a commendable virtue, they also
seemed to agree that a meeting in Rome would be carrying
this quality to an unrealistic extreme. As Canby put it,
"Tolerance for intolerance has never yet been a success"
("Shall They Go to Rome?", p. 12). Leach approached the
question from a somewhat different direction; after stating
that the American Center wished to be tolerant and would
6 f t
Alfred H. Barr, Jr., What Is Modern Painting? (New
York [c. 1956]), p. 47.
315
"welcome the existence of a P.E.N. Club* however unrepre
sentative, in Rome," he observed that Rome could "hardly
tolerate" open discussion of controversial issues which
would by their very nature threaten the ideological precepts
69
which it represented (p. 66).
Whether or not this congress saw the actualization of
"an inspired and resolute beginning in leadership," for
which Leach felt it was now high time (p. 66), cannot be
answered in black and white terms. Canby felt that the
fifteenth congress "was noteworthy for the attempt, not al
together successful, to canalize such discussions [as on the
art and philosophy of writing] in conferences arranged daily
under a competent leader, upon the specific problems of
poetry, of a contemporary style (if any), and upon the
future of letters in a troubled world." He continued, "I
cannot report the results, for I believe there were none"
("The P.E.N. Congress," p. 18). From this standpoint, one
is tempted to agree with Canby, for results in terms of
See the examples given by Canby in this regard: "If
the American democrat cannot discuss his literature in terms
of democracy, where it is written in such terms, if the Ger
man exile cannot discuss his literature in terms of liberal
ism, then all attempts at international understanding in
literary art are futile, even if the subjects should be
limited to history and technique" ("Shall They Go to Rome?",
p. 12) . ____________________________________________________________
316
specific answers or solutions to these particular problems
did not emerge from the congress.
However, the possibility that a sharper awareness of
the relationship between the domain of literature and that
of reality— which of necessity included political events—
resulted from this conference must be considered seriously.
Canby rather clearly saw the difference between the ideal of
P.E.N.— as having "rendered service to an obsessed world [in
the affirmation of the validity of "pure literature"]"— and
the happenings that transpired at this congress, when he
reported that "these delegates were very human, and by no
means immune to current controversy." He noted the relative
plethorei of motions introduced following the adoption of
J. B. Priestley's motion reiterating the basic raison d'itre
of the P.E.N. organization— motions, furthermore, "which
contradicted [Priestley's]":
The Jewish exiles wished the German government condemned
and the Spaniards and Catalonians desired that the Span
ish legal government should be upheld. An Argentine,
Ricardo Suenz-Hayes, of strong anti-communist opinions,
attacked, and for an hour the floor was in disorder with
the tense emotions which are so close to the surface in
Europe today suddenly let loose. (p. 18)
These "tense emotions” found a constructive outlet
ultimately in several resolutions whose subjects were,
317
respectively, the young and popular Spanish poet Federico
Garcia Lorca and the Nobel-Prize-winning German liberal
author Carl von Ossietzky. While it must be said that the
delegates showed an awareness of the Spanish situation in
their discussion of the Lorca resolution, it must also be
indicated that they attempted as far as possible to prevent
their subject from becoming a political symbol. The death
of Lorca could very easily have become such, for this poet,
a "much beloved man, of great achievement, and still greater
promise . . . [although he] had taken no part of any kind in
politics by act, word or pen . . . was . . . read by the
masses, and, apparently for that reason, [had been] seized
and shot by a group of Insurgent officers in Granada" (Canby,
p. 18). While on the one hand, the conference concurred
that Lorca's name could not go officially unrecorded, due to
the atrocities committed by both factions in the Spanish
War, it would not, on the other, permit either his name or
death to be linked with support of the Spanish republic. It
was felt that the poet's death would be much more effective
as a universally dramatic example of barbarism unleashed
than as an ideological emblem of limited appeal; in Canby's
words, "They chose, after long discussion . . . to cite this
instance as one example of the unpardonable and
318
irretrievable results of barbarism let loose, to be brought
to the attention of the civilized world, and both sides of
the Civil War on the Peninsula" (p. 18).
The same attitude was shown with regard to the von
Ossietzky resolution, which had been introduced by the Ger
man exile delegation. As Feuchtwanger stated in his opening
remarks, "The resolution which the German group has sub
mitted to the congress is in no wise prompted by political
considerations, but emerges from a sincere and profound
anxiety for German literature, which we consider a notable
70
part of world literature" (p. 103). The title of Feucht
wanger 1 s speech, "How Germany Persecutes Writers," is itself
indicative of its tone and relates directly to the von
Ossietzky resolution, which read as follows:
The fight which the German government is waging against
the German author Karl von Ossietzky, winner of the
Nobel Prize, is unworthy of a cultured state. Unworthy
of a cultured state are, furthermore, the methods by
which this same government tries to prevent a great
number of noted German authors who remain steadfast to
their convictions from the pursuit of their craft. The
^Canby stated, "They took like action in the case of
the Nobel prize awarded to Carl von Ossietzky, choosing
rather to appeal to the German government in its own self-
interest to forego interference with the rewards of intel
lectual distinction, than to abuse a political system which
they were powerless to change" ("The P.E.N. Congress," p.
18) .
........................"319"
congress disapproves of these methods and protests
against them. (p. 104)
It should be mentioned at this juncture that in January
of 1937 Hitler had decreed that no German citizens would be
permitted to accept Nobel Prizes in the future. As the New
York Times put it, "By a stroke of the pen Hitler has swept
away most of the good-will toward Germany built up by Dr.
iJoseph Goebbels1 propaganda department in the last few
! 71
lyears." Indeed, the case of von Ossietzky coupled with
this move by Hitler seemed to crystallize for many liberals
the brutal barbarism which the behavior of the National
I
Socialists represented for them. Ossietzky, winner of the
1935 Nobel Peace Prize and German "pacifist," as the Ant i-
Nazi News called him, had been imprisoned for several years
on charges of high treason in Nazi concentration camps.
According to the News. the Associated Press had reported hilt
missing from Berlin's West End Hospital, to which he had
been taken when he developed tuberculosis in prison. Fur
thermore, censorship regarding his disappearance or where
abouts had become extremely rigid; neither the Nazi
71
"Hitler's Nobel Move Alienates Sweden. With a Stroke
of the Pen He Has Swept Away Good Feeling in Country for
Reich," NYT, February 1, 1937, sec. 1, p. 8 .
320
Propaganda Ministry nor the hospital authorities would di
vulge any information. In the dramatic phraseology of the
News ,
With a startled world protesting Ossietsky's fsicl
disappearance, the fate of this fearless pacifist, now
a gray, twisted man, broken and brutalized by confine
ment in a concentration camp, hangs in precarious bal
ance as the free citizens of the world ask, "Where is
Ossietsky?"
Just as other believers in Democracy were thrust into
i the horrible torture of concentration camp confinement,
so was Ossietsky, essentially a lover of freedom and
liberty, choked breathless by the iron fist of Nazi
vandalism.7^
It was the opinion of the News that the Nobel committee
had acted "fearless[ly] . . . in awarding Ossietsky the
1935 . . . prize [and had] stirred the feelings of all free
and democratic peoples" (p. 1). Several weeks previously
this periodical had published a resolution drawn up by the
73
Anti-Nazi League to free him, and the current article
'reiterated a part of this resolution, some of which, al-
|
though more sensationalistic, nonetheless contains certain
similarities to the resolution introduced by the exile
"Ossietsky Missing from Berlin Hospital. Nazi Au
thorities Silent on Fate of Nobel Prize Winner," A-NN, I,
No. 5 (December 20, 1936), 1.
7^"Ossietsky," A-NN, I, No. 4 (December 5, 1936), 8.
321
delegation at the P.E.N. Congress in Paris:
i
1
I
We hold the Nazi barbarism responsible for the wrecking
of the health of this world figure. We shall hold the
present government of Germany directly accountable for
the effects on Ossietsky1s health and life* of continued
custody, under whatever guise it may appear.
We demand the right of a free citizen for Karl von
Ossietsky. ("Ossietsky Missing," p. 1)
The persecution of writers who resisted the National
Socialist regime was, as has been indicated, the subject of
jFeuchtwanger's impassioned speech to the hundreds of P.E.N.
!
jmembers at the final dinner at Claridge's. While it is true
that von Ossietzky had become a powerful symbol for this
persecution, it is true as well that he was not alone in his
victimization. As Feuchtwanger noted,
As you are aware, this protest [by the German exile
delegation] is directed against the German government's
interference with the activities of a large number of
German authors who stand opposed to the regime, and
against its attempts to defame them in the eyes of the
public at large.
The German government has used its entire state machin
ery to prosecute this campaign against the free German
authors. The government-controlled newspapers and the
government-controlled radio proclaim that these authors
are guilty of high treason; they even attribute to their
literary activity the vilest motives. One and all, we
are corrupt and bribed. . . .
In its classical period, German literature gave currency
to the idea of a universal literature and a commonwealth
of learning. Its representatives, in the finest sense
of the word, were cosmopolitans. They would have turned
322
away in disgust from the program of self-sufficiency
which now trammels all intellectual life in the Reich,
and many of their works read as if they were protests
against what is going on in Germany today.
I think, dear colleagues, we all have good reason to
protest vigorously against the methods with which the
German government persecutes the free German author.
(pp. 103-104)
Feuchtwanger pointed out that many of the anti-Nazi
writers who were the objects of the Reich's venom and deri
sion were subjected to various vicious forms of cruelty— he
!
j
|labeled this "petty warfare" on the part of the government*
i
jfor even in exile they were not immune to persecution. In
(addition to such obvious examples as confiscation of prop
erty, destruction of homes and libraries, and denationaliza
tion, he cited other, even more insidious instances such as
threats of reprisal against foreign publishers and book
sellers who printed or sold works of the exiled Germans, as
well as the glutting of foreign markets with copies of books
i ,
originally destined for the flames of May 1933, but saved
and sold at cut-throat prices in other countries— for which,
furthermore, the authors received no royalties. Instead,
the profits from the sale of these books "were returned as
foreign exchange into the coffers of the Reich government"
(p. 103), the epitome of the old cliche of adding insult to
injury.
323
His purpose in citing these examples, as well as the
various statistics he incorporated into his speech regarding
the number of German authors of not only national, but also
of international eminence within Germany both before and
74
after Hitler's advent (p. 103), was to create an awareness
in the minds of the P.E.N. delegates of the grave implica
tions of the danger with which the world of literature was
faced: "We believe that the literature of a country cannot
|
flourish when its most important representatives are forced
to live outside the country in which their language is spo
ken. We believe that such a condition is harmful not only
to the individuals concerned but also to the country itself
— indeed, to the world" (p. 103). From this observation it
followed that the resolution presented by the Germans should
--indeed, had to— be approved by the congress. This was
duly done, as has been shown.
74
As a basis for his calculations he used book cata
logues, which prior to Hitler's takeover had listed about
10,000 German authors, of which some 100 had been of sig
nificance within German borders. Of these 100 authors,
Feuchtwanger stated that American scholars had ascertained
that approximately eleven had enjoyed worldwide fame. Fur
ther, of the 100 important German writers, about twelve— or
fifteen, if Hitler, Goebbels, and Rosenberg were added "to
maintain complete objectivity"— were living within Germany
at the time of Feuchtwanger1s speech. Those of interna
tional importance numbered two— and three if Hitler were
included. ____
324
It may be observed that this 1937 P.E.N. Congress dif
fered from those of several prior years in the degree of
consciousness it manifested regarding the threat posed by
Fascist powers to the freedom of creative expression, as
shown by the adoption of two resolutions whose subjects were
destined to become symbols for ideologically inspired in
justice. Although P.E.N. did not recant its traditional
position of non-involvement in political squabbles, its mem
bers seemed to attempt to take a stand on issues of general
humanitarian and cultural concern, tinged as they may have
been by political factors.
New York: Second American Writers'
Congress
A quite different attitude underscored the League of
American Writers--understandably so, since its formation had
been instigated by the ideological stimulus of a political
jparty, rather than a cultural one rooted in a literary tra
dition. However, while the Second American Writers' Con
gress, held in New York over the weekend of June 4 to 6,
1937— several weeks before the fifteenth P.E.N. Congress and
a full month before the meeting of the International Asso
ciation of Writers in Spain— was initiated by the League, it
was supported by writers adhering to certain humanitarian
325
principles who represented a wide variety of political con
victions and viewpoints: "The writers at this conference
are by no means at one in political* economic or social
philosophy. . . . The general supposition that the Communist
party is stage manager [does not at all imply] that the
75
majority have their red cards." In fact* this congress
was probably the most diversified of all the American and
European writers' meetings held between 1933 and 1939* not
only in loyalties and beliefs represented* but also in the
widely varied colorations of publications which discussed
the event or certain of its aspects* e.g.* from the ex
tremely conservative American Mercury to the Catholic Com
monweal and the moderate Saturday Review through The New
^"The Literary Fashion" ["Week by Week"]* The Common
weal , XXVI, No. 8 (June 18, 1937), 199. According to Time
magazine* the second American Writers' Congress was "Spon
sored by authors ordinarily aloof from contemporary politi
cal activities [such as] Critics Van Wyck Brooks and Carl
van Doren, Dramatist Marc Connelly* Poet Archibald MacLeish*
Journalist Vincent Sheean" ("Creators' Congress" ["Books"]*
XXIX* No. 25 [June 21* 1937], 79). The New Republic pub-
lished a "Call" to the congress which was signed by some
twenty-two writers including the above-named men* plus also
the more politically involved liberals Newton Arvin* Waldo
Frank* Langston Hughes* Clifford Odets* Donald Ogden Stew
art* Upton Sinclair* and John Howard Lawson ("A National
Congress of American Writers," XC* No. 1170 [May 5* 1937],
390). See also Archibald MacLeish* "The War Is Ours," New
Masses, XXIII* No. 13 (June 22* 1937), 5-6* for a discussion
of the relationship between the writer and politics.
326
R e p u b lic and The N a t io n t o th e l e f t - w i n g P a r t is a n R e v ie w an d
New M a s s e s . I n f a c t , th e R e a d e rs ' G u id e l i s t e d e le v e n r e l e
vant articles in its 1937-1939 issue alone; and the Times
Index for 1937 had three under "Writers' Congress, American"
and three more under "Writers, League of American."
i
The explanations for such amazingly broad coverage of
this particular congress are varied and must encompass num
erous factors. First, this was a huge gathering: well over
300 poets, novelists, critics, and journalists— Time maga-
7 6
zine put it at "some 360" ("Creators' Congress," p. 79)
plus many hundreds of onlookers attended the first night's
meeting in Carnegie Hall (the "closed" sessions of the next
77
two days were held at the New School for Social Research).
" ^ H e n ry H a r t g a v e t h e f i g u r e o f 358 d e le g a t e s ("T h e
A m e ric a n W r i t e r s ' C o n g re s s " [ " L e t t e r s t o th e E d i t o r s " ] , N a
t i o n , C X L IV , N o . 26 [J u n e 26, 1937], 741). The New Y o rk
T im es seems t o h a v e u s ed a d i f f e r e n t m e th o d o f c a l c u l a t i o n ;
j i t s f i g u r e o f "500 p r o f e s s i o n a l w r i t e r s " was c o n s id e r a b ly
h ig h e r th a n a n y o t h e r e s t im a t e s we r e a d . I t i s p o s s ib le
t h a t t h e T im es was n o t d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g b e tw e e n d e le g a t e s and
a u d ie n c e ; d e le g a t e s h a d t o be i n v i t e d , and th e a u d ie n c e
c o u ld s im p ly a t t e n d . I f t h i s i s s o , a c e r t a i n a m b ig u it y
s t i l l e x i s t s , f o r th e d e le g a t e s w e re a ls o p a r t o f th e l i s
t e n in g a u d ie n c e . I n o t h e r w o rd s , d id 500 w r i t e r s a t t e n d in
a d d i t i o n t o d e le g a t e s , o r d id t h e sum o f 500 w r i t e r s in c lu d e
d e le g a te s ? ( " F ig h t on F a s c is m U r g e d . W r i t e r s C a l l on Mem
b e rs o f C r a f t t o Com bat W ar S p i r i t , " NYT, Ju n e 5, 1937, s e c .
1, p . 9) .
7 7 The New S c h o o l f o r S o c i a l R e s e a rc h , fo u n d e d i n 1919,
was a n i n s t i t u t e o f l i b e r a l o r i e n t a t i o n d e d ic a t e d t o th e
327
Second, almost everybody who was anybody in the field of
study of sociological and political problems and was located
at 66 West Twelfth Street in New York. It was instrumental
in aiding hundreds of exiled anti-Fascist writers and in
tellectuals, providing not only a forum for their speeches —
Ernst Toller, for example, spoke there on December 20, 1936
("Announcement," NYT, December 13, 1936, sec. 6, p. 3)--but
also teaching positions for some of them at its University
in Exile, i.e., the Graduate School of Political Science,
which was composed entirely of exiles, such as Erich von
Kahler, who was a professor of history and philosophy of
history in 1941-42. Carl Zuckmayer was a teacher in Erwin
iPiscator's Dramatic Workshop at the New School itself ca♦
1940, and Hermann Broch conducted studies in mass psychology
there between 1942 and 1944 (Exil-Literatur, Frankfurt a/M.,
pp. 76, 258, 268). Erika and Klaus Mann also discuss the
[University in Exile; according to them, "no less than six-
jteen Germans" were included on its faculty, as well as num
erous Italian scholars. Of the President of the New School,
Dr. Alvin Johnson, they comment that he "seems to be a most
remarkable man, [who] after enormous efforts got the money
together [for the University] from private donations" (Es-
cape to Life, pp. 252-253). Among other Germans on the
faculty, the Manns mention Wertheimer, the Gestalt psycholo
gist; Goldstein, a well-known child psychologist; and Dr.
Frieda Wunderlich, a political and social writer who had
recently been elected Dean of the faculty— the first time
that a woman had been named dean of a graduate school (pp.
|253-255); see also "Woman Is Named Dean of Exile's Univer
sity. Colleagues Unanimously Pick Dr. Frieda Wunderlich,"
NYT, February 21, 1939, sec. 1, p. 4. As Joachim Radkau
observed, "Immerhin bot die New School for Social Research,
die urspriinglich 'als ein Protest gegen akademische Tyran-
nei' gegrundet worden war, den deutschen Gelehrten ganz
bewuftt . . . einen Ort, wo sie weiter unter sich bleiben
konnten, ohne einem empfindlichen Amerikanisierungsdruck
ausgesetzt zu sein, und wo sie einen gewissen Korpageist
entwickeln konnten; denn die 'University in Exile' war kein
integrierter Bestandteil der New School, und es wurde den
deutschen Professoren nicht zugemutet, sich auf die Erwach-
senenbildung umzustellen, sondern sie wurde ihr als graduate
faculty angegliedert. 1941 erhielt die graduate faculty,
die bisher nur provisorisch anerkannt war, von der New
328
American letters was there, including some writers who gen
erally remained aloof from political activities, organiza
tions, and conferences; such figures as Ernest Hemingway,
Archibald MacLeish, Carl Van Doren, John Gunther, Thornton
Wilder were involved, as well as the men one might expect to
find in attendance, e.g., Donald Ogden Stewart, Walter
Duranty, and Earl Browder, the General Secretary of the
American Communist Party. Thus, as Time observed, this
[Writers' Congress "was far more impressive than smaller
j
[writers' gatherings held in the past few years" ("Creators'
!
iCongress," p. 79). Third, the scope and international im
plications of the war in Spain were now directing the aware
ness of many more intellectuals of all types toward the
gravity of the Fascist threat: fascism was no longer just
Yorker Staatsuniversitat eine sog. 'permanent charter',
jdurch die sie mit vollen akademischen Rechten versehen
[wurde" (p. 53). The New York Times, in fact, gave consid-
jerable coverage to the activities of the New School: in the
[1938 Index there were no less than twenty articles, some of
them dealing with the University in Exile. In the 1940
Index at least thirty-five articles were listed, of which
some nine were directly relevant to this topic; in 1942 over
twenty-five articles were cited; and in 194-4 at least thirty
were mentioned. That the New School and its University in
Exile were directly involved in the exile cause was indi
cated by the Manns: they noted that the faculty had created
an "Emigrants' Self-Help" fund to which they contributed
weekly whatever sum they could afford; this fund was used
for the support of the poorest exiles both in Europe and in
America (Escape to Life, p. 253) . _____________________________ _
329
an a b s t r a c t i o n — i t h a d becom e a r e a l i t y . The T im es n o te d .,
" . . . a t th e New S c h o o l f o r S o c i a l R e s e a rc h . . . th e
s p e a k e r s , th e m s e lv e s w r i t e r s , e x h o r t e d t h e i r f e l l o w c r a f t s
men t o j o i n th e ' f i g h t a g a in s t f a s c is m ' as a m a t t e r o f s e l f
79
p r e s e r v a t i o n . " F i n a l l y , t h e new O r g a n iz a t io n o f A m e ric a n
7 f t
As th e New R e p u b lic s t a t e d , " S p a in i s th e f i r s t r e a l
b a t t l e f i e l d i n a c i v i l and i n t e r n a t i o n a l c o n f l i c t t h a t is
c e r t a i n t o r e c u r e ls e w h e r e " ("A N a t io n a l C o n g re s s o f A m e r i-
ican W r i t e r s , " p . 390). See a ls o P r in c e H u b e rtu s z u L o w e n -
j s t e i n , who a t a p re s s c o n fe r e n c e i n t h e au tu m n o f 1937
js t a t e d , " 'W h a t M a d r id s u f f e r s t o d a y , P a r is w i l l s u f f e r t o
m o rro w , a n d fro m P a r is t o London t h e s t e p w i l l b e e v e n
s h o r t e r '" (T o w ard s th e F u r t h e r S h o re [L o n d o n , 1968], p .
200). Shortly thereafter, he wrote a booklet entitled "A
Catholic in Republican Spain" (London, November 22, 1937),
jwhich became a selection of the Left Book Club— a club which
(Tenney, by the way, listed as a Communist front organiza
tion (p. 479) . The German edition, "Als Katholik im repub-
likanischen Spanien," was published in Zurich in 1938.
Lowenstein had been one of the early exiles; having left
Germany for the Tyrol in April of 1933, he was denational
ized by the Nazis on November 1, 1934. In 1936-1937 he was
a guest professor at various American and Canadian universi
ties, among them Swarthmore--at which there were also a num
ber of German refugee scholars (Towards the Further Shore,
pp. 201-202). In 1937-1938 he lectured and worked in Eng
land, Spain, France, and Switzerland. He had been the foun
der and General Secretary in 1936 of both the American Guild
for German Cultural Freedom and the German Academy of Arts
and Sciences in Exile (Exil-Literatur, Frankfurt a/M., p.
73). On Spain, see also Philip Rahv: "The second Congress
met 'in the shadow of the coming world war'" ("Two Years of
Progress— from Waldo Frank to Donald Ogden Stewart," Parti
san Review. IV, No. 3 [February 1938], 26).
79"writers Spurred to Fight Fascism. Speakers at Ses
sions Here Say All Must Take Part in Political and Social
War. Odes to Beauty Barred. Reporters Covering the Spanish
Conflict Are Praised— Exiled Authors Also Get Approval,"
330
Writers emerging from the congress was both a result and a
cause of a deep rift among members of the liberal camp; as
such, it took on new dimension as a reflection of the active
dissension beginning to permeate the American intellectual
scene during this period, which was to become a hallmark for
the confusion of the remainder of the decade and portions of
the next.
Since the opinions, attitudes, and arguments expressed
jby the nine publications with which we are here dealing are
so contradictory, the present discussion will be limited to
their treatment of the two most salient aspects of the con
gress: the ramifications of the Spanish conflict, and the
controversy within the liberal "cultural front," which
seemed to find the congress a most useful focus for its dis
agreements . The invitation to the 1937 conference published
by The New Republic emphasized the threat posed by the Euro
pean Fascist powers to "all the monuments and tools of cul-
jture"; it also stressed the forces of opposition within the
United States which were inadvertently contributing to the
"rebirth of the American labor movement [as well as to] the
new stirrings in literature . . . [which were] two parallel
NYT, June 6, 1937, sec. 2, p. 8 .
331
manifestations of the same progressive forces." Further,
not only were the bankers and industrialists (the enemies of
labor--and so, by association, of literature) determined to
maintain "their control of American life . . . [with the aid
of all the institutions at their disposal, i.e.,] the courtsj
I
|
. . . the militia . . . the newspapers . . . [they would
also] encourage . . . and finance . . . [fascism and even
jwar] as an effective means of 'keeping labor in its place'"
I ("A National Congress," p. 390) . In general, most of our j
i
i
i
jsources seemed to agree that the impetus for the Second
i
Writers' Congress was the increasing urgency of the Fascist
threat as manifested in the Spanish situation* and some of
I
I
I
these sources saw a direct link between the reactionary
forces in Europe and those in America, this dangerous con
nection becoming a secondary stimulus for the congress.
Under a fascist regime, literature will fare no better
j than labor. Fascism is against the personal and the
! professional interest of writers. It means censor
ship; it means the substitution of dogmas for the ideas
that are a writer's stock in trade. It means that the
economics of scarcity is applied to the intellectual
world as well as the business world, so that the audi
ence for books and plays— already too small— is further
reduced by arbitrary limitations. And fascism means a
sharper division between social classes and a closing
of the careers that are still open to talent.
Here is an issue of immediate concern to writers (p. 390)
D e s p it e th e u n i t y among p u b li c a t i o n s r e g a r d in g t h e n eed
332
and its related reasons for a conference of writers, how
ever, there existed considerable disunity as to the effec
tiveness, both potential and actual, of the congress in
dealing with the issues under consideration. The earliest
article on the event, which appeared nearly three months
prior to it in the conservative Commonwea1, expressed grave
doubts: it was the contention of its editors that the
American writers were allowing themselves to be duped— and
itherefore used--by the Communist ideology, which was clev-
j e r l y p la y in g on t h e i r h u m a n it a r ia n c o n c e rn f o r " th e in n o c e n t
I
1 .
victims of the Spanish tragedy . . . and . . . indignation
against their slayers." And yet the editors felt that even
i
i
|these laudable emotions were "lamentably limited," for the
joint statement issued by the American writers took no stand
"at all" with regard to "the many thousands of priests and
nuns and civilian men . . . women, and children, brutally
!
|and often horribly slain . . . by the Anarchists and Commu-
j n i s t s and c r i m i n a l s , b o th b e f o r e th e r e v o l t o f th e a rm y , an d
80
after it, but entirely apart from the actual fighting."
In the opinion of this journal, the American writers
80
"An Attack on Democracy," The Commonwea1, XXV, No.
20 (March 12, 1937), 537.
