1945. The German Surrender at Lüneburg Heath

"Montgomery Scorns Nazis, Exults, 'This Is the Moment'"

Bill Downs broadcasting from Lüneburg, Germany on V-E Day, May 8, 1945 (Photo by Dennis Allen of the British Second Army)

The transcript of this broadcast was printed in The New York Times on May 5, 1945. The text in parentheses was inserted by the newspaper.

BILL DOWNS

COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM

May 4, 1945 – 4:30 PM

More than one million Germans on Field Marshal (Sir Bernard L.) Montgomery's Twenty-first Army Group front surrendered on this historic May 4, bringing hostilities to an end for the Canadian Army fighting in Holland and the British Second Army fighting in northern Germany. (Other dispatches and previous estimates set the figure of troops involved at well over 500,000, but not more than 600,000.) It was the biggest mass surrender of German forces since the Armistice of 1918 (provided the higher figure is correct).

A German surrender mission headed by Admiral von Friedeburg, Commander in Chief of the German Navy, signed articles of unconditional surrender for the German land, sea and air forces facing the Canadian First Army and the British Second Army at 6:25 o'clock this evening. Field Marshal Montgomery signed in behalf of the Allied Supreme Commander in Chief, General (Dwight D.) Eisenhower.

The signing occurred in a tent set up especially for the ceremony in front of Marshal Montgomery's headquarters on the Lüneburg Heath just south of Hamburg. It's significant that the northern German armies were surrendered on this barren, artificially forested heath, which for years has served as the training ground and birthplace for German armies. It was here that technically a large part of the Wehrmacht died.

For this northern European front, it means that the fighting for the Canadian and British armies here is virtually finished. The only European nation in northern Europe yet to be liberated is Norway. There still is the Dunkerque pocket, but these events must have a tremendous effect on the Germans still holding out there.

In the words of Field Marshal Montgomery as he walked to the tent where the official signing took place, grinned and commented to the reporters:

"This is the moment!"

It was a great moment, a historic moment, there in the cold rain, the blustering winds on the Lüneburg Heath, in the heart of northern Germany, a great moment not only for Britain and Canada but for the American Eighty-second Airborne Division, the American Eighth Infantry Division and the American Seventh Armored Division, fighting under the Second Army in its hour of victory.

It was also a great moment for America and Russia and France and the world.

Here is the background of the historic signing of the biggest mass surrender of German forces since the armistice of 1918. The stage was set for the big surrender in the north when the British Sixth Airborne Division, operating under the American Eighteenth Airborne Corps, drove northward to the Cleve-Elbe River bridgehead south of Hamburg to reach the Baltic Sea at the city of Wismar. This happened Wednesday night.

Then the British paratroopers linked up with the Russians. Coming up on the right flank, the American Eighth Infantry Division and the American Eighty-second Airborne Division made linkups to the south of Wismar on Thursday, the next day, with the Russian Army.

What happened was that this drive to the Baltic carried the Second Army thrust directly behind the line of retreat of the Germany Army Group, the Nazi armies retreating before the drive in the north by General (Konstantin K.) Rokossovsky's forces advancing westward.

In the first three days it is estimated that more than half a million prisoners were taken, mostly from this army group retreating westward. That explains the large number of staff officers who fell into British hands during these fateful days. We were capturing the generals before encountering their fighting troops.

The rout had set in for the German armies on the northern front. On Wednesday, May 2, a German general who said he commanded the so-called army group, hoisted a white flag and sent an emissary to the headquarters of the British Second Army. He said he commanded all the forces between the Baltic and the Weser River, the river running southward from Bremen. He said he wanted to surrender this army group.

General (Sir Miles C.) Dempsey, commander of the Second Army, replied that he should start moving, and a rendezvous was arranged for Thursday. The German general did not appear, but he sent word that negotiations were going on a much higher level than his military station. He could not negotiate.

It was yesterday that a party of four higher German officials again hoisted a white flag and drove into the British lines. The head of the party was Admiral von Friedeburg, commander in Chief of the German Navy who replaced Admiral (Karl) Dönitz while the latter assumed the title of Führer. Von Friedeburg's rank also carries the title of General of the Army; thus, he was able to negotiate for the ground forces as well.

With von Friedeburg was General Kinzel, the next ranking officer, who is chief of staff to Field Marshal (General Ernst) Busch, who is commander of the northern German armies. Field Marshal Busch, incidentally, is still missing from our prisoners' list, but we should catch up with him soon. And next came Rear Admiral Wagner, a staff officer to Von Friedeburg, and lastly, a Major Friede, a staff officer to General Kinzel.

This was the party who hoped to negotiate with Field Marshal Montgomery. They were taken to "Monty's" field headquarters on the Lüneburg Heath. He stepped out, returned their military, not Nazi, salute and asked, as if they were vacuum cleaner salesman, "What do you want?"

The Germans replied:

"We come from Field Marshal Busch to ask you to accept the surrender of three German armies which now are withdrawing in front of the Russians in the Mecklenberg area."

These armies, it was later revealed, were the Third Panzer Army, the German Twelfth Army, and the Twenty-first Army.

"ANXIOUS ABOUT CIVILIANS"

The Nazi officers continued: "We are very anxious about the condition of German civilians who are fleeing as the German armies retreat in the path of the Russian advance. We want you to accept the surrender of these three armies."

To his everlasting credit, Field Marshal Montgomery turned down three German armies willing to surrender to him. "No," he said. "Certainly not. Those German armies are fighting the Russians. Therefore if they surrender to anyone, it must be to the forces of the Soviet Union. They have nothing to do with me. I have nothing to do with the happenings on my eastern front. You go surrender to the Soviet commander. The subject is closed."

Then Field Marshal Montgomery asked: "Are you prepared to surrender the German forces on my northern and western flanks? Those forces between Lübeck and Holland and the forces in support of them, such as those in Denmark?"

The Germans said no, but they added that again they were anxious about the conditions of the German civilians on the northern flank. "We would like to come to some agreement with you by which the civilians would be saved from battle slaughter," they said.

