Mainstream

Home > Archives (2006 on) > 2020 > Gandhi’s Declaration Of Civil Disobedience Movement In 1930, German Social (...)

Mainstream, VOL LVIII No 52, New Delhi, December 12, 2020

Gandhi’s Declaration Of Civil Disobedience Movement In 1930, German Social Democracy, and Franz Josef Furtwängler | Nirode K. Barooah

Friday 11 December 2020, by Nirode K. Barooah

by Nirode K. Barooah

[ While almost the whole German popular press denounced the Indian Civil Disobedience movement under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi in 1930 Franz Josef Furtwängler (1894-1964), the International Secretary of the General German Trade Union Federation (ADGB) tried to persuade his fellow Social Democrats and Trade-unionists to understand Gandhi and the Indian Freedom movement on the ground of anti-imperialism. Furtwängler who had toured India during 1926—27 as a member of the Anglo-German delegation of Textile Union met Gandhi and many other leading Indian personalities including the top trade union leaders. He was convinced that Indians were ripe enough for self-government and argued that the fact that Great Britain was then governed by a Socialist (Labour) government should not dissuade them from supporting the Indian movement ]

In 1929 the socialist Ramsay MacDonald became Prime Minister of Great Britain. Lord Irwin, the Tory Viceroy of India went to England for consultations and after returning to India he issued a statement in October 1929 that after the Simon Commission’s final report a Round Table Conference would be held to find the greatest measure of agreement between all parties about the coming reforms. In late 1929 the All-Party Conference under Gandhi and Motilal Nehru signed a manifesto welcoming Irwin’s statement with the hope that it would also bring amnesty for all the political prisoners. The left-wing of the Congress Party was not completely unanimous in their support of the manifesto. Tris disunity among the parties coupled with the fact that Irwin too failed to commit the British government to amnesty led the whole plan to fizzle out.

Two significant actions followed the disappointment of the Congress. The Congress declared 26 January 1930 as Independence Day for India, and Gandhi decided to start a Civil Disobedience movement, giving his verbal assurance that the campaign would not be suspended or called off as had happened on a previous occasion. anti-imperialist thinking behind a declaration of Independence was very succinctly put:

“...The British Government in India has not only deprived the Indian people of their freedom, but has based itself on the exploitation of the masses, and has ruined India economically, politically, culturally and spiritually. We believe, therefore, that India must sever the British connection and attain Puma Swaraj or complete independence.”[1]

After informing the Viceroy in advance about his plan, Gandhi accompanied by 78 followers started his Salt March on 12 March 1930 — a 200-mile walk from his Sabarmati Ashram in Gujarat to the village Dandi on the sea coast of the same state. The object was to produce salt without British permission, thereby violating the laws of British India. This symbolic act was to show the Indian people’s determined refusal to live under British-made laws. Gandhi declared:

“...I regard this as a curse. I am out to destroy this system of Government ... We are not to kill anybody but it is our dharma to see that the curse of this Government is blotted out. ”[2]

Gandhi’s Salt March aroused the entire Indian nation.

’The advance of the Indian freedom struggle through the Salt March elated Furtwängler in Germany, although he was also conscious of two possible obstructions that might suddenly surface to hamper the movement. First, Gandhi himself could suspend the movement halfway, and, secondly, the Indian Government could put Gandhi and other leading Congress leaders behind bars. He also feared that since the Labour Party was now in Government in Britain, the German Socialists might side with the British Labour Government, ignoring the Indian struggle so passionately propagated by him in Europe in the previous three years. He took it as his duty to keep the importance of the anti-imperialist Indian struggle alive among the German Social Democrats. In this endeavour he came across both genuine antiimperialists but also waverers.

For Furtwängler liking Gandhi was not enough, understanding him was more essential. As he said: "despite Romain Rolland, the Evangelist of the Mahatma in our part of the world, there exists, in general, more sympathy in our country for the leader prophet of Indian humanity than a deeper understanding of him."[3] He felt that whilst it could be recognized that Gandhi suffered tremendously for his people, it could also be argued that there was no logical Realpolitik in his deeds. People seemed to have found contradictory elements in his attitudes: an agitator and at the same time a religious pacifist; a renewer and also a reactionary; an economic politician and at the same time a romantic; one desiring to free 300 million souls from bondage, and at the same time prohibiting the use of all violent means in struggle; one who tears away the ancient barriers against the pariah and at the same time upholds the religious worshipping of the cow; one who fights against English industrial goods and at the same time recommends using the old-fashioned Indian spinning wheel.[4]