333
associated in the group statement of condemnation of "’the
military faction which with its foreign allies is making war
on the legally and democratically elected republican gov-
81
ernment in Spain,'" did not comprehend the full scope of
8-'-This statement was signed by ninety-eight writers and
was aimed at mobilizing the forces of all humanitarian writ
ers, artists, clergymen, and teachers against the Fascist
military faction which was warring on the legal Spanish re
publican government. The only reference we discovered to
this joint statement was in the March 12, 1937 issue of The
' Commonweal. The so-called "Call" to the Writers' Congress
jitself was signed by a mere twenty-two writers (see note 75,
jthis chapter). On December 13, 1936 Lionel Stander had
jdelivered a speech at the Authors' Club, 6700 Sunset Blvd.,
jHollywood, in which he discussed the danger of fascism. We
cite some of his relevant remarks: "The liberation of the
German people from the yoke of Nazism is not the problem of
the German people alone. It is the common cause of all the
advanced and progressive people of the world today. I be
lieve this and that is why I am a member of the [Anti-Nazi]
League. No believer in democracy and no democratic country
are safe from Nazism because [it] is an international move
ment dedicated to the destruction of democracy throughout
the world. This truth is most strikingly illustrated by a
survey of the role of the German Nazi government in the
present Spanish situation" ("Nazi Intervention in Spain,"
Anti-Nazi News, I, No. 5 [December 20, 1936], 3). See Burns
on this aspect of the Spanish War; speaking of the situation
one and one-half years later, he observed, "By 1938 Spain
had become a cockpit of international combat. Tens of thou
sands of Italian 'volunteers,' thousands of German officers
and technicians, quantities of Axis tanks, artillery, and
aircraft braced Franco's attacks. The government, with the
help of its International Brigade and later of Soviet arms,
had twice staved off heavy attacks on Madrid. But the Loy
alists' Aragon offensive failed in the summer of 1937;
Italian forces captured Bilbao; Santander and Gijou fell.
The League Assembly announced that 'veritable foreign army
corps' were operating in Spain. By 1938 Loyalist chances
looked dim" (p. 355). General Andre Beaufre, speaking of
334
the Spanish situation; for although Franco's array was in
famously guilty of dreadful outrages and should be severely
and unequivocally condemned, the "so-called 'legally and
democratically elected . . . government . . .' [was respon
sible for] far greater crimes" ("An Attack on Democracy,"
p. 538). Not only was it perpetrating them, it was justify
ing them by means of its "false-face" position as an elected
ruling body— for it was controlled by the Anarchists and
|Communists who had "seized the actual power of the so-called
Popular Front government, and thrust aside the ineffective,
futile group of liberal republicans who were supposed to be
at the head of [the] government." Stating that the "Spanish
Reds [were] attacking democracy just as violently, indeed
more so, than their Spanish opponents," the editors of the
publication asked, "But what are American liberal writers
doing in that [democracy-destroying] galley? [For] their
Ipresent statement undermines, and does not defend democracy"
i
(p. 538) .
the National Socialist doctrine, defined it as follows:
"The doctrine . . ., when one strips it of its political
clap-trap, is essentially the imposition of revolutionary
tendencies turned towards militarism: because the purpose
is revenge. The military tendencies likewise turn towards
revolution through abuse of technique in achieving their
acknowledged ends" (The Fall of France, p. 67).
335
A somewhat related, though not as definite and speci
fically delineated opinion was expressed by the editorial
board of The Saturday Review, also in a pre-congress dis
cussion. It was related, in that the editors wondered
"whether the American sheep are baa-ing the way skillful
propaganda directs them to," and it was somewhat so, in that
they affirmed their long-standing support "of the Spanish
igovernment. . . . because it is the elected government, be-
icause the attack on it is an attack on civilization made by
i
jthe powers of barbarism, because its fight is the fight of
democracy against the militarized state, because it stands
82
for law as against force." The board's doubts regarding
the veracity of the publicity given the Spanish war would no
doubt have warranted applause from The Commonweal and
®^"The Writers' Congress," SR, XVI, No. 4 (May 22,
1937), 8 . The editors compared their present stand with
|that taken by the United States during the first World War:
on the side of England and France against the "Barbarism and
military despotism [which] were attacking civilization then,
[so that] democracy had to crush them in the name of law and
reason and the hope of a better future." After all this
squelching of the powers of "barbarism," however, "it
strangely turned out that nothing of the sort had happened
[and] that we had been misled by a skillful propaganda con
ducted by masters of the art" (p. 8). In light of this
view, it is understandable that this journal should be ap
prehensive about the integrity of the Spanish government,
the grandiose declarations of the sympathetic American writ
ers, and the accuracy of the so-called facts of the whole
situation as publicized by anybody at all.____________________
336
similar periodicalsj its supports however reserved, of the
acting Spanish government would not have.
In contrast to its uncertainty on this subject, Satur
day Review's position on the usefulness of writers' confer
ences as vehicles for action and change was most definite:
We believe in getting out and raising hell when freedom
of thought and expression is threatened, but passing
resolutions has never interested us much. The delegates
[at the American Writers' Congress] will get up and say
' splendid things, they will adopt some resounding reso
lutions which will use perfectly beautiful words to
express the most admirable sentiments, and then they
will come out to the street in a glow of righteous
achievement and be a little surprised that the traffic
i could go on while people were being so stark. But free
dom of thought and expression will be just where it was
before the committee phrased the resolutions.
Conventions are just gatherings where people have a
good time and the resolutions they pass are merely in
tended to show that the delegates 1 hearts are in the
right place. . . . And we don't need the resolutions
for we already know . . . that no writer's heart is
going to be changed at the Congress. ("The Writers'
Congress," p. 8)°^
®^It is rather interesting to note that the sentiments
of the Saturday Review as expressed in this editorial state
ment are much more adamantly against writers' congresses
than they were in the annual reports on the P.E.N. confer
ences, which seemed to reflect, if anything, a spirit of
involvement and agreement with P.E.N. ideals— and not in
frequently a certain amount of embellishment. Perhaps the
Review's lack of objectivity in the present situation was
colored by certain ideological differences between P.E.N.
and the League of American Writers . An additional element
may be the fact that Henry Canby was always an American
delegate to the P.E.N. meetings, as well as the fact that he
wrote the reports. Also, his reports must be considered____
337
*T *
T h e p o l i t i c a l p o s i t i o n o f t h i s p u b l i c a t i o n was m ore
s p e c i f i c a l l y c l a r i f i e d i n an e d i t o r i a l a p p e a r in g tw o w eeks
l a t e r w h en , a f t e r s a r c a s t i c a l l y a t t e m p t in g t o d i s c r e d i t th e
u se o f i l l o g i c a l d i s t o r t i o n o f f a c t s b y th e e d i t o r s o f New
84
M asses m r e g a r d t o t h e q u e s t io n o f w h e th e r th e R e v ie w h a d
o r h a d n o t b e e n i n v i t e d t o a t t e n d t h e S eco n d A m e ric a n W r i t
e r s 1 C o n g re s s , th e e d i t o r s s t a t e t h a t t h e y — o r t h e i r r e p r e -
j s e n t a t i v e , d e p e n d in g on th e s t a t u s o r n o n - s t a t u s o f th e i n -
j
I v i t a t i o n — move " t h a t th e w o rd s 'a n d com m unism ' b e in s e r t e d
a f t e r t h e w o rd 'f a s c is m ' a t t h e a p p r o p r ia t e p la c e i n e v e r y
r e s o l u t i o n a d o p te d b y t h e C o n g re s s " (p . 8 ) .
M o s t n o t a b le a t t e n t i o n was g iv e n t h e S p a n is h w a r d u r in g
articles, and the "article" at hand is really a statement of
official editorial opinion.
QA
° Apparently the Review and New Masses had their dis
agreements; in fact, the former was not particularly well
liked by either left-of-center publications or intellec
tuals . Henry Hart, for example, labels it "reactionary" in
a letter to the Nation ("The American Writers' Congress,"
p. 741). The Review editorial cited in our text is quite
venomous toward New Masses and seems calculated to incite;
its tone is rather similar to that used frequently by its
subject— the editors of the Review, instead of rising to the
top in this little skirmish in their running battle with the
Masses. seemed instead to sink below the battleline due to
their use of the same type of sophomoric sarcasm— apparently
intended as wit— which they seemed to feel contributed to
the generally immature, non-professional tone of the left-
wing periodical: . .a periodical so reminiscent of the
Ogden High School Classicum of 1912" ("Invitation to the
Waltz," SR, XVI, No. 6 [June 5, 1937], 8).___________
338
the public opening session at Carnegie Hall on Friday eve
ning, June 4, although it was discussed from more specific
aspects during the literary sessions of June 5 as well.
Among the speakers at the first meeting were the following
men: Archibald MacLeish, the acting chairman, who warned
his 3,500-member audience of two matters: first, that fas
cism posed a great danger to men whose work demands the
prime requisite of freedom to publish; and second, that "The
I
factual war between the fascist powers and the things they
i
would destroy [was already made] the war against which we
I
I
imust defend ourselves. . . . [in which] writers who contend
for freedom, are . . . engaged [willingly or not]" ("Crea
tors' Congress," p. 79); Walter Duranty, Moscow correspon
dent for the New York Times, who spoke of the impossibility
of honest writing under fascism and urged opposition to the
j"'dreadful war spirit1 . . . spreading everywhere . . . to-
85
jday" (NYT, June 5, 1937); Donald Ogden Stewart, Chairman
85According to the Times, Duranty "declared that nei
ther Fascists nor Communists had 'any rights in Spain,' and
urged all writers . . . to be opposed 'in every way to the
. . . war spirit' . . ." ("Fight on Fascism Urged," June 5,
1937). Eugene Armfield in the Saturday Review commented
that Duranty "in a brief talk defended the attitude of lib
erals and impartial seekers after truth, an attitude gener
ally ridiculed by other speakers." Armfield pointed out
that of the six speakers who had addressed the mass meeting
on June 4, only one had been a Communist; and that of the
339
of the Hollywood Anti-Nazi League, who also warned grimly of
'fascism's dangers^ which apparently included the "spiritual
bankruptcy of literature under capitalism"; Earl Browder,
86
who explained his party's position on the function of the
writer: to interpret "the truth as he understands it ac
cording to his training and knowledge [and] to write more
and better books"--Browder felt that the great literature of
the future "would come from writers . . . in close touch
i
jWith the struggles of the masses"; and Ernest Hemingway,
!
I
jclearly "The most popular speaker of the evening" (Armfield,
I
j
idozen or so writers who delivered papers at the closed ses
sions, "roughly half" were Communists. He noted that among
the "358" delegates in attendance "were communists, social
ists, liberals, writers of no political beliefs at all, and
a sprinkling of Trotskyites" ("The Second Writers' Con
gress," SR, XVI, No. 7 [June 12, 1937], 7).
ouArmfield felt that Browder's speech was "the most
cogent and closely reasoned . . . and in many ways the most
|interesting. . . . [It was also of significance] as an au
thoritative statement" because of the wide interpretations
given to his party's position toward writers" (p. 7).
Dwight Macdonald had a quite different reaction to Browder:
"At the opening session a well-known litterateur named
Browder launched a venomous attack on Trotskyism and its
'liberal stooges' . . .Mr. Browder was prolific in epithets
for . . . [these] 'innocents . . . seekers after truth . . .
gentle souls . . . sentimentalists and muddle-heads.' This
gratuitous political attack on a minority of the delegates
to the congress threw a queer light on the nature of its
'united front'" ("The American Writers' Congress" ["Letters
to the Editors"], The Nation, CXLIV, No. 25 [June 19, 1937],
714) .
340
p. 7), despite the fact that he was making "the first big
public speech of his career" ("Creators' Congress," p. 79),
who "spoke feelingly of his experiences" as an American
87
reporter in Spain and of the writers in the front lines
there (Armfield, p. 7):
"A writer, when he knows what it is about and how it
is done, grows accustomed to war. . . . It is a shock
to discover how truly used to it you become. . . . But
no one becomes accustomed to murder. And murder on a
large scale we saw every day. . . . The totalitarian
fascist states believe in the totalitarian war. That
put simply means that whenever they are beaten by armed
forces they take their revenge on unarmed civilians.
In this war, since the middle of November, they have
been beaten at the Parque del Oeste . . . at Caraban-
chel . . . on the Jarama . . . at Brihuega and at
Cordoba, and they are being fought to a standstill at
Bilbao. Every time they are beaten in the field they
salvage that strange thing they call their honor, by
murdering civilians." ("Creators' Congress," p. 80)®®
8^In 1938 Erika and Klaus Mann both spent some time in
Spain, "nicht als Partisanen, sondern als Beobachter und
Berichterstatter. Erster Kontakt mit der Realitat des mo-
dernen Krieges! Die ausgestorbenen Dorfer, Landstrassen,
verstopft von Fluchtlingen und Panzerwagen. . . . Wir sehen
Barcelona, die Ebro-Front, Valencia. Wir sehen Madrid—
schon fast legendares Symbol des Widerstandes. . . . Madrid
— seit fast zwei Jahren eine belagerte Festung— erscheint
zugleich verfinstert und verklart in der starren Glorie
seines Heldentums. Madrid gibt nicht nach. . . . Der Wahl-
spruch der Loyalisten wird zum kategorischen Imperativ einer
ganzen Stadtbevolkerung" (DWp, p. 408) . Cf. The Turning
Point, pp. 310-311.
88Hemingway had been reporting from the Madrid battle-
front for the North American Newspaper Alliance since March
18, 1937. An excellent article illustrating his graphic,
341
Although the closed sessions at the New School were
jconcerned ostensibly with literary matters--American litera
ture ^ contemporary literatures of other countries, the posi
tion of the writer on the contemporary American scene— a
jgood deal of talk seemed to be expended on Spain, Stalin,
and the French Popular Front. As far as could be ascer
tained, Armfield was rather in the minority when he reported
that "politics as such played a small part in the discus-
jsions, [with the exception of the advocacy of democratic
jalmost brutally realistic style was published in the New
Republic several months later; composed of passages selected
from five Hemingway dispatches, it is divided into four sec
tions: "Valencia"; "On the Guadalajara Front"--portions of
this section are reminiscent of his short story, "A Natural
History of the Dead" (The Short Stories of Ernest Hemingway
[New York, c. 1925-1953], pp. 440-449); "Madrid"; and "Ma
drid" ("Hemingway Reports Spain," NR, XC, No. 1170 [May 5,
il937], 376-379). Selections from a film on the civil war,
j"The Spanish Earth," were also shown at the Writers' Con-
(gress. Taken on the Loyalist side of the front lines, it
iwas the work of a young Dutch cameraman, Joris Ivens, who
|had spent several weeks on the battlefields with Hemingway.
jThe picture was being readied for distribution by John Dos
jPassos and Archibald MacLeish ("Creators' Congress," p. 80).
lAn interesting reference to Hemingway's efforts in solicit
ing funds for the Loyalist cause is given in Andrew Turn
bull's biography, Scott Fitzgerald (New York, c. 1962) :
"... Fitzgerald had caught a glimpse of him shortly after
reaching Hollywood the summer of 1937. Hemingway had come
out with a documentary of the Spanish Civil War for which he
had written the narration, and Fitzgerald accompanied Lil
lian Heilman to a private showing at the home of Frederic
March. . . . When [Hemingway] passed the hat for the Loyal
ist cause, movie stars began making out thousand-dollar
checks" (p. 310). ______ __
342
opposition to fascism and reaction* and that] . . . a great
deal of emphasis was placed on the writers 1 social respon
sibilities" (p. 7). In Time magazine 1s unique prosody*
What happened in these [closed meetings] would have been
incredible anywhere else. Along with the discussion of
scholarly and original papers . . . there were bewilder-
ingly hair-splitting literary squabbles that . . . [in
cluded the above-mentioned items and were occasionally
interspersed with] Dostoevskian interludes when embit
tered poets or philosophers interrupted the proceedings
with autobiographical statements or expositions of their
! personal credos. ("Creators' Congress*" p. 80)
I
i
(The New York Times noted that "The Ivory Tower as a safe
i
I
jplace for writers was ridiculed yesterday [Saturday, June 5]
by speakers . . . meeting at the New School. . . . [who*]
directly or by implication . . . exhorted their fellow
craftsmen to join the 'fight against fascism; as a matter of
self preservation" ("Writers Spurred to Fight Fascism*"
June 6, 1937) .
! Among the writers speaking in this vein was Martha
i
Gellhorn* recently returned from Spain* who gave an "effec
tive account" (Armfield* p. 7) of at least a score of writ
ers fighting there* whose motive in going had been the de
sire* as writers* "to bury their personalities in something
worth fighting for* namely* democracy"; she compared the
newspaper reporters covering the Madrid battlefront to these
343
writers* in that they were cooperating with one another--
"were working collectively"— to cable the truth from Spain*
although in constant danger of their lives ("Writers
Spurred*" NYT* June 6* 1937). Malcolm Cowley* editor of The
New Republic, who was planning to sail for Spain within
three days* observed that all writers* whatever their polit
ical shade* had in the past seven years become more politi
cally minded and aware than ever before in history. Dr.
|
Harry Slochower* an exiled professor whose writings had been
89
burned m Berlin* praised the literary record of those men
and women "ousted from their native lands by dictatorships."
Other writers who "attacked fascism from several positions"
were Newton Arvin* Albert Rhys Williams* and Carleton Beale
(sic)• and the Times reported that it was the general con
sensus that "the happiest writer is one who takes an active
89
I In 1935 New Masses published a copy of the letter
sent by Slochower to the editors of the "Gelehrten-Kalender"
in Berlin at the De Gruyter Verlag* requesting that his name
be removed from the current edition--the fifth— of the
"Kalender" for the following reason: "As Hitlerism spells
the death of the spirit of scientific scholarship I must
request that my name be removed from this list. The time
will come when freedom of intellectual research* conducted
for the common good* will be possible in Germany. I should
then be happy and honored to be included once again in the
Gelehrten-Kalender" ("Hitler's Who's Who" ["Correspon
dence"]* NM, XIV* No. 1 [January 1* 1935]* 35). A copy of
this letter had been sent to the Masses by the Committee
Investigating Fascist Activities.
344
part in the social, economic and political struggle of today
and refrains from penning odes to daffodils and such"
("Writers Spurred," p. 8). Additional speakers and/or
chairmen of various sessions included Clifton Fadiman, Henry
Hart, Kenneth Burke, Granville Hicks, Eugene Holmes, Horace
Gregory, Robert Gessner, and Albert Maltz (Armfield, p. 17).
Opinions varied as to the actual effectiveness of this
American Writers' Congress. After citing the more signifi-
|
■cant resolutions of the twenty passed, which included
j
clauses in favor of a permanent Federal Arts project and the
defense of Spanish democracy, and clauses opposing various
types of censorship and many concrete acts of injustice
stemming from fascism or reaction, Armfield noted the diffi
culty of assessing through the eyes of the writers them
selves either the work of the congress as a whole or its
specific results: by its very nature, such an evaluation
iwas too subjective to objectify with specific points. It
was Armfield's impression that the general tone of the con
gress "was rather lethargic and without any great surge of
vitality[, possibly due to the fact] . . . that the left-
wing literary movement [had] . . . become ingrown, lacking
in new blood" (p. 17).
An evaluation of a quite different sort was given by
------
Philip Rahv, one of the spokesmen for the ultra-liberal
camp. In his detailed and informative, although by no means
dispassionate comparison of the two American Writers 1 Con
gresses of 1935 and 1937, he made the observation that the
speeches presented at the second gave one "the impression
that the international class struggle, bag and baggage, had
been exported to one country: Spain. And even there it was
held strictly to account and told to behave itself— it was a
|duel between fascism and democracy and no more." From his
i
jpoint of view--a most definite reflection of the betrayal
!
felt by his group to have been committed against them by the
Stalinists— he criticized the treatment given Spain: "There
were many dramatic descriptions of the heroism of the Span
ish people, but no serious discussion of the fundamental
politics of the Spanish situation as exemplified in the
mutual relations of the social classes or the perspectives
i
iof the war" ("Two Years of Progress," p. 25).
i
Rahv's lengthy article summed up fairly well the split
— which was to widen from now on— in the liberal intellec
tual sphere in the United States beginning around 1937 and
which contributed greatly to the fascination of this era in
American letters. (It might be noted here that a similar
gap was crystallizing among the German exiled writers about
346
this time, caused partly by almost identical ideological
factors, but accentuated by the peculiar circumstances of
their somewhat unusual situation.) The bitter discord on
the American cultural front seemed to originate with the
official adoption of the Popular Front philosophy and its
i
related tactics by the Soviet Communist party in 1935—
witness the Moscow "trials" resulting from the brutal purges
of 1936-1937; the tremendous growth of the Popular Front in
j
Spain and France in 1936; and the new "soft line" taken by
the International Party, as expressed in Earl Browder's
speech at the second Writers 1 Congress.
The highly critical letter written by Dwight Macdonald
of the Partisan Review to The Nation included a succinct
statement of the problem. In discussing his disillusionment
with the congress, he made the distinction between the
actual and the "logical question" with which it was faced:
I
|". . . not, Is fascism to be fought? but rather, How is
! 90
fascism to be fought?" He continues, "... the Communist
Party has one answer--the popular front in defense of
democracy. But the Socialist Party has another— the class
^®Cf. Rahv: "The danger of fascism is tremendous; it
must be fought. Yes, but how?1 1 ("Two Years of Progress,"
p. 25) .
347
I
struggle against capitalism" ("The American Writers' Con
gress, " p. 714). One cannot help but think of the Socialist
party in this situation as a sort of inverted prodigal son,
who by dint of his obedience to the filial ties was once in
the good graces of his father, but who now, not because of
I
rebellion against, but because of continued loyalty to the
the family teachings, has obeyed himself right out of his
favored position, due to an about-face of the patriarch
I
jwhich the son's early conditioning did not permit him to
j
follow. As Rahv noted, "By the time of the second Congress
ithe miracle had already been performed whereby culture had
|
jbeen released from its class moorings and transformed into
i
a pure endowment of democracy" ("Two Years of Progress," p.
25) .
Strangely, but not too surprisingly, this ideological
conflict created some odd bedfellows: the ultra-conserva-
i
tive American Mercury made similar, although by no means
similarly motivated, comments about the Stalinists. In
comparing the writers' congresses of 1935 and 1937, Max
Eastman, writing for the Mercury, noted: "... with Mos
cow's adoption of the Popular Front policy, word went out
that the Soviet Union was to be defended in a new way. Ges
tures of revolution were to be abandoned and Stalinists in
348
other countries were to . . . join the respectable forces of
91
democratic reform." Of course, the motivational differ
ence between this journal and the Partisan Review was simply
that the former was attempting to delineate the interna
tional machinations of communism, as based on Lenin's advo
cacy of a technique he had recommended in 1903-1904, i.e.,
that fighting the battles of the working class is not suffi
cient for the purposes of the party; Communists "must go
into every phase of national life, and wherever they find
any discontent about anything, make themselves its mouth
piece" (p. 671). The Review, by contrast, was expressing
very real emotional indignation at the "betrayal" of the
revolutionary direction instigated by formerly loyal party
leaders--"loyal" as interpreted through the idealistic eyes
of American ultra-liberals. Rahv stated accusingly, "The
Stalinists have converted anti-fascism into the latest ra
tionale for defending the status quo; and it was precisely
the sharp dichotomy they have set up between capitalism and
fascism that formed the political basis of the second . . .
^"Stalin's American Power," p. 675 . Note also the
illuminating and fairly objective discussion of literature
and communism by Edmund Wilson: "Marxism and Literature,"
The Atlantic Monthly, CLX, No. 6 (December 1937), 741-750.
See Chapter I, note 10, for biographical data on Eastman.
349
Congress" ("Two Years of Progress," p. 25).
Whereas Rahv and others of like disposition saw the
"reversal" of official Communist policy as a prostitution of
their cherished ideals, Eastman and Company viewed the
"switch" as not a change at all, but merely a temporary
shift of priorities: "The idea [in joining the "respectable
forces of democratic reform"] was [now] not to win converts
to the Soviet system, but to inveigle the democracies into
j
defending the Soviet Union against Hitler. Accordingly, the
League of American Writers underwent a not-very-subtle
92
transformation" ("Stalin's American Power," p. 675).
^The premise upon which Eastman had based his article
was that the attitude of cynical pragmatism governing the
actions of the USSR and its Communist party— the two being
really inextricably intertwined— permitted the party to be-
Ihave in a totally amoral fashion: it would use whatever
institutions and beliefs it needed at a given time to fur
ther its own power-motivated aims. Using Lenin's theories
(and advice as his point of departure— i.e., that the party
j"must surround itself with a series of organizations, each
less and less definitely affiliated with it, until remote
circles little interested in its ideas become subject to its
influence" (pp. 671-672)--Eastman warned, "Exactly the same
net is being thrown over American society. . . . Stalin's
emissaries are . . . building organization after organiza
tion, ostensibly dedicated to some specific democratic re
form, [but] really concerned only to bring larger and larger
masses under the party's sway" (p. 672). As justification
for this thesis, Eastman discussed three groups: "the Ameri
can Youth Congress, [which] is the most sinister instrument
. . . [since] the indoctrination of youth is the spearhead
of the totalitarian attack upon civilization" (pp. 674-675)j
the League of American Writers, " [which] is a League of ____
350
As Rahv saw it, the second congress, instead of being a
Writers for the Defense of the Soviet Union and the Substi
tution of Totalitarian Party Dictatorship for the American
System of Government" (p. 675); and the American People's
Mobilization, which had undergone six name changes since its
inception in 1932 as the American Committee for Struggle
Against War, when it had been formed "in obedience to the
decisions of a World Congress Against War held at Amsterdam
under openly Soviet auspices" (p. 676; see Chapter II, note
20, for details). Eastman noted that he had selected the
above examples from a list of more than 100 Communist-front
organizations "dedicated [supposedly] to all sorts of noble
purposes, but operated by communist nuclei with but two ends
(in view: defense of the Soviet Union and extension of
jstalin's brand of pseudo-socialist totalitarian gang-rule
(into the United States" (p. 678). Eastman cited as his
isources two groups: the American Committee for Cultural
(Freedom and the Research Bureau of the New Leader (p. 678).
Tenney lists both the Committee and the periodical in his
Index (pp. 677, 705), and the information toward which the
reader is directed seems to indicate that each was involved
in the expose of Communist-front organizations. In May 1939
The Nation published, at the request of Sidney Hook, the
statement of purpose of the newly created Committee, which
was in essence to battle "The tide of totalitarianism
([which] is rising throughout the world [and which] is wash
ing away cultural and creative freedom along with all other
expressions of independent human reason." The group formu-
ilated its raison d'etre as follows: "We therefore call for
(the formation of a Committee for Cultural Freedom, an organ
ization independent of control, whether open or secret, by
jany political group, pledged to expose repression of in
tellectual freedom under whatever pretext, to defend indi
viduals and groups victimized by totalitarian practices any
where, to propagate courageously the ideal of untrammeled
intellectual activity. This commits us as a group to no
particular social philosophy— but only to one of the funda
mental criteria for evaluating all social philosophies to
day: namely, whether it permits the thinker and the artist
to function independently of political, religious, or racial
dogmas. We have come together and call upon others to join
us, on the basis of the least common denominator of a civi-
lized culture— the defense of creative and intellectual
351
congress against war--which the radicals felt it should have
freedom." This call was signed by nearly 100 writers and
intellectuals, among them Sherwood Anderson, John Chamber-
lain, Elmer Davis, John Dewey, Max Eastman, Edna Ferber,
Sidney Hook, B. W. Huebsch, John Dos Passos, Norman Thomas,
Dorothy Thompson, and William Carlos Williams ("Manifesto"
[Letters to the Editors], Nation, CXLVIII, No. 22 [May 27,
19 39], 626). That the creation of this committee contribu
ted to the unrest in the ranks of the American left was in
dicated in an article published in the same issue of The
Nation, in which the author, one of the associate editors of
the periodical, presented her views regarding this new
group: "I believe the group to be honest but not innocent.