Then the German commander proposed a complicated and difficult military program covering the next few weeks, in which the British Second Army would advance slowly while at the same time the German troops, by agreement, would retreat slowly. It would work well for the Germans.

Again Monty said: "No, I will not discuss what I propose to do in the future—nothing."

MAP SHOCKS ENEMY

Then the British Field Marshal took the offensive. "I wonder," he said, "whether you know the battle situation on the Western Front." And he produced his operational map; the war was too close to being won for it to have any security importance. This map, and what he said, were the final straw, the one factor which precipitated the surrender of 1,000,000 Germans. The German commanders were shocked, astounded by the progress of the Allies in the east and the west.

It was lunchtime and they went off to lunch alone. Admiral von Friedeburg burst into tears when he got out of sight of Montgomery, and he wept throughout lunch. After lunch, Field Marshal Montgomery called the Germans back for further consultation, and there he delivered his ultimatum, an ultimatum that must have hurt the Nazis as much as the landing in Normandy.

He told the Germans:

"You must understand three things: Firstly, you must surrender to me unconditionally all the German forces in Holland, Friesen and the Frisian Islands and Helgoland and all other islands in Schleswig-Holstein and in Denmark.

"Secondly, when you have done that, I am prepared to discuss with you the implications of your surrender: how we will dispose of those surrendered troops, how we will occupy the surrendered territory, how we will deal with the civilians, and so forth.

"And my third point: If you do not agree to Point 1, the surrender, then I will go on with the war and I will be delighted to do so."

Monty added, as an after-thought, "All your soldiers and civilians may be killed."

One, two, three, finished. This shook them. They said that they came entirely to ask for the acceptance of three armies who wanted to surrender. They said they had no authority to agree to Monty's demand. But they agreed that two of them would remain behind while the others presented the new terms of surrender to their superior.

So at 4 P.M. yesterday afternoon, Admiral von Friedeburg and Major Friede went back with the news. They returned today at about 5 o'clock in the afternoon with the complete acceptance of the unconditional surrender terms, and that's how surrenders are made.

And this is what it looked like, the signing of a great surrender of the German forces in the north to the British and Canadian armies. It was raining when we arrived at Monty's headquarters, set in the shrubbed pines and firs of the Lüneburg Heath. The weather was more like fall than spring, with the winds of the North Sea whipping a cold drizzle over the whole landscape.

But overhead, weather or not, the Spitfires and Typhoons roared over, heading always northward, where Germans were reported trying to escape to Norway, Sweden and Denmark. The air forces were continuing the attack until the last minutes of surrender, a sign of Allied strength built up in Germany.

We were led to a tent, a weather-beaten tent that had been pitched scores of times at the Field Marshal's headquarters. It wasn't large, about ten feet wide and twenty feet long. Family size. Inside was set up an ordinary kitchen-size table. On top of it was a blue cloth. Between two microphones was an inkstand with an ordinary steel-tipped pen lying on top.

The German mission arrived and walked to the front of Monty's caravan. Admiral von Friedeburg was invited inside for a last-minute conference. At this time it was not completely settled whether the German answer to the unconditional terms would be yes or no.

An extra person had arrived with the Admiral's party, a Colonel Paulik, once a member of the staff of Field Marshal (General Wilhelm) Keitel; Keitel is second in command of the German armed forces only to Führer Dönitz. The party had plenty of weight, but did not officially bear Keitel's authority.

And while Monty and the Admiral were meeting in the caravan, the other Nazi bigwigs stood in the rain, cold and shivering, just like us reporters. Then they marched down the gravel path toward the tent.

There was Admiral von Friedeburg dressed in a gray leather coat, German Navy style, with a battered hat on his head. But the striking thing was his face, the pushed-in German face, deeply lined and absolutely gray and motionless.

His was the responsibility in the surrender mission, and he showed the strain of his duty. Frankly the Admiral, who wept so copiously at lunch the day before, today looked as if he had been crying ever since.

But the most magnificent figure was General Kinzel, the chief of staff for the German armies in the north. He was the perfect figure of what the world has come to know its sorrow as the German military peacock, complete with monocle.

General Kinzel wore a light green, fastidious German Army greatcoat, with brilliant red lapels. His monocle seemed to glisten even in the dull gray of the afternoon. If his face had not been set in concrete, you might have expected him to burst into song for a Viennese operetta. He was that beautiful.

The small fry, the colonels and majors and all the rest of the surrender party, were gray ducks by comparison.

Again Field Marshal Montgomery kept the party waiting. They stood at attention around the kitchen table. Finally the Marshal, wearing immaculate British field battledress with red tabs on the lapels and a field marshal's baton on his shoulders, almost sauntered down the path. He came to this reporter and said out of the corner of his mouth:

"This is the moment."

He carried the surrender papers in his right hand. The moment he appeared the Germans snapped to attention, like puppets. The British Field Marshal sat down and stretched out his hand in invitation for the Nazis to do the same.

The cameras began to whirl and click, and Monty picked up the historic document that meant the surrender of more than 1,000,000 Germans. He put up his horn-rimmed spectacles, picked up the papers and said, "I will now read the terms of the surrender."

The Germans sat like statues, not a flicker of emotion on their faces. Solemnly, but with a note of triumph in his voice, Monty read the terms of surrender. You could tell that this was the moment for which he had been waiting in Alamein, in Tunis and in Italy.

Then, one by one, the Germans signed. Admiral von Friedeberg, General Kinzel, Rear Admiral Wagner, staff officer to von Friedeberg; General Paulik and Major Freiberger. They didn't say a word or betray a single emotion; it was strictly Prussian ceremony for the Germans.

Then the Field Marshal took up the wooden pen with the steel tip. "And now," he said, "I will sign on behalf of the Supreme Allied Commander, General Eisenhower."

The ceremony took about five minutes.