Furtwängler explained to his German readers that these ’contradictions’ were not real contradictions but merely a fallacy in perception when seen against Indian reality. This he demonstrated by giving the example of the coexistence of agitation and non-violence, proving thereby also that Gandhi was a ’Realpolitiker’. He explained:

“England’s power instruments in India are: the railways and means of transport; the post, telegraph and telecommunication networks; the armaments industry. All these are kept in motion by hundreds of thousands of indigenous workers. If they, unanimously, in a decisive hour, refuse to serve the foreign rule, that would be more dangerous than any other weapon for the disarmed Indian people. His [Gandhi’s] slogan in the freedom struggle is the same strike song of the Western worker: ’All the wheels will remain motionless if my arms want it that way.’ Such a united action is what Mahatma wants in the widest sense, in all areas.”[5]

Furtwängler told German socialists and trade unionists that Gandhi’s passive resistance was in reality the same fight against injustice which the industrial proletariat of Europe had to learn for three quarters of a century in the big social struggle of the modern workers movement but which the great Indian leader had only to awaken in the souls of his people, and that too within only about ten years. [6]

Furtwängler emphasized that although Gandhi’s protest in the form of strike, boycott, satyagraha or passive resistance was as effective as the Western trade unions’ form of protests, his methods were not imported from the west. They were the age-old expressions of a collective will to be found in India. On the question of the ’holy cow’ he maintained that there was no superstition about it and where superstition really had a harmful effect, Gandhi was decisively against it. As a case in point he mentioned Gandhi’s endeavours to eradicate untouchability and highlighted its significance saying that "No one else could have given back human dignity to millions of unhappy, humiliated pariahs as Gandhi did". Here he quoted Gandhi’s admonition to the Indians: "However England may have sinned against you, you have deserved that a hundred times through your criminal behaviour against these poorest". Ihat Gandhi could make a large part of the Hindu community recognize this ageold fault was the success of Gandhi as ’practical politician’ — one who lives up to his own teachings.[7]

Furtwängler also answered Western critics who assumed that Gandhi tried to take India backward by propagating the hand-driven spinning wheel, the ’charkha’. He questioned: What else should the Indian poor do in their primitive existence but to prepare their own dress and thereby avoid paying ’hunger tribute’ to the English import? Moreover, he asked Gandhi’s western critics to turn to the symbolic and romantic role of the ’charkha’: what the cross, crescent, flag, sickle and fascio were for other mass movements, that was ’charkha’ for the Indian, a symbol of their freedom struggle.

It was clear to Furtwängler that the significance of such a great and unusual person of India would not be liked by British imperialists and it would be in their interest to somehow humble and humiliate him. Giving his own experience he said that when he and his colleagues visited Gandhi at his Ashram while in Bombay in 1927 some English guests at the hotel smiled at them and tried to make fun of their pilgrimage. Furtwängler ignored this as an expression of insult by people "who could only think in terms of pound sterling, cotton shares, armoured ships and cannons" and unable either to understand Gandhi or have admiration for his ability and wisdom.[8] The expression of reversed insult felt by the British world empire reminded Furtwängler of Nietzsche’s Morgenröte (The Dawn), concerned with thoughts on the prejudices of morality.[9]

Many people from India, Hindus and Muslims, kept Furtwängler informed about the progress of the Civil Disobedience Movement, which was causing clashes between people and police in cities like Karachi, Calcutta, Bombay, Kanpur, Madras and Poona. Some military action also took place against the agitators in Delhi, Shimla and Lahore. Even in London, where Gandhi’s Salt March was first ridiculed by The Times as ’comedy’, the paper revised its earlier opinion and considered Gandhi now a leader whose mere presence provoked dangerous ecstasy wherever he went and therefore he should be made innocuous. [10]

Furtwängler constantly emphasized to his Social Democratic and Trade Unionist colleagues that Gandhi continued to be India’s strongest leader and England’s most dangerous adversary and that contrary to British belief India’s struggle for freedom would never stop, even if the British decided to put Gandhi behind bars. "It is a people’s movement with a dimension never seen before and such a movement, thanks to its own strength and mass psychological laws, encompasses the entire population", he assured them. Since men like M.M. Malaviya, Vithalbhai Patel and Motilal Nehru, all of whom he considered ’excellent parliamentarians’, were in the movement, Furtwängler had no doubt that his optimism about the movement was on solid ground, however much he deplored the suffering of thousands of political prisoners. [11]