I have no doubt that they really want to defend intellectual
freedom, but I think they also intended to drop a bomb into
the ranks of the liberal and left groups in the United
States." After noting that several other committees dedi
cated to "the cause of a free culture" were already in exis
tence, she observes that "The only distinction, and there
fore the only important feature of the present manifesto, is
its emphasis on Russian totalitarianism." It was this au- j
thor's opinion that the special purpose of this new commit
tee was "to create a clear division on the left by relegat
ing members of the Communist Party and the vague ranks of
its sympathizers to outer totalitarian darkness." She con
tended that while the Communist ideology and realization
thereof had certain drawbacks, the Communists also "With all
their faults . . . perform necessary functions in the con
fused struggle of our time. They have helped to build up
and to run a string of organizations— known as 'fronts' by
their opponents— which clearly serve the cause not of 'to
talitarian doctrine' but of a more workable democracy. And
the value of those organizations lies largely in the energy
and discipline and zeal of their Communist elements" (Freda
Kirchwey, "'Red Totalitarianism,'" Nation, CXLVIII, No. 22
[May 27, 1939] , 605) . An additional reference to the Com
mittee for Cultural Freedom appeared in The New Republic,
in which the editors refer to the difficulty of keeping up
with "the practically incessant divisions and redivisions
among sectarians on the left." The editors reiterated their
statement of two weeks before in regard to the newly formed
Committee, namely, that "'some of its members are widely
supposed to be followers of the anti-libertarian
352
been— was "calculated to aid in mobilizing American intel
lectuals for the support of the imperialist government of
the United States in a possible war against the fascist
powers .... The writers of America were enjoined to sup
port one imperialist coalition against another" ("Two Years
of Progress," p. 26). In regard to the League of American
Writers, founded with great revolutionary gusto and fanfare
in 1935 and whose first president was Waldo Frank, Rahv now
felt only contempt on several counts: first, although the j
League's program "is supposedly restricted to the struggle
against war and fascism [and] officially . . . asks for no
endorsement of the Stalin leadership in Russia[, since] it
claims to be a democratic, independent organization . . .
free of party control," the League is in reality simply a
Trotsky.'" They then refer to a letter by Dr. John Dewey on
page 161 of the present issue, in which he observes, "'I
will explicitly state there is no 'Trotskyist' among the
signers,'" following this with the difficulty of accurately
following the constant convolutions and changes of the Left,
and observing that students of the phenomenon "tell us Dr.
Dewey is correct, that a crack has appeared in the ranks of
the anti-Moscow communists and that the League [for Cultural
Freedom and Socialism— another new American organization
concerned about 'advancing reaction'] now represents that
part of the group which has stuck to its guns." The editors
end their observations with the remark, "We pass along this
report with diffidence, however, since keeping track of Left
politics is a wholetime job by itself, and we have other
things to do" ("Still Another Committee" ["This Week"], New
Republic, XCIX, No. 1280 [June 14, 1939], 144).______________
353
puppet organization carrying out and defending "every policy
of Stalin." Second, Waldo Frank, "the hero of yesterday
. . . [but] now denounced. . . . [because of his] unorthodox
letter to The New Republic about the Moscow trials . . . was
excommunicated" both from the party and the League leader- !
ship, only to be "unceremoniously replaced" by Donald Ogden
Stewart, "a dark horse from Hollywood. . . . [who,] as a
stooge . . . will doubtless prove more pliant than Waldo
Frank" (p. 27) .
Dwight Macdonald, who has been shown to be likewise
unfavorably impressed by the congress, directed his venom
in similar fashion toward what he viewed as the hypocrisy
of the party: "My politically sophisticated friends warned
me that the congress was merely a maneuver of the Communist
Party, and that I was naive to expect any [meaningful dis
cussions on the 'deep divergence of opinion among radicals']
— since discussion implies the possibility of disagreement."
He felt that no such discussions had occurred, despite the
facts that the Call to the congress had not mentioned ad
herence to the Communist party line as a requirement for
participation, and that the signers of the Call were nearly
all non-Communist liberals. Macdonald wondered what one
should think of a "'united front' congress of anti-Fascist
354
writers which includes Thornton Wilder, Ernest Hemingway,
Carl Van Doren, and Marc Conelly and excludes Edmund Wilson,
Louis Hacker, Lewis Corey, Sidney Hook, Benjamin Stolberg,
and James T. Farrell?" He concluded rather bitterly that
nothing much could be said except that the "united front"
was a sham which permitted considerable leeway on the right
and none on the left except to the party itself ("The Amer-
93
can Writers' Congress," p. 714). Rahv posited a question
i
9-%e note that Macdonald's view was apparently not
shared by many liberals. Henry Hart, for example, wrote a
letter of rebuttal in which he differed strongly with Mac
donald on nearly every bone of contention he had thrown out.
In fact, Hart stated that of the 358 delegates to the con
gress, the only dissenters had been "Mr. Macdonald and four
others who sat assiduously with him at all the sessions, and
one Trotskyite who did not sit with the Macdonald group."
(We are not certain precisely how Mr. Hart arrived at these
figures; perhaps he spent most of his time interviewing
delegates as to their political satisfaction or dissatis
faction with the congress. However, this type of verifica
tion would have been a gargantuan, if not an impossible
task, even if he had sent out questionnaires after the con
gress ended, for his letter was published on June 26, a mere
twenty days later— and some time would have to be allotted
for adherence to pre-publication deadlines.) Hart— speak
ing, we assume, for the 352 non-dissenting delegates, in
cluding himself— felt the attitude expressed in Macdonald's
letter to indicate "something very pathetic, and something
very serious": the pathetic being that a man as intelligent
as Macdonald could see "nothing in that really remarkable
meeting at Carnegie Hall. . . . [and] nothing in the whole
congress but a 'Stalinist' plot"; and the serious being that
"those with whom Mr. Macdonald has become temporarily asso
ciated attack the congress in the reactionary Saturday Re
view of Literature and elsewhere, and are praised editori-
ally therefor in Hearst's New York American." Hart_______
355
almost identical in its implications when he asked* "...
how can one take seriously an approach to writing wholly
determined by the immediate political dividends it can be
made to yield?" ("Two Years of Progress*" p. 27).
94
As is obvious* the Second American Writers' Congress
was of importance for several reasons. First* it indicated
a growing awareness of— and in some cases* mobilization
against— the reality of the Fascist threat by American in
tellectuals* however idealistically this may have manifested
observed* "By varied and circuitous routes the enemies of
mankind enter the Valley of San Simeon." He concluded with
his opinion as to the immense usefulness of the new League
of American Writers which had been established at the con
gress by saying that while this may seem only "'a Communist
maneuver1" to Macdonald* it is in reality "neither a maneu
ver nor Communist [but rather] . . . a direct effort to
encourage and enable the writer to take his rightful place
at the van of life." His final comment on the meaningless
ness of the phrase "Communist maneuver" was illustrated by
a comparison of this phrase with Macdonald's statement that
"the Socialist Party is opposed to the people's front":
both are "politically wrong" to an equal degree ("The Amer
ican Writers' Congress*" p. 741). For a Communist inter
pretation of writers and the congress* see Granville Hicks*
"The Threat of Frustration*" New Masses, XXIII* No. 12
(June 15* 1937), 16-18; and Newton Arvin* "Democracy in
American Letters*" New Masses, XXIII* No. 12 (June 15*
1937)* 19-20.
^It should be noted that both the First American Writ
ers ' Congress and the Second Writers' Congress were immor
talized in the following books* each of which was edited by
Henry Hart: American Writers' Congress (New York* 1935)
and The Writer in a Changing World (New York* 1937) .
356
itself. The gravity of that threat was initially realized
through the Spanish "Civil" War and became eventually more
graphically symbolized by the exiled writers and intellec
tuals, particularly as their numbers in America increased
with the spread of fascism through Europe. Second, the
congress served as a catalytic agent for the permutation of
various aspects of liberal thought in the United States; it
simultaneously illustrated the trend of Communist policy in
international affairs— which was to shift again more than
two years later with the signing of the German-Soviet Non-
Aggression Pact, thus throwing the leftist camp into an
even greater uproar of confusion.
I CHAPTER IV
i
WRITERS 1 CONGRESSES AND ASSOCIATIONS:
INTENSIFICATION AND ALARM
I i
PARIS TO NEW YORK 1938-1939 j
i |
’ I
The optimistic vitality which had colored so many
speeches by Loyalist sympathizers— exiles and non-exiles
j !
alike— at the Madrid/Valencia Congress for the Defense of i
: i
Culture in 1937 was no longer in evidence at the 1938 Con- j
j |
gress. Rather, a somber tone reflecting the increased j
gravity of the European situation seemed to permeate the
;talks given in Paris during the week of July 25, 1938.
jFranco's Nationalists, who the Loyalist sympathizers had
I
;been deeply hopeful would be repulsed in Spain— because, as
Ludwig Renn said in 1937, they had to be'*'— had reached the
| "'"Renn made the following assertion in the opening para
graph of his speech at the second International Congress of
Writers : "Aber ich bin gliicklich, hier von ganzem Herzen
sagen zu konnen, daS wir, die wir gekommen sind, vim gegen
jden Faschismus zu kSmpfen, das spanische Volk lieben und wir
357
; “ 358 j
iyiediterranean in April 1938, and the French frontier had
been closed in mid-June. Although the Spanish conflict did
not end until the following June, Spain was already well on
its way to becoming a third Fascist stronghold in Europe.
Further, on March 11, Hitler had successfully completed his j
i
]
operation against Austria^ by combining internal agitation j
I
t
with military pressure, he had forced Chancellor von
Schuschnigg to give way, thus accomplishing the "rape of
2
Austria"— one more country under the broadening shadow.
geloben, daft wir kampfen werden bis zum Sieg, unserem Sieg!"
Further on he stated in reference to the war, "Denn der
Krieg, in dem wir mithelfen, ist uns keine Freude, kein
Selbstzweck, sondern etwas, das iiberwunden werden mufi! " (Das
Wort, I, Nr. 1 [July 1936], 78-79).
2
As an editorial m The Nation asserted, "Nothing that
Hitler had done in the past quite equaled the shrewdness,
dispatch, and ruthless efficiency he displayed in conquering
Austria" ("'Mein Kampf1 Unfolds," CXLVI, No. 12 [March 19,
1938], 316). For detailed discussion of the AnschluS, see
Shirer, pp. 322-356. See also Beaufre, in which the author
states that the two objects needed for the fulfillment of
Hitler's European plan were an alliance with Italy and the
Anschlufl of Austria (pp. 78ff). As James MacGregor Burns
observed, Hitler "could afford to strike" Austria at the
time he did because Mussolini was "acquiescent and Britain
passive. . . . [and so] On March 12 German tanks and troops
swept across the border, and within a few hours Austria was
his." Burns accurately assesses that the strategic impor
tance of Austria lay in its geographic location as the gate
way to Czechoslovakia and the countries beyond (The Lion and
the Fox, p. 354). As might be expected, a large number of
articles on the annexation were published by journals of
ideological, political, and humanistic inclination. For a
discussion of the earlier Austrian crisis (Hitler's
, - - _ 359
Naturallyj with the annexation of Austria to the Nazi
I
Reich, a further national group had been added to the grow
ing list of outcast cultures. As Emil Lengyel noted,
Austrian culture has been driven into exile at a faster
rate than Germany's. Not quite five weeks after Hit
ler's occupation of Austria, the Vienna edition of the
Volkischer Beobachter celebrated the cleansing of its
literature, stage, music, and press. . . . Vienna must
be written off as a cultural capital of the world.^
An interesting sidelight to this event is the correlation
i
between the AnschluS and a world-wide revival of interest ini
the books of exiled German authors . For despite the elimi- j
nation of Austria as an important outlet for books publishedj
i
i
i
in German by the publishing houses in various European
countries as yet physically untouched by the Nazi plague,
premature attempt in 1934 to annex his native country to
complete his long-standing dream of "Ein Volk, ein Reich"),
see "Austria and After" (Editorial), The New Republic,
LXXIX, No. 1027 (August 8, 1934), 331-332. See also Karl
Dietrich Bracher, The German Dictatorship. The Origins,
Structure, and Effects of National Socialism (New York and
Washington, 1970), p. 294. (This book, an outstandingly
incisive and comprehensive analysis of National Socialism,
was originally published in Germany under the title Die
deutsche Diktatur: Entstehung, Struktur, Folgen des Natio
nals ozialismus [Koln und Berlin, 1969].)
■^"Austria's Outcasts— A Who's Who," The Nation, CXLVI,
No. 25 (June 18, 1938), 695, 698. Note also Klaus Mann's
perception of the cultural situation in Vienna just prior to
the Anschlufi in Per Wendepunkt, pp. 342-346. For his views
on the hopelessness of Austria's situation before that
event, see pp. 384-385 and 406-407.
; 360 :
an almost immediate and increased demand for German writers'
books was reported by the ten publishing houses in Holland,
Switzerland, and Czechoslovakia which handled, among others,
the works of Thomas Mann, Feuchtwanger, Einstein, Stefan
Zweig, and Remarque.
As Heinz Liepmann stated in reference to the result
feared from the Austrian seizure, "But suddenly a curious
reaction occurred. The civilized world protested in its own
way against a further curtailment of the publications of
l
4 '
books by liberal German authors." He cited statistics to j
illustrate his point: between August of 1937 and August of
1938, sixty-one books were published by these houses, of
I
which 241 translations were made; in contrast, the Buch-
handler-Borsenblatt in Leipzig— the official organ of the
publishers in Germany— reported that 331 translations of
some 2,031 literary works were to be made for outside dis
tribution during the same period (p. 8).
A third situation which no doubt contributed to the
mood of gloomy awareness which seemed to hover shroud-like
over the 1938 Paris Congress of Writers was the crisis in
^"Books by Emigre German Writers. Demand for Exiles'
Works Increased at Time of Anschlufi," NYT, October 2, 1938,
sec. 6, pp. 8, 24.
361
Czechoslovakia which threatened to annihilate still another
5
center of exile activity. In a speech at Karlsbad on
April 24, Konrad Henlein, the puppet-leader of the Sudeten-
deutsche N.S. Partei, had clearly spelled out Hitler's de
mands— received directly from Berlin— for Czechoslovakia,
chief among them being full autonomy for the Sudeten German
i
area, plus complete liberty to profess and follow Nazi !
C a i
JAs previously noted, Prague had been one of the ini- !
tial exile centers; as Wegner states, "Die ersten Sammel- :
punkte des Exils, in denen sich die deutschen Schriftstellerj
trafen, waren Prag, Wien, Paris und London" (Exil und Lite- |
ratur. Deutsche Schriftsteller im Ausland 1 9 3 3 -1 9 4 5 , p . I
4 7 ) . Wegner discusses briefly the situation in Czechoslo- j
vakia insofar as the difficulty of exit for exiles was con- ;
cerned— he sees one of the chief problems to have been the
"Schwerfalligkeit der Biirokratie ." To illustrate his point,
he gives the following example: "In Prag ging die Vertei-
lung der Auswanderer-Zertifikate so langsam vor sich, daft
am Tage des Einmarsches der deutschen Truppen viele Fliicht-
linge das Land noch nicht verlassen hatten und von den Deut
schen verhaftet und nach Deutschland deportiert wurden" (p.
50). He makes a similar observation regarding Austria:
"fihnlich verhielt es sich in Osterreich, wo es gleichfalls
vielen Emigranten und antinazistischen Autoren osterreichi-
scher Staatsangehorigkeit nicht mehr rechtzeitig gelang,
uber die Grenze zu entkommen" (p. 50). Regarding Hitler's
over-all plan, see Burns; writing of Hitler's move after the
coup in Austria, he asks, "Who could doubt where he would
strike next? Czechoslovakia now lay like a blunt wedge
driven into the heart of the new Germany. Czechoslovakia
was both spawn and symbol of Versailles, a proud democracy,
a buttress of the League of Nations, an ally of France and
Russia, a small nation but well armed and supplied behind
natural defenses, and a nation, in the Fuehrer's eyes, of
Slav subhumans. As usual Hitler brought to his strategy a
superb combination of military, diplomatic, and psychologi
cal Power" (p. 384).___________________________________________________
362
political principles (Burns, p. 384). (According to Shirer,
p. 359, the Nazi Party in this region claimed the sympathies
of a majority of the inhabitants, with the exceptions of the
Social Democrats and the Communists.) Further, the "May
Crisis" of the weekend of May 20, which caused such panic in
the governments of London, Paris, Prague, and Moscow, had
shown that the realization of Hitler's master plan for a
linguistically unified German Reich was only a matter of
6
time (Burns, p. 384).
6Beaufre, pp. 82-84, recognizes Hitler's designs on j
Czechoslovakia as "the second phase" of his plan for the 1
conquest of Europe as outlined in Mein Kampf. This phrase
was manifested in pressure on Central Europe and the break
up of the Little Entente (composed of Poland, Rumania, Yugo
slavia, and Czechoslovakia, the countries resulting from the
dismemberment of the Austro-Hungarian Empire after the
Treaty of Versailles in 1918) . The Entente was in the
French orbit, and Czechoslovakia was its "soul," as well as
the key to a further internal and external weakening of
France— an integral part of Hitler's long-range goal in
setting France up for the kill which took place two years
later. Cf. Shirer, pp. 357-366. Note also James E.
McSherry for a discussion of factors leading to the Munich
Conference of September 1938, at which the fate of Czecho
slovakia was sealed with the Allies' naive trade to Hitler—
in the name of peace— of the frontiers of that country in
return for his promise of no further aggression and main
tenance of the status quo (Stalin, Hitler, and Europe. Vol.
I: The Origins of World War II 1933-1939 [Cleveland and New
York, c. 1968], pp. 58-74). Shirer evaluates and summarizes
Hitler's successes as follows: "With the instinct of a
genius rare in German history he had divined not only the
weaknesses of the smaller states in Central Europe but those
of the two principal Western democracies, Britain and
363
Paris: Third International Congress of
Writers for the Defense of Culture
The Third International Congress of Writers thus took
place during a period when the fortunes of fascism were
rising almost daily and the intentions of Hitler were be
coming ever more unpleasantly clear— to those with the eyes j
|
or the will to see. Its theme was formulated as ". . . die !
besonderen Aufgaben des Schriftstellers angesichts der ver- i
l
starkten faschistischen Aggression." Unfortunately, no j
references whatsoever were found to this congress in the j
American press--liberal or otherwise; as a result, we were
j
forced to rely entirely on the coverage given in the Commu- j
nist oriented exile journal. Das Wort— and even here, the !
extent of coverage was almost nonexistent by comparison with
France, and forced them to bend to his will. He had in
vented and used with staggering success a new strategy and
technique of political warfare, which made actual war un
necessary. In scarcely four and a half years this man of
lowly origins had catapulted a disarmed, chaotic, nearly
bankrupt Germany, the weakest of the big powers in Europe,
to a position where she was regarded as the mightiest nation
of the Old World, before which all the others . . . trem
bled. At no step in this dizzy ascent had the victorious
powers of Versailles dared to try to stop her, even when
they had the power to do so. Indeed at Munich, which regis
tered the greatest conquest of all, Britain and France had
gone out of their way to support her" (p. 422).
7
"Panser Kongrefl der Schriftsteller . Zum Kongrefi, "
Das Wort. Ill, Nr. 10 (Oktober 1938), 109.
364 :
i
that given by it to the second Congress of the International
Association of Writers held the previous year.
Of course, enthusiasm of the many German exiles in
volved in the Spanish conflict had not yet been dampened by
the numerous and crucial victories of the Spanish National-
i
ists which remained to be won during the interval between j
i
8 *
the two congresses . It should be remembered also, that j
i . . !
jwith each successive National Socialist victory in Europe, |
the number of countries able to harbor emigrants and exiles j
diminished proportionately. Although 1938 was by no means !
|
a wholly disastrous year for the German outcasts, as far as j
Nazi dominion was concerned, many exiles, potential and j
!
i
actual, German and non-German, had seen the handwriting on
the wall and left altogether. As Klaus Mann points out,
New York was the most important center of the exiled German
"intelligentsia" as early as the turn of the year 1937/1938,
for ". . . je zugespitzter die Situation in Europa wurde,
desto mehr Exilanten, beriihmte und unberiihmte, drangten sich
nach Amerika" (Der Wendepunkt t p. 403) .
As far as could be ascertained, considerably fewer
O
°Note the concise chronology for 1937-38 given in
Gabriel Jackson, The Spanish Republic and the Civil War
1931-1939. pp. 508-509.
365 ;
Germans were present or represented at the third Congress:
9
only Ernst Toller, Anna Seghers, and Rudolf Leonhard spoke,
and Thomas Mann sent a letter; the talks of all these German
writers were given at the session chaired by Theodore Drei
ser, the American novelist. The only reason for mentioning
this congress at all is to maintain continuity in our dis
cussion of conferences associated with the three main writ- ]
i
j
ers1 organizations with which this study deals, even though !
|
we were unable to locate any pertinent source materials in j
i
the American liberal press.
The speeches of Seghers and especially Toller— Leon-
i
hard's was not printed— showed a decided awareness of recent
9
Klaus Jarmatz, Literatur lm Exil (East Berlin, 1966),
p. 296. Wegner mentions some points made by Toller at the
congress, but his source is also Das Wort. The exhibition
catalogue Exil-Literatur 1933-1945 of the Deutsche Biblio-
thek in Frankfurt does not refer to the third congress,
either by name or via the three authors who presented ad
dresses . However, the "Deutsche Kulturwoche" sponsored by
the SDS to celebrate its thirtieth anniversary took place
in Paris during the period of November 4-19 and attracted
as speakers the following German writers: Doblin, Feucht-
wanger, Leonhard, Recha Rothschild, and Friedrich Wolf
(Jarmatz, p. 296). See also Kantorowicz, "Fiinf Jahre
Schutzverband deutscher Schriftsteller," Das Wort, pp. 75-
76, for a discussion of the plans for the "Kulturwoche"—
which included a showing of many Expressionist art works
which the Nazis had circulated in Germany as an exhibition
of so-called "degenerate" art ("Entartete Kunst"). This ex
hibit proved so popular in Germany, by the way, that the
Nazis shut it down after only a few days.
366
European disasters* as did the speech of the Frenchman*
Louis Aragon* who was General Secretary of the Association
at this time. A brief outline of some of Toller's points is
useful for the light he casts on the position of not only
the exiled writers* but also that of all Europeans threat-
j
ened by the cancer spreading rapidly through the heart of
the continent. Toller's main purpose here was to sound the
alarm, to warn of the immanence of Fascist domination if the
democracies did not wake up— and soon— to Hitler's ignoble j
intentions. He noted that the world was already in the
midst of war— witness Spain* China* and Austria— and warned
i
of the demoralizing effect of each Nazi victory upon the i
i
opposition forces within Germany.
Democracy was doomed* he said* if it did not become
"stark und mannlich" ("Pariser Kongreft*" p. 122)* for its
statesmen were enacting an incredible tragicomedy in their
continuing efforts to discern in the words of Hitler and
Mussolini a genuine desire for peace. Accurately
■^As Thomas Cochran points out* it was the isolationist
policy of America* reflected in President Roosevelt's ex
treme political caution as well as the lack of congressional
support of almost every proposal designed to frustrate the
Fascist encroachments* which strongly contributed to the
indecision— indeed* the non-action— of both France and Eng
land during the early and middle phases of the Fascist
367
a n a ly z in g H i t l e r ' s p o w er o v e r t h e G erm an m asses as b a s e d on
t h e a p p e a l t o t h e f e r v e n t an d t o t a l l y u n r e a l i s t i c d e s ir e
I
f o r a m e s s ia h i n tim e s o f d i r e n e e d (p . 124) , a n d h is m e th
ods as em b o d yin g th e u se o f f e a r t o m a in t a in c o n t r o l (p .
125), T o l l e r c o n c lu d e d t h a t i n c o n t r a s t t o H i t l e r , th e j
m e d ie v a l t y r a n t s w o u ld h a v e t o b e c a l l e d hum ane ( p . 125) . j
|
The p r im a r y — an d r e a l l y th e o n l y — t a s k o f th e w r i t e r
!in p e r io d s o f i n j u s t i c e and e v i l i s t o s p e a k o u t : t o b r o a d -i
i
j
c a s t th e t r u t h an d t o d e s t r o y l i e s , t o ju d g e h i s e r a a n d , i f !
j
n e c e s s a r y , t o p o i n t o u t new p a th s . P u t s im p ly , s il e n c e i s |
i I
jbetrayal of his moral task as a human being (p. 123) . "Der J
Wahnsinn . . . in Europa . . . verfolgt [heute] die Ver- !
j (
nunft" (p. 124)^ since Hitler is "der Feind der Vernunft"
(p. 125) and the writer "[der] Diener der Vernunft" (p.
123), it would follow that Toller felt that writers, by the
a g g r e s s io n s an d i n d i g n i t i e s . He c i t e s H i t l e r ' s o c c u p a tio n
o f th e R h in e la n d , F r a n c o 's e n tr a n c e i n t o S p a in v i a M o ro c c o ,
th e a n n e x a tio n o f A u s t r i a , a n d , o f c o u r s e , th e i n c r e d i b l e
M u n ic h a g r e e m e n t. I n a d d i t i o n , lo n g -r a n g e i n t e r n a l p o l i c y
p ro b le m s e x i s t e d i n b o th B r i t a i n and F r a n c e ; th e w o r ld w id e
e c o n o m ic c r i s i s o f t h e 1930's w h ic h h a d made c a p i t a l i s m
a p p e a r w eak and g r a v e ly m enaced h a d p r o v id e d a f e r t i l e
b r e e d in g g ro u n d f o r th e g ro w th an d d e v e lo p m e n t o f com m unism .
And t o th e c o n s e r v a t iv e s i n b o th c o u n t r ie s t h i s seem ed a
much m ore d a n g e ro u s t h r e a t th a n a c o u p le o f b o m b a s tic d i c t a
t o r s w i t h d e lu s io n s o f g r a n d e u r (The G r e a t D e p r e s s io n and
W o rld W ar II, 1929-1945, p p . 141-146. See a ls o M c S h e r r y ,
p p . 35-57.
