Posted on 09/04/2026 5:16:09 AM PDT by Cronos
In 1938, Tolkien was in negotiations with Berlin publisher Rütten & Loening about creating a German-language edition of The Hobbit; that is, until they asked for proof of Tolkien’s “Aryan descent,” due to Goebbels’ regulations on Jews’ participation n German cultural activities. Tolkien objected, writing to his British publisher Stanley Unwin:
I must say the enclosed letter from Rütten & Loening is a bit stiff. Do I suffer this impertinence because of the possession of a German name, or do their lunatic laws require a certificate of arisch origin from all persons of all countries?
Personally, I should be inclined to refuse to give any Bestätigung (although it happens that I can), and let a German translation go hang. In any case I should object strongly to any such declaration appearing in print. I do not regard the (probable) absence of all Jewish blood as necessarily honourable; and I have many Jewish friends, and should regret giving any colour to the notion that I subscribed to the wholly pernicious and unscientific race-doctrine.
You are primarily concerned, and I cannot jeopardize the chance of a German publication without your approval. So I submit two drafts of possible answers.
The first of the “two drafts” Tolkien mentioned ignored the request, but the second eloquently chastised Rütten & Loening for asking:
Thank you for your letter. I regret that I am not clear as to what you intend by arisch. I am not of Aryan extraction: that is Indo-Iranian; as far as I am aware none of my ancestors spoke Hindustani, Persian, Gypsy, or any related dialects. But if I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people. My great-great-grandfather came to England in the eighteenth century from Germany: the main part of my descent is therefore purely English, and I am an English subject—which should be sufficient. I have been accustomed, nonetheless, to regard my German name with pride, and continued to do so throughout the period of the late regrettable war, in which I served in the English army. I cannot, however, forbear to comment that if impertinent and irrelevant inquiries of this sort are to become the rule in matters of literature, then the time is not far distant when a German name will no longer be a source of pride.
Your enquiry is doubtless made in order to comply with the laws of your own country, but that this should be held to apply to the subjects of another state would be improper, even if it had (as it has not) any bearing whatsoever on the merits of my work or its sustainability for publication, of which you appear to have satisfied yourselves without reference to my Abstammung.
It’s unclear which letter was sent, but regardless, the deal didn’t go through. Three years later, Tolkien would express his disdain for the Nazis in a letter to his son Michael: “I have in this war a burning private grudge against that ruddy little ignoramus Adolf Hitler. Ruining, perverting, misapplying, and making for ever accursed, that noble northern spirit, a supreme contribution to Europe, which I have ever loved, and tried to present in its true light.” And The Hobbit wouldn’t be translated into German until 1957. During those interim years, it’s unclear if anyone accused him of “banning the German language.”
genetically the folks from Bengal to Ireland are related, but with different admixtures of other groups
Don't leave out the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The difference being that the Habsburgs eventually succeeded. The current EU was a construct of Otto von Habsburg who began work on the concept in the 1930s before World War II.
A lot of ethnic groups in Eastern Europe were not allowed to choose what country they would become part of. Italy annexed a lot of land inhabited by Slovenes and Croats. The rest of the Slovenes, Croats and Bosnian were handed over to Serbia--Yugoslavia was essentially a Greater Serbia. Even though the Montenegrins are mostly Serbian Orthodox in religion, apparently many of them would have preferred to keep their separate kingdom.
A lot of men from Austria-Hungary emigrated to Australia and New Zealand before 1914. When World War I broke out, the men were put in concentration camps (even if they had become naturalized British subjects) although many of them would have been happy to fight for Britain against Austria-Hungary.
Alsace-Lorraine was taken from France in 1871 at the end of the Franco-Prussian War. France got it back after WWI. It may have been largely German-speaking at the time but had been part of France since the reign of Louis XIV and the people considered themselves French.
Screw the French, if Britain and Germany were aligned against France, the world would have been much better off.
You are correct of course about the changeable nature of Europe's boundaries before WW I. The catastrophic nature of that war stemmed from advances in military technology, organization, and resources. In effect, Europe's armies had suddenly become more powerful and destructive. Put to the test, Europe's bumbling leaders failed to make peace even though their countries were suffering catastrophic losses.
As we have Indo-European languages from Bengal to Ireland, there must have been some kind of migration. Add that to the genetic traces and archaeological record and we’re pretty sure about that.
The questions are:
1. what is the origin point - and I’m kind of convinced it was in what is now southern Russia north of the Caucasus - as it seems that proto-Indo-European had some kind of familial connection with north-western Caucasian
Perhaps it was the land between the black and caspian seas or to the north of the Caspian seas where horses were first domesticated
2. how did the waves of migration happen - I kinda now agree with the “waves” theory - the first wave led to the Mitanni and Hittites, then a second wave for Indo-Iranians heading east, Celto-Italics heading north-west (and one branch heading to the Tarim basin to become Tocharians) and Greeks and Illyrians and Armenians heading south , and finally the Balto-Slavic and Germanic peoples heading out. To me the connection of the gods is interesting - all the I-E folks have the gods Agni/Ogien/Atar/Vulcan/Enj and Vayu/Wiatr etc. and the two families of gods
“Nazi ideology was a cooked up mish mash....”
True!!
“In the end, the Nazis were essentially a movement based on aggressive political gangsterism in a country weakened and unhinged by defeat in war and economic catastrophe. The flags, symbols, ceremonies, and ideology were just contrived elements of costume.”