In spite of Furtwängler’s assurance of the maturity of the Indian leaders in governing their country ably and democratically, distrust of this ability was still fairly dominant among European and German Social Democrats. They argued that the MacDonald government should have been given time to bring about reform. The arguments against Gandhi and the Indian freedom movement were the same old hackneyed ones: there were so many social and religious divisions among the Indian people that the surest outcome of a British departure would be the prevalence of murder and killing in place of the present peace, prosperity and even-handed justice. And hence British rule was indispensable in India for the foreseeable future.[12] To such views Furtwängler sharply retorted that "The history of the world is not a baby protection unit and people can be ripe only when they take their own country in hand". Besides, he reminded such supporters of British imperialism that the prime interest of the British in India was only economic gain and their intercourse with the natives did not go beyond what was demanded by business. To the doubters of Indians’ ability to maintain inter-religious harmony, Furtwängler did not deny that under certain circumstances the followers of the two religions could go against each other, even on small matters, but such incidents could happen “even if the country is under the guardianship of a completely foreign race”. [13]

Exactly as happened with Virendranath Chattopadhyaya (1880-1937), the Indian revolutionary nationalist in Stockholm, while raising the question of Indian independence at the Peace Conference of the Socialist International in May 1917,[14] Furtwängler was attacked by some of his Social Democratic colleagues for his criticism of MacDonald and the British Labour Party for their role in India. For most socialists of the European continent criticism of a socialist government was a taboo, more so when it was concerned with the British Labour Government’s Indian policy. Albion Michel writing in the German Social Democratic Party’s organ Vorwärts said in connection with the Furtwängler criticism of British rule in India that without that rule there would only be chaos in India and that even a labour government had to go only step by step to bring about reform.[15] Victor Schiff, the foreign policy editor of the same journal, writing in another journal of the left called Das Freie Wort, asserted that contrary to Furtwängler’s views, India was not ripe for independence. He admitted there was a crisis of conscience among the socialists in Europe about whom to choose between MacDonald and Gandhi in India and declared himself to be a supporter of the socialist MacDonald, explaining that the Labour Government in England could not be equated with the government in India where the Viceroy, Irwin, did not belong to the Labour party. [16]

Although archival research done in Britain by scholars decades after Indian independence reveal that there were instances where the British Labour Government under the Prime Ministership of MacDonald (1929-31) was rather weak-kneed vis-a-vis the Tory Viceroy Irwin in India,[17] Schiff could not then have had the knowledge of such confidential matters and his statement was merely an excuse to defend MacDonald. Moreover, Schiff did not cite a single instance of MacDonald being overruled by the Viceroy in India or other opposition lobbies in England. Without showing any insight into the British administration of India, Schiff expressed his unalloyed solidarity with the British Labour Party and its leadership. He attacked Furtwängler for advocating immediate Indian independence which would, in his opinion, result only in chaos and killing. [18] Schiff was entirely subjective. Except for his hope that British Labour would contribute much to the Socialist International and keep the influence of Bolsheviks at bay in India and elsewhere, he said nearly nothing to demonstrate knowledge of the situation in India. He attacked Furtwängler assuming that the latter met in India only the leaders who had nothing but hatred for the British. He also called Furtwängler a nationalist and that was why he favoured Indian nationalism.[19]

Furtwängler answered Schiff elaborately with a deeper grasp of the Indian situation and a clear idea of the existing crisis within the Socialist International of Western Europe.[20] He admitted that he was not devoid of emotion when talking about India although Schiff’s accusation that he became ’literally one hundred percent advocate of the Indian cause’ was a matter of concern, coming as it did, from an International Socialist. After all, he argued, the current agitation in India was targeted against the rapacious imperialism of the British Labour Government. Schiff’s remark, he said, "shakes the belief in socialism amongst the average socialist". As for his excuse for being emotional about India he was candid: "I travelled India in the suffering and ferment, taking in images of the gruesome misery of the Indian proletariat, thus feeling the dull anger of the kicked millions".[21] Pointing out a whole bundle of silly factual errors in Schiff’s article, Furtwängler lashed out at him saying that although he had "due respect for the wagging finger and furrowed brow of this Realpolitiker and the foreign policy editor of his own central organ, there was no insight to be found in the article that could deserve respect".[22] He listed a series of incorrect assumptions in Schiff’s article such as: MacDonald and the British Labour Party could not be held responsible for the policy of Viceroy Irwin in India who did not belong to the Labour Party; Gandhi’s followers were recruited only from big cities and they were irreconcilable revolutionaries; the Swarajist leaders were against negotiations with the British; Gandhi and his followers relentlessly exploited the readiness of the British Labour Party to make concessions and peace because the Labour Party would not dare to arrest and shoot.[23] Furtwängler pointed out to Schiff that during the Labour Government under the Prime Ministership of the same MacDonald, the ugly Bengal Ordinance had been promulgated in 1924 and that Schiff failed to understand the basic point about imperial Britain’s relationship with India. Furtwängler taught Schiff this by quoting a passage from the ’England friendly’ London correspondent of the Frankfurter Zeitung of 13 May 1930:

“...It is therefore no co-incidence that the decisions of the British Labour Government will have to be the same in most instances as could have been expected from the Conservative government ... the alleged interests of the Empire above everything else! is the eventually decisive and driving thought of Labour Government politics, because it will be the determining factor of any English government. Rule Britannia!”[24]

Furtwängler, therefore, found it simply outrageous that Schiff, a foreign policy expert of German Social Democracy, should be advising his colleagues to show "solidarity with the British Labour Party and its leaders".

Furtwängler was glad his adversary too detected "a crisis of conscience in international socialism", but he added that "it was not so much a crisis of the ’Socialist International’ but it was about the inadequacy and internal tension of the traditional West-European local international only". He explained the post World War I West European situation thus:

“The world war and the new geo-political order following the Versailles Treaty led to a transformation of the political landscape in Europe. "The newly founded Wilson states in Europe have developed a nationalism which overshadows everything else, including its social conflicts, and which expresses itself through a shocking intolerance of millions of minorities, and in terms of economics, in a jealous tax nationalism. In distant parts of the world, the coloured people[25] formerly no more than mere subjects of world politics, have awakened and are fighting against the imperial powers for their independence. And finally, and possibly most importantly, in Europe itself, in the region of the old French-English-German international, the workers’ parties have risen to significant power, either as a part of the government or as responsible opposition ... And now they want to tell us that ’the crisis of conscience’ of our International can be solved by declaring solidarity’ with the Labour Party’s hanging, shooting and choking in India. No, doing so one pushes for the inevitable ’desperation-Bolshevism’ in Asia, as these people will get the impression that Bolsheviks are the only ones supporting them in their struggles, whilst the parties of the Socialist International [Second International] represent something like an adversary... VVhat interest should the German Socialists have in the oppression of the Indians for instance?"[26]

In reply to Schiff’s belief that the British Labour would make India ripe for Dominion status, Furtwängler reacted:

“Is there a greater utopia ... than to expect the liberation of a great people by a party of a different country that lives to a great extent from the exploitation of this people? Does Marx or history or experience teach us something like this? India too will be saved only by her own struggle, no tribune (from Hyde Park) will save her. Does not every Social Democrat share this view?”[27]

Giving some instances of the British Labour Government’s selfish action devoid of any thought for the peaople of West Europe belonging to the Socialist International, Furtwängler questioned Schiff’s excessive reverence for the British Labour government. He mentioned how the Labour Lord Snowden as Chancellor of the Exchequer confiscated the private property of a German, worth 300 million German mark, an act which was condemned even by a Conservative Lord in the upper house. The same Snowden also made other monetary claims in The Hague against which the French Socialist comrade Blum and the Belgian Vondervelde appealed in the interest of their countries.

introduction of a special tax on all non-British cotton goods exported to India was yet another unfriendly act towards the European states in the eyes of Furtwängler since Germany, for example, was then suffering from record unemployment and its war reparation burden and the Indian tax policy hindered German export with which Germany could have eased its unemployment problem a little. So had India been independent, making her own policy, Germany would have gained.[28] Furtwängler also considered that Indian independence would achieve world peace as well. He argued that oppressed India "contributes more than one billion Mark annually to English armament. On the day when England will have to make her own tax payers pay for her swimming militarism, the now uselessly talked about disarmament will inevitably become a reality". He concluded, therefore, that against such parasitic imperialism he would always be on the side of Gandhi.[29]

