Hayek's Introduction to Ropke's The German Question
The
German Question, by Wilhelm Röpke (London: George Allen
& Unwin Ltd., 1946)
INTRODUCTION
by PROFESSOR F.A. HAYEK (pp.
11-14)
PROFESSOR Röpke should need no formal
introduction to the English public if it were not for the intellectual
isolation of the several parts of Europe during the last six years.
Long known to his professional colleagues in all countries as an
economist of unusual brilliance and versatility, he has become known on
the Continent in recent years far beyond these circles as one of the
outstanding leaders of liberal thought. In a series of three books
which have attracted the widest attention, not only in Switzerland
where they first appeared, but wherever Swiss books could penetrate,
and which have exercised a considerable underground influence even in
the countries then still under German occupation, he has given a
fascinating outline of a possible better world of free men. No less an
authority than Benedetto Croce greeted the
first of these books as “certainly one of the most important books
which have yet appeared on the political and economic problems of our dine.” It should not be long before this
trilogy which has made Professor Röpke’s
name familiar in most countries of the Continent will be available to
English readers.
The present, however,
is a later work by Professor Röpke on
the even more urgent problem of Germany, and it is right that it should
appear in an English translation with as little delay as possible.
Although now long resident in Switzerland, Professor Röpke is himself a German by birth; and as
the public has some ground for feeling a little weary of books by
Germans on Germany, a few words may be permitted to explain why his
views on the subject seem to possess a title to attention which few
others can claim. His wisdom is not born of hindsight. Professor Röpke can claim to have seen and fought
from within Germany the evil that was coming at a time when most of the
foreign observers, who are now so ready sweepingly to condemn all
Germans, preferred to be blind and to close their ears to the warnings
that came from within Germany; He has rightly felt that to justify what
he has to say he ought himself to give the reader an outline of his
career; and though in the autobiographical sketch contained in the book
he says much less than he might say to establish his credentials, I
need to add no more than that in the twenty years during which I have
known the author I have never known him express opinions which are not
consistent with his present views. While his convictions have grown and
developed, he is not a new convert to the views he defends and he has,
as few men have, earned the right to speak as he does. This is true
even where he has bitter words to say abou
the past policy of the Western powers and some of the conflicting and
confused views which appear to inspire the present policy towards
Germany.
Perhaps I should add to
this a caution to the reader that, more courageous and honest than
politic, Professor Röpke has placed
at the front of his book that part of his argument which will be least
popular in this country. A correct diagnosis of the condition of
Germany is however the first prerequisite of a consistent and
successful policy, and few will deny that
at the moment there is more danger that the assets may be overlooked on
which such a policy will have to build than that the liability side of
the account is forgotten. Not many who know Germany, I think, will find
the complete picture which the book gives either unduly favourable or out of perspective. There is much,
however, in Professor Röpke’s account
of the growth of the Nazi evil which will satisfy neither those who
regard it as a recent growth, nor those who
believe that it was always inherent in the German character. It is
Professor Röpke’s contention that the
seeds which have borne the horrible fruits were sown by Bismarck and
his contemporaries. In this he seems to me to be fully borne out by
much other evidence, and particularly by Mr. E. Eyck’s
monumental new biography of Bismarck.
<>
So
interesting
is
Professor Röpke’s discussion of the
growth of the views which produced Hitler that there is some risk that
the reader may forget that it is intended merely to provide the
justification for the recommendations of policy to which the last part
of the book is devoted. Their most important part is a plea that the
victors should not regard Bismarck’s creation of a highly centralised Germany as an irreversible fact, and
that, if Germany is ever to fit as a peaceful member into the European
family of nations, it will be necessary partly to undo Bismarck’s work and to reconstruct Germany with
a decentralised and truly federal
structure. It is a remarkable testimony to the hold which the ideas of
Bismarck’s generation have since gained on all the rest
of the world, and, it seems, particularly on
what are supposed to be “progressive” views, that a German Liberal
should thus have to plead against the tendency of the victors to
perpetuate Bismarck’s work, and to point out that Germany must cease to
be the large unit centrally organised for
a common purpose which Bismarck made her, if she is not again to be a
danger to European peace.
Personally, I am fully
convinced that Professor Röpke is
right in this, and that it is of the utmost
importance that even at this late hour the lesson which he drives home
should be fully learnt. A centralised
Germany will always continue the spirit of Berlin with all it has stood
for during the past eighty years; yet at the moment it would
seem as if the Allies were preparing a new and even greater centralisation of power ultimately to be handed
over to the Germans. Decentralisation need
neither mean a Germany partitioned by the victors, which in the course
of time would almost certainly produce a new wave of virulent
nationalism, nor a Germany condemned to lasting poverty; it
would, on the contrary, make it easier
to give the Germans a chance to regain economic standards which in a
centrally-organised Germany would appear as
a threat to her neighbours. Instead of
building up a central German administration, the Allies should tell the
Germans that whatever central administration Germany is to possess will
remain indefinitely under Allied control, and that their only but
certain path to independence is through developing representative
governments in the individual German states, which will be freed from
Allied control as they succeed in establishing stable democratic
institutions. This process would have to be gradual, with the Allies
retaining in the end no more control over the individual state than
corresponds to the minimum powers of a federal government.
To be successful such a
policy would need to be supplemented by the enforcement of complete
free trade, external and internal, for all these German states. This
not only would be necessary to prevent those deleterious economic effects which the opponents of decentralisation fear, but it would also constitute
the most effective economic control, which would make it
impossible for Germany to become again dangerous without
preventing her from regaining prosperity. Under free trade Germany
could never achieve that degree of industrial and
agricultural self-sufficiency on which her economic war— potential
rested; she would be driven to a high degree of specialization in the
fields where she could make the greatest contribution to the prosperity
of the world, and at the same time become dependent for her own
prosperity on the continued exchange with other countries. There would,
in fact, be hardly any other economic controls required, while this one
essential control is also the only kind of control which could not be
secretly evaded.
Professor Röpke touches on these possibilities only
briefly towards the end of his book, and he rightly calls them the
boldest and most revolutionary steps which could be taken in our time.
The suggestion has been singled out here not only because it throws into strong light the opportunities which
are open to us if we are only willing to use them, but in order that it is considered as seriously as it deserves.
It is so startling at first that the reader may
be inclined to dismiss it as entirely
impractical. There is, in fact, no reason other than this unfamiliarity
why it should not be put into practice.
-------