1944. The September Reports

Bill Downs Reports from Belgium and the Netherlands

"Members of the Reconnaissance Squadron's 'C' Troop taking up defensive positions near to Wolfheze Station on Monday 18th September. At the top of the picture is Trooper F. Brawn with his Bren gun, to the right is Trooper Des Evans with a Lee-Enfield rifle, and next to him is Trooper J. Cooke, lying down and aiming his loaded PIAT" (source)

The Western Front, 1944

5 September 1944: The Wehrmacht is broken on the Belgian front

"German resistance is entirely disorganized. The only coherent movement Nazis have in this part of Europe is eastward, and everyone is heading that way acting under nothing but his own orders to get away. One British armored unit reported that they have found German troops mixed in with the civilians of the liberated villages of Belgium—Germans and Belgians cheering the Allied advance. Follow-up units stop the Germans from cheering when they are taken prisoner."

5 September 1944: The Rexist retreat

"Another reason the Belgian people want revenge is the methods the Rexists used to protect themselves. Every Rexist carried with him a list of five names of suspected Belgian patriots who were to be shot as hostages in case the Rexist was shot. The White Army learned of these lists and kept on shooting Rexists, but they switched the lists of hostages, putting in the names of five collaborators to die instead. It worked in several instances where collaborators were shooting each other."

5 September 1944: Trouble with tank maintenance

"The paper Free Belgium prints a column of classified advertisements worth repeating. Incidentally, the editor of this paper is published as 'Peter Pan.' The address is given as the former German headquarters. It seems that the Germans were never able to locate the exact spot where the paper was published. This column, printed as a joke, gives some interesting sidelights on the Nazi occupation of Belgium. One advertisement says: "German woman, very wealthy, wishes to marry a Belgian, any Belgian. Accepting nationality in exchange." Another reads: "For sale: 15,000 false identity cards. Price: 50 francs." A third reads: "Will exchange 5,000 photographs of Goebbels for five of Churchill."

6 September 1944: Victory in Brussels

"The homes of collaborators are still being ransacked and burned. Odd persons are still being rounded up by the Belgian White Army. I saw a young man today bringing in one of them—an elderly man with his hands tied behind the back. As the White Army man produced the collaborator along the street with his rifle, crowds along the sidewalks hissed and booed."

6 September 1944: Clearing the Channel Coast

"The Germans are trying to filter through the extended Allied lines, but not many are getting out, chiefly because they simply do not have the transport to carry them—and it is a long walk back to Germany."

7 September 1944: The black market in Brussels

"There was a black market for everything. American phonograph records could be purchased from people who had regular traffic to Spain. The film "Gone With the Wind" was shown secretly a number of times here. The price of seeing it was something like $20 a ticket."

8 September 1944: Nazi general captured in Belgium

"This soldier said a lot of things about Adolf, including gossipy bits such as that no one ever knows when Hitler is going to feel like, and everyone from Field Marshals down to batmen have to wait to see the Fuehrer's mood before they approach him. And the batman, who should know, said that Hitler's lady friend back in those days was a beautiful stenographer. For after all, Adolf is a dictator."

9 September 1944: In liberated Belgium

"But as you approach the front in the more newly liberated towns, you run into the feeling of vengeance and the signs of the magnificent efforts of the people to help free themselves. In one village, we stopped for coffee—ersatz coffee—at a restaurant. When we went in, we found that it was being used as headquarters for the Belgian White Army there. The men wore their uniforms of cream-colored coveralls and black berets. They all had rifles and pistols and knives. German grenades stuck out of their belts. They had been working and fighting all night, and many were asleep at the tables catching a few moments of rest before their next mission."

11 September 1944: Hint of the coming Battle of the Bulge

"Model admitted that Germany had lost the battle, but he added that Germany would still win the war, explaining that he could not say any more than that now. He called on his soldiers to believe in their luck. He ordered strict discipline and pointed out that the Belgian and French patriots would rather shoot a weak looking man than a strong one. He urged his soldiers to retreat walking along erect to impress the Belgian and French citizens."

12 September 1944: The RAF hammers the German ground forces

"For a mile on both sides of the canal you could see the zigzagging fortifications built by the Belgians in a futile attempt to extend the ill-fated Maginot Line to the sea. Although the main defenses of the Albert Canal point northwards, it is also defended on the south bank as well. In this way, segments of the canal could hold out. However, the Germans were so surprised that they could not use these defenses."

12 September 1944: The Battle of the Albert Canal

"The German casualties have been so heavy and replacements so inadequate that the Nazis have aided our victory to a great extent by their extravagant use of men under do-or-die orders.For example, after one of their counterattacks failed against the Geel bridgehead yesterday, a fanatical Nazi jumped on top of a truck in full view of the British troops and shouted: "I want to die for Hitler!" The British troops fulfilled this Nazi's last wish."

13 September 1944: Germans fighting to the last man

"These are the Germans from the bottom of Hitler's manpower barrel who the Nazi leaders hope will save their skins for them and, somehow, defeat the Allies and throw them into the sea. Although this seems ridiculous to us, it is taken very seriously by the Nazis. And the German soldiers, even the inadequately trained total soldiers, continue to fight with determination."

17 September 1944: Operation Market Garden begins

"We went to a base airdrome to find fighters and fighter-bombers already running a shuttle relay back and forth to the front, preparing the way for the airborne troops. It was perfect parachute weather; the sky was blanket gray. A haze restricted visibility to three or four miles, just enough to allow the pilots to keep themselves on course and for the troops to see where they were dropping. There was enough haze to keep any enemy aircraft from spotting the planes as they came in."

17 September 1944: Edward R. Murrow with airborne troops during Operation Market Garden

"We've been flying straight into Holland now for something like twenty minutes, so far without any opposition; at least none that I have been able to see. Our fighters are down, just almost nosing along the hedge rows, searching the little villages, and they're up above us and on both sides."

20 September 1944: Bill Downs and Walter Cronkite trapped behind enemy lines

"As the dive-bombers struck, Cronkite was in a jeep with his old UP pal from Kansas City, bespectacled CBS Radio correspondent Bill Downs, the reporter that Murrow had wanted Cronkite to replace in Russia. Cronkite and Downs were driving near the Philips Electric works complex when bombs began falling. They jumped out of the jeep and vaulted over a tall fence into a park. There they huddled behind chopped-down trees as bombs pounded all around. Neither knew how, but they became separated."