The Schiff-Furtwängler controversy was to go another round,but meanwhile some other Social Democrats from various parts of Germany took part in the debate siding with the stalwarts of one side or the other. Ingolf Askvald from Kassel found Furtwängler a glittering, stylish, and knowledgeable specialist and yet he was full of appreciation for how the British brought the great majority of people in India the advantages of peace and security. According to him Furtwängler tried to minimize the gigantic and problematic role of the British in India. Like Schiff, he too found in Furtwängler a mixture of German nationalism and sympathy for Gandhi, although nothing was further from socialism than Gandhism.[30] Hans Neisser from Kiel, who showed some acquaintance with the fiscal policy of India, doubted that independent India would do better in the field than the British and declared that "the little of what is social policy in India so far, is not the initiative of Indian nationalist politicians but of English entrepreneurs." He also told his Social Democrat readers that untouchability in India was not imported from Britain, nor illiteracy, the lack of political insight or the general backwardness of the masses in India. He questioned the validity of Furtwängler’s assumptions about India, calling it tendentious.[31]

But these were not the last words. Some socialists of different hues, including those from the Catholic circle, came forward to support Furtwängler’s views. Das Rote Blatt der Katholische Sozialisten praised Furtwängler for his courage to defend the struggle of the Indian people against the British Labour government, something which lately became an unusual phenomenon.[32] Tie paper accused Schiff of giving false information about Gandhi’s movement and for his character assassination of India’s ’Swarajist’ leaders and other Gandhi followers. In the view of the paper Furtwängler only widened the ’influence capacity’ of the Socialist International.[33] Max Baumann, a social Democrat from Hamburg also defended Furtwängler against Schiff’s criticism and shared with him the idea of seeing the International in a wider perspective.[34]

In the second round of debate with Furtwängler, Schiff, confronting the former’s detailed answers, became more personal in his attack and thoughtless in his choice of words. In this rejoinder entitled ’Der Heilige und sein Narr’ (’The holy man and his jester’) he objected that whereas while talking about the freedom of the Indians and the Arabs, Furtwängler showed boundless understanding, in his criticism of Lord Snowden, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, he showed no respect at all for a veteran member of the Socialist International. In this connection he added that Furtwängler’s blind hatred of the British played the same role in his mind as Jews played in the brains of the Swastika bearers. Schiff also declared that since his visit to India Furtwängler began living in ’world-space’ and started looking down upon the West European International of Germany, England and France as local International. He tried to ridicule Gandhi as well, not having any knowledge of the Mahatma’s very special sense of ’morality’ and ’decency’. He wrote the following:

“A very peculiar holy man is this Gandhi. By the way, he first writes a letter to the Viceroy addressing him as "My dear friend" to announce a resistance campaign. And a few weeks later in a second letter he expresses his regret that his campaign turned into violence and bloodshed which was not his desire. He rejects all responsibility for that. Should this holy person finally be called ’Can’t’ in English jargon? Should he be called a hypocrite? or a mixture of saviour and Pontius Pilatus”[35]

Displaying his Eurocentric outlook indecently, Schiff believed that for a long time to come development of the human race could be possible only among the people of Europe and those Americans of European descent and not among the people, who to a large extent, now remain at the stage of widow burning, child marriage, religious caste system and 97% illiteracy.[36]

As in the first round, Furtwängler was not alone. Hermann Kranald, another participant in the debate, opposing Schiff’s contention accused British Labour of behaving in a manner which the Conservative Englishman had long given up. He found the Labour Party’s method in India akin to that of Adolf Hitler’s attitude to his own country’s Socialist natives.[37]

In his final reply Furtwängler was partly sarcastic about being called by Schiff not only ’jester’, ’fanatic’, ’English hater’, ’world-space-thinker’, but also a nationalist with the ’skull content’ of a ’swastika bearer’. He said that for the first time as writer he was satisfied with himself because just a prick of his quill made the skin of ’the cool and courtly real politician burst and a multitude of confused compliments rumble out like cabbage and carrots from this shopping basket’.[38] Furtwängler considered Schiff’s charge that he was an ’English hater’ unjustified and an expression of sheer arrogance. Nor was he wrong in calling British rule in India a parasitic imperialism since a knowledgeable circle in England knew that every fourth shilling, i.e. 18 billion of one fifth of the English national income, stemmed from commercially monopolized India and this would flow to other countries as soon as England’s rule would be over.[39] As for the charge of hatred towards the British Furtwängler pointed out to Schiff that the book Working India which he and his colleague Schrader authored was considered by English newspapers as ’moderate’ and ’factual’ because "they understood our different position as Germans and socialists."[40]