Even more true!!
The thing is that prior to the French revolution, your allegiance was to kings, and different areas had many different “nations” living together
Before the rise of Germany, France was “Germany,” the scary power always determined to expand.
I don’t think Britain and Germany should have allied against France, but peace in 1914 depended on Britain and Germany working together and on Russia, Austria-Hungary and Germany cooperating with each other. Some of the failure was Britain’s fault, but Germany and Austria were also foolish and reckless.
Austria dragged Germany into it.
The Kaiser really didn’t want it, but he had too many of his generals itching for a fight with Russia, because it was a case of “Now Or Never”, with Russia quickly modernizing.
The thing is that prior to the French Revolution, American revolution your allegiance was to kings, and different areas had many different “nations” living together.
you’re correct!
Wait a minute. Elsass-Lothringen had been part of the Holy Roman Empire (of the German nation) for centuries. The French stole it in the 17th century. The Germans only took it BACK in the 19th century. The French then got very butt-hurt that the Germans reclaimed their stolen land. Anybody who has been there notices immediately that the architecture and place names are German. Anybody who hears the locals speak immediately recognizes it as a German dialect. When the Germans reclaimed it in 1871, nobody there protested it being part of Germany again. They were just fine with it.
Yes there were plenty of subject nationalities in Eastern Europe. I'm just pointing out the Germans had very legitimate grievances after Versailles. The Entente Powers shat all over the principles they claimed to believe in (democracy, no subject nationalities, government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed) etc. Also, its undeniable that the German minorities WERE discriminated against in Czechoslovakia and Poland and to a lesser extent, Italy.
A former colleague who speaks German fluently gave me to believe that French is now the dominant language in that region. (He was stationed nearby in Germany when in the Army and used to have study abroad classes which used Strasbourg as their base.)
Germans understandably did not like the territorial losses after the war. But if they had won they were planning to annex territory from their defeated enemies. I don't think they were justified in starting World War II because of the Treaty of Versailles.
Czecho-Slovakia is often held up as an admirable state among the new states formed after 1918, but I think it was not only the Germans but also the other non-Czech ethnic groups who were not entirely happy with how the Czechs ran the country. The reason for assigning the Sudetenland to the Czechs was to give the country a defensible border. After the Munich agreement in 1938, the remainder of Czecho-Slovakia was defenseless against Germany.
One of the hallmarks of a proper world view is to possess far more interest in one descendents than in one’s ancestors.
They were fully fledged French citizens yes. But there were issues about the French discriminating against the use of their local dialect (something France did with others like the Bretons and the Corsicans too). Also, a strictly secular state to the point of being anti clerical, that too was not liked very much in Elsass Lothringen. So yes, it wasn't terrible for them being part of France but those things ended when Germany took the province back so they were just fine with being part of Germany again.
It was no more foolish of Bismarck to demand the province back than it was for the French to take it in the first place. The French acted butt-hurt ever afterward but they were always going to do that given their wounded pride at having lost. Remember, France was THE dominant power on the Continent for quite some time. Then Germany reunified and defeated them in a war while doing so. Their pride was severely wounded.
The Germans did claim territory from Russia in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk that ended Russia's participation in WWI. Of course, the other side of the argument is that Germany couldn't feed itself and the British naval blockade led to the deaths of about 700,000 German civilians during the war due to starvation and they needed more farmland to feed their population. So....greedy in seizing territory? Arguably yes. What would you have done if you were watching your people being starved? I'd call their demand for land from Russia in light of that understandable.
I don't think the Germans were justified in starting WWII and would not support that argument. You are correct that other minority nationalities like the Hungarians and the Poles also did not like being oppressed minorities in the newly created Czechoslovakia which was Czech dominated. Did you know that when Hitler seized the Sudetenland for Germany, Poland and Hungary also reclaimed and took back bits of territory from Czechoslovakia? It happened. A lot of historians don't like to talk about it because well.....its very inconvenient for the narrative that it was all and only Germany that had a problem with the newly created Czechoslovak state.
I'm aware that they gave the Sudetenland to Czechoslovakia to make it more militarily defensible, but the locals were not Czechs and didn't want to be part of a Czech dominated state. Do other countries get to claim swathes of land filled with people who are not their own because that land would be useful to them too....or is that a privilege only to be extended to the Czechs?....or only when it would screw over Germans?
The extreme eastern part of interwar Czechoslovakia went to the USSR after WWII and is now part of Ukraine.
If the Germans were justified in taking back territories which had belonged to France since the late 1600s, what is to stop the Mexicans from demanding the Southwestern US back? (Of course many have been demanding it for many years.)
Slovakia was a Nazi puppet state, the Nazis used it to station their troops to invade Poland.
I don’t think the Germans were justified in starting WWII and would not support that argument. You are correct that other minority nationalities like the Hungarians and the Poles also did not like being oppressed minorities in the newly created Czechoslovakia which was Czech dominated. Did you know that when Hitler seized the Sudetenland for Germany, Poland and Hungary also reclaimed and took back bits of territory from Czechoslovakia? It happened. A lot of historians don’t like to talk about it because well.....its very inconvenient for the narrative that it was all and only Germany that had a problem with the newly created Czechoslovak state.
The ultimate monstrosity was Yugoslavia. Who thought making a nation out of Orthodox, Catholics and Muslims who all hated each other was a good idea?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.