Max Nomad, Aspects of Revolt, 1959.


During the great Depression of the 1930s an American newspaper correspondent ventured an explanation of the periodic bloody clashes which were then occurring in the universities of the various European capitals. "There are," he wrote, "more men and women seeking 'white collar' education in Middle Europe than the high schools and universities have room for, and more graduates of these institutions are seeking 'white collar' jobs than the professional and commercial activities of their countries provide."1

Bloody clashes between various groups of college students did not make their first appearance during the hungry 1930s. In Middle Europe they go back to the 1890s when affrays of this kind took place periodically in the main hall or at the entrance of the University of Vienna. At that time it was a well-nigh weekly exchange of blows between the racially "pure" Austrians of German blood, and Austrian Jews, ostensibly on the question of the latter's right to wear various insignia of student corporations. These militant German-Austrian students formed the nucleus of the Pan-German movement in Austria, which a decade or two later so strongly influenced the mind of Adolf Hitler.

Behind the trifling question of student insignia, there lurked at that time, unspoken as yet, the desire to exclude the Jews from the universities altogether, ostensibly because of their racial inferiority. Houston Stewart Chamberlain's Die Grundlagen des XIX Jahrhunderts (Foundations of the 19th Century), that masterpiece of pompous charlatanry in which the renegade Englishman "proved" the superiority of the Germans, became the bible of a movement whose leaders were anxious to speak only of blood and race and not of jobs and competition.


After the passions aroused by that movement had swept away the democratic Weimar regime in Germany, one of the first news reports from that country carried the following illuminating headline: "Hitler seizes jobs -- Offers no program -- Replacement of all non-Nazis."2 To be sure, the Nazis did have a program which promised the most far-reaching anticapitalist reforms in Germany's economic structure. But whatever their original theories or promises, they were unflinching and adamant on one point only: they wanted all the jobs for their own crowd. And that crowd -- in the words of the Italian historian Gaetano Sal-vemini -- consisted in Germany as well as in Italy, of "the intellectual lower middle classes uprooted by the war and impoverished by inflation."3

The number of followers who expected jobs was far too large to be satisfied even after the removal of all Jews, Socialists, Liberals, Republicans, racially "impure" Gentiles, non-Nazi Catholics, and outspoken monarchists. In fact, too many positions had been created which not only proved a drain upon the profits of the moneyed backers of the victorious party, but also endangered the privileged incomes of the party's upper crust. A bloody purge had to be resorted to among the leadership of those Nazi malcontents who insisted upon a more equitable distribution of jobs and salaries and who advocated the application of "bolshevist" methods of violent expropriation of Jewish and non-Jewish capitalists.

Early in the 1930s, the Italian fascist camp was agitated by a similar family quarrel, though in a less acute form. With the opposition outside of the ruling party either "co-ordinated" or "liquidated," the insiders began to discuss amicably the question of whether or not the Fascist party should go the "Moscow way." In other words, there was formed a sort of "left" wing which advocated complete nationalization of all industries and the establishment of a one hundred per cent bureaucratic state that would offer greater job opportunities for thousands of unemployed would-be civil servants. That "left" wing of "bolshevizing" young Fascists was finally "purged" in a mild way. They were drafted and sent to Africa, where, in the words of Mussolini, imperialist conquest was to procure posto e gloria per tutti (place and glory for ever one),4 posto in Italian meaning "place" both in the sense of "room" and "job." In Italy proper, rather than engage in dangerous expropriatory experiments that might have forfeited him the sympathies of certain foreign capitalist spheres, Mussolini decided to maintain his initial policy. That policy -- as one of his opponents put it -- could be summed up in the simple maxim that he who is not a Fascist, or does not pretend to be one, should neither work nor eat. That right to work and to eat was also fully enjoyed by Fascists of Jewish origin, anti-Semitic prejudice having been altogether absent in Italy, except in some aristocratic salons. In fact, Jews occupied some of the highest posts in the Fascist party and administration. Soon enough job scarcity and job envy induced some Italian Fascists to demand that Jews should be employed only in proportion to their number.5 (There were not more than 50,000 Jews in Italy.) They could not demand their complete exclusion because some of them, such as Margherita Sarfatti, the editor of the party's theoretical organ Ge-rarchia, had the full backing of Mussolini. Unmitigated ostracism and persecution of all Jews was imposed only under Hitler's pressure toward the end of the 1930s.

