Mobilizing the correct terminology
If one compares the typescript of the lecture (see Thinking in homogenous regions if needed) with the referenced press report on Ross’s talk one can conclude that Ross reconciled his view of up-to-date global politics with the expectations of Nazi ideology.
The report’s title demonstrates Ross’s commitment to Nazi Germany’s expansionist claims of rearranging the globe according to its need of living space. In contrast to the lecture’s typescript the British “idea of a global empire” has replaced criticism of Roosevelt’s imperialistic politics. While the latter were more or less explained in the typescript, it is not clear how the reviewed talk argued Great Britain’s role. The report further demonstrates that Ross was in favor of a racially-based power division as well as of globally leading roles of Italy, Japan, and Germany; the latter is expected to unite with Africa (one of the claims that Ross repeatedly expressed after 1940) in order to relieve Germany’s—and Europe’s—overpopulation.
Because of a lack of sources one can only assume that censorship measures were the cause of the differences between the typescript and the (reviewed) lecture version. Ross’s modest adaptation of Nazi discourse in the typescript, by avoiding terms as Lebensräume or Weltjudentum, was conceivably queried by the authorities who must have stipulated a clearer alignment of the talk. And Ross must have complied with these requirements.
H. R. S. Erdgliederung nach Lebensräumen. Zusammenbruch der britischen Weltreichsidee. Wiener Neueste Nachrichten: 1941 Jan 24; 17 (6476); 3.
Case: Speaking engagements
1 See, e.g., Colin Ross. Kein Europa ohne Afrika. Hamburger Tageblatt: 1940 Dec 21; 351; [n.d.]. See Library. See also the annotations in the topic “Volk ohne Raum”.