368 '
very nature of their profession, had no choice but to fight
to the death against the forces of darkness embodied in j
|
Hitler. In fact, he ended his speech with an exhortation |
to all writers to fight wherever and whenever freedom is |
j
I
threatened (p. 126). Whereas the democracies must possess ;
and apply "den Mut zur Wirklichkeit" (p. 122), the writers |
11 *
must constantly reaffirm "den Mut zur Wahrheit" (p. 123). !
i
: I
j Anna Seghers made essentially the same point, but not !
i j
jnearly as eloquently or as powerfully. (We note that Tollerj
had had considerably more speaking experience than most |
iexiled writers— we recall that he spent the fall and winter j
j |
jof 1936-1937 traveling throughout the United States on an j
■^Toller had expressed a very similar view in an ad
dress presented at the June 1936 meeting of the Executive
Committee of the Writers' International Association for the
Defense of Culture ("Das Wort. Eroffnungsrede zum Interna-
tionalen Schriftsteller-KongreB in London, Juni, 1936," Das
Neue Tagebuch, IV, Nr. 27 [July 4, 1936], 639-641). The
speech was later published under the title "We Are Plowmen"
in New Masses, XXI, No. 5 (October 2 7, 1936), 5-6. This
title comes from the final paragraph of the speech, where
Toller says, "Wir sind Pfliiger, und wir wissen nicht, ob wir
Erntende sein werden. . . . Wir wollen wahr sein und mutig
und menschlich" (NT, p. 641). Indeed, another remarkable
speech was given at the London meeting by Andre Malraux;
entitled "The Cultural Heritage," it discussed the writer's
responsibility and function both within and beyond the con
text of his culture and ideologies— Malraux managed to con
vey beautifully in concrete terms the universal as well as
the specific role of art in civilization (The New Republic,
LXXXVIII, No. 1142 [October 21, 1936], 315-317).
369
intensely hectic lecture tour, and that, furthermore, since
his actions were a living example of his belief in the
writer's supreme task, he was one of the most despised foes
12 1
of the Nazis.) Seghers emphasized several important ele
ments, among them being the fact that since fascism begins j
! I
its total mobilization in the minds of men, it is the task i
j
of the writer to be there first, ready with a total mobili- j
ization of forces of a completely different order. Writers
j ;
I |
iare responsible to have not merely the will but also the |
j i
I ;
{knowledge required in their struggle to enlighten each other;
I •
i !
and the world. A congress of writers, furthermore, can be
justified only if it incites them to actions ("Aktionen") .
Although these actions vary from one writer and one country
to another, depending on the situation and the need, they
must be taken— and writers lead the way. "Wir haben uns
[auf dem KongreS] auf unsere wichtigsten Ideen geeinigt.
jund jetzt mufi man arbeiten" ("Pariser KongreB," p. 127).
Thomas Mann regretted that he was unable to attend the
gathering in person. The rather short letter he sent was a
12
See Chapter II, note 43. As stated in the exile ex
hibition catalogue of the Deutsche Bibliothek, Toller was
"Einer der meistgehaBten Gegner der Nationalsozialisten"
(Exil-Literatur, Frankfurt a/M, p. 249).
370
bit difficult to assess clearly, due to the predominance in
i
it of rather abstractly phrased thoughts on subjects such as
the relation between writers and politics, the political-
! I
social realm as one part of the "Gesamt-Menschlichen" (p. |
i
110), and the two types of "Totalitat" (p. 109) existing in j
| ■
jtoday's world. Mann saw the second type, "diejenige der
Humanitat," as the universally important one (p. 109)j the
itask of mankind today is peace, and it is the writer who
! i
(must abhor war from the very depths of his being. This view!
j |
iprovides an interesting contrast to that of Toller, who !
I
asked if peace could even be saved at this point in time and|
indicated that those who advocated saving it were conceding
to the spirits of confusion and unreality (p. 122).
Mann also reaffirmed his sympathies for the battle for
freedom now being waged in Spain, stating that the fight was
already won on the moral front, even if it should be lost on
the military and political. He concluded with his convic
tion that the defense of the Spanish Republic would serve as
a beacon for centuries and be described in the history of
mankind with only the highest respect, for this history
would not be written by the Fascist pen (p. 110).
371
Prague; Sixteenth Annual P.E.N. Congress
i
i
The other writers’ congress of 1938 was the sixteenth i
international convention of the P.E.N. Clubs held in Prague
almost exactly one month prior to the Congress of the Inter-
i
I
national Writers' Association in Paris. American press j
i
coverage of this event was nonexistent for almost all prac- |
jtical purposes: one article in the Times Index described it!
! I
jsimply as "Convention." We wondered if perhaps this con-
jgress for some reason was not held under official auspices. !
! I
! '
jHowever, in a Times article treating the 1941 congress in
i i
!
iLondon, the chairman of the British P.E.N. Council, Miss j
i
Storm Jameson, was cited as reminding the authors that the I
l
13
last congress had been held in Prague before the war; and
a second Times article stated that Jules Romains, noted I
I
I
French author, had been elected president of the Interna- j
! . 14
jtxonal P.E.N. Clubs at the Prague meetxng.
I In brief, the Times report of the 1938 convention
i
1 13
"'World Cxtxzenshxp' Broached by Winant. Ambassador
Tells P.E.N. Congress in London of Yearning," NYT, September
11, 1941, sec. 1, p. 12.
"P.E.N. Body Tense on Romains Topic. Rebecca West
Helps to Steer the London Session Away from Touchy Subject.
H. G. Wells to Head Group. French Writer at Home Here De
nies European Section in America is ’Defeatist,'" NYT, Sep
tember 13, 1941, sec. 1, p. 15.
372
provided the following information: (1) the opening date
of the congress— June 27; (2) the delegates' support of the
eminent exiled Austrians, Raoul Auernheimer, playwright, and
15
Sigmund Freud, as shown by the standing ovation accorded
ithem when Romains made a declaration of sympathy: "'It
i |
jwould be asking too much to expect us to close our eyes to j
i I
iwhat has happened to such outstanding members of the P.E.N. j
j ;
! 16 i
clubs as Freud and Auernheimer'"; (3) the departure of
ithe Italian delegate soon after the meeting began; and (4) I
I ;
Ithe non-representation of Germany at the congress— it is not
i I
I
I j
I fully clear what is meant by "Germany," since the German
15
According to Emil Lengyel m The Nation (above, note
3), Austria today, i.e., in mid-June 1938, "can be talked
about only in the past tense so far as science, art, and
literature are concerned" (p. 695) . Lengyel gives an im
pressive list of representatives of culture and science who
suffered death, arrest, and/or exile due to the recent mani
festation of Hitler's "deep hatred for the intellectual life
of his native country, from which he was excluded" (p. 695).
The writer states that Auernheimer, "erstwhile rival of the
great Schnitzler, was jailed by the Nazis on some impossible
charge" (p. 697); and of Freud, who was eighty-two in 1938,
he states that he left Vienna for London early in June,
continuing with the report of the Nazi seizure of Freud's
"fortune and publishing house" and the destruction of "many
of his books." He notes that the Nazi-coordinated press
referred to the Freudian psychoanalytic school as a "'por
nographic Jewish specialty'" (p. 695).
"P.E.N. Convention. Writers Cheer Exiles," NYT.
June 28, 1938, sec. 1, p. 7.
373
P.E.N. center had withdrawn from the international body in
November 1933, and in previous Times articles the denation
alized German-speaking authors had been identified as ex-
iiles . I
! !
! i
| There are several possibilities for the dearth of |
! '
coverage of this congress, one of which may be the Anschlufi ;
of Austria slightly over three months before and the result-1 !
| j
;ing flurry of press interest in an event of such interna- j
tional ramifications. As Burns observes, "The news brought j
a quick flare-up of public opinion in America. Newspaper ;
i j
^editorials were indignant" (The Lion and the Fox. p. 354). j
i !
I i
;This reaction is clearly illustrated by the amount of ref- !
j I
erences to the event found in various indexes: the Times
j Index for 1938, for instance, lists some five full pages of
articles on Austria, and the Guide for 1937-1939 lists a
minimum of seventy articles under just the heading "Austria
i
j— Annexation by Germany"* the annual indexes of The Nation
i
and New Republic cite a proportionately high number . While
it might be reasonable to assume that the American press
would be at least mildly interested in the reaction of a
distinguished world organization of writers to this event
and thus cover the P.E.N. conference, it might also be
reasonable to assume that a writers 1 conference in the midst
374 I
of extremely disquieting international events would be lost
in the shuffle of confusion and excitement.
We are reminded that American public sentiment was
17
still largely isolationist at this time, and while the
American press would be compelled to deal with foreign af-
! i
fairs of broad political and social significance, it would ,
not be required to publicize events of such definitely lim- j
; j
jited appeal and importance as a P.E.N. conference. Further,!
! I
[since P.E.N.'s basic function was as a literary and not an I
! i
i I
jideologically based group which used literature as a common [
! 17 i
j In his discussion of the events of the last year of
President Roosevelt's first term in office, Burns notes that
the President hoped "that people would be educated by events
. . . [but that] the error of this policy was that the dire
events in Europe and Asia confirmed the American suspicion
and fear of foreign involvement rather than prodding them
into awareness of the need for collective action by the
democracies" (p. 262). This general attitude was still very
much in evidence in 1938, which might help explain why
American response to the Anschlufi was manifested only in a
"quick flare-up" of public and press reaction (p. 354),
rather than in a sustained indignation and decisive action.
Although Roosevelt desired to stimulate a positive congres
sional reaction for some years prior to the entrance of
America into the war, in 1937 he was still facing "formid
able congressional opposition in his efforts to awaken the
country to the rising dangers abroad. . . . [and although
he opposed] the idea of peace at any price, he wanted co
operation among the democratic nations to save the peace.
. . . In late 1937 and 1938 he was still searching for a
peace formula, with his eye always cocked on the barons of
isolationism on Capitol Hill" (p. 352).
375
meeting ground, the interest of the liberal and left-wing
press in its activities had decreased from minimum to non
existent. P.E.N. was far too bland and uncommitted a body
to justify any awareness by the liberal press.
i
I !
; i
| New York World's Fair: World Congress i
i of Writers under Auspices of i
! American P.E.N. Center j
i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| ;
j The World Congress of Writers held the following year j
|from May 8 to May 10 at the New York World's Fair and spon- j
I !
! I
isored by the American Center of the International P.E.N. ,
! 2Q
jClub seemed to belie both the above observations and ex-
jplanations. For this congress provided a tremendous con- !
jtrast to the Prague event, not only in terms of the amount !
TQ
There seems to be some doubt as to who exactly was
the sponsoring organization of this congress. According to
the Publishers 1 Weekly, the event was "held under the aus
pices of the American Center, International P.E.N. Club"
("Writers' Congress at Fair," CXXXV, No. 17 [April 29,
1939], 1607). In a pre-convention article, the New York
Times noted that "Invitations from the American P.E.N. Club
to 105 foreign writers to attend the World Congress of
Writers at the Fair May 8, 9, and 10 will be mailed this
week" ("Soviet Officials to Hail Fair Today. Program to Be
Broadcast over National Hook-ups— Flag of Russia to Fly
Here. Free Press Forum Urged. P.E.N. Club Asks Foreign
Writers to Attend May Session at Exposition in Queens,"
January 29, 1939, sec. 1, p. 27). However, according to a
report in The Saturday Review, the gathering was held "under
the auspices of the International P.E.N. Clubs, and by in
vitation of the New York World's Fair" ("Internationalism
of the P.E.N.," XX, No. 4 [May 20, 1939], 8).
376
of press coverage— eight articles in the New York Times
i
a lone, some of them very lengthy; articles and editorials in!
The Publishers' Weekly, The Saturday Review, The New Repub
lic , The Commonweal, Twice A Year, and Time— but also in j
terms of the strikingly greater degree of political aware- j
ness shown by P.E.N.
j The explanations for this change must be sought in the J
! i
i !
iinterplay of several factors: (1) some fifty or more Euro- |
i !
19 . !
pean writers attended, many of whom were now residing m j
|the United States due to the spread of Fascist oppression onj
the continent; (2) the number of liberals in the United |
States had increased greatly since late 1938, one of the !
j
jreasons being, in Cochran's words, "the Hitler persecutions
i
1 20
iof November 1938, which made all Jews m Germany
19
j As noted above (note 18), the Times reported that 105
I foreign writers had been invited to attend the congress.
However, according to Time magazine, ". . .55 P.E.N. dele
gates from 29 countries foregathered at the New York World's
Fair . . . to hold their three-day World Congress of Writ
ers" ("Men of Good Will" [Books], XXXIII, No. 22 [May 29,
1939], 79). This figure seems to exclude those delegates
from the United States itself. The problem of ascertaining
the exact number of official delegates from foreign coun
tries is a difficult one because each article which included
any figures based them on a different unit of measurement,
including total delegates, number of foreign participants
invited, and number of foreign writers attending.
2 0
For background on the Jewish persecutions, which
377
essentially prisoners in their own homes . . . [and which]
undoubtedly swung more liberals of all persuasions to the
21
support of measures to curb fascism" (p. 145); (3) Hit
ler's actions between the summer of 1938 and the late spring
of 1939 which had shown only too clearly his intentions for
i I
j !
Europe; and (4) "Dictators and militarists who seemed to be j
winning victories wherever they turned" (Burns, p. 390). j
j j
|For example, in addition to the occupation of the remainder :
apparently required only an external stimulus to be inten- ;
jsively and officially activated, see Shirer, pp. 430-435. |
|As he states with his usual tendency toward the dramatic,
| "On the flaming, riotous night of November 9, 1938, the
iThird Reich had deliberately turned down a dark and savage i
,road from which there was to be no return. A good many Jews
Ihad been murdered and tortured and robbed before, but these
I crimes, except for those which took place in the concentra
tion camps, had been committed mostly by brown-shirted row
dies acting out of their own sadism and greed while the
State authorities looked on, or looked the other way. Now
the German government itself had organized and carried out
a vast pogrom" (p. 434). Shirer comments regarding the
reaction of the world to this official policy: "World opin
ion was shocked and revolted by such barbarity in a nation
which boasted a centuries-old Christian and humanist cul
ture. Hitler, in turn, was enraged by the world reaction
and convinced himself that it merely proved the power and
scope of 'the Jewish world conspiracy'" (p. 434). An ex
cellent chronology of the government actions against Jewish
citizens is provided in the book by H. D. Leuner, When Com
passion Was a Crime. Germany's Silent Heroes 1933-1945
(London, 1966).
21
The reaction of American writers to the persecutions
is tellingly detailed in a New York Times article. "U. S.
Writers Protest Reich Attack on jews," November 17, 1938,
sec. 1, p. 7.
378 1
of Czechoslovakia by the National Socialists, Madrid was
taken by Franco at the end of March, Albania was seized by
Mussolini just ten days later, and the Spratly Islands,
covering a huge area southwest of Manila, were claimed by j
i
Japan. |
And yet, the "liberals of all persuasions" who actively!
i
i
engaged in the struggle against fascism were still in the j
t !
[minority in the United States. The reality of Hitler's j
aggressive tactics was even now too far removed to be emo- 1
I I
jtionally enough perceived to stimulate a sustained majority 1
| i
\
iopposition. As Klaus Mann observed, !
i I
i i
i j
! Der Fascismus, vor allem in seiner deutschen Form, war j
! unbeliebt. Aber wenn es nur wenige gab, denen die
Hitlersche "Neue Ordnung" sympathisch Oder nachahmens-
wert schien, so waren es doch auch nur sehr Vereinzelte,
die sich durch die Aggressivitat der Achsen-Machte be-
droht oder beunruhigt fuhlten. (DWp, p. 370)
j
Mann was cognizant of a basic human trait when he noted that
the events taking place at such a rapid pace in Europe were
viewed by most Americans as "irgendwie unwirklich Oder doch
irrelevant" (p. 370). This attitude, with its concomitant
desire for noninvolvement, was partially reflected in the
year-end elections of 1938, in which there was a "surge of
Republican isolationist power" (Burns, p. 388).
In retrospect, therefore, it is not particularly
379 ]
astonishing that the plans for a "Freedom Pavilion" at the
World's Fair were effectively squelched not long after they
had been formulated. This was to have been
i
a great exhibition of the work of leading Germans thrown j
out of Germany for their race, religion, or politics. j
It was not to preach or call names, simply to "show
| Americans the testimony" of what a nation loses in the ;
arts, science, medicine, education, religion, when it
loses the freedom of democracy.^ i
| j
i |
(involved in the plans for the organization of this exhibi- I
j j
tion were a group of prominent Americans, including Dorothy I
Thompson, Oswald Garrison Villard, the composer Samuel M. ;
|
(Barlow and his wife Ernesta Barlow, Dr. Frank Kingdom— later|
I !
I I
ichairman of the Emergency Rescue Committee, and Connecticut j
i j
j I
Governor Wilbur L. Cross— who was also honorary president of!
i
t
the American Guild for German Cultural Freedom. Another I
I
igroup of involved persons was composed of a German refugee i
|
contingent exiled or self-exiled from the Third Reich, among
them Dr. Max Moericke, Dr. Paul Tillich, Dr. Karl A. Witt-
! 23
fogel, Erika Mann, and Thomas Mann. Eventually the
22
Laura Z. Hobson, "Freedom Pavilion," The Nation,
CXLVIII, No. 18 (April 29, 1939), 492.
^As early as May 11, 1938, Thomas Mann suggested in a
speech at a dinner given in his honor and sponsored by the
American Guild for German Cultural Freedom, that this organ
ization "should become an intellectual clearing house for
380
initial group grew until there were some nineteen subcom
mittees , to which were entrusted the plans for exhibits in
true German culture and that the . . . World's Fair should i
offer an opportunity for its display. According to Mann, j
"'The exiled Germans could have a decisive voice in such an i
exhibition. . . . This might be the first occasion to prove ;
that the German emigration does not only repudiate what is ;
wrong or bad but that it is creative as well, and that it j
is its aim to put up against all the threats of Hitler's !
(Germany something creative to enrich and beautify the world.|
lit should be possible to erect a pavilion at the exhibition j
showing the works of refugees as well as those of past Ger- 1
man creative artists'" ("Mann Asks Exhibit at Fair for Ex- !
iles. Tells Guild for Freedom That It Would Aid True Cul- ;
ture," NYT, May 12, 1938, sec. 1, p. 16). The reaction of
the Times to Mann's proposal is rather enlightening; in an
editorial of several days later the idea is praised in a
somewhat backhanded manner, which appears to imbue the edi-
itorial with a rather sarcastic tone; "Obviously there are j
difficulties, practical and diplomatic, in the way of a
German exile exhibit at our World's Fair. Whether they are
insurmountable we will not undertake to say. But of one
thing we may be sure. Such an exhibit of Germany in exile,
of the German spirit persecuted, would not run short of
material. Off-hand one would say that a single glass case
would be enough. It would contain a book by Albert Einstein
and a book by Thomas Mann with a label saying 'Samples of
German Exile Products . '" The Times then acknowledges the
existence of other, earlier refugee work and suggests that
this might also be exhibited: "It would go beyond the pres
ent German 'emigration' to earlier German emigration. It
would show something from the emigration of the Forty-
Eighters ninety years ago. What the contemporaries of Carl
Schurz did for America in the Civil War, in the opening up
of the West, in our State universities, in our musical
standards, in our progressive legislation, would make a fine
exhibit. . . . There were German tyrannies before Hitler,
whose victims made their contribution to American life. The
evidence would fill a handsome pavilion at the World's Fair"
("Germans at the Fair" ["Topics of the Times"], NYT, May 15,
1938, sec. 4, p. 8).
381
specialized fields . The platform and tone of the Pavilion
I
were elucidated in a pamphlet put together by members of thej
I
founding group as follows: I
j
What there will not be is the propaganda of denuncia- |
tion— in the sense of burning effigies or violent ex-
i hibits. But every quiet book— every fine name on that j
I roster . . . the very fact that the whole undertaking '
j is sponsored and created by groups of men and women of ;
| all politics, of all faiths, Catholics, Jews, Protes-
j tants, working together in harmony and respect— ;
I All of that will be propaganda— forthright and creative.
| Call it propaganda— call it human protest— call it what j
you will. Americans will understand it. (Hobson, p. 493)i
| !
j The raison d ’etre for the Freedom Pavilion was given in:
I
a letter sent to Secretary of State Cordell Hull on June 14,;
1938, in which it was stated that since Germany the nation '
I I
J
would not be officially represented at the World's Fair, "an
exhibition comprising the creative efforts of many of Ger
many's most gifted artists and scientists . . . no longer
resident in Germany . . . would be welcomed by the public"
(p. 492). Cordell's reply, although cautiously worded, was
not discouraging and indicated that the sponsors of the
project "could properly approach the New York World's Fair
authorities merely as prospective exhibitors," provided that
the endeavor was "of an entirely private nature and [did]
not in any way attempt to represent a foreign nation" (p.
492) .
' ” 382 “
The attitude that prevented the Freedom Pavilion from
becoming a reality was quite simply the fear of various
influential personages that such an exhibit might upset the
already precarious diplomatic balance that existed between j
the United States and the Third Reich and so become a point j
of provocation which might lead to the onset of a second j
world war. Possibly the desire to maintain a neutral and j
I I
I !
juncommitted position also played a part in this situation. ;
| i
(Mr. Herbert Bayard Swope, whose aid the organizing groups j
| j
jhad enlisted in their cause and who was the host at a party ;
j j
on January 12, 1939, for "'seventy prominent citizens'" I
(p. 492), where the plans for the Pavilion were to be pre- j
i
sented, managed, according to Laura Hobson, to allow in
addition to the scheduled speakers, also nonscheduled speak
ers whose cautious attitude ultimately killed the idea of
the project. For example, he called upon Monsignor Michael
J. Lavelle, the prestigious rector of St. Patrick's Church,
who expressed the following views:
". . .1 don't think I would care to vote for anything
that would be likely to provoke trouble or get us into
war. It was a side issue altogether that brought us
into the last one. . . . I may be overtimorous . . .
but we don't want to do anything that is going to pro
voke a conflict. . . . I beg of you to be careful not
to do anything that would provoke or bring us into
trouble. . . . Some of the smallest things have caused
war between nations." (pp. 495-496)
A p p a r e n t ly t h e n e g a t iv e to n e s e x p r e s s e d a p p e a le d m ore j
I
e f f e c t i v e l y t o t h e d i s t i n g u i s h e d g a t h e r in g , an d e v e n t h e |
p re s s c h o s e t o e m p h a s iz e M o n s ig n o r L a v e l l e 's w a rn in g s ( p . j
j
496), with the result that those persons in positions of
Ipower and influence withdrew whatever tenuous support they
i
may h a v e g iv e n i n i t i a l l y t o t h e p r o j e c t . O b v io u s ly e x p r e s s -j
in g t h e v ie w s o f v a r io u s p o t e n t i a l s p o n s o rs , M r . Swope j
( s t a t e d t h e n e x t d a y a t a m e e tin g w i t h some o f t h e o r i g i n a l 1
i I
[ i
|p la n n e r s , " 'T h e W o r ld 's F a i r i s s u p p o s e d t o b e a p le a s u r e j
i i
jplace— controversial stuff's bad'" (p. 496).
: A lth o u g h th e d is a p p o in t e d m o vers a tte m p te d t o r e a c t i -
i
v a t e th e id e a o f t h e F re ed o m P a v i l i o n t h e r e a f t e r , t h e i r j
i
!
e f f o r t s w e re i n v a i n an d t h e i r h o p e d - f o r e d i f i c e a g a in s t !
t y r a n n y d id n o t m a t e r i a l i z e . As F re d a K ir c h w e y , one o f t h e
e d i t o r s o f The N a t io n , d e c la r e d i n a n o th e r a r t i c l e on th e
s u b j e c t ,
The d e a th o f F re ed o m P a v i l i o n . . . c a r r i e s i t s own
I m o r a l. B u t t h e m o r a l i s n o t a s im p le o n e . I t i s as
j c o m p le x as th e tim e we l i v e i n , a n d th e s t o r y i t s e l f
i s a u s e f u l f a b l e f o r o u r t i m e . F o r t h i s is no p l a i n
c a s e o f m u r d e r . [T h e ] P a v i l i o n was k i l l e d b y c a u t io n
and cold water, and the doses were administered by
9 A
those who called themselves its friends .
7 A
"Fable for Our Time," The Nation. CXLVIII, No. 18
(April 29, 1939), 485.
384
It would appear, however, that despite the dangerously
intolerable implications of an exhibit such as the Freedom
!
■Pavilion, the implications inherent in the participation at j
[ i
ia World's Fair conference by writers exiled from the Third j
I i
Reich were not of the same threatening variety. And so it j
iwas possible for Dorothy Thompson, President of the American]
IP.E.N. Center, to be quoted in the New York Times with ref- i
: I
;erence to the purpose of the biennial congress as follows:
i
"'This Congress . . . will provide an opportunity for the |
writers of the world to publicly and freely state their
belief in the personal freedoms, without which the crea- j
tion of literature is impossible, in a setting commanding
25
international attention.'" At least two additional
i
articles in the Times heralded the World Congress of Writ-
jers, as well as one article in The Publishers' Weekly. The
I Times reports detailed the themes, schedule of events,
j
speakers and authors both domestic and foreign, and the
2 0
countries which would be represented. The Weekly pre
sented more concrete information, notably the individual
i
I
! 25NYT, January 29, 1939, p. 27.
26"world Congress of Writers" (Book Review section),
NYT, April 30, 1939, sec. 7, p. 16; and "Writers to Meet
Here. World Congress to Be Held at Fair May 8 to 10," NYT,
April 30, 1939, sec. 1, p . 38. _______________________________
385
t o p ic s t o b e d is c u s s e d a t e a c h o f t h e f o u r c o n fe r e n c e s e s -
l
I
s io n s : "How Can C u lt u r e S u r v iv e E x i l e ? " , i n w h ic h a la r g e
c o n t in g e n t o f Germ an a n d E u ro p e a n w r i t e r s w o u ld p a r t i c i p a t e ,
j
n a m e ly , G . A . B o rg e s e , C h a irm a n ; S h o lem A s c h , F e r d in a n d
27 i
B r u c k n e r , A n n e tte K o lb , K a r in M i c h a e l i s , K la u s M a n n , E r n s tj
i ;
T o l l e r , an d A r n o ld Z w e ig ; "The W r i t e r ' s R e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r j
t h e C r i s i s o f T o d ay an d t h e W o rld o f T o m o rro w ," f o r w h ic h j
I
jThomas M an n , A n d re M a u r o is , an d L in Y u ta n g w e re s c h e d u le d ■
i I
[s p e a k e rs ; "The Iv o r y Tow er o r t h e S oap B o x ? " , i n w h ic h E r ik a j
| I
jMann w o u ld t a k e p a r t ; an d " W r it in g C o n te m p o ra ry H i s t o r y , " j
i }
' 28 *
[chaired by Dorothy Thompson. In the Times article, how- I
! 1
; j
je v e r , was g iv e n a n a d d i t i o n a l l i s t o f f o r e i g n an d A m e ric a n
2 7
According to the editors' explanation of the source
of G. A. Borgese's speech, which was printed in Twice A
Year, "Other speakers at [the Second Session of the World
Congress of Writers] were Henry Goddard Leach, Arnold Zweig,
Ernst Toller, Ferdinand Bruckner, Karin Michaelis, Sholem
Asch, Klaus Mann, Pedro Salinas" ("How Can Culture Survive
in Exile?", TAY, III-IV [Fall-Winter 1939, Spring-Summer
1940], 138). Apparently Annette Kolb had been replaced by
Pedro Salinas, for according to The Publishers 1 Weekly ar
ticle detailing session titles and participating writers,
the other participants were identical to those mentioned in
Twice a Year (PW, April 29, 1939, p. 1607). According to
the New York Times, Henry Goddard Leach was not actually a
speaker at this session; rather, he called the meeting to
order and introduced Professor Borgese, the Chairman of the
discussion (NYT, May 10, 1939, p. 20) .