A similar struggle between the "ins" and the "outs" of a ruling totalitarian party lay behind the expulsion of the Trotsky-Zinoviev opposition of 1926-1927 and the bloody purges of 1936-1938. In 1927 Nikolai Bukharin, the then theorist of the Stalin faction, inadvertently took the veil off the alleged ideological differences separating the two wings of the party. He pointed to the fact that the success of Trotsky's propaganda among the party membership had its roots in the great distress then prevailing (1926-1928) among a large section of the intellectual workers of the country. In fact, two or three hundred thousands of them were unemployed. In other words, Trotsky's victory would have meant to them not merely the vindication of a more deserving leader, nor even the triumph of a more practical economic program -- for Stalin was only too ready to learn from the Opposition. The victory of the Opposition meant to them chiefly the creation of two or three hundred thousand new office jobs, or at least their own accession to already existing jobs, as supporters of the Stalin regime were eliminated. In the purge of a decade later the sadist dictator was prompted not only by his homicidal mania but also by the desire to win the absolute allegiance of the younger generation of office-holders and army officers, born or brought up since the Revolution, by permitting them to step into the positions of their eliminated superiors whom they and the masses blamed for all the hardships of the civil war and the ensuing privations.


The exclusive possession of the job-dispensing State apparatus by a single party or by a single ethnical group within the State has gradually become the central point of all politics outside the strictly totalitarian countries as well. Time was when in a democratic country a government job was often considered the last refuge of a "failure" or a "misfit" who could not make good in any legitimate business or profession. More than half a century ago Hippolyte Taine viewed with horror the growth of a state bureaucracy in France, whose members were like army officers subject to transfer from one place to another. He spoke of them contemptuously as of "mischievous nomads," for a respectable Frenchman was supposed to stay where he was born, or to move to Paris, which was the end of his journey. Many things have changed since that time. Admission into that tribe of "nomads" has become the great aspiration not only in France, where, during World War II, the Fascists and near-Fascists sold their country to the Nazis to get the jobs of their political opponents.

During the period between the two world wars the national and religious minorities of some sections of Eastern Europe were the focal points in the political agitations of would-be bureaucratic "nomads" clamoring for jobs. One of these countries was Poland where, in deference to a strong mass prejudice, Jews were virtually excluded from all government positions -- even under the "progressive" rule of Marshal Pilsudski's formerly radical, liberal and racially unprejudiced following. Yet that semi-fascist military dictatorship was vehemently opposed on the Right by purely Fascist "outs" who attacked the government as subservient to the Jews because it refused to drive every member of that group from every job. Good Catholics themselves, they even went as far as clubbing Catholic priests, if they were of Jewish descent. Their dream eventually came true, but only after the great German Teacher, to whom they had looked for inspiration, made them, too, realize at last what is meant to be a minority race.

Some of the difficulties besetting Poland prior to Hitler's invasion confronted Rumania as well. The roots of that country's financial troubles were largely to be found in her extremely overstaffed administrative apparatus whose reduction by fifteen per cent was repeatedly demanded by her foreign creditors. The government was reluctant to grant that request, considering that it still had to contend with an enormous number of unemployed college graduates who were unable to find lucrative positions. These educated declasses eventually rallied around an extremely active fascist organization of the Hitlerite type whose anti-Semitic slogans were quite successful in arousing the masses. It is these fascist "Iron Guards" -- "an army of jobless intellectuals," as Professor Oscar Jaszi6 called them -- who in 1933 killed the Liberal Prime Minister Duca, the representative of the country's financial spheres. They likewise instigated conspiracies against the life of the King, not to speak of their constant attacks against Jewish merchants and college students. They had close connections with army circles, and the trials at which the organizers and perpetrators of these terrorist acts escaped punishment, proved that for quite a while they could literally "get away with murder." They finally had a field day in 1940, but were subsequently deprived of their spoils by the army officers who decided to distribute all good jobs among their own relatives.

That struggle for spoils became the dominating note among all the small nationalities to whom the defeat of the Central Powers at the end of World War I had seemingly given their freedom. For the post-War years saw the "Slavic brothers" hating each other more bitterly than they had ever hated their Prussian, Austrian, Hungarian or Turkish oppressors.

