Helmut Goetz

This essay by Helmut Goetz gives a good precis of Huberman’s ideas on European political union.

back to literature >

by Helmut Goetz

(Bronislaw Huberman e l'unificazione europea, translated by Eleonor Nicolson, 1967)


The man
Art and politics
The problem of peace
The economic factor
The great model
Our common civilization
The struggle for Europe


This essay was written in Italian on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of Bronislaw Huberman's death and published in the paper Lotta Federalista per gli Stati Unti d'Europa (Rome, Largo San Godenzo, 3). Maestro Antonio Janigro, violoncellist and orchestra conductor, was the first who suggested an English translation. I agreed at once with him, because I am convinced that Huberman's life and work must be recalled to as large a number of people as possible. Indeed, Huberman deserves not only such a short essay but a complete biography.
Everybody who is anxious for Europe's future and impatient because of the dangerous slowness in bringing about its political unification, will find great hope and real encouragement, reading Hubermans' political publications and becoming acquainted with his feelings and intentions.
I am very grateful to all who helped me to elaborate the Italian text and to diffuse this pamphlet. I think in particular of Mr. Tzvi Avni, Director of the Central Music Library in Israel (Tel-Aviv), Miss Ida Ibbeken, Huberman's former secretary (Tel-Aviv), Mrs. Sofia Amman (Milan), my friends countess Elsa Triangi, pianist (Trento), Marghit Spirk, violinist (Trento), Dr. Lilana Piu (Rome), Joseph and Edda Krane (Rome), Mrs. Pauline Pisano-Webber (Rome) and last but not least my aunt Mary Pfister (Zurich), who was lucky enough to hear several times in her life the concerts of Bronislaw Huberman.

Rome, November 1967.
H. G.



Johannes Brahms did not love infant prodigies and therefore it was with great diffidence that, in January 1896, he took his seat in the great Musikverein Hall in Vienna, to listen to the thirteen year old violinist appearing to perform Brahms’ own Concerto for violin and orchestra. But that day something absolutely unheard of happened: already after the first movement the audience broke out into loud applause while Brahms dried tears of emotion from his eyes. At the end, in the midst of the enthusiasm of those present, the composer embraced the young violinist saying: « Good Gracious! How you played my Concerto! » The violinist was Bronislaw Huberman.
He was born at Czestochowa on the 19th December 1882 and was the son of a Pole of Jewish origin, a simple clerk in a lawyer’s office. He was a pupil of Michalowicz and Lotto in Warsaw and of the great Joachim in Berlin. After the Vienna concert, of course, concert halls all the world over were open to the young musician. With his 1733 Stradivarius (and once at Genoa with Paganini’s instrument) he played Bach and Beethoven, Brahms and Chopin, Mendelssohn and Szymanowski and many other composers. In 1912 he published a book entitled Aus der Werkstatt des Virtuosen, the fruit of his violin interpretations.
The music critic of Turin, Andrea Della Corte, listed Huberman among the greatest violinists after Joachim for his « formation, aspirations, and experience, frame of mind and culture »; and in fact till the time of his death which happened at Corsier in Switzerland on 14th June 1947, he was given undisputed recognition.
We must mention another characteristic which made people enthusiastic about him: Huberman was homme de coeur. He performed for the poor free of charge. In 1909 he gave a concert in aid of the homeless and injured after the earthquake at Messina, and in 1935, he launched the idea of creating a new orchestra to give work and sustenance to German Jews suffering from Nazi persecution. On 26th December 1936 Arturo Toscanini, following the initiative of the violinist, conducted the first concert of the Palestine Symphonic Orchestra at Tel-Aviv, and to express its gratitude, the city named the street in front of the concert hall after Bronislaw Huberman in perpetual memory of the event. The act of the musician was not limited only to Jews, but included all who suffered under the Nazi regime, which was shown in an open letter, in the same year, addressed to German intellectuals, whom he invited to unite with the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches in their courageous struggle against the regime.
The violinist’s sensitivity was deeply hurt by the slaughter of the First World War and by the distress which followed, and the convictions which he formed because of this distress are somewhat singular in the history of European musicians. He dedicated part of his life to politics, joining the Paneuropean Union founded in 1924 by the philosopher Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi who is still alive. In his autobiography the Count states that many artists were enthusiastic about the aims of the movement: « In the front line among them was the genial violinst Bronislaw Huberman who, in his tournées spread information about Paneurope both by spoken word and by writing and was one of the most active supporters of the movement. »