24 September 1944: The Nijmegen bridge assault

"Working under enemy shell-fire, the assault boats were assembled. When they were put into the water, another difficulty arose. The tide was moving, but with a downstream current of eight miles an hour. Some of the boats drifted 300 yards down river before they were retrieved and brought back. Meanwhile machine guns spluttered on the opposite bank and German artillery kept smashing the embarkation area regularly."

24 September 1944: Bitter fighting around Nijmegen

"Examining the bodies of the supposedly dead Germans, they found one 15-year-old Hitler youth—a paratrooper kicked him as he groaned—underneath him he hid an automatic rifle."

25 September 1944: The Dutch corridor

"Polish paratroopers dropped south of the Rhine several days ago are fighting alongside the tanks and infantry of the British Second Army, and together they secured a firm foothold on the south bank of the Lower Rhine near the town of Oosterbeek. There once was a ferry crossing, but the Germans destroyed it last week."

21 October 1944: Letter home after Eindhoven

"It seems that the Presbyterian mind of the average American cannot accept the fact that any group of people can coolly sit down and decide to torture thousands of people. And if torture isn't enough, then to kill them as calmly as an ordinary person would swat a fly. This refusal to believe these facts is probably the greatest weapon the Nazis have, and it will operate in the post-war judgment of the Germans—wait and see."

1956. News Conference with Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru

Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru Discusses Foreign Policy

"Jawaharlal Nehru and V.K. Krishna Menon, United Nations, New York," December 21, 1956 (source)

On December 19, 1956, Prime Minister of India Jawaharlal Nehru did a press conference at the National Press Club during a visit to Washington DC. He had delivered a speech to the American people the night before.

Transcript printed in The New York Times, December 20, 1956:

Transcript of Nehru News Conference on World Policy and Outlook

Washington, Dec. 19 — Following is the transcript issued by the Indian Embassy of the report of the news conference held today by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru of India:

WILLIAM MCGAFFIN, of The Knight papers — In your speech last night, sir, you said the talks you had had with the President will help you in many ways in your thinking. Sir, could you spell that out a bit? In what ways do you expect that these talks will help you?

A. — Well, it is not an easy question to answer. Primarily, by getting a much better understanding of American policy, and more especially of the President's background of thinking in regard to it, which is very important.

BILL DOWNS, of The Columbia Broadcasting System — Mr. Prime Minister, in your speech last night to the American people you said that the forces of peace are strong; the mind of humanity is awake. How do you apply this to the Soviet Union in light of the events in Hungary?

A. — Well, I applied it, that phrase, more especially to the events in Egypt and Hungary—that is, the reactions to those events in the minds of people, whether they are presented in the United Nations or elsewhere, whatever means of judging one had about public opinion. If you are referring to the minds of the people in the Soviet Union, obviously I have no sure indication. But I imagine that people in the Soviet Union are not very happy about events in Hungary, if I may put it mildly in that way.

Asked About Passive Resistance

DAVID P. SENTNER, of The Hearst Newspapers — Mr. Prime Minister, do you believe that the technique of Mahatma Gandhi of passive resistance could be used successfully by the Hungarian people?

A. — I can't give a reply about what might happen in Hungary or any particular place because I am not adequately acquainted with the background in the sense of when people apply technique they must, to some extent, be trained in it; they must, to some extent, understand it.

There is always a danger of superficially applying a technique and not adhering to it and thereby falling between two stools; but I do believe that that type of technique is not only effective but, if I may say so, in the long run more effective than other techniques, if people have understood it and can do it in an organized way.

RAYMOND P. BRANDT, of The St. Louis Post-Dispatch — Mr. Prime Minister, competent authorities have said that the Asiatic countries, notably India, Ceylon and Burma, will be more adversely affected by the closing of the Suez Canal than England. Will you work with the United States, France and Great Britain for the immediate clearing up of the canal regardless of what personnel and machinery is used?

A. — No, sir . . . . First of all, while it is true that the closing of the Suez Canal affects India in the sense that it sends up the prices of our exports and imports, and delays things coming, I don't think it would be true to say that it affects us more than the other countries you mentioned; but quite apart from that, the real question is not how much it affects us, but what steps should be taken to get back to normality there; and we are anxious, of course, that steps should be taken, subject always to the sovereignty of Egypt, and we don't want to ask for steps to be taken which offends that sovereignty in any way.

Plans No Visit to Nasser

CHALMERS M. ROBERTS, of The Washington Post — Mr. Prime Minister, as a result of your talks with the President, is it possible that you will stop in Cairo on your way home to discuss with Colonel Nasser [President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt] either the canal settlement issue or the Palestine problem?

A. — I am afraid that there is no chance of my stopping in Cairo on the way back, well, two reasons: One is, it is just a question—it is very difficult for me, practically speaking, to do so. I have to be back by a certain date in Delhi. If I had the chance I would gladly have stopped there.

Q. — Do you have any other plans for Indian participation with the United States to settle either of those two Middle East problems?

A. — No, we have no particular plans. We function, as you know, in the United Nations, and we function on the diplomatic plane where there are frequent consultations. We have no particular magic plan to do it.

JOHN L. STEELE, of Time-Life — Mr. Prime Minister, did you bring to President Eisenhower any message from Chou En-Lai [Premier of Communist China] and, or, if not, would you give us your appraisal of Chou which you may have given the President?

A. — These personal appraisals are rather embarrassing. I did not bring any particular message from Mr. Chou En-lai. But naturally, I have had talks with him and I told the President, gave him the gist of our talks in regard to some matters of common interest.

As many of you know, Mr. Chou En-lai is a rather remarkable man and impressive. He gave me the Chinese viewpoint in regard to certain problems of Asia and—well, I conveyed it to the President, not as a message from him, I mean, but in explaining what their thinking was.

Q. — Can you give us the gist of that, sir?

A. — The gist of that—I would say that they have certain complaints, complaints in the sense of steps taken or not taken. They say—I am merely repeating—that we have gone several steps forward, but there has been no favorable reaction on the other side. Broadly speaking, that is the gist of their position. Now, you may have a different opinion; that is a different matter.