The Poles, deprived of their national independence since the end of the eighteenth century, had always spoken of the "natural right" of every people to self-determination. No sooner had the erstwhile Polish territories of defeated Germany, Austria and Russia been pieced together, than championship of "natural rights" became tantamount to high treason in the eyes of every patriotic Pole. From that moment on the ruling spheres of the resurrected country knew only of "historical rights." These implied Poland's right to lord it over all those territories inhabited by Ukrainians, Byelorussians, Germans, and Lithuanians, which had "belonged" to the Polish kings of yore. In practice this amounted to the cornering of all government jobs by the once so idealistic and romantic fighters for Polish freedom. No wonder these ethnic minorities, which constituted at least on-third of the total population, strongly objected to that monopoly, and many of their leaders actually welcomed Hitler's and Stalin's invasion.

It may not be amiss to mention here that the question of jobs played an important role prior to World War I during the discussions between those Polish Socialists who championed complete independence of Poland, i.e., the Polish Socialist Party (P.P.S.) then headed by the later semi-fascist dictator Pilsudski, and the followers of Rosa Luxemburg who were in favor of Poland's autonomy within a democratic Russia. In a book published in 1908, one of the top leaders of the P.P.S. argued that mere autonomy would not do, for in that case some of the top executive jobs might still be claimed and occupied by Russians. Yet the P.P.S. insisted that it was fighting not for jobs for its intellectuals but for the "emancipation of the working class."

What happened in Poland, occurred in a somewhat similar manner in the other two newly established Slavic states, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. Both were from the outset composite formations comprising about half a dozen different races each. And in each of them the ruling nationality -- the Czechs and the Serbs, respectively -- though constituting at best only half of the total population, claimed for itself practically all positions in the civil service and in the army command. Hence the bitter recriminations on the part of the various ethnic minorities, particularly of the Sudeten-Germans and the Slovaks in Czechoslovakia, and of the Croats and Bulgarian-speaking Macedonians in Yugoslavia. The real causes of the conflict between the Czechs and the Slovaks were bared in the following sentence giving the gist of the negotiations for the establishment of a sort of Slovak self-government: "Many Slovaks will find employment in the autonomous Slovak administration where at present the Czechs function as officials and clerks."7 Nothing came of the negotiations and eventually the Slovak job-seekers got the coveted positions only as Hitler's flunkeys after the dismemberment of the Czechoslovak Republic.

(Shortly before World War I, i.e., before the dismemberment of the Habsburg monarchy, the Austrian Marxist Otto Bauer pointed out that during the struggle between the Czechs and the Sudeten-Germans in Bohemia -- the then Austrian section of what after the War was to become Czechoslovakia -- the representatives of both the Sudeten-German and the Czech bourgeoisie were ready to renounce all constitutional guaranties as long as they could get in exchange a few more posts in the judicial system.8)

One need only substitute the word Croats for Slovaks, and Serbs for Czechs, in order to get at the causes which in 1934 led to the assassination of the Yugoslav King by a combination of Croatian and Macedonian conspirators. While the top men among these malcontents were plotting with foreign powers for the establishment of an independent Croatia and a Bulgarian Macedonia, the rank-and-filers, who were trained in special camps in Fascist Hungary and Italy, were promised, as a reward for their daring, jobs as policemen, letter-carriers, railwaymen and the like.


Where the population of an impoverished country is ethnically homogeneous, the ubiquitous tragedy of job scarcity leads to bloody struggles between cliques with or without an ideology. In the Austria of Schuschnigg, prior to the occupation by Hitler in 1938, it was a fight for the government machine between a large section of the metropolitan college graduates, under-graduates and white collar workers on the one hand, and the small-town lawyers, physicians, pharmacists, surveyors, game wardens and teachers, on the other. The former took their inspiration and their support from the Nazis in Germany and advocated complete union (Anschluss) with the Reich. Their opponents, in power until 1938, backed by Italy, were in favor of Austrian independence. That "independence" meant the perpetuation of their own brand of Fascism which gave particular consideration to the interests of the Church. Shortly before the Anschluss, a sort of "class struggle" was beginning to split their own ranks. They were, of course, all in favor of the Habsburg restoration. But the upstart country lawyers and teachers, who organized the "Home Guards" against both the Socialists and the Nazis, looked askance at the titled pre-war retainers of the once powerful dynasty, who were eagerly trying to get hold of all the "key positions in State, Church and newspapers."9