That a man who had been for many years devoted to Art should suddenly become concerned with politics was for Huberman no contradiction: Art and politics were certainly for him two different concepts, but at the same time he felt subconsciously that between his predilections for Art and for politics there must exist some close connection. He revealed these ideas at the beginning of a lecture which he gave in Vienna in October 1926 in the Grosser Konzertsaal. On this occasion he recognised as erroneous his former conviction that artists exercise their art only for art’s sake. « The real artist, » he said, « does not however create art for art’s sake as an end in itself, … he creates art for men, to bring them joy, to ennoble them, to make them forget their worries. … Hence the concept ‘Art’ is bound to a social function. … Is there therefore such a great dividing line between the social function which I have exercise till now … and this new one with which I hope, rightly or wrongly, to contribute to the lasting spiritual and material ennobling of 400 million men? » While pronouncing these words – it was during the First Congress of the Paneuropean Union – Huberman felt happy and excited « to be present and to collaborate in laying the foundation stone of a great work for mankind. »


The age-old history of Europe, Huberman wrote, « has been a continuous struggle for certain rights, for certain liberties. But there began, only towards the end of the last century, the agitation caused by national intolerance in our continent. » Influenced by the evident impression left by the enormous catastrophe of the First World War, he considered the reciprocal slaughter of peoples belonging to the same civilization « a moral and economic monstrosity. » He saw clearly the human contradiction and the double morality of our society: « To fire a gun outside the boundary of our country is lawful – it is called patriotism, the citizen’s duty, an act of heroism; and when the shot is specially well fired it is recompensed with medals, pensions, promotion. To fire a gun inside the boundary on the contrary is called assassination, homicide, and it is prohibited by law and punished with imprisonment for life or hanging; instead of being rewarded we risk being condemned to the loss of civil rights. It does not matter whether the bullet is fired at a friend or an enemy, a fellow citizen or a foreigner. The only criterion which decides whether the act is one of heroism or of crime is the national frontier. » One example in the Great War of 1914-18 demonstrates « the diabolical consequences of the frontiers »: The Poles, divided among the three great powers of Austria, Germany and Russia found themselves in the terrible situation of having to kill their own brothers (and this in the literal sense of the word); the same applies to the Germans in the Baltic States who were fighting in the army of the Tsar against the German Empire. To those who do not believe in the pacific co-habitation of nations, as they do not believe in the possibility of taming wild animals and consider struggle a natural law, Huberman says without hesitation: « It is without doubt true that struggle is a natural law …, but its most primitive form, annihilation, this is not a law of Nature. » What therefore must be done to save « an age-long civilization » and « a madness begun a few decades ago? » Launch appeals for peace and good sense perhaps? Or organise international conferences for military disarmament? Huberman reminds us that in 1911, 186 conferences took place between the governments of numerous countries and 86 international institutions existed. All this was of no use, the world war broke out just the same. Must we destroy modern capitalism which has been accused of preparing wars « in eternal cycles of about forty years »? « The primary element of capitalism is capital, and therefore it is the greatest contradiction to call ‘capitalistic’ a system whose only aim is war and the preparation of war, that is to say, destroy capital and prevent the formation of new capital. » And Huberman continues: « What we are now experiencing, are the posthumous birth pains of the European dynastic system and the fruit of lower middle class national chauvinism, mixed with a touch of socialism. And the first heroic act which I expect of Hercules, the offspring of pure capitalism, is that as soon as he is born he should cut off all the heads of the European chauvinistic hydra. »
Huberman shows that he has understood very well the problem of peace when he writes that no agreement signed on paper even though based on the spirit of Locarno (Kellogg Pact of 1925), could ever be an absolute guarantee of peace. The problem is quite a different one: « Where there are no boundaries there are also no wars. The certainty of peace will be reached only with the abolition of the frontiers, and therefore with political union. » To confirm his statement Huberman certainly is not lacking in historical examples: « Until the middle of the nineteenth century the Bavarians, Hanoverians, Austrians and Prussians, just like the Neapolitans, the Savoyards etc., so long as they were divided by national frontiers, all found it natural to fight against each other, just as after the unification of the German Empire and the Kingdom of Italy, they condemned every attempt at internal war as high treason. » In this connection Huberman cites the example of Switzerland – just as Salvemini, Omodeo, Coudenhove-Kalergi or Denis de Rougemont were to do later on – an example which remains always the most evident – citizens belonging to the same ethnic groups above mentioned – Germans and Italians, the French and Rhaeto-Romanic peoples live together peacefully within the Swiss Federal State frontiers.
The abolition of the national frontiers as the only efficacious remedy against war however meets with an obstacle in the sovereignty of the individual European states. But Huberman’s capacity for analysing both the facts and the historical evolution was too deeply rooted in his mind to discourage him when faced with an idea of this type: « Such an opinion cannot stand up to historical analysis. On the contrary history teaches us that in the long run not even the dynasties of the various states in Germany and Italy though they had represented and personified the concept of sovereignty, were able to stop the urge of history towards ever vaster and vaster unions of states. »
For Huberman the problem of peace derived straight from ethical principles, understood as a divine command for universal love to all men and not limited by any false patriotism. Although universal fraternity and the abolition of human slaughter were dearer to him than any other thing, he preferred to speak about them as little as possible in public conferences: « From Plato and Christ to Kant and down to our own day the most chosen spirits have always preached neighbourly love and pacifism – but always with the same negative result. »
Huberman was convinced that the problem of peace was inseparable from the more complicated one of political unification, and that, « with the victory of reason » « also moral law » would triumph. He therefore insisted in his published works and speeches in the years 1920-30 on the economic question.