28Publishers' Weekly. April 29, 1939, p. 1607.
""" 386~|
writers who were to speak at private functions. Among the
J
German exiles were to be found the following: Alfred Dob-
lin, Erich Maria Remarque, Franz Werfel, and Carl Zuck-
29
mayer.
According to the Times, some twenty-nine nations, not '
!
including the United States, were to be represented through j
|
the attending writers: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bel- j
igium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Denmark,!
j i
I i
1
(England, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Holland, Hungary,;
i j
I ;
jlceland, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Palestine, Poland, South (
i i
! i
jAfnca, Sweden, Switzerland, Yugoslavia, and Uruguay (p. j
I I
i # I
: 16) . The Publishers 1 Weekly specified Peru and Mexico as
well (April 29, 1939, p. 1607). It is perhaps illustrative
to note that no representatives from the Soviet Union were
mentioned among those writers either attending or partici
pating, which is somewhat strange, since the President of
the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, Mikhail I. Kalinin, spoke
on January 29, 1939, via a short-wave hookup to American and
Canadian listeners on the fifth "Salute of Nations" program
30
scheduled to honor the opening of the World's Fair.
29
NYT. April 30, 1939, sec. 7, p. 16.
30Ibid.. January 29, 1939, p. 27.
387
In his welcoming speech to the delegates at the opening
i
session on May 8, International P.E.N. President Jules
Romains struck the tone which was to dominate the conference
with his declaration that "... those who wield the pen
must abandon any neutrality toward the world's affairs and !
I
I
! j
jtake strides against those who wield the sword in the pres- I
i i
ent world conflict of nations and ideas." He continued on i
I
; I
jthis note throughout his address, pointing out the respon-
i I
j [
sibility of all writers to "1. . . call the . . . attention j
i
[of each member of the public] to the unprecedented perils j
!
which today assail civilization, peace, liberty and the j
31
dignity of the human person.'" Romains stressed the
31"writers of World Asked to Condemn the 'Mystics of
Violence.' Romains Demands End of Neutrality. Tells Writers
It Is Time for the Pen to Fight the Sword in World Crisis.
500 at Congress at Fair. Dorothy Thompson and Pearl Buck
Address the Delegates from Thirty Countries," NYT, May 9,
1939, sec. 1, p. 18. The Publishers' Weekly printed an edi
torial several days later praising Romains' position and
concluding with the view that "The World's Fair could not
have done better than to make a gathering of writers its
first international Congress; and the world of books and
readers should note that the leaders among authors of the
world are calling on their fellow craftsmen to preserve the
achievement of the culture of the world, to fight in the
open with all the cumulative power of the printed word for
the preservation of culture. The publisher and the book
seller today can no more withdraw to an ivory tower than the
author" (Frederic G. Melcher, "'The Time Has Come to Take
Sides'" [Editorial], PW, CXXXV, No. 19 [May 13, 1939],
1749) . See also Charles Poore, Review of We Shall Live
388 |
I
I
importance of moral commitment— regardless of political j
i
views and affiliations— to the cause of freedom and indi- i
vidual dignityj he declared that writers should "1• . . aid
and support those statesmen who appear aware of the peril
| j
32 i
and are devoting their energies to halting it.'" !
I
! I
These strong ideas are quite intriguing when consid- |
ered from a perspective of contrast with previous P.E.N. j
1
congresses. As will be recalled, H. G. Wells, President of j
the organization until 1936, had expressed consistent and j
adamant opinions and suggestions regarding the need for i
I
P.E.N. to re-examine its purpose and position within the j
i
[context of the world crisis. His voice had been a cry in
I
the wilderness of apathy and professed good intentions, and
he remained in the minority during the three congresses over
j
which he presided and to which he presented his exhorta
tions: Ragusa, Edinburgh, and Barcelona (he had been unable
to attend the congress in Buenos Aires at which Jules Ro
mains was elected his successor). It is thus of some inter
est to note the change which had apparently transpired in
Mr. Romains during the period between his election to the
Again by Maurice Hindus ("Books of the Times"), NYT, May 12,
1939, sec. 1, p. 19.
32NYT, May 9, 1939, p. 18.
389
presidency of P.E.N. in 1936 and the congress in 1939. In
1936 Romains, speaking at the annual closing banquet, re
ferred to Rome as "the 'Cradle of Nations'" as a prelude to
ihis expression of considerable pleasure that the next con-
i
jference would be held in that indomitable citadel of civi-
i i
! !
ilization— which it subsequently was not— thus restoring the ;
| j
1 i
jheretofore tremulous relations between the Italian delega- ;
I j
jtion and the P.E.N. organization (supra, pp. 273-274). j
j
Obviously, something— the growing Fascist threat, the i
I
I . . . !
igreater proximity of the Nazi minions to France, increased
i
iawareness or some other elusive and personal element— had
i
ichanged Romains' views by 1939, for he expressed ideas in
i
his opening speech which were curiously similar to those
expounded by Wells as early as 1933 . Still more interesting
was the reaction of the delegates to his speech; in contrast
to the indifference, fear, and even occasional antipathy
displayed at earlier P.E.N. conferences toward H. G. Wells'
foreboding portents and nearly identical proclamations, now
a strong positive reaction was shown. States the Times,
"The French author spoke in his native tongue, but appar
ently many of the delegates understood him, as there was
spontaneous applause when he made his demand for action
390
33
against the dictators."
Dorothy Thompson, President of the American P.E.N.
Center, developed the international theme further and rather
more graphically by stating that j
!
i
j
! "Never, in the memory of any one in this hall, have so
many of our guild been men without a country. . . . [or]
been in prison or in exile. For in much of the world j
today the word itself has been made captive. It walks j
in chains. Those who would free it do so at the risk
I of their own lives."
I i
jHer observation, "'Some who have taken that risk are here i
j !
among us, and we welcome them1" (p. 18), was a clear ac- j
|
knowledgment of the numerous exiled authors in attendance, j
I
j
I However, when the delegates' reaction to the proposal
of Lin Yutang on the following day is viewed, it is not
quite so clear that the P.E.N. had altered its basic atti
tude and orientation. Dr. Lin's proposal that the writing
|
profession officially "'denounce and disown'" two of its
best-known members, the dictators Adolf Hitler and Benito
Mussolini, was greeted, according to the Times, with "some
34
laughter and applause," but no formal action whatever.
33NYT, May 9, 1939, p. 18.
3 4 "Disown Dictators Is Plea to Writers. Lin Yutang
Calls Hitler a Distorter of History, II Duce a Second-Rate
Novelist. Maurois Urges Restraint. Authors at World
391
It was his feeling that
"... since these two have repudiated democracy and
do not consider themselves members of the democratic
press . . . [they] evidently did not invite themselves
to share [the] responsibility [of declaring themselves
at fault for the world crisis]."
(Dr. Lin had previously stated in jest that both Hitler and j
Mussolini "'would be immensely pleased if, after some care- !
i
i
jful heart-searchings, the World Congress of Writers decided j
I i
! I
(that [its members] were responsible for the . . . crisis.1")!
I ;
He continued, !
I
"I do not think, however, that in so far as these two j
men happened to write books, one of them being a writer
l of second-rate sentimental novels and the other a dis-
I
; torter of history, it would be entirely beside the point j
for the world congress to denounce and disown them from I
our profession."35
Interestingly, Dr. Lin's suggestion followed directly
a warning given by Andre Maurois that "'. . . the greatest
service we writers can render to the cause of peace [in this
terrible period] is to hold explosive words under lock and
key, to maintain a strict control over all others, and to
tell our readers the truth'" (p. 20). The lack of real
Congress Agree That Exiles Will Keep Alive Their Culture,"
NYT. May 10, 1939, sec. 1, p. 20.
35NYT, May 10, 1939, p. 20.
392
r e a c t i o n t o D r . L i n 's p r o p o s a l c o u p le d w it h M r . M a u r o is ' |
|
rather frightening words would seem to indicate that the j
P.E.N. was not yet as liberal as Mr. Romains' speech might
jhave indicated.
j Thomas Mann a ls o sp o ke on th e same p ro g ra m , d e v e lo p in g i
j
th e them e o f t h e d a n g e r o f p o l i t i c a l a lo o f n e s s , a n a t t i t u d e !
j
w h ic h h e f e l t t h a t t h e s o - c a l l e d " i n t e l l e c t u a l G erm any" h a d |
!
'e m b o d ie d — a lw a y s , o f c o u r s e , " ' i n t h e name o f c u l t u r e ' " j
I I
| (p . 2 0) . I t was D r . M a n n 's v ie w t h a t th e Germ an p e r se |
i i
| " 'd e s p is e d p o l i t i c a l fre e d o m . . . [a n d ] h e c o n s id e r e d th e j
te rm m e r e ly a r h e t o r i c a l f l o u r i s h on th e l i p s o f th e W e s te rn }
I
n a t i o n s . ' " The t r a g i c outcom e o f t h i s a t t i t u d e was th e j
I
t o t a l i t a r i a n d i c t a t o r s h i p w h ic h , i r o n i c a l l y , made t h e i n
t e l l e c t u a l " 'a s la v e o f t h e S t a t e . . . [w ho] h a s su n k so
lo w t h a t one w o n d e rs w h e th e r he w i l l e v e r b e a b le t o s ee th e
l i g h t a g a i n '" (p . 2 0) . I t was M a n n 's v ie w t h a t th e s i t u a
t i o n i n G erm any c o u ld n o t im p ro v e u n t i l Germ ans h a d g a in e d
th e i n s i g h t w h ic h w o u ld make th e c a t h a r s i s o f t e a r s , i . e . ,
e m o tio n a l in v o lv e m e n t , p o s s ib le when t h e y h e a r d th e w o rd
" fr e e d o m ." He f e l t t h a t t h a t p o i n t was s lo w ly b e in g
r e a c h e d : " 'T h e y a r e l e a r n in g th e m e a n in g o f fre e d o m , j u s
t i c e , human d i g n i t y , th e human c o n s c ie n c e '" (p . 20). I t
a p p e a rs t h a t h e f e l t t h a t th e s u f f e r i n g w h ic h th e Germ ans
393
b o th w i t h i n an d w it h o u t t h e b o r d e r o f th e T h ir d R e ic h w e re
j
u n d e rg o in g was a h in d o f b a p tis m b y f i r e o r p u r i f i c a t i o n
r i t e n e c e s s a r y t o t h e i r u n d e r s t a n d in g o f t h e m e a n in g o f
i
fre e d o m and d e m o c ra c y . The a d d re s s e s o f M a u r o is , L i n , and
Mann w e re a l l p a r t o f th e d is c u s s io n s e c t io n la b e le d "The j
W r i t e r ' s R e s p o n s i b i l i t y a n d th e W o rld o f T o m o rro w ," c h a ir e d j
b y H e n d r ik W ille m V an L o o n . !
P e rh a p s t h e c l e a r e s t a c k n o w le d g m e n t o f th e p ro b le m s o f j
e x i l e was g iv e n , n o t s u r p r i s i n g l y , d u r in g th e e x i l e s e m in a r,;
j j
| "How Can C u lt u r e S u r v iv e E x i l e ? " , w h ic h to o k p la c e on t h e i
j |
m o rn in g o f t h e same d a y . U n f o r t u n a t e ly , th e s p e e c h e s o f the!
p a r t i c i p a t i n g w r i t e r s w e re n o t d is c o v e r e d i n a n y o f th e j
|
s o u rc e s f o r t h i s c o n fe r e n c e ; i n f a c t , o n ly t h a t o f P r o fe s s o r
|
G iu s e p p e A . B o rg e s e , who c h a ir e d t h i s s e s s io n , was fo u n d in
p r i n t e d fo r m . S in c e much o f w h a t D r . B o rg e s e s a id i s m ore
d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o t h e f i n a l c h a p t e r o f t h i s s t u d y , "The
C o n c e p t o f E x i l e as V ie w e d b y th e P r e s s , " a m ore d e t a i l e d
d is c u s s io n o f h i s a d d re s s w i l l b e p r e s e n te d a t a l a t e r p o i n t
i n t h i s p a p e r . H o w e v e r, a b r i e f sum m ary o f some p o in t s made
b y h im , as w e l l as o f th o s e made b y o t h e r p a r t i c i p a n t s , i s
i n o r d e r a t t h i s t i m e . As n o te d p r e v i o u s l y , h a l f t h e mem
b e r s o f t h i s p a n e l w e re G erm an w r i t e r s — f o u r o f th e e i g h t
l i s t e d .
394
A lth o u g h no s p e c i f i c s o lu t io n s t o th e p ro b le m o f th e
s u r v i v a l o f c u l t u r e i n e x i l e w e re r e a c h e d , th e d i f f i c u l t i e s
a r i s i n g fro m t h i s c o n d it io n w e re f a i r l y w e l l d e l in e a t e d , and
a to n e o f o p tim is m p e rm e a te d n e a r l y a l l t h e s p e e c h e s g iv e n .
D r . B o rg e s e g a v e a q u i t e lo n g an d th o ro u g h a n a ly s is o f th e
! !
w h o le c u l t u r e - e x i l e s y n d ro m e , h i s b a s ic p re m is e b e in g t h a t !
I
" 'C u l t u r e does s u r v iv e e x i l e , no m a t t e r h o w [, f o r ] i f i t i s !
I
a r e a l c u l t u r e i t i s a w i l l t h a t f in d s i t s w a y . '" He o b - j
s e r v e d b y w ay o f e x p la n a t io n t h a t " 'E a c h o f us p r e s e n t a t I
i
i
t h i s m e e tin g i n h is own w a y s , w i t h i n h is own l i m i t s , h as !
36
js u r v iv e d e x i l e . ' " A f t e r p o i n t i n g o u t some o f th e p s y c h o
l o g i c a l , l i n g u i s t i c , an d g e o g r a p h ic a l p ro b le m s in v o lv e d i n i
i
I
th e t r a n s f e r e n c e o f one c u l t u r e - s t r e a m t o a n o t h e r — a t r a u
m a t ic e x p e r ie n c e a t b e s t — D r . B o rg e s e e m p h a s iz e d th e g r e a t
im p o r ta n c e o f lo v e as th e b r id g e an d c a t a l y s t w h ic h e a s e s
t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s o f th e t r a n s i t i o n p r o c e s s :
" C u lt u r e i n e x i l e can s u r v iv e an d l i v e th r o u g h th e
m ir a c le m a k e r, l o v e . I t is t h e lo v e o f th e A m e ric a n
i n t e l l i g e n t s i a f o r t h e o p p re s s e d an d p e r s e c u te d o f
36G. A. Borgese, "How Can Culture Survive in Exile?"
Twice A Year. p. 138. A condensed version of this speech
was printed in The Saturday Review: "Culture in Exile," XX,
No. 5 (May 27, 1939), 14-15. According to the editors of
Twice A Year. the Review granted permission to that journal
to print the original speech in its entirety, as received
from Dr. Borgese.
395
our common mother land, Europe; it is the love of the
fugitives for the community and the ideas that are
perpetually worshipped in it, and for the symbols of
a civilization which alone preserves faith in what for
centuries of endeavor and growth had been the common
heritage of the European stock." (p. 140)
He then praised with considerable eloquence the unique uni- j
i
i
versality of the English language as the vehicle of expres- j
j i
sion for writers of other countries who were now cast into j
i
I
the new language stream of those nations which remained j
j j
jcitadels of freedom amid the increasingly wild chaos of j
| i
! tyranny: '
! I
I i
I I
! "English, the most welcoming and unprejudiced of lan- j
I guages, candidly impartial to its Roman and Teutonic j
| parentage, splendidly impure, unbreakably flexible, j
I studded with French in Chaucer, bejeweled with Italian-
isms and Latinisms in Milton, interwoven with German !
intonations in Coleridge and Carlyle, is therefore the j
most welcome of all tongues to all universal minds,
and has taken already much of the place which belonged
to Greek in antiquity, to Latin in the Middle Ages, or
in smaller measure to French for a time after the
Renaissance. It lifts the convert to a level at which
his conversation is no apostasy and his change, rather
than a betrayal of the nation of his past, is a fealty
to the Supernation of tomorrow, to the City of Man of
all time." (p. 140)
Although the good professor did perhaps allow himself
to be carried a bit high on the wings of his rapture over
the linguistic heritage and potential of the English tongue,
as well as the generous reception by Americans of the fugi-
tives who sought a haven here, his observation regarding
396 |
the exile condition as a frequent impetus to qualitatively j
j
j
greater creativity certainly had historical justification. !
I
Citing as salient examples the Hebrew poets and prophets and
|
Dante, he concluded his address with the statement that j
i
. . exile appears as permanence in metamorphosisj a ;
gift, not a doom, to those who have wanted the privilege of i
a reconstructed life,'" declaring finally that "'The best
answer to the question with which we started, "How can cul- j
j i
jture survive in exile?", is another question. For I wonder:!
How could a European culture survive today except in
!
exile?'" (p. 142). j
While the speeches of the German exiled writers were
not located in any of our sources, the New York Times did
print short surveys of some of the significant points made
in these addresses— whether the points chosen to be pub
lished by the Times were in truth the most important, is
unfortunately not verifiable through any objective method.
According to that newspaper, Arnold Zweig approached the
theme of the session from a historical-philosophical direc
tion, declaring "that great writers in the past had been
exiled and that literary brilliance had been driven out of
the culture which they adorned for a long time 'without
finally subduing the spiritual power of that nation or their
397
literary form'" (May 10* 1939* p. 20). Ernst Toller* pre
dictably* spoke in a vein similar to that he had developed
in many previous talks. As usual* his targets were fascism
and Hitler: he observed that the modus operandi of the
|
[Fascist ideology was the justification of its travesties j
!
against humanity through the reversal of basic values* as j
well as the philosophy that the end justifies the means: j
i
'"'fascism makes the lie truth* hatred virtue* murder a
i
jnecessity' ..." He declared further that "'. . . the j
voice of the outlawed writer . . . is so powerful [in Ger-
j
I
many] that Hitler cannot drown it by the screams of his ragej
i
I
[nor the terrorist methods of his hangman] 111 (p. 20). j
i
Ferdinand Bruckner of Austria made a point similar to
Borgese's when he noted that those who are exiled did not
simply sever themselves from their roots* leaving "'Every
thing we once had . . . behind us[; rather*] we also took
I
it with us'" (p. 20). An essentially identical observation
[was made by Karen Michaelis of Denmark when she said that
I
culture should not— and by implication does not— belong to
just one nation: the best use which could be made of cul
ture is that its most positive features be shared with all
countries (p. 20). Klaus Mann agreed* expressing the belief
that "'culture will be strong enough to survive all kinds of
398
awful events'" and adding that in his opinion, "'conditions
are more favorable for culture nowadays than they used to be
I
in the dark ages'" (p. 20). !
|
Perhaps the highlight of the three-day conference was j
i
the resolution offered by International P.E.N. President i
Romains at the dinner given by the American Center at the j
Plaza Hotel on May 10, the last day of the gathering. Since;
this resolution is vital to an understanding of the recently!
i
I j
Ichanged orientation of the P.E.N. organization, it is printedj
here in full:
t
i
j
; The authors attending this World Congress of Writers j
called together by the American Center of the Inter- ;
national P.E.N., appeal to all our readers, to every !
man and every woman who has given us his or her con
fidence, and call their attention to the unprecedented
perils which today assail civilizations, peace, liberty
and the dignity of the human spirit.
Each of us will endeavor by every effective means to
reach the consciences of those who live behind the bar
riers of the regimes of force and to reawaken in them
the notion of human ideals. We will endeavor also by
all means in our power to consolidated [s_icj the pacific
coalition of all those peoples who would strive to ar
rest the progress of evil and intimidate the perpetra
tors of aggression.
Each of us will silence his own doctrinal preference
and private politics in order to help the government
of our own country and other countries who are aware
of the dangers and have pledged themselves to an active
defense of peace and of the standards of civilization.^
07
J'"Role of News in Recording World History Discussed at
399
We would observe that this resolution— which, inci- i
|
dentally, was adopted by the P.E.N. members "with a burst of
applause" (p. 23)— differed rather sharply from the rela-
i
tively noncommittal and nonpolitical resolutions adopted at
jprior P.E.N. congresses. Since these have already been
i
detailed, it is not necessary to discuss them again. In
order to create a proper frame of reference, however, sev- I
| j
jeral such typical resolutions are briefly summarized: at j
i '
! . i
(the 1937 congress m Paris, the Englishman J. B. Priestly j
j I
['proposed that the concern of the P.E.N. organization was ;
j i
ispecifically with the art that lay beyond the realm of poli-
jtics--by implication, then, that art was apolitical by defi-|
j I
nition (supra, p. 306). The other two resolutions adopted
at that year's meeting regarding Federico Garcia Lorca and
Carl von Ossietzky, although more politically inspired than
t
previous resolutions, were nonetheless attempts to univer-
jsalize specific victims of tyranny, transmuting them into
abstract symbols. It may be recalled that the von Ossietzky
resolution did include reference to the Fascist government's
Writers 1 Congress. Authors to Fight for Human Ideals.
1,000 at Writers' Congress to Seek to Reach Those Living
under 'Regimes of Force.' Press in History Debated. Col
lective Reporting No Longer Suffices, Some Speakers Say at
Fair Session," NYT, May 11, 1939, sec. 1, p. 23.
400 ’
persecutions of non-Nazi writers and a declaration that the
P.E.N. Congress disapproved of and protested against those
actions (supra, pp. 318-319). j
Nevertheless, by comparison, the stand taken by the j
congress of 1939 reflected a considerably different atti- j
i j
j i
jtude, for now, instead of merely disapproving and condemningj
I
.F a s c is t m e th o d s , th e P .E .N . o p e n ly a d v o c a te d th e o f f e n s i v e !
i i
Iposition of recommending that specific actions be taken j
against the tyrannies threatening men, as well as that non- j
|
F a s c i s t g o v e rn m e n ts — t h e m em b ers' ow n— b e a id e d i n a c t i v e l y !
I j
idefendxng "peace and . . . the standards of civilization." j
!
N e e d le s s t o s a y , t h i s p o s i t i o n was h a i l e d w i t h g r e a t e n t h u -
l
i
siasm and optimism by various periodicals. The official
response of The Publishers 1 Weekly has already been cited
(this chapter, note 31); in fact, the title of its editor-
ial, "'The Time Has Come to Take Sides,'" is indicative of
its views. Nor was the Weekly1s a solitary voice. In his
lengthy report on the congress, Henry Seidel Canby observed
that an outstanding feature of the event had been the almost
total absence of nationalism:
R u m a n ia n s , L a t v ia n s , S w ed es, and N o rw e g ia n s ; G erm an ,
I t a l i a n , a n d A u s t r i a n e x i l e s ; F r e n c h , D u tc h , E n g lis h ,
North Americans, and Latin Americans— there was an
obvious opportunity here for such an uprising of na
tionalisms as had been seen more than once at earlier
401
C o n g re s s e s o f th e P .E .N . C lu b s . B u t n a t io n a lis m , s u p
p o s e d ly t h e d o m in a n t f o r c e i n th e w o r ld to d a y , s c a r c e ly
r a is e d i t s h e a d . To th o s e who l i s t e n e d , t h e f a c t seem ed
d e e p ly s ig n i f i c a n t . ® ®
N o t in g t h a t a lt h o u g h n a t io n a lis m p r e v a i l e d a t t h i s tim e
i n t h e a r e a s o f b o th p o l i t i c s and e c o n o m ic s , C anby d e c la r e d ,!
j
. . . t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l i s m o f th o u g h t and im a g in a t io n I
is c l e a r l y n o t d e a d ; seem s, in d e e d , t o b e g ro w in g
s t r o n g e r , n o t w e a k e r [ , i l l u s t r a t e d b y th e f a c t t h a t ]
I t is s t i l l p o s s ib le f o r c r e a t i v e w r i t e r s fro m t h i r t y
t o f o r t y n a t io n s t o a g re e upon in d is p e n s a b le s . ( p . 8 )
i
i
j
I n h is o p in io n , th e a m a z in g c o h e s iv e n e s s o f th o u g h t w h ic h j
t
m a rk e d th e w o rd s o f th e many s p e a k e rs o f d iv e r s e r a c e s an d
n a t i o n a l i t i e s was p a r t i c u l a r l y n o t e w o r t h y . The b a s ic p re m
is e u n d e r ly in g t h e i r a d d re s s e s and d is c u s s io n s was t h e
r e c o g n i t io n
t h a t th e p ro b le m o f th e w r i t e r i s th e p ro b le m o f c i v i
l i z e d man [a n d ] T h a t m odern man c an n o t s t a y c i v i l i z e d
i n a n y re g im e w h e re v io le n c e h as b e e n a d o p te d as a p e r
m a n e n t p o l i c y , an d p e r s u a s io n d e b a s e d i n t o t r i c k e r y [o r
w h e re ] . . . t h e p o w er o f th e s t a t e is . . . r e g a r d e d
as a m ore im p o r t a n t en d th a n th e h a p p in e s s o f t h e i n
d i v i d u a l [ , f o r ] . . . when th e human r i g h t s an d d i g n i
t i e s o f one r a c e o r f a i t h . . . a r e r u t h l e s s l y d e s t r o y e d ,
th e human r i g h t s and d i g n i t i e s o f a l l a r e t h r e a t e n e d .
( p . 8 )
38
"Internationalism of the P.E.N.," The Saturday Re
view. XX, No. 4 (May 2 0, 1939), 8 .
j 402
|A related and frequently expressed point emphasized by Canby
was that of the writer's imperative need to operate where
the concept of individuality flourished:
And what they felt was also that the writer, who is j
only a sensitive and articulate representative of his
country, could not function long in a nation which j
denied individualism. His business is primarily with
man. He must write about man as he is and as he wants !
to be, not about man as cannon fodder or as a creature
shaped by propaganda or a unit in power politics. (p. 8) :
A power structure holding such views of the human being
would spell the end of the creative personality in the basic
sense of that phrase: "If there is no freedom of the mind, I
j
literature and the arts must sooner or later be stifledf, 1
for] . . . a reasonable freedom for thought and imagination
is the writer's necessity" (pp. 8-9).
Two other favorable reactions to the increased politi- j
cal consciousness of P.E.N. as manifested at this congress
were found in the weekly news section of the New Republic
and the book section of Time magazine. As the Republic
observed by way of introduction, "The meeting was under the j
i
general guidance of 'P.E.N.,' which is usually regarded as |
a mildly right-wing group and which has tried for years to
keep out of politics." It was the opinion of the editors ofj
this journal, however, that the unpleasantly real demands
placed upon many P.E.N. members by the exigencies of the
403
jworld political situation provided the impetus necessary for
the more liberal orientation of the organization:
But in one country after another* politics have caught
up with its members* dozens of whom have been sent to
concentration camps or forced into exile[* as a result
of which] The tone of the speeches at the recent con
gress was such that they would have been called de
cidedly Leftist only a couple of years ago.