These domestic quarrels over jobs were, of course, settled as soon as Austria had been occupied by the Nazis. Both the young "Home Guards" and the old Habsburg legitimists had to join the Socialists in the Nazi prisons and concentration camps. The boredom of the seclusion was soon relieved by the arrival of another large batch of "undesirables" who only a short while before had been their most bitter enemies. These were the militant Austrian Nazis who had hoped to get all the good positions as soon as the swastika banner was hoisted over Vienna's City Hall. But they were left holding the bag; for Hitler, in spite of his Austrian origin, had to take care first of his hungry party men of the Old Reich. This drove the Vienna Nazis to bitter opposition which landed them in the concentration camps. One wonders whether their devotion to the "Fuehrer principle" survived that experience.

In another ethnically homogeneous country, Bulgaria, a bloody struggle for power was going on for years between various groups of armed refugees from ethnically Bulgarian Macedonia, a territory divided between Yugoslavia and Greece. This struggle was complicated by rivalries of competing officers' cliques. During the turbulent years following World War I Panaretov, the Bulgarian envoy to the United States, in speaking about the revolutionary events in his country, made the cynical statement -- which was however, not devoid of truth, -- that the movement was carried on "by half-educated intellectuals who have no jobs and hope the revolution will change their position."10

Greece has likewise had her uprisings and revolutions caused by jealousies of hostile coteries of "ins" and "outs." In the 1930s the defeated rebels, led by the aged national hero Venizelos, used as their ideological screen a sort of Nazified Fascism under whose slogans their followers fought for the defense of the Republic which was threatened and finally overthrown by the monarchist militarists. The highly important problem of army advancement lists, and the dissatisfaction of those whose expectations had not been fulfilled, were at the bottom of the revolt.


It is a long way from the Balkans to the Latin-American republics -- yet the analogy between the political developments in these otherwise different and distant corners of the world is almost uncanny. The reduction in the export of raw materials and in the influx of foreign loans, caused by the general economic depression between World War I and II, brought about a great increase in the frequency of revolutions and civil wars in South America. In former years ideological slogans, such as are current in Europe, had always played a very small part in all of these conflicts. The stakes involved were mostly the posts of generals and of the highest government dignitaries, carrying with them the opportunity for an uncontrolled plundering of the treasury, such as it was. More often than not these "revolutions" were family quarrels in the literal sense of the word, the entire government frequently being the hereditary property of one clan, or of two or three small cliques. In the 1930s and 1940s the lower rank officers and even "non-coms" began to play a big role in these uprisings.

Behind many of these struggles there were often hidden the clashing ambitions of competing foreign financial interests. In those cases the "outs," that is, the unemployed college graduates and the lower middle class intellectuals and professionals in general, would cry out against imperialism and dictatorial rule. In some of the industrially more developed republics, like Chile, the slogans of socialism would be added to those of democracy and civil liberties. In Brazil the insurrectional struggles of various "outs," conducted under local Fascist slogans, were backed by the interests of various regional groups of large-scale planters and by agents of German and Italian fascism.

In Mexico the situation is somewhat more involved. As a result of the Revolution of 1911, the pure descendants of the Spanish conquerors have been either curbed or exterminated. Their vast possessions, including the office-holding state apparatus, were taken over by lower middle class upstarts -- largely half-Indian by origin. The victors established what to all practical purposes is a sort of semi-military dictatorship, with the political jobs becoming the monopoly of the National Revolutionary Party (later renamed Party of Revolutionary Institutions). To safeguard these as well as all the other desk jobs for themselves and for their kin, the Mexican authorities, when deciding to give asylum to the Spanish Loyalists, in 1939, restricted their hospitality almost exclusively to manual workers.11

A new note was introduced in Latin American politics by the coups d'etat in Argentina and Bolivia, which occurred in 1943. It was no longer one of those traditional generals' revolutions which, except for a few top positions, left the social structure altogether unchanged. It was a military-fascist overturn, directed against the old political parties and against the capitalist interests, foreign and domestic as well. Not only the best jobs, but to a large extent the profits of the property-owning classes were taken over by the organized army officers and their civilian hangers-on, who consolidated their position by improving the living standard of the workers at the expense of their employers.