In order to find an indisputable argument Huberman tried to bring into the limelight the material advantages of European unification. He did not want to appeal only to intellectuals and idealists, but to all those who were destined to reap the greatest advantages from European unification, that is to the great masses of ordinary people. « A united Europe means, for the proletariat no more nor less than liberation from an age-long servitude which cannot be eliminated in any other way. » In fact the economic situation after the First World War was chaotic. It was therefore necessary in the first place to set free « the workmen in factories, farm labourers, office clerks and employees from poverty and privation, from the fundamental struggle for their daily bread. » But Huberman stated that industrialized nations with their old-fashioned factory machinery, found themselves in a state of inferiority in comparison with American competition and this prevented them from facing with efficiency the problems connected with the terrible state of privation among the people. There began therefore a race for the rationalization of the industries costing millions which were largely obtained by means of long or short term credit. At the same time, in order to prevent « the wicked neighbour » – thanks to rationalization – from offering his goods at a lower price, import duties were increased, while at the same time to compensate for the system of production at reduced prices, internal excise duties were increased in all European countries. However a rationalization which was unable to reach its aim, that is greater production with a reduction in costs employing the same or even a reduced number of hands; but able to deliver only the same amount of production at the same cost with a smaller number of workmen, could lead only to unemployment, with all its consequences. If rationalization has not brought about social benefits the blame is not to be looked for in the principle applied, but rather in the « narrow mindedness of Europeans, their political rivalries and envy, the abuse of the concept ‘patriotism’, and the national blindness which has brought about economic-political chaos in Europe. » In other words: the fault lies « only with our governments who insist on preserving they system of small European states, which have become today an absurdity. »
It was natural that this rapid, progressive pauperization sharpened the class struggle. It found spiritual nourishment in communism, « an idea which to many people appears great especially to those who have nothing to lose. And European politics has in reality contributed efficaciously to the increase of those men who had nothing to lose. » With regard to this Huberman rightly observes: « The communist idea – like any other idea moreover – cannot be uprooted by imprisonment; it can be fought only with another idea which is greater. This greater idea is Paneurope! » The problem of the class struggle could be automatically resolved by mass production which means « higher pay and lower prices. » In order to realise all this however, political institutions on a federal basis and an economic evolution putting into action pure capitalism are indispensable. Huberman expressly repeats this postulate in order not to be misunderstood: « Up to now we have not yet had in Europe pure capitalism », that is, according to Huberman, accumulation of capital and protection of the same. From this he deduces that real capitalism is against war (the destroyer of capital) and against nationalism (which is the cause of war).