Backs an Open Suez

MRS. MAY CRAIG, of Maine newspapers — Mr. Prime Minister, would you agree to a Suez settlement which would allow Egypt to continue to bar Israeli ships?

A. — I shall answer that question slightly indirectly. That is to say, I think that the Suez Canal should be opened to all ships without exception.

Now, the question that has arisen there, that is, before these recent developments, was about Israeli ships being barred, and as to interpretation of the old Convention of 1888 or some such year. That is to say, I believe President Nasser said that "I accept that 1888 Convention completely," but his interpretation of that was that if he is at war with a country, then it does not apply.

Now, it is a question of interpretation of that, certain of that. I should imagine that some court, like the Supreme Court, the World Court, should be asked to interpret it, and whatever interpretation they give should be accepted. That is one way of it, so far as the past is concerned. So far as the future is concerned, we can sit down and have a new convention.

CHARLES W. ROBERTS, of Newsweek — Mr. Prime Minister, sir, last night you spoke of India's dedication to liberty, equality and dignity of man, and freedom of the human spirit. How do you reconcile this concern and dedication to freedom of the human spirit with India's refusal to condemn Russia's aggression in Poland—pardon me—in Hungary?

A. — There is no question of India refusing to condemn anything or not. If you are referring to one of the recent resolutions of the United Nations Assembly, you will remember that a resolution was put forward by India, and amendments were moved. Now, that resolution put forward for India expressed in fairly strong terms India's views about what had happened in Hungary.

The whole point was: are we going to satisfy ourselves by a strong denunciation or condemnation, or are we to have some constructive approach to the problem.

Now, India attempted to put forward a constructive approach which, in effect, was that the Secretary General of the U. N. should move in the matter himself on behalf of the U. N. to get things going. Otherwise, people sit apart from each other, condemn each other, and nothing is done.

The point was: Here is a very serious issue, we want to help Hungary, we want to do many things. Well, how are we going to do it? If we think that by condemnation it will resolve itself, well and good. But we thought that some other constructive approach—we expressed our disapproval of what had happened there in very strong terms. It is a question of the context and the wording and how you end up.

Israeli Relations Discussed

MILTON FRIEDMAN, of The Jewish Telegraphic Agency — Sir, do you believe the establishment by India of normal diplomatic relations with Israel would contribute towards the status of India, as an objective force working towards Middle Eastern peace?

A. — About a year or two after Israel came into existence we, that is the Government of India, recognized Israel. But it is true that we did not exchange diplomatic missions with Israel, and we have not done so yet.

Frankly, the reason was that we felt that we would be able to help in this matter more by not going a step further and having these—exchanging diplomatic missions. You know that our relations and contacts with the Arab nations are very considerable, and in this matter there is considerable passion, and we thought that was the better course.

Of course, we sympathize with many of the claims of the Arabs, their territory, in regard to refugees, and in regard to other matters. Anyhow, we felt that the only way to settle this matter is for those people to come together and settle it then. Now, after recent occurrences, it is infinitely more difficult for the present, at least—I'm not talking about the future.

EDWARD T. FOLLIARD, of The Washington Post and the Times Herald — Mr. Prime Minister, you have expressed the hope—you have expressed the hope that President Eisenhower will visit India. Do you think he will go over there, or did he give you any indication that he might or that he would like to?

A. — You don't want me to commit the President. This is the President's—I should be very happy if he comes. I hope he will come.

I. H. GORDON, of The International News Service — Mr. Prime Minister, why do you advocate membership in the United Nations for Red China? And, if Red China comes into the United Nations, what would you advocate doing with Nationalist China?

A. — So far as—well—legally and constitutionally speaking, there is only one China. What I mean is the mainland of China doesn't recognize the separate Formosa Government, and the Formosa Government doesn't recognize the other Government. They both claim to be one. It is not that either claims to be two. Each claims to be the real article, the other not. So the question two does not arise. Neither of these two claim to be two or want to be two, and I don't think that in the circumstances of today or in the context of history, it is likely that two can continue.

Obviously, the Formosan Government, at the most, is the Formosan Government. It is not China. Let me say, the map will show you it is not China, whatever else it is. It is Formosa, and to call it China is slightly stretching language.

Impressions on Policy

RICHARD L. WILSON, of Cowles Newspapers — Mr. Prime Minister, have your discussions with President Eisenhower led you to believe that the United States has a new policy toward neutralist nations which, basically, is more acceptable to India?

A. — That is a difficult question for me to answer because you are wanting me to tell you what American policy is, what is United States policy.

What I say is this: That I gathered the impression that the policy of the United States—I am not referring to any basic change—but it is a flexible policy adapting itself to circumstances. How it will adapt itself I can't say, but it is not as rigid as I thought.

SARAH McCLENDON, of The El Paso (Tex.) Times — Mr. Prime Minister, sir, you are familiar with our program whereby we sell our surplus commodities to the foreign Governments in exchange for their local currencies, and then we loan part of this local currency back to you. I wonder if you find this program helpful or harmful?

A. — Well, That is kind of a broad question, which I can't answer broadly. But in so far as it has happened in India, it has been helpful, very helpful to us. Recently there was a wheat deal, which was very helpful to us.

JOHN M. HIGHTOWER, of The Associated Press — Mr. Prime Minister, do you find that the policy of the United States with respect to Red China is less rigid than you thought?

A. — No, I am afraid I can't answer that question because I really cannot say "yes" or "no" to that.

PAUL A. SHINKMAN of Washington radio stations — Mr. Prime Minister, you said in your address to the American people last night that your economic program in India calls for purposeful planning and the willing and active cooperation of your own people. Are we to understand from that that you don't require also material support from outside, for example, from this country?

A. — We have to face such a tremendous problem—the problem may be divided up into two parts. One is the major part, really, what we have to do in our own country, and the resources we have to raise in our own country, which inevitably must fall on the people.

The other is when you industrialize, you have to get machinery from abroad, which involves foreign exchange and the like, which, whatever the effect on the people, of the countries accept unless they export and get things in exchange.