The eastward march of modern industrialism created in Asia those social, political and ideological phenomena which hitherto were considered characteristic only of the European and American nations. India's struggle against British domination was marked by countless victims from the ranks of the educated youth. Western democratic slogans mixed with Oriental mysticism gave their peculair color to the ferment agitating those millions of British subjects. Yet there was nothing mystical at the bottom of all this turmoil. In an interview published in 1932 Jawaharlal Nehru, at that time second only to Ghandi in his authority among the forces of opposition, thus expressed the aspirations of struggling India: "Our future form of government? A democratic peasant republic, of course, in which our intellectual forces will be in charge of the administrative and other leading positions."12

It is for the sake of these "positions" that a very bitter three-cornered struggle was waged prior to the establishment of India's independence. The rebellious Hindus were arrayed both against the privileged British intruders and the Moslem minority. "The acute and chronic unemployment in the educated classes," H. N. Brailsford wrote in 1931 "lends passion to these [Hindu-Moslem] rivalries," and as a result "the absorbing concern of each communal party is to obtain for its own co-religionists as high a proportion as possible of jobs . . ."13

Still further East the meaning of Sun Yat-sen's and Chiang Kai-shek's civil war against the "war-lords" and bandit generals was soon reduced to a very simple formula by the man in the street who saw in that conflict nothing but a struggle between the "tigers," as he called the warlords, and the "wolf-packs," his designation for the countless office-holders of the modern central government of Nanking. Later, the modern "wolves," having liquidated the ancient "tigers," were waging a losing fight against the Communist "bandits" -- largely representing the younger set of China's intelligentsia, bent upon establishing a hundred per cent bureaucratic state with even more desk jobs than Nanking was willing to distribute.

The educated youth of Japan was long divided in its allegiance between the two seemingly contradictory movements of Fascism and Communism. Marxist theories were hailed by large numbers of university students and intellectuals in general. There is perhaps no country in the world in which concentration of wealth in a few hands had been effected to such an extent as in Japan. And there is hardly any country where the situation was more hopeless for the young college graduates whose supply greatly exceeded demand. Only a very small percentage of them could hope for any positions immediately after the completion of their studies. As a result, large sections of the educated declasses joined the ranks of the followers of Lenin and Stalin.

However, attractive as the Russian example appeared to many of the younger intellectuals, persecutions on the part of the government caused many of them to turn in another direction. That direction was shown mainly by the younger underpaid officers and other scions of the impoverished gentry. These, too, took up anticapitalist slogans. They would occasionally resort to the assassination of some of the "elder statesmen" whom they accused of being in the service of the big capitalist magnates. This hostility against their native capitalists was combined with a mixture of Japanese medievalism and ultra-modern imperialism. The annexation of the Asiatic continent appeared to them as the solution of Japan's economic difficulties. Contrary to the traditional conceptions, the war for the conquest of China was not the work of aggressive capitalist imperialism. In fact, the Japanese capitalists, as a whole, were opposed to the great adventure, for they were afraid of the possible aftermath. To be eventually expropriated in full or in part and to be relegated to a purely ornamental function is quite undesirable, even if it is offered under patriotic and fascist slogans. That adventure, and particularly the conquest of Manchuria, was, however, a "heaven-sent opportunity" in the words of the Japan Advertiser to the Japanese "graduates of provincial middle schools who for more than a decade have had to seek employment as bus drivers, policemen, railway workers."14

What may actually seem strange is the easy fusion which took place between the frankly fascist elements of Japan and the Social Mass Party, which was a sort democratic Socialist organization. But even this is not exactly strange. For, aside from its psycho-pathological aspect of sadism -- and no mass upheavel is completely devoid of it -- Fascism has a very "normal" economic background: the despair and the job-hunger of large groups of unemployed or underpaid intellectuals, professionals and white collar men. It is this stratum which has supplied a large section of the leadership of the labor movement, whose most adventurous, or most corrupt, elements are everywhere eager to choose a short cut to power or to security by joining either the Communists or the Fascists; and who, according to circumstances, are ready to exchange the traditional anticapitalist terminology of Socialism for the new verbiage of fascist or racialist anticapitalism, or vice versa. At that juncture national expansion, with the acquisition of enormous Chinese territories, offered this job-hungry crowd more real chances for satisfying their cravings for steady positions than the very uncertain prospects of revolution and civil war.