Bronislaw Huberman became a European federalist in the United States of America, where he arrived for the first time in 1920, while in Europe, after the collapse, « economic chaos, diffidence, national egotism and despair » were ruling. His encounter with the New World was a revelation for him: « What I saw there, of necessity appeared at that precise moment to a European capable of sensitivity and thought, as a return to Eden, and urged him to attempt to establish in Europe the grounds for the creation of a similar ‘terrestrial paradise’: mutual confidence, optimism, well-being even in the most humble classes, serenity, readiness to give mutual help. » Huberman was not one of those Europeans who, proud of themselves, judged America « with only slightly veiled scorn. » On the contrary, many state and social institutions seemed exemplary and filled him even with envy. « Since the days of the Medici the world has not seen till now such acts of generous patronage … »: Universities, research institutes, museums, libraries, music conservatories, symphonic orchestras, concert halls in all the larger American towns, and almost all exclusively thanks to the generosity of single citizens! « I have searched in vain among the Croesuses of Europe for at least one who has donated two thirds of his wealth for the aims of public benefits as Carnegie and Rockefeller did. » In America, Huberman stated, one could feel the grass of evolution and progress growing in every field as nowhere else.
But what impressed the violinist above everything else was the general prosperity of the people and of the working classes in particular: the cook who must refuse a new post because there is not room in the master’s garage for his car; the Chicago hotel waiter who has a season ticket for all the symphony concerts; the negro sleeping-car attendant who possesses a collection of about a hundred gramophone records of the best violinists of the moment among whom are Kreisler, Elman, Heifetz and Huberman himself, and who discusses as a connoisseur the differences in their interpretations; the domestic man-servant who earns 110 dollars a month (with no board and lodging expenses) and lastly working men and women in the Beech Nut Plant (a jam and preserves factory) who come to a concert of Huberman’s, arranged for them by the owner of the firm, in their own cars with fashionable shoes and silk stockings and fur collars, all the things which would make many ‘well-to-do’ people in Europe envious.
Huberman states that America is the country where the working class is the most numerous in the world, the only industrialized country in the whole world where there is no workers political party. There are trade-unions which defend the interests of the working class efficiently without however separating it from the rest of middle class society.
Huberman’s character was too ‘scientific’ not to investigate « the determinative causes » of the phenominal well-being and for this reason he visited attentively the Ford factories at Detroit: « the impression was amazing, the effect as breath-taking as the reading of a musical score of Stravinsky’s – both are the emanations of the genius and spirit of the epoch. » The violinist discovered that Ford’s secret was the coherent application of the principle of division of labour using the most refined machinery including conveyor belts. The increase in production permitted an increase in wages and a reduction in the price of cars up to the equivalent of three and a half months’ pay: « the proletariat have become proprietors of cars. » Huberman had chosen the Ford factory to show that « a luxury article for the privileged classes had become an article of every day use for a whole people; » and also because the Ford system was more or less typical of American industry.
But a system based on mass-production at low cost and on mass sales at low prices was possible because there existed a pre-supposition of a political character, that is the United States. « Within the 48 States there are no boundaries nor import prohibitions, there is no disloyal competition with export rewards and import duties, nor are there frontier customs officers, fortifications, wars, taxes for armaments; and the car manufactured at a cost of 260 dollars can really be sold at that price in all the 48 States. »
Of course Huberman was too objective not to see the negative side of the American way of life, however he could not share the prejudices of « at least 99 out of 100 Europeans » about the United States, where, generally, they had never stayed. To tranquillize his « European fellow-countrymen » however, he said that to make the United States of Europe did not mean to transplant America into our continent, but to introduce the best things of the New World: the Federal Constitution, mass production and mass markets, high wages and low prices; this would also have the effect of protecting the trustees of our civilization and our treasures of art from the seduction of the dollar. On the other hand a higher standard of life would not cancel an age-long civilization, nor would it make popular songs and epics disappear substituting for them jazz and negro songs (at least not more than has happened), and our personality, born of the multiplicity of nations, would not be dissolved in the European crucible.