However, a brief answer to your question is that foreign help in this matter can be and is of great assistance, even though the quantum of foreign help, compared to what the country does, is small. The real burden falls infinitely more on the people of the country, but even the relatively small help that comes is of vital importance. It can make a difference; therefore, it is very welcome.

The Kashmir Question

A. D. ROTHMAN, of The Sydney (Australia) Morning Herald — Mr. Prime Minister, in view of the fact that India has constantly stressed its belief in the self-determination of nations, there is a considerable feeling that there is inconsistency between that point of view and India's actions in relation to holding a referendum in Kashmir. Can you clarify that for us?

A. — Well, I will answer your question briefly, but you don't expect me to clarify a question which has rather baffled people for the last eight years. The papers on that question run into about that number of volume (gesturing) . . .

You must remember the beginnings of the Kashmir trouble. The beginnings were unabashed aggression, armed aggression on Kashmir, and unless you keep that in view, you won't understand the rest of it. We talk about aggression a great deal. There is no doubt that that was aggression, and there is no doubt that the United Nations Commission that went there acknowledged the fact, too.

It must follow from that—you talk about a plebiscite or a referendum. The first thing laid down by the United Nations Commission was that Pakistan armies should withdraw, and the aggression should cease.

Well, it is eight years, and they haven't withdrawn yet. Nothing else follows unless that is done. As a matter of fact, in Kashmir there have been elections, there is an elected Assembly, there are going to be elections on an adult basis in about three months' time, and I really would invite any of you gentlemen who care to, go and have a look around there, and then form an opinion.

MR. McGAFFIN — Mr. Prime Minister, could we go back for a minute to your answer about the United States policy being not as rigid as you thought it was? Could you give us some instances of that sir, not as rigid in the question of Asian neutralism, perhaps?

A. — I can't give you instances because I am giving impressions of approaches. I may not have got a correct impression, quite possibly, because it is not that any particular—in regard to any particular subject we discussed, and I found as change there, but the general approach to these problems seems to me to be governed by an appreciation of a changing world, and trying to fit in with these changing conditions.

JOSEPH CHIANG, of The Chinese News Service — In regard to the questions of China, sir, as you know, the United Nations, the American Governments and other free nations of the world recognize the Chinese National Government in Formosa. Do you think they are wrong?

A. — Surely you do not expect me to be rude to anybody. The fact that we do not recognize it, or we recognize the government on the mainland should indicate our views on the subject.

On Soviet and Moral Force

EDWARD P. MORGAN, of The American Broadcasting Company — Mr. Prime Minister, India is held up as an exponent of moral force in the world. How does the Soviet Union fit into your definition of moral force, and whether it fits or not, do you judge that the present policies of the Soviet Union add up to a force for good in the world?

A. — Well, first of all, I disclaim entirely any—well, any claim to moral force for India as a country.

I do think that our leader, Mr. Gandhi was an exponent, and a very powerful one, of moral force, and he has influenced India greatly in the right direction, and we tried, to some extent, to follow what he said. Sometimes we fail, sometimes we succeed in a small measure. That is, I do not wish anyone to imagine that we in India think ourselves more moral, more higher or better in any way than others. We do think that our leader set us a very fine example, and we try to keep it in mind, to the best of our ability.

About the Soviet Union, as about any country, including India, I think you will find that there is a great deal of good and bad, both. The proportions may vary. I don't know if you want me to discuss communism as such, or the application of it. Those are big questions; obviously there are many things in the Soviet Union in the past and in the present with which I do not agree.

Many things have happened, but I have found, taking the present conditions as they are today, the people of the Soviet Union are an extraordinarily friendly people, hospitable people, and passionately desirous of peace.

I believe also that many recent tendencies in the Soviet Union have been in the right direction of liberalization, democratization, and I should like those tendencies to function in an increasing measure. I believe they will function.

I don't think it is possible, because of a variety of reasons, for them to be stopped or for the Soviet Union to go back to conditions, say a few years back, before those tendencies came into evidence.

Now, what the future will show I don't know.

Questioned on Stalinism

Q. — Are you saying by that, sir, that you believe that is it your own judgment that the so-called Stalinist element of the Russian Government is defeated?

A. — Did you say defeated?

Q. — Yes, that is what I said.

A. — Well, I would put it this way: That the post-Stalin policy cannot, I think, be suppressed or made to revert to the pre-Stalin—to the previous policy, I don't think—it may, it may be delayed. It may be obstructed occasionally, because that policy is not a question really of a few people at the top merely thinking so, but something representing broad opinions and developments.

For instance, take the Russian people as a whole. During the last generation or so, a people which were largely illiterate have become very literate. They read tremendously. It makes a difference to a whole people if they are reading a great deal, even if the literature they read is limited. It makes them think; it broadens them.

Then they have become technically minded. They are all working machines now. The old muzhik [peasant] is there no longer. At present he works a tractor.

All these have made a difference, and these differences ultimately show themselves in political organization and other matters or political views—they affect them.

So I don't think—I think the changes are fundamental, the changes toward democratization and liberalization.

CHALMERS ROBERTS — Mr. Prime Minister, do you think it possible—and you are a student of Marxism from away back—do you think it is possible that those changes or that liberalization can go in a Communist country to the extent of its becoming democratic in the sense you spoke of last night about India and the United States?

A. — If you refer, by democratic you mean, some kind of parliamentary system of government, well, I don't think so. I don't think anybody in Russia has experienced, has had in the past, experience of it or thinks of democracy in terms of parliamentary government.

After all, parliamentary government is—even today does not extend to too many countries in the world. But I should imagine that other forms of democratic expression, that is, the people's will prevailing, which will almost inevitably take shape.

You ask me about Marxism. I am no authority on Marxism, but I should like people to remember always Marx, who was a very big man, lived in Western Europe, in the early nineteenth century.

Now, surely conditions have changed in the last hundred years, and any argument based on what happened in England in the early nineteenth century is not applicable today; and any persons holding on to that argument, well, are not living in the present. They are living in the past, and have—and in so far as they have closed minds, they don't go ahead in their thinking or in their actions.

MR. GORDON — Mr. Prime Minister, how would you propose that the world today take an initial step toward disarmament, and what should that step be?