The job-and-power motive likewise plays its part in the domestic quarrels of the new territories behind the Iron Curtain. The Communist masters of Yugoslavia, Poland, Hungary and the other satellites prefer to own their hard-won jobs rather than to be at the mercy of the changing whims of their whilom Moscow paymasters who, moreover, are mercilessly despoiling their countries, thus undermining whatever popularity the native Communists may still enjoy among certain sections of the "liberated" populations.

It is this job-nationalism of Moscow's satellite-vassals which has caused the defection of Tito and the rise of Tito-ism among the other satellites. A potent force in what may be called Russia's colonies, it may eventually result in the transformation of the Soviet Empire into a sort of Commonwealth of autonomous totalitarian Soviet Republics. So friends of progress and liberty need not despair.


Throughout the nineteenth century the problem of the job-hungry, educated declasses did not plague the United States to the extent that it did most European countries. This, however, is not to say that there have been no conflicts centering around this problem. During the 1850s the Know-Nothing party voiced the resentment of the nativist, Protestant job-seekers against competition on the part of immigrants, particularly Irish Catholics who were grabbing more and more of the small and big plums, from the humble post of policeman to that of governor. About fifty years later the same tendency found its ideological expression in the pre-Nazi Nordic racialism of Madison Grant, author of The Passing of the Great Race (New^ York, 1916), in the revived anti-Negro, anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish Ku Klux Klan, and, between the two World Wars, in the "Silver Shirts" and similar fascist and fas-cistoid outfits organized by various semi-educated rabble-rousers who tried to capitalize on the anti-Jewish and anti-Communist potential among the American masses. Most "promising" among these rabble-rousers was the Catholic Father Coughlin whose radio propaganda and weekly Social Justice almost succeeded in carving a clerico-fascist mass movement out of the rowdy and lunatic fringe of the Democratic Party. It is an open question whether these "movements" were subsidized by domestic ultra-reactionary employers, or by those European powers which wanted to create a political atmosphere favorable to Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, or, as in the case of Coughlin, by those elements within the Church who dreamed of an America remodeled after the image of Salazar's Portugal. At any rate, a stop was put to all of them by the exigencies of World War II when the Government refused to tolerate direct or indirect, voluntary or paid agents of Hitler and Mussolini. So the job-hungry educated and semi-educated declasses officering these embryonic movements had to give up their hopes of gauleiter posts and enroll as ward-heelers in either of the two competing job-holders' and job-seekers' trusts which go under the name of political parties in the United States.

The Depression which served as a stimulus to those would-be emulators of the Fuehrer and the Duce, also gave a powerful spurt to those malcontents -- regardless of whether or not they were declasses in the strict sense of the word -- who had hitched their wagon to the rising star of Moscow. The effects of the crash of 1929 had convinced many of them that capitalism was on its last legs and that the Soviet system was the only workable alternative. The Red Army's successful resistance to Nazi aggression further strenghtened the influence of the Kremlin enthusiasts. The result was, on the one hand, a gradual Communist infiltration into all sorts of organizations, and, on the other hand, an ultra-reactionary tendency, known as McCarthyism which, under the pretext of fighting Communism, was out to destroy all radicals, liberals and progressives.

The economic upswing of the 1940s and early 1950s prevented the two tendencies from actually endangering the status quo. Prosperity has always been the curse of every kind of extremism, whether ultra-revolutionary or ultra-reactionary. The coup the grace was administered to both would-be movements by their leaders themselves: McCarthy by cutting his own throat, and Khrushchev by toppling, for reasons of his own, the idol that the dupes of Communism had worshiped for nearly three decades.


1 New York Times, December 20, 1930.

2 Ibid. February 24, 1933.

3 Ibid. May 8, 1933.

4 Ibid. September 1, 1935.

5 Robert Michels, Sozialismus und Faszismus, Munich-Karlsruhe, 1925. pp. 288-289.

6 The Nation, New York, November 21, 1934, p. 585.

7 New York Evening Post, January 14, 1933.

8 May, 1914 issue of Kampf (Vienna), quoted in the German Marxist organ New Zeit (Stuttgart) of May 29, 1914, p. 414.

9 New York Times, January 27, 1935.

10 Ibid. April 21, 1925.

11 Ibid. July, 30, 1939.

12 Neue Freie Presse, Vienna, February 14, 1932.

13 The New Republic, New York, February 4, 1931, p. 315.

14 Quoted in New York Times, November 29, 1938.