Furtwängler concluded the debate in a disarming way, humbly submitting that his only passion was to work for the progress of trade unions and their workforce and against imperialism:

“Only the understanding that I have found amongst those many ’average people’ gives me the courage to continue my actions as a deadly enemy of parasitic imperialism, which oppresses people, and refuses our people and workforce significant parts of competition and honest work ... Schiff might not understand this, that I have a passion for this struggle with the fanaticism.”[41]

Footnotes:

  1. B. Chandra, A. Tripathi and B. De, Freedom Struggle, (New Delhi, 1996) p.158
  2. Quoted in Bipan Chandra, Modern India (New Delhi, 1982) p.288
  3. Franz Josef Furtwängler (FJF), ‘Der König der Kuli’, in Frankfurt Zeitung, 6 April 1930
  4. Ibid
  5. Ibid
  6. Ibid
  7. Ibid
  8. Ibid
  9. The crucified Jew as the symbol of salvation was the deepest mockery of the splendour of Roman praetors in the province since now they appeared as the symbol of evil and ripe for decline.
  10. FJF, ‘Gandhi und die Seinen’ Vorwärts 6 May 1930.
  11. Ibid.
  12. Ibid.
  13. FJF ’Indien und England: Ein Kampf um die endgültige Freiheit; Vorwärts 6 May 1930.
  14. For Virendranath Chattopadhyaya’s activities in Stockholm in 1917-21, see N.K. Barooah, Chatto, op. cit. pp. 100-156; See also N.K. Barooah, Virendranath Chattopadhyaya in Stockholm 1917-21 in Mainstream (New Delhi) March I, 8, 15; 1986.
  15. Albion Michel, ’England und Gandhi’, Vorwärts, 9 May 1930.
  16. Victor Schiff, ’MacDonald und Gandhi’ Das Freie Wort, Vol. 21 1930 pp. 7-14.
  17. Raising of Indian cotton duties in 1930 was a glaring example where the Labour secretary of State for India approved the original idea of Viceroy Irwin. For this and other instances, se Partha Sarathi Gupta Imperialism and the British Labour Movement 1914-1964 (London 1975). Ch.7 pp201-224
  18. Victor Schiff in Das Freie Wort, Vol 1930, pp7-14
  19. Ibid
  20. FJF ‘Gandhi oder MacDonald? Das freie Wort, Vol 2, No. 24, 15 June 1930 pp4-12’
  21. Ibid.
  22. Ibid.
  23. Ibid.
  24. Ibid
  25. The phrase ’coloured people’ did not then have a derogatory connotation. It was simply used for non-white people.
  26. Ibid
  27. Ibid
  28. Ibid. In this connection Furtwängler said: "Free trade is not realized at the League of Nations’ conference but through the freedom fights in China and particularly India." He also claimed that such consideration was actually ’real political’.
  29. Ibid.
  30. Ingolf Askevold, ’Furtwängler und die indischen Pariahs’, Das Freie Wort, Vol. 28, 1930 pp. 21-22.
  31. Hans Neisser, ’England und Indien’ Das Freie Wort, Vol. 28 (1930) pp. 22-24.
  32. ’Gandhi or MacDonald, Das Rote Blatt der Katholische Sozialisten Vol. 6 (1931) pp. 187-9.
  33. Ibid.
  34. Max Baumann, ’Gandhi und die deutsche Jugend’ Das Freie Wort 29 (1930) p. 19.
  35. Victor Schiff, ’Der Heilige und sein Narr’, Das Freie Wort, No. 26, 1930.
  36. Ibid.
  37. Hermann Karnald, ’Der Heilige und sein Narr’, Das Freie Wort, No. 26, 1940.
  38. FJF, ’Des Narren Schlußwort’ Das Freie Wort, 29 July, 1930.
  39. The charge of Snowden’s not returning 300 million German Marks was not a fiction. Snowden’s own clarification pointed to what Furtwängler wrote: "Comrade Snowden said that earlier he also thought that was (morally) appropriate, but now as Chancellor of Exchequer he needs the money and additionally he was entitled to it".
  40. FJF, ’Des Narren Schlußwort’ Das Freie Wort 29 July, 1930.
  41. Ibid.
Notice: The print edition of Mainstream Weekly is now discontinued & only an online edition is appearing. No subscriptions are being accepted