A. — Well, that is rather an intricate question. But disarmament, I take it, means lessening of the arms possessed or the armies, reduction of the armies, lessening of the armies, restrictions on the use of atomic warfare—all these are various steps.

But behind all that is the necessity to create a certain confidence that no party will misuse that. That is the important thing really and, therefore, I suppose it is essential that arrangements should be made for some kind of checking and inspection to satisfy one's self that the agreement is not broken.

I can hardly discuss the details of it, but I do feel that after this long disarmament, the two main parties concerned are remarkably near each other; actually, factually what was put forward is not very different, and can easily be ironed out.

There is, of course, the background of lack of confidence. That is the real thing, not the proposals.

RUGGERO ORLANDO, of Italian Radio and Television — Mr. Prime Minister, do you consider Russia and China a single bloc?

A. — No, sir, not at all. I think they are very different from a single bloc.

R. H. SHACKLEFORD, of The Scripps-Howard Newspaper Alliance — Mr. Prime Minister, last night you said colonialism in any form or anywhere was abhorrent to India. Do you consider the Soviet Union a colonial power, that is, a nation which imposes its will upon other nations, such as in Eastern Europe?

A. — Well, it depends on what meaning you attach to words in the English language. The word "colonial" has a certain meaning, which I do not think applies in that context; but it does apply in other contexts. That is, if you say the Soviet Union dominates over another country, it is perfectly correct, of course—and it is a bad thing, I agree with you. Just—you may use the word "colonial" in a restricted way or in a wider way, whichever way you like, but the point is that, apart from words, that the Soviet Union, as it has been seen quite clearly in the case of Hungary, has exercised a dominating influence and power there.

Long-term Loans Cited

FREDERICK KUH, of The Chicago Sun-Times — Mr. Prime Minister, can you say in what form can we cooperate with India's second Five-Year Plan a little more fully?

A. — Well, in the main it is in certain forms of aid and in the form chiefly of loans, long-term loans, which India can pay back gradually later.

MILTON R. BERLINER, of The Washington Daily News — Mr. Prime Minister, would you say that the United States policy today is more sympathetic than it has ever been to India's nonalignment policy?

A. — I should imagine there is more understanding of it and, if I may say so, well, perhaps, a little appreciation of it.

MR. STEELE — Mr. Prime Minister, some of us are slightly puzzled as to what two gentlemen meeting for twelve hours straight on a rather muddy Gettysburg farm could think to talk about. I wonder if you could at least tell us the topics you discussed with the president.

A. — You see, in India we are supposed to be a people given to contemplation and leisurely talks. Perhaps some of that affected the President, too, that day.

Q. — Can you enlighten us as to the topics that you did discuss, sir, not as to the substance of them?

A. — No, but there are a large variety of topics. I really wouldn't even suddenly remember all of them—unless I have to think. Various things came into our minds. We discussed the past, we discussed the present, we even had a peep into the future.

RICHARD HARKNESS, of The National Broadcasting Company — Mr. Prime Minister, will you tell us, sir, if the speeches and votes of Mr. Krishna Menon [Mr. Nehru's foreign policy adviser] at the United Nations express properly and precisely the foreign policy of you and your Government?

A. — Mr. Krishna Menon and his delegation naturally keep in the closest touch with the Government of India, and they know exactly what the background of the Government of India's mind is on the subject.

Naturally, as from day to day things happen, the delegation has to decide, they can't confer every minute; and their broad—their decisions have been in accordance with our policy.

I do not know to what particular thing you refer. Speeches—well, whether things are expressed more strongly, unless I see it I cannot say anything. I think there has been, perhaps, some misunderstanding about every vote or about a phrase or a speech here and there, because it has been considered apart from the context. If the context to see it would appear to have a somewhat wider and different meaning.

LILLIAN LEVY, of The National Jewish Post — Mr. Prime Minister, in your considered judgment, sir, how can India help resolve the difficulties, the differences and difficulties, between Israel and her Arab neighbors, particularly Egypt, and thus contribute to the stability in the vital area of the Middle East?

A. — This question has become so very much more difficult after recent occurrences, that is, after the Israelite invasion of Egypt, that I honestly do not know what one can do at the present. I have, of course—I hope and believe that something may be done in the future, but just at the present moment, the question hardly arises or can hardly be considered in a normal way.

Pressed on Prisoners

SPENCER DAVIS, of The Associated Press — Mr. Prime Minister, can you say what prospects there are for the release of the ten American prisoners who are still being held in Communist China?

A. — Well, I should very much like them to be released. I hope they will be released some time, but I have not—it would not be right for me or fair for me to say anything more because I am not responsible. How can I commit anybody?

Q. — Sir, in the context of India being a bridge between the United States and Communist China, and your—

A. — I know that. But I find any statement made may be embarrassing because I can say anything I am going to do, but for me to talk about any other Government is not only embarrassing to me but to other Governments, and it may not be true, so I get into a false position.

WARREN ROGERS JR., of The Associated Press — Mr. Prime Minister, do you plan to take up this question of the Americans in China with Chou En-lai?

A. — Well, obviously, we have discussed this with him, and we will discuss it with him.

FRANK HOLEMAN, President of The National Press Club — I am sorry that is all the time we have for questions this morning. I want to thank you again, Mr. Prime Minister, and present the National Press Club Certificate of Appreciation for appearing here and making news wherever you go.

PRIME MINISTER NEHRU — Thank you.

1934. "Concept of Third Reich Begins to Take Reality"

Nazis Use Nationalist Nostalgia to Claim Legitimacy

Map featured in The New York Times on March 27, 1938

From The New York Times, October 7, 1934:

CONCEPT OF THIRD REICH BEGINS TO TAKE REALITY

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

With Their Leader Firmly Entrenched in Power, the Nazis Hope for a New Era of German Greatness

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

By EMIL LENGYEL

Adolf Hitler, heavily entrenched in power, recently predicted that the Third Reich would last a thousand years. Even if, to those outside Germany, it does not seem firmly established, in the minds of the Nazis the concept of the new Reich is taking a definite form. For a year and a half the Third Reich has been a hope and a slogan, with Hitler sharing his power with Field Marshal von Hindenburg. Hindenburg's tomb at Tannenberg was also the Third Reich's birthplace.