Essentially similar observations were made in Time
magazine. In the brief background statement it was noted
that P.E.N.* "Founded 18 years ago in England* . . . has
spent 17 years of its decorous* soft-spoken* ineffectual
existence passing futile resolutions and trying to make next
year's meeting better than the last." Describing this
organization's cultivated, ostrich-like attitude toward the
realms of Realpolitik. Time stated* "Nations might rise or
fall* populations perish* wars rage* but P.E.N. merely 1
raised its penciled eyebrows, insisted that the writer's
i
business is to write and that writing is a world by itself" j
("Men of Good Will" [Books], p. 79). By contrast, the moods;
i
and thoughts expressed at the 1939 P.E.N. congress were i
definitive* emancipated* and wholly relevant: j
j
39
"No More Ivory Tower" ["This Week"]* The New Republic.
XCIX* No. 1277 (May 24* 1939), 59.
404
j No trumpets sounded a charge as . . . delegates from
29 countries foregathered at the . . . World's Fair
. . . to hold their three-day World Congress ....
Quietly and peaceably the writers filed into the . . .
Hall of Music. But once inside, they threw down their j
pens with a bang heard in Berlin, Rome and Burgos,
declared war to the last drop of ink on Dictators
Hitler, Mussolini and Franco. (p. 79)
i
This article continued with the shock effect of this strong j
reversal of attitude upon "Startled observers," who were
apparently tormenting themselves with such questions as the
following: "Are P.E.N. writers ahead of their readers or
are they just catching up with the world's fear that civi
lization is doomed? Do they really mean to fight the forces;
threatening it?" (p. 79). President Jules Romains' speech
was cited as an affirmative answer to the second query, as
were brief excerpts from speeches presented by Hendrik
Willem Van Loon, Dorothy Thompson, Thomas Mann, Nora Wain,
Pedro Salinas, Ernst Toller, Max Ascoli, Andre Maurois, and |
Lin Yutang. The no-nonsense resolution passed by P.E.N. on
its final meeting day was also excerpted and labeled as '
nothing less than "startling," and the following evaluation j
was given: !
Whether Perpetrators [sic] Hitler and Mussolini would
be intimidated by such words, remained to be seen. At
any rate, literary historians noted that literary
fashion had changed again[, for] Clearly, the ivory
tower had no place in the streamlined architecture of
405
!
| the 1939 World's Fair; it had crashed into 55 pieces.
(p. 79)
That not all American journals were as positively im
pressed or as swept along on the tides of P.E.N.'s apparent
transformation was illustrated by the comments made in an
editorial published in the considerably more conservative
periodical. The Commonwea1. It was the theme of this edi
torial that a great number of the delegates to the congress
manifested some basic contradictions in their professions of
philosophy and ideas . For example, it was noted that "Mem
bers, or at least most speakers of the P.E.N., looked upon
themselves and spoke of themselves as 'the intellectuals.'"
And yet while
blasting away at the ivory tower and proclaiming their
political responsibilities and obligation for political
action, [these same elitists] . . . were building up
their own group as a special and so-defined intellectual
fraternity, separated and recognizable by the nature of
things.40
The Commonweal summarized somewhat sarcastically the domi
nant attitude of the congress as being the view "that the
intellectuals form a class as such and that they should bend
all efforts to fight Nazi-fascism along the lines of
40"Alarm and Counter-Alarm" [Editorial], The Common
weal, XXX, No. 5 (May 26, 1939), 116.
406
'national self-defense" (p. 117). After printing a short
iexcerpt from a paper presented by Carl Van Doren at the
final dinner meeting, the journal observed that his "call
to proportions, to coolness, to objective analysis made
little impression in the immediate cry of alarm" and warned
that although the "very widely read" members of P.E.N. were
"justified in their alarm about Hitler no doubt . . . the
ordinary citizen is justified in feeling an almost equal
alarm over their apparent reaction and what can be seen
behind it" (p. 117).
The conclusion reached by the editors would seem to
suggest that the P.E.N. organization was guilty of the same
type of one-sided emotional reaction to the Hitler phenom
enon that it in its professional role abhorred in "non- I
intellectuals" and political extremists:
Intellectuals are committing the same old treason, both
[those] further left who do not believe in this inde
pendent Mandarin class of the democracies but give their
service to the practical masters of Marxism, and [those]
of the widening and coalescing center who find it im
possible to maintain a footing up in the sky and come ;
to earth in a position well prepared by political and j
economic doers. So also the really fascist writers of
the right. (p. 117)
Obviously, The Commonweal did not feel that the means which !
; 407
I
i 41
jwould conspicuously aid in ending the "barbarism" running
ever more rampantly through the world were to be found in j
i
]
the efforts of "the dominant self-proclaimed intellectuals" j
(p. 117). |
It is possible, of course, that the politically con- j
servative tendencies of this periodical would also prevent .
the acceptance of any united front concept as propounded
even by such a relatively conservative and strait-laced
group such as the P.E.N.— tendencies which, as has been
indicated in a previous chapter, by their very nature and ,
definition preclude acceptance of a united front against war;
and/or fascism, due to the general ideological use made of
this concept by the Communists in the early and mid-
Thirties . The following statement was made shortly after
the critical observation of "the same old treason" being j
committed by "intellectuals": "But the solution [given by
P.E.N. for the aggressive power plays of Hitler] roughly
I
presented to the public was that of a united front war of
4 ] i
The use of this word may well have been a reference j
to Ernst Toller's statement made in his speech at the exile I
seminar, "How Can Culture Survive Exile?": "The threatened
culture can only be defended if those who were fortunate i
enough to escape slavery . . . devote themselves faithfully j
|to their language . . . [and] fight barbarism wherever it j
threatens" ("Men of Good Will," p. 79). j
jdefense." In a tone of visible disbelief, this journal
reported that "Writers were actually told to forget their
interest in the internal politics of their own countries
and aid and support those statesmen who appear aware of
'the peril'" (p. 117). The editors obviously did not feel
that the fighting of fire with fire was an effective means
of stopping a given conflagration; rather, this method
merely placed the second firefighter on a plane equal to
that of the first, so that in the end neither would gain:
A war of England, France and their allies against
Germany and Italy and their allies is not a means
proportionate to the end of stopping the barbarism
that threatens mankind. The intellectuals who drum
that up place themselves in the camp of barbarism—
or among the camp followers of barbarism. . . . No
one has yet shown us the gun, gas or flame that destroys
[this scourge] and fertilizes the fields of virtue. . . .
No one has yet given . . . proof that the evils of the
only possible war will disperse still greater evils.
(p. 117)
Despite their explicit criticism of the thought and
behavior of the writers at the P.E.N. conference, however,
the editors of The Commonwea1 were in a sense also guilty
of a one-sided emotional reaction. For while they bravely
detailed the lack of moderation and cool objectivity which
seemed to permeate the meeting and attacked both the "elit
ism" and the extremism displayed there, they did not present
409
jany viable alternatives to the reactions and conclusions
with which they found fault. The only suggestion given was
the following rather vague one: "We would like to see them
: j
write a more adequate description of 'barbarian,1 a clearer 1
i
definition of the 'basic freedoms,' and a fuller census of ' ■
the forces fighting on both sides" (p. 117). Unfortunately,!
this suggestion, although no doubt motivated by a desire to ’
improve the clarity of the writers' analysis and judgment,
did not in itself provide the type of strong guidelines
which would have been commensurate with the object toward
which it was directed, much less with the swiftly developing!
exigencies of the world situation.
The response of The Commonwea1 to the P.E.N. congress
was that of a minority. A more predominant view of the
dangers posed by fascism was given in a New York Times edi- j
torial printed several days after the end of the conference,:
in which was expressed a kind of tacit acceptance of the
conclusions reached by the delegates with regard to the
!
threats to freedom posed by the "totalitarian darkness"
frighteningly engulfing Europe: j
Today there are very real despots in the world and
they are out to destroy the basic human liberties
which we took so much for granted. . . . The old
tyrants[, for example, the Czars of Russia], were
poor, blundering, weak-kneed creatures compared with_____
410
I the dread efficiency and sweep of the new totalitar
ianism .42
New York: Third American Writers'
Congress
The third biennial American Writers' Congress, held at j
the New York City New School for Social Research from June 2
' i
to June 4, less than one month after the P.E.N.-sponsored
writers' conference, was a noteworthy and colorful affair.
In one sense, it marked the zenith of its sponsoring group's
efforts at professionalismj in another sense, it signaled
the beginning of a new era for the League of American Writ- :
i
ers— one which became crystallized in the organizational
chaos resulting from the signing of the Hitler-Stalin Non-
Aggression Pact on August 23, 1939, slightly over two and
one-half months after the conference had taken place. ;
Attended by more writers than had been present at either of 1
43
the previous two congresses— between 500 and 600 — the 1939^
event was seen by many observers as "much more interesting
i
from a literary point of view than the two that preceded it"
i
42 . i
"Writer Meets Citizen" [Editorial], NYT, May 14, ;
1939, sec. 4, p. 8 . j
4 ^
"Writers' Congress" ["This Week"], The New Republic.
XCIX, No. 1280 (June 14, 1939), 143.
411
j
| (p. 143). Amazingly, there was considerably less emphasis
on the international political situation; as Malcolm Cowley
I
re m a rk e d , t h i s "was an om inous b a c k g ro u n d t h a t was ta k e n f o r
44
g r a n t e d ." F u r th e r m o r e , due t o t h e r e c e n t a g g r e s s io n s b y
|
H i t l e r ' s N a t i o n a l S o c i a l i s t s i n E u ro p e , t h e r e w e re m ore ;
f o r e ig n w r i t e r s — m any o f th em e x i l e s — p r e s e n t th a n e v e r
b e f o r e . In d e e d , one o f t h e o f f i c i a l d is c u s s io n s e s s io n s was;
e n t i t l e d " W r it e r s i n E x i l e , " an d p a r t i c i p a n t s in c lu d e d su ch
men as G . A . B o rg e s e , E r n s t B lo c h , K la u s M an n , Thomas M ann,
and Bodo U hse . i
A c c o r d in g t o t h e " C a l l t o t h e T h ir d A m e ric a n W r it e r s
C o n g r e s s ," p u b lis h e d i n i t i a l l y i n D i r e c t i o n m a g a z in e and
s ig n e d b y some s e v e n t y - s ix A m e ric a n w r i t e r s r e p r e s e n t in g a
45 . i
b ro a d s p e c tru m o f p o l i t i c a l t h i n k i n g , t h e a im o f t h i s ;
|
: j
44
M a lc o lm C o w le y , "N o te s on a W r i t e r s ' C o n g re s s "
["B o o ks in R e v ie w " ] , The New R e p u b lic . X C IX , N o . 1281 (Ju n e
21, 1939), 192. C o w le y m e n tio n e d one e x c e p t io n t o t h i s
o b s e r v a t io n , n a m e ly , " th e p u b l i c m e e tin g a t C a r n e g ie H a l l ,
w h e re e x - P r e s id e n t B enes t o l d w h a t h a d h a p p e n e d t o C z e c h o
s lo v a k ia [ s i c ] s in c e t h e Germ ans m a rc h e d in " ( p . 192). As j
B e a u fr e s t a t e d , t h e s e i z u r e o f P ra g u e an d t h u s , i n e s s e n c e , j
t h e c o n q u e s t o f t h e r e m a in d e r o f C z e c h o s lo v a k ia i n M a rc h o f j
1939, h a d o p e n e d e v e n " th e b l i n d e s t e y e s " among t h e A l l i e s !
t o t h e i n t e n t i o n s o f H i t l e r (The F a l l o f F r a n c e , p . 89).
45 i
In alphabetical order, some of the more prominent
A m e ric a n s ig n e r s o f t h e " C a ll" w e re t h e f o l l o w i n g : B e n ja m in
A p p e l, N ew to n A r v i n , V an W yck B ro o k s , K e n n e th B u r k e , E r s k in e
C a l d w e l l , M a lc o lm C o w le y , L i l l i a n H e ilm a n , D uBose H e y w a rd ,
412
(congress was to "shape a policy in relation to" the follow
ing subjects:
The defense of democracy in the United States; coopera
tion of this country with other nations and peoples
opposed to Fascism— including the Soviet Union, which I
has been the most consistent defender of peace; coopera- i
tion with writers exiled from the Fascist countries;
support for the anti-Fascist policies of the present
administration; support for the labor unions; coopera- (
tion among all democratic and progressive forces; oppo
sition to race prejudice; to attacks on social legisla
tion and to efforts to cripple or abolish the Federal
Arts Project; in general, the defense of a free world
in which writers can function.46
i
Albert Maltz, Dorothy Parker, S. J. Perelman, Samuel Putnam,j
Budd Wilson Schulberg, Edwin Seaver, Irwin Shaw, Upton Sin- !
clair, Donald Ogden Stewart, Irving Stone, Louis Untermeyer,;
Carl Van Doren, and William Carlos Williams.
^"Call to the Third American Writers Congress,"
Direction, II, No. 3 (May-June 1939), 1. (This was a "Spe
cial Congress Issue" of Direction and included a "Message to:
the Congress" by Theodore Dreiser, a progress report on the j
League of American Writers by Donald Ogden Stewart, as well j
as articles on various exile-related subjects by Ernst I
Bloch, Ferdinand Bruckner, Erika Mann, Heinrich Mann, and i
F. Menaker.) It is of interest to compare the statement
printed in Direction with that published in The New Republic
at about the same time, for although the proposed program
subjects listed in the latter were phrased in identical !
language, one was totally omitted, namely, "cooperation of j
this country with other nations and peoples opposed to
Fascism— including the Soviet Union, which has been the most!
consistent defender of peace" ("The Third American Writers' >
Congress" ["Correspondence"], The New Republic. XCIX, No. j
1277 [May 24, 1939], 75-76). It is possible, of course, (
that this was a mere technical oversight, but it seems
rather strange that a phrase of such length and potential
‘ emotional implication should be the sole omission from an
otherwise identical listing. Nor is it probable that this
;...................... ' 413
I
jQuite probably the aim of cooperation with the Soviet Union
which the League of American Writers included among its
i
!
proposed program topics was a factor in the favorable re
sponse evoked in the Union of Soviet Writers toward the
League. In its special "World's Fair Issue," the Communist j
!
organ International Literature published a greeting by the ;
Presidium of this official writers' organization. This
message is revealing for its enthusiastic application of
the Communist philosophy to the efforts being made by Ameri
can intellectuals and writers who were sympathetic to ideals!
phrase was first published without the reference to the USSR
in the Republic and only later inserted into the "Call" as
printed in Direction. The simple facts of publication
chronology would indicate this as unlikely; a journal which
appears on a bi-monthly basis is almost without exception j
completed prior to the beginning of the first month of the 1
two-month period which it covers. The conclusion to be ]
drawn from this observation therefore leads one to surmise j
why the above phrase would be omitted from a leading liberal!
journal. No doubt the element of public opinion would play
a role here, for attitudes of American liberals toward the
Soviet Union ranged over a wide spectrum and were in a con
stant process of change throughout the 1930's; the actual
hard-core Leftists among American intellectuals were basi- j
cally a minority group despite their efforts to influence
the thinking of the majority of the relatively larger and
more publicly acceptable liberal group. Burns seems to sum
up the situation in the United States rather well: "...
the American people, lacking stable attitudes built on long
experience in foreign policy making, swung fitfully from onej
foreign policy mood to another, from isolationism to neu
tralism to participation in world politics" (The Lion and
the Fox, p. 248).
[c o rre s p o n d in g t o th o s e p ro p o u n d e d b y t h e L e f t .
The w r i t e r s o f t h e S o v ie t U n io n g r e e t t h e A m e ric a n
w r i t e r s as r e p r e s e n t a t iv e s o f a g r e a t an d f r i e n d l y
p e o p le . We u n d e rs ta n d t h e im p o r ta n c e o f y o u r C o n
g re s s . . . .
The tim e h as come when th e p r o g r e s s iv e fo r c e s o f
A m e ric a m u st r e p a y t h e i r d e b t t o t h e r e s t o f t h e w o r ld .
H i s t o r y h as bound t o g e t h e r t h e d e s t i n i e s o f d i f f e r e n t
n a t i o n s . And t h e id e a t h a t i t is p o s s ib le t o p r e s e r v e
n e u t r a l i t y , t o h id e i n t h e shadow o f n o n - i n t e r v e n t i o n
o r s e l f - i s o l a t i o n , h a s becom e a b s u r d . W h ile t h e k e p t
p re s s i s d e lu d in g th e man i n t h e s t r e e t w i t h f a b le s
a b o u t n e u t r a l i t y , th e f a s c i s t m o n s te r i s d e s t r o y in g
th e in d e p e n d e n c e o f w h o le n a t i o n s , a r b i t r a r i l y c h a n g in g
th e map o f t h e w o r ld and r e a c h in g o u t i t s r a p a c io u s
c la w s to w a rd th e t h r o a t o f i t s d o ped v i c t i m . F a s c i s t
a g g r e s s io n is t e r r i b l e and m e r c ile s s when i t e n c o u n te rs
c o w a rd ic e and w eakn ess . . . B u t f a s c i s t r e a c t i o n r e
t r e a t s i n a b j e c t c o w a rd ic e when i t e n c o u n te rs th e
f ir m ly - w e ld e d u n i t y o f a l l t h e f o r c e s c a p a b le o f f i g h t
in g f o r p e a c e and c u l t u r e . I n b u i l d i n g up t h i s u n i t y ,
th e r o l e o f t h e w r i t e r , t o whom t h e th o u g h ts an d a s p i
r a t i o n s o f th e p o p u la r m asses a r e e n t r u s t e d , is g r e a t
in d e e d .
We a r e c o n v in c e d t h a t t h e L e a g u e o f A m e ric a n W r i t e r s
w i l l f u l f i l l i t s d u ty t o m a n k in d . ^
An i l l u m i n a t i n g c o n t r a s t t o t h i s v ig o r o u s l e f t - w i n g
r e a c t i o n was p r e s e n te d b y The S a t u r d a y R e v ie w , w h ic h
47
"To the Congress of the League of American Writers,
International Literature, No. 4-5 (Double Issue) (1939), n
p. (inside front cover). This message was signed by the
following members of the Presidium of the Union of Soviet
Writers: Nikolai Aseyev, Alexander Fadeyev, Konstantin
Fedin, Valeria Gerasimova, Anna Karavayeva, Valentin Kata-
yev, Alexander Korneichuk, Yanka Kupala, Vasili Lebedev-
iKumach, Alio Mashashvili, Pyotr Pavlenko, Leonid Sobolev,
Alexei Tolstoy, and Vsedolod Vishnevsky.
; 415
I
published an editorial answer to the League's request for
that journal's comment on its propositions, as well as to
the specific question, "'What do you think American writers
48
meeting m June, 1939 should be most concerned about?'"
; [
Part of this answer was in the form of an observation on thej
: "nature of literary congresses" and included an indirect
warning on the danger of "intellectual inbreeding" when a
writer is speaking to an already receptive audience:
It is in the nature of literary congresses that a good
deal of enthusiasm is whooped up, owing largely to the
disposition of the audience to agree with everything j
the speakers say. A few hundred applauding listeners j
can give an appearance of importance to a meeting, when
what is actually going on is a species of intellectual
inbreeding. . . . if a writer has something to say which
is supposed to influence other people, the test of its
influence is in its effect on those who do not already j
hold the same opinions as the writer, as well as in his
ability to reach and interest . . . a reading public of
significant dimensions. (p. 8) j
I
The other portion of the Review's answer consisted of a |
short discussion elicited by the use of the word "should"
i
in the League's query. Canby felt that this word was de-
i
ceptive due to its connotation of some sort of requirement !
that the writer must fulfill: "... what we really think j
4ft
| Henry Seidel Canby, "Writers on the Platform," The
Saturday Review. XX, No. 6 (June 3, 1939), 8.
j is that there is nothing that they 'should' necessarily be
concerned about as writers." For although each writer has
a "special interest" or inclination in his field* a request
from an outside source that he direct this interest into a
given channel for any purpose whatsoever* be it for aesthe
tic or propaganda purposes* is to demand that he be untrue
to his basic "inner necessities." Not only does this con
jure up the spectre of externally imposed control* it also
asks of the non-propaganda-oriented writer that he "do his
own work a disservice in order to exert an 'influence' which
may be quite illusory." For this type of writer "may be
misled by a sense of public responsibility into mediocre
writing alien to his talents." The reader was reminded that;
writers belong to that potentially dangerous breed which is
among the first to be singled out under a dictatorship for
censorship* exile* imprisonment* or worse. Therefore, the
threat of regulation or restraint even in the seemingly
innocent guise of a small word such as "should" was felt to
!
be antithetical to the essential function of the writer. I
|
As Canby punned in reference to the pressure which the
atmosphere of a literary conference might exert upon recep- ;
tive and/or sensitive spirits* "There is a great deal to be j
i
i
said for literary congresses as long as we remember that onej
; 417
i
|m an's m e e tin g is a n o th e r m a n 's p o is o n " (p . 8 ) .
C a n b y 's w a rn in g s on th e d a n g e rs o f im p lie d g u id a n c e o f
l i t e r a r y o u tp u t a p p e a r d i a m e t r i c a l l y o p p o sed t o t h e e x h o r - j
t a t i o n s o f th e S o v ie t W r i t e r s ' P r e s id iu m r e g a r d in g t h e
im p o r t a n t r o l e o f th e w r i t e r i n b u i l d i n g up " th e f i r m l y - j
w e ld e d u n i t y o f a l l th e fo r c e s c a p a b le o f f i g h t i n g f o r peace!
an d c u l t u r e . " P a r t i c u l a r l y th e o b s e r v a t io n t h a t i t i s th e
w r i t e r " to whom th e th o u g h ts and a s p i r a t i o n s o f t h e p o p u la r !
m asses a r e e n t r u s t e d " (" T o th e C o n g re s s o f t h e L e a g u e ,,"
I n t e r n a t i o n a l L i t e r a t u r e ) , seems a d i r e c t c o n t r a d i c t i o n t o ;
i
t h e c o n c e p t o f th e w r i t e r as a f r e e a g e n t , f o r i t i n d i c a t e s j
an a w a re n e s s o f a ty p e o f th o u g h t m a n ip u la t io n t h a t b e a rs
im p lic a t io n s o f f r i g h t e n i n g s c o p e . I f t h e " th o u g h ts an d
a s p i r a t i o n s " o f t h e m asses can b e sw ayed i n a g iv e n d i r e c
t i o n b y w o rd s and id e a s o f a c e r t a i n e m o tio n a l a p p e a l, th e n I
s o c a n th o s e o f i n d i v i d u a l s on a s o - c a l l e d h ig h e r m e n ta l i
l e v e l . A w a re n e s s o f t h e v u l n e r a b i l i t y o f a l l m en, no m a tte r ;
i
w h a t means a r e u s ed t o a p p e a l t o i t , is a p o w e r f u l w eapon
I
!
w h ic h i n u n s c ru p u lo u s o r d e t e r m in e d ly e x t r e m is t h an d s c an i
w re a k h a v o c . We h a v e a lr e a d y s e e n en o u g h c o n c r e te e x a m p le s |
o f t h e e m o tio n a l a c c e s s i b i l i t y o f w r i t e r s and i n t e l l e c t u a l s
j
t o c o n c lu d e t h a t e n tr a n c e t o t h e i r h e a r t s and h e a d s may
f r e q u e n t l y b e g a in e d th r o u g h t h e i r id e a ls an d n o b le
418
jaspirations -
It is rather intriguing to consider the Third American
j
Writers' Congress from this standpoint. It was, after all,
played out basically against the backdrop of an extreme
ideological position camouflaged in the appealing rhetoric j
i
;of freedom and democratic ideals. In fact, it seemed to be j
the consensus of the reports dealing with this congress that;
unity of opinion on central issues among the writers present
facilitated the greater emphasis on purely literary matters.
In the words of Direction, the keynote of the event was
Democratic culture— its defense against fascism and
reaction, and its development as a living heritage of
the American people. . . .[, and] The complete unity
of the Congress on [this] question of democratic cul
ture versus fascist reaction made it possible for the
delegates to devote their principal efforts toward
improving their creative work and widening their |
spheres of i n f l u e n c e j
j
|
As The New Republic noted, "They [the League of American :
Writers] had talked about public questions at their two
i
previous congresses (and talked about them too much). This '
i
j
time, finding themselves in general agreement, they confinedj
political exhortations chiefly to the public meeting at
i 4 9
"Third American Writers' Congress," Direction, II,
No. 4 (July-August 1939), 4.
| 419
I 50
[Carnegie Hall."
The indomitable Malcolm Cowley made the same point by
i i
way of disagreement with Donald Ogden Stewart's choice of a j
51 !
title for his report on the congress * Fighting Words, with!
i
which he took issue because he felt that the application of j
this label to the speeches at the conference was inaccurate j
— it implied "that they were chiefly concerned with exhort
ing writers to come down out of the ivory tower and join in
52
the battle." As Cowley pointed out,
. . . the ivory tower in 1939 was only a memory and a j
greatly overworked metaphor[, for since] Most writers j
[had] joined in the battle already, [that] exhortation ;
had become a simple statement of fact. [And this]
explains why the congress was much more interesting
than if it had been merely a chance to deliver fighting
speeches. Because its aims could be taken for granted,
there was time to discuss methods of presenting them
to a wider audience. (p. 219) i
The New York Times made an essentially identical observation!
regarding the changed position of the writer: "... the
50
"Writers' Congress," The New Republic, XCIX, No. 1280
(June 14, 1939), 143.
51 i
Fighting Words was edited by Donald Ogden Stewart and;
was published by Harcourt, Brace and Company of New York in !
1940. j
52 i
Malcolm Cowley, "In Memoriam" [Books in Review], The
■ New Republic, CIII, No. 7 (August 12, 1940), 219.
j 420
(emergence of the creative writer from his ivory tower to
assume his full share of responsibility as a citizen in a
changing and turbulent world . . . occupied the attention (
i j
yesterday of American and European authors attending the
i
I
5 3 \
Third American Writers' Congress." In yet another report |
, i
(issued barely one week after the echoes of impassioned dis- ;
cussion had died out, it was stated that although "There was
an approach to unanimity on cardinal issues discussed . . .
there was [also] some provocative--and doubtless healthy—
54
dissension." The dissension concerned the place of the
i
proletarian novel in the literary spectrum. The fact that j
there was disagreement on this topic was considered to be
indicative of a certain modification of the previously
almost non-discriminatory and enthusiastic acceptance of
the ideals symbolized by this type of literature. Smyth j
noted,
One faction held that the novelist or other literary j
artist required more than a political theme, that a
C O j
"Writers Discuss New Opportunities. Field Has Been j
Broadened by Radio and Documentary Film, Say Speakers at
Congress. 'Ivory Tower' Era Is Gone. Creative Author Seen
Facing Every day fsic] Problems— Movie on La Follette In
quiry Shown," NYT, June 4, 1939, sec. 1, p. 31.
^Joseph Hilton Smyth, "The Third Writers' Congress,"
The Saturday Review, XX, No. 7 (June 10, 1939), 10.
| "political novel" or a "proletarian novel" . . . did
I not necessarily possess merit because of its theme.
