Letters to the Times

King Leopold’s stand upheld

Memorandum of Alleged Hitler Talk is Viewed as Untrue

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEW YORK TIMES:

In THE TIMES of Nov.3, David Anderson reports from Brussels the publication of a Nazi memorandum on the conversation between Hitler and King Leopold in November, 1940.

This curious document calls for some analysis; it all boils down to an issue of veracity between King Leopold and Adolf Hitler.

The King has always enjoyed an unchallenged reputation for honesty and truthfulness. I have known him personally since he was 14 years old and have yet to hear his word questioned even by those who disagree with him. I cannot say as much for the late M. Hitler.

Schmidt, the author of the memorandum, I have also known for many years. He was a brilliant interpreter but was more than Hitler’s jackal. He was always ready to distort facts and build up whatever record his master wanted. Otherwise we might well question how long he would have kept his job. Anybody with half an eye can see what Schmidt has done here. It is the familiar Nazi practice of putting into the mouth of another, whatever Hitler wanted him to say.

Goebbels missed opportunity

It is, however, something of a strain on the imagination to ask us to believe that after the way the King had resisted all Nazi overtures for collaboration he would have expressed himself as reported in the memorandum, thus: “He entered this conversation with the Fuehrer in full confidence because he new how to appreciate the great work the Fuehrer has undertaken and knew his wish to give Europe a durable peace based on justice, collaboration and understanding between peoples. With such a program the Belgians would certainly cooperate.”

Knowing Hitler’s methods it is clear that if the King had made any such remarks Dr. Goebbels would have reported them over the air without delay. And, further, Hitler would have lost no time in setting up the puppet government the Nazis had been striving so anxiously to set up in Belgium.

The best proof that there is no word of truth in the Nazi memorandum is that from the day of the capitulation to the end of the war the King remained a prisoner of war, denied the right to speak publicly, and receive visitors and correspondence. Would he have remained in this state if already in 1940 he was ‘seeking to collaborate’?

If we are going to accept Hitler’s memoranda as reliable evidence we ought at least to be logical. In that event we ought to be ready to accept Hitler as a character witness and recognize the excellence of anybody he praises. That might lead us far.

King remained prisoner

On May 28, 1940, the day of the Belgian capitulation, a high ranking German general arrived at the King’s headquarters and announced that he had come to escort the King back to his palace in Brussels.

The King asked what the status of his officers and men was. When told that they were prisoners of war he said that he would refuse to accept any other status – and the proof of the pudding is that he did remain a prisoner throughout the war.

The whole story of the King of the Belgians is shrouded in a fog of misinterpretation. The opinion of most people is founded on a single statement by Paul Reynaud, the French Prime Minister, in announcing the Belgian capitulation. Reynaud was in desperate straits.

His government as well as his army was tottering toward collapse. More than anything in the world he needed a scapegoat to turn the public indignation away from himself. The Belgian capitulation gave him just what he needed; the King was already a prisoner and no matter what was said about him he was unable to answer or defend himself. So Reynaud let himself go in an assault on the character of a defenceless man.

Facts are available

When the true story of the Belgian capitulation comes to be known the King will emerge, not as the cowardly traitor depicted by Reynaud, but rather as one of the great heroic figures of the war.

I know that this is a startling statement to those unfamiliar with the facts; but it is a statement that will be borne out by history. The facts are there. They come from many unimpeachable sources.

For instance, Sir Roger Keyes, who represented the British Government at the King’s headquarters and remained with him up to the last possible moment, has repeatedly defended the King in speeches, letters and articles. He was in constant contact with his government throughout those critical days of May when the Belgian and British armies fell back step by step from the first advanced positions to the sea.

In no single instance were the Belgians forced back by the Germans. In each instance they fell back under specific orders from the Commander in Chief, General Weygand. These orders were imposed by the fact that the French armies on the right flank had given way and retreat was imperative to keep the Germans from getting behind the Belgian and British forces and encircling them.

Finally the Belgian armies were crowded into a small territory with its back to the sea, without air support, without munitions, food and even water running short.

On May 20 Sir Roger Keyes reported to his government that the situation was desperate and that, with the best will in the world, the Belgians could not hold out for more than forty-eight hours.

As a matter of fact, under these tragic conditions they held out just four times as long, suffering frightful losses in order to bar the Nazi road to Dunkerque, where the great evacuation of British and French troops was already under way.

During this period the Belgians new that their own position was hopeless and that sooner or later they were doomed to surrender. Prudence or selfishness would have dictated an immediate surrender when they might have secured better terms.

There is no getting around the fact that they sacrificed themselves in the common cause and contributed in no small measure to the success of the Dunkerque operation, which alone made it possible for Britain to continue the war.

The King could easily have got away to the safety of London and was indeed urged to do so; But he made the hard choice of staying with his troops and sharing their fate, knowing how hard it would be – and how he would be represented.

It is this man whom Hitler depicts crawling into his presence with assurances of collaboration.

As Americans we are not properly concerned with the current Belgian controversy as to whether the King is to return to the throne. That is their affair. But we can recognize the infamy of seeking to discredit an honourable man by appealing to the veracity of that great exponent of truth and honour, the late Adolf Hitler.

HUGH GIBSON

New York, Nov. 7, 1945

The writer of the foregoing letter, a veteran American diplomatist, has held, among other important posts, those of our first Minister to the new Republic of Poland, Minister to Switzerland and Ambassador to Belgium. He collaborated with Herbert Hoover in writing “The Problems of a Lasting Peace”.