The principal premise for the political unification of Europe already exists: it is the cultural unity of Europe which Huberman had known and felt so deeply. He was not ignorant of « the common roots of the complicated European civilization in fables, history, religion, art and the sciences ». The Federal European State should put these into the right relief, whereas today we do not teach the peoples what binds us together, but we intentionally teach what separates us. Huberman continues: « Perhaps it is not superfluous to remember that we Europeans, although we speak different languages, draw our thoughts and feelings from a common spirit, we are one in our faith, in our unreligion and even in our superstition, in our epic legends, in our fables and even in our children’s fairy tales; that a spiritual spark has never been lit in any part of Europe without the whole continent becoming immediately inflamed – or even set on fire. » In any case the nationalistic teaching in schools and the campaign of hatred which we had during the first great conflagration, did not succeed in cancelling the historical fact of our common civilization from the memory of men, chauvinism did not succeed on the other hand in penetrating into the subconscious of Europeans. Here are some proofs: « During the First World War, » Huberman states, « the German theatrical troupe under the direction of Max Reinhardt embarked on propaganda tours, State aided, in neutral countries giving performances of the ‘enemy’ citizen, Maxim Gorki; in the State Opera Houses of Vienna and Budapest, while the battle of the Isonzo was raging, Puccini was performed; in Paris they listened to Wagner and Brahms; and I, a Pole, in spite of my official state as an enemy citizen, played in Paris [Berlin?] in 1917 the Russian, Taneieff’s masterpiece, the concert suite, and in the first year after the armistice, I played a sonata of the German Richard Strauss in Paris. … The public which certainly could not have been composed only of the élite, proved enthusiastic and often reacted by breaking out into applause. » And Huberman concludes with an observation which gives us great hope for the future: « There has never been a period, not even when the German-Polish campaign of hatred was at its height, when German artists would not have been enthusiastically welcomed in Poland and Polish artists in Germany. » Those who have not yet discovered this Zusammengehörigkeitsgefühl, that is the feeling of belonging to the same community, Huberman advises to go overseas: « there, language differences are not important or our native country does not matter; there, Europe has the effect of a magic word meaning at the same time – native land, mutual understanding, solidarity. »
But the cultural unity of Europe whose source is in the Greek-Roman civilization and in Christianity, does not mean uniformity, because the history of European civilization is the best demonstration of its diversity and multiplicity. This is the real wealth of Europe, to which the formation of the single nations has given momentum. Whoever thinks that the political unification of Europe will eliminate the individual characteristics of the nations is in error. « As an artist, » Huberman states, « I would be the last to preach a levelling down of national cultures. Since every authentic art, when all is said and done, has its roots in the national soil. … Wagner and Chopin would have been inconceivable detached from the spirit of the countries where they were born. » But at this point Huberman admits that this genius loci and his trustees are nothing other than the fruit of many graftings of different races and fertile exchanges of ideas. Neither the Germans of the Baltic countries, then provinces of Russia, nor the Poles who were for 150 years hindered in their cultural evolution, nor even the Jews have lost their characteristics, their essence.
Huberman is convinced that a voluntary union of peoples would preserve their cultural integrity and would favour its expansion. Besides, following on the example of Switzerland, regulations for the safeguarding of local cultures could be introduced into the constitutions of the single federal states.


What institutions are to be created, and what measures must be taken to reach the absolutely indispensable objectives of liberty, peace, well-being and justice in Europe? Huberman gives a list, in the order of the degree of difficulty of their realisation: Customs union, monetary union, assimilation in the judicial field, armed forces above the national level and a Federal European State. At the same time the violinist admits that even the greatest optimist in the Paneuropean field must understand that a construction of this type cannot be built up all in a moment, just as « Pallas Athene came out of the head of Zeus. » We must proceed step by step, but in what way? Huberman rightly sees several ways – the customs, financial, judicial, military and political – all connected one with the other. For example, can we seriously expect a responsible statesman to give up industrial enterprises which are necessary for the defence of his country, for the sake of economic advantages to be derived from a customs union, if there is no guarantee of peace? And Huberman remembers that the Zollverein, signed in 1833 and in the following years by the greater part of the German states, did not prevent the 1866 war of Prussia and some of the minor German states against Bavaria, Württemberg, Saxony, Hannover, Baden, etc., because this union had no check in the military or political fields. We must also keep in mind the fact that the failure of a customs union might lead us to the conclusion that it is impossible to have a unified Europe, while – on the contrary – it would be only that the separate treatment of the customs question – that is detached from the other aspects of the European life of which it is a part – would have caused the failure. Therefore there remains only one single way: « To construct Europe organically. The single problems cannot be treated separately in time from the whole complex of European problems. The customs union in particular cannot be realised without a contemporary political union. But, even if this is realised, it does not avert the dangers which menace Europe. » Is not this precisely our present day situation?
There remains the last question which certainly attracts above all the interest of the federalists, the technique of the struggle for the Federation.
To whom must the construction of the Federal State of Europe be entrusted? « History teaches, » Huberman reminds us, « that every political situation, even the most unnatural, the most ill-omened, creates vested interests and those who benefit by these, because of the instinct of self-preservation, must be opposed to any change, even if it is for the better. » Would it have been conceivable perhaps to make the introduction of the railway system depend on the postillions? Or that the French Revolution could have been made by representatives of the ancien régime or the Bolshevik Revolution by the democrats? It is therefore against the teachings of history to expect help from nationally constituted governments which follow a policy of prestige of their own « based on their sworn allegiance and on their duties as servants and custodians of the order or rather of the disorder of today. » To try to win them over to our side would be « a useless consumption of energy, » because: « Every new material must create its own new form, every new faith needs its own new apostles … » There is no other way out except an appeal to the citizens. « Men of good will and of lively intelligence must understand that in the struggle for Europe, the destiny of each individual citizen is at stake. We must remain united, and everyone must contribute according to his intellectual and financial means until this idea penetrates into ever wider strata of the population and takes possession of youth in particular. … The imperative of the moment is: propaganda for our European native land. » Huberman proposes to citizens of good will, a fairly clear and precise programme to be carried out in different phases: the organization of all propagandists and workers recently converted to the federalist idea; the rousing of a European conscience and awareness; the elimination of diffidences on both sides of the frontiers (keeping in mind Kant’s definition, according to which « after all, on both sides of the frontier there are mammalian animals walking on two legs »), and – at a later date – the foundation of Paneuropean political parties with parliamentary representation in all the countries of Europe. Turning once more to the teachings of history, Huberman warns us however « that greater weapons and longer struggles are more necessary to affirm reason and justice than would be needed to affirm narrow mindedness and egoism … » And therefore one day we must stop speaking and writing and turn to action. And again he says, we do not know what the action may be, because it will depend upon the type of resistence which our adversaries will set up. But, « if it is necessary, in order to found the United States of Europe, we shall not draw back, not even in facing a struggle, if this should come, just as Lincoln was not afraid and did not hesitate at the necessity of pledging his own life and property to save the existence of the American union. »