An opposed group insisted that the novelist today must
inevitably escape greatness, and expect a deserved
neglect, if he fails to seize as thematic material the
social forces in conflict today. (p. 10)
!
It was that observer's opinion that "... the literary j
truth, at least so far as the novel is concerned, [doubt-
i !
; ' i
less] lies midway, but to at least one visitor the Congress 1
this year was significant in that there was less bland
acceptance of the proletarian novel as a work of excellence
per se" (p. 10) .
One leitmotif which recurred in the articles on the j
congress with just enough regularity to be disturbingly
noticeable was the concept of the writer's influence on his
public. Reviewing some examples already cited, we recall
i
that Direction, for instance, stated that the delegates j
present were able to devote the greater part of their ener- ^
gies to "widening their spheres of influence"] Cowley stated:
|
that "... there was time to discuss methods of presenting !
[the aims of the congress] to a wider audience"] the Times j
spoke of the writer's descent from his heretofore isolated !
j
tower "to assume his full share of responsibility as a
i
citizen in a changing . . . world." And Smyth felt that it j
could be said "without pretentiousness . . . that the League
r
422
would henceforth exercise a more definite influence in the
i
international world of letters" (p. 10). This all sounds
i
1
quite innocuous when taken merely at face value, but when
55
the words of League President Donald Ogden Stewart, who
' * 5 ^ •
i In Tenney's report on Communist activities during thej
1930's and 1940's, a reference is made to Stewart in connec
tion with the Third American Writers' Congress and former
League President Waldo Frank's absence from that event:
"When Mr. Frank exchanged his private mysticism for the
fashionable mysticism of the Muscovite aberration, he was
hailed as a hero in the Communist press. He was made chair
man of one of the principal planets in Stalin's solar sys
tem, the League of American Writers. All went well until
the Soviet bloodletting [the Stalin purges of 1936-37] j
touched Mr. Frank's conscience. He wrote a letter to the
New Republic suggesting an international labor and socialist:
inquiry into the whole matter. Immediately his services to
the cause were forgotten and his name was mud. He had com- .
mitted the deadly sin of doubting. When the next American
Writers' Congress foregathered, he was mysteriously missing.:
Let the innocent literati who continued to claim that the
League and its Congresses were independent, explain the j
technique by which Waldo Frank was eliminated after his j
slip, and his place taken by one of Hollywood's best, Donald!
Ogden Stewart" (Eugene Lyons, The Red Decade, in Tenney, Red
Fascism, p. 426). Compare this statement with that made by 1
Joseph Hilton Smyth in The Saturday Review: "The delegates I
reelected Donald Ogden Stewart as President, an honor that
tireless gentleman richly deserved" ("The Third Writers' |
Congress," p. 10). In the early 1940's the Attorney General!
of the United States, Francis Biddle, investigated the ;
League of American Writers and issued a confidential report j
— subsequently made public--on its background and activi- I
ties. Although this was reproduced in toto in Tenney's ex- :
pose, it is rather lengthy for present purposes. The fol
lowing excerpts are chosen for their relevance to the con- ;
text at hand: "The League of American Writers, founded
under Communist auspices in 1935, for some years attracted
ito its fold many of the most prominent American writers,
| 423
jspoke a t a s p e c i a l o p e n in g s e s s io n o f t h e c o n g r e s s , a r e
ic o n s id e r e d i n t h e l i g h t o f h i s i d e o l o g i c a l c o n v i c t i o n s , th e
|
;above o b s e r v a tio n s b e g in t o assum e a r a t h e r d i f f e r e n t c a s t .
M r. S t e w a r t was d e e p ly in v o lv e d w it h t h e H o lly w o o d p r o g r e s - !
: j
s iv e m ovem ent i n f i l m an d l i t e r a t u r e a n d , s p e a k in g o f t h e j
C om m unists and n o n -C o m m u n is ts . I n 1939 th e L eag u e b e g a n |
o p e n ly t o f o l l o w th e C om m unist P a r t y l i n e as d i c t a t e d b y th e i
f o r e i g n p o l i c y o f t h e S o v ie t U n io n , an d a t t h a t tim e m o st o f
t h e n o n -C o m m u n is ts d i s - a f f i l i a t e d f s i c ) th e m s e lv e s fro m i t
and d e c la r e d t h e i r o p p o s it io n t o i t s p o l i c y . The L eag u e o f
A m e ric a n W r it e r s was fo u n d e d as f s i c l a c o n g re s s o f A m e ric a n
r e v o l u t i o n a r y w r i t e r s h e ld i n New Y o r k C i t y A p r i l 26-27, j
1935. The c a l l f o r th e c o n g re s s was s ig n e d b y members o f ;
t h e Jo h n R eed C lu b , in c lu d in g s u ch w e ll-k n o w n C om m unists as ;
E a r l B ro w d e r, Is o d o r S c h n e id e r , Jo h n L . S p iv a k , and M ic h a e l i
G o ld . The c o n g re s s g r e e t e d G o ld as th e b e s t lo v e d A m e ric a n '
r e v o l u t i o n a r y w r i t e r an d G o ld i n t u r n t o l d t h e g a t h e r in g
t h a t , [sjlcJ 'O u r w r i t e r s m u st le a r n t h a t t h e w o r k in g c la s s
w h ic h h a s c r e a t e d a g r e a t c i v i l i z a t i o n i n t h e S o v ie t U n io n
is c a p a b le o f c r e a t i n g a s i m i l a r c i v i l i z a t i o n i n t h i s
c o u n t r y . 1 . . . The le a g u e was c r e a t e d , among o t h e r t h i n g s , j
t o e n l i s t w r i t e r s i n a n a t i o n a l c u l t u r a l o r g a n i z a t io n f o r j
p e a c e an d d e m o c ra c y and a g a in s t fa s c is m a n d r e a c t i o n , t o
s u p p o r t p r o g r e s s iv e t r a d e - u n io n o r g a n iz a t io n s and th e p e o
p l e ' s f r o n t i n a l l c o u n t r i e s , a n d t o c o o p e r a te w i t h th e
p r o g r e s s iv e f o r c e s . S oon a f t e r t h e le a g u e was e s t a b lis h e d ,
t h e S e v e n th W o rld C o n g re s s o f th e C om m unist I n t e r n a t i o n a l in i
Moscow d e c id e d upon th e T r o ja n h o r s e p o l i c y f o r C om m unist
p a r t i e s everywhere. . . . A c c o r d in g ly , i t becam e n e c e s s a r y j
t o c o n c e a l th e C om m unist in f lu e n c e i n t h e L e ag u e o f A m e ric a n !
W r it e r s . . . . I n t h e y e a r s fro m 1936 t o 1939 th e le a g u e
made a n e f f o r t t o s e c u r e as members t h e le a d e r s o f l i b e r a l i
th o u g h t among A m e ric a n w r i t e r s " ( i n T e n n e y , p . 433).
- ^ M r . S t e w a r t was a ls o t h e c h a irm a n o f t h e H o lly w o o d |
b ra n c h o f t h e L eag u e o f A m e ric a n W r i t e r s , an o f f s h o o t w h ic h
was a p p a r e n t ly c r e a t e d i n t h e l a t e s p r in g o f 1939, s h o r t l y
b e f o r e th e T h ir d A m e ric a n W r i t e r s ' C o n g re s s to o k p l a c e . In
h is a d d re s s t o t h e d e le g a t e s , S t e w a r t s p o k e o f t h e g ro w th o f
424
trend of the anti-Fascist efforts there, he noted that "'the
ifight is now on on the part of the writers for the posses-
; i
i
sion of the film as a medium of education1" (p. 31). He i
clarified his assertion with a statement that the signifi-
I
cance of this movement lay in the fact that . . writers,!
jactors and directors can themselves influence whatever mes- j
sage there is in a picture and can prevent, as far as pos- ;
sible, the use of the films for reactionary purposes.1" He
cited the development of a "'social responsibility'" in
members of the film industry— an awareness that they must j
!
"'protect the vast motion picture audiences of the country j
against any possible use of the pictures by anti-democratic ;
groups’" (p. 31). :
There seems to be a considerable parallel in Mr.
Stewart's words with their overtones of control in the guise!
j
of benevolent guardianship of the public mind with the
comment of the Soviet Writers' Presidium regarding the fact ;
that the writer is the trustee of the "thoughts . . . of thej
popular masses." And precisely this viewpoint presents the
various Hollywood progressive groups in the recent period:
"'The Hollywood Anti-Nazi League has grown to 6,000 members
|in a relatively short time, while the Hollywood branch of
|the League . . . has grown to 250 in a few weeks'" ("Writers
Discuss New Opportunities . . .," NYT, June 4 1939, p. 31).
j 425
j
kind of threat to freedom which bespeaks the same sort of
j
^oppression to which the League of American Writers was sup-
: !
jposedly so vehemently opposed in the name of "The defense of
democracy in the United States" ("Call to the . . . Con-
i j
,gress, " Direction, p. 1) . Unfortunately, at the time of the!
jcongress, neither the participants nor the reporters showed |
awareness of this dangerous contradiction.
The major portion of the conference was devoted to the
craft and trade aspects of literature and dealt with "the
fields of poetry, criticism, radio, screen, folk literature,;
drama and fiction" ("Third American Writers Congress," |
Direction, p. 4). However, the "most dramatic [session] of
all," according to Direction, was the Session for Exiled
Writers . This was in itself a noteworthy event, for it
signaled the first official acknowledgment of the exiles' t
situation at a congress sponsored by a specifically American'
i
writers' association. Malcolm Cowley mentioned the number
i
of foreign authors present, adding that "One could be sure
!
that speeches at the congress were being heard beyond our j
borders" ("In Memoriam," p. 21). In fact, awareness of and j
interest in exile problems was of a high enough order that
t
|one of the results of the congress was the passing of the
i
I
Ifollowing resolution at the final session:
426
It shall be the policy of the League of American Writers
to lend material and moral aid to exiled writers by
every means at our command, and to promote every attempt
; to turn the land of exile, wherever it may lie, into a
; second home, wringing from [the exiles'] misfortunes the j
i benefits of that international solidarity which should j
properly begin within our own ranks. (Smyth, p. 10) i
The addresses given by various German writers were
jprinted in their entirety in Twice A Year, and since these !
illuminate quite clearly certain attitudes toward the exile ;
condition as of mid-1939, we shall devote some space to a
discussion of their ideas. In addition to the participants
listed at the beginning of this conference (Borgese, Bloch, ;
K. Mann, T. Mann, and Uhse), the following Germans also
spoke: Erich Franzen, Manfred Georg, Oskar Maria Graf, and
Walter Schoenstedt ("Third American Writers Congress," ;
Direction, p. 4). Chairman of the session was Dr. Harry j
j
Slochower. j
Although each of the four talks by German writers pub- !
lished in Twice A Year approached the discussion topic, j
"Writers in Exile," from a different angle, certain simi- j
larities of attitude become quickly and forcefully discern- j
I
ible. Perhaps the most dominant one was an unswerving !
optimism in the face of despair and adversity. Intimately
|
(related to this feeling was a vision of democracy as the
I
;shining citadel in the midst of the wasteland of
427
totalitarian oppression and injustice. The obverse side of
j
ithis coin was the view that National Socialist fascism was
an obsolete form which had in essence already played itself |
1 i
out and was in the throes of its own death struggle. j
Thomas Mann, whose speech more than those of the others!
; i
! fused both a personal and philosophical approach, enunciated:
I i
these ideas well when he discussed the human spirit as the
key which would enable the world to transcend successfully
its contemporary dilemma:
For the spirit is decisive. We, who are assembled here, \
are only workers in the realm of the spirit, without
immediate influence on the happenings of the world. ;
Our words and common admonition should not on that ac
count, [sicl be underestimated. The spirit, destitute
of material power, has a quiet, yet irresistible, anni
hilating as well as formative effect on earth, and its
decisions carry force. . . . The enemy of humanity knows
it well. His deep, barking rage, which no success can
satisfy, arises only from this source; that he knows he
stands condemned before the spirit. Know it then, too, j
and be not afraid. However much he may vaunt himself;
however far abroad he may spread intimidation and so j
cause misery, degradation, ruin, blood, tears, despair
and suicide; however much of all this he is capable of
contemplating from his mountain-seat . . . and he feels j
himself grand and historical at the sight— his staff is
broken, nothing of his words and works will last, be- j
cause they were false and vain; nothing will remain of i
him but disgrace !
57
Thomas Mann, " 'Writers in Exile'" [Speech at General
Delegates Session: Third American Writers Congress, June
!3-5 (sic), 1939], Twice A Year. 111-IV (Winter 1939-Spring
11940) , 137.
Speaking of his ravaged European homeland, Klaus Mann also
attributed its condition to the "enemy of humanity," label-
; ing it "the merciless, abhorrent foe within our [borders,
iwho] . . . was active everywhere, and in some countries
i
. . . turned out to be victorious." He attributed the con-
; i
Iquest of Germany to "force and propaganda and abject in- j
trigues, [abetted by] . . . stupidity and cowardice and
58
weakness." Mann's talk was a more personal document than
that of his father, although it was so from a collective
aspect, in that he approached his topic from a position of !
I
self-involvement in the exile cause, using the pronoun "we" i
to convey his point. And thus he gave a brief summary of
the geographical moves which the exiles had been forced to
make--"We lived in France and Switzerland and England, in
Holland, Czechoslovakia and the Scandinavian countries." |
Following this with examples of the increasing conquests of !
the "barbarian enemy," he noted, "We lost Vienna and the
Sudetenland and Prague and Barcelona and Madrid, like an
unhappy general would lose one fortress after another"
i
; I
58 •
Klaus Mann, "'Writers in Exile'" [Europe-America.
jSpeech at General Delegates Session: Third American Writers
jCongress, June 3, 1939], Twice A Year, III-IV (Winter 1939-
! Spring 1940), 148.
; 429
I
I
J(p. 148). He continued that while opposition grew among the
victims of the Fascist foe, the atmosphere in Europe was
: "not encouraging for active anti-fascists." In this context
(
he spoke of his own realization that the positive qualities
j i
of freedom such as "liberty and social progress and civili- '
Ization" were not automatically guaranteed to a people on the|
mere basis of their existence in a given country; they must
be guarded and upheld through vigilance and constant readi
ness to do battle for their maintenance:
I had understood that Democracy [sicj is not anything j
we possess and can be peacefully proud of. Real Democ
racy [sjlcJ means an aim and a task— not a possession;
it means our aim and task. It is our problem and our
future, our struggle and our life. (pp. 148-149)
The contemporary situation was analyzed by Ernst Bloch :
on rather a broader, more clearly philosophical plane, for I
he saw "The seething cauldron of ideas which characterizes j
our time" as a repetition in many crucial ways of "the age
of transition between the Middle Ages and modern times, !
59
between feudal and bourgeois society." Precisely for this
reason the confusion of the contemporary scene was perfectly
|
59
! Ernst Bloch, "Writers m Exile" [Speech at General
|Delegates Session: Third American Writers Congress, June 4,
11939], Twice A Year. III-IV (Winter 1939-Spring 1940), 144.
i 430
I
t
junderstandable to him and not at all surprising. As he
observed,
j Once more a great exodus, a departure from the past,
is taking place— in economics, in sociology, in philos- j
ophy. It is present in all the works of our time which j
have anything to say. . . . The elements of the present
are no longer fixed; they are being transformed and I
transfused.
! i
i :
And yet he felt that the current situation was historically
unique in a quantitative sense and therefore highly signi
ficant: "Never before has an entire age been heading into
;the unknown in this manner, plunging, that is, into an
experiment in building anew. This is the case, whether or |
not one understands and affirms it" (p. 144).
The unhappy circumstances of the exiles' condition,
although engendering many tragedies on a personal level, I
i
were in another sense an indirect force for good, for these j
; |
circumstances both heralded and made possible the beginnings:
of the change from the old to the new. In fact, Bloch saw
"most men these days, even those who seem most settled, [as]
living between two worlds . . .," if not in a geographical
sense, then temporally, i.e., on "a frontier between past j
and future." Bloch's accurate insight into human nature was'
i
jrevealed when he remarked that "Each man lives a borderline
I
!
‘ existence between the old which he is unwilling to give up,
431
and the new which he has never seen in reality" (p. 143) .
I
And so from this point of view there existed a very real
I ;
parallel between the condition of physical exile and that ofj
‘ i
historical transition:
This living between two ages is also a kind of exile, j
in that it is a departure from tradition. It is not '
; a departure from the country of one's birth, of course,
but it is a breaking with the social beliefs of one's
parents and with one's own youth. (p. 143)
The "borderline existence" of the political refugee was
merely a visible sign of the rootless condition in which thei
world currently found itself, and the exiles themselves werej
i
simply symbolic forerunners of the emerging age: ;
All of us, we exiles as well as our hosts, are on a
threshold. . . . We know that the old society is !
carrying the new one in its womb, and we are both the j
sufferers and the witnesses of the painful birth. . . .
We political and cultural emigrants cannot, therefore,
feel that we are exceptional. In our . . . lives we j
are thoroughly contemporary; although it well may be
that in representing our age we are symbols which are j
too painfully clear. Our difference from normal men j
lies in the fact that we not only live between the j
past and future, but must suffer also from the neces- ;
sity of living between two worlds geographically. Thus j
the exile drinks the ills and perils of modern chaos j
in a concentrated dose. (pp. 143-144)
Bloch too saw certain aspects of exile as distinctly posi- ,
tive, for example, the opportunity to broaden one's exposure
jto a greater variety of people and social classes, which in
I ............ ' .... ' " . 432"
I
turn would increase one's understanding of them. And this,
of course, is the stuff of which literature is fashioned— it
is the lifeline of the writer. A concomitant element !
! I
! j
thereof, particularly for the political refugee, was a ful- j
; i
ler sensitivity and feeling of responsibility: '
; j
i
! . . . most exiled writers have more to say now when I
they write, and their work is filled with a deeper
sense of responsibility than formerly. Their own
bodies have felt the impact of the great struggle
of our age which is their material^ the struggle of
the forces of light against the forces of darkness.
While this struggle is deeply personal and individual,
it must be portrayed in broad, objective terms. [It j
also] gives reality . . . to objective ideas which
were formerly little more than easy abstractions.
(pp. 144-145) |
Although Bloch analyzed the contemporary situation in
more metaphysical terms than did the Manns or Uhse, the
essential concept of an ongoing battle with evil was present!
in some form in all four addresses. For each of these men, j
democracy represented to varying degrees the golden beacon
of hope which would light the way to the future. As Bloch
stated in expressing his conviction that "we progressive j
writers— whether native Americans or immigrants . . . [are j
i
united in the consciousness of arrival] at a frontier . . . [ , ]
The new goal to which we owe our allegiance is the oldest, !
i i
I
|finest and ultimate hope of mankind: perfect democracy"
433
(p. 145). Thomas Mann devoted at least half of his talk to
!a discussion of the symbolic importance of Ernst Toller, who
had committed suicide less than a fortnight previously i
i
i
; (May 22, 1939, in New York City) . He pointed out that Tol-
j j
ler, an indefatigable freedom fighter par exce1lence, had
jdied "a martyr of the time, a victim of those destructive
powers despised by all of us. . . . [powers which] made life;
;so bitter [for our friend] that he cast it from him." Mann
asserted unequivocally, "Evil and wickedness drove him to
his death and he was lost to us" ("Writers in Exile," p. j
135). Speaking of the final despair of the spirit which |
overcame Toller, he observed that "The disconsolate, hope
less eclipse of a deadly moment has no lasting significance .
in the judgment of the actual situation of the spirit." He |
i
expressed the view that
: |
. . . the situation today gives us a greater right to
hope and trust than it did even recently. There can
be no doubt that the powers of resistance against those
of destruction are on the point of assembling, and it
can be said that the deductive power of fascism has |
overstepped its mark . . . in the spiritual sphere as j
well as in that of political realities. (p. 136) j
j
Mann saw each death of the exiles' "comrade[s]-in-arms" as j
a symbol of "martyrdom in the struggle for a cause[, and
isuch martyrdom] has forever been more an exhortation than a
I
; 434
I
1
[discouragementj an exhortation to faith, endurance, to hold
together, to form comradeship; that comradeship beneath
Whose sign we are now gathered" (p. 136). He made indirect j
! i
l
yet quite clear reference to the elements necessary for 1
democracy in his comments on the almost complete immunity J
jof the American mind "to the germs of fascism . . . [for
which] we must thank its tradition of political freedom,
which is deeply rooted, and the health of its soul which is i
not susceptible to the false charms of anti-spiritual per
version" (p. 137).
By far the most specific and least abstract talk was
that of Bodo Uhse, who spoke almost exclusively on the
methods of resistance being applied within Germany, such as
i
the smuggling of leaflets, pamphlets, and tracts into that
!
country, initially in very small numbers, and now in quan- i
tities of thousands. His involvement with the opposition I
movement was clearly illustrated through the theme of his !
address, but he too showed an awareness of several aspects
■ I
of the larger picture. One of these was an optimism despite!
misery and hardships in relation to the mobilization of i
writers for opposition to the Third Reich: "What is at ;
I
stake is the conservation . . . for effective action . . .
j
;of writers who have not given up the fight in spite of their
435
suffering." Uhse felt that these writers "are valuable for
the maintenance of peace [and would] be of decisive impor
tance for peace if war should be unleashed against the will j
60
|of all nations--including the Germans." To a larger de- j
gree than the other three speakers, Uhse seemed to see '
Iseverance from one's homeland in a narrower, more exclu- j
sively emotional framework--more as a festering wound than
as a spiritual catalyst: "The writers, banished from their
country[,] will never be able to silence within themselves
the longing to return to their own country, to the people j
j
who speak their language and for whom they write" (p. 146). !
Uhse, of course, was the only official member of the German
Communist Party of this group; he was also the only one who j
had participated actively in the Spanish Civil War. And it I
is quite evident that his general orientation toward politi-j
cal ideologies was of a practical rather than a cerebral I
I
nature, which would explain in part his strong involvement
with the resistance cause within Germany.^
i
|
i
60 1
Bodo Uhse, "Writers in Exile" [Speech at General
Delegates Session: Third American Writers Congress, June 4,
1939], Twice A Year. III-IV (Winter 1939-Spring 1940), 146. I
i 61
Interestingly, prior to his membership in the KPD as
|of 1931, Uhse had been a member of the Strasser Group of the
National Socialists and had even been an editor of National
j The evaluations of this Third American Writers' Con
gress definitely inclined in the favorable direction, a
recurring observation being that the League of American
Writers had at last come "of age" and would henceforth be
a moving force in the world of letters . Apparently this
ifeeling emerged from two interrelated factors: (1) the ;
large variety of craft sessions held in the fields of lit- ;
erary genres, and (2) the success with which these sessions
were concluded. As Joseph Hilton Smyth stated, "Out of the ;
three-day sessions of the Third American Writers 1 Congress ;
the observer, if not a majority of the delegates, gained a j
clear impression that the organization had attained its full
maturity." This reporter felt that, by contrast with the
I
general emphasis at the two previous congresses, "... it j
may be said that the sessions just concluded showed a genu- I
I
ine breadth of view, both as to literature and politics"
("Third Writers' Congress," p. 10) . ■
And Malcolm Cowley summarized the event as "a good
Socialist newspapers. After his participation in the Span- |
ish Civil War, he returned in 1938 to his original exile :
home, Paris, came to the United States in 1939, then went to
Mexico the following year, where he was the literary editor i
for the periodical Freies Deutschland. In 1948 he returned
|to Germany— East Berlin— and for nine years was the editor-
|in-chief of the journal Aufbau (Exil-Literatur, Frankfurt
i a/M, p. 225) . ___________
437
congress, by far the best of the three that have been held
iby the League of American Writers." He singled out for
i
I
I
jspecific comment the genuine "interchange of ideas" which
i
|took place between numerous writers present, noting that !
! |
this conference "was . . . the first occasion on which I |
heard a great many writers talking about their own problems j
without being boastful or snickering or self-conscious." He;
viewed this as an extremely positive sign* in that it would
"certainly encourage writers to think of one another not as
rivals but as partners in the same undertaking and as human j
i
beings to be treated with consideration" ("Notes on a Writ- !
ers1 Congress, " p. 192). In his progress report on the
League of one year later, Cowley referred again to the third!
]
congress: "It was . . . an extraordinary affair, perhaps
j
the greatest achievement of the League of American Writers" |
("In Memoriam," p. 219). Finally, in discussing the success;
of the craft and trade sessions on literature, Direction
observed that
!
For the first time, there was active cooperation j
between the leading cultural and economic writers 1 j
organizations of America, exemplified by the splendid !
session on trade-union questions organized by the
Authors League of America, in cooperation with the j
i League of American Writers.
ilt was felt that "the truly literary spirit of the Congress
438
manifested itself . . . [in the craft sessions]," in that
not only the speakers but also the numerous writer-
i
^participants in the general discussions "were particularly i
concerned about ways and means of using the major literary i
I
mediums to reach and stimulate wider audiences" ("Third 1
American Writers Congress," p. 4). '
These expressions of praise and high hope for the
future of the League of American Writers provide a quite
revealing contrast to the mammoth confusion which reigned
within the liberal ranks less than three months later with j
62
the signing of the Hitler-Stalin Pact of August 23. Nor ■
®^For a discussion of the international machinations
1
leading to the conclusion of this pact, see Shirer, The Rise;
and Fall of the Third Reich, pp. 513-544. See also Cochran,j
The Great Depression and World War II, pp. 145-146. It be- j
comes clear that British Prime Minister Chamberlain's mis- ■
calculation of Hitler as a rational man, his failure to !
understand the basis of Hitler's political maneuvers, and i
his lack of comprehension of Josef Stalin's political moti
vations— and therefore Chamberlain's lack of decisive action;
in the face of German aggressions— provided a fertile breed-^
ing ground for the hatching of this treaty. Another factor ;
involved was the feared loss of political support by both i
Chamberlain and French Prime Minister Daladier, should the !
alliance with Russia sought for by the Western powers mate- j
rialize on the basis demanded by Stalin, i.e., permission to;
occupy "defensively"— if necessary— the Baltic States of the^
old Czarist Empire (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania). As Cochran:
points out, the two Western leaders refused the Soviet re
quest, "one must suspect less because of kindly feelings for
jthe Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians, who were likely to
be doomed in any case, than because of the repercussions
439
were the liberals necessarily alone in their quandary. It
iamong their political supporters of an alliance so favorable!
ito the Communists" (p. 145) . Cochran surmises that Hitler
triay have assumed that Chamberlain would reverse his posi
tion, should he be faced with a war over Poland; on the j
other hand, he may have decided that the chances of such an j
eventuality were not worth the risk of a war with the West. I
He states, "To prepare for [the latter possibility] Hitler
joffered a nonaggression pact to Stalin, which allowed Russia!
to conquer and annex the Baltic states and about half of
Poland" (p. 145). Stalin, the eternal opportunist, saw the ;
pact "as an opportunity to recover most of the Russian
losses of World War I and perhaps to gain additional time
for building defense, [and thus] he readily agreed, neatly
turning the tables on England and France by buying peace at
the expense of the West. The Russo-German pact was signed |
in August 1939" (pp. 145-146). See also McSherry, Stalin,
Hitler, and Europe, I, 196-2 52, for a detailed discussion
and evaluation of the political motivations and events be
tween July 19 and September 17, 1939, when Russia attacked
Poland. It should be recalled that German troops marched
into Poland on the morning of September 1, 1939, and that
Britain and France, yielding to political pressure, declared!
war on Germany two days later. (Only six months previously,!
on March 31, 1939, an Anglo-French guarantee of the inde- j
pendence of Poland had been officially declared by Chamber- i
lain in the House of Commons [McSherry, pp. 135-136].) The |
Western Allies 1 war declaration, however, was of no use to j
Poland, for "By the time the Allied Armies had been deployed!
to face the Germans on the Western Front, Poland had ceased !
to exist. Russia took advantage of the time she had bought •
to seize the Baltic States and part of Poland and to attack !