What is the Third Reich, and what were the First and Second Reichs from which the new order seeks inspiration?

To Hitlerites the Third Reich is a new Germany in which Nazi supreme authority is exerted by a Leader to whom Germans everywhere bow. Its sources and ideology were described by the theoretician Moeller van den Bruck, whose volume "Das Dritte Reich" is Nazi gospel, second in importance only to Hitler's own book. In the view of van den Bruck and his disciples, the Third Reich must comprise all people of German blood, whether born in Germany or outside. A German, they say, owes allegiance to the Third Reich notwithstanding that he may be the citizen of another country.

It may be pointed out that among the principal Nazi leaders are some who were born in Austria, Egypt, Argentina and Russia. Dr. Alfred Rosenberg, born a Russian but withal the spiritual director of the Third Reich, thus expresses the essence of that realm: "Under its rule race ranks higher than the State, and the protection of the race is the supreme aim of law."

Conformity a Duty

Hence, while Germany's present boundaries contain about 65,000,000 inhabitants, the population of the Third Reich is regarded as 100,000,000. According to the Nazi doctrine, it is the duty of all members of this Reich to feel and think alike. This can be accomplished only by ultimately uniting the Germans living outside of the geographical Reich with their fellows at home.

The Third Reich, as the Nazis set it forth, seeks to emulate the autocratic greatness of the First Empire in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, when Germany's famous Hohenstaufen family ruled over a large part of Europe as Holy Roman Emperors. It seeks at the same time to eclipse the greatness of the Second Reich, that was born in 1871 in the Versailles Hall of Mirrors, at the end of the Franco-Prussian War, and died in the same hall in 1918, at the end of the World War. Both the first and Second Reichs are considered by the Nazis in many ways the high points of their country's history.

In adopting the name "Third Reich" the Nazis have taken a label that might militate against Communist gains in Germany. The phrase "Third Reich," it is their hope, will hold greater appeal for Germans than the Third International. It has often been suggested that number three stands for finality. Whereas the First and Second Reichs together lasted for less than two centuries, the Hitlerites expect the Third Reich to endure for a millennium.

Heroes of the First Reich

What inspiration can a twentieth-century Third Reich draw from a twelfth-century First Reich? Nazi leaders express admiration for the sterling virtues of German forefathers. They take particular pride in the two great heroes of the First Reich, who have also been adopted as the heroes of the Third Reich, and about whom books and plays have been written in profusion.

In Adolf Hitler a reverent Nazi author sees the reincarnation of one of these First Reich chieftains, Frederick Barbarossa. According to an ancient legend, Emperor Frederick of the ruddy beard fell asleep centuries ago in a cavern of Thuringia's Kyffhaeuser hills. Ever since then his red whiskers have been growing around the marble slab on which his head rests. In Germany's hour of need he will return and, mounted on a white charger, lead his nation against the enemy.

During his glory-filled lifetime, Frederick Barbarossa was a German Fuehrer in the Nazi sense. He struck terror into Europe's heart and extended Germany's frontiers far beyond the language boundary. The great herald of the German idea of the "Drang nach Osten," he led his army toward the eastern star, bound on the conquest of the Holy Land.

Progress in Second Reich

But the First Reich's greatness was fully revealed only at the court of his grandson, Emperor Frederick II, who was known to his contemporaries as the Marvel of the World. Frederick was a master not only of a large part of Europe's body but also of its soul. He gave Europe a new idea of culture and made the German name respected as far south as Sicily.

In his declining years he showed a desire to return to paganism. His words and deeds are quoted today by anti-Christians of the Third Reich. Dr. Rosenberg takes these words from Frederick's mouth: "The cross must be removed from the altar, because it is the sign of suffering and humility."

As the Nazis survey history, the First Reich was followed by centuries of darkness in which German fought German in wars of religion, of territorial expansion, or merely as a manly sport or whim. The Thirty Years' War left German land reduced to mounts of ruins on which stray humans fought stray wolves for scraps of food. Eventually Prussia took the lead and gave unity to German purpose; yet as late as 1866 German again fought German in battle.

The proclamation of the Second Reich was another triumph of unity. When Wilhelm I, King of Prussia, became German Emperor on January day of 1871, the way was open for a breath-taking phase of German influence. The Nazis, looking back, see the Second Reich forging the arms with which to force its way to a higher place in the sun. They see it acquiring colonies and spheres of influence, challenging for supremacy of the world.

"Crime" of Weimar Republic

The Second Reich is too near the present, however, to receive the unqualified endorsement of the Nazis; too fulsome praise might inspire the Germans to seek the return of the Hohenzollerns. Nor can the Nazis afford to extol too much of the giant of the Second Reich, Prince Bismarck, without inviting comparison with Adolf Hitler, their own idol. Yet it is the policy of the Nazis to give a friendly picture of the Second Reich, so that the "crime" of the Weimar Republic in "stabbing it in the back" may be emphasized. The Nazis do not forget they were aided in their upward climb by the assertions that the republicans had dug the grave of German greatness.

The Hitlerites see the Third Reich as cultivating the best virtues of the First and Second Reichs plus their own. They insist on even more complete obedience to authority than did Frederick Barbarossa or Wilhelm II. They believe that their Fuehrer is to be viewed not only as a leader but also as an oracle and seer. The Third Reich is expected to become a sovereign power in the most pronounced sense of the word.

There are some aspects of the First and Second Reichs that the Nazis do not wish to emulate. They do not want, for the time being at least, to mix their blood with that of other races, as Frederick II did. They are satisfied with ruling over the 100,000,000 people of German blood.

The Nazis have criticized the Second Reich for opening its Parliament to "destructive" Socialists and liberals. They have chosen an opposite course; they have not only driven dissenting parties out of the Reichstag but have also outlawed all political party organizations except their own. Starting with the Communists and following with the Socialists, they have driven underground one group after another that has dared to dispute their power.