Except for certain observations conditioned by the period in which he lived, Bronislaw Huberman’s political thought is still valid, and the federalists of 1967 cannot but learn from the lesson of this exceptional man: not only his ideas are exemplary but also his behaviour as a man and as a citizen. He had no personal ambitions (as a world-famous artist he had no need to be in search of glory); his democratic and republican public spirit was unquestionable; he was no Utopian or political dreamer (he was well aware of the savageness of human nature), but he was a realist (he had also foreseen the Second World War if the political unity of Europe were not realised in time); he had clear long-distance ideas and was not without a sense of humour, and lastly during his whole life he gave many proofs of human feelings. He was a man with a strong character and with his fighting spirit he wanted to convince others. The words which he wrote so long ago as 1925 seem pronounced with his living voice and they ring in our ears with all their ardour as if they were spoken only yesterday: « Like every man who addresses the public, I nourish the hope that what I am unfolding will meet with the reader’s approval. However, contrary to what happens in my artistic activity, mere approval does not satisfy me. … We need your approval, but also we need your collaboration, your propagandistic activity and your help in every way. … Those who help us, do not only altruistically favour a good cause, but they protect themselves and their dear ones from the destruction of property, from poverty, from collective murder, and from their own ruin. » Those who read this insistant appeal, will feel the great fervour, the great seriousness and the sincere anxiety of Huberman for the human race. Many musicians, for example his friend Fritz Busch and Bruno Walter, both orchestra conductors, and many writers, like Paul Claudel and Thomas Mann had given their support to European federalism but no other was involved with such faith and perseverance in the struggle for the liberty and peace of Europe.
According to the testimony of Andrea Della Corte, Bronislaw Huberman explained to whoever asked him about musical questions, his theory about Paneurope. « Is it a Utopia? Many ideas are born so … and after they become a reality.



Huberman, B., Mein Weg zu Paneuropa, in Paneuropa (Wien), 2, 1924, Heft 5, p. 1-34.
Huberman, B., Vaterland Europa. Berlin 1932.
Huberman, B., « Open letter » to the German intellectuals, in The Manchester Guardian 7 Mar 1936
Busch, Fritz, Aus dem Leben eines Musikers. Zürich 1949.
Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard, Ein Leben für Europa. Meine Lebenserinnerungen. Köln-Berlin 1966.
Della Corte, Andrea, L'interpretazione musicale e gli interpreti. Torino 1951.
Gradenwitz, Peter, Huberman, B., in Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart vol. 6, 1957, p. 815-816
Hordynski, Wladyslaw, Huberman, B., in Polski Slownik Biograficzny vol. 10, 1962-1964, p. 77-78
Kalbeck, Max, Johannes Brahms, vol. 4. Berlin 1914.
Magidoff, Robert, Yehudi Menuhin. Zürich 1958.

back to literature >