Finland for the purpose of annexing Finnish territories thatj
were close enough to Leningrad to cause Russia to fear for |
the vulnerability of that city and for her northern commu- |
nications routes" (Cochran, p. 147). For purposes of ref- j
erence and comparison, McSherry includes in his Appendix the!
texts of four treaties and pacts: (1) the Treaty between
Germany and the USSR of April 24, 1926 (Appendix A, pp. 255-
256); (2) the Treaty of Mutual Assistance between France and
!the USSR of May 2, 1935 (Appendix B, pp. 259-261); (3) the
jTreaty of Mutual Assistance between the Czechoslovak Repub
lic and the USSR of May 16, 1935 (Appendix C, pp. 263-266);
J 440
should he noted that a state of technically friendly diplo-
i
matic relations had existed between the United States and
i !
the Soviet Union ever since November 17, 1933, when Washing-j
| i
ton concluded an agreement with Moscow for the purpose of :
: j
resuming such relations between the two nations. (Ironi- :
cally, in view of the continuing infiltration attempts by j
I ;
communism into American society by means of camouflaged
assaults in the guise of democratic and socially relevant
activities, Moscow's promise in 1933— which had been given
as one condition of the agreement— "to refrain from abetting;
revolutionary activity against the American political or
social order" was a complete travesty on international
understandings. Nonetheless, despite opposition to the
agreement by some of President Roosevelt's friends and rela-'
fives, the American public, "including many businessmen and j
Republicans," seemed to be favorably disposed toward it
[Burns, p. 190].) As Burns points out in regard to the
reaction of both the Western nations and Russia to the in- i
I
vasion of Czechoslovakia in 1938, both camps "feared being I
: i
I
deserted by the other to face alone the rising German might")
(p. 385). Such a parallel reaction in the relatively recent;
and (4) the Treaty of Nonaggression between Germany and the
USSR of August 23, 1939 (Appendix D, pp. 267-269).
441
past is helpful in illustrating the intensity of the shock
reaction suffered by the politically naive Americans when
|
word was received of the Hitler-Stalin Non-Aggression Pact, j
! !
'In fact, with the Russian attack on Poland of September 17, j
|
the Americans still showed through their "prevailing atti- j
; i
jtude that Russia had betrayed the West" (Cochran, p. 147), i
that they had possessed sufficient faith in the Soviet Union;
— despite their knowledge of the agreement of three and one-
half weeks previously— to be able to be shattered by news of
the invasion. This is an extremely revealing indication of j
the American lack of sophistication in international mat
ters, and it is therefore hardly surprising that the ideals
and optimistic illusions of many American liberal intellec- ;
tuals received a traumatic shaking up in the wake of the \
63 ;
Nazi-Sovxet Pact. !
6 3
Of course, not all American liberals were automati
cally confused— or bewildered— in the same way. This was
illustrated, for example, in an article by Oswald Garrison
Villard in The Nation shortly after the pact was concluded. |
It was his view that both Stalin and Hitler were birds of a !
feather, men "wholly without conscience . . . who have ce- !
mented their dictatorships with the blood of innocents [and j
who] are outsmarting once more the incompetent, stupid and
too often hypocritical leaders of the democracies. Once ■
more Hitler has shown amazing dash and ruthless daring. He i
wins partly because he is bound by no dictates of morality
jor decency or honor or justice, partly because he knows what
he wants and dares to take it. . . .As for Stalin, he too
442
| The prevailing left-wing explanation for the pact was
'that Russia's purpose in becoming a party to it was simply j
| j
jto conclude an extremely clever political maneuver for the |
i i
sake of "diplomatic peacemaking"— it was seen essentially as!
j
an "anti-aggression plan" which was ultimately to lead to j
is revealed in his true colors. . . . Like attracts like;
iStalin and Hitler are not far apart in their general poli
cies— though the great Russian experiment promised much for
humanity until it was betrayed" ("Issues and Men," The Na
tion , CXLIX, No. 10 [September 2, 1939], 247). Two weeks
later a letter to the editors of The Nation was published
whose purpose seemed to be to take distinct issue with their;
statement "that the Hitler-Stalin pact [would] cause bitter |
disillusionment among the left forces here and abroad." ;
(The source of this statement in that journal was not men
tioned by the correspondent.) The writer felt that this
assertion was "somewhat inaccurate" for the reason that
". . .it completely identifies left forces with the Commu- ;
nists and their fellow-travelers." In his refutation of
this implication, he explained that "A great many of us on ;
the left were long since thoroughly disillusioned with
Stalin and the Communists; and to us the pact between the j
two totalitarianisms is not disillusioning, but rather con- ;
firms our distrust of communism under Stalin." He continued,
with a general summary of the frequent changes in orienta
tion made by the Communists over the past years— a summary
which is indicative of his awareness of the Communist modus i
operandi: "We have seen for many years that the Communists ■
and the various associations, leagues, and committees in j
which they participated faithfully changed as Russia changed!
— from advocating dictatorship to rendering lip-service to j
democracy, from denunciation of all capitalist imperialism
to advocating collective security, and now back again to a
Russian isolation which is as non-neutral in its aid to
Hitler as our own so-called neutrality legislation" (Alfred
jBaker Lewis, "That Nazi-Soviet Pact," letter of August 31
| [Letters to the Editors], The Nation, CXLIX, No. 12 [Sep
tember 16, 1939], 303).
| 443
I 04
jworld peace and harmony. Even the influence of the anti
fascist forces within the Third Reich was exaggerated in
i I
order to fit into this mold. These forces— which Hitler had!
i !
i !
long and ruthlessly been suppressing to a large degree—
j
emerged in distorted fashion as somehow effective in making j
; i
jpossible the alliance between Russia, the hope of the new j
world, and those revolutionary minions within Germany who
would aid Mother Russia in the realization of her ideologi
cal dreams. For this was the heroic Germany, "which from
behind prison bars and the gag of censorship fought the
anti-Soviet course of the Hitler regime," i.e., that hidden -
Germany characterized by its opposition to Hitler and its
ideal of cooperation with communism. As A. B. Magil stated
in reference to journalist Walter Lippmann "and the [capi-
: i
talistic-militaristic] class for whom he speaks," these "men!
at the controls of war. . . . fear the triumph of democratic;
Germany, which they call 'revolutionary Bolshevism.'
According to Magil, this fear "explains Chamberlain's and ;
i
Daladier's reluctance to wage effective warfare," the ■
64
Anna Louise Strong, "The Myth of the 'German-Soviet
Alliance'," New Masses. XXXIII, No. 7 (November 7, 1939), 5-;
6 . i
i
| ^~*A. B. Magil, "The Specter Haunts Them," New Masses.
XXXIII, No. 5 (October 24, 1939), 9-10.
j 444
i
jimplication being that these men also stood basically on the
side of the forces of reaction and repression and would
I
!
therefore do little but make ineffectual growling noises as j
a purely superficial sign of opposition to the Hitler regime!
i
(p. 9) . It is interesting to note Vi Hard's reaction to the|
ICommunist position on the pact: ;
As for the Communists in America, their position is
really ridiculous . They have been telling us that
Stalin was absolutely [necessary] for democracy and
that we must line up with him to save democracy. No
wonder the Daily Worker could not at first print the
news' ("Issues and Men," p. 247)
i
An intelligent and thoughtful discussion of the concept!
of "the history of ideas as the expression of broad social
and class forces1 1 was presented by Max Lerner some weeks
later. He shows an ability to cut through the welter of
[
conflicting ideologies and ideas to a basic— rather Machia- I
; i
veIlian— core of truth upon which the actions of men and
nations are predicated. As he observes, "For some time we
have believed that there was a sharp difference between
I
nations with 'ideologies' enforced by state power and those !
in which the state was ostensibly neutral and allowed a
competition of ideas." He cites examples which fairly ;
^effectively neutralize this belief, one being the non-
laggression pact. His fundamental premise seems to be the
445
observation that ideologies as such are valid only so long
las they justify already functioning political aims and serve
jas a rallying point around which these aims may be realized.■
;What is involved is quite simply a matter of the exigencies
of the moment within the specific yet flexible framework of j
!a future goal. He summarized this concept as follows: j
For we have come to see that just as we have had to
manufacture an ideology [i.e., democracy,] for the
purposes of power politics, so the totalitarian states
have had to ignore their ideologies when power politics
demanded a decent ideological ignorance. The discovery
shocked most of us, not because we had underrated the
force of power politics, but because we had overrated
the compulsion of ideologies.^6 j
Max Lerner, "Revolution in Ideas," The Nation. CXLIX,:
No. 17 (October 21, 1939), 436. A similar view was ex
pressed in a letter written to this journal. It was the i
writer's opinion that both Hitler and Stalin were opportun- i
ists: "There has merely been another shrewd move by two of j
the several claimants to European or world hegemony. This !
is a game 'for keeps' in which sensitive idealists had bet- !
ter be prepared for severe shocks ." That this correspondent!
was aware of the totally conscienceless motivations involved!
in the ongoing power plays, as well as of the irrelevance of!
any so-called ideologies to the situation, was shown in his
comment that "Of course [,] if either the Germans or Russians!
saw an opportunity to further their ends by breaking the ;
treaty they would not hesitate a moment to do so." He was
;at a loss to understand the "Loud cries of anger and dismay j
[which] have risen from the liberal ranks as a result of the!
. . . pact," for what possible application could rules of |
ifair play have "in a game whose only rule is opportunism?" j
j(A. Miller, "That Nazi-Soviet Pact," letter of August 28
|[Letters to the Editors], The Nation. CXLIX, No. 12 [Sep
tember 16, 1939], 303). ___ ________
446
He also noted that totalitarian states are not isolated in
i
jtheir willingness "to betray ideologies." That this is
applicable to the democracies as well is illustrated by !
! I
J
Chamberlain's "cynical scrapping of democratic Czechoslo- j
: 1
vakia at Munich in order to turn Hitler in the direction of
I
jthe Soviet Union" (p. 436). Lerner felt that the only real j
' i
difference between the totalitarian states and the demo
cratic nations lay in their attitude toward the use of
ideas, the former possessing "the manipulative approach,"
according to which the people are viewed "only as so much i
material to be used"; and the latter possessing "the in
strumental approach," which "recognizes that ideas are used
in behalf of a way of life" (p. 437) . Simply put, the first!
!
approach conceives of ideas as means to an end, tools which j
|
lose their function as soon as they are no longer conducive j
j
to the attainment of that end; the second approach sees
I
ideas in terms of "their validity and for the creative ac- j
|
tion and the social cohesion that will result" (p. 437). i
Some six weeks after the conclusion of the Nazi-Soviet
i
1
Pact, two very interesting letters appeared in the Partisan j
I
Review, one of them of particular relevance to the position j
;of the League of American Writers in connection with that
and related events, the other illuminating for its
447
presentation of the viewpoint of members of the League for
Cultural Freedom and Socialism— many of whom were also
j
i
League members— regarding the war issue. The first-
mentioned letter was not sent on behalf of any organization;
its total of fifteen signatures, however, did include five j
jnames which also appeared on the second letter: F. W.
Dupee, James Farrell, William Phillips, Philip Rahv, and
Meyer Schapiro. Addressed to the League of American Writ
ers, its purpose was obviously to demand public clarifica
tion of the League's position on the pact. According to its;
signers, the League had been strangely— and totally— silent j
on international affairs since August 21: "Despite the
world-shaking events that have occurred since August 21, j
the formerly eloquent and ubiquitous League . . . has not j
|
been heard from. Nothing on the war, nothing on the Nazi- !
; i
Soviet pact, nothing on the partition of Poland, in fact,
nothing." The signers wondered whether indeed that organi- ;
I
zation still existed at all, and if so, whether it had
i
"anything to say to American writers and intellectuals on j
the following [not inconsequential] questions?" j
1. What is the character of the present war? Is it
an imperialist war or a war of the democracies
against Fascism?
| 2. What is the role of the Stalin regime in this war?
Did the Stalin-Hitler pact advance the cause of
448
world peace or did it promote Fascist aggression?
Does the League approve of the partition of Poland
i between Germany and Russia?
I 3. Does the League still hold that the United States
| should cooperate with the Soviet Union in order to
stop the onward march of Fascism?
4. Does the League still maintain that the United j
States should adopt a "collective security" policy? !
If so, what countries should be included in such a ;
common front?
j 5. Does the League . . . still consider the Communist i
Party to be a force for peace, democracy, and social- !
ism?*7
The signers reminded the League that in its official
"Call to the Congress" in June, it had supported the cooper
ation of the United States with persons and countries who
opposed fascism and had included the Soviet Union in this
category, naming it as "the most consistent defender of
peace" and "in general, the [defender] of a free world in |
which writers can function" (p. 127). In light of the bla- |
; i
tant contradictions inherent in Stalin's political coopera- j
tion with the Fascist foe by means of the pact, it quickly
becomes apparent that a reminder to the League of its recent
classification of Russia not only as a "defender of peace," :
; !
but as a superlative defender of same, would create at best ;
a somewhat sticky situation for that organization. This is j
! 67"A Letter to the L.A.W., October 5, 1939," Partisan
Review. VI, No. 1 (Fall 1939), 127-128.
particularly true when it is recalled that until that fate
ful day in August, the League
! functioned as the most active political organization
among American writers and intellectuals [and] Through
its national and regional congresses, public meetings,
pamphlets, questionnaires, and statements to the press
; . . . [consistently] made known its position on every
I important issue. (p. 127)
i
]
The contrast, it was implied, was almost too great to
assimilate, and the sarcasm of the signers 1 final statement
testifies to this feeling: "If the League of American
Writers can recover its voice, we shall he glad to hear its
replies" (p. 128).
In this connection, it is of some interest to note the
letter sent by James T. Farrell, a signer of both the afore
mentioned communications, to Thomas Mann— who was honorary
president of the League of American Writers in 1939— asking
him in his position as an honorary officer to indicate
whether he was "in agreement with the policies which the
League has pursued . . .[, and further, whether he be
lieved,] as did the League of American Writers . . ., that
the Soviet Union remains 'the most consistent defender of
peace,1" as had been stated in the "Call" to the
450
68
conference." It appears that this ill-timed assessment
i
■of the USSR had indeed become a spectre which was to haunt
■the League unmercifully. Actually, many of the ideas and
|
even sentences were identical to those which had been ex-
i
‘ pressed in the letter published earlier in the Partisan
j Review, of which Farrell had been a signer. He did, how
ever, refer personally to Mann, not only in his comments
regarding his honorary officership in the League, but also
in his comments on the book, The Coming Victory of Democ-
69
racy. Explaining his reasons for posing the above
6^James T. Farrell, "Mr. Farrell's Letter" ["The Open
Forum"— Letters to the Editor], The American Mercury,
XLVIII, No. 191 (November 1939), 381-382. j
69
According to Henry Hart, this book contained "the :
‘ addresses which [Mann] has been delivering [in the United
States] during the past few months." Hart felt that "All j
genuine devotees of art and letters will find pleasure in '
traversing with this cosmopolitan and cultured mind the roadj
which led Dr. Mann, at last, to an active awareness of the
preeminent issues of our generation" (Henry Hart, "Books,"
Direction, I, No. 7 [June 1938], 28). Dr. Harold von Hofe :
mentions an identically titled book in German, Vom kommenden
S ieg der Demokratie, as having been written in Switzerland
in 1937. Von Hofe notes that, although it originated in
Europe, it was addressed to the American public and "con
stitutes Thomas Mann's literary transition from the old
world to the new. It contains an idea, the importance of
which cannot be overestimated in the evolution of his polit-;
ical philosophy. The old conflicts [of] life and art, civi-i
lization and culture, spirit and nature[,] are here recon
ciled. The catalytic agent is democracy, used, to be sure,
'in a wide sense, connected with the highest human
451
queries, Farrell stated,
j
I ask these questions because you have indicated in
your book . . . that your own political position was
| not in essential disagreement with that of the League
. . . concerning Russia. Thus, you wrote: "But at
I least I can see that Russia does not imperil the ^
essential upon which all else depends— namely peace."
'attributes, and related to the immutable dignity of mankind.
Thomas Mann stipulated in this speech, which he delivered in:
American cities, that to come close to art means to come
close to life. . . . The harmonious fusion of former anti
theses is revealed in his endorsement of Bergson's impera
tive as profoundly democratic: 'Act as men of thought,
think as men of action! ' Thomas Mann's conception of civi- j
lization has experienced a broadening and deepening so that j
it now embraces culture and is not opposed to it" (Harold j
von Hofe, "Thomas Mann," The German Quarterly, XVII [May j
1944], 152-153). It would appear that rather than addres- i
ses, the book contained just one speech. It is possible, of
course, that only portions of this speech were delivered on
various occasions in the United States, which would account !
for Hart's use of the word "addresses" in his mention of
this work. j
7 0
A lth o u g h t h i s is n o t t h e t im e f o r a n in - d e p t h d i s - j
c u s s io n o f M a n n 's much m is u n d e rs to o d p o l i t i c a l v ie w s , t h e !
r e a d e r i s d i r e c t e d t o an i n t e r e s t i n g a s s e s s m e n t o f th e s e j
fro m t h e v ie w p o in t o f a M a r x i s t - o r i e n t e d c r i t i c : H a r o ld
R o s e n b e rg , "M y th and H i s t o r y , " P a r t is a n R e v ie w . V I , N o . 2 j
( W in t e r 1939), 19-39. I n h is q u i t e c r i t i c a l e v a l u a t i o n o f ;
M a n n 's id e a s , R o s e n b e rg d is c u s s e s su ch a r e a s as " P o l i t i c s j
a n d th e V a lu e s o f A r t , " "The A n a lo g ic a l T e c h n iq u e — An I n t r o - !
d u c t io n t o M o d e rn M y t h - M a k in g ," " S c ie n c e a n d t h e D e s t in y o f j
t h e I n d i v i d u a l , " and "M a n n 's T h e o ry o f C h a n g e : The N o n
r a d i c a l R e v o lu t i o n ." R o s e n b e rg f e e l s t h a t t h i s w r i t e r is
b o th u n k n o w le d g e a b le a b o u t p o l i t i c a l r e a l i t i e s an d u n r e a l i s
t i c a b o u t human n a t u r e due t o h i s id e a lis m w h ic h is r o o t e d |
i n some v a g u e s p i r i t u a l and a b s t r a c t e d v ie w o f t h e w o r ld . |
|He s t a t e s , "M a n n 's i d e a lis m , i n v e n t in g i t s own p o l i t i c a l andj
js o c ia l l i m i t s as i t in v e n t s i t s p s y c h o lo g ic a l o n e s , r e s t s
j i t s a n t i r a d i c a l a n t if a s c is m on th e a s s u m p tio n t h a t a j
452
Farrell concluded, "Inasmuch as you are a man whose artistic
'reputation is impregnable, I am certain that American writ-
: !
;ers will regard your answers to my question with the great- j
| |
est interest" (p. 382). (
'c o n s e r v a t iv e s o l u t i o n i s p o s s ib le f o r t h e r a d i c a l p ro b le m s j
o f m odern s o c i e t y . . . . M ann i n h is p o l i t i c s as i n h is a r t '
s y s t e m a t i c a l l y t u r n [ s ] e v e r y t h in g i n s id e o u t" (p . 38). In
t h e p r e v io u s is s u e o f t h e R e v ie w , Mann h a d a lr e a d y b e e n
c a s t i g a t e d i n an e d i t o r i a l e n t i t l e d " R e f le c t io n s on a N o n
p o l i t i c a l M a n ," V I , N o . 1 ( F a l l 1939), 14-16. F o r t h e r e a c
t i o n o f M ann t o t h i s c r i t i q u e , s e e t h e l e t t e r w r i t t e n b y h is ;
s e c r e t a r y : Jam es H . M e i s e l , "A L e t t e r fro m P r in c e t o n "
( L e t t e r s ) , P a r t is a n R e v ie w , V I , N o . 2 (W in t e r 1939), 124-
125. M ann e l i c i t e d much c o n t r o v e r s y fro m r e p r e s e n t a t iv e s of;
v a r io u s p o l i t i c a l s h a d in g s a t v a r io u s tim e s d u r in g th e
1930‘s a n d 1940's. The d e g re e o f h i s e f f e c t i s shown b y th e
f a c t t h a t r e a c t io n s t o h im w e re f r e q u e n t l y p o s i t i v e o r n e g a
t i v e i n t h e e x t r e m e . I n 1938, f o r e x a m p le , h e was n o m in a te d
f o r — and s u b s e q u e n tly e le c t e d t o — h o n o r a r y m e m b e rs h ip i n th e .
A m e ric a n A cadem y o f A r t s and L e t t e r s . I n h is l e t t e r o f p r o - 1
p o s a l f o r M an n , V an W yck B ro o k s w r o te t h e f o l l o w i n g : " I t j
seems t o me l i k e l y t h a t a l l t h e members w i l l a g re e t h a t Mannl
is one o f t h e g r e a t e s t l i v i n g w r i t e r s , an d t h e r e seems t o bej
s p e c i a l r e a s o n f o r h is e l e c t i o n . He i s d e fe n d in g t h e b a s ic ;
id e a s o f o u r c i v i l i z a t i o n p e rh a p s m ore p o w e r f u l ly th a n a n y
w r i t e r . M o r e o v e r , h e h a s p a id us a v e r y g r e a t c o m p lim e n t in
c o m in g t o l i v e i n t h i s c o u n tr y " (" H o n o r a r y A cadem y P o s t ;
A w a rd e d G erm an A u t h o r ," N Y T , D ecem b er 23, 1938, s e c . 1, p .
15). The great number of articles on Mann's political ideas1
and activities alone— both by him and by others— is too highj
to enumerate in detail here. The interested reader is di
rected to several which seem to merit mention: Curt Riess, 1
"Interview with Thomas Mann," Direction, II, No. 8 (December'
1939), 4-5] Thomas Mann, "Two Visions of Peace," The Nation,-
CL, No. 6 (February 10, 1940), 174-177] Thomas Mann, "War i
and the Future," Decision, I, No. 2 (February 1941), 11-18] j
land Thomas Mann, "How to Win the Peace" (trans . K. Katzen-
jellenbogen), The Atlantic Monthly, CLXXIX, No. 2 (February
1942), 176-183.
( ---
453
The l e t t e r fro m m embers o f t h e L eag u e f o r C u l t u r a l
F re e d o m an d S o c ia lis m e v id e n c e d a p o s i t i o n on t h e H i t l e r -
j s t a l i n P a c t w h ic h was t y p i c a l f o r g r e a t num bers o f l i t e r a t i j
land i n t e l l e c t u a l s a t t h i s t im e , n a m e ly , a n a n t i - w a r s t a n c e .
j
The b a s ic th em e o f t h i s l e t t e r was th e d o m in a n ce o f t h e w a r •
; !
jis s u e i n t h e m in d s o f A m e ric a n i n t e l l e c t u a l s , an d i t s p u r -
:pose was t o g iv e d e f i n i t e a n s w e rs t o t h e q u e s t io n o f t h e i r I
f u n c t io n i n t h i s r e g a r d . Two su ch a n s w e rs w e re p r e s e n t e d ,
one o f a s p e c i f i c n a t u r e , th e o t h e r o f a m ore g e n e r a l, a l l -
e n c o m p a s s in g n a t u r e , b o th o f th e m , h o w e v e r, c l o s e l y i n t e r
w oven : !
I n a p r a c t i c a l , im m e d ia te s e n s e , [A m e ric a n w r i t e r s an d '
a r t i s t s ] c a n h e lp m ake a r t i c u l a t e t h e s t r o n g o p p o s it io n
w h ic h t h e g r e a t m a j o r i t y o f t h e A m e ric a n p e o p le s t i l l
f e e l t o o u r e n t r y i n t o t h e w a r . The m a s s e s , who h a v e j
n o t h in g t o g a in an d e v e r y t h in g t o lo s e fro m a n o th e r w a r ,
a r e f a r fro m e n d o r s in g t h e P r e s i d e n t 's f o r e i g n p o l i c y .
B u t t h i s s e n t im e n t c a n a g a in b e c h e a te d , d e c e iv e d , |
p r o p a g a n d iz e d o u t o f e x is t e n c e as i t was i n t h e l a s t !
w a r , u n le s s i t is made c o n s c io u s and g iv e n o r g a n iz e d
e x p r e s s io n . H e re t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l s c a n b e o f th e
g r e a t e s t s e r v i c e . j
I n a m ore g e n e r a l s e n s e , A m e ric a n w r i t e r s an d a r t i s t s j
m u s t p u t th e m s e lv e s on r e c o r d a g a in s t t h e w a r as a j
s y m b o l o f t h e i r a c c e p ta n c e o f t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f
t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n . . . . I f o n ly f o r t h e s a k e o f t h e i r j
own i n t e g r i t y , [ t h e y ] m u st now s i g n a l i z e t h e i r o p p o s i
t i o n n o t o n ly t o w a r i n t h e a b s t r a c t b u t s p e c i f i c a l l y j
t o A m e ric a n e n t r y i n t o t h i s w a r . I t w o u ld b e a
454
betrayal of the human spirit for them to keep silent
at this time.71
■The final sentence in this communique smacked rather i
I j
jstrongly of some of the phraseology characteristic of party-!
I j
line propaganda, despite the fact that the League for Cul- i
;tural Freedom and Socialism was not a Communist front
; l
j |
'organization— in any case, it was not among the hundreds of
such groups indexed in Tenney's comprehensive report on that
phenomenon as based on the results of investigations by the
Special Committee of the California Legislature on Un-
72
American Activities issued March 29, 1944. This statement!
follows:
War is the great issue today. We call upon American
artists, writers and professional workers to join us i
in this statement of implacable opposition to this
dance of war in which Wall Street joins with the
Roosevelt administration. ("War Is the Issue'",
Partisan Review, p. 126) i
In his typically flamboyant fashion, Tenney summarizes .
I
the change of heart and affiliation undergone by many j
71
"War Is the Issue!" (Statement of the League for
Cultural Freedom and Socialism), Partisan Review, VI, No. 1
(Fall 1939), 126 .
1 7
The names of these groups, followed by dated reports
substantiating their nature and activities, are referenced
alphabetically in Tenney, Red Fascism, pp. 557-604.
j 455
American liberals at the time of the Hitler-Stalin pact, the
jinvasion— he calls it "the rape"— of Poland, and the Russian
jattack