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.”
The same Napoleon who crowned himself Emperor? France flirted with being a Republic, but it took them over 100 years to actually get there.
Yes, ultimately he became a tyrant.
But pleas don’t forget that he was made great by the French Revolution (starting out as a Revolutionary Army General), and numerous achievements of this Revolution were maintained during his rule, and in due time emulated in other European countries.
Furthermore, and I should have explained this better, many of the borders he drew persisted for generations.
But you are right: American influence was prominent, too. The short-lived Polish constitution of 1791 was modelled on the American one, as was the Swiss of 1848, which is still in use today🙂
Yes, the second Revolution of 1848 in many European countries is sometimes overlooked, but it brought its number of advances, too. Maybe more than the French Revolution itself - but that was still the mother of 1848 🙂
I was just discussing with my wife that it was basically Napoleon who created Germany - by his merging together of the different German statelets and giving them a common enemy
I think a key point about the failure of Yugoslavia and indeed the entire situation until Kosovo split was that the Serbs had hubris.
Instead of quietly assimilating the other peoples, they had to push.
I think this is understandable looking at 19th century Serbian history and its constant political strife throughout the 1800s. They even pushed the Montenegrins away.
If you contrast this with what the Parisian did in assimilating Gascony, Normandy, Brittany, Occitan, you can see that they (the Parisian) were far more successful
Thank you Menes for pointing out about Hansi - I had never heard of him before. I find it interesting that his surname was “Waltz” meaning ethnic German, but he was a French patriot.
In Poland I see the same - there were many ethnic German (well, Saxon) families that Polonized like the Schulz, Merklein, Wedel etc. and alternatively there were people like Dostoevsky who was pretty definitely ethnically a Pole but was a Russian patriot and anti-Polish.
Actually France has tried FIVE times to be a republic :0
1st republic - until Nappy
2nd republic - from 1830 to Nappy III
3rd republic - from 1870 to Vichy
4th republic - from 1945 to De Gaulle
5th republic - i think from the 60s :)
If you don’t get it right, try and try again (and I think the current 5th republic is also highly flawed)
A few thoughts. In the Balkans the differences were much more religious and cultural rather than ethnic and linguistic. The spoken language was mutually comprehensible it was just written either in the western or cyrillic alphabet. But those like the Slovenes and Croats who were Catholic also looked to the West for their influences and allies while the Orthodox Serbs looked to Russia. Also, the centuries of brutal muslim domination left a ton of bitterness in its wake - not surprisingly.
The French were actually pretty intolerant and oppressive toward minority groups like Bretons, Corsicans, Basques, Alsatian Germans, etc banning their languages from anything official, passing restrictions on its publication or later broadcast over the airwaves etc. The French (unlike the Serbs) were a lot more numerous though. That made it easier for them to impose their will.
Good points, but then why were the Serbs unable to keep the Orthodox, Russia-leaning Montenegrins and Macedonians?
I think those two are the only things that prevent making your conclusion a slam-dunk
Good points regarding those two. I would guess local nationalism was strong enough in both places to prevail. This feeling was probably egged on by seeing other parts of Yugoslavia like Slovenia, Croatia, etc go for and obtain independence. Maybe they would have stayed otherwise....after all it was much easier to counterbalance utter domination by Serbia if you had a bunch of other minorities you could ally with in opposition to it. If you were left all alone or just the two of you however, that becomes a different story. It means you’ve automatically lost the power struggle so its time to leave.
I would say that’s a clear „yes and no“.
The Eastern Frankish kingdom, which evolved into the Holy Roman Empire, or the First Reich, as historians call it, made the constituent German tribes evolve into a cohesive realm.
Deutsch originally meant „the vernacular“, as opposed to the official Latin, which was used by church and „state“. It was in the late tenth to twelfth centuries that the realm in which German was spoken, was called „Germany“ and the people called themselves „Teutonici“ in Latin. Thus, it took time for a national identity to emerge.
Yes, this went through a severe decline after the Thirty Years War, when the Holy Roman Empire was weakened drastically. And in the latter half of the 18th century, it was the conflict between the Imperial House, the Habsburgs, and the Kingdom of Prussia, which weakened the old realm even more.
Thus, Napoleon was able to shatter it at last. Contrary to what the older scholars have written, recent research suggests that the shock was still great all over Germany. The Holy Roman, i.e. German Emperor had held his title since 962 AD in an unbroken line. So thus, an ancient tradition ended. The era of ethnicity, and of ethnic identity, was beginning…
Really? What are they?
His biggest impact was on France.
Post-War Stagnation: Prolonged warfare during the Napoleonic period resulted in significant casualties among young French men, (estimated between 600,000 to 1.2 million) causing France's population growth to slow considerably compared to neighbors like Britain and Germany over the rest of the 19th century.
IMHO, Napoleon was a disaster for France and Europe in general.
Within the German Confederation, many of the borders he had drawn for the different German states persisted until the Hitler era, when the states were de facto suppressed.
Still, many of the borders of Europe were redrawn in Vienna in 1815, but others were confirmed 🙂
And I absolutely agree: the loss of life was utterly devastating to France, and in my opinion, this is what caused the country to lose its predominance in Europe, which she had held since 1648/59.
Millions more died on the other sides: Russians, Britons, Germans, Poles, Hungarians…in Germany, there was a saying that Napoleon planted a weeping willow before nearly every German house😔 - this tree being a sign of mourning.
Yes, and there were similar occurrences in Germany: 90% of the Czech-speaking inhabitants of the Hlucinsko region in Upper Silesia didn’t want to join Czechoslovakia in 1919, the vast majority of Masurians in Southern East Prussia, who spoke an archaic form of Polish, didn’t want to join Poland, and the Lithuanian-speakers in the Memel region mostly didn’t wish to join Lithuania.
After all, They had all been loyal subjects of the Kings of Prussia for centuries- and furthermore, they were Protestants, having undergone the Reformation in the 16th century- contrary to the Poles, the Lithuanians of Lithuania and most Czechs.
Thus, language and political loyalty were not always identical…just as was the case with many Alsatians.
Now THIS is Freerepublic at its best - I have learnt something new here that I never even heard of before!
Thank you for sharing this, Menes!
You are so very welcome 🙂
Interestingly, there had been a poll on the question whether the inhabitants wanted to stay with Germany or join the new Czechoslovak state in spring 1919.
Hovewer, the poll had never been considered binding by the Entente powers, thus the Hlucinsko went to Czechoslovakia in early 1920.
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.